Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Argue (Lectures, SB)

Expressions researched:
"argue" |"argued" |"arguer" |"argues" |"arguing"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: argue or argued or argues or arguing or arguer not "may argue*"@ 5 not "might argue"@4

Lectures

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.2.3 -- London, August 24, 1971:

Pradyumna: "Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on this cream. Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī was a thoroughly realized master of the Vedānta-sūtra, and consequently he also personally realized the commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And just to show his boundless mercy upon bewildered materialistic men who want to cross completely over nescience, he recited for the first time this confidential knowledge. There is no point in arguing that a materialistic man can be happy. No materialistic creature, be he the great Brahmā or an insignificant ant, can be happy. Everyone tries to make a permanent plan for happiness, but everyone is baffled by the laws of material nature. Therefore the materialistic world is called the darkest region of God's creation. Yet the unhappy materialists can get out of it simply by desiring to get out. Unfortunately they are so foolish that they do not want to escape."

Prabhupāda: They do not know that there is escape. They think this is all. This is their education. They have no knowledge. Although they are suffering in every step, they are making plan in their own way within this material world. Just like the UNESCO and so many others, all nation attempts are there. They are planning within this... That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as carvita-carvaṇānām. Carvita means chewing the chewed. They see that our previous leaders, they also did like this; it was not successful. Still they are going on in different way. That is not the way. Actually, if you are really anxious to become free from the conditional life, then you have to take to adhyātma-śāstra. You have to take knowledge from spiritual sources. Go on.

Lecture on SB 1.2.5 -- Melbourne, April 3, 1972, Lecture at Christian Monastery:

So this verse I am just now quoting is the verse given by Sūta Gosvāmī, the president of the meeting. In that meeting many learned scholars, brāhmaṇas, they assembled to discuss about Kṛṣṇa. The question was that "After departure of Kṛṣṇa from this planet, dharma and jñāna"—dharma means religious principles, and jñāna means knowledge—"these two things, who has taken care of them?" Dharma-jñānādibhiḥ saha. Actually, human society should be concerned with two things: dharma and jñāna. Dharma means the characteristic. The meaning of dharma translated in English is not adequate. Dharma means which cannot be given up. The so-called dharma, or religion... Suppose I am Hindu and somebody is Christian. This is called faith. The dictionary meaning is: "Religion is faith." So faith can be changed. "I believe in Christian religion." So it can be changed next day—I accept Hindu religion or Muslim religion. But actually, dharma cannot be changed. The example is given: just like water. The characteristic of water is liquidity. So you cannot change this quality of water, liquidity. Similarly, stone is solid. You cannot change the quality of solid. This unchangeable quality is called dharma. That is really Sanskrit significance. Now, you can argue that water sometimes becomes solid, ice. That is conditional. Under certain conditions, the water becomes solid, but immediately it begins to become liquid. It melts. The tendency is to melt, not to keep solidity. So this consistency of keeping water in liquid form is called dharma.

Lecture on SB 1.2.5 -- New Vrindaban, September 4, 1972:

Just like water is liquid. You cannot change water to become solid. You can say, argue, that water sometimes becomes solid, ice. But that is not its natural condition. That is artificial. By the temperature going down artificially, it becomes solid. But at the same time, it begins to become liquid. The ice does not remain solid. From the solidification, after refrigeration, it becomes to, become liquid because that is its natural state. So that... As liquidity is natural state of water, similarly, dharma is our natural state, the living entity. The living entity being part and parcel of God, it has got a natural position. Natural position. Just like the finger is the part and parcel of your body. It has got a natural position. The natural position is that finger, as you wish to work, the finger works, serves you. The different parts of your body, limbs, they are meant for serving the whole body. The finger catches a nice foodstuff, cake, but the finger does not use it. The finger takes it to the mouth. That means finger serves the body. Similarly, dharma means the living entity, being part and parcel of God, the living entity must serve God. That is dharma. That service attitude is there in every living entity, but somebody is serving himself, somebody is serving his family, somebody is serving his society, somebody is serving his country. In this way service is there. If somebody has nobody to serve, he takes a dog, a cat, and serves it.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Vrndavana, October 17, 1972:

So the Vedas, why one should follow? Just like Vedas says you marry. People will argue, "What is the difference of sex life, marrying or not marrying? Why it is Vedas?" No. They do not know the purpose of the Vedas. The purpose of Vedas is to gradually, to bring him to the point of nivṛtti. Nivṛtti, he has to make. When he has got a slight desire for material enjoyment, he'll have to accept another body. Therefore nivṛtti is required. But one cannot come to the point of nivṛtti all of a sudden. Therefore Vedic injunction is gradually bring him to the nivṛtti-mārga.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Hyderabad, November 26, 1972:

That is Vedic understanding. Those who are followers of Vedas, they will not argue. Whatever is stated in the Vedas, they will accept. That is Vedic. There are many examples, I can give one example. Just like in the Vedas it is stated that the stool of animal is impure. And if one touches stool, he must take bathing. But in the Vedas it is also stated that the cow dung, which is also the stool of an animal, that is pure. And still, at least those who are Vedic followers, they take cow dung as pure. Anywhere impure, they smear with cow dung. And that is fact also. Cow dung is full of antiseptic properties. It has been analyzed. So the Vedas gives us injunction both ways that stool is impure but this stool is pure. And those who are followers of Vedas, they accept both. When they touch the stool of another animal they take bathing, but the stool of cow is taken to the Deity worship room. Similarly, śaṅkha, conchshell. Conchshell is the bone of an animal. It is said that if you touch the bone of a dead animal you have to, you become impure. But conchshell is also the bone of an animal, it is taken to the Deity room for vibrating. Therefore, there are so many things which is beyond our perception, knowledge, we have to take shelter of the Vedic injunctions. That is called Vedic. Therefore our method, Vedic method, is as soon as we speak something, we immediately give evidence from the Vedas. Then it is perfect. There is no question of arguing. Just like in the law court the lawyer pleading something, but if he gives quotation from previous judgement and section of law, it is accepted. So the forms of the ātma, there are three kinds of forms—one you can see directly, this bodily form, another you can simply perceive, and another you can accept only on the Vedic injunctions. But there are forms. So is that right? Thank you. Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- London, July 23, 1973:

You can ask questions, after you have fully surrendered, not before that. Don't waste your time. It will not act. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna was talking with Kṛṣṇa like friends. When Arjuna said, "Oh, the other side, they are all my kinsmen. How can I kill them? Oh, it is not possible," Kṛṣṇa said, "No, you are kṣatriya. It is your duty to fight. It doesn't matter the other party is your own kinsmen." Ordinary question, answers. In this way, questions and answer, questions and answer were going on. But at last, when by such questions and answers, friendly talk, nothing was solved, then Arjuna said, śiṣyas te haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam: (BG 2.7) "My dear Kṛṣṇa, in this way the problem will not be solved. I am becoming Your disciple. I am not talking anymore as friend." Śiṣyas te 'ham: "I become Your disciple." Because you cannot argue with guru. That is praṇipāta.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- London, July 23, 1973:

Therefore we must have a guru where exact knowledge is coming, without any mistake. Because we cannot argue. So we must find out such guru, where perfect knowledge is coming. Just like... Therefore guru is... Ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyāt. Guru must be perfect representative of Kṛṣṇa. So ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyān nāvamanyeta karhicit: (SB 11.17.27) "Do not neglect the ācārya." Na martya-buddhyā: "Don't consider him as ordinary human being." Asūyeta. If he sometimes chastises you, don't be envious: "Oh he is also man, I am also man. Why he is talking like that?" No. Nāsūyeta martya-buddhyā. These are the instructions. This is called praṇipāta. So Arjuna accepted this process, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam: "My dear Kṛṣṇa, now, from this moment, I am Your śiṣya. I am Your śiṣya. I become Your disciple. Now You teach me." The Bhagavad-gītā was taught to Arjuna, because he became a śiṣya.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974:

That I have given you several times the example. Just like the cow dung is the stool of an animal, but the Vedic literature confirms that cow dung is pure. Now, you cannot argue, "It is stool of an animal. In one place you have condemned that if you touch the stool of an animal, you have to take bath thrice, and now you say cow dung, which is also stool of an animal, it is pure. Where is your argument?" You have to accept. That is called theism. Because the Vedas says, without any argument, you accept it. That is called theism. You cannot change. You cannot comment. That is called theism. Āstikyam. Brahma-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.42). And unless you have got such faith in the Vedic knowledge, you cannot make any progress. That is not possible. If you, with your poor fund of knowledge, you want to interpret, from the very beginning there is no question of progress.

Lecture on SB 1.2.17 -- San Francisco, March 25, 1967:

You require the water as it is. Then your thirst will be satisfied. But in the transcendental, in the absolute world, there is no such difference. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's name and Kṛṣṇa's words and Kṛṣṇa's qualities, Kṛṣṇa's pastimes—everything is Kṛṣṇa. Somebody, some people argues that "Arjuna was talking with Kṛṣṇa. So Kṛṣṇa was present before him, whereas my case, Kṛṣṇa is not present. So how I can get direction?" That is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa is present by His words, this Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa... Therefore the system is... Of course, here we don't find such facilities, but India, when we speak on the Bhagavad-gītā, or on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, we worship regularly with flower, with other paraphernalia required for worshiping. You see? In the Sikh religion they also, they have no deity, form of the deity, but they worship the book, grantha-sevā. Perhaps some of you who are acquainted with the Sikh community, they, they worship this grantha. Similarly, the Muhammadans also, they worship the Koran. And similarly, in your Christian also, you worship Bible.

