Emphasize (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"emphasis" |"emphasize" |"emphasized" |"emphasizes" |"emphasizing"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Here it is emphatically emphasized that dūreṇa hy avaraṁ karma buddhi-yogād dhanañjaya: "By application of this God consciousness, you throw away all other work. Any work which you cannot do with God consciousness, don't do it."

Lecture on BG 2.48-49 -- New York, April 1, 1966:

And actually we are seeing that as much as we are making economic progress, as much money we are getting, the next program is how to spend it for sense gratification, how to spend it for sense gratification. They have no other program, no other program. You see? Everywhere. But here the formula is that nothing for your sense gratification; everything for God. The work is not condemned. Work you can do. Whatever in situation, position you are by God's will you are put in, that doesn't matter. Your work is not bad, provided you work for the Supreme Lord. That's all. That is the technique.

So dūreṇa hy avaraṁ karma. Here it is emphatically emphasized that dūreṇa hy avaraṁ karma buddhi-yogād dhanañjaya: "By application of this God consciousness, you throw away all other work. Any work which you cannot do with God consciousness, don't do it." Now, here is the injunction in Bhagavad-gītā that "Anything which you cannot do with God consciousness, stop doing." But the whole world is engaged, doing things in which there is no God consciousness. There is no God consciousness.

When you chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, your senses are attracted by this vibration. You hear. As soon as you hear, your mind is fixed-up. That is meditation.

Lecture on BG 4.1 -- Delhi, November 10, 1971:

Prabhupāda: Any other question? All right, let us chant. Chant with us. Yes, there is. Come forward please.

Guest (4): I would like to ask the teacher. I, as I understand the Ramakrishna movement is, uh, Hare Kṛṣṇa, rather, movement is uh, centering on the practice of chanting the great mantra, Hare Kṛṣṇa, no. My question is, what is the, why is that this particular movement is not emphasizing so-called meditation?

Prabhupāda: It is meditation. When you chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, your senses are attracted by this vibration. You hear. As soon as you hear, your mind is fixed-up. That is meditation.

Guest (4): The chanting is...

Prabhupāda: Yes, meditation.

Guest (4): ...bhakti meditation?

Prabhupāda: Meditation, if you meditate individually, you will have to try so many things, but when I loudly chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, your meditation immediately attracted. This is the easiest method of meditation in this age. Chant.

If you want to help a person, your aim should be to help a person for the ultimate goal.

Lecture on BG 4.9-11 -- New York, July 25, 1966:

Guest (2): Does the higher nature include anything outside of you? That is, any communication of your fellow man, helping him in some way, that is, perhaps some way alleviating his material suffering. If he is suffering materially, is there anything that Kṛṣṇa... In my readings of the Bhagavad-gītā I haven't seen where Kṛṣṇa deals with the social aspect of man, helping the man who is starving, say, to overcome his suffering or providing his material needs. Rather, the emphasis is on away from the material.

Prabhupāda: This is material nature, of course, but one thing is that if you want to help a person, your aim should be to help a person for the ultimate goal. Just like I will give you an example that a physician treating a patient, he is also engaged in giving some assistance to the suffering man. Now, he treats the root of the disease. Now, the patient says, "Doctor, I have got very much headache today." Doctor knows: "Yes. All right. I shall see." He says, "I have got a great pain in here." Now, the doctor sees that these are the symptoms of his main disease.

Mind being engaged always in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is no chance of its being engaged in māyā consciousness.

Lecture on BG 6.2-5 -- Los Angeles, February 14, 1969:

One should not degrade oneself by attraction to sense objects. The more one is attracted by sense objects, the more one becomes entangled in material existence. The best way to disentangle oneself is always to engage the mind in Kṛṣṇa's service. The Sanskrit word hi in this verse is used for emphasizing this point, i.e., that one must do this. It is also said: 'For man, mind is the cause of bondage and mind is the cause of liberation. Mind absorbed in sense objects is the cause of bondage and mind detached from the sense objects is the cause of liberation.' Therefore the mind which is always engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the cause of supreme liberation."

