Kṛṣṇa says, teṣāṁ jñānī nitya-yuktaḥ. Jñānī is nitya-yukta. Jñānī is not a . . . he is not a jñānī, or man in knowledge, who is not eternally engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa. There are . . . there is a class of jñānī, impersonalist. They say that "Because to worship impersonal is very difficult for us, so imagine some form of God." They are not jñānī; they are fools. Oh, you cannot imagine the form of God. God is so great. That may be your imagination, but that is not the form of God. That is concoction. They are called iconographer. Iconographer.
There are two classes of men: iconoclast and iconographer. Those who imagine the form of God, they are not jñānī, they are iconographer. And those who think that "I have killed God" or "I have finished God," they are iconoclast. Just like in India we have experienced during British days, there were Hindu-Muslim riots. So the Hindus would go to the mosque of the Muslim and break it, and the Muslim would go the temples of the Hindus and break the idol. And they'll think that "We have finished Hindu's God." Just like Hindus also think, "Oh, we have broken their mosque; therefore I have broken their God." These are foolishness.
In another case . . . I have got experience. When there was, I mean to say, noncooperation movement of Gandhi's, the people became riotous, and they began to break anything government, especially the postboxes on the street.They thought by breaking the postboxes they are finishing the post office.
So these are foolishness. They are not jñānī. One who has got real conception of God, they have no quarrel with each other. All the history of religious fight, Hindu-Muslim or Christian–non-Christian, they are all ignorant. They are all ignorant. One who is in the knowledge, he knows that God is one. God cannot be Hindu. God cannot be Muslim. God cannot be Christian. God is God. He has no material qualification. It is our conception that "God is such and such, God is such and such." That is imagination. That is called iconographer.
So they are not jñānī. They are not man in knowledge. Man in knowledge is different. He knows that God is transcendental. Just like even Śaṅkarācārya, the impersonalist, he says, nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. And in this morning also we have discussed this point that one who knows God transcendental, above this material qualities, he knows.
So therefore Kṛṣṇa says here, priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham. The man who is actually in knowledge of the science of God is very dear to God. Priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham ahaṁ sa ca mama priyaḥ. That is the personal relationship with the devotee and God. The devotee, he does not know anything beyond God, and God also does not know anything beyond His devotee. So sweet relation.
God is always after me, as we have discussed many times, that He is sitting in the same tree, in this heart. I am sitting, and my friend, God, is also sitting, Supersoul, eternally. Wherever I am taking my transmigration, when I leave this body and enter into another body, oh, God also goes there just to see what I am doing. When I shall turn my face towards Him—He is simply waiting. And as soon as I turn my face towards God, oh, He says: "My dear son, come on." Sa ca mama priyaḥ. Lord says, "Oh, you are eternally dear to Me. Now you are turning your face to Me. So I am very glad."
So therefore jñānī—one who understands the science of God. Simply God, "God is good," that is also very good. But one should understand what is the . . . that science of God is Śrīmad-Bhāgavata . . . er, Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavata. Bhagavad-gītā is the preliminary study of the science of God. So anyone who is actually interested in God, they should study the science of God, Bhagavad-gītā. Vijñānam. Vijñānam means science. Jñānaṁ me parama-guhyaṁ, yad vijñāna-samanvitam (SB 2.9.31).
In the Bhāgavata there is a statement like this. Jñānam. Jñānam means knowledge. Parama-guhyam: very confidential, very subtle and confidential. Parama-guhyam. Yad vijñāna-samanvitam: which is full of scientific knowledge. Sa-rahasyam: it is full of mystery also. Jñānam me parama-guhyaṁ yad vijñāna-samanvitam, sa-rahasyaṁ tad-aṅgaṁ ca, and how to understand the different departmental knowledge of God. Gṛhāṇa gaditaṁ mayā: that knowledge can be imparted by God Himself.
You cannot manufacture the knowledge of God. As . . . as you discover some scientific knowledge of this material world, similarly, you cannot discover God by such knowledge. That is not possible. The knowledge of God can be had when it is explained by God Himself or a bona fide representative of God. That is the process. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find:
- yadā yadā hi dharmasya
- glānir bhavati bhārata
- abhyutthānam adharmasya
- tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham
- (BG 4.7)
"Whenever there is discrepancy in the matter of understanding the science of God, at that time I incarnate Myself." Because the whole system is like that, that it is an opportunity to the conditioned soul to recoup themselves to come back to God. This whole material creation is there, manifestation is there, to give the conditioned soul an opportunity to recoup himself and to understand what is his relationship with God and come back to God.
So anyone who is very much inquisitive and, at the same time, eager to understand his relationship with God, he is called a jñānī, a man in knowledge, and he is very dear to Kṛṣṇa. It is not a sentiment. By sentiment you talk some nonsense. That is not bhakti. That is not devotion. Devotion is not sentiment, it is a science. Rūpa Gosvāmī says:
- śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-
- pañcarātra-vidhiṁ vinā
- aikāntikī harer bhaktir
- utpātāyaiva kalpate
- (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.101)
He says that "A show of devotion, a show of spiritual," I mean to say, spirituality, "a show of devotion, a show of spirituality, without reference to the Vedic knowledge, śruti, smṛti, and corollaries to the Vedas," pañcarātra-vidhim, "and the definition of bhakti-sūtras like Nārada-bhakti-sūtra and such authoritative books," aikāntikī harer bhaktiḥ, "if a man is showing himself that he is very great devotee and a man in knowledge, without any reference of the authoritative śāstra, books—oh, that is simply disturbance," utpāta. Utpāta means disturbance.
A man showing that he is a great devotee, he's great man of knowledge, but he has no reference with the books of knowledge, or the authoritative books, oh, that is simply creating disturbance. That is not religiosity, neither devotion, nothing else.
So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness is a science. You have to take it scientifically, as they are described in the authoritative books, and test it by your reason and argument and knowledge, and follow it. It is science. It is not sentiment. Whatever we are doing here, the dancing, singing and everything, that is all scientific.
Simply you have to understand it. Therefore jñānī, only a person who is in knowledge, who is in knowledge of the science of Kṛṣṇa, he can make an rapid advancement, and he is very dear to Kṛṣṇa. Because slow but sure, he is making sure progress. It is no sentiment. So jñānī.