Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Commentation (Lectures)

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG Introduction -- New York, February 19-20, 1966:

Bhagavad-gītā is known also Gītopaniṣad, the essence of Vedic knowledge, and one of the most important of the various Upaniṣads in Vedic literature. This Bhagavad-gītā, there are many commentations in English and what is the necessity of another English commentation of the Bhagavad-gītā can be explained in the following way. One American lady, Mrs. Charlotte Le Blanc asked me to recommend an English edition of Bhagavad-gītā which she can read. Of course, in America there are so many editions of English Bhagavad-gītā, but so far I have seen them, not only in America but also India, none of them can be said strictly as authoritative because almost every one of them have expressed their own opinion through the commentation of the Bhagavad-gītā without touching the spirit of Bhagavad-gītā as it is.

Lecture on BG Introduction -- New York, February 19-20, 1966:

That these forgetful living entities, conditioned souls, they have forgotten the relationship with the Supreme Lord, and they are engrossed in thinking of the material activities. And just to transfer their thinking power to the spiritual capacity, the Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Vyāsa, he has made so many Vedic literatures. Vedic literatures means first he divided the Vedas into four. Then he explained them by the Purāṇas. Then for the incapable persons, just like strī, śūdra, vaiśya, he made the Mahābhārata. And in the Mahābhārata he introduced this Bhagavad-gītā. Then again he summarized the whole Vedic literature in the Vedānta-sūtra. And the Vedānta-sūtra for future guidance, he made a natural commentation by himself which is called Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is called bhāṣyo 'yaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. It is the natural commentation of Vedānta-sūtra. So all these literatures, if we transfer our thought, tad-bhāva-bhāvitaḥ, sadā. Sadā tad-bhāva-bhāvitaḥ (BG 8.6).

Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 :

Prabhupāda: So we have explained this Bhagavad-gītā in the paramparā system as we have heard from authoritative sources. So it may be a new contribution to your country, because in every edition they have concocted some ideas about Bhagavad-gītā, but we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. That's all. So, any question?

Devotee (2): You commented that, Swami Prabhupāda, that everyone has a natural desire to have relationship with Kṛṣṇa, but that because...

Prabhupāda: Not desire, but he is already established.

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

This human life is not meant for that purpose. Therefore it is said that a person without God consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is no better than these dogs and hogs. That's all. This is our conclusion. We don't give any formal respect. Of course, we have to give because we are in this world. But at heart we cannot give respect to a person who has not any sense of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We cannot give. Because who is going to give any respect to the dogs and hogs? Śva-viḍ-varāhoṣṭra-kharaiḥ saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ (SB 2.3.19). Therefore Jīva Gosvāmī has commented on this verse... If somebody says that "This Mr. such and such, this Dr. such and such, he is respected by so many people, and you are saying that he's a rascal? What is this?" So Jīva Gosvāmī says that "This man, who is respected, but he is respected by whom? He is respected by this class of men: dogs, hogs, camel and asses. So he is a big paśuḥ."

Lecture on BG 1.40 -- London, July 28, 1973:

So our, our point of view is not to become a first-class prisoner. To get out of the prison. That is Vaiṣṇava vision. You'll find... Last night I have given comments that Mādhavendra Purī, he was performing the Annakuta ceremony and installing the Deity. So everything was being brāhmaṇa, done by brāhmaṇa, qualified brāhmaṇa, but Mādhavendra Purī initiated them again to become Vaiṣṇava. Then he gave them in charge of the Deity worship. So the Vaiṣṇava functions cannot be done even by a brāhmaṇa. Even one is qualified brāhmaṇa, he is unfit to propagate Vaiṣṇava philosophy. That is stated in the śāstras.

Lecture on BG 2.1-10 and Talk -- Los Angeles, November 25, 1968:

The devotee, a great devotee, King Kulaśekhara. He has a nice book, Mukunda-mālā-stotra. I began translating, commenting, this line in Vṛndāvana. So the first verse is he's comparing his mind with the swan. I think you have seen, Jayānanda, when we were walking in Seattle in that park, in a lake the swan were diving near the lotus. You have seen? Yes. That is the practice. The swan takes pleasure where there is, I mean to say, what is called, lotus or lily, lilies. There's a stem. They dive and they entangle their long neck with the... That is their sporting. So Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet, we call, lotus feet. So he says that "My mind may be entangled with the stem of Your lotus feet just like the swan.

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966:

I was Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the past also, and I am Śrī Kṛṣṇa at the present. So also yourself, and so also others—all individuals. So and at the present we are." Na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ: "And don't think that we shall not remain." Sarve. This sarve means "we all," not that... Sarve is plural number. Janādhipāḥ is plural number. "So they are all individual souls." So the individual soul continues. That is the version. That is the version of the Bhagavad-gītā, and we... It is better to accept this version without unnecessarily commenting it or interpreting it in a different way so that one... Interpretation is very bad. You see? A scripture should not be interpreted. A scripture should be taken as it is, as it is. And besides that, interpretation... When interpretation is required? When a thing is not properly understood, at that time, interpretation is required.

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966:

So all these four, I mean, five different section of the Hindus, they accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All of them. There is no denial. Although they are five, they have got different theses and philosophies, little, little difference, not, I mean, conclusion, but still... Now, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, he, he is supposed, he is considered to be impersonalist. Impersonalist means he does not believe in the personal form of God. But still, he has commented in this, of this Bhagavad-gītā, Śaṅkara-bhāṣya. He has admitted there that "Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Personality of Godhead." He has also admitted. Others, they are Vaiṣṇavites, other ācāryas, other authorities, they are Vaiṣṇavites.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 18, 1972:

Many ācāryas, they have written notes on Vedānta, targeting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So we have to follow the footprints of the great stalwart ācāryas. Ācāryopāsanam. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). If we follow the footprints of the ācāryas, then we find there is no distinction between Vedānta and Bhagavad-gītā. Vedānta, you might be referring to the Vedānta-sūtra of Śaṅkarācārya, but all the ācāryas, the have written notes on Vedānta. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the original comment on Vedānta. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins with the Vedānta-sūtra: janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). So Vedānta does not mean godlessness. Vedānta means to know God. That is real study of Vedānta.

Lecture on BG 2.31 -- London, September 1, 1973:

Yad anyatra. If the brahminical qualities are visible, manifest, elsewhere. Elsewhere, may be he's śūdra, may be caṇḍāla. Tat tenaiva vinirdiśet. So you, one should accept him as brāhmaṇa. Similarly, if one is born in brāhmaṇa family but his qualities are like śūdra, tat tenaiva vinirdiśet (SB 7.11.35). He should be accepted as śūdra. This is the injunction given by Nārada Muni. Not ordinary person. Tat tenaiva vinirdiśet. And upon this the greatest authority of comment on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Śrīdhara Svāmī, he has commented that janma, birth, is not the chief requisition to become...śama-damādi. One must be qualified with śamo damas titikṣāḥ śuci. Then he should be accepted.

Lecture on BG 2.33-35 -- London, September 3, 1973:

So similarly on the strength of Bhagavad-gītā, if one wants to prove his foolish philosophy, that is a great offense. That's a great offense. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā cannot be interpreted by foolish commentators. It must be studied through the paramparā system, ācārya upāsanam. One must worship the ācārya and learn from him what is Bhagavad-gītā. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. This is the Vedic injunction. Who knows things as they are. Ācāryaṁ māṁ puruṣa, one who is under the guidance of ācārya. So you won't find this foolish nonviolence theory from any ācārya. Many ācāryas have commented on Bhagavad-gītā. There is Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, even Śaṅkarācārya. But never said that Bhagavad-gītā is proof of nonviolence. Nonviolence is good but when there is dharma-yuddha, righteous fighting, there is no question of nonviolence. Violence is approved.

Lecture on BG 3.27 -- Melbourne, June 27, 1974:

Prabhupāda: Then if you continue, then as the drunkard becomes big drunkard, you become a big devotee. The beginning is that you must be little anxious that how I can understand God. This is the qualification, that's all. And if you are serious, then God is within you, He will give you intelligence. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Teṣāṁ nityābhiyuktānāṁ bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakaṁ buddhi-yogaṁ dadāmi tam. When God sees that you are sincere, He is within you, He will dictate you do like this, you do like this, and you will make advance.

Devotee: He is commenting about the (indistinct) (laughter)

Prabhupāda: The animal did not understand anything. (laughter and applause) Because he is animal he is thinking like that. Everyone thinks others like him. That is the nature. Ātmavat manyate jagat.

Lecture on BG 3.31-43 -- Los Angeles, January 1, 1969:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "As the Vedas are eternal, so this truth of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is also eternal. One should have firm faith in this injunction without envying the Lord. There are many so-called philosophers who write comment on the Bhagavad-gītā but who have no faith in Kṛṣṇa. They will never be liberated from the bondage of fruitive actions. But an ordinary man with firm faith in the eternal injunctions of the Lord, even though unable to execute such orders, becomes liberated from the bondage of the law of karma. In the beginning of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one may not fully discharge the injunctions of the Lord. But because one is not resentful of this principle and works sincerely without consideration of defeat and hopelessness, he will surely be promoted to the stage of pure Kṛṣṇa consciousness."

Prabhupāda: Yes. In the beginning there may be some failures. That is quite natural. Just a child is trying to stand, he may fall down. But that does not mean he should give up the idea. Go on. A time will come come when he will be perfect. So we should not give up this business, to try to serve the Supreme. May be imperfect in the beginning, but stick to it, and a time will come when you'll be perfect, Kṛṣṇa conscious.

Lecture on BG 4.1 and Review -- New York, July 13, 1966:

Because scholars they can interpret in their own way about Bhagavad-gītā, but that is not Bhagavad-gītā. That is not Bhagavad-gītā. That is the purport which Kṛṣṇa wants to stress. So any student of Bhagavad-gītā must note it, that Bhagavad-gītā commented by a person—he may be very scholar in the material sense, but that scholarship will not help to comment on the Bhagavad-gītā. The Bhagavad-gītā, to understand Bhagavad-gītā, we have to accept this disciplic succession principle as Lord Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna, that "It is coming down by disciplic succession." We have to take that spirit. And without taking that spirit, simply by our erudite scholarship, if we want to understand Bhagavad-gītā, that is a misunderstanding. That is the purpose He has said.

Lecture on BG 4.1-2 -- Columbus, May 9, 1969:

So Bhagavad-gītā is not a new thing, a new adventure. And the person who spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god, does it mean that He left something to be commented by some, these mundane men to understand the meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā? Such a great personality, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He told something which is to be understood by the interpretation of a mundane scholar? Do you think it is reasonable? No. Whatever he spoke, that is all right. And that is clear. There is no question of interpreting in a different way. Just like here, "The Blessed Lord said, 'I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god Vivasvān.' " What is difficulty there? Is there any word which you cannot understand? Is anyone here who cannot understand these lines? It is clear. "The Blessed Lord said, 'I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god whose name is Vivasvān.' " It is clear. How you can interpret?

Lecture on BG 4.1-2 -- Columbus, May 9, 1969:

So there is no difficulty in administering this Vedic message to the world provided we simply carry the same message as it was delivered by Kṛṣṇa unto you. That is not very difficult. Anyone can do it. You simply try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is and distribute it: "Kṛṣṇa says this." That's all. You haven't got to comment or add anything, something. But to present, you can speak something, but the central point should not be missed. Then people will be benefited. Then people will be benefited. They will receive the message as it is, and this is transcendental message. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says,

āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra' ei deśa

yāre dekha, tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa

(CC Madhya 7.128)
Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

Now, here is Kṛṣṇa, the direct, I mean to say, highest authority. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). The Lord says that "There is no other superior personality than Me." And it has been accepted by great scholars. Otherwise, why Dr. Radhakrishnan would take so much trouble for commenting or reading Bhagavad-gītā? Why there are so many foreign scholars also in America, in England, in France, in Japan? All, they have... Why? Because it is an authority. So therefore we have to accept.

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

Even Śaṅkarācārya, who is, who has got a different opinion from the Personality of Godhead. Because we, we, the Vaiṣṇavas, we are, we accept the personal Godhead, but there are other philosophers who do not accept the personal feature of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Śaṅkarācārya was the head of this impersonal school. Still, he has admitted in his commentation of Bhagavad-gītā that sa kṛṣṇaḥ svayaṁ bhagavān: "Oh, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord. He's the Supreme Lord." So Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, and He's accepted.

Lecture on BG 4.11 -- New York, July 27, 1966:

The Bhagavad-gītā is a standard literature. Most of you know this Bhagavad-gītā. But generally the Bhagavad-gītā is read very superficially, not very critically. We do not understand Kṛṣṇa, the author of Bhagavad-gītā, neither we understand what is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, although it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. We read Bhagavad-gītā superficially, not very critically, neither there is any edition so far... Of course, in Sanskrit there are many editions, annotation by Śrīdhara Svāmī, annotation by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, annotation by Viśvanātha Cakravartī, annotation by Śrī Rāmānujācārya. There are many great scholars. But we have no information of those in the western countries. You have no information of those scholars. Ordinary persons with some academic career, they think they are very learned, they can comment on Bhagavad-gītā. Oh, that is not possible. That is not possible. The other day we have already discussed that Bhagavad-gītā can be understood by a person who is Kṛṣṇa conscious, nobody else. Bhakto 'si priyo 'si me rahasyaṁ hy etad uttamam (BG 4.3). So here is a chance.

Lecture on BG 4.11 -- New York, July 27, 1966:

We read Bhagavad-gītā superficially, not very critically, neither there is any edition so far... Of course, in Sanskrit there are many editions, annotation by Śrīdhara Svāmī, annotation by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, annotation by Viśvanātha Cakravartī, annotation by Śrī Rāmānujācārya. There are many great scholars. But we have no information of those in the western countries. You have no information of those scholars. Ordinary persons with some academic career, they think they are very learned, they can comment on Bhagavad-gītā. Oh, that is not possible. That is not possible. The other day we have already discussed that Bhagavad-gītā can be understood by a person who is Kṛṣṇa conscious, nobody else. Bhakto 'si priyo 'si me rahasyaṁ hy etad uttamam (BG 4.3). So here is a chance.

Lecture on BG 4.13 -- Bombay, April 2, 1974:

How to read? Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2), through the disciplic succession. As Kṛṣṇa said, you have to accept that teaching through the disciplic succession, not concocted meanings. "Oh, I am a very good scholar. I passed my DHC or MAC or MA. I can comment on Bhagavad-gītā in my own way." That is rascaldom. That is not understanding of Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā means you must understand what Kṛṣṇa says. That is understanding. But generally, it is done, "Kill Kṛṣṇa. There was no Kṛṣṇa. There was no battlefield. There was no Mahābhārata. I have my concoction about Kṛṣṇa." This kind of commentary and understanding of Bhagavad-gītā has spoiled the whole world.

Lecture on BG 4.24 -- Bombay, April 13, 1974:

So we have to discuss about Kṛṣṇa amongst the Kṛṣṇa's devotees, not outsiders. Outsiders, they cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. They simply waste their time by commenting upon Bhagavad-gītā. Because they are mūḍhas, they cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa said to Arjuna, "I shall explain Bhagavad-gītā because you are My bhakta." Bhakto 'si priyo 'si (BG 4.3). So who can understand Bhagavad-gītā unless he is a bhakta of Kṛṣṇa?

Lecture on BG 4.28 -- Bombay, April 17, 1974:

So some of His devotees requested that "We know that You do not mix with the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, but they are criticizing You. If you kindly meet them..." So Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu met all the Vārāṇasī Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, he had sixty thousand disciples. So they asked. Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī asked Caitanya Mahāprabhu that "You are a sannyāsī. So you do not study Vedānta-sūtra. It is the," I meant to say, "vow of the sannyāsīs that they must." Vedānta-sūtra is the crucial point of sampradāya. One sampradāya must give his commentation on the Vedānta-sūtra. Otherwise he is not a bona fide sampradāya. So especially in the Śaṅkara sampradāya, they are very much fond of studying Sāṅkhya philosophy and Vedānta-sūtra.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Los Angeles, March 12, 1970:

Devotee: "One has therefore to learn from Kṛṣṇa directly or from a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa and not from a nondevotee upstart, puffed up with academic education."

Prabhupāda: Yes. If somebody says, "Oh, I am very good scholar in Sanskrit and English and this language, that language. I can explain. I have read so many books, and I can comment. I can give footnote and waste your time," then "Oh, he is very nice." Simply for wasting time and energy, everyone is ready. And as soon as the right thing is given... Right thing... If you say, "Oh, you haven't got to go through so many, I mean to say, process. You simply chant Hare Kṛṣṇa," "Oh," they'll say, "this is all nonsense. Simply by chanting?" They will not accept. You see? There are many stories in this connection, how people are not accustomed to take things very simply. They want something bombastic. Yes. You see?