Prabhupāda: Yes. There is no chance. Mind being engaged always in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is no chance of its being engaged in māyā consciousness. The more we engage our mind in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the more you keep yourself in the sunlight, there is no chance of getting into darkness. That is the process. If you like, you are at liberty. You can keep yourself within the room in darkness, and you can come in the broad daylight. That depends on your choice. But when you come in the broad sunlight, there is no chance of darkness. Darkness can be eradicated by light, but light cannot be covered by darkness. Suppose you are in a dark room. You bring one lamp. The darkness over. But you take something dark and go to the sunlight, it will fade away. So kṛṣṇa sūrya-sama māyā haya andhakāra. Kṛṣṇa is just like sunlight. And māyā is just like darkness. So what darkness will do in sunlight? You keep yourself in sunlight. Darkness will fail to act upon you. This is the whole philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Our process is, first of all chant śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu-nityānanda śrī-advaita gadādhara śrīvās... you get some strength, then chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa... it will be easy.

Last portion of Questions & Answers -- Chicago, July 4, 1974 :

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

śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya

prabhu-nityānanda

śrī-advaita gadādhara

śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda

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

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

Tat tvam asi means "You are the same." Tat tvam asi. That means you are spirit soul.

Lecture on SB 6.3.18-19 -- Gorakhpur, February 12, 1971:

Revatīnandana: In the Bhāgavatam and also in the Teachings of Lord Caitanya you talk about the oṁkāra and tat tvam asi vibration. Now, the impersonalists improperly emphasize tat tvam asi over the original oṁkāra. I was wondering what are the significance of these two vibrations and what is their relationship to Kṛṣṇa? What is tat tvam asi?

Prabhupāda: Oṁkāra is Kṛṣṇa also. Kṛṣṇa is everything. Why not oṁkāra? So tat tvam asi means "You are the same." Tat tvam asi. That means you are spirit soul. So what is the objection? And for every Vedic mantra, the oṁkāra is there. Praṇāma. Every Vedic mantra. Just like we also chant oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramam. Oṁ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ tat savitur vareṇyam. So every Vedic mantra is preceded by the oṁkāra.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

In the Bṛhad-nāradīya Purāṇa, thrice it has been emphasized that you must take to this harer nāma, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.66-76 -- San Francisco, February 6, 1967:

There are eighteen purāṇas. So one of the purāṇas is called Bṛhad-nāradīya Purāṇa. So in that Bṛhad-nāradīya Purāṇa, this quotation is there:

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāma eva kevalam

kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā

(CC Adi 17.21)

"In this age of Kali..." Kali means disagreement, quarrel and misunderstanding. This is Kali-yuga, misguiding and, I mean to say, less intelligence, less merciful, living for short period. There are so many disqualifications in this age. So therefore, in the Bṛhad-nāradīya Purāṇa it is explicitly stated that,

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāma eva kevalam

kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā

(CC Adi 17.21)

Kalau means in this age of Kali there is no other alternative, no other alternative, no other alternative. Thrice. Just like, when you want to stress upon some point, you say thrice: "Do this. Do this. Do this." Similarly, in the Bṛhad-nāradīya Purāṇa, thrice it has been emphasized that you must take to this harer nāma, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare. Why I must take it? Now, because there is no other alternative than this for your self-realization. If you at all want to know yourself, if you at all want to become perfect or, if you want, at all, to reach the goal of human life, then you must, you must, you must. "So My Guru Mahārāja..." Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "My Guru Mahārāja, My spiritual master, asked Me to 'Keep this verse within Your throat and You go on chanting and I bless You that You will be liberated. You'll not only be liberated, but You shall also reach the highest goal, the Kṛṣṇa planet.' "

Philosophy Discussions

One should be dependent on authority, and that authority should be recognized or well established. Then knowledge is possible.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Hayagrīva: Immanuel Kant. Being a son of the Enlightenment, Kant strongly advocated the right and duty of every man to judge for himself in religious and secular matters. Indeed, he considered the motto of the Enlightenment to be, "Have courage to make use of your own intellect." The emphasis here is on individual freedom and on the ability of man to intuit the truth.

Prabhupāda: Does it mean that anyone, whatever he does, that is perfectly right? If he is given that freedom, then anyone will do anything as he likes. So it will be taken as...

Hayagrīva: Well he, at the same time, he considered the Bible to be the best vehicle for the instruction of the public in a truly moral religion.

Prabhupāda: Then he has to accept some authority. Where is freedom?

Hayagrīva: He believed that the individual can intuit truths within, but could be helped from without by scripture.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That means he should not become independent, but he advocates in the beginning that everyone should be independent. So that is not right proposal. One should be dependent on authority, and that authority should be recognized or well established. Then knowledge is possible.

If he takes the order of God, that he must do it, that is final morality.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Hayagrīva: Oh, he believes in God...

Prabhupāda: Oh.

