Very learned (BG and SB)

Expressions researched:
"very learned"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 2.2, Purport:

Therefore, the bhaktas, or the transcendentalists who have realized the Bhagavān feature of the Absolute Truth, are the topmost transcendentalists, although all students who are engaged in the study of the Absolute Truth are engaged in the same subject matter. The sunshine, the sun disc and the inner affairs of the sun planet cannot be separated from one another, and yet the students of the three different phases are not in the same category.

The Sanskrit word bhagavān is explained by the great authority Parāśara Muni, the father of Vyāsadeva. The Supreme Personality who possesses all riches, all strength, all fame, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation is called Bhagavān. There are many persons who are very rich, very powerful, very beautiful, very famous, very learned, and very much detached, but no one can claim that he possesses all riches, all strength, etc., entirely. Only Kṛṣṇa can claim this because He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. No living entity, including Brahmā, Lord Śiva, or Nārāyaṇa, can possess opulences as fully as Kṛṣṇa. Therefore it is concluded in the Brahma-saṁhitā by Lord Brahmā himself that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. No one is equal to or above Him. He is the primeval Lord, or Bhagavān, known as Govinda, and He is the supreme cause of all causes:

BG 2.11, Purport:

The Lord at once took the position of the teacher and chastised the student, calling him, indirectly, a fool. The Lord said, "You are talking like a learned man, but you do not know that one who is learned—one who knows what is body and what is soul—does not lament for any stage of the body, neither in the living nor in the dead condition." As explained in later chapters, it will be clear that knowledge means to know matter and spirit and the controller of both. Arjuna argued that religious principles should be given more importance than politics or sociology, but he did not know that knowledge of matter, soul and the Supreme is even more important than religious formularies. And because he was lacking in that knowledge, he should not have posed himself as a very learned man. As he did not happen to be a very learned man, he was consequently lamenting for something which was unworthy of lamentation. The body is born and is destined to be vanquished today or tomorrow; therefore the body is not as important as the soul. One who knows this is actually learned, and for him there is no cause for lamentation, regardless of the condition of the material body.

BG 2.12, Purport:

The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned and in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord's eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone.

The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa's is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much-even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality?

BG 3.33, Purport:

Unless one is situated on the transcendental platform of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he cannot get free from the influence of the modes of material nature, as it is confirmed by the Lord in the Seventh Chapter (7.14). Therefore, even for the most highly educated person on the mundane plane, it is impossible to get out of the entanglement of māyā simply by theoretical knowledge, or by separating the soul from the body. There are many so-called spiritualists who outwardly pose as advanced in the science but inwardly or privately are completely under particular modes of nature which they are unable to surpass. Academically, one may be very learned, but because of his long association with material nature, he is in bondage. Kṛṣṇa consciousness helps one to get out of the material entanglement, even though one may be engaged in his prescribed duties in terms of material existence. Therefore, without being fully in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one should not give up his occupational duties. No one should suddenly give up his prescribed duties and become a so-called yogī or transcendentalist artificially. It is better to be situated in one's position and to try to attain Kṛṣṇa consciousness under superior training. Thus one may be freed from the clutches of Kṛṣṇa's māyā.

BG 6.42, Purport:

Birth in a family of yogīs or transcendentalists—those with great wisdom—is praised herein because the child born in such a family receives a spiritual impetus from the very beginning of his life. It is especially the case in the ācārya or gosvāmī families. Such families are very learned and devoted by tradition and training, and thus they become spiritual masters. In India there are many such ācārya families, but they have now degenerated due to insufficient education and training. By the grace of the Lord, there are still families that foster transcendentalists generation after generation. It is certainly very fortunate to take birth in such families. Fortunately, both our spiritual master, Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja, and our humble self had the opportunity to take birth in such families, by the grace of the Lord, and both of us were trained in the devotional service of the Lord from the very beginning of our lives. Later on we met by the order of the transcendental system.

BG Chapters 7 - 12

BG 7.15, Purport:

(3) The next class of duṣkṛtī is called māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ, or those persons whose erudite knowledge has been nullified by the influence of illusory material energy. They are mostly very learned fellows—great philosophers, poets, literati, scientists, etc.—but the illusory energy misguides them, and therefore they disobey the Supreme Lord.

