The pure living entity is not liberated unless he is completely engaged in spiritual activity. As long as one is absorbed in impersonal thoughts or in thoughts of the void, one's entrance into an eternal, blissful life of knowledge is not complete. When spiritual knowledge is not complete, one will be hindered in his attempt to cleanse the mind of all material variegatedness. Thus impersonalists are frustrated in their attempts to make the mind void by artificial meditation. It is very difficult to void the mind of all material conceptions. In the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) it is stated that those who indulge in such impersonal meditation find it very difficult to make spiritual advancement. In addition, whatever state they do attain is not complete liberation. Therefore Lord Caitanya rejected it.
BG 12.05 kleso 'dhikataras tesam... cited
Expressions researched:
"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested"
|"To make progress in that discipline is always difficult"
|"advancement is very troublesome"
|"avyakta hi gatir duhkham"
|"avyaktasakta cetasam"
|"avyaktasakta-cetasam"
|"dehavadbhir avapyate"
|"klenah adhikataras tesam"
|"kleso 'dhikataras tesam"
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Chapters 7 - 12
For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.
The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jñāna-yogīs, and persons who are in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogīs. Now, here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jñāna-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body. Therefore, the bhakti-yogī accepts the Deity of Kṛṣṇa as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind, which can thus be applied. Of course, worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His form within the temple is not idol worship. There is evidence in the Vedic literature that worship may be saguṇa or nirguṇa—of the Supreme possessing or not possessing attributes. Worship of the Deity in the temple is saguṇa worship, for the Lord is represented by material qualities. But the form of the Lord, though represented by material qualities such as stone, wood or oil paint, is not actually material. That is the absolute nature of the Supreme Lord.
A crude example may be given here. We may find some mailboxes on the street, and if we post our letters in those boxes, they will naturally go to their destination without difficulty. But any old box, or an imitation which we may find somewhere but which is not authorized by the post office, will not do the work. Similarly, God has an authorized representation in the Deity form, which is called arcā-vigraha. This arcā-vigraha is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. God will accept service through that form. The Lord is omnipotent, all-powerful; therefore, by His incarnation as arcā-vigraha He can accept the services of the devotee, just to make it convenient for the man in conditioned life.
So for a devotee there is no difficulty in approaching the Supreme immediately and directly, but for those who are following the impersonal way to spiritual realization the path is difficult. They have to understand the unmanifested representation of the Supreme through such Vedic literatures as the Upaniṣads, and they have to learn the language, understand the nonperceptual feelings, and realize all these processes. This is not very easy for a common man. A person in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service, simply by the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, simply by offering regulative obeisances unto the Deity, simply by hearing the glories of the Lord, and simply by eating the remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Lord, realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. There is no doubt that the impersonalists are unnecessarily taking a troublesome path with the risk of not realizing the Absolute Truth at the ultimate end. But the personalist, without any risk, trouble or difficulty, approaches the Supreme Personality directly. A similar passage appears in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. It is stated there that if one ultimately has to surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead (this surrendering process is called bhakti), but instead takes the trouble to understand what is Brahman and what is not Brahman and spends his whole life in that way, the result is simply troublesome. Therefore it is advised here that one should not take up this troublesome path of self-realization, because there is uncertainty in the ultimate result.
A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jñāna-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independent, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is the danger of turning to atheism. Thus the process of centering attention on the unmanifested, the inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the senses, as already expressed in this verse, should never be encouraged at any time, especially in this age. It is not advised by Lord Kṛṣṇa.
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Canto 1
So in that great assembly, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was the cynosure of neighboring eyes. Everyone wanted to see Lord Kṛṣṇa, and everyone wanted to pay his humble respects to the Lord. Bhīṣmadeva remembered all this and was glad that his worshipful Lord, the Personality of Godhead, was present before him in His actual formal presence. So to meditate on the Supreme Lord is to meditate on the activities, form, pastimes, name and fame of the Lord. That is easier than what is imagined as meditation on the impersonal feature of the Supreme. In the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) it is clearly stated that to meditate upon the impersonal feature of the Supreme is very difficult. It is practically no meditation or simply a waste of time because very seldom is the desired result obtained. The devotees, however, meditate upon the Lord's factual form and pastimes, and therefore the Lord is easily approachable by the devotees. This is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.9). The Lord is nondifferent from His transcendental activities. It is indicated also in this śloka that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, while actually present before human society, especially in connection with the Battle of Kurukṣetra, was accepted as the greatest personality of the time, although He might not have been recognized as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The propaganda that a very great man is worshiped as God after his death is misleading because a man after his death cannot be made into God. Nor can the Personality of Godhead be a human being, even when He is personally present. Both ideas are misconceptions. The idea of anthropomorphism cannot be applicable in the case of Lord Kṛṣṇa.
