|
|
Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| {{terms|"God is zero"}} | | {{terms|"God is zero"}} |
| {{notes|}} | | {{notes|}} |
| {{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}} | | {{compiler|MadhuGopaldas|Labangalatika}} |
| {{complete|ALL}} | | {{complete|ALL}} |
| {{first|29Jan10}} | | {{first|29Jan10}} |
| {{last|29Jan10}} | | {{last|04Nov11}} |
| {{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=5|Con=2|Let=0}} | | {{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=5|Con=2|Let=0}} |
| {{total|7}} | | {{total|7}} |
| {{toc right}} | | {{toc right}} |
| [[Category:God]] | | [[Category:God Is Zero]] |
| [[Category:Zero]] | | [[Category:Zero|2]] |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2> | | <div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2> |
Line 18: |
Line 18: |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <div id="LectureonBG61315LosAngelesFebruary161969_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="214" link="Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969" link_text="Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969"> | | <div id="LectureonBG61315LosAngelesFebruary161969_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="214" link="Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969" link_text="Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969"> |
| <div class="heading">If God is zero, then how from zero so many, I mean to say, figures coming out? God is zero. | | <div class="heading">It is said, "My dear Lord, a person who has received a little favor from You, he can understand You very quickly. And others who are trying to understand You by the ascending process, they may go on speculating for millions of years, they will never understand." They will never understand. They will come to the point of frustration and confusion. "Oh, God is zero." That's all, finished. If God is zero, then how from zero so many, I mean to say, figures coming out? |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969|Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">One process is to understand by the ascending process. And another process is the descending process. Just like in darkness, if you try to understand what is sun by ascending process, by flying your very powerful airplane or sputniks, just go round over the sky, you cannot see. But the descending process, when the sun rises, you understand immediately. Ascending process—my endeavor, what is called inductive process. Inductive process. Just like my father says that man is mortal. I accept it. Now if you want to study whether man is mortal, you study, you see many thousands of men, whether he is immortal or mortal. That will take so much time. But if you take the knowledge from the superior authority, that man is mortal, your knowledge is complete.</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969|Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">One process is to understand by the ascending process. And another process is the descending process. Just like in darkness, if you try to understand what is sun by ascending process, by flying your very powerful airplane or sputniks, just go round over the sky, you cannot see. But the descending process, when the sun rises, you understand immediately. Ascending process—my endeavor, what is called inductive process. Inductive process. Just like my father says that man is mortal. I accept it. Now if you want to study whether man is mortal, you study, you see many thousands of men, whether he is immortal or mortal. That will take so much time. But if you take the knowledge from the superior authority, that man is mortal, your knowledge is complete.</p> |
Line 29: |
Line 29: |
| <div class="heading">These śūnyavādīs, the Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero. They will say, "Yes, there is God, but He's handless, legless, eyeless, this-less, that-less, that less." What is the meaning? Say zero. We can understand. But why you say indirectly zero? | | <div class="heading">These śūnyavādīs, the Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero. They will say, "Yes, there is God, but He's handless, legless, eyeless, this-less, that-less, that less." What is the meaning? Say zero. We can understand. But why you say indirectly zero? |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976|Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So what is the use of approaching a guru who is offender to Kṛṣṇa? Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu ([[Vanisource:BG 16.19|BG 16.19]])—those who are envious... Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1), and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero. Why don't you say zero? No. They are very careful. These śūnyavādīs, the Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero. They will say, "Yes, there is God, but He's handless, legless, eyeless, this-less, that-less, that less." What is the meaning? Say zero. We can understand. But why you say indirectly zero? Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. Nāstika means one who does not believe in the statement of the Vedas. He's nāstika, atheist. Just like here, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Kṛṣṇa is person. This is Vedic literature. Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa is person, aham. Always He says. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65|BG 18.65]]). Sarva-dharmān parityajya ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66|BG 18.66]]). He's person.</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976|Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So what is the use of approaching a guru who is offender to Kṛṣṇa? Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu ([[Vanisource:BG 16.19 (1972)|BG 16.19]])—those who are envious... Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1), and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero. Why don't you say zero? No. They are very careful. These śūnyavādīs, the Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero. They will say, "Yes, there is God, but He's handless, legless, eyeless, this-less, that-less, that less." What is the meaning? Say zero. We can understand. But why you say indirectly zero? Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. Nāstika means one who does not believe in the statement of the Vedas. He's nāstika, atheist. Just like here, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Kṛṣṇa is person. This is Vedic literature. Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa is person, aham. Always He says. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65 (1972)|BG 18.65]]). Sarva-dharmān parityajya ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]). He's person.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 35: |
Line 35: |
| <div class="heading">"God is imperson. God is zero"—what is this nonsense God? If our great conception, king or president, we understand is a great personality, if in this tiny material world in one corner of this planet there is a big president like Nixon and he has got secretary, his staff, his this and that, so many things, and why God should be without any associates, nirākāra, nirviśeṣa, zero? What kind of God? He must be associated with so many associates. | | <div class="heading">"God is imperson. God is zero"—what is this nonsense God? If our great conception, king or president, we understand is a great personality, if in this tiny material world in one corner of this planet there is a big president like Nixon and he has got secretary, his staff, his this and that, so many things, and why God should be without any associates, nirākāra, nirviśeṣa, zero? What kind of God? He must be associated with so many associates. |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 2.9.11-15 -- Tokyo, April 28, 1972|Lecture on SB 2.9.11-15 -- Tokyo, April 28, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">There must be symptoms of God, sarva-śaktimān, with all potency, aiśvaryasya, all riches, aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya, with all strength. If He has all strength, is it very difficult for Him to raise a hill on the finger if He has got all strength? That is the definition of God, all-powerful. So why should I deny that "Ah, this is all story"? It is not story. It is fact. If He is all-powerful, what is the difficulty for Him to lift a mountain? If He is all-strong, then where is the difficulty to maintain sixteen thousand wives? Why sixteen thousand? If He maintains sixteen millions of wives, still, it is insufficient. Because if we say "All potency, all-powerful, all-good," then to maintain sixteen thousand wives with sixteen thousand palaces and all the palaces made of first-class marble and gold and jewels, and the furnitures are made of ivory... These are description. That is God. Why we shall accept a nonsense God simply having a big beard or some...? You see? No. We don't accept. We accept real God. What is the purport?</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 2.9.11-15 -- Tokyo, April 28, 1972|Lecture on SB 2.9.11-15 -- Tokyo, April 28, 1972]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: There must be symptoms of God, sarva-śaktimān, with all potency, aiśvaryasya, all riches, aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya, with all strength. If He has all strength, is it very difficult for Him to raise a hill on the finger if He has got all strength? That is the definition of God, all-powerful. So why should I deny that "Ah, this is all story"? It is not story. It is fact. If He is all-powerful, what is the difficulty for Him to lift a mountain? If He is all-strong, then where is the difficulty to maintain sixteen thousand wives? Why sixteen thousand? If He maintains sixteen millions of wives, still, it is insufficient. Because if we say "All potency, all-powerful, all-good," then to maintain sixteen thousand wives with sixteen thousand palaces and all the palaces made of first-class marble and gold and jewels, and the furnitures are made of ivory... These are description. That is God. Why we shall accept a nonsense God simply having a big beard or some...? You see? No. We don't accept. We accept real God. What is the purport?</p> |
| <p>Pradyumna: "When we speak of the king, it is naturally understood that the king is accompanied by his confidential associates like his secretary, private secretary, aide-de-camp, ministers, advisors, etc."</p> | | <p>Pradyumna: "When we speak of the king, it is naturally understood that the king is accompanied by his confidential associates like his secretary, private secretary, aide-de-camp, ministers, advisors, etc."</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: Otherwise what is the meaning of king? "God is imperson. God is zero"—what is this nonsense God? If our great conception, king or president, we understand is a great personality, if in this tiny material world in one corner of this planet there is a big president like Nixon and he has got secretary, his staff, his this and that, so many things, and why God should be without any associates, nirākāra, nirviśeṣa, zero? What kind of God? He must be associated with so many associates.</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: Otherwise what is the meaning of king? "God is imperson. God is zero"—what is this nonsense God? If our great conception, king or president, we understand is a great personality, if in this tiny material world in one corner of this planet there is a big president like Nixon and he has got secretary, his staff, his this and that, so many things, and why God should be without any associates, nirākāra, nirviśeṣa, zero? What kind of God? He must be associated with so many associates.</p> |
