Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Different from... (Lectures, Other)

Lectures

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 26, 1972:

Prabhupāda: That attractiveness is called rasa, mellow, taste. Go on.

Pradyumna: "...or a kind of mellow, or relationship whose taste is very sweet. Bhakti-rasa is a mellow different from the ordinary rasa enjoyed by mundane workers. Mundane workers labor very hard, day and night, in order to relish a certain kind of rasa which is understood as sense gratification. The relish or taste of the mundane rasa does not long endure, and therefore mundane workers are always apt to change their position of enjoyment. A business man is not satisfied by working the whole week; therefore wanting a change for the weekend, he goes to a place where he tries to forget his business activities. Then, after the weekend is spent in forgetfulness, he again changes his position and resumes his actual business activities. Material engagement means accepting a particular status for some time and then changing it. This position of changing back and forth is technically known as bhoga-tyāga, which means..."

Prabhupāda: Bhoga-tyāga. Bhoga and tyāga. Go on.

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

Prabhupāda: So bhakti is explained, "Bhakti is some active service." It is not a sentiment. And service means work. Not like the karmīs. Karmī or anyone who is working, he is working with some taste. Just like the example is given here: A householder is working day and night. Unless he has got some taste... Suppose one has got wife and children. So to maintain them he has to work very hard. But there is some pleasure in serving the wife and children. This is crude example. Similarly, bhakti means service with some taste. Svādu svādu pade pade. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is said, svādu svādu pade pade. The more you serve, the more you relish taste. Without relishing taste, nobody can render devotional service. It is practical. Svādu svādu pade pade. In every step... Just like Rūpa Gosvāmī. He was minister in the government of Nawab Hussain Shah. So materially, he was getting honor, money, and therefore he was attached. This is also crude example. So he resigned from the government post and he joined Caitanya Mahāprabhu. So unless he tasted something better, how could he give up his government service? There must be some taste. So that is being explained here. Go on.

Pradyumna: "That force which derives... That force which drives the philanthropist, the householder and the nationalist is called rasa, or a kind of mellow, or relationship, whose taste is very sweet. Bhakti-rasa is a mellow different from the ordinary rasa enjoyed by mundane workers. Mundane workers labor very hard day and night in order to relish a certain kind of rasa which is understood as sense gratification. The relish or taste of the mundane rasa does not long endure and therefore mundane workers are always apt to change their position of enjoyment. A businessman is not satisfied by working the whole week. Therefore, wanting a change for the weekend, he goes to a place where he tries to forget his business activities. Then, after the weekend is spent in forgetfulness, he again changes his position and resumes his actual business activities. Material engagement means accepting a particular status for some time and then changing it. This position of changing back and forth is technically known as bhoga-tyāga, which means a position of alternating sense enjoyment and renunciation."

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 18, 1972:

Yes. This is very important point. The atheist class men, they say, "Can you show me God?" There are statements of atheist class, or sannyāsī even, that he demanded his spiritual master "Whether you can show me God?" So God cannot be seen by such demand. In the śāstras it is said, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). Śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi. Śrī Kṛṣṇa is present by His name, by His form, by His pastimes, by His paraphernalia, by His qualities. Anything about Kṛṣṇa is non-different. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's name, it is the same. There is no difference. In the materialistic view, there is difference between the substance and the name. Just like water. If you are thirsty, simply if I chant, "Water, water, water," it will not quench your thirst. You require the substance, water. So similarly, a, a person's photograph or a statue is different from the person. If there is a photograph of a certain gentleman and if you want to do business with the photograph, it is not possible. You'll have to seek for the actual person. But in case of Kṛṣṇa, it is not like that. Kṛṣṇa, the person, and Kṛṣṇa's name, Hare Kṛṣṇa, the same thing. It is not that we are chanting "Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa" and this Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is different. No. Nāma rūpe kṛṣṇa avatāra. The name of Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa, the person, identical.

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

Yes. As soon as you are engaged in the service, loving service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, immediately you feel liberation. This is practically. When you are fully engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, even if you walk on the street, you'll feel that "I am separate from these persons. I am in a, I am walking on a different path." This is the feeling. Bhaktiḥ pareśānubhavaḥ. This is bhakti. Pareśānubhava. You'll anubha..., you will experience yourself. That is the test. If you experience yourself that "I am different from these persons," then where is the attachment for material things? So that is the test; how much you have become advanced in devotional service, you can experience yourself. The example is given: Just like a hungry man, if he's given food, if he eats, then he experiences himself that he's getting strength, his hunger is being satisfied. The, these things will be experienced. He hasn't got to take certificate from others, "Whether I am advancing in spiritual consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness." He'll feel himself. Bhaktiḥ pareśānubhava viraktir anyatra syāt. This is the test.

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

When one has (become) self-realized. Brahman, ahaṁ brahmāsmi. So long we are identifying with this body, identifying with this material existence, bodily, bodily existence, that is animal life. That is not human life. A human being, if he exists in this bodily concept of life, he remains animal. But when he is advanced in knowledge, he understands that he is not this body; he's different from this body.

That we are discussing in the Thirteenth Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā: idaṁ śarīraṁ kṣetram iti abhidhīyate. Idaṁ śarīram. This śarīra is field of activities. One should not identify with this body. So when one actually understands his spiritual position, that he's not this body, he's spirit soul, he's brahma-vatsu... It is not we become Brahman by meditation or by somebody. We are Brahman, but we have now forgotten. Jīva-bhūta. At the present moment, because I'm identifying with this body, I'm thinking, "I am American," "I am Indian, " "I am brāhmaṇa," "I am Vaiṣṇava," "I am this or that." No. When we are actually brahma-bhūtaḥ, as explained by Caitanya Mahāprabhu, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ (BG 15.7). That is self-realization.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 4, 1973:

Kṛṣṇa consciousness is there in everyone's heart, because everyone is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. Just like part and parcel of gold is gold. There may be some dusty cover, but it has to be cleansed. That's all. Then it becomes gold. Similarly, everyone is Kṛṣṇa conscious. But on account of his association with matter, he, he's thinking that he's different from Kṛṣṇa. Otherwise every one of us... Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ (BG 15.7). Everyone is Kṛṣṇa's part and parcel. Part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa means part and parcel of gold. As you understand part... A little drop of sea water, it is also, contains the same ingredients. Similarly, we have also got the same ingredients, as Kṛṣṇa has got. The difference is He's big. Aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān. We are small, particle.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 6, 1973:

People go to temple, church, for economic development. "O God, give us our daily bread," in the church they pray. This is economic development. So materially they want... Anyway, they want to be happy materially. That is bahir-artha-māninaḥ. Materially means this body. This body is matter, and I, the person who is living within the body, I am spirit. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe. Asmin dehe, dehinaḥ (BG 2.13). There is the proprietor. We have several times explained, but people do not know this. As soon as one understands that "I am not this body. I am different from this body," then his interest becomes different. Because he is under ignorance that "I am this body," therefore he's acting, working for this body. And as soon as he comes to the spiritual platform, brahma-bhūtaḥ, he is no more interested in bodily comforts. That is the Vedic civilization, that one is educated to become introspective. He is educated to become introspective.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 26, 1972:

So soul has got form. It is not formless. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa has got also form. But that form is different from this form. When in the śāstras it is said, nirākāra, nirākāra means nirākṛta ākāra, "This ākāra, this form, is being nullified." Nirākāra does not mean there is no ākāra. This body. When it is said, nirākāra, that means the soul, the Supersoul or the soul, has no this ākāra, as we see. Just like we are seeing some dog or some cat or some hog, some tree, some plants, so many, eight million four hundred thousands of forms, but this is not the form. Nirākāreti. Not this form. The soul has got a different form. That is described. Keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca (CC Madhya 19.140). We cannot see, at the present moment. So as we cannot see you. I am not seeing you, you are not seeing me... Just like a man's son dies, or father dies. He cries, "Oh, my father is gone, my father is gone." Where is your father gone? Your father is lying on the floor. Why do you say the father is gone? "No, he's gone. He's no more." That means this thing which has gone, he has never seen. He has seen simply this outward body, dress. This is called ignorance. I am not seeing you; still, I am speaking that I see you.

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

Hmm. Mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ (BG 9.13). They do not act under the influence... Ordinary persons, they see that "Devotees are acting like us." No. Their activities are under the influence of spiritual energy. It, it, it looks similar like the karmīs, jñānīs, but bhaktas are different from karmīs and jñānīs. Jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam (CC Madhya 19.167). They are not influenced by the tenets of jñāna and karma. They are influenced by activities which can satisfy Kṛṣṇa. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam. Anuśīlanam activities, culture. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam. So they are simply engaged in Kṛṣṇa activities. Although it looks similar to the ordinary activities. Therefore they misunderstand. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna is fighting and another soldier is fighting the other side. But Arjuna's activities as soldier is devotional service. Because he's trying to please Kṛṣṇa. Other side, they're fighting for their own interest, how to become victorious and take up the kingdom. That was their idea. Here, Arjuna, he did not like to fight, but when he understood that "Kṛṣṇa desires this fighting," he engaged in it. Therefore his fighting was to satisfy Kṛṣṇa, not to satisfy his senses. As it is explained in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, to satisfy one's own senses, that is called kāma, and to satisfy the senses of Kṛṣṇa, that is called prema. That is the difference.

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

So we have to learn how to chant. Therefore in the śāstras, in the Purāṇas, the ten kinds of offenses are described. And Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has given very much stress to avoid these offenses. Śuddha-nāma. In the beginning we cannot chant pure form of the name, because we are accustomed... But still, by chanting process, then it becomes nāmābhāsa, almost pure. Ābhāsa means just like before sunrise, you find the darkness is off, but it is not sunlight. It is different from sunlight, but still, there is the dawn, you can see everything distinctly. Similarly, first there is offensive name and, if you avoid, avoid the ten kinds of offenses, then gradually it becomes nāmābhāsa. And Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura has said, Namācārya, that by nāmābhāsa, one becomes liberated. There was some argument with Haridāsa Ṭhākura and one brāhmaṇa in the office of Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī's father, uncle. So there were some high level talks on this nāmābhāsa. So by nāmābhāsa one becomes liberated. By chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra offensive, one becomes materially happy or distressed, but when one comes to the stage of nāmābhāsa, he becomes liberated.