Lecture on SB 1.2.18 -- Vrndavana, October 29, 1972:

Why? Hari-kathā. "He may be whatever he may be, but he's speaking Bhāgavata. What is the harm to hear from him?" One can argue like that. No, Sanātana Gosvāmī says, "Yes, sarpocchiṣṭaṁ yathā payaḥ. Milk is amṛta, nice, but as soon as it is touched by the tongue of a serpent, it is, it is poison." Sarpocchiṣṭaṁ yathā payaḥ. He has given this very example. Milk is very nice, undoubtedly. Everyone will agree. But as soon as it is touched by the lip of a serpent, you cannot drink it. Then you'll die. Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu has also warned like that, that māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa (CC Madhya 6.169). If you hear from a Māyāvādī who misinterprets things according to their whims, so then you'll be spoiled. You'll not get any benefit. And Svarūpa Dāmodara, secretary of Lord Caitanya, he has also the same thing, that bhāgavata paro giya bhāgavata sthāne. Those who are practical bhāgavata, life bhāgavata, from them, from him try to understand Bhāgavata.

Lecture on SB 1.2.21 -- Vrndavana, November 1, 1972:

So there is no question that a devotee will remain in darkness. Sometimes it is argued that mostly devotees are not very much educated. It doesn't matter. This external, academic education has no value for spiritual advancement. So here it is said, ahaṁ nāśayāmy ātma-bhāvasthaḥ. Kṛṣṇa is within everyone, and if every, anyone is purified, Kṛṣṇa takes charge and He instructs. And who can be greater instructor than Kṛṣṇa? Therefore it is wrong theory that devotees are ignorant. They're full of knowledge. If one is actually a devotee, there is no lack of knowledge. That's a fact.

Lecture on SB 1.2.22 -- Los Angeles, August 25, 1972:

So "therefore." The word is "therefore." "Therefore" means after concluding something, then we say "therefore." When we talk, when we argue, when we come to the conclusion, then we say "therefore." Or when our argument is strong, then we say "therefore." So this "therefore" means that one is firmly convinced. As it is described in the previous verse, bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś chidyante sarva-saṁśayāḥ. Sarva-saṁśayāḥ. Saṁśaya means doubtfulness.

Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Los Angeles, August 28, 1972:

So this adhokṣajam, Kṛṣṇa, we have to worship. Adhokṣaja. So we cannot see if it is beyond our sense perception. How we can worship Him? Therefore you have to take shelter of the spiritual master who has seen Him. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). You try to approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead by surrender. Praṇipātena, paripraśnena. First of all, surrender. Not asking before surrender. This is not allowed. If one is not surrendered, then he should not put any question, because the first principle is lost. First of all you must surrender, then put question. And when you put question, don't argue. Take it. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna was putting... When Arjuna surrendered himself to Kṛṣṇa, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam: (BG 2.7) "Now I become..." Because in the beginning he was talking like friends. So friends' argument, there is no end. Because every one thinks that "I am your friend. Why shall I be defeated by you?" So that talk, sort of talks will not solve your problem how to see God. That is not possible. Therefore, you must follow the principles done by Arjuna. He surrendered to Kṛṣṇa: "Kṛṣṇa, I know You are my friend, but unless I surrender unto You, I accept You my spiritual master, it is not possible to know." Therefore he surrendered: śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam. Kṛṣṇa also immediately took him as disciple and immediately chastised him, aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase: (BG 2.11) "You're talking like a very learned scholar, but you're fool number one. You do not know what is knowledge."

Lecture on SB 1.3.27 -- Los Angeles, October 2, 1972:

This is the so-called scientists, philosophers. They have got a teeny brain, which they cannot accommodate so many big things. Therefore they disbelieve. And therefore they are nāstika. But every description in the Vedic literature, they are fact. That is called āstikyam, to have staunch faith. Our process is, therefore, whenever we speak something, we have to quote some Vedic version. Then it is corroborated. It is fact. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Vedas, Vedānta says, The Absolute Truth is that which is the origin, source of everything. There must be something, original source. Otherwise how things are coming? This conviction means faith. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja. So those who will argue, "Why shall I surrender to Kṛṣṇa?" But one who will accept, he becomes benefited.

Lecture on SB 1.3.28 -- Los Angeles, October 3, 1972:

So Kṛṣṇa is so powerful that even in the ordinary ways it looks sinful, but if it is actually done for Kṛṣṇa's sake... The same thing, Arjuna. He was thinking that "Killing of my family members, it is sinful." He argued with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore this Bhagavad-gītā is there. He was simply arguing that "I'll not fight. I'll not kill my grandfather, my teacher, my brother, my nephews, my brother-in-laws. No, no, I am not going to... It is sinful." But at the end he did it, because he understood, "Oh, it is for Kṛṣṇa. All right. I shall all, take all the risk. That's all right." So as Kṛṣṇa..., the devotee takes all the risk of life, similarly, Kṛṣṇa gives all the protection to the devotee. Don't be afraid.

Lecture on SB 1.3.29 -- Los Angeles, October 4, 1972:

So sometimes we mistake that Kṛṣṇa is also incarnation. No. He is not incarnation. He is the source of incarnation. Therefore in the last verse it has been clearly, ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. They are from Kṛṣṇa, not Kṛṣṇa is from them. Sometimes they argue that Kṛṣṇa is the incarnation of Viṣṇu, but that is not the fact. Viṣṇu is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. Now, there is no use arguing, because there is no difference between incarnation and the source of incarnation. The example is given: just like dīpārcir eva hi daśāntaram abhyupetya dīpāyate (Bs. 5.46). Just like you have got one thousand candles here. So first you light on one candle, then the second, the third, the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh—you go on increasing. So each candle is equal to another candle. So far candlepower light is concerned, there is no difference. The first candle and the second candle, although second candle is lit up from the first candle, but the power of light is the same, either in the first candle or in the second candle. Similarly, do not think that because Kṛṣṇa is the original candle and the next candle is Balarāma, or Rāma, that does not mean Balarāma, or Rāma, is less powerful than Kṛṣṇa. They are equally powerful. Dīpārcir eva hi daśāntaram abhyupetya dīpāyate vivṛta-hetu-samāna-dharmā (Bs. 5.46). There is no difference.

Lecture on SB 1.7.25 -- Vrndavana, September 22, 1976:

So Vaiṣṇava knows that "Here is Lord Buddha. He's Kṛṣṇa's avatāra," although we don't take his philosophy, because Buddha refused to accept Vedic authority. Nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam. Śruti means Veda. Śruti-jātam. In the śruti, in the Vedas, there is mention of paśu sacrifice, animal sacrifice, there is. So they began to argue with Lord Buddha that "You are stopping yajña-vidhi, stopping animal-killing in the yajña. This is mentioned in the Vedas." But Lord Buddha knew, "These rascals simply talking of Vedas, he does not know what is Vedas. But what is the use of arguing?" Therefore he has to say, "I don't care for your Vedas. Stop animal killing." So nindasi yajña-vidheḥ. Yajña-vidhi, he wanted to stop. No more animal sacrifice in the yajña. Therefore he is denying the authority of Vedas. Nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam. We cannot violate which is mentioned in the... Therefore he was taken... But he's avatāra. It was needed at that time.

Lecture on SB 1.7.25 -- Vrndavana, September 22, 1976:

When Arjuna wanted to become nonviolent, so He gave him instruction that "There is no question of nonviolence. You are talking like an anārya, uncivilized man." Kutas tvā kaśmalam idaṁ viṣame samupasthitam. "In warfield, and you are talking of nonviolence, rascal. There is no question of nonviolence. You have to fight." So he was still arguing. Then he finally said, "My dear Arjuna, you fight or don't fight. It doesn't matter. They are not going to return. They'll be finished here. That is My arrangement." He says, nimitta-mātraṁ bhava savyasācin: "They're not going to return." It is Kṛṣṇa's arrangement. He says,

yadā yadā hi dharmasya
glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya
tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham
(BG 4.7)

When people become too much sinful, too much godless, the world becomes overburdened, and there must be some machine to kill. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ahaṅkāra (BG 3.27). They are thinking independently. No independence. As soon as you become sinful, there is reaction immediately. Immediately there will be war, pestilence, famine, flu, and so on, so on.

Lecture on SB 1.7.43 -- Vrndavana, October 3, 1976:

This is ātmā, beginning. Asmin dehe. Within this body there is the soul. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe. Not the body is important. Body's nothing; it is dead matter. When Kṛṣṇa began His instruction and Arjuna was lamenting on the basis of this body... "If we kill our brothers their wives will be widowed and they'll be bhraṣṭācāra(?), the varṇa-saṅkara will be there." Everything he was calculating on the basis of this body. All politics, sociology, they are going on the basis of this body. But Kṛṣṇa, as soon as He was accepted by Arjuna as guru... Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam: (BG 2.7) "Now, Kṛṣṇa, I accept You as my guru. Not as friend." Because friendly talking is useless waste of time. He accepted Him as guru. When guru speaks, you cannot argue. That is not the process. You should accept a guru who is infallible. Otherwise it is useless. He accepted guru Kṛṣṇa because Kṛṣṇa is infallible. If we accept guru, a bogus guru, then it is no benefit. Guru means Kṛṣṇa's representative. Not that everyone can be guru.

