Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Argument (Lectures, Other)

Expressions researched:
"Argumentum baculam" |"Argumentum baculum" |"Argumentum vaculam" |"Argumentum vaculum" |"argument" |"argument's" |"argumentative" |"argumentativeness" |"arguments" |"argumentum ad baculum"

Lectures

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 1, 1973:

Aparaspara-sambhūtaṁ kim anyat kāma-haitukam. Just like a man and woman accidentally unite and there is a child, similarly, there is no purpose. Somehow or other, the material energy came into existence, and therefore there is creation. This is their argument. This is asuric argument, or the demoniac argument. But the Vedas says, "No." Vedas says that janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). There is original. Absolute Truth, or God, is He from (whom) everything emanates. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). And that God must be sentient. He's not zero. Not zero. The śūnyavādi. He has got brain. He's person. That is explained. The Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Now they, that Absolute Truth, from where everything is emanating, is discussed in the beginning of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 27, 1972:

Pradyumna: "The devotees eternally live in the ocean of devotional service, and they do not care for the rivers. In other words, those who are pure devotees always remain in the ocean of transcendental loving service to the Lord and have no business with the other processes which are compared to the rivers that only gradually come to the ocean. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī prays to his spiritual master Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī for the protection of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, the ocean of the pure nectar of devotional service, from the argumentative logicians who unnecessarily meddle in the science of service to the Lord. He compares their arguments and logic to volcanic eruptions in the midst of the ocean."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Simply by arguments, logic, you cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. That is the Vedic injunction. Tarko apratiṣṭho. You cannot establish the truth by simple logic and arguments. You may be very great logician, but somebody may come who is greater logician than you, and he defeats you. That is going on. Tarko apratiṣṭha śrutayo vibhinnām. Now, if you read the Vedas, you'll find some contradiction. Not contradiction. But to the neophyte, it appears to be contradiction. Just like we have cited the example that animal stool is impure, but cow dung is pure. So by logic you can say that "Cow dung is also the stool of an animal. How it becomes pure?" But in Vedas you'll find such things. Therefore by simple studying, without surrendering yourself to the spiritual master, you'll find all these contradictions and you'll be bewildered. Śrutayo vibhinnā. They are not vibhinnā. But to our limited knowledge, sometimes they appear as vibhinnam, different. Śrutayo vibhinnaṁ nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And you won't find a philosopher who does not agree, who does not disagree with our philosophers.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 27, 1972:

So to take shelter of the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead... Just like Rūpa Gosvāmī's described, describing herewith that he wants to take shelter of the ocean, deep into the ocean, and he doesn't care for the rivers. And the, what is called? Bharavagni (?)? There is some whirling pool in the water. That is compared with the arguments. Sometimes these logicians, they create argumental calamity in the process of devotional service. But Rūpa Gosvāmī recommends that we should not be deviated by the arguments, karmīs, jñānīs and yogis. Let them do their own business. We do not care for them. We give them respect as far as possible, but we don't, don't accept the path of karma-jñāna-yoga. Jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam (CC Madhya 19.167). Jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam (Brs. 1.1.11). We should not be deviated by the process of karma-jñāna-yoga. That is pure devotional service, śuddha-bhakti. Śuddha-bhakti. We should stay. We should fix up in śuddha-bhakti path. That is the recommendation of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī. Go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 9, 1973:

Pradyumna: "Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī prays to his spiritual master, Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī, for the protection of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, 'The Ocean of the Pure Nectar of Devotional Service,' from the argumentative logicians who unnecessarily meddle in the science of service to the Lord."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Logicians, nyāya, what is called?

Devotee: Mīmāṁsā.

Prabhupāda: Mīmāṁsā. Mīmāṁsā. Mīmāṁsā jara (?). So Kṛṣṇa is not subjected to this logic, mīmāṁsā, grammar. No. Kṛṣṇa is transcendental. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says,

bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ
bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate
prāpte sannihite maraṇe
na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛñ-karaṇe

Ḍukṛn, du-prata, kṛñ-prata, these are grammatical jugglery. So these Māyāvādīs, they coin words by grammatical jugglery. This word may be meant, may be meaning like this. They're all grammatical jugglery. Then nyāya jugglery. So they take advantage of this jugglery. Kṛṣṇa is not subjected to this jugglery of words. Kṛṣṇa keeps always His independence, and if you fulfill the condition, if you surrender unto Him, then He will be revealed unto you. Not by your jugglery of words. That is not possible.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 9, 1973:

Pradyumna: "He compares their arguments and logic to volcanic eruptions in the midst of the ocean."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Sometimes they create havoc. Because these Māyāvādīs, Kṛṣṇa gives them intelligence. Because he wants to, he puts forward his logic to kill Kṛṣṇa, or to forget Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa also gives his intelligence, "Yes, you talk like this so that you will forget forever." Yes. (laughter). "You talk like this." Mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca, Kṛṣṇa says. Sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca (BG 15.15). Kṛṣṇa can give you. If you actually want Kṛṣṇa, He'll give you intelligence. Dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ yena mām upayānti te. Kṛṣṇa is very cunning also. This man is trying to forget Me, to mislead others. He is misleading himself, others cannot be mislead, for the time being, but he is misled for good. Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram eva yoniṣu (BG 16.19). These asuras, on account of their enviousness upon Kṛṣṇa, to prove that there is no Kṛṣṇa, there is no God, so these people are put into andhā yoni. Andhā yoni means in such, just like animals. They cannot understand about Kṛṣṇa. Kṣipāmy andhā yoniṣu. So that is Kṛṣṇa's punishment, that "He wants to forget Me, he wants to kill Me. All right, he, let him be put into such birth that he may not know what is Kṛṣṇa for many, many births." Yes, go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972:

Similarly, first there is offensive name and, if you avoid, avoid the ten kinds of offenses, then gradually it becomes nāmābhāsa. And Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura has said, Namācārya, that by nāmābhāsa, one becomes liberated. There was some argument with Haridāsa Ṭhākura and one brāhmaṇa in the office of Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī's father, uncle. So there were some high level talks on this nāmābhāsa. So by nāmābhāsa one becomes liberated. By chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra offensive, one becomes materially happy or distressed, but when one comes to the stage of nāmābhāsa, he becomes liberated. And when he chants pure name, there is Kṛṣṇa-prema. Just like Rūpa Gosvāmī: he was chanting. We are also chanting. But we are not in the stage of Rūpa Gosvāmī or Sanātana Gosvāmī and Haridāsa Ṭhākura. Actually, if we come to that stage then there will be Kṛṣṇa-prema, love of Kṛṣṇa. Just like Rūpa Gosvāmī said that "What shall I chant with one tongue and two ears? If there were millions of tongues and trillions of ears, I could chant something." And we cannot finish even sixteen rounds, because we have not created our taste for chanting. Still we are in the nāmāparādha stage. But don't be disappointed. Go on chanting. You'll come to the right position, nāmābhāsa, then śuddha-nāma. Everything requires gradual development.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 12, 1972:

Pradyumna: (reading:) "How Kṛṣṇa becomes attracted by the devotional service of His devotees is described by Nārada in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Seventh Canto, Tenth Chapter, 37th verse. There Nārada addresses King Yudhiṣṭhira while the King is appreciating the glories of the character of Prahlāda Mahārāja. A devotee always appreciates the activities of other devotees. Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja was appreciating the qualities of Prahlāda, and that is one symptom of a pure devotee. A pure devotee never thinks himself as great; he always thinks that other devotees are greater than himself. The King was thinking, 'Prahlāda Mahārāja is actually a devotee of the Lord, while I am nothing,' and while thinking this, he was addressed by Nārada as follows: 'My dear King Yudhiṣṭhira, in this world you, the Pāṇḍava brothers, are the only fortunate people. The Supreme Personality of Godhead has appeared on this planet and is presenting Himself to you as an ordinary human being. He is always with you in all circumstances. He is living with you and covering Himself from the eyes of others. Others cannot understand that He is the Supreme Lord, but He is still living with you as your cousin, as your friend and even as your messenger. Therefore you must know that nobody in this world is more fortunate than you.'

In the Bhagavad-gītā when Kṛṣṇa appeared in His universal form, Arjuna prayed, 'My dear Kṛṣṇa, I thought of You as my cousin-brother, and so I have shown disrespect to You in so many ways, calling You Kṛṣṇa, or friend, but You are so great that I could not understand.' So that was the position of the Pāṇḍavas; although Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the greatest among all greats, still He remained with those royal brothers, being attracted by their devotion, by their friendship and by their love. That is the proof of how great this process of devotional service is. It can attract even the Supreme Personality of Godhead. God is great, but devotional service is greater than God because it attracts Him. People who are not in devotional service can never understand what great value there is in rendering service to the Lord.

'The First Stages of Devotion.' The three categories of devotional service which Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī describes in Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu are listed as devotional service in practice, devotional service in ecstasy and devotional service in pure love of Godhead. There are many subheadings in each of these categories. Generally, it is understood that in the category of devotional service in practice there are two different qualities; devotional service in ecstasy has four qualities; and devotional service in pure love of Godhead has six qualities. These qualities will be explained by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī later on. In this connection, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī suggest that the person..., that the person eligible for Kṛṣṇa consciousness or devotional service can be classified by his particular taste. He says that devotional service is a continual process from one's previous life. No one can take to devotional service unless he has had some previous connection with it. For example, suppose in this life I practice some devotional service to some extent. Even though it is not one hundred percent perfectly performed, still, whatever I have done will not be lost. In my next life, from the very point where I stopped in this life, I shall begin again. In this way there is always a continuity. But even if there is no continuity, if only by chance a person takes interest in a pure devotee's instruction, he can be accepted and advance in devotional service. Anyway, for persons who have a natural taste for understanding books like the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, devotional service is easier than for those who are simply accustomed to mental speculation and argumentative processes."

Prabhupāda: So Nārada Muni instructed to Vyāsadeva under the verse, tyaktvā sva-dharmaṁ caraṇāmbujaṁ harer: (SB 1.5.17) "Even one takes to devotional service, takes shelter of the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa, some way or other..." Kāmād lobhād bhayāt, as it is stated in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. Just like the gopīs, they took shelter of Kṛṣṇa superficially by lusty desire. But it was not lusty desire. It was pure love. But in the material world same thing will be considered as lusty desire. So where is the difference between love of God and lusty desire? Because ordinary men will consider that gopīs were attracted by Kṛṣṇa in lusty desire.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 12, 1972:

Pradyumna: "To support this statement there are many authoritative assertions by the learned scholars of bygone ages. According to their general opinion, a person may become governed by certain convictions derived by his own arguments and decisions. Then another person, who may be a greater logician, will nullify these conclusions and establish another thesis. In this way, the path of argument will never be safe or conclusive. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam recommends therefore that one follow in the footsteps of the authorities. Here is the general..."

Prabhupāda: Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). You cannot come to the conclusion what is śraddhā and sādhana by simply argument. Tarko apratistha. By argument, we cannot establish. Śrutayo vibhinnā. The scriptures are many varieties. Śrutayor vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And every philosopher must differ with another philosopher. Therefore, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: We have to follow the footprints of great authorities. They are also mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, great authorities:

svayambhūr nāradaḥ śambhuḥ
kapilaḥ kumāro manuḥ
prahlādo janako bhīṣmo
balir vaiyāsakir vayam
(SB 6.3.20)

Yamarāja said that "These are the eight authorities." Therefore we have got sampradāya: Brahma-sampradāya, Rudra-sampradāya, then Lakṣmī-sampradāya, Śrī-sampradāya, and Kumāra-sampradāya. The present ācāryas, they are Rāmānuja-sampradāya, Śrī-sampradāya, Madhva-sampradāya, Brahma-sampradāya. In this way... So we have to follow the footprints of the sampradāya. Just like we are Gauḍīya, Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 12, 1972:

Guru will enlighten. And who is guru? Śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). Brahma-niṣṭham means he must be brāhmaṇa. So if the so-called brāhmaṇas, they do not take care of them, and if they remain brāhmaṇas, limited, within some limited areas, do not go outside, then who will deliver them? So these are not very sound arguments. It is very, what is called, crippled ideas. The brāhmaṇa means udāra. The opposite word of brāhmaṇa is kṛpaṇa, who is very miserly. A brāhmaṇa cannot be miser. Even a hundred years ago the brāhmaṇa would give chance to anyone to become brāhmaṇa. I have got so many instances. That is the duty of brāhmaṇa. Paṭhana pāṭhana. The brāhmaṇa should be learned, and a brāhmaṇa should make others learned, other brāhmaṇa, not that be simply satisfied that he's brāhmaṇa and nobody should become brāhmaṇa. No. He should make others brāhmaṇa. Just like a big lawyer, he makes his assistants lawyer. A professor, learned professor, he makes others professor. Otherwise, it is called jñāna-khala, miser. The knowledge should be distributed. Any scientist discovering, they distribute it. Similarly, brāhmaṇa should be udāra. Not only he should personally know what is Brahman, but he should distribute the knowledge.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 25, 1973:

Devotee: (reading) "...of bygone ages. According to the general opinion, a person may become governed by certain convictions derived by his own arguments and decisions. Then another person, who may be a greater logician, will nullify these conclusions and establish another thesis. In this way the path of argument will never be safe or conclusive. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam recommends, therefore, that one follow in the footsteps of the authorities."

Prabhupāda: Yes. To make progress in devotional service, one cannot manufacture anything. The authoritative statements of ācā ryas, that we'll have to follow. Mahājana yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. We should not manufacture, invent anything. As they are stated in the śāstras, confirmed by spiritual master and ācāryas, that will be accepted. Nobody can say, "I think devotional service should be like this." No. Therefore spiritual master is the guidance. He is the representative of the ācāryas. In this way, we should make progress, not by concoction. Go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 25, 1973:

One has to follow these different regulative principles by the order of the spiritual master, or on the strength of authoritative scriptures, and there can be no question of refusal. That is called vaidhi, or regulated. One has to do it without any argument. Another part of sādhana-bhakti is called rāgānugā. Rāgānugā refers to the point at which, by following the regulative principles, one becomes a little more attached to Kṛṣṇa and executes devotional service out of natural love. For example, a person engaged in devotional service may be ordered to rise early in the morning and offer ārātrika, which is a form of Deity worship. In the beginning, by the order of his spiritual master, one rises early in the morning and offers ārātrika, but then he develops real attachment. When he gets this attachment he automatically tries to decorate the Deity and prepare different kinds of dresses and thinks of different plans to execute his devotional service nicely. Although it is within the category of practice, this offering of loving service is spontaneous.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972:

Pradyumna: "...and there can be no question of refusal. That is called vaidhi, or regulated. One has to do it without any argument. Another..."

Prabhupāda: Yes. You cannot argue with the spiritual master. First of all, you have to select a spiritual master where you can completely surrender. And as soon... Just like Arjuna surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. When he saw that "The questions which have arisen in my mind, it cannot be solved by ordinary person," therefore he selected. He told Him that "I can understand, without Your Lordship, nobody can mitigate all the doubts in my mind." Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta (SB 11.3.21). Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi mām (BG 2.7). Therefore original spiritual master is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is original spiritual master. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. Kṛṣṇa first instructed Brahma, Ādi-kavi. From Brahma, we have got these Vedas, Vedic knowledge. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa is the original spiritual master. Aham evāsam agre. Before creation, Kṛṣṇa was there. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Kṛṣṇa is the origin of all the devas. Devas means Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara, then all other demigods. So, in this way, Kṛṣṇa is the original spiritual master. Just like He's the spiritual master of Arjuna.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 27, 1973:

Prabhupāda: Now what is the argument against this? (aside:) Why don't you open this? All, open all fans.

Mādhavānanda: Just the, just...

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Maybe open the doors.

Prabhupāda: Open the doors. Open, fully open. Now we say simply by developing Kṛṣṇa consciousness every member in the society, human society, will be happy. This is our proposal. Now discuss on this point, whether actually people will be happy or unhappy. What is the counterargument? It should be understood by threadbare discussion, how Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement can make the whole society happy. This is the proposal. Now those who are not Kṛṣṇa conscious, what argument they will forward against this proposition? Yes.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 27, 1973:

"This attraction for Kṛṣṇa consciousness in association with pure devotees is the sign of great fortune. It is confirmed by Lord Caitanya that the only..., only the fortunate persons, by mercy of both the bona fide spiritual master and Kṛṣṇa, will get the seed of devotional service. In this connection, Lord Kṛṣṇa says in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Eleventh Canto, Twentieth Chapter, verse 8: 'My dear Uddhava, only by exceptional fortune does someone become attached, attracted to Me, Kṛṣṇa. And even if one is not completely detached from fruitive activities or is not completely attached to devotional service, such service is quickly effective.'

"Devotees can be divided into three classes. The first, or uppermost class, is described as follows: One is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He can very nicely present conclusions with perfect discretion and can consider the ways of devotional..."

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 27, 1973:

Mādhavānanda: "He understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain to the transcendental loving service of Kṛṣṇa, and he knows that Kṛṣṇa is the only object of worship and love. This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and is sincerely obeying him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first class. A first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scriptures by understanding with all reasons and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scripture. The first-class devotee is not interested in dry speculative methods for wasting time. In other words, one who has attained a mature determination in the matter of devotional service can be accepted as the first-class devotee.

"The second-class devotee has been defined by the following symptoms: he is not very expert in arguing on the strength of revealed scripture, but he has firm faith in the objective. The purport of this description is that the second-class devotee has firm faith in the procedure of devotional service unto Kṛṣṇa, but he may sometimes fail to offer arguments and decisions on the strength of revealed scripture to an opposing party. But at the same time, he is still undaunted within himself as to his decision that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of worship.

"The neophyte, or third-class devotee, is one whose faith is not strong and, at the same time, does not recognize the decision of the revealed scripture. The neophyte's faith can be changed by someone else with strong arguments or by an opposite decision. Unlike the second-class devotee, who also cannot put forward arguments and evidences from the scriptures, but who has still, has all faith in the objective, the neophyte has no firm faith in the objective. Thus he is called a neophyte devotee.

"Further classification of the neophyte devotee is made in the Bhagavad-gītā. It is stated there that four classes of men, namely those who are distressed, those who are in need of money, those who are inquisitive and those who are wise, begin devotional service and come to the Lord for relief in the matter of their respectful self-satisfaction. They go into some place of worship and pray to God for mitigation of material distress or for some economic development, or to satisfy their inquisitiveness. And a wise man who simply realizes the greatness of God is also counted amongst the neophytes. Such beginners can be elevated to the second-class platform if they associate with pure devotees.

"An example of the neophyte class is Mahārāja Dhruva. He was in need of his father's kingdom and therefore engaged himself in devotional service to the Lord. Then, in the end, when he was completely purified, he declined to accept any material benediction from the Lord. Similarly, Gajendra was also distressed and prayed to Kṛṣṇa for protection, after which he became a pure devotee. Similarly Sanaka, Sanātana, Sananda and Sanat-kumāra were all in the category of wise, saintly persons, and they were also attracted by devotional service. A similar thing happened to the assembly in the Naimiṣāraṇya Forest, headed by the sage Śaunaka. They were inquisitive and were always asking Sūta Gosvāmī about Kṛṣṇa. Thus they achieved the association of a pure devotee and became pure devotees themselves. So that is the way of elevating oneself. In whatever condition one may be, if he is fortunate enough to associate with pure devotees, then very quickly he is elevated to the second-class or first-class platform.