Hayagrīva: ...but that he rejects the traditional proofs of God. He says that God is morally necessary in a moral universe. His philosophy is a philosophy of ethics and morality.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. But if your, his morality does not accept God, and God is there—because we have already discussed that behind the nature there is God. So if his morality denies the existence of God, then where is the value of this morality? This morality can change at any time into degradation.

Hayagrīva: His, his emphasis are on morality is based on this. He says...

Prabhupāda: So what is morality?

Hayagrīva: He says, "For a rational but finite being..."

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: "...the only thing..."

Prabhupāda: So one man is thinking that animal killing is good, and another man is thinking animal killing is immorality. Then who is correct? Unless you know morality means this—it is coming from authority—that you have to follow it, otherwise you will be punished, then morality. Otherwise, if there is no background of forcing, that morality can be degraded into immorality at any moment.

Hayagrīva: Well, this is the weak..., this seems to be the weakness in his philosophy. He says, "For a rational but finite being the only thing possible is an endless progress from the lower to the higher degrees of moral perfection." So...

Prabhupāda: That means endless struggle to understand real morality. But if he takes the order of God, that he must do it, that is final morality.

If one is actually aware of God and His instructions, then the kingdom of God is within himself.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Hayagrīva: For Kant, the true religion is the divine ethical state. He is..., he was fond of quoting the Christian Bible. When Christ was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, 'Lo here' or 'Lo there,' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Now Kant footnotes this passage by saying, "Here a kingdom of God is represented not according to a particular covenant, but moral, knowable through assisted reason." So again he insists on the priority of God within, on the priority of ethical action and the freedom to accept ethical action. And this is epitomized in his famous line, "The starry sky above and the moral law within." The starry sky above is the abode of God, is very far away, but the moral law within is very close. Thus he emphasizes that the kingdom of God is within you.

Prabhupāda: Yes. If one is actually aware of God and His instructions, then the kingdom of God is within himself.

You cannot decide without your aim. What is the aim of life?

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Śyāmasundara: This particular philosophy puts emphasis on the act of deciding, that whatever is decided doesn't matter, but...

Prabhupāda: But you cannot decide without your aim. What is the aim of life?

Śyāmasundara: Well, he says that because we cannot know the aim or...

Prabhupāda: Then how we can make decision?

Śyāmasundara: Then we must make a choice, either this or that.

Prabhupāda: That is childish. That is childish. Just like a child, he does not know. He sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with that. That's all. That is child.

They have developed this philosophy and this Bible, after the demise of Jesus Christ. More or less it is concoction.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: One man is suffering because he has identified with this body, he is suffering. But they were identified with the cause of the gopīs. They are simply writing Kṛṣṇa's pastimes with gopīs, Vidagdha-mādhava, Lalitā-mādhava, Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. They are simply engaged in thoughts of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs and writing, writing, writing. So what is the suffering? Other fools may think, "Oh this man was minister. He was so comfortably situated. Now they have taken this cloth and they've no home, no food, nothing of this..." They are thinking that is suffering, but they are not suffering. They are not suffering. They are enjoying.

Śyāmasundara: I think that's the difference between the Christian emphasis and Kṛṣṇa consciousness...

Prabhupāda: Because it's simply mental speculation. There is no basis.

Śyāmasundara: The Christian monks, ascetics, they always thought that the life they were giving up, they were suffering, always that feeling...

Prabhupāda: Poor fund of knowledge, that's all.

Śyāmasundara: Anyway, to go on...

Prabhupāda: And they have developed this philosophy and this Bible, after the demise of Jesus Christ. More or less it is concoction.

If the guidance is one, then thought must be on the same relation as different thought.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Śyāmasundara: But this Kierkegaard, he was living in last century, he was prior to the modern existentialists, so he was still thinking about God. He came before God (indistinct). His final thought is that..., the final idea is that thought should be separated from existence, because existence cannot be thought, but it must be lived; that the thought process should be separated from the existing process or the acting process.

Prabhupāda: Our process is already guided (?). (indistinct). Just like in university if you want to be a doctorate in philosophy, three other big philosophers are appointed to guide you, and then you present your thesis. But these people are thinking without any guidance, (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: He says that the (indistinct) must come from Christ ultimately...

Prabhupāda: Then they're accepting some (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his emphasis is on the acting part, not the...

Prabhupāda: Guidance is (indistinct), then where is different thought? What is that? If the guidance is one, then thought must be on the same relation as different thought.