Lecture on SB 1.8.19 -- Mayapura, September 29, 1974:

So we have to follow the mahājano yena gataḥ... As Kuntī's advising. Kuntī is, she knows how to see Kṛṣṇa. She knows, "Here is Kṛṣṇa. Although He's playing the part of my brother's son, nephew, but actually, He's the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Just like Arjuna. Arjuna, he was talking like friend, but when he saw that "It is impossible to solve this problem... I am inclined not to fight and kill my relatives, but the duty is to kill them..." It is a very perplexed position. So therefore he accepted Kṛṣṇa as guru. He said that "I do not find anyone else who can solve my, this problem. Therefore Kṛṣṇa, I am surrendering unto You." Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). "Now we are not talking as friends. I accept You as guru." When one accepts somebody as guru, he cannot argue. That is the condition. Praṇipātena, sampūrṇa, fully surrendered. Otherwise there is no meaning of making a guru. It is not like that, a pet dog, that "Everyone makes guru, and let me guru, let me have a guru."

Lecture on SB 1.8.34 -- Mayapur, October 14, 1974:

So this is the Supreme Personality's omnipotency. He does not require the help of another woman to beget child. Even Brahmā, he has given birth to so many children not through woman but from his different parts of the body. So this we cannot conceive, because we are materially impeded. We cannot understand this is possible. So possibility and impossibility does not depend on our understanding. We have to take knowledge from the authority. Here, in the Vedic literature, we understand that Brahmā was born directly from the father. So we have to accept it. That is called Vedic knowledge. You cannot argue. That is possible. That is omnipotency. All potencies are there.

Lecture on SB 1.8.51 -- Los Angeles, May 13, 1973:

Anyway, the point is that Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, he, how responsible king, just think over. Arjuna was also thinking before fighting. He was arguing with Kṛṣṇa that "If I kill my brothers, all the my sister-in-laws, they'll be widow." And there was no such thing as widow-marriage in India. No. No widow can marry. Why? Because the woman population is greater than the man. If widow again marries, then the unmarried girl does not get chance to have another husband. Therefore there was no widow-marriage. Widow-marriage was especially allowed only when the girl did not see her husband at any time or she had no children. Formerly, in our days, younger days, although the girl was married at an early age, she was not allowed to see her husband unless she is grown-up fully. Unless she has attained puberty, she is not... She lives with her parents. But she knows that "I have got my husband." This consciousness is a great pleasure for a women psychologically, that "I have got husband." A very nice system. And when the girl grows up, puberty, then again another ceremony is taken. That is almost like second marriage. The girl goes to her husband, to live with her husband. This was the system.

Lecture on SB 1.15.21 -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1973:

That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, na vidur āsurā janāḥ, pravṛttiṁ ca nivṛttiṁ ca janā na vidur āsurāḥ (BG 16.7). Pravṛtti means we have got some inclination to accept something and we have disinclination to reject something. Everyone knows it. But the asuric jana, those who are asuras, demons, they do not know in which way we shall accept and in which way we shall reject. That they do not know. That is called āsura-jana. Just like we are advising our students, "Reject this: no illicit sex, no intoxication, no gambling, no meat-eating. Reject. And accept; chant Hare Kṛṣṇa." The demons, they do not know. They do not know it. They do not know why they are rejecting this and why they are accepting this, janā na vidur āsurāḥ. Because they are asuras. If we accept this path, then we are going to be liberated. What is that liberation? Liberation means to get out of this material bondage of body, dehino 'smin. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti (BG 4.9). This knowledge is wanting. There are so many universities, educational institution, big, big professors, scientists, all rascals. All rascals, we declare. Let them come and argue with us. All rascals. So therefore it is said, harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ.

Lecture on SB 1.15.22-23 -- Los Angeles, December 2, 1973:

So Vaiṣṇava is kind. Arjuna, he said, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, whatever they have done, that doesn't matter. I cannot kill my family men. Please excuse." So just see. Arjuna is kind because he is Vaiṣṇava. But Kṛṣṇa cannot tolerate. Kṛṣṇa said, "You must kill them. That is My order. You must kill them." Then he argued with Kṛṣṇa in so many ways: "There will be so much sin. There will be this, there will be that." Then He preached Bhagavad-gītā, and at last He said that "Arjuna, you are thinking that you shall, by not fighting, you shall be able to save your family men, kinsmen. That is not possible. That is not possible. They are already killed. It is all My plan. They will never return home. If you kill them, then you take the credit. But otherwise, they are already killed. And if you think that you will not kill them, they will be saved, that is not possible. That is not possible." Then Arjuna understood that "It is the determination of Kṛṣṇa that they must be killed. Then why shall I disobey His order? It is my business to serve Him. Yes, then I shall kill, if You have so decided."

Lecture on SB 1.15.27 -- New York, March 6, 1975:

Arjuna also did so. "My dear Kṛṣṇa, we are talking like friends. This will not solve the problem. Therefore I am submitting unto You as Your disciple." Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam. "I surrender unto You. Now You can teach me." Because as soon as you accept guru, you have to hear him, surrender, full surrender. You cannot unnecessarily argue. Of course, if there is any doubt, you can question submissively. But not that, "I shall test my guru, how he is learned." That will not help. One must surrender. So tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). Arjuna did that. Therefore Arjuna learned the Bhagavad-gītā, and it was always relief for him when he was perplexity. Haranti smarataś cittam. Haranti. What is that haranti? Hṛt-tāpa. Hṛt-tāpa, the blazing fire within the heart, within the core of the heart, immediately becomes minimized, haranti. Smarataś cittam. As soon as I remember, my consciousness, my heart, core of heart, becomes immediately relieved. How it is relieved? Why it is relieved? Govinda abhihitāni me: "Govinda instructed." Govinda means Kṛṣṇa. Govinda means Kṛṣṇa. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. Govinda.

Lecture on SB 1.15.42 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1973:
Therefore things which are beyond your speculation, don't try to argue. Don't be foolish. Don't be rascal. How you can? Because it is beyond your conception. There is no question of it. By argument, by speculation, by logic, you cannot understand what is soul, what is God. That is not possible. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Don't waste your time. So similarly, you do not know what is God by speculation. That is not possible. And religion means the science of God. Religion means the science of God. So how religion, you can understand that this is proper religion? Because you do not know God, neither it is possible to speculate on God, then how I shall accept religion? Just try to understand. Religion means the science of God. It is not a sentiment; it is science. So if you want to know that science... Therefore Vedic injunction is, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet: (MU 1.2.12) "In order to know that science knowledge, you must approach guru." That is practical. Even for material science, you go to school, college, to learn from the authority. How you can learn about God, about soul, without approaching a proper person who knows it?
Lecture on SB 1.16.8 -- Los Angeles, January 5, 1974:

Now if somebody argues that "Here is... A devotee is also dying." A devotee is also dying. How can I say that it is deathlessness? No, he does not know. Devotee is not dying. There is very good example. Just like a cat. He catches the rat and he catches his cub also. But these two kinds of catching is different. When the cat catches a rat, that rat means his, "Chi chi chi," means dying, actually dying. And the cab (cub), he is feeling very comfortable: "Meow, meow, meow." Because the same cat, catching, process is the same, but the feeling is different. So a devotee seemingly dying, he is not dying. He is going back to Kṛṣṇa. He is very pleased, "Now my labor is finished. I am going to Kṛṣṇa." That is his feeling. And others, they are crying, "Oh, this is my estate. This is my family. This is my, this is my, this is my... I am leaving. I do not want to leave it. What will happen to that?" He is crying. That is death. And this is not death.

Lecture on SB 1.16.11 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1974:

So here Parīkṣit Mahārāja, digvijayāya. Digvijaya. Vijaya means to own victory, conquering. Just like Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu argued with a digvijaya-paṇḍita. There were several kinds of digvijaya. A learned scholar also would travel all over the world and challenge the other scholars about philosophical discussion, literary credit, so many other fields of activities. So one digvijaya-paṇḍita came from Kashmir. He got victory all over India and then came to Navadvīpa, Nadia. Because Nadia, still there are many, many learned scholars, and in those days, it was simply full of learned scholars. Some of the Indian cities were famous for learned scholars, like Navadvīpa, Nadia, Vārāṇasī, and there were several places, in Garabanga,(?) in the southern India also, there is a place. So there were several places where different schools, Māyāvādīs... Chiefly there are two schools of transcendental subject matter, namely the Māyāvādī school and the Vaiṣṇavas. So Māyāvādīs, were there in Vārāṇasī, mostly. And Vaiṣṇavas also they have their place, especially in Navadvīpa, Vṛndāvana, like that. So one digvijaya-paṇḍita, Keśava Kāśmīrī, he also came to Navadvīpa. He got victory in all other cities, but when he came to Navadvīpa, he became defeated, because Caitanya Mahāprabhu was there.

Lecture on SB 1.16.11 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1974:

So here the same digvijaya. Digvijaya, for learned scholar, by arguing on śāstra, that is another kind of digvijaya. And digvijaya for kṣatriya, by subduing others who do not accept the authority. So here Parīkṣit Mahārāja went for digvijaya just to challenge all over the world, "Now I have been selected by my grandfather as the emperor of the world. If you do not accept my authority, then here is fight. Come on. Here is fight. Let us fight." So if by fight he becomes victorious... Just like in modern sporting also, there are rival parties, and ultimately, the party which defeats all other sportsmen, they get some reward, seal, or some cup. Similarly, this is also another type of digvijaya. Parīkṣit Mahārāja went out of home not king, simply drinking and enjoying the dancing of the young girls just like the Muhammadan kings when they deteriorated. Still there are so many fools. No. King's duty is to subdue the miscreants who will create disturbance. So Parīkṣit Mahārāja was such a nice, what is called, hero, that he got out of his home. Sva-senayā digvijayāya nirgataḥ. Nirgataḥ means went out of home, not simply enjoying comfortably at home. Similarly, for a preacher also, that is digvijaya. Go from country and country, from village to village, town to town, and make digvijaya: "Here is our philosophy. There is God. We can prove there is God. Who are you, you deny God? Come on." That is digvijaya.

Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974:

That is Malthus's theory also, that as soon as there is overpopulation, there must be something disturbance, war, pestilence, epidemic, and finished, finished. The extra population, unnecessary. Varṇa-saṅkara. They are called varṇa-saṅkara. Varṇa-saṅkara... Because by nature there must be brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra, by nature. That should be organized. Head is head, tail is tail, not that head, tail, everything is one. That is called varṇa-saṅkara. Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna has argued that if the family members... If the woman becomes widow, then there will be varṇa-saṅkara population. Varṇa-saṅkara population means a population who cannot say who is his father. That is varṇa-saṅkara. Or which caste does he belong, what is his father, what is his family. No, nothing, no information. That is called varṇa-saṅkara. So when the varṇa-saṅkara population increases, then the whole world becomes hell.

Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974:

So actually, everything is existing. We have to simply take the knowledge. The modern method is ascending process. The knowledge is there, but still, they are trying to understand it by āroha-panthā, ascending process. It is called inductive knowledge. Inductive knowledge means that... Suppose a man is mortal. So the so-called scientists, they are trying to discover the law, why man is mortal. They are studying, "This man is mortal, this man is mortal, this man is mortal. Therefore it is concluded that all men are mortal. Nobody is immortal." But another man will argue that "You have not studied all the human society. How you can conclude? Therefore we must study." So this study will go on for life after life. They will never come to a person who is immortal. But they will protest that "We cannot accept." But our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given.

Lecture on SB 2.3.18-19 -- Los Angeles, June 13, 1972:

Pradyumna: "Do the trees not live? Do the bellows of the blacksmith not breathe? All around us, do the beasts not eat and discharge semen? The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life or part of it is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments. Life is meant for the maximum duration of existence for eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, making merry and enjoying life. The modern man wants to live forever by the advancement of material science, and there are many foolish theories for prolonging life to the maximum duration. But the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam affirms that life is not meant for so-called economic development or advancement of materialistic science for the hedonistic philosophy of eating, mating, drinking and merry-making. Life is solely meant for tapasya, for purifying existence, so that one may enter into eternal life just after the end of the human form of life. The materialists want to prolong life as much as possible because they have no information of the next life.

Therefore they want to get the maximum comforts of life only in this present life, thinking conclusively that there is no life after death. This ignorance about the eternity of the living being and the change of covering in the material world has played havoc in the structure of the modern human society. Consequently there are many problems multiplied by various plans of modernized man. The plans for solving the problems of society have only aggravated the troubles. Even if it is possible to prolong life more than 100 years, advancement of human civilization does not necessarily follow. The Bhāgavatam says that certain trees live for hundreds and thousands of years. At Vṛndāvana there is a tamarind tree. The place is known as Imlitala, which is said to be existing since the time of Lord Kṛṣṇa. In the Calcutta Botanical Garden there is a banyan tree said to be older than 500 years, and there are many such trees all over the world. Svāmī Śaṅkarācārya lived only 32 years, and Lord Caitanya lived 48 years.

One may doubt that trees have life because they do not breathe, but modern scientists like Bose have already proved that there is life in plants, so breathing is no sign of actual life. The Bhāgavatam says that the bellows of the blacksmith breathe very soundly, but that does not mean that the bellows has life. The materialist will argue that life in the tree and life in the man cannot be compared because the tree cannot enjoy life by eating palatable dishes or by enjoying sexual intercourse. In reply to this, the Bhāgavatam asks whether other animals like the dogs and hogs living in the same village with human beings do not eat and enjoy sexual life. The specific utterance of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in this connection regarding other animals means that persons who are simply engaged in the matter of planning a better type of animal life consisting of eating, breathing, and mating are also animals in the shape of human beings. A society of such polished animals cannot benefit suffering humanity, for an animal can easily harm another animal but rarely do good."

Prabhupāda: So this is the situation. We have discussed in the previous verse that we are decreasing the span of life. The scientists will say, "No, we are making arrangement so that by science we shall make man immortal." Vikatate(?). When a man becomes mad, he speaks so many nonsense. Like a child. A child also speaks so many nonsense things, and the parents enjoy it. Similarly, the so-called scientist, when he says that "By scientific method, we shall stop death," so there is no evidence in the history of the human society that a man has not died. That cannot be. Hiraṇyakaśipu, he was also atheist and materialistic. He also tried to become immortal. And he made a plan, negative plan, to cheat Lord Brahmā that "I shall not die in this way, in this way, in that way, in this way, in that way." But still he was killed. Mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34). Kṛṣṇa says that "I am death, and at the time of death I take away everything." Sarva-haraś ca. So we cannot cheat God or His law.

Lecture on SB 2.3.18-19 -- Los Angeles, June 13, 1972:

Suppose you increase the duration span of life to a very extensive way. In reply to that, it is said that "What is the use of living for so many years?" If the life is not properly utilized ... Now, the living for many, many years, so the trees are also living, standing in one place, living for many years. In San Francisco we saw. They say that one tree, red tree, very tall, very stout and strong, and they said that this tree is standing there for seven hundreds of years. So what is the benefit? So we can argue that "You cannot compare with tree and us. Because we have got so many facilities." What facilities? That facility ... The tree's life ... That is life, admitting, but it cannot breathe. So immediately the answer is bhastrāḥ kiṁ na śvasanty uta. Bhastrāḥ, bellow ... You have seen big, big bellows in blacksmith shop. That is also made of skin. Just like our body is made of skin, that bellow is also made of skin, and it has got a big nose and breathing is coming, "bas, ghans, ghans, bas."

Lecture on SB 2.3.18-19 -- Bombay, March 23, 1977, At Cross Maidan Pandal:

"Do the trees not live? Do the bellows of the blacksmith not breathe? All around us, do the beasts not eat and discharge semen?" Purport by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Śrīla Prabhupāda. The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life, or part of it, is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments. Life is meant for the maximum duration of existence for eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, making merry and enjoying life. The modern man wants to live forever by the advancement of material science, and there are many foolish theories for prolonging life to the maximum duration. But the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam affirms that life is not meant for so-called economic development or advancement of materialistic science for the hedonistic philosophy of eating, mating, drinking and merrymaking. Life is solely meant for tapasya, for purifying existence so that one may enter into eternal life just after the end of the human form of life.

Lecture on SB 2.3.18-19 -- Bombay, March 23, 1977, At Cross Maidan Pandal:

One may doubt that trees have life because they do not breathe. But modern scientists like Bose have already proved that there is life in plants, so breathing is no sign of actual life. The Bhāgavatam says that the bellows of the blacksmith breathes very soundly, but that does not mean that the bellows has life. The materialist will argue that life in the tree and life in the man cannot be compared because the tree cannot enjoy life by eating palatable dishes or by enjoying sexual intercourse. In reply to this, the Bhāgavatam asks whether other animals like the dogs and hogs, living in the same village with human beings, do not eat and enjoy sexual life. The specific utterance of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in regard to "other animals" means that persons who are simply engaged in planning a better type of animal life consisting of eating, breathing and mating are also animals in the shape of human beings. A society of such polished animals cannot benefit suffering humanity, for an animal can easily harm another animal but rarely do good.

Lecture on SB 2.3.24 -- Los Angeles, June 22, 1972:

Now, if you, if you are a good logician, you can argue that "Stool of animal is impure. That is already said. Why you make 'The stool of cow is pure'?" Oh, but that's a fact. You analyze the stool of cow. You'll find it is full of antiseptic properties. That is Vedic knowledge. It gives you right knowledge. You cannot conclude that "Stool of animal is impure, so why this animal's stool can be pure?" No. Vedic knowledge is so perfect that you can accept it as it is and you'll be profited. You'll profit. In the Vedic knowledge, the viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam. The supreme goal is Viṣṇu. Oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ. This Ṛg Veda mantra. The, some rascals, scholars, so-called, they say, "These Vedas, these mantras, are some primitive. Now we are advanced. We shall create our own mantra." You see? This is going on. The primitive... Primitive, we have to study. Primitive means very, very old. So whether in the days gone by, people were actually happy or now they are happy?

Lecture on SB 3.25.28 -- Bombay, November 28, 1974:

If one is interested to know that science, then it is necessary to approach Just like Arjuna was busy, perturbed that he has to fight with his relatives, the other side, and they will be killed. And he was presenting so many problems that, If I kill my brothers, my sister-in-laws will become widow and they will be polluted, and there will be varṇa-saṅkara generation, then the whole world will be hell. In this way he was thinking, the immediate material problems, but when, after arguing with Kṛṣṇa, he could not find out any solution, then Arjuna submitted to Kṛṣṇa, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). "My dear Kṛṣṇa, now I don't want to talk with you as friend, because friendly talk, the talking will be very much, but there will be no benefit." Generally we do so. We talk with some person, some friend, without any duty, just to waste time. That is not the way. If you go and talk with some person, then you must derive some benefit. Gain should be there, otherwise simply waste of time. And it is the injunction of the śāstra that, unless one is submissive, the superior man should not talk, tad viddhi praṇipātena (BG 4.34), unless one is submissive he will not be able to accept the sublime instruction.

