Other examples

Expressions researched:
"other example" |"other examples"

SB Canto 6

The other example given in this verse is that a flower garland is originally very nice, but by mistake, for want of mature knowledge, one may consider it a snake.

SB 6.17.30, Purport: The other example given in this verse is that a flower garland is originally very nice, but by mistake, for want of mature knowledge, one may consider it a snake. In this connection there is a statement by Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī: viśvaṁ pūrṇa-sukhāyate. Everyone in this material world is distressed by miserable conditions, but Śrīla Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī says that this world is full of happiness. How is this possible? He answers, yat-kāruṇya-katākṣa-vaibhavavatāṁ taṁ gauram eva stumaḥ. A devotee accepts the distress of this material world as happiness only due to the causeless mercy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. By His personal behavior, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu showed that He was never distressed but always happy in chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. One should follow in the footsteps of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and engage constantly in chanting the mahā-mantra—Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Then he will never feel the distresses of the world of duality. In any condition of life one will be happy if he chants the holy name of the Lord.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

There are so many other examples. Just like watering the plant. Where the water is poured? In the root, not on the leaves.

Lecture on BG 3.16-17 -- New York, May 25, 1966: Similarly, if you have to love, you have to love through God. Otherwise, love is not possible. That is all artificial love. Just like supplying foodstuff through the rectum is most artificial and troublesome thing, similarly, without loving God, if I want to love anybody, that is a false manifestation. There are so many other examples. Just like watering the plant. Now, our Paul or Paul... They supply water, pour water. Why? So that the tree or the plant may grow nicely. Where the water is poured? In the root, not on the leaves. You see? So the scriptures directs, Vedic scriptures. Yathā taror mūla-niṣecanena tṛpyanti tat-skandha-bhujopaśākhāḥ [SB 4.31.14]. Just like pouring water unto the root of the tree, all the branches of the tree and leaves and flowers, they automatically nice... You haven't got to pour water. Now, it is a small plant. Suppose if you have got a big tree and there are thousands and millions of leaves, you are not supposed to supply water in millions of leaves. You are supposed to water, pour water, on the root. That will be distributed.

In the later stage Prahlāda Mahārāja made his father liberated. But from the superficial point of view, that he was present while his father was being killed... There are so many things, similar, other examples.

Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971: So now, from materialistic point of view, you will see that Prahlāda Mahārāja, what kind of devotee he is? In his presence his father is being killed and he did not protest. So from the ordinary point of view, it is sinful. If your father is attacked by somebody, it is your duty. But Prahlāda Mahārāja didn't... Because Prahlāda Mahārāja knew... That is another chapter. In the later stage he made his father liberated. But from the superficial point of view, that he was present while his father was being killed... There are so many things, similar, other examples. Bali Mahārāja gave up his spiritual master for Kṛṣṇa's sake.

There are many other examples. Just like water. To remain liquid-its dharma. Therefore, sometimes water, even it is transformed into solid ice, it melts, again wants to become water.

Lecture on BG 18.45 -- Durban, October 11, 1975: There are many other examples. Just like water. Water is liquid, everyone knows. But sometimes water becomes solid, ice, under certain circumstances. That is not his dharma. To remain liquid-its dharma. Therefore, sometimes water, even it is transformed into solid ice, it melts, again wants to become water. This is dharma. So what is our dharma, we human being. There is no question of any sect, any nation or any party, no, as human being. As human being or living being, what is our dharma? Dharma is to render service. Every one of us is rendering service. As a family man, he is rendering service, as a society man, as a national—everyone is, whatever... Or occupation. As a medical man, you are also offering your service. As engineer, you are offering your service, or any other, businessman, you are also. Sometimes businessmen, they hang the signboard, "Our first business is to offer you service." So everyone is engaged in giving service to somebody else. This is called dharma, basic principle of dharma. So what is our dharma, living entity? Our dharma is to render service. But we are rendering service? But no. We are rendering service not rightly, but wrongly. Therefore you are no satisfied. There are many examples.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

And there are many other examples, that we can remain fully Kṛṣṇa conscious in spite of being engaged in so-called material activities. That is possible.

