Commentaries (Lectures, Other)

Expressions researched:
"commentaries" |"commentary"

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 17, 1972:

So that was five thousand years ago. Later on, all the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka, even Śaṅkarācārya. We Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, they differ little with Śaṅkarācārya. Impersonalist and personalist. But Śaṅkarācārya even, even though he was impersonalist, he accepted Kṛṣṇa in his commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. Sai bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa. So Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no doubt about it. By all authorities. And Kṛṣṇa Himself says in the Bhagavad-gītā, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). "There is no more superior authority than Me."

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 28, 1972:

This is going on. Everything is there, very plain and clear. One has to act according to that. He gets the benefit. But they, they will not allow. These rascal leaders, they'll not allow. They will be represent Kṛṣṇa as something else. The, the only business is to kill Kṛṣṇa. That's all. Not to accept Kṛṣṇa is fact. All the big commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā, you'll see. They're simply trying to make Kṛṣṇa is not a fact. It is some fictitious. It is some story, mental speculation. This is their business. Demonic. So the condition is very, I mean to say, dangerous. People are being misled.

We are only... It is not our pride. It is a fact. We are the only institution. We are trying to give the greatest benefit to the human society, the Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti kaunteya (BG 4.9). Anyone who understands, if he understands... It is not possible to understand fully Kṛṣṇa.

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

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. Therefore Bhāgavatam is accepted as the real commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. Real commentary. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Vedārtha paribṛṁhitam. These are the statements. This is accepted by the ācāryas. In the Gauḍīya-sampradāya, therefore, the Gosvāmīs, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra although other ācāryas like Rāmānujācārya, Mādhavācārya, they wrote commentaries on the Bhagavad, uh, Vedānta-sūtra. But our Gosvāmīs, they did not write purposefully, because they accept that there is already natural perfect commentary written by the same author, Vyāsadeva, the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrānām **.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 8, 1973:

I am also servant of Kṛṣṇa, but I have to approach through the other servants, not directly. That is not possible. Kṛṣṇa will not accept that service.

If one disrespect the paramparā system, then he'll not be accepted by Kṛṣṇa. Just like... Śrīdhara Swami, Śrīdhara Swami wrote commentary on Bhagavad-gītā..., Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and other ācāryas also, they wrote. So we must follow the principle. The Subodhinī-ṭīkā was made by Vallabhācārya, but because he presented himself more than Śrīdhara Swami to Caitanya Mahāprabhu... He requested Caitanya Mahāprabhu to read his comment on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam when He was at Purī. But he was little proud of his nice commentary, that he said "It is better than Śrīdhara Swami." So that was not tolerated by Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and He did not hear that Subodhinī-ṭīkā. He remarked, svami jīva nahi mane (indistinct). So this is not the way. We cannot approach Kṛṣṇa directly.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 8, 1973:

Devotee: Some commentary by this Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma.

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is unknown, a black thing. A Māyāvādī, great philosopher of this city, he has explained like that. The Māyāvādī philosopher, Dr. Radhakrishnan, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." So the Māyāvādīs' only business is—because they're avaiṣṇava not Vaiṣṇava—only business is to kill Kṛṣṇa. Sanātana Gosvāmī has, in his Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, has very strongly recommended that, "Don't hear anything from, about Kṛṣṇa, from the Māyāvādīs or the avaiṣṇavas." Those who are follower, those who are advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they can protest. They can immediately chastise the rascal, "What you are nonsense speaking?" But a kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, he cannot challenge, therefore it is forbidden for them. Not to hear, kaniṣṭha-adhikārī. For an advanced devotee, this Māyāvādī cannot do anything, but those who are neophyte, they become sometimes victim. Therefore, it is better to forbid them, not to hear.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 11, 1972:

'My dear Lord of the universe, I am feeling transcendental pleasure in Your presence and have become merged in the ocean of happiness. I now consider the happiness of brahmānanda to be no more than the water in the impression left by a cow's hoof in the earth, compared to this ocean of bliss.' Similarly, it is confirmed in the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, Śrīdhara Swami's commentary on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: 'My dear Lord, some of the fortunate persons who are swimming in the ocean of Your nectar of devotion, and who are relishing the nectar of the narration of Your pastimes, certainly know ecstasies which immediately minimize the value of the happiness derived from religiousness, economic development, sense gratification and liberation. Such a transcendental devotee regards any kind of happiness other than devotional service as no better than straw in the street.' "

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

Not as good; I mean to say, that your knowledge is perfect. Perfect in this sense: that Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as Paraṁ Brahma; you accept Kṛṣṇa as Paraṁ Brahma; then your study of Bhagavad-gītā is perfect. And if you make your so-called erudite scholarship, commentary, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa," then you are spoiled. Your life is spoiled, your study is spoiled. Sādhu-mārga-anugamanam.

So if you want to study Bhagavad-gītā, you follow what Arjuna says. Where is the difficulty? What Arjuna has said about Kṛṣṇa, that is already there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Arjuna said, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān, śāṣvataṁ puruṣam ādi (BG 10.12). You accept Kṛṣṇa. Why do you try to make minus Kṛṣṇa Bhagavad-gītā? This is rascaldom. That is not study of Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Study Bhagavad-gītā as it is; then you'll be benefited.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

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

And the activities of God and His representative are described where? In scriptures, book of authority. Vyāsadeva had no business, or Śukadeva Gosvāmī had no business to describe some fiction, some allegory. Just like fools, they interpret śāstras, "This means this. This means that," according to their own..., as if God left for commentary of that fool, left everything for commentation for that fool. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā in the beginning it is stated, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Now, this dharma-kṣetra, kuru-kṣetra, is described by some eminent politician as this body. Now, there is no dictionary in the world where it is stated that kuru-kṣetra means this body, but still, he is interpreting in that way, as if Kṛṣṇa left for him that "In future kuru-kṣetra meaning will be disclosed by that fool."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, March 7, 1974:

We must follow the mahājanas. So you'll find in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the Kavirāja Gosvāmī, in every chapter he begins, śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu-nityānanda, jaya advaita..., gaura-bhakta-vṛnda. This is the process.

So we may read herewith one commentary by my Guru Mahārāja Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. "In his Anubhāṣya commentary Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura describes the Pañca-tattva as follows: The supreme energetic, the Personality of Godhead, manifesting in five kinds of pastimes, appears as the Pañca-tattva. Actually there is no difference between them because they are situated on the absolute platform, but they manifest different spiritual varieties as a challenge to impersonalists to taste different kinds of spiritual humors, rāsas..." Because they do not accept the different tastes.

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

Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu is directly challenging Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī. Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī belonged to the Śaṅkara-sampradāya, Śaṅkara school of thought. Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu is directly challenging that gauna-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya. Ācārya means Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya has made a commentary which is called Śārīraka-bhāṣya of Vedānta-sūtra. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says this Śārīraka-bhāṣya, gauna-vṛttye, indirectly... Just like we are accustomed to do: "I think the meaning should be like this," grammatical or this way or that way, jugglery of words. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu directly accuses Śaṅkarācārya that the commentary which he has made indirectly, if we read that commentary or if we hear that commentary, then tāhāra śravaṇe nāśa haya sarva kārya, then anyone who is hearing or trying to understand the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, he is going to hell. He's not only wasting his time, but he's going to hell. Sarva nāśa. Sarva nāśa means "all auspicity lost." Why? Why lost?