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Madras, February 14, 1972:

What is said here in the Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahareṣu kaścit yatati siddhaye... Siddhaye. Siddhaye means how to obtain the perfection of life. The perfection of life is not dharma artha kāma mokṣa (SB 4.8.41, Cc. Ādi 1.90). That is described in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, dharmaḥ projjhita-atra kaitavaḥ. Dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavaḥ atra paramaḥ nirmatsarāṇāṁ. In the beginning, introduction of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the author, Vyāsadeva, says that all kinds of kaitavaḥ-kaitavaḥ... Śrīdhara Swami has commented upon it, kalaḥ niṣandi rūpa. Any religion which is seeking after some result of action.... Generally we perform religion, dharma-artha.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Madras, February 14, 1972:

Srīdhara Swami has commented that mokṣa-vañcapa yajñaṁ nirastam. Then what it is for? It is for simply developing your lost consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Because originally we are Kṛṣṇa conscious. Because we are all sons of Kṛṣṇa or part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa and our relationship cannot be, I mean, eliminated. It is eternal. But that, at the present moment, we have forgot. That is our present position, māyā. By the pressure of māyā we have forgotten our relationship.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Madras, February 14, 1972:

We accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: (BG 10.8) "I am the origin of everything." The Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). So why don't you accept? Why you comment in a different way? No. Why you comment like this? When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī (BG 18.65), "Oh, it is not to Kṛṣṇa, it is something within Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa is not divided in that way—"something within and something without." He is absolute.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Madras, February 14, 1972:

Paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto. He does not know what is immense power behind. That Kṛṣṇa showed. Kṛṣṇa, when He was present, when He was seven years old, He lifted the Govardhana Hill. We have to accept that, not that we make some comment upon it, because we think Kṛṣṇa is ordinary boy, "How seven-years-old boy can lift?" But we forget that He is Kṛṣṇa. If Kṛṣṇa can throw so many innumerable planets in the sky, floating just like cotton swab, is it very difficult for Kṛṣṇa to lift a mountain?

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Bombay, January 13, 1973:

So this is called increasing the śraddhā, faith. Ādau, ādau śraddhā. To increase your attachment for Kṛṣṇa, the basic principle is śraddhā, faith. Then the faith is created by reading Bhagavad-gītā. You can understand what is Kṛṣṇa. Then you can have your faith: "Oḥ, here is God." That much. And sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). This is the beginning of faith, that "Now I must engage myself in the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa." If you decide like that, then your reading of Bhagavad... (break) ...you have simply wasted your time. You may write very, so-called scholarly comment, but you have simply wasted your time. If you have not come to the conclusion that "Now I shall engage myself in the service of Kṛṣṇa..." Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). If you do that, that is the beginning of śraddhā. Then other things. Mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha yogaṁ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Nairobi, October 27, 1975:

So we have to increase the attachment. Kṛṣṇa is already attractive, but we are trying to go away from Kṛṣṇa. This is our business. "Kṛṣṇa may not touch me." We are so clever that "Kṛṣṇa may not touch me." This is māyā. Big, big scholars, big, big politicians, they are writing comments on Kṛṣṇa's book, Bhagavad-gītā, but their aim is very acute, that "Kṛṣṇa may not touch me." This is going on. And then why they are writing on Kṛṣṇa's book? Now, that is their business. Because this book, Gītā, is very famous, so if they can distribute their nonsense philosophy through Gītā, it will be taken very easily.

Lecture on BG 7.2 -- Nairobi, October 28, 1975:

Indian man (2): Śrīla Prabhupāda, in Back to Godhead, on page five, it is said that Śrī Vallabhācāryajī, a devotee to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, wrote commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu rejected his commentary, and then He said that He is not prepared to listen to his commentary, and he gives certain other comments.

Prabhupāda: Not certain other comment. The Vallabhācārya, he brought his Subodhinī-ṭīkā, and he was great admirer of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and he said that "I have written one commentary which is far better than the comments given by Śrīdhara Svāmī." So that was disapproved by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. If you disapprove previous ācārya or if you become more intelligent than previous ācārya, then you are not ācārya. This is... This was Caitanya Mahāprabhu's... He disapproved.

Lecture on BG 7.3 -- Montreal, June 3, 1968:

So this Bhagavad-gītā is the essence of the Atlantic Ocean of Vedic literature, and this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means that we are presenting the, that taste of Bhagavad-gītā to the world as it is, without any interpretation. Just like milk, if you get it directly from the milkbag of the cow and taste it, you'll find very nice. But if you take it and adulterate with something, water, then it is not so tasteful. Similarly, Bhagavad-gītā, if you understand as it is, then you can have the taste of the milk, but as there are many rascal commentators... I say straightly that those who comment on Bhagavad-gītā according to their own whims, they're all rascals. Just like milk, if you adulterate with water, the taste is gone, and the man who adulterates milk with water, he's a rascal. He's condemned

Lecture on BG 7.3 -- Montreal, June 3, 1968:

So Kurukṣetra is a place of pilgrimage; that is a fact. But unfortunately even a great man like Mahatma Gandhi, he comments that "Kurukṣetra means this body. Kurukṣetra means this body." Now, wherefrom he got this meaning, "Kurukṣetra means this body," which is that dictionary, I do not know. But he has interpreted in that way. Similarly, in Dr. Radhakrishnan's book also the translation is... Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "My dear Arjuna, you just always think of Me, you just become My devotee, you just offer your all obeisances unto Me, and the result will be that you'll come to Me, without any doubt."

Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Bombay, April 1, 1971:

In the Bhagavad-gītā also, we find: ācāryopāsanam. We have to follow the footprints, footsteps, of the ācāryas, because they can give us right direction. And one who does not follow the ācāryas and creates and manufactures his mental concoction, his version will not be accepted. There are many different commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā, but not all of them are according to the direction of the ācāryas. You have to accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is under the direction of the ācāryas. They do not make any change. They explain how Kṛṣṇa is the greatest. Not that comment in a different way and deviate you that Kṛṣṇa is ordinary man.

Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Bombay, April 1, 1971:

So to become Kṛṣṇa conscious is not very difficult job. Simply you have to follow the direction. That's all. But if you manufacture your own meaning, commentation on Bhagavad-gītā, then you are deviated. You are lost. Śrama eva hi kevalam (SB 1.2.8). Then such kind of reading Bhagavad-gītā is simply waste of time and energy. That's all. Therefore those who are not Kṛṣṇa conscious, who are not hearing from Kṛṣṇa conscious personalities, they are simply wasting time. The so-called reading of Bhagavad-gītā, lecture on Bhagavad-gītā, without Kṛṣṇa... God, kingdom of God without God.

Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Bombay, February 22, 1974:

That is explained in the Bhāgavatam. Dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu (SB 1.1.2). Dharmaḥ projjhita, cheating type of religion, is kicked out from this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Projjhita. Prakṛṣṭa-rūpeṇa ujjhita. And Śrīdhara Svāmī gives his comments: atra mokṣa-vāñchā api nirastam. Anyone, any type of religion... Just like the Māyāvādī philosophy. They are trying to have mokṣa, to merge into the existence of the Supreme. But Bhāgavata says, "No, that is also cheating." Dharma-artha-kāma-mokṣa (SB 4.8.41, Cc. Ādi 1.90), catur-varga... The word... First of all, they do not know what is religion. But the... Actually, life, perfection of life, begins from religion, dharma. Then artha.

Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Bombay, February 22, 1974:

Pradyumna: Sir Alistair Hardy.

Prabhupāda: Sir Alistair Hardy. He came. He admitted. He's making research. So these things are going on. Why research? Everything is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Everything is explained and commented by so many, many great, stalwart, I mean to say, commentator, especially Śrīdhara Svāmī, Rāmānujācārya, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana. So many great scholars, they have commented upon Bhagavad-gītā. So try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. That is the real necessity of life. That we have explained several times.

Lecture on BG 7.9-10 -- Bombay, February 24, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Person. Kṛṣṇa is the original of everything, original source of everything. That is the verdict of the... Therefore Arjuna accepted; sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi keśava: (BG 10.14) "My dear Kṛṣṇa, whatever You are saying, I accept Him, accept all these in toto, not deducting, not giving my own commentation." This is the way of studying Bhagavad-gītā. So if you study Bhagavad-gītā as it is, as it is said in the..., and if you accept it, then your life is successful. Otherwise, panthās tu koṭi-śata-vatsara-sampragamyo vāyor athāpi manaso muni-puṅgavānām (Bs. 5.34), you'll never understand what is God or what is ultimate source, what is Absolute Truth.

Lecture on BG 9.4 -- Calcutta, March 9, 1972:

So the so-called rascal scholars, they think Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's body are different. As we, we spirit soul, we are different from this body, similarly these Māyāvādīs, they also think that Kṛṣṇa is different from His body. We have several times discussed, a big scholar, when Kṛṣṇa says in this Ninth Chapter, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), he translates nice but comments that "It is not to Kṛṣṇa, the person. It is unto the Supreme Brahman who is within Kṛṣṇa." He does not know Kṛṣṇa, that Kṛṣṇa has no such difference. He is Para-brahman. He has no difference as between the soul and the body.

Lecture on BG 9.4 -- Calcutta, March 9, 1972:

Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, sac-cid-ānanda. So there cannot be any difference between Kṛṣṇa and His soul. There is no such thing. But these people, the so-called scholars, they do not understand Kṛṣṇa, but they have the audacity to write comments on Bhagavad-gītā. They do not know what is Kṛṣṇa, but they have the impudency to write comments on Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says, "It is meant for you, Arjuna, because you are My devotee," bhakto 'si, priyo 'si me (BG 4.3). Nobody can understand Bhagavad-gītā unless one is very dear to Kṛṣṇa and bhakta of Kṛṣṇa. Nobody can understand. That is the first step.

Lecture on BG 9.11 -- Calcutta, June 30, 1973:

Somebody is worshiping his body, somebody is worshiping his mind, somebody is worshiping his country, somebody is worshiping his something else, something else, or somebody is worshiping some other demigods also. But that is not recommended in the śāstra, at least in the Bhagavad-gītā. Kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ yajanty anya-devatāḥ (BG 7.20). There are worshipers of other demigods, but they have been described in the Bhagavad-gītā as hṛta-jñānāḥ. Hṛta-jñānāḥ. Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments, naṣṭa buddhayaḥ, "one who has lost his intelligence." These are the verdict of the śāstra.

Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Bombay, September 28, 1973:

In this way the Viṣṇu-tattva is expanded. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca (Bs. 5.33). So in this way there are many śāstras, many Vedic literature, many explanations. But here Kṛṣṇa gives a special reference to the Brahma-sūtra, Vedānta-sūtra. Jñāna-vairāgya-yuktayā (SB 1.2.12) means one has to learn very nicely Vedānta-sūtra. And the explanation of Vedānta-sūtra, natural comment on Vedānta-sūtra, is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary.

Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Bombay, September 28, 1973:

Because the author, Vyāsadeva, after compiling Vedānta-sūtra under the instruction of Nārada Muni, his guru—Vyāsadeva's guru is Nārada Muni—he was not satisfied even after compiling Vedānta-sūtra. He was not very happy. So Nārada Muni advised him that "You should directly describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then you'll be happy. It is indirect. All the Vedic literatures, they are indirect. You directly..." Therefore Vyāsadeva took Vedānta-sūtra and from the very beginning of Vedānta-sūtra, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), he commented on the Vedānta-sutra. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayad itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ/ tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yatra sūrayaḥ. In this way. Here Kṛṣṇa personally gives the Brahma-sūtra. So Brahma-sūtra's commentary is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973:

That paramparā should be followed. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2). If we want to understand really Vedic literature, then we must follow the paramparā system. There are four sampradāyas, paramparā: the Rāmanuja Sampradāya, Madhvācārya Sampradāya, Viṣṇu Svāmī Sampradāya, Nimbārka Sampradāya. So we belong to the Madhvācārya Sampradāya. Fortunately, all these ācāryas, even Śaṅkarācārya, they appeared from South India. This sampradāya, ācārya-sampradāya, is going on all over India. So every sampradāya has got his commentary on the Brahma-sūtra. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says here, brahma sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ (BG 13.5). Unless a sampradāya, the four sampradāyas, they do not comment on the Brahma-sūtra, he'll not..., that sampradāya is not accepted. And if you do not accept the sampradāya..., sampradāya-vihīnā ye mantrās te niṣphalā matāḥ.

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, October 3, 1973:

Everyone, there is a class of men, they say that we only believe in the Vedas. What you believe? Do you know Kṛṣṇa? "No sir. We accept Kṛṣṇa as a big man, that's all, not as God." That means he does not understand what is Kṛṣṇa. So what is the use of Vedānta? There are so-called Vedantists, they avoid Kṛṣṇa. They'll write comments on Bhagavad-gītā, avoid Kṛṣṇa. This is going on. This is going on.

Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971:

Duality. Our position in this dual world is we are always doubtful. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), but we are doubtful. That is material influence. "How it is that simply by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa I become free from all material contamination or sinful activities results?" Doubt. But actually, you should not be doubtful. You should accept because Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You should accept His word as it is. And because we are doubtful, we are presenting Kṛṣṇa in a different way. And there are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: (BG 7.7) "There is no more superior authority than Me." We accept that. Then we can understand Bhagavad-gītā and take advantage of it; otherwise (it is) not possible. And that requires daivī sampat, godly characteristics.

Lecture on BG 16.7 -- Hawaii, February 3, 1975:

The demonic people, they do not have the truth. Only on false theory, the Darwin's theory... We have commented upon Darwin's theory also in our book, Scientific Basis of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness. Dr. Svarūpa Dāmodara Brahmacārī, he has written a small booklet. He has criticized Darwin very strongly, that he is a speculator. A speculator cannot give you truth. That is not possible. By speculation you cannot say, "Two plus two equal to five." That is not science. "Two plus two equal to four," that is everywhere. And if you speculate, "No, two plus two equal to five," or "two plus two equal to three," that is not science. So scientific basis means it should be fact, not speculation, mano-dharma. Mano-dharma means speculation.

Lecture on BG 17.1-3 -- Honolulu, July 4, 1974:

It is... So Kṛṣṇa... Now, this is very important question, and Kṛṣṇa... It not said, "Kṛṣṇa said." It is said, it is mentioned here, śrī bhagavān uvāca. Kṛṣṇa may be taken by low-grade person as ordinary human being as it is done sometimes. Big, big scholars, big, big philosophers, they also become bewildered. Just like in India, there is a party called Arya-samaj. They accept Kṛṣṇa as a very big person but not God, not God. There is some mistake some time. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ: (BG 9.11) "Those who are rascals, they sometimes take Me as ordinary human being." That is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā. He is Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, when there is an authoritative judgement is required, you'll find in the Bhagavad-gītā, it is said, śrī bhagavān uvāca. That means you cannot defy this judgement. Bhagavān. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is speaking, that is final. No argument. No commentation. This is the meaning of śrī bhagavān uvāca. Similarly, after this inquiry, śrī bhagavān uvāca. Who has this, marked rules in the scriptures?

Lecture on BG 17.1-3 -- Honolulu, July 4, 1974:

Woman Devotee: So there should just be chanting and reading of the books.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Woman Devotee: But how much comment?

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Sudāmā: She says that how much comment should there be for reading the books. In other... Actually the situation is that to be proper śikṣā, means that one must give instruction as the spiritual master. He has to follow your program, rising early...

Lecture on BG 17.1-3 -- Honolulu, July 4, 1974:

Prabhupāda: Ah. Mean do not think otherwise. Whatever guru has said accept it, finally. Āra nā kariha mane āśā **. Don't divert from this. This is the instruction. How you can divert from the instruction of guru?

Woman Devotee: So just read it, not comment.

Prabhupāda: Yes. You read it or not read it, but you have to realize. Suppose one is illiterate. It cannot read. But he can follow... (end)

Lecture on BG Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972:

You are understanding something nonsense, wasting your time. This is the fact. If you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as Arjuna understood... That is not difficult. Arjuna's understanding is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. So if you follow the footprints of Arjuna, then you are rightly understanding Bhagavad-gītā. But if you are following the footprints of some rascal, then you are not understanding Bhagavad-gītā. You are understanding something else. This is the secret. Here we have got so many commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā, as one thinks. As if Kṛṣṇa left Bhagavad-gītā to be commented by some rascals to understand! Why? He said Bhagavad-gītā clearly. Why it is to be interpreted by some rascals? Did Kṛṣṇa mean that "I leave Bhagavad-gītā ambiguous and some learned scholar will come. He will explain"? What is this nonsense? Everything is clear.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.1.3 -- Caracas, February 24, 1975:

That was the position five thousand years ago, not now. Now the memory is not sharp. Therefore he left all this Vedic literature, Vedic tradition, into writing. So Vedānta-sūtra is the cream of all Vedic literature, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the further explanation of this Vedānta-sūtra. So because Vyāsadeva knew that "Later on this Vedānta-sūtra will be misinterpreted by so many rascals," therefore he left the comment on the Vedānta-sūtra in the form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Lecture on SB 1.2.5 -- Visakhapatnam, February 20, 1972, At Ladies Club:

So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is based on this Bhagavad-gītā, because it is full of kṛṣṇa-sampraśno. Here Sūta Gosvāmī says, yat kṛtaḥ kṛṣṇa-sampraśno loka-maṅgala. "The questions raised by you," bhavadbhiḥ, "by you, loka-maṅgala." The Bhagavad-gītā should be read very widely, and should be understood very widely. That is the only source of auspicity for the human society. But don't misrepresent it. It has become a fashion now to misrepresent, comment on Bhagavad-gītā according to one's whims. That is very dangerous. That is very dangerous. Bhagavad-gītā should be read, should be understood as prescribed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says, in the Fourth Chapter, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2).

