Now, there are many examples how we have to utilize the allotment of the Lord. That is also explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. Arjuna, he decided in the beginning that he should not fight. That was his own contemplation. Arjuna said to the Lord that it was not possible for him to enjoy the kingdom after killing his own kinsmen. And that point of view was due to his conception of the body. Because he was thinking that the body was himself and the bodily relatives, his brothers, his nephews, his father-in-law or his grandfather, they were expansion of his body, and he was thinking in that way to satisfy his bodily demands. And the whole thing was spoken by the Lord just to change the view. And he agreed to work under the direction of the Lord. And he said, kariṣye vacanaṁ tava (BG 18.73).
Point of view (Lectures, BG)
Expressions researched:
"point of view"
|"points of view"
|"view point"
|"view points"
|"viewpoint"
|"viewpoints"
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
So Arjuna is talking of the ultimate good. But he is talking ultimate good with the point of view from material conception. He does not know... He knows, but he is playing the part of a person who does not know that ultimate śreyas, ultimate good, is Kṛṣṇa. Ultimate good is not that "We live with family—that is good." No. When you live with family because you cannot renounce, so that is allowed. But you live with family with Kṛṣṇa. So Kṛṣṇa is there, but he is thinking in terms of material role, that "If my kinsmen are dead, I kill them, then where is my good? It is no good. What shall I do with the victory and happiness? Where is happiness? I cannot live without them." This is the conception. Ataḥ gṛha... Ataḥ gṛha-kṣetra-sutāpta-vittair janasya moho 'yam (SB 5.5.8). This is illusion. Everyone is trying to become happy with society, friendship and love, children, wife, friends, money and house and land. This is the conception of material.... So Arjuna is thinking in material concept of life. He is not thinking that "My ultimate good is to satisfy Kṛṣṇa." This is the Bhagavad-gītā's purport. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One has to change to satisfy Kṛṣṇa, not to satisfy himself or the family or the society or the nation, no. Whether Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, that is the criterion.
So when we study things from material point of view, these things are to be taken care. But when a man or woman becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, he or she takes care of herself or himself. So it is spoken... Arjuna is speaking of ordinary woman. Strīṣu duṣṭāsu. Just like adharma-abhibhava. Adharma. If the woman is trained, a girl is trained from the very beginning that: "You should remain chaste," that is dharma. It is called Satītā dharma. Satī means chastity. There are many stories of Satī, chaste woman. Nala-damayantī. His husband became so poverty-stricken. He was king, but he became later on so poverty-stricken that he had no sufficient cloth. The husband and wife was putting on the same cloth, half and half. So still, still there was no divorce. You see. Still the woman did not consider... She was also king's daughter. But the husband has fallen down to so much poverty-stricken condition. "So why shall I live with him?" These are some of the extreme examples of chastity. Not to speak of olden days, I have seen in Bombay, in 1935 or '34, on the roadside, there was a beggar.
So our, our point of view is not to become a first-class prisoner. To get out of the prison. That is Vaiṣṇava vision. You'll find... Last night I have given comments that Mādhavendra Purī, he was performing the Annakuta ceremony and installing the Deity. So everything was being brāhmaṇa, done by brāhmaṇa, qualified brāhmaṇa, but Mādhavendra Purī initiated them again to become Vaiṣṇava. Then he gave them in charge of the Deity worship. So the Vaiṣṇava functions cannot be done even by a brāhmaṇa. Even one is qualified brāhmaṇa, he is unfit to propagate Vaiṣṇava philosophy. That is stated in the śāstras.
So they obtain eight kinds of siddhis. They are also called siddhas. From material point of view, a perfect yogi can counteract anything, and whatever he likes, he can do. That is called siddhi, aṣṭa-siddhi. But still, he is not as siddha as Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa's name is Yogeśvara. He is the master of all the yogis. Yogesvara. Yatra yogeśvaraḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (BG 18.78). The yogis also, they are deficient with Kṛṣṇa's power. Still, some rascals, without any yoga siddhi, they claim that "I have become God." What is your qualification? Have you got all the yoga-siddha? Then how you claim that you are... But rascals, they claim to become God, and other rascals, they also believe that "Here is God." Both of them are animals. Śva-viḍ-varāhoṣṭra-kharaiḥ saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ (SB 2.3.19). One who does not know actually what is Kṛṣṇa, if he accepts somebody, some rascal as God, then he is also animal. That is also animal.
He was asking Sañjaya: "What did they do?" Kim akurvata sañjaya. That was the question. And first of all, Sañjaya described the arrangement in the battlefield, and then he's speaking. Now, sometimes Bhagavad-gītā is misinterpreted that this battle, I mean to say, dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra means "this body." We do not misinterpret in that way. There is no question of misinterpretation. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We do not change by our whimsical imagination, concoction. We do not interpret the words of the Bhagavad-gītā according to our own desire. No. Actually, from literary point of view, interpretation is required when things are not understood very clearly. The interpretation required. In the law court, when the lawyers try to interpret before the judge, when the terms are not very clear... That is the same way, in, in, amongst the associates and society of learned scholars. Interpretation is not required when the things are very clear. Just like the sun, sunshine, sunlight. There is no need of a lamp to show the sun. The sun is self-effulgent. It is already there. Light is there. Why one should take a lamp to show the sun? This misinterpretation has killed the spirit, the real essence, of Bhagavad-gītā.
Nobody can maintain sixteen thousand wives in sixteen thousand palaces. Not only that, not that if He enters in one palace, He lives with one wife, the other wives are vacant. No. He expanded Himself into sixteen thousand forms. And with each wife He was living comfortably. Each wife had ten children. And those children also had each ten children, grandsons. In this way, Kṛṣṇa's family was more than one crore, Yadu-vaṁśa. So if you study from material point of view, when Kṛṣṇa was present, He proved that He's Bhagavān. And Bhagavān means not a big beard and meditation. Kṛṣṇa never became Bhagavān by meditation. He was not a manufactured God. He's God always. He's not manufactured. When He was on the lap of His Mother Yaśodā, He was God. The Pūtanā came to kill Him, but Kṛṣṇa killed him. In this way, if we read the life of Kṛṣṇa, He's proved—Bhagavān. And not only He proved Himself, but all others, great authorities, accepted Him Bhagavān. There are four Vaiṣṇava ācāryas in the recent years and one Māyāvāda ācārya, Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya also, although he is inclined to the impersonal feature of the Lord, but he accepted Kṛṣṇa: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. He accepted: "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa." Nārāyaṇaḥ avyaktāt. So other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka, lately Lord Caitanya, all of them accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And Arjuna, he also, when he heard from Him Bhagavad-gītā, he accepted Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān, puruṣaṁ śāśvatam (BG 10.12).