"These four types of devotees have been described in the Seventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, and they, they have all been accepted as pious. Without becoming pious, no one can come to devotional service. It is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā that only one who has completely executed pious activities and whose sinful reactions of life have completely stopped can take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Others cannot. The neophyte devotees are classified into four groups: the distressed, those who are in need of money, the inquisitive and the wise—according to their gradations of pious activities. Without pious activities, if a man is in a distressed condition, he becomes an agnostic, communist, or something like that. Because he does not firmly believe in God, he thinks that he can adjust his distressed condition by totally disbelieving in Him.

"Lord Kṛṣṇa, however, has explained in the Gītā that out of these four types of neophytes, the one who is very..., who is wise is very dear to Him because a wise man, if he is attached to Kṛṣṇa, is not seeking an exchange of material benefits. A wise man who becomes attached to Kṛṣṇa does not want any return from Him, neither in the form of relieving distress nor in gaining money. This means that from the very beginning the basic principle of attachment to Kṛṣṇa is, more or less, love. Furthermore, due to his wisdom and study of śāstra and scriptures, he can understand also that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."(break)

Acyutānanda: When people are starving and they have no clothing, then how can they take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness? First give them food, then clothing and education, and then Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Prabhupāda: Those who are Kṛṣṇa conscious, are they starving? Then why they not become Kṛṣṇa conscious?

Acyutānanda: They said because first they had, had to give them food so that they could have time to...

Prabhupāda: No. Those who have taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, practically, we are not starving.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 28, 1973:

So everything is there for our knowledge, provided we follow. So there is no difficulty. Therefore our process is mahājana yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. We cannot manufacture our ways. We must follow the footsteps of predecessors. That is our business. Mahājana yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. By argument, by scholarship, or by becoming philosopher, one cannot make any progress, unless he follows the great ācāryas, predecessors strictly. Otherwise it is not possible.

What is time now? All right. Have kīrtana. (end)

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.5 -- Mayapur, March 29, 1975:

So our point is that "Because Kṛṣṇa is Paraṁ Brahman, so how He can take pleasure in this material world?" This is the argument. So those who are wrongly thinking, foolishly thinking, that "Kṛṣṇa enjoyed with the gopīs like we enjoy in the company of many girls," they are great fools. They have no knowledge. They are misled because it appears, perverted reflection, it appears like that. But the reflection is different from the reality. So we should not take in that way. We should follow the footsteps of Caitanya-caritāmṛta kar, that we should understand that this praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ, this transformation of loving affairs between Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, this is not like this, the ordinary boy and girl. It is ahlādinī śakti. If we take that, then we are misled. How He can take? Because for understand brahma-sukha we are giving up everything—I mean from the Māyāvādī point of view—and again, Kṛṣṇa being Paraṁ Brahman, how He can indulge in material happiness? This is the argument. Brahma-sukha, to understand brahma-sukha, to release brahma-sukha, if one is giving up everything material... There are three kinds of sukha: material sukha, brahma-sukha, and spiritual sukha. Brahma-sukha is on the margin. Sukha means happiness.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.9 -- Mayapur, April 2, 1975:

They do not see who is behind this explosion. That is their ignorance or poor fund of knowledge. We have got practical experience that no explosion takes place without the touch of a human being. Similarly, even there was explosion going on, but there is a touch of the Supreme Being. That is the statement in the Bhagavad... Mayādhyakṣeṇa (BG 9.10). We are seeing the explosion. Just like child sees the explosion. He does not know that there, behind the explosion, there is a management of a superior being. This is childish observation. Because in śāstra we see that behind everything the hand of the Supreme Being is there, and by our practical experience also, we see that matter does not act automatically without being touched by a living being, so how we can accept this argument, that the explosion is going on automatically? What is the evidence? There is no evidence.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 3.87-88 -- New York, December 27, 1966:

Naiva... Na, "never," asura-prakṛtaya, "those who are atheistic mentality, atheistic consciousness..." They have decided not to believe in God, so it is very difficult. Those who have decided atheistic conclusion, they will never come to any argument. Otherwise to understand the science of God is not very difficult. If one is simple, he can understand. Everything is there. What are there? Tvāṁ śīla-rūpa-caritaiḥ parama-prakṛṣṭhaiḥ. When God comes in incarnation or He sends His representative to reclaim, they perform wonderful acts. They are not ordinary, common men. Either God or God's representative, they act in such a way that it is not possible for any common man. That is the particular symptom of God and God's representative.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 3.87-88 -- New York, December 27, 1966:

So these things are going on. These things are going on. And people are captivated by nice explanation. Oh, the theory is that "Everyone can interpret in his own way, everyone is free, everyone is God," and everything, all nonsense. No. We should give up that nonsensical way of realizing God. We should learn from the authorized scripture. Sattvena sāttvikatayā prabalaiś ca śāstraiḥ. Śāstraiḥ, in the scriptures, they are described. Now, that scriptures are to be accepted without any argument. Without any argument... Just we have given the example of cow dung. The cow dung is stated as purest. In one place it is stated that "Stool of animal is impure. If anyone touches, he will have to take his bath and then purify himself." But for cow dung it is stated, "If there is any impure place, just smear over it cow dung and it will be all nice." Now, argument is, "How is that, that one place you say that stool of animal is impure, and again one place you say cow dung is pure?" That is not contradiction. That is actually the fact. And modern scientists have analyzed cow dung, and he has found it is full of antiseptic properties. It is God's wish. Now, take for example cow. What cow eating? Grass, dry grass. And what it is producing? It is producing the nicest thing, milk, full of vitamins.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.7 -- Mayapur, March 9, 1974:

Is there any possibility? Kṛṣṇa showed, yes. Kṛṣṇa was attempted to be killed from the very childhood when He was three months old by Pūtanā. But He killed the Pūtanā rakṣasī, not He was killed. Similarly, Aghāsura, Bakāsura, this asura, that asura, simply from the beginning of His life, Kaṁsa and others, from the rogues, the asuras, they were making plan to kill Kṛṣṇa as soon as He is born. Kaṁsa, he was planning that "As soon as Kṛṣṇa is born..." He was trying to kill Kṛṣṇa's Mother Devakī, but with argument of Vasudeva that "Don't do this. Your sister's son will kill you, but your sister will not kill you, so let the son be born. I shall bring it to you," Kaṁsa believed the honorable words of Vasudeva. Because he knew that "Vasudeva is very respectable, honorable man. He has promised the children, the child, will be brought to me," so he saved his sister. He was such a cruel. The rogues and cruel, they do not care even for mother and sister. They can kill anyone, you see. That is the roguism. So Kaṁsa was that type of rogue. But Vasudeva, by his intelligence, saved the situation, but as honorable person, he brought all the children to Kaṁsa. You know this history.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.49-65 -- San Francisco, February 3, 1967:

So in the lower stage, these two gentlemen, Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara, they are hearing the criticism against Lord Caitanya, but they are, I mean to say, placing themselves in the lower status, and they say that "We cannot bear this." Because they haven't got sufficient power to refute the arguments of the other party, therefore they are feeling sorry.

tomāre nindaye yata sannyāsīra gaṇa

śunite nā pāri, phāṭe hṛdaya-śravaṇa

Because, unless one is conversant with logic, arguments and Vedic literature, it is very difficult to defend. The more you can defend from the attacks of atheist, the more you should understand you have advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The atheists, generally, they will attack you, undoubtedly. But you have to defend yourself. So that is the business of the persons who are in the intermediate position.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.49-65 -- San Francisco, February 3, 1967:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu, although He was in the renounced order of life, sannyāsī, still, He was avoiding the company of the Māyāvādīs, who are impersonalists. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is personalist. So generally, that is the system still. The impersonalists, as soon as they see some personalist, they begin to attack by argument. So those who are not very highly developed, they avoid. But those who are conversant, they argue, so on. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu, while He was staying at Benares, He was not very enthusiastic to mix with this Māyāvādī class of sannyāsīs. Therefore this man who invited all the sannyāsīs for a dinner, he also came to Caitanya Mahāprabhu and asked Him that "I know that You do not associate Yourself with the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. Still, I have come to invite You. Please accept my request."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

Just like you'll see in the Bhagavad-gītā that Arjuna, in the beginning he was arguing with Kṛṣṇa, between friend and friend, but when he surrendered himself as student, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam... (BG 2.7). He said, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, now I am surrendering unto You. I accept You as my spiritual master." Śiṣyas te aham: "I am Your disciple, not friend." Because friendly talks, arguments, there is no end. But when there is talk between spiritual master and disciple, there is no argument. No argument. As soon as the spiritual master says, "This is to be done," it is to be done. That's all, final. So you'll find, throughout the whole instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, not that blindly. There is submissive presentation, "Kṛṣṇa, I cannot understand this." That is allowed. But it is not that you have to change the decision of the spiritual master. No. If you cannot understand, it is..., you should know it that "Due to my less intelligence, I just now do not understand what the spiritual master said, but that is already concluded. But I may try to understand so that I may not be misleading." That is the position. So just see. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "My Guru Mahārāja saw Me a rascal, fool. Therefore he asked Me, 'You don't touch Vedānta-sūtra. It is not for You. You simply chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare.' "

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu's explaining, ei ājñā pāñā nāma la-i anukṣaṇa. "After reception of this order from My spiritual master, I have engaged Myself constantly in chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa." That is disciplic succession. Even if you do not understand the version, the motive, of spiritual master, you have to follow without any argument. In the Bhagavad-gītā also you'll find this verse,

vyavasāyātmikā buddhir
ekeha kuru-nandana
bahu-śākhā hy anantāś ca
buddhayo 'vyavasāyinām
(BG 2.41)

The purport is that those who are intelligent, they take the message from the spiritual master—whatever he says. And one has to execute that particular order without any deviation. That will make him perfect. There may be different orders for different disciples, but a disciple should take the order of the spiritual master as his life: "Here it is, the order. So let me execute it without any deviation." That will make him perfect. Just see, the Caitanya Mahāprabhu's, this is His instruction. He says, ei ājñā pāñā nāma la-i anukṣaṇa. He did not think, "Oh, My spiritual master thought Me a fool, rascal (CC Adi 7.71). Oh, why I am rascal? Let Me see Vedānta-sūtra. Why shall I not see?" Oh, that is rascaldom again. That is rascaldom again. You cannot deviate the order of the spiritual master by an inch if you really want success.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

So you have no right. If you at all want to study Vedānta-sūtra, you have to accept it as it is, without any change. That is understanding. Vedānta-sūtra... Just like, several times I have given this example in this class, that it is... Lord Caitanya said to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya that "In the Vedas, it is stated that if you touch the stool of any animal, you'll be, I mean to say, infected. So you have to take your bath." Just like we go to evacuate in the bathroom and, after evacuating, you have to take bath. This is the system to become cleansed. This is Vedic system. But again the Vedas says that if you touch the cow dung, the stool of cow or another animal, oh, it is pure. Rather, if you are impure, by touching cow dung, you'll be purified. Now here is contradiction, that you... The Vedas says that if you touch the stool of any animal, then you become infected—you have to take bath, cleanse yourself. And again you say that cow dung, which is also stool of another animal, if you touch it, then you'll be purified. Now, if you put your argument, "Oh, this is contradictory. So Veda is full of contradiction," no, it is not contradiction. It is fact. One doctor, Mr., Dr. Goshal, he is a medical college chemist. He analyzed this cow dung and found all antiseptic properties in cow dung. So this is Vedic injunction.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

Therefore Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "I accept the order of My spiritual master in toto, without any interpretation, without any argument, without any understanding. Whatever he has said, it is all right." This is acceptance of spiritual master. "Oh, I accept spiritual master, but I don't accept your order"—this is not acceptance of spiritual master. If you at all accept somebody as spiritual master, you must test him. You must test him for at least one year if you have got doubts. And when you are convinced that "Here is a person whom I can follow blindly," then you accept. You haven't got to follow blindly. Spiritual master will not place before you anything unreasonable. But the process is that you cannot change the order of spiritual master. You cannot argue. You... Unless you are convinced that "I shall accept the order of this person without any argument," don't accept anybody as spiritual master. It is a false acceptance. Just see. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that. And other point is that if you take Caitanya Mahāprabhu's life, oh, He was a vast learned scholar, but He said that His spiritual master found Him the nonsense. Now how it is that? He was a great scholar, and how His spiritual master found Him a nonsense? So therefore, however you may be a great scholar, if your spiritual master finds you a fool, you must accept that you are a fool. You don't say, "Oh, I am such a great scholar, and unjustly my spiritual master says that I am fool." Then you lose the connection at once. You'll understand, yes, just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu's disciple. He is, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is speaking about His own discipleship.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967:

So as they are, if we want to understand... Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet: "Things which are beyond your conception," avāṅ manasā gocaraḥ, "beyond your expression, beyond your knowledge, don't apply your so-called argument and reason." That is Vedānta study. If, if you do not understand, put question to your spiritual master, try to understand, but as a matter of fact, you should know, "What is stated here, that is all right. It is due to my imperfectness of knowledge I cannot just now understand it. Let me ask my spiritual master and let me understand it properly." But a thing as it is, that is all right. We must take it. Mukhya-vṛttye. Mukhya means "as it is." Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). What commentation you can give? If the Vedas says, Īśopaniṣad, that "Everything belongs to God," how can you deny it? What is your argument? What is your...? You cannot deny it.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967:

He is being murdered, you see, because he never will come. He'll always think, "I am God." Just like... Who was speaking? Yes, yes, Nikhilananda. He has discussed in that Vivekananda's speech that man is God. But somebody asks, "Why he has become dog?" "Oh," he says, "I do not know." So God says, "I do not know." He's such a God. And that is clearly written. Have you got that book? God, God, God... The followers of Śaṅkarācārya say that "I am God. There is no other God. Every one of us God." Then why you have become dog? "Oh, that I do not know." Is that God's, I mean to say, answer? If I ask if you are God, if I answer you, "Why you are dog?" you say, "I do not know," so are you God? God does not know? Well, God description is there in Parāśara-sūtra that He is full of all knowledge. That is God. And God says, "I do not know"? How he is...? What kind of God he is? That is clearly stated here. Why you have become dog? "I do not know. But I am God." He knows, "I am God," but he does not know why he has become dog. That is his knowledge. You'll find so many fallacies like this. How do you know that you are God? "That also I do not know." What is this? Is this any argument?

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.113-17 -- San Francisco, February 22, 1967:

So again He supports Śaṅkarācārya, that "It is not his fault. He had to do it under the superior order to explain the Vedic literature in an impersonalist way. But those who are not expert, if they hear the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, then he is doomed." In other words, those who are actually aspiring for being elevated in spiritual science, they should avoid to hear any commentary which is impersonal. Any commentary. Then he is doomed. If we follow Caitanya Mahāprabhu's instruction, then any impersonal commentary means, if we hear... Because we are not expert. We are not expert. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī means neophytes, neophytes who are not conversant with the conclusion of the Vedas. They have got some, I mean to say, faith. That's all. But faith can be changed. Any... If a person, strong in arguments and strong in presenting things in jugglery of words, oh, the neophyte, his idea can be changed. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu warns, therefore, in the Vaiṣṇava philosophy that "You should not worship any other demigods."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.119 -- Gorakhpur, February 17, 1971:

So it is very easily understandable. Unless the original, the spiritual spark, has form, how this form can take place? This is shirt and coat. Just try to understand. If you have no form, then how the shirt and coat can take form? From argument. So therefore, living entity is not formless, neither Kṛṣṇa, or the supreme living entity, is formless. Both of them form, having form, but not this form. This is temporary form. The real form is spiritual form. Therefore nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). And Kṛṣṇa also says in the Second Chapter that "Both you and Me and all these soldiers and kings who have assembled before us, they were existing in the past, they are existing now, at present, and they will continue to exist in the future." So they... From our present experience we can see that all the living entities are in form. Therefore, if they existed in the past, they existed in the past as forms, and they'll continue to exist in the future as forms, there is no question of formlessness. There is no question of form... But because we cannot see the form in these material eyes... Just like there is a form in the body, but when that spirit is passing from this body, we cannot see. A medical man cannot see because he hasn't the eyes to see.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.254 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1968:

He was not meant for preaching a particular cult to gather some followers. No. It is the need of the human society, and He wanted to preach all over the world. Because it was not possible at that time, in His time. He lived only for forty-eight years. He took sannyāsa at the age of twenty-four years, and He passed away in... Twenty-four years He was very busy all over India. Therefore He left His legacy to the Indians, any Indian, to take up this cause and preach this cult of saṅkīrtana movement all over the world. So I shall request you to understand the philosophy of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His movement. We have got already six centers, five centers in your country. I started first in 1966, July, in New York. Then I started in San Francisco, then Boston, then at Montreal. Of course, I did not go everywhere. These boys, the sincere boys and girls who are helping me, who have joined this movement, they are doing. This center was started also by one boy. I have come for the first time here. Now I will request you that this movement is nothing sectarian or anything bluff. It is the movement as the necessity of the human society. You join it, you consider it. You put your logic, arguments. In every way, you'll find that this is the necessity of the present day.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 8.128 -- Bhuvanesvara, January 24, 1977:

That is the injunction of authority. Avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇaṁ pūtaṁ hari-ka..., śravaṇaṁ na kartavyam. We have to abide by the orders of the superiors. "Why?"—there is no question. Authority says; you have to accept. You cannot say "Why?" Vedic injunction. Therefore Kṛṣṇa was accepted as guru by Arjuna. Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). Because as friend and friend the reply and argument will go on, to stop this argument Kṛṣṇa is accepted as guru, not as friend. Similarly, when you accept a guru, you must accept guru according to the Vedic principle. So here guru, Sanātana Gosvāmī, he is giving the injunction that avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇaṁ pūtaṁ hari-kathāmṛtaṁ śravaṇaṁ na kartavyam. Exceptional case is different, the paramahaṁsa stage. But a guru, although he is paramahaṁsa, because he is teaching, he come down as madhyama-adhikārī. There are three kinds of Vaiṣṇava: kaniṣṭha adhikārī, madhyama adhikārī and uttama adhikārī. Uttama adhikārī may be without kunti, without śikhā, without Vaiṣṇava symptoms. He's paramahaṁsa. But when he comes to the preaching platform he must become a madhyama adhikārī, not to imitate uttama adhikārī, because he has to teach. He cannot deviate from the teaching principles. So what you are speaking, that "Without śikhā without kunti, one can become guru," that is fact for the paramahaṁsa, not for the preacher. Preacher must behave very nicely.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 8.128 -- Bhuvanesvara, January 24, 1977:

Guest (5): I can also pervade. I can also pervade. (laughter)

Prabhupāda: What is that?

Bhāgavata: By sādhana he can become all-pervading himself.

