Phrase (Books)

Expressions researched:
"phrase" |"phrases" |"phrasing"

BG Chapters 7 - 12

BG 7.14, Purport:

The words mām eva are also significant. Mām means unto Kṛṣṇa (Viṣṇu) only, and not Brahmā or Śiva. Although Brahmā and Śiva are greatly elevated and are almost on the level of Viṣṇu, it is not possible for such incarnations of rajo-guṇa (passion) and tamo-guṇa (ignorance) to release the conditioned soul from the clutches of māyā. In other words, both Brahmā and Śiva are also under the influence of māyā. Only Viṣṇu is the master of māyā; therefore He alone can give release to the conditioned soul. The Vedas (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8) confirm this in the phrase tam eva viditvā, or "Freedom is possible only by understanding Kṛṣṇa." Even Lord Śiva affirms that liberation can be achieved only by the mercy of Viṣṇu. Lord Śiva says, mukti-pradātā sarveṣāṁ viṣṇur eva na saṁśayaḥ: "There is no doubt that Viṣṇu is the deliverer of liberation for everyone."

BG 9.29, Purport:

One may question here that if Kṛṣṇa is equal to everyone and no one is His special friend, then why does He take a special interest in the devotees who are always engaged in His transcendental service? But this is not discrimination; it is natural. Any man in this material world may be very charitably disposed, yet he has a special interest in his own children. The Lord claims that every living entity—in whatever form—is His son, and so He provides everyone with a generous supply of the necessities of life. He is just like a cloud which pours rain all over, regardless of whether it falls on rock or land or water. But for His devotees, He gives specific attention. Such devotees are mentioned here: they are always in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and therefore they are always transcendentally situated in Kṛṣṇa. The very phrase "Kṛṣṇa consciousness" suggests that those who are in such consciousness are living transcendentalists, situated in Him. The Lord says here distinctly, mayi te: "They are in Me." Naturally, as a result, the Lord is also in them. This is reciprocal. This also explains the words ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham: "Whoever surrenders unto Me, proportionately I take care of him." This transcendental reciprocation exists because both the Lord and the devotee are conscious. When a diamond is set in a golden ring, it looks very nice. The gold is glorified, and at the same time the diamond is glorified. The Lord and the living entity eternally glitter, and when a living entity becomes inclined to the service of the Supreme Lord he looks like gold. The Lord is a diamond, and so this combination is very nice. Living entities in a pure state are called devotees. The Supreme Lord becomes the devotee of His devotees. If a reciprocal relationship is not present between the devotee and the Lord, then there is no personalist philosophy. In the impersonal philosophy there is no reciprocation between the Supreme and the living entity, but in the personalist philosophy there is.

SB Canto 3

SB 3.10.3, Purport:

The phrase sūta uvāca ("Sūta Gosvāmī said") appears to indicate a break in the discourse between Mahārāja Parīkṣit and Śukadeva Gosvāmī. While Śukadeva Gosvāmī was speaking to Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Sūta Gosvāmī was only one member of a large audience. But Sūta Gosvāmī was speaking to the sages of Naimiṣāraṇya, headed by the sage Śaunaka, a descendant of Śukadeva Gosvāmī. This, however, does not make any substantial difference in the topics under discussion.

SB 3.16.11, Purport:

That should be the way of treating brāhmaṇas and Vaiṣṇavas. One may sometimes be faced with a grievous situation created by a brāhmaṇa, but instead of meeting him with a similar mood, one should try to pacify him with a smiling face and mild treatment. Brāhmaṇas and Vaiṣṇavas should be accepted as earthly representatives of Nārāyaṇa. Nowadays some foolish persons have manufactured the term daridra-nārāyaṇa, indicating that the poor man should be accepted as the representative of Nārāyaṇa. But in Vedic literature we do not find that poor men should be treated as representatives of Nārāyaṇa. Of course, "those who are unprotected" are mentioned here, but the definition of this phrase is clear from the śāstras. The poor man should not be unprotected, but the brāhmaṇa should especially be treated as the representative of Nārāyaṇa and should be worshiped like Him. It is specifically said that to pacify the brāhmaṇas, one's face should be lotuslike. A lotuslike face is exhibited when one is adorned with love and affection. In this respect, the example of the father's being angry at the son and the son's trying to pacify the father with smiling and sweet words is very appropriate.

