Coward

Expressions researched:
"coward" |"cowardice" |"cowardism" |"cowardliness" |"cowardly" |"cowards"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 1.36, Purport:

According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another's land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man, but Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was saintly by character, and therefore he wanted to deal with them in saintliness. This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a kṣatriya. Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly. For example, Lord Rāma was so saintly that people even now are anxious to live in the kingdom of Lord Rāma (rāma-rājya), but Lord Rāma never showed any cowardice. Rāvaṇa was an aggressor against Rāma because Rāvaṇa kidnapped Rāma's wife, Sītā, but Lord Rāma gave him sufficient lessons, unparalleled in the history of the world. In Arjuna's case, however, one should consider the special type of aggressors, namely his own grandfather, own teacher, friends, sons, grandsons, etc. Because of them, Arjuna thought that he should not take the severe steps necessary against ordinary aggressors. Besides that, saintly persons are advised to forgive. Such injunctions for saintly persons are more important than any political emergency. Arjuna considered that rather than kill his own kinsmen for political reasons, it would be better to forgive them on grounds of religion and saintly behavior. He did not, therefore, consider such killing profitable simply for the matter of temporary bodily happiness. After all, kingdoms and the pleasures derived therefrom are not permanent, so why should he risk his life and eternal salvation by killing his own kinsmen? Arjuna's addressing of Kṛṣṇa as "Mādhava," or the husband of the goddess of fortune, is also significant in this connection. He wanted to point out to Kṛṣṇa that, as husband of the goddess of fortune, He should not induce Arjuna to take up a matter which would ultimately bring about misfortune. Kṛṣṇa, however, never brings misfortune to anyone, to say nothing of His devotees.

BG 1.36, Purport:

This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a kṣatriya. Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly. For example, Lord Rāma was so saintly that people even now are anxious to live in the kingdom of Lord Rāma (rāma-rājya), but Lord Rāma never showed any cowardice. Rāvaṇa was an aggressor against Rāma because Rāvaṇa kidnapped Rāma's wife, Sītā, but Lord Rāma gave him sufficient lessons, unparalleled in the history of the world. In Arjuna's case, however, one should consider the special type of aggressors, namely his own grandfather, own teacher, friends, sons, grandsons, etc. Because of them, Arjuna thought that he should not take the severe steps necessary against ordinary aggressors. Besides that, saintly persons are advised to forgive. Such injunctions for saintly persons are more important than any political emergency. Arjuna considered that rather than kill his own kinsmen for political reasons, it would be better to forgive them on grounds of religion and saintly behavior.

BG 2.2, Purport:

The word Āryan is applicable to persons who know the value of life and have a civilization based on spiritual realization. Persons who are led by the material conception of life do not know that the aim of life is realization of the Absolute Truth, Viṣṇu, or Bhagavān, and they are captivated by the external features of the material world, and therefore they do not know what liberation is. Persons who have no knowledge of liberation from material bondage are called non-Āryans. Although Arjuna was a kṣatriya, he was deviating from his prescribed duties by declining to fight. This act of cowardice is described as befitting the non-Āryans. Such deviation from duty does not help one in the progress of spiritual life, nor does it even give one the opportunity to become famous in this world. Lord Kṛṣṇa did not approve of the so-called compassion of Arjuna for his kinsmen.

BG 2.34, Purport:

Both as friend and philosopher to Arjuna, Lord Kṛṣṇa now gives His final judgment regarding Arjuna's refusal to fight. The Lord says, "Arjuna, if you leave the battlefield before the battle even begins, people will call you a coward. And if you think that people may call you bad names but that you will save your life by fleeing the battlefield, then My advice is that you'd do better to die in the battle. For a respectable man like you, ill fame is worse than death. So, you should not flee for fear of your life; better to die in the battle. That will save you from the ill fame of misusing My friendship and from losing your prestige in society."

So, the final judgment of the Lord was for Arjuna to die in the battle and not withdraw.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.9.26, Purport:

Their energy should be especially directed toward killing the thieves, the dacoits, the black marketeers and all such undesirable elements of society. The administrators should never pretend to become nonviolent and thereby go to hell. When Arjuna wanted to become a nonviolent coward on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, he was severely chastised by Lord Kṛṣṇa. The Lord degraded Arjuna at that time to the status of an uncivilized man for his avowed acceptance of the cult of nonviolence. The administrative class must be personally trained in military education. Cowards should not be elevated to the presidential throne by dint of numerical votes only. The monarchs were all chivalrous personalities, and therefore monarchy should be maintained provided the monarch is regularly trained in the occupational duties of a king. In fighting, the king or the president should never return home without being hurt by the enemy. The so-called king of today never visits the warfield. He is very much expert in artificially encouraging the fighting strength in the hope of false national prestige.

SB 1.9.36, Purport:

The kings and commanders were not so-called presidents or ministers of defense as they are today. They would not stay home while the poor soldiers or mercenaries were fighting face to face. This may be the regulation of modern democracy, but when actual monarchy was prevailing, the monarchs were not cowards elected without consideration of qualification. As it was evident from the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, all the executive heads of both parties, like Droṇa, Bhīṣma, Arjuna and Duryodhana, were not sleeping; all of them were actual participants in the fighting, which was selected to be executed at a place away from the civil residential quarters. This means that the innocent citizens were immune from all effects of fighting between the rival royal parties. The citizens had no business in seeing what was going to happen during such fighting. They were to pay one fourth of their income to the ruler, whether he be Arjuna or Duryodhana.

SB 1.15.16, Purport:

While Abhimanyu was being killed, mercilessly surrounded by seven great generals, the Pāṇḍavas came to his help, but Jayadratha, by the mercy of Lord Śiva, repulsed them with great ability. At this, Arjuna took a vow to kill him, and on hearing this, Jayadratha wanted to leave the warfield and asked permission from the Kauravas for this cowardly action. But he was not allowed to do so. On the contrary, he was obliged to fight with Arjuna, and while the fight was going on Lord Kṛṣṇa reminded Arjuna that the benediction of Śiva upon Jayadratha was that whoever would cause his head to fall on the ground would die at once. He therefore advised Arjuna to throw the head of Jayadratha directly onto the lap of his father, who was engaged in penances at the Samanta-pañcaka pilgrimage. This was actually done by Arjuna. Jayadratha's father was surprised to see a severed head on his lap, and he at once threw it to the ground. The father immediately died, his forehead being cracked in seven pieces.

SB 1.17.14, Purport:

Dishonest miscreants flourish because of cowardly and impotent executive heads of state. But when the executive heads are strong enough to curb all sorts of dishonest miscreants, in any part of the state, certainly they cannot flourish. When the miscreants are punished in an exemplary manner, automatically all good fortune follows. As said before, it is the prime duty of the king or the executive head to give protection in all respects to the peaceful, offenseless citizens of the state. The devotees of the Lord are by nature peaceful and offenseless, and therefore it is the prime duty of the state to arrange to convert everyone to become a devotee of the Lord. Thus automatically there will be peaceful, offenseless citizens. Then the only duty of the king will be to curb the dishonest miscreants.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.12.10, Purport:

Sometimes they do it by acting sinfully. Kṣatriyas are meant to rule over a country; Dhruva Mahārāja, for example, in the course of ruling, had to fight and kill many Yakṣas. Such action is necessary for kṣatriyas. A kṣatriya should not be a coward, and he should not be nonviolent; to rule over the country he has to act violently.