So we have to divert the activities for Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna, he, in the beginning, he denied to fight. That, our subject matter. He was crying. "No, no, I cannot fight." So apparently Arjuna was very nice gentleman that he is forgetting his claim over the kingdom, he's nonviolent, he's not willing to fight with his brothers, and he was crying so compassionate. So from materialistic point of view, he was very nice. But immediately, as we'll begin tomorrow, Kṛṣṇa says that "Why you are thinking like anārya?" Anārya. Anārya-juṣṭam. "This kind of thinking is not for āryas, Āryans. It is for the non-Āryans." He did not... And the whole Bhagavad-gītā was spoken to Arjuna to make him ārya. And at the end, Kṛṣṇa inquired from Arjuna that "What is your decision?" Yathecchasi tathā kuru (BG 18.63) But Arjuna replied, kariṣye tad-vacanam. Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava. (BG 18.73) "Now I shall fight." And Kṛṣṇa gave him certificate: bhakto 'si priyo 'si me (BG 4.3). "You are very dear friend, and My great devotee." Now, fighting is not very good business, killing. But sometimes, by killing, one can become a great devotee of Kṛṣṇa. He was a warrior, fighter. His business was to fight, but he fought for Kṛṣṇa. Then he became a devotee. That is sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarcya (BG 18.46).
So Bhagavān is criticizing. Arjuna became a very good man: "Why shall I...? Oh, I cannot kill my kinsmen." From material point of view, people will very much appreciate, "Oh, here is Arjuna. He's so nice, nonviolent. He is foregoing his claim. He has given up his astra, bow and arrows. He's no, no longer fighting. He has decided not to fight with kinsmen, kill his own men." So from material point of view, Arjuna is supposed to be very, very good man. But the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa, what does He say? Anārya-juṣṭam: "You rascal, you are speaking like anārya." He'll say rascal later on. He posed himself to be very good man, but when he comes to the test of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He refuses to accept him as a good man. He's saying that "You are anārya." There are two kinds of men: anārya and ārya. Āryan. Āryan means advanced in knowledge. He's called Āryan. And anārya means uncivilized. So immediately He rebukes him, anārya-juṣṭam. "You are talking just like non-Āryan, uncivilized person." People are very much, nowadays, eager how to stop war. But Kṛṣṇa says... (break) ... at any case is not required.
If one has no devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he cannot have any good qualities. These are not good qualities. Actually that is so. Suppose if you, the... According to karma-kāṇḍa vicāra, if you open a school, so in the next time, you will have good education. It is pious activities from material point of view. So the benefit will be that you will have good education in your next life. Accepting that it is very nice, next life I shall be very learned scholar, but to become that learned scholar I'll have to take my birth. But he does not know that how much difficulties are there to take birth. Kṛṣṇa says, janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi-duḥkha-doṣānu-darśanam (BG 13.9). One should see to the duḥkha, unhappiness, on account of birth and death. So suppose you will get next life in the heavenly planet, or you shall become very rich man, or you shall become very learned man, but you have to go through these distresses, janma. They do not consider this. Janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi-duḥkha-doṣānu-dar... Those who are actually learned, they, they should know that "Why shall I go again in the process of birth and death?" We have forgotten how much difficulty it is, how much troublesome it is, how much distress it is to remain in the womb of the mother for taking birth again. That we have forgotten. Therefore this kind of conclusion is not very intelligent conclusion. The intelligent conclusion is: tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9). That is intelligent. After giving up this body, no more coming to material world. That is intelligence.
Therefore there is no harm, killing him. Similarly Droṇācārya. Similarly Droṇācārya. I know they are great personalities, they have got great affection. But only on material consideration they have gone there." What is that material consideration? Bhīṣma thought that "I am maintained by the money of Duryodhana. Duryodhana is maintaining me. Now he is in danger. If I go to the other side, then I should be ungrateful. He has maintained me so long. And if I, in the time of danger, when there is fighting, if I go to the other side, that will be..." He thought like this. He did not think that "Duryodhana may be maintaining, but he has usurped the property of the Pāṇḍavas." But it is his greatness. He knew that Arjuna will never be killed because Kṛṣṇa is there. "So from material point of view, I must be grateful to Duryodhana." The same position was for Droṇācārya. They were maintained.
Yes. Don't turn your attention. Just hear me. Kṛṣṇa, although He is present there, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but still, He did not encourage him. From worldly point of view, when somebody says that "I'll... I give it up. I don't want it. I don't want to fight with my friends or my relatives. Better let them enjoy. I shall forego my claim," from worldly point of view, this is a very, I mean, gentlemanly behavior, that one is foregoing his claim for the matter of his relatives or friends. But Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging that proposal. We have to mark it. Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging. Kṛṣṇa is rather... Kṛṣṇa is, rather, inducing Arjuna that "It is not a very good proposal. It is not befitting your position. You belong to the Āryan family. You belong to the kṣatriya, royal family. And you are denying to fight? No, no, this is not good. And I am your friend. I have taken the responsibility of your chariot driver, and, if you do not fight, what people will say?" So He is not encouraging. Just see.
Now, here is a good proposal from the worldly point of view that Arjuna does not want to fight, and Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging him. Now, what is the point? Somebody may say that "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, why He is encouraging in the matter of fighting?" People, at the present moment, when there is a question of war, people want to stop that war. At the present moment, the movement is going on between all nations that they do not want war. But here we see that Kṛṣṇa is not discouraging war. We have to mark this point. He is not discouraging war, but He is, rather, advocating, inducing Arjuna that "No, no, no, this is not befitting your position. You must fight, must fight."