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.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.149-50 -- Gorakhpur, February 13, 1971:

That is not a prohibition; that is the necessary qualification to understand. Similarly, to understand the Vedas, the necessary qualification is that one must be a qualified brāhmaṇa. Not that Mr. Max Muller, he has got little knowledge of Sanskrit and he translates. That kind of translation is no use, just like so many commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā without becoming a devotee of Kṛṣṇa is useless. It has no meaning, because Kṛṣṇa says that bhaktyā mām abhijānāti: (BG 18.55) "Only through devotional service one can understand Me." How a nondevotee can understand Him? He has no scope to enter into the knowledge of Bhagavad-gītā. So first qualification is that he must be a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Then it will be revealed.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

One has to become a devotee. Just like Bhagavad-gītā. It is simple. It is the entrance book for spiritual understanding. It is not very, I mean to say, highly theosophical or theological literature. That highly theological literature is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. So in the Bhagavad-gītā we get all information how Kṛṣṇa expands Himself. Advaita... Vedeṣu durlabha. Therefore one who does not read Bhagavad-gītā through a devotee... Kṛṣṇa... Just like Arjuna is a devotee. He understands Bhagavad-gītā. Without going through a devotee, nobody can understand God or His statements. Thousands of people for thousands of years, reading Bhagavad-gītā, but they do not know Kṛṣṇa. Is it not a fact? Yes. So because they are not going through the proper channels, they are... Still, vedeṣu durlabham adurlabham ātma-bhaktau (Bs. 5.33). Simply by trying to understand the Vedic literature, one cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

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

Kṛṣṇa says the way of studying Bhagavad-gītā, but you do not accept Kṛṣṇa's instruction. You read all rascal's Bhagavad-gītā commentary. Then why there shall not be chaotic condition? You do not follow. He strictly prohibits. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2), sa kāleneha yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa. Yogo naṣṭaḥ. As soon as the paramparā system is not accepted, the so-called commentary on Bhagavad-gītā is lost or rotten. So you are interested with the rotten commentary of so-called politicians, scholars. So how you'll get the benefit? Therefore it is chaotic.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.100-108 -- Bombay, November 9, 1975:

When Vyāsadeva was not satisfied even after giving the Vedānta-sūtras, Brahma-sūtras, then his spiritual master advised him that "You write something simply on the pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; otherwise you cannot be satisfied." Then he, on the basis of Vedānta-sūtra, he wrote a commentary, bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrānām **. Therefore in each end of chapter of Bhāgavatam you'll find, brahma-sūtrasya bhāṣyayam. So the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural comment on Vedānta-sūtra by the author himself. So the Vedānta-sūtra says, athāto brahma jijñāsā, unless one is inquisitive to understand about Brahman or the supreme spirit or the basic principle of our life...

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.298 -- New York, December 20, 1966:

Although Śaṅkarācārya is impersonalist, but he has accepted Nārāyaṇa, Hari, the Supreme Lord, as beyond this material infection. Nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. And he has also agreed to accept Kṛṣṇa. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. It is accepted by Śaṅkarācārya. Those who are reading the commentary by Śaṅkarācārya on the Bhagavad-gītā, he will find in the beginning of that nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ. So it is also confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that harir hi nirguṇaḥ sākṣāt: "Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is beyond the touch of this material qualities." Therefore His body is sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His body is not made of this tri-guṇa. Our, this material body is made of these three guṇas: sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. Those who have got this body from the modes of goodness, they are called brāhmaṇas, or the most intelligent persons. And those who have got their body from the modes of passion, they are called kṣatriyas.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.21-28 -- New York, January 11, 1967:

Every step, whatever He says, He gives some evidence from authoritative scripture. Mostly He gives evidence from Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, because for the Vaiṣṇava school these two books are sufficient for acquiring knowledge. So far Vedānta-sūtra is concerned, Bhāgavata is Vedānta-sūtra itself. Bhāgavata is the natural commentary on the, on the Vedānta-sūtra. Therefore one who has sufficient knowledge in Bhāgavata, he has automatically sufficient knowledge in Vedānta-sūtra. According to Vedic system, one must have sufficient knowledge in Vedānta-sūtra. Then he'll be considered as learned in spiritual science. So Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, although the Vaiṣṇavas, they have got their commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra, but this Caitanya Mahāprabhu's sampradāya, they did not make any commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra because they belonged to the disciplic succession of Vyāsadeva. So Vyāsadeva is the spiritual master. So the later ācāryas, they did not think it proper that whatever the...