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

Just like when a man becomes ghostly haunted, he does something abnormal. He cannot recognize his own men. He calls his father by ill names. So many disturbances. So nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute vikarma (SB 5.5.4). They are so mad that they are engaged only in sinful activities. There are three karmas: karma, akarma, vikarma. Karma does not mean whatever you like you can do. No. Karma means prescribed duties. Janma karma, uh, guṇa karma. As you are under the spell of certain material modes of nature... Someone is under the modes of goodness, his karma will be different from the person who is under the spell of the modes of ignorance. That will be decided by the teacher, or by the ācāryas. They are described in the Bhagavad-gītā that one who is under the spell of goodness, his qualities, his symptoms are like this: satya śama dama titikṣa (BG 18.42). Similarly, one who is under the spell of passion, his symptoms are like this. Just like a diseased man... If you go to a physician, by your symptoms he can understand that you have got a certain type of disease and he gives you the right medicine.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

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

There is everything, variety and personal. But because the philosophers with poor fund of knowledge, they cannot understand, they make it zero or varietyless, nirviśeṣavāda. That, to clean, that to clear the idea, our Kavirāja Gosvāmī says that this Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa prema, loving affairs between Rādhā Kṛṣṇa, it is a fact. It is not imagination. It is a fact. But this fact is different from the fact we have got experience in this world. That is to be understood. Don't take... Just like sahajiyās. They take the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa prema just like ordinary lusty affairs in this material world. But that is not the fact. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is a verse that the loving affairs of gopīs and Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu, it is not ordinary thing. If one can hear from the proper source, and if he understands the real fact of rasa-līlā, then the result will be that his heart, which is full with lusty desire, that will vanish. There will be no more lusty desires. Praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ, this praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ hlādinī. So if anyone understands this praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ, the loving affairs, transformation of different feelings, if one can understand, then his material lusty desires will vanish. This is the result. Hṛd-roga-kāmān apasya apahinoti dhīraḥ. He becomes dhīra.

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

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

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.16 -- Mayapur, April 9, 1975:

So they are all Lakṣmīs, goddess of fortune. Lakṣmī... You have heard the name Lakṣmī, Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, associates of Nārāyaṇa. Kṛṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa. So all these gopīs, they are expansion of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, the original Lakṣmī. This is spiritual world. It is not impersonal, neither nirākāra, formless. Everything form, but that form is different from this form. That form is sat-cid-ānanda form—eternal, full of bliss, full of knowledge. This is not this material form. When we speak of formless, that means without any material form. Formless does not mean Kṛṣṇa and His expansion, they are formless. They are not of material form. Aprakṛta, not material. Here everything is prakṛta. It is not, neither, eternal nor blissful nor full of knowledge. It is temporary, full of ignorance and always miserable, this form. We can understand it.

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

So we should not consider that Nityānanda is different from Kṛṣṇa, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, or Advaita Prabhu is different from Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. But at the same time, They are different. This is inconceivable, a taste. If you worship Nityānanda Prabhu, it is as good as to worship Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. The best thing is... Because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu appeared in His five different features, therefore the ācāryas, they worship all of them at a time. That is our prayer:

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

(I offer my obeisances to Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, Prabhu Nityānanda, Śrī Advaita, Gadādhara, Śrīvāsa and all others in the line of devotion.)

This is the varieties, transcendental varieties, different tastes. Nityānanda Prabhu is guru-tattva, and Caitanya Mahāprabhu is sevya-tattva. The guru is teaching, Nityānanda Prabhu is teaching how to worship Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

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

So those who are merging into the Supreme Absolute, the jñānīs... Their ultimate goal is to merge into the Absolute Truth in His impersonal feature. That's all right; you can do so. That is also not this material; that is also spiritual. That is not material. If you want to merge... Generally, people think that is the ultimate goal. But that is not the ultimate goal. In the Īśopaniṣad you'll find that it is said that "Please wind up Your effulgence so that I can see the actual face." The same example that the sunshine is light. There is no doubt about it. This is different from darkness. This material world is darkness. Tamasi mā jyotir gamaḥ. The jyoti, the brahma-jyotir... It is recommended in the Vedas that you try to approach the jyoti; don't remain in this darkness of material world. That is the injunction of Vedas. And the whole process of emancipation is to, how to approach that Brahman effulgence.

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

So dehi. Dehi means possessor of this body, the owner of this body. So owner of this body is different from this body. But in case of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu-tattva, there is no such difference, the self and the body, no difference. That is confirmed in the Kūrma Purāṇa. Unfortunately the Māyāvādīs, they, either due to their poor fund of knowledge of the śāstras or by their whims, they say that "Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, when comes, or the Absolute Truth when He descends, He assumes, He accepts, a material body." That is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa says, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). It is not that Kṛṣṇa accepts a material body. No. Kṛṣṇa has no such distinction, material world. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Because I present myself, descend Myself as a human being, the mūḍhas, or the rascals, they think of Me or deride at Me." The Māyāvādīs, they will never worship the transcendental form of the Lord. They'll not worship. They will worship the imperson.

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

In the Bhāgavata there is statement by Nārada. Idaṁ hi viśvam, the whole universe is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But itara, but still, different from Him. This philosophy is very sound philosophy, simultaneously one and different. That is the statement in the Bhagavad-gītā. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: "I am expanded; I am all-pervading." Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni: (BG 9.4) "Everything is resting on Me." Nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ: "But I am not there." The Māyāvāda philosophy is "If God, or Brahman, is all-pervading, then why there should be another, separate Brahman?" No. That is also confirmed in the Vedic literature: pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). Pūrṇasya. Kṛṣṇa, or the Supreme Absolute Truth, is complete. And if complete is taken from Him, still He is complete.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154 -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu is therefore quoting from different Vedic literatures to prove that the Absolute Truth is person, ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa, full with six opulences. As in the Parāśara-sūtra there is aiśvaryasya samāgrasya. When Kṛṣṇa was present He exhibited full strength of six kinds of opulences. So the... Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is the fact. That is the Vedic version. It is not that some of the Kṛṣṇa's devotees have taken Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme, or He is originally imperson and He takes a form, accepting a material body. These are not right conclusions. In the Kūrma Purāṇa it is said that there is no distinction between the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and soul. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they distinguish that "Kṛṣṇa's soul is different from His body." That is Māyāvāda philosophy. But that is not the fact. There is no such difference. (aside:) What is that sound? Who is making that?

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154 -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

Prabhupāda: No. He becomes a servant of Bhagavān. He is servant of Bhagavān. Realization means when he realizes that "I am servant, eternal servant of Bhagavān." That is realization.

Guest (1): So his realization is not Bhagavān.

Prabhupāda: No. Servant of Bhagavān.

Guest (1): Different from Bhagavān.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (2): Sāyujya-mukti...

Prabhupāda: Sāyujya-mukti there is, but a devotee does not accept sāyujya-mukti. Sāyujya, sārūpya, sālokya, sāmīpya. There are five kinds of mukti, but sāyujya-mukti is not accepted by the devotees. But if anyone likes sāyujya-mukti, that is not difficult for Kṛṣṇa to offer him sāyujya-mukti.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.98-99 -- Washington, D.C., July 4, 1976:

So the śāstra says that controller or ruler is the same, and the Sanskrit synonym is īśvara. Īśvara means controller or ruler. So there are different kinds of controllers according to time, sphere. Just like in your country, the President is the controller. In other country somebody is controller. So there are many hundreds and thousands of planets within this universe, and each and every planet there is a controller. The sun planet, there is a controller. His name is Vivasvān. That we find. Similarly, the moon planet, there is a controller. Every planet, there is controller. And above all of them there is another supreme controller of the universe, the Brahma, and there are many millions of brahmāṇḍas, or universes. So there are controllers. But so far Kṛṣṇa is concerned, He is described in the śāstras, Brahma-saṁhitā, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). There are controllers, but the supreme controller is Kṛṣṇa. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ. Īśvaraḥ means controller. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His form... He has form. Bhagavān means with form. You see the form here, vigrahaḥ. Vigrahaḥ means form. But His form is different from our. He's sac-cid-ānanda. His form is eternal. Our, this form is not eternal. We have to give it up. We have to accept another form according to our karma. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). But Kṛṣṇa hasn't got to do that. He is in His original form. He has got many forms, expansions, but His original form is Kṛṣṇa with two hands and flutes.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.108-109 -- New York, July 15, 1976:

So bhedābheda-prakāśa. So the living entity is simultaneously one and different. The two philosophies are going on. One philosophy, Māyāvāda, ahaṁ brahmāsmi, miscalculation, so 'ham—this is to become one. And another philosophy, Vaiṣṇava philosophy—that we are different. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that both are true. Bhedābheda-prakāśa. A living entity is one with God and is as different from God. Bhedābheda-prakāśa. One? How one? Because Kṛṣṇa says that "Living entities are My part and parcel." Just like this hand, this finger, is part and parcel of my body, so therefore it is one. But the finger is not the whole body. Different. It is very simple thing. Bhedābheda-prakāśa. Anyone can understand. The finger... The tree... Just like the leaf, the twigs, the flowers, the fruits. They are all tree. But at the same time, it is not tree; it is leaf, it is branch, it is twig, it is flower. It is very simple philosophy. Caitanya Mahāprabhu explained, taṭasthā-śakti, marginal. Marginal means the living entity has to become servant. That is his position. Jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). But when the servant wants to become master, he is under the clutches of māyā. And when he understands that "I am not master; I am servant," he is under Kṛṣṇa. That is taṭasthā. Taṭasthā means marginal. That taṭa... Taṭa means the beach. Sometimes the beach is covered with water, and sometimes it is land. That is called taṭasthā. So that land, sometimes water.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.111 -- New York, July 19, 1976:

When Kṛṣṇa described about the material energy, bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ (BG 7.4), earth, water, air, fire... These are material energies, gross. And there are subtle material energies, mind, intelligence and egotism. Beyond that, apareyam... These are inferior energies. Beyond that, there is spiritual energy. What is that spiritual energy? Jīva-bhūtaḥ. That you know. (?) That is spiritual energy. That spiritual energy is always different from the material energy. Unfortunately the so-called scientists, they have no sufficient intelligence. On account of poor fund of knowledge, they are mixing up. They are thinking that there is no spiritual energy separately, but by combination of matter, chemicals, the spiritual energy comes into existence. That is wrong; that is not fact. Spiritual energy is completely different from the material energy. That is energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but spiritual energy is direct, and material energy is indirect. Both of them are energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and when there is question of energy, śakti, some energy, so we have to accept the source of energy. Just like electric energy. We see there is electric energy, but there is source of electricity, the powerhouse. How can you deny it? Those who are foolish persons, they think that a childish, that this bulb is giving light automatically. No. That is not fact. The fact is, the electric energy is coming from the background, the powerhouse, then about the bulb is giving light.

