The whole Vedic knowledge is infallible. There are different examples how we take Vedic knowledge as infallible. Take for example, so far the Hindus are concerned, and how they accept the Vedic knowledge as complete, here is an insignificant example. Just like the cow dung. The cow dung is the stool of an animal. According to smṛti or Vedic wisdom, if one touches the stool of an animal he has to take his bath to purify himself. But in the Vedic scriptures the cow dung is as stated as pure. Rather, impure place or impure things are purified by touch of the cow dung. Now if one argues how it is that in one place it is said that the stool of the animal is impure and another place it is said that the cow dung which is also the stool of an animal, it is pure, so it is contradictory. But actually, it may appear to be contradictory, but because it is Vedic injunction, therefore for our practical purposes we accept it. And by that acceptance we are not committing mistake. It has been found by modern chemists, modern science, one Dr. Lal Mohan Gosal, he has very minutely analyzed the cow dung and he has found that cow dung is a composition of all antiseptic properties. So similarly, he has also analyzed the water of the Ganges out of curiosity. So my idea is that Vedic knowledge is complete because it is above all doubts and all mistakes. So, and Bhagavad-gītā is the essence of all Vedic knowledge. The Vedic knowledge is therefore infallible. It comes down through the perfect disciplic succession.
Contradiction (Lectures)
Expressions researched:
"contradict"
|"contradicted"
|"contradicting"
|"contradiction"
|"contradiction's"
|"contradictions"
|"contradictory"
|"contradicts"
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
It is nothing but bone of an animal. But the Vedic injunction is that if you touch the bone of an animal, you'll have to take bath immediately. You become impure. Now one may say, "Oh, this is contradiction. In one place it is said that if you touch the bone of an animal, then you have to purify yourself by taking bath immediately, and here, the bone of an animal is in the Deities' room. So it is contradiction, is it not? If bone of an animal is impure, how you can place it in the Deities' room? And if bone of an animal is pure, then what is the meaning of becoming impure and take bath?" You'll find similar contradiction in the Vedic injunctions. But because it is said by the Vedas that bone of an animal is impure, you have to accept. But this bone of an animal, conchshell, is pure. Just like sometimes our students are perplexed when we say that onion is not to be taken, but onion is a vegetable. So śabda-pramāṇa means the Vedic evidence should be taken in such a way that no argument. There is meaning; there is no contradiction. There is meaning. Just like several times I have told you that cow dung. Cow dung is, according to Vedic injunction, is pure. In India it is actually used as antiseptic. In villages especially, there is large quantity of cow dung, and they're, all over the house they have smeared to make the house antiseptic.
In India it is actually used as antiseptic. In villages especially, there is large quantity of cow dung, and they're, all over the house they have smeared to make the house antiseptic. And actually after smearing cow dung in your room, when it is dried, you'll find refreshed, everything antiseptic. It is practical experience. And one Dr. Ghosh, a great chemist, he examined cow dung, that why cow dung is so much important in the Vedic literature? He found that cow dung contains all the antiseptic properties. In Āyur-veda, cow dung dried and burned into ashes is used as toothpowder. It is very antiseptic toothpowder. Similarly, there are many things, many injunctions in the Vedas, which may apparently appear as contradiction, but they are not contradiction. They are on experience, on transcendental experience. Just like a father says to his child that "My dear child, you take this food. It is very nice." And the child takes it, believing the father, authority. The child knows that "My father..." He is confident that "My father will never give me anything which is poison." Therefore he accepts it blindly, without any reason, without any analysis of the food, whether it is pure or impure.
Prabhupāda: Or come here. We shall talk with you. Come here. (man makes a long statement—inaudible)
Revatīnandana: In other words, you... Can you say that as a question? If you have a question, we can answer; otherwise, if you have a philosophy, then we can discuss it later. So what is the question? (man says more) Well, what is the contradiction? (man says more) Well, his question it is why must we do something to become God when we're already God?
Prabhupāda: You are not God, you are dog. Just the opposite. Do you know what is God?
Man: According to you, we are all parts of God in either language.
Prabhupāda: How you are God? God is the controller. Are you controller? You are controlled. Therefore the controlled cannot be God. God means controller. Anyone who is controlled, he cannot be God. Anyone who... If one is controller, then he is God.
"If we consult different scriptures, then we'll find that one scripture is speaking something, another scripture is speaking something else." Just like cow-killing. Take, take it for example. The Hindus, they say that cow-killing is irreligious. The Muhammadans say, "No, cow-killing is religious." There is some adjustment, but... Now, in the scripture I see that the cow-killing, in some scriptures it is said that cow-killing is irreligious, and another scripture says that cow-killing is religious. So which of them I shall accept? This is ni... This is all right, or that is all right? So therefore it is said that smṛtayo vibhinnāḥ. If you consult different scriptures, you'll find different contradictory statements. Your scripture may be different from my scripture. And nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. If you consult philosophers, you'll find one philosopher is differing from another philosopher.
Therefore Kṛṣṇa chastised Arjuna that "You have got animalistic concept of life and still speaking like a very learned scholar. No learned scholar laments on account of this body." It is said in the Bhagavad-gītā, dhīras tatra na muhyati (BG 2.13). Dhīra... Dhīra means one who is sober by education. He is not disturbed. Just like when a man dies, his relatives lament, cry, "My father is gone. My father is gone. My father is no more," or "My son is no more." Anyway, they lament like that. But if he is little sober, he can understand, he can study, that "I am lamenting, 'My father is gone,' 'my son is gone,' but he's not gone. He's lying on the bed or on the floor. Then why I am speaking 'gone'?" If some friend asks him, "Why you are lamenting, 'my father is gone,' 'my son is gone'? He's lying here," but still he will say, "No, he's not. He may be lying there, but he's gone." That is puzzle. He's lying there and gone? What is this contradiction? That is the point to understand about the soul. The relative is lamenting, crying, "My father is gone." That means he never saw his father; he saw the body only. But at the time of death of his father he understands that this father is not this body; that is soul.
One, after touching stool, he must take bath. This is Vedic injunction. But in another place it is said that the stool of the cow is pure, and if cow dung is applied in some impure place, it will be pure. Now, by your argument, you can say that "The stool of an animal is impure. Why it is said in one place pure and in another place impure? This is contradiction." But this is not contradiction. You practically make experiment. You take cow dung and apply anywhere, you'll find it is pure. Immediately purified. So this is Vedic injunction. They are perfect knowledge. We... Instead of wasting time arguing and putting forward false prestige, if you simply accept the perfect knowledge, as they are stated in the Vedic literature, then we get perfect knowledge and our life is success. Instead of making experiment on the body to find out where is the soul... The soul is there, but it is so small that it is not possible to see by your these blunt eyes. Any microscope or any machine, because it is stated it is one ten-thousandth part of the top of the tip of the hair. So there is no machine. You cannot see.
What is stated there in the Vedas we accept, without any argument. For example... There are many examples. One of the example is that the Veda says that if you touch the stool of an animal, even your own stool... That is the system. In India still they are..., not in the city, but in the villages, you will see even ordinary man, he goes to pass stool in the field, and just after passing stool he will take bath just to purify himself, change his cloth. That is the śāstric injunction. In one place it is said that the stool of the cow is pure. Now if you argue that one place you say that the stool of an animal is impure, even your own stool if you touch you have to take bath, how is that another animal's stool is pure? This is superficially contradiction. But those who are following strictly the Vedic principles, they will accept that the stool of cow or cow dung is pure. Now, if you argue, "Why it is pure?" then you come to a modern chemical analysis, and you will find the cow dung is full of antiseptic properties. It has been examined in Calcutta by one doctor, Rajmohan(?) Bose. Therefore, the Vedic injunction is so perfect.
So we have to accept these things that we are prone to commit mistake, we are illusioned, we cheat, and our senses are imperfect. Then how I can give you perfect knowledge? That is not possible. But if you accept the Vedic knowledge... Just like I gave you the example: Vedic knowledge says sometimes contradictory. Just like cow dung, stool of an animal, is pure. And if you analyze, you will find it is pure. So our process of acquiring knowledge is from the Vedas. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). And what is the purpose of the Vedas? Why Vedic knowledge is perfect? Because it is spoken by God. God is perfect, and whatever He speaks, that is perfect. Therefore God is called "God is good." All-good. Whatever He does, whatever He speaks, everything is good, perfect.
Indian: ...gavad-gītā that the ātmā and jīvātmā is the same vision, and Brahman or Para-brahman is the same. And in knowledge of soul truth, the ātmā is the part and parcel of the Paramātmā, that is the Supreme Lord, and this contradiction in this, I think, that how the ātmā and Paramātmā is both one? Containing both, if the ātmā is part and parcel of the Paramātmā, and when they, the ātmā and the great and Paramātmā, is different. Because is contradiction in the understanding may accept what the Vedas say and what Bhagavad-gītā say? Is there any difference between the Vedas and Bhagavad-gītā? Are we following Vedas, or are we following Bhagavad-gītā? Because the Bhagavad-gītā is only song of Lord Kṛṣṇa; the Vedas are the pure knowledge of Para-brahman.
Prabhupāda: So why you are going away? You hear. You hear. Vedas... The... In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: (BG 15.15) "All the Vedas and Vedāntas, they are meant for understanding Kṛṣṇa." If by studying Vedas and Vedānta you cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, then it is śrama eva hi kevalam (SB 1.2.8). It is simply labor. That is the adjustment of Bhagavad-gītā and all other Vedic literature. Vedas means... Veda means knowledge, and anta means ultimate. That is called Vedānta. So ultimate knowledge is to know God. You may not accept Kṛṣṇa. Although all the ācāryas... I have already mentioned. Even Śaṅkarācārya, he also accept Kṛṣṇa: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa.
Actually, that is Vedic instruction. Just like, for example, the Vedas says cow dung is pure. Now actually we are accepting, those who are following the Vedic principles, they accept cow dung as pure. Actually, it is pure. But if we argue: "How is that, that animal stool is impure, even human stool is impure. How cow dung, which is stool of another animal, is pure?" It is contrary. But actually, we accept. Actually we accept. Similarly, conchshell, conchshell is nothing but bone of an animal. According to our Vedic version, if you touch the bone of an animal, you become immediately impure. You have to take bath. But this bone of animal, conchshell, is taken to the Deity room. It is so pure. So from our human consciousness we find contradiction in the Vedic instruction, that in the Vedas, in one place, it says that the bone of an animal is impure; in another place says the bone of a particular animal is pure. The Vedas says the stool of an animal is impure, but in another place it says that the stool of the cow animal is pure. So apparently we find contradiction. But still, because we accept the authority of the Vedas, therefore we accept the statement also. We accept the bone of the conchshell, and we accept the stool of cow as pure. That is acceptance of authority. You cannot argue. Even though it appears it is contradictory, you cannot argue.
In the previous verse Kṛṣṇa said that "All of us—you, me, and all these soldiers and kings who are present here—we existed in the past, we are existing now, and we shall continue to exist in the future." This was the statement. But rascals would say that "How I was existing? I was born only in such and such year. Before that, I was not existing. At the present time I am existing. That's all right. But as soon as I will die, I will not exist. So how Kṛṣṇa says that I was... Both... All of us, we were existing, we are still existing, and we shall continue to exist?" Is that contradictory? No, that is not contradictory. It is fact. We were existing, maybe in different body. And we shall continue to exist in different body. Dehāntara-prāptiḥ. This is to be understood. Not that my existence...
Prabhupāda: So you reject everything. (laugher) That's all right. That is the way. That is very nice process. You reject everything. Because you are doubt in everything, so you reject everything. That's all right.
Indian: Even Lord Buddha... (break) ...these are the contradictory.
Prabhupāda: Hm. Therefore our philosophy is acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Acintya, inconceivable. Just like you are trying to conceive that whole world is God, and still, God is not there. That is spoken by God Himself, Kṛṣṇa: mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ (BG 9.4). Mayā tatam idam, avyakta-mūrtinā. So this impersonal feature, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti (SB 1.2.11), the impersonal feature is Brahman. Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. That means sarvedam akhilaṁ jagat, parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ sarvedam akhilaṁ jagat. Just like the sunshine. You are in the sunshine. That is a practical faith. The sunshine is not different from the sun. The sun is ninety-three millions of miles away, but still, because you are in the sunshine, you are in sun. Can you deny it? That is the thing. You are in the sunshine. The sunshine is not different from the sun. But still, it is not the sun. This is the philosophy, inconceivably, simultaneously one and different. The sunshine is not different from the sun, but still, it is different. Similarly, the whole manifested, the cosmic manifestation is God, but still He is..., it is not God.
So this contradiction, opposing elements, will continue unless there is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So this is not a fact that the karma-vādīs simply by discharging your duties nicely... This is... On principle, it is all right. But we must know what is actual morality. There are so many examples. Just like when there is war, to kill the enemies, that is morality. But in peaceful condition if you kill a person that is immorality or sinful. The process is the same, morality or immorality, the process is the same. But sometimes it is moral, sometimes immoral. So how it will be standardized? Therefore Bhāgavata says dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). Real dharma, real religion, morality, honesty, they can be decided on the words of the Supreme Lord. That is the... When Kṛṣṇa says "This is all right," then it is all right.
This, all these Vedic scriptures, they are interrelated. They are not contradictory. If somebody says that "We find some contradiction from Vedic literature, from this literature to that literature," no. There is nothing at all, any contradiction, even, even in the preachings of the great ācāryas. I am speaking of India. There were many great ācāryas, I mean to say, reformers, came. Lord Buddha also appeared in India. Then, after Lord Buddha, Śaṅkarācārya came. Then, after Śaṅkarācārya, Śrī Rāmānujācārya came. Then, after Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, and then, lately, Śrī Caitanya, Lord Caitanya. He came. But you will find a link, a link, although superficially we may see that Lord Buddha is speaking something which is contradictory to Lord Śaṅkarācārya's teaching, or Rāmānujācārya is speaking something which is contradiction to Śaṅkara. No. There is no contradiction. It is the question of studying how they are paving way for ultimate spiritual realization. That requires a very, I mean to say, substantial knowledge, how they are paving the way, just step by step.
So senses have to be engaged in the spiritual activities. That is spiritual life, spiritual life. The example, as I have already explained to you many times, just like Arjuna. He wanted to control his senses to refrain from fighting. When you fight, you require to engage your senses. He said that "I will not fight." That means he is controlling his senses from fighting. But after hearing Bhagavad-gītā, he says, "Yes, I'll fight." Just see. Before hearing Bhagavad-gītā, the position of Arjuna, that "I," "I will not fight," and after hearing Bhagavad-gītā, the position of "I," "Yes, I will fight." Two contradictory. Before hearing Bhagavad-gītā, the position of "I" was negative, and people may estimate this nonviolence attitude of Arjuna very nicely. But after Bhagavad-gītā, after hearing Bhagavad-gītā, he said, "Yes." Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava: (BG 18.73) "Yes, I shall fight." Now, do you mean to tell that he degraded? First of all he was nonviolent. He was not willing to fight. Now he has degraded after hearing Bhagavad-gītā? Is it..., is the conclusion? No. He has improved. He has improved. Why he has improved? Because he has understood how to use the senses. That's all. In the beginning he did not know how to use the senses. Therefore he decided, "I shall not fight. I shall not fight." That is his material calculation.
Yes. Sometimes it appears to the student contradictory. But actually, the master who is well conversant, he does not say anything contradictory. It is the misunderstanding of the student that sometimes he thinks that it is contradictory. Therefore the question is allowed. You'll find that a student is advised to question to the spiritual master. Tad viddhi. You should understand the transcendental science by the process of... First thing is surrender; then question, and sevā, service. Surrender and service and question. Simply if you question, and don't surrender, don't render any service, then it will be simply waste of time.
Just like Arjuna was talking in the beginning with Kṛṣṇa as friends. So Kṛṣṇa was talking very cautiously because it was friendly talk. But when Arjuna surrendered unto Him, "I accept You as my spiritual master," He's talking freely. This is going on. Go on.
And there are, so far scriptures are concerned, you'll find different scriptures describing in a different way. So that also, you'll be bewildered. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And there are different philosophers who are always contradictory. One philosopher is deviating. He's not in agreement with another philosopher. He has got a different theory. Another has got different theory. So philosophers also cannot give you the real truth. So neither you can understand the real truth simply by going through different scriptures, nor you can understand the real truth simply by your logical force or argument. So dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The, the, I mean to say, the mystery of Absolute Truth is very confidential, very confidential. Then how I can understand? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "If you follow the mahājana, the authorities, then you can understand."
Just like Arjuna, he was very much painful to kill his kinsmen, but for Kṛṣṇa's sake he agreed. That is tapasya. It was not very happy for him to kill his grandfather and nephews, but for Kṛṣṇa he accepted. That is tapasya. So people cannot understand, "Oh, he was a fighter. How he was a tapasvī?" But that is... Anything which you do not like, but for Kṛṣṇa's sake if you accept, that is tapasya. Because your, the central point is, you love Kṛṣṇa; therefore you have sacrificed. The point is that for Kṛṣṇa's sake, you are voluntarily accepting this inconvenience. That is tapasya. And as soon as you become tapasvī, your whole existentional condition becomes purified. Tapo divyaṁ yena śuddhyet sattvaṁ yasmād brahma-saukhyaṁ tv anantam (SB 5.5.1). So there is a link between one Vedic literature to another. There is no contradiction. But different things are there for different classes of men. But this is for the highest class. Bhakto 'si priyo 'si (BG 4.3). That is the highest position. Yes?
To commit mistake, to forget, to be illusioned, to be cheated, imperfection of the senses—these are our qualifications. Every one of us, anyone who is in this material world, they are subjected to these defects: he is sure to commit mistake—"To err is human"—he is subjected to be illusioned, and he has a cheating propensity. Just like a mundane scholar. I do not wish to name. A mundane scholar, he admits, his introduction, that it is very difficult to interpret Bhagavad-gītā in one's own way. It is so tightly fitted. Actually it is so. Unless you contradict yourself, you cannot interpret Bhagavad-gītā according to your own way.