There are a great number of māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ at the present moment, even amongst the scholars of the Bhagavad-gītā. In the Gītā, in plain and simple language, it is stated that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is none equal to or greater than Him. He is mentioned as the father of Brahmā, the original father of all human beings. In fact, Śrī Kṛṣṇa is said to be not only the father of Brahmā but also the father of all species of life. He is the root of the impersonal Brahman and Paramātmā; the Supersoul in every entity is His plenary portion. He is the fountainhead of everything, and everyone is advised to surrender unto His lotus feet. Despite all these clear statements, the māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ deride the personality of the Supreme Lord and consider Him merely another human being. They do not know that the blessed form of human life is designed after the eternal and transcendental feature of the Supreme Lord.

All the unauthorized interpretations of the Gītā by the class of māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ, outside the purview of the paramparā system, are so many stumbling blocks on the path of spiritual understanding. The deluded interpreters do not surrender unto the lotus feet of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, nor do they teach others to follow this principle.

BG 10.11, Purport:

When Lord Caitanya was in Benares promulgating the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, thousands of people were following Him. Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, a very influential and learned scholar in Benares at that time, derided Lord Caitanya for being a sentimentalist. Sometimes Māyāvādī philosophers criticize the devotees because they think that most of the devotees are in the darkness of ignorance and are philosophically naive sentimentalists. Actually that is not the fact. There are very, very learned scholars who have put forward the philosophy of devotion. But even if a devotee does not take advantage of their literatures or of his spiritual master, if he is sincere in his devotional service he is helped by Kṛṣṇa Himself within his heart. So the sincere devotee engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness cannot be without knowledge. The only qualification is that one carry out devotional service in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

The Māyāvādī philosophers think that without discriminating one cannot have pure knowledge. For them this answer is given by the Supreme Lord: those who are engaged in pure devotional service, even though they be without sufficient education and even without sufficient knowledge of the Vedic principles, are still helped by the Supreme God, as stated in this verse.

BG 11.52, Purport:

In Bhagavad-gītā (9.11) it is also confirmed, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: He is not visible to the foolish persons who deride Him. Kṛṣṇa's body, as confirmed by Brahma-saṁhitā and confirmed by Kṛṣṇa Himself in Bhagavad-gītā, is completely spiritual and full of bliss and eternality. His body is never like a material body. But for some who make a study of Kṛṣṇa by reading Bhagavad-gītā or similar Vedic scriptures, Kṛṣṇa is a problem. For one using a material process, Kṛṣṇa is considered to be a great historical personality and very learned philosopher, but He is an ordinary man, and even though He was so powerful He had to accept a material body. Ultimately they think that the Absolute Truth is impersonal; therefore they think that from His impersonal feature He assumed a personal feature attached to material nature. This is a materialistic calculation of the Supreme Lord. Another calculation is speculative. Those who are in search of knowledge also speculate on Kṛṣṇa and consider Him to be less important than the universal form of the Supreme. Thus some think that the universal form of Kṛṣṇa which was manifested to Arjuna is more important than His personal form. According to them, the personal form of the Supreme is something imaginary. They believe that in the ultimate issue, the Absolute Truth is not a person. But the transcendental process is described in Bhagavad-gītā, Chapter Four: to hear about Kṛṣṇa from authorities. That is the actual Vedic process, and those who are actually in the Vedic line hear about Kṛṣṇa from authority, and by repeated hearing about Him, Kṛṣṇa becomes dear. As we have several times discussed, Kṛṣṇa is covered by His yoga-māyā potency. He is not to be seen or revealed to anyone and everyone. Only by one to whom He reveals Himself can He be seen. This is confirmed in Vedic literature; for one who is a surrendered soul, the Absolute Truth can actually be understood.

SB Preface and Introduction

SB Introduction:

On hearing this statement from the Lord, the Māyāvādī sannyāsī asked the Lord what was the harm in studying the Vedānta along with chanting the holy name. Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī knew well that the Lord was formerly known as Nimāi Paṇḍita, a very learned scholar of Navadvīpa, and His posing as a great fool was certainly to some purpose. Hearing this inquiry by the sannyāsī, the Lord smiled and said, "My dear sir, if you do not mind, I will answer your inquiry."

