Manu's duty is to reestablish the system of religion. Manu's sons execute Manu's orders, and thus the entire universe is maintained by Manu and his descendants. The Indras are various rulers of the heavenly planets. Assisted by the demigods, they rule the three worlds. The Supreme Personality of Godhead also appears as incarnations in different yugas. He appears as Sanaka, Sanātana, Yājñavalkya, Dattātreya and others, and thus He gives instructions in spiritual knowledge, prescribed duties, principles of mystic yoga, and so on. As Marīci and others, He creates progeny; as the king, He punishes the miscreants; and in the form of time, He annihilates the creation. One may argue, "If the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead can do anything simply by His will, why has He arranged for so many personalities to manage?" How and why He does this cannot be understood by those who are under the clutches of māyā.
One may argue (Books)
Expressions researched:
"It may be argued"
|"It may be then argued"
|"One may also argue"
|"One may argue"
|"One may then argue"
|"may argue"
|"might argue"
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Chapters 1 - 6
Arjuna was addressed as the son of Pṛthā, who happened to be the sister of Kṛṣṇa's father Vasudeva. Therefore Arjuna had a blood relationship with Kṛṣṇa. If the son of a kṣatriya declines to fight, he is a kṣatriya in name only, and if the son of a brāhmaṇa acts impiously, he is a brāhmaṇa in name only. Such kṣatriyas and brāhmaṇas are unworthy sons of their fathers; therefore, Kṛṣṇa did not want Arjuna to become an unworthy son of a kṣatriya. Arjuna was the most intimate friend of Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa was directly guiding him on the chariot; but in spite of all these credits, if Arjuna abandoned the battle he would be committing an infamous act. Therefore Kṛṣṇa said that such an attitude in Arjuna did not fit his personality. Arjuna might argue that he would give up the battle on the grounds of his magnanimous attitude for the most respectable Bhīṣma and his relatives, but Kṛṣṇa considered that sort of magnanimity mere weakness of heart. Such false magnanimity was not approved by any authority. Therefore, such magnanimity or so-called nonviolence should be given up by persons like Arjuna under the direct guidance of Kṛṣṇa.
The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa's is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much-even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also.
"If someone gives up all material prospects and takes complete shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is no loss or degradation in any way. On the other hand a nondevotee may fully engage in his occupational duties and yet not gain anything." For material prospects there are many activities, both scriptural and customary. A transcendentalist is supposed to give up all material activities for the sake of spiritual advancement in life, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One may argue that by Kṛṣṇa consciousness one may attain the highest perfection if it is completed, but if one does not attain such a perfectional stage, then he loses both materially and spiritually. It is enjoined in the scriptures that one has to suffer the reaction for not executing prescribed duties; therefore one who fails to discharge transcendental activities properly becomes subjected to these reactions. The Bhāgavatam assures the unsuccessful transcendentalist that there need be no worries. Even though he may be subjected to the reaction for not perfectly executing prescribed duties, he is still not a loser, because auspicious Kṛṣṇa consciousness is never forgotten, and one so engaged will continue to be so even if he is lowborn in the next life. On the other hand, one who simply follows strictly the prescribed duties need not necessarily attain auspicious results if he is lacking in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
BG Chapters 7 - 12
It may be argued that since Krsna was visible to everyone when He was present on this earth, how can it be said that He is not manifest to everyone? But actually He was not manifest to everyone. When Kṛṣṇa was present there were only a few people who could understand Him to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the assembly of Kurus, when Śiśupāla spoke against Kṛṣṇa's being elected president of the assembly, Bhīṣma supported Him and proclaimed Him to be the Supreme God. Similarly, the Pāṇḍavas and a few others knew that He was the Supreme, but not everyone. He was not revealed to the nondevotees and the common man. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says that but for His pure devotees, all men consider Him to be like themselves. He was manifest only to His devotees as the reservoir of all pleasure. But to others, to unintelligent nondevotees, He was covered by His internal potency.
BG Chapters 13 - 18
It is known that God is all-merciful, but here we find that God is never merciful to the demoniac. It is clearly stated that the demoniac people, life after life, are put into the wombs of similar demons, and, not achieving the mercy of the Supreme Lord, they go down and down, so that at last they achieve bodies like those of cats, dogs and hogs. It is clearly stated that such demons have practically no chance of receiving the mercy of God at any stage of later life. In the Vedas also it is stated that such persons gradually sink to become dogs and hogs. It may be then argued in this connection that God should not be advertised as all-merciful if He is not merciful to such demons. In answer to this question, in the Vedānta-sūtra we find that the Supreme Lord has no hatred for anyone. The placing of the asuras, the demons, in the lowest status of life is simply another feature of His mercy. Sometimes the asuras are killed by the Supreme Lord, but this killing is also good for them, for in Vedic literature we find that anyone who is killed by the Supreme Lord becomes liberated. There are instances in history of many asuras-Rāvaṇa, Kaṁsa, Hiraṇyakaśipu—to whom the Lord appeared in various incarnations just to kill them. Therefore God's mercy is shown to the asuras if they are fortunate enough to be killed by Him.
When one acts in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he does not act as the master of the world. Just like a servant, one should act fully under the direction of the Supreme Lord. A servant has no individual independence. He acts only on the order of the master. A servant acting on behalf of the supreme master is unaffected by profit and loss. He simply discharges his duty faithfully in terms of the order of the Lord. Now, one may argue that Arjuna was acting under the personal direction of Kṛṣṇa but when Kṛṣṇa is not present how should one act? If one acts according to the direction of Kṛṣṇa in this book, as well as under the guidance of the representative of Kṛṣṇa, then the result will be the same. The Sanskrit word mat-paraḥ is very important in this verse. It indicates that one has no goal in life save and except acting in Kṛṣṇa consciousness just to satisfy Kṛṣṇa. And while working in that way, one should think of Kṛṣṇa only: "I have been appointed to discharge this particular duty by Kṛṣṇa."
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Canto 1
Yet he had to meditate to get inspiration for such creation. Therefore, neither Brahmā nor the sun is the ultimate creator. It is stated in this śloka that Brahmā was taught Vedic knowledge by the Personality of Godhead. One may argue that Brahmā, being the original living being, could not be inspired because there was no other being living at that time. Herein it is stated that the Supreme Lord inspired the secondary creator, Brahmā, in order that Brahmā could carry out his creative functions. So, the supreme intelligence behind all creations is the Absolute Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa states that it is He only who superintends the creative energy, prakṛti, which constitutes the totality of matter. Therefore, Śrī Vyāsadeva does not worship Brahmā, but the Supreme Lord, who guides Brahmā in his creative activities.
That the Supreme Lord is all-perfect is confirmed in all śruti-mantras. It is said in the śruti-mantras that the all-perfect Lord threw a glance over matter and thus created all living beings. The living beings are parts and parcels of the Lord, and He impregnates the vast material creation with seeds of spiritual sparks, and thus the creative energies are set in motion to enact so many wonderful creations. An atheist may argue that God is no more expert than a watchmaker, but of course God is greater because He can create machines in duplicate male and female forms. The male and female forms of different types of machineries go on producing innumerable similar machines without God's further attention. If a man could manufacture such a set of machines that could produce other machines without his attention, then he could approach the intelligence of God. But that is not possible, for each machine has to be handled individually. Therefore, no one can create as well as God. Another name for God is asamaurdhva, which means that no one is equal to or greater than Him. Paraṁ satyam, or the Supreme Truth, is He who has no equal or superior. This is confirmed in the śruti-mantras. It is said that before the creation of the material universe there existed the Lord only, who is master of everyone. That Lord instructed Brahmā in Vedic knowledge. That Lord has to be obeyed in all respects. Anyone who wants to get rid of the material entanglement must surrender unto Him. This is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā.
Those who consider devotional service to the Supreme Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa to be something like material emotional affairs may argue that in the revealed scriptures, sacrifice, charity, austerity, knowledge, mystic powers and similar other processes of transcendental realization are recommended. According to them, bhakti, or the devotional service of the Lord, is meant for those who cannot perform the high-grade activities. Generally it is said that the bhakti cult is meant for the śūdras, vaiśyas and the less intelligent woman class. But that is not the actual fact. The bhakti cult is the topmost of all transcendental activities, and therefore it is simultaneously sublime and easy. It is sublime for the pure devotees who are serious about getting in contact with the Supreme Lord, and it is easy for the neophytes who are just on the threshold of the house of bhakti. To achieve the contact of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa is a great science, and it is open for all living beings, including the śūdras, vaiśyas, women and even those lower than the lowborn śūdras, so what to speak of the high-class men like the qualified brāhmaṇas and the great self-realized kings. The other high-grade activities designated as sacrifice, charity, austerity, etc., are all corollary factors following the pure and scientific bhakti cult.
One may argue that the Vedic activities are based on sacrificial ceremonies. That is true. But all such sacrifices are also meant for realizing the truth about Vāsudeva. Another name of Vāsudeva is Yajña (sacrifice), and in the Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly stated that all sacrifices and all activities are to be conducted for the satisfaction of Yajña, or Viṣṇu, the Personality of Godhead. This is the case also with the yoga systems. Yoga means to get into touch with the Supreme Lord. The process, however, includes several bodily features such as āsana, dhyāna, prāṇāyāma and meditation, and all of them are meant for concentrating upon the localized aspect of Vāsudeva represented as Paramātmā. Paramātmā realization is but partial realization of Vāsudeva, and if one is successful in that attempt, one realizes Vāsudeva in full.
Gross military science is dependent on material weapons, but finer than that is the art of throwing the arrows saturated with Vedic hymns, which act more effectively than gross material weapons like machine guns or atomic bombs. The control is by Vedic mantras, or the transcendental science of sound. It is said in the Rāmāyaṇa that Mahārāja Daśaratha, the father of Lord Śrī Rāma, used to control arrows by sound only. He could pierce his target with his arrow by only hearing the sound, without seeing the object. So this is a finer military science than that of the gross material military weapons used nowadays. Arjuna was taught all this, and therefore Draupadī wished that Arjuna feel obliged to Ācārya Droṇa for all these benefits. And in the absence of Droṇācārya, his son was his representative. That was the opinion of the good lady Draupadī. It may be argued why Droṇācārya, a rigid brāhmaṇa, should be a teacher in military science. But the reply is that a brāhmaṇa should become a teacher, regardless of what his department of knowledge is. A learned brāhmaṇa should become a teacher, a priest and a recipient of charity. A bona fide brāhmaṇa is authorized to accept such professions.
In the Vedas and Vedic literatures (śruti and smṛti) it is affirmed that in the Divinity there is no influence of the material modes. He is simply the transcendental (nirguṇa) witness, the supreme cognizant. Hari, or the Personality of Godhead, is the supreme transcendental person situated beyond the range of material affection. These statements are also confirmed even by Ācārya Śaṅkara. One may argue that His relation with the goddesses of fortune may be transcendental, but what about His relation with the Yadu dynasty, being born in that family, or His killing the nonbelievers like Jarāsandha and other asuras directly in contact with the modes of material nature. The answer is that the divinity of the Personality of Godhead is never in contact with the qualities of material nature in any circumstances. Actually He is in contact with such qualities because He is the ultimate source of everything, yet He is above the actions of such qualities. He is known, therefore, as Yogeśvara, or the master of mystic power, or in other words the all-powerful.
A rich man gets his son born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but the child who came as the rich man's son deserved such a place, and therefore he is placed there by the will of the Lord. And at a particular moment when the child has to be removed from that place, he is also carried by the will of the Supreme, even if the child or the father does not wish to be separated from the happy relation. The same thing happens in the case of a poor man also. Neither rich man nor poor man has any control over such meetings or separations of living beings. The example of a player and his playthings should not be misunderstood. One may argue that since the Lord is bound to award the reactionary results of our own actions, the example of a player cannot be applied. But it is not so. We must always remember that the Lord is the supreme will, and He is not bound by any law. Generally the law of karma is that one is awarded the result of one's own actions, but in special cases, by the will of the Lord, such resultant actions are changed also.