So Arjuna is clearing that, and Kṛṣṇa is saying, "The difference is that I take, I appear..." As you will find later on, Kṛṣṇa says, yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata, tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham (BG 4.7). Whenever there is discrepancies in the procedure of religious function and there is predominance of irreligiosity, at that time God or God's representative comes to this world to make things nicely. So Kṛṣṇa appears. Kṛṣṇa appears, and we also appear.
Just like in the Vedas it is stated, apāni-pādo javano gṛhītaḥ. In the Upaniṣads it is said that "God has no leg, but He can run faster than any one of us." Now, this is superficially contradiction. If He has no leg, then how He can run faster than me? So the adjustment is that He has got leg because He runs. Just like in another place, "God has no hands, but He can accept whatever we offer." There are many such Vedic version.
Now, we have to understand in this way, that He has got His hands, He has got His leg, but not this limited hand or limited leg. In another place in Bhagavad-gītā you'll find. God says that "Whatever is offered to Me in the group of flowers, fruits, vegetables, I accept for eating." Now, if we think that God is far, far away, how He eats? I offer here. How He eats? That means His eating process is different. He can eat even from millions and millions of miles away. So these things are to be understood, that God has got a form, but that form is not exactly our form. If we try to understand God's form as limited as our form, then we'll misunderstand.
When such materialistic men are informed that spiritual life is also individual and personal, they are afraid of becoming persons again, and so they naturally prefer a kind of merging into the impersonal void. Generally, they compare the living entities to the bubbles of the ocean which merge into the ocean. That is the highest perfection of spiritual existence attainable without individual personality. This is a fearful stage of life, devoid of perfect knowledge of spiritual existence. Furthermore, there are many persons who cannot understand spiritual existence at all. Being embarrassed by so many theories and by contradictions and various types of philosophical speculation, they become disgusted or angry, and foolishly they conclude that there is no supreme cause and that everything is ultimately void. Such people are in diseased conditions of life. Some of them are too materially attached and therefore do not give attention to spiritual life, some of them want to merge into the supreme spiritual cause, and some of them disbelieve in everything, being angry at all sorts of spiritual speculation out of hopelessness.
Prabhupāda: No. Kṛṣṇa doesn't say. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). You will get another body, but that does not mean human body. That will depend on your price. Just like if I say, "When your coat is old and torn, you'll purchase another coat." So that another coat, what kind of coat, that will depend on your price, as you are able to pay. Similarly, your activities in this life will decide what body you are going to get next life.
Guest (4): Prabhupāda, that, perhaps, contradicts with the theory of reincarnation?
Prabhupāda: What is that incarnation theory? You are going to get another body. That is reincarnation. Now, what kind of body you are going to get, that will depend on your work. There are 8,400,000 different types and forms of body. So you are at liberty to work. Therefore the direction is there in the Bhagavad-gītā, "You work like this. Then you get the body like this." So this is risky life. Without knowing the law of God, without knowing how nature is working, how the living entity is getting different types of body, without this knowledge, if we simply keep ourself on the business of eating, sleeping, sex and defense like cats and dogs, this is very, very risky life.
Just like apāni-pādo javana-gṛhīta. It is said that God has no hands or legs. But He can accept anything you offer. God has no eyes, and ears, but He can see everything and He can hear everything. So these are contradiction. That means whenever we speak of seeing, we think somebody must have eyes like this. That is our material conception. God has eyes, He can see even in the darkness. You cannot see in the darkness. So He has got a different eye. God can hear. If God is in His kingdom which is millions and millions of miles away, but if you are talking something, whispering, conspiracy, He can hear. Because He is sitting within you. So you cannot avoid God's seeing and God's hearing or God's touching.
Devotee: A Kṛṣṇa conscious person has realized knowledge by the grace of Kṛṣṇa. Because he is satisfied with pure devotional service. By realized knowledge, one becomes perfect. By such perfect knowledge one can be steady in his convictions. But by academic knowledge one is easily deluded and is confused by apparent contradictions. It is the realized soul who is actually self-controlled because he is surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. He is transcendental because he has nothing to do with mundane scholarship.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Even one is illiterate. Even he does not know what is ABCD, he can realize God provided he engages himself in this submissive transcendental loving service. And one may be very learned, high scholar, but he cannot realize God. God is not subjected to any material condition. He is supreme spirit. Similarly, the process of realizing God is also not subjected to any material condition. It is not that because you are poor man you cannot realize God. Or because you are very rich man, therefore you shall realize God. No. Because you are uneducated, therefore you cannot realize God, no, that is not. Because you are highly educated, therefore you can realize God. No, that is not. He's unconditional. Apratihatā. Sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmaḥ. In the Bhāgavata it is said, that is first-class religious principle.
Devotee: Prabhupāda? Before this question was asked you were talking about the ślokas that Lord Caitanya left for us. I can't understand, on one hand he says that we don't want to be delivered from this material ocean, we just want to serve. Then in one of the other ślokas he pleads with Kṛṣṇa to deliver him from this ocean of death and fix him up as one of the atoms of His lotus feet. This seems to be a contradiction to me, I can't...
Prabhupāda: What is that contradiction. Please explain.
Devotee: Well, it seems like, you explained before that we shouldn't try to pray to be delivered from this material ocean. We should just try to serve Kṛṣṇa wherever we are. ...delivered from the ocean of death. Seems to be a plea to take him out of this material ocean.
Prabhupāda: Na dhanaṁ na janam, mama janmani janmanīśvare bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī. Let me be situated in Your service. This is the prayer.
That kind of business will not help you. Now I have confessed, now I begin new chapter of sinful life. Again I shall confess. Kṛṣṇa is not so fool that you can cheat Him by this process. No, that is not possible. You can be executing the process of your advancement; unwillingly if you commit some mistake, that will be excused. That is said in the Bhagavad-gītā, api cet su-durācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ. Sometimes we take shelter of this verse, that api cet su-durācāro, "However sinful you might, may be," bhajate mām ananya-bhāk, "if he is fully engaged in My service..." But this word is very important. One cannot be fully engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa unless he is purified. Yeṣāṁ tv anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām (BG 7.28). One who is completely free from reaction of sinful life and is always engaged in pious activities, such person can be Kṛṣṇa conscious. So it is..., it is not that one is a debauch, at the same time a Kṛṣṇa conscious. That is a contradictory. It cannot be. If he is actually Kṛṣṇa conscious, he is cannot be debauch. And if he is debauch, then he is not Kṛṣṇa conscious. Two things cannot go parallel.
Prabhupāda: Yes, if you are so fortunate... Just like Ajāmila. Throughout the whole life he committed all sinful acts. But when he was at the point of death... He had a pet child whose name was Nārāyaṇa. So he was calling, "My dear boy Nārāyaṇa." So when he was calling Nārāyaṇa, he thought of Nārāyaṇa. So immediately he achieved Nārāyaṇa.
Indian man: But don't you think it is a contradiction that if a man is a bad throughout his life and only at the time of death he thinks of Kṛṣṇa and gets...?
Prabhupāda: No. That history of Ajāmila is different. In his childhood he was a son of a brāhmaṇa. He was faithfully discharging the duties of a brāhmaṇa. But accidentally, when he was young... He was married also. Accidentally, when he was young he was passing on the road and some śūdra girl and boy were embracing and kissing, and he became attracted. And he became attracted by the prostitute. And he left home, wife, and everything, and then he became a great dacoit and smuggler, and everything he did. But... And he had so many children. Youngest was Nārāyaṇa. So at the time of death..., because generally, people become attached to the youngest son, so he was calling "Nārāyaṇa." But he remembered, "Oh, that Nārāyaṇa." Reference to the context. As soon as he called Nārāyaṇa... In his boyhood he served Nārāyaṇa under the direction of his father, so he remembered Nārāyaṇa. Therefore it is not always possible, but therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, svalpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt. If somebody has executed devotional service even a little bit, oh, it may be, it can save him from the greatest danger.
So this is another craziness. Just see how craziness follows. Void. Why void? I am so much intelligent. I am doing... I am planning so many. Because my body is finished, therefore everything becomes void? This void philosophy was contradicted by the (indistinct). There is no void. There is spirit. Now, if that spirit, when one comes to that spiritual self-realization, out of this body, then, if he's still further advanced in spiritual knowledge, then he'll seek what is my spiritual duty? What is my spiritual work? That is sanity. What is my spiritual work. Sanity, that is sanity. I cannot be void. I cannot lose my individuality and personality. That is nonsense. How can I? So long I am sitting in this body... Or take this same crude example. So long I am sitting on the car, I am displaying so much individuality, and so much discrimination. As soon as there is red signal, I stop my car. There is blue signal, green signal, I start my car. I'm using my consciousness. I'm working. And, simply by getting down from the car, I lose everything. I become void? What is this nonsense? No.
Now if you say, Kṛṣṇa is in the Goloka Vṛndāvana, far, far away from here. How He accepts?" That is the answer is here, that sarvataḥ pāṇi-pādam. He has got hands. That is the Vedic injunction. Apāṇi-pādo javana-gṛhītaḥ. The Absolute Brahman has no hands and legs, but He can accept anything, He can walk everywhere. Just contradictory. Paśyaty acakṣuḥ. He has no eyes. but He can see everything. This is the difference. He has got His form. That is spiritual form, that is not this material, limited form, but He has got His form. One who does not understand His unlimited form, Brahman form, sarvataḥ... Everywhere He can go, everywhere He can see, everywhere He can accept whatever you offer. Everywhere He can walk. That is His form, but He is not formless.
Pradyumna: Translation: "The Supersoul is the original source of all senses, yet He is without senses. He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living beings. He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is the master of all modes of material nature."
Prabhupāda: Now we can see, these are contradictory. Sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṁ sarvendriya-vivarjitam. He's the origin of all senses, but He has no senses. Sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṁ sarvendriya-vivarjitam. Asaktam: He has no attachment, but at the same time, sarva-bhṛc ca, He's maintainer of everyone. Nirguṇam, without any qualities. Guṇa-bhoktṛ ca, but He is the enjoyer of all qualities. So this requires elucidation, how these contradictions are adjusted. This requires knowledge.
Indian man (1): ...can be removed. Nistraiguṇya, traiguṇya-viṣayā vedā nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna. If there is a contradiction between the principles taught by Vedas and taught by Gītā? Sir?
Prabhupāda: Nistraiguṇya. As soon as you become a devotee, you become nistraiguṇya. As soon as you become a devotee, pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa, you are situated on the platform of nistraiguṇya.
Indian man (1): Traiguṇya-viṣayā vedāḥ...
Prabhupāda: Traiguṇya means these three qualities: sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. So the whole Vedic literature is describing how to get out of this entanglement of three guṇas. So as soon as you come out of these three guṇas, then you become nistraiguṇya.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
So similarly, one who is imperfect, one who is subjected to so many defects of life, we cannot accept knowledge from them. This is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We don't accept. We accept knowledge from the Vedas, which is perfect. As I have several times explained, the Veda says that stool of animal is impure. Again Veda says that the stool of cow is pure. Now, you will say, "Oh, this is contradictory. Sometimes it is said pure, and sometimes... This cow is also animal. First of all, you said that the stool of any animal is impure, and again you say the cow dung, the stool of another animal, is pure." It is fact. It is pure. So if we accept the standard perfect knowledge from the Vedas, or one who knows the Vedas, then our knowledge is perfect. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says,
- tad viddhi praṇipātena
- paripraśnena sevayā
- upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ
- jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ
- (BG 4.34)
One who has seen the Absolute Truth, or one who has known the Absolute Truth, go there and take knowledge by surrendering. Praṇipātena. Praṇipāta means surrendering. Paripraśnena. Don't make question, waste his time.
Indian man (2): At least, is ridiculous.
Brahmānanda: If you receive a good education and then you act contrary to that education.
Prabhupāda: If one has received good education, he cannot act contradictory.
Indian man (2): That is... I agree with you. But this is what, if I have understood...
Prabhupāda: So a person who has got real education, he cannot be ridiculous. No, why you are saying that?
Indian man (2): It can be explained by ridiculous.
Prabhupāda: No, no. Don't say anything which is contradictory. Education does not mean ridiculous. That means he is not educated.
Indian man (2): I have not said that education is ridiculous. I said that one who has got good education from a teacher...
Prabhupāda: So he cannot act ridiculously. If he acts ridiculously, then he has not good education.
That we cannot adjust. In another place it is said, asitāmbuda-sundarāṅgam. Asitāmbuda-sundarāṅgam. Asitāmbuda-sundarāṅgam. His body is just like black cloud. Kandarpa-koṭi-kamanīya. Kandarpa-koṭi-kamanīya. We understand Kandarpa, the Cupid, as very beautiful, but if you millions of Kandarpas act together to increase the beauty, that is also not comparable with Kṛṣṇa's beauty. So these contradictory terms cannot be understood unless one has got the ointment of love of Godhead. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena. Añjana. Añjana we understand, a kind of ointment. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti (Bs. 5.38). So the first beginning is śraddhā, tac chraddadhānā munayaḥ. Ādau śraddhā. If you have got this faith... This is the...Bhagavad-gītā is just to create the preliminary faith to understand God. That is the only... That is Bhagavad-gītā.
So this is called knot. In so many ways, they are tied up. So actually, if anyone is kovida... Kovida. Here it is used. What is the meaning of kovida? "Intelligent." Kovida means intelligent. So intelligent persons should see to it. Just like it is a little, little intelligent. Just like we can see when the advertisement, we can immediately understand, "What is this nonsense advertisement? He's smoking, and it is cool?" So contradiction. You'll find contradiction everywhere. Because they are not intelligent, they are thinking intelligent. But anyone who is intelligent, they can understand what is the trick.
When one has realized Brahman, prasannātmā, prasannātmā, brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā... Here also it is said, evaṁ prasanna-manasaḥ. The same thing you will find everywhere. There cannot be any contradiction. Prasanna-manasa and prasannātmā, the same thing. So how one can become prasannātmā or prasanna-manasa? That is described here. Bhagavad-bhakti-yogataḥ. Evaṁ prasanna-manaso bhagavad-bhakti-yogataḥ (SB 1.2.20). If you accept bhagavad-bhakti-yoga, devotional service to the Lord, you shall be prasanna-manasa. You shall be always feeling jolly. If I am not jolly, if I am not prasanna-manasa, that means māyā has attacked me. A bhagavad-bhakta shall never be aprasanna, not joyful. Always joyful. If he is actually in contact with Kṛṣṇa, how he can become morose? No. If he is morose, if he is unhappy, that means māyā has attacked him. This is the test.
The Śaṅkara philosophy is "No, simply breaking is not the solution. There is soul within this." Dehino 'smi yathā dehe. Śaṅkara gives him that "Wherefrom this living cognizance come? There is soul." That is Śaṅkara philosophy. But he is nirviśeṣa-vādī, nirākāra. That consciousness has no form, he says. Then farther development is this Vaiṣṇava philosophy, that as soon as there is consciousness, that is a person. These are the gradual development. Actually, they are not contradictory. But according to the time, circumstances, different types of philosophies are there. Just like Jesus Christ. He is advising, "Thou shalt not killing." That means the people were so much accustomed to kill. Very first-class gentlemen. Simply wanted to kill. So what advice can be given there? First is that "Thou shalt not kill."
Brahmā is called ātma-bhūtam. Brahmā is not born of ordinary father and mother. Brahmā is born of the Supreme Lord, Supreme ātmā, Nārāyaṇa, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Therefore he is called Svayambhū. Brahmā's another name is Svayambhū. Sa vai bhavān veda samasta-guhyam upāsito yat puruṣaḥ purāṇaḥ. Now here Nārada's qualification is that "Because you are a great devotee of the original Personality of Godhead, puruṣaḥ purāṇaḥ." Śāśvataṁ puruṣam ādyam. Just like Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa, śāśvataṁ puruṣam ādyam. Just like we are singing now, govindam ādi-puruṣam. So purāṇa-puruṣam. Purāṇa-puruṣam, the oldest puruṣa, oldest being. The oldest being is Kṛṣṇa. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣam (Bs. 5.33). These references are all the same, either you take Vedānta-sūtra or you, say, take Brahma-sūtra or you take Brahma-saṁhitā or Bhāgavatam. There is no contradiction, because the same truth is explained in different Vedic literature.
"My dear son of Kuntī, Arjuna, if somebody knows actually what are My activities, then simply by knowing what are My activities, he becomes liberated." Just see how Bhagavad-gītā and Bhāgavata is working. What is said by... This is called paramparā system, that the what is spoken in the Bhagavad-gītā by the Lord Himself is here also confirmed by Nārada. You don't find any contradiction. In the Bhagavad-gītā... Just like Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). And what we are saying? That "You give up everything. Just become Kṛṣṇa conscious." The same thing. Therefore it is for liberation. What was spoken by God Himself directly, the same thing is spoken by Nārada, and same thing we are speaking also.
This ṣaṭ-karma, nipuṇa, very expert. Mantra-tantra-viśāradaḥ. And he's very expert in chanting the Vedic hymns and execution of tantra and so many things. Avaiṣṇavo gurur na syāt. If he's avaiṣṇava, if he's not attached with Viṣṇu, if he does not carry the order of Kṛṣṇa, gurur na sa syāt. Sad-vaiṣṇavaḥ śva-paco guruḥ. But if a person is Vaiṣṇava, even if he's born in the family of a śva-paca... Śva-paca means dog-eater, caṇḍāla. If he's a Vaiṣṇava he can become guru. And if one is a brāhmaṇa, if he's not a Vaiṣṇava... Naturally, brāhmaṇa means Vaiṣṇava. Brāhmaṇa means paṇḍita. Still, in India a brāhmaṇa is addressed as "Paṇḍitajī." Because a brāhmaṇa and mūrkha, rascal, this is contradictory. It cannot be. Unless one is highly learned, unless one has learned what is Brahman, he cannot become brāhmaṇa. Brahma jānātīti brāhmaṇaḥ. So not only one should be brāhmaṇa, but he should become a Vaiṣṇava. Still higher. From brāhmaṇa platform he has to come to the Vaiṣṇava platform.