Lecture on SB 3.22.21 -- Tehran, August 10, 1976: So things are to be adjusted as it is prescribed by great authorities. In Bhakti-rasāmṛta you'll find the regulative principles. That is called Vaiṣṇava-smṛti. So here we cannot live without working, and still we have to become always Kṛṣṇa conscious. This art, to understand and to practice, is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Then in spite of my being engaged in so many so-called material things Because a devotee has nothing to do with material things. Even if he works for maintenance of the body, that is not material. Just like Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, who was magistrate. But it is not for a magistrate to write so many books—siddhānta-pūrṇam. So he was in a different transcendental platform. So that is possible. The mind may be absorbed in Kṛṣṇa's thought, satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ [Bg. 9.14], tuṣyanti ca ramanti ca. That is possible by practice. Here Kardama Muni is a living example. And there are many other examples, that we can remain fully Kṛṣṇa conscious in spite of being engaged in so-called material activities. That is possible.

General Lectures

There are many other examples. Just like a child wants to know who is father. The mother says, "My dear child, this gentleman is your father"—that is perfect knowledge.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 6, 1971: Therefore the conclusion is that if you simply follow the perfect instruction of Kṛṣṇa, then automatically you become perfect, however imperfect you may be. That is our duty. It is not very difficult. Just like a child, a boy, a child. He's asking father, "My dear father, what is this?" An intelligent child questions like that. The father explains, "This is this," and the child accepts. Then his knowledge is perfect. But if he accepts the instruction of the father or mother, immediately he becomes perfect. There are many other examples. Just like a child wants to know who is father. The mother says, "My dear child, this gentleman is your father"—that is perfect knowledge. But if the child wants to research who is his father, it is impossible to find out. Similarly, if we want to know the supreme father, Kṛṣṇa, or God, we have to take instruction from the supreme father, not speculating, just like by speculating we cannot understand our ordinary father without the instruction of mother. If you go on speculating, "He may be my father. He may be my father. He may be father," go on speculating, but you will never understand who is your father. But you accept the authoritative statement of your mother, that "He is your father"—that is perfect knowledge. That process should be accepted. Otherwise, our position is very precarious.

Prahlāda Mahārāja was typical example of this Caitanya Mahāprabhu's śikṣā, that one must tolerate. There are many other examples.

Pandal Lecture -- November 14, 1971, Delhi: There will be disturbances. One who is going to engage himself in devotional service, he may be disturbed because that is the way of this material world. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that tolerate. How toleration? Tṛṇād api sunīcena, humbler than the straw on the street or grass. Everyone is walking over the grass, but it does not protest. Tolerates. Tṛṇād api sunīcena taror api sahiṣṇuna. Prahlāda Mahārāja was typical example of this Caitanya Mahāprabhu's śikṣā. This Hiraṇyakaśipu father tortured Prahlāda Mahārāja in so many ways, but he tolerated. He tolerated. There are many other examples. Lord Jesus Christ, he was crucified. The only fault was that he was preaching God consciousness.

There are many other examples. Just like the sun and sunlight. Sunlight is not different from the sun, and still the sunlight is not the sun.

Lecture -- Bombay, March 19, 1972: This philosophy of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, acintya-bhedābheda-tattva: simultaneously, inconceivable one and different. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy, Vaiṣṇava philosophy. We are neither different nor one, simultaneously, and therefore it is called inconceivable, acintya. In our material conception we cannot think that one thing may be simultaneously one with another and different from another. So this is our position: jīva is śakti-tattva and bhagavān is śaktimān-tattva. But śakti, śaktimān abheda, there is no difference. There are many other examples. Just like the sun and sunlight. Sunlight is not different from the sun, and still the sunlight is not the sun. In the morning, when you find that there is sunlight within your room, you can say that the sun is within your room. You can say that, but the actual sun is far, far away, 93,000,000 miles away from us. So there are so many examples that we are energy of the Supreme Lord, we living entities.

Philosophy Discussions

Similarly, the other example that snow is white. To think of snow not white, that cannot be conceived.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: This is what he says, that these innate truths are governed by the principle of contradiction. That is, the opposite of the truth is impossible to conceive. If something is true, the opposite of that truth is impossible to conceive.

Prabhupāda: The opposite is māyā. Opposite to truth is māyā.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the sum of the angles of a triangle must equal 180 degrees. It is impossible to conceive of the opposite.