Lecture on SB 3.26.4 -- Bombay, December 16, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa, yadṛcchayaivopagatām abhyapadyata līlayā. Kṛṣṇa is līlā, and our coming here is not līlā. We are forced. We are forced. Karmaṇā daiva-netreṇa dehopapattaye (SB 3.31.1). Kṛṣṇa's body is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). Kṛṣṇa's body is not material. Even if we think it is material, still, it is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha. Just like one can argue that "Here is Kṛṣṇa's form. It is made of stone. How it is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha?" But if you know the nature of Kṛṣṇa, even He appears as stone, still He is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha. How? Because the stone is also energy of Kṛṣṇa. That is said in the Upaniṣad:

na tasya kāryaṁ karaṇaṁ ca vidyate
na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate
parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate...

(Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport)

So the stone is also another energy of Kṛṣṇa, another energy of Kṛṣṇa. And Śrī Kṛṣṇa is all-powerful. He can utilize His energy in anyway. He can utilize His energy in any way. Just like an electrician—he knows how to utilize electricity for the refrigerator and the heater, although the heating process is just opposite of the cooling process.

Lecture on SB 3.28.1 -- Honolulu, June 1, 1975:

So Kapiladeva is addressing His mother, nṛpātmaje: "My dear princess, the daughter of King..." He is not addressing her (His) mother as the wife of Kardama Muni. Because she would be little puffed up that "I am the daughter of king." So..., and Kapiladeva knew how to flatter woman. (chuckles) So he addressed her (His) mother, nṛpātmaje, "My dear daughter of king." She felt very much proud, "Yes, I am daughter of king." So "I will speak to you about the symptoms of yoga system." Yogasya lakṣaṇaṁ vakṣye sabījasya. With authorized statement. He is Bhagavān, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Whatever He speaks, that is authorized. You cannot argue, because for the..., for us, we are conditioned soul. We have got four defects—means we commit mistake, we become illusioned or bewildered, our senses are imperfect, and, because everything is imperfect, still we want to become teacher, that is cheating. I am imperfect. How can I teach? That is going on. A imperfect person is teaching about transcendental knowledge. Therefore people are being cheated. Our process is to take lesson from the perfect person and distribute it, just we are doing. Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means we are preaching what Kṛṣṇa has said, that's all. Not that we have manufactured something new. No. That is not our business. How I can manufacture? I am imperfect. How can I manufacture? But the spiritual master who follows the perfect teacher, he is perfect. He is perfect because whatever he is speaking, that is the statement of the perfect person.

Lecture on SB 3.28.21 -- Nairobi, November 1, 1975:

Therefore inviting. Kṛṣṇa is coming, inviting. We are also, on behalf of Kṛṣṇa, inviting. Na yatra bhāsayate sūryaḥ. So you come to that spiritual life. Yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṁ mama (BG 15.6). And what is? How you can go there? Very simple. Very simple. Kṛṣṇa has given you the simple program. What is that? Manmanā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru mām evaiṣyasi asaṁśayaḥ (BG 18.68). If you simply follow these four principles without arguing foolishly and rascally, manmanā bhava mad-bhakto (BG 18.65), these four principles. "Always think of Me," Kṛṣṇa says. Not I am saying, but Kṛṣṇa personally saying, man-mana bhava mad-bhakto: "Just become My devotee," and māṁ namaskuru, "worship Me." So it doesn't require any M.A., Ph.D. degrees. It doesn't require that Apratihatā. Bhakti is apratihatā, without any hindrance. Nobody can say that "Because I am poor," "Because I am uneducated," "Because I am black," "Because I am white"—no "because." Any condition of life, you can become a devotee and go back to home, back to This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. No material condition can check you. This is our movement.

Lecture on SB 5.5.3 -- Hyderabad, April 15, 1975:

I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly, "Do it," your first duty is to do that. You cannot argue, "Sir, you said me like this before." No, that is not your duty. What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. You cannot argue. Of course, Kṛṣṇa never said anything contradictory, but if when one thinks foolishly that Kṛṣṇa said something contradictory, no, that is not to be. You could not understand. So even though you could not understand, you take My direct orders now. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām e... (BG 18.66), that is your business. The master says like that, and the servant's business is to accept it as it is, without any argument. That's all right.

Lecture on SB 5.5.31 -- Vrndavana, November 18, 1976:

So we cannot understand what is a spiritual body at the present moment. We have to hear from the right source, Vedic knowledge. That is Vedic knowledge. Everything described about God, Kṛṣṇa, at the present moment is inconceivable. We cannot imagine. Long, long ago I was talking with one Ārya-samajī friend. So he did not believe that a lotus stem can grow on the navel of Viṣṇu and there is Brahmā born. Everyone says like that, "mythology." It is not mythology; it is fact. So I asked him that "Here we see one coconut tree, and about sixty feet above, there is coconut and there is water, there is pulp, and it is being carried from the ground. Where is the pipe? Where is the pump? How the water is there within the coconut? Can you explain?" So he could not explain. And I said that "Even in material things which is front of you, you cannot explain. How you will explain the spiritual position? How the lotus grown from the navel of...?" Therefore it should be accepted as inconceivable. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Don't try to argue; it is foolishness. It is inconceivable.

Lecture on SB 5.5.32 -- Vrndavana, November 19, 1976:

Haridāsa Ṭhākura, he was beaten in twenty-one bazaars regular with cane because he was Muhammadan, and in those days the Muhammadan kingdom was going on, Pathan ruling. So the Kazi, he saw that one Muhammadan, he has become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. So he called him so, that "With great fortune you became a Muhammadan, and now you are taking to Hinduism? You are so unfortunate?" So he could understand that "Here is a rascal. What I shall talk with him and argue with him?" He simply said, "Sir, it is... What is the fault there? Just like so many Hindus, they sometimes become Muhammadan, and suppose if I have become a Hindu, what is the wrong there?" So the Kazi took it very seriously: "Oh, you are answering? All right. Order him that you beat this man in twenty-one..., cane, caning." So Haridāsa Ṭhākura was beaten in public market. The idea was that beating, he would die. But he did not die. Then the, I mean to say, men who were given in charge to beat him, they became afraid, that "If this man is not dead, then the Kazi will take us very seriously that we have not beaten him seriously." So they began to flatter him, "Sir, unless you die, we'll be dead. Our life is in great danger." So Haridāsa Ṭhākura made a show of death, and he was brought before the Kazi that "Here, the body is dead."

Lecture on SB 5.5.32 -- Vrndavana, November 19, 1976:

So they are twelve mahājanas, and we have to follow these mahājanas. The Ṛṣabhadeva is also mahājana, and the greatest mahājana is Kṛṣṇa. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). Jana, jana means life, and mahājana, the supreme person. So mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Don't argue unnecessarily. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. You cannot come to conclusion by this method or that method. Just try to follow. Sādhu-mārga-anugamanam, ādau gurv-āśrayam sad-dharma-pṛcchā, sādhu-mārganugamanam. We have to follow the footprints of great saintly persons, devotees, mahājana. Here is Ṛṣabhadeva. But in the Kali-yuga it is not possible to imitate ājagara-vṛtti. It is not possible because we are already so weak. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayo manda-bhāgyā hy upadrutāḥ (SB 1.1.10). This is our position. We are very unfortunate. Every one of us, we are very bad, mandāḥ, bad habits. So it is not possible to imitate Ṛṣabhadeva or Haridāsa Ṭhākura. Don't imitate but try to follow. Anusaraṇa. Anukaraṇa is not good. Anukaraṇa means false imitation. That is called anukaraṇa. And anusaraṇa means to follow. Try to follow as far as possible.

Lecture on SB 6.1.1-4 -- Melbourne, May 20, 1975:

So Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that aśocyān anvaśocan. In the beginning Arjuna was arguing with Kṛṣṇa to support his decision that he would not fight, but he could not convince Kṛṣṇa very nicely. That he understood, that "Although I am speaking so many things, Kṛṣṇa is not changing. He is fixed up." Then he surrendered himself: "My dear Kṛṣṇa, we are now talking as friends. No, we shall talk now as master and disciple. You I accept You as my master." Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). He accepted Him as the master and he became disciple to understand Bhagavad-gītā. This is the way. If you have got your own opinion, you will never understand Bhagavad-gītā. You have to take lessons from the master. Although the book is there, for example I can give you. Suppose if you want to be a medical man, the books are available in the market. You can purchase and read and become a doctor. Is it possible? Is it possible that simply by reading books, purchasing from the market, I become a medical man? No. That is not possible.

Lecture on SB 6.1.3 -- Melbourne, May 22, 1975:

So our process of knowledge—you should take from the supreme authority. Then we save time for research work. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We take perfect knowledge from Kṛṣṇa. I may be imperfect. Just like child is imperfect, so I may be imperfect, you may be imperfect, but if you take the perfect knowledge from the supreme perfect, then your knowledge is perfect. That is the process. This is called avaroha-panthā, knowledge coming, deductive knowledge. So everything is there, and if you like to take advantage of this movement and make your life perfect, go back to home, back to Godhead, then fully utilize this center, our Melbourne center. Come here, read our books, and argue. Try to understand with your full knowledge, no blindly acceptance. There is reason. There is argument. There is philosophy. There is science. Everything is there. And if you accept that "Simply by chanting, I shall realize," that is also allowed. Both ways: if you accept this simple process, that "Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and realize God," that is also fact, and if you think, "What is this nonsense, chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa?" then you read books. Both ways we are prepared. Come and take advantage of this movement.