What is the purpose of getting this opportunity of human life? That we must understand. We should not waste our valuable life like the cats and dogs. This is our main business. To understand God. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. This is the life. Brahman, paraṁ brahma. Brahman, paraṁ brahma, or, Brahman's, I mean to say, potencies. Parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ. These things are there. We should understand. That is our business. So if we understand why Bhagavān appears as the son of Devakī, then you become liberated. This is the... Bhagavān says janma karma ca me divyaṁ yo jānāti tattvataḥ (BG 4.9). You have to learn it tattvataḥ, in truth. Not superficially. Then you'll understand how the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavān, appears as the son of Devakī or son of Vasudeva. Ajo 'pi sann avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san. Although He's aja... Aja means who never takes birth. Still, He takes birth. Contradictory. This is inconceivable.
So Kṛṣṇa is giving him direction, "All right, you steal in this way." And the same person in whose house the stealing wil be committed, he is also praying, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, please protect me from thieves." So he is also believing. That just see Kṛṣṇa's business: He is giving direction to the thief, and giving direction to the person in whose house the stealing will be committed. So if..., just try to understand how much Kṛṣṇa is busy. That is God. Although He is performing so many contradictory business, contradictory business, opposing business, still His full brain, His full brain, He does not forget to dance with the gopīs at the same time. This is Kṛṣṇa. This is Kṛṣṇa. If you are busy with so many transactions, you forget to see your wife and children and forget. But no. Kṛṣṇa, goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūto. Although He is busy dancing with the gopīs, although He is busy to play with His cowherd friends, goloka eva nivasaty, in this way He is living in the Goloka, and akhilātma-bhūto, still He is in everyone's heart and giving direction, all contradiction. This is Kṛṣṇa. Don't try to imitate Kṛṣṇa, rascal. Kṛṣṇa is not so easy. Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. You are you are. That is real philosophy.
So when one becomes devotee of Lord Śiva, he gets material opulence. He becomes rich. He gets good wife. He gets all material opulences. And when one becomes the devotee of Viṣṇu, the husband of goddess of fortune, he becomes poor. Why this contradiction? This is contradiction. The worshiper of the Lord of Goddess of Fortune is becoming poorer, and the worshiper of the vagabond, who has no house even, lives underneath a bael tree... That is also not very good. And his devotee becomes so opulent materially. So why this difference?" These are statements. I have stated several times.
So Śukadeva Gosvāmī said to Parīkṣit that "This very question was raised by your grandfather, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, to Lord Kṛṣṇa, and what He replied I'll say." So in that connection he gave quotation of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa said to Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira... Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, by hint, asked Kṛṣṇa that "We are Your friend, and why we are put into such tribulations that we have lost our kingdom? We are now living in the forest.
Now if a sādhu is already delivered, he is on the transcendental platform, then where is the necessity of delivering him? This is the question. Therefore this word is used, viḍambanam. It is bewildering. It is contradictory. It appears to be contradictory. If a sādhu is already delivered... Transcendental position means he's no longer under the control of the three material modes of nature, goodness, passion and ignorance. Because it is clearly stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: sa guṇān samatītyaitān (BG 14.26). He transcends the material qualities. A sādhu, devotee, Then where is the question of deliverance? The deliverance... He does not require deliverance, a sādhu, but because he is very much anxious to see the Supreme Lord eye to eye, that is his inner desire, therefore Kṛṣṇa comes. Not for deliverance. He's already delivered. He's already delivered from the material clutches.
So to understand kṛṣṇa-līlā... So therefore we have to understand Kṛṣṇa-līlā, Kṛṣṇa, from these books, Bhāgavata, Bhagavad-gītā, but not directly. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommends, bhāgavata giyā paro bhāgavata sthāne. Just try to understand Bhāgavata or Bhagavān from the realized soul, not from the professional man. So here: kecid āhur ajaṁ jātam (SB 1.8.32). Āhuḥ ajaṁ jātam. Contradiction. Now Kṛṣṇa says, ajo 'pi: "Although I am birthless, I do not take birth," ajo 'pi sann avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san... He is the Supreme Being, He's the master of everyone, and He never takes birth. Still, He takes birth—contradiction. He never takes birth, aja; at the same time... Ajo 'pi... Here it is said, kecid āhur ajam. God, or Kṛṣṇa, is aja. He never takes birth. But again he (she) says, jātam: "He has taken birth." This contradiction should be understood. The Vedas, there are many such contradictions like that. Paśyaty acakṣuḥ: "Kṛṣṇa, or God, sees, but He has no eyes." Similarly, God, Kṛṣṇa, takes His birth although He never takes birth. These are contradictions. Paśyaty acakṣuḥ. Apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā: "He has no leg, but He goes so fast, nobody can compete Him." These are Vedic statements. You'll find in the Upaniṣads, apāṇi-pāda: "He has no leg, He has no hand," but javano grahītā, "but if you offer Him something, He takes." Kṛṣṇa says... It is not my word.
Of course, this is too much following religious principles. This is also another instruction. When Kṛṣṇa said that "You go and speak the lies," he should have done immediately. That is dharma. Because dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). Dharma means which is given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is dharma. You cannot manufacture dharma. Just like nowadays so many dharmas have been manufactured. They are not dharma. Dharma means the order which is given by the Lord. That is dharma. Just like Kṛṣṇa said, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). We have manufactured so many dharmas: Hindu dharma, Muslim dharma, Christian dharma, Parsee dharma, Buddha dharma, this dharma, that dharma. They are not dharma. They are mental concoction, mental concoction. Otherwise, there will be contradiction. Take for example, the Hindus think cow-killing is adharma, and the Muslims think that cow-killing is their dharma. So which is correct? Whether cow killing is adharma or dharma?
This is the secret of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava. Beyond the sense perception. Just like Gosvāmīs. They were living at Vṛndāvana. And what sort of living? Simply in separation and search. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also taught us like that. He was searching, "Where is Kṛṣṇa? Where is Kṛṣṇa?" and feeling separation. Just like you feel sometimes with your lover separation and you search, this is our process. Always feel separation from Kṛṣṇa and try to search out. This is ekānta. This is explained here, ekānta-bhaktyā bhagavaty adhokṣaje. Adhokṣaje, "He is beyond my perception. Still, my devotion is unalloyed." Not that "I cannot see where is God. Oh, what is devotion?" Just try to understand. It appears to be contradictory. Because foolish people say that "If you cannot see God, where is the question of devotion? You want to serve God, but if you cannot see God, then how you can serve?" Therefore, particularly this word is used, ekānta-bhaktyā bhagavaty adhokṣaje niveśitātmopararāma saṁsṛteḥ. That is the process.
You will get chance of taking your birth in higher planetary system where the standard of living is many, many thousands better than this planet. Just like Svargaloka, Janaloka. From our śāstra we understand that the inhabitants of Candraloka, moon planet, they live for ten thousands of years, but these rascals are going there. They do not find any living entity. So that is the contradiction. But we believe that in the moon planet... And why we shall not believe? If the living entities are found everywhere, so why, what moon planet has done that there should be no living entity? From our experience we can see living entity is there on the land, in the air, in the water, even in the fire. So every planet is made of these five elements: earth, water, fire, air, sky. So we find by practical experience that in the water there is living entity, on the land there is living entity, within the land there is living entity. So why in the moon planet or other planet there should be no living entities? That's a wrong theory.
Yes. So if we qualify ourself as Vaiṣṇava and devotee, then all other good qualities will automatically manifest in the body. That is the purpose of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, that you accept this movement... For example... There are many examples. This is also one practical example. In your state the government has spent millions and millions of dollars to stop the intoxication habit, but it was failure. But as soon as the same person comes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness camp, he immediately gives up. This is practical. And there cannot be any comparison of the qualities of our students with any religious institution or any school, college. You cannot have. Because they are devotee. As soon as you become devotee, all good qualities... Therefore if the government takes this movement seriously, they make everyone a devotee, then everything will be solved. There will be no need of criminal court or jail or... Everything will be finished. Or, what is called, liquor house and slaughterhouse and manufacturing cigarette and advertising them two sides of the road. Although (chuckles) it is written there it is dangerous, still it is highly advertised and people smoke. These contradiction things are going on on account of godlessness.
So that is the qualification of the kṣatriya. Kṣatriya means one who gives protection. Just like when there is attack in a country, the king or the president gives protection to the citizens by killing the enemies. So his business is to give protection to the citizens. So it may be sometimes by killing others, he gives protection. We have discussed many times the violence and nonviolence. Non... These are contradictory terms, but when these two contradictory things are found in saintly persons, we must know they are all the same, absolute. And what to speak of when these actions are found in Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is the absolute nature. Absolute, to understand the absolute nature means two plus two equal two, one plus one equal to one, and one minus one equal to one. This is absolute understanding. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya. One is complete number, pūrṇam. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya. And if you take away complete one, still it is one. This is absolute understanding. It is not that one has been taken away from one; therefore it has become zero. No. That is material. That is relative.
Surrender means in any condition, fully surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. Without hankering. What is hankering? Why shall I be hankering? I know, Kṛṣṇa will give me all protection. So then why shall I hanker? Without hankering. Simple. No duplicity. Simple. The worldly men, they are duplicatous (?), speaking something, cheater. That is the, one of the qualification of the materialistic man. He must be cheater. There are four defects: commit mistakes, to be illusioned, to become cheater, and imperfect senses. This is called material life, conditioned life. He must commit mistakes. However a great philosopher... We are talking about the philosophers. So many contradictory things they say. Because he's an ordinary man. How he can say the right thing? It is not possible. The right thing can be said only by liberated person.
To some hellish place. (laughter) Nowadays they are going airplane, sometimes diverted. Yes. So if they are demigods, they have got better brain and... There are so many questionable things, contradictions of the... We cannot take, accept it, that the statement in the Vedic literature, they are not right, but they are right. No, we cannot.
So why they are attempting this process, which will meet with frustration? That is also said: adānta-gobhir viśatāṁ tamisraṁ punaḥ punaś carvita-carvaṇānām (SB 7.5.30). Because they cannot control their senses, adānta... Adānta-gobhiḥ. Go means indriya, senses, and adānta means uncontrolled. Adānta-gobhir viśatāṁ tamisraṁ punaḥ punaś carvita-carvaṇānām (SB 7.5.30). So in this way we are being baffled in so many ways. The only rescue is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore it is said, ananya-bhāvena, mayy ananyena bhāvena bhaktiṁ kurvanti ye dṛḍhām. That is wanted. Dṛḍha-vrata. That is stated in Bhagavad-gītā. You'll find parallel passages, the same thing. Because Kṛṣṇa, or God, cannot say anything contradictory. Whatever He has said... Therefore Bhagavad-gītā is the preliminary study of spiritual life. If you can understand Bhagavad-gītā, then you can begin Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. If you have not understood Bhagavad-gītā, it is useless. You cannot understand Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
So the whole process of understanding the Absolute Truth... Absolute Truth means the Supreme Person, the Supreme Being, Absolute. There is no contradictory. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's name, Kṛṣṇa's form, Kṛṣṇa's activities, Kṛṣṇa's paraphernalia, Kṛṣṇa's attributes—everything Kṛṣṇa. That is called Absolute Truth. There is no difference. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's form is not different. Kṛṣṇa's hand and Kṛṣṇa's leg not different. Just like we have got difference: this left hand is different from the right hand; the nose is different from the ear. We have got. Because this is called sagata-vigata-vibheda(?). Kṛṣṇa hasn't got that thing. That is called Absolute. It is stated in the Brahma-saṁhitā, aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛttimanti. Aṅgāni, we have got different parts of the body, limbs, for different purposes. But Kṛṣṇa can serve any purpose from any limbs of His body. Kṛṣṇa can eat by seeing only. Kṛṣṇa can go by thinking only. There are so many description that Kṛṣṇa is Absolute. So these contradictory things, how one can understand of the Absolute? He is absolute, advaya-jñāna. Absolute means no duality; everything is one.
Sometimes the Māyāvādī philosophers, they also take the living entities within this material world as līlā. That is not līlā. Līlā refers to the pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Never... Nobody says that the living entity has come in this material world for līlā. At least, the Vaiṣṇava philosophers do not agree that. It is contradictory. Kṛṣṇa said that "When I come..."
- yadā yadā hi dharmasya
- glānir bhavati bhārata
- abhyutthānam adharmasya...
- (BG 4.7)
We should not accept Kṛṣṇa's coming within this material world and our coming in this material world as the same process. Kṛṣṇa comes as He is. He does not change. And because He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, almighty, even if He comes within this material world, the material qualities do not affect Him. That is īśanam, īśanam.
So therefore, here it is said that vibhuḥ... Kṛṣṇa is vibhuḥ, and if He is covered by māyā... As the Māyāvādī philosopher thinks, that "When God comes within this material world, He is also covered by māyā..." He is not covered by māyā. If māyā is greater than Kṛṣṇa, then māyā can cover Kṛṣṇa. But that is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa says, mama māyā. That means... Mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te (BG 7.14). If one surrenders to Kṛṣṇa, then he becomes free from the clutches of māyā. So how Kṛṣṇa can be caught by māyā? This is contradictory. If anyone surrenders to Kṛṣṇa, he becomes free from the influence of māyā, simply by surrendering. Then how Kṛṣṇa can be influenced by māyā? It is common sense. By surrendering to Kṛṣṇa, by becoming a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, you become free from the clutches of māyā. Mām eva ye prapadyante. Simply by surrendering. Māyām etāṁ taranti te (BG 7.14). So never think that Kṛṣṇa... The Māyāvādī thinks like that, that "We are one, Kṛṣṇa and we. We are one." Yes, we are one—in quality. The same thing: just like the fire and the spark, one in burning capacity. Even a small spark of the fire, it can burn. So we are one in the spiritual quality, but in quantity, we are different. Same example: vibhu and aṇu. This is very nice verse in the Bhagavad-gītā, mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te (BG 7.14).
Prabhupāda: Ah, this is all lying propaganda. I don't believe it. I am also there. I am born in Calcutta.
Guest: I am not saying anything to contradict you, just explain to me...
Prabhupāda: No, there is no contradiction. I am speaking that God is feeding even the animals, even the elephants, even the serpents, and why God will not feed the human kind. This is a wrong impression. Everyone has food fixed by God. Even if he is not serving God, God is supplying all the necessities, to the animals why not to the human being? This is wrong impression. (break) Yes? (break)
Jyotirmayī (translating for Guest): ...that at the beginning one, the word, and this word was God and this word was with God. So what is this word?
Prabhupāda: God, God and God's word. They're identical. God's, God and God's form, God's quality. God's, I mean to say, entourage, everything is God. That is called absolute. As, when I speak, my speaking is different from me, so that is not the case with God. God's words, the vibration of God, that is also God.
So in this way, when they returned home, one day the old man, before his wife and son, said, "My dear son, my dear wife, this girl should be offered to that young man." He was same village. "What is this? How this daughter can be offered to such poor man? He's not very educated." The old man said: "No, it doesn't matter. I have promised." The boy, his eldest son, said, "No, no, it cannot be." And the wife said that "If you give my daughter to that boy, then I shall commit suicide." He was perplexed. Now what to do? So he was thinking and praying to Kṛṣṇa, "Sir, I have promised before You. You kindly help me so that they may not commit suicide and I may also offer my daughter to that boy. You have to arrange for that." And Kṛṣṇa has got such contradictory duties. He has to protect the thief, as well as the man where theft is being done. You see. Because everyone is praying, "Sir, my things may not be stolen." And the thief is also praying, "Please give me some opportunity so that I can steal." And Kṛṣṇa has to satisfy both.
So long we are in this material platform, bodily concept of life, then there will be distinction: "I am Indian," "You are American," "You are Englishman," "You are this," "...that," so many things, so many designations. Therefore, if you want to rise up to the platform of spiritual realization, then the formula is sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170). That is the beginning. That means beginning is the brahma-bhūta platform. Brahma-bhūta... (SB 4.30.20). Same thing. It is, Nārada Pañcarātra, sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam, and brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā (BG 18.54), Bhagavad-gītā, the same thing. Wherever you find the Vedic literature, the same thing. Therefore it is authority. There is no contradiction. In the material platform you write one book, I write one book, then I disagree with you, and you disagree with me. That is material platform. But in the spiritual platform, there is self-realized platform. There is no mistake, there is no illusion, there is no imperfect senses and there is no cheating. That is spiritual platform.
Guest (1): Brahma-sūtra, as propounded by Vyāsa is one. It is only one. But after reading Brahma-sūtra, the bhāṣyas, Śaṅkara-bhāṣya, Madhva-bhāṣya, and Śrī-bhāṣya as written by Rāmānujācārya, all these things differ in many ways, and they leave us confused to know what is actually existing. Am I to follow this or that or this? Because "Jagat is mithyā," it is said by Śaṅkarācārya. Madhvācārya says, "It's not mithyā. It is realistic." It's contradiction. And Rāmānuja used another way of explanation, that he says, "It is that, and it is this." And in that way, tava dāsaḥ aham, Madhvācārya says, "I am your slave." Tava dāsaḥ aham, tava dāso 'ham. But Śaṅkarācārya says, "No. Ātmā itself is Paramātmā. There is no question of his saying, tava dāso 'ham." Like that, jagan mithyā, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. And then we see, as propounded by Śaṅkarācārya, as explained by Śaṅkarācārya, the same it is said by Madhvācārya as jagat satyam and brahma satyam: "Both are satya." And when Śaṅkarācārya says that jagan mithyā brahma satyam, the same Brahma-sūtra it is taken up by Madhvācārya in a different way. He says jagan mithyā, er, I'm sorry, jagat satyam and brahma satyam. And Rāmānuja says in a different way again, most confusing, he says at some stage, "It is realistic, and at a different stage it becomes unrealistic." So, in so many factors, I find that there are so many contradictions there. If you kindly clarify the matter in a very clear and straightforward manner, I will be and people will be much obliged to you. So Swamiji will have to say something about this, whether the world is temporary, or whether the world is unrealistic or not, or is it realistic. And if it is realistic, why Śaṅkarācārya has said that it is mithyā, and Rāmānujācārya says, "At one stage it is realistic, and after some stage it becomes unrealistic"? And therefore I want clarification so that I can understand.