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Delhi, November 12, 1973:

So it becomes sometimes lost. When the paramparā system... Just like nowadays, everyone is proud of reading Bhagavad-gītā, but he interprets in his own way. Everyone is at liberty to interpret Bhagavad-gītā as he likes. That is the modern proposal. So there are 664 editions of Bhagavad-gītā. Everyone is commenting in his own way. I have heard that there is one doctor, some rabbi. He has interpreted Bhagavad-gītā as the talks between a patient and a physician. You see? So this is going on.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974:

A brāhmaṇa is..., he has got his duties, to practice how to become truthful, satya; śama, how to control the senses; and dama, how to control the mind. Satyaṁ śamo damas titikṣā, how to learn toleration, forbearance. Satyaṁ śamo damas titikṣā, ārjavam, how to become simple, not crooked. Jñānam, full knowledge in everything. Vijñānam, practical application. Satyaṁ śamo damas titikṣā ārjavaṁ jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyam (BG 18.42), full faith in the Vedic literature. That is called āstikyam. That is called theism, to believe in the śāstras without any deviation. That is called theism. Atheism means not to believe in the śāstra or not to accept them as it is, to comment according to one's own whim. That is called atheism. Theism means to have faith, full faith in the Vedic knowledge. That is called theism.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974:

That I have given you several times the example. Just like the cow dung is the stool of an animal, but the Vedic literature confirms that cow dung is pure. Now, you cannot argue, "It is stool of an animal. In one place you have condemned that if you touch the stool of an animal, you have to take bath thrice, and now you say cow dung, which is also stool of an animal, it is pure. Where is your argument?" You have to accept. That is called theism. Because the Vedas says, without any argument, you accept it. That is called theism. You cannot change. You cannot comment. That is called theism. Āstikyam. Brahma-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.42). And unless you have got such faith in the Vedic knowledge, you cannot make any progress. That is not possible. If you, with your poor fund of knowledge, you want to interpret, from the very beginning there is no question of progress.

Lecture on SB 1.2.7 -- Vrndavana, October 18, 1972:

In this connection, Śrīdhara Svāmī has commented, artha mokṣavāṁś ca nirastham(?). Those who are aspiring after liberation, that is also rejected. Why? There are so many great saintly persons, jñānīs, philosophers; they're trying to get liberation. And it is cheating? Yes. It is cheating. Vyāsadeva says, kaitava, cheating. And a great commentator like Śrīdhara Svāmī, he also gives his confirmation that up to mokṣa-vāñchā, that is cheating. Why cheating? That is explained by Kavirāja Gosvāmī in his Caitanya-caritāmṛta.

Lecture on SB 1.2.8 -- Vrndavana, October 19, 1972:

So na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum (SB 7.5.31). People do not know. (break)... svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum. Real self-interest is to become Vaiṣṇava, servitor of Viṣṇu. Viṣṇur asya devatā iti vaiṣṇava. That is real self-interest. Why people do not become Vaiṣṇava? Generally they worship various demigods-devotee of Lord Śiva, devotee of Goddess Kali, Durgā, so many. But they have been condemned by Bhagavad-gītā, spoken by Kṛṣṇa Himself: kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānā yajante anya-devatāḥ. Hṛta-jñānāḥ. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura gives his comment: hṛta-jñānāḥ naṣṭa-buddhayaḥ, "One who has lost his intelligence, they are inclined to worship other demigods." Kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ (BG 7.20). Because they do not know what is his self-interest.

Lecture on SB 1.2.9-10 -- Delhi, November 14, 1973:

If you do not understand Kṛṣṇa, if you do not surrender to Kṛṣṇa, then you are simply wasting your time. There is no meaning of writing big, big comments on Bhagavad-gītā, uselessly waste you time and waste others' time. This is the real point, śraddhā. Kṛṣṇa said, by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa everything will be done. Ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi. So if one has no śraddhā, faith, on this instruction of Kṛṣṇa, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī (BG 18.65), then there is no use, simply waste of time.

Lecture on SB 1.2.9-10 -- Delhi, November 14, 1973:

Avaiṣṇava: "Because he is not a Vaiṣṇava." Avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇaṁ pūtaṁ hari-kathā. Hari-kathā means Kṛṣṇa's words. They are very purified. That's all right. But śravaṇaṁ naiva kartavyam. Why? Because sarpocchiṣṭaṁ yathā payaḥ. Just like milk. Milk is very good food, but if it is touched by the tongue of a serpent, it becomes poison. If you eat that kind of milk, your life will be finished. Similarly, our only request is that don't try to read Bhagavad-gītā commented by unauthorized so-called scholars or politicians. Simply read Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Simply accept what Kṛṣṇa says. Then you will be benefited.

Kṛṣṇa says, dharma-kṣetra. Not Kṛṣṇa says. Sañjaya uvāca. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre. No. Dhṛtarāṣṭra uvāca.

Lecture on SB 1.2.11 -- Vrndavana, October 22, 1972:

Therefore they're ma..., committing so many mistakes. Even scholars like Dr. Radhakrishnan and others, they're committing so many mistakes. Because they do not go through tattva-vit. There are so many political leaders who are commenting on Kṛṣṇa's book without knowing Kṛṣṇa, without any knowledge of Kṛṣṇa. Just see their impudency. Without knowing Kṛṣṇa, they want to make trade with Kṛṣṇa. That is not very good. You cannot make trade commodity, Kṛṣṇa as trade commodity.

Lecture on SB 1.2.12 -- Delhi, November 18, 1973:

Sevāyām. Sevā mean there is a sevaka and there is a master, sevya, one who is worshiped and one who serves. Then the process is called bhakti. Here it is also said, bhaktyā. What kind of bhakti? Bhaktyā śruta-gṛhītayā. Śruta, by hearing śruti, or Vedas. Completely on the basis of Vedic knowledge, that bhakti, not sentimental. Sentimental bhakti is also there, because the acceptance of Kṛṣṇa is there. Therefore there is some value. But real bhakti, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has commented that bhakti based on understanding of Vedānta-sūtra is perfect, on the basis of jñāna, knowledge, and vairāgya. That is... And Kṛṣṇa has also said, brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ (BG 13.5). Brahma-sūtra means Vedānta-sūtra.

Lecture on SB 1.2.12 -- Delhi, November 18, 1973:

So actually the Vedānta-sūtra, everything is bhakti. But unfortunately, people have taken Vedānta in a different way, after the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. But all the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, they have all, they have commentated on the Vedānta-sūtra. So Vedantist does not mean simply the Māyāvādīs. Actually Vedantists are the devotees. Because veda anta. Veda means knowledge, and anta means the last word. The last word is bhagavān. That is Vedānta. Here it is said, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). If you understand by studying Vedānta simply Brahman realization, that is not perfect.

Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972:

Vyāsadeva is explaining Vedānta-sūtra in his book, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Śrī Vyāsadeva says, "This is the real comment, or bhāṣya, of Vedānta-sūtra, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." Therefore Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, Gosvāmīs, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra because they accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. So why they should write again? But still, when there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he wrote Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra. But still, Vedānta-sūtra does not mean to understand impersonalism. No. That's not the fact.

Lecture on SB 1.2.34 -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972:

So those who are asuras or the narādhamas, their only business is to, how to kill Kṛṣṇa. Just like the great scholar is saying, when Kṛṣṇa says that man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), he's commenting, because he's a great scholar, "Not to Kṛṣṇa." Just see. "Not to Kṛṣṇa." This is going on. They are thinking there is something more exalted than Kṛṣṇa. But Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) "There is nothing more. I am the Supreme." So I do not know what kind of scholars they are.

Lecture on SB 1.3.27 -- Los Angeles, October 2, 1972:

So Vedic knowledge should be accepted as it is. Don't try to comment. If you go on commenting with your teeny brain, then you will never be able to achieve the success. That is the process. Vedavān. I have given you several times this example, that in the Vedas it is said that cow dung is pure, although it is the stool of an animal. We accept: "Yes, it is pure." And actually you find, yes, it is pure.

Lecture on SB 1.5.9-11 -- New Vrindaban, June 6, 1969:

Nārada says, citra-padam api... Vāsudeva-vyatiriktānya-viṣaya-jñānavād evānya-viṣayaṁ vāk-cāturyam.(?) Śrīdhara Svāmī, he comments (chuckles) that except describing the glories of the Lord, any literature, any science, any contribution, is simply a jugglery of vocabulary. That's all. Jugglery. Vāk-cāturyam. Vāk means vocabulary and cāturya means jugglery. Simply setting some words in a jugglery way just to draw people's attention to waste time, that's all. Vāk-cāturyam.

Lecture on SB 1.5.11 -- London, September 12, 1973:

He is always absorbed in glorifying the Supreme Lord because by broadcasting the holy name and fame of the Supreme Lord, the polluted atmosphere of the world will change, and as a result of propagating the transcendental literatures like Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, people will become sane in their transactions. While preparing this commentation on this particular stanza of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam we have a crisis before us. Our neighboring friend China has attacked the border of India with a militaristic spirit. We have practically no business in the political field, yet we see that previously there were both China and India, and they both lived peacefully for centuries without ill feeling.

Lecture on SB 1.5.13 -- New Vrindaban, June 13, 1969:

So these things are to be studied very minutely and understood, and then the things are very easy. Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam (SB 7.5.23). Now, the samādhi, samādhinā. Śrīdhara... We have to take the comments of authorities, that here you see samādhinā citta aikāgrena. Actually, that is samādhi. Now, these sitting posture, these breathing exercise, controlling the senses and mind—everything means that you have to make your mind so nice that it will never deviate from Kṛṣṇa. So these are different types of exercise. Just like by exercise you can make your circulation of the blood nicely, you keep yourself healthy, similarly, the all these yogic process means to come to the stage of samādhi. Samādhi. And that is said also in the authoritative yogic literature. But what is that samādhi? Samādhi means not to deviate. The mind should always be absorbed in Kṛṣṇa thought without any deviation.

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

Akhila-bandha-muktaye... Vipakṣe doṣam anta, that "If you do not do this..." Śrīdhara Svāmī comments, vipakṣe. Vipakṣe means if you do not understand this philosophy, that simply Kṛṣṇa consciousness can save the human race, then you are faulty. If you do not understand... If you understand it nicely, it is very good. But if you do not understand it, if you direct your activities in a, in a different way, then it is faulty. You'll never be happy. Because the whole thing has begun-Vyāsadeva was unhappy.

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

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is Vedic system. The brāhmaṇas would never take part in administration. They would give advice according to śāstra.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: I have a comment on that research.

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: You said that researches are all right, but there has to be a standard.

Lecture on SB 1.5.36 -- Vrndavana, August 17, 1974:

The process is there, śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ (SB 7.5.23). Not others. (break) ...the whole world can be purified. But the secret is that one who is chanting, he must be very pure. (break) They have got so many hodgepodge ideas, that they are not pure. It is very difficult. (break) I say that "Here is Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa." They accept it. (break) Here... If I say, "Here is Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa," he'll bring dozens of other Bhagavāns. Or more than that—hundreds. "Why Kṛṣṇa is God?" (break) They are being deviated. So many... Therefore we are student of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In the beginning it is said that dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra (SB 1.1.2). All types of cheating religious system is thrown away from this. And Śrīdhara Svāmī gives his comments on this, that kevala bhagavad-upāsanā. Dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ vāstavaṁ vastu vedyam atra (SB 1.1.2).

Lecture on SB 1.7.6 -- Hyderabad, August 18, 1976:

Dharma-artha-kāma-mokṣa (SB 4.8.41, Cc. Ādi 1.90), there are material contaminations. But above this is the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Vyāsadeva introduces dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ vāstavaṁ vastu vedyam atra (SB 1.1.2). Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam... Dharma-artha-kāma-mokṣa. There are some contamination, cheating. But all these things are thrown away, projjhita. Prakṛṣṭa-rūpena ujjhita. So Śrīdhara Svāmī has given his comment on this. Atra mokṣa-vāñchā api nirastam. Mokṣa-vāñchā, to become one with the Supreme. That is also another cheating. So Śrīdhara Svāmī has given his comment, very reliable comment.

Lecture on SB 1.7.8 -- Vrndavana, September 7, 1976:

So this saṁhitā... Saṁhitā means Vedic literature. There are many rascals, they say that "Bhāgavata was not written by Vyāsadeva, it was written by some Bopadeva." They say like that. Māyāvādīs, the Nirīśvaravādī. Because although Nirīśvaravādī, or Māyāvādī leader Śaṅkarācārya, he wrote comments on Bhagavad-gītā, but he could not touch Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, because in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the things are so nicely set up, kṛtvānukramya, that it is not possible by the Māyāvādīs to prove that God is impersonal.

Lecture on SB 1.7.10 -- Vrndavana, September 9, 1976:

So Brahma-sūtra is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Brahma-sūtra is the summary of the whole Vedic literature. Because in future people will misinterpret. Therefore the author of Brahma-sūtra, Vyāsadeva, made natural a comment. And that comment is Brahma-sūtra bhāṣya, the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Don't be misguided by rascals, that "Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is written by somebody else. It is not written by Vyāsadeva." These are rascals proposition. This is given by Śrī Vyāsadeva, and he is the author of Brahma-sūtra. Lokasyājānato vidvāṁś cakre sātvata-saṁhitām (SB 1.7.6). This is sātvata-saṁhitām.

Lecture on SB 1.7.28-29 -- Vrndavana, September 25, 1976:

Yan maithunādi-gṛhamedhi-sukhaṁ hi tuccham (SB 7.9.45). These things are there. So wherefrom it comes, this ādi-rasa? Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has described in his comment on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in the beginning, that Kṛṣṇa is the origin of ādi-rasa, janmādy asya (SB 1.1.1). From there, this ādi-rasa is generated. That is Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. So everything is there. Otherwise, imperfectness. So as there is ādi-rasa, Kṛṣṇa is enjoying with the gopīs and Rādhārāṇī.

Lecture on SB 1.7.44 -- Vrndavana, October 4, 1976:

So anyway, this guru-māra-vidyā should be avoided. That is the instruction in this verse we can get, and that is the Vedic way. It is not that Draupadī is speaking, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu is also speaking... Caitanya Mahāprabhu was very strict on this point. As soon Vallabhācārya spoke that "I have written a better comment than Śrīdhara Svāmī," immediately Caitanya Mahāprabhu become offended. He said, "Oh, you have become more than Śrīdhara Svāmī? You don't care for Svāmī?" So he remarked immediately, svāmī yei jana na māne veśyara bhitare.

Lecture on SB 1.7.49-50 -- Vrndavana, October 7, 1976:

That is Bhagavān. He has wasted his time to describe some mythology? But they have no common sense. And not only that, Vyāsadeva has written. Later on all big, big commentators like Śrīdhara Svāmī, Vijayadhvaja, Vīrarāghavācārya, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, Sanātana Gosvāmī, many. They have never said that this is mythology. Never said. Never said. You'll not find in any of the comments of these big, big stalwart ācārya. Vīrarāghavācārya, he is very learned scholar belonging to the Rāmānujācārya Sampradāya. They have never said it is mythology. Where do you get this idea of mythology? That is possible. God is all-powerful. He can do anything.

Lecture on SB 1.8.18 -- Chicago, July 4, 1974 :

Devotee (2): Prabhupāda, you've..., we've been reading your Caitanya-caritāmṛta comments, and in the Seventh Chapter and Eighth Chapter, that you've been emphasizing very much this mantra,

śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya
prabhu-nityānanda
śrī-advaita gadādhara
śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda

You've asked your disciples to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra at least sixteen times round on the beads. Can this mantra also be chanted afterwards, in addition, also on the beads?

Prabhupāda: No, no. I have advised that, that śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya, this Pañca-tattva, must be chanted, but that is kīrtana, and this is japa. Sixteen rounds, it is called japa. So, kīrtana, when there is chanting, if you chant the Hare..., śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu, then it becomes very clear. There will be no offense. So therefore our process is, first of all chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, er, śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu-nityānanda śrī-advaita gadādhara śrīvās..., you get some strength, then chanting, very..., it will be easy.