SB Canto 2
It may be argued that Śukadeva Gosvāmī is not the only authority of perfect knowledge in transcendence because there are many other sages and their followers. Contemporary to Vyāsadeva or even prior to him there were many other great sages, such as Gautama, Kaṇāda, Jaimini, Kapila and Aṣṭāvakra, and all of them have presented a philosophical path by themselves. Patañjali is also one of them, and all these six great ṛṣis have their own way of thinking, exactly like the modern philosophers and mental speculators. The difference between the six philosophical paths put forward by the renowned sages above mentioned and that of Śukadeva Gosvāmī, as presented in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, is that all the six sages mentioned above speak the facts according to their own thinking, but Śukadeva Gosvāmī presents the knowledge which comes down directly from Brahmājī, who is known as ātma-bhūḥ, or born of and educated by the Almighty Personality of Godhead.
The Supreme Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa and all His plenary portions and extensions of plenary portions are nondifferent from one another, and thus the supreme independence is in each and every one of them. In order to prove this, Śukadeva Gosvāmī (as promised to King Parīkṣit) describes herein the independence of the puruṣa-avatāra Personality of Godhead, even in the sphere of the material creation. Such activities of the Lord are also transcendental, and therefore they are also līlā, or pastimes, of the absolute Lord. Such pastimes of the Lord are very conducive to the hearers for self-realization in the field of devotional service. Some may argue, why not then relish the transcendental līlā of the Lord as exhibited in the land of Mathurā and Vṛndāvana, which are sweeter than anything in the world? Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura replies that the pastimes of the Lord in Vṛndāvana are meant to be relished by advanced devotees of the Lord. Neophyte devotees will misunderstand such supreme transcendental activities of the Lord, and therefore the Lord's pastimes in the material sphere related to creation, maintenance and destruction are verily relishable by the prākṛta, or mundane devotees of the Lord.
SB Canto 3
The husband of one's sister is considered one's brother. By that social relationship, Lord Śiva happened to be the younger brother of Kaśyapa. Kaśyapa warned his wife that because Lord Śiva would see their sex indulgence, the time was not appropriate. Diti might argue that they would enjoy sex life in a private place, but Kaśyapa reminded her that Lord Śiva has three eyes, called the sun, moon and fire, and one cannot escape his vigilance any more than one can escape Viṣṇu. Although seen by the police, a criminal is sometimes not immediately punished; the police wait for the proper time to apprehend him. The forbidden time for sexual intercourse would be noted by Lord Śiva, and Diti would meet with proper punishment by giving birth to a child of ghostly character or a godless impersonalist. Kaśyapa foresaw this, and thus he warned his wife Diti.
Even though the four Kumāras were instructed by their great learned father, Brahmā, they could not actually understand the Absolute Truth. They could only understand the Supreme Absolute Truth when they personally saw the Personality of Godhead with their own eyes. In other words, if one sees or understands the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the other two features of the Absolute Truth—namely impersonal Brahman and localized Paramātmā—are also automatically understood. Therefore the Kumāras confirm: "You are the ultimate Absolute Truth." The impersonalist may argue that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead was so nicely decorated, He was therefore not the Absolute Truth. But here it is confirmed that all the variegatedness of the absolute platform is constituted of śuddha-sattva, pure goodness.
One may say that pradhāna is the Brahman stage, but actually the Brahman stage is not pradhāna. Pradhāna is distinct from Brahman because in Brahman there is no existence of the material modes of nature. One may argue that the mahat-tattva is also different from pradhāna because in the mahat-tattva there are manifestations. The actual explanation of pradhāna, however, is given here: when the cause and effect are not clearly manifested (avyakta), the reaction of the total elements does not take place, and that stage of material nature is called pradhāna. Pradhāna is not the time element because in the time element there are actions and reactions, creation and annihilation. Nor is it the jīva, or marginal potency of living entities, or designated, conditioned living entities, because the designations of the living entities are not eternal. One adjective used in this connection is nitya, which indicates eternality. Therefore the condition of material nature immediately previous to its manifestation is called pradhāna.
Instead of utilizing this life to get liberation, if one uses it simply for the purpose of maintaining his so-called family and therefore performs foolish and unauthorized action, he is compared to a man who has lost his wealth and who, upon losing it, laments. When wealth is lost, there is no use lamenting, but as long as there is wealth, one has to utilize it properly and thereby gain eternal profit. It may be argued that when a man leaves his money earned by sinful activities, he also leaves his sinful activities here with his money. But it is especially mentioned herein that by superior arrangement (daivenāsāditam), although the man leaves behind him his sinfully earned money, he carries the effect of it. When a man steals some money, if he is caught and agrees to return it, he is not freed from the criminal punishment. By the law of the state, even though he returns the money, he has to undergo the punishment. Similarly, the money earned by a criminal process may be left by the man when dying, but by superior arrangement he carries with him the effect, and therefore he has to suffer hellish life.
SB Canto 4
It may be argued that since Dakṣa was very learned, wealthy and austere and had descended from a very exalted heritage, how could he be unnecessarily angry towards another? The answer is that when the qualities of good education, good parentage, beauty and sufficient wealth are misplaced in a person who is puffed up by all these possessions, they produce a very bad result. Milk is a very nice food, but when milk is touched by an envious serpent it becomes poisonous. Similarly, material assets such as education, wealth, beauty and good parentage are undoubtedly nice, but when they decorate persons of a malicious nature, then they act adversely. Another example, given by Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, is that a serpent that has a jewel on its head is still fearful because it is a serpent.
It may be argued that since Dakṣa was the father-in-law of Lord Śiva, it was certainly the duty of Lord Śiva to offer him respect. In answer to that argument it is explained here that when a learned person stands up or offers obeisances in welcome, he offers respect to the Supersoul, who is sitting within everyone's heart. It is seen, therefore, among Vaiṣṇavas, that even when a disciple offers obeisances to his spiritual master, the spiritual master immediately returns the obeisances because they are mutually offered not to the body but to the Supersoul. Therefore the spiritual master also offers respect to the Supersoul situated in the body of the disciple. The Lord says in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that offering respect to His devotee is more valuable than offering respect to Him. Devotees do not identify with the body, so offering respect to a Vaiṣṇava means offering respect to Viṣṇu. It is stated also that as a matter of etiquette as soon as one sees a Vaiṣṇava one must immediately offer him respect, indicating the Supersoul sitting within. A Vaiṣṇava sees the body as a temple of Viṣṇu. Since Lord Śiva had already offered respect to the Supersoul in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, offering respect to Dakṣa, who identified with his body, was already performed. There was no need to offer respect to his body, for that is not directed by any Vedic injunction.
It may be argued that all householders are not very rich and that one cannot receive great saintly persons or preachers because they are always accompanied by their disciples. If a householder is to receive a saintly person, he has to receive his entourage also. It is said in the śāstras that Durvāsā Muni was always accompanied by sixty thousand disciples and that if there was a little discrepancy in their reception, he would be very angry and would sometimes curse the host. The fact is that every householder, regardless of his position or economic condition, can at least receive saintly guests with great devotion and offer them drinking water, for drinking water is available always. In India the custom is that even an ordinary person is offered a glass of water if he suddenly visits and one cannot offer him foodstuff. If there is no water, then one can offer a sitting place, even if it is on straw mats.
One should therefore take shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord instead of trying unsuccessfully to stop desires for material enjoyment. As long as one is unable to stop the desire for material enjoyment, there is no possibility of becoming liberated from the entanglement of material existence. It may be argued that the waves of a river are incessantly flowing and that they cannot be stopped, but the waves of the river flow toward the sea. When the tide comes over the river, it overwhelms the flowing of the river, and the river itself becomes overflooded, and the waves from the sea become more prominent than the waves from the river. Similarly, a devotee with intelligence plans so many things for the service of the Lord in Kṛṣṇa consciousness that stagnant material desires become overflooded by the desire to serve the Lord. As confirmed by Yāmunācārya, since he has been engaged in the service of the lotus feet of the Lord, there is always a current of newer and newer desires flowing to serve the Lord, so much so that the stagnant desire of sex life becomes very insignificant. Yāmunācārya even says that he spits on such desires. Bhagavad-gītā (2.59) also confirms: paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate. The conclusion is that by developing a loving desire for the service of the lotus feet of the Lord, we subdue all material desires for sense gratification.
This material world is often described as an ocean of nescience. In such an ocean, everything is agitated. The mind of a great devotee is also like an ocean or a very large lake, but there is no agitation. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (2.41): vyavasāyātmikā buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana. Those who are fixed in the service of the Lord are not agitated by anything. It is also stated in Bhagavad-gītā (6.22): yasmin sthito na duḥkhena guruṇāpi vicālyate. Even if he suffers some reversals in life, a devotee is never agitated. Therefore whoever takes shelter of a great soul or a great devotee becomes pacified. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (CC Madhya 19.149) it is stated: kṛṣṇa-bhakta-niṣkāma, ataeva 'śānta.' A devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa is always peaceful because he has no desire, whereas the yogīs, karmīs and jñānīs have so many desires to fulfill. One may argue that the devotees have desires, for they wish to go home, back to Godhead, but such a desire does not agitate the mind. Although he wishes to go back to Godhead, a devotee is satisfied in any condition of life. Consequently, the word mahan-manaḥ is used in this verse to indicate that the reservoir of water was as calm and quiet as the mind of a great devotee.
Therefore Nārada Muni asked King Prācīnabarhiṣat what he desired to attain by performing so many costly sacrifices. Even if one attains a heavenly planet, he cannot avoid the distresses of birth, old age, disease and death. Someone may argue that even devotees have to undergo many distresses in executing austerities and penances connected with devotional service. Of course, for the neophytes the routine of devotional service may be very painful, but at least they have the hope that they will ultimately be able to avoid all kinds of distresses and achieve the highest perfectional stage of happiness. For the common karmīs, there is no such hope because even if they are promoted to the higher planetary systems, they are not guaranteed freedom from the miseries of birth, old age, disease and death. Even Lord Brahmā, who is situated in the highest planetary system (Brahmaloka), has to die. Lord Brahmā's birth and death may be different from an ordinary man's, but within this material world he cannot avoid the distresses of birth, old age, disease and death. If one is at all serious about attaining liberation from these miseries, he must take to devotional service.
SB Canto 5
Since Nārada Muni instructed the King fully on this subject, why did he again enter household life, which is the main cause of material bondage? Mahārāja Parīkṣit was greatly astonished that King Priyavrata remained in household life, especially since he was not only a self-realized soul but also a first-class devotee of the Lord. A devotee actually has no attraction for household life, but surprisingly, King Priyavrata enjoyed household life very much. One may argue, "Why is it wrong to enjoy household life?" The reply is that in household life one becomes bound by the results of fruitive activities. The essence of household life is sense enjoyment, and as long as one engrosses his mind in working hard for sense enjoyment, one becomes bound by the reactions of fruitive activities. This ignorance of self-realization is the greatest defeat in human life. The human form of life is especially meant for getting out of the bondage of fruitive activities, but as long as one is forgetful of his life's mission and acts like an ordinary animal—eating, sleeping, mating and defending—he must continue his conditioned life of material existence. Such a life is called svarūpa-vismṛti, forgetfulness of one's real constitutional position. Therefore in Vedic civilization one is trained in the very beginning of life as a brahmacārī. A brahmacārī must execute austerities and refrain from sex indulgence. Therefore if one is completely trained in the principles of brahmacarya, he generally does not enter household life. He is then called a naiṣṭhika-brahmacārī, which indicates total celibacy. King Parīkṣit was thus astonished that the great King Priyavrata, although trained in the principles of naiṣṭhika-brahmacarya, entered household life.