Lecture on SB 6.1.7 -- San Francisco, March 1, 1967:

So anyway, a child cannot understand, but when he grows up, he understands everything. So how Kṛṣṇa consciousness acts, how this transcendental sound cleanses your heart, you may not understand in the beginning, but if you take to it and if you practice it, then you understand. Then you can understand. And in the Vedānta-sūtra it is said, śabdāt anāvṛttiḥ. As from the sound the whole material existence has come into being, similarly, from sound also, you can go back to the spiritual existence. So this sound vibration... The oṁkāra is also the same sound as..., om, but this is easier, Hare Kṛṣṇa. You cannot have so ecstasy by vibrating om, but because it was chanted by the greatest authority, Lord Caitanya, it has got special power. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). The scriptures indicate that we have to follow the footprints of great authorities. Tarko apratiṣṭham. You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by arguing. You may be a very good logician and you can argue very nicely, but another man, he may be a greater logician than you. He can nullify all your arguments. There is possibility. So tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ.

Lecture on SB 6.1.7 -- Honolulu, June 15, 1975, Sunday Feast Lecture:

So they have been given an opportunity to undergo the punishment or enjoyment. You cannot disturb him. You cannot disturb him. Just like you are living in an apartment according to your position, but if I forcibly I ask you, "Go out of this apartment," then I will be punishable by the law. I have no right to get you out from that apartment. Similarly, every living entity by the laws of nature, all laws of nature, is imprisoned or allowed under certain apartment, either in the body of a tree or a human being or demigod or cat or dog. These are all ordained. So you cannot get out the living entity, soul, by force from that body. Then you will be punishable. The living entity is never killed, but you have no right to get him out from that body. That is sinful. If you argue that "What is the harm if I kill one animal, because it is said, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre: (BG 2.20) 'The living entity, soul, is never killed even after the annihilation of this body'?" that is all right. But you cannot force him. Just like if you get one person, by force, get out from his apartment—he is not dying, of course, but still, it is criminal because you are forcing to go out of the apartment. So that is the law of nature. You cannot force anyone to get out of the body. Then you are punishable.

Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970:

Bhakti svapalpy pumarpi... (reading commentary) Tat-puruṣa-niṣevaya. Kṛṣṇa arpita prāṇa jñeya. Then again he says, sadhrīcīno hy ayaṁ loke panthāḥ kṣemo akuto-bhayaḥ. Therefore this process of devotional service is without any danger, akuto-bhayaḥ. Akuto-bhayaḥ means without any fearfulness. You can go express. Just like a child taking shelter of his father, catching the hand of his father, crosses the street without any fear. There is no cause of fear. He knows, "My father is there." Similarly, by accepting this process of devotional service these things they do not consider, they do not.... Now yesterday the two boys, medical boys, they were arguing, "Why not other way?" Other ways are not so safe. Any other way is—jñāna-mārga, yoga-mārga, karma-mārga—they are not safe. Exactly the same way—prāyaścitta, atonement. They are not safe. The only safest way is bhakti-mārga.

Lecture on SB 6.1.15 -- Nellore, January 8, 1976:

He says that "You do not try to hear from a person who is avaiṣṇava hari-kathāmṛtam." The hari-kathā, the message of Kṛṣṇa like Bhagavad-gītā and other, Bhāgavata, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, you should not hear from a person who is not a Vaiṣṇava. In the Bhāgavata also it is said, satāṁ prasaṅgāt mama vīrya-saṁvido bhavanti hṛt-karṇa-rasāyanāḥ-kathāḥ. When we hear from sad-vekti(?), or Vaiṣṇava, then we get real effect. So if one argues that "Hari-kathā is pure. Even a avaiṣṇava speaks, what is the harm there?" so Sanātana Gosvāmī said in connection with this that śravaṇaṁ na kartavyaṁ sarpocchiṣṭaṁ payo yathā. Just like milk: it is very nice food, but if it is touched with the lips of a snake, it becomes poisonous. Therefore it is concluded that we have to hear the transcendental message of Kṛṣṇa from a realized soul, a devotee.

Lecture on SB 6.1.15 -- Honolulu, May 15, 1976:

If we simply stick to these principles of kevalā bhakti, even simply by hearing, śravaṇaṁ... Just like we are holding class everywhere, in every center. If somebody simply hears attentively, he'll be perfect. This is bhakti, simply hearing. Or śravaṇaṁ kīrtanam, or describing or chanting the holy name, he'll be perfect. Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇu... But Viṣṇu, about Lord Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa. Śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtana (SB 1.2.17). If you simply hear and chant, then you will be purified. One who is chanting and one who is hearing, both of them will be purified. And gradually, as soon as one is purified, he becomes pious. If you argue that "Somebody is hearing for so many years," so then there is question of offense. Offense, ten kinds of offense, you know. While you are initiated the ten kinds of... So even one is in offense, still, if he continues hearing and chanting, he will be purified. It is so nice thing. This is kevalā bhakti.

Lecture on SB 6.1.16 -- Denver, June 29, 1975:

But our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is teaching people that "Don't live irresponsibly." Take, for example, that you may say, "There is no life." But if I put the argument, "Suppose there is life..." Now this is also supposition, because nobody, those who are in ignorance, they do not know whether there is life or whether there is no life. So you are arguing, "There is no life," but you do not know whether there is life. That is not in your knowledge. So supposing you have to take both the ways and think over it... You are simply thinking on the point that there is no life. Now, why don't you take my proposition, "If there is life"? Because you have not ascertained whether there is life. We say there is life. We take the example: just like this child has got his next life. The child may say, "There is no life next life." But actually that is not the fact. The fact is, there is life. The child will change this body and he will become a boy. And the boy will change this body; he will become young man. That is a fact. But by simply obstinacy if you say there is no life, that you can say. But take this argument: if there is life, then how much irresponsibly you are making your future life so dark? The same example: if a child does not go to school, does not take education, if he thinks, "There is no other life than this life, I shall play all day. Why shall I go to school?" he may say so, but there is life, and if he does not take education, in next life, when he is young man, if he is not posted in a good position then he suffers. This is irresponsible life.

Lecture on SB 6.1.25 -- Honolulu, May 25, 1976:

Sad-ācāra. Sad-ācāra, just like we are teaching sad-ācāra, rise early in the morning, taking a bath, change your cloth, wash your mouth, and then go to the Deity room and have maṅgala arotika, then study, so many, so many..., simply sad-ācāra. Sad-ācāra means, sat means "that will exist," and ācāra means "behavior." Sad-ācāra So here it is said that Ajamila, he became the husband of a prostitute. It is not the sastric injunction. You can become husband, but not the husband of a prostitute. Then your life is finished. Naṣṭa sad-ācāra. You will be lost all... Therefore so much stress is given that wife should be chaste and husband should be very well behaved, then life will be successful. Arjuna argued with Kṛṣṇa that "You're asking me to kill my brothers and relatives on the other side, so don't You think that if I kill them, their wives will be widowed and they'll be polluted? And as soon as they'll be polluted, there will be varṇa-saṅkara." Varṇa-saṅkara, the practical example of varṇa-saṅkara is the hippies in your country: no caste, no creed, neither useful for the material world, neither useful for the spiritual. That is called varṇa-saṅkara. Then he said, "My...," Arjuna... Strīṣu duṣṭāsu varṇa-saṅkara (indistinct). "My dear Kṛṣṇa, You are asking me to kill my... There will be widow, and they'll be polluted, and there'll be varṇa-saṅkara, and (indistinct), and when there'll be varṇa-saṅkara, then the whole world will be hell. It will be no more suitable for habitation of gentlemen.

Lecture on SB 6.1.31 -- San Francisco, July 16, 1975:

So this Ajāmila, he was dāsī-pati. He was a husband of a prostitute. So he was not happy. He was attached. Another thing is... That is also Cāṇakya Paṇḍita. He says, duṣṭā-bhāryā. Duṣṭā-bhāryā means this prostitute. Duṣṭā, who is polluted by another man, he is called duṣṭā. Strīṣu duṣṭāsu varṇa-saṅkaraḥ abhibhavāt. Therefore human civilization must be very careful that the women may not become polluted. Strīṣu duṣṭāsu. Duṣṭā means she is not satisfied with husband. She wants new, new. That is called duṣṭā. So Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, duṣṭā-bhāryā: "If the wife is duṣṭā," duṣṭā-bhāryā śaṭhaṁ mitram, "and friend is śaṭham, hypocrite, talking very friendly, but he has got something, design..." That is called śaṭhaṁ mitram. Śaṭham means hypocrite. So "If somebody's wife is duṣṭā and friend is hypocrite," duṣṭā-bhāryā śaṭhaṁ mitraṁ bhṛtyaś ca uttara-dāyakaḥ, "and bhṛtya, servant, does not obey, he argues with the master..." Master says, "Why did you not do?" "Oh, I am this..." No argument. Bhṛtya should be very silent. Then he is faithful servant. Sometimes master may be angry, but bhṛtya should be silent. Then master becomes kind. But if he replies on equal level, oh, then it is very bad. Duṣṭā-bhāryā śaṭhaṁ mitraṁ bhṛtyaś ca uttara-dāyakaḥ, sa-sarpe ca gṛhe vāsaḥ: "And you are living in a apartment where there is a snake." So if these four things are there or one of them, not all the fours, then mṛtyur eva na saṁśayaḥ: "Then you are doomed." You are doomed. Your life is spoiled.