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

So yogis, they find out Kṛṣṇa. Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ (SB 12.13.1). Yogis try to find out the Paramātmā, and the jñānīs, they are trying to find out the brahma-jyotir, and similarly, the bhakta is trying to find out Kṛṣṇa. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate. So in this way Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the ultimate goal. But those who are addicted to Brahman or Paramātmā, they are also addicted to Bhagavān, but in different features. Vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam (SB 1.2.11). Knowledge of Brahman, knowledge of Paramātmā and knowledge of Kṛṣṇa is the same, but in different features. Just like knowledge of the sun planet, knowledge of the sun god and knowledge of the sunshine, they... Knowledge is the same—heat and light—but the heat and light which you receive from sunshine is different from the heat and light from the sun globe, and the heat and light in the sun globe is different from the sun-god. But heat and light is there, either you realize Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān. So a devotee means he is concerned with Bhagavān. That's all. So devotee is also mahātmā; those who are jñānīs, after Brahman, they are also mahātmā; and the yogis, they are also mahātmā; but one who has understood Kṛṣṇa perfectly and surrendered to Him-vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ (BG 7.19)—that mahātmā is very rare to be found.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.142 -- New York, November 30, 1966:

Similarly, if one is, I mean to say, strictly in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then it is to be understood that he is liberated. Liberation, the definition of liberation, is in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, mukti..., svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ. Hitvā... Muktir hitvānyathā rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ (SB 2.10.6). Mukti means hitvā anyathā rūpam. Now we are now represented in different kinds of formalities. You have got a different kinds of idea; I have got different kinds of idea; another man has different from others. There are difference; therefore we are clashing each other. This is the sign of bondage. And mukti means when we are liberated from these different kinds of ideas, and svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ, when we are situated in our constitutional position, that is called mukti, liberation. And what is our constitutional position? "Oh, I am the part and parcel of the Supreme, Kṛṣṇa." Then what is my duty? Duty, part's duty, is to serve the whole. That's all. Just like your hand, the part of your body. What is the duty of hand? To serve the body. It is very easy thing. If you are part and parcel of the Supreme, then what is your duty? Your duty is to serve Him. You have no other duty.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.154-157 -- New York, December 7, 1966:

So do not think that the Hindus, they have got disregard for Lord Buddha or for Lord Jesus Christ. No. They have all regard. Anyone who comes as representative of God, or as God, as powerful incarnation, they are all welcome. According to time, according to place, according to the audience, they may speak, speak something which is, which may be different from the Vedic conclusion, but they are accepted as powerful incarnations. So in that list of incarnations, Kṛṣṇa's name is also there. But just to particularize Kṛṣṇa from all others, this verse is mentioned there. What is that? Ete. Ete means "All this list of incarnations that we have seen or we are reading in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam..." Ete ca aṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ. Puṁsaḥ means the Supreme Lord. "The Supreme Lord's plenary portion or portion of the plenary portion..." Just like the... I have several times mentioned in this room, that the original lamp... This is original lamp. And you kindle another candle, from that, another, from that, another, from... In that... Thousands and millions of candles, you can light up, but the original is called the original.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.367-84 -- New York, December 31, 1966:

So kṛṣṇa-līlā means beginning from His childhood, up to the age of sixteenth year, when He performed the rāsa-līlā, this is actual kṛṣṇa-līlā. And beyond that līlā, when Kṛṣṇa left Vṛndāvana and came to Dvārakā, that is not kṛṣṇa-līlā; that is Vāsudeva līlā, Kṛṣṇa in His Vāsudeva feature, that līlā. It is stated that Kṛṣṇa never goes out of Goloka Vṛndāvana. When He goes, He goes in His Vāsudeva feature. Kṛṣṇa expands Himself—Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa. Therefore when this is described in the Vaiṣṇava literature, a great literary novelist, Bankimacandra Chatterji, he misunderstood that Kṛṣṇa of Vṛndāvana is different from the Kṛṣṇa of Kurukṣetra or Dvārakā. He has analyzed, Kṛṣṇa-caritra, character of Kṛṣṇa. But in everything, he has very much eulogized.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.395 -- Hyderabad, August 17, 1976:

It is spiritual. In spiritual... Just like either you worship Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet or you offer a garland to Kṛṣṇa on His head, it is the same thing. It is no such thing as "This is head, this is tail." No. This is absolute conception of... So Bhagavān, His līlā, His form, His pastimes, His place, they're all Bhagavān. Even higher, those who are highly elevated devotees, they do not see even this material world different from Bhagavān. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetara. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Nārada Muni says. The whole universe is Bhagavān, although it appears different from Him. Bhagavān ivetara. So actually everything is Bhagavān, but it is not this Māyāvāda philosophy, that because everything is Bhagavān, there is no Bhagavān. No. Everything is Bhagavān, and still Bhagavān is there. Kṛṣṇa says, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4). Māyā, a person is there. Otherwise, there is no use of the word māyā. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam. Vaiṣṇava philosophy is that this material world is expansion of the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And the Māyāvāda philosophy is that because God has become everything, there is no more God. Nirviśeṣa. That is called nirviśeṣa—without understanding the beauty.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 21.13-49 -- New York, January 4, 1967:

So out of these three places, Vṛndāvana-dhāma is the most important. That is the confidential home of Kṛṣṇa. Just like a businessman might have many places for his business activities, but his home is different from all this business. He may live in the countryside in a cottage, but he may be a very big businessman. Similarly Kṛṣṇa, although He's all-powerful, He lives at Vṛndāvana in the gardenlike city. Not city; a tract of land. A small city is there now. They have named Vṛndāvana. But Vṛndāvana's not that small city. It is a tract of land about eighty-four miles. So it is full of gardens and full of nice places. Anywhere you go, you will find something wonderful to see. There are many trees and fruits and flowers, many varieties of birds, and the cranes on the Yamunā side. Each and every place is remembering Kṛṣṇa. If you go there you'll find that "Kṛṣṇa is... Somewhere He was playing. I must find out." It is such nice place. So Vṛndāvana is the most confidential part of Kṛṣṇa's abode.

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

Out of ignorance, I am thinking different, but when I am fully elevated to the platform of knowledge, then I become liberated." But the..., there is no answer that "Why you have become conditioned?" The impersonalists think that "I am one with the Supreme. Now, due to my ignorance, I have forgotten that I am the Supreme." Because they do not recognize the Supreme Personality of Godhead, so they think that impersonal conception of the spirit soul: "I am now... Out of ignorance, I am thinking matter, but as soon as my ignorance is over, I shall become one with the Supreme." So this is the theory of the impersonalists. But they... They cannot give any answer that "Why you have become under the influence of ignorance? If you are the Supreme, then what is the cause that you have become conditioned? Then the Supreme will become conditioned under the material nature. Then how one can become the Supreme? Supreme cannot be conditioned." So there is no answer for this question from the impersonalists' school. But real fact is that the Supreme never falls down. The part and parcel of the Supreme, they fall down—some of them; not all. So therefore the living entities, they are different from the Supreme. They are one in quality with the Supreme, but not in quantity.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 8 -- Los Angeles, May 12, 1970:

So this verse, you'll read what is important. "Such person must know in fact the greatest of all, who is unembodied, omniscient..." That is the distinction between God and ourself. We are embodied. This body is different from me; therefore when I leave this body, this body becomes "Dust thou art, dust thou..." That thou means this body. I am not dust. I am spirit soul. So Kṛṣṇa is not embodied. He has no difference between His body and His soul. His soul and body, the same. He does not change His body, because He hasn't got material body. And because He does not change body, He remembers everything. We change body; therefore we do not remember what had happened in our last birth. We have forgotten who was... Just like even in sleep, when we forget our body, we forget our all, I mean to say, environments. While sleeping or dreaming, you are in a dreamland. You don't remember even that you have got this body. Every day, every night, this is being experienced. Because this body, I'm not body. The body becomes tired. It sleeps or it is inactive. But as I am, I work, I dream, I go somewhere, I fly, or I go, I create another kingdom, another body, another environment. This we experience every day, every night. It is not difficult to understand.

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 9-10 -- Los Angeles, May 14, 1970:

So Bhāgavata says, "One who has accepted this combination of bile, mucus, and air as self, he is an ass." Yes. Actually, this is the fact. If we accept this combination of bile, mucus, and air as myself... So intelligent person, a very great philosopher, very great scientist, does it mean that he's a combination of bile, mucus and air? No. This is the mistake. He's different from this bile or mucus or air. He's soul. And according to his karma, he's exhibiting, manifesting his talent. So they do not understand this karma, the law of karma. Why we find so many different personalities? If it is a combination of bile, mucus, and air, why they are not similar? So they do not cultivate this knowledge. Why there are dissimilarities? One man is born millionaires; another man is born, he cannot even have full meals twice a day, although he's struggling very hard. Why this discrimination? Why one is put into such favorable condition? Why the other is not? So there is law of karma, the individuality.

Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Verse 32 Excerpt -- Los Angeles, August 14, 1972:

These are possible when the body is made of ānanda-cinmaya-rasa. This body is material. It is not ānanda-cinmaya-rasa. The material body is different from the spiritual body. That they do not know. So when the Vedas says nirākāra, "formless," that means He has no material form; He has got spiritual form. That spiritual form means full of bliss, ānanda. Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). Vedānta-sūtra. By nature ānandamaya. There is nothing nirānanda. That is spiritual world, always full of bliss, full of knowledge, and eternity. That is spiritual. You live eternally and full of knowledge. Here so many things we do not know. It is full of ignorance, this body, and full of miseries. Moment after moment, we are, due to this body, we are always in miserable condition, threefold miseries-adhyātmika, adhibhautika... So people do not try to understand this philosophy, but in the Vedic literature, each and every line, there is philosophy. Ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitā.

So this is understanding of Kṛṣṇa. When Kṛṣṇa says that janma karma me divyam (BG 4.9), "My appearance, disappearance, and activities, they are all transcendental," so how it is transcendental? Because His body is different from us. The bodily limbs are different from us. The activities of the body are different from us. And because He is full with all potency, in spite of all these transcendental qualities, He can present Himself as one of us. And those who are rascals, they think that "Kṛṣṇa is like us." Because He presents Himself as one of us by His omnipotency, the fools take him as one of us.

Festival Lectures

Sri Gaura-Purnima Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.38 -- Mayapur, March 16, 1976:

Among the animals, I am this animal. Among the persons... Among the fighters, I am this, I am this." He's everything, but just to point out a few... In another place He says, raso 'ham apsu kaunteya (BG 7.8). He is prepared to be appreciated by you in any condition of life if you take His instruction how to realize Him. And if you manufacture your own way, no, that is not possible. That is... Even if you are most ordinary man, still, you can realize Him. There is no difficulty. How? Kṛṣṇa said, raso 'ham apsu kaunteya: "My dear Arjuna, I am the taste of the water." Now, who does not drink water? Anyone? The animal also drinks water and the human being also drinks water. But the animal cannot understand God, although God is there in the water, and the man can understand because he is human being. Therefore a human being is different from animal. If we remain like animals—we are drinking water, but we are not realizing Kṛṣṇa—then you are animal. This is animals. And if we drink water—everyone drinks water many times—so many times we can remember Kṛṣṇa. And that is the process of devotional... Smaraṇam. Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇam (SB 7.5.23).