The word manīṣayā ("by intelligence") is of special significance. Priyavrata might argue that Lord Brahmā was requesting him to accept family life and the responsibility for ruling a kingdom, although Nārada Muni had advised him not to enter household life and be entangled in material affairs. Whom to accept would be a puzzle for Priyavrata because both Lord Brahmā and Nārada Muni are authorities. Under the circumstances, the use of the word manīṣayā is very appropriate, for it indicates that since both Nārada Muni and Lord Brahmā are authorized to give instruction, Priyavrata should neglect neither of them but should use his intelligence to follow the advice of both. To solve such dilemmas, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has given a very clear conception of intelligence.
Since the material world is compared herein to a forest, it may be argued that in Kali-yuga modern civilization is mainly situated in the cities. A great city, however, is like a great forest. Actually city life is more dangerous than life in the forest. If one enters an unknown city without friend or shelter, living in that city is more difficult than living in a forest. There are many big cities all over the surface of the globe, and wherever one looks he sees the struggle for existence going on twenty-four hours a day. People rush about in cars going seventy and eighty miles an hour, constantly coming and going, and this sets the scene of the great struggle for existence.
It may be argued that the demigods are as important as Lord Viṣṇu because the names of the demigods are different names of Viṣṇu. This, however, is not a sound conclusion, for it is contradicted in the Vedic literatures. The Vedas declare:
candramā manaso jātaś cakṣoḥ sūryo ajāyata; śrotrādayaś ca prāṇaś ca mukhād agnir ajāyata; nārāyaṇād brahmā, nārāyaṇād rudro jāyate, nārāyaṇāt prajāpatiḥ jāyate, nārāyaṇād indro jāyate, nārāyaṇād aṣṭau vasavo jāyante, nārāyaṇād ekādaśa rudrā jāyante.
SB Canto 6
One may argue, "Since he was constantly chanting the name of Nārāyaṇa, how was it possible for him to be associating with a prostitute and thinking of wine?" By his sinful actions he was bringing suffering upon himself again and again, and therefore one may say that his ultimate chanting of Nārāyaṇa was the cause of his being freed. However, his chanting would then have been a nāma-aparādha. Nāmno balād yasya hi pāpa-buddhiḥ: one who continues to act sinfully and tries to neutralize his sins by chanting the holy name of the Lord is a nāma-aparādhī, an offender to the holy name. In response it may be said that Ajāmila's chanting was inoffensive because he did not chant the name of Nārāyaṇa with the purpose of counteracting his sins. He did not know that he was addicted to sinful actions, nor did he know that his chanting of the name of Nārāyaṇa was neutralizing them. Thus he did not commit a nāma-aparādha, and his repeated chanting of the holy name of Nārāyaṇa while calling his son may be called pure chanting.
One may argue that the sacrifice of animals is recommended in the Vedas. This recommendation, however, is a restriction. Without Vedic restrictions on the purchase of meat, people will purchase meat from the market, which will be overflooded with meat shops, and slaughterhouses will increase. To restrict this, sometimes the Vedas say that one may eat meat after sacrificing an insignificant animal like a goat before the goddess Kālī. In any case, a system of religion in which animal sacrifices are recommended is inauspicious for those who perform the sacrifices and for the animals.
SB Canto 7
The cutting of trees is prohibited unless necessary for the service of Lord Viṣṇu. Yajñārthāt karmaṇo'nyatra loko'yaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ: (BG 3.9)) "work done as a sacrifice for Lord Viṣṇu must be performed, otherwise work binds one to this material world." But if the paper mills stop producing paper, one may argue, how can our ISKCON literature be published? The answer is that the paper mills should manufacture paper only for the publication of ISKCON literature because ISKCON literature is published for the service of Lord Viṣṇu. This literature clarifies our relationship with Lord Viṣṇu, and therefore the publication of ISKCON literature is the performance of yajña. Yajñārthāt karmaṇo 'nyatra loko 'yaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ (BG 3.9)). Yajña must be performed, as indicated by the superior authorities. The cutting of trees simply to manufacture paper for the publication of unwanted literature is the greatest sinful act.
In this regard the queens might argue, "If our husband was protected by the Supreme Personality of Godhead when in the womb, why has he not been given protection now?" To this question the answer is, ya icchayeśaḥ sṛjatīdam avyayo ya eva rakṣaty avalumpate ca yaḥ. One cannot argue with the activities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Lord is always free, and therefore He can protect and can also annihilate. He is not our order carrier; whatever He likes He will do. Therefore He is the Supreme Lord. The Lord does not create this material world at anyone's request, and therefore He can annihilate everything merely by His will. That is His supremacy. If one argues, "Why does He act in this way?" the answer is that He can do so because He is supreme. No one can question His activities. If one argues, "What is the purpose of this sinful creation and annihilation?" the answer is that to prove His omnipotence He can do anything, and no one can question Him. If He were answerable to us concerning why He does something and why He does not, His supremacy would be curtailed.
A sober person can study himself and distinguish the soul from the body by analytical study. For example, when one considers his body—his head, his hands and so on-one can certainly understand the difference between the spirit soul and the body. No one says, "I head." Everyone says, "My head." Thus there are two entities—the head and "I." They are not identical, although they appear to be one conglomeration.
One may argue, "When we analyze the body we find a head, hands, legs, a belly, blood, bones, urine, stool and so on, but after everything is considered, where is the existence of the soul?" A sober man, however, avails himself of this Vedic instruction:
yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante; yena jātāni jīvanti; yat prayanty abhisaṁviśanti; tad vijijñāsasva; tad brahmeti.
(Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1.1)
It is recommended that one honor the spiritual master as being on an equal status with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sākṣād dharitvena samasta-śāstraiḥ. This is enjoined in every scripture. Ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyāt (SB 11.17.27). One should consider the ācārya to be as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In spite of all these instructions, if one considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being, one is doomed. His study of the Vedas and his austerities and penances for enlightenment are all useless, like the bathing of an elephant. An elephant bathes in a lake quite thoroughly, but as soon as it comes on the shore it takes some dust from the ground and strews it over its body. Thus there is no meaning to the elephant's bath. One may argue by saying that since the spiritual master's relatives and the men of his neighborhood consider him an ordinary human being, what is the fault on the part of the disciple who considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being? This will be answered in the next verse, but the injunction is that the spiritual master should never be considered an ordinary man. One should strictly adhere to the instructions of the spiritual master, for if he is pleased, certainly the Supreme Personality of Godhead is pleased. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi **.
One may argue that one may achieve the ultimate goal of life—realization of the Supersoul—by practicing the yoga system and ritualistic performances according to the Vedic principles, even without staunch devotion to the spiritual master. The actual fact, however, is that by practicing yoga one must come to the platform of meditating upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As stated in the scriptures, dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ: (SB 12.13.1) a person in meditation achieves the perfection of yoga practice when he can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By various practices, one may come to the point of controlling the senses, but simply controlling the senses does not bring one to a substantial conclusion. However, by staunch faith in the spiritual master and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one not only controls the senses but also realizes the Supreme Lord.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented that because the words "bow" and "arrow" are used in this verse, one might argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity have become enemies. However, although the Supreme Personality of Godhead may become the so-called enemy of the living being, this is His chivalrous pleasure. For example, the Lord fought with Bhīṣma, and when Bhīṣma pierced the Lord's body on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, this was a kind of humor or relationship, of which there are twelve. When the conditioned soul tries to reach the Lord by hurling an arrow at Him, the Lord takes pleasure, and the living entity gains the profit of going back home, back to Godhead. Another example given in this regard is that Arjuna, as a result of piercing the ādhāra-mīna, or the fish within the cakra, achieved the valuable gain of Draupadī. Similarly, if with the arrow of chanting the holy name of the Lord one pierces Lord Viṣṇu's lotus feet, by dint of performing this heroic activity of devotional service one receives the benefit of returning home, back to Godhead.
SB Canto 8
In Bhagavad-gītā the Lord clearly says, mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham: (BG 10.34) "I am all-devouring death." Thus mṛtyu, or death, is the representative who takes everything away from the living entity who has accepted a material body. No one can say, "I do not fear death." This is a false proposition. Everyone fears death. However, one who seeks shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be saved from death. One may argue, "Does the devotee not die?" The answer is that a devotee certainly must give up his body, for the body is material. The difference is, however, that for one who surrenders to Kṛṣṇa fully and who is protected by Kṛṣṇa, the present body is his last; he will not again receive a material body to be subjected to death. This is assured in Bhagavad-gītā (4.9). Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so'rjuna: a devotee, after giving up his body, does not accept a material body, but returns home, back to Godhead. We are always in danger because at any moment death can take place. It is not that only Gajendra, the King of the elephants, was afraid of death. Everyone should fear death because everyone is caught by the crocodile of eternal time and may die at any moment. The best course, therefore, is to seek shelter of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and be saved from the struggle for existence in this material world, in which one repeatedly takes birth and dies. To reach this understanding is the ultimate goal of life.
As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (9.10), mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sacarācaram: everything is actually happening under the direction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This much we can learn, but how it is happening is extremely difficult to understand. We cannot even understand how the affairs within our body are systematically taking place. The body is a small universe, and since we cannot understand how things are happening in this small universe, how can we understand the affairs of the bigger universe? Actually this universe is very difficult to understand, yet learned sages have advised, as Kṛṣṇa has also advised, that this material world is duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam; (BG 8.15) in other words, it is a place of misery and temporality. One must give up this world and go back home, back to the Personality of Godhead. Materialists may argue, "If this material world and its affairs are impossible to understand, how can we reject it?" The answer is provided by the word prabudhāpabādham. We have to reject this material world because it is rejected by those who are learned in Vedic wisdom.
Prahlāda Mahārāja is a vivid example of a pure devotee. Someone might argue that since Prahlāda Mahārāja, even though very old, was attached to his family, and specifically to his grandson Bali Mahārāja, how could he be an ideal example? Therefore this verse uses the word praśāntaḥ. A devotee is always sober. He is never disturbed by any conditions. Even if a devotee remains in gṛhastha life and does not renounce material possessions, he should still be understood to be praśānta, sober, because of his pure devotion to the Lord. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore said:
kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei 'guru' haya
"Whether one is a brāhmaṇa, a sannyāsī or a śūdra-regardless of what he is-he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa." (CC Madhya 8.128) Anyone completely aware of the science of Kṛṣṇa, regardless of his status in life, is a guru. Thus Prahlāda Mahārāja is a guru in all circumstances.
Bali Mahārāja might argue that he had promised only three steps of land. But Śukrācārya, being a very learned brāhmaṇa, immediately understood that this was a plan of Hari, who had falsely appeared there as a brahmacārī. The words mūḍha vartiṣyase katham reveal that Śukrācārya was a brāhmaṇa of the priestly class. Such priestly brāhmaṇas are mostly interested in receiving remuneration from their disciples. Therefore when Śukrācārya saw that Bali Mahārāja had risked all of his possessions, he understood that this would cause havoc not only to the King but also to the family of Śukrācārya, who was dependent on Mahārāja Bali's mercy. This is the difference between a Vaiṣṇava and a smārta-brāhmaṇa. A smārta-brāhmaṇa is always interested in material profit, whereas a Vaiṣṇava is interested only in satisfying the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From the statement of Śukrācārya, it appears that he was in all respects a smārta-brāhmaṇa interested only in personal gain.
One might argue that since you have already promised, how can you refuse? O best of the demons, just take from me the evidence of the Bahvṛca-śruti, which says that a promise is truthful preceded by the word oṁ and untruthful if not.
One might argue, "Since Bali Mahārāja promised Vāmanadeva only the land occupied by His steps, why did Lord Vāmanadeva occupy the sky also?" In this regard, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says that the steps include everything, downward and upward. When one stands up, he certainly occupies certain parts of the sky and certain portions of the earth below his feet. Thus there was nothing uncommon for the Supreme Personality of Godhead when He occupied the entire sky with His body.