Kṣatriyas and vaiśyas are therefore especially advised to give in charity at least fifty percent of their accumulated wealth. In Bhagavad-gītā it is recommended that even though one enters the renounced order of life, he still cannot give up the performance of yajña, dāna and tapasya. They are never to be given up. Tapasya is meant for the renounced order of life; those who are retired from worldly activities should perform tapasya, penances and austerities. Those who are in the material world, the kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, must give charity. Brahmacārīs, in the beginning of their lives, should perform different kinds of yajñas.

SB 4.19.13, Purport:

The words tiṣṭha tiṣṭha are used by a kṣatriya when he challenges his enemy. When fighting, a kṣatriya cannot flee from the battlefield. However, when a kṣatriya out of cowardice flees from the battlefield, showing his back to his enemy, he is challenged with the words tiṣṭha tiṣṭha. A real kṣatriya does not kill his enemy from behind, nor does a real kṣatriya turn his back on the battlefield. According to kṣatriya principle and spirit, one either attains victory or dies on the battlefield. Although King Indra was very exalted, being the King of heaven, he became degraded due to his stealing the horse intended for sacrifice. Therefore he fled without observing the kṣatriya principles, and the son of Pṛthu had to challenge him with the words tiṣṭha tiṣṭha.

SB 4.19.26, Purport:

It is the duty of the king not to tolerate the introduction of any irreligious systems. Since King Pṛthu was an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, certainly his duty was to cut down all kinds of irreligious systems. Following in his footsteps, all heads of state should themselves be bona fide representatives of God and should cut down all irreligious systems. Unfortunately they are cowards who declare a secular state. Such a mentality is a way of compromising religious and irreligious systems, but because of this citizens are generally becoming uninterested in spiritual advancement. Thus the situation deteriorates to such an extent that human society becomes hellish.

SB Canto 6

SB 6.11 Summary:

This chapter describes Vṛtrāsura's great qualities. When the prominent commanders of the demons fled, not hearing Vṛtrāsura's advice. Vṛtrāsura condemned them all as cowards. Speaking very bravely, he stood alone to face the demigods. When the demigods saw Vṛtrāsura's attitude, they were so afraid that they practically fainted, and Vṛtrāsura began trampling them down. Unable to tolerate this, Indra, the King of the demigods, threw his club at Vṛtrāsura, but Vṛtrāsura was such a great hero that he easily caught the club with his left hand and used it to beat Indra's elephant. Struck by the blow of Vṛtrāsura, the elephant was pushed back fourteen yards and fell, with Indra on its back.

SB 6.11.1, Translation:

Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: O King, Vṛtrāsura, the commander in chief of the demons, advised his lieutenants in the principles of religion, but the cowardly demoniac commanders, intent upon fleeing the battlefield, were so disturbed by fear that they could not accept his words.

SB 6.11.4, Purport:

That is heroic. Killing an enemy from behind is also inglorious. When an enemy turns his back and runs in fear of his life, he should not be killed. This is the etiquette of military science.

Vṛtrāsura insulted the demoniac soldiers by comparing them to the stool of their mothers. Both stool and a cowardly son come from the abdomen of the mother, and Vṛtrāsura said that there is no difference between them. A similar comparison was given by Tulasī dāsa, who commented that a son and urine both come from the same channel. In other words, semen and urine both come from the genitals, but semen produces a child whereas urine produces nothing. Therefore if a child is neither a hero nor a devotee, he is not a son but urine. Similarly, Cāṇakya Paṇḍita also says:

SB Canto 9

SB 9.14.28, Translation:

Urvaśī treated the two lambs like her own sons. Therefore, when they were being taken by the Gandharvas and began crying, Urvaśī heard them and rebuked her husband. "Now I am being killed," she said, "under the protection of an unworthy husband, who is a coward and a eunuch although he thinks himself a great hero.

SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)

SB 10.72.31, Translation:

"But I will not fight with You, Kṛṣṇa, for You are a coward. Your strength abandoned You in the midst of battle, and You fled Your own capital of Mathurā to take shelter in the sea.

SB 10.76.31, Translation:

"Certainly My sisters-in-law will laugh at Me and say, 'O hero, tell us how in the world Your enemies turned You into such a coward in battle.' "

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 31:

All these symptoms refer to apparently disturbed conditions, but even in such disturbed conditions there is acute ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa. These symptoms, however, can be divided into three groups: first class, second class and third. There are many disturbing symptoms in ecstatic love, such as envy, anxiety, pride, jealousy, conclusion, cowardliness, forgiveness, impatience, hankering, regret, doubtfulness and impudence. These are included in the thirty-three conditions of ecstatic love. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has very nicely analyzed the different kinds of disturbing symptoms, and although it is very difficult to find the exact English equivalents for many Sanskrit words used here, his analysis will now be presented.

When one becomes malicious upon seeing another's advancement of life, his state of mind is generally called envy. When one becomes frightened at seeing a lightning bolt in the sky, that fearfulness brings on anxiety. Therefore, fearfulness and anxiety may be taken as one. One's desire to hide his real mentality is called avahitthā, or concealment, and a desire to exhibit superiority is called pride.

Nectar of Devotion 31:

And before such a conclusive determination of import, there must be thoughtful consideration. Therefore, the act of consideration is present during the establishment of a conclusion. When one presents himself as ignorant, his attitude is called humility, and when there is absence of enthusiasm it is called cowardice. Therefore, in humility, there is sometimes cowardice also. When the mind is steadfast it is called enduring, and one's ability to tolerate others' offenses is also called endurance. Therefore, forgiveness and endurance can be synonymous. Anxiousness for time to pass is called impatience, and when one sees something wonderful one is said to be struck with wonder. Impatience may be caused by being struck with wonder, and so impatience and being struck with wonder can be synonymous. When anxiety is in its dormant stage it is called hankering. Therefore, anxiety and hankering can also be synonymous. When one becomes regretful for some offense, his feeling is called bashfulness. In this way, bashfulness and regret can be synonymous. Doubtfulness is one of the aspects of argument.

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna Book 50:

And all the jewelry from the bodies of the soldiers and commanders seemed like many pebbles flowing down the river of blood.

Lord Balarāma, who is also known as Saṅkarṣaṇa, began to fight with His club in such a heroic way that the river of blood created by Kṛṣṇa overflooded. Cowards became very much afraid upon seeing the ghastly and horrible scene, and heroes began to talk delightedly among themselves about the heroism of the two brothers. Although Jarāsandha was equipped with a vast ocean of military strength, the fighting of Lord Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma converted the whole situation into a ghastly scene far beyond ordinary fighting. Persons of ordinary merit cannot estimate how it could be possible, but when such activities are accepted as pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, under whose will everything is possible, then this can be understood. The Supreme Personality of Godhead creates, maintains and dissolves the cosmic manifestation merely by His will.