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Lecture -- Philadelphia, July 11, 1975:

That I explained today. But we are trying to go above the distinction. But when I say that distinction is already there, they misunderstand that I am making distinction. I am not making distinction. That already there. Why a woman is differently dressed and a man is differently dressed? Why the structure of the body, woman, is different from the man? Why there is no equal right—I was yesterday talking—that woman also become pregnant and man also become pregnant? (chuckles) That distinction is there by nature. But if you come to the spiritual platform, then you will understand that "I am not this body. These distinction are on the bodily platform. I am spirit soul. My function is how to serve God." Then it is equality. It is clear thing. But because they do not understand that there is distinction between spirit and matter—they amalgamate or they have no brain that spirit is different from matter-therefore they think that I am making distinction. No. So we should understand the real position, and then automatically there will be equality, there will be no misunderstanding.

Arrival Lecture -- San Francisco, July 15, 1975:

The Lord's name and the Lord, they are not different—absolute. That is Lord's potency, acintya-śakti. He can present Himself by His name, by His fame, by His form, by His qualities, by His paraphernalia. Anything in connection with Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Anything. That is absolute. Kṛṣṇa is never different from His name. Kṛṣṇa is never different from His form. We are worshiping the form of the Lord. That is Lord Himself. Don't think it is different from Lord. No. We are not wasting time by worshiping some statue. No. It is therefore forbidden in the śāstra, arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīḥ guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhir. These are forbidden. So we are, of course, opening so many branches all over the world, and I am very pleased to see this branch. There is wonderful prospective. Utilize it properly and stick to the principle that āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra ei deśa (CC Madhya 7.128). The ājñā, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and ājñā, our Kṛṣṇa, not different. Because Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Kṛṣṇa Himself, and when He appeared as Kṛṣṇa, people misunderstood Him; therefore He has come as a devotee to teach us how to love Kṛṣṇa.

Arrival Address -- Mauritius, October 1, 1975:

The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is little different from... Why little? Completely different from ordinary movement. This is spiritual movement. This movement begins when one understands that he is not this body. (break) We are under the bodily concept of life. Ninety-nine percent people think that one is this material body. But that is not the fact. The fact is that within this body there is the spirit soul. The example is given in the Bhagavad-gītā that because the spirit soul is there within the body, therefore the body is changing from childhood to boyhood, from boyhood to youthhood, then middle-aged, then old man. This body is changing. But if the child is born dead—that means without the soul—then the body does not change. We have got practical experience. A dead child, if you keep the body in a preservative way, it will not grow. So long the soul is there, the bodily changes are there. From the womb of the mother, the embryo, the child, grows daily. Why? Because the soul is there. So our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to understand this fact first of all, that body is superficial. Just like you are dressed with your shirt and coat.

Arrival Address -- Mauritius, October 1, 1975:

The same example, that if you are healthy, it doesn't matter what kind of dress you are putting on; you will feel happy. But if you are diseased and if your dress is very nice, that will not give you any happiness. Because you have got a very nice dress and you are diseased, suffering from some pains, the dress will not give you happiness. You must be healthy. Then it doesn't matter, whatever dress you are putting on. Any circumstances, you will feel happiness. This is the basic principle of our movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. You try to understand whether you are this body or something beyond this body. This is to be understood. Anyone who is thoughtful, he can understand by little thinking that if you study your body, you will never say that "I body." You will say, "My body." You study your finger; you will say, "It is my finger." You will never say, "I finger." "My head, my hand." Then who is that "my" or "I"? That is the subject matter of thinking. If we do not find out what is that "I..." On the basis of "I," I am thinking "I am my body, my head, my leg." But it is a fact. If you think little, you will find that you are not this body. You are different from this body. And as soon as we understand that "I am different from this body," then the business will be "How I shall be happy?" not "How my dress will be nice?"

Arrival Address -- Mauritius, October 1, 1975:

So they are available. So why don't you take all these ingredients and create another soul? They are available anywhere. But that is not possible. The big, big chemist, big, big scientists, they are trying to create living entities. Their theory is: "By chemical evolution there is living symptoms." But it is not possible. The soul is different from these material elements. Soul is different from the material elements. In the Bhagavad-gītā you will find the... First of all, material elements, they have been described, Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca, bhinnā me prakṛti aṣṭadhā (BG 7.4). Apareyam itas tu viddhi me prakṛtiṁ parā, jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāho yayedaṁ dhāryate jaga.... Jīva-bhūta (BG 7.5), the living entity, is completely different from this matter.

So unless we understand this philosophy... It is not philosophy. Philosophy you can call, because the philosophy means the science of sciences. Philosophy is not a mental speculation. Philosophy is the prime science from which all other sciences are derived. That is philosophy. So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is trying to educate people on this science of sciences to understand first of all that "What you are? Are you this body or different from this body?" This is essential. And if you go on constructing your big building on a defective foundation, then it will not stay. There will be danger. So modern civilization is based on this defective idea that "I am this body." "I am Indian," "I am American," "I am Hindu," "I am Muslim," "I am Christian"—these are all bodily concept of life.

Initiation Lectures

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

Yes. And another thing, just like we are holding this ceremony, initiation ceremony. It should not be accepted just we are functioning some ritualistic ceremony. No. It is different from ritualistic ceremony. Although it appears like ritualistic, it is transcendental. Ritualistic ceremony, they are meant for giving you advantage of become pious, from impious life. It also gives that, but this is not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is to give you love of God, which is far, far transcendental to the pious and impious activities. That is a different thing that belongs to the spiritual world—love of God. It is not that it is a function to nullify your sinful activities. That is automatically done. Just like if you get one million dollars, the purpose of ten dollars automatically solved. Similarly, this acceptance of holy name of God will automatically wash off all your sinful reaction. That's a fact. But it is not meant for that purpose. It is meant for higher purpose, to attain to this platform of loving God, rendering transcendental loving service to the Lord. That is the aim. Yes.

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

So God creates; I also create. That creative energy is within me, but a very minute quantity. That creation is nothing in comparison with God's creation. God has created this whole universe, and what you can create? You can create, utmost, a city like New York. That's all. You can create. That's all right. In that sense you are god also. Part and parcel of God is also god, but small god. Just like your earring. That is gold. So that gold is not equal to the gold mine. That gold mine is different. Therefore the philosophy is, "simultaneously one and different." We are, every one of us, we are simultaneously one with God and different from God. One in quality. The quality of God is also in me. I am of the same quality. Just like a drop of sea water and the vast water, ocean. The quality analytical, chemical composition, is the same, but the quantity of component parts are different. This is called acintya-bhedābheda-tattva: "inconceivably, simultaneously one and different." The Māyāvāda philosophy, they say that "We are God. Everyone is God." But we say that "Yes, everyone is God, but not that God, the Supreme God."

Initiation Lecture -- Hamburg, August 27, 1969:

"Everything is resting on Me, or everything is expansion of Myself." Nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ: "But I am not there." This philosophy, acintya-bhedābheda, simultaneously one and different, is our philosophy, inaugurated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, although it is in the Vedānta-sūtras. So everything is simultaneously one and different from the Supreme Lord. But there are two classes of philosophers. One class says that God and the living entities are different, and there is another philosopher, monist philosopher. They say God and the living entities are one. So this acintya-bhedābheda philosophy adjusts that "God and the living creatures, they are simultaneously one and different." They are one in quality, just like the energy and the energetic, the sun globe and the sunshine. In quality, in sunshine there is heat, there is illumination, light. In the sun globe also, there is heat, there is illumination. But the degrees are quite different. You can bear the heat and illumination of the sunshine, but you cannot go to the sun globe or you can bear the heat and temperature there.

Initiation Lecture -- Boston, December 26, 1969:

That is called svarūpa, real identification. Mukti. Mukti means... This word is very popular, mukti, liberation. What is that liberation? Liberation means to come to this platform of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is liberation. Svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ (SB 2.10.6). Mukti is defined in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: muktir hitvānyathā rūpam. Muktir hitvā anyathā rūpam. Anyathā rūpam. Rūpam means form. We are in a form which is not liberated form. Material form. This form which we have got just now, this form, when it will be finished, you'll never get this form. Another form. Another. Just like bubbles. Bubbles in the ocean, they come out. You cannot have the exact same bubbles, same measurement. No. That is going on. Similarly, this rūpam is anyathā. This is not our rūpam, our form. Therefore sometimes in Vedic literature it is stated, "formless." Formless does not mean has no form. Not this form. That is formless. But people with less intelligence, they think formless means there's no form. Formless means not this form. This is anyathā rūpam. This is different from our real form. So mukti means to give up this unreal form and accept your real form. Just like freedom from disease. Get free from the diseased condition and come to real healthy life.

Delhi Initiations -- Delhi, August 31, 1976:

Prabhupāda: So? (Hindi) (break) Yes. Because some of them, they could not follow Hindi.

Pradyumna: I'll just do it fast. First nāma-aparādha is (Sanskrit verse) Paramam aparādham The saintly persons who are spreading the glories of the holy name, if we abuse them, if we make offense at the people who are spreading the glories of the holy name, then the holy name will never tolerate that. How can the holy name tolerate the abuse of those who are spreading the glories of the holy name? So we must understand that a saintly person, a sādhu, satām, spreading the glories of Kṛṣṇa, talking about Kṛṣṇa, must never be offended. Must always be very careful. Sādhu-saṅga (CC Madhya 22.83). You must know how to associate with the sādhus, to always honor them and worship them and not to make offense. The second offense is that we should not put the..., understand that the names of Śrī Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu-tattva personalities, which are completely spiritual, are the same as the material designations of jīvas like ourselves. There's Viṣṇu-tattva, there is jīva. Viṣṇu-tattva is God; jīva is this ordinary living entity. The name of the Supreme is the same as the Supreme. The name of the jīva is different from the jīva. So we should not confuse these. We should understand the name of Viṣṇu is the same as Viṣṇu. The name of jīva is not the same. So the names of demigods—the demigods are also jīvas—their names are not spiritual. If we call names of some demigods, it will not do us the same spiritual..., it will not give us this spiritual result as calling the name of Kṛṣṇa.

Prabhupāda: Therefore during the time of initiation we change the name. A spiritual name is given.

Wedding Ceremonies

Wedding Ceremony and Lecture -- Boston, May 6, 1969:

There is a process. This science of understanding God, the science of God, is a great science. People have no knowledge about it, but it is a great science. And the ways and means of understanding God is different from ordinary material science. So the ways and means and the process of understanding the science of Godhead is to hear.

śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ
puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ
hṛdy antaḥ stho hy abhadrāṇi
vidhunoti suhṛt satām
(SB 1.2.17)

God is situated in everyone's heart. Simply you do not know. He is situated. He is everywhere. Within the atom also, He is present. Andantarastham paramanu cayantarastham. God is present within this world, within everything, everywhere, even within the atom. Now, at the present moment, the atomic theory is very prominent, but in the Vedic literature it is said that God is existing even within the atom. Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu. Paramāṇu means atom. Therefore īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). Ṅśvara, the Supreme Lord, is sitting within your heart. I am also sitting. This is dress. This body is dress, but my place is within the heart.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: But he says that in that enforcing power each atom is individual, separate, different.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Kṛṣṇa, by His omnipotency, can expand Himself in innumerable forms. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Ananta, unlimited. As it is clearly said, aṇḍāntara-stham. He is within the atom.

Śyāmasundara: Is He between each atom as an individual entity, different from each other entity?

Prabhupāda: Yes. If Kṛṣṇa is there, Kṛṣṇa is individual. And atoms also, there are varieties of atoms. Sometimes they are combined together, six atoms, five atoms, three atoms.

Śyāmasundara: How is Kṛṣṇa different?

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is there in every atom.

Śyāmasundara: How is He individual in each one of the atoms?

Prabhupāda: Why not He is individual? Kṛṣṇa is individual. How is He not individual? Kṛṣṇa is always individual.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Prabhupāda: Therefore it depends on that social body, which is authority. So ultimately we have to depend on the authority for all sanctions. So our proposition is that the supreme authority is Kṛṣṇa. So whatever He sanctions, that is morality; whatever He does not sanction, that is immorality. Just like Arjuna was thinking to become nonviolent, not to fight, is good. But Kṛṣṇa said, "Now you fight." So fight became good. So ultimately it depends on Kṛṣṇa's will, what is morality, what is immorality, what is good, what is bad. Therefore our duty is, instead of depending on social body or political... (break) ...are so many, one is different from the other—we depend on the supreme will of the supreme authority.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: Before, we were discussing Descartes and Hume. Descartes expressed that all knowledge comes through innate ideas, and Hume said just the opposite: "No. All knowledge comes from sense experience." So Kant is trying to unify the two ideas.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Sense experience. Sense experience means purified sense experience. That is seva. Just like I am seeing here Kṛṣṇa, but others will see a stone. So he is also seeing with his eyes; I am also seeing with the eyes, but my eyes are different from his eyes. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena (Bs. 5.38). When the eyes are anointed with love of God, ointment of love of God, then he can see. Just like if one's eyes are diseased, if he applies some eye ointment, or lotion, then he sees. So the same senses, the same eyes, unless they are treated and purified, he cannot understand or he cannot see or he cannot know.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: Therefore, as soon as you say duty, duty should be prescribed by some higher authority. In that sense, this system is very scientific: brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra. It is very scientific. For brāhmaṇa, these are the duties; a kṣatriya, these are the duties. Every duty may appear different, but because it is a command of the Supreme, by discharging these duties on different platform, he is serving the Supreme. If Kṛṣṇa says, "All right, I see you are a brāhmaṇa. Your duties are like this," "I see you are a kṣatriya. Your duties are like this," "I see you are a vaiśya. Your duties are like this..." But Kṛṣṇa says cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam (BG 4.13). I have divided, so Kṛṣṇa gives duty, that "Your duty is this, your duty is this, and your duty is this." And if he faithfully serves the duty, that means he is serving Kṛṣṇa. The duties may appear different, but because he is serving Kṛṣṇa, he is going to perfection. Just like in our institution, I am the head man, so I may say, "You paint. You preach. You type. You do this." So the duties may be different, but by discharging duty, you are serving me; therefore you are perfect. Similarly, duties are given by the Supreme. Because I see that you are a śūdra, you cannot discharge the duties of a brāhmaṇa. That is not possible. So you do your duty like this. So superficially it may seem that a śūdra's duty is inferior to the brāhmaṇa's duty, but if the śūdra is performing his duty in accordance to the order of the Supreme, then he is also serving. The service is the main point. The same example of our body, that the duty of eyes, seeing, it is different from the duty of the legs, walking. But walking and seeing, both of them are being utilized for the whole body; therefore all of them are useful. So there cannot be any fixed-up duty, neither is everyone able to follow the same principles. Therefore this varṇāśrama-dharma is very scientific. That is to be understood.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: I say that species, this word is not applicable in that sense. In that sense, according to the scientists' species. But when we say species, class you can say. Classes.

Śyāmasundara: Classes. But what, give me an example.

Prabhupāda: Again, just like we are a class—Hare Kṛṣṇa class. Our mentality is different from others.

Śyāmasundara: Oh.

Prabhupāda: Therefore we are a class.

Śyāmasundara: So tribes, more like tribal distinctions?

Prabhupāda: We are not exactly tribal. Culture, by culture.

Śyāmasundara: By interest and culture. I see.

Prabhupāda: By differentiation of culture.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: Not species, class. Jāti.

Śyāmasundara: Jāti. So when you say 400,000 species of human life...

Prabhupāda: It is difference of culture.

Śyāmasundara: It's different from what we think of as species.

Prabhupāda: Culture.

Devotee: It's not species in the bodily...

Karandhara: So the angle of vision is not from the bodily, it's from the closeness of the soul to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, as far as they're able...

Prabhupāda: Unless you accept soul and consciousness, there cannot be question of culture.

Śyāmasundara: But when the scientists say "species," they mean different types of bodies.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We say 400,000 different forms of body, so human body, just like Negroes, they are also human beings, and you are also human beings. So this, scientists will say they are all one species, human being. But we say that Negro culture and the Āryan culture is different.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: But you just said, for instance, the industrialist and farmers are two different species of men, but there could be a Negro industrialist...

Prabhupāda: I already said that. Why don't you listen? Species, definition of the scientists is different from ours. We say class.

Śyāmasundara: I'm trying to understand, because you said class but then you also said bodies. Negro bodies are different from white Caucasian bodies.

Prabhupāda: Maybe difference of bodies. But that does not...; therefore our classification on the basis of soul. The soul is equal. In spite of different types of body, the soul is one. There is no change of the soul. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that he does not see the species or the class or definition. He sees one: paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ (BG 5.18). Paṇḍita, one who sees to the (indistinct), the soul, he does not find any difference of these species or (indistinct). This is our point.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: But there is no difference between the oldest cavemen and the men today. We're still killing, still hunting, still fighting. Same things.

Prabhupāda: No. Suppose just like Jesus Christ instructed his disciples, "Thou shall not kill." Say two thousand years ago in the Western countries, the men were killers, that's all. But we'll see Bhagavad-gītā, five thousand years ago, Kṛṣṇa is arguing that "If our women become widows then they'll be polluted. There will be varṇa-saṅkara, unwanted children, the society will go to hell." How much elevated society. Five thousand years ago. It is a question of place. It is a question of place. If Darwin says... Here in the Bible it is said that "Thou shall not kill," so that means two thousand years ago they were simply killers. That does not mean five thousand years there were no highly elevated personalities. That is his lack of studying. He is too much localized. He has no broadened knowledge, neither he has studied all the books, contemporary books; therefore he has poor fund of knowledge. He's very poor in his knowledge. Just like, still, there are many Americans... You Americans are completely different from others. You cannot say that all the Americans are drunkards and irresponsible; therefore, they are also. Side by side some moral is still there. You don't drink; you don't take meat; you are all God conscious; side by side there is. So how you can write history that "Such and such, 1971, '72, all Americans were LSD"? How you can conclude like that?

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: I mean these genes are not the same as the jīva in this case.

Prabhupāda: That is different thing. But jīva can be given any type of body. That is not difficult.

Śyāmasundara: So they say that each person is different from every other person because the arrangement of the genes in his cell is uniquely his, but the same genes will be passed on...

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) That depends on the father and the mother.

Śyāmasundara: The same genes will be passed on to their children, so they will have characteristics like their parents in that way.

Prabhupāda: That is the body—this body.

Śyāmasundara: So they are considering that by altering these genes in certain ways, they can make very highly intelligent persons come out or very low-bred persons come out.

Prabhupāda: But that is already there. What is their credit?

Atreya Ṛṣi: They want to control more.

Prabhupāda: What is the control? It is already there. It is not under your control.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: They'll spend so many billions of dollars, and years of work.

Prabhupāda: The same example. Just like computer machine. They do not find that the machine is made by a brain which is different from this material. But he's trying to find out a brain from this. This is their childish... The brain is different from machine. The machine is lump of iron. And the one who is working with the machine is a different from the machine. That they do not know. That they do not know. That is their defect. Now what is this computer machine will do unless there is a worker in the computer room, highly salaried man?

Śyāmasundara: Unless it's plugged into the wall it doesn't work.

Prabhupāda: Lump of matter, iron, that's all. But that they do not know. They are so foolish and rascal. Then they're trying to find out... This is same childishness, that "I'm trying to find out the singer within the box, within the box." It is like that.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Prabhupāda: The vital source of the soul can be temporarily covered by physical elements, but it is not belonging to the group of physical elements. That is our system.

Śyāmasundara: And he says that reason is only to explain the life process because reason is not...

Prabhupāda: Reason explain... He cannot explain because he does not know. The soul is a living force, and it has got little independence. So the supreme living force is God, and he is part and parcel of God, exactly like the spark of the whole fire. So this song, he has finished, bhuliya tomāre saṁsāre. So as soon as the soul receives his independence from (indistinct) become God Himself or wants to become enjoyer of the material nature, he becomes powerless, and he is subjected to the influence (indistinct) by the physical elements, and because he forgets his real identity, he thinks that he is body. Just like Darwin's theory. He is not this body. It is simply, circumstantially, a covering, a dress, and the living soul is different from the physical body.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Prabhupāda: All mankind, what does he mean all? Everyone is individual. What does he mean? This is not very good, intelligent.

Hayagrīva: Yes. He sees the material worlds as being isolated. He says, "There is then a bond between the worlds, but this bond may be regarded as infinitely loose in comparison with the mutual dependence which unites the parts of the same world among ourselves," excuse me, "which unites the parts of the same world among themselves. So that it is not artificially for reasons of mere convenience that we isolate our solar system. Nature itself invites us to isolate it." So this, this calls to mind the image of a prison house. The isolation of the world, as far as man is concerned, is isolation imposed by material nature on the conditioned.

Prabhupāda: He is isolated. He is thinking in the wrong way. Just like in the prison house every prisoner, every, every criminal is different from other criminal. So everyone has to suffer the consequence of his criminal activities, so every individual person is suffering or enjoying according to his past deeds. So there cannot be any combination. Then we forget the individuality. That is not possible.

Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham:

Śyāmasundara: Physical senses.