SB Canto 9
For a devotee there is no pain, pleasure or material perfection. One may argue that at the time of death a devotee also suffers because of giving up his material body. But in this connection the example may be given that a cat carries a mouse in its mouth and also carries a kitten in its mouth. Both the mouse and the kitten are carried in the same mouth, but the perception of the mouse is different from that of the kitten. When a devotee gives up his body (tyaktvā deham), he is ready to go back home, back to Godhead. Thus his perception is certainly different from that of a person being taken away by Yamarāja for punishment. A person whose intelligence is always concentrated upon the service of the Lord is unafraid of accepting a material body, whereas a nondevotee, having no engagement in the service of the Lord, is very much afraid of accepting a material body or giving up his present one. Therefore, we should follow the instruction of Caitanya Mahāprabhu: mama janmani janmanīśvare bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi (Cc. Antya 20.29, Śikṣāṣṭaka 4). It doesn't matter whether we accept a material body or a spiritual body; our only ambition should be to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
The demigods must offer worship in obedience to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but one might argue that since the Supreme Godhead was within the womb of Devakī, He was also coming in a material body. Why then should He be worshiped? Why should one make a distinction between an ordinary living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead? These questions are answered in the following verses.
One may argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who creates the whole cosmic manifestation simply by His glance, cannot come within the womb of Devakī, the wife of Vasudeva. To eradicate this argument, Vasudeva said, "My dear Lord, it is not very wonderful that You appeared within the womb of Devakī, for the creation was also made in that way. You were lying in the Causal Ocean as Mahā-viṣṇu, and by Your breathing, innumerable universes came into existence. Then You entered into each of the universes as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Then again You expanded Yourself as Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and entered into the heart of all living entities and entered even within the atoms. Therefore Your entrance into the womb of Devakī is understandable in the same way. You appear to have entered, but You are simultaneously all-pervading.
When one is promoted to this status, one is always happy in transcendental bliss. Otherwise, as long as one is in the bodily concept of life, one must suffer material conditions. Janma-mṛtyu jarā-vyādhi-duḥkha-doṣānudarśanam (BG 13.9). The body is subject to its own principles of birth, death, old age and disease, but one who is situated in spiritual life (yato bhaktir adhokṣaje) has no birth, no death, no old age and no disease. One may argue that we may see a person who is spiritually engaged twenty-four hours a day but is still suffering from disease. In fact, however, he is neither suffering nor diseased; otherwise he could not be engaged twenty-four hours a day in spiritual activities. The example may be given in this connection that sometimes dirty foam or garbage is seen floating on the water of the Ganges. This is called nīra-dharma, a function of the water. But one who goes to the Ganges does not mind the foam and dirty things floating in the water. With his hand, he pushes away such nasty things, bathes in the Ganges and gains the beneficial results. Therefore, one who is situated in the spiritual status of life is unaffected by foam and garbage—or any superficial dirty things.
Gargamuni indirectly disclosed that Kṛṣṇa was the son of Devakī, not of Yaśodā. Since Kaṁsa was already searching for Kṛṣṇa, if the purificatory process were undertaken by Gargamuni, Kaṁsa might be informed, and that would create a catastrophe. It may be argued that although Gargamuni was the priest of the Yadu dynasty, Nanda Mahārāja also belonged to that dynasty. Nanda Mahārāja, however, was not acting as a kṣatriya. Therefore Gargamuni said, "If I act as your priest, this will confirm that Kṛṣṇa is the son of Devakī."
In Bhagavad-gītā (1.21) it is said that Kṛṣṇa became the chariot driver of Arjuna. Arjuna ordered Him, senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me 'cyuta: "My dear Kṛṣṇa, You have agreed to be my charioteer and to execute my orders. Place my chariot between the two armies of soldiers." Kṛṣṇa immediately executed this order, and therefore one may argue that Kṛṣṇa also is not independent. But this is one's ajñāna, ignorance. Kṛṣṇa is always fully independent; when He becomes subordinate to His devotees, this is a display of ānanda-cinmaya-rasa, the humor of transcendental qualities that increases His transcendental pleasure. Everyone worships Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore He sometimes desires to be controlled by someone else. Such a controller can be no one else but a pure devotee.
If by chance one meets a sādhu, a devotee, one's life is immediately successful, and one is freed from material bondage. It may be argued that whereas someone may receive a sādhu with great respect, someone else may not receive a sādhu with such respect. A sādhu, however, is always equipoised toward everyone. Because of being a pure devotee, a sādhu is always ready to deliver Kṛṣṇa consciousness without discrimination. As soon as one sees a sādhu, one naturally becomes free. Nonetheless, persons who are too much offensive, who commit vaiṣṇava-aparādhas, or offenses to a sādhu, will have to take some time before being rectified. This is also indicated herein.
But the liberation of those who are on the transcendental platform of love and affection is vimukti, special liberation. Thus the serpent first entered the body of Kṛṣṇa personally and mixed with the Brahman effulgence. This merging is called sāyujya-mukti. But from later verses we find that Aghāsura attained sārūpya-mukti. Text 38 explains that Aghāsura attained a body exactly like that of Viṣṇu, and the verse after that also clearly states that he attained a completely spiritual body like that of Nārāyaṇa. Therefore in two or three places the Bhāgavatam has confirmed that Aghāsura attained sārūpya-mukti. One may then argue, How is it that he mixed with the Brahman effulgence? The answer is that as Jaya and Vijaya, after three births, again attained sārūpya-mukti and association with the Lord, Aghāsura received a similar liberation.
The process for receiving the favor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described here. Yat-pāda-paṅkaja-palāśa-vilāsa-bhaktyā (SB 4.22.39). Simply by thinking of Kṛṣṇa, one can attain Him very easily. Kṛṣṇa is also described as having His lotus feet always within the hearts of His devotees (bhagavān bhakta-hṛdi sthitaḥ). In the case of Aghāsura, one may argue that he was not a devotee. The answer to this is that he thought of Kṛṣṇa for a moment with devotion. Bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ. Without devotion, one cannot think of Kṛṣṇa; and, conversely, whenever one thinks of Kṛṣṇa, one undoubtedly has devotion. Although Aghāsura's purpose was to kill Kṛṣṇa, for a moment Aghāsura thought of Kṛṣṇa with devotion, and Kṛṣṇa and His associates wanted to sport within Aghāsura's mouth. Similarly, Pūtanā wanted to kill Kṛṣṇa by poisoning Him, but Kṛṣṇa took her as His mother because He had accepted the milk of her breast.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Adi-lila
Someone might argue that the Absolute would be affected by duality if He were both all-cognizance (Brahman) and the Personality of Godhead with six opulences in full (Bhagavān). To refute such an argument, the aphorism svarūpa-dvayam īkṣyate declares that in spite of appearances, there is no chance of duality in the Absolute, for He is but one in diverse manifestations. Understanding that the Absolute displays varied pastimes by the influence of His energies at once removes the apparent incongruity of His inconceivably opposite energies.
In the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, commenting upon the Lord's transcendental position beyond the material qualities, says that Viṣṇu, as the controller and superintendent of material nature, has a connection with the material qualities. That connection is called yoga. However, the person who directs a prison is not also a prisoner. Similarly, although the Supreme Personality of Godhead Viṣṇu directs or supervises the qualitative nature, He has no connection with the material modes of nature. The expansions of Lord Viṣṇu always retain their supremacy; they are never connected with the material qualities. One may argue that Mahā-Viṣṇu cannot have any connection with the material qualities, because if He were so connected, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam would not state that material nature, ashamed of her thankless task of acting to induce the living entities to become averse to the Supreme Lord, remains behind the Lord in shyness. In answer to this argument, it may be said that the word guṇa means "regulation." Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva are situated within this universe as the directors of the three modes, and their connection with the modes is known as yoga. This does not indicate, however, that these personalities are bound by the qualities of nature. Lord Viṣṇu specifically is always the controller of the three qualities. There is no question of His coming under their control.
One may argue that since Śaṅkarācārya is an incarnation of Lord Śiva, how is it that he cheated people in this way? The answer is that he did so on the order of his master, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is confirmed in the Padma Purāṇa, in the words of Lord Śiva himself:
- māyāvādam asac chāstraṁ pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate
- mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā
- brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ nirguṇaṁ vakṣyate mayā
- sarva-svaṁ jagato ’py asya mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge
- vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam
- mayaiva vakṣyate devi jagatāṁ nāśa-kāraṇāt
"The Māyāvāda philosophy," Lord Śiva informed his wife Pārvatī, "is impious (asac chāstra). It is covered Buddhism. My dear Pārvatī, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brāhmaṇa and teach this imagined Māyāvāda philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedānta I describe the same Māyāvāda philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord."
Someone may argue, "Why is there a need to create the spiritual sparks?" The answer can be given in this way: Since the Absolute Personality of Godhead is omnipotent, He has both unlimited and limited potencies. This is the meaning of omnipotent. To be omnipotent, He must have not only unlimited potencies but limited potencies also. Thus to exhibit His omnipotency He displays both. The living entities are endowed with limited potency although they are part of the Lord. The Lord displays the spiritual world by His unlimited potencies, whereas by His limited potencies the material world is displayed. In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.5) the Lord says:
- apareyam itas tv anyāṁ prakṛtiṁ viddhi me parām
- jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāho yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat
"Besides these inferior energies, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises all living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature." The jīva-bhūta, the living entities, control this material world with their limited potencies. Generally, people are bewildered by the activities of scientists and technologists. Due to māyā they think that there is no need of God and that they can do everything and anything, but actually they cannot. Since this cosmic manifestation is limited, their existence is also limited. Everything in this material world is limited, and for this reason there is creation, sustenance and dissolution. However, in the world of unlimited energy, the spiritual world, there is neither creation nor destruction.
Nondevotees factually appreciate the wonderful creation of material nature, but they cannot appreciate the intelligence and energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is behind this material creation. Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya, however, refers to a sūtra from the Aitareya Upaniṣad (1.1.1), ātmā vā idam agra āsīt, which points out that the supreme ātmā, the Absolute Truth, existed before the creation. One may argue, "If the Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely spiritual, how is it possible for Him to be the origin of creation and have within Himself both material and spiritual energies?" To answer this challenge, Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya quotes a mantra from the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (3.1) that states:
- yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante yena jātāni jīvanti yat prayanty abhisaṁviśanti
This mantra confirms that the entire cosmic manifestation emanates from the Absolute Truth, rests upon the Absolute Truth and after annihilation again reenters the body of the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Other Books by Srila Prabhupada
Teachings of Lord Caitanya
Rāmānujācārya has discussed this point very nicely: "One may argue, "Since there was only one Absolute Truth before the creation of this material world, how is it possible that the living entities emanated from Him? If He were alone, how could He have produced or generated the infinitesimal living entities?" In answer to this question, the Vedas state that everything is generated from the Absolute Truth, everything is maintained by the Absolute Truth, and, after annihilation, everything enters into the Absolute Truth. This statement from the Upaniṣads makes it clear that when the living entities are liberated they enter into the supreme existence without changing their original constitutional position."
Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead
One may argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who creates the whole cosmic manifestation simply by His glance, cannot come within the womb of Devakī, the wife of Vasudeva. To eradicate this argument, Vasudeva said, “My dear Lord, it is not a very wonderful thing that You have appeared within the womb of Devakī, because the creation was also made in that way. You were lying in the Causal Ocean as Mahā-Viṣṇu, and by Your breathing process, innumerable universes came into existence. Then You entered into each of the universes as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Then again You expanded Yourself as Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and entered into the hearts of all living entities and even within the atoms. Therefore Your entrance into the womb of Devakī is understandable in the same way. You appear to have entered, but You are simultaneously all-pervading. We can understand Your entrance and nonentrance from material examples.
One may also argue that since Kṛṣṇa is the supreme authority, His activities should be followed. In answer to this argument, Śukadeva Gosvāmī has very clearly said that the īśvara, or supreme controller, may sometimes violate His own instructions, but this is possible only for the controller Himself, not for the followers. Unusual and uncommon activities by the controller can never be imitated. Śukadeva Gosvāmī warned that the conditioned followers, who are not actually in control, should never even imagine imitating the uncommon activities of the controller. A Māyāvādī philosopher may falsely claim to be God or Kṛṣṇa, but he cannot actually act like Kṛṣṇa. He can persuade his followers to falsely imitate the rāsa dance, but he is unable to lift Govardhana Hill.