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

Just like a big politician, Gandhi, he also has Bhagavad-gītā in his hand, but he never spoke throughout his whole life that Kṛṣṇa is worshipable. He never spoke. Have you seen that he has advised that Kṛṣṇa is worshipable? Never. Dr. Radhakrishnan, he is also so big scholar. He has commented on Bhagavad-gītā. Rather, he says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), Dr. Radhakrishnan says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." That is the difficulty.

Lecture on SB 1.13.12 -- Geneva, June 3, 1974:

There are two comments on this point, why Yadu-kula was destroyed by Kṛṣṇa's plan. One comment is that if they would continue to live, then the same misconception, that a brāhmaṇa is born in the brāhmaṇa family—they would continue to speak that "We are also gods, because we are born of God's family, Kṛṣṇa's family." Just like in India there is a class, they call themselves Nityānanda-vaṁśa, descendants of Lord Nityānanda. But that does not actually happen. And another comment is that all these members of Yadu-kula, they appeared in the Yadu-kula just to enhance the opulence of Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB Excerpt -- New York, March 7, 1975:

Indian woman: May I ask one question, please? In the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, chapter starting twenty-ninth to thirty-five, there is a beautiful description of this rāsa-līlā, and some scholars think that there is some work(?), imagination, in that. So will you please comment upon this?

Prabhupāda: Because they are rascals. We are not commenting on rascals. (laughter) Why do you jump to rāsa-līlā? That is another rascaldom. Bhāgavata, there is twelve cantos. And this rāsa-līlā is described in the thirty-fifth chapter of Tenth Canto. Why you jump there?

Lecture on SB 1.15.30 -- Los Angeles, December 8, 1973:

That is Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. And if you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as some rascal commentator says, then you are reading somebody else; rubbish. There's no meaning. You're simply wasting your time. He may be such scholar, such big politician, like this. In our country, big politician, they have commented; big, big yogis, they have commented; big, big scholars they have... They're all useless. Take it: useless. If you read such commentary of Bhagavad-gītā, it is simply waste of time. If you actually want to study Bhagavad-gītā, then as Arjuna understands. Arjuna directly listened from Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 1.15.36 -- Los Angeles, December 14, 1973:

Therefore it is said, sva-tanvā: "by His own original, spiritual body." This is the distinction you must understand. One scholar has described... Because he does not know Kṛṣṇa and still writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Just think of Myself, just become my devotee, offer Your obeisances unto Me, worship Me," this rascal says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa the person, but to the soul." Now he says... Just see how much ignorant he is. He does not know that Kṛṣṇa has no such division as His self or soul and the body, and he is writing comment. And this is very scholarly. It is... He is a rascal number one, and he is accepted as scholar. This is going on. This is going on, all over the world.

Lecture on SB 1.15.36 -- Los Angeles, December 14, 1973:

Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Mūḍhas, the rascals, they think, because I appear as a human being, they think as ordinary human being." Paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ: "They do not know the great potentiality of Myself." Paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ. Still, they will go on explaining Bhagavad-gītā, writing Bhāgavata, comments on. These rascals, mūḍhas, one who does not know that Kṛṣṇa has no distinction, as we have got distinction body and soul, Kṛṣṇa has no such distinction. Kṛṣṇa has no distinction between this Kṛṣṇa's form of stone and Kṛṣṇa Himself. Because the stone is also Kṛṣṇa's energy. Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ (BG 7.4). The earth, water, air, fire, everything is Kṛṣṇa energy. That we have already explained. Parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ. Everything Kṛṣṇa's energy. So He can appear in any form from anywhere from anything. That is Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 1.16.7 -- Los Angeles, January 4, 1974:

So at the time of death this Ajāmila saw fierceful creatures, very odd-looking. So he was very much afraid, "Who are they?" So he thought, because he was very much affectionate to his youngest child... So his name was Nārāyaṇa. He called him, "Nārāyaṇa, please come here. I am very much afraid." But just see the power of chanting the name of Nārāyaṇa. He immediately become eligible to go to Vaikuṇṭha. He did not mean Nārāyaṇa also isn't said. But Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, he gives his commentation that he remembered real Nārāyaṇa after reference to the context. When he called for his child Nārāyaṇa, he remembered real Nārāyaṇa.

Lecture on SB 1.16.11 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1974:

So Vaiṣṇava commentation is that when Kṛṣṇa wants to fight, the fighting is not possible in the spiritual world. And whom with fight? Everyone is engaged in His service. So therefore, to fight, He has to come here to execute His mission. Vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām, to kill the duṣkṛtām, miscreants. So when He personally fights... The duṣkṛtām can be finished simply by indication of Kṛṣṇa. The material energy is so powerful. Yasyājñayā bhramati sambhṛta-kāla-cakraḥ. Even the sun, the most powerful, aśeṣa-tejāḥ, high temperature.

Lecture on SB 2.1.1 -- Delhi, November 4, 1973:

Therefore Arjuna has eulogized his friend, 'Para-brahman.' " No. Kṛṣṇa..., Arjuna said, "It is not that simply because I am appreciating you... You are appreciated, you are approved by Devala, Asita, Vyāsa and Nārada." That is called ātmavit-sammataḥ. Ātmavit. Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Devala, Asita, all the great sages, they accept. Similarly, at the present moment we have got four ācāryas—even take five ācārya—Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, they all approve, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Even Śaṅkarācārya, he is this impersonalist, still, he has commented on his Bhagavad-gītā, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ: "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." So Kṛṣṇa is approved. And because Parīkṣit Mahārāja wanted to talk about Kṛṣṇa, the whole Bhāgavata is full of kṛṣṇa-kathā. That is the beginning. Therefore Śukadeva Gosvāmī said, ātmavit-sammataḥ.

Lecture on SB 2.1.1 -- Vrndavana, March 16, 1974:

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has given his comment: śucīnām means highly cultured brāhmaṇa, and śrīmatām means highly rich vaiśya. So to take birth in this family, cultured family, rich family, is not ordinary thing. It is not ordinary thing. It is the result of pious activities, pious activities. The pious activities means you get your birth in a very good, aristocratic family, rich family or brāhmaṇa family. That is the result of pious activities. You become very beautiful. You become very learned. Janmaiśvarya-śruta-śrī (SB 1.8.26). Four things. Janma means birth. Aiśvarya means riches, wealth.

Lecture on SB 2.3.1-3 -- Los Angeles, May 22, 1972:

Ten million, and thirty-three. Just see. There are so many demigods, and so many desires also. So they are not prohibited. Everything is there in the Bhāgavata, that "If you want this particular..." Kāṅkṣantaḥ karmaṇāṁ siddhiṁ yajanta iha devatāḥ. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: "Those who want quick success in fulfilling some material desires, they worship the demigods." The Māyāvādī, Shankarites, they have made a hodgepodge. They have made so much blunder in understanding the Vedic conclusion. Misleading, simply. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has especially warned that "Anyone who hears about the Māyāvāda commentation, he's doomed. He's gone forever, lost." He will have no understanding, either this way or that. The Vedas, they give us information of the demigods, but they are not imagination. And neither Kṛṣṇa is imagination. The Bhāgavata is giving this direction; Bhāgavata means Vyāsadeva is giving direction that "If you want this profit, then worship this demigod."

Lecture on SB 2.9.13 -- Melbourne, April 12, 1972:

Out of its own accord it cannot act. But if it was made of spirit, then out of his own accord it can play. There is no need of handling. Just like if I ask you, "Bring me a glass of water," so immediately the glass of water is here. But if I ask this, "Give me a glass of water," it cannot. That is difference between matter and spirit. So in the spiritual world there is no need of artificial, mechanical arrangement. Everything is living force. That is the difference. And the Māyāvādī philosophers... Therefore they are called Māyāvādī. They are so fool that even in Kṛṣṇa they find difference, that Kṛṣṇa has got a soul. Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan states, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa the person, but within." He is such a fool that he does not know that there is no within and without Kṛṣṇa. And he is trying to comment on Bhagavad-gītā. He does not know what is Kṛṣṇa. He's distinction, making distinction.

Lecture on SB 2.9.13 -- Melbourne, April 12, 1972:

There is no need of handling. Just like if I ask you, "Bring me a glass of water," so immediately the glass of water is here. But if I ask this, "Give me a glass of water," it cannot. That is difference between matter and spirit. So in the spiritual world there is no need of artificial, mechanical arrangement. Everything is living force. That is the difference. And the Māyāvādī philosophers... Therefore they are called Māyāvādī. They are so fool that even in Kṛṣṇa they find difference, that Kṛṣṇa has got a soul. Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan states, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa the person, but within." He is such a fool that he does not know that there is no within and without Kṛṣṇa. And he is trying to comment on Bhagavad-gītā. He does not know what is Kṛṣṇa. He's distinction, making distinction.

Lecture on SB 2.9.14 -- Melbourne, April 13, 1972:

So Nārada Muni advised, tyaktvā sva-dharmam: "You give up all these occupational duties according to the modes of nature. Tyaktvā. You take immediately shelter of Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa, as Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇam (BG 18.66). Sarva-dharmān means all kinds of this dharma: brāhmaṇa's dharma, or the kṣatriya's dharma, or the... Give up all this. Then? Mām ekaṁ śaraṇam. So Nārada also says that same thing. That is the characteristic of devotee. What the Lord says, the devotee will say. He will not make any addition, alteration, and amalgamate and comment. No. He will say the same thing. Kṛṣṇa says that "You surrender unto Me, giving up all your occupational duty." Nārada also says that "Suppose one gives up his occupational duty and surrenders to the Supreme Personality of Godhead," tyaktvā sva-dharmam caraṇāmbujaṁ harer (SB 1.5.17), "takes shelter of the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality." All right. It is very good.

Lecture on SB 3.12.19 -- Dallas, March 3, 1975:

So if we accept the statement of Kṛṣṇa, then we understand Kṛṣṇa immediately. Otherwise, by speculation, it is not possible. That is the fact. There are so many... Such a person, such a big, who is estimated as very, very big person, Mahatma Gandhi, he could not understand Kṛṣṇa. From his writing we see. He said, "I don't believe that there was any person Kṛṣṇa living ever." Just see. He could not understand. Similarly, Dr. Radhakrishnan, Tilak, so many big, big scholars, they have written comment on Bhagavad-gītā, but they, still they have proved that they're rascal number one. Because they did not follow the process of understanding Kṛṣṇa, therefore they could not understand. And here even a child, our Śyāmasundara's daughter, (s)he used to go to somebody and ask him, "Do you know what is Kṛṣṇa?" He says, "No, I do not know." "He's the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Just see. And all these boys and children, they are learning so easily Kṛṣṇa, and a person like Mahatma Gandhi, he said that, something different. You see? Just see. This is the position.

Lecture on SB 3.25.4 -- Bombay, November 4, 1974:

So actually, the Absolute Truth is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, or the Vedānta-sūtra's explanation, natural explanation,... Actually, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was written by Vyāsadeva. Here it is said, dvaipāyana-sakha. Dvaipāyana means Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva compiled this Brahma-sūtra, and he explained it, bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **, this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. If we read some artificial comments on Brahma-sūtra, we'll misunderstand. Generally, these Māyāvādīs give prominence of the comment given by Śaṅkarācārya about Brahma-sūtra, Śārīraka-bhāṣya. But that is unnatural. The natural commentation is given by the author himself, Vyāsadeva. So we have to understand... Vyāsadeva has written Brahma-sūtra, and we have to understand the meaning of Brahma... Brahma-sūtra means codes only. So codes can be explained by the author himself. So our process is to accept the Brahma-sūtra.

Lecture on SB 3.25.4 -- Bombay, November 4, 1974:

So Maitreya was friend of Vyāsadeva. That means he knows what Vyāsadeva knows. So we have to approach such spiritual master or instructor who is in disciplic succession of Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva. Everyone claims that "We are also following Vyāsadeva." But not superficially. Actually following Vyāsadeva. Just like Vyāsadeva accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Arjuna said, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12), he accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Para-brahman, the Supreme Person. So one may say that "Arjuna was friend of Kṛṣṇa; he might have accepted like that." No. He gave evidence that "Vyāsadeva also accepts You. Vyāsadeva also accepts You, 'You are the Para-brahman.' " Vyāsadeva begins the comments on Vedānta-sūtra: oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya. He begins, janmādy asya yataḥ, paraṁ satyaṁ dhīmahi (SB 1.1.1).

Lecture on SB 3.25.25 -- Bombay, November 25, 1974:

There are so many Māyāvādīs and avaiṣṇava, they practically do not accept Kṛṣṇa even the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and they dare to speak on Bhagavad-gītā. Just see the fun. He does not accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is, and he wants to comment and give his ṭīkā. So you'll never derive any benefit. Therefore here it is said, satāṁ prasaṅgāt. You should hear Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from the devotees, not from a third-class man, no. Third class means those who are materialistic. So therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has warned that māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa. If you happen to hear from a Māyāvādī, impersonalist, who does not accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or does not know what is Kṛṣṇa, if such person reads Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, you will never derive any benefit.

Lecture on SB 3.25.31 -- Bombay, December 1, 1974:

So our this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to present the Kṛṣṇa consciousness, or the conclusion given by Kṛṣṇa, or the conclusion in the Bhagavad-gītā, in this āmnāya Sāṅkhya philosophy, disciple after disciple, not that "I know little more ABCD. I am, therefore, a big scholar. I can interpret Bhagavad-gītā in my own way." This is useless. This is useless. You cannot make your own comment. But that is not also good. So many commentaries which have been made without this āmnāya, Sāṅkhya process, they are useless. There is no effect. This is very essential. Therefore Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says in the Fourth Chapter, evaṁ paramparā prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2). That is required, paramparā, āmnāya, disciplic succession.

Lecture on SB 3.25.35 -- Bombay, December 4, 1974:

We have several times discussed this point that the so-called scholars, politicians, and philosophers, they read Bhagavad-gītā and comment in a different way. This is their foolishness. They cannot understand Bhagavad-gītā. It is not possible. My Guru Mahārāja used to say, "It is just licking the bottle of honey." Now you want honey. I give you one bottle, but you do not know how to taste it. You begin to lick up the bottle. Then what you will taste? If you think, "Here is the bottle of honey. Let me lick," you will not get any taste. It must be opened. But the opening key is with the devotee. You do not know how to open it. Therefore it is said, satāṁ prasaṅgān mama vīrya-saṁvido bhavanti hṛt-karṇa-rasāyanāḥ (SB 3.25.25). The devotees know how to open it, the bottle. And then they can taste. Therefore, sabhājayante mama pauruṣāṇi.

Lecture on SB 3.26.27 -- Bombay, January 4, 1975:

In every chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam you will find this statement by Vyāsadeva, brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya. Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya is not that Śaṅkara's bhāṣya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya. That is artificial. Here the brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya. Brahma-sūtra is written by Vyāsadeva, and because he knew that in future so many rascals will misinterpret this Brahma-sūtra, therefore he compiled personally the bhāṣya of Brahma-sūtra. That is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇāṁ vedārtha-paribṛṁhitam **: "The meaning of the Vedas is completely described, and it is the original comment on Brahma-sūtra." Therefore you will see Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins from the words of Brahma-sūtra: jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā. As it is said in the Brahma-sūtra, athāto brahma jijñāsā, the Bhāgavata says that jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā: "The living entity's only business is to inquire about the Absolute Truth." Na yaś ceha karmabhiḥ: "No other business." Dharmārtha-kāma-mokṣa (SB 4.8.41).

Lecture on SB 3.26.27 -- Bombay, January 4, 1975:

Mokṣa is another... "I shall make me void. I shall finish my existence, individual existence. I shall merge into the existence of the Absolute," this conception, mokṣa, mukti, is also commented by Śrīdhara Svāmī, "This is another cheating, another cheating." Because there cannot be mokṣa. You cannot become one with the Supreme. How you can be? As it is said in the Bhagavad-gītā, mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ jīva-loke sanātanaḥ (BG 15.7). Sanātanaḥ. You are part and parcel of the Supreme. How you can become one? So this kind of attempt is also cheating. You cannot become one. Because eternally, sanātana, eternally, you are different. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "Myself, My dear Arjuna, yourself, and all the soldiers and kings who have assembled in this battlefield, they were the same individual in the past, and they are individual now, and they will continue to remain individual." So where there is oneness? In the past, present, future the individuality is there.