Prabhupāda: Physical. But physical senses cannot actually cannot give you the greatest happiness. Just like a man is sensuous. So he can enjoy one woman, two women, but he cannot enjoy unlimitedly. But our standard of happiness means "which is increasingly unlimited." That is happiness. Therefore it is said, ramante yogino 'nante satyānande cid-ātmani. Those who are yogis, they enjoy. So enjoyment... Without enjoyment, nothing is relished. Just like you are taking to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is some enjoyment, transcendental bliss. Otherwise how you can stick to it? So real happiness means "which is increasingly unlimited." That is happiness. Temporary happiness... Vidyāpati sings, tātala saikate vāri-bindu-sama suta-mita-ramaṇī-samāje, that we are trying to enjoy in this material world, happiness in the society, friendship and love. Suta-mita-ramaṇī-samāje, friends, children, wife, like that. That is in the society. But Vidyāpati says, "Yes, there is happiness undoubtedly, but that happiness is just like a drop of water in the desert. Desert means it is hankering after water. Dry desert, he requires water, but if you go there and put a drop of water, "Now here is water." So our, we are, who are hankering after so great happiness that these rascals' sense gratification happiness is not giving us. It is just like a drop in the desert. Therefore we are changing, changing simply. The same thing, punaḥ punaś carvita-car... The same thing, we do not know what is real happiness so simply changing the posture. Now woman should be mini-skirted. Why they should be fully dressed? (laughter) Now they're also trying. Ultimately they're coming to the position of (indistinct) (laughter). Just see. Here, here in the (indistinct). They are attracting tourists by showing the vagina(?). That's all. This is happiness. They have no other information. "Come on, here is vagina, open. This is their standard of happiness. Yan maithunādi-gṛhamedhi-sukhaṁ hi tuccham (SB 7.9.45), most abominable thing they have taken as happiness. So what do they know about happiness? These so-called philosophers, they do not know what is happiness. And why they are philosophizing about happiness? Happiness is also our aim, but that happiness is different from this happiness. Just like a hog is enjoying happiness eating stool. No man will be happy by eating stool neither he will agree to enjoy such happiness. It is the standard of happiness according to the body.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: Well, our sense of duty...

Prabhupāda: Sense of duty is different from conscience. The duty, that should be taught by higher personalities: "This is your duty." Just like our principles. The spiritual master orders we must chant so many times, you must give up all these bad habits, sinful habits. This is duty. By conscience what you will understand of duty, a child?

Śyāmasundara: He's not so much talking about what is the duty, but that these two things are what motivate our moral behavior. They are what check and safeguard our moral behavior: one is conscience, or my own sense of duty, whatever that may be.

Prabhupāda: But how you will know it is? He says that one should know whatever his duty. So whatever what is his duty, how he will know it?

Śyāmasundara: Well, that, our duty is that which produces the most good for the most people.

Prabhupāda: This is also vague. This is also vague. There is no definite understanding.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Hayagrīva: He believed that if man could not, by the exercise of his own energies, improve both himself and his outward circumstances, that is if man could not improve the world to do more good for his, to do good for himself and other creatures, vastly more than God had in the first instance done, the being who called him into existence would deserve something very different from thanks at his hands. In other words that if man couldn't improve the world, then...

Prabhupāda: How it can be improved? One man may be good, religious, abiding by the orders of God, and 99.9 percent, they are Godless. So how it can be improved? This material world, as it is, it can be improved only by the increase of percentage of God conscious men, otherwise there is no possibility of improvement. Every man is differently conscious. So you cannot bring them together. For example, just these modern civilized nations, they are struggling in the United Nation Organization, but they could not do for the last thirty, forty years. That is not possible. That is futile attempt. Unless people become God conscious, there is no improvement of the world.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Śyāmasundara: He doesn't say whose experience. Just experience.

Prabhupāda: What does it mean? Experience, there are different types of experience. Your experience is different from my experience. Then we have to calculate whose experience.

Śyāmasundara: He says the substance called experience sometimes manifests in mind, sometimes manifests as matter. So, for instance, the substance of these flowers is made up of the experience gathered from previous flowers.

Prabhupāda: Whose experience? I am asking whose experience? It is not your experience, so nice flowers. You have not made it.

Śyāmasundara: Presumably the flower's experience.

Prabhupāda: That is another nonsense. The flower's experience. (laughs) Just see.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Prabhupāda: Historical... It is historical. The whole cosmic manifestation has a date of creation; therefore it is historical. Anything material which has a beginning, that, that is history, it has got a history. So people do not know how long before this material world or cosmic manifestation was created. It is beyond their conception. Even the mathematical count, millions and trillions and millions, will not do, when he began, but it has got a history-beyond the calculation of so-called scientist and mathematician, but there is history. According to Vedic description there is history. There is history of Manu, there is history of, of Brahmā. So in this way there is a regular history. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā a small instance of history is being given: sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ (BG 8.17), that the Brahmā's daytime, just like we have got solar calculation, twelve hours' daytime, so that twelve hours of Brahmā is calculated sahara-yuga-paryantam. One yuga means forty-three hundred thousands of years. Similarly, thousand times, that is Brahmā's twelve hours. So everything is relative. We are tiny people. We have got history of this world, some thousands of years, but Brahmā is greater than the human being. His history is different. Here everything is relative. My history is different from an ant's history. Similarly a man's history is different from Brahmā's history. So historical does not mean whatever you have calculated, that is history. History is relative according to the person. So these people, they have no information of the greater personalities than us, but we have got information from Vedic literature. In the higher planetary system, there the duration of life, standard of life is different from here.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Śyāmasundara: Ah. He says the culmination of commitment is religious life, or he calls it the inwardness of suffering, that we...

Prabhupāda: No. We don't follow that. Suffering, actually there is no suffering, because a spirit soul is different from the body. The same example: Just like when there is accident in the motorcar, the motor driver or the owner of the car is not actually suffering. But because he has identified his motorcar with himself, therefore he is suffering. Similarly, either you say God and all God's personal parts and parcels, the living entities, the spirit soul, he has no suffering. But the ordinary spirit soul, because he has identified himself with the matter, he suffers, whereas God, because He has full knowledge and is always apart from this material world, nāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ, just like Bhagavad-gītā. There is..., God has no suffering. It is a question of, just like the same example: In a motorcar I am sitting and my friend is sitting. There is some accident; the motorcar is lost. So this man who possesses the motorcar, he suffers, but I do not suffer. I am in the same car, but I do not suffer. What is the difference? The difference is that I have full knowledge that I am not this car, but he, being identified with the car, being ignorant, he is suffering. So it is a question of knowledge where there is suffering and no suffering.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: If you surrender to God.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: Otherwise the thought will always be different from the action.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Kierkegaard, actually, he understands the principles, but he actually understands that one has to surrender to God in order to (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He does. His statement is that "We are here as shown a new order, faith(?), a new pre-supposition that consciousness is (indistinct), a new decision, a learning, and a new teacher, God, in time." That is Christ. Christ is so-called "God in time." So he prefers Christ as the teacher.

Prabhupāda: Why Kṛṣṇa not teacher?

Śyāmasundara: Maybe they're not so personal as we are. (laughter)

Prabhupāda: All right. It is better to accept Christ as teacher, but why he does not follow? So all philosophers have been following these commandments of Christ, ten commandments. They are not following.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Devotee: But the past and the future are simply reminiscences and projections of (indistinct), but the present is existing for everyone.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That past means, just like what you say. The past, present, future for an ant is different from your past, present, future.

Devotee: Why?

Prabhupāda: Because your body is different.

Devotee: The experience of the past, present and the future is different.

Prabhupāda: My point is there is no past, present, future. This experience is gathered according to your body.

Devotee: The experiences are different, but it doesn't alter the (indistinct).

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) actually there is no past, present, future. That is my position.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Śyāmasundara: Conscience. Not conscious but conscience.

Prabhupāda: Conscience, everyone is conscience. Every living entity has got conscience.

Revatīnandana: Conscience means if I'm..., a sense of whether what I am doing is right or wrong. That is conscience. That's different from consciousness.

Prabhupāda: What is consciousness? Conscience means living force.

Revatīnandana: So not consciousness.

Prabhupāda: Oh.

Revatīnandana: Conscience.

Prabhupāda: Conscious. Discrimination of good and bad.

Devotees: Yes.

Prabhupāda: That conscience is due to practice. Just like a butcher, he has no conscience that killing is bad. That he is practiced to do that, he does not say that... His conscience is not touched by killing. So this conscience is by practice created in a different atmosphere, so it does not act. Unless one comes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, his conscience has no value. It is contaminated conscience. So as you are accustomed, so you have made a particular type of conscience. A thief, a thief, when he goes to steal, his conscience says, "This is all right. This is my livelihood. Why shall I stop it?" So what is value of this conscience?

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Śyāmasundara: We have more to discuss.

Prabhupāda: He is identifying the body with the soul. And our preaching is different—that we are not this body. Our first principle of understanding is to know that we are not this body. I am different from this body and I am transmigrating from one body to another. That they cannot express. They are explaining that the body is evolving from this body to that body. That is the basic misunderstanding.

Devotee: Freud's case is interesting, that he formed all of his conclusions by his observations of what he calls neurotic and psychotic patients. He observed mentally ill people, neurosis and psychosis, and he drew his conclusions about both sick and normal psychology from his observation of abnormal. He observed the normal behavior of neurotic people, psychotic people, crazy people, and from their behavior he tried to infer all about human psychology. So not only was he on bodily platform, but his only subject matter was the insane. So how can he draw valid conclusions about behavior?

Prabhupāda: So what is your answer?

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

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) psychology.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: After, after having sex, most people simply go to sleep, and he felt that this was the, sort of the ultimate extinction.

Prabhupāda: That means Freud is a most imperfect person. He is taking sex as very important thing, which the dog enjoys. As a dog's life and a hog's life, the hog has got very good facility. The monkey has got very good facility for sex life, and he is thinking this is ultimate goal, and then sleep. So that is going on. So if sex life is so big thing, the hogs, they have got good facility. The pigeons, they have got very good facility. I think every hour they have four times sex life, these pigeons. So if that is, then you become a pigeon. You pray to God that "Make me a pigeon, make me a hog." Why you are becoming philosopher? Now our philosophy is different—not to become a pig. Nāyaṁ deho deha-bhājāṁ nṛloke kaṣṭān kāmān arhate viḍ-bhujāṁ ye (SB 5.5.1). The life simply for sense gratification, and for that purpose working so hard, but that is the business of the pig. That is not the business of the human being. Human being is tapasya. Tapasya means stop sex life. That is tapasya. Tapasā brahmacaryeṇa (SB 6.1.13). So our philosophy is different from his philosophy. And actually we are suffering. The pig has got good facilities for sex. Does it mean that is ideal life, eating stool and having sex without discrimination? They have no discrimination, whether mother or sister or daughter. That is hog life. So if sex life is final pleasure, then hog is in the greatest pleasure. He has no social obligation. He has no discrimination. But our philosophy says "Don't become a hog, become a sane man." There, there, there is a difference between his philosophy and our philosophy.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: Well he felt it couldn't be stamped out. If it, if you try to stamp out the sex drive, it will manifest itself in neuroses, in undesirable...