So here is a point, that sometimes we may do something which is approved by the general public, but it may not be approved by the supreme authority. Superficially it may appear very appealing to the sentiment of the public, but factually such thing may not be correct, may not be correct. If we accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and "Why He was inducing Arjuna to fight?" It does not mean that He was inducing Arjuna to do something wrong. But from worldly point of view, Arjuna was a very pious man and he was declining to fight, not to kill his kinsmen, not to kill his friends. This... This is a very important point. So he argued, "No, no, if I fight, my people will die, and their wives will become widow, and they will be adulterated, and then, by adulteration, unwanted population will increase, and who will offer śrāddha?" Śrāddha... There is a ceremony of śrāddha according to Hindu scripture.
This is a very important point. So he argued, "No, no, if I fight, my people will die, and their wives will become widow, and they will be adulterated, and then, by adulteration, unwanted population will increase, and who will offer śrāddha?" Śrāddha... There is a ceremony of śrāddha according to Hindu scripture. I do not know whether you have in your Christian religion, but according to Hindu, a dead body is offered some respect every year. Just like death anniversary observed, similarly, in the family, the descendants, they offer some foodstuff after some religious ceremony. That is called śrāddha. And it is believed that that offering goes to the dead forefathers. So that is a family religious ceremony. So Arjuna said that "These people will die. Who will offer that ablution to the forefathers?" So from ordinary point of view, from the point of view of a family man, he argued with Kṛṣṇa in so many ways. And after, at the end, he decided that "I cannot fight. I cannot fight." Then Kṛṣṇa tried to induce him, and he said that "Yes, whatever You are saying, that I am a kṣatriya and I am not doing my duty, this is all right, but My mind is perplexed." So he was at the same time conscious that Śrī Kṛṣṇa only can make a solution of this perplexity.
That "A person, even in My position, always remains a fool before his spiritual master. That is good for him." Nobody should impose that "What do you know? I know better than you." This position is not, denied. And other point is, from the disciple's point of view, why he should remain always a fool before a person? Unless he's actually authorized, actually so great that he can teach me as a fool. One should select a spiritual master in that way and as soon as the spiritual master is selected, one should remain always a fool, although he may not be a fool, but the better position is like that. So Arjuna, instead of remaining on the same level as friend and friend, voluntarily accepting to remain a fool before Kṛṣṇa. And Kṛṣṇa is accepting that "You are a fool. You're talking just like a learned man, but you are a fool because you are lamenting on a matter which no learned man laments." That means "A fool laments," that "You are a fool. Therefore you are a fool." It is in a round about way... Just like, what is called in logic? Parenthesis? Or something like that, called. Yes. That if I say that "You look like that person who stole my watch," that means "You look like a thief." Similarly, (chuckles) Kṛṣṇa, in a round about way, says that "My dear Arjuna, you are talking just like learned man, but you are lamenting on a subject matter which no learned man laments." Go on.
How this Māyāvāda theory can be supported, that due to māyā, being covered by māyā, they are now appearing individual, separate, but when the covering of māyā will be taken away, they will mix up just like the small sky within the pitcher and the big sky outside mixes? So this analogy is fallacious from logical point of view, as well as from authentic Vedic point of view. They are eternally fragments. There are many other evidences from Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā says that spirit cannot be fragmented. So if you say that by covering of māyā the spirit has become fragment, that is not possible. It cannot be cut. Just like if you cut one big piece of paper into small fragments, it is possible because it is matter, but spiritually it is not possible. Spiritually, eternally, the fragments are fragments, and the Supreme is Supreme. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme, and we are fragmental parts. We are fragments eternally. These things are explained in Bhagavad-gītā in different places very nicely. I request you all to keep one copy of this Bhagavad-gītā, every one of you, and read it carefully. And there will be examination in the coming September. So... Of course, that is voluntary. But I request you to prepare for the examination next September. And one who will pass the examination will get the title Bhakti-śāstrī.
He can accept your offerings, and you can take prasādam. This is practical yoga. So we are not beginning from the gross stage. The Bhagavad-gītā, although it is ABCD of spiritual instruction, it begins from that stage, which stage the jñānīs, the philosophers and the yogis, they are trying to reach. But we have no time. In this age by yoga practice, to come to this stage, that "I am not this body"... Ask any student who are practicing yoga, so-called meditation, they are inclined to this body. They are trying to exercise this body and they think that this is the final. No. Simple truth, very simple truth. Kṛṣṇa, as the supreme authority, presenting very simply, that dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā (BG 2.13). As in this body there are different changes, similarly the ultimate change is called death. But the spirit soul, as he's existing within this body in spite of all changes, similarly the spirit soul will continue to exist even after the final change of this body. This simple truth. Try to understand this. This is the basic principle of further progress. If one does not understand this point of view, there is no progress. This is ABCD, that "I am not this body."
These are nine kinds of services. They are sat. The more we are engaged in these nine kinds of different occupation of devotional service, the more we are elevated, and the more we are engaged in activities of material sense gratification, we are degraded. Śrama eva hi kevalam (SB 1.2.8). You have got nice office, material point of view, nice business. So if you perform that business, office work, your duty, very nicely, but you have no Kṛṣṇa consciousness, śāstra says that śrama eva hi kevalam. It is simply wasting time and laboring hard. That's all. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says that this is the distinction between sat and asat. And we should not be very much interested with the asat. Then our life is spoiled. We should be interested with sat. That will make our life successful. Then we make progress for amṛtatva.
So here is another puzzle for the rascal scientists—because they are contemplating that except within this earth, in other planets, there is no life. Because the atmosphere is different, they cannot live there. Now, take for example the sun planet, fiery planet. So naturally, we shall imagine that no living entity can live there: it is fiery planet. But Kṛṣṇa says that nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ. The fire does not burn it. This is quite reasonable because the living entities are there, we can experience. Roughly we see that we are on the land and the aquatics, fishes, they are in the water. I cannot live within the water, neither the fish cannot live on the land, but from my experience, if we think that there is no living entities in water, is it not rascaldom? Similarly, these rascals are thinking from his own point of view. Because he cannot live within the fire or within the water, he's thinking there is no life within the fire. This is rascaldom. To refute these rascals, Kṛṣṇa says, nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ. Even within the fire there are living entities. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam (BG 4.1). "I spoke first of all this Bhagavad-gītā system to the sun-god."