So there are many instances in the transcendental histories of the world of an impersonalist who has later become a devotee. But a devotee has never become an impersonalist. This very fact proves that on the transcendental steps, the step occupied by a devotee is higher than the step occupied by an impersonalist. It is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) that persons stuck on the impersonal step undergo more sufferings than achievement of reality. Therefore knowledge imparted by Śukadeva Gosvāmī unto Mahārāja Parīkṣit helped him attain the service of the Lord. And this stage of perfection is called apavarga, or the perfect stage of liberation. Simple knowledge of liberation is material knowledge. Actual freedom from material bondage is called liberation, but attainment of the transcendental service of the Lord is called the perfect stage of liberation. Such a stage is attained by knowledge and renunciation, as we have already explained (SB 1.2.12), and perfect knowledge, as delivered by Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī, results in the attainment of the transcendental service of the Lord.
SB Canto 2
Success of mystic performances is achieved only by the help of the devotional attitude. Pantheism, or the system of feeling the presence of the Almighty everywhere, is a sort of training of the mind to become accustomed to the devotional conception, and it is this devotional attitude of the mystic that makes possible the successful termination of such mystic attempts. One is not, however, elevated to such a successful status without the tinge of mixture in devotional service. The devotional atmosphere created by pantheistic vision develops into devotional service in later days, and that is the only benefit for the impersonalist. It is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) that the impersonal way of self-realization is more troublesome because it reaches the goal in an indirect way, although the impersonalist also becomes obsessed with the personal feature of the Lord after a long time.
The Vedas say that the Supreme Lord has nothing to do personally, as is always the case with superiors, but everything is done by His direction. As it is said, not a blade of grass moves without His sanction. In the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.48), it is said that all the universes and the heads of them (the Brahmās) exist only for the duration of His breathing period. The same is confirmed here. The air on which the universes and the planets within the universes exist is nothing but a bit of the breath of the unchallengeable virāṭ-puruṣa. So even by studying the rivers, trees, air and passing ages, one can conceive of the Personality of Godhead without being misled by the formless conception of the Lord. In the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) it is stated that those who are much inclined to the formless conception of the Supreme Truth are more troubled than those who can intelligently conceive of the personal form.
In Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) it is said that the impersonalist undergoes a series of difficult programs on account of his impersonal meditation. But the devotee, due to the Lord's personal service, progresses very easily. Impersonal meditation is therefore a source of suffering for the impersonalist. Here, the devotee has an advantage over the impersonalist philosopher. The impersonalist is doubtful about the personal feature of the Lord, and therefore he always tries to meditate upon something which is not objective. For this reason there is an authentic statement in the Bhāgavatam regarding the positive concentration of the mind on the factual form of the Lord.
As will be clarified in the next verse, devotional service, or direct bhakti-yoga, is the only absolute and auspicious means of deliverance from the grip of material existence. There are many indirect methods for deliverance from the clutches of material existence, but none of them is as easy and auspicious as bhakti-yoga. The means of jñāna and yoga and other allied disciplines are not independent in delivering a performer. Such activities help one to reach the stage of bhakti-yoga after many, many years. In the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) it is said that those who are attached to the impersonal feature of the Absolute are liable to many troubles in the pursuit of their desired goal, and the empiricist philosophers, searching after the Absolute Truth, realize the importance of Vāsudeva realization as all in all after many, many births (BG 7.19). As far as yoga systems are concerned, it is also said in the Bhagavad-gītā (6.47) that amongst the mystics who pursue the Absolute Truth, the one who is always engaged in the service of the Lord is the greatest of all. And the last instruction in the Bhagavad-gītā (18.66) advises fully surrendering unto the Lord, leaving aside all other engagements or different processes for self-realization and liberation from material bondage. And the purport of all Vedic literatures is to induce one to accept the transcendental loving service of the Lord by all means.
Originally, since all the senses are produced of the Lord's reservoir of senses, the sensual activities of the material world are to be purified by the process of devotional service, and thus the perfection of life can be attained simply by purifying the present position of our material activities. And the purifying process begins from the stage of being liberated from the conception of different designations. Every living entity is engaged in some sort of service, either for the self, or for the family, or for the society, country, etc., but, unfortunately, all such services are rendered due to material attachment. The attachments of the material affinity may be simply changed to the service of the Lord, and thus the treatment of being freed from material attachment begins automatically. The process of liberation is therefore easier through devotional service than by any other methods, for in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) it is said that one is subjected to various kinds of tribulations if one is impersonally attached: kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām.
When Vyāsadeva fixed his mind in meditation, he did it in bhakti-yoga trance and actually saw the Supreme Person with māyā, the illusory energy, in contraposition. As we have discussed before, the Lord's māyā, or illusion, is also a representation because māyā has no existence without the Lord. Darkness is not independent of light. Without light, no one can experience the contraposition of darkness. However, this māyā, or illusion, cannot overcome the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but stands apart from Him (apāśrayam).
Therefore, perfection of meditation is realization of the Personality of Godhead along with His transcendental activities. Meditation on the impersonal Brahman is a troublesome business for the meditator, as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5): kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām.