Prabhupāda: No, that is..., he is not... That is the defect. He does not know perfectly anything, and he is philosophizing. That is the defect. Not only in him—I find these all mental speculators, that is the defect. Everything is possible, but our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is different from his imagination. Our philosophy is that so long one has the sex inclination, he will have to accept a material body. And as soon as he accepts a material body, he becomes implicated in so many miserable condition of material existence. But there is another life, which is not material, that is spiritual. If one is trained up to accept that spiritual life, there will be no more botheration of this material existence. That he does not know, neither he can understand. But there is such thing. That can be found in the Vedic civilization, not this meat-eating civilization. It is not possible.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Śyāmasundara: Yes. And they have the same symbols, many of them.

Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be, that is a common concept. To accept some type of religion, this is common. Now, that type of religion may be different from me, but the principle is there. Just like eating principle is there, sleeping principle is there; similarly religious principle is there.

Śyāmasundara: And he said that each culture, or civilization, religion, they have the same understanding of the duality of existence, that there's an equal amount of dark, an equal amount of light, which he calls the yin and yang aspect or the anima and animus aspect. Under different names the same understanding is there in all religions.

Prabhupāda: Is that equality, darkness?

Śyāmasundara: Darkness and lightness—the duality of nature. Unconscious and conscious, he calls; these two things. He says that everyone has..., understands these are equal, balanced, these two stages, states of existence.

Prabhupāda: Not necessarily equal. Sometimes it may be imbalance. One side may be heavier than the other.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

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.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: He says, "It is not that God is a myth, but that myth is the revelation of a divine light in man. It is not we who invent myth; rather, it speaks to us as a word of God. The word of God comes to us, and we have no way of distinguishing whether and to what extent it is different from God."

Prabhupāda: It is not at all different from God. God is absolute; therefore His words are as good as God. That we were discussing this morning, that God's name and God is the same. God's pastimes and God is the same. God's Deity and God is the same. So anything in relationship with God is God, just like Bhagavad-gītā is God. Because everything is God, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4), everything is God, but when there is God realization, that is God. Otherwise God, everything is God. Without God, nothing can exist.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the phenomena and the noumena are the same. Phenomena are noumena. There is no separation.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Same in this sense: just like the sun and the sunshine is the same. The sunshine is light and the sun is also light. The sun is hot and sunshine is also hot. But still, you cannot say that the sunshine and the sun are the same. Therefore Lord Caitanya's philosophy, simultaneously one and different, that is perfect. He is taking only the oneness, but there is still difference. Just like the fire and the heat. You cannot separate heat from fire, but still heat is not fire. That is perfect knowledge. So therefore heat is simultaneously one and different from fire. That is perfect. You are getting heat, but that does not mean that you are touching the fire. So this is perfect theory. One and different, both.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: There is no standard. He says that man's essence is nothingness or no-thingness. There is no-thingness about me. I am always changing. There is nothing determinant about my subjectivity.

Prabhupāda: If you are changing, I am changing, then the changing is existence. But I am different from that existence because I am changing. I am changing. Suppose I have just now changed my dress. So I am the same. Actually, I am existing the same, but I am changing different dress or different body. So this changing is not very important because it will be changed. I am important. I am changing.

Śyāmasundara: He says that there are two types of being. There is "being in itself," like this table, which is solid, massive, and then he's saying it doesn't have..., it has a phenomenal...

Prabhupāda: So that we say—the one is matter, another is spirit.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says "being in itself" and "being for itself." "Being for itself" means the living entity, because by choosing things he does things for himself; he makes decisions and creates things for himself.

Prabhupāda: That we admit. Therefore, the living being who decides to change or to accept something, he is important. Actually, he is existing, whereas the bodily changes or circumstantial changes, that is temporary. But the person who is changing, he is eternal.

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

Prabhupāda: But wherefrom the motion comes? That is insufficient knowledge. When you... Motion means somebody must move, push on. That is accepted by Professor Einstein. If somebody has pushed, the motion has begun. Now it is going on. Just like in the billiard table, push one ball, "Hut!" And it goes.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. So he says that there are four major categories besides the primary category of motion and they are 1) identity or diversity. Each thing has a personal identity, an individuality, and each thing is different from every other thing.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is called sajātīya-vijātīya bheda in Sanskrit. Different... Sajātīya. Just like two trees, two mango trees, but still there is difference. They are one as mango tree, but this tree is different from that tree. Similarly, the fingers. As finger they are one, but this finger is different from this finger. Although sajātī. Sajātī means of the same category, but there is difference. Although the same category, finger, but this finger is bigger than this finger. The whole body. It's a part of the body. Hand is different from leg. Leg is different from his head. Head is different from palm. Palm is different from sole. There are so many differences. They are called sajātī vijātī.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: So he seeks to combine these two types of reason, Kant set up. There's pure reason and practical reason or moral reason. In other words speculative reason and practical reason or moral reason.

Prabhupāda: Practical, practical reason is that if I think I am this body, then where is the difference between dead body and living? Living body means I am in this body, that is living body. As soon as I give up this body, I go and accept another body. Then it is dead body. So this is practical reason, that without the soul this body is a lump of matter. It is very practical. Therefore soul is different from this matter.

Śyāmasundara: He says that our progress towards this kind of understanding comes about because we unify our speculative reason, our theoretical reason with our practical reason or our moral reason.

Prabhupāda: This is practical. Anyone can understand that when the body is, does not contain any more the soul, then it is dead, dead body, lump of matter. So spirit soul is different from the matter. This is practical. If anyone cannot understand, then he's less intelligent. This is practical.

Śyāmasundara: His idea of ultimate reality is that it is the moral ego or pure will that...

Prabhupāda: Then he has to define what is morality.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: He uses the categorical imperative that Kant set up, the different categories of goodness and badness.

Prabhupāda: That means if you are in the modes of goodness, your morality is different from the morality of the man who is in the modes of ignorance.

Śyāmasundara: But he says that everything should be understood in terms of what it ought to be, that there is an absolute good.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: And every activity should be understood in terms of that absolute good.

Prabhupāda: That, that we say liberation. One should be free from the material contamination. That is our... Because under material condition, he is in three modes, goodness, passion and ignorance. So one who is in goodness he does not approve conclusion in ignorance. And one who is in ignorance, he thinks it is better.

Philosophy Discussion on Plato:

Hari-śauri: That means like time is actually like presence?

Prabhupāda: No. Presence... It is always present. Say just like a small germ, he lives for three minutes. So his past, present, future within three minutes, while I am living. So I am not within his past, present and future. Therefore past, present, future is relative. My past, present, future is different from the past, present, future of a small germ. That is the idea.

Hayagrīva: Now, concerning the creation, Plato says that material nature, or prakṛti, has always existed in a chaotic state, but that God takes prakṛti and fashions it into form in order to create the universe. So in this sense God is the hand worker or the master designer. God is the creator of forms from pre-existent matter, and yet He does not create directly.

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Hayagrīva: It's stated...

Prabhupāda: No. Just like I have created a machine to manufacture something. I am, I set on in motion, and the products is coming automatically, products are coming automatically.

Philosophy Discussion on Plato:

Hayagrīva: Plato believes that at death there is an end of the sensory life of the individual—his thoughts, his perceptions and experiences—and the individual then returns to the ideal world from which he came.

Prabhupāda: That means he believes in eternity. This loss of senses, that is we also accept that there are three stages: jāgrati, awakening, and sleeping and deep sleeping. So deep sleeping means unconsciousness. So when a man dies from awakening state, he enters into the dreaming state and then enters into the deep sleeping state. So transmigration of the soul means he gives up this gross body, and the subtle body, mind, intelligence carries him to the another body, and in another body, unless the body is prepared properly, he lives in deep sleep. And when the body is prepared at seven months for human being, then he comes to consciousness. He feels, "Oh, why I am put into this packed-up status." If he is pious he feels very uncomfortable. He prays to God—these things are described—that "Kindly excuse me from this awkward position. Now this time I shall become a devotee." This is position. The soul is immortal, but still he enters into different stages of life. Then when he comes out, the same different stages of body continues. In childhood he is something different from his boyhood; boyhood something different from youthhood; and he is the same, but he is passing through different... That is called evolution. So when he comes to the perfect stage of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then his life is successful. Just like a flower, in the bud stage, in the fructified stage, in the blooming stage, and when it is fully bloomed it looks very nice, beautiful. Similarly, when by gradual development when you come to the stage of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then our whole beauty is revealed.

Philosophy Discussion on Origen:

Hayagrīva: This is the continuation of Origen. Origen believed that all the elements that are found in the material body are also found in the spiritual body, which he called the interior man. He says, "God created man not taking the dust of the earth like the second time, but He created him after the image of God," that is initially, "this being after the likeness of God was immaterial, superior to any corporeal hypothesis. There are thus two men in each one of us, as every exterior man has for homonym the interior man. So it is for all His members, and one can say that every member of the exterior man can be found under this name in the interior man." So that for every corresponding sense that we have in the exterior body, there's a corresponding sense in the interior or the spiritual body which exists within.

Prabhupāda: The spirit soul is within this material body, but the spirit soul has no material body originally. There is a spiritual body of the spirit soul eternally existing, and the material body is simply coating of the spiritual body. This material body is considered as coating, shirt-coat. It is cut according to the bodily shape. Just ordinarily we can see the tailor makes the shirt and coat according to the shape of the body. Similarly, these material elements, earth, water, fire, etc., mixed together, becomes like a clay, and it is coated over the spiritual body. The spiritual body has no connection with the material body. So because the spiritual body has got shape, the material body also takes a shape. That is understanding. But material body has nothing to do with the spiritual body. It is simply external coating, or it is a kind of contamination for suffering of the spirit soul. As soon as he is coated with this material contamination, he identifies himself with the coating and he forgets his real, spiritual body. That is called māyā, ignorance, and this ignorance continues so long he is not fully Kṛṣṇa conscious. When one becomes fully Kṛṣṇa conscious, then he understands that this material body is the external coating; he is different from this material body. That condition, that uncontaminated understanding, is called brahma-bhūtaḥ. The spirit soul is Brahman. He was under the illusion of bodily concept of life—that is called jīva-bhūtaḥ—and when he understands that he is not this body, he is the spirit soul within the body, that is called brahma-bhūtaḥ. So when one comes to this understanding of his spiritual identity, he becomes joyful, brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāṅkṣati (BG 18.54), he has no more any hankering or lamentation. In that position he sees all other living entities as spirit soul. He does not see the outward covering. Even in a dog he sees the spirit soul covered by the body of a dog, and similarly a learned brāhmaṇa, he also sees the spirit soul covered by the material body designated as learned brāhmaṇa.