Prabhupāda: That is foolishness. That is foolishness.

Guest (4): There is no use in argument.

Prabhupāda: That is not possible.

Guest (5): In this body...

Prabhupāda: That is not possible. Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ jīva loke sanātana (BG 15.7). Sanātana-jīva-loke jīva āṁśa. Āṁśa cannot be the full. Yes. Āṁśa, part, cannot be equal to the whole.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 8.128 -- Bhuvanesvara, January 24, 1977:

Guest (5): We are enjoying the prārabdha, is it not?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (5): Pain and pleasure is part of God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That prārabdha. That is the... But God is not...

Guest (5): This is not argument. I have no equal.(?)

Prabhupāda: God is not under the laws of karma.

Guest (5): Swami, I want to know from swami.

Hari-śauri: If you want to know, then listen! If you want to know, listen. Don't speak!

Guest (5): All are waves and bubbles of the same sea. We are the bubbles and waves of the same sea, same Paraṁbrahman, this ātmā, Himself... (quotes Sanskrit) Oṁ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ... (break)

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa says ca, this word. Ksetrajñaṁ ca means "I am also kṣetrajña." Therefore He is different from the ordinary kṣetrajña. First of all try to understand this. Ca means different, another. And the difference is that sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata, whereas the individual kṣetrajña is within the body. That's all. (break) ...there is no advaitavāda. There may be advaitavāda philosophy, but in Bhagavad-gītā there is no adva itavāda. It is dvaitavāda. Otherwise why Kṛṣṇa said, sarva-dharmān partiyajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ: "You śaraṇaṁ vraja. You are different from Me"? Kṛṣṇa says. Otherwise why Kṛṣṇa asked that "You surrender"? That you and I, different. That is dvaitavāda.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 8.128 -- Bhuvanesvara, January 24, 1977:

Guest (5): Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), that can I understood, all arguments.

Prabhupāda: No. You can understand anything, but that is not the thing. We have to take it as it is. We are therefore presenting Bhagavad-gītā as God is commanding you, that "You surrender." So you are different from God.

Guest (5): That means, surrender means I am not a doer. I am not doing anything. God, who is residing within me...

Prabhupāda: Surrender. Who will surrender? Unless you are servant, why shall you surrender? You are servant; God is master. So therefore master and servant different.

Guest (5): No, that is true. I am not God. But God is there within me. God is everybody.

Prabhupāda: That's all... God is everywhere.

Guest (5): He's within ant and dog and elephant and everybody.

Prabhupāda: That...

Guest (5): Due to presence of God, this small living being, due to presence of God...

Prabhupāda: God is within dog. Therefore does it mean God is dog also?

Guest (5): No. God is not dog. God is a ...

Prabhupāda: Then you are putting the same argument. Because God is there within dog, therefore God is dog.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 8.128 -- Bhuvanesvara, January 24, 1977:

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (5): Truth I understand.

Prabhupāda: That's it. That is... That is wanted. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitram (BG 10.12).

Guest (5): Otherwise we can't love a poor man...

Satsvarūpa: Enough argument. Sit down. Then no more argument.

Guest (3): I think Lord has said in the Bhagavad-gītā...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (3): "Like sky, everywhere I am pervading, like one sun giving light to all."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (3): "So in all souls I am pervading."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (3): That much clear answer to his question, the difference between the all-pervading Lord...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.98-102 -- April 27, 1976, Auckland, New Zealand:

Guest: By His grace, Kṛṣṇa will show Himself to you.

Prabhupāda: Yes. If you read Kṛṣṇa book and if you believe, then you see Kṛṣṇa. He's not different from the book.

Guest: But we could read words till the cows come home. What good is that going to do?

Devotee: You have to accept what you read. You can't read with an argumentative attitude, or you can't ask questions in an argumentative attitude. You'll never learn.

Guest: I can only accept what I experience.

Prabhupāda: What is your experience?

Guest: My experience is that I have seen Kṛṣṇa with (sic) me own eyes.

Prabhupāda: You have seen?

Guest: Yes.

Prabhupāda: That's very nice. (devotees laugh)

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.110 -- New York, July 17, 1976:

So anyway, our point is, either the sun or the moon, they are localized. They are situated in one place, we can see. But the illumination, the heat or the cool illumination... Sun illumination is hot, and moon illumination is cold, very soothing. Kṛṣṇa is so kind that both things are there, and both things are required. It is not that unnecessarily. No. Kṛṣṇa says, raso 'ham apsu kaunteya prabhāsmi śaśi-sūrayoḥ (BG 7.8). This prabha, this illumination, the light coming from the moon, from the sun, śaśi-sūrayoḥ... Śaśi means the moon, and sūrya means the sun. So those foolish persons who are challenging, "Can you show me God?" rascal, why don't you see God here, śaśi-sūrayoḥ? You do not see the sunshine, the moonshine? Why do you say that "I did not see God"? Huh? What is this argument? If Kṛṣṇa said, God said, "Here I am. I am the moonshine, I am the sunshine," why don't you see Him? Huh? You have to see according to your capacity. You cannot see with your, these present eyes the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is not possible. Now see the illumination of God. Just like, practical, we can experience the sunshine. Everyone knows what is sunshine, but everyone is not aware of the temperature of the sun or the person within the sun. But that's a fact. Otherwise, Kṛṣṇa is liar. Kṛṣṇa said, "I spoke this philosophy to the sun-god." So sun-god is there, that's a fact. And then if the sun-god is there, his devotees or his associates are also there.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.113 -- London, July 23, 1976:

Therefore śāstra says, acintya khalu ye bhava. The same word in another way: na tas tarkyena yojayet. Things which are beyond your conception, don't try to understand it by your so-called logic and argument. But one logic, one argument, if we are sincere, then we can accept even by logic and argument, that... That is also stated in śāstra, in Bhagavad-gītā, that Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā.

sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ
tāsāṁ brahma mahad yonir
ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
(BG 14.4)

So we find mahad-yoni, mahā-tattva, the material elements, is the mother. Everything is coming out of the womb of the mother. Whatever we see in this creation, the plants, the trees and living entities, and we are speaking especially of the living entities, and there are 8,400,000 different forms, they are coming from earth. That we can see. It doesn't require great intelligence. Any boy can understand that it is coming out of these five elements—means earth, water... The grass is coming out of earth, the fish is coming out of the water.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.124-125 -- New York, November 26, 1966:

So Lord Caitanya says the purpose of Veda is... Veda-śāstra kahe-'sambandha'. Sambandha. What is our relation? Our relation is, as Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). So the relation with God is that we are... Everything is born out of the energy of God. So we are also born... Therefore we say God, "Father." This is accepted in every religion. There is no argument. Now, what is the relationship between father and son? Is it the relationship to exact only from father? There is no duty of the son, simply to take from father? No. There is duty. If a son is sensible and grown-up, he knows that "I have got my duty: to love my father." That is very simple thing, to love father. "Father has done so ma..., so much for me, I am just going to own the estate of father, and I am enjoying the earnings of my father. So is it not my duty to show respect to my father?"

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.125 -- New York, November 27, 1966:

So I have no necessity to search out father. I am quite all right." That means, this mundane moralist, if you become mundane moralist, or if you become mundane philosopher or if you stick to the ritualistic process of your particular faith, then there is no hope of reaching to the Absolute Truth. Mundane scriptural, ritualistic way and dry speculative philosophy and mundane moralists. Just like Arjuna and his brother. His eldest brother is Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira; he was very moralist, Dharmarāja. His name was "the king of religious principles," Dharmarāja. So Kṛṣṇa Himself advised him that "You go to Droṇācārya and tell him a lie, that 'Your son is dead. Your son is dead.' " Now Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, he was a mundane moralist, so "How can I tell lie? How can I tell lie? I have never spoken lie in my life." So there was some argument. Of course this was, fight was, some compromise was made between them in the camp. So he became a mundane moralist. He did not consider that "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, is asking me to tell lie." So he could not transgress his moral principles so he could not become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. He (was) considered mundane moralism, so it was not possible for him to become a Kṛṣṇa conscious person. He could not take Kṛṣṇa's order as the Supreme. But Arjuna, in the beginning, he was hesitating to fight and kill his kinsmen, and when he understood that "Kṛṣṇa wants this fight," he decided, "Yes, I shall do." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.294-298 -- New York, December 19, 1966:

So Prahlāda Mahārāja, he was such a nice devotee. And to protect him when he was just going to be killed by his father... And his father was very good politician. He took benediction from Brahmā that he will not be killed by anyone. Means by policy he took benediction from Brahmā that "I shall not be killed by man." "Oh, yes." "I shall not be killed by demigods." "That's all right." "I shall not be killed by any animal." "That's all right." "I shall not be killed in day." "That's all right." "I shall not be killed at night." "That's all right." "I shall not be killed by any weapon." "That's all right." And he said, "Now it is finished. Everything is now secure. I cannot be killed in day. I cannot be killed at night. No man can kill him (me). No demigod can kill me. No animal can kill me. Then where is the killing? Everything finished." But God is so cunning that He assumed neither man nor animal, and no weapons. He killed him with the nails. He never expected that "I will be killed by the nails." This is the definition by negation, defective definition. In argument, if you define negatively, "This is not this. This is not this. This is not this," then something will come that will nullify all your arguments. So he protected himself in all negative ways: "This will not. This will not. This will not. This will not." Something came which was not in his power. So this Nṛsiṁhāvatāra.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.337-353 -- New York, December 25, 1966:

If you have got any desire, still, you go to Kṛṣṇa. You worship. Kṛṣṇa recommends. Catur-vidhā bhajante māṁ sukṛtino 'rjuna. Even if you go to Kṛṣṇa for asking something material profit, still it is better. Don't go to other demigods. Kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ yajante anya devatāḥ (BG 7.20). The foolish persons, they do not know that the demigods, they cannot offer any benediction. They cannot offer. They are not fool. Just like here in this institution, although you are free, you very kindly ask me, "Swamijī, can I take this fruit?" Why? This is etiquette. Similarly, the demigods, they are not fools. Suppose one man worships a demigod and asks some benefit. Oh, demigod will ask the Lord, Supreme Lord. Or, in another sense, the demigods also do not know, because they are also living entities like us. But īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānām (BG 18.61). Kṛṣṇa is so kind that this person, this particular man, is wanting something, "All right, give him. Give him." Kṛṣṇa is... This is freedom. There is no argument, "Oh, why Kṛṣṇa has arranged like this?" He arranges out of His causeless mercy. He can say, He can stop asking the individual soul. But He does not do that. Why He shall do? Then there is no meaning of independence. "All right, you want it? I have arranged it. Take it. Take." So He asks the demigod, "All right, he's asking from you? Give him. Give." So this is going on.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:

Vedānta philosophy, there are different parties in India. The Māyā... Generally, two parties: the Māyāvāda philosophers and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, or the impersonalists and the personalists. Otherwise, there is no difference. Ultimately, the Māyāvādī philosophers they say that God, the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal, and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, they say in the ultimate end, the Absolute Truth is Person and He is, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). This is little difference, and they stick to their position and they fight. Fight means by philosophical arguments. That is going on since a very long time. But both of them belong to the sanātana Hindu dharma because both of them will talk on the Vedānta philosophy. They'll simply, they can give different interpretation, but they cannot say that "We don't accept Vedānta." Oh, that will..., then it is at once rejected. So one must give an interpretation on the Vedānta philosophy; then he'll be accepted as ācārya. Three things: Vedānta philosophy, Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One must be able to explain these three books. Then he'll be accepted ācārya. These are the principles.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:

As soon as one becomes atheist, oh, it is very difficult to convince him. You see. Therefore our preaching should avoid the atheist class. Of course, if we stop that, then we cannot find who is theist in the... Time is so nice that 99.9% all atheists. So we have to take the risk of talking with atheist also. But generally it is advised that preachers should not talk this atheist class because they'll not..., they simply argue. Their only point is simply argue and waste your time. That's all. They'll never accept, however you may try to convince him with reason and argument, they'll never... Here is a śloka by Yamunācārya. It is, say, about one thousand years before, this was the same condition for the atheist. He says,

tvāṁ śīla-rūpa-caritaiḥ parama-prakṛṣṭaiḥ
sattvena sāttvikatayā prabalaiś ca śāstraiḥ
prakhyāta-daiva-paramārtha-vidāṁ mattaiś ca
naivāsura-prakṛtayaḥ prabhavanti boddhum

There are different kinds of authorities. First authority is śāstra, authorized śāstra, scripture. There the description of avatāra, the characteristics and his work, they are mentioned there. And prabalaiś ca śāstrair. Prabala means the very powerful. Just like Vedānta philosophy, it is very powerful. Bhagavad-gītā, it is very powerful. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, it is very powerful.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.5 -- New York, January 7, 1967:

One is called śruti, and the other is called smṛti. Śruti means the original Vedic injunction which is coming through disciplic succession beginning from Kṛṣṇa down to this day. There are certain axiomatic truths which is called Vedic injunction. The axiomatic truth, as I have given you several times example that cow dung is pure... Now, your reason is, "Oh, you say the Vedic injunction that if you touch stool of any animal you have to take your bath, purify yourself. And the Vedic injunction says cow dung is pure. Oh, this is contradictory." No. Not contradictory. This is injunction. People are actually accepting this, no argument, and they are benefited by it. So axiomatic truth. How it is truth? You may not have sufficient intelligence, but if you go deep into the matter you will find it is all truth: "Yes, it is all right." That is called Vedic injunction. So you cannot argue. You have to accept as it is. You cannot interpret. What education we have got, what intelligence, that we can interpret on Vedic injunction? No. It should be accepted as it is. That is called Vedic injunction. This is called śruti. You have to simply hear and act accordingly. That is called Vedic. And smṛti. Smṛti means if you are learned scholar in the Vedic injunction, if you have heard from the bona fide souls, and if you are convinced, then if you write something, that is smṛti. You cannot write nonsense. You have to write something which corroborates with the Vedic injunction. That is called smṛti. You cannot manufacture anything. You should always remember that "I am a tiny brain here, so I have to receive knowledge from superior sources." Then whatever knowledge you have received, if you can expand that in your, by your, I mean to say, capacity, that is called smṛti.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.31-33 -- New York, January 16, 1967:

So this māyā cannot approach to a person who is always engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is the version of Lord Caitanya, and with evidences. So if we want to be free from the clutches of māyā, then this is the only path—to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. There is no other means. Because here it is clearly stated, kṛṣṇa sūrya-sama. Just try to understand the argument. Kṛṣṇa sūrya-sama: Kṛṣṇa is just like sun. Māyā andhakāra: and the māyā is just like darkness. It is darkness. So just you cannot imagine where there is sunshine there can be darkness. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is just like sun; how can you imagine that Kṛṣṇa and māyā can exist together? No. That is not possible. If there is māyā, there is no Kṛṣṇa. And if there is Kṛṣṇa, there is no māyā. This is the test. If we are still in māyā, that means I'm out of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And if I am actually in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is no existence of māyā. And what is the symptom of māyā? Mamāham: "My country, my society, my father, my mother, my wife, my children, my property, my position, my, my, my." There is no end of "my," although nothing belongs to him. This is called māyā.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

They were convinced with the arguments and presentation of Lord Caitanya. And from that day, not only the sannyāsīs, but also the people in general, they also became very much admirer of Lord Caitanya. So,

lokera saṅghaṭṭa āise prabhure dekhite
nānā śāstre paṇḍita āise śāstra vicārite

And because He defeated the Māyāvādī philosophers, many other scholars also began to meet Him personally and talk with Him, argue with Him.

So this was going on naturally. Whenever a man becomes prominent, so many others, they come to challenge him. That is natural sequence.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

The speciality of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was that He used to put very sound arguments, and He used to defeat His opponents in such a way that they were satisfied. They were not inimical. And with the evidence of śāstra. Not that argumentum vaculum. He was putting reasonable arguments and evidences from śāstra, scripture. Sarva-śāstra khaṇḍi' prabhu bhakti kare sāra. And the beauty was that He was defeating all other arguments against devotional service. He was establishing only that God is great, and we are meant for serving Him. On this basis He was arguing and He was defeating others.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

There is the important point of Māyāvādī philosophers. Every one of them, they say that "I am God," but actually he thinks within himself that "What kind of God I am?" That is the position. But for argument's sake they will play so many things in support of their views, but actually, any sane man will think that "What kind of God I am? I cannot defend myself from the slightest attack of this material nature, and still I claim..." But they cannot admit frankly. They think like that. That is being admitted here by the chief disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, that "Although we say, 'Yes, this is...,' but it does not appeal to our mind." He is frankly saying.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 1 -- Los Angeles, May 2, 1970:

Beyond this there is another, spiritual energy." Apareyam. Aparā means inferior. Apareyam. "All these described material elements, they are inferior energy. And beyond this there is superior energy, My dear Arjuna." What is that? Jīva-bhūta mahā-bāho: "These living entities." They are also energy. We living entities, we are also energy, but superior energy. How superior? Because yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat (BG 7.5). The superior energy is controlling the inferior energy. Matter has no power. The big airplane, nice machine, is flying in the sky, made of material things. But unless the spiritual energy, pilot, is there, it is useless. It is useless. Thousands of years the jet plane will stand on the airport; it will not be flying unless the small particle spiritual energy, that pilot, comes and touches it. So what is the difficulty to understand God? So plain thing, that if this huge machine... There are so many huge machineries, they cannot move without the touch of the spiritual energy, a human being or a living being. How can you expect that this whole material energy is working out of automatically or without any control? How you can put your arguments in that way? That is not possible.

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 5 -- Los Angeles, May 7, 1970:

So Vedic injunction is if you touch the bone of an animal, immediately you become impure and you have to take your bath. But here is a bone which is used in the Deity room. But you cannot argue, "Oh, you said that bone is impure. As soon as you touch it, you become impure. And you are putting into the Deity room?" No argument. You have to accept it. This is Veda. You cannot argue. Similarly, spiritual master's order, you have to accept. There is no argument. In this way you can make progress. Sādhu śāstra guru vākya tinete kariyā aikya. If we argue... Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are inconceivable by you, you cannot argue. Then it will be a failure. You have to accept that axiomatic truth. It is not dogmatic. It is not dogmatic in this sense, because our predecessor ācāryas, they accepted. What you are that you are arguing? So that is the proof. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. If you argue, there is no conclusion. The argument will go on. You put some argument; I put some argument. That is not the process. Śrutayo vibhinnā. Scriptures, in different countries, different circumstances, different scriptures, they're also different. Then tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And so far philosophical speculation is concerned, one philosopher is putting some theory, another philosopher putting some theory—there is contradiction. And unless you defy another philosopher, you cannot be a famous philosopher.

Sri Isopanisad Lecture Excerpt -- Los Angeles, July 8, 1971:

So such things it is useless, try to understand by arguments. That is simply nonsense. You can, of course, inquire, but that inquiry is not challenge. If you inquire from your spiritual master by challenge, then it is your misfortune. You have to inquire from the spiritual master—that is indicated-sevayā, by service, by making him satisfied. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). First of all you have to surrender, and then you have to please him by service. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādaḥ **. If you can please him, then naturally Kṛṣṇa is pleased upon you. That is the injunction. So this praśna... First of all you should find out somebody where you can surrender. If there is duplicity in surrender, that is useless. First of all see whether you can surrender there; then accept him spiritual master and then please him by your service and inquiry. That is Vedic principle.

Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Verse 34 -- San Francisco, September 13, 1968 :

Just like, take for example your country, or any country, it doesn't matter. I am giving example, I am not attacking anybody, I am giving example. You love your countrymen. That's very nice, but why don't you love the cows of your country? As it... It is also living entity. They are also born in this country. Have they not right to live? Oh, you know in argument, in logic, you will accept, "Yes." But because we do not love Kṛṣṇa, therefore there is partiality, that one section of the living entities should be loved, and the another section of the living entities should be sent to the slaughterhouse. Why this defect? This defect is due to your lack of loving affairs with Kṛṣṇa. And as soon as you try to love Kṛṣṇa, then you will see, "Oh, the cows are my brothers, oh, the black people are my brothers, the white people are my brothers, the ants are my brothers, the dogs are my brothers, the trees are my brother, everyone my brother." That is universal brotherhood. If you simply talk of universal brotherhood, and you do not love Kṛṣṇa, hah, then it is useless. (laughter) It is useless. Therefore, actually it is happening. They are proclaiming peace and prosperity, and they are fighting in the United Nations. But where is the peace? Then where is the prosperity? Because lacking love of Kṛṣṇa.

Festival Lectures

Lecture-Day after Sri Gaura-Purnima -- Hawaii, March 5, 1969:

He is pure. He is pure, always pure. Suppose you are very nice girl, nice, but because you pass some urine or stool, does it mean that you are bad? Does it mean? Then? The urine may be bad, the stool may be bad, but because you passed urine or stool, you are not bad. Is it clear? Kṛṣṇa has got this external energy. That does not make Kṛṣṇa bad. Try to understand it. If somebody asks, "Oh, you are so nice girl, nice... Why you are passing stool and urine?" Is that any argument? I am just speaking on the argument's sake. Is that any good argument, that "Because we are very good, we shall not pass stool or urine"? Or "Because you are very good, therefore your urine and stool also will be very good"? Is that any argument? So similarly, if Kṛṣṇa has created this external energy, that is for His satisfaction. That's all. But why should you take? If we are confident about Kṛṣṇa's goodness, why should we bother about Kṛṣṇa's stool and urine? Why not directly Kṛṣṇa? Let Kṛṣṇa pass any amount of stool and urine. We have nothing to do with that. You cannot say, "Oh, Kṛṣṇa is all good. Therefore His urine and stool..." I am... Just try to understand. His urine is also good. That is a different thing. I mean to say, if this is an argument, that "Because Kṛṣṇa is good, He should not pass urine and stool," that is no argument. It is not... External energy is not affecting Kṛṣṇa. The urine and stool is affecting... There are some worms, they are very much attracted with the stool.

Lecture-Day after Sri Gaura-Purnima -- Hawaii, March 5, 1969:

Similarly, this material nature, external energy of Kṛṣṇa, is Kṛṣṇa's. There is... Undoubtedly, it is Kṛṣṇa's. But that worm class of living entities, they are attracted by it. You see? So we should not be attracted. That should be our... Because we are not going to be worms of the stool. Kṛṣṇa, if He cannot... There are many arguments. If you ask question, "Why the government has created this criminal department?" Is that valid question? The jail department is criminal department, prison, where citizens are put into jail and given trouble. So if the prisoner says, "Why the American government has created this prison department?" is that valid question? The American government may create prison departments, but why you are interested there? Why you are going there? The real position is: because you are criminal, therefore government has to create such department.

His Divine Grace Srila Sac-cid-ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Appearance Day, Lecture -- London, September 3, 1971:

Just like if you want to see a big man you should go through his secretary, through his orderly, doorkeeper; similarly, our process is ācāryopāsanam, go through the ācārya. That is the injunction of the Vedas. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to enter into the spiritual world, you cannot get through simply by arguments. Because there is no limit of argument. I place my argument in one way. Another man, who is better arguer, he places his argument in a different way. So if you simply go on arguing, it is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. It will never help you. Argument. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you think that "I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God," no, that is also not possible. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem. Or where it is? People who were not so advanced. Therefore his first instruction is "Thou shall not kill." That means they were very much engaged in killing affairs; otherwise, why is this instruction? And actually, it so happened that they killed Jesus Christ.

His Divine Grace Srila Sac-cid-ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Appearance Day, Lecture -- London, September 3, 1971:

So śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures are different. Arguments, that is also not helpful. One man may argue better than me. Then philosophy. The philosophy, it is said, nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. One philosopher is differing from another philosopher. Just now today Śyāmasundara has purchased one book about different philosophers. So that you also cannot ascertain what is truth. Therefore śāstra says, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The truth is very confidential. So if you want to know that truth, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186), you should have to follow the great ācāryas. Then you will understand. Therefore ācārya-upāsanā is essential. Ācārya-upāsanā is very essential. In all the Vedic śāstras the injunction is that. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet, śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). Tasmād gurum prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam (SB 11.3.21). Anyone who is inquisitive to understand higher truths, he must surrender to guru. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta, jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam. One who is inquisitive, who is now inquiring about transcendental subject matter. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). So all the śāstras says, in our Vaiṣṇava śāstra also, Rūpa Gosvāmī says, ādau gurv-āśrayam: "In the first beginning, you must take shelter of a bona fide guru."

Govardhana Puja Lecture -- New York, November 4, 1966:

"Now, supposing there is somebody." Because these atheists, they do not believe in God, now they are giving arguments. "Now, suppose there is somebody as God or some supervisor or something like that. But still, he is obliged to give Me the effect. Therefore I am not going to ask mercy from that superior personality, God or something else. I have to work." And this is also fact. Suppose you are going to appear in some examination. Now, the university is giving you some designation. Now, that designation practically depends on your passing the examination. What is the use of flattering that examiner? That is the argument. There is no... His argument is that "You are after the sacrifice of satisfying the Indra." So indirectly He says that Indra is appointed by the Lord and he has to supply water. He is officer. So what is the use of flattering him? Just like there are many officers in the New York City. One is in charge of the waterwork department. So there is no question of flattering that waterworks department officer. You pay your tax, you work nicely, and water will be supplied to you. But if you don't pay your tax, however you flatter that officer, your connection will be cut off. So it depends on your work. It depends on your work.

Govardhana Puja Lecture -- New York, November 4, 1966:

So, asti ced īśvaraḥ kaścit: "Supposing there is some God..." "There is some God." Just see. A God is preaching atheism. He is God Himself, and He says, "Supposing if there is some God." "Supposing if there is some God," kaścit phala-rūpy anya-karmaṇām, "and He gives the result of your work." The karma-mimāṁsā philosophers, they accept God in this way, "Suppose there is God and He is to give us the result. So He is obliged. If we do nice work, He is obliged. So what is the use of flattering God? Let us do our duty nicely. Then He will be obliged." So Kṛṣṇa is following that argument. Asti ced īśvaraḥ kaścit phala-rūpy anya-karmaṇām, kartāraṁ bhajate so 'pi: "He also worships the worker. The worker has not to worship God. Because God gives you good result out of your good work; therefore, because you are doing good work, therefore God is worshiping you." Just see the argument. He says, kartāraṁ bhajate so 'pi na hy akartuḥ prabhur: "And one who does not do good work, even God does not like him. So there is no necessity of worshiping this heavenly god or any god, so let us have our duty done nicely. That will fetch us the desired result."

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Disappearance Day, Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 13, 1973:

So immediately he began his talking that "You are all educated young men. Why don't you take up Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's cult and preach all over the English knowing public? Why don't you take up this matter?" So I argued with him in so many... At that time I was nationalist. So I told that "Who will accept our message? We are dependent nation. Nobody will care." In this way, in my own way, in these younger days... But we belonged to the Vaiṣṇava family, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Nityānanda, Rādhā-Govinda. That is our worshipable Deity. So I was very glad that "Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa cult, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's cult, this sādhu is trying to preach. It is very nice."

So at that time we had some talks, and of course I was defeated by his argument, my argument. (laughter) And then, when we came out, we were offered prasādam, very nice treatment, the Gauḍīya Matha. And when I came out on the street, this my friend asked me, "What is your opinion of this sādhu?" Then I said that "Here is the right person who has taken up Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's message, and now it will be distributed."

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Disappearance Day, Lecture -- Bombay, December 22, 1975:

So the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, in the beginning... It is not that kaniṣṭha, beginning, if anyone immediately becomes so advanced. It is not advancement; it is foolishness. Just like somebody, they declare that "Kṛṣṇa is everywhere. Why should we go to the temple?" Then if Kṛṣṇa is everywhere, He is not in the temple? Huh? What is this argument? If Kṛṣṇa is everywhere, He is also in the temple. But in the temple I worship directly, and what is the utility? Kṛṣṇa is everywhere. I am not so advanced that I can see everywhere Kṛṣṇa. Who can see Kṛṣṇa everywhere? That is very advanced stage. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti (Bs. 5.38). If you become so advanced that you cannot live without Kṛṣṇa for a moment, then Kṛṣṇa is everywhere. Where is that training? Where is that advancement? Even if I advise, try to meditate, I meditate upon my wife, upon my children, on my business. This is not the stage of seeing Kṛṣṇa everywhere. That requires training. That requires advanced knowledge. Prema. Kṛṣṇa is so kind, ye yathā māṁ prapadyante (BG 4.11). If a devotee cannot live for a moment without seeing Kṛṣṇa, he is visible... A devotee... Not for the neophyte devotee. So there are different stages.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, Lecture -- Los Angeles, February 7, 1969:

So then Dr. Bose, he was my father's friend. So he asked, "What this Abhaya is doing?" And my sister told him, "Oh, he has appeared in the B.A. examination, but he is not doing anything." So Dr. Bose was my father's friend. So he appointed me the manager of his laboratory. I did not know anything; still, he appointed me. So that was in 1921. In 1920 I gave up my education. Of course, I was married in 1918, and I got my first child in 1921. So in 1922, when I saw my Guru Mahārāja and when I was convinced about his argument and mode of presentation, I was so much struck with wonder. I could understand that "Here is the proper person who can give real religious idea." That I appreciated at that time. And at that time I thought, "This great personality is asking me to preach. I would have immediately joined, but now I am married. It will be injustice." Of course, I thought like that, in that way. Of course, Guru Mahārāja did not say anything, that "You give up your family life." No, never said. He simply gave the idea. So I thought that "It would have been better if I was not married." Anyway, then, 1923, I left Calcutta on my business, and I established my headquarter at Allahabad. So all the days I was thinking of this, "Oh, I saw a very nice saintly person. But I am now off from Calcutta." So I was thinking like that. Practically he initiated me because I was thinking of..., always.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, Evening -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

From my childhood, he gave me Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Deity for worshiping. A ratha... I was playing with my boyfriends, Ratha-yātrā, Ḍola, like that. My father encouraged. So I was trained up in this line, but in my youthful age, when I was college student, gradually, by their bad association or something, gradually, I lost my activities. But when this friend, Mr. Mullik, took me to Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja, he immediately asked me that, "You are educated young boys. Why don't you take up Lord Caitanya's message and preach in the Western world?" In the very first sight, he told me. At that time, I argued with him that "We are dependent nation, and who is going to hear about our message?" So he defeated my argument. (aside:) There is no necessity of closing. Yes. He defeated my argument. He was learned scholar. What I was? I was still boy. So I agreed (chuckles) that I was defeated. So after finishing our visit with Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, I got some impression that "Here is a person who has taken Lord Caitanya's message very seriously. Now it will be preached." My friend asked my opinion, that "What is your opinion?" So I gave this opinion, that "Here is a person who has taken Lord Caitanya's movement very seriously, and now it will be preached."

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, Lecture -- Atlanta, March 2, 1975:

Of course, everyone wanted. But he wrote one small book, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Teachings and Precepts of Lord Caitanya, in 1896. And he presented that book to the McGill University in Canada. And he very much desired that the foreigners, especially Americans, would join this movement. That was his desire in 1896. And then, in 1918, my Guru Mahārāja started with this mission one institution known as Gauḍīya Math. Perhaps some of you know the name, Gauḍīya Math. And he was trying to spread this message of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and by chance or by prediction, as you think, I was taken to Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura by one of my friends. I did not want to go there, but he forcibly took me there. Yes. And he ordered me that "You preach the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu in English language. This is very much essential." So on the first meeting he told me like that. That was my first meeting with him. So at that time I was in favor of Gandhi's movement. So I said that "We are not independent—subjugated. Who will hear about our message?" So Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura refuted my argument. I was very much pleased. I had so many talks. But I was very much pleased to be defeated, that "This so-called nationalism or any ism, they are all temporary. Real need is the self-realization."

Sri Sri Radha Gokulananda Deity Installation -- London, August 21, 1973:

This form of Kṛṣṇa, the atheist will say that "Here is a form made of marble. How is that they are worshiping God, Kṛṣṇa?" That is atheist view. But from the śāstra, we understand Kṛṣṇa, if He is within the atom, why not within the marble? It is simply understanding. Not only within, the marble itself is also Kṛṣṇa. Because in the Bhagavad-gītā we understand: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca (BG 7.4). These material elements, earth, earth, water, fire, air, they are Kṛṣṇa's energy. Kṛṣṇa says bhinnā me prakṛtir aṣṭadhā. They are My energies, separated energy. So even if you consider that here is not Kṛṣṇa but a marble. No, that marble is also Kṛṣṇa. Marble is also... And Kṛṣṇa is, being omnipotent, even for your logical argument... Even if you say that this is a marble statue, still Kṛṣṇa is so powerful, omnipotent, that He can accept your service even through this marble. Actually, it is not marble. Or from spiritual vision, everything being Kṛṣṇa, so Kṛṣṇa can accept your service even through the marble, even through the water, even through the fire. Why not? Energy. Just like if you come to the sunshine, energy of sun, you immediately touch the sun globe. Is it not? Because the beams are coming from the sun globe so as soon as you touch the sunshine, sunbeam, you touch the sun immediately. And there are yogis who can reach the sun planet through the beams of sun. Because the spirit soul is very, very small.

Six Gosvamis Lecture, Sri Sri Sad-govamy-astaka -- Los Angeles, November 18, 1968:

So He is within you. If you are sincere to Him and to the instruction, following, then everything will come out automatically even if you don't read. This is the special significance of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that we want simply sincere soul; then everything is there. You study or no study. But for preaching work, studying required. If you are..., because you have to meet so many opposing elements, so if you can give some reference from books of authority. But even if you don't give references, you can speak logically, you can place arguments logically. So Kṛṣṇa will help, Kṛṣṇa is within you. Don't think that Kṛṣṇa is without. He's without and within, both. That is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. When Kṛṣṇa was standing before Kuntī and He also entered within the womb of Uttarā to save Parīkṣit Mahārāja, so Kuntī said that "I see that You are within and without. Still, You are unseen." God is within and without, but the rascals cannot see. They say, "Where is God? Can you show me?" But He is always everywhere, within and without. So one has to train himself how to see. That is described in the Brahma-saṁhitā, premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena (Bs. 5.38). One has to anoint the eyes with love of God. Then he can see. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti. Santaḥ, saintly person. Sant. Just like your San Francisco, the Sant (Saint) is Sanskrit word, santaḥ. The saint word is Sanskrit word. Santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti. Those who are saints, sants, they always see God within and without. They have got eyes to see. What is that special eyes? That is love of God, that's all.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Talk in Room -- Mayapur, March 23, 1975:

Paramahaṁsa: They have some completely illogical argument. Just like those people...

Prabhupāda: Unfortunate. Illogical argument means unfortunate. Rascals. Therefore we say plainly, "You are all rascals." That's all. You have no discrimination. Anyone who does not believe as He is, he's a rascal. That's all. He may be happy or sorry. You don't mind. You don't make compromise. At least I do not do. If you have not full faith in Kṛṣṇa, then you are a rascal, that's all, whatever you may be. The Dr. Patel does not like this, but he does not protest to me. As others say, he protests by that. It is a fact. We have no difficulty to understand Kṛṣṇa and thus make our life successful. But we unnecessarily bring arguments, impediments to understand Kṛṣṇa. Therefore we are unfortunate, envious of Kṛṣṇa.

Initiation Lectures

Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

The impersonalist says "Nameless." Why? The Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) "Everything is generated from Him." So if there is name, you have got name, I have got name, anything... This tape recorder has got name, this plate has got name, the place has got name, the carpet has got name, and simply God has no name? Why? (laughs) Just see the fallacy. The fountainhead of all names is God, and He has no name. You see? He is zero. These are the arguments. But we don't accept. The thing is they do not know the name because their senses are not purified. You cannot understand God by imperfect senses. Therefore Bhāgavata says, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi. Nāmādi. Nāma means name; ādi, because name is the beginning of everything. Just like if I want to make friendship with you, I ask you, "What is your name?" That is the beginning. If you go to the court, before beginning the judgment, "What is your name? What is your father's name?" You submit any application, "What is your name?" So nāmādi.

Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

Yes. Scriptures, authority of Vedas, they must be accepted. Just like the other day I was explaining, the Veda says the conchshell is pure although it is a bone of an animal. In other places Veda gives you the injunction that bone of an animal is impure. But it says the conchshell is pure. It can be placed before the Deity, it can be used in the Deity room in His service. Now there may be argument, "Oh, this is a bone of an animal. How is that? Contradiction." No. So one should accept the injunction of the Vedas like that. Whenever it says this is impure, it is impure; when it says it is pure, it is pure. Now if there is any doubt, that should be understood by questioning submissively and with service from the spiritual master. The spiritual master is there. Then? But we should always accept the injunction of the scripture as truth. Just like there is a proverb, "Bible truth," "Biblical truth." Nobody can deny Bible. This should be the attitude. Bible is also part of Vedas. Therefore Vedic injunction should be accepted as it is, without any interpretation. Just like Bhagavad-gītā is Veda. Why Veda? The Supreme Personality of Godhead personally speaking; therefore it is Veda. There is no mistake. One should accept—no interpretation—as it is. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Yes. Go on.

Lecture at Initiation Fire Sacrifice -- Los Angeles, July 16, 1969:

So brahma-bhūtaḥ... Anyway, if you realize yourself that you are not... That brahma-bhūtaḥ means simply to understand that I am not the material body. To be convinced firmly with all reasons and argument, firmly conviction, this is called faith. Faith is not flickering. One must be firmly convinced. So then you immediately become joyful. Just like if you are implicated with some undesirable affairs and if you, some way or other, your lawyer advises, "Oh, you are free from this implication. The law does not bind you," just like you feel pleasure, "Oh, I'm not in this implication?" "Yes," similarly, as soon as one is convinced that "I am not this material body," then immediately he becomes joyful. Brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati (BG 18.54). And what is that joyfulness? There is no lamentation and there is no hankering. If you have hankering, then you are not joyful. If you have lamentation, there is no hankering. If you have hankering, then you are not joyful. If you have lamentation, then you are not joyful. These are the signs.