Krsna Book 51:

"O Kṛṣṇa! I heard that You are a great hero born in the dynasty of Yadu, but I see that You are running away from fighting, like a coward. It is not worthy of Your good name and family tradition." Kālayavana was following, running very fast, but still he could not catch Kṛṣṇa because he was not freed from all contaminations of sinful life.

According to Vedic culture, anyone who does not follow the regulative principles observed by the higher castes (the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas) or even those observed by the laborer class (the śūdras) is called a mleccha or yavana. The Vedic social situation is so planned that persons accepted as śūdras can gradually be elevated to the position of brāhmaṇas by the cultural advancement known as saṁskāra, or the purificatory process. The verdict of the Vedic scriptures is that no one becomes a brāhmaṇa or a mleccha simply by birth; by birth everyone is accepted as a śūdra.

Krsna Book 52:

He thought Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma to be ordinary human beings, and he was trying to measure the activities of the Lord. Due to this pastime Kṛṣṇa is known as Raṇacora, which means "one who has left the battlefield." In India, especially in Gujarat, there are many temples of Kṛṣṇa known as temples of Raṇacorajī. Ordinarily, if a king leaves the battlefield without fighting he is called a coward, but when Kṛṣṇa enacts this pastime, leaving the battlefield without fighting, He is worshiped by the devotees. A demon always tries to measure the opulence of Kṛṣṇa, whereas a devotee never tries to measure His strength and opulence but always surrenders unto Him and worships Him. By following in the footsteps of pure devotees, we can know that Kṛṣṇa, the Raṇacorajī, left the battlefield not because He was afraid but because He had some other purpose. The purpose, as it will be revealed, was to attend to a confidential letter sent by Rukmiṇī, His future first wife. Kṛṣṇa's leaving the battlefield is a display of one of His six opulences. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme powerful, the supreme wealthy, the supreme famous, the supreme wise and the supreme beautiful; similarly, He is the supreme renouncer. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam clearly states that He left the battlefield in spite of having ample military strength.

Krsna Book 60:

“First of all, you may know that I was so much afraid of Jarāsandha that I could not dare live on the land, and thus I have constructed this house within the water of the sea. It is not My business to disclose this secret to others, but you must know that I am not very heroic; I am a coward and am afraid of My enemies. Still I am not safe, because all the great kings of the land are inimical to Me. I have personally created this inimical feeling by fighting with them in many ways. Another fault is that although I am on the throne of Dvārakā, I have no immediate claim. Although I got a kingdom by killing My maternal uncle, Kaṁsa, the kingdom was to go to My grandfather; so actually I have no possession of a kingdom. Besides that, I have no fixed aim in life. People cannot understand Me very well. What is the ultimate goal of My life? They know very well that I was a cowherd boy in Vṛndāvana. People expected that I would follow in the footsteps of My foster father, Nanda Mahārāja, and be faithful to Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī and all Her friends in the village of Vṛndāvana.

Krsna Book 72:

When Lord Kṛṣṇa disclosed their disguise, King Jarāsandha laughed very loudly, and then in great anger and in a grave voice he exclaimed, "You fools! If you want to fight with me, I immediately grant your request. But, Kṛṣṇa, I know that You are a coward. I refuse to fight with You because You become very confused when You face me in fighting. Out of fear of me You left Your own city, Mathurā, and now You have taken shelter within the sea; therefore I must refuse to fight with You. As far as Arjuna is concerned, I know that he is younger than me and is not an equal fighter. I refuse to fight with him because he is not in any way an equal competitor. But as far as Bhīmasena is concerned, I think he is a suitable competitor to fight with me." After speaking in this way, King Jarāsandha immediately handed a very heavy club to Bhīmasena, he himself took another, and all of them went outside the city walls to fight.

Krsna Book 76:

My dear charioteer, I have never heard that any of our family members was ever removed from the battlefield. None of them left the battlefield while fighting. By this removal you have overburdened me with a great defamation. It will be said that I left the battlefield while fighting was going on. My dear charioteer, I must accuse you—you are a coward and emasculator! Tell me, how can I go before my uncle Balarāma and my father, Kṛṣṇa, and what shall I say before Them? Everyone will talk about me and say that I fled from the fighting place, and if they inquire from me about this, what will be my reply? My sisters-in-law will play jokes upon me with sarcastic words: "My dear hero, how have you become such a coward? How have you become a eunuch? How have you become so low in the eyes of the fighters who opposed you?" I think, my dear charioteer, that you have committed a great offense by removing me from the battlefield.”

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 1.6-7 -- London, July 11, 1973:

Otherwise everyone was finished within eighteen days. Such a great fight it was. And people from all parts of the world, they joined the Battle of Kurukṣetra.

Somebody was criticizing me that "Swamiji, you are introducing this Hare Kṛṣṇa movement. People are becoming coward. They simply chant Hare Kṛṣṇa." So I replied that "You will see the power of Hare Kṛṣṇa movement in due course of time." He required... Because there were two battles in India: the battle between Rāvaṇa and Rāma, Rāma-Rāvaṇa, the battle of Rāmāyaṇa; and another battle was Battle of Kurukṣetra. And in these two battles the hero was Vaiṣṇava and Viṣṇu. In the Rāma-Rāvaṇa battle Lord Rāmacandra was there and His devotee Hanumān, Vajrāṅgajī. Similarly, in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, Kṛṣṇa was there and His devotee Arjuna was there. So Vaiṣṇavas, they do not simply chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. If there is need, they can fight under the guidance of Viṣṇu and become victorious.

Lecture on BG 1.6-7 -- London, July 11, 1973:

There is two mission: not only to give protection to the devotees, but also to kill the demons. To kill the demons, that is one side. So the devotees of Kṛṣṇa should be trained up both ways: not only to give protection to the devotees, to give them encouragement, but if need be, they should be prepared to kill the demons. That is Vaiṣṇavism. It is not cowardism. It is not cowardism. When need be. Generally, a Vaiṣṇava is non-violent. Just like Arjuna. In the beginning he was non-violent, Vaiṣṇava. He said, "Kṛṣṇa, what is the use of this fighting? Let them enjoy." So by nature he was non-violent, but he was induced by Kṛṣṇa to become violent, that "Your non-violence will not help. You become violent. You kill them. I want." So if Kṛṣṇa wants we shall be prepared to become violent also. And Kṛṣṇa, that is open secret, that paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām (BG 4.8). Two business of Kṛṣṇa, two side. So those who are devotees of Kṛṣṇa, they should be trained up both ways, they should be prepared. But generally, there is no question of becoming violent, unnecessarily. As the modern politicians, unnecessarily they declare war, a Vaiṣṇava does not do so.

Lecture on BG 1.28-29 -- London, July 22, 1973:

These divisions are there according to quality. Guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). By guṇa. Guṇa means quality. And karma means actual operation of the guṇa.