Prabhupāda: The Śaṅkarācārya is accepted as Māyāvādī because these Māyāvādī philosophers, they think everything is māyā; even Kṛṣṇa is māyā. So, our Caitanya Mahāprabhu... We belong to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and Caitanya Mahāprabhu belongs to Madhvācārya-sampradāya. As I have already explained, there are mahājanas. So all mahājanas, they have got different sampradāyas. Just like Lord Brahmā, he has got his sampradāya; it is called Brahma-sampradāya.
Śiva is dahi and Kṛṣṇa is milk. Dahi, the preparation of dahi that you take milk, pure milk, and mix it with little sour thing, then it becomes dahi. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is pure spirit, and when this pure spirit is mixed up with māyā, that is Śiva. Lord Śiva is the māyā-adipati. There are many narrations. This was once inquired by Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja that Lord Śiva, he appears to be like a beggar. He does not possess even a house. He lives underneath a tree. And the devotee of Śiva becomes very rich, opulent materially, although he's a beggar, whereas Viṣṇu is lakṣmī-pati, vaikuṇṭha-pati, and the Vaiṣṇavas become beggar. Just opposite. By worshiping the beggar one becomes rich, and by worshiping the rich one becomes beggar. What is this contradiction? So this is answered by Kṛṣṇa, yasyāham anugrhṇāmi hariṣye tad-dhanaṁ śanaiḥ (SB 10.88.8), "My first benediction to my devotee is that I take away all his riches. That's all. Then when he becomes helpless, he becomes firmly convinced and he has no other shelter." Then automatically he takes shelter of Kṛṣṇa, what Kṛṣṇa demands, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām (BG 18.66). When he has no other help, he fully surrenders to Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa's special mercy. And so far Lord Śiva is concerned, he is the husband of mother Durgā, and Durgā is the supreme material power, sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya sādhana-śaktir ekā chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni vibharti durgā (Bs. 5.44). So he gets all material benediction, and Vaiṣṇava, instead of material benediction, he gets all spiritual benediction. That is the difference.
I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly, "Do it," your first duty is to do that. You cannot argue, "Sir, you said me like this before." No, that is not your duty. What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. You cannot argue. Of course, Kṛṣṇa never said anything contradictory, but if when one thinks foolishly that Kṛṣṇa said something contradictory, no, that is not to be. You could not understand. So even though you could not understand, you take My direct orders now. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām e... (BG 18.66), that is your business. The master says like that, and the servant's business is to accept it as it is, without any argument. That's all right.
And because we do not understand—everything we try to test with our limited understanding—therefore we do not believe in the activities of the Lord, and we are deceived in that way. God is all-powerful, but when we hear that God at the age of seven years age, old, He lifted the Govardhana Hill, immediately we dismiss, "Oh, this is all mythology." Why? If He has got inconceivable power—He is all-powerful—is it very difficult for Him to lift the Govardhana Hill? "No, we don't believe in God. Even if we believe, we want to believe in our own way." That is bhāvyam, conceivable. But He is durvibhāvyam. You cannot conceive. Two contradict things. Just like here Kṛṣṇa said, Ṛṣabhadeva, that sattvaṁ hi me hṛdayaṁ yatra dharmaḥ. The dharma and adharma, they are two contradictory thought. But He is the source of dharma and adharma both. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Adharma, which we hate, that is also coming from God. Janmādya asya yataḥ. Otherwise... That is explained here. Pṛṣṭhe. Pṛṣṭhe kṛto me yad adharma ārāt. So adharma is also there in God—on the back side. So is there any difference between back side and front side? Advaya-jñāna, absolute.
So premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti (Bs. 5.38). The atheist class men, they say that "I do not see God. How can I believe there is God?" But the advanced devotee, he sees every moment God's presence. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva (Bs. 5.38). He doesn't say that "I do not see God." Santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti yaṁ śyāmasundaram. And what is that God? It is not manufactured God. Śyāmasundaram, Kṛṣṇa. Yaṁ śyāmasundaram. It is particularly mentioned. God means śyāmasundaram. This is also..., appears to be contradictory. Śyāmasundaram. We have got idea: what is black is not beautiful. But here Kṛṣṇa, Śyāmasundaram. Although He is black, He is sundaram. Barhāvataṁsam asitāmbuda-sundarāṅgam. Asitāmbuda, black cloud. Black cloud, like that, color, but He is very sundaram. Kandarpa-koṭi-kamanīya-viśeṣa-śobham (Bs. 5.30). He's so beautiful that if you compare with millions of Kandarpa, Cupid Cupid is supposed to be very beautiful. So if you bring together millions of Cupids, still, their combined beauty cannot be compared with Kṛṣṇa's beauty. But He's still Barhāvataṁsam asitāmbuda-sundarāṅgaṁ, kandarpa-koṭi-kamanīya-viśeṣa-śobhaṁ govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi (Bs. 5.30).
So there are so many birds, eagle birds, they fly, and they go from one planet to another. They are resting... Just like a bird you see, they fly from one tree to another tree. So their resting place is one planet to another. Just see. You are trying to go to the moon planet bogusly. I'll say bogusly because you could not go there. The moon planet is far away from the sun planet. So it is not possible to go there by the so-called jets plane. No. It is far, far away. It is sixteen hundred thousand miles away from the sun. The modern scientist calculation is ninety-three million miles, the sun is situated, and above that, sixteen hundred thousand miles up, there is moon planet. So by the Vedic calculation it is not possible to go there by the method we are attempting. That is not possible. And the proof is that why, if they are going to the moon planet, why they cannot stay there? Now, the argument is that "There is no vegetation. The atmosphere is different, where living being cannot stay." They say like that. But from the Vedic information we understand that moon planet influence the vegetation in all other planets. So if the moon planet helps vegetation in all other planets, how it is that there is no vegetation? So there are many thing, contradiction, and practically we see, they are going to the moon planet, but they cannot stay, uselessly going and coming. So let them do that, but we have got our other inform..., other sources of information, that we cannot go to the moon planet. It is not possible.
The book is the same, but by hearing from the authorities, you get a better impression, better understanding. There are so many examples like this. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Now there are many scriptures in the world. The Hindus have got the Vedas; the Christians have got the Bible; the Muslims, they have got Koran. Now, if you read all these scriptures, you will find something contradictory. Just like animal killing. Animal killing, more or less, there are in every scripture, restricted or nonrestricted. There is none nonrestricted. Restricted. Even in the Koran, the animal killing is restricted. Animal is to be killed in the, in certain Bakri Eid ceremony and in the Masjid. Similarly, animal killing amongst the Hindus, they are to be done in the temple of Goddess Kālī. But no slaughterhouse is recommended. Anyway...
So if you read different scripture, you will be bewildered. In one scripture it is said... But there is adjustment. If you go to the authorized person, he can adjust. But you cannot see. You see, you'll see contradiction.
Yes. Due to this form you are always in suffering. Adyātmika ādibhautika. But because they are in māyā they are thinking they are happy. Kṛṣṇa's form is not like that. He is always ānandamāyā. We see Kṛṣṇa's form in a picture. He is always happy. Therefore His form is not like our form. Therefore indirectly it is said "formless." His qualities are not exactly like our qualities; therefore He is called nirguṇa. Apāṇi pāda grahītā. Just like Veda says that He has no hands, no legs, but still He accepts the sacrifices which you offer Him. How He accepts? Paśyaty acakṣuḥ. He has no eyes but He sees everything. How you can adjust it? Two contradicting things. He has no eyes but He sees. Upadraṣṭā anumantā. So His words are there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Your conception of eye, that if God has no eye then how He can see? Is it not the next question? But He sees. That means He has eyes which is not exactly this eye. Therefore you can say He has no eye.
So another stool, cow stool, you say pure? This is contradiction. You say that the bone is impure, and you are keeping the bone in the Deity's room?" The conchshell is bone. You know this conchshell is a bone of an animal. So it is being used in the Deity room, and the cow dung is also used in the Deity room. Even Kṛṣṇa is smearing His whole body with cow dung. You know Kṛṣṇa's līlā. So if you say, argue, with your poor knowledge, then it becomes contradiction. One stool is good; another stool is bad. But because it is said by the Vedas, you have to accept it. This is Vedic knowledge. You cannot argue. There is no scope of argument. Whatever is said, you have to accept. Otherwise how Vedas become authority? You can change in your own way.
So therefore we say that if you want to take benefit by reading Bhagavad-gītā, then you should accept it as it is said. Don't try to interpret foolishly. Then you will never get the benefit. That is our propaganda. And people are very against us: "No, I am a scholar. I am a philosopher. I can interpret in a way." We say, "No, sir, you cannot do that." This is our propaganda. Veda-praṇihito dharmaḥ.
Thank you very much. (end)
If you touch, then you have to take your bath." In another place it is said, "This stool, particular, the cow dung, is pure. Cow dung is pure. If there is any impure place, if you smear over it cow dung, then it is pure." That is also injunction of the Vedas. Now, you cannot argue that "One place you say that this stool is impure, and another place you say this is pure. This is contradiction." Sometimes people find this contradiction. But you have to accept because it is injunction of the Vedas. That you are doing practically every day.
Similarly, this bone, any bone, animal bone, if you touch, you have to take bath. You become impure. But this conchshell, which you are sounding, vibrating in the Deity room, that is also bone. But you cannot argue that "You say bone is impure. Why you are taking one bone in the Deity room?" That you cannot say. This is acceptance of Vedas, without any argument. And if you want to know why one is accepted pure and one is accepted impure, if you make, I mean to say, research, you will find that the Vedic injunction is right. Take for..., this cow dung. Perhaps, you doctor, know, that one Dr. Lalman Ghosh in Calcutta, he analyzed this cow dung and he was a professor in the medical college. He has declared that cow dung is full of antiseptic properties. So Vedic injunction is... That is right. But sometimes it appears to be contradictory. But we cannot judge how it is so contradictory. We have to accept like that.
Devotee (3): In regard to worshiping arcā-vigraha form, you have explained that if one receives a mantra from a spiritual master who is not bona fide, that mantra has no effect. So I would like to ask if one is worshiping a Deity and his spiritual master is not bona fide, so that Deity cannot be considered the Supreme Lord?
Prabhupāda: Well, first of all, thing is if the spiritual master is not bona fide, how his mantra can be bona fide? Your statement is contradictory. If you say the spiritual master is not bona fide, then how his mantra becomes bona fide? If he is bona fide, then his mantra is bona fide.
Devotee (3): Then why is he giving instruction to worship the Deity? If the spiritual master is not bona fide, then is the Deity also not bona fide?
Prabhupāda: I do not follow. What does he say?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: His idea is that if one receives a mantra from a spiritual master, if the spiritual master is not bona fide...
Prabhupāda: Then there is no question of mantra. There is no question of worshiping Deity. These are all bogus things. If you are not... Just like here is a young medical man. If he has not received instruction from a bona fide medical college, so what is the value of his medical, being... That is... What is called? What is the technical name?
If you don't accept the injunction in the śāstras, especially when Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord, is instructing you in the Bhagavad-gītā... That is the essence of all śāstra. You take that. Then you will be happy. Otherwise not. So here it is said that aghavān, the sinful man, cannot be purified by simply these ritualistic ceremonies, atonement, or keeping some vow, vrataḥ. Then how it is possible? Because everyone... Yathā harer nāma. Therefore it is recommended, harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam, kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva (CC Adi 17.21), the same thing. You will never find the injunction of the śāstra contradictory. In the Agni Purāṇa it is said and in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata also the same thing. Agni Purāṇa says, harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam, and here in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam it is said, yathā harer nāma-padair udāhṛtaiḥ tad uttamaśloka-guṇopalambhakam. Harer nāma means chanting of the holy name. That is simple. But when you chant harer nāma then you gradually understand what is Hari, what is His form, what is His quality, what is His activities. Then you can understand. Because without harer nāma your heart is dirty—ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam (CC Antya 20.12)—unless your heart is cleansed you cannot understand what is Hari, what is His name, what is His form, what is His quality, what are His activities. You cannot understand.
Sometimes we do not, we cannot understand the special favor of Kṛṣṇa. So this frustration of these boys, these American boys or English boys, in the materialistic way of life is a good sign for accepting Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They are searching after something nice. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Of course, it does not require to become poor to take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but if anyone has the desire that "I will become spiritually advanced; at the same time I shall enjoy this material life," that is not possible. These are two contradictory things. You have to become determined to be happy in spiritual life. That is real happiness. And this human form of life is specially meant for coming to that standard of spiritual life by tapasya, by voluntarily rejecting materialistic way of life. Therefore you will find in the history of India many great kings, even at very young age they left. Just like Bhārata Mahārāja. Bhārata Mahārāja, at the age of twenty-four years only, he left his young wife, young children and the whole empire, Bharatvarsa, and went to the forest for meditation. There are many instances.
So why this difference? And whereas persons who are devoted to Viṣṇu, who is the master of everything, goddess of fortune..." Lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānam (Bs. 5.29). Not only one goddess of fortune, but many hundreds and thousands of goddess of fortune is serving Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu in the spiritual planet. "So the devotee of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, they appear to be poorer than the devotees of Lord Śiva, who is less than a poor man. Why this contradiction?"
So the contradiction was answered by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, not personally. He took authority. What is that authority? He said immediately, "My dear king, this answer I shall not give you, but a similar answer was put forward by your grandfather, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, to your other grandfather, Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa also happened to be grandfather of Mahārāja Parīkṣit. Because Kṛṣṇa's sister was married to Arjuna and Mahārāja Parīkṣit is the grandson of Subhadrā, Arjuna's wife. Therefore Kṛṣṇa also happens to be grandfather of Mahārāja Parīkṣit, and Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira also happens to be grandfather, being the eldest brother of his grandfather.
As I described the other day that there are twelve authorities. Out of them, Śukadeva Gosvāmī himself is one of the authorities. But still, he is citing the authority of Kṛṣṇa. That is the way of presenting things. That is called Vedic knowledge, that you must giving... Whatever you say, it must be supported by the authority. Just like a good lawyer. He gives good evidence from other courts' judgement, authority. So Śukadeva Gosvāmī said that "This very question was inquired by your grandfather, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, to Kṛṣṇa because they were put into so many calamities, the Pāṇḍavas. Kṛṣṇa was their personal friend. Still, they were put into so many calamities for which they had to fight forcibly." So Kṛṣṇa answered. When Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira inquired "Why this contradiction? The Vaiṣṇava, who is worshiper of the most opulent personality, Viṣṇu, they appear to be poorer, whereas the worshiper of Lord Śiva, who appears to be poorer than ordinary man, they become very richer.
How you are learning? You are also young. Anyone who is completely, I mean to say, unaware of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is to be taken as child. Doesn't matter one who has got age. It doesn't depend on the age. It depends on the knowledge. So not only young children, but anyone who is unaware of the science, he is also child. And anyone who knows this science, he is old. Vṛddhatvaṁ vāyasā vinā. There is a Sanskrit word that "One man has become old even without age." This is contradictory. How one can become old without age? Suppose a man, a boy, is sixteen years old, just like Śukadeva Gosvāmī. He was teaching Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam when he was only sixteen years old, but he was so learned that when he entered the assembly, all the great sages, including his father, stood up to receive him. So he was oldest. So he was older than his father even. Why? Because he was so learned. So our childishness or experience, old age, means according to the acquirement of knowledge. If one is advanced in knowledge, he is to be understood older. And if one is not advanced in knowledge, he is a child. That's all. So child does not mean that a five years old boy. Just like Prahlāda Mahārāja, he was only five years old, and just see how nicely he is teaching. So he is older than any other man. At least, he is older than his atheistic father. So you should always remember that any man who is not aware of a particular subject matter, he is a child in that subject matter. And one who is fully aware in his particular subject—it doesn't matter what is his age—he is to be considered as a learned... (end)
So Prahlāda Mahārāja is mahā-bhāgavata, not ordinary devotee. Arbhakaḥ. Arbhakaḥ means innocent child, five-years-old small boy. But mahā-bhāgavata. Not that because he is boy... Ahaituky apratihatā. A small child can become mahā-bhāgavata, and a very learned scholar may become a demon. Bhakti is so exalted that these are contradictory. Arbhakaḥ, arbha means foolish or childish, but at the same time mahā-bhāgavata. It is possible. Mahā-bhāgavata means... We must distinguish between different types of devotees. Kaniṣṭha adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and mahā-bhāgavata, uttama adhikārī. Uttama-adhikārī.
So kāla, kāla means death. Kṛṣṇa, He is life and death also. Bijo 'ham sarva-bhūtānām (Bg 7.10), from Him all living entities come out or in Him every living entity exists. At the same time, Kṛṣṇa says, mṛtyu ahaṁ sarva-haraś ca, He is death also. So for the non-devotees He is death, and for the devotees He is life. These are the contradictory qualifications of the Supreme Lord. Death and life are two opposite things, viruddha, and Kṛṣṇa is both of them. So He adjusts, viruddha, opposite things coincide into one thing. That is Kṛṣṇa. We cannot adjust opposite things to be one.