Lecture on SB 6.1.37 -- San Francisco, July 19, 1975:

So here is a challenge: yūyaṁ vai dharma-rājasya yadi nirdeśa-kāriṇaḥ. Nirdeśa-kāriṇaḥ. Servant means they have no second choice than to carry out the orders of the master. Therefore nirdeśa-kāriṇaḥ. They cannot argue. No. Whatever is ordered, that is served. So if anyone claims to become... He is expecting the... I think... Here the Viṣṇudūtas are also mentioned here, vāsudevokta-kāriṇaḥ. They are also servant. So ukta means whatever order is given by Vāsudeva, they carry out. Similarly, the Yamadūtas, they are servant of Yamarāja. They are also addressed nirdeśa-kāriṇaḥ: "If you are actually servant of Yamarāja, you act according to his direction, then you must know what is dharma and what is adharma." So they are actually bona fide servant of Yamarāja, there is no doubt about it. Now they are giving their identification in this way, yamadūtā ūcuḥ veda-praṇihito dharmaḥ, immediately answered. "What is dharma?" That was the question.

Lecture on SB 6.1.37 -- San Francisco, July 19, 1975:

You have become impure. This is Vedic injunction. If you touch bone, then you have become impure. You have to take your bath immediately, full. Then Vedas say, "Now, the stool of cow is pure, cow dung." Now, with your reason you can say, "First of all you said that stool is impure, and as soon as you touch you must take your bathing. Otherwise you remain impure. So another stool, cow stool, you say pure? This is contradiction. You say that the bone is impure, and you are keeping the bone in the Deity's room?" The conchshell is bone. You know this conchshell is a bone of an animal. So it is being used in the Deity room, and the cow dung is also used in the Deity room. Even Kṛṣṇa is smearing His whole body with cow dung. You know Kṛṣṇa's līlā. So if you say, argue, with your poor knowledge, then it becomes contradiction. One stool is good; another stool is bad. But because it is said by the Vedas, you have to accept it. This is Vedic knowledge. You cannot argue. There is no scope of argument. Whatever is said, you have to accept. Otherwise how Vedas become authority? You can change in your own way.

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970:

Now, why Vedas should be accepted to seriously? At least we, who are supposed to be followers of the Vedic laws, we take it so seriously. For example, how we accept the injunctions of Vedas seriously? There is example, a stool, animal stool, or any, human being stool—stool is stool—that stool is supposed to be impious, impure. If you touch stool, then you have to take your bath. You become impure. You have to take your bath, as you do generally. After passing stool we take bath. That is a Hindu injunction. And even a man goes twice for passing stool, he must take twice bath. That is real Hindu religious life. Now, stool, in one place it is said that "It is impure. If you touch, then you have to take your bath." In another place it is said, "This stool, particular, the cow dung, is pure. Cow dung is pure. If there is any impure place, if you smear over it cow dung, then it is pure." That is also injunction of the Vedas. Now, you cannot argue that "One place you say that this stool is impure, and another place you say this is pure. This is contradiction." Sometimes people find this contradiction. But you have to accept because it is injunction of the Vedas. That you are doing practically every day.

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970:

Similarly, this bone, any bone, animal bone, if you touch, you have to take bath. You become impure. But this conchshell, which you are sounding, vibrating in the Deity room, that is also bone. But you cannot argue that "You say bone is impure. Why you are taking one bone in the Deity room?" That you cannot say. This is acceptance of Vedas, without any argument. And if you want to know why one is accepted pure and one is accepted impure, if you make, I mean to say, research, you will find that the Vedic injunction is right. Take for..., this cow dung. Perhaps, you doctor, know, that one Dr. Lalman Ghosh in Calcutta, he analyzed this cow dung and he was a professor in the medical college. He has declared that cow dung is full of antiseptic properties. So Vedic injunction is... That is right. But sometimes it appears to be contradictory. But we cannot judge how it is so contradictory. We have to accept like that. That is the following of Vedic rules.

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970:

So Vedic injunction is... That is right. But sometimes it appears to be contradictory. But we cannot judge how it is so contradictory. We have to accept like that. That is the following of Vedic rules. Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gītā you will find, Kṛṣṇa has explained so many ways karma-yoga, jñāna-yoga, dhyāna-yoga, haṭha-yoga, so many other things, but ultimately He says bhakti-yoga is the Supreme. Sarva dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). Mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja means this is bhakti-yoga. One has to simply obey or surrender unto Kṛṣṇa, giving up all other types of religious principles. So one can say that Lord Kṛṣṇa said in some places of the Bhagavad-gītā that this yoga, karma-yoga is nice, jñāna-yoga is nice. No. The last word, what He says, that is to be accepted. You cannot argue that Kṛṣṇa said karma-yoga is also good. You cannot argue that "I shall take to karma-yoga." That is, karma-yoga, different stages of evolution. One who is fit for simply karma-yoga, that process is recommended for him. But if one ultimately wants the supreme benefit, then this is the injunction of Bhagavad-gītā, that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66).

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970:

So in this way we have to accept dharma. As it is said in the recent, say, within five years, five thousand years, the Kṛṣṇa consciousness is... Actually we are spreading. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness means what Kṛṣṇa has said. That we have taken. That is Vedas. Sometimes people argue that Bhagavad-gītā is smṛti. Professor, Dr. Stahl, he argued with me that Bhagavad-gītā is smṛti. Smṛti means the Vedic conclusion written by somebody else. That is called smṛti. He is also authorized. So Bhagavad-gītā is also accepted as smṛti, but smṛti is not different from śruti. Rūpa Gosvāmī says,

śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi
pañcarātriki-vidhiṁ-vinā
aikāntikī harer bhaktir
utpātāyaiva kalpate
(Brs. 1.2.101)

So smṛti is not without Veda. Or Purāṇa... Sometimes people do not accept the Purāṇas as Vedic. No. Here it is said by Rūpa Gosvāmī, śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi (Brs. 1.2.101). They are all Vedas. Purāṇa means supplementary. Just like the Vedic knowledge is described in the Mahābhārata. It is in the form of history. But actually the Vedic knowledge is there.

Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970:

Ordinarily, a living entity take birth by the combination of father and mother. But Brahmā is called Svayambhū because he is not created by father and mother. Then again, you can argue that Brahmā was created by Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, so He is his father. But the argument can be defied that although He is the father, but he was not born of a mother. That is all-powerful Kṛṣṇa, Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu. You have seen the picture that Nārāyaṇa is lying down on the water of Garbhodaka, udaka, and Lakṣmī is massaging His lotus feet, and Brahmā in a lotus flower is born. So generally, when a father begets a son, he takes the advantage of his wife, the help of his wife. But here Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, although His wife is present, He did not take the assistance of the wife. A lotus sprouted from His navel, and there was Brahmā. That is all-powerful. Generally we understand that whenever there is birth, the man and woman must combine. But that is for ordinary entities or in this material world. But that is not possible in the case of God, or Viṣṇu. Therefore He is called sarva-śaktimān, all-powerful. He can do anything, whatever He likes.

Lecture on SB 6.1.42 -- Los Angeles, July 23, 1975:

Sometimes foolish people challenge that "Who has seen? Who has seen?" Sometimes they argue, Christian philosophers, that "If I am suffering the resultant action of my past life, then where is the witness that I have done something wrong in my past life? Where is the witness?" So to them this is the answer, that God has created so many witnesses. The first witness is sūrya, the sun. How you can go away from the sunlight? Anywhere you go... We are in this room. Because it is daytime, the sunlight is there. Sūryaḥ agniḥ. Agniḥ means fire. We have to touch with fire in so many ways. The factories are working fire, the electric powerhouse, the electricity, the oven, the kitchen, fire. So agniḥ..., sūryaḥ agniḥ kham ākāśa, sky. Where you can escape sky? Within the room there is sky; outside, the sky; up, the sky; down, the sky. Everywhere is sky. Sūryaḥ agniḥ khaṁ marud, air. Where is no air? Every place there is air. Devaḥ. Devaḥ means the Supreme Lord. What is that devaḥ?

Lecture on SB 6.1.42 -- Los Angeles, July 23, 1975:

That is the propaganda of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. "Become first-class topmost men. Don't remain..." Tamasi mā: "Don't remain in darkness." This is our only request. Otherwise... But why we are making this propaganda? Because Kṛṣṇa wants. We are all servant of Kṛṣṇa; therefore our only aim is to serve Kṛṣṇa. And Kṛṣṇa wants that "Save these rascals from rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. Bring them transcendent to sattva-guṇa, and they will be happy." This is Kṛṣṇa's desire. Nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna: "Arjuna, you become above the three guṇas." That is the Kṛṣṇa's desire. "Why you are bothering with these guṇas? 'This is my body. This is my family. This is this. This is this. This is this.' You are arguing so much." So therefore Kṛṣṇa said, nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna: "These are on the material platform. Come to the spiritual platform." Ultimately he said that "You are My very dear friend. Therefore I am disclosing to you the most confidential knowledge." Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇam (BG 18.66). This is the whole instruction.