Wedding Ceremonies

Paramananda & Satyabhama's Wedding -- Montreal, July 22, 1968:

This world is called relative world. It is not Absolute. Relative. Difference, two, duality. We cannot understand a man without knowing a woman. We cannot understand father without understanding a son or a mother. Relativity. But in Absolute world, everything is one. So this love between male and female, conjugal love, we Vaiṣṇava philosophers... Because everyone, according to Vedic system, everyone has to follow the Vedānta-sūtra. There are two section of philosophers in India, approved; not, I mean to say, manufactured philosopher, mental speculators, but actually those who are counted valuable. There are two classes of philosophers, namely the impersonalist and personalist. The Vaiṣṇava, they accept that the Absolute Truth is person, and the Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that Absolute Truth is impersonal. That is the difference. Otherwise their process of other paraphernalia, execution of understanding, is almost the same. Now our Vaiṣṇava philosopher's argument is that how the Absolute Truth can be impersonal? Because here, in this world, in our experience, we see everything personal. So unless the personality, the individuality, or the individual attraction is there in the Absolute Truth, how they can be represented here in the relative truth?

General Lectures

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

Just like see Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He is chanting and dancing, chanting and dancing, you see, the same thing. This picture is before you so that gradually, when you feel ecstasy, you will also dance like Him. And when you automatically dance, then you will know that the thing is already realized. Not artificially, but when you feel, "Oh, let me dance. It is so much ecstatic. Let me dance." Nothing should be done artificially. Let everything come automatically. And only we have to follow. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. This is a verse from scripture, that tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ, if you simply go on arguing about spiritual matters—"This is not, this is not, this is not, yes, this is not..." I say something; you say something. No, no, no. You cannot realize spiritual objects simply by this speculation, argument. Our argument or logical, I mean to say, strength has no access in the spiritual world. The Vedic mantra says, nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena: "Atma, the supreme self, cannot be realized pravacanena." Suppose I am very expert speaker, I can present things very nicely—but without any substance. Oh, that won't help you. Simply by jugglery of words, if I can captivate you, oh, that won't help you. Nāyam ātmā pravacanena. This is pravacana.

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

So that policy was followed for two hundred years, so India has lost its original culture. So therefore the original point is that tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. We cannot realize the Supreme Truth simply by argument or logical presentation or philosophical speculation. No. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā (CC Madhya 17.186). Śrutayo means scriptures. Now say, for example, Bhagavad-gītā and your Bible and the Muhammadans, they'll present Koran. So of course, this Bhagavad-gītā is little different from Vedic scripture. That we have already explained. It is an independent something, universal. So Vedic scripture, Koran, Bible, or Zoroastrian... There are so many religions, Buddhist religion, so many. So there may be some difference of opinion. Śrutayor vibhinnā. Vibhinnā means different. Now, you cannot realize the Absolute Truth simply by your mundane arguments and by your logical strength, neither you can catch up the right thing by reading different scriptures. Śrutayor vibhinnā. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you follow great philosophers, great thinkers, then also you will find one thinker is different from another thinker, one philosopher is differing from another philosopher.

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

When he came to your country, your president, late Mr. Kennedy, oh, he welcomed him as his own teacher, because when Mr. Kennedy was a student in the Oxford University, Dr. Radhakrishnan was a visiting professor. In the open meeting Mr. Kennedy admitted that "Now Dr. Radhakrishnan has come as the president, but he is always my teacher. He is still my teacher." It was very kind of him that he received him as a teacher, not as contemporary. So even that Dr. Radhakrishnan, he is also studying this Bhagavad-gītā very, I mean to say, profoundly. You know your Professor Einstein. Oh, he was a profound, I mean to say, student of this Bhagavad-gītā. Hitler was a great student of Bhagavad-gītā. So many, in all the countries. There are so many Muhammadans in India, oh, they are devout student of Bhagavad-gītā. I know one Dr. Inrai(?) of Allahabad University. Oh, he is so devoted to Lord Kṛṣṇa that on the birthday of Lord Kṛṣṇa he must write one nice article and publish in the paper. So this instruction, that mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ... (CC Madhya 17.186). We cannot have the knowledge of the Absolute Truth simply by argument or simply by philosophy or simply by big brain or speaking power. No, no. All these things will not do. Simply we have to follow the great authority.

Lecture -- Los Angeles, February 2, 1968:

So amongst the impersonalist school, there are many great logicians and high class scholars. But according to Vedic principles, God realization does not depend on material intelligence or scholarship. It is stated in the Vedas, nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ: "You cannot realize the self simply by arguments or very scholarly speeches." No. Nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na bahunā śrutena: "Neither by studying many, many different types of Vedic literatures." Nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na bahunā śrutena na medhayā: "Neither by sharp brain or memory." These are good qualifications—to be scholarly, to be a very good speaker, and to have very good memorizing power. These are materially very good qualifications. But they are not qualification for realizing God. Then what is the qualification of realizing God? Yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ: "God can be realized only to whom He reveals-labhyaḥ Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.23." You cannot oblige God to become manifest before you because you are very good scholar or you are a very rich man or you are very good looking or you have got very good memorizing power. No. Yam evaiṣa vṛṇute. When He is pleased, then He reveals unto the devotee.

Lecture to Technology Students (M.I.T.) -- Boston, May 5, 1968:

If you want to enter into another planet, say moon planet or sun planet or Venus planet... There are innumerable planets. The ultimate, highest planet is called Brahmaloka. And the advantage of going to Brahmaloka is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, that you can get a life, sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ (BG 8.17). You can get there life for millions and millions of years. But still, there is death and there is birth and there is that old age and there is that disease. But mad-dhāma gatvā punar janma na vidyate. But if somebody is transferred to that planet which is called Kṛṣṇaloka, Goloka Vṛndāvana, or Vaikuṇṭha, then one hasn't got to come back to this material, I mean to say, temporary existence. So these informations are there, and they are very scientific. They are not dogmatic. If you accept them with reason and argument and with human consciousness, the solutions are there.

Lecture at Engagement -- Boston, May 8, 1968:

So Kṛṣṇa consciousness means to begin our real life, and to get free from this temporary life, changing from one body to another. So this is very important movement. Try to understand this movement. We have got magazine, Back to Godhead. We have got publication, we have got our branches in several places in your country. We have got here one branch in the 95 Glenville Avenue. So we invite you that you come. You have no expenditure. We simply request you that you come. You try to understand this movement. It is very scientific movement. It is not a bogus, bluffing. You try to understand with all your arguments, reason, logic, and whatever way you want to understand, we are prepared to answer you. So this is for your benefit. It is not an institution to make some profit. It is just to render service to the whole humanity so that they may understand the scientific knowledge of God and be benefited in this human form of life. That is our program(?), and we present this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement before you. Now it depends up to you to accept it or not.

Lecture Engagement -- Montreal, June 15, 1968:

So we have got such authoritative, I mean to say, literature, Vedic literatures. You can test it by your reason, by your arguments, by your philosophical talks, everything. Religion without philosophical basis, without scientific basis, is sentiment. That religion based on philosophy and science, that is right. So Bhagavad-gītā is that book. Any question, any inquiry, any doubt—all the answers are there, and very nicely. Just like one or two verse I shall explain to you. In one place Bhagavad-gītā says that..., the Lord says that,

sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ
tāsāṁ mahad yonir brahma
ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
(BG 14.4)

The Lord says that there are eight hundred, er, 8,400,000 species of life, different forms of life, species of life. There are aquatics, there are plants, trees, worms, germs, then birds, beasts, and at last, the human species of life, only 400,000's. So Kṛṣṇa says that "All the species of life—never mind whether he is man or he's a dog, he's a cat—he's a living entity, and I am the seed-giving father of all living entities." Now, how nice, you can understand simply.

Lecture -- Montreal, June 26, 1968:

So make the mind void, no more thinking. And knowledge by imperfect senses, that will always remain imperfect. And knowledge from others, that is real goal. But provided you receive that knowledge from the perfect... As we have given several times the example, just like a child wants to know who is his father. Now if he searches out "Who is my father?" he asks everybody, "Are you my father? Are you my father? Are you my father?" he will have to go on searching. Then again if he asks his neighbor, "Who is my father?" the neighbor also may not know and may give him misinformation. So that is also not possible. But if he goes to his mother and his mother is sincere and perfect, she can give, "My dear boy, he is your father." That is perfect. So neither by researching one can find out his father, neither by employing his imperfect senses. But if he receives the knowledge from the sincere mother, then the knowledge is perfect. And he has no other alternative to know who is his father except the source of a sincere mother. Similarly, the Bhāgavat says, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are beyond your power of realization, don't try to understand by your so-called logic and argument. All nonsense. All nonsense.

Lecture -- Montreal, June 26, 1968:

Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ. This process of argument and logic, gymnasium, is imperfect always. You cannot realize what is the ultimate goal of life. Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. Śruta means Vedas or books of knowledge. There are different kinds of theories and doctrines. So if you read those books, unless you are very nicely directed, that will create also perplexity. Śrutayo vibhinnam. And so far philosophical speculation is concerned, the Bhāgavata says that nāsau muni yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Muni means mental speculator. So you cannot find any mental speculator who is not differing from another mental speculator. So tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ, the path of so-called logic and argument, is not perfect. Then, simply if you study different books of knowledge, that will also not give you perfect knowledge. If you consult so-called mental speculators, their different views, then dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The ultimate goal of life is very confidential and mysterious. And how to know it? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Mahājana means the perfect realized souls who have realized, you have to follow them. That's all. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Therefore this process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is accepting the mahājana, the authority. The first authority is Kṛṣṇa. From Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna is hearing. There is no question about it.

Lecture Excerpt -- Montreal, July 18, 1968:

Cloud cannot cover the sun. There may be a cloud overcast in the sky for hundred miles, but even hundred miles, is it possible to cover the sun, hundred miles cloud? The sun is itself so many hundreds of thousand times more than this earth. So māyā cannot cover the Supreme Brahman. Māyā can cover the small particles Brahman. So we may become covered by māyā or cloud, but the Supreme Brahman is never covered by māyā. That is the difference of opinion between Māyāvāda philosophy and Vaiṣṇava philosophy. The Māyāvāda philosophy says that the Supreme is covered. The Supreme cannot be covered. Then how He becomes supreme? The covering becomes supreme. Oh, there are so many arguments and so many... But we follow that the cloud covers the small particles of sunshine. But sun remains as it is. And we practically see also when we go by jet plane, we are over the cloud. There is no cloud outside. Sun is clear. In the lower status there is some cloud. If you go thousands of miles up, we don't see any cloud. Everything sunshine. Is there any question?

Speech to Indian Audience -- Montreal, July 28, 1968:

So this philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā, supported by the movement of Lord Caitanya, chanting the holy name of Hare Kṛṣṇa, we are trying to push on in this part of the world, in pursuance of the order of Lord Caitanya, that pṛthivīte ache yata nagaradi grāma. (CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126) So I'll request Indian ladies and gentlemen who are present here to join this movement. This is your duty. Because you are Indian, you have got this duty. If you forget your duty, then you are forgetting your identity. So my special request in this meeting is for the Indian ladies and gentlemen to support this temple, and by supporting this temple, to support this movement. It is good not only for the Indians—for everyone. It is no sectarian religion. It is completely scientific and philosophical. Everyone can accept it, not dogmatically, but with reason and argument. And you can practically see that all my students, none of them are Indians. Until now, they are all American. They are educated, they are intelligent. They are trying to understand it with all logic and philosophy, and when they understand it nicely, they take to it very seriously. So my request is that this is a very nice movement. Everyone, either Indian, American or Canadian, should take part in it and encourage us.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968:

Now this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement we have to understand through the teachings of Lord Caitanya. He is the... Five hundred years ago, He appeared in Bengal, a province of India, and He specifically preached Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. His mission is that anyone who is born in India should take this message of Kṛṣṇa consciousness and distribute it all over the world. To execute that order we have come to your country. So my request is that you try to understand this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement with all your knowledge, scrutinizingly. Don't accept it blindly. Try to understand with your arguments, knowledge, logic, realization—you are human being—and you'll find it sublime, sublime, undoubtedly. We have published this book, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, and other books also, many books. So try to read them. And we have got our magazines, Back to Godhead. We are not sentimentalists, that we are simply dancing. The dancing has got great value; that, if you dance with us, you'll feel. It is not that some crazy fellows are dancing. No. The most intelligent persons, they are dancing. It is so nicely made that even a boy like here, he is a boy, he can take part. Universal. Join, chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and dance, and you'll realize. Very simple method.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

So... But karma is accepted? But I do not know. Dr. Urquhart was arguing that if I am suffering or enjoying as the effect of my previous life, so who is the witness? His argument was like this. Just like if I have committed some criminal act, in the court there is need of witness. Then one has to prove that somebody has seen that he has done this. This is simply a legal formality. Who is going to steal while keeping one witness? Nobody's going, but court wants that who has seen that he has stolen. Anyway, Dr. Urquhart's argument was that "Who is the witness? I am suffering the reaction of my previous bad or evil activities, but who is the witness?" But at that time we were not so intelligent. We could not answer. But later on, when we were grown up and studied Bhagavad-gītā, then here, in the Bhagavad-gītā, we saw that upadraṣṭā. The Lord is upadraṣṭā, He is witness. Upadraṣṭā. Anumantā. Anumantā means ordering. You cannot do anything without being sanctioned by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You have no power. Therefore we are, in all respect, we are dependent. That we have got very nice experience. This hand is moving, but if the power is withdrawn, I cannot move my hand. Therefore I am not independent to move my hand.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

Now at the present moment, immediately... We were, of course, taking Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa was present before Arjuna. So he was receiving direct order, He was speaking directly. But if somebody says that "How I can know that I am satisfying the Supreme Lord, because the Lord is not directly present before me?" this argument is not a very strong argument. The Lord is present by His words. Just like in your Bible, there are ten commandments. So if you follow... Just like the state is present by the lawbooks. If you follow the law, then you are satisfying the state. Just like "Keep to the right." If you are following the rules, you are keeping your car on the right side, you are stopping when there is red light, that means if you are satisfying the regulation, then you are satisfying the state. Similarly, if you satisfy the regulative principles, then you are satisfying the Lord. It is very nice. It is very simple thing. But you must try to satisfy. Whether by your work, by your activity, you have satisfied, then your life is perfect. Ataḥ pumbhir dvija-śreṣṭhā varṇāśrama-vibhāgaśaḥ, svanuṣṭhitasya. It doesn't matter whatever you are doing, but you have to see whether by your action the Supreme Personality of Godhead is satisfied.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 11, 1968:

Thank you. (laughter) It is so simple, nice. Try to understand by your knowledge, question. We are not pushing forcibly. You have got your intelligence, argument, logic, everything. But you'll find it. Caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. The author of Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that we are placing it for your judgment. Not that we are pushing it by force, that you have to accept it. Just like sometimes it is said that the Muhammadans, they propagated one hand sword and one hand Koran: "Either you accept Koran or there is sword for you." It is not that. It is placed for your judgment. And if you like, you can accept it. Otherwise, I came here empty-handed, I shall go back empty-handed. There is no loss, no gain. (laughter) So any other question? All right. Then join with Hare Kṛṣṇa. Chant. Upendra will chant. (end)

Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968:

They will say so many reasons, that "Because the blood corpuscles, red corpuscles has ceased to function, it has become white; therefore it is..." No. This is not right answer. The blood can be made red... Or redness is not life. There are many natural product which is red by nature. That does not mean there is life. So this argument, that red corpuscles have ceased; therefore life has ceased—no. There are so many arguments and counterarguments.

Actually, this is the fact, because we are speaking on the strength of scripture, saintly persons and spiritual master. That is the way of understanding. You cannot manufacture with your teeny brain, imperfect senses. Human being, they're imperfect, always. Just for example, that a child is seeing the sun, and a scientist is seeing the sun. By nature, the child, their knowledge of the sun is imperfect. The same child, when he takes instruction from a scientist, he can understand the sun is so great. Therefore direct perception of knowledge by our the senses is always imperfect. You have to approach authority—in every sphere of life. Similarly, if you want to understand what is God, then you have to take shelter of this Bhagavad-gītā. There is no alternative. You cannot speculate that "God may be like this, God may be like that," "There is no God," "God is dead," "God is not dead." This is simply speculation.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968:

This Bhagavad-gītā is full of Kṛṣṇa's activities. Simply by understanding that God is great, that is neutral state of understanding. But you have to elevate more and more, how great He is. How great He is, it is not possible to understand, because our senses are always imperfect. But as far as possible you can hear about the activities of God, about the position of God, and you can think over it, and you can make your judgment, you can put your argument. Then you will understand without any doubt what is God. The first beginning is, mayy āsakta-manāḥ. In the last chapter Kṛṣṇa has explained that one who is constantly absorbed in the thought of Kṛṣṇa, he is first-class yogi, first-class yogi. In your country the yoga system is very popular, but you do not know who is a first-class yogi. The first-class yogi (is) explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: yoginām api sarveṣāṁ mad-gatenāntarātmanā (BG 6.47), that out of many, many thousands of yogis, the yogi or bhakta-yogi who is always seeing within himself, within his heart, the form of Kṛṣṇa, he's first-class yogi, he's first class.

Lecture -- Boston, April 25, 1969:

Our system is so nice that we haven't got to manufacture daily a new thesis. The difficulty of modern age is... Not modern age. It is also old system, because in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam we find one verse which says, tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: "Simple arguments and logic will not carry you to the Absolute Truth." Tarkaḥ. Tarkaḥ means arguments. You may be very good logician, you can argue very nice, but another logician may come and defeat you. That is going on. New philosopher, new logician, new thinker means he defeats his previous other scripture in some details. Of course, on nkers, logicians, and philosophers, and becomes prominent. That is the materialistic way of gaining name, fame and popularity. But our process is different. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. We accept that simply by arguments and logic, it is not possible to approach the Absolute Truth. Absolute Truth is not subjected to our deficient logic or argument.

So tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. If somebody says, "Well, argument and logic is not the way to approach the Absolute Truth. Then let us take scriptures, the authority of the scriptures," that is also very nice. In every human society there is some sort of scripture. Just like in your country there is Bible or any other scripture. We have got Vedas. The Muhammadans, they have got Koran. They can help also, because that is also authority. But you will find that one scripture is differing from the average there is no difference.

Lecture -- Boston, April 25, 1969:

Sometimes they become skeptic. Just like in the modern age, the youngsters, you all boys and girls, they are becoming skeptic. They don't believe in any scripture now because they find some differences. Therefore Bhāgavata said that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā: "Simply by argument you cannot establish what is Absolute Truth, and if you consult different scriptures, you will find difference of opinion, or difference of procedures, rituals." So śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if we consult great thinkers or philosophers, they have got their different opinions. Some philosopher says, "I think this is right. I think this is right." So whom you will accept? They are also of different opinion. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. You won't find a single philosopher whose opinion is not different from the previous philosopher, or muni. Muni means thinker, thoughtful man, muni, from mind. Nāsāv munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām.