SB Canto 3
Regarding the personal and impersonal features of the Supreme Absolute Truth, the personal forms exhibited by the Lord in His different plenary expansions are all for the benediction of all the universes. The personal form of the Lord is also worshiped in meditation as Supersoul, Paramātmā, but the impersonal brahma-jyotir is not worshiped. Persons who are addicted to the impersonal feature of the Lord, whether in meditation or otherwise, are all pilgrims to hell because, as stated in Bhagavad-gītā (12.5), impersonalists simply waste their time in mundane mental speculation because they are addicted more to false arguments than to reality. Therefore, the association of the impersonalists is condemned herewith by Brahmā.
SB Canto 4
Whenever the word brahman appears, the impersonalists take this to mean the impersonal effulgence, the brahma-jyotir. Actually, however, Para-brahman, the Supreme Brahman, is Kṛṣṇa, Vāsudeva. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (7.19), vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti: Vāsudeva extends everywhere as the impersonal Brahman. One cannot fix one's mind upon an impersonal "something." Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) therefore says, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome." Consequently, when it is said herein that King Malayadhvaja fixed his mind on Brahman, "Brahman" means the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vāsudeva.
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
"One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed to every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me." Surrender unto the supreme form is the result of bhakti. This bhakti, or understanding of one's own position, is the complete liberation. As long as one is under an impersonal understanding of the Absolute Truth, he is not in pure knowledge, but must still struggle for pure knowledge. Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Although one may be spiritually advanced, if one is attached to the impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth one must still work very hard, as indicated by the words kleśo 'dhikataraḥ, which mean "greater suffering." A devotee, however, easily attains his original position as a spiritual form and understands the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His original form.
To become president or prime minister is not easy; one must work very hard (āruhya kṛcchreṇa) to achieve the post. And even though one may reach his goal, at any moment one may be kicked down by material nature. In human society there have been many instances in which great, exalted politicians have fallen from government and become lost in historical oblivion. The cause of this is aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ: (SB 10.2.32) their intelligence is impure. The śāstra says, na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum (SB 7.5.31). One achieves the perfection of life by becoming a devotee of Viṣṇu, but people do not know this. Therefore, as stated in Bhagavad-gītā (12.5), kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Persons who do not ultimately accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead and take to devotional service, but who instead are attached to impersonalism and voidism, must undergo great labor to achieve their goals.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Adi-lila
Karmīs, jñānīs, yogīs, tapasvīs and students of Vedic literature who do not have Kṛṣṇa consciousness simply beat around the bush and do not get any final profit because they have no clear knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nor do they have faith in approaching Him by discharging devotional service, although everywhere such service is repeatedly emphasized, as it is in this verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.14.20). The Bhagavad-gītā (18.55) also declares, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ: "One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service." If one wants to understand the Supreme Personality factually, he must take to the path of devotional service and not waste time in profitless philosophical speculation, fruitive activity, mystic yogic practice or severe austerity and penance. Elsewhere in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5) the Lord confirms, kleśo ’dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome." People who are attached to the impersonal feature of the Lord are obliged to take great trouble, yet nevertheless they cannot understand the Absolute Truth. As explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.11), brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate. Unless one understands the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original source of both Brahman and Paramātmā, one is still in darkness about the Absolute Truth.
CC Madhya-lila
“"Whatever result was obtained in Satya-yuga by meditating on Viṣṇu, in Tretā-yuga by performing sacrifices and in Dvāpara-yuga by serving the Lord"s lotus feet can also be obtained in Kali-yuga simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra.’
This verse is quoted from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (12.3.52). At the present moment in Kali-yuga there are many false meditators who concoct some imaginary form and try to meditate upon it. It has become fashionable to meditate, but people know nothing about the object of meditation. That is explained here. Yad dhyāyato viṣṇum. One has to meditate upon Lord Viṣṇu or Lord Kṛṣṇa. Without referring to the śāstras, so-called meditators aim at impersonal objects. Lord Kṛṣṇa has condemned them in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5):
- kleśo ’dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām
- avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate
"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied." Not knowing how to meditate, foolish people simply suffer, and there is no benefit derived from their spiritual activities.
CC Antya-lila
Vaiṣṇavas strictly follow the directions of the śāstras regarding how one can be liberated simply by a slight awakening of pure chanting of the holy name. Māyāvādīs cannot tolerate the statements of the śāstras about how easily liberation can be achieved, for, as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5), kleśo ‘dhikaratas teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: impersonalists must work hard for many, many births, and only then will they perhaps be liberated. Vaiṣṇavas know that simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord offenselessly, one achieves liberation as a by-product. Thus there is no need to endeavor separately for liberation. Śrīla Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura has said, muktiḥ svayaṁ mukulitāñjali sevate "smān: liberation stands at one"s door, ready to render any kind of service, if one is a pure devotee with unflinching faith and reverence. This the Māyāvādīs cannot tolerate. Therefore the ārindā pradhāna, chief tax collector, although very learned, handsome and youthful, could not tolerate the statements of Haridāsa Ṭhākura.