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.21-28 -- New York, January 11, 1967:

Because their spiritual master has had already made a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, "Oh, that is sufficient. Why should we do again?" These are some of the etiquette. Anyway, the Vedānta-sūtra... And Bhāgavata is natural commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, and Lord Caitanya therefore gives evidence from the Bhāgavata generally and Purāṇas also, and Mahābhārata and every, I mean to say, Upaniṣad. They are all authorities. But especially He gives evidences from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Now, so far, in confirmation of this statement that knowledge, cultivation of knowledge, is not sufficient to give one liberation—one must take to devotional service. Devotional service past knowledge is just like gold with flavor. Yes. So, of course, those who are engaged in devotional service, their knowledge automatically comes. They are not fools.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 11 -- Los Angeles, May 16, 1970:

They cannot see things as they are. Simply they theorize, "It may be like that." So much they can say. So "It may be like that," that is no knowledge. Knowledge definite. There is no mistake. Conditioned souls, they commit mistake, they are illusioned, they cheat... Cheating means one who does not understand what is Bhagavad-gītā but he is writing commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. This is cheating, cheating the public. Somebody has got some name, a scholar, and he takes advantage of the popularity of Bhagavad-gītā, and he writes some comment. And they claim that anyone can give his own opinion. But that is not the process. You cannot give any opinion. Suppose I am a preacher of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. How I can give opinion on medical science? That is ludicrous. I can give opinion in my jurisdiction—that's all right—but if somebody asks me opinion about some medical treatment or some legal implication, so what can I do?

Festival Lectures

Nrsimha-caturdasi Lord Nrsimhadeva's Appearance Day -- Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.22-34 -- Los Angeles, May 27, 1972:

This is called punaḥ punaś carvita-carvanānām (SB 7.5.30), chewing the chewed. One, the sugarcane, is chewed by somebody. It is thrown away. And if somebody else comes and chew it again, what juice he will have it? So punaḥ punaś carvita... Na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ (SB 7.5.31). Durāśayā ye durāśayā viṣaya vāsī (reads Sanskrit commentary) tantraya kāraṇaṁ te hi viṣṇuṁ na viduḥ. Tatra hetu svasminn eva arthe puruṣartha yeṣāṁ teṣāṁ gatiṁ grāmyaṁ. Na tu te 'pi guru pati syāt viṣṇu jñāsyasi tatra bhak bahir viṣaye bahavo yeṣāṁ te bahir arthas tann eva guru tena mantra śīlaṁ yeṣāṁ te.

So one who is fixed up in this conclusion, that "We shall become happy with this materialistic way of life," they cannot take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And they do not know also that our ultimate goal of life is Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu. Then why it is so? Now, andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās te 'pīśa-tantryām uru-dāmni baddhāḥ (SB 7.5.31).

Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 30, 1968:

This particular title was given after due consideration that my humble self should be awarded this title. It is new title amongst the Vaiṣṇava society. So the Māyāvādī philosophers they are sometimes surprised that "How Swamijī is Vedanti, at the same time bhakti?" But actually they do not know Vedānta means bhakti. Real Vedānta commentary is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Brahma-sūtra means this Vedānta-sūtra. Vedānta-vedyam. Śiva-viriñci, that Lord Śiva or Lord Brahmā, they are trying to understand the Supreme. Flickering knowledge? No. Through the Vedānta. Vedānta. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). And vibhum, vibhum means the greatest. Nobody is greater than the Supreme Lord. Rāmākhyam jagad-īśvaram. And He is Rāma.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Disappearance Day, Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 9, 1968:

If we strictly try to serve the spiritual master, his order, then Kṛṣṇa will give us all facilities. That is the secret. Although there was no possibility, I never thought, but I took it little seriously by studying a commentary by Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura on the Bhagavad-gītā. In the Bhagavad-gītā the verse vyavasāyātmikā-buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana (BG 2.41), in connection with that verse, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura gives his commentary that we should take up the words from the spiritual master as our life and soul. We should try to carry out the instruction, the specific instruction of the spiritual master, very rigidly, without caring for our personal benefit or loss.