SB 3.18.3, Purport:

Śrīdhara Svāmī, commenting on this verse, states that although the demon wanted to deride the Personality of Godhead in the form of a boar, actually he worshiped Him in several words. For example, he addressed Him as vana-gocaraḥ, which means "one who is a resident of the forest," but another meaning of vana-gocaraḥ is "one who lies on the water." Viṣṇu lies on the water, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be properly addressed in this way. The demon also addressed Him as mṛgaḥ, indicating, unintentionally, that the Supreme Personality is sought after by great sages, saintly persons and transcendentalists. He also addressed Him as ajña. Śrīdhara Svāmī says that jña means "knowledge," and there is no knowledge which is unknown to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Indirectly, therefore, the demon said that Viṣṇu knows everything. The demon addressed Him as surādhama. Sura means "the demigods," and adhama means "Lord of all there is." He is Lord of all the demigods; therefore He is the best of all demigods, or God. When the demon used the phrase "in my presence," the implied meaning was, "In spite of my presence, You are completely able to take away the earth." Na svasti yāsyasi: "unless You kindly take this earth from our custody, there can be no good fortune for us."

SB 3.21.15, Purport:

In spite of his condemning persons who approach the Lord for material advantages, Kardama Muni expressed his material inability and desire before the Lord by saying, "Although I know that nothing material should be asked from You, I nevertheless desire to marry a girl of like disposition." The phrase "like disposition" is very significant. Formerly, boys and girls of similar dispositions were married; the similar natures of the boy and girl were united in order to make them happy. Not more than twenty-five years ago, and perhaps it is still current, parents in India used to consult the horoscope of the boy and girl to see whether there would be factual union in their psychological conditions. These considerations are very important. Nowadays marriage takes place without such consultation, and therefore, soon after the marriage, there is divorce and separation. Formerly husband and wife used to live together peacefully throughout their whole lives, but nowadays it is a very difficult task.

Kardama Muni wanted to have a wife of like disposition because a wife is necessary to assist in spiritual and material advancement. It is said that a wife yields the fulfillment of all desires in religion, economic development and sense gratification. If one has a nice wife, he is to be considered a most fortunate man. In astrology, a man is considered fortunate who has great wealth, very good sons or a very good wife. Of these three, one who has a very good wife is considered the most fortunate. Before marrying, one should select a wife of like disposition and not be enamored by so-called beauty or other attractive features for sense gratification. In the Bhāgavatam, Twelfth Canto, it is said that in the Kali-yuga marriage will be based on the consideration of sex life; as soon as there is deficiency in sex life, the question of divorce will arise.

SB 3.24.33, Purport:

The six opulences—wealth, strength, fame, beauty, knowledge and renunciation—are indicated here by Kardama Muni, who addresses Kapila Muni, his son, as param. The word param is used in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in the phrase paraṁ satyam, to refer to the summum bonum, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. param is explained further by the next word, pradhānam, which means the chief, the origin, the source of everything—sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1)—the cause of all causes. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is not formless; He is puruṣam, or the enjoyer, the original person. He is the time element and is all-cognizant. He knows everything—past, present and future—as confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā. The Lord says, "I know everything—present, past and future—in every corner of the universe." The material world, which is moving under the spell of the three modes of nature, is also a manifestation of His energy. parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate: everything that we see is an interaction of His energies (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8 (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport)). parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktis tathedam akhilaṁ jagat. This is the version of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. We can understand that whatever we see is an interaction of the three modes of material nature, but actually it is all an interaction of the Lord's energy. Loka-pālam: He is actually the maintainer of all living entities. Nityo nityānām: He is the chief of all living entities; He is one, but He maintains many, many living entities. God maintains all other living entities, but no one can maintain God. That is His svacchanda-śakti; He is not dependent on others. Someone may call himself independent, but he is still dependent on someone higher. The Personality of Godhead, however, is absolute; there is no one higher than or equal to Him.

SB 3.28.3, Purport:

Religious practices should be executed only to gain freedom from the clutches of material nature. It is stated in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that the topmost religious practice is that by which one can attain to the transcendental devotional service of the Lord, without reason or cause. Such religious practice is never hampered by any impediments, and by its performance one actually becomes satisfied. Here this is recommended as mokṣa-dharma, religious practice for salvation, or transcendence of the clutches of material contamination. Generally people execute religious practices for economic development or sense gratification, but that is not recommended for one who wants to advance in yoga.

The next important phrase is mita-medhyādanam, which means that one should eat very frugally. It is recommended in the Vedic literatures that a yogī eat only half what he desires according to his hunger. If one is so hungry that he could devour one pound of foodstuffs, then instead of eating one pound, he should consume only half a pound and supplement this with four ounces of water; one fourth of the stomach should be left empty for passage of air in the stomach. If one eats in this manner, he will avoid indigestion and disease. The yogī should eat in this way, as recommended in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and all other standard scriptures. The yogī should live in a secluded place, where his yoga practice will not be disturbed.

SB 3.28.22, Purport:

The devotees are so fixed on the lotus feet of the Lord that they do not think of anything else. Those who practice the yoga system must meditate on the lotus feet of the Lord for a long time after following the regulative principles and thereby controlling the senses.