Other Books by Srila Prabhupada
Teachings of Lord Caitanya
Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead
All these different ways of determining the ultimate goal of life are compared to rivers, and Kṛṣṇa is compared to the ocean. As the rivers flow down toward the ocean, all attempts for knowledge flow toward Kṛṣṇa. After many, many births of endeavor, when one actually comes to Kṛṣṇa, he attains the perfectional stage. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśo ’dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: (BG 12.5) "All are pursuing the path of realizing Me, but those who have adopted courses without any bhakti find their endeavor very troublesome." Kṛṣṇa cannot be understood unless one comes to the point of bhakti.
Renunciation Through Wisdom
If the Supreme Lord Himself wishes to enlighten the devotees with spiritual knowledge and gradually draw them closer to Him, then what question is there of such devotees ever coming under the spell of nescience? Rather, it is out of nescience only that the empiric philosophers try to approach the Supreme Truth on the strength of their own intellect. We know that the Supreme Lord can dissipate the darkness of ignorance with the spiritual effulgence emanating from His body. Can the empiricists do the same? One can never lift the gloom of nescience by one's own efforts. Empiricists such as the atheist Kapila, unable to reach enlightenment by their own efforts, feel great relief in trying to explain away the Absolute Truth as unknowable and unmanifest. But great suffering befalls these dry speculators attached to the theory of the unmanifest Absolute, as Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5):
- kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām
- avyaktāsakta-cetasām
- avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
- dehavadbhir avāpyate
For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.
The austerities a monist performs are painful both during the initial stage of practice (sādhana) and when he has supposedly reached perfection. The impersonalists suffer excruciating pains trying to establish the oneness of matter and spirit through speculative theories. Thinking that Brahman is impotent, through sophistry they try to equate the Lord's inferior, material energy with His superior, spiritual energy, thus reaping ridicule from truly learned circles. In attempting to prove that the Absolute Truth cannot be the Supreme Personality of Godhead with unlimited energies, they argue that this would mean immutable Brahman is actually mutable.
Sri Isopanisad
The facilities of devotional service are denied the impersonalists because they are attached to the brahma-jyotir feature of the Lord. As suggested in the previous mantras, they cannot penetrate the brahma-jyoti because they do not believe in the Personality of Godhead. Their business is mostly word jugglery and mental speculation. Consequently the impersonalists pursue a fruitless labor, as confirmed in the Twelfth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5).
All the facilities suggested in this mantra can be easily obtained by constant contact with the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. Devotional service to the Lord consists essentially of nine transcendental activities: (1) hearing about the Lord, (2) glorifying the Lord, (3) remembering the Lord, (4) serving the lotus feet of the Lord, (5) worshiping the Lord, (6) offering prayers to the Lord, (7) serving the Lord, (8) enjoying friendly association with the Lord, and (9) surrendering everything unto the Lord. These nine principles of devotional service—taken all together or one by one—help a devotee remain constantly in touch with God.
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Just like the sunshine. Sunshine is also the same quality, heat and light, as the sun globe or the sun god. But the sunshine is impersonal, and the sun globe is localized. And within the sun globe there is sun god. So that is the main source of everything. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Brahmaṇaḥ ahaṁ pratiṣṭhā. The brahma-jyotir is also staying in Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the source of brahma-jyotir. So impersonal or personal, whatever you take, that is Brahman. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11).
But the beginning, origin, is Kṛṣṇa. That Kṛṣṇa explains, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8). Either you take impersonal Brahman or localized Paramātmā, whatever you take, that is emanation from Kṛṣṇa. Sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1).
So, of course, if you worship impersonal form, brahma-jyotir, that is also Kṛṣṇa. But Kṛṣṇa has said, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). If you want to approach the Absolute Truth through the impersonal form, then it will be little difficult. Perhaps you may not reach the ultimate goal. You may fall down. There are so many instances. We have seen in India so many big, big sannyāsīs.
The bhakti also says, bhakti formula, anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam: (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.11) "You have to make your heart cleansed of all material desire." Then spiritual life will begin.
- yeṣāṁ (tv) anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ
- janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām
- te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā
- bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ
- (BG 7.28)
This is the process. So artificially, the Buddha philosophy or Śaṅkara philosophy, they, artificially if you want to make it nirvāṇa, zero, that is not possible. Avyaktāsakta-cetasām... Te..., kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Avyakta means zero, impersonal. If you become attached to simply making zero, or impersonal, that is not possible. Because we are accustomed. We are... As living beings, we want varieties. Variety is the mother of enjoyment. We cannot remain in the zero position.
We shall always remember that whenever we call for meditation, that meditation is not on void. Void meditation is very much troublesome. Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). You will find in the Bhagavad-gītā. Those who are trying to meditate upon the void, they are in very troublesome condition. And it is very difficult to achieve success. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. So meditation always means meditation on Viṣṇu.
So in the Satya-yuga, in the millennium when all people were virtuous, cent percent virtuous, at that time this meditation was recommended. Because their minds were not disturbed and they could sit down peacefully and concentrate his mind on Viṣṇu. That was the process recommended.
Devotee: Verse 20 through 23: "The stage of perfection is called trance or samādhi, when one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga (Bg. 6.20-23)."