All the sannyāsīs there were very much pleased with the Lord for His honest dealings, and they unanimously replied that they would not be offended by whatever He replied. The Lord then spoke as follows:

"Vedānta-sūtra consists of transcendental words or sounds uttered by the transcendental Personality of Godhead. As such, in the Vedānta there cannot be any human deficiencies like mistake, illusion, cheating or inefficiency. The message of the Upaniṣads is expressed in the Vedānta-sūtra, and understanding the direct meaning of what is said there is certainly glorious. Whatever interpretations have been given by Śaṅkarācārya have no direct bearing on the sūtra, and therefore such commentation spoils everything.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.8.36, Purport:

Therefore, even though the Lord may be present before our eyes, it is not possible to see Him unless we have the necessary vision. This necessary qualification is developed by the process of devotional service only, beginning with hearing about the Lord from the right sources. The Bhagavad-gītā is one of the popular literatures which are generally heard, chanted, repeated, etc., by the people in general, but in spite of such hearing, etc., sometimes it is experienced that the performer of such devotional service does not see the Lord eye to eye. The reason is that the first item, śravaṇa, is very important. If hearing is from the right sources, it acts very quickly. Generally people hear from unauthorized persons. Such unauthorized persons may be very learned by academic qualifications, but because they do not follow the principles of devotional service, hearing from them becomes a sheer waste of time. Sometimes the texts are interpreted fashionably to suit their own purposes. Therefore, first one should select a competent and bona fide speaker and then hear from him. When the hearing process is perfect and complete, the other processes become automatically perfect in their own way.

SB 1.10.20, Purport:

In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that in all the Vedic literatures the goal is the Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Factually the glories of the Lord are depicted in such literature as the Vedas, Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. And in the Bhāgavatam they are specifically mentioned in respect to the Supreme Lord. Therefore, while the ladies on the tops of the houses in the capital of the kings of the Kuru dynasty were talking about the Lord, their talk was more pleasing than the Vedic hymns. Anything sung in the praise of the Lord is Śruti-mantra. There are songs of Ṭhākura Narottama dāsa, one of the ācāryas in the Gauḍīya-sampradāya, composed in simple Bengali language. But Ṭhākura Viśvanātha Cakravartī, another very learned ācārya of the same sampradāya, has approved the songs by Ṭhākura Narottama dāsa to be as good as Vedic mantras. And this is so because of the subject matter. The language is immaterial, but the subject matter is important. The ladies, who were all absorbed in the thought and actions of the Lord, developed the consciousness of Vedic wisdom by the grace of the Lord. And therefore although such ladies might not have been very learned scholars in Sanskrit or otherwise, still whatever they spoke was more attractive than the Vedic hymns. The Vedic hymns in the Upaniṣads are sometimes indirectly directed to the Supreme Lord. But the talks of the ladies were directly spoken of the Lord, and thus they were more pleasing to the heart. The ladies' talks appeared to be more valuable than the learned brāhmaṇas' benedictions.

SB Canto 3

SB 3.12.26, Purport:

A conditioned soul is under the influence of mental speculation. However great one may be in the estimation of mundane education and learning, he cannot be free from the influence of psychic activities. Therefore it is very difficult to give up lust and the desires for low activities until one is in the line of devotional service to the Lord. When one is frustrated in lust and low desires, anger is generated from the mind and expressed from between the eyebrows. Ordinary men are therefore advised to concentrate the mind by focusing on the place between the eyebrows, whereas the devotees of the Lord are already practiced to place the Supreme Personality of Godhead on the seat of their minds. The theory of becoming desireless is untenable because the mind cannot be made desireless. When it is recommended that one be desireless, it is understood that one should not desire things which are destructive to spiritual values. A devotee of the Lord always has the Lord in his mind, and thus he does not need to be desireless because all his desires are in relationship with the service of the Lord. The power of speaking is called Sarasvatī, or the goddess of learning, and the birthplace of the goddess of learning is the mouth of Brahmā. Even if a man is endowed with the favor of the goddess of learning, it is quite possible for his heart to be full of lust and material desire and his eyebrows to display symptoms of anger. One may be very learned in the mundane estimation, but that does not mean that he is free from all low activities of lust and anger. Good qualifications can be expected only from a pure devotee, who is always engaged in the thought of the Lord, or in samādhi, with faith.

SB 3.29.16, Purport:

Temple Deity worship is one of the functions of a devotee. He goes regularly to see the Deity nicely decorated, and with veneration and respect he touches the lotus feet of the Lord and presents offerings of worship, such as fruits, flowers and prayers. At the same time, to advance in devotional service, a devotee should see other living entities as spiritual sparks, parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord. A devotee is to offer respect to every entity that has a relationship with the Lord. Because every living entity originally has a relationship with the Lord as part and parcel, a devotee should try to see all living entities on the same equal level of spiritual existence. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, a paṇḍita, one who is learned, sees equally a very learned brāhmaṇa, a śūdra, a hog, a dog and a cow. He does not see the body, which is only an outward dress. He does not see the dress of a brāhmaṇa, or that of a cow or of a hog. He sees the spiritual spark, part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. If a devotee does not see every living entity as part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, he is considered prākṛta-bhakta, a materialistic devotee. He is not completely situated on the spiritual platform; rather, he is in the lowest stage of devotion. He does, however, show all respect to the Deity.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.3.17, Purport:

It may be argued that since Dakṣa was very learned, wealthy and austere and had descended from a very exalted heritage, how could he be unnecessarily angry towards another? The answer is that when the qualities of good education, good parentage, beauty and sufficient wealth are misplaced in a person who is puffed up by all these possessions, they produce a very bad result. Milk is a very nice food, but when milk is touched by an envious serpent it becomes poisonous. Similarly, material assets such as education, wealth, beauty and good parentage are undoubtedly nice, but when they decorate persons of a malicious nature, then they act adversely. Another example, given by Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, is that a serpent that has a jewel on its head is still fearful because it is a serpent. A serpent, by nature, is envious of other living entities, even though they be faultless. When a serpent bites another creature, it is not necessarily because the other creature is at fault; it is the habit of the serpent to bite innocent creatures. Similarly, although Dakṣa was qualified by many material assets, because he was proud of his possessions and because he was envious, all those qualities were polluted. It is sometimes, therefore, detrimental for a person advancing in spiritual consciousness, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, to possess such material assets. Kuntīdevī, while offering prayers to Kṛṣṇa, addressed Him as akiñcana-gocara, one who is easily approached by those who are bereft of all material acquisitions. Material exhaustion is an advantage for advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, although if one is conscious of his eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one can utilize one's material assets, such as great learning and beauty and exalted ancestry, for the service of the Lord; then such assets become glorious. In other words, unless one is Kṛṣṇa conscious, all his material possessions are zero, but when this zero is by the side of the Supreme One, it at once increases in value to ten. Unless situated by the side of the Supreme One, zero is always zero; one may add one hundred zeros, but the value will still remain zero. Unless one's material assets are used in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they may play havoc and degrade the possessor.

SB 4.4.7, Purport:

The mother and sisters of Satī could not follow the others, who did not receive Satī very well. Due to natural affection, they immediately embraced her with tears in their eyes and with loving feelings. This shows that women as a class are very softhearted; their natural affection and love cannot be checked by artificial means. Although the men present were very learned brāhmaṇas and demigods, they were afraid of their superior, Dakṣa, and because they knew that their welcoming Satī would displease him, although in their minds they wanted to receive her, they could not do so. Women are naturally softhearted, but men are sometimes very hardhearted.

SB 4.14.30, Translation:

My dear Vidura, all good fortune unto you. The foolish King, who thought himself very learned, thus insulted the great sages, and the sages, being brokenhearted by the King's words, became very angry at him.

SB 4.14.41, Purport:

Nonetheless, when there is a calamity in human society, they cannot remain impartial. If they do not do something to relieve the distressed condition of human society, it is said that due to such neglect their spiritual knowledge diminishes. Almost all the sages go to the Himalayas for their personal benefit, but Prahlāda Mahārāja said that he did not want liberation alone. He decided to wait until he was able to deliver all the fallen souls of the world.

In their elevated condition, the brāhmaṇas are called Vaiṣṇavas. There are two types of brāhmaṇas—namely, brāhmaṇa-paṇḍita and brāhmaṇa-vaiṣṇava. A qualified brāhmaṇa is naturally very learned, but when his learning is advanced in understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he becomes a brāhmaṇa-vaiṣṇava. Unless one becomes a Vaiṣṇava, one's perfection of brahminical culture is incomplete.

The saintly persons considered very wisely that although King Vena was very sinful, he was born in a family descending from Dhruva Mahārāja. Therefore the semen in the family must be protected by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Keśava. As such, the sages wanted to take some steps to relieve the situation. For want of a king, everything was being disturbed and turned topsy-turvy.

SB 4.25.17, Purport:

When one sees the opposite sex, naturally the sex impulse increases. It is said that if a man in a solitary place does not become agitated upon seeing a woman, he is to be considered a brahmacārī. But this practice is almost impossible. The sex impulse is so strong that even by seeing, touching or talking, coming into contact with, or even thinking of the opposite sex—even in so many subtle ways—one becomes sexually impelled. Consequently, a brahmacārī or sannyāsī is prohibited to associate with women, especially in a secret place. The śāstras enjoin that one should not even talk to a woman in a secret place, even if she happens to be one's own daughter, sister or mother. The sex impulse is so strong that even if one is very learned, he becomes agitated in such circumstances. If this is the case, how can a young man in a nice park remain calm and quiet after seeing a beautiful young woman?