Lecture on SB 3.26.31 -- Bombay, January 8, 1975:

We have to see how wonderfully the subtle actions are described in Sāṅkhya philosophy by Kapiladeva. There are many modern psychologist, scientist, physicist, but they cannot analyze the subtle function that is going on, creating things as they are. Superficially we can see, but how things are taking place, that can be described in the Vedic literatures, not any other book. Therefore it is said, vidyā bhāgavatāvadhiḥ: "One who has studied Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam thoroughly, he has seen the end of knowledge." And actually, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the commentary or explanation on the Vedānta-sūtra. Vyāsadeva made Vedānta-sūtra, the ultimate knowledge, and he made his comment also, natural commentary. That is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. At the end of every chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam you will find, brahma-sūtrasya bhāṣya: "It is the natural comment of Brahma-sūtra." So if we study Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam very thoroughly and specifically from a person bhāgavata, then our life is successful. Nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā (SB 1.2.18). That is the instruction, nityam.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 11, 1975:

Practically everyone reads. But unfortunately they do not... Most of them, they do not take Bhagavad-gītā as it is. That is the difficulty. If you take Bhagavad-gītā as it is, you become self-realized liberated soul. But the misfortune is that we become more than Kṛṣṇa, and we want to comment Bhagavad-gītā in our own way. That is our misfortune. (applause) That is our misfortune.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 11, 1975:

So we must have common sense to understand and understand through other sources also. As Madhvācārya says, "No, jagat satyam, that is fact." How you can say this jagat is false? It is not false. Besides that, that Vyāsadeva, he's the compiler of Vedānta-sūtra, and he has commented himself about Vedānta-sūtra. That is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. And at the end of each chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, you'll find, brahma-sūtrasya bhāṣya. So, when the author is giving a commentary personally, we should accept that. Why others? So Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary given by Vyāsadeva.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 12, 1975:

So everything is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā, and that is the essence of all Vedic literature. Our propaganda is that you read Bhagavad-gītā, try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any foolish commentary. As soon as you comment, that is foolishness. Don't do it. Read as it is. Then you'll get the enlightenment and you'll understand Kṛṣṇa, because Kṛṣṇa is teaching to make you understand what is God, what is Kṛṣṇa. Why should we deviate? Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, "Learn Bhagavad-gītā, the same instruction, mahat-sevā." Sevā. Kṛṣṇa says, tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34), unless you are prepared to render service to your spiritual master... First of all you must find out the proper spiritual master. Then you must engage yourself to his service.

Lecture on SB 5.5.3 -- Hyderabad, April 15, 1975:

He is first-class yogi. So everything is there ending in bhakti. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā, the only talk is about bhakti, in a different way, either through karma-yoga, or jñāna-yoga, or haṭha-yoga. The point is how to become a devotee, and at the end He concludes, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). This is the conclusion of, so these things cannot be understood by anyone who is not a devotee. Without being devotee, you cannot understand. Therefore there are so many, the politicians, the scholars, they are commenting Bhagavad-gītā in so many ways, but they are misled. Because they are not devotee of Kṛṣṇa. They cannot poke their nose in the Bhagavad-gītā. It is not possible. So Arjuna was bhakta, therefore Bhagavad-gītā was spoken to him. Not to a yogi, not to a karmī, not to a jñānī. This is the answer.

Lecture on SB 5.5.14 -- Vrndavana, November 2, 1976:

Not that officially, I attend bhāgavata-kathā for seven days or ten days in a year, and there are 365 days, and other 355 days, I go to the share market and simply inquire about the raise of this share and that share. That will not help you. Nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā (SB 1.2.18), then it is bhakti-yoga. This manufacturing of seven days bhāgavata-kathā, it is business. It is not bhāgavata-kathā. In the Bhāgavata comments, there are so many authorized comments, just like Śrīdhara Svāmī, Vīrarāghavācārya, Vijayadhvaja, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Jīva Gosvāmī, and Giridhārī Gosvāmī, so many. Nowhere it is stated that you hear bhāgavata-kathā for seven days. You will not find. Therefore this seven days bhāgavata-kathā, so far we can understand, it is not authorized. Here also it is said, nityam, mat-kathayā ca nityam. Never you will find seven days.

Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said, "Any rascal"—of course, "rascal" he did not say; I say—that. "Anyone who considers the body of Kṛṣṇa is prakṛta"—prakṛta means material—"that is the greatest offense." The Māyāvādīs, they say so. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, māyāvādī haya kṛṣṇe aparādhī. They think that when... "God is impersonal, but when He becomes a person, He accepts the material body." That is wrong. Here it is said that mukta-liṅgasya bhagavata ṛṣabhasya. It is no difference. Even a big scholar, while writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), he warns the reader, "It is not to the person. The soul or the spirit within the person." Means he is thinking Kṛṣṇa as ordinary person, and he's a big scholar. This is going on.

Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976:

Kṛṣṇa condemns, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritaḥ (BG 9.11). Anyone who thinks that Kṛṣṇa has a different soul... No. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's so-called soul, the same thing. There is no difference. That is the... Otherwise how Kṛṣṇa can lift, as a seven-years-old boy, Govardhana Hill? Is it possible by this material body? No. That is not possible. This is common sense. But they cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, mūḍhā. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā. They call, "It is mythology. Mythology. Everything mythology." First of all they cannot find out what is God, and when God comes, shows His opulences, these rascals say, "It is mythology." What God will do? He comes before you. He displays His mighty opulences. He expanded Himself into sixteen thousand form. "Mythology." So what can I do? What Kṛṣṇa can do? Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca (Bs. 5.33). Śāstra says He has got ananta-rūpam, but still one. There is no difference. They cannot understand the Absolute Truth, and they like to comment upon it foolishly.

Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976:

This is my final instruction." Māyāvādam asac-chastraṁ pracchanaṁ bauddham ucyate. Kalau brahma-mūrtinā. He has some business to do that, but actually, we should not hear about..., especially Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya avoided to write any comments on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He has written comments on Bhagavad-gītā, but he has completely avoided to write any comment on Bhāgavata because he knew that "I am doing the wrong thing. How can I touch Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam?" Śrīmad-bhāgavatam amalaṁ purāṇaṁ yad vaiṣṇavānāṁ priyam. He has purposefully avoided. And the ācārya, other ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī and up to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, everyone has accepted, Śrīmad-bhāgavatam amalaṁ purāṇam.

Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976:

So be careful of these rascals. Māyāvādī-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva nāśa (CC Madhya 6.169). Then you'll never be able to understand Kṛṣṇa. Yogamāyā-samāvṛtaḥ. We should take the instruction of the śāstra that Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's soul, there are... Ekam evādvitiyaḥ. He is one, without any second. Bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśi..., niṣevataḥ syāt īśad apetasya. Īśad apetasya. So the more we forget Kṛṣṇa, then we are in the material stage. Material stage means bhayam, always fearful. "Why shall I accept Kṛṣṇa as human being, as a person? Oh, it is... It is not. How He can be a person? How a person can produce such a vast sky?" He says, bhūmir āpo analo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva: (BG 7.4) "Yes, I have produced the sky." But these rascals will not believe how a person can do it. They'll comment in their own way. So avoid this.

Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970:

Therefore Śukadeva Gosvāmī comments, na tathā hy aghavān rājan pūyeta tapa-ādibhiḥ. Tapasya, austerity; brahmācārya, celibacy; controlling the mind; controlling the senses—they are also recommended, but they are not as strong means as devotional service. Na tathā hy aghavān rājan pūyeta tapa-ādhibhiḥ. That aghavān, those who are sinful persons, they cannot become so much purified by observing austerity, penances, celibacy, as one can become completely freed from sinful reaction by becoming devotee. Yathā kṛṣṇārpita-prāṇas tat-puruṣa-niṣevayā. One who has dedicated his life to Kṛṣṇa, kṛṣṇārpita prāṇa. Prāṇa means life, and arpita means dedicated unto Kṛṣṇa. Or kṛṣṇārpita, two things: one to dedicate his life to Kṛṣṇa, and at the same time tat-puruṣa-niṣevayā

Lecture on SB 6.1.15 -- New York, August 1, 1971:

Śrīdhara Svāmī is giving his commentation in this connection, that tasya ati duṣkarād mukham eva anyāt prāyaścittaṁ kecit kīrtanena, evaṁ mūḍho bhakti pradhāna virala iti darśayet(?). Kaivalyaṁ tapa-ādibhir nirapekṣaya(?). Śrīdhara Svāmī's explaining this word, kevalayā, "simply by devotional service," kevalayā bhaktyā—but without being dependent on other processes. The other processes we have described: tapasā brahmacaryeṇa śamena damena (SB 6.1.13), by observing celibacy. Now take for example celibacy. In this age, especially... Why especially in this or that? All over the world, to remain a brahmacārī is little difficult.

Lecture on SB 6.1.21 -- Honolulu, May 21, 1976:

So it is the natural comment by Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva is the writer of Vedānta philosophy, and he has written a comment personally so that in future, rascals may not misrepresent Vedānta. There are so many bhāṣyas, but that is not commentary. Real commentary... The author knows what he wants to speak. So Vedānta is the compilation by Vyāsadeva. So he knows what he wants to speak. What others have got the right? Just like Bhagavad-gītā. The purpose of Bhagavad-gītā is known by Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 6.1.21 -- Honolulu, May 21, 1976:

Why the rascals comment in different way? They may write their rascal philosophy other... Why they touch Bhagavad-gītā and give different interpretation? They have no right. I have written a book; I have got my purpose. Why you should poke your nose and make it a different purpose? This is very mischievous rascaldom. So we want to stop this. We present Bhagavad-gītā as it is, as Kṛṣṇa says. We don't allow any rascal to comment upon Bhagavad-gītā in a different way. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. This is very natural. If you have got a different type of philosophy, you can write. Why you should touch Bhagavad-gītā and misrepresent it? So because they are śūdras—their business is to cheat—they do that. But a brāhmaṇa will not do that. Yathānugītānām. Yathānugītānām.

Lecture on SB 6.1.27 -- Indore, December 15, 1970:

Evaṁ vartamāno 'jño mṛtyu-kāla upasthite. When it was time for death, mṛtyu-kāla upasthite, matiṁ cakāra tanaye bāle nārāyaṇa. So the benefit was, because he was chanting the name of Nārāyaṇa in connection with his child's name, naturally at the time of his death he was thinking of the Nārāyaṇa child, the name. Viśvanātha Cakravartī has commented on this point that this Nārāyaṇa, thinking of the name of the child, immediately reminded him of the service he was doing according to his father's direction. He was also, in the childhood or in his boyhood, he was engaged in the service of the Lord, Nārāyaṇa.

Lecture on SB 6.1.28-29 -- Honolulu, May 28, 1976:

So when he was too much afraid of this Yamadūta, unconsciously he chanted the holy name of Nārāyaṇa. So somehow or other he remembered Nārāyaṇa. Some commentator says that when he chanted "Nārāyaṇa," then all his reaction of sinful life immediately disappeared and he remembered real Nārāyaṇa. Because he, in his boyhood, was trained up as a Vaiṣṇava by his father, so some... There is big comments on this incidence. Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has written three or four pages about this. So his opinion is that as soon as he chanted the holy name of Nārāyaṇa, immediately he remembered real Nārāyaṇa.

Lecture on SB 6.1.34-39 -- Surat, December 19, 1970:

Now, Śrīdhāra Swami is commenting why they were smiling, these Viṣṇudūtas, because the Yamadūtas were criticizing, "Why you are interfering?" The Yamadūtas did not know that whatever action is taken by the representative of Viṣṇu, they are not, I mean to say, unnecessarily interference. They are actual fact. Therefore they are smiling, that "These Yamadūtas, without knowing our position, they are trying to criticize us." So they were smiling. Prahasya, prahasya. Just like if a child speaks something to a learned man, he smiles. So Viṣṇudūta were smiling, hearing the Yamadūtas. Meghasya eva nirhrāda hānir yasya prayātaḥ:(?) "They began to speak in grave voice, as if the thundering cloud."

Lecture on SB 6.1.39 -- San Francisco, July 20, 1975:

So whatever Kṛṣṇa says, that is Vedānta. And other so-called Vedantists, they are nonsense. They do not know what is Vedānta. Here is. Kṛṣṇa says, vedānta-vit: "I know what is Vedānta." "Why You know?" Vedānta-kṛt: "I have compiled Vedānta." In the incarnation of Vyāsadeva, Vyāsadeva incarnation, Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Vyāsa... Mahā-muni-kṛte. Mahā-muni, the great sage, Vyāsadeva, is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. So he has compiled Vedānta-sūtra. Therefore he knows what is Vedānta. And because Vedānta is being misinterpreted by the rascals, therefore Vyāsadeva personally has commented on Vedānta-sūtra by writing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore he begins Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam with the first aphorism of Vedānta, janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ sva-rāṭ (SB 1.1.1).

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970:

Veda-praṇihito dharmo hy adharmas tad viparyayaḥ vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt (SB 6.1.40). Veda means Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead directly. Just like lawbook is directly government, similarly, veda nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt svayambhūr iti śuśruma. Again he says, susruma, "I have heard it. I have heard it." When I say, "I have heard it," that means I have heard it from a superior authority. Śuśruma. No follower of Vedic principle will say, "It is my opinion." Your opinion is nonsense. What you are? This is the way of understanding Vedas. Śuśruma. Therefore Veda is known as śruti, śruti and smṛti. There is no such thing that "In my opinion, I comment like this. I take the meaning like this." No. You have to understand it by the śuśruma process or śrota-panthā, by hearing from the authorities.

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970:

Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam (BG 4.1), that "First of all I said this principle of bhagavad-bhakti-yoga, or Bhagavad-gītā yoga, to the sun-god." Imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham: "I spoke." Proktavān. Vivasvān manave prahuḥ: "And the sun-god said to his son, Manu." Manur ikṣvākave bravīt. Just see. That means the principles of Bhagavad-gītā is being accepted by the process of hearing from authority. That is the process. You cannot comment in your own way. That is not authorized. You have to hear from the authority. Therefore Kathopanisad says, tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet: (MU 1.2.12) "If anyone wants to learn the transcendental science, he has to accept." Gacchet. This is vidhiliṅ, "must." There is no exception. You cannot say that "Without going to a spiritual master, I shall learn the transcendental science." No, that is not possible.

Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970:

Therefore the science of God is for persons who are not envious. That is religion. Bhāgavata, in the Bhāgavata you will find in the beginning it is said, dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavaḥ atra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satām: (SB 1.1.2) "Here the religion of Bhāgavata is not a cheating religion." Kaitava. Kaitava means cheating, cheating. And Śrīdhara Svāmī has remarked, commented on the statement, kaitava. He says that atra mokṣa-vāñchā-paryantaṁ nirastam:(?) "Anyone who is trying to become liberated or merge into the existence of God, that is also cheating." Nirastam: that is also nullified, nirastam.

Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970:

So sincere..., those who are actually followers of Vedas, they should understand that there is no difference between the Lord and His words—absolute. We read Bhagavad-gītā, the words of Kṛṣṇa. Then how we can change the meaning of Gītā when it is spoken by Lord? Does it mean that I am greater than the Lord? "Kṛṣṇa left something to be told by some rascals later on"—is that the meaning of Bhagavad-gītā? Then where is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? If the meaning was to be corrected and commented by a conditioned soul, then where is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? Then what is the necessity of reading Bhagavad-gītā? Simply because it is written in Sanskrit? No. That is not the fact.

Lecture on SB 6.1.63 -- Vrndavana, August 30, 1975:

The intelligence is how to get out of it. That is this movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, how to get out of this dangerous position and go back to home, back to Godhead—this is the mission. It is not that by spiritual advancement one gets material facilities to increase the income and increase the standard of sense enjoyment. This is karma-kāṇḍīya-vicāra karma, to get the resultant action of our fruitive activities. And that is not very... They are called mūḍha. Those who are engaged in karma-kāṇḍīya entanglement, they are called mūḍha. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented on the word mūḍha described in the Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā. The mūḍha means karmīs. Karmīs, they work day, day and night, very hard. What is their aim? The aim is sense gratification. That is done by animals like dogs and hogs and asses. Nāyaṁ deho deha-bhājāṁ nṛloke kaṣṭān kāmān arhate viḍ-bhujāṁ ye (SB 5.5.1).

Lecture on SB 6.2.5-8 -- Calcutta, January 10, 1971:

So one may be not bewildered. They may criticize that it's too much, but it is not too much. It is actual fact. Actual fact. That is aparādha. One who thinks like that, that hari-nāma has not so much power that it can counteract, they are offender. For them it is not possible. But one who believes in the words of the śāstras, as it is stated here, for him it is actually effective. Artha-vāda. Out of ten offenses, artha-vāda, one who comments like that, that is artha-vāda, and that is offense. So those who are cultivating this chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, they should have firm faith in the statement of the śāstras that chanting of harer nāma is so powerful.

Lecture on SB 6.2.11 -- Allahabad, January 16, 1971:

The purification of chanting harer nāma (CC Adi 17.21) means as soon as you chant the holy name of Kṛṣṇa immediately you will see the form of Kṛṣṇa, you will realize the qualities of Kṛṣṇa, you will immediately remember the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa. That is pure chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. That is the commented by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, that a pure devotee who chants Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, immediately all these—nāma, rūpa, guṇa, līlā, parikara, vasiṣṭha... Simply by chanting name you will feel the form of Kṛṣṇa: "Here is Kṛṣṇa." Nāma, rūpa, guṇa. "Here are the qualities.