So I tried a little bit in that spirit. So he has given me all facilities to serve him. Things have come to this stage, that in this old age I have come to your country, and you are also taking this movement seriously, trying to understand it.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, SB 6.3.24 -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

"Because I appear as a human being, therefore these rascals consider that I am ordinary man." The rascals, mūḍhāḥ. Mūḍhāḥ means rascals, gādhāḥ, asses. Their designation is given by Kṛṣṇa as asses, rascals. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore said, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa (CC Madhya 6.169). Because these commentaries, comments by the Māyāvādī school, is simply rascaldom. And if one hears such commentary by the Māyāvādīs, the result will be he'll be doomed. Doomed means forever... Forever, no. For very, very long time he'll not be able to understand actual his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore he's doomed. And because he is not able to understand his relationship with Kṛṣṇa, he is called rākṣasa or asura. Āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ.

That is also condemned in Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ (BG 7.15). You'll find amongst them very, very learned men, very, very good scholar. They can quote... Intelligent men. Because their Māyāvādī commentary, they can utilize, and Kṛṣṇa gives them intelligence also, that "You misuse this verse in this way because you want..." Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān (BG 16.19).

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Lecture -- Gainesville, July 29, 1971:

"Not to the person Kṛṣṇa." In this way, Bhagavad-gītā, although widely read all over the world, in all countries, they are being mislead by improper commentary. So we are therefore trying to present Bhagavad-gītā or Kṛṣṇa as He is. And by the grace of Kṛṣṇa, it is coming out successful. For thousands of years Bhagavad-gītā was being read in foreign countries by big, big scholars, philosophers, but there was not a single devotee of Kṛṣṇa. But we have started this movement, not even five years old, we have got sixty branches, and there are thousands and thousands of devotees. Why? The secret is that we have not cheated people, we have not adulterated. If you put something for sale in the market which is very pure, automatically you'll get many customers. Automatic. Because the thing is pure. If you sell pure milk, just from the farm, there will be many hundreds of customers immediately, and if you sell adulterated, homogenized water mixed milk, the milk will be sold, but not very many customers ordinarily.

General Lectures

Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968:

And somebody accepts somebody else as master, that is his mentality. But the highest, according to Vedic literature, Kṛṣṇa is the supreme master. Because all the ācāryas, all the spiritual masters of Vedic perfection, just like in the recent years Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, and Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya, all of them, they have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the supreme spiritual master. All of them. Even Śaṅkarācārya, he's impersonalist, still he has accepted Kṛṣṇa. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa. He says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. That is mentioned in his commentary of Bhagavad-gītā. And what to speak of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, they accept. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he says, yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa (CC Madhya 7.128). If you want to become a spiritual master, then try to disseminate the teachings of Lord Kṛṣṇa. So that is our, so far we are concerned, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, our ideal spiritual master is Kṛṣṇa. Yes?

Press Release -- Los Angeles, December 22, 1968:

Similarly, the presence of Supersoul and superconsciousness in the universal body of cosmic manifestation is perceived by the presence of the Supreme Lord, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is systematically experienced in the Vedānta-sūtra, generally known as the Vedānta philosophy, which is elaborately explained by a commentary by the same author of the Vedānta-sūtras known as the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Bhagavad-gītā is the preliminary study of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to understand the constitutional position of the Supreme Lord, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding, namely as Brahman, or the impersonal universal soul; Paramātmā, or the localized universal soul; and at the end as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. An individual soul is understood in three aspects, namely first in the consciousness pervading all over the body, then as the spirit soul within the heart, and ultimately exhibited as a person.