Line 44: |
Line 44: |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.9.3 -- Mayapur, February 17, 1977|Lecture on SB 7.9.3 -- Mayapur, February 17, 1977]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Only through bhakti you can approach, you can talk with God on equal level just like friend. The cowherd boys, they were treating Kṛṣṇa on the same status: "Kṛṣṇa is like us." But they loved Kṛṣṇa very, very intensely. That is their qualification. Therefore Kṛṣṇa sometimes agreed to take the cowherd boys on His shoulder. So this is the... Kṛṣṇa wants that, that "My bhakta... Be My bhakta and control Me. Everyone worships Me with awe and veneration. I want somebody should come forward and control Me." That He wants. Therefore He has accepted mother Yaśodā to control Him. How God can be controlled? Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). He's the supreme controller. Who can control Him? It is not possible. But He agrees to be controlled by His pure devotee. He agrees, "Yes, mother, you control Me. You bind Me. You show Me your stick so that I may be afraid."</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.9.3 -- Mayapur, February 17, 1977|Lecture on SB 7.9.3 -- Mayapur, February 17, 1977]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Only through bhakti you can approach, you can talk with God on equal level just like friend. The cowherd boys, they were treating Kṛṣṇa on the same status: "Kṛṣṇa is like us." But they loved Kṛṣṇa very, very intensely. That is their qualification. Therefore Kṛṣṇa sometimes agreed to take the cowherd boys on His shoulder. So this is the... Kṛṣṇa wants that, that "My bhakta... Be My bhakta and control Me. Everyone worships Me with awe and veneration. I want somebody should come forward and control Me." That He wants. Therefore He has accepted mother Yaśodā to control Him. How God can be controlled? Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). He's the supreme controller. Who can control Him? It is not possible. But He agrees to be controlled by His pure devotee. He agrees, "Yes, mother, you control Me. You bind Me. You show Me your stick so that I may be afraid."</p> |
| <p>So everything is there. Don't think that God is zero. No. Śūnyavādi. Everything. Janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). Athāto brahma jijñāsā. You are inquiring about Brahman. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān ([[Vanisource:BG 10.12|BG 10.12]]). So there must be anger, not that God should be always peaceful. But the difference is His anger and His peaceful attitude produces the same result.</p> | | <p>So everything is there. Don't think that God is zero. No. Śūnyavādi. Everything. Janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). Athāto brahma jijñāsā. You are inquiring about Brahman. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān ([[Vanisource:BG 10.12-13 (1972)|BG 10.12]]). So there must be anger, not that God should be always peaceful. But the difference is His anger and His peaceful attitude produces the same result.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 66: |
Line 66: |
| <p>Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be.</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be.</p> |
| <p>Guest: Whatever it is...</p> | | <p>Guest: Whatever it is...</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: It is material. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, sarva dharmān parityajya ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66|BG 18.66]]). "Give up all these types of false religions." Mam ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja. That means come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Ekam, anyone. So unless one becomes fully Kṛṣṇa conscious, he's in trouble. (indistinct) And our difficulty is that when we want to convince a person on Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he thinks that I am Hindu, I am Christian, I am Mohammedan. I am trying to proselytize, that is (indistinct).</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: It is material. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, sarva dharmān parityajya ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]). "Give up all these types of false religions." Mam ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja. That means come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Ekam, anyone. So unless one becomes fully Kṛṣṇa conscious, he's in trouble. (indistinct) And our difficulty is that when we want to convince a person on Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he thinks that I am Hindu, I am Christian, I am Mohammedan. I am trying to proselytize, that is (indistinct).</p> |
| <p>Guest: No, it was not that I was really saying. Rather that what I have heard from others comes to the same thing as you were saying.</p> | | <p>Guest: No, it was not that I was really saying. Rather that what I have heard from others comes to the same thing as you were saying.</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: Others, if they try for the same thing, then it is alright. Because that type of religion, that system of religion, is first-class which teaches people to come to the platform of God consciousness, to love God, then that is first-class religious system. It doesn't matter what is the designation. (indistinct)</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: Others, if they try for the same thing, then it is alright. Because that type of religion, that system of religion, is first-class which teaches people to come to the platform of God consciousness, to love God, then that is first-class religious system. It doesn't matter what is the designation. (indistinct)</p> |