So in this way we have to understand Kṛṣṇa, the Lord, devaḥ, how He is working, transcendentally. That is paśyaty acakṣaḥ, acakṣuḥ, śṛṇoti, akarṇaḥ. His hearing, His seeing, His eating is different from us. Therefore it is said, aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti (Bs. 5.32). If we offer at His lotus feet something, He eats. He can eat with His leg. Therefore how His eating process can be equal to us? Therefore there are two contradictions, paśyati, acakṣuḥ. Śṛnoti, akarṇaḥ. This is to be understood. Not that He is impersonal. His personality is different from our personality. We cannot eat witl our leg, but Kṛṣṇa can eat with, by His leg. He can see by His leg, He can hear by His finger. This is called aṅgani yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti (Bs. 5.32). He is perfect. In this way you have to understand Kṛṣṇa. So, as soon as we come in touch with Kṛṣṇa by devotional service, then we become abhayam, no more fear. As soon as we are in the material world, bhayam. Kṛṣṇa's another name is Abhaya. Bhajahū re mana śrī-nanda-nandana abhaya-caraṇāravinda re, abhaya. His name is Abhaya. So if you come in touch with Kṛṣṇa by devotional service, and there is no more fear. Everyone is afraid. But, who is a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, nārāyaṇa-parāḥ, nārāyaṇa-parāḥ sarve na kutaścana bibhyati (SB 6.17.28). (end)
So Prahlāda Mahārāja, tat-kara-sparśa, "touch of the lotus palm of Nṛsiṁha-deva," the same palm where there is nail. Tava kara kamala-vare nakham adbhuta-sṛṅgam. The same palm with nakha adbhuta... Dalita-hiraṇyakaśipu-tanu-bhṛṅgam. Immediately, with the nails only... The Lord did not require any weapon to kill this gigantic demon, simply nails. Tava kara-kamala. The example is very nice, kamala. Kamala means lotus. The Lord's palm is just like lotus flower. Therefore in the lotus flower it is very soft, very pleasing, and how the nails came? Therefore adbhuta. Tava kara-kamala, adbhuta. Nakham adbhuta-sṛṅgam. It is not possible to grow some ferocious nails, piercing nails, in the lotus flower. This is contradictory. Therefore Jayadeva says, adbhuta: "It is wonderful. It is astonishing." This... Therefore Lord's power, exhibition of power and sharp nails, they're all inconceivable. Śrīla Jīva Goswami has explained, "Unless you accept inconceivable power of the Supreme Lord, there is no understanding." Acintya. Acintya-śakti. Acintya means inconceivable. You cannot speculate how it is happening, how in the lotus flower there is so hard nail that immediately, within a second, it could kill a great demon like Hiranyakasipu. Therefore it is acintya.
So Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja, the eldest brother of the Pāṇḍavas... Practically this question was raised by Parīkṣit Mahārāja to Śukadeva Gosvāmī. The question was that Viṣṇu or Nārāyaṇa, He's the supreme opulent, Lakṣmī-pati, the husband of the goddess of fortune. So persons who are Viṣṇu-bhakta or Vaiṣṇava, why they become poorer? Why this contradiction? And the devotees of Lord Śiva... Śiva presents himself as the poorest man. He has no dwelling house even. He lives underneath a tree. And his wife Durgā, she is the proprietor of this universe. She is also following the husband. She has also agreed to live underneath the tree. Never complains, "Oh, my dear Śiva, you don't construct a house even. What is this?" She also agrees. That means they live very, in a wretched, poor condition. So this was the question of Parīkṣit Mahārāja, that those who are worshiper of this wretched Lord Śiva—not wretched, but he places himself in such condition—they become very opulent materially. They have got very nice estate, very nice wife, very nice foodstuff. And the Vaiṣṇavas, who are worshiper of Viṣṇu, the most opulent, the controller of Lakṣmī, lakṣmī-sahasra-śata sevyamānaṁ, whom not only one, but millions and billions of goddess of fortune are always in His service, such opulent Kṛṣṇa and Viṣṇu, those who are worshiper of Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, why they become poorer? This contradiction was inquired by Mahārāja Parikṣit to Śukadeva Gosvāmī, and Śukadeva Gosvāmī said that... This is the process of great personality.
Those who are actually devotee, just like Prahlāda Mahārāja, such devotee can understand it is only Kṛṣṇa. He is, by His unlimited power, ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇaḥ, He is exhibiting in different ways. Ekas tvam eva jagad etam amuṣya yat tvam ādyam. The same thing you'll find. Vedic literature means there is no contradiction. Either you read this Veda or that Veda, it is not... People who are foolish, who cannot understand, they sometimes see contradiction. No. There is no contradiction. Same one law. Therefore, because we are limited, or our knowledge is limited, imperfect, therefore we should not argue. We shall accept what is stated in the Veda. And if we argue, then we'll find unnecessarily contradiction and we'll be misled. Don't argue. There is no question of... Veda-vācana. Veda-vācana means veda-pramāṇa, śruti-pramāṇa. This is the way of Vedic civilization. If you can prove something quoting from the Vedas, then you are victorious. Veda-pramāṇa. Śruti-pramāṇa. There are many evidences, but the first-class evidence is śruti-pramāṇa. Śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-pañcarātriki-vidhiṁ vinā (Brs. 1.2.101).
So the same principle is applicable to the whole cosmic creation, that even within the ant the same principle, within Brahmā the same principle, and within the gigantic universe, the same principle. Without the spirit soul, there is no question of creation. Creation, maintenance and destruction, three things are going on on account of presence of the Supreme Soul. Therefore the three principal deities—Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara—are there, guṇa-avatāra. He is not within the guṇa; therefore He expands Himself as guṇāvatāra: sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. But He's turya of the guṇas. Just like if we enter into the fire, we'll be burned, but sometimes the fire brigade men, they enter into the fire... They have got suit and contradictory dress that they can enter into the fire. Similarly, māyā... Māyā is very strong, but Kṛṣṇa, the Lord, when He comes within this material world—yuge yuge sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6)—He comes in His own original turya status. He does not become affected. Guṇāṁś ca yuṅkṣe. He's not affected. This is the position of Kṛṣṇa.
Don't think that "He's suffering. I am enjoying." I am also suffering. If I am not suffering now, I will have to suffer. Suffering must be there. This world is meant for suffering. Duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam (BG 8.15). Kṛṣṇa says, "This is a place for suffering." You cannot enjoy. That is not possible. Duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam, nāpnuvanti mahātmānaḥ saṁsiddhiṁ paramāṁ gataḥ (BG 8.15). So unless you attain the complete perfection of life, saṁsiddhiṁ paramām, there is no question of stopping your miserable condition of life. Therefore Prahlāda Mahārāja said, paśyañ janaṁ sva-para-vigraha-vaira-maitram. And in each and every life there will be this distinction, "This is mine, and this is your," "You are my friend" or "You are my enemy" and "I am your friend. I am..." This contradiction will go on. You cannot... Therefore you see the whole world, they are sometimes fighting as enemies, and sometimes they are trying to make the United Nation. You see practically. Sometimes vaira, enemies, and sometimes maitram, friend. But this is all illusion. They will never become friendly. It is not possible. This contradiction will continue, sva-para-vairam, and create situation—"You suffer; I suffer. I snatch your ears and you snatch my ears," that's all. You have seen the punishment between the two boys? So we shall create this enmity and so-called friendship and then suffering. This is going on.
The other day in Delhi, somebody questioned that "If God is everywhere, what is the use of going to the temple to see Him?" Just see how contradictory it is. If God is everywhere, why He is not in the temple? But these foolish persons, they do not know what he is questioning. Kṛṣṇa is everywhere. Just like the electricity is everywhere, but when you catch the switch, then it is under your control. Electricity is everywhere, but still, by arrangement we can touch the electricity or take it into service by preparing electric wiring and switch. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is everywhere, and you can worship Kṛṣṇa from anything. Everyone knows that this Deity is made of stone. The ground floor, the marble stone, black and white, and the Deity is also black and white. Everyone knows. But why you see the black and white Deity in this temple and gather together and offer prayer? Is it the same marble of the ground, black and white? That means you are seeing in a different position. That is love, love of Kṛṣṇa. Those who haven't got the love, they are seeing that "The same stone on the floor and same stone in the Deity. What these foolish men are worshiping?" They say that "I can worship this stone also." No, no. Kṛṣṇa says, "Yes, that is... The stone on the floor, that is also I am, but I am not present there." This is called acintya-bhedābheda.
These rascals who does not know Kṛṣṇa, they think, "All right, Kṛṣṇa may be a little more intelligent than me. That's all." In this way they are thinking. But here it is called bhūman. Bhūman means all-pervading. Sarvaṁ tvam eva saguṇo viguṇaś ca bhūman nānyat tvad asty api mano-vacasā niruktam. Even if you think that the sky is very, very great, that is also Kṛṣṇa. And if you think the atom is very, very small, that is also Kṛṣṇa. There is no, nothing greater than Kṛṣṇa, nothing smaller than Kṛṣṇa. These are two contradictory things. So simply if... "Kṛṣṇa is simply as big as the sky"—the Māyāvādī philosophy—"He cannot be small like the Deity." That is their mistake. He is as big as the sky and as small as the atom. In the intermediate stage, He is everything. Why He cannot be smaller like the Deity, small Deity, so that I may have the facility to serve Him? I cannot serve Kṛṣṇa when He's as big as the sky. That is not possible. I cannot decorate Him when He shows His virāṭ-rūpa. I think the whole world's, all the mills, they cannot supply cloth. (laughter) But Kṛṣṇa agrees to become very small. With little cloth I can dress Him. And Kṛṣṇa accepts. Yo me bhaktyā prayacchati. Even little small piece of cloth the devotee is covering Kṛṣṇa and thinking that "I am dressing nicely." Kṛṣṇa accepts that. That is Kṛṣṇa. Yes.
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
Yes. Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Simply by arguments, logic, you cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. That is the Vedic injunction. Tarko apratiṣṭho. You cannot establish the truth by simple logic and arguments. You may be very great logician, but somebody may come who is greater logician than you, and he defeats you. That is going on. Tarko apratiṣṭha śrutayo vibhinnām. Now, if you read the Vedas, you'll find some contradiction. Not contradiction. But to the neophyte, it appears to be contradiction. Just like we have cited the example that animal stool is impure, but cow dung is pure. So by logic you can say that "Cow dung is also the stool of an animal. How it becomes pure?" But in Vedas you'll find such things. Therefore by simple studying, without surrendering yourself to the spiritual master, you'll find all these contradictions and you'll be bewildered. Śrutayo vibhinnā. They are not vibhinnā. But to our limited knowledge, sometimes they appear as vibhinnam, different. Śrutayo vibhinnaṁ nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And you won't find a philosopher who does not agree, who does not disagree with our philosophers.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
So if you push on this movement, unadulterated Kṛṣṇa, it will go on. It will go on. And as soon as you adulterate Kṛṣṇa, it will not go on. It will not be effective. You may be very good scholar or very good politician or this or that, but you'll never understand what is Kṛṣṇa. Nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ (BG 7.25). If you want to pollute Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa will never be revealed to you. Sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ (Brs. 1.2.234). So by the grace of Kṛṣṇa you have taken the shelter of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. It is great fortune for you. So do not adulterate Kṛṣṇa. That is my request. Try to understand Kṛṣṇa. And to understand Kṛṣṇa, the Kṛṣṇa Himself taught... That was also difficult. Then Kṛṣṇa as Kṛṣṇa Caitanya (is) teaching us how to approach Kṛṣṇa. That is Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Caitanya means spiritual, living, and carita means character. So Caitanya-caritāmṛta means that the supreme living force, Kṛṣṇa. The living force is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore we contradict the so-called scientific theory that life has come from chemicals, matter. No. We are trying our best. We have engaged our scientist students. They have already..., one student has already written one small book, The Scientific Basis of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness, and we are going to publish another book. I have given instruction to the scientist students. What is the heading of that?
So these things are going on. These things are going on. And people are captivated by nice explanation. Oh, the theory is that "Everyone can interpret in his own way, everyone is free, everyone is God," and everything, all nonsense. No. We should give up that nonsensical way of realizing God. We should learn from the authorized scripture. Sattvena sāttvikatayā prabalaiś ca śāstraiḥ. Śāstraiḥ, in the scriptures, they are described. Now, that scriptures are to be accepted without any argument. Without any argument... Just we have given the example of cow dung. The cow dung is stated as purest. In one place it is stated that "Stool of animal is impure. If anyone touches, he will have to take his bath and then purify himself." But for cow dung it is stated, "If there is any impure place, just smear over it cow dung and it will be all nice." Now, argument is, "How is that, that one place you say that stool of animal is impure, and again one place you say cow dung is pure?" That is not contradiction. That is actually the fact. And modern scientists have analyzed cow dung, and he has found it is full of antiseptic properties. It is God's wish. Now, take for example cow. What cow eating? Grass, dry grass. And what it is producing? It is producing the nicest thing, milk, full of vitamins. Now, if you think, "Oh, then a dry grass and straw contains all vitamins. Let me eat," you will die. You will die. It is God's arrangement. The cow can produce the most vitaminous foodstuff by eating the dry grass. It is God's desire.
This is Vedic system. But again the Vedas says that if you touch the cow dung, the stool of cow or another animal, oh, it is pure. Rather, if you are impure, by touching cow dung, you'll be purified. Now here is contradiction, that you... The Vedas says that if you touch the stool of any animal, then you become infected—you have to take bath, cleanse yourself. And again you say that cow dung, which is also stool of another animal, if you touch it, then you'll be purified. Now, if you put your argument, "Oh, this is contradictory. So Veda is full of contradiction," no, it is not contradiction. It is fact. One doctor, Mr., Dr. Goshal, he is a medical college chemist. He analyzed this cow dung and found all antiseptic properties in cow dung. So this is Vedic injunction. Whatever is there, it is already tested, it is already experimented. You have simply to accept. Don't try to argue. This is acceptance of Vedānta-sūtra. Not that "Oh, I have got to serve some purpose, political purpose. So I'll have to prove from Bhagavad-gītā there is nonviolence." In our country, Gandhi, he was supposed to be a great student of Bhagavad-gītā. He wanted to prove that there... (break) ...by violence. So he was killed. How you can prove Bhagavad-gītā nonviolence? There is tacit order, "You must fight. The other party is impious. So you must fight." These are the injunction. You cannot change. That is not Vedānta-sūtra.
So these are stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore natural conclusion, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, that His potencies, His body and His activities—everything spiritual. There is nothing material. Cid-vibhūti ācchādi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra.' And when there is some indication of impersonalism in the Vedas, it should be understood that His body is not of this material nature. If somebody says that "God does not belong to this matter," that is all right. That does not mean He's impersonal. He has got a spiritual body. Matter is denied. The whole Upaniṣad... First of all they describe the Supreme... Just like apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā. There are Vedic statements that "The Supreme has no hands, but He can accept whatever you offer." Now, this is contradictory. If He has no hands, how He can accept? What for He's accepting. Therefore it is to be understood that He has His hand, but not this hand. My hand is, er, can stretch, say, one yard only, but because He's unlimited, His hand can be stretched... Just like we are offering foodstuff, so how He is eating? That is His... He's eating by His transcendental body. We cannot see at the present moment, but He is eating. How He's eating? Because we have got the information, "Yes, I eat." Tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ: "Anyone who is My devotee and offers in love, I take them." So that cannot be... There is no mistake. But how He is taking, how He is eating, because we are in this material body, we do not see it, but He is taking. Therefore cid-vibhūti ācchādi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra'.
Woman: Does belief in any scripture...
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes.
Woman: ...lead to salvation?
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes, certainly. Certainly. Yes. The same thing, just like I have given example several times that pocket dictionary and the big dictionary, both of them are dictionaries. It is not that because it is small pocket dictionary, therefore it is not dictionary. It is also dictionary. So when he's advanced and finished pocket dictionary, he may consult the big dictionary. That is the difference. Bible is not different from Bhagavad-gītā, but when one is perfectly conversant with Bible, he'll understand more nicely Bhagavad-gītā. It is not contradictory. It is helpful. All right. Distribute prasādam. (end)
"And although the Vedic mantra says that 'The Absolute Truth has no legs, no hands,' still, it confirms that 'He can accept whatever you offer, and He can walk more speedily than anyone.' Then He walks; at the same time, He has no legs. And He accepts your offering; He has no hands." What does it mean? Apparently it is contradictory. If He has no leg, then how He can walk more speedily than anyone? These are Vedic mantras. "Nobody can capture Him, He is walking so speedily." But if He has no leg, how He is walking? But that, Caitanya Mahāprabhu explains that varje prākṛta pāṇi-caraṇa: "This means that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has no material body."
I must have proof that he is my father." How it is possible? It is not possible. Similarly, the Vedic literature is to be considered the mother and Vedic literature says, janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) "The Supreme Absolute Truth is that who is the source of all generation, all emanations." And what is that source? Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "I am the father." So if you believe scriptures, Vedic literatures, if you believe Bhagavad-gītā, then you have to accept Kṛṣṇa as the supreme father because the mother... Vedic literature is considered to be the mother. She gives evidence that Kṛṣṇa is the father. Just like mother gives evidence who is your father, similarly, the Vedic literatures is compared to a mother, and the Vedic literature says that Kṛṣṇa is the father. In your Christian literature, Bible, Jesus Christ is accepted as the son of God. He presented himself as son of God. And here Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the father." So there is no contradiction. The son of God also says about God, and the father also says about the God, Himself. The son of God says that "You surrender unto God," and God says, "You surrender unto Me." Then where there is contradiction? There is no contradiction.
Then this is a hint by Lord Caitanya that a sannyāsī who has renounced everything, if he lives very gorgeously, with good dress, and good house, and apartment... No. This is not approved by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Then what is that? What does it mean? A sannyāsī living like a first-class gentleman, smoking, and very nice apartment, and some, I mean to say, lady assistant, secretary... What is this? Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not approve. He must be, as far as possible... Whatever is absolutely necessity, he should accept, not more. Yes. That is renounced order of life, not that in the name of renounced order of life he should live at the expense of the householders, very gorgeously. No. This is not sannyāsa. It is not accepted by Caitanya Mahāprabhu's sampradāya.