Prabhupāda: Samādhi means, samādhi means not to make void. That is impossible. Kleśo 'dhikaratas teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Some yogi says that you stop yourself, make yourself motionless. How it is possible to make me motionless? I am moving spirit. This is not possible. Motionless means when you are fixed up in Kṛṣṇa, there is no more material motion. That is motionless. This material propensities will not anymore disturb you. That is called motionless. But your motion for Kṛṣṇa activities will increase. The more you increase your motion or activities in Kṛṣṇa consciousness you become automatically motionless in material activities. That is the process. But if you want to make motionless, the same example—a child, a child is restless. You cannot make the child motionless. You give him something, plaything, some nice picture. He will see, engaged, and motionless. That is the way. So people are motionless. Not motionless, what is called? Moving. But if you want to make him motionless then give him Kṛṣṇa engagement. Then he'll be motionless. And that is realization. Why he should be engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness unless he realizes that "I am Kṛṣṇa's. I am not this matter's, I am not this nation's, I am not this society's, I am not this rascal's, I am simply Kṛṣṇa's." Motionless. His full knowledge.
Devotee: Verse thirty-six: "For one whose mind is unbridled, self-realization is difficult work. But he whose mind is controlled and who strives by right means is assured of success. That is My judgement." Purport: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead declares that one who does not accept the proper treatment to detach the mind from material engagement can hardly achieve success in self-realization. Trying to practice yoga while engaging the mind in material enjoyment is like trying to ignite a fire while pouring water on it. Similarly yoga practice without mental control is a waste of time."
Prabhupāda: Because I sit down for meditation. Of course if meditation is focusing the mind on Viṣṇu, that is very good. But there are so many yoga societies, they educate their student to concentrate their mind on something void, something color. Not exactly to Viṣṇu form. You see. So that is very difficult task. That is also explained in the Bhagavad—kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). One who is trying to concentrate his mind on the imperson or voidness, it is very difficult and troublesome. At least here in this temple, these students, they are trying to concentrate his mind on Kṛṣṇa. But to concentrate one's mind in void, that is very difficult. So naturally my mind is flickering. Instead of finding out something void, my mind is engaged in something else. Because mind must be engaged in something. If it is not engaged in Kṛṣṇa, then it must be engaged in māyā. So if you cannot do that, then this so-called meditation and sitting posture is simply useless waste of time. Go on.
Now, here the word yogam is also explained. What sort of yoga Kṛṣṇa is recommending? Mayy āsakta-manāḥ. Keeping the mind always attached to Kṛṣṇa, this yoga system. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness is yoga system. At the present day, they are concentrating their mind on something void, impersonal, according to their own prescription. The real process is to concentrate the mind on something. But that something, if we make it void, it is very difficult to concentrate our mind in that way. That is also explained in the Bhagavad-gītā in the Twelfth Chapter: kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Those who are trying to meditate on something impersonal and void, their trouble is greater than those who are meditating on the Supreme Person. This is explained. Why? Avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate. We cannot concentrate our mind (on) something impersonal. If you think of your friend, if you think of your father, mother, or somebody whom you love, you can continue such thinking for hours together. But if you have no objective to fix up your mind, then it is very difficult. But people are being taught to concentrate on something void and impersonal.
Anta-kāle means "at the time of death." "At the time of death, one who remembers Me..." Anta-kāle ca mām eva. Mām eva. Mām eva means... Eva means "certainly," and me means..., mām means "me." "Certainly Me." The Supreme Personality of Godhead says, "Certainly Me." That means Kṛṣṇa, or Kṛṣṇa's expansion, the form—not formless. Mām. Formless... This is explained in the Twelfth Chapter, that kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). One who is attached to the impersonal Brahman, then his business is troublesome. Kleśa. Kleśa means troublesome. Avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate. Dehavat. Because we are in this material body and our senses are not able to understand except something form. So if by artificial way I want to think of formless, it becomes a troublesome business.
So according to the description, these pictures are drawn. It is not imagination. So this form is factual. It is not imagination. The Māyāvāda philosophers, impersonalists, they answer the Bhagavad-gītā's word that kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām... (BG 12.5). One who is attached to impersonal views, their process of meditation or execution of spiritual activities is very troublesome. Now, therefore Māyāvāda philosopher, they say that "God has no form. But because you cannot meditate upon the formless, so you just imagine any form you like." So God is not subjected to your imagination. That is not God's form. If we imagine something... And that has been degraded. Śaṅkarācārya limited such imaginative forms to five only. Five. What is that five? Viṣṇu, Lord Śiva, and Sun, and Gaṇeśa, and Devī, Durgā. He limited, that "Any of these five forms you can meditate upon, you worship. And ultimately, it is formless." But at the present moment, unauthorized person has degraded in such a way that "You can imagine any form. You can imagine even stool." They say like that. You see.