Brandeis University Lecture -- Boston, April 29, 1969:

And the method is simple: chant Hare Kṛṣṇa: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare... If you simply chant, that is sufficient for your self-realization. But if you want to study this philosophy, or the science of God, through your philosophy and argument, logic, we have got enough stock of books. We have got sixty volumes of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Already we have published five volumes. We have got Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. We have got Teachings of Lord Caitanya. We are publishing Back to Godhead paper. So if you want to understand this philosophy by your learning, by your academic career, we have got sufficient stock to supply you—sufficient stock. Don't think that we are all sentimentalists, simply dancing. No. There is a background. There is a background. If you want... You are educated boys and girls. Try to understand this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Your life will be successful. That is our aim. I'll not take much of your time.

Conway Hall Lecture -- London, September 15, 1969:

So our request is that you read Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Here there are many Englishmen and Indians. That is my request. I am not charging anything. I am not making a profession. This saṅkīrtana movement, we are chanting freely. You can hear. There is... Not that it is a secret thing—if you pay me something, then I shall disclose. No. It is open secret. Anyone can take, and there is no loss. If you chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, there is no loss, but there is great gain. You can try it. So we are freely distributing it by chanting. You can join with us, you try to understand us, what is our philosophy. We have got monthly magazine, Back to Godhead. We have got many publications, Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, Teachings of Lord Caitanya. If you want to understand this movement through philosophy, science, argument, we are prepared. There is ample opportunity for you. But if you simply chant, there is no need of education, there is no need of philosophizing. Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, and you gain everything.

Lecture -- London, September 16, 1969:

So devotional service begins from the stage of liberation, when one is freed from the concept of bodily life, from this wrong concept that "I am this body." That is the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā. Teachings of Bhagavad-gītā begins from that. Kṛṣṇa wanted to teach Arjuna in the beginning, first of all, that "You are not this body." He was talking with Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa was asking him to fight, and he was placing so many pleas that "If I fight, my family will die and the women will be widows. They will be polluted." So many arguments he placed. That means Arjuna was identifying himself with this body. And Kṛṣṇa, when Arjuna submitted to Kṛṣṇa that "I am now puzzled, bewildered. I cannot understand what is my duty at the present moment; therefore I am submitting unto You," śiṣyas te 'ham: (BG 2.7) "I become Your disciple." Śādhi māṁ prapannam: "I am surrendered unto You. You please instruct me." So because they were talking like friends in the beginning, so argument like friends, talking, that cannot give any conclusion. Here is the Vedic process. Just like Arjuna said that śādhi māṁ prapannam, śiṣyas te 'ham: "I become your śiṣya." Śiṣya means disciple. That means "Whatever disciplinary action You will ask me to follow, I shall do it." This is called śiṣya.

Lecture -- London, September 26, 1969:

So in that connection the Lord says that "You, the individual soul, he's the proprietor of this body." Or not exactly proprietor, but leaseholder. You cannot say you are proprietor, because as soon as you'll be asked, "Vacate," oh, you have to vacate. But you can say "leaseholder." Actually, it is leaseholder. We are, we are holding this body on certain lease term, for so many years. As soon as the lease period is over, "Vacate, please vacate." "Oh, I have got so much attraction for this body. How can I vacate?" Oh, there is no argument. "Please get out, immediately." "Oh, I am President of USA." "Oh, never mind. Immediately." (laughter) Yes, immediately. So don't you see? So what is use of becoming President? If I am so much under the laws of nature, under the order of Supreme, that immediately, I am going in procession very nice, and then, oh, there is shot and finished everything...

Speech to Maharaja and Maharani and Conversations Before and After -- Indore, December 11, 1970:

Yes. Abodha means no knowledge, and jāta means born. By birth he is fool, and he is claiming, "I am God." By birth he's a fool, and he's claiming, "I am God." Just see. This is illusion. This is the māyā. He cannot... He does not know how the hairs are growing, and he is God. Just see. "I am God." This has become a fashion, dangerous fashion. And these Māyāvādī philosophers, daridra-nārāyaṇa, this Nārāyaṇa, that Nārāyaṇa... Because Nārāyaṇa is there, therefore he's Nārāyaṇa. Because you are within your coat, therefore you are coat. This is their argument. Because I am in the room, I am room. Is that very sound argument? Because Nārāyaṇa is there, therefore he is Nārāyaṇa. Aiye.

Lecture at Krsna Niketan -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

As you cannot separate energy and the energetic, Kṛṣṇa is everything. So Kṛṣṇa can accept your service through everything. Don't consider that "This is metal." The metal is also Kṛṣṇa. Therefore we should know bhūmi..., bhūmi... Metal, what is metal? Metal means earth. Kṛṣṇa says, first of all says, bhūmir āpo analo vāyuḥ: "They are My all energies." So from argument's point of view, Kṛṣṇa is everything. Therefore Kṛṣṇa can accept service through everything. So this Deity, vigraha, either made of wood, made of stone or earth or metal or painting, they are not different from Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa has got the potency to accept your service through this medium. So they are not pictures or they are not ordinary idols. You should never... Similarly, a sound vibration. Kṛṣṇa is present through sound vibration because the five elements, ākāśa, the sky... Sky, within sky, there is sound. So from argumentative point of view also, nobody can deny that this chanting of the holy name of Kṛṣṇa is not identical. It is identical. Because identical... Everything is identical.

Lecture -- Gorakhpur, February 17, 1971:

Now argument may be forwarded that if the simple process, simply by chanting the holy name, one becomes liberated, then why there are so many śāstras, manyadini? Manu is supposed to be the leader of giving all śāstras. There are twenty kinds of śāstras, dharma-śāstra. Vimsati dharma-śāstra. So what is the necessity of these dharma-śāstras? Actually, there is no need of dharma-śāstra. Kṛṣṇa also says the same thing. Sarva-dharmān parityajya (BG 18.66). There are twenty kinds of dharma-śāstras, religious principles, in the Vedic literature, beginning from Manu, Parāśara, and other great, great sages. So here, Śrīdhara Swami is also putting forward the argument that if simply by chanting the holy name of God, one becomes liberated—even mahātmās also, they have to take to this process—then why, what is the necessity of so many, twenty kinds of dharma-śāstras? So from the conclusion of various Vedic literatures, there is no need of studying even the dharma-śāstras.

Pandal Lecture at Cross Maidan -- Bombay, March 26, 1971:

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura said, jaḍa-vidyā saba māyāra vaibhava: "Advancement of material science is increasing the illusion of māyā." We are already illusioned, and if we go on increasing the illusion more and more, then we become more and more entangled. That is the nature. And so long we are illusioned, we shall put forward different theories, different philosophies, and different arguments. Therefore śāstra says, tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Simply by argument and reasoning, you cannot make any spiritual advancement. Because you may be very good, I mean to way, logician, putting forward nice arguments, but somebody may come who is better than you. He will spoil all your logic, and he will establish his own logic. That is nyāya-śāstra. In Sanskrit there is nyāya-śāstra. So they are taught how to defeat his opponent. Therefore the Absolute Truth you cannot understand by argument, by material dealings.

Lecture Excerpt -- London, August 13, 1971:

So here, the original cause is being explained by Vyāsadeva. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Now, what type of that supreme cause is that? Is it a stone or sentient? No. Vyāsadeva informs, no. The original cause, how it can be a stone? Original cause cannot be. It must be sentient. Creator must be sentient. Without brain, without creative power, how there can be creation? Where is your argument? No, that is not. These are false arguments. Therefore Vyāsadeva gives you information that He is sentient, in full knowledge. In full knowledge. What kind of knowledge? Anvaya-vyatirekābhyām, directly and indirectly. That is full knowledge. Just like I say "my head" or "my hair," but if I ask you or you ask that "How many hairs are there?" oh, I am ignorant. I do not know. Similarly, we are so imperfect that we may have little knowledge even of our own body.

Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 12, 1971:

That is a regular argument we meet everywhere, that if everyone becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, then how this world will go on? How our maintenance will be earned? That answer is given by Prahlāda Mahārāja, that here in this material world, our happiness is in relationship with our senses, sense gratification. Suppose if I put one nice rasagullā, sweetmeat, in my mouth, my tongue tastes it very nicely a kind of sense gratification, so I think I am happy. Similarly, you can study the relationship with all other senses. Especially in this material world our sex sense, the happiness from the sex life is considered to be very high, and people are struggling hard for that happiness. That is also stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, yan maithunādi-gṛhamedhi-sukhaṁ hi tuccham (SB 7.9.45). Gṛhamedhi means those who are too much attached to this worldly life. Their point of happiness is sex life, maithunādi. But it is tuccham, it is very insignificant.

Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 20, 1971:

Actually all over the world this is happening, and therefore, the problems of the world becoming very serious and grave. So these are all scientific proposals. The educational system must be reformed. Not that godless, no education, secular government, no education of God in the schools and colleges. This is not a very good proposal. Here we get authoritative statement of Prahlāda Mahārāja. He is one of the mahājana. Our process is mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). We have to follow the footsteps of great personalities. That is our method. We don't manufacture our own way of living. We simply follow the great personalities. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by argument. You may be very good arguer; another comes better arguer than you. So simply by argument, you cannot come to the conclusion. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā.

Lecture -- Delhi, December 13, 1971:

You cannot see anything. Your power of seeing is so limited that you cannot see anything. Therefore you have to see through Kṛṣṇa, through Bhagavad-gītā. You are seeing the sun, it is like a disc. But when you see through astronomy, then you will understand it is fourteen hundred thousand times bigger than this earth. So what is the power of your seeing? Why you are so much proud of seeing? This is nonsense. Why do you go to school? To learn how to see. Why you can sit down, anyone who hasn't got, never has gone to school and never taken an education, his seeing and a perfect MA, Ph. D. person's seeing, is that all right, the same thing? Then why you are proud of your nonsense seeing? This will be the answer. You have to prepare your eyes to see. You have these, these eyes have no value. Your argument on the imperfect experience of the senses has no value. Yes?

Lecture -- Delhi, December 13, 1971:

So, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet, this is the injunction of the Vedas, "Things which are beyond your thinking, don't talk nonsense, don't put nonsense arguments to understand it. Better accept it." Therefore you have to accept the Vedic knowledge without any arguments. That is knowledge, perfect knowledge. Tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). And one who has got a spiritual master, expert in the Vedic knowledge, then his life is successful. Tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet. Therefore you must approach a spiritual master in order to understand that science. Samit-pāniḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). This is the injunction. These things, how you can calculate by argument? Therefore they are called nāstika. Atheist means one who does not believe in the verdict of the Vedas. That is called atheist, atheist. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. Bauddha, the Buddhists... Buddhists, although they accept Lord Buddha as incarnation, but at the same time we accept them as nāstika, atheist. How Kṛṣṇa becomes atheist? But that is Kṛṣṇa's concern, but we have to study what He is doing.

Lecture at Christian Monastery -- Melbourne, April 6, 1972:

In this way these five elements, gross elements... Every planet in the material world is made of these five gross elements. So just like here also we can experience that some of the living entities, just like the fishes, they are living in the water very peacefully. But if you are put into the water, you will not be comfortable. Perhaps you will die. Similarly, if the fishes are taken—that also we experienced—from the water, they will die on the land. Here we can see that some of the living entities, they can live comfortably within water. Some of the living entities, they can live comfortably on land, some of them in the air. Similarly, why not some of them in fire? Because after all, fire is also one of the material elements. So according to Vedic scripture there is life in the sun planet also. They have got fiery bodies. That's all. That is the difference. Just like the fishes here we see they have got watery bodies, similarly, one may have got fiery body. From logic, from argument, we cannot deny that. So this example, that in the sun planet there is a predominating deity or president or god, whatever you call... He is called sun-god, and his name is also mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā, Vivasvān. His name is also there.

Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972:

In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: (BG 7.7) "My dear Arjuna, I am the Supreme. There is no better, no more anyone superior than Me." That's all right. We accept that. Now, you can say "How we accept?" I accept because it is Vedic injunction. That is the process of Vedic injunction: you have to accept without argument. Just like for practical life I will say some examples, that cow dung. In India cow dung is accepted as very pure. So in one place of the Vedic injunction you will find that "Any stool of animal is impure." That's a fact. Everyone knows. Even your own stool, what to speak of other animals'—impure. But in another place says, "Exception is given to the cow's stool, cow dung. That is pure." It is so pure that if you apply on some impure place, it becomes pure. That's a fact. In India still, especially in villages, they mop the floor with cow dung, and it is so nice and so fresh. You can try. Here also there are cows. You take cow dung and you can see how it is antiseptic. We are actually doing in America in our New Vrindaban.

Sunday Feast Lecture -- Los Angeles, May 21, 1972:

In this way, we go up to Brahmā. Brahmā is the original spiritual master within this universe, who gave us the Vedic knowledge. He's therefore called forefather, er, grandfather, pitāmaha. But he's also not independent. In the Vedānta-sūtra or Bhāgavata it is said that Brahmā... He's the first creature. There was no other any other living entity when he was created first. So if I say that he also got knowledge from others, then the argument may be, "Who is the next person to give him knowledge?" So therefore Bhāgavata says, "No. He received knowledge from Kṛṣṇa." How? "From the heart." Tene brahma hṛdā. Hṛdā. Because God, Kṛṣṇa, is sitting in everyone's heart—your heart, my heart, everyone. And He can give you instruction. His name is therefore Caitya-guru. Caitya-guru means who gives conscience and knowledge from within. In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says, sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo: (BG 15.15) "In everyone's heart I am sitting." Hṛdi, "within the heart"; sanniviṣṭo, "I am sitting there." Sarvasya. Not only you and me, even animals insects, birds, beasts, Brahma, everyone. Sarvasya. All living entities. So sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ: "from Me"; smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca, "remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness." Forgetfulness also. If you want to forget God, God will give you intelligence that you can forget God forever. He's so kind. Whatever you want, He will give you intelligence, "Do like this."

Sunday Feast Lecture -- Los Angeles, May 21, 1972:

So there are two things. There are two living entities. One is trying to forget God, and another is trying to remember God. That's all. There are two kinds of people, or men. Men, not the animals. Animals cannot understand what is God. It is the business of human beings. So if you want to know God sincerely, seriously, then God is within yourself. He'll give you intelligence how you can know Him. But if you want to forget God, challenge God, "There is no God. God is dead," then He'll give you such intelligence that you'll always think that there is no God, that God is dead, like that. He'll give some arguments. There are so many atheists, they are also putting their arguments. So wherefrom the argument comes? It comes from God, that "You take this argument and forget God forever." Mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). Vedic knowledge means to understand God. That's all. One who has understood God, he has studied all Vedas. Finished. And one who has not understood God, simply studying this literature, that literature, that scripture, then he's simply wasting his time. That's all. Because (the) ultimate knowledge is God. If one cannot understand what is God after so much education, then Bhāgavata says, śrama eva hi kevalam: (SB 1.2.8) "It is simply labor, labor, waste of time." Simply waste of time. There is no education.

Lecture at Indo-American Society 'East and West' -- Calcutta, January 31, 1973:

So actually, the combination of this body is like that. As soon as the spirit soul goes out of this body, it is nothing but bones, flesh and urine and stool and it has to be thrown away. In every society, as soon as the man is dead... So, while he was living, he was acting so nicely, so intelligently. Now as soon as the soul is gone, immediately everything is gone. So do you think it is a combination of bones and flesh? Any sane man will accept it? If you say that something is wanting for giving impetus of birth of life in this body, therefore the body's called dead, that is not a fact. Because after this body's dead, after the soul is gone out of the body, innumerable microbes will come out, decomposition. You cannot say the ingredients which give impetus to generation of life, that is lacking. It is not lacking. Because it is not lacking, therefore millions of other microbes are coming out. That is not a fact, that this is the ingredient of life substance. There are so many arguments.

Lecture -- London, August 26, 1973:

We have got twenty-four hours engagement. So at any time you can come. We have got books. Our program is for publishing sixty books. Now we have already published about twenty books, big, big books, four hundred pages. So if you understand, if you want to understand this movement through philosophy, science, and good logic, argument, we have got sufficient stock to convince you how this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is important. But suppose you are not interested in reading or you cannot read, cannot understand philosophy, we have got a very simple method: chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra—Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare.

So either you become a scholar or you become an ordinary man, you can take advantage of this movement, and there is no need of qualifying yourself. We don't say that first of all you qualify yourself, then come here. No. Any condition, even a child can take part. If you come here, you'll see.

Lecture at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan -- Bombay, October 18, 1973:

This nonsense dharma should be stopped. Take Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is being accepted all over the world. Why not in India? Why you present competitors of Kṛṣṇa? Don't do this. Take this instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). You will be successful. If you manufacture something, you will never be successful. I tell you. So anyone. The standard is there, the instruction is there, everything is there. Why should we try to manufacture something new? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhayaṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. That is our process. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhanam. Simply by argument, you cannot reach the confidential part of dharma. Śrutayo vibhinnā. And if you study Vedas, that is also..., Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Atharva, you will be puzzled. So, nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. He is not a philosopher or a muni who cannot give a separate theory.

Public Lecture -- Konigstein, Germany, June 19, 1974:

That is not possible. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. This is Vedic instruction, that "Things which are beyond your perception, don't try to understand by this foolish argument and logic." Don't try to understand. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā. Acintya means beyond your conception. Cintya means within you perception, and acintya means beyond your conception. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa. You cannot understand by this rascal logic and philosophy. That is not possible. Then how it is to be understood? There are many places. Ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). These blunt senses, you cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa's name, Kṛṣṇa's form, Kṛṣṇa's qualities, Kṛṣṇa's activities—you cannot understand. Then I have got this... This is my, in possession. How can I understand Kṛṣṇa? That is said, sevonmukhe hi jihvādau. When you engage your tongue in the service of the Lord. Now, this is also another peculiar thing, that to understand by the tongue, not by the mind. Tongue.

Public Speech -- Bad Homburg, Germany, June 22, 1974:

"The name of God and God is equally pūrṇa, perfect, śuddha, purified, pūrṇaḥ śuddhaḥ nitya, eternal, and pūrṇaḥ śuddhaḥ nitya-mukta, 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. In India also sometimes "Kṛṣṇa" is announced as "Kṛṣṭa." Or you announce as "Christo." 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. (break) ..."Christo" or "Kristo" or "Kṛṣṇa," if He understands that you are hankering after Him, He will give the resultant action. And this is the easiest process in this age for God realization. Thank you very much. Let us chant. (end)

Sunday Feast Lecture -- Atlanta, March 2, 1975:

So therefore we have prescribed four principles, regulative principles: No illicit sex. We don't say "No sex." No illicit sex. No meat-eating. There are so many things, nice things, especially in your country, America, so many nice fruits, so many nice grains, milk. Why should you kill? We are not. We have got hundreds of centers. We are strictly following. And you have taken our prasādam feast. How delicious they are. So why they should kill? The argument is sometimes offered: "The vegetable has got life." Yes, we admit also. But our process is to take the prasādam. Prasādam means we offer foodstuff to Kṛṣṇa and after eating, whatever He left, we take that. This is our principle. We don't take directly. What is the meaning of this temple? We don't use anything directly unless it is offered to Kṛṣṇa. So the vegetable has got life, but Kṛṣṇa says, patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati, tad aham aśnāmi (BG 9.26). We have invited Kṛṣṇa, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as our guest, and He has consented to come here. So we must offer foodstuff, what He wants, not that according to my whims. That is not etiquette.

Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976:

On the other side they are my brothers, they are my nephews, they are my gurus, Dronācārya, and they are my grandfather, Bhīṣmadeva. So what kind of fight this is that I have to fight with my friends and relatives and family members?" So he hesitated, that "Kṛṣṇa, what kind of fight this is? They are not my enemies; they are all family members. So I am not interested in this fight." So he practically decided not to fight. And Kṛṣṇa said that "What is this nonsense? You are a military man, and you have come to fight here, and you are My friend and My relative also, and if you decide not to fight, what people will say?" This is the beginning. Then, after some arguments, Arjuna thought it wise that "Actually, I am a military man and I have come to fight a decision that we shall fight. Now what I am trying to do, to avoid this fighting? Actually it is not my business. I am deviating from my duty."

Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976:

Śiṣyas te 'ham. Ahaṁ te śiṣya: "I just become Your disciple, and You just educate me. Please enlighten me." This is the position. Before that, Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, they were talking like friends. Friends means argument. We can go on arguing for days together, but there is no decision. That is friendly talk. But when there is talk between a master and disciple, there is no question of arguing. The disciple has to accept what is ordered by the master.

So Kṛṣṇa is accepted guru or the spiritual master, and Arjuna says, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). Prapannam means that "I am surrendered to You. I don't think myself on the equal level with You." The spiritual master and the disciple, they cannot be on the equal level. Therefore a spiritual master is called guru. Guru means heavy. Just like in the scale we put something this side, something that side. The thing which is weighty, that goes down. Similarly, guru is supposed to be weighty than the śiṣya. So Kṛṣṇa begins to speak when He is accepted as guru; otherwise He does not speak. Now, our subject matter is "Let Kṛṣṇa speak for Himself." So we have to accept Kṛṣṇa as the supreme authority. Then His speaking will be useful for us. Otherwise, if we think that Kṛṣṇa is on the equal level—"He is also a historical personality and His education and my education equal and so on, so on"—so long we think like that, then we cannot hear or understand Kṛṣṇa. But if we take the position of Arjuna—śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam—then Kṛṣṇa will speak to the disciple like Arjuna, and everything will be clear.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: Just like the example of the rock falling in the water. He would say that the water separating and the rock falling are two separate acts. Neither one affects the other.

Prabhupāda: This is nonsense. This argument is called in Sanskrit kaka-tal-nyāya. There was a tal tree, and one crow came, and immediately the fruit fell down. And there were two arguers: one said that the crow sat down on the fruit and it was so light it fell down, and the other said no, the crow was trying to sit down on the fruit but in the meantime the fruit fell and he could not sit. It is like that. It may be coincidence, the crow was just trying to sit on the fruit and the fruit fell. But these people's answer is no, the crow first sat down, then is was fallen. Another says no, the fruit has fallen down; therefore the crow could not sit. So this kind of argument has no value. According (indistinct), the water separated and the stone fell—they are nonsensical. Our argument is strong: that if Kṛṣṇa desires, the stone can float on the water, despite the law of gravitation. The law of gravitation is not working. So many huge planets are floating. How they are floating? The law of gravitation is working here. The stone falls down and (indistinct) goes down in the water. But that is one of the ingredients of the planet. But the planet itself is floating in the air. Where is the law of gravitation? Therefore Kṛṣṇa's desire. The cause is Kṛṣṇa's desire. Kṛṣṇa wanted, "Let it be floating." Or He has made some arrangement. By law of gravitation every planet should have gone down, and there is Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and broke His head, because he is lying down in the Garbhodakaśāyī... So all the planets fall on Him and He is dead. But no. By His order they are all floated. That is Kṛṣṇa. Is that all right? Or still more?

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: Therefore ultimate desire is God's.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the bird—whether the bird caused the fruit to fall, or whether the fruit happened to fall coincidentally. It doesn't matter. Is that the point?

Prabhupāda: Yes. It is simply useless talk. Because it is a fact that the fruit has fallen, and the crow has flown away. Now why should we bother? A waste of time. But both can be possible. These argument—one is saying that the bird sat down, which is the cause of falling of the fruit, and the other says the falling down is the cause of the bird's not being able to sit on it—both can be possible. But we say therefore the ultimate desire is of God. If God desired that the fruit would not fall, it would not have fallen. That is our proposition.

Śyāmasundara: I think you said once that the devotee picks up the fruit and offers it to Kṛṣṇa and eats it.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We don't see the cause and effect; we see that ultimate cause is Kṛṣṇa. "By Kṛṣṇa's desire we have got this nice thing. Offer it to Kṛṣṇa and eat it," that's all.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: These are notations on David Hume. Abstract objects, relations, space, matter and time are all considered by Hume to be mind-dependent perceptions. In other words, perceptions are all there is. He rejects revealed religion, that is, the religion of the śāstras, and embraces natural religion, that is, a religion wherein the existence of God can be proved or even shown to be probable by argument and reason. According to Hume we really know nothing of God, for at the most we can only know are peoples' ideas of God, and these are but perceptions. It would thus seem that it is impossible to know God according to Hume's natural religion because the senses are admittedly imperfect, and these are the only instruments of certainty Hume admits in his natural religion.

Prabhupāda: What is that natural religion?

Hayagrīva: Well, he says the self is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement. So he says there's nothing but perception. He rejects revealed scriptures as such, but he says, "The heavens and the earth join in the same testimony. The whole course of nature raises one hymn to the praises of its creator. I have found a Deity and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go further who are wiser or more enterprising."

Prabhupāda: First point is that our senses are imperfect. That is admitted. And God is perception. But whether he believes actually in the existence of God?

Hayagrīva: He believes in the existence of God.

Prabhupāda: And what is his perception of God? If he believes in God, then he must give some idea what is God.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Prabhupāda: Everyone believes that. Materially everyone believes. But if he says none of them are correct, so why he is so..., pose himself as correct? He is rejected immediately.

Hayagrīva: He says, "All the new discoveries in astronomy which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of nature are so many additional arguments for a Deity according to the true system of theism," that is his natural, what he calls natural religion. In this way Hume rejects the necessity or desirability of miracles as well as the conception of a God transcendental to his creation. He says it's not the being of God that is in question but God's nature. This nature cannot be ascertained through study of the universe itself. However, if the universe can only be studied by imperfect senses, what is the value of our conclusion? How can we ever come to know the nature of God?

Prabhupāda: Nature of God, it can be explained by God Himself. That is our Vedic process. We know who is God, and He explains, "My nature is this." Just like He says, "I am the greatest principle," mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). "There is no more higher principle than Me." This is fact. If something is greater than God, then how one can become God? That is not possible. So greatest means He is great in everything. He is great in richness, He is great in reputation, He is great in influence, He is great in bodily power, He is great in beauty and He is great in renunciation. If we can find out somebody that He tallies with this greatness, then He is God. So that we find in Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, and what He says in the Bhagavad-gītā we accept as fact. And if we analyze His statements intelligently, pruriently, then we will find that what Kṛṣṇa says, that is fact.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: As far as we can ascertain, Hume personally had no religion, no faith in the Christian or any other God. He also rejected that argument or reason could justify a faith. Thus Hume is a complete skeptic who denies the possibility of ascertaining certainty outside of a mere sequence of perceptions or ideas.

Prabhupāda: This, then the argument comes. If he does not believe in anyone's statement, why he is thinking his statement will be accepted? Then he is foolish. He is a child. Instead of becoming a philosopher, he is a child, talking all nonsense.

Hayagrīva: He maintains that man cannot know ultimate reality or possess knowledge of anything beyond a mere awareness of phenomenal sensory images.

Prabhupāda: That is sufficient. But if man cannot have any knowledge, so who is going to take your knowledge? Better you stop, don't talk. Is it not?

Hayagrīva: So much for Hume. (laughs) That's the end of Hume.

Prabhupāda: No, no, I mean is not that the conclusion? If he is skeptic, he does not take other's statement why he expects that his statement will be taken? Why does he propose any statement? Does he think that he is the greatest of all? Then everyone can think like that. That skeptic has no ground. He cannot say. If he is skeptic he should stop, he should not stand.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: And if I see a dead body, I can understand that there is no life in that body, so there must be some source of life.

Prabhupāda: That is preliminary knowledge, that something is missing. Something is missing. Now there are arguments, so many things, but something, that we understand from higher authority, that this something is eternal. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam, that consciousness is spread all over my body, and He says that is avināśi, eternal. Consciousness is spiritual. So then you can judge how it is eternal. Now eternal, the same way that I am existing, I exist, I existed in a childhood body, boyhood body, so my consciousness is continuing. Consciousness is going on with my existence. I am existing. Despite different changes of body, I am existing. Therefore consciousness exists. This kind of, you have to apply your senses. But the basic principle of the knowledge is received from higher authorities. Just like in mathematics, teacher says two plus two is equal to four. So you take four things, make two and two, and you find four. Similarly, by applying your senses, reason—God has given you reason, consciousness—you can come to the conclusion. Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: It means the synthesis of two opposing elements, like if you have...

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes, I understand.

Śyāmasundara: ...the thesis, the antithesis and the synthesis.

Prabhupāda: Mm. That is means argument. You say something, I say something, and then you come to conclusion.

Śyāmasundara: Reconciliation.

Prabhupāda: That's it. Conclusion is there, what is called? Premises, premises, (indistinct) are called premises. Man is mortal. Mr. John is a man, therefore John is mortal.

Śyāmasundara: No, but that's the Aristotelian process, he rejects Aristotle's process.

Prabhupāda: He may reject Aristotle's process, that is..., the real thing is like that, that by your scanty reason, you come to this conclusion, in that (indistinct).

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: He says there's no potent world authority.

Prabhupāda: No, you have killed all these things, but the system is there. Therefore the brahminical culture is above the kṣatriya culture. Therefore this division must be there; brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra. The administrators, the kings, they are kṣatriyas, but above them the brāhmaṇas are there. But because there is no brahminical class—they have all killed them-therefore he says there is no authority.

Śyāmasundara: Just like between presidents, Rāma's kingdom and Rāvaṇa's kingdom, there was no judge to settle the argument, there must have been war.

Prabhupāda: No, the judge, judge was Rāmacandra Himself. He is God.

Śyāmasundara: But there was war to settle it.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: "In our experience..."

Prabhupāda: The monkey is existing, the man is existing.

Śyāmasundara: "So if men came from monkeys, why don't we see it still happening?" That's what you said.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is our argument.

Śyāmasundara: So if you accept that there is an evolution, do you accept that the bodies change because of changing conditions of the natural surroundings?

Prabhupāda: Body is not changing. The body is already there. The soul is changing bodies, transmigrating from one body to another.

Karandhara: Darwin doesn't accept that there is a fixed number of species. Rather, the number of species may vary at any time, simply according to the natural selection. But he doesn't give any axiom that there are a certain number of species from which all other variations come. We are saying that there are 8,400,000 species to begin with.

Prabhupāda: But if first of all you give account for eight million species—you have no account. We say these are the fixed-up species. But your calculation of species, first of all give us account for eight millions, then you say, "The list is not complete."

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: That boy Svarūpa Dāmodara is going to move into the temple for a few days, and each day we will discuss a different scientific topic. Tomorrow genetics, and something else.

Prabhupāda: Yes. He is a scientist. He will talk technical words.

Śyāmasundara: He is going to bring all of his books. And I also studied science for many years, so if I refresh, and if all of the students become armed with these arguments, they can defeat any scientist.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Oh yes.

Śyāmasundara: Normally they are unable to answer scientists. It is difficult to answer scientists for some devotees, because they have such strong arguments.

Prabhupāda: This point should be stressed, that he is dealing with dead bones, and we are dealing with living brains.

Śyāmasundara: Just like Bhagavad-gītā is so perfectly written, so perfectly conceived.

Prabhupāda: Yes. And also there is Bhāgavata, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, everything, everything; every, Purāṇas.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Hayagrīva: Bryan had the...

Prabhupāda: Who can say against this statement of Vedas? This is the beginning of life. But none of them, both the contending parties, had clear idea what is the beginning. This is the beginning.

Hayagrīva: Yes. Bryan had difficulty in attacking Darwinism because he based his arguments...

Prabhupāda: Darwin says he does not know the beginning.

Hayagrīva: He based his arguments strictly on the Bible, Bryan. This is not Darwin, but the prosecutory.

Prabhupāda: What they... What is the beginning of Bible?

Hayagrīva: And he, he was ridiculed, Bryan, for his fundamental..., for his fundamentalism. The Bible says, "And God said let us make man in our image," etc. "God created man in His own image, and the image of God created He him," etc., and the Bible fixes the creation at about six thousand years ago, but science fixes, oh, ancient civilizations of China and India, oh, six thousand, seven thousand years ago, much... And the Vedas deal with a much, much broader time span.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: ...rather than vice versa. Also, to a certain extent the other way. If we change the environment, the consciousness changes.

Prabhupāda: It is the cause and effect. One is the cause of the other; other is the cause of the other. But actually it is the consciousness that requires to be changed—either by hearing from authority or by circumstances. There are two processes to achieve knowledge. This, in Bengali it is said, dekhe sekhara, teke sekhara. When one is actually in an awkward circumstances, that's a fact. So "This kind of way of life is not good. I have to change it." This is called tekhe sekhara. When he is actually in danger, he takes precautions of danger. But one who is intelligent, he understands by hearing that "If you do like that, then you will fall in danger." So that man is intelligent who learns by hearing from the authorities. And one who actually experienced the awkward position, and then he changes his consciousness... That is also one of the processes, but this is better. Therefore our process is to approach the bona fide teacher and learn from him everything. That is brahmacārī life. Not by practical experience. That is Vedic knowledge. The experience is already there. You simply hear and take it. Then it becomes easier. But if you expect that "First of all let me fall down into the ditch, then I shall cry..." Better man is, he takes advice, "Don't go there. You'll fall down in the ditch." Just like Kālidāsa. Kālidāsa was in the beginning he was a great fool. So he was cutting a tree, sitting on the branch. So some intelligent men was going around, "What you are doing, nonsense? You shall fall down." He didn't care, but cutting, he actually fell down. Then, "Oh, you are very intelligent! How did you say? How did you foretold?" Then they saw that he was a first-class fool. So "This boy should be taken to the king's daughter to become her husband." The girl was so intelligent that the challenge was that "Any man who will defeat me in argument, I shall marry." But she was so intelligent that nobody could defeat. So all the learned scholars, the father was asking, "Bring me an intelligent boy to marry her." So they did not find any intelligent boy. Whoever comes, he is defeated. So they decided "Now, because she is so determined to have a very nice husband, we shall make this boy her husband, this fool number one." So they took him there and instructed that "That girl..." and he will show his finger like this. "You'll show this." So he was a fool, so "All right, I'll do that."

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Śyāmasundara: He says that suicide is no escape from evil because the will is indestructible and eternal.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is a fact. He is putting himself in more. By suicide he becomes a ghost. That is more troublesome. Yes. Because the body given by God, he is killing. So from this body he has to accept another body. So unless that point comes, he has to remain a ghost. No body. Suppose I have to live in this body eighty years. I'll make suicide. So up to five years I have to remain a ghost, no body. Then it may be chance to get another body. This is wrong. Killing of any body, because na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). So one can put this argument, that the soul is everlasting, so what if the body is killed? But that's all right, body is killed, but you cannot kill the body to hamper its progress. One living entity is destined to live in a certain body. If you destroy that body, then he has to wait for the next body. That means you are interfering with his progress. Therefore you are sinful. Just like I am living in this apartment. If somebody by force drives me away, it is criminal. If I go to the police, that "I was living in this apartment and this man by force has driven me," is it not criminal? So I am not lost because I am driven out of this body. But you will be liable for criminal punishment because you have forced me to leave this body. Ramakrishna Mission says that what is the point if a man or animal is killed? The soul is immortal, so what is this? What is that? The rascals, they do not know. The real philosophy is here. The soul is destined to live in a certain body for a certain period. If you immaturely stop it, then you become responsible. Exactly like that. I am living in my apartment. If you by force drive me away, you are criminal. They do not know all these things. Imperfect knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: No. This... All that I've described so far is only the first part of this process to understanding... He comes to the idea eventually that everything is spiritual, or noumenal, that what we see is merely a reflection. He comes to that point. So far, all I've described is the first part, so I don't think, if we make judgments on the philosophy so far, that it makes (indistinct). But actually he was very, very thoughtful and spent many years on this philosophy. So he's not stupid. He hasn't just concocted something. But his ideas are...

Prabhupāda: These arguments, he may not be stupid, these arguments, but arguments, one can..., a very learned man can be called stupid. (laughter) Because as soon as he... If you take by argument (indistinct), that's all.

Śyāmasundara: But if you judge his argument..., his whole philosophy, on only seeing part of it, then that doesn't seem fair.

Prabhupāda: Now we are coming to (indistinct). He says that we are concerned with only the phenomenon, what we see.

Śyāmasundara: Starting with that. Starting with that. Reducing everything to the...

Prabhupāda: Starting with that, that's all right. But how he'll come to the perfect knowledge? Not by speculation. That is our point.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: So what is your answer?

Devotee: Yes, his observation is correct, but at the same time it doesn't invalidate Freud's use of psychology for supposedly normal people.

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) psychology.

Śyāmasundara: He didn't analyze only crazy people; he also analyzed his friends, his mother, his wife, other people also, healthy people.

Devotee: The point is in Revatīnandana Mahārāja's argument is that we have to define, then, what is crazy and what is sane.

Prabhupāda: He is saying that he had studied only some crazy people.

Śyāmasundara: No.

Prabhupāda: But that is not the fact. He analyzed some sane people also. But one psychiatrist's opinion is that (indistinct) was a civil servant, he was called to give evidence in a case where the criminal was pleading (indistinct) became insane while he committed the murder. So the civil servant was called to test him, whether actually he was insane or (indistinct) insanity. So he gave evidence that "I have tested so many persons, so I have seen that more or less everyone is insane. More or less. They are bewildered. So in that case, if insanity is the only plea that he should be excused, he can be excused. But so far as I know, everyone is more or less insane." And that is our conclusion. We say (indistinct), anyone who is infected with this material nature is more or less insane, crazy. He is crazy, not more or less. Anyone who has got this material body must be crazy. And therefore everyone is speaking in a different way.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: One who needs...

Prabhupāda: Unless you can deny that you have born, you are born without father, then you are a child. You do not have conception how you are in existence without father. What is this argument? That everything must be argued, a sane man. So this is simple logic I am putting forward. Who can refute it, that you have father, your father had father, his father had father, father's father's, all? This is a disciplic succession of fathers. How can you deny the father? Therefore the ultimate father, the supreme father, He is also father but He is supreme father. That is the difference. So father conception of God is very practical, and it is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4). So how he can defy it if he is a sane man? Who can defy it? Is there any person to defy it?