It is specifically mentioned here, bhagavataś caraṇāravindam: one has to think of the lotus feet of the Lord. The Māyāvādīs imagine that one can think of the lotus feet of Lord Śiva or Lord Brahmā or the goddess Durgā to achieve liberation, but this is not so. Bhagavataḥ is specifically mentioned. Bhagavataḥ means "of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu," and no one else. Another significant phrase in this verse is śivaḥ śivo 'bhūt. By his constitutional position, Lord Śiva is always great and auspicious, but since he has accepted on his head the Ganges water, which emanated from the lotus feet of the Lord, he has become even more auspicious and important. The stress is on the lotus feet of the Lord. A relationship with the lotus feet of the Lord can even enhance the importance of Lord Śiva, what to speak of other, ordinary living entities.

SB 3.29.15, Purport:

There are no distinctions, for it is declared by the Lord in Bhagavad-gītā that anyone engaged specifically in devotional service is elevated to the transcendental position without a doubt. Everyone's prescribed duty is glorious if it is performed in devotional service of the Lord, without desire for profit. Such loving service must be performed without reason, without impediment, and spontaneously. Kṛṣṇa is lovable, and one has to serve Him in whatever capacity one can. That is pure devotional service.

Another significant phrase in this verse is nātihiṁsreṇa ("with minimum violence or sacrifice of life"). Even if a devotee has to commit violence, it should not be done beyond what is necessary. Sometimes the question is put before us: "You ask us not to eat meat, but you are eating vegetables. Do you think that is not violence?" The answer is that eating vegetables is violence, and vegetarians are also committing violence against other living entities because vegetables also have life. Nondevotees are killing cows, goats and so many other animals for eating purposes, and a devotee, who is vegetarian, is also killing. But here, significantly, it is stated that every living entity has to live by killing another entity; that is the law of nature. Jīvo jīvasya jīvanam: one living entity is the life for another living entity. But for a human being, that violence should be committed only as much as necessary.

SB 3.29.23, Purport:

In this verse, two phrases, bhūteṣu baddha-vairasya ("inimical towards others") and dviṣataḥ para-kāye ("envious of another's body"), are significant. One who is envious of or inimical towards others never experiences any happiness. A devotee's vision, therefore, must be perfect. He should ignore bodily distinctions and should see only the presence of the part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, and the Lord Himself in His plenary expansion as Supersoul. That is the vision of a pure devotee. The bodily expression of a particular type of living entity is always ignored by the devotee.

It is expressed herein that the Lord is always eager to deliver the conditioned souls, who have been encaged within material bodies. Devotees are expected to carry the message or desire of the Lord to such conditioned souls and enlighten them with Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Thus they may be elevated to transcendental, spiritual life, and the mission of their lives will be successful. Of course this is not possible for living entities who are lower than human beings, but in human society it is feasible that all living entities can be enlightened with Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Even living entities who are lower than human can be raised to Kṛṣṇa consciousness by other methods. For example, Śivānanda Sena, a great devotee of Lord Caitanya, delivered a dog by feeding him prasāda. Distribution of prasāda, or remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Lord, even to the ignorant masses of people and to animals, gives such living entities the chance for elevation to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Factually it happened that the same dog, when met by Lord Caitanya at Purī, was liberated from the material condition.

SB 3.29.37, Purport:

Everyone is afraid of the activities of time, but a devotee who knows that the time factor is another representation or manifestation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead has nothing to fear from the influence of time. The phrase rūpa-bhedāspadam is very significant. By the influence of time, so many forms are changing. For example, when a child is born his form is small, but in the course of time that form changes into a larger form, the body of a boy, and then the body of a young man. Similarly, everything is changed and transformed by the time factor, or by the indirect control of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Usually, we do not see any difference between the body of a child and the body of a boy or young man because we know that these changes are due to the action of the time factor. There is cause for fear for a person who does not know how time acts.

SB 3.32.22, Purport:

Sarva-bhāvena means "in all-loving ecstasy." Bhāva is the preliminary stage of elevation before the attainment of pure love of Godhead. It is stated in Bhagavad-gītā, budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ: (BG 10.8) one who has attained the stage of bhāva can accept the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa as worshipable. This is also advised here by Lord Kapila to His mother. Also significant in this verse is the phrase tad-guṇāśrayayā bhaktyā. This means that discharging devotional service unto Kṛṣṇa is transcendental; it is not material activity. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā: those who engage in devotional service are accepted to be situated in the spiritual kingdom. Brahma-bhūyāya kalpate: (BG 14.26) they at once become situated in the transcendental kingdom.