Lecture on SB 6.2.11 -- Allahabad, January 16, 1971:

Just like Arjuna. Arjuna is killing, engaged in killing. People may think that "Oh, Arjuna is not very good man. He is killing his grandfather, he is killing his, what is called, nephews, and devastating the whole family. Oh, he is not a good man." Sometimes comment, people comment like that. But Kṛṣṇa says, bhakto 'si priyo 'si me: (BG 4.3) "You are My very dear friend." Just try to understand. In the estimation of the material world he is a very good man, er, he is not a good man because he is killing his own kinsmen. But in the estimation of Kṛṣṇa, he is dear friend and devotee. So that is the difference between a devotee and good man of this world.

Lecture on SB 6.2.15 -- Vrndavana, September 18, 1975:

So the Vedic injunction, tattva-jijñāsā, that is the first aphorism in the Vedānta-sūtra. Athāto brahma-jijñāsāḥ: "The human form of life is meant for inquiring about the Absolute Truth." Therefore Bhāgavata explains, jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā. That is the explanation of Brahma-sutra. Therefore you will find at the end of each chapter of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, śrīmad-bhāgavate mahā-purāṇe brahma-sutra-bhasye. The Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is the real comment on Brahma-sutra, Vedānta-sūtra.

Lecture on SB 6.3.12-15 -- Gorakhpur, February 9, 1971:

Kṛṣṇa does not say everyone that sarva-dharmān parityajya (BG 18.66), only to a selected devotee. Because unless one is very highly elevated devotee, he cannot accept this proposition. He is puffed up with his material, contaminated life. That's all. "I am this. I am that. I am this. I am that. Why shall I surrender?" Actually they forgot. Dr. Radhakrishnan says, "This is sophistry, that Kṛṣṇa is demanding like that." He is proud of his becoming a great philosophy, but he does not know he is a fool number one. He comments on the Bhagavad-gītā in a different way. That he does not know. Therefore he is surprised: "How this gentleman, Kṛṣṇa, is asking to surrender? I am so proud. I am so learned." But this is the only process.

Lecture on SB 6.3.16-17 -- Gorakhpur, February 10, 1971:

Tasmād..., tan-māyā-mohitatvād na jānanti ity uktam aviṣayatvāc ca tasya ity āha. So Śrīdhāra Swami give his comment that "Those who are," I mean to say, "involved with the material energy..." This material energy means the three modes of passion, ignorance, and goodness. Tan-māyā-mohita. This is the moha. Moha means illusion. Anyone who is contaminated by these three qualities of māyā, he is supposed to be involved in māyika, or material existence. Tan-māyā-mohitatvād na jānanti: "And anyone who is involved with the material qualities of this external energy, they cannot understand what is God." It is not possible. Aviṣayatvāc ca.

Lecture on SB 6.3.16-17 -- Gorakhpur, February 10, 1971:

Aviṣayatvāc ca. This is not their subject matter at all. The subject matter for them different. Therefore we see. They are becoming educated, scientists, philosophers, but they do not understand what is God. Avisayatvāc ca. It is not their subject matter. That I repeatedly say, that one who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, it is, Bhagavad-gītā is not a subject matter for their study, what to speak of commenting upon it? He has no business to comment on Bhagavad-gītā because it is not their subject matter. This should be very distinctly understood.

Lecture on SB 7.5.23-24 -- Vrndavana, March 31, 1976:

Śrī Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī recommended that a brāhmaṇa... He wrote something about Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and there were so many discrepancies. So Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī was not at all satisfied with such writings. He chastised the brāhmaṇa that "You cannot write." So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Kṛṣṇa. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education. It depends on the spiritual realization. You'll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhāgavatam by different ācāryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as ārṣa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Boston, May 8, 1968:

So Prahlāda Mahārāja recommends to the world society that from the very beginning of childhood this science should be taught. Why? Durlabhaṁ mānuṣaṁ janma tad apy adhruvam arthadam. Now this human form of life is very important. Śrīdhara Swami comments on this, (reads Sanskrit commentary) kaumāra ity ādinā, ihaiva mānuṣa-janmani dharmān ācaret. Now question may be why in this birth of human life it is so much stressed? The answer is durlabham.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- New York, April 9, 1969:

My Guru Mahārāja used to say that one who is licking up the bottle of honey. He is thinking that "I am licking honey," but that is impossible(?). Similarly, the so-called scholars when they comment on Bhagavad-gītā, they are licking up the bottle of honey. The taste of honey is different. That taste one can get when the bottle is opened by (indistinct) person. Then he can taste the Bhagavad-gītā. Otherwise licking up the bottle, that's all. If one is satisfied by licking up the bottle of honey, without tasting it.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Vrndavana, December 2, 1975:

So Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the mokṣa-kāma Tara madhye mokṣa vāñchā. That is very inferior desire. And Śrīdhara Swami, he has commented on the Bhāgavata verse, atra mokṣa-vāñchā api nirasta. A devotee should not desire even for mokṣa. What is mokṣa? Mokṣa is very insignificant thing for a devotee. Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura has explained, muktiḥ mukulitāñjali sevate asmān. "Mukti, she is standing on my door and flattering me, 'Sir, what can I do for you?' " This is mukti. So why a devotee shall aspire about mukti? No.

Lecture on SB 7.6.3-4 -- San Francisco, March 8, 1967:

In the Bhagavad-gītā, the meditation has to be concentrated upon the Viṣṇu. Mat-para. The word is mat-para. One has to concentrate his meditation upon the form of Viṣṇu. Nothing else. That is real meditation. But if Maharishi has manufactured his own way of meditation, I cannot comment upon it. Because we have to comment on the books of authority. Any other question? All right. (end)

Lecture on SB 7.7.28, 32-35 -- Mombassa, September 11, 1971:

Sarva-labdhārpaṇena. Śrīdhara Swami comments on the sarva-labdhārpaṇena means sarveṣāṁ sādhyanam ātmanena. Sādhya means respect. Whatever highest respect you have got, that should be offered to the spiritual master. Sarva-sādhya-paṇena(?). Then tat-pādāmburuha..., tat-pādāmburuha-dhyānāt..., tat-pādāmburuha-dhyānāt tat liṅga ārhaṇa ādi. Īkṣa ārhaṇa ādi. So the linga. Linga means the form, the Deity. Tat-pādāmburuha-dhyānāt. Always meditating upon the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. This Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma... As soon as we hear this sound, immediately we remember the form of Kṛṣṇa. Immediately we concentrate on the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 7.9.10 -- Mayapur, February 17, 1976:

Nārada Muni said, the greatest authority. He said that these are the qualities of brāhmaṇa, as described. If these qualities are found elsewhere, anyatra... Suppose a man is born in the śūdra family, but he had developed these qualities. Then he should be called a brāhmaṇa. And suppose a person is born in the brāhmaṇa family but he has acquired the qualities of śūdra or caṇḍāla. Then he should be called caṇḍāla. This is Nārada Muni's statement. And Śrīdhāra Swami gives his comment upon this śloka, that birth is not primary; the qualities are primary.

Lecture on SB 7.9.11-13 -- Hawaii, March 24, 1969:

Now, sacrificial, ritualistic ceremonies, in the Vedas, priestly, that is, that work is, I mean to say, allotted to the brāhmaṇa class. Now, Jīva Gosvāmī has discussed this verse in this way, that "Even a caṇḍāla, a person born in the family of dog-eaters, if he chants the holy name of the Lord, he becomes so purified that immediately he becomes eligible to operate sacrificial, ritualistic ceremony." So Jīva Gosvāmī has commented in this connection that a boy, a child born in the brāhmaṇa family, in order to accept him as real brāhmaṇa... He's born in a pure family. That's all right. But there are other ceremonies, reformatory ceremonies, and this thread ceremony is also one of the ceremonies.

Lecture on SB 7.9.18 -- Mayapur, February 25, 1976:

That is the secret of success. If your literature is exactly following the mahājano yena sa gataḥ, then it will be liked by highly advanced saintly person. And if it is a presentation of mundane literary career... Therefore that gentleman has rejected even Aurobindo and Dr... Others he has rejected: "They are useless." Other commentation on Bhāgavata, he has... But he has rejected even Aurobindo and Dr. Radhakrishnan. Dr. Radhakrishnan is well known as a big philosopher, and Aurobindo, he's also known as great speculator, but he rejected. Yes, they should be rejected because it is vāyasa-tīrtha. What is the use, jugglery of words? It has no fact, all imaginary. All imaginary.

Lecture on SB 7.12.1 -- Bombay, April 12, 1976:

So we cannot avoid in our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. That was the problem from the very beginning. In India there is restriction between men and women, free intermingling, but in your country there is no such restriction. Therefore I got my disciples married. They criticize me that I have become a marriage-maker. Anyway, I wanted at least to regulate. That is required. Dharmāviruddhaḥ kāmo 'smi. Kṛṣṇa also says. Now, a married man also can be brahmacārī. If a married man stick to one wife, and before sex, if he takes permission from his spiritual master, then he is brahmacārī. Not whimsically. When the spiritual master orders him that "Now you can beget a child," then he is brahmacārī. Śrīla Vira-Rāghava Ācārya, he has described in his comment that there are two kinds of brahmacārī. One brahmacārī is naiṣṭhikī-brahmacārī; he doesn't marry. And another brahmacārī is... Although he marries, he is fully under control of the spiritual master, even for sex. He is also brahmacārī.

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 21, 1972:

Anyone who is preaching the message of Lord Caitanya or Lord Kṛṣṇa, the same thing... There is no difference. Kṛṣṇa said that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). This is Kṛṣṇa's. Kṛṣṇa's message. And Lord Caitanya says, yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa upadeśa (CC Madhya 7.128). So there is no difference. Kṛṣṇa's upadeśa is to everyone that everyone should give up all nonsense type of occupation... Kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ yajante anya-devatāḥ (BG 7.20). Those who are attached to the worship of demigods, they have been condemned by Kṛṣṇa: hṛta-jñānāḥ. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented on this word, hṛta-jñānāḥ: naṣṭa-buddhayaḥ, "those who have lost their all intelligence." So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is preaching the same as Lord Kṛṣṇa said and as Lord Caitanya said.

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

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 -- Vrndavana, October 24, 1972:

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has commented on this line, śvādo 'pi sadyaḥ, that a dog-eater, after becoming a devotee, immediately he becomes a qualified brāhmaṇa, so much so that he becomes competent to become a priest in the matter of offering sacrifices. But Jīva Gosvāmī says that even a person is born in brāhmaṇa family, he awaits the qualification of performing sacrifices.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 5, 1973:

That is wanted. One has to go back to home, back to Godhead. That is the perfection of life. This human life should be utilized for going back to home, back to... But they have no idea. They do not know what is God, where is back to home, back to Godhead—nothing, no education, although the knowledge is there in the Bhagavad-gītā and other śāstras. Everything is there, but we have become so fools that we take Bhagavad-gītā and comment in a different way so that people may not understand. He does not understand himself, and how he'll explain? Nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ (BG 7.25).

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

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.

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

So Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī and all the six Gosvāmīs, they developed this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement by sitting together in Vṛndāvana. And not only in Vṛndāvana, in that very particular place, Rādhā-Dāmodara temple, where we have got a little space. That you have seen, Rūpa Gosvāmī's tomb, that space. All the six Gosvāmīs, they used to sit down and discuss Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī was reading, and all the other Gosvāmīs, Rūpa, Sanātana, they were hearing, and Jīva Gosvāmī was writing comment. That is the comment of Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha. So that place in Vṛndāvana, Rādhā Dāmodara Temple, is very sacred place.

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

Uttiṣṭhata jāgrata prāpya varān nibhodata. The Vedas say, "Now you wake up, take advantage." Prāpya varān. "You have got this book. You fulfill your mission. Don't rot in this material world." Kṛṣṇa Himself comes, He..., to recall us. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). But still we cannot understand Him. We say Kṛṣṇa is dark, Kṛṣṇa is unknown. Why Kṛṣṇa is unknown? Kṛṣṇa, He is giving His own identification, and I am authority of explaining Bhagavad-gītā, I say Kṛṣṇa is unknown. Just see the fuss. I am writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā for misleading others, and personally when I'm asked, "What you know?" "That Kṛṣṇa is unknown to me." This is going on

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 29, 1972:

We should not manufacture in our own way that: "This is Kṛṣṇa's activity." It must be confirmed by the spiritual master. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has explained in his comment on Bhagavad-gītā in connection with the verse vyavasāyātmikā-buddhiḥ ekeha kuru-nandana... Vyavasāyātmikā-buddhiḥ, niścayātmikā-buddhiḥ. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says that "Whatever order I get from my spiritual master, that is my life and soul. I must execute it thoroughly, without caring for my personal convenience or inconvenience. That is called vyavasāyātmikā-buddhi." Eka.

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

Kṛṣṇa Bhagavad-gītā, go on reading Bhagavad-gītā for millions of years, setting aside Kṛṣṇa. That is scholarly. This is going on. Scholar means they say, openly... I have seen Dr. Radhakrishnan. When he's explaining man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), he's saying openly, "It is not to the person Kṛṣṇa." He's saying. Just see the attempt. He's writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā and he's trying to make Kṛṣṇa away, minus Kṛṣṇa. Simply mental speculation. This is going on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 6, 1972:

Śvādo 'pi sadyaḥ savanāya kalpate. It is commented by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī that a, a person born in the brāhmaṇa family waits for being initiated as twice-born. To take birth in the family of a brāhmaṇa is not sufficient qualification. He has to study the Vedas; he has to be initiated with thread ceremony; so many ritualistic performances. Daśa-vidhā-saṁskāra. Saṁskārād bhaved dvijaḥ. So the distinction is being made by Jīva Gosvāmī that a brāhmaṇa, son of a brāhmaṇa, awaits so many ritualistic ceremonies before he is competent to perform yajña. Not that because he's born of a brāhmaṇa father, therefore he becomes eligible to perform yajña. He requires primarily so much purificatory methods.

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

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. And actually we are seeing that. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is all over the world, and it is becoming successful. Not adulteration. That is spoiling. Adulteration means... The example is given..., it was given by my Guru Mahārāja that there is a cup of sweet rice, and you mix with some grains of sand. Then it is, whole thing is spoiled. You cannot comment on Bhagavad-gītā according to your whims. Kṛṣṇa did not leave Bhagavad-gītā to be understood by your commentation. Try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. You'll be benefited. That is sādhu-mārga-anugamanam.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.3 -- Mayapur, March 27, 1975:

Purāṇaḥ puruṣaḥ nava-yauvanaṁ ca (Bs. 5.33). Although He is the oldest of all, still, He is always like fresh youth, nava-yauvanaṁ ca. So how it is possible? They are trying to understand God. Sometimes they paint the picture of God as very old man. Because He is the original person, so by this time He must have become very old. This is imagination. This is not actually the form of the Lord. The form of the Lord is there in the Brahma-saṁhitā and other Vedic literatures. Even Śaṅkarācārya, who is a impersonalist, he has accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the supreme Nārāyaṇa. In his comment on Bhagavad-gītā he says, nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa is beyond this material creation." And while describing Nārāyaṇa, he has affirmed, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ: "That Nārāyaṇa is Kṛṣṇa." And he has clearly mentioned, "Now He has appeared as the son of Devakī and Vāsudeva," to confirm just like identification is confirmed when the father's name is there.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.3 -- Mayapur, March 27, 1975:

The Vedas, they begin with the Upaniṣad. Vedānta-sūtra, Upaniṣad, they are all Vedic literature. Purāṇas, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, they are all Vedic literatures. Four Vedas—Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Atharva—then the Upaniṣad, then the Vedānta-sūtra, then Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Vedānta-sūtra is the same thing. It is explanation. Therefore at the end of each chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is stated by Vyāsadeva, brahma-sūtrasya bhāṣya. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam means comment on the Brahma-sūtra. Brahma-sūtra is the gist code of all Vedic literature. And then it is explained, athāto brahma jijñāsā.

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

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 7.66-76 -- San Francisco, February 6, 1967:

So Cai..., according to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the so-called Vedānta societies, the so-called, I mean to say, learned scholars on Vedānta, they are not actually Vedānta scholars. They are all fools and rascals. Because Vedānta-sūtra is very difficult to understand. The compiler, the author of Vedānta-sūtra, is Vyāsadeva. He himself thought it wise that "I must leave one commentation of Vedānta-sūtra. Otherwise, in future, people will misunderstand and misuse Vedānta-sūtra." In this connection I'll, oh, I may declare herewith that some of you, if you read the Chicago speech by Vivekananda... That was, he was the first man. He came from India to preach this Hindu philosophy in 1893. Some of you know.