One may argue that because this material world is created by the Lord, He is therefore responsible for its condition. Certainly He is indirectly responsible for the creation and maintenance of this material world, but He is never responsible for the different conditions of the living entities. The Lord's creation of this material world is compared to a cloud's creation of vegetation. In the rainy season the cloud creates different varieties of vegetation. The cloud pours water on the surface of the earth, but it never touches the earth directly. Similarly, the Lord creates this material world simply by glancing over the material energy. This is confirmed in the Vedas: "He threw His glance over the material nature, and thus there was creation." In the Bhagavad-gītā it is also confirmed that simply by His transcendental glance over the material nature, He creates different varieties of entities, both movable and immovable, living and dead.
It may be argued that because the living entities are born of the material nature they are all equal and independent. In the Vedic literature, however, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead impregnates the material nature with the living entities and then they come out. Therefore, the appearance of the individual living entities is not factually due to material nature alone, just as a child produced by a woman is not her independent production. A woman is first impregnated by a man, and then a child is produced. As such, the child produced by the woman is part and parcel of the man. Similarly, the living entities are apparently produced by the material nature, but not independently. It is due to the impregnation of the material nature by the supreme father that the living entities are present.
Mukunda-mala-stotra (mantras 1 to 6 only)
"Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, by My transcendental potency I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form." From the śāstra we learn that the Lord takes birth not only in the family of human beings but also in the families of demigods, aquatics, animals, and so on. One may argue that an ordinary living being is eternal and unborn like the Lord and also takes birth in different species of life, and so there is no difference between the Lord and an ordinary living being. The difference is, however, that while an ordinary living being changes his body when he transmigrates from one species of life to another, the Lord never changes His body: He appears in His original body, without any change. Also, while there is a vast difference between the ordinary living entity and his body, there is no difference between the Lord and His body because He is pure spirit. In other words, there is no distinction between His body and His soul.
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
They, they are called... They are also counted amongst the caṇḍālas. Ye 'nye ca pāpāḥ, even lower than that. Ye 'nye ca pāpāḥ śuddhyanti. They becomes purified. How? Prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ. When they are initiated to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. So if a, one may argue, "How it is possible to make a caṇḍāla a Vaiṣṇava?" No, that is possible. Prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ. Viṣṇu is so powerful, omnipotent. He can do that. So only by Viṣṇu mantra, by becoming a Vaiṣṇava, one can transcend all this restriction, sociology. They can be. That is confirmed by Kṛṣṇa: māṁ cāvyabhicāriṇī bhakti-yogena yaḥ sevate sa guṇān brahmātītyaitan brahma-bhūyaya kalpate (BG 14.26). Immediately he transcends. He's in the Brahman platform. One who has taken very seriously this devotional service, he's no more on this material platform. So long we are in the material platform, these distinction, brāhmaṇa, ksatriya, vaiśya, varṇa-saṅkara, they are considered. But when one is transcendentally situated, simply in pure, unalloyed service of the Lord, he's no more in the material platform. He's in the spiritual platform. Brahma-bhūyāya kalpate. He's already in the Brahman platform. Brahman platform means sa guṇān samatītya etān.
Devotee: "The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality?"
Prabhupāda: They also think of Kṛṣṇa, therefore, as material. That is also condemned by Kṛṣṇa. You'll find, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). "Because I have appeared just like a human being, these rascals deride at Me that I am also one of them." Mūḍha. Mūḍha means rascal. Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa... It is the soul within the Kṛṣṇa." That means he identifies Kṛṣṇa as one of us. His body and His soul different. But Kṛṣṇa is not... Kṛṣṇa said, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). "I appear in My own, original stature. I do not change." We change. The individual soul... Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni (BG 3.27). He's conducted by, influenced by this prakṛti, nature, but He's not conducted or influenced by the nature. He comes in His own influence, as He is, ātma-māyayā. This is the distinction. Therefore He does not change body. When I come, I change bodies. This time I may have this body; next time I may have another body. That is material, and therefore I forget. Just like Kṛṣṇa says in the Fourth Chapter that "Many times you and I came. You have forgotten (BG 4.5)." Because we change our material body therefore we forget. These things all will be explained.
Just like our conception of eating, that we can eat through the mouth. Whatever eatables are offered to us, we pick them and put into the mouth. We know this is the process of eating. But Kṛṣṇa, because He is acintya-guṇa-svarūpam, His eating process is different from ours. That is also stated in the Brahma-saṁhitā. Aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛttimanti. He has the limbs of the body, different limbs of the body, they can work also for other limbs of the body. Just like with our eyes we can see. If I close our eyes, we do not see. But Kṛṣṇa, even He closes His eyes, He can see everything with His hand. Now, this is inconceivable. Acintya-guṇa-svarūpam. Therefore it is called acintya. Aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛttimanti. So the foodstuff is offered there to Kṛṣṇa. He is eating by seeing. He can eat through His eyes. Just like we can eat through our mouth, not with our eyes, but Kṛṣṇa can eat through His eyes simply by seeing. Then you may argue that "The foodstuff is offered. If He has eaten, why it is lying as it is, as it was offered in the beginning?" That is answered in the Upaniṣad. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). Pūrṇasya. Kṛṣṇa can take the whole plate, but still the whole plate remains. It is not finished. That is spirituality. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate.
We are also born brother and sister. But human society does not allow sex between brother and sister. Still formality is there. But that is also going on. Human life has advanced. That is going on. In India one Punjabi, that father was anxious to get the daughter married, and the brother wrote the father, "My dear father, don't bother about my sister's marriage. We have arranged ourself, brother and sister." You see? So sex life is so strong. Although socially it is forbidden that brother and sister should not marry or should not have sex life, but that is also come. It is Kali-yuga. So that sex life facility is there automatically by nature. So why there is forbidden, "Not this sex life, not that..." Just like we forbid, no illicit sex, that without marriage, there is no sex. One may argue, "What is the difference, married sex and not-married sex? The business is the same."
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
So one may argue that "These bhaktas are not always very learned scholars. Mostly, they are mediocre. And there are so many big, big scholars. They cannot see God easily and only the bhaktas can do?" Yes. That is the process. Kṛṣṇa says, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ. In bhakti, one can immediately... Because real process is to surrender to God. That is the real process. But these jñānīs, yogis, and karmīs, they are not prepared to surrender to God. The karmīs will say, "Let us act nicely," I mean to say, "virtuously. We are karmīs. So God must give us the result." This is called karma-mimāṁsā. They say that... Just like the so-called scientists say that "God has created this universe. The laws are there. So we have to study the laws. What we shall do with the God?" Is it not? "God has created these... The physical laws are there. So let us study these physical laws. What is the use of studying God?" That is their view. The karma-mimāṁsā also, that, they say that "After all, if we act virtuously, then we shall get good result. So what is the use of worshiping God? Let us work virtuously." This is their view. Karmī. And jñānī. Jñānī also, they say. Jñānī, the scientists, they are jñānī, that "What is the use of worshiping God? Let us study the laws of God." So jñānī, karmī... And yogi, they are also of the same view.
Pradyumna: "So this is a finer military science than that of the gross military military weapons used nowadays. Arjuna was taught all this, and therefore Draupadī wished that Arjuna feel obliged to Ācārya Droṇa for all these benefits. And in the absence of Droṇācārya, his son was the representative. That was the opinion of the good lady Draupadī. It may be argued why Droṇācārya, a rigid brāhmaṇa, should be a teacher in military science. But the reply is that a brāhmaṇa should become a teacher, regardless of what his department of knowledge is. A learned brāhmaṇa should become a teacher, a priest and a recipient of charity. A bona fide brāhmaṇa is authorized to accept such professions."
Prabhupāda: So there is nothing especial to be explained. The only important part of this verse is, that don't learn guru-māra-vidyā. Even if you become more learned that your guru, you should not exhibit it before your guru. You should always remain a fool number one. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu showed Himself by His example. Guru more mūrkha dekhi 'karila śāsana (CC Adi 7.71). Caitanya Mahāprabhu was not mūrkha, but He has taught us that before guru, we shall always remain a mūrkha. That is advancement. Not that "I know more than guru. I don't care for guru. Now give me blessing that I can find out some better guru." This nonsense, if you don't find... If your guru is not perfect, then why you are asking blessing to find out another?
So there were some literary imperfection, and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu pointed out, and He was also learned scholar. He admitted that "He is a wonderful boy." So therefore it is said that "You make your enemy a learned man, but don't make your friend a fool and rascal." Because an enemy, even though he is enemy, if he is learned, he will not make injustice. That he cannot. Any learned scholar cannot make any injustice. So he admitted his defeat, because he is learned scholar. That is scholarship. Not that... Just like Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. He argued with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as a scholar. But when he became defeated, he accepted His discipleship. This was the method, that two persons may argue, but one who is defeated, he must become his disciple. Not that simply waste time arguing and no conclusion. Formerly this was the system, to come to a conclusion. If two parties are arguing on a subject matter, the one party will be defeated, he must become his disciple, under control.
So in the previous verse Ṛṣabhadeva has said that this madness after sense gratification, nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute, and doing all kinds of sinful activities, this is not good. And actually we can see... (aside:) No, I daily say that during talking you should not cut, cut. So one may argue, especially those who are atheists, that "Suppose we get a material body and little miserable. What is the wrong there? It will be finished. Then there will be no more pains and pleasures." That is the Buddhist theory, that the body is combination of matter, and there is pains and pleasures, so make this body zero. Then there will be no more pains and pleasures, and you will have to accept another body. And so long you shall continue to accept one body after another, the miserable condition of material existence will continue. Therefore in the beginning it was said that "This body, human body, is not to be misused simply for sense gratification like the dogs and hogs." That was the beginning.
We have several times explained this, who is bona fide spiritual master, confirmed by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that āmāra ājñāya guru hañā, "You become a guru on My instruction." So those who are affiliated with Caitanya Mahāprabhu's instruction, he is guru. Not anyone else. Āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra' ei deśa (CC Madhya 7.128). Then one may argue that if Caitanya Mahāprabhu is ordering, so anyone can order? No, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is not ordering something new. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "Under My instruction you become guru." But the instruction is Kṛṣṇa's, the same instruction, yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also does not deviate from kṛṣṇa-upadeśa, what to speak of others. And those rascals who are deviating from the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, how he can become guru? They are interpreting in a different way, how they can become guru? That is not guru. We should simply remember this fact, whether this person is speaking the same thing as Kṛṣṇa says, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, as Rāmānujācārya says, even Śaṅkarācārya.
We have got many programs according to our mental concoction. That will not help us. If we simply act as Kṛṣṇa desires, then our life is perfect. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā (CC Madhya 19.167). This is bhakti. Bhakti means ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam. You have to cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness as it pleases Kṛṣṇa, not whimsically. Ānukūlyena. Just like Arjuna got ordered directly from Kṛṣṇa. One may argue that "Where is Kṛṣṇa?" No, you have got Kṛṣṇa's representative, guru. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo **. The representative is there. If you act according to his instruction, if you want to please him, then Kṛṣṇa is pleased. Just like in office the managing director or the proprietor is not in contact. Of course, Kṛṣṇa is in contact with everyone: īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe (BG 18.61). But even taking this crude example, still, the office superintendent, if he recommends somebody, some clerk, that "This man is working very nice," that is accepted by the managing director. There is no difficulty. Therefore yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo: ** if you want to please Kṛṣṇa, you please Kṛṣṇa's representative... Śrī-guru-caraṇe rati, sei se uttama-gati. We are singing daily. So Kṛṣṇa is not absent. Kṛṣṇa is already within you, but He manifests Himself as guru, prakāśa. This is stated in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta.