One Arya-samaji postmaster, long ago, not very long ago, 1956, 1956... In Delhi at that time I was publishing this Back to Godhead. So we had concession rate for posting, and it was to be delivered to the postmaster. So the postmaster was talking with me about the paper, Back to Godhead. He raised the same question. He said, "If we do our duty nicely then what is the use of worshiping God? If we become honest, if we become moral, if we do not do anything which is harmful to anyone, in this way, if we act, then where is the...?" Because our paper's name was Back to Godhead. So he was indirectly protesting, that What is the use of propagating this philosophy of Godhead if we act nicely? The Arya-samajists view... They are called... There is a English name, what is called? I forget now. Moralists. The technical name there is. Anyway, this is their point of view, how to avoid God. So I replied that if one is not God conscious, he cannot be moralist, he cannot be truthful, he cannot be honest. This is our point of view. You study the whole world only on these three points, morality, honest, and dutiful. So many nice things are there. But if he's not God conscious, he cannot continue such thing. He must fail. Even the, there are so many instances, even amongst the devotees, because this material world is made so that you cannot continue this principle perpetually. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, you'll find. Because the three modes of material nature is working, even if you are on the platform of goodness, the other modes of material nature will try to attack you. And your goodness, morality, honesty, these things will be polluted by the onslaught of the other two inferior modes of nature. Therefore, sometimes we find that a very nice man committing some sinful activities.
So in this material world, such kind of morality, honesty, is going on. But our morality is if Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, then it is honesty, morality, everything. There are many examples. Just like Prahlāda Mahārāja. Prahlāda Mahārāja is standing and his father is being killed by Nṛsiṁha-deva in his presence. So do you think it is morality that one's father is being killed in the presence of his son, and the son without protest is seeing, with a garland, that "As soon as my father is killed, I shall offer this garland to Nṛsiṁha-deva"? Is it morality? From material point of view? We are worshiping... Prahlāda Mahārāja has become mahājana, the greatest authority in devotional service, but if we study his morality that he did not protest the killing of his father, rather he was waiting with a garland, that "As soon as the killing business is finished I'll reward this." You see? Where is material morality, there is no morality.
The gopīs, they were young girls, wife of somebody, sister of somebody, daughter of somebody, but when Kṛṣṇa was playing on His flute at dead of night, they gave up all their engagement and began to run, "Where Kṛṣṇa is present?" So from Vedic standard of view, this is immorality. They are going to another young boy and leaving family. Even somebody, some of the gopīs, they left their sons also, and went to Kṛṣṇa. From material point of view this is immoral. So you'll find in such a way that what is from material point of view immoral, it is the most magnificent morality in relationship with Kṛṣṇa. And similarly, from material point of view, what is moral, that is most, I mean to say, abominable from the point of view... Just like Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja. Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja became very moral. Kṛṣṇa advised him, "Just go and tell Droṇācārya that 'Your son is dead,' " although his son was not dead. Because Droṇācārya will not die unless he hears the news of the death of his son. He'll not die. So he would not believe anyone, but Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja is famous, very moral. So Kṛṣṇa asked him that "You go, otherwise he'll not believe anyone." So Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja hesitated, "How can I say lies?" So for this he had to see hell. He became immoral. Man-nimitte kṛtaṁ pāpaṁ puṇyāya eva kalpate.
In many places. Svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam. In another place, that, if you execute your morality principles but if by executing such morality principle you do not, I mean to say, awaken your Kṛṣṇa consciousness, it is simply waste of time. Wherever you go, the Bhāgavata conclusion, harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. We have to keep in point of view that to become... Kṛṣṇa also says in Bhagavad-gītā: api cet su-durācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ (BG 9.30). Even one is found su-durācāraḥ, not very strictly following moral principles, but he is an unflinching devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he's sādhu. These things are there. Therefore the point should be that we should not accept this karma-vāda or the bauddha-vāda or Māyāvāda, there are so many vādas. We shall simply take kṛṣṇa-vāda. Simply, simply accept Kṛṣṇa. And whatever He orders, whatever He likes, for His satisfaction, we shall do anything and everything. That is our morality.
The real perfection of life is whether by your actions, Kṛṣṇa is satisfied. That is perfection. You don't consider of your personal victory, defeat, loss or gain, or distress or happiness. Therefore Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has sung that: "When I work very difficult task for Kṛṣṇa, that difficult task becomes very happiness for me. That difficult task becomes very happiness for me." That is the standard of happiness. In the material world, there is duality. In the absolute world, there is simply happiness. There is nothing else. Just like when Kṛṣṇa is going to Mathurā, all the gopīs become very, very distressed, crying. But we cannot understand what is the happiness of that distress. That we cannot understand from this material point of view. That is greatest happiness. When the gopīs were crying in separation from Kṛṣṇa, that is greater happiness than meeting Kṛṣṇa, than meeting Kṛṣṇa. This is Kṛṣṇa philosophy. That is now beginning.
Therefore Kṛṣṇa has described in sāṅkhya-yoga that "This is your duty. You are kṣatriya. You have... Why you are rejecting fighting?" In this way, in so many ways... "The soul is immortal, the body is perishable, so your grandfather or your kinsmen, they'll not die." So this is analytical study from the material point of view. And as soon as one comes to the point of serving Kṛṣṇa with love, without any understanding... Just like fire. Fire, you accept it. Without studying fire, analytical, if you touch fire, it will act. It will act. It doesn't require to study fire, how, what is the composition of fire. This is knowledge, of course. But if you... Just like gopīs in Vṛndāvana. They did not study what is Kṛṣṇa. They did not care even to study. But they wanted to love Kṛṣṇa. That is their only qualification. They were ordinary village girls. Similarly, the cowherds boy. They were tending cows. They had no Vedānta knowledge or any higher education, not very nicely cultured gentlemen, village cowherds boy, cowherds girl, but they did not know any other business than to love Kṛṣṇa. That is perfection. Jñāna-śūnya, without any knowledge. They did not know.