So Arjuna was a kṣatriya, trained up by Droṇācārya how to kill. This is the... Nonviolence is not the business of the kṣatriya. That is cowardice. They are taught how to become violent. Otherwise, they cannot rule over. Formerly the judgement was given by the king, immediately finished. Not go to the court and wait for the judgement for ten years. In the meantime everything is finished. Not like that. Anything, there was regularly, the king used to sit in his assembly, and all the criminals, culprits, they were judged by the king himself. Sometimes the king had to kill personally with the sword. Even in European countries, the royal orders were trained up. Nowadays it is constitutional, democratic government. The king has no power. But this is not good for the people. The democracy is a farce.

Lecture on BG 1.28-29 -- London, July 22, 1973:

That is being done now. Rich man's son, he hasn't got to do anything, so his brain is devil's workshop. They are manufacturing so many "isms." But everyone should be engaged. This is government's first business to see. A brāhmaṇa is engaged as a brāhmaṇa, a kṣatriya is engaged as kṣatriya.

So Arjuna was not a coward. He was a competent warrior. But still, dehātma-buddhi, the bodily concept of life is so strong... That Arjuna admits, dṛṣṭvā tu svajanaṁ kṛṣṇa: (BG 1.28) "My dear Kṛṣṇa, I have to kill my own men." What is that "own men"? "Own men" means this bodily relationship. Why others are not own men? Everyone is own men. Because everyone is Kṛṣṇa's son. So when one becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, he can see everyone own men. And when he is not Kṛṣṇa conscious, he simply sees own men where there is bodily relationship. This is the defect. They are advertising, humanitarian work, philanthropic work, communism, this "ism," but when there is question of bodily relationship, immediately everything is changed.

Lecture on BG 2.1 -- Ahmedabad, December 6, 1972:

So the effect of Kurukṣetra, dharma-kṣetra, was visible in the person of Arjuna, not in the person of Duryodhana. That is the difference. Therefore he was crying: "So I am put in such a position that I have to fight and I have to kill my brothers, my nephews, my grandfather." He was too much affected. Although it is weakness, but it is not actually weakness. It is compassion. Arjuna was not a coward, neither he was less heroic than the other side. But out of compassion, because he was devotee... Devotees, they are para-duḥkha-duḥkhī. The, the symptom of a devotee is they are unhappy by seeing others unhappy. That is the symptom of devotee. Generally, a person, if he sees somebody happy, he becomes happy. Mātsaratā. That is the world situation. If I see my brother is very happy, he has improved in his material condition, then I become unhappy: "He has advanced so much, and I could not do so." This is material civilization. Envious, gṛhamedhī. Everyone is envious. Either you take person to person or neighbor to neighbor, their sympathy is lip sympathy. Actually, everyone is envious. Businessman to businessman, nation to nation.

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

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "Such persons are captivated by the external features of the material world, and therefore they do not know what liberation is. Persons who have no knowledge of liberation from material bondage are called non-Āryans. Arjuna was trying to deviate from his prescribed duties, declining to fight, although he was a kṣatriya or warrior. This act of cowardice is described as befitting the non-Āryans. Such deviation from duty does not help one in the progress of spiritual life, nor does it even give one the opportunity of becoming famous in this world. Lord Kṛṣṇa did not approve of the so-called compassion of Arjuna for his kinsmen."

Prabhupāda: So-called compassion. He was thinking that by showing that compassion he'll be, I mean to say, eulogized by Kṛṣṇa. But Kṛṣṇa condemned it. Yes. Just the opposite. In other words, Kṛṣṇa is very strict also. That is the qualification of Kṛṣṇa and His associates. Vajrād api kaṭhora and kusumād api kamala. Softer than the flower and harder than the thunderbolt. Two sides. When Kṛṣṇa is strict He's harder than the thunderbolt, and when He's soft, He's softer than the flower.

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

Prabhupāda: Hm. Degrading impotence. He doesn't want to see (chuckling) His devotee a coward and impotent. So this so-called qualification, impotency and niggard, that is not qualification for devotee. He must be very, in every way, very expert and fit. Kṛṣṇa wants to see. Yes. Go on.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy."

Prabhupāda: He's specially addressing, "chastiser of the enemy." Where there is no excuse, you must be chastiser. Not that "Because I have become Kṛṣṇa conscious, I'll be very humble." You must be humble, but in need, if there is need, you shall be thunderbolt. That is Kṛṣṇa instructing.

Lecture on BG 2.1-11 -- Johannesburg, October 17, 1975:

"My dear Arjuna, you are My friend, personal friend, and you are proposing this, which is befitting to the anārya." Anārya-juṣṭam: "This is not for the Aryan. You are kṣatriya, you are meant for fighting for justice, and you are denying to fight? Oh, this is not good." Anārya-juṣṭam: "This kind of proposal, cowardice, can be proposed by the anārya." Ārya means the advanced. One who is advanced in knowledge, in civilization, they are called ārya, Aryan civilization. So in the Aryan civilization there are four divisions to maintain the society in the correct balance. That is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). The society must be divided into four classes of men. The first-class means most intelligent class of men. They should be trained up as brāhmaṇa. Śamo damaḥ satyaṁ śaucaṁ titikṣā ārjavaṁ jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyaṁ brahma-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.42). So this is the beginning of civilization, not that all śūdras as it is now in this age.

Lecture on BG 2.2-6 -- Ahmedabad, December 11, 1972:

"Give up this cowardice habit. You get up and prepare for your fight. This is kṣatriya's business. You should not go behind." Arjuna uvāca. "Arjuna replied."

kathaṁ bhīṣmam ahaṁ saṅkhye

droṇaṁ ca madhusūdana

iṣubhiḥ pratiyotsyāmi

pūjārhāv arisūdana

(BG 2.4)

Now Kṛṣṇa was encouraging to fight; Arjuna was also very intelligently replying. He addressed Kṛṣṇa as Madhusūdana, Arisūdana. Madhusūdana means "the killer of Madhu demon" or "the killer or enemy." So his purpose is that "I have to kill Bhīṣmadeva, who is my so kind grandfather, and I have to kill Droṇācārya, who is my teacher, from whom I have learned this military art. So You have killed the demons and Your enemy, and why You are inducing me to kill my guru and my grandfather?" This is his argument. Kathaṁ bhīṣmam ahaṁ saṅkhye droṇaṁ ca madhusūdana, iṣubhiḥ pratiyotsyāmi: (BG 2.4) "They, my grandfather, my teacher, may chastise me, but how I can pierce with arrows their body?"

Lecture on BG 2.3 -- London, August 4, 1973:

So Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa, is encouraging, kśūdraṁ hṛdaya-daurbalyam. "For a kṣatriya to speak like that, 'No no, I cannot kill my kinsmen. I am giving my weapons,' this is weakness, cowardice. Why you are all this nonsense doing?" Kśūdraṁ hṛdaya-daurbalyam. "This kind of compassion, giving up your duty as a kṣatriya, it is simply weakness of the heart. It has no meaning." Klaibyaṁ ma sma gamaḥ pārtha naitat tvayy upapadyate. "Especially for you. You are My friend. What people will say? So give up this weakness of the heart and uttiṣṭha, stand up, take courage." So just see how Kṛṣṇa is inducing Arjuna to fight. People are very much ignorant and they sometimes criticize that "Kṛṣṇa is exciting Arjuna. He is very gentleman, nonviolent, and Kṛṣṇa is exciting him to fight." This is called jaḍa-darśana. Jaḍa-darśana. Jaḍa-darśana means material vision. Therefore śāstra says, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). Śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi. We become in touch with Kṛṣṇa by chanting His name, Hare Kṛṣṇa. That is the beginning of our connection with Kṛṣṇa. Nāmādi. So śāstra says, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi. Ādi means beginning.