So Veda, here it is said that vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt. But Nārāyaṇa is nothing of this material world. Similarly, Veda is nothing of this material world. Vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt. So you cannot... Therefore Vedic authority is so evidential... Because it is not manufactured by any material person. It is... Nārāyaṇa, or God God created this world. So God was existing before this creation, and Veda means before the creation, the laws and the words which were existing, that is Veda. Somebody may argue that "This is written by some scholar or some learned person." No, Veda is not like that. Veda is coming directly from Nārāyaṇa, and Nārāyaṇa means God. God was existing before the creation. Because God created, therefore God existed before the creation, so whatever we get out of this created world, that is not Veda. If some person, great philosopher of this material world, he thinks, he says "I believe," and he writes something, that is nonsense. That is not Veda. Because he is a created being, and as created being he has got four defects.
If one can understand nitya-siddha bhāgavata, then he immediately becomes eligible to go back to home, to back to godhead. This is the privilege of associating with mahā-bhāgavata. So our system is, (child crying—aside:) try and maintain (?). Evaṁ paramparā, to associate with the mahā-bhāgavata by words or by physical exposition (?). So mahā-bhāgavata arbhakaḥ. One may argue, arbhakaḥ means foolish child, who has no knowledge, he is called arbhakaḥ. How we can say mahā-bhāgavata? Arbhakaḥ, he has no knowledge. No. It is possible. Ahaituky apratihatā. Bhakti does not depend on age, or on advanced knowledge, or richness, or so many other things. Janmaiśvarya-śruta-śrī (SB 1.8.26). To take birth in high family, aristocracy, and to become rich, to become beautiful, to become very learned scholar. These things are material assets, but spiritual life does not depend on these things. One can become spiritually very advanced even though he is poor, he is born in a low, low-grade family.
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
So one may argue, "Does it mean that all the bhaktas... We see they are not even educated... How he has realized Brahman?" That answer is given in the Bhagavad-gītā that
- māṁ ca avyabhicāriṇi
- bhakti-yogena yaḥ sevate
- sa guṇān samatītyaitān
- brahma-bhūyāya kalpate
- (BG 14.26)
This very platform of serving Kṛṣṇa, avyabhicāriṇi, without any adulteration, means without any motive... When one is engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service without any motive... Not that "I establish a Deity in the temple with a motive that people will come, will give money, and I shall make it a path of earning my livelihood." That is not devotion. Devotion is without any motive. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam (Brs. 1.1.11). So without any motive, when one is engaged in devotional service, that is brahma-bhūtaḥ stage. That is liberated stage. According to Bhāgavata, liberation, mukti, means to be situated in one's constitutional position. That is called mukti. Muktir hitvā anyathā rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ (SB 2.10.6). Hitvā anyathā rūpa.
By our karma, we may be high born or low born. That does not matter. Ahaituky apratihatā. Kṛṣṇa consciousness cannot be checked by any material impediment. That is not possible. Ahaituky apratihatā. It is natural. And Kṛṣṇa says, māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye 'pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ (BG 9.32). He says that even though some people are considered to be pāpa-yoni, low-born, it doesn't matter, but he can accept the shelter of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. Prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ. Prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ. Kirāta-hūṇāndhra-pulinda-pulkaśā ābhīra-śumbhā yavanaḥ khasādayaḥ, ye 'nye ca pāpā. Still more low-born than these people, śudhyanti, they can be purified if they actually take shelter of a pure devotee. They can be purified. That is the injunction of the śāstras, Śukadeva Gosvāmī. Śudhyanti. People may argue how such low-born people can be purified. That reply is: prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ. It is the supreme power of Lord Viṣṇu. It is possible.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
So manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu (BG 7.3). So generally people are addicted, infected with the qualities of ignorance and passion. How he can understand Kṛṣṇa? It is not possible. So one has to engage himself this devotional service. Then you can... You may argue that "How these Europeans and Americans...? They are supposed to be in ignorance and passion. How they are coming to the platform of transcendental platform of pure goodness?" That is possible. That is possible by the execution of Bhāgavata-dharma. Nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā (SB 1.2.18). Tato rajas-tamo bhāvāḥ. There are verses in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ (SB 1.2.17). One has to hear. Therefore śravaṇa and kīrtana, hearing and chanting, is very important, śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, especially hearing and chanting of Kṛṣṇa.
Now people may argue that in the creation we find Brahmā the first-born living creature, and he has given us the Vedic knowledge. So this, in the creation, because he's the first living creature, then he is svarāṭ. He is also independent. Why God is independent? This living creature, he's first-born. He's independent. Otherwise, how could he give the knowledge of Vedas? So the reply is tene brahma hṛdā. No. He's also dependent. He got the knowledge from the Supreme Lord. How is that? He's the first-born living creature. How he got knowledge from God? Tene brahma hṛdā. Brahmā, the Vedic knowledge, was imparted into the heart of Brahmā. Why? Because God is situated within everyone's heart. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). These things are very nicely described in Bhāgavatam in the beginning. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. Ādi-kavaye means Brahma. Kavi means the learned. Kavinaṁ purāṇam anuśāsitāram. In the Bhagavad-gītā. He's the kavinaṁ purāṇam. He's the oldest learned man. Oldest. Purāṇam. Purāṇam means oldest. Then why God is not recognized? Now muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ.
So our duty is to serve God. There is no other duty. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's preaching, that "You have no other duty, anything. That is all false illusion. If you have selected any other duty than to serve Kṛṣṇa in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then you are foolish. You are doing something wrong, which is not for your interest." This is the teaching of Lord Caitanya and the Bhāgavata also. So if somebody may argue, "Oh, if I completely engage myself in the service of Kṛṣṇa, then what to do? How I shall live in this material world? Who will take care of my maintenance?" that is our foolishness. If you serve an ordinary person here, you get your maintenance; you get your wages, dollars. You are so foolish that you are going to serve Kṛṣṇa and He is not going to maintain you? Yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmy aham (BG 9.22). Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "I personally take charge of his maintenance."
Festival Lectures
So śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures are different. Arguments, that is also not helpful. One man may argue better than me. Then philosophy. The philosophy, it is said, nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. One philosopher is differing from another philosopher. Just now today Śyāmasundara has purchased one book about different philosophers. So that you also cannot ascertain what is truth. Therefore śāstra says, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The truth is very confidential. So if you want to know that truth, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186), you should have to follow the great ācāryas. Then you will understand. Therefore ācārya-upāsanā is essential. Ācārya-upāsanā is very essential. In all the Vedic śāstras the injunction is that. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet, śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). Tasmād gurum prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam (SB 11.3.21). Anyone who is inquisitive to understand higher truths, he must surrender to guru. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta, jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam. One who is inquisitive, who is now inquiring about transcendental subject matter. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). So all the śāstras says, in our Vaiṣṇava śāstra also, Rūpa Gosvāmī says, ādau gurv-āśrayam: "In the first beginning, you must take shelter of a bona fide guru."
Actually, he was minister. He was coming of a brāhmaṇa family. But these material qualifications are not sufficient to improve one's Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One must approach a bona fide spiritual master. That is being exhibited by Sanātana Gosvāmī. He's approaching the original spiritual master, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, with due humbleness. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta (SB 11.3.21). Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet samit-pāṇi śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). One must approach. Sanātana Gosvāmī's teaching us the Vaiṣṇava principle that one should approach a proper spiritual master. So he's approaching Caitanya Mahāprabhu. So one may argue that "Where is Caitanya Mahāprabhu now? Where is Kṛṣṇa now?" It doesn't matter. Kṛṣṇa's words are there. Caitanya Mahāprabhu's words are there. Instructions are there. So if we follow the direction and instruction of Caitanya Mahāprabhu or Kṛṣṇa under the guidance of a superior, bona fide spiritual master, then we associate with Kṛṣṇa or Caitanya Mahāprabhu without any deviation.
Initiation Lectures
So the purport of this verse, etāṁ sa āsthāya, this sannyāsa order I am accepting. Why? Etāṁ sa āsthāya parātma-niṣṭhām. Just to fix up my mind steadily on the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord, parātma-niṣṭhā. My only life is meant for serving the Supreme Lord, original Nārāyaṇa, not daridra-nārāyaṇa. That is my iṣṭhā. Etāṁ sa āsthāya parātma-niṣṭhā. You... If we serve the Supreme Nārāyaṇa, the daridra-nārāyaṇa is automatically... There is no such word as daridra-nārāyaṇa. The poor souls, they can be served automatically. Just like taror mūla-niṣecanena tṛpyanti tat-skandha-bhujopaśākhāḥ. If the root is watered, then the trunk and branches and the twigs and the flowers, automatically... Prāṇopahārāc ca yathendriyāṇām. Prāṇopahārāc. Just like offering foodstuff to the stomach. Then every indriya, every sense is satisfied. Two, two examples are given. One may argue, "Suppose I am watering. That is also nice. I water to the root, I water to the leaf also." The injunction is that there is no necessity of watering the leaves. You simply water the root. But if you argue that "What is the harm...? Suppose I... Root, offer water to the root, as well as to the leaves and twigs." Just like somebody says, "All right.
General Lectures
So our process of knowledge very easy. Kṛṣṇa's book, Bhagavad-gītā, is the knowledge, book of knowledge which is given by the perfect person, Kṛṣṇa. You may argue that "You have accepted Him as a perfect person, but we do not." You may not. But He is perfect person on the evidence of many authorities. It is not by my whims I accept Kṛṣṇa as the perfect person. No. There are many authorities, Vedic authorities. Formerly... Just like Vyāsadeva. He's the author of all Vedic literature, the treasure-house of knowledge, Vedas. He accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His spiritual master, Nārada, he accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His spiritual master, Brahmā, he accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Person. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1), Brahmā says. "The supreme controller is Kṛṣṇa." Īśvara. Īśvara means controller. We are controller, everyone. Nobody can say that "I am without controller."
Prabhupāda: Voluntarily, involuntarily, that is another thing. Just like a child does not know that his coat is useless, but mother comes and changes the garment. So it is changing, that's a fact. It doesn't matter whether you are changing voluntarily or involuntarily, that is not very important thing. You are changing, that's a fact. Yes?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: What they will argue perhaps, materialists may argue that "We can see that Sarasvatī is changing from the time she was a little girl and now she is a little older, we have seen her both times, but at the time of death we have not seen the next body of anyone.
Prabhupāda: But why do you believe so much your rascal eyes? That is the answer. Do you think that your eyes are perfect? There are many types of seeing. Not that simply with glaring eyesight you can see. You can see what is Sarasvatī , you are seeing the body. What is Sarasvatī, do you know? So what you are seeing? You are seeing the body. So what is the power of your seeing? There is another body, sukavādī (?), subtle body. Can you see the mind? But everyone has got mind. Can you see intelligence? But everyone has got intelligence. So what is the power of your seeing? Why you are so much proud of your seeing, nonsense seeing?
Conversations and Morning Walks
1974 Conversations and Morning Walks
1975 Conversations and Morning Walks
Yaśodānandana: It seems that the English culture has conquered over the Indian culture then.
Prabhupāda: No, Indian culture is still going on. It is not lost. Otherwise how it is going to your country and bringing you? (laughter)
Ravīndra-svarūpa: A person might argue that the Indians weren't satisfied either; otherwise they wouldn't have taken up the English culture. So what's the difference?
Prabhupāda: No. When you are standing on two boats you'll never be satisfied. It is very dangerous position, you know? Two boats, on the river, and if you put one leg here, one leg here, it is always troublesome. Either you give up this or give up that. Then your position will be safe. But India's position is like that. Two boats, he is standing, and he is troubled.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: The English taught devotional service to England. The English were teaching devotional service to England.
Prabhupāda: When?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Because the Indian people, they have such a feeling for bhakti and service. Everywhere in the world we go...
Prabhupāda: But the Englishmen never took that line and when...
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Did they teach God consciousness?