SB 4.29.56, Purport:

Actually the so-called teachers or leaders of material society do not really know the goal of life. They are described in Bhagavad-gītā as māyayāpahṛta jñānāḥ (BG 7.15). They appear to be very learned scholars, but actually the influence of the illusory energy has taken away their knowledge. Real knowledge means searching out Kṛṣṇa. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ (BG 15.15). All Vedic knowledge is meant for searching out Kṛṣṇa because Kṛṣṇa is the origin of everything. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). In Bhagavad-gītā (10.2) Kṛṣṇa says, aham ādir hi devānāṁ: "I am the source of the demigods." Thus Kṛṣṇa is the origin and beginning of all demigods, including Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva and all others. The Vedic ritualistic ceremonies are concerned with satisfying different demigods, but unless one is very advanced, he cannot understand that the original personality is Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. After hearing the instructions of Nārada, King Barhiṣmān came to his senses. The real goal of life is to attain devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The King therefore decided to reject the so-called priestly orders that simply engage their followers in the ritualistic ceremonies without giving effective instructions about the goal of life. At the present moment the churches, temples and mosques all over the world are not attracting people because foolish priests cannot elevate their followers to the platform of knowledge. Not being aware of the real goal of life, they simply keep their congregations in ignorance. Consequently, those who are well educated have become uninterested in the ritualistic ceremonies. At the same time, they are not benefited with real knowledge. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is therefore very important for the enlightenment of all classes. Following in the footsteps of Mahārāja Barhiṣmān, everyone should take advantage of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement and abandon the stereotyped ritualistic ceremonies that go under the garb of so many religions. The Gosvāmīs from the very beginning differed from the priestly class that was engaged in ritualistic ceremonies. Indeed, Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī compiled his Hari-bhakti-vilāsa for the guidance of the Vaiṣṇavas.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.5.7, Translation:

Even though one may be very learned and wise, he is mad if he does not understand that the endeavor for sense gratification is a useless waste of time. Being forgetful of his own interest, he tries to be happy in the material world, centering his interests around his home, which is based on sexual intercourse and which brings him all kinds of material miseries. In this way one is no better than a foolish animal.

SB 5.7.4, Translation:

Mahārāja Bharata was a very learned and experienced king on this earth. He perfectly ruled the citizens, being himself engaged in his own respective duties. Mahārāja Bharata was as affectionate to the citizens as his father and grandfather had been. Keeping them engaged in their occupational duties, he ruled the earth.

SB 5.10.8, Translation:

Thinking himself a king, King Rahūgaṇa was in the bodily conception and was influenced by material nature's modes of passion and ignorance. Due to madness, he chastised Jaḍa Bharata with uncalled-for and contradictory words. Jaḍa Bharata was a topmost devotee and the dear abode of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although considering himself very learned, the King did not know about the position of an advanced devotee situated in devotional service, nor did he know his characteristics. Jaḍa Bharata was the residence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; he always carried the form of the Lord within his heart. He was the dear friend of all living beings, and he did not entertain any bodily conception. He therefore smiled and spoke the following words.

SB 5.17.11, Purport:

Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam: (SB 11.3.21) one who is very interested in understanding the activities in the spiritual world must search out a guru—a bona fide representative of Kṛṣṇa. From all angles of vision, therefore, the word guru is especially meant for the bona fide representative of Kṛṣṇa and no one else. Padma Purāṇa states, avaiṣṇavo gurur na syāt: one who is not a Vaiṣṇava, or who is not a representative of Kṛṣṇa, cannot be a guru. Even the most qualified brāhmaṇa cannot become a guru if he is not a representative of Kṛṣṇa. Brāhmaṇas are supposed to acquire six kinds of auspicious qualifications: they become very learned scholars (paṭhana) and very qualified teachers (pāṭhana); they become expert in worshiping the Lord or the demigods (yajana), and they teach others how to execute this worship (yājana); they qualify themselves as bona fide persons to receive alms from others (pratigraha), and they distribute the wealth in charity (dāna). Yet even a brāhmaṇa possessing these qualifications cannot become a guru unless he is the representative of Kṛṣṇa (gurur na syāt). Vaiṣṇavaḥ śva-paco guruḥ: but a Vaiṣṇava, a bona fide representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, can become a guru, even if he is śva-paca, a member of a family of dog-eaters. Of the three divisions of heavenly planets (svarga-loka), bhauma-svarga is sometimes accepted as the tract of land in Bhārata-varṣa known as Kashmir. In this region there are certainly good facilities for material sense enjoyment, but this is not the business of a pure transcendentalist. Rūpa Gosvāmī describes the engagement of a pure transcendentalist as follows:

SB 5.20.20, Translation:

The ruler of this island was another son of Mahārāja Priyavrata. His name was Ghṛtapṛṣṭha, and he was a very learned scholar. He also divided his own island among his seven sons. After dividing the island into seven parts, named according to the names of his sons, Ghṛtapṛṣṭha Mahārāja completely retired from family life and took shelter at the lotus feet of the Lord, the soul of all souls, who has all auspicious qualities. Thus he attained perfection.