So He says that "You live by begging from door to door, and you have a valuable blanket on your body. This is contradictory. Now I am glad that you have done this."
Therefore I will have to cover with hot coat and pant. So this feeling of heat and cold is due to this body. And what is this body, this material body? Therefore all our feelings of happiness and distress, it is due to this body. That we do not know. So therefore the best solution of miserable condition of life is to stop this material body. Then you become spiritually situated, and there is no more contradiction.
- mātrā-sparśās tu kaunteya
- śītoṣṇa-sukha-duḥkha-dāḥ
- āgamāpāyino anityāḥ
- tāṁs titikṣasva bhārata
- (BG 2.14)
That is the advice. We have to do our own business, self-realization. That is tapasya. Tapo divyaṁ putrakā yena śuddhyet sattvam (SB 5.5.1). Existence... To purify the existence we have to practice tapasya, not running like cats and dogs here and there. This will not make solution of life.
That is family, creation. So yato ato brahmaṇas tās tu sargādyā bhāva-śaktayaḥ. So this creation is another. Just like children is creation of the semina of the father, similarly, the whole thing is creation of the Absolute Truth. And the example is given: bhavanti tapatāṁ śreṣṭha pāvakasya yathoṣṇatā. The fire, the fire must have heat, and by heat you can create so many things. In the Western countries, the electricity... What is electricity? It is heat. So heat, through electricity so many things are being created, through electric energy. The heat is created and the cool is also created. The refrigerator is going on by electric current, and heater is also going on. Two contradictory, but still, the energy is the same. Similarly, viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā (CC Madhya 6.154). It is, we have already described. Viṣṇu, Lord, the Supreme Lord, all-pervading, His energy is also spiritual. But when we cannot understand it, that is material. Otherwise, the energy, just like electricity. The electricity is working in the refrigerator—it is cool. So therefore in the refrigerator there is no appreciation of the heat, although heat is there. But in the heater there is direct appreciation. But the energy is the same.
So their grandson, Mahārāja Parīkṣit, when he was being taught by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, he had some suspicions about devotion to Kṛṣṇa. Not suspicion. Just to teach us, he inquired that "Lord Kṛṣṇa, He is Viṣṇu. He is the, I mean to say, master of the goddess of fortune. Why people who become Kṛṣṇa conscious or a devotee of Viṣṇu, they remain poorer, and others, those who worship Śiva and other demigods, they become very rich? What is the reason? He is the proprietor of everything. So one who wants Him, they become poorer. Whereas Lord Śiva, he hasn't got even a house of his own, he's a pauper, and one who worships him, he becomes richer." You know the history of Lord Śiva. He hasn't got a house even. He lives under the tree, or in some mountain. But one who worships Śiva, oh, they get material opulence very nicely. Therefore a person have become very easily... And they can smoke gañja. So all this captivates person to become a devotee of Śiva. Our Ginsberg is a devotee of Śiva. Perhaps you know. Anyone who wants this material prosperity, naturally they become the devotee of Śiva. So this is contradictory. "Śiva has no house even, not even a dwelling place, residence. He's a pauper. And worshiping him, one becomes richer. And Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is... Sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānam: 'Always thousands of goddess of fortune is serving Him.' He's such opulent. And so Kṛṣṇa-bhaktas, devotees of Kṛṣṇa, they appear to be poorer. Why?" This question was... Just the opposite.
So Lord Caitanya advises... Sanātana Gosvāmī's inquiry is how to know that he, here is a avatāra. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says the medium is śāstra, and direction is the guru. Śāstra also we cannot understand any book, what to speak of the scripture. Sometimes we find contradiction in the scripture. That is not contradiction; that is my poor fund of knowledge. I cannot understand; therefore assistance of guru, a spiritual master, is required. So far incarnation is concerned, here Lord Caitanya says that we have to see through the śāstra whether a person is incarnation or not. We should not blindly accept anybody as incarnation because there are, nowadays, numberless incarnations.
- avatāra nāhi kahe-'āmi avatāra'
- muni saba jāni' kare lakṣaṇa-vicāra
This is another significance of incarnation. Incarnation never says that "I am incarnation of God." I have read one book about a big avatāra in India. He was canvassing his students, "Do you now accept me as incarnation? Do you now accept me as incarnation?" And the... Perhaps you know. (laughs) And the disciple was denying, "No." Then, at a time the disciple said, "Yes, I accept you." So this is not avatāra. Here Caitanya Mahāprabhu says avatāra does not canvass that "I am..." Guru does not canvass. Sādhu does not canvass. He automatically, by his qualities, he becomes accepted. Yes.
One is called śruti, and the other is called smṛti. Śruti means the original Vedic injunction which is coming through disciplic succession beginning from Kṛṣṇa down to this day. There are certain axiomatic truths which is called Vedic injunction. The axiomatic truth, as I have given you several times example that cow dung is pure... Now, your reason is, "Oh, you say the Vedic injunction that if you touch stool of any animal you have to take your bath, purify yourself. And the Vedic injunction says cow dung is pure. Oh, this is contradictory." No. Not contradictory. This is injunction. People are actually accepting this, no argument, and they are benefited by it. So axiomatic truth. How it is truth? You may not have sufficient intelligence, but if you go deep into the matter you will find it is all truth: "Yes, it is all right." That is called Vedic injunction. So you cannot argue. You have to accept as it is. You cannot interpret. What education we have got, what intelligence, that we can interpret on Vedic injunction? No. It should be accepted as it is. That is called Vedic injunction. This is called śruti. You have to simply hear and act accordingly. That is called Vedic. And smṛti. Smṛti means if you are learned scholar in the Vedic injunction, if you have heard from the bona fide souls, and if you are convinced, then if you write something, that is smṛti. You cannot write nonsense. You have to write something which corroborates with the Vedic injunction. That is called smṛti. You cannot manufacture anything. You should always remember that "I am a tiny brain here, so I have to receive knowledge from superior sources." Then whatever knowledge you have received, if you can expand that in your, by your, I mean to say, capacity, that is called smṛti.
Sri Isopanisad Lectures
So that is the proof. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. If you argue, there is no conclusion. The argument will go on. You put some argument; I put some argument. That is not the process. Śrutayo vibhinnā. Scriptures, in different countries, different circumstances, different scriptures, they're also different. Then tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And so far philosophical speculation is concerned, one philosopher is putting some theory, another philosopher putting some theory—there is contradiction. And unless you defy another philosopher, you cannot be a famous philosopher. That is the way of philosophical...
Then where, how to get real information? That is stated, that dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The secret of religious process is lying in the cave or within the heart. So how to realize it? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). You have to follow great personalities. Therefore we are trying to follow Lord Kṛṣṇa or Lord Caitanya. That is perfection. You have to take evidences from the Vedas. You have to follow the instruction. The success is sure. That's all.
That is the asuric mentality. Āsuriṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ. But he also became purified. He got salvation. The same example again: somehow or other, if you come to the sunlight, you become purified and you get warmth. Not that sun becomes contaminated by you. No. That is not possible. Sun is so powerful that even you are contaminated... You cannot contaminate the sun. Tejīyasāṁ na doṣāya (SB 10.33.29). When one is very powerful, there is no contamination. Therefore here it is said, apāpa-viddhaṁ śuddham. Always purified, Kṛṣṇa. This is also explained in the Bhagavad-gītā when Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa, paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān: "You are the supreme pure." Pavitraṁ paramam.
So same thing is here. The Vedic literature is not contradictory. Whatever you find in Brahma-saṁhitā, the same thing you'll find in Īśopaniṣad, the same thing you'll find Bhagavad-gītā, same thing you'll find in other Vedic literature. It is our misunderstanding that we, sometimes we cannot understand. Otherwise, it is always the same truth spoken everywhere.
Festival Lectures
We can understand in our mundane logic that if something exists, that there's some reason for its existence, and similarly, if something does not exist, that there's some reason for that. Just as we can say something exists... For example, a harmonium exists because somebody has made that harmonium. A circle exists on the wall because somebody has drawn that circle on the wall. But on the other hand, a square circle does not exist because that existence would involve a contradiction or that would be absurd.
So for anything which exists there must be a reason, and for anything which does not exist, then there is a reason why it does not exist. Now Kṛṣṇa's existence therefore is most certain because any reason which could deny Kṛṣṇa's existence is impossible to be found. Kṛṣṇa means He is the all-inclusive entity. Therefore any reason which could prevent Kṛṣṇa's existence would have to be either external to His own divine nature or in His own nature. Nothing can be outside of Kṛṣṇa's all-inclusiveness. Therefore no external agent can prevent Kṛṣṇa's existence. And it is again self-contradictory to attribute any imperfection to the perfect being. Therefore the conclusion is that Kṛṣṇa necessarily exists because no one can prevent His existence.
Our system, if you do not accept the Vedic knowledge through guru-paramparā system, it is useless. You cannot manufacture an interpretation of the Vedic language. Just like cow dung. Cow dung is the stool of an animal. Vedic injunction is that if you touch cow dung..., any stool of an animal, you have to take immediately bath and purify yourself. But the Vedic injunction is also that cow dung can purify any impure place. Especially we Hindus, we accept it. Now by reason it is contradictory. The stool of an animal is impure, and the Vedic injunction is cow dung is pure. Actually we accept cow dung as pure to purify any place. Out of panca-gavya the cow dung is there, cow urine is there.
So it appears contradictory, the Vedic injunction. But still we accept because it is Vedic order. That is... That is the acceptance of Vedas. Just like Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā, there are so many rascals, they cut short: "I like this; I do not like this." No. Arjuna says sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye (BG 10.14).
Initiation Lectures
Yes. Scriptures, authority of Vedas, they must be accepted. Just like the other day I was explaining, the Veda says the conchshell is pure although it is a bone of an animal. In other places Veda gives you the injunction that bone of an animal is impure. But it says the conchshell is pure. It can be placed before the Deity, it can be used in the Deity room in His service. Now there may be argument, "Oh, this is a bone of an animal. How is that? Contradiction." No. So one should accept the injunction of the Vedas like that. Whenever it says this is impure, it is impure; when it says it is pure, it is pure. Now if there is any doubt, that should be understood by questioning submissively and with service from the spiritual master. The spiritual master is there. Then? But we should always accept the injunction of the scripture as truth. Just like there is a proverb, "Bible truth," "Biblical truth." Nobody can deny Bible. This should be the attitude. Bible is also part of Vedas. Therefore Vedic injunction should be accepted as it is, without any interpretation. Just like Bhagavad-gītā is Veda. Why Veda? The Supreme Personality of Godhead personally speaking; therefore it is Veda. There is no mistake. One should accept—no interpretation—as it is. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Yes. Go on.
Yes. Scriptural injunction we should not minimize. We should not think contradictory. We should accept as it is. Then it will be good for us. Or interpretation. Scriptural interpretation is not required. Therefore, we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any false interpretation. As it is. Kṛṣṇa-Kṛṣṇa. Kurukṣetra-Kurukṣetra. Pāṇḍava-Pāṇḍava. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā (BG 1.1). Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān uvāca: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead said." And we should not add here that... What is called? Paramātmā uvāca. No. Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Paramātmā is feature. In the Gītā Press edition you will see "Paramātmā." They never say Kṛṣṇa. They're so much afraid that "If I say 'Kṛṣṇa,' He will at once capture me." You see? (chuckles) So in a different way. "Paraṁ Brahman," "Caitanya," like this, so many impersonal ways they will say. But that is not required. Bhagavān uvāca means Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa.
The example is the same, just like the conchshell. In the Vedic injunction is that you should not touch dead animal's bone. If you touch, you become impure. But Vedas say the conchshell is pure. So that is being practically observed. We followers of Vedic injunction, we are using conchshell in the Deity room because Vedas says it is pure. You cannot argue, "Oh, one place you said that conch..., the bone is impure. Oh, here I can show you the book. You have said like that." Oh, that nonsense will not do. Whatever is said is all right. You have to accept that. Even it is contradictory, you have to accept. That is called no interpretation. That is wanted. There is meaning, but through your brain at the present moment you cannot understand. That is another thing. But you cannot say like that: "Oh, one place you have said this conch, yes, bone of an animal is impure, and now you are saying the conchshell is pure. It is contradictory." So that will not do. Therefore it is said you cannot interpret in that way. That is offense. Then you will not be able to make progress. Yes. Yes.
General Lectures
Yes, eyes are one of the senses. Mind is the general sense, and under the governor general, there are particular commissioners or subordinate officers. So the eyes, the hand, the leg, the tongue, ten senses, they are working under the direction of the mind. So mind is expressed, manifested through the senses. Therefore unless you engage your senses in the same way as your mind is thinking, feeling, there is no perfection. There will be disturbance. If your mind is thinking of Kṛṣṇa and your eyes are seeing something else, there will be disruption or contradiction. Therefore under the... You have to first of all fix up your mind in Kṛṣṇa, and then all other senses will be engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa. That is bhakti.
Mahāpuruṣa: Prabhupāda, is there any contradiction, because Lord Jesus Christ and Lord Caitanya both appeared in the Kali-yuga and Lord Jesus Christ said that "The only way to God is through me. Just believe in me or surrender to me," and Lord Caitanya taught that hari-nāma is the only means of spiritual realization in this age?
Prabhupāda: So where do you find the difference? If Lord Jesus Christ says, "Through me," that means he's representative of God, and hari-nāma is God. So either through the representative of God or God, the same thing. God and God's representative, there is no difference. Even in these ordinary dealings, if I send some representative, if he signs something on my behalf, I have to accept that, because he is my representative. Similarly, God has to be approached through God or through His representative. The same thing. Only the difference may be of understanding. Because Lord Jesus Christ spoke to a society that was not very much advanced. You can understand that such a great personality, God conscious person, was crucified. Just see the condition of the society. In other words, they were low-grade society. So they were not able to understand the whole philosophy of God. That is sufficient. "God created. Just take it."
They are not practicing breathing exercise or sitting exercise. No. They are ordinary boys and girls. But simply by chanting they are making practical progress. Their health, their character, their mode of living—everything is increasing, developing. And spiritual advancement means all goodness. It does not mean that a man is spiritually advanced and doing all nonsense. That is contradictory. How pure thing can be impure? Pure is pure; impure is impure. If you say it is impure pure, how it is possible? One is addicted to all nonsense habit and he's practicing meditation and elevating himself. Is it possible? That is all bogus. As soon as one becomes purified, the manifestation of his character, of his mode of life, living, everything will be purified. That is the test. Pareśānubhava. Bhaktiḥ pareśānubhava. Just like if you're cured, then there is no fever. The temperature is at the normal point. And if you say, "I am cured. I am taking medicine, and still, my temperature is 105," that is not possible. So advancement in self-realization means purification from material contamination. That is real advancement. This is practical.
The body of cats and dogs or animals, they are cheap, but this is not very cheap. Su-durlabhaḥ. Bahūnāṁ janman... Labdhvā su-durlabham idaṁ bahu-sambha-vānte. After many, many births, at least, 8,000,000 births of different species of life, we get this human form of life. It is stated in the Bhāgavata, and similarly, all Vedic literatures, they corroborate one another. It is... The person who can understand, he doesn't find any contradiction. The same statement is there in the Bhagavad-gītā: bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). So this human form of life is obtained after many, many births of lower animal or other than human form of life. But even in this human form of life also, if one is cultivating that knowledge to find out the central point, what is the central point, then that also requires he gets many, many births in human form of life also. But he has to find out that central point. That central point is there, Kṛṣṇa is saying, that bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān (BG 7.19). Jñānavan means who has actually acquired knowledge. Jñānavān. Jñāna means knowledge, and vān means one who possesses.
So everything is there. Kṛṣṇa says that "I am spread all over the world, all over the universe," avyakta-mūrtinā, "in My impersonal form. But everything is resting upon Me, but I am not there." These contradictory terms, how it is satisfied, how it is mitigated, we have to learn from a person who knows Kṛṣṇa. Not from others. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommended one brāhmaṇa who went to see Him by writing some books and they were not in order. His secretary, Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī, disqualified, that "These books are not written the right order." He was surprised. He was supposed to be a great scholar of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but Svarūpa Gosvāmī nullified him that "You do not know anything." Then he advised him, because that person was very submissive, he advised him that bhāgavata paro diya bhāgavata sthāne: "Just try to understand Bhāgavata from the person bhāgavata." Person bhāgavata. There are two kinds of bhāgavatas. One is book bhāgavata, and there is another bhāgavata, who is person bhāgavata. Bhāgavata means in relationship with Bhagavān. To those who have dedicated their life... One who has dedicated his life only for the service of the Lord, Bhagavān, he is called bhāgavata.
Now, there are Vedas, four Vedas—Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Yajus Veda, Ṛk Veda. And there are Upaniṣads, the Vedānta-sūtra, the Purāṇas, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata—there are so many things. That is in India. And outside India or outside Vedic culture, there are many scriptures. Therefore it is said, śrutayo vibhinnā. There are innumerable Vedic scriptures. So we cannot come to the conclusion what is right or wrong, because sometimes you will find contradiction from one... Of course, there is no contradiction, but because we are not advanced in knowledge, sometimes we will find contradiction. Just like in India there are two classes of transcendentalists: the impersonalist and the personalist. That is not contradiction. The Absolute Truth is both impersonal and personal, but somebody is stressing on the impersonal point of view and somebody is stressing on the personal point of view. But we Vaiṣṇava, we know what is the meaning of impersonalism and what is the meaning of personalism. We take it for understanding, as it is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). The Absolute Truth is simultaneously Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān. It is simply different stages of understanding. In the first stage, it is Brahman realization. In the second stage, it is Paramātmā realization. And at the last stage, it is Bhagavān realization.