Lecture -- New York, April 16, 1969:

"My dear king, your question is very superexcellent. Superexcellent." (reads Sanskrit commentary) "You have inquired whether I shall now simply absorb my mind simply for hearing and chanting of Kṛṣṇa." That was his question. So Śukadeva Gosvāmī affirms that "This is a very nice inquiry, and your selection is also very nice." Śrotavyādiṣu yaḥ paraḥ. We have got to hear so many things. As soon as we get out of this Kṛṣṇa temple, many, many friends will ask me so many things, and I'll talk with him so many things about politics, economics, social affairs, this country's position, this, that. Because without chanting and hearing, we cannot live for a moment. Either we shall talk nonsense or we shall talk about business or we talk of sex or talk some this or that, talking and chanting. You talk I hear, and I talk, you hear.

Lecture Engagement and Prasada Distribution -- Boston, April 26, 1969:

So Lord Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead at least by the great ācāryas of India. Even, as I was speaking of Śaṅkarācārya, he was impersonalist, but he has admitted in his commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that sa kṛṣṇa bhagavān svayam. He has accepted. In the beginning of his commentary he said, nārāyaṇaḥ para avyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this material creation." And in next page he has admitted, "That Supreme Personality of Godhead Nārāyaṇa is Kṛṣṇa, who is born as the son of Devakī and Vasudeva." So, so far Indian scholars... I don't speak of modern scholars. Those who are authorized scholars of bygone ages, admitted by the Vedic society—Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, and Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka—and they are stalwarts. And there are many hundreds and thousands of temples of Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu, in India. If you have ever gone, you might have seen. In Vṛndāvana, only a small city of people, there are five thousand Kṛṣṇa temples. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is very strong and very old in India.

Address to Indian Association -- Columbus, May 11, 1969:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu was not a fool, but Vedānta is not for fool. It requires sufficient education, sufficient status. Then one can understand Vedānta. In each and each code, each word, there are volumes of meaning, and there are many commentation, commentary by Śaṅkarācārya, commentary by Rāmānujācārya, commentary by..., big, big volumes in Sanskrit language. So how one will understand Vedānta? It is not possible. It may be possible for one person or two persons to understand what is Vedānta, but for the mass of people it is not possible; neither it is possible to practice yoga. Therefore this Caitanya Mahāprabhu's method, chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa... He says, the first installment of gain will be ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam: (CC Antya 20.12) All the dirty things from your heart will be cleansed simply by chanting. You chant. There is no expenditure; there is no loss. But as we are chanting, if you kindly chant... You just do it for one week, and you see how much you progress in spiritual knowledge. We are getting many students. Simply by chanting, they are understanding the whole philosophy. They are giving up their bad habits, they are becoming purified, so many things. They are practical.

Lecture to International Student Society -- Boston, December 28, 1969:

From historical point of view, it is five thousand years old. So this Bhagavad-gītā teaching is coming from, at least, from five thousand, since five thousand years. So it is older than any other scripture in the world. So you try to understand as it is, without any unnecessary commentary. You do not... There is no use of commentary. The words are sufficient to give you enlightenment, but unfortunately, people take advantage of the popularity of Bhagavad-gītā, and they try to impress under the shelter of Bhagavad-gītā their own philosophy or own idea. That is useless. You try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is; then you will get this entitlement, enlightenment, that Kṛṣṇa is the center of all activities. And if you become Kṛṣṇa conscious, then everything will be perfect, all problems will be solved. Ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanaṁ bhava-mahā-dāvāgni-nirvāpanam (CC Antya 20.12). These things are there, and actually, they are happening. Our students are feeling, they are actually doing that. So we shall request you to read this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, so your feelings of international spirit will be perfect and you'll be happy, and wherever you preach this cult, they will be also happy. And that will be very nice thing.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 7, 1971:

They are themselves also not ready to surrender to Kṛṣṇa, and they are misleading others also not to surrender to Kṛṣṇa. That is their business. Such persons are duṣkṛtina, miscreants, rogues, rascals, those who are deviating people in other ways. A great scholar—I do not wish to name—he is writing in his commentary, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." Just see. Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ: "You just become My devotee." Mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: "You just worship Me and offer your obeisances unto Me. In this way you will get Me. You will achieve Me." The commentator says... The so-called learned commentator says, "It is not to the Kṛṣṇa person but it is the Absolute Truth which is within Kṛṣṇa." That means he is dividing Kṛṣṇa from the Absolute Truth. He does not know what is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: (BG 7.7) "There is no other truth, great truth, than Myself." And he says, "Something greater than Kṛṣṇa within Śrī Kṛṣṇa."

Lecture -- Bombay, March 18, 1972:

That is Vyāsa... These are all contributions of Śrīla Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva, the last contribution of Vyāsadeva, after compilation of Vedānta-sūtra... He personally wrote the comments of Vedānta-sūtra in the form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrānāṁ **. Vyāsadeva has written personally that "This is the real commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra." Because he knew that many foolish persons would comment on the Vedānta-sūtra differently, atheistically, that "There is no God. I am God. You are God." Therefore he protected the readers of Brahma-sūtra. (break) ...form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And because it is commentary of the Vedānta-sūtra, therefore he begins with first aphorism of the Vedānta-sūtra: janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Now, he explains the verse, the sūtra, or the code, Vedic code, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). The first question is, "Who is... What is the Absolute Truth, you should inquire now." This is the beginning of human life.

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

That is the fun. You see? There are about six hundred different types of editions commenting on Bhagavad-gītā. But according to Bhagavad-gītā, all these six hundred editions in different, studied from different angle of vision, they are all absurd and nonsense. It is very difficult. People have been misled by the so-called commentaries. There is no need of unnecessarily commenting on certain things. There is no necessity. Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest, "The meaning may be like this." But when the things are clear, why should you comment? There is no necessity of comment. Just like, for example—this is also from Sanskrit scholar's example—that gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Gaṅgāyam: "On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli." Now, this statement is in your front. So one may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli?

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

So to understand these code words, one must have very big brain, or very highly standard educational qualification. Then... All the ācāryas, those who are controlling Vedic civilization, like Śaṅkarācārya, Madhvācārya, Rāmānujācārya, they have all written their commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra. Because unless one explains Vedānta-sūtra, he'll not be accepted as an authorized ācārya. He's not... Not that anyone can become ācārya. He must give explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra, prasthāna-traya. There is system. So ultimately, Vedānta-sūtra, as Kṛṣṇa says, vedaiś ca sarvaiḥ. Sarvaiḥ means including Vedānta-sūtra. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). "I am to be understood." Why? Vedānta-kṛt vedānta-vit ca aham. Vedānta-kṛt, "I am the compiler of Vedānta-sūtra." Vedānta-sūtra was compiled by Vyāsadeva. He is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, Dvaipāyana Vyāsa. So therefore, it is compiled by His incarnation, so it is compiled by Him. Because His incarnation, He is the same.

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

And Vyāsadeva explains Vedānta-sūtra in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Because He knew that "Vedānta-sūtra, being authoritative version of Vedic literature, so many rascals will comment in different way. Therefore I must leave..." That was also done under the instruction of Nārada. He wrote personally a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. That is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtrānāṁ vedārtha paribṛṁhitam. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the right commentary by the author Himself. And the vedārtha paribhṛmhitam the purpose of Vedas, the scheme of Vedic literature, is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. So this human life..., athāto brahma jijñāsā, means, the Vedānta-sūtra says, that "This life, this human life, is meant for understanding God." Brahma-jijñāsā. At least, not understanding, at least inquiring, jijñāsā. Jijñāsā means inquiring.