Everything transcendental work. Everything transcendental work. That... Just like take the example of Arjuna. He was thinking that "Fighting of this nature is not good for me." That was his problem. And...because he was thinking on the bodily platform. The same Arjuna again took to fighting. Does it mean that by understanding Bhagavad-gītā he took to bad work? No. Just try to understand. He declined to fight. He thought that "Fighting for me with my relatives is not good." That was his conclusion. And actually, from material platform... Suppose two brothers, we are. We are going to fight for something, and if a third person comes, if he advises that "You are two brothers. Why you are fighting? Just have it and it can be settled," that is good actually. But the Arjuna, from practical point of view, or from the materialistic point of view, he was good that he was declining to fight. And Lord Kṛṣṇa was inducing him to fight. So does it mean that Lord Kṛṣṇa was inducing him to the bad course? No. He was inducing him to a course which is beyond good and bad, transcendental. In the... From the material platform, even if you do good work, that is also not good. That is also not good.
A transcendentalist who wants to work from spiritual platform, he has no botheration, "Whether I am doing good or bad?" He has only to see, "Whether I am doing, acting on the platform of spiritual consciousness or material consciousness?" That's all. Even a apparently bad work by such person on the spiritual consciousness, is also good, supreme good. Not only good, but supreme good. Just like you see the example of Arjuna. From material point of view, he was right that "It is not good to fight with my brothers." That is right from material point of view. But when he learned Bhagavad-gītā, he fought with the same brothers. With the same brothers. That means that after learning Bhagavad-gītā, after taking lessons of Bhagavad-gītā, he did not become a bad man. No. He become a transcendental man. Transcendental man. Because that fighting, he accepted on the instruction, on the desire of the supreme consciousness, Kṛṣṇa. That is the technique. So similarly, when we mold our life in such a way that we have to act on the direction of the supreme consciousness, then our life becomes sublime, spiritual.
Simply for a moment, when Arjuna was disturbed in his mind, that "How can I fight with my relatives and friends and sons and grandsons and so, so many things?" Bodily relations. And the Bhagavad-gītā was spoken. So that is a practical thing that Bhagavad-gītā was practically spoken to induce Arjuna to adopt violence. Now, Mahatma Gandhi, his philosophy was nonviolence. How could he prove that Bhagavad-gītā gives evidence of nonviolence? No. Therefore, anyone, Mahatma Gandhi or anyone, who has got his own ulterior motive, to prove it from the topics of Bhagavad-gītā, he must adulterate it. But that is not the process of reading Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā, how to read Bhagavad-gītā, that is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. When we come to the Fourth Chapter, we'll know. So anyway, apart from the process of... But rest assured, we are speaking here of the Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We are not going to add, add in it something for fulfilling our own philosophy, our own points of view.
We have no information, neither do we try anything for that thing. Bhagavad-gītā's teaching is sublime because it gives you the practical lesson for the supreme, for the supreme, your spirit soul. Material education, material advancement of civilization, is just like building for setting fire in it. It will be lost. It will be lost. So many empires have been built up, and so many empires have been demolished. That is the history of the world. Even from that history point of view, this very world in which we are standing, this very platform, this will also be vanquished. That is the law of this material nature. Nothing will subsist. Nothing will continue. Everything will be finished. Just like our, this body will be finished. Now I have got this beautiful body. Suppose seventy years, my age, seventy years before, the body had no existence, and, say, after five or ten years more the body will have no existence, so for seventy or eighty years this manifestation of the body...
So the whole idea is that if we want to be spiritually advanced, then we have to minimize our materialistic way of life. Two things cannot go. If we want really spiritual advancement of life, then unrestricted materialistic way of life cannot go. Under regulation, under restriction, under rules, we have to... Because so long we have this body, we have to satisfy the material needs. We... It is not that that I shall not eat, or I shall not sleep, or I shall not defend, or I shall not mate. No. There is allowed. It is allowed but with a view that "I'll have to retire from all these things, these material needs." That is the point of view. Now, that can be very easily attained if we engage our senses, or engage our consciousness. When I engage my consciousness into the transcendental loving service of the supreme consciousness, these things automatically take place so that even there is, I mean to say, there is, I mean to say, cause of my falling, still, I shall not fall down. Even there is enticement, still I shall not fall, because paraṁ dṛṣṭvā, I have seen something which is far, far better enjoyment than this material enjoyment.
We are eternally related with the Supreme Lord, just like the father and the son is eternally related. That relation cannot be cut off. A father may become, a son may become rebellious to his father, but he cannot say that "he is not my father." Is it possible? No, that is not possible. How can it be possible? I may disagree with my father in so many points of view, but if somebody asks you, "Who is your father?" oh, I will have to say the same enemy, who I have taken as my enemy. Similarly, as the father and the son, the relationship cannot be cut off, similarly, our relationship with the Supreme Lord cannot be cut off. It is not possible. If we want to cut off our relationship with the Supreme Lord, or God, by artificial means, then the result will be that we shall be more and more unhappy.
That is real violence. In some years ago at Jhansi I was, not in the sannyāsa days. I went there, and, by invitation of some friends, and they wanted to give me some lectures. That was Gandhi's birthday, and they asked me to speak on some nonviolence. So I spoke that violence means to check a person from the discharge of his duties. That is violence. That was my viewpoint.
Now we can derive conclusion that how is that? Kṛṣṇa appears like human being and we are also human being, the same two hands, two legs, one head. How is that He knows everything and I do not know? The conclusion should be derived like this, that we forget because we change our body. Just like I was a child, you were a child. Everyone of us. We did so many things in our childhood, but we have forgotten. With the change of the body, the activities of my past body is forgotten. This is a fact. Similarly when we change this body we get another body. We forget. But why Kṛṣṇa has not forgotten? That means He does not change His body. This should be the conclusion. This should be the conclusion from right, logical point of view. I forget because I change my body. Kṛṣṇa does not forget. He does not change His body. This should be the conclusion.
So a person who is devoid of God consciousness, however he may be qualified from the material point of view, the scripture says that his qualification will not help him in doing things which are not desirable. He'll, he'll, he'll not be prohibited to do things which are not desirable. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ: (SB 5.18.12) "Because he's devoid of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then he's sure to commit mischief in this material world."