Lecture on SB 6.1.48 -- Dallas, July 30, 1975:

There was one story. It is not story; it is fact, that two pleaders were talking about the activities of a criminal, and the judge was dozing. So his clerk said, "Sir, you are dozing. The two big lawyers, they are arguing, and what they will say?" That means he warned. The judge said, "I have already made my judgment. Let them go on talking." So actually, it is done. A very important judge, he, by hearing the preliminary points of the case, he makes his judgment. But because the two lawyers want to fight, because they are paid for that, so they go on fighting. But the judge, he has already concluded what judgment should be given. Similarly, Yamarāja is judge. He has got everything recorded in his mind of a sinful man's activities in the past. So immediately he decides that "This soul should be given such and such body." So we are getting body.

Lecture on SB 6.2.1-5 -- Calcutta, January 6, 1971:

That will not stay. But one should take everything with logic. But the servants of God, they put everything in logic. Caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. If you study the Caitanya's philosophy with logic and argument... Don't go by sentiment. The so-called missionary, they're simply bogus propaganda without any logic. Without any logic. Just like some missionary people are propagating a man to become God. How a man can become God? There must be evidences how God incarnates. Not that somebody by worshiping a demigod becomes God. So many false propaganda is going on. That is not logical at all. So one should be intelligent to understand the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa or philosophy of Lord Caitanya with logic and argument. Don't follow blindly. But once you accept, you cannot argue. You have to accept blindly. But before accepting, you take to logic. But when you accept, then don't go back. Then that is falldown. Naya-kovidāḥ.

Lecture on SB 7.9.7 -- Mayapur, February 14, 1976:

One can argue, "No, we can hear hari-kathā from any person, he may be Vaiṣṇava or not Vaiṣṇava. What is the matter?" But Sanātana Goswāmī, "No." So, why it is no? Because it is like sarpocchiṣṭaṁ payaḥ yathā. Milk is very good, nice food, everyone knows, but if the milk is touched by the lips of a snake, it is not to be touched. It is not to be touched. It has become poison. Very good example. Similarly, if we do not hear from the right person, any Vedic literature, especially Bhagavad-gītā because that is the beginning, the sarpocchiṣṭaṁ payaḥ yathā. He may be very big scholar, but because he is avaiṣṇava, not devotee, it has become poison. In our country, we have got so many editions, not only in country, in all, outside the country also. In your country. There are so many hodge-podge interpretation of Bhagavad-gītā, and they are being read and being used for the last two hundred years ago, but there was no effective result. It could not act. But as soon as this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, we have presented and you are reading, so many thousands of thousands, they are becoming devotee.

Lecture on SB 7.9.8 -- Hawaii, March 21, 1969:

Yes. God cannot be under the influence of anything so that He may fall down. That is not God, because God is all-powerful. Why He should be influenced by any other power? Then what kind of God? Then he is not God. Just try to understand how to argue. Then you will be able to argue with them. Yes, ask any other question in that connection. I shall try to explain. Sit down!

Lecture on SB 7.9.11-13 -- Hawaii, March 24, 1969:

Sarvasya. Sarvasya means everything, the Supersoul. Sarvasya ca aham, Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says, "I," hṛdi, "in the heart." When it is called hṛdi, that means living entity. Without living entity, there cannot be any heart. Without this body, no, there cannot be any heart. In the stone there cannot be any heart. Dead body. The heart is dead. So sarvasya ca ahaṁ hṛdi. Hṛdi means "in the heart." Sanniviṣṭaḥ: "I am situated. I am sitting there." And mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca (BG 15.15). Because He is sitting there, therefore all kinds of remembrance, smṛti, knowledge and forgetfulness. These things are functions of the mind. You remember something, you gather some knowledge, and sometimes you forget. "Let me think. Oh, yes, I forgot, yes." That's a function of the mind. So that forgetfulness is also due to Kṛṣṇa because He's sitting there. He's guiding. If you want to forget Kṛṣṇa, He'll give you opportunity of māyā that you can..., you'll never remember Kṛṣṇa. You'll forget for good. And that is His kindness. "You want to forget Me? All right. I give you so much facility that you'll never be able to remember Me." Therefore the staunch atheist, however you argue with him, however you defeat him... Matir na kṛṣṇe parato svato vā. They cannot. They will not. Because Kṛṣṇa is arranging within: "Forget. Don't accept it. Don't accept it."

Lecture on SB 7.9.13-14 -- Montreal, August 22, 1968:

Yes. You remember Kṛṣṇa. That's all. The rule is that when there is blasphemy, there are three kinds of activities. First thing is that one who is blaspheming, you should argue and defeat him by your arguments, by your evidences. If you are unable to do that, then you should die. That is the injunction. And if you are unable to do that, then you should go away from that place. That's all. Three things. First of all, you should fight with him. Then if you are unable to fight, then you should die. And if you are not able to die, then leave that place and go away. Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 7.9.23 -- Mayapur, March 1, 1976:

So this is experience, dṛṣṭā... Everyone has experience what is the situation of this material world. Every day we have seen big, big leaders, ministers. Just like in the history of the world there were so many big, big men—Hitler, Napoleon, this Churchill, Gandhi, Nehru. But all their powers, position, in one minute it becomes vanquished. There is no question... They are so proud, they do not believe in God, but when the death comes, they cannot argue anything. The death orders, "Immediately vacate"—finished. You have to vacate. At that time their power, opulence, position—nothing can help. So Kṛṣṇa says, therefore... The atheist class of men who do not believe in God, decry the authority of God, for them... Of course, everyone dies, but for them, mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham: (BG 10.34) Kṛṣṇa comes as death and takes away everything in their possession. But foolish persons, they do not see still. God says, Kṛṣṇa says, that "This death I am." Still they'll not. And it is a fact. When Kṛṣṇa comes as death, as Hiraṇyakaśipu, he was atheist, did not believe in God, but when God, Nṛsiṁha-deva came, then he was vanquished, everything, within a second. Nirastaḥ. Sa tu te nirastaḥ.

Lecture on SB 7.9.30 -- Mayapur, March 8, 1976:

Those who are actually devotee, just like Prahlāda Mahārāja, such devotee can understand it is only Kṛṣṇa. He is, by His unlimited power, ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇaḥ, He is exhibiting in different ways. Ekas tvam eva jagad etam amuṣya yat tvam ādyam. The same thing you'll find. Vedic literature means there is no contradiction. Either you read this Veda or that Veda, it is not... People who are foolish, who cannot understand, they sometimes see contradiction. No. There is no contradiction. Same one law. Therefore, because we are limited, or our knowledge is limited, imperfect, therefore we should not argue. We shall accept what is stated in the Veda. And if we argue, then we'll find unnecessarily contradiction and we'll be misled. Don't argue. There is no question of... Veda-vācana. Veda-vācana means veda-pramāṇa, śruti-pramāṇa. This is the way of Vedic civilization. If you can prove something quoting from the Vedas, then you are victorious. Veda-pramāṇa. Śruti-pramāṇa. There are many evidences, but the first-class evidence is śruti-pramāṇa. Śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-pañcarātriki-vidhiṁ vinā (Brs. 1.2.101).

Lecture on SB 7.9.35 -- Mayapur, March 13, 1976:

"So how I can find out the real guru by whose words I'll be nicely directed and achieve?" That is not very difficult. You read Bhagavad-gītā. You'll understand. Just like Arjuna. When he was perplexed, he accepted Kṛṣṇa-guru. He said, śiṣyas te 'ham: (BG 2.7) "I become Your (disciple) now... We are talking friendly. The argument will not be ended. Now I become Your disciple." Śiṣyas te 'ham. Because as soon as one becomes a śiṣya... Śiṣya means under the order, regulation. A person cannot disobey the order of guru. Then he is śiṣya. If he argues, he's not śiṣya. He's not a śiṣya. Therefore Arjuna says, śiṣyas te 'ham: "I surrender, voluntarily surrender to become Your disciple. Now I shall not argue." That is called śiṣya. If you argue, then you are not a śiṣya. Guru-mukha-padma-vākya, cittete koriyā, āra nā koriyā mane āśa **. This is tapasya, that "I shall not act anything which is not ordered by my guru," that tapasya. Tapo divyaṁ putrakā (SB 5.5.1). Then we'll be nicely guided, and then sattva śuddhyam... Then our this existence will be purified. And as soon as our existence is purified, then we realize the situation, what is God, what is our relationship with Him, what is our activities, athāto brahma jijñāsā, janmādya asya yataḥ, everything.

Lecture on SB 7th Canto -- Calcutta, March 7, 1972:

Even though he is qualified, but he is not a devotee. Generally, those who are very highly qualified brāhmaṇa, they are very proud, and they do not become a devotee, generally. "Oh, devotion, this is for poor man. This is for those who are not highly educated, for them. They are chanting, dancing." They criticize like that. But actually that is not the fact. Jīva Gosvāmī was the most learned scholar. Rūpa Gosvāmī was most learned scholar. All the... Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself, the most learned scholars. His one description of the Bhāgavata śloka. What is that śloka? Ātmārāmāś ca munayo. He explained in sixty-four ways to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was very proud of his knowledge. He was a great scholar, Bṛhaspati. He is considered to be incarnation of Bṛhaspati, the learned scholar of heaven. And still, when he argued with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu about Vedānta-sūtra, he was defeated. He was defeated and then he became His disciple. Similarly, Caitanya Mahāprabhu had talks with Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, another Māyāvādī sannyāsī scholar. So He also explained Vedānta-sūtra.

Page Title:Argue (Lectures, SB)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Mayapur
Created:06 of Mar, 2012
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=73, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:73