Devotional service in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the only means for attaining the highest perfection of life for the human being. This is recommended herein by Lord Kapila to His mother. Bhakti is therefore nirguṇa, free from all tinges of material qualities. Although the discharge of devotional service appears to be like material activities, it is never saguṇa, or contaminated by material qualities. Tad-guṇāśrayayā means that Lord Kṛṣṇa's transcendental qualities are so sublime that there is no need to divert one's attention to any other activities. His behavior with the devotees is so exalted that a devotee need not try to divert his attention to any other worship. It is said that the demoniac Pūtanā came to kill Kṛṣṇa by poisoning Him, but because Kṛṣṇa was pleased to suck her breast, she was given the same position as His mother. Devotees pray, therefore, that if a demon who wanted to kill Kṛṣṇa gets such an exalted position, why should they go to anyone other than Kṛṣṇa for their worshipful attachment? There are two kinds of religious activities: one for material advancement and the other for spiritual advancement. By taking shelter under the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, one is endowed with both kinds of prosperity, material and spiritual. Why then should one go to any demigod?

SB Canto 4

SB 4.7.7, Purport:

The whole sacrifice arranged by King Dakṣa had been disturbed by Lord Śiva. Therefore all the demigods present there, along with Lord Brahmā and the great sages, specifically requested Lord Śiva to come and revive the sacrificial fire. There is a common phrase, śiva-hīna-yajña: "Any sacrifice without the presence of Lord Śiva is baffled." Lord Viṣṇu is Yajñeśvara, the Supreme Personality in the matter of sacrifice, yet in each yajña it is necessary for all the demigods, headed by Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva, to be present.

SB 4.8.1, Purport:

Instead of allowing their semen to be driven downwards, they used to lift the semen up to the brain. They are called ūrdhva-retasaḥ, those who lift up. Semen is so important that if, by the yogic process, one can lift the semen up to the brain, he can perform wonderful work—one's memory is enabled to act very swiftly, and the duration of life is increased. Yogīs can thus perform all kinds of austerity with steadiness and be elevated to the highest perfectional stage, even to the spiritual world. Vivid examples of brahmacārīs who accepted this principle of life are the four sages Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanātana and Sanat-kumāra, as well as Nārada and others.

Another significant phrase here is naite gṛhān hy āvasan, "they did not live at home." Gṛha means "home" as well as "wife." In fact, "home" means wife; "home" does not mean a room or a house. One who lives with a wife lives at home, otherwise a sannyāsī or brahmacāri, even though he may live in a room or in a house, does not live at home. That they did not live at home means that they did not accept a wife, and so there was no question of their discharging semen. Semen is meant to be discharged when one has a home, a wife and the intention to beget children, otherwise there is no injunction for discharging semen. These principles were followed from the beginning of creation, and such brahmacārīs never created progeny. This narration has dealt with the descendants of Lord Brahmā from Manu's daughter Prasūti. prasūti's daughter was Dākṣāyaṇī, or Satī, in relation to whom the story of the Dakṣa yajña was narrated. Maitreya is now explaining about the progeny of the sons of Brahmā. Out of the many sons of Brahmā, the brahmacārī sons headed by Sanaka and Nārada did not marry at all, and therefore there is no question of narrating the history of their descendants.

SB 4.9.10, Purport:

The transcendental bliss derived from devotional service, primarily from śravaṇaṁ kīrtanam (SB 7.5.23), hearing and chanting, cannot be compared to the happiness derived by karmīs by elevating themselves to the heavenly planets or by jñānīs or yogīs, who enjoy oneness with the supreme impersonal Brahman. Yogīs generally meditate upon the transcendental form of Viṣṇu, but devotees not only meditate upon Him but actually engage in the direct service of the Lord. In the previous verse we find the phrase bhavāpyaya, which refers to birth and death. The Lord can give relief from the chain of birth and death. It is a misunderstanding to think, as do the monists, that when one gets relief from the process of birth and death he merges into the Supreme Brahman. Here it is clearly said that the transcendental bliss derived from śravaṇaṁ kīrtanam by pure devotees cannot be compared to brahmānanda, or the impersonal conception of transcendental bliss derived by merging into the Absolute.

The position of karmīs is still more degraded. Their aim is to elevate themselves to the higher planetary systems. It is said, yānti deva-vratā devān: persons who worship the demigods are elevated to the heavenly planets (BG 9.25). But elsewhere in Bhagavad-gītā (9.21) we find, kṣīṇe puṇye martya-lokaṁ viśanti: those who are elevated to the higher planetary systems must come down again as soon as the results of their pious activities are exhausted.

SB 4.21.33, Purport:

As stated in the Eighteenth Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā, sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarcya: one has to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead by one's occupational duties. This necessitates accepting the principle of four varṇas and four āśramas. Pṛthu Mahārāja therefore says, guṇaiḥ sva-karmabhiḥ. This phrase is explained in Bhagavad-gītā. Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ: "The four castes (the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras) are created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead according to the material modes of nature and the particular duties discharged in those modes." A person who is situated in the mode of goodness is certainly more intelligent than others. Therefore he can practice the brahminical activities—namely speaking the truth, controlling the senses, controlling the mind, remaining always clean, practicing tolerance, having full knowledge about one's self-identity, and understanding devotional service. In this way, if he engages himself in the loving service of the Lord as an actual brāhmaṇa, his aim to achieve the final interest of life is attained. Similarly, the kṣatriya's duties are to give protection to the citizens, to give all his possessions in charity, to be strictly Vedic in the management of state affairs and to be unafraid to fight whenever there is an attack by enemies. In this way, a kṣatriya can satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead by his occupational duties. Similarly, a vaiśya can satisfy the Supreme Godhead by properly executing his occupational duties—engaging himself in producing foodstuffs, giving protection to cows, and trading if necessary when there is an excess of agricultural production.