Hayagrīva: Well, he says, "Man's helplessness remains, and with it his father-longing and the gods."

Prabhupāda: Hopelessness or no hopelessness...

Hayagrīva: Helplessness.

Prabhupāda: Ah. But suppose he is philosophizing. So how he can avoid the conception of father? That is insanity. This is very simple thing. Father's father's, his father, his father... When you go to the supreme father, that is God.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: That's all right. That means you, why you are afraid of death? Why go to the medical man? Huh? When you are diseased you are afraid of dying. Why go to the medical man? If death is ultimate happiness, then why you are trying to avoid death? What is the psychoanalysis? (break)

Hayagrīva: Now this theory... Freud's principal disciple was the famous psychologist Carl Jung. They had an argument, and Freud once fainted, and when he came to, his words were, Freud's words were, "How sweet it must be to die." And in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, he writes, "The most universal endeavor of all living substance, namely, to return to the quiescence of the inorganic world. We have all experienced how the greatest pleasure attainable by us, that of the sexual act, is associated with the momentary extinction of a highly intensified excitation. Thus the pleasure principle, the sex act itself, is preliminary to the most highly desired nirvāṇa, the extinction of desires, and ultimately the extinction of the life functions themselves. Thus the pleasure principle seems actually to serve the death instincts."

Prabhupāda: So where is the pleasure when he is dead? What is that pleasure?

Hayagrīva: Well there is pleasure, and then when pleasure is cultivated, culminated...

Prabhupāda: That pleasure is in the stone. So why you are...

Hayagrīva: That's inorganic. He spoke of the return, the quiescence of the inorganic world.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So...

Hayagrīva: To become like...

Prabhupāda: Why you are philosophizing? You just sui..., make suicide and become a stonelike death. That why you are philosophizing, taking so much pain? Better you suicide, commit suicide, and immediately become silent, then that's happiness. (laughter) Why you are, rascal, bothering yourself and headaching others? The best thing is that you commit suicide and become dead, and all happiness is there. As some rascal do that, that by committing suicide he will solve all problem. So this is easy process, commit suicide, and why you are writing so many books? If ultimate happiness is to become dead, do that immediately.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: Well first of all, these men do not know what is religion. That is the defeat. That is their defect, either Marx or Freud of so many so-called philosophers, they do not know what is religion. They have to learn what is religion. Without knowing what is religion, why they are talking of religion and God? They have no knowledge about.

Hayagrīva: He says, "The believer will not let his faith be taken from him, neither by argument nor by prohibitions, and even if it did succeed with some, it would be a cruel thing to do."

Prabhupāda: No. Anything, artificial teaching, that is cruelty. So that is being done by Mr. Freud also. Artificially he is stressing on sex and death and so on, so on, but that is not life. Real life is that to understand the simple truth. Just like..., who was protesting against father conception? That Mr. John, so and so?

Hari-śauri: Freud.

Hayagrīva: Freud.

Prabhupāda: Father. So how he can avoid this father conception? If you mislead people that there is no father conception, that is not education; that is misleading. Father is there, everyone knows this simple philosophy. And if he is misleading them, then that is not philosopher, that is cruelty. A man is naturally believing that there is father and there is father's father, and he is diverting his attention from this natural belief. So this is cruelty. He is committing cruelty to human understanding, simple understanding.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: Jung laments the fact that such a nonmaterialistic faith does not presently exist in the West. He writes, "Not only does the West lack a uniform faith that could block the progress of a fanatical ideology"—that is Marxism—"but as the father of Marxist philosophy," because Marx was a Westerner, "it makes use of exactly the same spiritual," so-called spiritual, "assumptions, the same arguments and aims." So he feels that man is desperately in need of a religion that has immediate meaning, and he feels that Christianity is no longer effective in combating this.

Prabhupāda: He has predicted very nice. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, which is above everything, either Christianism or Marxism or capitalism or anything. It is based on Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). So actually it is a fact. Kṛṣṇa says that if you adopt this principle of life, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then you will remain above all sinful reaction of life and make progress spiritually, gradually.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Comes from the barrel of a gun.

Prabhupāda: Because he is rude. He cannot have that there may be, amongst the sober gentlemen, the gun is reasoning. And for the crude rascals argumentum vaculam. Of course, the gun reason is sometimes needed when the other party is completely animal. But if both of them are animals, then what further decision can come? You see? Therefore our conclusion is taken from śāstra. The gun is used also in terms of śāstra. Just like Kṛṣṇa first of all wanted to settle up the fight, the opposing elements, the Kurus and Pāṇḍavas. He personally became a messenger and personally requested Duryodhana that "All right. Settle up things. They are kṣatriyas. They cannot take up the business of a brāhmaṇa or a vaiśya. Give them five villages, let them rule, and they will be satisfied." But he said, "Oh, what to speak of five villages, I cannot spare the, that small portion of land which can hold the tip of a needle." Then Kṛṣṇa said, "Yes. Then you do not come to reason? Then let us turn to weapon." So this śāstra and śastra. When śāstra fails, then according to śāstra, there is śastra. Śastra means weapon. Both of them come from the śas-dhātu. Śas-dhātu, from śas-dhātu we take śāstra, śastra, śāsana, śiṣya, like that. It is coming from the same root.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: He says that even illusions are genuinely real objects which are uncreated by the human mind. In other words, if I think I see a snake and it is actually a piece of rope, but if I think it is a snake, then it really is a snake.

Prabhupāda: That is reality of a snake; otherwise how this imagination comes to me? I have got an idea of snake. Now, in darkness there is a rope. So I may falsely take it as snake. That's doesn't matter. But snake is there. That is our argument.

Śyāmasundara: He says that the mind never creates anything new. It simply rearranges things. Everything already exists...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: ...but the mind, and the mind merely arranges it. It doesn't create anything new.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like the economic law says that you cannot create anything. You simply transform. Just like this table is nothing but wood. So wood is not my creation. Wood is there, but I have transformed the wood into a state which is called a table.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: So you don't see that the whole world will evolve to this.

Prabhupāda: No. That is a nonsense proposal. It is a nonsense proposal. Just like sometimes we are questioned by some rascals that "Swamijī, if everyone becomes God conscious, goes to back to home, then who will remain here?" (laughter) Just see the nonsense. He is anxious, who will remain here. He is not anxious for himself. (laughter) It is an argument that "Everyone becomes honest, then who will go to the jail? (laughter) To keep up the jail is very important business. You see? So these are foolish questions. You see?

Śyāmasundara: In his time, 1880, 1890, everyone was very optimistic about the future of man. They thought, through scientific discovery, that everyone would become...

Prabhupāda: That is nonsense because they think, "Whatever we like, by nature's way we shall be promoted." Just like in some meeting in Mombassa somebody asked that, after... Some Aurobindo group, that... No, theosophist. That one man is there; he has no degree. So why not degree?

Śyāmasundara: ...then he goes back.

Prabhupāda: Yes. If he has got elevation, he has degradation. This is common sense affairs. If you become rich, you can become poor also. Why that once you become rich and there is no question of becoming poor? Is that guaranteed? These nonsense questions are asked even by so-called theosophist and so many there are. You see. They have no common sense even.

Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus:

Hayagrīva: Accepted in..., the soul living in animals and also in plants.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the fact. He is right. That is Vedic conclusion. Sarva-yoniṣu, all different forms of life, there is soul, part and parcel of God. How some foolish person can think of animal has no soul? What is the reason? There is no very strong argument. The animals may be less intelligent. A child may be less intelligent than the father; that does not mean there is no soul. This gross and doggish mentality, animal mentality, is killing the human civilization. Now they have degraded so much that they think that the embryo has no soul. In this way man is being put into darker and darkest region of ignorance. Everyone has soul. That is real. We get it from Kṛṣṇa: sarva-yoniṣu. In different forms of life the soul is there, undoubtedly. That is real conception of soul. Evolution means he is evolving from one lower grade of body to another, higher grade of body, and in this way by evolution he comes to the human form of life. And in this human form of life he can understand the teachings of Bhagavad-gītā, that if he likes, he can surrender to the Supreme Lord and go back to home, back to Godhead, and if he does not, then he remains in this material world, undergoing the tribulations of the repetition of birth, death, old age, and disease. Corporal body.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: Aquinas believed that only God and the angels have form that is not material. There is no difference between God's form and His spiritual self.

Prabhupāda: Yes. As in the material world any form-man or beast or anyone—in the outward, external covering is matter, but within the matter there is the soul. The soul has form and God has form. That is real form. And the material form is simply shirting and coating over the spiritual body.

Hayagrīva: Aquinas gives five arguments for God's existence. The first is that there must be a first cause, a first cause of everything. The second is similar in saying the material world cannot create itself but requires something external or spiritual to bring it into existence. And the third argument claims that because the world exists, there must be a creator capable of bringing it into existence. The fourth states that since there is relative perfection in the world, there must be absolute perfection underlying this relative perfection. And the fifth is the argument from design: because the creation has design and purpose there must be a designer and planner. So at this time they were very concerned with arguments for the existence of God, and Aquinas gave these five.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We also forward these kinds of arguments. Just like we say that there is the mother and the children. The mother is the material world, and there are so many forms of children. So when the mother is existing and the children are existing, then the father must exist. Without father, how there can be children? This is your strongest argument, that these foolish philosophers contemplate without God, or "God is dead," or so many godlessness in different way, but our philosophy is strong on the fact that there must be creator of this family, mother and sons. The father must be there. What are the other arguments?

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: I think the problem with all of these is that they cannot conceive of spiritual form. When they speak of form they are thinking that there must necessarily be matter involved. Aquinas believed that the Augustinian and Platonic doctrines of the complete independence of the soul from matter or the material body denied man's substantial unity. That is, man is body and soul. He is a particular type of soul in a particular type of body.

Prabhupāda: It..., it is the same argument, that when you are dressed it appears that you are not different from the dress. The coat is moving, the pants is moving, but actually it is completely different from the person who is putting on the coat and shirt.

Hayagrīva: So in other words they, he, he actually had no idea of spiritual form as such.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.

Hayagrīva: He considered that matter was necessary to give the soul form.

Prabhupāda: No. He has got his original form.

Hayagrīva: Original form?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: To get on to another point, Aquinas believed, or rather he opposed sex for any purpose other than the begetting of children, and not only should sex be used only for the begetting of children, but that when one begets children one takes the responsibility of giving them a spiritual education.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is Vedic injunction, that don't beget children unless you can give the children relief from the cycle of birth and death. One should not become father and mother. That is responsible father and mother. And without this responsibility, if a man gives birth to a child and if a woman bears the pregnancy, that is prohibited. One should not become a father, one should not become a mother unless they are competent to give freedom to the children from the cycle of birth and death.

Hayagrīva: His argument, well, he says, "Marriage is natural to man, and an irregular connection outside of marriage is contrary to the good of man; therefore fornication must be sinful."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: But he goes on to argue, "The inordinate emission of semen is repugnant to the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seems to hold a second place whereby the generation of human nature is precluded." Well how, people today would ask, how could the argument of the generation or the, the conservation of the species still hold, since there's so many human beings, since there are almost four billion human beings on this earth, how could this argument still hold that, uh...?

Prabhupāda: That, what is that argument?

Hayagrīva: That sex is only to beget children, for propagation of the species, and any other use is...

Prabhupāda: Sinful.

Hayagrīva: ...sinful.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we recommend in our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness: no illicit sex. Illicit sex means not producing..., not for producing children but for enjoyment. That is sinful. And...

Hayagrīva: Well the conservation, what he calls the conservation of the species, that doesn't enter into it.

Prabhupāda: No. The soul is already explained, that it has nothing to do with the body, but he has to accept a certain type of body on account of his association with certain type of modes of nature.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: So this is actually a faulty argument to say that, that illicit sex is sinful because it threatens the conservation of the species.

Prabhupāda: Illicit sex is sinful. Illicit sex is sinful, because it is not meant for begetting child; it is for sense gratification. Sense gratification in any form is sinful.

Hayagrīva: He believed, like Plato, in an enlightened monarch ruling, but in certain cases Aquinas believed that it was not necessary for men to obey...

Hari-śauri: (aside:) It wasn't very much, just, uh... I can... Shall I cut another one?

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: ...that it was not necessary for man to obey human laws if these laws were opposed to human welfare and were...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: ...instruments of violence.

Prabhupāda: This is very good. First of all they must know what is the welfare of the human being. Unfortunately, with advancement of so-called material education, the human society is missing the aim of life. The aim of life is declared openly in the Vedānta philosophy, athāto brahma jijñāsā. This is the aim of human life. In the Bhāgavata it is said, jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā. The life is meant for understanding the Absolute Truth. That is the aim of human life. The whole Vedic civilization is based on this principle. But on account of deviating from the original Vedic civilization, they have dedicated the human form of life in so many unnecessary scientific discoveries, that discovery, which will not give him any relief to the human society. The real tribulation of life is birth, death and disease and old age. So the so-called advancement of material civilization has not solved the real problem of life, and the aim of human life is to solve the real problem of human life. The real problem of life, that we are eternal, as eternal as God, but we are subjected to birth and death.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Hobbes:

Hayagrīva: He says, "Some men have pretended for their disobedience to their sovereign a new covenant or a new agreement with God, made not with men but with God. This also is unjust, for there is no covenant or agreement with God but by mediation of somebody that represents God's person, which none does but God's lieutenant, who has this sovereignty under God." Could a monarch use this argument, which is the argument of divine right, in order to discourage his subjects' rebelling under the pretense that they are communing directly with God? What guidelines are there to assure against this? There was... Wasn't there one king, King Vena, King...?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Vena. So everything depends on the king's accepting the absolute instruction of God. So king, in Vedic civilization, the king was absolutely following the regulation given by God, and it was confirmed by saintly persons, sages. Then it was executed; not whimsically. There was advisory board of the monarchy always. They were not politician, diplomat, but they were all saintly person, knew very well the Vedas, and they used to guide the monarch. Therefore the monarch is absolute governing body. The ministers were helping, but the king was educated by God's direct instruction, as Kṛṣṇa said, imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān. Vivasvān, the sun-god, there are tradition two kṣatriya family—one from the sun-god and one from the moon-god. Sūrya-vaṁśa and candra-vaṁśa. The kṣatriyas in India, they claim. And that is a fact, because we see that Sūrya, sun-god, is the original kṣatriya. From him came Manu, Vaivasvata Manu. This is the age of Vaivasvata Manu, and from him came his son, Ikṣvāku. So by the paramparā system, if we take Kṛṣṇa's instruction... Kṛṣṇa's instruction is already there. If the governments all over the world take Kṛṣṇa's instruction, then every government will be perfect and there will be no disturbance of peace and happiness. That will be perfect world. Kṛṣṇa has given instruction in all fields of activities. Simply we have to take it practically. But the people are so foolish that instead of taking the standard way of living, they are manufacturing on account of their demonic tendency. They, the head of the state, they are degraded, either individually or collectively, so how there can be good government? If they become perfect according to the instruction of God, then everything will be perfect.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: And John Locke, Locke is the..., is most famous for his conception of tabula rasa, or blank slate, that a child is born with no innate ideas. He states that "If there are innate or inborn ideas, all men would have them." That is to say, there would be universal consent. He writes, "This argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such because there are none to which all mankind give a universal consent." So it cannot be argued that all people have an innate or inborn idea of God since there is no universal consent on this subject. Well, do innate ideas have to be universal? Might not some living entities have some innate ideas and other living entities have others? Why does an innate idea have to be universal and apply to everyone?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Innate idea is that there is somebody. That is developed consciousness. The animals, they cannot think, on account of nondeveloped consciousness, but even in human society, uncivilized society, they have got the innate idea of some superior form. When there is lightning, they offer obeisances. When they see big ocean, they offer obeisances, something big. So that innate idea is universal, to offer obeisances to something wonderful. But this innate idea of accepting something supreme and offering respect is not developed in the animal. So this innate idea is there. When it is not developed, it is animal, and when it is developed, then it is human being. And a perfect human being is he, when he has developed this innate idea to the fullest stage. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on George Berkeley:

Hayagrīva: Berkeley. Berkeley—very brief section on Berkeley. Berkeley seems to be arguing against objective reality. In other words, three men standing in a field looking at a tree could all have a different impression or idea of the tree, or at least according to his argument. The problem is, although there are three impressions of the tree, each differing from one another, there is no tree as such. Now, how does the tree as such exist? In the mind of God? Is it possible for a conditioned living entity to perceive the suchness or essence of anything?

Prabhupāda: Everything means God, expansion of God's energy. So how tree or anything can be without reference to God? We see that the earthen pot is on the ground, on the, what is called, ground?

Hayagrīva: The what?

Prabhupāda: Earthen pot, pot, pots made of earth.

Hayagrīva: Earthen pots, pot that's made of earth.

Prabhupāda: So it is staying on earth, so the earthen pot is not different from the earth. So everything is expansion of God's energy. How we can avoid God with reference to anything that we see? There cannot be anything independent of God. The example is there: the earthen pot, as soon as you see, we remember the potter, that "Who has made?" and the wheel of the potter. So a... God is the original creator, He is the ingredient, and He is the category also, and He is the original substance. That is the conception, Vedic conception of God. He is everything. That is nondual conception. And if you make anything separate from God, then how you can say sarvaṁ khalu idaṁ brahma, "Everything is Brahman"? Then if you say everything is God, at the same time you separate something from God, so that is, what is called, contradiction. Our conception is, "Yes, actually everything has reference to the God, so everything is God's property. It should be utilized for God's service." That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Prabhupāda: That means against; ag means against.

Hayagrīva: Yeah, against. But according to him, agnosticism holds that man shouldn't assert what he calls a truth without logically satisfactory evidence.

Prabhupāda: We say "without any authority."

Hayagrīva: When Huxley became a Darwinist he rejected a supernatural God and the Bible. In For Argument from Design... He believed in, previously he believed in a Christian God as the designer, but he believed that Darwin's theory gave this Christian conception its death blow. He did not accept a pantheistic God, like Spinoza did, as being identical... Excuse me. He did accept a pantheistic God, like Spinoza did, as being identical with nature. That is, he saw God as nature, and he believed in the divine government of the universe. He believed that the cosmic process is rational, not random...

Prabhupāda: How it becomes rational?

Hayagrīva: ...but he rejected a personal God concerned with morality.

Prabhupāda: That is his defect. The nature is dead body, matter. So how it can be rational? Just like this table is a dead wood. How it can be rational? That is nonsense. The carpenter is rational, who has made the wood in the shape. So he says the nature is rational. Nature is dead matter. How it can be rational? Therefore there is a rational being behind the nature. That is God. This, the wood, is dead. The wood, out of its own accord, cannot become a table. The carpenter is shaping the wood into table. That is rational. Therefore behind the dead nature, the rational being is God. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. I think Mr. Huxley is supposed to have read..., understand he has given some comment on the Ramakrishna Mission Bhagavad-gītā, but he has not studied Bhagavad-gītā thoroughly.

Page Title:Argument (Lectures, Other)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Mayapur
Created:10 of Feb, 2012
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=149, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:149