Prabhupāda: When our godbrother Acyuta Mahārāja and Bon Mahārāja was sent, Lady Willingdon, he derided them that "You Indian people you come here..." (break)
Prabhupāda: Your knowledge has not benefited you. Our taking your so-called science has benefited you because you are using it for Kṛṣṇa. You have worked so hard, so result is going to Kṛṣṇa. Hare Kṛṣṇa. We are making the best... (indistinct) ...there is chair but we don't care for the chair. We can sit down. But if it is available we don't reject it. Therefore (indistinct) ...you have made a chair and (indistinct) ...Not that I require your chair, without your chair I will, shall die. That is not my policy. You rascal, you have done something, I'm using it for your benefit. That's all.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They may argue that the knowledge which you say you have, it doesn't stop all of these things from happening to you. You're also suffering from symptoms of...
Prabhupāda: Yes. But I'm trying because I have got this material body like you, so I have to suffer like you. But I'm making treatment. You are not making treatment.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But the effects appear to be the same on everyone.
Prabhupāda: No. We are not so much after doctors or medical...
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Your students also suffer from diseases and all...
Prabhupāda: That's all right. So long the body's there, one has to suffer. That we tolerate.
Prabhupāda: They are already exposed because they have left that expedition. That means they are hopeless. That is exposed. But foolish people will not ask them that "Why you have stopped this expedition?" They will again go on bluffing, and they will accept. That is the position. Now people should ask them, "Why you have stopped moon expedition and Venus expedition? You proposed you were going there, making arrangement. Why you have stopped?" It is failure.
Harikeśa: They might argue...
Prabhupāda: What is the argument? You have stopped. That is your failure, that's all. You can argue to the laymen, foolish men, but we will say you have stopped; therefore it is failure. All bogus propaganda is now stopped.
Devotee (3): They are saying the moon isn't worth develop...
Prabhupāda: Now they cannot say anything because they are failure. Anything they say, that is all foolishness. They cannot say anything. Once you are failure, you have no value, anything you say.
Paramahaṁsa: Like a child.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Śraddha-śabde viśvāsa. Śraddhā, faith, means believing firmly. That is śraddhā, or faith. There is no question, "Yes." Śraddha-śabde viśvāsa. Therefore we have to believe in the Vedas. Vedas also says like that. That example I give sometimes, that cow dung is stool. In one place it is said stool is impure; in another place it is said cow dung is pure. Now, one may argue, "What is this, contradiction?" But you have to believe it. That is Veda. And that is actually being done. So without faith, you cannot make advance. The skeptics, they have no faith. Therefore they are lost. You must have faith.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Śrīla Prabhupāda? What is that ingredient or what is that thing which causes faith to develop in one? From someone becoming...
Prabhupāda: Purity. Purity. The more you become pure, the faith is firm.
Nārāyaṇa: So faith comes from previous pious activities?
Prabhupāda: No, may not be previous activity. You believe the authority, spiritual master.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That comes from purity, faith.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But still we see, the Vaiṣṇavas... They may argue like this, that... A karmī may say that "Still, how do we know that you have conquered over death, because you're still..."
Prabhupāda: You cannot know. Because you are foolish, you cannot know. Just like the example is given: there is reel. You know? What is called? The children...
Paramahaṁsa: Swing?
Jayatīrtha: Ferris wheel?
Prabhupāda: No, no. In your country there is not, but in India there is a reel, reel-like. It rounds the thread for flying kite. What is called?
Kṛṣṇa-kanti: Just a ball of string.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Spool.
Paramahaṁsa: Kite line.
Prabhupāda: Kite line? How it is?
Paramahaṁsa: How it is? It's a line for a kite, and it's wound upon on a stick, and to make the kite go higher you unleash...
Prabhupāda: Yes. So it is going on. Sometimes the kite is going on, it is also rounding. And when the kite is coming down, that is also rounding. But you see one thing. But one thing is coming down; one is going up.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: People may argue though that without education we can't even read the knowledge that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura is speaking. How to read Bengali or Sanskrit or English or anything like this?
Prabhupāda: That is real education. We want that you learn from Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, you learn from Vyāsadeva, you learn from Nārada. But why you are learning from Freud, from Darwin and such rascals? Education means you should learn from a person who is authorized, who is without mistake, without illusion, who does not cheat, just like we are learning from Kṛṣṇa. That is education. And if you learn from rascals and fools, then what is that education? Education means to learn from the learned person. But if you are learning from a rascal and fool, then what is your education? Education required, but we require what is actually education, which is not cheating. But we are being educated, being cheated. We are working for this body, which I am not. Is that education or it is cheating? If you say, "I am taking my interest," I'll say "I am taking water; I wash daily my shirt and coat." And that, is that knowledge? And what about you? Your food? "I don't care for that. I wash my coat and shirt daily." Is that education? You keep yourself starving and you keep your coat and shirt very cleanse. Is that education? This is going on. Therefore people are restless. He is hungry. What he will do, his cars and this shirt and coat and big building? Why they are committing suicide? Because he is not happy. There is no food for the spirit soul, what he is actually. Is that education? That is not education. So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura is right when he says, jība ke karaye gādhā: "This material education means making people more and more asses." That's all. He is already ass because he's in this material world, and the so-called material education means keeping him in that condition more and more.
1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
Prabhupāda: Hm?
Mahamsa: Who is a fool, that is defined in the other verse, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Mānuṣīṁ tanum āśri... That one who considers Kṛṣṇa as ordinary human being, he is mūḍha. So read the purport.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "It may be argued that since Kṛṣṇa was present on this earth and was visible by everyone, then why isn't He manifest to everyone now? But actually, He was not manifest to everyone. When Kṛṣṇa was present there were only a few people who could understand Him to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the assembly of Kurus, when Śiśupāla spoke against Kṛṣṇa being elected president of the assembly, Bhīṣma supported Him and proclaimed Him to be the Supreme God. Similarly, the Pāṇḍavas and a few others..."
Prabhupāda: Sisupala could not see, although Kṛṣṇa was present there, but Bhisma could see. So you require special eyes.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Teṣāṁ satata-yuktānām (BG 10.10).
Prabhupāda: Yes. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ... (Bs. 5.38). So unless you are qualified, how you can see Kṛṣṇa? This is the point. Kṛṣṇa is there, and the rascal Śiśupāla could not see Him, but Bhisma could see Him. So they say, "Can you show me God?" Even God comes before you, unless you have got the qualified eyes you cannot see Him. Therefore qualification required. Premāñjana-cchurita. When your eyes will be anointed with, what is called?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Salve of love.
Acyutānanda: Ointment.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Salve of love.
Acyutānanda: Ointment.
Prabhupāda: Savoth?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Salve, salve.
Prabhupāda: What is the spelling?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Salve, s-a-l-v-e.
Pañca-draviḍa: But cows aren't all eating wheat grass.
Prabhupāda: Cows are eating grass, dry grass, and giving you nice milk. Now, if you eat it—"There is vitamins. Let me eat"—you'll die. So who made this arrangement?
Guru-kṛpā: They may argue, though, that even women give milk after there's baby, and they eat all sorts of things.
Prabhupāda: They eat grass?
Guru-kṛpā: They eat meat. They eat fish. They are making milk also.
Prabhupāda: Milk is there, but it is not that it is due to eating such and such.
Pañca-draviḍa: Yeah, that doesn't prove anything.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Milk is there.
Lokanātha: They did not take that to mean the constitutional position of the living entity.
Prabhupāda: Yes, they do not know. Therefore they are less intelligent. They are individual, but artificially they are thinking, "I shall become one."
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, the karmīs may argue that to become desireless is against the natural order. Because we see that right from the beginning of our life we're desiring so many things.
Prabhupāda: Desireless. When he will desire less, you convince. They're always desiring.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Oh, yes.
Prabhupāda: Then where is desireless?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: But we're saying anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy anāvṛtam (Brs. 1.1.11).
Prabhupāda: Anya, anya means anyathā. You are servant, you should always desire how to serve Kṛṣṇa. That is your natural. And if you don't want to serve, that is anyathā. Anyābhilāṣa. That is anyābhilāṣa. Anya means other, abhilāṣa means desire. So everyone has got desire, but that desire should be natural, according to position. But if you desire something else, nonsense, then you suffer. That... Caitanya Mahāprabhu said jīvera svarūpa haya nitya-kṛṣṇa-dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). You are eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, so you desire only how to serve Him. Why you are desiring otherwise? They will suffer. We are desiring, "I shall become God," "I shall become one with God," "I shall become this, I shall become..." So many hundreds and thousands. So that you have to stop. Because you are servant, you should desire how to serve Kṛṣṇa.
Prabhupāda: Na jāyate na mriyate vā. That is the distinction between matter and soul.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: They counter that if God is all-powerful, He can do anything. So why not He can create a soul and that soul can then be eternal from that point?
Prabhupāda: Hm?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: The Christian may argue that God is all-powerful, so God has created the soul, and from that point the soul is eternal.
Prabhupāda: Soul is eternal, we admit.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: But only from that point, not in the past.
Prabhupāda: Not in the past?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Yes, because according to Biblical philosophy you only have one lifetime in this world.
Prabhupāda: Then who goes to heaven?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Persons who adopt the principles.
Prabhupāda: And if one life, then who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Very few go to heaven.
Prabhupāda: Fresh, by cleaning the urine? Now they are doing that. Fresh water by cleaning urine. Fat derived from stool. Yes, German people did it. Fat extracted from stool. Scientifically. You can use it with butter very nicely on your bread. This is going on.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Some of the materialists may argue that these activities are not all that unbeneficial. For example, they have made a tractor, and in America they can produce so many grains, so much so that practically they could feed the world.
Prabhupāda: Why do they not?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Because their mentality is very abominable.
Prabhupāda: Do that. There are so many overpopulation, and you can do it in America. So much land lying vacant here.
Dhṛṣṭadyumna: Better to put the people in factories in the fields. If they are going to work, let them work growing grain and milking the cows.
Prabhupāda: Yes, then they will live very happily. That will not do. Jagato 'hitāḥ.
Prabhupāda: Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are inconceivable, do not try to understand by argument. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. So our process, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, is to take knowledge from the authority. Unless we take knowledge from the authority, however we may go on arguing, we cannot come to the conclusion. The modern scientists, philosophers, they are arguing, but they do not come to the conclusion. If you want to take conclusion... Just like two lawyers are arguing in the court, but the conclusion is given by the authority, the judge. That one has to accept. So we take authority, the Bhagavad-gītā or Kṛṣṇa. He is accepted authority by all the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and in the śāstra also, Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Devala, Asita. So our authority is confirmed. So if we take conclusion from the authority, then we benefit. Otherwise, with our limited knowledge, if we go on arguing, then we cannot understand the conclusion. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. By argument we cannot come to the conclusion. I can argue, and you can argue, but you may argue more than me. Another person can argue more than you. In this way, you do not come to the conclusion. And śrutayo vibhinnā. So far scriptures are concerned, there are also different scriptures.
Prabhupāda: Food, that is punishment. It is not the... Famine is punishment from the side of nature. She'll not supply to the rākṣasas. That is a punishment. Otherwise, there is no question of population. You may have as many... Just like the birds and beasts. They do not care for... They have got enough food. But they do not violate the laws of the nature.
Harikeśa: One may argue that in nature there is this leveling out of the species, that one species kills another off so that the population is maintained at the proper level.
Prabhupāda: No species killed by another species. It is rascal proposal.
Harikeśa: Well, members of the species are killed by...
Prabhupāda: That is another thing. Jīvasya jīva... jivo jīvanam. One animal is eating another animal. That is another thing. But that does not mean species finished. That is nonsense.
Harikeśa: No, I didn't mean. So the human being, the animals can't kill off the human being so that the people have to do it.
Prabhupāda: Huh? What is that?
Harikeśa: The people have to do it to maintain the population level. We have to kill some of the children so that it doesn't become out of control, like the animals do it.
Prabhupāda: You are less than animal. You are greatest animal. You want to kill your children.
1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
Hari-śauri: Should I read the purport?
Prabhupāda: Hm? What is that?