Lecture on BG 2.4-5 -- London, August 5, 1973:

So he says, "Better I shall take the profession of a brāhmaṇa and beg from door to door instead of enjoy the kingdom by killing my guru." That was his proposal. So on the whole, Arjuna is illusioned—illusioned in the sense that he is forgetting his duty. He is a kṣatriya, his duty is to fight; never mind the opposite party, even he is son, a kṣatriya will not hesitate to kill his son even if he is inimical. Similarly, the son, if the father is inimical, he would not hesitate to kill his father. This is the stringent duty of the kṣatriyas, no consideration. A kṣatriya cannot consider like that. Therefore Kṛṣṇa said, klaibyam: "You don't be coward. Why you are becoming coward?" These topics are going on. Later on, Kṛṣṇa will give him real spiritual instruction. This is... Ordinary talks are going on between the friend and the friend.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- London, August 15, 1973:

It should be controlled. "When I require, I shall use it; otherwise not." That is master of senses. "I shall not act impelled by the senses. Senses should act under my direction." That is svāmī.

Therefore Arjuna is called Guḍākeśa. He is master of... He is also, when he likes. He is not a coward, but he is compassionate because he is devotee. Because he is devotee of Kṛṣṇa... Anyone who becomes a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, all the good qualities manifest in his body. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ (SB 5.18.12). All godly qualities. So Arjuna, he is also... Otherwise how he can become intimate friend of Kṛṣṇa unless of the same position? Friendship becomes very strong when both the friends (are) on equal level: same age, same education, same prestige, same beauty. The more similarity of position, then the friendship is there, strong. So Arjuna is also on the same level of Kṛṣṇa. Just like if somebody becomes friend of the president, friend of the king or queen. So he is not ordinary man. He must be of the same position. Just like the Gosvāmīs.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 19, 1972:

That is it: system of Vedic system. Here Arjuna has accepted Kṛṣṇa as the spiritual master. Śiṣyas te aham. "I become Your disciple. Because we were talking till now as friends, but this will not decide the case. My case is very serious. My duty is to fight, but I do not like to fight. Some affection, some family relationship, is deterring me to fight, making me coward. So therefore it is a very complex position. And I find that You can make a solution of this complex position. I therefore accept You as my spiritual master. And I fall down under Your lotus feet as Your disciple." Śādhi māṁ prapannam. "I am surrendered. Now You kindly protect the surrendered soul."

So here Kṛṣṇa is instructing. First of all, He chastised Arjuna: aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase (BG 2.11). "My dear Arjuna, you are talking like a very learned man, but I find that you do not know in which case you have to lament and in which case you have to joyful. That you do not know." Gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ. Indirectly, He said that "You are not paṇḍita; you are a fool.

Lecture on BG 2.27-38 -- Los Angeles, December 11, 1968:

Prabhupāda: And on the other hand, if you don't fight, then... You are known as a great warrior, a great soldier. If you go away, people will say against your reputation: "Oh, Arjuna has become a coward. He has fled away from the fight." So it is better to die than to have bad reputation. That is another argument. Yes.

Devotee: 34: "People will always speak of your infamy, and for one who has been honored, dishonor is worse than death (BG 2.34)."

Prabhupāda: "Now, you are so much honored as Arjuna the great fighter, Dhanañjaya, and if you leave, you go away from this fighting and leave and people will say, 'Oh, Arjuna has become coward. He did not fight,' then what is the use of your living in such a way? Better die. Fight and die. That is good for you." Yes.

Lecture on BG 2.27-38 -- Los Angeles, December 11, 1968:

Prabhupāda: "Now, you are so much honored as Arjuna the great fighter, Dhanañjaya, and if you leave, you go away from this fighting and leave and people will say, 'Oh, Arjuna has become coward. He did not fight,' then what is the use of your living in such a way? Better die. Fight and die. That is good for you." Yes.

Devotee: 35: "The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you a coward (BG 2.35)." 36: "Your enemies will..."

Prabhupāda: A kṣatriya... It is the custom of the kṣatriya that if they are wounded on the back side, he is considered a coward, but if he is wounded on the chest, he is accepted as real kṣatriya. That means he has fought face to face. That is the injunction of military art in Vedic injunction.

Lecture on BG 2.27-38 -- Los Angeles, December 11, 1968:

Prabhupāda: So that is his cowardice. That is being condemned by Kṛṣṇa, that "It is not your business to give up fighting and go away from the warfield and go to the forest for meditation. It is not your business."

Devotee: How did that war differ from other wars?

Prabhupāda: It is... Sometimes knife is pierced in your body by a surgeon, and in another occasion, another man pierces a knife to stab you. Do you think both knife piercing is the same?

Devotee: No.

Prabhupāda: Similarly.

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

Pradyumna: (leads chanting, etc.)

Translation: "The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you a coward."

Prabhupāda:

bhayād raṇād uparataṁ

maṁsyante tvāṁ mahā-rathāḥ

yeṣāṁ ca tvaṁ bahu-mato

bhūtvā yāsyasi lāghavam

(BG 2.35)

This spirit of kṣatriya was prevalent even, say, three hundred years ago in India. There was a king, Yasomanta Sena. He was the commander-in-chief of Emperor Aurangzeb. So in one fight, he was defeated and came back to his home. So his wife heard that "My husband has been defeated. He's coming back home." So she asked the caretaker to close the door of the palace. So when Yasomanta Sena came there, he saw that his palace door is closed. Then he sent message to the queen that "Why you have closed the door? I have come home." So messenger came and informed that "The king has come. So he is asking to open the door." The queen replied, "Who is king? Yasomanta Sena. No, no. Yasomanta Sena cannot come being defeated. Yasomanta Sena either he conquers the battle or he lays down his body there dead. So the man who has come, he must be somebody pretender. He is not King Yasomanta Sena." So she refused to open the door. This is the spirit of kṣatriya spirit.

Lecture on BG 2.36-37 -- London, September 4, 1973:

Apparently, to the rascals it appears like that, that Kṛṣṇa is encouraging Arjuna to fight. And he says there is no sin. But the rascal does not see under what condition he is advising. Sva-dharmam api cāvekṣya. The sva-dharma, the principle is a kṣatriya's duty to fight, is to kill in fight. If you are in fight, you become sympathetic, then the same example: the dancing girl, when on the stage, if she is shy, it is like that. Why she should be shy? She must dance freely. That will be credit. So in the warfield, you cannot be compassionate. That is not required. In so many ways. Ahiṁsā ārjava, these are good qualities. In the thirteen chapter, Kṛṣṇa has described ahiṁsā, nonviolence. Nonviolence is generally accepted. And actually Arjuna was nonviolent. He was not a coward, not that because he was coward, therefore he was refusing to fight. No. As a Vaiṣṇava, naturally he is nonviolent. He does not like to kill anyone, and especially his own family men. He was taking a little compassion. Not that he was a coward.