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

So Vedānta-sūtra means... To understand Vedānta-sūtra means that one has to know the Supreme Personality of Godhead, full knowledge, and knowing it fully, knowing his own position fully and God's position fully, one has to surrender. Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ (BG 7.19). That surrendered soul is a great soul who has surrendered, "Oh, God is great." That is Vedānta. Not that giving his own interpretation, as if Vyāsadeva was a fool, and he left Vedānta for being commented by another rascal. No. Then what is the authority of Vedānta? If you can... You are a common man. Your intelligence is so imperfect. You are cheaters, and your senses are imperfect. How you can comment on Vedānta which was compiled by Vyāsadeva, the most perfect personality, liberated personality? How you can comment on Bhagavad-gītā? It is spoken by Kṛṣṇa. 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.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.106-107 -- San Francisco, February 13, 1967:

Lord Kṛṣṇa also says that vedānta vid vedānta kṛd ca aham: "I am the compiler of Vedānta and I am the knower of Vedānta." If God, if Kṛṣṇa is not knower of Vedānta, then how He can compile Vedānta? Vedānta means "the last word in knowledge." We are, everyone, seeking knowledge, and Vedānta means the last word of knowledge. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu first of all establishes that in the Vedānta-sūtra you cannot find any flaw; therefore you have no right to interpret. Because you are nonsense rascal, so how you can touch and comment on the sūtras which is compiled by God, the Supreme Perfect? But we do not admit that "I am rascal."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.106-107 -- San Francisco, February 13, 1967:

I think that I am very much learned, I have no flaw, I am perfect. So these are foolishness. Caitanya Mahāprabhu's point is this, that why the foolish persons go to interpret and comment on Vedānta, which is perfect itself? Do you require to see the sun with this light? How it is possible? The sun is itself illuminated so nicely that you don't require any other light to see sun. If I say, "My dear boy, please come with me and take this light. I'll show you sun in the sky," oh, you'll think, "Oh, Swamijī is a nonsense. What is the use of this light? What is the use of this light?" Similarly, what knowledge you have got that you have to..., you want to comment on the Vedānta-sūtra? It is already illuminated. In the beginning: athāto brahma jijñāsā. Now you have got this human form of life. Now you have got full consciousness.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.106-107 -- San Francisco, February 13, 1967:

I see that Kṛṣṇa is driving the chariot and Arjuna is hearing, and I simply appreciate, 'Oh, Kṛṣṇa is so kind that He has become his chariot driver of His devotee.' Therefore I am crying. Oh, He's so kind." Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, "You are reading Bhagavad-gītā." At once He embraced him. This is reading Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa—minus Bhagavad-gītā commentation, all rascaldom. Be careful of these, all these fools and rascals. That is not Bhagavad-gītā. Maybe Dr. Radhakrishnan, Swami Nikhilananda... All rascals because they have made minus Kṛṣṇa. They want to interpret. Similarly, they interpret Vedānta and all this minus God, minus God. So Kṛṣṇa, Caitanya Mahāprabhu warns you that "Don't go to such rascals." There is no mistake. Try to understand Bhagavad-gītā or Vedānta-sūtra or any scripture as it is. Don't try to change it.

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

"O My dear Arjuna, you just surrender unto Me. You worship Me. You offer your obeisances unto Me. You always think of Me." This is straight. The straight meaning, "Me," Kṛṣṇa is saying. Therefore we should offer our respect to Kṛṣṇa. We should worship Kṛṣṇa. We should think of Kṛṣṇa. We shall chant of Kṛṣṇa. This is the straight meaning. But the commentator says, "Oh, not to Kṛṣṇa." Just see. "Not to Kṛṣṇa." So this nonsensical commentation is... Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, mukhya-vṛttye. Mukhya-vṛttye, directly, as you understand it. If I say, "My dear such and such, give me a glass of water," now you interpret, "Oh, Swamijī wants water.

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

Let me supply this or that, interpretation," what is the use of interpreting? I'm asking for water. Give me water. Call a spade a spade. This should be the... This should be the understanding of Vedānta. Because all foolish nonsense, they are interpreting... "Such and such person's commentation of Vedānta-sūtra." Because they were trying to manifest and expose their thinking power, that "I think that this should be like this." What nonsense you are? What you can think? You think as it is. This is... Caitanya Mahāprabhu says. Don't think otherwise.

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

Prabhupāda: You see. He's the origin of everything. Now, if somebody says, "Oh, what's the commentation there?" What is that commentation? Is there any commentation or simply translation?

Satsvarūpa: Shall I read that?

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Satsvarūpa: Read the commentation?

Prabhupāda: No, that particular verse, ahaṁ sarvasya... Is there any commentation?

Satsvarūpa: Yes, there is.

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

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. Similarly, all these Vedic sūtras, Upaniṣad, Vedānta, anything should be understood...

gauna-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya
tāhāra śravaṇe nāśa haya sarva kārya
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

Now, at the beginning, He criticized Śaṅkarācārya that "If somebody hears Śaṅkarācārya's commentation, then he's sure to be doomed." But again He supports Śaṅkarācārya. Why? Śaṅkarācārya is the incarnation of Lord Śiva, and he's a great devotee. Śaṅkara... Vaiṣṇavānāṁ yathā śambhuḥ: "There are many devotees of the Lord, but the foremost devotee is Lord Śiva." And he has got a disciplic succession which is called Viṣṇu Svāmī-sampradāya. So Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He's covered devotee. His aim was to bring men to the standard of devotional service, but the time and circumstances in which he was preaching, he could not place his real object because they were unable to understand.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

Now, he preached this bewildering philosophy because he was ordered to do so by the Supreme Lord. That was his duty. But we must be very much careful. If we hear Śaṅkara's interpretation, or commentation, then you are doomed. "You are doomed" means no more Kṛṣṇa consciousness. You are thrown into wilderness for many, many births. Then sometimes, if you come in contact with some pure devotee, it may be possible. But so far Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣya is concerned, or anyone who is following that commentation, they are doomed.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.149-171 -- San Francisco, March 18, 1967:

Now the author humbly presents himself that "Lord Caitanya, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Prabhu, these five personalities, I offer my respectful obeisances unto the feet of these five personalities." Yaiche taiche kahi kichu caitanya... "Therefore if I have got faith in these five personalities, then it will be possible for me to describe something about Lord Caitanya." Because he is writing this book, it is description of Lord Caitanya. So he is humbly presenting himself before... This is bhakti-mārga. He is not proud that he is very learned man, he can very nicely comment. No. He is just trying to follow the footprints of his predecessors. This is the way of disciplic succession.

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

So the process is, as it is recommended in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ: simply you sit down and hear what Kṛṣṇa says. Don't comment wrongly, whimsically. Don't gratify your senses. Submissively, namanta... As Caitanya Mahāprabhu also recommends from Bhāgavata, jñāne prayāsam udapāsya namanta eva. Just be submissive, bhavadīya-vārtām, and try to hear Kṛṣṇa submissively. Then you'll benefit. If you make your own commentation, then you will be wrongly directed. You have too...

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

So it is very unfortunate that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, accepted by all the ācāryas, not only at the present age, previously also... Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita, Devala, they are all great ācāryas. And in the recent years, Śaṅkarācārya, he also admitted. Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya—all these authorities, they are accepting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then how is that—a less intelligent class of men, they are commenting differently? That is not good. They may comment, they go on talking all nonsense, but no sane man will accept them.

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

Then he says... Śrī Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura comments in this connection that,

ādau brahma prākṛta hasta-pāda naya baliyā
pare śīghra cale emana sakala-vastu grahaṇa kare
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154 -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

So these things are, I mean to say, creating havoc in the matter of understanding Kṛṣṇa. Instead of taking Bhagavad-gītā as it is, persons who have no knowledge practically, or poor fund of knowledge, they are commenting in different way, and people are misled. As sometimes our, these Europeans, Americans, they say frankly that "For many hundreds of years, the Bhagavad-gītā was known in Europe and America, and many swamis went there. They gave reference to the Bhagavad-gītā, but there was no, not a single devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Not a single devotee." Prior to this movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they had not a single devotee of Kṛṣṇa, as you are finding.

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

So the same thing is confirmed in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, because Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural comment on Vedānta-sūtra. 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.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.120 -- Bombay, November 12, 1975:

Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) "You surrender unto Me, and whatever I say, you do. That is your duty." So from that point, when one surrenders to Kṛṣṇa... Why one should surrender to Kṛṣṇa? Everyone is puffed up that "I am as good as Kṛṣṇa. Why shall I surrender to Kṛṣṇa?" Many, many scholars, they comment on this verse, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ. Vraja, "Why? This is sophistry. Everyone should give up everything, simply surrender to Kṛṣṇa?" Still they say that "Why you are after Kṛṣṇa? Why not other gods or demigods?" That is their... Sometimes they question. But one who knows Kṛṣṇa, he cannot be deviated from this path, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Bhagavān means Kṛṣṇa.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

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

onditioned 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? Similarly, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12).

Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Lecture -- Bombay, January 3, 1973:

After one year, two years, three years—finished. Nobody cares for it. Nobody cares for it. Nobody reads for... Any literature you take in the history of the world, no literature can exist for five thousand years, repeatedly being read by many, many scholars, religionists and philosophers, all. Why? Because it is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa... There is no difference between Bhagavad-gītā and Bhagavān. Śabda-brahman. So Bhagavad-gītā should not be taken as ordinary literature, that one can comment on it by so-called ABCD knowledge. No. That is not possible. The fools and rascals, they try to comment on the Bhagavad-gītā by their ABCD scholarship. That is not possible. It is śabda-brahman. It will be revealed to the person who has devotion to Kṛṣṇa. Yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve... These are the Vedic instructions.

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Lecture -- Bombay, January 3, 1973:

Oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya. Bhagavān, Himself, is describing Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā. So where is the difficulty to understand Bhagavad-gītā or Bhagavān? We don't find any difficulty. Where is the difficulty? The mahājana is there, the śāstra is there, the guru is there, the Veda is there. And why should we make research after God? What is this nonsense? Everything is there. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). The purpose of Vedas is to know Kṛṣṇa. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Athāto brahma jijñāsā, to inquire about Brahman. Brahman. So there is no need of searching out God. You can simply try to digest whatever is already there. The Bhagavad-gītā is there. All the ācāryas, they have accepted. They have written commentation on Bhagavad-gītā with reference to the Vedic knowledge. The Absolute—kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam—is accepted everywhere by all ācāryas. Why you are searching after God? I do not know.

Festival Lectures

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

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.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Address -- London, September 11, 1969:

Reporter: Can I ask you some questions about your general attitudes on things going on around us? For instance, what do you feel about man going to the moon? (laughter)

Prabhupāda: This is simply a waste of time. I already commented on this when I was in San Francisco. The reporters asked me this very question. I flatly replied that it is simply waste of time and money. That's all. (laughter)

Arrival Lecture -- Gainesville, July 29, 1971:

Kṛṣṇa has appeared as a devotee. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord, ordered that "You give up all engagements. Just surrender and I'll give you protection." But people sometimes misunderstood Him. There are many so-called commentators on the Bhagavad-gītā. They mislead people by giving some wrong commentation on Kṛṣṇa. One big scholar in India, Dr. Radhakrishnan, he gives comments on a verse where is direct order of Kṛṣṇa, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto, mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), that "You become My devotee, always think of Me, offer your obeisances unto Me." But Rādhā..., Radhakrishnan comments in a different way. "This obeisances is not to the person Kṛṣṇa." Just see. Such a big scholar, he is misinterpreting, "Not to the person Kṛṣṇa."

Initiation Lectures

Initiation Lecture -- Hamburg, August 27, 1969:

Without knowing Me, they consider, 'Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary human being.' " Avajānanti mūḍha. This very particular word has been used, mūḍha. Mūḍha means rascals. So in spite of this warning, there are so many rascals passing as big scholars. They say like this. When there is order of Kṛṣṇa that "You surrender unto Me," the rascals comment, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa but the unborn spirit which is within Kṛṣṇa." He does not know that Kṛṣṇa is not different from His body, Kṛṣṇa is not different from His name, Kṛṣṇa is not different from His fame. Anything pertaining to Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. They are monists, they are philosophizing that oneness, but as soon as they come to Kṛṣṇa, immediately they divide: "Kṛṣṇa is different from His body," or "Kṛṣṇa's body is different from Kṛṣṇa."

Wedding Ceremonies

Initiation of Sri-Caitanya dasa and Wedding of Pradyumna and Arundhati -- Columbus, May 14, 1969:

The whole Vedic system is to pick up qualitative persons. There is no such thing as birthright qualification. And Śrīdhara Swami, the greatest commentator on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, he has commented on this verse, yasya hi yad lakṣaṇaṁ syād varṇābhivyañjakam tat tenaiva vinirdiśet, yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet: (SB 7.11.35) "If such qualities are found in another platform, then he should be designated in that position." Just like if a boy born of a brāhmaṇa family, he has got the qualities of a śūdra, he should be indicated as śūdra. And if a boy born of a śūdra family but he has got the brāhmaṇa's qualities, then he should be accepted as brāhmaṇa.

General Lectures

Lecture -- Montreal, June 26, 1968:

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. Now if you simply understand as Arjuna understood, then you have got the perfect knowledge. And if you speculate, if you try to comment in your own nonsense way, then you are misled immediately. So this is the way. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Mahājana means those who are perfect personalities. That will give you (?). That will do (?). Now, there are, according to Vedic system, there are twelve mahājanas.

Lecture -- Seattle, September 30, 1968:

You show the power of God, then you say. First deserve, then desire. What power we have got? We're always dependent. So God is great, and we are dependent on God. Therefore natural conclusion is that we have to serve God. This is the whole comment.(?) Serving means with love. Unless... Now just like these boys, my disciples, they are serving me. Whatever I say, they are immediately executing. Why? I am an Indian, I am a foreigner. Two or three years ago I was not known to them, nor they were known to me. Why they are doing that? Because it is love.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 4, 1968:

Whatever path you want, you can accept. Ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham (BG 4.11). Kṛṣṇa helps according to the person's attitude. If... There are... Just like so many philosophers, they want to forget Kṛṣṇa. Just like you will find in Dr. Radhakrishnan's book, in the Ninth Chapter Kṛṣṇa said, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). The translation is all right, but he comments, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa that you have to surrender." Just see. That means his whole process of writing the book is to mislead persons how one can forget Kṛṣṇa. So if anyone wants to forget Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa will give him such intelligence that he will never be able to understand Kṛṣṇa. But if anyone tries to love Kṛṣṇa, understand Kṛṣṇa, He'll give full of intelligence. You can understand. That is Kṛṣṇa. You have got full liberty. But if you forget Kṛṣṇa, then you have to serve māyā, and if you love Kṛṣṇa, then māyā will leave you.

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.

Lecture at Harvard University -- Boston, December 24, 1969:

Student (1): ...and excluding everything other than complete devotion to Christ. Would you comment on this?

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's very nice. We completely agree. We say that chant the holy name of God. The vibration, the sound which you chant, that must be the holy name of God. Then it is all right. It doesn't matter what is the language. Language has nothing, no significance. But this word "Kṛṣṇa," we consider it is transcendental vibration because all great saints and ācāryas, they chanted, especially Lord Caitanya. As I explained from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇam (SB 11.5.32). Kṛṣṇa varṇa, kṛṣṇa varṇayati.

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

So our propagation is to present Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any nonsensical commentation. There is no need of nonsensical commentation. Bhagavad-gītā is as clear as the sunlight. As you do not require to see the sun with another lamp, similarly, you do not (chuckling) require to study Bhagavad-gītā with another commentation of a common man who has no knowledge. Bhagavad-gītā as it is, you should study. Then you will get all this knowledge. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante: (BG 7.19) you become wise and you can understand Kṛṣṇa. Then you surrender. Then you become mahātmā. And what is the function of mahātmā? Mahātmā is under the protection of spiritual energy. And what is the symptom of that protection of spiritual energy?

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

Does he follow this devotional service blindly? No. Jñātvā. Jñātvā means "knowing perfectly that I am the source of everything." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: (BG 10.8) "I am the source of everything." So these things are there in the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. It is not possible to explain all the verses. But our request is that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to spread the knowledge depicted in the Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any nonsensical commentation. Then the human society will profit by it.

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

In this connection, the comments of Śrīdhara Swami is very important. He is putting question, nānu sakṛd ucaritena nāmābhyasena kathāṁ sarva-pāpa-kṣayaṁ syāt, śraddhā-bhakty-avṛtyad eva adityader api vidhānāḥ. Śrīdhara Swami says that simply by chanting without any regulative principles, one becomes liberated. So how is that? So he replies himself also, "No, there are regulative principles." The idea is that chanting of the holy name is so powerful that it can immediately liberate the vibrator. But because he is prone to fall down again, therefore, what to speak of others who are following the regulative principles? This is the idea.