Just like I am repeatedly mentioned here that in our country Mahatma Gandhi, he had his philosophy of non-violence, and he wanted to prove non-violence from Bhagavad-gītā. But Bhagavad-gītā is spoken in the warfield. Bhagavad-gītā is spoken when Arjuna was in problem, whether to fight or not to fight. That is the, I mean the, background of Bhagavad-gītā. Now, if anyone wants to prove that Bhagava..., in Bhagavad-gītā there is non-violence, then you, you, you something else. Violence is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. So similarly, we should not try to under... Yes! We should not try to understand Bhagavad-gītā according to my viewpoint of view. I must understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is presented by Kṛṣṇa. Then it is (indistinct). Then it is (indistinct). (end)
The mistake of the Māyāvāda philosophy is that "You are the same." You are the same in which way? I am the same in quality, not in quantity. Just like if I say, "You are as good as President Nixon," there is nothing wrong because you are American, he is American. Is there anything wrong? From the point of view, American citizenship, you are as good as President Nixon. But when you go deep into the matter, you will find, oh, you are far, far away from President Nixon. Similarly, we are identifying ourself with this matter, but Vedas says that "You are not matter. You are supreme spirit soul." Not supreme, "You are spirit soul."
Keśava, Kṛṣṇa, appeared just like a fish. He appeared Himself in the fish community. Oh, but that does not mean that He was fish. If you say, if you think that, taking a fish, "Oh, it is the generation of Kṛṣṇa..." Of course, everything is Kṛṣṇa, from another point of view.
So similarly, Kṛṣṇa... Because in the previous verse we have discussed. Simply by knowing the transcendental nature of Kṛṣṇa, one becomes liberated. How you can understand Kṛṣṇa? By His transcendental nature. That is being described in this verse. Tasya kartāram api. Tasya kartāram api māṁ viddhi: "Although I have established these divisions of the human society into four classes, so I am not one of them." This has to be understood. Means as soon as we make it a mistake that "Oh, Kṛṣṇa, He appeared in the royal family of Vasudeva, so He belonged to the kṣatriya community, or the administrative class," no. Then you can understand the transcendental nature of Kṛṣṇa.
Just like Arjuna, when he first refused to work, refused to fight, that "My dear Kṛṣṇa, it is not possible for me to fight with my relatives, brothers. I am not going to fight," but from material estimation, this conclusion, this decision of Arjuna, is very good, very good. So materially, from material standing of, standpoint of view, that he is not going to commit nonviolence, violence—he is nonviolent—he's very good man. But from spiritual point of view, it is not so. From spiritual point of view, it is not so. So one has to see. Simply by external features, that one is working and one is not working, that we cannot... What is the standard of work? Under what consciousness he's working. If he's working in material consciousness, then he's being bound up. However good may be that work, he's being bound up.
So this work, good work or bad work from the material point of view, may be superficially very good. But what, how long I shall remain a rich man? How long I shall remain a beautiful man? This is not my permanent life. Suppose if my life is for hundred years, say. I can remain a rich man, I remain a learned man, I can remain a beautiful man, say, for fifty or sixty or hundred years, but your life is not for hundred years or sixty years or thousands years or millions of years. You are eternal. You have to attain your eternal life. That is the whole problem. So that problem you have to solve. That problem can be solved when you are Kṛṣṇa conscious so that by Kṛṣṇa conscious, when you leave this body, you will no more have to come to this material world and accept this material body or suffer and enjoy thereof. That is the point. The point is very difficult for common man, but this is the point. This is the point. I have to avoid this material existence altogether. That is the point. It is... It is not the question of improving my material condition. That is not the solution.
According to the material calculation, as Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, that "That man is paṇḍita." Who? Mātṛvat para-dāreṣu. "One who sees every woman as mother." Para-dāreṣu. "Except his wife." Except his wife. If he sees everyone as mother.... And, mātṛvat para-dāreṣu para-dravyeṣu loṣṭravat. And others' money just like kula (?), garbage, not to touch. Para-dravyeṣu loṣṭravat. Just like there are so many pebbles on the street. Who is going to catch it or collect it. Similarly, others' money should be like that. Mā gṛdhaḥ kasya svid dhanam. Be satisfied what God has given you. This is paṇḍita. Not that making plan: "I am big lawyer, making plan how to grab others' money." That is not paṇḍita. How to entice others' woman. It doesn't matter. Even though relationship is very.... So no, this is not.... Nobody's paṇḍita. Even from material point of view.
So this is Vedic civilization. Don't be carried away. Take lesson from Bhagavad-gītā and make your life successful. That is the propaganda of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Don't become cats and dogs and advertise yourself as paṇḍita. These are the definition of paṇḍita. Either take you from Cāṇakya Paṇḍita's materialistic point of view, moral lessons, or spiritual lessons from Bhagavad-gītā, the definition of paṇḍita is different from the so-called paṇḍitas, having... That is... They are called māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ. Although they have got degrees of the universities, but actually, knowledge is taken away by māyā.
Either you take it, granted... Just like Arjuna was advised by Kṛṣṇa, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) "You give up. Because you are My very confidential friend, therefore I say unto you that you don't bother with anything else. Just surrender unto Me." This is the most confidential. So in all points of view, if you make an analytical study of the Vedic literature, the ultimate summit knowledge is to surrender unto Kṛṣṇa.
In this La Cienega Avenue there are so many restaurants, so many things and so many signboards. Why? They are advertising, "Come on, here is ānanda, here is pleasure." He's advertising, we are also doing like that. "Here is ānanda." So everyone is searching after ānanda pleasure. But there is different standard of pleasure. The same thing. Somebody are trying to find out pleasure from the material point of view, somebody's trying to find pleasure from speculation, philosophy, poetry of art. And somebody's trying to find out pleasure in the transcendental stage. Everyone is trying to find out pleasure. That is our business only. Why you are working so hard day and night? Because you know, at night, "I shall mix with that girl" or "I shall be mixed with wife, I shall enjoy." The whole, everyone is accepting all kinds of trouble to find out that pleasure.