SB 5.24.24, Translation:

Alas, how pitiable it is for Indra, the King of heaven, that although he is very learned and powerful and although he chose Bṛhaspati as his prime minister to instruct him, he is completely ignorant concerning spiritual advancement. Bṛhaspati is also unintelligent because he did not properly instruct his disciple Indra. Lord Vāmanadeva was standing at Indra's door, but King Indra, instead of begging Him for an opportunity to render transcendental loving service, engaged Him in asking me for alms to gain the three worlds for his sense gratification. Sovereignty over the three worlds is very insignificant because whatever material opulence one may possess lasts only for an age of Manu, which is but a tiny fraction of endless time.

SB 5.24.24, Purport:

Bali Mahārāja was so powerful that he fought with Indra and took possession of the three worlds. Indra was certainly very advanced in knowledge, but instead of asking Vāmanadeva for engagement in His service, he used the Lord to beg for material possessions that would lie finished at the end of one age of Manu. An age of Manu, which is the duration of Manu's life, is calculated to last seventy-two yugas. One yuga consists of 4,300,000 years, and therefore the duration of Manu's life is 309,600,000 years. The demigods possess their material opulence only until the end of the life of Manu. Time is insurmountable. The time one is allotted, even if it be millions of years, is quickly gone. The demigods own their material possessions only within the limits of time. Therefore Bali Mahārāja lamented that although Indra was very learned, he did not know how to use his intelligence properly, for instead of asking Vāmanadeva to allow him to engage in His service, Indra used Him to beg Bali Mahārāja for material wealth. Although Indra was learned and his prime minister, Bṛhaspati, was also learned, neither of them begged to be able to render loving service to Lord Vāmanadeva. Therefore Bali Mahārāja lamented for Indra.

SB Canto 6

SB 6.3.26, Purport:

The purport is that even though one is a very learned scholar of the Vedic śāstras, he may be completely unaware of the existence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His name, fame, qualities and so forth, whereas one who is not a great scholar can understand the position of the Supreme Personality of Godhead if he somehow or other becomes a pure devotee of the Lord by engaging in devotional service. Therefore this verse spoken by Yamarāja says, evaṁ vimṛśya sudhiyo bhagavati: those who engage in the loving service of the Lord become sudhiyaḥ, intelligent, but this is not so of a Vedic scholar who does not understand Kṛṣṇa's name, fame and qualities. A pure devotee is one whose intelligence is clear; he is truly thoughtful because he engages in the service of the Lord—not as a matter of show, but with love, with his mind, words and body. Nondevotees may make a show of religion, but it is not very effective because although they ostentatiously attend a temple or church, they are thinking of something else. Such persons are neglecting their religious duty and are punishable by Yamarāja. But a devotee who commits sinful acts, which he may do unwillingly or accidentally because of his former habits, is excused. That is the value of the saṅkīrtana movement.

SB 6.18.30, Purport:

This entire universe is going on under the spell of sexual attachment, which was created by Lord Brahmā to increase the population of the entire universe, not only in human society but also in other species. As stated by Ṛṣabhadeva in the Fifth Canto, puṁsaḥ striyā mithunī-bhāvam etam: (SB 5.5.8) the entire world is going on under the spell of sexual attraction and desire between man and woman. When man and woman unite, the hard knot of this attraction becomes increasingly tight, and thus a man is implicated in the materialistic way of life. This is the illusion of the material world. This illusion acted upon Kaśyapa Muni, although he was very learned and advanced in spiritual knowledge. As stated in the Manu-saṁhitā (2.215) and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (9.19.17) :

mātrā svasrā duhitrā vā

nāviviktāsano bhavet

balavān indriya-grāmo

vidvāṁsam api karṣati

"A man should not associate with a woman in a solitary place, not even with his mother, sister or daughter, for the senses are so strong that they lead astray even a person advanced in knowledge." When a man remains in a solitary place with a woman, his sexual desires undoubtedly increase. Therefore the words ekānta-bhūtāni, which are used here, indicate that to avoid sexual desires one should avoid the company of women as far as possible. Sexual desire is so powerful that one is saturated with it if he stays in a solitary place with any woman, even his mother, sister or daughter.