So this disciplic succession, as Gosvāmī Hanumān Prasād said, that is essential. That is the Vedic injunction. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). This word abhigacchet, it is a form of verb which is used where the sense is "You must! You must!" There is no exception. You cannot say that "I may go to a spiritual master or I may not go. I can study at home." No. You must go. Just like in modern age also, if you (are) actually interested to be recognized as educated, you must get your admission in a recognized school or college and take degree. Then you will... If you study at home, you may be very great scholar, and if you say that you have passed M.A. examination, nobody will care for you. Similarly, if you actually want to be advanced in spiritual knowledge, then this is the injunction: tad-vijñānārtham. Tad-vijñānārtham means... Vijñāna means science. Spiritual knowledge is also a science. It is not sentiment; it is science. Now, if you like, you can make research work whether this is fact. Just like this cow dung. You may think that "This is contradiction. In one place it is said that stool of an animal is impure; now here it is again said that cow dung is pure. It is contradiction." So if you like, you can make analysis. But you accept the Vedic injunction as it is—you save so much time, that's all, and immediately become advanced.
Yes, he says nice thing, "Father." Kṛṣṇa is the supreme father. That is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā.
- sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
- sambhavanti mūrtayaḥ yāḥ
- tāsāṁ mahad-yonir brahma
- ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
- (BG 14.4)
He instructs to Arjuna, "My dear Arjuna, all these multiforms of living entities, 8,400,000 species of life, their mother is this material nature, and I am the seed-giving father." So there is no contradiction between Jesus Christ's description and our Vedic description. God is the supreme father. That's a fact. He says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā. Pitā means father. So He is father of all living entities in different forms. That information we get from Vedic literatures.
He's Supreme Person. He is the Absolute Truth. And we are presenting Kṛṣṇa before you, and you take it. Most of the Western country, they are Christian. So the Christians believe in Lord Jesus Christ as son of God. But we are presenting the father, God Himself. So there is no contradiction. If there is son, there must be a father also. Without father, there cannot be son. So if you believe in the son, then you must believe in the father also. The father is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā,
- sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
- sambhavanti mūrtayaḥ yaḥ
- ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
- (BG 14.4)
He is the seed-giving father for all living entities. So Kṛṣṇa is for everyone. Don't think that Kṛṣṇa, as it is stated in your English dictionary, "Kṛṣṇa is a Hindu God." He's not Hindu, He's not Muslim, or He's not Christian. He's God. God is neither Hindu nor Muslim nor Christian. It is bodily designations, "I am Hindu, you are Christian." This is bodily... Just like dress. You have got some black coat. Another has got some white coat. That does not meant we are different because we are in different coat or shirt. As human being, we are all sons of God. We are one. That is the conception. So at the present moment, we have divided the world on account of this shirt and coat. That is not. That is not good. Actually, the whole world or the whole universe belongs to God. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Philosophy Discussions
Śyāmasundara: He says that these two types of truth are governed by two different principles: the truth of reason or the logically necessary proof, like the triangle...
Prabhupāda: This is reason, that truth is one. When we find another competitor truth, that is māyā. Truth cannot be two.
Śyāmasundara: This is what he says, that these innate truths are governed by the principle of contradiction. That is, the opposite of the truth is impossible to conceive. If something is true, the opposite of that truth is impossible to conceive.
Prabhupāda: The opposite is māyā. Opposite to truth is māyā.
Śyāmasundara: Just like the sum of the angles of a triangle must equal 180 degrees. It is impossible to conceive of the opposite.
Prabhupāda: Similarly, the other example that snow is white. To think of snow not white, that cannot be conceived.
Śyāmasundara: What about two plus two equals four?
Prabhupāda: That is true.
Śyāmasundara: It's impossible to conceive of the opposite of that truth. So that is what he would call logically necessary proof, proved by the law of contradiction.
Prabhupāda: My point is that he says that there are two types of truth. No. There cannot be two types of truth. That is my protest. I say there is only one truth. When you think two types of truth, then you are mistaken. Then same thing: when you think that two plus two equals five, then you are mistaken. Two plus two is always four. That is truth. Similarly, snow is white always. That is truth. When you think it is red, it is untruth. But you cannot say it is another type of truth. Mistake cannot be accepted as another type of truth. Mistake is mistake.
Śyāmasundara: I think he says the same things, but the language is different.
Prabhupāda: There are two types of truth—what is that language? One truth is real truth, another truth is shadow truth. It is not truth, it is shadow. That is the exact language. The same example we can give: you see your face in the mirror as exactly the same, but it is shadow; therefore it is untruth. You cannot say that this reflection of your face on the mirror is another type of truth. Can you say like that? You cannot say that.
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that when the bird landed, the fruit coincidentally fell. There is no cause between the bird and the fruit falling.
Prabhupāda: No. We say if Kṛṣṇa desired, it would not have fallen. Kṛṣṇa desired it. Kṛṣṇa desires "Let it fall down"; therefore it falls. That is the cause. Kṛṣṇa desires that "Let the fruit fall down and the crow fly away."
Śyāmasundara: He says that God is absolute necessity because He is governed by the law of contradiction, and it is impossible to conceive of not God.
Prabhupāda: To God there is no contradiction. That is absolute. Whatever He does, whatever He says, that is absolute. There is no contradiction.
Śyāmasundara: Because it is impossible to conceive of not God. In other words, God is absolutely necessary because to conceive not-God is impossible.
Prabhupāda: That is artificial. The atheists say there is no God, so God is there, but he refuses to accept. Otherwise why does he say there is no God? The idea of God is there, but he refuses to accept. And unless God is there, wherefrom the idea is coming? The atheist... God is there, but he is refusing to accept. Just like the impersonalist: unless you have got personal understanding, how will you try to make it impersonal? The first is personal. You try to make it impersonal.
Prabhupāda: Therefore you have to take Kṛṣṇa's assertion. I am puzzled with these varieties of phenomenal changes, and you cannot understand how these things are being done. But as soon as you come to Kṛṣṇa, He says that "I am behind this. I am doing it." Then your conclusion is perfect.
Śyāmasundara: He says that when you examine material phenomena by your reason, you come to certain contradictions, and he calls them antimonies. He lists four antimonies. An antimony means both sides are true.
Prabhupāda: In Sanskrit it is called bhiruda dharma-words that mean both "yes" and "no." He can adjust-yes and no, both.
Śyāmasundara: He says logically these are not fallacious; both sides are true. For instance, his first antimony is, "The world has a beginning in time and is enclosed in limits of space." This is the thesis. Then the antithesis is, "The world has no beginning in time and no limits in space, but is infinite with regard to both time and space." So he says reasonably both conclusions are true.
Prabhupāda: So how to adjust? How to adjust is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. It says this material phenomenal world is coming into existence and again annihilated. Again coming. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate (BG 8.19). So this material nature, coming in manifestation and again vanquished, this process, coming into existence and then vanquished, this is also true. Just like day and night, it is coming and going. This is true. But night is not day; day is not night.
Śyāmasundara: From the father tree.
Prabhupāda: Father tree. Now Kṛṣṇa says, bījaṁ māṁ sarva-bhūtānām (BG 7.10). Therefore Kṛṣṇa is the cause of everything.
Śyāmasundara: Well, his point is that these contradictions-saying that "There is a God," "There is no God"—these contradictions only arise because the reason attempts to apply its categories to the transcendent of the absolute, whereas these categories are only applicable to empirical experience. In other words, by reason alone I cannot...
Prabhupāda: This is by reason only. I see everything is growing; therefore the whole cosmic manifestation must have grown from a source. This is reason.
Śyāmasundara: This is transcendental reason.
Prabhupāda: No. Common reason. Every matter is growing from a certain source, so therefore this material world must have grown from a certain source.
Śyāmasundara: So according to one point of view, Hume's point of view, cause and effect are not necessarily related, that they are habitually connected.
Prabhupāda: The scientist, he'll say that the father begets the child. Why it is not related? It is simply lunacy not to believe this. Where is the instance that without father some child has taken birth? Where is such instance? He himself is talking such nonsense. He is born by his father. The cause is his father. Similarly, his father is also the effect of his father. Therefore there is supreme father, father of this cosmic manifestation. How you can deny it? That is the defect of the speculators: they contradict themselves.
Śyāmasundara: This is just what he is saying, that whenever you try to speculate about the Absolute you will run into contradictions.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So contradiction mean imperfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge means who sticks to his principles. That is perfect knowledge. One who does not stick to his original proposal, his knowledge is imperfect.
Śyāmasundara: He says that by trying to apply their reason to the transcendental, that they naturally will run into trouble, that there will be contradictions in their thought. By trying to apply these empirical categories to the transcendental, naturally there will be these contradictions. They will not be able to discover the real nature of things because there is always some contradiction by using the reason.
Prabhupāda: Without fixed up conclusion, there is contradiction. Our fixed-up conclusion is that Kṛṣṇa is the cause of all causes. How, one after another, the categories are developed, that is in the Vedic literature. But it is summarized that Kṛṣṇa desired or He put His glance over the material nature and the material nature became impregnated, and then He delivered so many things. Matter and spirit have combined together, and the whole cosmic manifestation has come into being.
Hayagrīva: He believes that behind nature or mechanical laws, he says that crude matter, or prakṛti, should have originally formed itself according to mechanical laws or automatically; that life should have sprung from the nature of what is lifeless. That matter should have been able to dispose itself into the form of a self-maintaining purpose is contradictory to reason. Simply by using our reason we can intuit the creator behind the creation.
Prabhupāda: No. Unless there is a brain... Matter has no brain. Matter cannot combine together without a brain behind. That brain is the Supreme Lord, God. That is quite reasonable. And if somebody thinks matter automatically combines together and becomes the sun, becomes the moon, so bright, without any brain behind it—that is ludicrous.
Śyāmasundara: At the same time it is permanent, eternal.
Prabhupāda: That we are. We, part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, we are moving in this material body, but we are permanent. That is (indistinct). But Kṛṣṇa is not like that. Then it will be avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā (BG 9.11), a rascaldom.
Śyāmasundara: He says it appears that there is conflict between contradictory factors but...
Prabhupāda: But everything will be coincided in Kṛṣṇa.
Śyāmasundara: The whole process is eternal and permanent.
Prabhupāda: Just like so many radius, and it, everything middle points. You expand, you go, long, long, long.
Śyāmasundara: Even when the wheel turns the center...
Prabhupāda: The spoke. Spoke, and what it is called? Hub. Hub.
Śyāmasundara: ...remains constant. That's his whole idea of history.
Prabhupāda: That is explained in Bhāgavata. Kṛṣṇa says, aham evāsam evāgre. All expansions take place but He remains the same.
Śyāmasundara: He said that one standard whether something is right or wrong is that if it is self-contradictory, if somebody's action is self-contradictory.
Prabhupāda: He is actually self-contradictory. He is going to give right to others that he does not want to give the same right to the animals. That is self-contradictory.
Śyāmasundara: He uses the example of someone who doesn't want anyone to steal something from him but he steals something from others.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: And that is self-contradictory.
Prabhupāda: Yes, self-contradictory action is here, that I don't want to be killed but I kill another animal. This is self-contradictory. Supporting by some nonsense philosophy. I don't want to be killed but I kill other, this is self-contradictory.
Śyāmasundara: He would say a self-contradictory act is irrational.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: So he says that we rise up to the level of the state but then each state is independent and not subordinate to other states.
Prabhupāda: Independent, no. Independ..., that is also another contradictory philosophy. If the state is representative of God, then how he's independent? That is less intelligent. He's speaking contradiction. That's all.
Śyāmasundara: He says that no state is subordinate to any other state.
Prabhupāda: That is another thing. If you all, my disciples, you are working under my instruction, so there is cooperation but not that other's order is obligatory to me. Similarly, one state is representative of God, another (is) representative of God, so they are not independent, dependent. That can be applied any field. Citizen, everyone is independent but everyone is dependent on the state laws. Similarly every state may be independent in their individual capacity, but he is dependent on God's order. That is the position. That is the perfection.
Śyāmasundara: But whenever there are disputes arising between states, then there must be war.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is natural. Just like in our ordinary lives, citizens, they disagree. They go to the court.
Śyāmasundara: So he says that these two things are opposing, idea and substance, they are thesis and antithesis but the spirit contains both of them so it is the synthesis.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That we agree. Viruddha (Sanskrit), viruddha, contradictory thing can be adjusted in Kṛṣṇa. Because what is viruddha, opposite, that is also coming from Kṛṣṇa, and what is substance, that is also coming from Kṛṣṇa. We are thinking viruddha. Just like this same example, cooler and heater. They are opposite but they are coming from electricity. Therefore in electricity power, both can be adjusted(?). You can say, "Electricity can be cooler, electricity can be heater." That is called viruddha (Sanskrit). Contradictory things adjusted in Kṛṣṇa. Inconceivable, therefore we say inconceivable. Simultaneously one and different. That is our philosophy. Simultaneously we are all equal, one with God, and different. In our..., this material world, it is impossible to think like that, therefore it is called inconceivable.
Śyāmasundara: Just like some children are born with blood disease or some incurable disease; the parents take all care, but they still have to die young.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So then it is to be understood that different natural laws are working, and they are working under one controller, and that is God. Just like we are taking so many services from this electricity current, but all this electricity current are working under one leader in the powerhouse, the resident engineer. From him, the original electricity current is coming, is generated. And we are utilizing the same current in different varieties, purposes. So then, just like electric current, the same electric current working in this machine, in a way; another machine another way. It may be contradiction, but the power is the same. According to the machine, the same example: one machine is cooler, one machine is heater, although the current is the same. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). Everywhere God's energy is working as if natural.
Prabhupāda: What does he mean by survive? What is the meaning of his dictionary, "survive"? Nobody survives.
Hayagrīva: Well, by that he means that the strong pass on their hereditary characteristics to their offspring, and that the race..., no individual survives, but that the race improves. But isn't this contradicted by the Vedas? In the present Kali... For instance, Arjuna's physical powers, prowess, was much greater, and that was, what, five thousand years ago. So isn't, instead of improving, instead of the race improving in strength and other qualities, isn't it actually...
Prabhupāda: They are degrading.
Hayagrīva: ...degenerating. What is the cause of man's physical, mental and spiritual deterioration in the succeeding yugas?
Prabhupāda: That is education. Every individual person, he is a soul, and he has got a particular type of body. Especially in the human body he requires education. What is this animal and what is higher than human race, these are Vedic description. So there are 8,400,000 different forms of life, and the body is being evolved. The body is machine, and the individual soul desires and he gets a suitable body made by material nature under the order of God. This is Vedic idea, as it is said in the Bhagavad-gītā, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe arjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). God is existing within the core of everyone's heart, and the individual soul is desiring something, and upon the order God he is given a machine made by material nature. So this is evolution, and even a man, although he is human form of body, he can again degenerate to animal form of body according to his desire.
Hayagrīva: Well the basic contradiction, it seems, between Bergson and the Vedic version is that of the evolution of the universe.
Prabhupāda: Evolution of universe means, I have already explained, that anything material, it goes under six changes. So this universe, since its birth, it is increasing in volume. So that is material change. It is nothing to the, to do with the spiritual. Spirit, the soul, as we have got soul within this body, similarly ākāra, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu is the soul of this universe. He is not changing; the universe is changing, the body is changing.
Hayagrīva: Bergson's theory seems to be that there's greater harmony being realized the further life advances or the further the universe goes on.
Prabhupāda: Harmony is there, certainly. That harmony, just like the child's body is harmonically changing into boy's body, harmonical changes, there is harmony. But the change is there.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Certainly. (Hindi with guest) Good association means to associate with one of the devotees. Sādhu-saṅga (CC Madhya 22.83). (Hindi with guest)
Śyāmasundara: He says that moral laws are not absolute rules which never permit exceptions. He says that moral laws are flexible; that they're not absolute.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Real moral law means the law of the Supreme. Just like Kṛṣṇa has preached dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga, haṭha-yoga, so many yoga systems. Then He says, sarva-dharmān parityajya (BG 18.66). These principles have not less moral, dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga, aṣṭāṅga-yoga, but ultimately He says, "Give up all of them." Then what is moral? His word is moral. Whatever He says, that is moral. Not this dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga. No. Whatever He says, that is morality. So it is changed. Nobody can argue: "Sir, you have prescribed so many kinds of yogas. Now You say to give up all these things. It is contradictory." No. It is not contradictory. Whatever He says, that is morality. That is Vaiṣṇava principle. We don't consider anything moral or immoral. Whatever is ordered by Kṛṣṇa or His representative, that is moral. That is our position.
Śyāmasundara: It's an idea.
Prabhupāda: So people may not like that ideas; therefore the communists are there. Others may not like this idea.
Guest: He says God summons. He says God summons us. But I cannot see how a nonbeing can summon.
Prabhupāda: Summons. That is contradiction.
Śyāmasundara: He says it is the idea which...
Prabhupāda: How the idea summons? He says the idea summons us.
Śyāmasundara: Ah, yes. Well, and he says that it is the value to which one is supremely devoted, that this is God.
Prabhupāda: How can devotion be possible without a being? Just like devotion means between the devotee and the person who is offered that devotional service.
Śyāmasundara: The decision is...
Prabhupāda: There are two sides. There are two kinds of people are going. The same man, he is giving charity for feeding poor man or giving relief to the distressed man, but at the same time he's encouraging animal-killing. So what is the ethics? What is the ethical law in these two contradictory activities? One side... Just like our Vivekananda. He is advocating daridra-nārāyaṇa sevā, "Feed the poor," but feed the poor with mother Kālī's prasāda, where poor goats are killed. Just like, another, one side feeding the poor, another side killing the poor goat. So what is the ethic? What is the ethical law in this connection? Just like people open hospitals, and the doctor prescribes, "Give this man," what it is called," (Hindi), ox blood, or chicken juice." So what is this ethic? And they're supporting that "Here is chicken juice." Just because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics? If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing—there are so many medicines, but the killing is very prominent—then next point should be that if you say that the human life is important, so nonimportant animal-killing can be supported to save the important. Then the question will be, "Why it is important? Why consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important?" These are the questions of ethical law. Where are these discussions on the ethical laws?