SB 4.25.33, Purport:

The living entity is ignorant of his origin. He does not know why this material world was created, why others are working in this material world and what the ultimate source of this manifestation is. No one knows the answers to these questions, and this is called ignorance. By researching into the origin of life, important scientists are finding some chemical compositions or cellular combinations, but actually no one knows the original source of life within this material world. The phrase brahma jijñāsā is used to indicate an inquisitiveness to know the original source of our existence in this material world. No philosopher, scientist or politician actually knows wherefrom we have come, why we are here struggling so hard for existence and where we will go. Generally people are of the opinion that we are all here accidentally and that as soon as these bodies are finished all our dramatic activities will be finished and we will become zero. Such scientists and philosophers are impersonalists and voidists. In this verse the girl is expressing the actual position of the living entity. She cannot tell Purañjana her father's name because she does not know from where she has come. Nor does she know why she is present in that place. She frankly says that she does not know anything about all this. This is the position of the living entity in the material world. There are so many scientists, philosophers and big leaders, but they do not know wherefrom they have come, nor do they know why they are busy within this material world to obtain a position of so-called happiness. In this material world we have many nice facilities for living, but we are so foolish that we do not ask who has made this world habitable for us and has arranged it so nicely. Everything is functioning in order, but people foolishly think that they are produced by chance in this material world and that after death they will become zero. They think that this beautiful place of habitation will automatically remain.

SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13

SB 10.13.57, Purport:

Brahmā, however, adopted the āroha-panthā. He wanted to understand Kṛṣṇa's mystic power by his own limited, conceivable power, and therefore he himself was mystified. Everyone wants to take pleasure in his own knowledge, thinking, "I know something." But in the presence of Kṛṣṇa this conception cannot stand, for one cannot bring Kṛṣṇa within the limitations of prakṛti. One must submit. There is no alternative. Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. This submission marks the difference between Kṛṣṇa-ites and Māyāvādīs.

The phrase atan-nirasana refers to the discarding of that which is irrelevant. (Atat means "that which is not a fact.") Brahman is sometimes described as asthūlam anaṇv ahrasvam adīrgham, "that which is not large and not small, not short and not long." (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.8.8) Neti neti: "It is not this, it is not that." But what is it? In describing a pencil, one may say, "It is not this; it is not that," but this does not tell us what it is. This is called definition by negation. In Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa also explains the soul by giving negative definitions. Na jāyate mriyate vā: "It is not born, nor does it die. You can hardly understand more than this." But what is it? It is eternal. Ajo nityaḥ śāśvato 'yaṁ purāṇo na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre: "It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain." (BG 2.20) In the beginning the soul is difficult to understand, and therefore Kṛṣṇa has given negative definitions:

SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)

SB 10.39.16, Translation:

And still other young women fainted simply by remembering the words of Lord Śauri (Kṛṣṇa). These words, decorated with wonderful phrases and expressed with affectionate smiles, would deeply touch the young girls' hearts.

CC Preface and Introduction

CC Introduction:

We have often heard the phrase "love of Godhead." How far this love of Godhead can actually be developed can be learned from the Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Theoretical knowledge of love of God can be found in many places and in many scriptures, but what that love of Godhead actually is and how it is developed can be found in the Vaiṣṇava literatures. It is the unique and highest development of love of God that is given by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Even in this material world we can have a little sense of love. How is this possible? It is due to the presence of our original love of God. Whatever we find within our experience within this conditioned life is situated in the Supreme Lord, who is the ultimate source of everything. In our original relationship with the Supreme Lord there is real love, and that love is reflected pervertedly through material conditions. Our real love is continuous and unending, but because that love is reflected pervertedly in this material world, it lacks continuity and is inebriating. If we want real, transcendental love, we have to transfer our love to the supreme lovable object—Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the basic principle of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 7.127, Purport:

The falsity of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's explanation of vivarta-vāda and pariṇāma-vāda has been detected by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, especially Jīva Gosvāmī, whose opinion is that actually Śaṅkara did not understand the Vedānta-sūtra. In Śaṅkara's explanation of one sūtra, ānanda-mayo ’bhyāsāt, he has interpreted the affix mayaṭ with such word jugglery that this very explanation proves that he had little knowledge of the Vedānta-sūtra but simply wanted to support his impersonalism through the aphorisms of the Vedānta philosophy. Actually, however, he failed to do so because he could not put forward strong arguments. In this connection, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī cites the phrase brahma pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā (Taittirīya Up. 2.5), which gives Vedic evidence that Brahman is the origin of everything. In explaining this verse, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya interpreted various Sanskrit words in such a way that he implied, according to Jīva Gosvāmī, that Vyāsadeva had very little knowledge of higher logic. Such unscrupulous deviation from the real meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra has created a class of men who by word jugglery try to derive various indirect meanings from the Vedic literatures, especially the Bhagavad-gītā. One of them has even explained that the word kurukṣetra refers to the body. Such interpretations imply, however, that neither Lord Kṛṣṇa nor Vyāsadeva had a proper sense of word usage or etymological adjustment. They lead one to assume that since Lord Kṛṣṇa could not personally sense the meaning of what He was speaking and Vyāsadeva did not know the meaning of what he was writing, Lord Kṛṣṇa left His book to be explained later by the Māyāvādīs. Such interpretations merely prove, however, that their proponents have very little philosophical sense.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 5.113, Purport:

There are two kinds of living entities—nitya-siddha and nitya-baddha. The nitya-siddha never forgets his relationship with the Supreme Personality, whereas the nitya-baddha is always conditioned, even before the creation. He always forgets his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Here the Lord informs the two brāhmaṇas that they are His servants birth after birth. The phrase birth after birth refers to the material world because in the spiritual world there is no birth, death, old age or disease. By the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the nitya-siddha remains within this material world like an ordinary man, but the only business of the nitya-siddha is to broadcast the glories of the Lord. This incident appears to be an ordinary story about a marriage transaction involving two ordinary people. However, Kṛṣṇa accepted the two brāhmaṇas as His eternal servants. Both brāhmaṇas took much trouble in these negotiations, just like mundane people, yet they were acting as eternal servants of the Lord. All nitya-siddhas within this material world may appear to toil like ordinary men, but they never forget their position as servants of the Lord.

Another point: The elderly brāhmaṇa belonged to an aristocratic family and was learned and wealthy. The young brāhmaṇa belonged to an ordinary family and was uneducated. But these mundane qualifications do not concern a nitya-siddha engaged in the service of the Lord. We have to accept the fact that the nitya-siddhas are completely distinct from the nitya-baddhas, who are ordinary human beings. Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura confirms this statement:

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter Intoduction:

We have often heard the phrase "love of Godhead." How far this love of Godhead can actually be developed can be learned from the Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Theoretical knowledge of love of God can be found in many places and in many scriptures, but what that love of Godhead actually is and how it is developed can be found in the Vaiṣṇava literatures. It is the unique and highest development of love of God that is given by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Even in this material world we can have a little sense of love. How is this possible? It is due to the presence of our original love of God. Whatever we find within our experience within this conditioned life is situated in the Supreme Lord, who is the ultimate source of everything. In our original relationship with the Supreme Lord there is real love, and that love is reflected pervertedly through material conditions. Our real love is continuous and unending, but because that love is reflected pervertedly in this material world, it lacks continuity and is inebriating. If we want real, transcendental love, we have to transfer our love to the supreme lovable object—Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the basic principle of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

Thus this cosmic manifestation is not false, as Śaṅkarācārya maintains. Actually, there is nothing false here. It is because of ignorance that the Māyāvādīs say this world is false. The conclusion of the Vaiṣṇava philosophy is that this cosmic manifestation is a by-product of the inconceivable energies of the Supreme Lord.

The principal word in the Vedas—praṇava, or oṁkāra—is the sound representation of the Supreme Lord. Therefore oṁkāra should be considered the supreme sound. But Śaṅkarācārya has falsely preached that the phrase tat tvam asi is the supreme vibration. Oṁkāra is the reservoir of all the energies of the Supreme Lord. Śaṅkara is wrong in maintaining that tat tvam asi is the supreme vibration of the Vedas, for tat tvam asi is only a secondary vibration. Tat tvam asi suggests only a partial representation of the Vedas. In several verses of the Bhagavad-gītā (8.13, 9.17, 17.24) the Lord has given importance to oṁkāra. Similarly, oṁkāra is given importance in the Atharva Veda and the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. In his Bhagavat-sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmīhas given great importance to oṁkāra: "Oṁkāra is the most confidential sound representation of the Supreme Lord." The sound representation or name of the Supreme Lord is as good as the Supreme Lord Himself. By vibrating such sounds as oṁkāra or Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, one can be delivered from the contamination of this material world. Because such vibrations of transcendental sound can deliver a conditioned soul, they are known as tāraka-mantras.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 44:

"Let me offer my respectful obeisances to all the young cowherd girls, whose bodily features are so attractive. Simply by their beautiful attractive features they are worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa." Out of all the young gopīs, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is the most prominent.