SB Canto 7

SB 7.15.2, Purport:

"Even though a person is a very learned scholar of the Sanskrit Vedic literatures, he is not accepted as My devotee unless he is pure in devotional service. However, even though a person is born in a family of dog-eaters, he is very dear to Me if he is a pure devotee who has no motive to enjoy fruitive activity or mental speculation. Indeed, all respect should be given to him, and whatever he offers should be accepted. Such devotees are as worshipable as I am." (Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 10.127) Therefore, even if not born in a brāhmaṇa family, a devotee, because of his devotion to the Lord, is above all kinds of brāhmaṇas, whether they be karma-kāṇḍīs or jñāna-kāṇḍīs.

In this regard, it may be mentioned that brāhmaṇas in Vṛndāvana who are karma-kāṇḍīs and jñāna-kāṇḍīs sometimes decline to accept invitations to our temple because our temple is known as the aṅgarejī temple, or "Anglican temple." But in accordance with the evidence given in the śāstra and the example set by Advaita Ācārya, we give prasāda to devotees regardless of whether they come from India, Europe or America. It is the conclusion of the śāstra that instead of feeding many jñāna-kāṇḍī or karma-kāṇḍī brāhmaṇas, it is better to feed a pure Vaiṣṇava, regardless of where he comes from. This is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (9.30):

SB 7.15.45, Purport:

One cannot attain the goal of life without the mercy of Balarāma. Śrī Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura therefore says, nitāiyera karuṇā habe, vraje rādhā-kṛṣṇa pābe: when one receives the mercy of Balarāma, Nityānanda, one can attain the lotus feet of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa very easily.

se sambandha nāhi yāra, bṛthā janma gela tāra,

vidyā-kule hi karibe tāra

If one has no connection with Nitāi, Balarāma, then even though one is a very learned scholar or jñānī or has taken birth in a very respectable family, these assets will not help him. We must therefore conquer the enemies of Kṛṣṇa consciousness with the strength received from Balarāma.

SB Canto 8

SB 8.11.8, Translation and Purport:

Seeing the movements of time, those who are cognizant of the real truth neither rejoice nor lament for different circumstances. Therefore, because you are jubilant due to your victory, you should be considered not very learned.

Bali Mahārāja knew that Indra, King of heaven, was extremely powerful, certainly more powerful than he himself. Nonetheless, Bali Mahārāja challenged Indra by saying that Indra was not a very learned person. In Bhagavad-gītā (2.11) Kṛṣṇa rebuked Arjuna by saying:

SB 8.12.34, Purport:

"One should not stay in a solitary place with a woman, even if she be his mother, sister or daughter, for the senses are so uncontrollably powerful that in the presence of a woman one may become agitated, even if he is very learned and advanced." (SB 9.19.17)

SB 8.16.53, Translation:

One should satisfy the spiritual master (ācārya), who is very learned in Vedic literature, and should satisfy his assistant priests (known as hotā, udgātā, adhvaryu and brahma). One should please them by offering them clothing, ornaments and cows. This is the ceremony called viṣṇu-ārādhana, or worship of Lord Viṣṇu.

SB 8.19.33, Purport:

Bali Mahārāja might argue that he had promised only three steps of land. But Śukrācārya, being a very learned brāhmaṇa, immediately understood that this was a plan of Hari, who had falsely appeared there as a brahmacārī. The words mūḍha vartiṣyase katham reveal that Śukrācārya was a brāhmaṇa of the priestly class. Such priestly brāhmaṇas are mostly interested in receiving remuneration from their disciples. Therefore when Śukrācārya saw that Bali Mahārāja had risked all of his possessions, he understood that this would cause havoc not only to the King but also to the family of Śukrācārya, who was dependent on Mahārāja Bali's mercy. This is the difference between a Vaiṣṇava and a smārta-brāhmaṇa. A smārta-brāhmaṇa is always interested in material profit, whereas a Vaiṣṇava is interested only in satisfying the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From the statement of Śukrācārya, it appears that he was in all respects a smārta-brāhmaṇa interested only in personal gain.