Lecture -- Gorakhpur, February 17, 1971:

Liberation means to get out of the blazing fire of this material existence. That is liberation. It is simply change of consciousness, that I am thinking in so many ways, my consciousness is polluted in so many ways. But when you think that you are eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, that is your real constitutional position, then that very understanding makes you liberated, immediately. Pāpa-kṣaya bhavati smaratāṁ tam ahar-niśam. Tatraiva ca tasmāt saṅkīrtanaṁ viṣṇu jagan-maṅgalam amhasā... Jagan-maṅgalam amhasā. Śrīdhar Swami gives his comment, tasmāt, therefore; sankīrtanaṁ viṣṇu jagan-maṅgalam amhasā. The world (is) full of sinful reactions. If this saṅkīrtana movement is pushed on there will be peace, there will be auspicity all over the world. It is not that we have introduced a new thing. It is sanctioned by the śāstras and accepted by the authorities

Lecture -- Gorakhpur, February 18, 1971:

"I'll speak to you this yoga system of Bhagavad-gītā because you are My devotee and dear friend." Therefore the first qualification for understanding Bhagavad-gītā is to become a dear friend of Kṛṣṇa. And if you are a Kaṁsa, what you will understand, Bhagavad-gītā? If your motive is to kill Kṛṣṇa by reading Bhagavad-gītā... Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan says, when he is explaining this verse, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." He directly says. He's advising not to surrender to Kṛṣṇa. "It is the unborn which is within Kṛṣṇa." He does not know, there is no "within," "without" Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is absolute. He has no knowledge. Still, he's trying to comment on Bhagavad-gītā. This is going on.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, February 23, 1971:

Guest: I have the philosophy of the spiritual world. Comments on Bhagavad-gītā are given...

Prabhupāda: Yes, Bhagavad-gītā, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā in the Fourth Chapter, imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam (BG 4.1). Kṛṣṇa says that "This system of bhagavad-bhakti-yoga was spoken first by Me to the sun-god." Vivasvān manave prāha manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt. "And Vivasvān, the sun-god, said this philosophy to his son Manu, and Manu said to his son Ikṣvāku." Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2). So from this formula, if we study Bhagavad-gītā, then taking the age of Manu, Vivasvān, Ikṣvāku, it becomes not less than forty millions of years. So Bhagavad-gītā is not a new thing. It is coming down from an age forty millions of years back. (break) And besides that, we are represented in Tokyo, in Canada, in Europe, in America, like that. We have got fifty centers all over the world.

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

So if we want to learn some specific subject we have to accept a proper authority or a bona fide teacher. Similarly if we want to learn the science of God, we have to approach a person who knows the science. Not that a casual person takes one Bhagavad-gītā and writes his comment and it goes on for some ulterior purpose. In that way you cannot understand Bhagavad-gītā. And Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). He is situated in everyone's heart. So as soon as you are actually a devotee... He is everyone's heart but He is silent.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, March 31, 1971:

In the Bhagavad-gītā... We are trying to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to preach Bhagavad-gītā. We have not invented something, but we are preaching Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any malinterpretation. Therefore, because we are presenting pure Bhagavad-gītā, people are accepting it very quickly. Unfortunately, before this in the Western countries there was so many translation of Bhagavad-gītā, but everyone's attempt is to make Kṛṣṇa—minus Bhagavad-gītā. They are commenting Bhagavad-gītā without Kṛṣṇa; kingdom of God without God. That is their attempt.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, March 31, 1971:

If after reading Bhagavad-gītā we do not realize what is Kṛṣṇa, what is our relationship with Kṛṣṇa, what is our duty towards Kṛṣṇa, and what is the ultimate goal of life, then it is useless study. It has no meaning. Therefore Lord Kṛṣṇa prescribed it, how to read Bhagavad-gītā. Don't try to read Bhagavad-gītā made by some commentator who has no knowledge of Kṛṣṇa. One who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he has no business to comment on the Bhagavad-gītā.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, March 31, 1971:

In this way Bhagavad-gītā is being misinterpreted. In the Ninth Chapter, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), one great commentator, very erudite scholar, he says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa; it is to the unborn principle which is within Kṛṣṇa." But he does not know what is Kṛṣṇa, and he has the audacity to comment on the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa is not different from within and without. Kṛṣṇa, being Absolute, there is no such difference.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, March 31, 1971:

As we have got difference, I, the spirit soul, is different from my body, but Kṛṣṇa is not like that. There is no such difference that Kṛṣṇa's soul and Kṛṣṇa's body. Kṛṣṇa is complete whole, pūrṇa. There is no such difference. The person who does not know what is Kṛṣṇa, if he tries to comment upon the transcendental knowledge imparted by Kṛṣṇa, that is simply impudent. So in this way, if we try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then we become liberated, we become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, we become fully Kṛṣṇa conscious.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, March 31, 1971:

In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also it is confirmed, ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Even Śaṅkarācārya, whom we call impersonalist, he has accepted in his comment on Bhagavad-gītā that "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead appearing as the son of Devakī and Vasudeva." Similarly, all other ācāryas-Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka, and lately, Caitanya Mahāprabhu... Of course, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is both ācārya and Kṛṣṇa Himself.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 6, 1971:

To understand Kṛṣṇa in truth, tattvataḥ, it is very difficult. Out of many hundreds and thousands of people one tries to make his life successful by spiritual advancement, by accepting so many processes, jñāna-yoga, karma-yoga, dhyāna-yoga. And out of many perfect persons..., or, not perfect. Out of many persons who have succeeded in such processes, one may understand Kṛṣṇa. That is difficult also. So without Kṛṣṇa's mercy... The conclusion is: without Kṛṣṇa's mercy, nobody can understand Kṛṣṇa. Therefore it is futile to explain Kṛṣṇa, to comment on Bhagavad-gītā, without being a devotee of Kṛṣṇa.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 7, 1971:

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." That means it is clear that he does not know what is Kṛṣṇa, and he has the courage to comment on Bhagavad-gītā. That is the pitiable condition. One who does not understand Kṛṣṇa, he is daring to write comments on the Bhagavad-gītā. That is misleading. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, duṣkṛtina. They will produce volumes of books. Na yad vacaś citra-padaṁ harer yaśaḥ (SB 1.5.10). Bhāgavata says that "You can produce volumes of books with nice literary, metaphorical arrangements." Na yad vacaś citra-padaṁ harer yaśaḥ na pragṛṇīta karhicit.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 7, 1971:

Then here is one commentation by a learned scholar and devotee, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana. He said, nanu cettvām eva prapannā vimucyante, tarhi paṇḍitā api kecit kim iti tvāṁ na prapadyante. Now, if Kṛṣṇa has said simply by surrendering unto Him, mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te... Our business is, in the human form of life, how to get out of the clutches or conditions of māyā. We are actually trying to do that. All the scientific improvement, material advancement of knowledge, means that we are trying to avoid the conditions imposed by material nature.

Lecture -- Visakhapatnam, February 18, 1972:

We have got authority from Bhagavad-gītā. We have got authority by the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, all of them, even Śaṅkarācārya, although we differ in some points with Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya has admitted Kṛṣṇa, bhagavān sa svayam kṛṣṇa, he has stated. Devakīnandana, he has specifically mentioned Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī and Vasudeva, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nārāyaṇa paraḥ avyaktāt. I think those who have read Śaṅkara's comment on Bhagavad-gītā, they know all these things. So Kṛṣṇa is admitted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all the bona fide ācāryas. And all scholars up to date, everyone, and confirmed by Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Lecture at Caitanya Matha -- Visakhapatnam, February 19, 1972:

If one tries to understand Kṛṣṇa, as He is, not by fiction, not by speculation, not by so-called scholarly, foolish commentation, but Kṛṣṇa should be understood as He is. Then, that is right Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and then one will be able to understand how Kṛṣṇa is working, how the whole world, material atmosphere, and material, cosmic manifestation is working. Then you will understand. Kṛṣṇa says, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10), under my supervision. To understand Kṛṣṇa, and anyone who understands Kṛṣṇa, scientifically, then he, Kṛṣṇa says, janma karma me divyaṁ yo jānāti tattvataḥ. Not the foolish man, the intelligent man, who knows Kṛṣṇa actually, then the result is tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti (BG 4.9). Immediately he becomes liberated. So after giving up this body, he never, no more comes back to accept another, this material body. He goes back to home, back to Godhead.

Lecture -- Bombay, March 18, 1972:

That is the message of Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Kṛṣṇa personally comes to canvass, to "Please give up all this engagement, please come to Me, surrender unto Me, and I will give you all protection." This is the lesson we understand from Bhagavad-gītā. And if we actually surrender unto Kṛṣṇa, if we actually understand Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then your bhāgavata-dhima(?) begins. 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."

Lecture -- Bombay, March 19, 1972:

Now Vyāsadeva is explaining that supreme consciousness. He has already offered his respect, oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya, janmādy asya yataḥ. Śrīpāda Śrīdhara Svāmī has commented on this oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya, that Vasudeva means Kṛṣṇa. Cinma karundaya kṛṣṇāya, he has said in his comment. Oṁ namo bhagavate parama... paramahaṁsa asādhi caraṇa kamala.(?) Paramahaṁsa. This consciousness, supreme consciousness, can be realized by the paramahaṁsa asādhi.

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

Why should you take advantage of the popular book of Bhagavad-gītā and misrepresent it? 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.

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

Not that unnecessarily killing the civil citizens, no. This was nonsense. If there was fight between two kings, the citizens, they were unaffected, not that there is fight now between two parties, there is immediately siren, (imitates siren:) gaw, gaw, gaw, gaw, now bomb and the civil..., the most uncivilized way of war. In those days—those days means at least five thousand years ago—they selected a place, and "Let us fight and decide our fate," kṣatriyas. Why the public should suffer? So in this way Kurukṣetra was selected to fight between the two parties. And still it is existing. It is a great field. And dharma-kṣetre... Just try to understand that there is no need of our imperfect comments on the Bhagavad-gītā. That is my point.

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

Not only I, but they are also. Every one of our members, they are Kṛṣṇa's representative. They are not trying to malinterpret. As there are so many so-called scholars... When this verse is translated and commented upon by big scholar... I do not wish to utter his name. He is very big man. But now he is living dead. Because he has committed so many offenses, now he is living, but he has lost his memory. Very recently I went to see him. He cannot... He is like that. So all his intelligence is finished. So nature is so strong that you can malinterpret, but nature is so strong that one day he will make you forget everything, brain paralysis.

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

And He also confirms... 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.

Lecture -- Laguna Beach, September 30, 1972:

That is our mission. And it is very scientific and authorized, Vedic. We are receiving this knowledge direct from Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is Bhagavad-gītā. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without nonsensically comments. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We are placing the same proposal, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. We are not changing it. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "Become My devotee.

Rotary Club Lecture -- Hyderabad, November 29, 1972:

Bhagavad-gītā is very well known book of knowledge. In America and Europe and other countries there are many translations. But the Bhagavad-gītā, such translation is taken as a mental speculation. They do not take it seriously that this, "This is the statement by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it cannot be commented with my poor knowledge. What I am in comparison to Kṛṣṇa? He is tri-kāla-jña. He knows present, past, future, everything. What do I know? So my interpretation..." Just like "Kurukṣetra means this body," or "The five Pāṇḍavas means the five senses." If we interpret in that way, Bhagavad-gītā, according to our whims, we'll never understand what is the purport of Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture What is a Guru? -- London, August 22, 1973:

There is one instance in Caitanya Mahāprabhu's life. One gentleman, (he) is Vallabha Ācārya. He was very much devotee of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He wrote one comment on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Subodhinī-ṭīkā, it is called. That is recognized, nice ṭīkā, comment. But he approached Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He was very great devotee of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. So he simply said that "Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Lord Caitanya, if You hear my comment on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, You'll find it is far better than Śrīdhara Svāmī's." Śrīdhara Svāmī is the very old commentator.

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

Guest (2): Śrīla Prabhupāda, in the Sikh-dharma they say to chant the holy names of God, and so far I haven't encountered the name "Kṛṣṇa" in the scriptures. I have encountered "Govinda," "Mukunda," "Rāma" and..., but the main name that is chanted is Viduḥ. And I was wondering if you could comment on..., on the Sikh-dharma.

Prabhupāda: It is very good. It is very good. Guru Nanak, he chanted the name, holy name of Rāma, the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, Govinda. So if we follow Guru Nanak, we are fortunate. Anyone who presents a science of God, it doesn't matter whether he is this man or that man; he is our guru. Yes?

Evening Lecture -- Bhuvanesvara, January 19, 1977:

At the present moment the so-called scientists, their only business is how to defy the supremacy of God. Naturally our, this movement has to face many impediments because at the present moment the whole world is practically godless. Even in our country, in India, where Bhagavad-gītā was spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa, even here also the same attempt is going on. Big, big scholars, big, big politicians, they take Bhagavad-gītā in their hand as if he is a great authority in Bhagavad-gītā, but they are presenting commentation just to defy Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Śyāmasundara: Intelligence is the basic...

Prabhupāda: Yes. No. By intelligence one can inquire what is the cause of this. Jijñāsu. It is called jijñāsu. Those who are not jijñāsus, śreya uttamam, they are third class. Just like animals, they cannot ask, "What is its cause?" That is animal life. And human life means when the inquiry is "What is its cause?" That is the distinction between animal life and human life. Human life must be inquisitive, "What is its cause? What is the essence?" Just like Sanātana Gosvāmī approached Lord Caitanya that "Why I suffer some threefold miseries? I do not wish to suffer, but why?" This "why" question, unless this "why" question is there, then he's not to be considered as human being. Śrī Rāmānujācārya, when writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu (BG 7.3), he says manuṣya means "inquisitive." Not with two legs and hands.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Prabhupāda: He, in the beginning, says that "I come to establish religion," and He says that "Give up, kick out all these so-called religions." So they are not religion, and that is confirmed in the Bhāgavata, kaitava, dharma kaitava. Kaitava means cheating. Anything, any religious system which does not give knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, that is cheating religion. That is cheating religion. Dharma kaitava. Kaitava means cheating. And Śrīdhara Swami, he comments that atra mokṣa vāñchā (indistinct), those who are after mukti, liberation, they are also rejected herein. The jñānīs, they are after mukti. So Śrīdhara Swami says they are also within the category of these cheating religious systems, because they are being cheated.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Prabhupāda: And the complicated things are so nicely (indistinct), that you know or do not know, it goes on. It doesn't matter.

Dr. Rao: (indistinct) (laughter) When people were not so scientific, at that time also, (indistinct rest of comment).

Prabhupāda: Therefore they are called muni. (indistinct) Nasau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. You cannot become a muni unless you differ from the previous system. That is muni. Muni means mental concoction.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like this example, we see the snow as white, but it is..., does not correspond with the fact. Therefore it is not knowledge.

Dr. Rao: There is another example. They see water can (indistinct) in several (indistinct). One is the seawater, one is the (indistinct rest of comment)

Śyāmasundara: He also says that besides the correspondence, that fact must correspond with..., that a belief must correspond with the fact if it is to be true. Also he says...

Prabhupāda: So that fact does not correspond by direct perception, (indistinct) that we are seeing the snowball white, but scientifically it is not white; it is a combination of seven colors.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Prabhupāda: Therefore we sometimes say "snow white." (laughter) "Snow white" means (indistinct). (laughter) So what is the standard of whiteness?

Dr. Rao: (indistinct comment) ...they are not transparent. But you can take very fine (indistinct) out of them, and they are transparent. So how can we say they are (indistinct). They are in fact transparent. It is ludicrous. That also science is attempting.

Śyāmasundara: He says another criterion for truth is coherence.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Prabhupāda: His father?

Hayagrīva: His father, Marx's father. And Marx's mother, however, remained Jewish, and Marx was raised a Christian. But at the age of twenty-three, after having studied some philosophy at the university, Marx became an avowed atheist. And Hegel, it was Hegel who wrote, "Because the accidental is not God or the Absolute is," and Marx commented on this, "Obviously the reverse can also be said." That is because God is not, the accidental is.

Prabhupāda: God is not?

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:

Hayagrīva: ...that Śyāmasundara treated, but they're somewhat incomplete, so I will read. I've gone to the primary sources. He used a college outline series that wasn't really adequate. So I went to the primary sources, and I'll read a little, and if you want to comment on it, comment. If you don't feel like commenting on it, I'll just go on to the next section.

Once a student of Socrates—this is a section on Socrates-said, "I cannot refute you, Socrates." To this Socrates replied, "Say rather that you cannot refute the truth, for Socrates is easily refuted." This is by way of saying that the Absolute Truth is not a subject of mental speculation or personal opinion. The Truth, or the good, for Socrates stands separate from mundane relativities or personal opinion.

Prabhupāda: That is our opinion. We accept Kṛṣṇa as the supreme authority, and therefore we cannot refute what Kṛṣṇa says. And our philosophy is perfect because we follow Kṛṣṇa. He is the Supreme Perfect. This is our position. In other religious system, taking it our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement religious... It is religious, because our religion means the..., to carry out the order of God. That is the sum and substance of religion. We don't manufacture religion, and neither religion can be manufactured.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

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:Commentation (Lectures)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, SunitaS, Mayapur
Created:17 of Aug, 2011
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=222, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:222