Śyāmasundara: But he makes this statement that "The difference between God and man can be discerned in that God does not think; He creates. God does not exist; He is eternal. Man thinks..."

Prabhupāda: But He's eternal, He does not exist? What is this? What is that nonsense? He's eternal, He does not exist.

Children can be trained in a different way. As you train them, they become like that.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Devotee: Freud would give an example like this: The child three or four years old, and then a younger child is born in the family. The four-year-old child sees the younger child as a source of competition for affection, and he doesn't like the younger child, but then if he expresses dislike for the child he will be chastised by the parents, so he makes as if he likes the child very much in order to get approbation, but factually he dislikes the child. That is another mechanism that...

Prabhupāda: I don't think the older child dislikes the younger child. Sometimes.

Devotee: Yes. But he would say this sometimes occurs.

Śyāmasundara: You don't notice it very much in Indian families because they are so well-adjusted, but in Western families this quite often happens—the older child becomes jealous of the younger child's favors, but in order to gain the favor of the parents, he expresses overt love for the younger child, or...

Prabhupāda: I don't think children are so clever, that in order to win the love of parents they will treat like that.

Devotee: Freud put so much emphasis on children and the mentality and emotions of children—what one is experiencing, youth and so on—and it is all concocted, don't you think?

Prabhupāda: Children can be trained in a different way. As you train them, they become like that.

Devotee: Freud says that all children experience this if there is a younger child born in the family.

Prabhupāda: They imitate. Children's position is imitation. I have seen in other children, one child was two years old and another child was three years old, and they were imitating just like they had seen sexual intercourse of their father. I have seen it. They are playing, lying down, and the male child is laying upon her. I saw it. Imitation. They do not know what is sex, but they will imitate it. That's all.

Everything is plan. But those demons, they cannot see. They say, "No, there is no plan here."

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: There is purpose, but because he is foolish, therefore he does not see anything as purpose. There is purpose. Just if like I am hungry, this philosopher says accidentally I am hungry, I eat something. No. I am hungry when there is purpose. My bodily limbs are exhausted, they require energy, so therefore I am hungry, I must take some food. The foodstuff will be converted into energy. There is a plan. It is not blank. Everything is going on by plan. The sun is rising under some plan. The moon is rising under some plan. Seasonal changes under plan. Everything is plan. But those demons, they cannot see. They say, "No, there is no plan here."

Śyāmasundara: They see all activity as in vain. All activity is a useless struggle, a vain struggle.

Prabhupāda: That is for him. Because he is confused and without any direction, he thinks like that.

Śyāmasundara: So his emphasis is not on the activity itself—because it's all vain—but how you do it.

Prabhupāda: We don't say how it is all vain. That I have already explained: everything has got a plan. Just like we are moving this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. There is a plan. There is an objective. (indistinct) vainly we are doing that. Nothing is done in that we or you or anyone. There must be some plan. There is a plan. That plan may be right or wrong—there is a plan.

"Thrown into the world," as soon you say like that, then the next question will be, "Thrown by whom?"

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: So wherefrom the human reality comes? There are no realities also, so why he is stressing on human realities?

Hayagrīva: There again, he would emphasize accident—he uses the word—that man is thrown into the world, or cast into the world.

Prabhupāda: Thrown by whom? "Thrown into the world," as soon you say like that, then the next question will be, "Thrown by whom?"

Devotee: They don't like that question.

Prabhupāda: Hm?

Hayagrīva: He...

Devotee: They do not like that question.

Hayagrīva: Well, he says, "Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view."

Prabhupāda: No, if you exist as others exist, then what is the fault there? God also exists. He exists. Others also existing. So if there is God, what is the fault if He exists? Why he is denying the existence of God? Let them all exist.

If one person better intelligent than me he can exist, so why a person who exceeds all others in intelligence, He cannot exist? So there is no meaning of atheism. That is ignorance.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: First of all, he feels that God does not exist.

Prabhupāda: Why? If you exist, if others exist, why God will not exist?

Hayagrīva: That is his position as an atheist.

Prabhupāda: No, atheist, that is there should be reasonable proposal. If you speak something nonsense, that "I exist," why he, does he bring the word God, if God does not exist? God is there, but He denies the existence. That is atheism. Otherwise, why bringing the word God? If God does not exist, why he is bringing the word God?

Hayagrīva: He wants, he's trying to...

Prabhupāda: That means God is there. He wants his existence; he does not want God to exist. That is his proposal.