This verse, we have been discussing last night, this is distinct explanation of impersonalism and personalism. Actually, there cannot be any impersonal idea. Here, Kṛṣṇa says avyakta-mūrtinā. Even avyakta, nonmanifested, it has also a mūrti, a form. Generally we conceive impersonalism, voidism, voidism, compared with the sky. Sky is called zero, void, but sky has also a form. We see daily, a big round form. So there cannot be anything without form. That is not possible. Therefore Kṛṣṇa particularly says avyakta-mūrtinā. Although it is nonmanifested, but it has got a form. But one who does not take to the real form and takes to the imaginary form, that has been explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhika-taras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Those who are attached to the impersonal form, they unnecessarily take some trouble, kleśaḥ adhika-taraḥ.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
So one who has not reached to that point, to realize Kṛṣṇa, it is to be understood that his knowledge is still imperfect. But these persons who have got imperfect knowledge, they are passing as Vedantists and knows everything. They do not know. Kṛṣṇa therefore says, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante: (BG 7.19) "These impersonalists, the so-called men of knowledge, after many, many births..." Because it is not so easy to understand Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person. They'll have to wait to understand Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person. They'll have to wait for thousands of births to understand Kṛṣṇa. They'll have to wait. Although they are very much proud of their knowledge, we know where they are: partial realization. Of course, they are also in the same field. But they'll not understand the Supreme Person. Those who understood, the great sages in the beginning, in the beginning of the creation, munayaḥ, great, great sages, Marīci, Ātreya, Vasiṣṭha and others, so they worshiped the Supreme Person, bhagavantam, not the impersonal feature. Impersonal, actually, there is, there cannot be any worship of the impersonal feature, Brahman. It is simply accepting some trouble. Kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. It is simply troublesome. But unfortunately, these impersonalists have spread all over the world. They have no sharp brain to understand the Supreme Person, and they are misguiding the whole population that either impersonalism or voidism. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi.
So seeing God is very mysterious, but it is very easy also, very easy, provided we know the method how to see God. So that is bhakti-yoga. And therefore Kṛṣṇa recommends in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ: (BG 18.55) "Only through devotional service one can understand Me as I am." Otherwise he will commit mistake. There are different processes undoubtedly: jñāna, yoga, karma, bhakti. But if you want to see God, then you have to accept this bhakti-yoga, no other yoga. Neither jñāna-yoga, nor karma-yoga, nor haṭha-yoga. You cannot see. You can see. Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Those who are impersonalists... All of them are impersonalists. For them, it is very difficult, troublesome, to see God. They may try their process, but it will take long, long time to see God. But if one takes to bhakti-yoga, immediately... Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (BG 18.55).
Then dhāraṇā, meditation. And what is that meditation? That meditation... Here it is recommended, tad-viceṣṭitam: "meditation on the activities of the Supreme Lord." If the Supreme Lord is impersonal, then where is the question of activities? And how you can concentrate your mind something impersonal? Bhagavad-gītā says that kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: "Those who are trying to meditate on the impersonal feature, impersonal feature, their process is very troublesome." Kleśo 'dhikataraḥ. Adhikatara means greater. Any spiritual realization, without painstaking, without accepting some voluntary trouble... And nobody can very easily..., eating, drinking, merrying. No, that will... That is not spiritual advancement. One has to accept voluntarily some principles. That is called tapasya. So dhyāna. Dhyāna means meditation. So that dhyāna.
So in spite of their rising to that platform of Brahman understanding, they again come down. That is described in the Bhāgavatam, āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ: (SB 10.2.32) "After undergoing severe penances and austerities, they may rise to the Brahman platform but again falls down." Why falls down? Anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ: "Because they do not enjoy Your association." They have neglected the association of Kṛṣṇa and company. Therefore they have no, I mean to say, shelter. The same example can be explained: just like if you go on a plane or sputnik very high, very high, it is void, all side void. If you go very high, 25,000 miles, you'll see void. But that, there you cannot stay. You can travel for many years in that void, but if you don't take shelter in a planet, then you'll come back again to this planet. Similarly, the impersonalists, they cannot stay in their impersonal understanding. Simply they suffer some trouble. Kleśa... Bhagavad-gītā says, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Those who are attached, those who are attached to that impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth, they undergo greater trouble. We transcendentalists, we personalists, we also, from the materialistic point of view, we are... Our standard of living is not very opulent. We lie down anywhere. We are... Our dresses are not so clean. Our rooms are not clean. From the materialistic point of view, somebody comes. He says, "Oh. How wretched these people are living!" That is also another kind of austerity. They have adopted. But that is pleasing. Even they are in so-called wretched condition, they are happy. They are happy. So they're in both ways. But those who are simply attached to the impersonal feature, their trouble is more painful. That is described in the Bhagavad-gītā.
So the Māyāvādī will always try to explain in the impersonal way. Therefore they're offender. Kṛṣṇa personally presents. Why Kṛṣṇa comes? So that the misunderstanding whether the Absolute Truth, God, is a person or imperson, to mitigate this trouble, this misunderstanding, He comes as person. He presents Himself, "Here is I am. I am person. Why do you make Me imperson?" He's person. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati (BG 4.7). Why you are taking so much trouble? Avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām. Simply you are taking unnecessary trouble. Kleśaḥ adhikataraḥ. And if you take to bhakti, directly personal... And you cannot understand God or Kṛṣṇa by any other means except bhakti. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (BG 18.55). If you want to know Absolute Truth, God, then you have to take to bhakti. And what does it mean bhakti? Bhakti means there must be Bhagavān. Otherwise, what is the meaning of bhakti? If I want... Bhakti means to render service. So if the master is not there, then where is the question of bhakti and service? It is all bogus. Bhakti means three things: bhakta, Bhagavān, and the service. That is bhakti. They're individual. Bhagavān is individual, bhakta is individual, and the reciprocation of dealings between two individuals, it is called bhakti. That is bhakti.