Lecture on BG 2.36-37 -- London, September 4, 1973:

So Kṛṣṇa is encouraging, inducing Arjuna to observe the duty. You cannot deviate from duty. That was the point. When there is fight, you must fight regularly, and kill the enemies. That is your credit. When you are fighting with the enemies, if you become compassionate, "How shall I kill?" that is cowardice. Therefore Kṛṣṇa concludes here: hato vā prāpsyasi svargaṁ jitvā vā bhokṣyase mahīm. There are two alternatives. For a fighter, for a kṣatriya, to fight in the battle, either gain victory or die. No via media. Fight to the last point if you are able, then become victorious. Or die. No stoppage. All this fighting were meant like that. According to the Vedic culture, the kṣatriyas... Not the brāhmaṇas. The brāhmaṇas are not encouraged to fight or kill. No. They should remain always nonviolent. Even there is required violence, a brāhmaṇa will not kill personally. He will bring the matter to the kṣatriya, royal order. Just like Viśvāmitra. Viśvāmitra was being disturbed by some demons in the forest.

Lecture on BG 2.36-37 -- London, September 4, 1973:

"And if you become victorious, then you enjoy the kingdom. So both ways you are profited. There is no loss on your part. Tasmāt, therefore uttiṣṭha kaunteya yuddhāya kṛta niścayaḥ. Kṛta niścayaḥ. Definitely decide it that: 'I must fight. Fighting must be there.' Yuddhāya. For matter of fighting, uttiṣṭha, get up. Why are you sitting like coward?" Encouraging.

hato vā prāpsyasi svargaṁ

jitvā vā bhokṣyase mahīm

tasmād uttiṣṭha kaunteya

yuddhāya kṛta niścayaḥ

That's all right. We can read another verse. There is little time.

Lecture on BG 4.1 -- Montreal, August 24, 1968:

Therefore you do not know what is bhakti-yoga," I told him. The bhakta, for Kṛṣṇa's sake, he can do anything. But by nature, he's perfect. He does not commit any violence. Just like see Arjuna's character. He was so much harassed by the opposite party, his wife was insulted, his kingdom was, I mean to say, by unlawful means taken away, he was sent to forest for thirteen years. After so many troubles, he never tried to retaliate. He said, "All right, Kṛṣṇa, I don't want my kingdom. I cannot fight with my kinsmen." This is Vaiṣṇava nature. But as soon as he understood that "This fight is liked by Kṛṣṇa, oh, then I'll continue, stay. I must fight..." It is not his cowardice. He was quite competent to fight, but out of his Vaiṣṇava compassion he was avoiding it in the beginning. But when he understood that "My master, Kṛṣṇa, He wants it," he gave up his decision. So Vaiṣṇava... That is Vaiṣṇavism. Devotee means he can act anything and everything for the Lord. That is bhakti-yoga. But under the direction. Not whimsically. Yes. Either Arjuna or Hanumān, he did not set fire to the Rāvaṇa's house whimsically. Under the direction of Rāma.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.2.14 -- Los Angeles, August 17, 1972:

This is kṣatriya. If required, they'll fight and finish the whole opposite party. Otherwise they are devotees. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna, a kṣatriya. Not that Arjuna was coward. He was sympathetic: "Kṛṣṇa, what is the use of this fighting? The other party, all my relatives, if I kill them, then what do I gain?" Actually, that is the fact. We work so hard, accumulate money for showing to our relatives, to our friends: "Now, just see how I have become rich." "But if they are all gone, then whom shall I show this kingdom?" Thinking like ordinary worldly man. But he was not a coward. Not that he was hesitating to fight, but when he understood that "Kṛṣṇa wants this fighting. Oh, that's all right." Then Kṛṣṇa asked him, "My dear Arjuna, what is your decision?" "Yes." Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava (BG 18.73). "Yes, I shall fight." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. "Kṛṣṇa wants this fighting. I do not want. I have nothing to... What is my value? Kṛṣṇa wants it. That is value." This is kṣatriya.

Lecture on SB 1.15.50 -- Los Angeles, December 27, 1973:

"Yes." The kṣatriya cannot deny. If somebody, opposite party comes, "I want to fight with you," "Yes, come on." Just like Jarāsandha. Jarāsandha was requested by Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna and Bhīma that "We have come to you to fight with you. Any one of us, you can select, and that is our request." Jarāsandha, he immediately accepted, "Yes." So he rejected Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. He said, "Kṛṣṇa is a coward. I do not wish to fight. And Arjuna, Arjuna is less strong then me, so I don't wish to fight with him. Now, the only combatant is Bhīma. So I shall fight with him." So during daytime they would fight, all day. And after daytime they are friends. All these three gentlemen, Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna and Bhīma, were guests of Jarāsandha. From evening, they will eat together, talk together, laugh together, and then in the morning they will fight. This is kṣatriya spirit.

So this Draupadī was achieved by Arjuna by piercing the eye of the fish. So when they came home in great jubilation, Arjuna said, "Mother..." No, Yudhiṣṭhira said, "Mother, we have got a great boon today." So mother was affectionate.

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

So Parīkṣit Mahārāja is going to conquer over the world. He was appointed by his grandfathers to become the emperor of the world. But he was not a coward. Not that because his grandfathers appointed, he will sit down in the, comfortably in his capital and let things go on as it is. He doesn't care. No. Personally he wanted to prove himself that he is not a nominated president only. He is actually president. He is not nominated. "Because his grandfather nominated, therefore he has become. He may be a rascal number one." No. The nomination was there, but also on full strength... But if the people are given for nomination, as it is the practice now, by vote, then ordinary people, they are all rascals What is the value of their vote? Therefore another rascal is selected. Because one who is voting, he is a rascal. He does not know whom to give vote. He is not trained up. Simply by number, "Yes, I vote." And that vote you can purchase by bribing, by propaganda. So this kind of democracy is no value. It has no value. If somebody is voted by a number of asses, so what is the value of such vote? Those who elect, they must be very sober.

Lecture on SB 2.3.20 -- Los Angeles, June 16, 1972:

Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, a great Māyāvāda sannyāsī, he used to criticize that "This sannyāsī is sentimental. Sannyāsī's business is reading Vedānta, but this sannyāsī is chanting and dancing." So there was strong criticism. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu was arranged to meet this Māyāvāda sannyāsī, and He talked on Vedānta and He defeated him. And the sannyāsī , along with his 60,000 disciples, became His followers. So you should not be simply chanting and dancing. Along with, you must know philosophy. There are so many Māyāvādīs; you have to defeat them. It is not that we are cowards. We are Kṛṣṇa's soldiers. So as soon as there is Māyāvādī attack, you must immediately defeat them. That is wanted. Therefore so many books are being written. Jñānaṁ ca yad ahaitukam.

vāsudeve bhagavati

bhakti-yogaḥ prayojitaḥ

janayaty āśu vairāgyaṁ

jñānaṁ ca yad ahaitukam

(SB 1.2.7)

If you become pure devotee, this jñāna to defeat this Māyāvāda philosophy will be revealed unto you. Kṛṣṇa is within you. As soon as "He's ... Oh, he is very sincere. He's doing seriously," He will give you all intelligence. Buddhi-yogaṁ dadāmi tam. But if you are in doubt, "Oh, whether Kṛṣṇa is person or not?" then Kṛṣṇa will not give you intelligence. That is the difficulty. He does not talk with nonsense.