Hayagrīva: Yes. Emphasis is on man.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is nonsense. If you believe in your existence, you should believe in others' existence also. Actually there is. Human being is not only existing, but there are so many, 8,400,000 different forms of living being. They are existing. So God is also one of them. According to Vedic understanding of God, that God is also one of the living being, but He is the chief, supreme living being. That is the difference. So, in the ordinary understanding a man is better than the animal, and another intelligent man is better than the nonintelligent man. So similarly, you go on with comparative study, one after another, when you come to the final living being, He is the Supreme. As it is said in the Bhagavad-gītā, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) there is no more superior living being, and that is God. That we have got practical experience. You may be more intelligent than me, he may be more intelligent than you, go on, go on searching. So when you find somebody that He is the final intelligent, that is God. So what is the difficulty to understand? Why God shall not exist? If one person better intelligent than me he can exist, so why a person who exceeds all others in intelligence, He cannot exist? So there is no meaning of atheism. That is ignorance.

What does he mean, "responsible"? If there is no duty, nobody is to see above you, then where is your responsibility?

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: According to him he says, "The first principle of existentialism is that man is nothing else but what he makes of himself, since there is no God to conceive of human nature."

Prabhupāda: When, if he can see that man exists in his own idea, so why not a superman who exists in his own idea, or his own capacity, completely independent of anyone? Why, how he can deny that? That is not possible.

Hayagrīva: He feels that... He puts a great deal of emphasis on man's responsibility, of his existence on himself.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: That since he's not responsible to God, he's responsible for himself.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: Or to himself.

Prabhupāda: What does he mean, "responsible"? Responsible, if somebody gives you duties, and if you feel responsible to discharge that duty, then you are responsible. But there is no duty, nobody is to see above you, then where is your responsibility?

Hayagrīva: Well, he feels that all values... If there is no God, all values disappear. There are no values, there's no criteria.

Prabhupāda: So his value also disappear.

If you go on drinking, then your conscience will say it is good, and if you go on chanting, your conscience will say this is good. The conscience is prepared according to association.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Prabhupāda: What is immoral? Everyone will say this is morality. Just like we say, following the Vedic scripture, we say kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyam (BG 18.44), go-rakṣya, to give protection to the cows. So according to the scripture we would say it is morality, and somebody will say no, killing a cow in some religious place, mosque or synagogue, this is morality. So which one is morality?

Hayagrīva: Well he, following Kant, he emphasized inner reality...

Prabhupāda: He may, he may follow Kant and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is contradiction, then which one is morality? How it will be decided, and who will decide? He may follow somebody. That this question I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader. Now who shall be the leader and who will decide it? Regards to both of us, we have got a leader. Now which leader is perfect? If both of them are perfect, then why there is difference of opinion—one leader does not agree with the other leader? So who will answer this question that who is the best leader? Leader you have to follow. That you cannot avoid. Either you follow Kant or you follow Kṛṣṇa. Either you follow Lenin or you follow Kṛṣṇa. What is the answer? Who is the perfect leader? You cannot avoid leader, either you say according to Kant, I say according to Kṛṣṇa.

Hayagrīva: Well they both emphasize intuition or conscience. The interior...

Prabhupāda: The conscience is prepared. If you go on drinking, then your conscience will say it is good, and if you go on chanting, your conscience will say this is good. The conscience is prepared according to association. There is no standard conscience.

Hayagrīva: No standard conscience or intuition.

Prabhupāda: So which one will you follow?

Hayagrīva: They seem to think there is a standard within everyone.

Prabhupāda: So what is that standard? We say the order of Kṛṣṇa is standard. That's all. What Kṛṣṇa says, that is standard, that we have got some standard. Unless there is standard, you say conscience, high sense, morality... What is that? Define it. Just like we have got definition of God. I think nobody has got any definition of God. What is the standard that a person should be called God? I don't think... it is only in Vedic literature.

Everything comes from God, but we have to make our choice.

Philosophy Discussion on Plato:

Hayagrīva: Insofar as man resembles God, he is ethical. Evil forces within man combat his efforts to attain this ultimate goal. Plato is not a determinist. He emphasized freedom of the will and insisted that evil acts are due to man's failure to live up to his responsibility. They do not come from God, who is all-good.

Prabhupāda: Everything comes from God, but we have to make our choice. This ideal example: that the university comes from the government and the prison house also comes from the government, but the prison house is meant for the criminal and the university is meant for the highly learned scholar. The government spends money in both the departments to maintain it; therefore, so far government's recognition is concerned, it has to be maintained. But it is we, we make our selection whether go to the prison house or go to the university. That is, that little independence is there in every human being. We have to make our choice.