Lecture at Upsala University Faculty -- Stockholm, September 7, 1973:

Guest: Brahman. Which is the relation between these concepts? They are, according to your commentaries, in Bhagavad-gītā, different. But what is...

Prabhupāda: No. It is not different. Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān. The Absolute Truth is one, but He is realized by different persons differently. Just like there is a big hill. So from very distant place you see that hill just like something like cloud. But if you go forward, then you see something green. And if you go actually to the hill, you see there are so many trees, so many houses, so many living entities. The object is the same, but realization from different angle of vision is different. That is the description of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Absolute Truth is called tattva. Vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam (SB 1.2.11). When I see the hill as a cloud, it is the same hill. When I see the hill as something green, that is the same hill. And when I see the hill actually, it is functioning, there are so many trees, so many animals, so many men, so many houses, this same hill. Similarly, Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān is the same thing, but it appears different according to persons' different realization. But ultimately, the Absolute Truth is Bhagavān, Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Lecture -- Vrndavana, March 14, 1974:

If you chant this Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, then you become a first-class Vedāntist. You don't require to study. Of course, if you have got intelligence, if you have got stamina, Vedānta must be studied. And what is that Vedānta? Vedānta is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Brahma-sūtra means Vedānta. This is the real bhāṣya, or commentary, on Vedānta-sūtra. The Vedānta-sūtra begins, janmādy asya yataḥ, athāto brahma jijñāsā. And Bhāgavata says, jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā. The same thing; a little different language. And janmādy asya śloka is beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād (SB 1.1.1). In the Vedānta-sūtra the sūtra is janmādy asya yataḥ: "Absolute Truth is that from which or from whom everything emanates." Janmādy asya yataḥ. And Bhāgavata is explaining... That is commentary. What is that janmādy asya yataḥ? Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ sva-rāṭ. Who is that source of knowledge? He must be abhijña.

Tenth Anniversary Address -- Washington, D.C., July 6, 1976:

And in order to protect the sanctity of Vedānta... Because there are so many foolish persons, they are distorting the purpose of Vedānta-sūtra; therefore Vyāsadeva, under the instruction of his spiritual master Nārada, he personally wrote a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. This is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. So Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu introduced these two things—saṅkīrtana and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam means the expansion of Bhagavad-gītā. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find, at the last stage, Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). And Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also begins from that point. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam gives introduction, dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra (SB 1.1.2). All cheating type of religious system kicked out, projjhita. Projjhita means just like you sweep over the floor, and all the dust, you throw it away. That is called projjhita. Prakṛṣṭa-rūpeṇa ujjhita.

General Lecture -- (location & date unknown):

Actually the Vedic name is the original name, or varṇāśrama-dharma. That is the original name. So, apart from Vaiṣṇavas, even Śaṅkarācārya, who is impersonalist, who is Brahmavadi, he also accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Those who have read Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā, they must have seen it in the very beginning: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. He begins his commentary, nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktat: "Nārāyaṇa is beyond this material creation." And then he says, "That Nārāyaṇa is svayaṁ bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. And he has specifically mentioned that "He has appeared as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva." Beside that, he has written many songs and prayers about Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: So these things are very nicely described in Vedānta-sūtra, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the right commentary on Vedānta-sūtra. Just like it is also philosophy, that what is the actual aim of life, or what is the Absolute Truth. So the Vedānta-sūtra is so nicely made, the answer is also there. The Absolute Truth must be that thing which is the origin of everything. Now Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam discusses what is the nature of that origin. This requires philosophical as well as authentic proof. Now, that origin, first of all the origin is conscious or not conscious. Origin, just like these some philosophers, they are tracing life from bones, tracing life. So now one should be intelligent enough to understand whether actually life can begin from bones and stones or life begins from life, actual life. So if the origin of everything, you can say the original source of creation or the creator, if you take it as creator, that we have to take. But creation does not take automatically. There is no proof. There is no proof. From matter, automatically creation takes place, that is not very perfect philosophy, neither one can support this view in the long run.