So if you simply think only one verse, as it is explained here, and the paṅkaja, lotus, in reference with Kṛṣṇa's body, you can meditate the whole life how Kṛṣṇa is beautiful, how Kṛṣṇa is wise, how Kṛṣṇa's creation, how... This is meditation. Thinking of Kṛṣṇa. Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ (SB 12.13.1). Yoginaḥ means... Yogi means he's always thinking of Kṛṣṇa. Mat-paraḥ. That is yogi. These rascals are not yogi, thinking something impersonal and being harassed. Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). They are simply, they are simply laboring, adhikataraḥ, more and more. They cannot get anything substantial. Therefore after meditation: "Come on, give me cigarette. Come on. My throat is now dried up. Give me cigarette." That is not meditation. Meditation means, this is: namaḥ paṅkaja-netrāya.
Vāsudevāṅghry-anudhyāna-paribṛṁhita-raṁhasā. Here is Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa. You come here and see, very minutely, how Vāsudeva is dressed nicely, how He is playing on His flute, how He is situated with His eternal consort, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, how He is enjoying her company. So nice thing for meditation. But why you are after zero? (laughter) Just see the rascaldom. Here is such nice object for meditation, and they are trying to meditate upon zero. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā says, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Kleśa, that "Trouble is more." We can meditate upon Kṛṣṇa, immediately. We are constantly seeing Kṛṣṇa here. So as soon as I close my eyes, I see Kṛṣṇa. That is not very difficult. Anything you see, you'll be able to immediately have the form within your heart, immediately. So there is no difficulty, but they will create some difficult task. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā (says), kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām. To fix up the mind on Vāsudeva, or Viṣṇu, that is also difficult. But those who are trying to fix up their mind on zero, their position is more difficult, adhikataram. Adhikataram means more.
The faith is explained by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī. He says, 'śraddhā'-śabde—viśvāsa kahe sudṛḍha niścaya (Cc. Madhya 22.62). Faith means one who has got firm faith in the words of Kṛṣṇa. That is called faith. "I am reading Bhagavad-gītā, but I do not accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead or He is a person, as He says in the Bhagavad-gītā..." He says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). Mattaḥ, when He says He's a person... So Kṛṣṇa says that "There is no more better personality or better superior existence than Myself." Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). He says, "Me." Mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te (BG 7.14). Ahaṁ sarvasya... Aham, "Me," "I." He says everywhere. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa is person. Kṛṣṇa is not imperson. Kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. It is said that "One who is impersonalist, he takes more trouble to come to Me. He will come later on, but it will take some time." The impersonal feature of understanding of the Supreme Absolute Truth, it is partial understanding.
So saguṇa, this word... The Māyāvādī theory is saguṇa worship and nirguṇa worship. Saguṇa worship means when you worship a deity, in form, that is called saguṇa worship. And when you meditate upon impersonal, that is nirguṇa. That is their theory. But meditation is not possible unless there is form. Without form, meditation means... That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: "One who is trying to meditate upon the impersonal Brahman," kleśaḥ, "it is very troublesome," because we are not accustomed to concentrate our mind, meditate upon anything which is impersonal. That is not possible. We simply try to do that under labor, under trouble, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām, whereas devotee, he immediately sees Kṛṣṇa in the temple: "Here is Kṛṣṇa. Here is Rādhārāṇī.' Arcā-vigraha. Kṛṣṇa has appeared to be visible. We cannot see Kṛṣṇa or God by these material eyes, but as we can be seeing, as we can appreciate, as we can touch, Kṛṣṇa has accepted the form to be touched by us, to be seen by us, to be served by us. This is called arcā-vigraha. It is not idol worship. The Māyāvādī says it is imagination. No, not it is imagination. Arcā-vigraha. Vigraha. Kṛṣṇa is vigraha, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1), His form.
You cannot stop desire. That is not possible. The kāma-sambhavaḥ... Saṅkalpa-vikalpābhyāṁ vartate kāma-sambhavaḥ. This is the mind's position. I am desiring something, and if it is not very palatable, then I reject it. I accept another desire. This is. You cannot keep the mind vacant even for a single moment. Nobody has got this experience, that mind is vacant. If, by force, you are trying to do that, it is simply laboring. It is not possible. Just like to concentrate one's mind in the vacant... Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Kleśaḥ, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām. Impersonal and void. If you want to engage your mind in the impersonality or voidness of variegatedness, it is simply very, very difficult. The best, easy way of controlling the mind... Because Kṛṣṇa has said that yoginām api sarveṣāṁ mad-gatenāntar-ātmanā (BG 6.47), antar-ātmanā, śraddhāvān bhajate yo mām. This is the way.