So at least to have a guarantee that our next life is going to be human life, everyone should take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. From mundane profit point of view. There is a story, Sāvitrī-Satyavān. Sāvitrī-Satyavān, it is not a story. It is historical fact that one gentleman, he was a king's son, prince. His name was Satyavān. But he was to die at a certain age his horoscope said. But one girl Sāvitrī, she fell in love with that boy. Now she wanted to marry. Her father told her, "He'll die at certain age. You don't marry." But she was bent. She married. In course of time the boy died, say after four or five years, and the girl became widow. So she was so staunch lover that she won't let the dead body go away. And the Yamarāja, the, what is English I do not know, who takes away the body or the soul after death, so he came to take the soul away. So this chaste girl would not allow the husband's body to go away.
Yes. It is...If you neutrally examine that the position of the lover is better than the position of a person who is in relationship with Kṛṣṇa as master and servant. But that is studying the relationship or the mellows from neutral point of view. But anyone, either who is..., anyone, either he is in relationship as master and servant or relationship as father and child or lover and lover, from his position, He is supreme. But from neutral position the lover and the beloved, this kind of relationship with Kṛṣṇa is the best, is the supreme. Therefore the worship of the gopīs to Kṛṣṇa... Lord Caitanya also displayed. His propaganda or His understanding of Kṛṣṇa was just like the lover and the beloved. Kṛṣṇa as Lord Caitanya was playing the part of Rādhārāṇī. He wanted to understand. Kṛṣṇa wanted to understand what is there in Rādhārāṇī. So that understanding, that feature of Kṛṣṇa is Lord Caitanya. Lord Caitanya is not different from Kṛṣṇa, but the feature in which Kṛṣṇa is trying to understand Rādhārāṇī, that is Lord Caitanya. So Rādhārāṇī's position is greater than Kṛṣṇa's. These are very confidential talks, but the relationship of love and the beloved, as it was between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs, that is the highest type of relationship. There is no doubt about it.
Unfortunately, the impersonalists, they have no idea of the form, form of the Lord. Because they're impersonalist, they do not accept any form of the Lord. But there is the form of the Lord. Form of the Lord, there must be. God is accepted as the supreme father. In Christianity also it is accepted, the supreme father. In every religion He's accepted the supreme person, supreme father, supreme master. So how He can be accepted as imperson? From logical point of view... Just like you are a person, your father is a person, his father is also a person, his father is also a person. Go on, even you do not know your topmost forefather, you know it that he was a person. Similarly, the supreme father, the father of all fathers, how He can be imperson? Logically you cannot conclude. He must be a person. And that is the Vedic version also.
Then why do you don't (understand) another spiritual body? What is the difficulty. You accept another body after death. Dehāntaram. So instead of accepting a material body, you accept a spiritual body. That's all. What is the difficulty to understand? Just like you have accepted now this body, American body or English body. You cannot say, "I have an Indian body" or Chinese body or Russian body. In the same way, after giving up this body you can accept spiritual body. What is the difficulty to understand? There is no difficulty. Just like if you take birth in the sun planet, you have to take a body of fire. There are different planets, and the climatic influence are different, but here the scientists, they are calculating from their own point of view. They do not know that God's creation there are different types of body, different types of atmosphere. Just like the fish. They are living in the water. But you take out the fish on the land, immediately he dies.
So it is answered there in the Bhagavad-gītā: mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). There is superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. He, He likes that "This kind of bīja, or the seed, will produce this kind of flower and this kind of flavor." The superintendence is there of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We fools, we say, we cannot explain. We say "Nature." What is this nature? There must be brain behind the nature. Otherwise, how a rose, so nicely it is coming? Even from artistic point of view, if you want to paint one flower, you have to take so much labor, so many colors, reflection, and so many instruments, then hardly you can paint one nice rose flower. Still, it is not as good. And not at all good in comparison to the original flower. So if this third-class flower, you have to apply so much brain, and this first-class flower has no brain behind it? Is that very good logic? What is this logic? There must be brain. And that is stated here: puṇyo gandhaḥ pṛthivyāṁ ca tejaś cāsmi vibhāvasau, aham. "It is My, under My superintendence."
He is nice poet from materialistic point of view. That's all. To satisfy the materialistic person. He is not a nice poet from spiritualistic point of view. We have nothing to do with him. (chuckles) We have to do with the poet like Vyāsadeva. Don't you see how nicely he has written Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam? There is no comparison, even from the literary point of view. He is perfect poet. Lokasyājānato vidvāṁś cakre sātvata-saṁhitām, anarthopaśamaṁ sākṣād bhakti-yogam adhokṣaje, lokasya ajānataḥ... (SB 1.7.6). People do not know this, that to get out of the clutches of māyā, all this nonsense, the only thing is bhakti-yogam. And people do not know it. Lokasyājānato vidvāṁś cakre sātvata-saṁhitām. The greatest poet, vidvān, learned Vyāsadeva, has written this Bhāgavatam. So he is the greatest poet.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Other questions?
Guest (3) (young man): I, I... I'm talking about, from a Christian point of view...
Prabhupāda: No, don't put any question from any particular... You try to understand the philosophy. If "two plus two equal to four," that doesn't matter whether he's a Christian or Hindu or Muslim. Two plus two equal to four everywhere.
Guest (3): All right. Well, the point is that you say or members of the society say that "I am not this body," and in Christianity this is my body and this is my blood.
Prabhupāda: "This is my blood." You are not blood. That is all right.
Therefore he tries to take them back to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He has no distinction that "He is brāhmaṇa. He is śūdra. He is Indian. He's American," or "He's black. He's white," or "He's educated. He's noneducated." No. "Everyone should come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness." That is his viewpoint. Samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu. When one is qualified in that way, then mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām (BG 18.54). Lord Kṛṣṇa says "Then he becomes eligible for becoming a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa." So practically this process, under regulative principles, is not very easy, especially in this age. In this age, the description of the people are that prāyeṇa alpāyuṣaḥ: "Their duration of life is very short." And prāyeṇālpāyuṣaḥ mandāḥ. Manda means very slow. Sleeping, out of twenty-four hours, sleeping twelve hours, and out of twelve hours, they're busy in earning money ten hours. Then two hours left. What he can do for spiritual understanding. There's no time. So mandāḥ sumanda-matayaḥ. And if somebody has got some intention to make spiritual progress, then there are so many pseudo-spiritual, I mean to say, societies.
Guest (1) (young man): Would you like to give your views on psychiatry?
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Would you like to give your views on psychiatry? Psychiatry. Psychiatrist.