Hari-śauri: "It may be argued that since Kṛṣṇa was present on this earth and was visible to everyone, then why isn't He manifest to everyone now? But actually He was not manifest to everyone. When Kṛṣṇa was present there were only a few people who could understand Him to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead." (break)
Prabhupāda: If one understands, then he becomes immediately liberated. And the atheists, they cannot understand, so they remain always conditioned. If actually one understands Kṛṣṇa's, he's liberated immediately. He's simply waiting for changing this body. That's all. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9). One who has understood Kṛṣṇa is liberated. Jīvan muktaḥ sa ucyate: "Even in this life he is mukta." Find out that, janma karma ca divyaṁ me yo jānāti tattvataḥ. "You rascal, if you could understand Kṛṣṇa, then immediately you would have been liberated. And if you were liberated, then you would not ask this question. You do not know Kṛṣṇa, neither it is possible for you to understand Kṛṣṇa. You remain in darkness."
Prabhupāda: This is described in the śāstra. If one hears of the Yadu-vaṁśa, he becomes purified. And Kṛṣṇa is addressed, Yadupati. Then?
Hari-śauri: "Having taken birth in that family, how could Kṛṣṇa have been induced even by the gopīs? It is concluded therefore that it was not possible for Kṛṣṇa to do anything abominable. But Mahārāja Parīkṣit was in doubt as to why Kṛṣṇa acted in that way. What was the real purpose? Another word Mahārāja Parīkṣit used when he addressed Śukadeva Gosvāmī is suvrata, which means to take a vow to enact pious activities. Śukadeva Gosvāmī was an educated brahmacārī, and under the circumstance it was not possible for him to indulge in sex. This is strictly prohibited for brahmacārīs, and what to speak of a brahmacārī like Śukadeva Gosvāmī. But because the circumstances of the rasa dance were very suspect, Mahārāja Parīkṣit inquired for clarification from Śukadeva Gosvāmī. Śukadeva Gosvāmī immediately replied that transgressions of religious principles by the supreme controller testify to His great power. For example, fire can consume any abominable thing. That is the manifestation of the supremacy of fire. Similarly, the sun can absorb water from urine or from stool, and the sun is not polluted. Rather, due to the influence of sunshine the polluted, contaminated place becomes disinfected and sterilized. One may also argue that since Kṛṣṇa is the supreme authority, His activities should be followed. In answer to this question, Śukadeva Gosvāmī has very clearly said, īśvarāṇām, or the supreme controller, may sometimes violate His instructions, but this is only possible for the controller Himself and not for the followers. Unusual and uncommon activities by the controller can never be imitated. Śukadeva Gosvāmī warns that the conditioned followers who are not actually in control should never even imagine imitating the uncommon activities of the controller. A Māyāvādī philosopher may falsely claim to be God or Kṛṣṇa, but he cannot actually act like Kṛṣṇa. He can persuade his followers to falsely imitate the rasa dance, but he is unable to lift Govardhana Hill. We have many experiences in the past of Māyāvādī rascals deluding their followers by posing themselves as Kṛṣṇa in order to enjoy rasa līlā. In many instances they were checked by the government, arrested and punished. In Orissa, Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda also punished the so-called incarnation of Viṣṇu who was imitating rasa-līlā with young girls. There were many complaints against him. At that time Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was a magistrate, and the government deputed him to deal with that rascal, and he punished him very severely. The rasa-līlā dance cannot be imitated by anyone. Śukadeva Gosvāmī warns that one should not even think of imitating it. He specifically mentions that if out of foolishness one tries to imitate Kṛṣṇa's rasa dance he will be killed, just like a person who wants to imitate Lord Śiva's drinking of an ocean of poison. Lord Śiva drank an ocean of poison and kept it within his throat. The poison made his throat turn blue, and therefore Lord Śiva is called nīla-kaṇṭha. But if any ordinary person tries to imitate Lord Śiva by drinking poison or by smoking gañja, he is sure be vanquished and will die within a very short time. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa's dealing with the gopīs was under special circumstances."
Prabhupāda: It is not for public show. That is the idea.
Prabhupāda: That's right. Then learn it from me. Otherwise, if you refuse, then you must be punished. That is my duty.
Hari-śauri: You were just saying that a person who's not religious, he's no better than an animal, but he might argue that even the animals have a right to live undisturbed.
Prabhupāda: No, animal... Right to live with animal is subjected to be punished, just to live rightly. Suppose a cow comes with his horn like that. He must be punished immediately, the atrocity.(?) Then he'll be corrected.
Hari-śauri: But there are so many animals living in the jungle who don't...
Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. No, jungle, we have no business to go there. We have rejected jungle. Let them live there. But in the human society, if the animal disturbs, it must be punished—with stick.
Satsvarūpa: What about say a Buddhist who practices ahiṁsā...?
Prabhupāda: Now, Buddhist... I say there is no question of "Buddhist," "Christian." One must know what is God.
Satsvarūpa: That's even... That's their philosophy. There's a saying, "Nobody's perfect."
Prabhupāda: No. That you do not know, who is perfect. That is your ignorance. We know. If I know who is perfect, why shall I take your advice, "Nobody is perfect"? Kṛṣṇa is perfect. I know from authorities, from perfect persons.
Hari-śauri: Then they might argue that "I have my authority, and I'm happy to live by it."
Prabhupāda: But you do not believe in authority. You say, "Nobody is perfect." How you get, have, authority? Your statement is "Nobody is perfect," so how you can get?
Hari-śauri: But as far as my own happiness goes...
Prabhupāda: You are unhappy.
Pṛthu-putra: So then the question is... After Arjuna heard the whole Bhagavad-gītā and understood it, when he engaged in the battlefield, still, when he heard that Abhimanyu, his son, died, he was very agitated again and...
Prabhupāda: So that is natural. If my sons dies, I will not be agitated? What is the wrong there?
Pṛthu-putra: Well, one advocate asked me this in Allahabad.
Prabhupāda: That is temporary. That is temporary, but it is natural. Suppose if I prick you, you feel some pain, but that is temporary. Āgamāpāyinaḥ anityāḥ. They come and go.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Just because we cannot make the mind doesn't mean that the mind is not material. I may not make it, but still we say it's...
Prabhupāda: No, you say material; we say... We have full knowledge. We say material, but subtle material. But you have no knowledge; therefore you have no brain.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "What proof is there?" they may argue.
Prabhupāda: This is the proof. Now, if the real active principle has left, the brain has left, the mind has left—it is only a lump. You cannot understand. If you understand it, then replace it. If you cannot, then you have no brain. You have to prove that, that "You have no brain at all. Where is the question of brainwashing?"
Hari-śauri: But if we operate on a person's brain, actual brain substance, it affects his personality. So therefore the personality in the brain is the same.
Prabhupāda: Whatever you know, you give this man brain, mind, and again let him get up and work. I want this.
Prabhupāda: Why we appoint lawyer?
Ādi-keśava: Well, in the court there are certain things that only the lawyer may argue. We're not allowed to argue ourselves. Now, one thing is that Hari-śauri has just told me that Guru-kṛpā Mahārāja has one man on his party who was a lawyer, a member of the bar in Australia. So I'm thinking to ask Guru-kṛpā Mahārāja if he can come with us to New York and get admitted to the bar in New York and become our attorney.
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes. It will be very nice.
Ādi-keśava: Because otherwise it is costing so much money.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Immediately.
Ādi-keśava: One other thing that is sometimes arising is that when we are arguing the case in the court...
Prabhupāda: Why not get help from some Indian lawyer?
Ādi-keśava: Some are willing to help us. This one man Din Agnihotri from Southern University Law School, he helped us make the basis of the case. But most of the Indian lawyers, they will not help us.
Prabhupāda: You are all young men. Who wants to become an invalid man like me? With three men I have to walk. Nobody wants. But you have to accept. I did not like. But you have to accept, compulsory. What is the use of saying, "Why shall I accept?" You... "Why?" There is no question of "Why?" You have to. That is the control.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They might argue that...
Prabhupāda: What is the meaning of argue? I'll beat you with shoes. You have to accept. What is the use of argument?
Svarūpa Dāmodara: Like a madman.
Prabhupāda: That's all. Nature will beat you with shoes. You have to accept.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They'll say, "We have seen old men, but we have never seen anyone change their body."
Prabhupāda: This is not change? You are a young man; now you have become old. Then you have no eyes. You are blind. I was not a young man?
Devotee (3): But they will argue, "What is the necessary..."
Prabhupāda: What is the use of argument? You have to change. You are going to be hanged. There is no argument. You must be hanged.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: In this age Caitanya Mahāprabhu has made everything very simplified.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Patitānāṁ pāvanebhyaḥ. Pāpī tāpī jata chilo, hari-nāme uddhārilo, tāra sākṣī jagāi-mādhāi, brajendra-nandana jei, śaci-suta hoilo sei. Kṛṣṇa is coming. He has come as Caitanya Mahāprabhu to deliver these pāpīs and tāpīs. Whole process is scientific. It is not (laughs) the Ramakrishna, Vivekananda. It is not that. What do they know? Or Gandhi. They are also trying for the betterment, but they do not accept the standard process. Everyone is trying. That is struggle for existence. So who is fittest? The fittest is the devotee. He'll survive. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma (BG 4.9). I have now explained how Kṛṣṇa became subordinate to devotee. (turns on dictaphone, plays back from tape:) "Yamarāja, controller of all living entities, is afraid of the order of Kṛṣṇa. Still, Kṛṣṇa is afraid of mother's stick. This contradictory thing cannot be understood by one who is not devotee. Devotee can understand how much powerful is unalloyed devotional service to Kṛṣṇa, so much so He can be controlled by such devotee. Bhṛtya-vaśyata. That means under the control of the servant, but He is under the control of pure love by the servant. In the Bhagavad-gītā also, we see, Kṛṣṇa became the chariot driver of Arjuna. Arjuna is ordering Him, senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me acyuta (BG 1.21). Here Kṛṣṇa has agreed... (break) '...my chariot...' (break) '...to execute my order. Place my chariot between the two party soldiers.' Kṛṣṇa immediately executed his order. One may argue in this connection that Kṛṣṇa is also not independent. This is ajñāna, ignorance. Kṛṣṇa is fully independent. When He becomes subordinate to the devotees He is ānanda-cinmaya-rasa. Humor of transcendental qualities increases transcendental pleasure. One who worships Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore sometimes desires to be controlled by somebody controller. Nobody else... (break) ...pure devotee." (end of tape playback section) Everyone worships Him as the Supreme, but sometimes He desires, "Somebody will control over."
Correspondence
1969 Correspondence
Your eighth, "How can I explain how the light and heat from the single sun in this universe is able to reach so far? Is it a question of the receptivity of different planets?" We can see one sun only. So it is simply speculation whether there is one or more suns. But we get from authority of Sastra that there is one sun, in each universe, and the stars and moon reflects the light of this sun. There is one sun in the daytime, and it illuminates so nicely that all darkness is gone. But at night, you may argue, if these stars are so many suns, then why the darkness is still there??
1972 Correspondence
Regarding your questions on Christianity, we are not very much keen to engage them in argument because for the most part they are sentimentalists and have no philosophy, therefore they become fanatics or dogmatists, and this type of person we cannot change. But if you find some Christian person who is intelligent to understand philosophy then you may argue that if God is unlimited, how He can be confined to having only one son? The son is the representative of the father, and in that sense he is the same as the father, but also he is different than the father. So Christ is speaking in this sense, that only through the representative of God can one come to God. Just like Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that one should surrender to a bona fide spiritual master, and then He also says that one should "Surrender unto Me." So there is no difference between surrendering to God or surrendering to God's representative, therefore Christ is also saying just surrender to me, the son or representative or spiritual master, and that is the same as surrendering to my father.
| Page Title: | One may argue (Books) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 06 of Mar, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=6, SB=47, CC=5, OB=6, Lec=22, Con=22, Let=2 |
| No. of Quotes: | 110 |