Prabhupāda: Similarly, the other example that snow is white. To think of snow not white, that cannot be conceived.

Śyāmasundara: He says that "snow is white" is not one of these eternal truths; that it is possible to conceive that snow could be red.

Prabhupāda: Why? You say that redness of snow is possible under certain circumstances?

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: So that is possible in every case. Therefore the real feature of snow is not red. It appears to be red under certain conditions, but that is not truth; that is untruth.

Śyāmasundara: What about two plus two equals four?

Prabhupāda: That is true.

Śyāmasundara: It's impossible to conceive of the opposite of that truth. So that is what he would call logically necessary proof, proved by the law of contradiction.

Prabhupāda: My point is that he says that there are two types of truth. No. There cannot be two types of truth. That is my protest. I say there is only one truth. When you think two types of truth, then you are mistaken. Then same thing: when you think that two plus two equals five, then you are mistaken. Two plus two is always four. That is truth. Similarly, snow is white always. That is truth. When you think it is red, it is untruth. But you cannot say it is another type of truth. Mistake cannot be accepted as another type of truth. Mistake is mistake.

There are so many other examples. It is not on the dry grass that the cow is producing milk; it is the will of God that is producing it.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz: Prabhupāda: But one thing is that when rocks were thrown on the sea by Lord Rāmacandra's will, they began to float. Therefore the Supreme Will is the ultimate cause. Supreme Will wants that the rock may go down in the water, then it goes; if He does not wants, then the rock floats. Therefore rock is not independent. The Supreme Will of God is independent. There are so many other examples. The same example as I cited the other day, that the cow eats the dry grass and it gives so nutritious, full of vitamins milk. But the same dry grass, if a woman eats, she will die. Therefore the plan of the Supreme that the cow, by eating dry grass, she can deliver nicely. It is not on the dry grass she is producing milk; it is the will of God that is producing it. Similarly the stone falling. Because the will of God is there, therefore "You stone, go down in the water!" But when God wills that it floats, it will float. So that in that case the monad theory did not act.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

These are the examples. So these instances are in the Vedic literature, that wife remains always faithful and subservient to the husband.

Room Conversation after Press Conference -- July 9, 1975, Chicago:

Prabhupāda: Nowadays may be different, but I am speaking of the Vedic ideas, that woman in all circumstances, unless the husband is crazy or something like that, mad, or..., in every case the instance is that wife is faithful and subservient to the husband. That is the Vedic culture. Even the husband goes out of home, vānaprastha, the wife also goes with him. When he takes sannyāsa, at that time there is no accompaniment of wife. Otherwise in gṛhastha life and even vānaprastha life, the wife is constant companion and subservient. That is the history of Vedic culture. History, Gāndhārī, because her husband was blind, so when the marriage settlement was done, she was not blind, but she voluntarily became blind by wrapping cloth.

Devotee (2): She remained with the cloth wrapped for her whole life?

Prabhupāda: Whole life.

Devotee (2): Whole life.

Prabhupāda: She voluntarily became blind. And up to the last point of her husband's precarious condition, she remained with him. These are the examples. There are other examples. Damayanti. They became so poor that they had no clothing. So the one cloth divided into two, husband and wife. So these instances are in the Vedic literature, that wife remains always faithful and subservient to the husband. That is their perfection. Now the Americans may not like this idea. That is different thing. But we are speaking of the Vedic culture. And these are the instances, vivid instances.

We understand from the history of Mahabharata that Dhrtarastra had one hundred sons, but there are many other examples also.

Letter to Sir Alistair Hardy -- Bhaktivedanta Manor 28 July, 1973: Formerly man used to have hundreds of sons, at the present moment a man has got two three at most ten sons. So where is the question of over population? We understand from the history of Mahabharata that Dhrtarastra had one hundred sons, but there are many other examples also. Maharaja Rsabha dev had one hundred sons, so they were big prominent men in the history the names of the most prominent men are mentioned. It is therefore safe to conclude that if the King can produce one hundred sons the subjects also can produce one hundred sons, if not all of then at least some of them. So at that time there was no question of overpopulation, we do not find it in the history of Mahabharata.