Lecture on SB 3.25.44 -- Bombay, December 12, 1974:

And Prahlāda Mahārāja saw it. But does it mean...? Superficially, it appeared that Prahlāda Mahārāja did wrong because his father was killed before him. Suppose if your father is killed before you and if you stand only, if you don't speak any protest to protect the father, who will agree with your endeavor? Nobody. Everyone will say, "You are such a coward that your father was killed before you. You did not protest. You did not try to give any protection?" This is superficial. But actually, the son, Prahlāda Mahārāja, was giving the best service to his father, best service. Because in the śāstra it is said that if a person, if a demon, is killed by God, he immediately is liberated. Even though he was not liberated, thinking that he was very, very sinful... Of course, he was liberated. But Prahlāda Mahārāja was thinking that "My father was so sinful, so much against God consciousness. He might not be liberated."

So therefore Prahlāda Mahārāja, when he was requested, when he was, rather, offered any benediction he wanted to take from Nṛsiṁha-deva, he refused: "My dear Lord, please do not induce me in that way. I am born in a family, demonic family.

Lecture on SB 4.14.14 -- November 16, 1971, Delhi:

He is famous as a great thief. Still people go to see Him, how nice this thief is. That is the difference between Kṛṣṇa and ourself. When we are thief, we are beaten by shoes. And when Kṛṣṇa is thief, He is worshiped by devotees. Just like Kṛṣṇa is worshiped as Raṇacora, who left the war field. When a man leaves the war field, he is called coward. But Kṛṣṇa, everyone knows for pastimes He left the war field. It was in the Gujarat province. Kṛṣṇa as the Raṇacora who left the war field. That is cowardice; still He is worshiped. That is absolutism. Kṛṣṇa in any condition, He is Kṛṣṇa. Either as Kṣīra-corā Gopīnātha, or as a taunter to the gopīs, or any way in the material world which is abominable. But when Kṛṣṇa does it, because He is absolute, it is good. That is absolutism. You cannot accuse Kṛṣṇa that "Oh, You have done like this." Whatever He has done, it is right. So just last evening one boy was criticizing Kṛṣṇa that "Why Kṛṣṇa makes this distinction stri-śūdra-vaiśya as pāpa-yoni?" So this is Godlessness, that we dare to criticize Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 7.5.22-30 -- London, September 8, 1971:

"What is the use of fighting and killing my cousin-brothers? Better let them enjoy. I retire. Kṛṣṇa, I cannot fight," he said. Why? Because he was a devotee. He was prepared to forego his claim. It is not that he was a coward. He was a great warrior, fighter. He could fight immediately. But because he was devotee, he was avoiding, trying to avoid fight, "No." This is godly quality. So in order to induce him to fight, Kṛṣṇa had to speak to him the whole Bhagavad-gītā. When he understood that "Although I do not wish to fight, Kṛṣṇa desires," then he took: "All right. Then I change my decision because Kṛṣṇa's desire is my first duty." That is devotee's duty. If Kṛṣṇa says, God says to devotee, that "You jump on the fire," he will do immediately. That is devotee: without any argument. So there is no consideration. Just like commander in the military active field. The commander says, "You jump in this fire," he jumps. He knows that "I'll surely die." Similarly, a devotee, fully surrendered devotee, means he is prepared to do anything for God.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Hong Kong, April 18, 1972:

He was a kṣatriya. And Kṛṣṇa did not encourage him that you should stop fighting. Rather Arjuna was trying to stop fighting. Kṛṣṇa said, "No. You are kṣatriya. You cannot stop fighting." So don't think that by becoming Kṛṣṇa conscious one becomes a vagabond. No. One gentleman talked with me that "Your Vaiṣṇava philosophy has made our country coward." No. You do not know what is Vaiṣṇava. In India there were two great fights. One the fight between Rāma and Rāvaṇa, and the other great fight was between the two, Kurus and the Pāṇḍavas. In both the fighting the hero was Vaiṣṇava. The hero, Hanumānjī, Vajrāṅgajī, who fought on behalf of Lord Rāmacandra, he is a Vaiṣṇava. And Arjuna, who also fought on behalf of Kṛṣṇa, he is a kṣatriya. So they do not know what is Vaiṣṇava philosophy.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Conversation -- Los Angeles, June 20, 1975:

Prabhupāda: That will be right punishment for him. Then he will understand. That will be more than death. Yes. Politicians, if they are refused political seat, that is more than death. Just like Kṛṣṇa was advising Arjuna that "You are known as a great hero, and if you don't fight then they will blaspheme you like anything. So that will be more than death. Better die. When they will say nindanti, 'Oh, the Arjuna has become a coward. He could not fight. He will die.' So that blaspheme will be more than death." So by the grace of Kṛṣṇa it has come to the notice of the...

Brahmānanda: The other party members, the party superiors, they are... His reputation is damaging their party.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Brahmānanda: His activities are so unscrupulous.

General Lectures

Lecture -- Montreal, June 26, 1968:

Anyone who is using Kṛṣṇa's money without acknowledging, he is a thief. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Stena eva sa ucyate: he's a thief. So in this material world, one who has no Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one who is not using things in Kṛṣṇa consciousness... Everyone is using Kṛṣṇa's... Nobody has got any property. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). Everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa. That is the version in Īśopaniṣad. Now, in this American land, now divided into Canada, North America, South America, but originally, to whom this land belongs? It belongs to Kṛṣṇa. You have come here and have divided Kṛṣṇa's property and you have named "This is Canada, this is North America, this is South America," and you are claiming proprietorship. But if you are asked, "Are you really proprietor?" No. You have come here, encroached upon others' property. So originally, you are thief. Actually this is the position, that anyone who is unlawfully claiming something, "It is mine," that is illusion. Janasya moho 'yam ahaṁ mameti (SB 5.5.8). This ahaṁ mameti, "It is mine, and it is I. This body, I. And in bodily relation, everything mine," these two things are illusion. Ahaṁ mameti. Aham means "I." What "I"? This body.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that because we have to choose for ourselves, everything is in our hands. That for instance we can become in a situation either a coward or a hero. This is in our hands, some situation that we must confront.

Prabhupāda: Then what you can do? If you say that you are being tossed by some superior power, how you can become a hero? If you become a hero, then you will be more kicked, because you are under superior power. Therefore a man who is culprit, he is under police custody, so if he becomes hero he will be simply beaten and punished, that's all.