Devotee: They say that he did not suffer for God; he suffered for man.
Prabhupāda: Anyway, if there is no suffering, then where is the question of suffering for God or suffering for man?
Śyāmasundara: They say that it's a paradox, that... They say that it's a paradox or an apparent contradiction that the Transcendental came into the material world and appeared to suffer for men, but actually he does not suffer because He is God, that He only appeared to suffer to save us from our sins and remind us always not to sin.
Prabhupāda: But why the Christians are committing sins still? They have given contract to Jesus Christ that "You suffer for us and we go on committing sins." Very good philosophy.
Hayagrīva: According to him, the man of knowledge is not disturbed in any condition. He says, "Such a man would regard death as a false allusion, an impotent specter which frightens the weak but has no power over him, who knows that he is himself the will of which the whole world is the objectification or copy, and that therefore he is always certain of life and also of the present." He goes on to say that he could not be terrified by an endless past or future in which he would not be, for this he would regard...
Prabhupāda: Then why does he want nirvāṇa? This is contradictory.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: One side he says nirvāṇa, and other side is that it is continued. When he could not understand the Indian philosophy, he is trying to address in his own way.
Śyāmasundara: So he says because men are a combination of spiritual personality and material individuality, he says because of the spiritual personality we can know God, and because of the material individuality evil arises, because of the material body.
Prabhupāda: No. If we have no perfect knowledge of the individuality... Individuality does not mean always evil and good. Just like in Vṛndāvana, the gopīs, they have got individuality, but that individuality is for Kṛṣṇa. Therefore they are all one. The objective is one. The example was given by my Guru Mahārāja that according to Vedic system, when one's husband is away from home, she does not dress herself very nicely, so she does not look very attractive. But the same woman, when the husband is at home, she dresses very nice. Now, this dressing or not dressing, they are two contradictory things, but the aim is the one; therefore that is one. The aim is the husband. For the husband's satisfaction she dresses and sometimes not dresses. So these two things, dressing and not dressing, apparently may be contradictory, but (if) the aim is one, they are the same. Similarly, there is variety in the spiritual world, but all the varieties, their central point is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore the varieties are also one.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "The theologians are different from the philosophers in this respect at any rate. At least they are sure that God exists, even though they make contradictory statements about Him. God's existence does not depend on our proofs. I understood that God was, for me at least, one of the most certain and immediate of experiences."
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is transcendental conviction, and it is very easy to understand that God is there. I do not know God, that is another thing. I will have to learn it. But God is there. There is no doubt about it. Any sane man can understand. You cannot say there is no God, because you are under control. So who is that controller? The supreme controller is God. This is sane man's conclusion. Now, I do not know who is God then, but there is God, that's a fact. So he is right when he says I believe or not believe, there is God. Now, it will depend on my personal endeavor to know God. Go on.
Hayagrīva: But here, after going to Calcutta, perhaps it was the, the so-called gurus that he met that discouraged...
Prabhupāda: The so-called gurus are there, many. That is no doubt. So he might have seen some bogus guru, he did not like. But the principle of accepting guru cannot be avoided. That is not possible.
Hayagrīva: That contradicts the previous statement.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: Concerning consciousness after death, Jung feels that after death the individual must pick up the level of consciousness which he left.
Prabhupāda: He continues.
Hayagrīva: The level of consciousness.
Prabhupāda: Continues.
Hayagrīva: Continues.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore, according to that consciousness he has to accept a body. That is trasmigration of the soul. That ordinary person, they can only see the body, but along with the body there is mind and there is intelligence, there is ego. One cannot see what is mind, what is intelligence. So there is no reason that when the body is finished why the mind and the intelligence should be finished. But he cannot see the mind, cannot intell..., see the intelligence. He said everything is finished. Why everything should be finished? The body is finished, but the mind is not finished. So the soul is carried by mind, intelligence. That is subtle body. And it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). He is not finished, he is there. He is being carried by mind and intelligence. But these foolish person they cannot see. But even in lifetime they cannot see what is mind. They cannot see what is intelligence.
Śyāmasundara: He says that we cannot escape this situation of freedom, that somehow or other we are therefore responsible for our activities. We cannot escape the situation of being free. Everyone is free to determine what is his future.
Prabhupāda: Then why do you speak of accident? If you are irresponsible, then why do you say accident? The two things cannot go. If he was responsible, he must be responsible to something else, who is condemning you or blessing you. How it can be accident? These are contradictions.
Śyāmasundara: This situation that we find ourselves in, choosing our future, everyone has to choose his future, what is the next step...
Prabhupāda: Then why do you say accident? First of all you withdraw the word accident, then you can talk all this.
Śyāmasundara: There are certain events that we cannot control. They simply happen to us.
Prabhupāda: Cannot control, that can be accepted. But it is supposed that we have controlling power. Nothing is accident. Sometimes, when you are miscontrolling, that is accident. But actually that is not accident; that is your miscontrol, not accident. The reason is miscontrol.
Hayagrīva: It appears to be contradictory.
Prabhupāda: Everything is contradictory. That must be contradictory. Unless there is standard idea, standard thing, there must be contradiction.
Hayagrīva: This is the last point. He says, "To be man..."
Prabhupāda: Therefore we say first of all God.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: There is Supreme Person, and we should be all obedient servant to Him. Then the society will be in order. That, that is responsibility. God gives us some duty, and if we carry that, that is our responsibility, and that makes the whole society perfect. That should... In the beginning if we reject God, so then it is chaotic. So religion means to avoid this chaotic condition, and in order, fulfilling the responsibility given by God, we make progress, and finally we live with God personally. That is our eternal right.
Prabhupāda: The defect is that these programs are being forwarded by some rascal. Therefore they are defective. If they would have been forwarded by perfect man, then you would have actual (indistinct). Now one rascal is forwarding some program, another rascal next time (indistinct) this is true. So this is going on in Western world. Because according to Bhāgavata we belong to the category of dogs, hogs, camels. So what is the benefit of a dog's program and (indistinct) by camel's program. If they are on the, basically there is nothing but dogs, hogs, camels and asses, then suppose dog has given some program and the camel says, "No. This program is better than this one." And the ass comes, he introduces another program, "This program is better than this program." So either of these programs, because they are made by dogs, hogs, asses and camels, they cannot be perfect. Take a program from a real human being. Then it is perfect. The defect is there. One philosopher is proposing something, another philosopher is proposing something... That is (indistinct) especially in the Western countries, they are doing so independence (?). But the Vedic civilization there is no independence. They must follow the Vedic injunction. As I have said several times, the Vedas says that the stool of cow is completely pure. They do not argue that "Formerly you say that the stool of animal is impure. Now you are saying that the stool of animal, cow, is pure. So how can we accept?" There is no such thing. The Vedas says, even it is stool, but the Vedas says the stool of cow is perfectly pure. Yes. No contradiction. Our presentation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is like that. But Kṛṣṇa says, "(indistinct), as it is." There is no question of altering or changing according to circumstances. We know Kṛṣṇa is perfect. Whatever He has said, it is all right, in all conditions. That is our belief. We do not deviate.
Śyāmasundara: And they call their process social engineering. For instance, they say a criminal does not become bad because he is naturally bad but it's because of his environment. So if we train him in such a way he will be good, and we can...
Prabhupāda: Just like in the Western countries, the social (indistinct), the killing of animals—it is taken not bad. In other societies it is taken as bad. How is that? There are two contradictory societies. One society says that nonviolence is nice, better, but another society says no, violence is better. Then how will I (indistinct)? Which society is good, which society bad? How you will decide?
Devotee: He has no way of deciding.
Prabhupāda: No. There is no way. If you come to the Vedic life, then you will know.
Śyāmasundara: So we should propose this to Skinner: "We will accept your process if you take direction from us."
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: Well the basic difference is that Marx believes that there's nothing spiritual; everything is material. He says, "An incorporeal substance is just as much a contradiction as an incorporeal body."
Prabhupāda: That is his ignorance, because this body is dead. That what is the difference between the dead body and the... The same Marx and same Lenin was lying, but because there is no spirit sould it was considered as dead. This is imperfect understanding of the man, of the body. Otherwise, I mean to say, man of sense studies there must be a spiritualism and materialism. Spiritualism..., spirit means the force behind the matter. It can be understood very easily that matter as it is, it is inactive. A machine may be very well made, but without a person, a living being, the machine is useless. So that is the difference between spirit and matter. Matter can be active only in touch with the spirit. Similarly, the body is active when there is soul within the body. This can be easily understood, unless one is very dull. Spirit cannot be denied.
Hayagrīva: Well, evidently Marx never got over the antagonism between his father and his mother—his mother who was Jewish and his father who was a Christian convert. He says, "As soon as Jew and Christian recognize their respective religions, there is nothing more than different stages of evolution of the human spirit, as different snakeskins shed by history, and recognize man as the snake who wore them. They will no longer find themselves in religious antagonism but only in a critical scientific and human relationship. Science constitutes their unity. Contradictions in science, however, are resolved by science itself." So that, in other words, science, material science, is to replace this religion, and religion is to be shed by mankind just as a snake sheds its skin. And in this way the antagonisms created between Jew and Christian or, or Hindu and Muslim are reconciled.
Prabhupāda: Reconciled can be only when you actually know what is God. Simply by stamping oneself Christian, Jewish, or Hindu and Muslim, without knowing who is God and what is his desire, that will naturally create antagonism. Therefore the conclusion is, as Mr. Marx giving stress on science, so we should understand scientifically what is religion, what is God. Then this antagonism will stop.
Śyāmasundara: He stresses two aspects (in the) theory of dialectical materialism. The one on which he placed the most emphasis is the aspect of the pragmatic element of philosophy, that philosophy must have practical effect. And the other aspect is the contradiction between capitalism and communism, and this contradiction involves conflicts and eventual revolution. He agrees with Hegel that without conflict, there can be no progress. Do we accept this? Without conflict, there is no progress?
Prabhupāda: Our Kurukṣetra battle is a conflict between Kurus and Pāṇḍavas. So after the conflict, the Pāṇḍavas became the kings. So that is admitted; without conflict, you cannot make progress.
Śyāmasundara: Is that true on every level of...?
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: ...chemical law? (?)
Prabhupāda: Oh yes. Mind is saṅkalpa and vikalpa. Mind's business is to accept something and reject something. So in this way, accepting and rejecting, if the mind is sound, then we come to some conclusion by intelligence. Accepting and rejecting, this is conflict. Then by intelligence we take something out of this conflict.
Śyāmasundara: But he says not the authority. He says by the most willing people...
Prabhupāda: That we see... He's going... He's going... Veda is accept by everyone. All learned scholar. Who can decry Vedas? Only the rascals will decry Vedas. Otherwise... Just like in our country, India, all the big ācāryas, they accept Vedas as the basic principle. So who can decry? Veda says that the stool of cow is pure, and it is accepted. Everyone. All Hindus, brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and the ācāryas, they accept that cow dung is pure. Why? Veda says. In another place, Veda says that "Stool of any animal is impure," but this stool is pure. So we haven't got discrimination. We accept that. Other animal stool is impure. But the cow dung, the stool of cow, we immediately accept as pure, and we apply it in our Deity room and make is purified. That is Veda. You cannot contradict . You cannot argue Vedas. That is also...
Śyāmasundara: But his idea is that the majority will accept something.
Prabhupāda: Well, in India majority accepts Veda. Now they have become rascals, that is a different thing.
Śyāmasundara: Now they accept wine...
Prabhupāda: That is a different thing. But in India all the authorities, all personalities, unless you accept Vedas, you are called nāstika. Therefore Buddha philosophy was driven away, Caitanya Mahāprabhu veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika. Simply Lord Buddha says, "I don't care for your Vedas." Lord Buddha wanted to preach nonviolence, but in the Vedic literature there is violence. There is violence. Just like Gandhi wanted to prove from Bhagavad-gītā nonviolence.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the world, he calls it the stuff of duty, the world is made up of the stuff of duty.
Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Stuff of duty, because duty means you are abiding by the superior order, that is duty. So we accept Vedas, the superior order. When it is stated, order in the Vedas, then we accept. That example we have given several times, if the Veda says that cow dung is pure. Once it is said that any stool of animal is impure. Then Veda says, "No, cowdung is pure." So you cannot argue that once you said that stool of animal is impure, how you say that cowdung is pure? You cannot contradict. You will have to accept it because it is order of the Vedas. (indistinct)
Śyāmasundara: He sees that everything in the world, all nonego objects, all the objects of the world are seeking to realize themselves. Everything is seeking to realize itself.
Prabhupāda: Yes, seeking, therefore if you take advantage of a perfect person, then that seeking will be (indistinct) very soon understand. Otherwise he'll hover in the oblivion. That's all. Our process is we are seeking but we are going to the Absolute Person, Kṛṣṇa, and you are taking the knowledge, immediately. That saves our time. If you are seeking, considering your (indistinct) very great scholar, research scholar, then you are misled. Our process is very nice. Therefore tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12), the injunction is you must approach a bona fide spiritual master to make a short cut of the searching.
Hayagrīva: Well he, following Kant, he emphasized inner reality...
Prabhupāda: He may, he may follow Kant and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is contradiction, then which one is morality? How it will be decided, and who will decide? He may follow somebody. That this question I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader. Now who shall be the leader and who will decide it? Regards to both of us, we have got a leader. Now which leader is perfect? If both of them are perfect, then why there is difference of opinion—one leader does not agree with the other leader? So who will answer this question that who is the best leader? Leader you have to follow. That you cannot avoid. Either you follow Kant or you follow Kṛṣṇa. Either you follow Lenin or you follow Kṛṣṇa. What is the answer? Who is the perfect leader? You cannot avoid leader, either you say according to Kant, I say according to Kṛṣṇa.
Hayagrīva: Well his, his impersonalist stand leads toward pantheism.
Prabhupāda: This is also kind of meditation, speculating that "God should be like this." What is that? But they cannot define what is that, this.
Hayagrīva: He says, "The concept of God as a separate substance is impossible and contradictory."
Prabhupāda: God is everything. There is no question of separation. That is defined in the Bhagavad-gītā, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam, "I am everything." So how He can be separate?
Hayagrīva: But he rejects God as a separate person.
Prabhupāda: He may reject, but God is everything. How he can reject God? The, the, these are the defects of speculators. They cannot give us tangible leading. That because they are defective themselves, so whatever interpretation they will give, all defective.
Hayagrīva: Oh, he would agree that God is everything.
Prabhupāda: That God is..., how he can reject? If God is everything, then how can he reject?
Hayagrīva: So he feels that one can go through the universe assimilating everything, until one finally unifies with the impersonal Absolute.
Prabhupāda: Impersonal Absolute means the Absolute, as soon as you say Absolute, there is no distinction between impersonal and personal. Then it is no Absolute. If you have got distinction that "This is personal; this is impersonal," then that is not Absolute. Do you think it is Absolute? It is contradictory.
Hayagrīva: Well for, for him, God is simply the universal ego, nothing more, and that...
Prabhupāda: No. You say Absolute. As soon as say Absolute there is relative also. Otherwise what is the meaning Absolute?
Hayagrīva: Yes. He would say that. He would say that...
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: ...there is the ego and the universal ego.
Prabhupāda: So then why he is distinguishing, discriminating between personal and impersonal? In the Absolute there is no such difference. That is defined in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, advaya. That is Absolute. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate. Vadanti tat tattva vidas tattvam yaj jñānam advayam (SB 1.2.11). That is Absolute. Dvayam, dvayam means relative. That is not relative. So actually we are searching after the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is realized in different ways. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate. The, just like the same example I gave the other day, that from a distant place you are seeing this mountain, something cloudy. You come a little forward, you will see it is green, and if you enter the mountain you will see so many varieties. The one is there, but it is due to my relative understanding by distant or nearer the Absolute is appearing in different way. Absolute is one. That is Absolute.
Hayagrīva: As far as seeming contradictions and seeming absurdities in scripture are concerned, Origen considered these as stumbling blocks allowed by God to exist in order for man to go beyond the literal meaning. He says, "In some cases no useful meaning attaches to the obvious interpretation, but everything in scripture has a spiritual meaning, but not all of it has a literal meaning."
Prabhupāda: Literal... Generally, every word in the scripture there is literal meaning, but one who cannot understand properly because one does not hear from the proper person, he makes some interpretation. But there is no need of interpretation in the words of God. It may be that the words of God sometimes cannot be understood by ordinary person; therefore he requires to understand through the via-media of transparent guru. Guru is fully cognizant of the words spoken by God. One has to accept, therefore, a guru to go through the scripture properly. Generally there is no ambiguity in the words of God, but due to our lack of perfect knowledge we sometimes cannot understand and try to interpret. But this is, this interpretation is not at all feasible, because imperfect person interpreting means whatever he interprets, that is imperfect. So the proper import of the words of scripture or words of God should be understood from a person who has realized God.
Hayagrīva: Earthen pots, pot that's made of earth.
Prabhupāda: So it is staying on earth, so the earthen pot is not different from the earth. So everything is expansion of God's energy. How we can avoid God with reference to anything that we see? There cannot be anything independent of God. The example is there: the earthen pot, as soon as you see, we remember the potter, that "Who has made?" and the wheel of the potter. So a... God is the original creator, He is the ingredient, and He is the category also, and He is the original substance. That is the conception, Vedic conception of God. He is everything. That is nondual conception. And if you make anything separate from God, then how you can say sarvaṁ khalu idaṁ brahma, "Everything is Brahman"? Then if you say everything is God, at the same time you separate something from God, so that is, what is called, contradiction. Our conception is, "Yes, actually everything has reference to the God, so everything is God's property. It should be utilized for God's service." That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.
| Page Title: | Contradiction (Lectures) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 08 of Aug, 2011 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=153, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 153 |