Prabhupāda: What is that? (laughter)
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Well, when someone is having some kind of mental problem the psychiatrist analyzes it from the medical viewpoint, sometimes from the psychological viewpoint.
Prabhupāda: Hm. Psychiatrist.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Yes. (laughter)
Prabhupāda: This is an expansion of the energy known as mind. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca. These are subtle matter. So different division. God's creation is wonderful that even if you take the atom, there are so many things. That is... Scientists are... So what to speak of mind, thinking, feeling, willing, and there are so many divisions. So what is your question about the psychiatrist? It is a material thing and very subtle, and there are so many divisions. So what is your question about it?
Devotee: Motorcycle.
Prabhupāda: Oh. So sentiment must be there. But sentiment, ecstasy, from material point of view, sentiment, that is different. Spiritual sentiment, aṣṭa-sāttvika-vikāra (CC Antya 14.99). There are eight kinds of ecstatic sentiment. That is not possible for ordinary person. When one is advanced, they are visible. That is called budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ. So we have to understand this fact, that, as Kṛṣṇa says, we have to take knowledge from Kṛṣṇa.
Deva-bhogān means this is with reference to the standard of living. As in this world we have got different standard of living and it may be that your standard of living in America or Europe may be, from material point of view, very high and standard of living in other country may be lower... Different standard of living there are. But in other planets also, there are different standard of living. They are called deva-bhogān. That standard of living we cannot imagine here, in the moon planet and other, surendra-lokam. Surendra-lokam means where the demigods live. They are also human beings, but they are highly intellectual, and their duration of life is very long, and their standard of living is very high, most costly. We cannot imagine even.
Just like we can say from historical point of view of Vedic literature, this whole world was known as Ilāvṛta-varṣa. Ilāvṛta-varṣa. And, later on, since the reign of one great king, emperor, his name was Bharata. He changed the name into his own name, Bhārata-varṣa. So this whole planet was now Bhārata-varṣa. Then, as the days go on, the some part of this world was, I mean to say, separated from the original Bhārata-varṣa, and it was called Europe or some other place. Just like you have got practical experience even in this age, that India, say about twenty years before, the area of India was including Burma, Ceylon and the modern Pakistan and everything. Now it is separated. Now they are calling this is Pakistan. Somebody's calling there is Ceylon. So this process is going on. Actually the land is neither Bhārata-varṣa, nor Asia, nor America, nor India, but we give this name. With the change of time, with the change of influence, they are all designations.
The same thing. This meditation is man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ. Always think of Kṛṣṇa. So those who are engaged in this way, always thinking of Kṛṣṇa, worshiping Kṛṣṇa, for such persons, Kṛṣṇa says yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmy aham (BG 9.22), "I personally carry all the necessities of life. I personally carry." My point is that here in this New Māyāpur, if you simply carry on this man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ, then all your necessities will come automatically, don't bother. (laughter) That is my point, Yes. You'll get sufficient food, sufficient milk, sufficient fruits, flowers, all necessities. Simply you act on behalf of Kṛṣṇa and think of Kṛṣṇa, and don't bother about the necessities of life. It will be automatically supplied. Don't be disturbed from that point of view. Simply engage yourself in this business of man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). That is my point.
Similarly, at the present moment, there are so many commentaries and people have taken that anybody can interpret in his own way. This is the modern view. Everyone is perfect and he can interpret any scripture in his own way. But so far we are concerned, we are not agreeable to that point. We agree to read Bhagavad-gītā in terms of the instruction as it is given in the Bhagavad-gītā. The Bhagavad-gītā says that this knowledge has to be taken by the paramparā system or the disciplic succession. It is not that anyone can interpret. This viewpoint no bona fide student of Bhagavad-gītā will accept.
So here Kṛṣṇa says that adveṣṭā sarva-bhūtānām. You should not be envious to any living entity. But the present civilization is to become envious, envious. I do not wish to criticize anyone, but this enviousness is the basis... This nationalism means... This is also enviousness. "Why foreigners will come here?" This is enviousness. Why not? Who is foreigner and who is national? Everyone is son of God. Why should you distinguish? But because there is no Kṛṣṇa consciousness, this discrimination between man to man, animal to man, and so many discrimination... Even taking from the national point of view, national means anyone who is born in that country. But because one happens to be animal, although it is national, still, it is sent to the slaughterhouse, because there is no Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Now we are satisfying our senses. That is bodily concept of material existence. And when we train ourself how to satisfy Kṛṣṇa, oh, then, that is our perfection of life. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The process is there. Either you satisfy your senses or you satisfy the proprietor of the senses. Kṛṣṇa is called Hṛṣīkeśa. Hṛṣīka. Hṛṣīka means "the senses." And Kṛṣṇa is called Hṛṣīkeśa. Senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me 'cyuta (BG 1.21). Hṛṣīkeśa. Tvayā hṛṣīkeṇa hṛṣṭitena.(?) So Hṛṣīkeśa. So bhakti means hṛṣīkeṇa hṛṣīkeśa-sevanaṁ bhaktir ucyate (CC Madhya 19.170). Now hṛṣīka means indriya. At the present moment, we are satisfying the senses. For the sense only. We have no other higher objective. Sense wants to eat something palatable. Although it is not good for me, either from health point of view, or spiritual point of view...
So that is Kṛṣṇa Consciousness perception. And He is living. Because He... The Māyāvādī philosophers, they are accepting that Kṛṣṇa, or Para-brahman, or God, because He is in everywhere, He has no personal feature. That is a poor fund of knowledge. That is not God. Because we are thinking materially. Just like if I take a piece of paper and tear it into small pieces and throw it then the original paper has no existence. This is called Māyāvāda, Māyāvāda, or imperfect knowledge. Because I am thinking that materially, if one thing is broken into pieces and thrown, the original form is lost, no more. It becomes impersonal. No. The Veda says that pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). You take the full God, full... Even God fully represented in every atom, still, He is pūrṇa. That is... One minus one equal to one. And one plus one equal to one. That is Absolute idea. But we calculate from materialistic point of view. As we with our tiny brain, we think like that.
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.
| Page Title: | Point of view (Lectures, BG) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 10 of Mar, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=62, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 62 |