The beauty of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is described as follows: "Her eyes defeat the attractive features of the eyes of the cakorī bird. When one sees the face of Rādhārāṇī, he immediately hates the beauty of the moon. Her bodily complexion defeats the beauty of gold. Thus, let us all look upon the transcendental beauty of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī." Kṛṣṇa's attraction for Rādhārāṇī is described by Kṛṣṇa Himself thus: "When I create some joking phrases in order to enjoy the beauty of Rādhārāṇī, Rādhārāṇī hears these joking words with great attention; but by Her bodily features and counterwords She neglects Me. And I even possess unlimited pleasure by Her neglect of Me, for She becomes so beautiful that She increases My pleasure one hundred times." A similar statement can be found in Gīta-govinda, wherein it is said that when the enemy of Kaṁsa, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, embraces Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, He immediately becomes entangled in a loving condition and gives up the company of all other gopīs.

Easy Journey to Other Planets

Easy Journey to Other Planets 2:

The duration of life on certain material planets may be very long, but all living entities in the material universe are eventually subject to annihilation and have to again develop other bodies. There are different types of bodies. A human body exists one hundred years, whereas an insect body may exist for twelve hours. Thus the duration of these different bodies is relative. If one enters the planet called Vaikuṇṭhaloka, the spiritual planet. however, he then achieves eternal life, full of bliss and knowledge. A human being can attain that perfection if he tries. That is stated in Bhagavad-gītā when the Lord says, "Anyone who knows in truth about the Supreme Personality of Godhead can attain to My nature."

Many people claim, "God is great," but this is a hackneyed phrase. One must know how He is great, and that can be known from authorized scripture. In the Bhagavad-gītā God describes Himself. He says, "My appearance of taking birth just like an ordinary human being is actually transcendental." God is so kind that He comes before us as an ordinary human being, but His body is not exactly like a human body. Those rascals who do not know about Him think that Kṛṣṇa is like one of us. That is also stated in Bhagavad-gītā (9.11):

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom Introduction:

When Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote these essays, he was a family man playing the part of an insignificant devotee in the Gauḍīya Maṭha, the Kṛṣṇa consciousness society founded by his spiritual master, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. Yet despite the humble position Śrīla Prabhupāda was taking at the time, his writings mark him unmistakably as a pure devotee. Anyone with an open mind and a gracious heart will see from his writings that Śrīla Prabhupāda was a self-realized soul all along.

Like his spiritual master, Śrīla Prabhupāda strictly followed the teachings of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in his presentation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Those teachings are summarized in the phrase vairāgya-vidya-nija-bhakti-yoga (CC Madhya 6.254), which means "renunciation through the wisdom that comes from practicing devotional service." This line from a famous verse by Śrīla Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, one of Lord Caitanya's intimate disciples, has inspired the title of the present book, Renunciation Through Wisdom.

What is this wisdom which produces renunciation? It is one of the fruits of devotional service to Kṛṣṇa. When one experiences the nectar of devotional service and becomes steeped in the knowledge of the Vedic literature, one naturally becomes averse to sense gratification and attains freedom from material bondage. Lord Kṛṣṇa spoke the essence of Vedic wisdom in the Bhagavad-gītā. As the Gītā-māhātmya, "the Glory of the Bhagavad-gītā" says in this poetic analogy:

the cowherd boy Kṛṣṇa milked the cow of the Upaniṣads (the philosophical essence of the Vedas) for the sake of the calf Arjuna, and the milk that came forth is the Bhagavad-gītā. Saintly persons seriously concerned about their spiritual welfare will drink and relish that wondrous nectarean milk.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.9:

A person who is fully absorbed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature.

This verse explains how one can attain spiritual knowledge by performing activities that please the Supreme Lord.

Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya propounded the impersonal theory, citing phrases like sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma: "By nature everything is Brahman, spirit." Śaṅkarācārya's theory has caused great confusion about established scriptural conclusions, but this phrase clearly supports the the Gītā verse quoted above.

At this point it is urgent that we discuss how one can perform devotional service for the Supreme Lord's pleasure. In this regard it is also noteworthy how saintly leaders like King Janaka executed karma-yoga, or devotional service, by performing sacrifice. The aim of all sacrifices should be to please the Supreme Lord, Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa. Contact with matter is unavoidable in our present conditioned state, because while performing activities to sustain the body and to accomplish other purposes, we become intimate with material nature. But if we can spiritualize these activities by performing every one of them as a service to Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, then these activities become yajña, or sacrifice. When the Vedic phrase sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma is interpreted in this way, it is acceptable. In other words, when one invokes the spiritual or transcendental or absolute in everything, then matter loses its mundaneness, and then only can one realize the perfect meaning of the phrase sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. The Vaiṣṇavas say that anything connected with the Lord in devotional service is transcendental. In other words, it is nondifferent from the Supreme Lord Himself, Mādhava. Just as iron in long and constant touch with fire loses the characteristics of iron and becomes fiery, so everything offered in sacrifice to the Absolute, or the Transcendence, becomes absolute, or transcendental.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.2:

"I am by nature Brahman," and so on—find their conclusion in the verses from the Bhagavad-gītā quoted above. The Supreme Lord, endowed with the six transcendental opulences to the absolute degree, is the highest governing principle. Thus no other personality is equal to or greater than He. Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms this point by saying "There is no truth superior to Me," and then explaining how He is present everywhere and intimately connected with everything through His all-pervasive energies.