SB 8.20.3, Purport:

If one regularly executes such devotional service, he will certainly attain perfection in due course of time. But there are other devotees, who may not have undergone all the required details of devotional service but who, by the special mercy of guru and Kṛṣṇa—the spiritual master and the Supreme Personality of Godhead—have immediately attained the perfection of pure devotional service. Examples of such devotees are the yajña-patnīs, Mahārāja Bali and Śukadeva Gosvāmī. The yajña-patnīs were the wives of ordinary brāhmaṇas engaged in fruitive activities. Although the brāhmaṇas were very learned and advanced in Vedic knowledge, they could not achieve the mercy of Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma, whereas their wives achieved complete perfection in devotional service, despite their being women. Similarly, Vairocani, Bali Mahārāja, received the mercy of Prahlāda Mahārāja, and by Prahlāda Mahārāja's mercy he also received the mercy of Lord Viṣṇu, who appeared before him as a brahmacārī beggar. Thus Bali Mahārāja became a kṛpā-siddha because of the special mercy of both guru and Kṛṣṇa. Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms this favor: guru-kṛṣṇa-prasāde pāya bhakti-latā-bīja (CC Madhya 19.151). Bali Mahārāja, by the grace of Prahlāda Mahārāja, got the seed of devotional service, and when that seed developed, he achieved the ultimate fruit of that service, namely love of Godhead (premā pum-artho mahān), immediately upon the appearance of Lord Vāmanadeva. Bali Mahārāja regularly maintained devotion for the Lord, and because he was purified, the Lord appeared before him. Because of unalloyed love for the Lord, he then immediately decided, "I shall give this little dwarf brāhmaṇa whatever He asks from me." This is a sign of love. Thus Bali Mahārāja is understood to be one who received the highest perfection of devotional service by special mercy.

SB Canto 9

SB 9.4.21, Purport:

People are very much anxious to live in peace and prosperity in this material world, and here in Bhagavad-gītā the peace formula is given personally by the Supreme Personality of Godhead: everyone should understand that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the ultimate proprietor of all the planets and is therefore the enjoyer of all activities, political, social, cultural, religious, economic and so on. The Lord has given perfect advice in Bhagavad-gītā, and Ambarīṣa Mahārāja, as the ideal executive head, ruled the entire world as a Vaiṣṇava, taking advice from Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇas. The śāstras enjoin that even though a brāhmaṇa may be well versed in the occupational brahminical duties and may be very learned in Vedic knowledge, he cannot give advice as a guru until he is a Vaiṣṇava.

SB 9.4.70, Purport:

It is said that a jewel is very valuable, but when it is on the hood of a serpent, it is dangerous despite its value. Similarly, when a materialistic nondevotee achieves great success in learning and austerity, that success is dangerous for all of society. So-called learned scientists, for example, invented atomic weapons that are dangerous for all humanity. It is therefore said, maṇinā bhūṣitaḥ sarpaḥ kim asau na bhayaṅkaraḥ. A serpent with a jewel on its hood is as dangerous as a serpent without such a jewel. Durvāsā Muni was a very learned brāhmaṇa equipped with mystic power, but because he was not a gentleman, he did not know how to use his power. He was therefore extremely dangerous. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is never inclined toward a dangerous person who uses his mystic power for some personal design. By the laws of nature, therefore, such misuse of power is ultimately dangerous not for society but for the person who misuses it.

SB 9.5.20, Purport:

Such is the mistaken observation of a Vaiṣṇava. When Durvāsā Muni was persecuted by the Sudarśana cakra, however, his intelligence developed. Therefore the word ātma-medhasā is used to indicate that by his personal experience he would understand how great a Vaiṣṇava the King was. When Durvāsā Muni was chased by the Sudarśana cakra, he wanted to take shelter of Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva, and he was even able to go to the spiritual world, meet the Personality of Godhead and talk with Him face to face, yet he was unable to be rescued from the attack of the Sudarśana cakra. Thus he could understand the influence of a Vaiṣṇava by personal experience. Durvāsā Muni was certainly a great yogī and a very learned brāhmaṇa, but despite his being a real yogī he was unable to understand the influence of a Vaiṣṇava. Therefore it is said, vaiṣṇavera kriyā mudrā vijñeha nā bujhaya: even the most learned person cannot understand the value of a Vaiṣṇava. There is always a possibility for so-called jñānīs and yogīs to be mistaken when studying the character of a Vaiṣṇava. A Vaiṣṇava can be understood by how much he is favored by the Supreme Personality of Godhead in terms of his inconceivable activities.

SB 9.20.36, Purport:

The sex impulse is so strong in this material world that even Bṛhaspati, who is supposed to be the priest of the demigods and a very learned scholar, wanted to have a sexual relationship with his brother's pregnant wife. This can happen even in the society of the higher demigods, so what to speak of human society? The sex impulse is so strong that it can agitate even a learned personality like Bṛhaspati.