Śyāmasundara: I remember one example he gave was that supposing there is wartime, and you are called upon to go to war. He said it wouldn't matter if you went or didn't go. If you went, then you must choose to be a hero; you must fight very bravely, and not a coward. But if you don't go, then you must choose to be a hero to resist the war. You must choose to be a hero resisting the war. One way or the other, you have to choose to be a hero and not a coward.

Prabhupāda: Coward... You are neither coward nor hero. You are simply an instrument. You are... Just like a child plays with a doll. A doll is placed sometimes on this side, that side, sometimes so, sometimes on his breast. So you are just like a doll. You can neither become hero nor become coward. You are completely under the control of somebody who is superior.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: It is not hero to defend. It is a natural action. Even a dog can become hero when he is attacked by somebody. Even an ant can become hero. One ant is walking on the table, so if you check his way, he also becomes hero. So there is no use of becoming hero like that. That heroism and cowardice are the same. It is simply mental concoction. Because after, all you are under the control of somebody. He can do as he likes with you. So what is the use of your becoming hero or coward?

Śyāmasundara: Supposing someone else is in danger and you go and rescue them. Isn't that being a hero? Or you decide not to and you go away.

Prabhupāda: But you cannot rescue. You rescue... Just like one man is drowning, and you become hero and jump over the water and take out his shirt and coat, and you come on the shore that "I've saved him." (laughter) This is not saving him. Similarly, you have no eyes to see whom to save. You are simply seeing the dress. So saving the dress, that is not heroism, neither it is protection.

1973 Conversations and Morning Walks

Morning Walk -- December 30, 1973, Los Angeles:

Prabhupāda: This Subhash Chandra Bose. And he organized the INA, Indian National Army. So when this Indian National Army was organized and the Britishers... They were great politicians. They saw, "Now the army is going to national movement. We cannot be." Then they left. Because it was not possible. They were maintaining British Empire with Indian money, Indian men. You see? They did not conquer by their British soldiers all round the Far East, Burma and the Mesopotamia, and the Egypt. That was Indian army, the Sikh soldiers and the Gurkha soldiers, and Indian money. On the pretext that "For Indian protection, we are maintaining this army." Actually, they were expanding their empire. Africa, Burma. And when they saw that "India is lost," voluntarily they liquidated all others. Went back... Back to home, back to Godhead. (devotees laugh) So in politics this is nonsense, non-violence. It is nonsense, cowardism. In politics in sweet words you cannot get. There must be fight, arms. That is army. "If you don't agree, then fist." That is politics. There must be violence. Otherwise you cannot control. When there is educated good men, then you can argue. But when people are ruffians, there is no question of good... Argumentum vaculum, I told you the other day... (break) ...in the beginning of creation, the fight between the demons and the demigods, devāsura-yuddha.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation with Yogi Bhajan -- June 7, 1975, Honolulu:

Prabhupāda: Determination, and yuddhe ca apalāyanam. Now when there is war, these politician will remain in their room safely. They will not go to the war. And why these people are voted for political post? Formerly the king would first of all stand. To the other side also, the king is there and this side also. The fight is going on. If the king is killed, then the victory is there. Yuddhe ca apalāyanam. The formula is there. So these classes of man should be on the administration, not anyone coward, nonsense, and by hook and crook they get some vote and take the political leader... How you will find peace? The fourth class is required. Just like in your body you have got brain, brain is required. Then hand. Whenever there is some attack, consciously, unconsciously, I forward my hand. So the division is already there. If you come to attack me with a knife, I don't push my head. I push my hand. So when there is attack, the brāhmaṇas are not expected to go forward; the kṣatriyas. So this is training. Everything is perfectly there. People are not accepting. You don't require conference. You simply accept the standard knowledge. Then everything is there. I am speaking to you because you are leader of the society.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation With French Commander -- August 3, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm):

Prabhupāda: You can ask him to open that book. Then read it. (translation read in French) So what is the difficulty in understanding? Ask him. This is military. Kṛṣṇa is asking that "You are in the battlefield. Wherefrom you got this cowardice mentality?" This is the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā teaches how to become a brave hero in the battlefield. This is the instruction. Kutas tvā kaśmalam idaṁ viṣame sam. Just read the purport. Is there any purport? (purport read in French) (break) ...difficulty to understand.

Translator: He finds it very admirable that from a small verse you are able to always find something new and wonderful to say about it. And he say you go from verse to verse, and the complexity of what you explain is always new and wonderful to read. So he's very admiring of the book.

Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran:

Prabhupāda: Yes, He's giving. Read the Bhagavad-gītā. But you rascals don't accept, what can be done? God is personally coming to give you intelligence, take this intelligence. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham (BG 4.7). "I come when there is no intelligence, when you are all rascals, I come to give you intelligence, but you don't take, what can I do?" That is God's mission, that "These rascals, without properly being guided they'll go to hell. Let Me give them some intelligence." That is Bhagavad-gītā, that is Bhagavad-gītā. Arjuna is kārpaṇya doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ: "I have become confused, so give me intelligence." Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). He's taking intelligence, how to tackle the situation. He was confused. He was to fight as a kṣatriya, but he saw that the persons with whom he has to fight, they are all family members. So what kind of fight is that? Who is fighting with family members? That was his confusion. Suppose we are Kṛṣṇa conscious society. Then if we declare fight amongst ourselves, is that very intelligent? So actually the Kurukṣetra battle was like that. Some intrigue of Dhṛtarāṣṭra that his son will occupy the throne, that was the cause of the fight. So Arjuna thought that "My uncle may be intriguing person, he has brought this disaster, fight amongst the family members, so why shall I do it? Better let them enjoy. They are also family members. Why this unnecessary fight?" He was responsible. He was not unreasonable, very good man, that "After all, they are also our family members, let them enjoy. Why there is unnecessary fight amongst family members?" He was not a coward, but he's good reasonable man, that "We are all brothers. They want to rule over.

1977 Conversations and Morning Walks

Conversation During Massage -- January 23, 1977, Bhuvanesvara:

Prabhupāda: That is another laziness. For good cause one should.

Rāmeśvara: They are thinking, "What if the people want to be Communist? Why should we interfere?"

Prabhupāda: That means cowardice. They have no conviction that Communism is dangerous, godlessness.

Rāmeśvara: They are forgetting how dangerous it is.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hari-śauri: Now they have a policy called detente, where... It means that they try to become friendly with the Russians and do exchanges.

Prabhupāda: All economic.

Rāmeśvara: To ease the tension.

1973 Correspondence

Letter to Tamala Krsna -- Mayapur 5 June, 1973:

So, what is the meaning of the recommendation of the standing committee that we should immediately be able to reconstruct at the cost of the municipality. Is it useless? I thought that the standing committee's resolution was final but from your letter it appears there is no meaning. What has happened to the new act of February 1973 declaring the tenant of the land to be considered proprietor or owner. Anyway, I have already written to Giriraja my opinion of what should be done.

Had it been the case of some Mohammedan, there would have been great riot. But Hindus are such cowards, therefore no action has been done.

Regarding Hrsikesa das, he may come here to Mayapur and I will discuss with him what his engagement shall be. He speaks fluent Bengali, so he may teach the local boys here at our school.