Contemplation should be guided by authorities. Otherwise one can contemplate with his limited senses for many, many millions of years, it will be impossible to understand what is God.

Philosophy Discussion on Aristotle:

Hayagrīva: There is a great deal of emphasis in Aristotle on reason. He says happiness depends on man's acting in a rational way. The rational way is the virtuous way. The virtuous way is the way of intellectual insight. There is a suggestion of sense control but no bhakti. So is it possible to obtain happiness simply by controlling the senses by the mind?

Prabhupāda: Yes. So that is the process of becoming a human being. The lower beings, animals, they do not know this process. Just like they are busy only for sense gratification-eating, sleeping, mating and defense, their only business. But a human being can be engaged by proper guidance in contemplation. Just like Aristotle is contemplating or Plato is con..., this is human being's business. But such contemplation should be guided by authorities. Otherwise one can contemplate with his limited senses for many, many millions of years, it will be impossible to understand what is God.

Meaning is one, but if one is not realized, then he can make many meanings.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: Falsity cannot form the basis of Divine scripture, which has been handed down by the Holy Spirit. That's one mistake one can make in reading scripture. Another, he says, "No one should try to restrict scripture to one meaning to such an extent that other meanings containing some truth and quite possible in relation to the context would be excluded. In fact it belongs to the dignity of Divine scripture to contain many meanings in one text, so that in this way it may be appropriate to the various understandings of men."

Prabhupāda: Meaning is one, but interpreter are different. Just like even in the Bible it is said, "God created the universe." So that is a fact, God created. So unless you interpret in a different way, how you can say that the universe is created by some chunk and this way and that way? So we accept scripture in that sense, without any change; therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We cannot change the words of God. That is our principle. And interpretation with motive, there are so many interpreter, and that has spoiled the God consciousness of the human society.

Hayagrīva: Well this is rather strange, because Aquinas, his writings form the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church has always emphasized one meaning, which is interpreted by the Pope, by the head of the Church. The meaning is given by the Pope, of scripture, because...

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is...

Hayagrīva: But here he says that the scriptures may contain many meanings according to one's degree of realization.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Not many meaning. Meaning is one, but if one is not realized, then he can make many meanings. Otherwise meaning is one. What can be any other meaning? Suppose God created this universe. This is stated in the Bible, or in the Bhagavad-gītā the same thing is expressed in a different way, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8): "From Me everything emanates." So that's a fact, that everything is coming out from God's energy, so why there should be second meaning and second interpretation unless one is godless? What is the possible second meaning?

He is subjected to birth, death, old age. Where is his freedom?

Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Hayagrīva: Hegel placed a great deal of emphasis on human freedom.

Prabhupāda: There is no freedom. That is another nonsense.

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: (laughs) He is subjected to birth, death, old age. Where is his freedom? That is another nonsense.

Hayagrīva: He accuses the Orientals, mainly the Indians... He says, "The Orientals do not know that the spirit is free in itself or that man is free in himself. Because they do not know it, they are not free."

Prabhupāda: But is he free? Why he died? The Orientals he is accusing. Why he died? This is their nonsense speculation.

Hayagrīva: He says, "They only know that the one"—that is, the one Brahman—"is free; therefore such freedom is only arbitrary."

Prabhupāda: Then why he says that the human being should be free?

Hayagrīva: He says this one, supreme one, is therefore a despot, not a free man, not a man. Only the Germanic nations have in and through Christianity achieved the consciousness that man as man is free and that freedom of the spirit constitutes his very nature. This consciousness arose first in religion and the innermost region of spirit.

Prabhupāda: Christian religion is that the man either goes to heaven or goes to hell. So he has got the freedom either go to hell or go to heaven. This freedom he has got. But who gives him hell or heaven? He has got the freedom to make choice, but when he is going to hell, then where is his freedom? That where is the distinction between hell and heaven? These are... If he is Christian he should answer that the man is given chance, once, either to go to hell or go to heaven. So all right, if he goes to heaven it is all right. Then if he goes to hell, where is freedom? This common sense also, that every citizen has got the freedom to live as free citizen or to go to the jail, but one who goes to the jail, where is freedom? And who gives him the chance of free citizenship or prisoner's life? Therefore his freedom is dependent on somebody, higher principle, who gives him chance to remain free or go to prison. That God is the supreme controller. He gives the living entity freedom to make his choice, either go to hell or go to heaven, but he is not completely free as God is free.