The material nature is the result of the transformation of the Lord's energies. Both the energies and the energetic are inconceivable, and they are simultaneously one and different. Hence the phrase sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma, ("Everything is Brahman") in fact declares that everything consists of transformations of the Supreme Lord's material and spiritual energies. The transformation of His energies neither increases nor decreases the Supreme Absolute Truth; hence Brahman is described as changeless. And the inferior energy, being only the reflection of Brahman, is nirākāra, impersonal.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu propagated the philosophy of the simultaneous oneness and difference of the Lord and His energies. The highest esoteric truth is that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Absolute Truth and that both the living entities and the material world are His subordinate energies. Those who fail to understand this principle are materialists, while those who do understand it and are trying to reestablish their relationship with Lord Kṛṣṇa are liberated souls, devotees of the Lord. Lord Kṛṣṇa explains this in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.13-14):

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.4:

The only way these adulterated devotees can become pure devotees is if they read Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī's Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. This book is an authority on the science of devotional service.

Genuine jñānīs know how everything is connected to Brahman, the Absolute Truth. They are humble, unassuming, clean, brahminical, and reverent toward the guru, and they possess many other good qualities. Most often they take to the renounced order (sannyāsa) and lead a pure and saintly life. Yet frequently these sannyāsīs develop one major fault: they consider themselves God. They misinterpret the meaning of the Vedic phrase ahaṁ brahmāsmi, "I am Brahman," and thus they cannot realize pure knowledge of Brahman. They end up deifying the process of negation, and that finally leads to absolute monism. In this way, many jñānīs who want to know the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Brahman, get somehow misled by the illusory potency, māyā. Māyā prepares her last fatal trap, liberation, by which she keeps the monists stranded in the ocean of material existence. She deludes them into thinking "I am that," "I am He," as if they were in a drunken daze.

If by some chance the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs can earn a little piety and then be graced by a pure Vaiṣṇava devotee—as the Māyāvādīs of Benares were by Lord Caitanya—then they can easily realize that knowledge of the impersonal Brahman or the Supersoul is incomplete. Then they can be enlightened with the transcendental knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Many sages in the past, like the great Sanaka Ṛṣi, and many self-realized renunciants, like the famous Śukadeva Gosvāmī, got a taste for knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead after practicing their impersonal disciplines. Then they relished indescribable bliss by hearing the Supreme Lord's transcendental pastimes.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 5.1:

The confidential truth about what constitutes good action is almost impenetrable. Some hold that good action consists of executing one's social responsibilities. This is what common men generally understand by good action. But a few verses after the ones quoted above, Lord Kṛṣṇa uses the phrase brahma-karma to describe good action, and the word brahma points to Brahman. Therefore some say work done on the platform of Brahman is good action. Others say that good action includes works beneficial for the self, the society, the nation, and humanity at large. When a person acts with such lofty intentions, he is surely known as a good man. Indeed, his actions are certainly noble compared with those of persons with warped mentalities. This kind of action is not buddhi-yoga, however, because such philanthropic works can at best replace one set of people's mundane desires with a new set, but they can never completely root out these unwanted desires from within the heart. Philanthropic activities cannot prepare us for unalloyed devotional service, which is uncontaminated by empirical knowledge and fruitive action.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 5.1:

Such a mentality reveres mundane philosophies based on speculation and concocted logic, considering these practices signs of superior intelligence. The only weapon the proponents of such philosophies have is mundane argument, but often they exhibit a lack of mastery even of this art. Recent trends show that without probing deeply into a subject, these Westerners uselessly debate direct and indirect meanings ad infinitum. Each of these sophists surely realizes that he must one day accept defeat in the hands of a greater sophist, for there is always someone more intelligent. Therefore the process of debate leads nowhere.

There is a wide gulf between superficial dabbling in philosophy to impress people with a few stock phrases, and a sincere search for knowledge of the Absolute. Through the speculative process it is impossible to fathom the inconceivable topics concerning the Absolute Truth, for they can be understood only through the science of devotion. As Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī writes in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, quoting from the Mahābhārata:

acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā

na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet

prakṛtibhyaḥ paraṁ yac ca

tad acintyasya lakṣaṇam

Anything transcendental to material nature is inconceivable and thus cannot be grasped through mundane arguments. Therefore one should not try to understand transcendental subjects in this way.