Philosophy Discussion on Origen:
Prabhupāda: So up to the animal bodily concept of life, one is unable to understand his spiritual identity. But in the civilized form of life, when the society is divided into eight divisions, varṇa and āśrama-four varṇas and four āśramas-brahman, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra, four varṇas, brahmacārī, and gṛhastha, vānaprastha, and sannyāsī... So a brāhmaṇa from the social status, when he becomes elevated to the position of a sannyāsī, that is the highest perfectional stage in this material world, and at that stage only he can realize his original constitutional position and he acts accordingly, and thus he becomes delivered, which is called mukti. Mukti means to understand his own constitutional position and act accordingly, and conditional life means to identify with the body and act accordingly. So in the mukti state the activities are different from the conditional state. Therefore the devotional service is the activity of the liberated stage. So anyone who is engaged in devotional service, he maintains his spiritual identity, and therefore he is called liberated even though in this conditional material body.
Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Hayagrīva: Descartes, Rene Descartes, the French... Descartes writes, "The power of forming a good judgment and of distinguishing the true from the false, which is, properly speaking, what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men. God has given to each of us some light with which to distinguish truth from error." Now in the West this has been called conscience, and Descartes uses the term "reason." Now is this simply a form of mental speculation, or is the...

Prabhupāda: No. Mental speculation should be there. It is not actually speculation but it is reasoning. Just like if we study our own body, whether I am this lump of matter, namely this skin, bone and stool, urine and muscle and blood... If we analyze this body we find practically these things. So the reasoning is that whether combination of these things can give life. So externally we have got all these things. Blood we can get from slaughterhouse, and bone we can collect, or you can manufacture and set up an instrument with these things. Will it be, bring life? So the reasoning is life is different from this lump of matter. That is reasoning.

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Hayagrīva: He says reason is by nature equal in all men. Now isn't reasoning power different in different men?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Otherwise why it is called "This man is intelligent," other man is called "You are ass." So when, on this reasoning platform, when one comes to the conclusion that the living force within the body is different from this lump of matter, then he is on the human platform. And if he keeps himself that this life means combination of these material things, then he remains an animal. This is the reasoning. Where is the life? You analyze beginning from the breathing up to the urine and stool—where you will find life? That is human reasoning. Human civilization is now advanced in analyzing things in the chemical laboratory. So if we analyze this breathing, it is air. So you replace this air, let life come again. What is this breathing? Breathing is simply exhaling and inhaling some air. So by machine, by electric, what is called, batteries, let it work and it will act accordingly, breathing. But does it mean it will bring life? So they say breathing is stopped; therefore life is stopped. So breathing can be revived, but where is the life? They say the blood has become white. So blood can be colored. So anything of this body, analyze perfectly and bring life; then you say that life is combination of this matter. You cannot bring it; therefore it must be concluded that life is different from this combination of matter. This is reasoning. This is human reasoning. And if you still keep yourself that this body is, it is everything, then you are animal. This is reasoning. That is the verdict of the Vedic..., sa eva go-kharaḥ. Yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke (SB 10.84.13). If one is thinking still that he is this body, he is no better than animal. There is no reasoning. Who can challenge this? Analyze every part of the body. Where is life? Hm? What do you think? Is that reasoning or not?

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Hayagrīva: Concerning the soul, Descartes concludes that...

Prabhupāda: Now in this connection, regarding the soul, if he has received the knowledge of soul from God, therefore at that time there is no chance of he is thinking. If, as soon as he thinks in his own way, then there may be mistakes, because he is imperfect, finite. But when Kṛṣṇa says directly that "Within this body the soul is there," so if we accept God's instruction, then immediately we understand that the soul is different from this body. Exactly just like if somebody inquires, "Where is Prabhupāda?" If somebody says that "He is in this room," it does not mean this room is Prabhupāda; Prabhupāda is within this room. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says that this, the owner of the body, the soul, is within this body. So immediately the false impression that "I am this body," the fool's conclusion, immediately it is eradicated. The light is there, but he will not accept. He wants to continue to live as a fool and speculate and waste time and con..., give conclusion in so many ways, so many rascal jugglery, "The living force is like this, like that, like that." But Kṛṣṇa gives instruction immediately that the living force, soul, is within this body; he is not this body. And He gives complete instruction on this at... He says, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre: (BG 2.20) "This soul is never killed even the body is killed." This is knowledge. In spite of this knowledge, if somebody sticks to his foolish theories, then he remains animal.

Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza:

Hayagrīva: He does not believe that God has a body because by body, he says, we understand a certain quantity possessing life, breadth and depth, limited by some fixed form, and that to attribute these to God, a being absolutely infinite, is the greatest absurdity.

Prabhupāda: No. God has body, but not this material body. The material body is limited. That does not mean... This is imperfect knowledge of the spiritual quality. God has got body. That is confirmed in Vedic literature, sac-cid-ānanda vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Vigraha means body, a form. But His form is eternal. He is all-aware, sat-cit, and He is always blissful. So this body is neither eternal nor blissful nor all-awareness. Therefore this body is different from God's body. But God has got a body which is different in quality. That is spiritual body.

Hayagrīva: He writes, "God is free from passions, nor is He affected with any emotion of joy or sorrow. Properly speaking, God loves no one and hates no one, for God is not affected with any emotion of joy or sorrow, and consequently he neither loves nor hates anyone."

Prabhupāda: Yes. He is called ātmā-pama (?). He doesn't require anything from anyone. He is complete. But if anyone offers Him something out of love, it is his benefit who is offering something to God. God doesn't require anything. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā God says, patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati: (BG 9.26) "A devotee, out of his love, even he offers Me a little leaf, little water, little flower," tad aham aśnāmi, "I eat that." So God is fully satisfied in Himself. Why He desires a patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyam from a devotee? It is not for His benefit. But if he begins to offer something out of love, then his love begins with God. He gives him the chance. So offering to God does not mean God is benefited. It is benefit of the devotee that he begins to offer, and if he gradually develops that love, then his life is successful. So it is a chance. God does not require anything, but the giver, whatever he, he gives to God, it is for his own benefit. Just like the example is given, the..., if your face is decorated, then the reflection of the face in the mirror is automatically decorated. So we are reflection of God. If God is decorated then we become decorated. That is the idea.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: Some people have been said to have remembered events in their previous lives. How are these reminiscences or ideas different from innate ideas? How is it possible for one to recall events?

Prabhupāda: Innate idea is in everyone, that is, "God is great, and I am," what is called, "controlled." That innate idea is everywhere. But sometimes, out of ignorance one tries to become God. That is not possible. That is māyā, and he suffers from this. Artificially trying to become God, that is simply waste of time. It will never become possible. That is called māyā. Otherwise, innate idea is that he is servant and God is great. That is innate idea.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Hari-śauri:

ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
iti matvā bhajante māṁ
budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ
(BG 10.8)

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise, who know this perfectly, engage in My devotional service and worship Me..."

Prabhupāda: So "everything emanates from Me" mean the universal form also emanate from. So iti matvā bhajante mām: "One who understand Me, he, he becomes a Kṛṣṇa devotee." Iti matvā bhajante māṁ budhā bhāva-saman(vitāḥ), that He is the origin of universal form also; then he becomes a Kṛṣṇa devotee.

Hayagrīva: He sees God's... (break) Alexander sees God's Deity as being different from others in that it is infinite... (break) This is the continuation of Alexander that was interrupted due to the defective tape. A God..., uh, Alexander considers God's Deity as differing from that of others in being infinite, and he says, "God's body..."

Prabhupāda: This, this, this sense should be explained. Because God is infinite, He has infinite Deities also. That is infiniteness. He is presented as Deity; that is infinitely of varieties. That is infiniteness. Why he is sticking to one Deity? That is his not understanding the meaning of what is infinite. That is explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā, advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Ananta-rūpam: He has Deity infinitely. That is infinity. Because He is infinite, He has no Deity—that is not real conception. He is infinite and He has got infinite Deity forms.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.

Hayagrīva: ...but He is different from the finite beings...

Prabhupāda: So that is the Vedic injunction, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He is also eternal, He is also living being; we are also eternal, we are also living being. But He is the chief. How He is chief? Eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. That single number eternal living being, He is maintaining all these plural number living beings. Therefore you will find either in this material world or in the spiritual world there is so much arrangement. The sky is there, the air is there, the fire is there, the water is there, the land is there. He has made, even in this conditioned state, God has given us so much things, made for our maintenance. We require water—we find; we require air, so many things, and God has given us ample opportunity. So He is maintaining. Without air we cannot breathe; without water we cannot live; without fire we cannot live. So He has given; therefore He is maintaining, He is maintainer. So one, the chief eternal living being is God, and the subordinate eternal living being are the jīvas, or the conditioned soul.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Hayagrīva: This, he goes on to say, he says it doesn't belong, strictly belong, strictly belong to theism or pantheism. "The answer must be it is not strictly referable to either taken by itself, that in different respects it belongs to both, and that if a choice must be made, it is theistic," that is personal, "for God for us is..."

Prabhupāda: That, that means when you come to the personal God you see that everything is with reference to God. There is nothing independent. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaro. That is explained, that this viśvarūpa universe is Bhagavān, but it appears that it is different from Bhagavān to the less intelligent. So then there cannot exist anything without Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but those who have no sufficient knowledge, they think that "This is separate from God and God is separate from you."

Hayagrīva: He says, "God is both body and soul..."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: "...and His soul is His Deity. Since God's body is the whole of space/time, God, in respect of His body, is all-inclusive, and all finites are included in Him, and in their continuous connection as pieces of space/time, and linked by spacial-temporal continuity they are fragments of God's body, though their individuality is not lost in it."

Prabhupāda: This is right. This is right. This experience he has got very good work.

Purports to Songs

Purport to Gaura Pahu -- Los Angeles, January 10, 1969:

So actually, everyone of us, neglecting our spiritual emanicipation, we are engaged in material sense gratification, and therefore we are losing the opportunity of this human form of body to elevate myself on the spiritual platform. This human body is especially given to the conditioned soul to take a chance for spiritual emancipation. So anyone who does not care for spiritual emancipation, he is inviting spiritual death. Spiritual death means to forget oneself, that he's spirit. That is spiritual death. So in the animal life it is fully forgetfulness. They cannot be reminded at any circumstances that they are not this body, they are different from this body. It is only in this human form of body, human form of life, one can understand that he is not this body, he's spirit soul. So by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, one can easily understand this fact, and by worshiping Lord Caitanya, following His principles and ways, one can chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and very easily come to the platform of spiritual understanding. But Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says on our behalf that we are neglecting this. Therefore we are inviting spiritual death.

Page Title:Different from... (Lectures, Other)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Mayapur
Created:08 of Dec, 2011
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=91, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:91