Kāma, kṛṣṇa-kāma-karmārpaṇe. Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura has advised that kāma and the desire will be transformed how to serve Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇārthe akhila-ceṣṭa, the same thing. Kāma means fruitive activities for sense gratification, but this kāma can be utilized in Kṛṣṇa's service. Just like we have constructed this temple with the enthusiasm, there must be a very nice temple for Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma. The same desire, as somebody is willing that "I must have a very big skyscraper building," so the same desire. People may ask, "What is the difference between these two desires? Somebody is desiring to possess a very big house and another body is desiring to possess a very nice temple, expensive temple. So what is the difference?" Difference is one is kāma and the other is prema. That is difference. As soon as we desire, that is natural. We cannot be desireless. That is not possible. People say that you become desireless. That is not possible. I am living being. How I can be desireless? No. That is very difficult task. If we want to become desireless, that is not possible. Kleśo adhikāras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Desireless means your desires are suppressed by forced, "I shall not desire." That is not possible. You have got eyes, and if you want to suppress your eyesight, "I shall not see anything," is that possible? That is not possible. Yes, I have got my eyes, but I want to see Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma. That is wanted. That is wanted. Not that "No, I shall not see." Even meditation, so-called meditation, that is also seeing. Real meditation, seeing within. Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasaḥ paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ. Paśyanti, this word is used. Paśyanti means sees, but within, not without. Meditation means seeing within. Not that without seeing. Concentrating the mind to see the form of Lord Viṣṇu, that is real meditation. And without seeing Lord Viṣṇu, that is (indistinct). If you want to fix up my mind into nothing, they say nothingness, that is not possible.
Prabhupāda: At the time of death, somehow or other, if you are fortunate enough to remember Kṛṣṇa, then your life is successful. I shall describe this instance in these discourses, Ajamila, how he became delivered. So the real purpose is ante nārāyaṇa-smṛtiḥ: at the time of death we may be able to think of Kṛṣṇa. Then life is successful.
Guest (1): Much has been said about yoga and...
Prabhupāda: That yoga is also the same thing. Yoga practice means to concentrate one's mind, to practice, the Viṣṇu form within the heart. Viṣṇu is another form of Kṛṣṇa. So, not this modern yoga system, thinking something void. This is not prescribed in the authoritative scriptures. That is simply taking trouble. Kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Those who are attached void, voidness, they simply take more trouble to realize God.
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
We have seen many big, big sannyāsīs, very learned scholars, sannyāsīs, they take part in politics, sociology. Because they could not catch up real Brahman, therefore they come again to his material existence. So Śrīdhara Swami, the great commentator on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, he says, in connection with the second verse, First Chapter, First Canto: dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo atra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ vāstava vastu vedyam atra (SB 1.1.2). So Śrīdhara Swami says, atra mokṣavisandi api nirastam. To desire for mokṣa is also not ultimate goal of life. Ultimate goal of life is to accept the shelter of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). Actually who is jñānavān, he'll take shelter of Kṛṣṇa. If not is this life, he'll have to come to this status. Therefore nirviśeṣa vadi, impersonalists... Kṛṣṇa says, kleṣaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta cetasām. Avyakta. Kṛṣṇa is vyakta. But one who is not after this vyakta, he's after impersonal Brahman, their labor is still more hard than the bhaktas.
As Śrīdhara Swami says, that in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, phala visandi paryantaṁ nirasta. Phala is mukti. Mukti is also phala visandi. So up to mukti, then above mukti, there is bhakti. It is a mistaken idea that one has to attain mukti by bhakti. Sometimes they say that, these pañcopāsanā Māyāvādī, they say that "Ultimately, the absolute truth is nirākāra. There is no form. But because you cannot worship or meditate upon the nirākāra, so just imagine some form. Either of Viṣṇu, or Lord Śiva or Sūrya or Devī." Pañcopāsanā, it is called pañcopāsanā. Sādhakānāṁ hitārthāya brahmaṇo rūpa-kalpanaḥ. This is kalpana, he imagines. "Ultimately the Brahman has no form, but because you are accustomed to meditate on the forms, and it is very difficult for you to meditate upon the formless, so you imagine some form. This is imagine, not fact." That is their theory. And Bhagavān says in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). So that is simply troublesome. After much trouble in that way, when they come to the form of Vāsudeva, vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ (BG 7.19). That mahātmā is greater. Kṛṣṇa is not imagination. This is another offense to think of Kṛṣṇa as imagination. Just see, that it is imagination, kalpana, "Just make it kalpana, imagination of Kṛṣṇa." No, Kṛṣṇa is fact. Kṛṣṇa, the Kṛṣṇa devotees, they are not after imagination. They are after the fact. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). Bhagavān, the personal. Kṛṣṇa says, brahmaṇo 'haṁ pratiṣṭhā, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā manuṣīṁ tanum āś..., paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ (BG 9.11). So these thing will be realized by, through the process as it is recommended by Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
Dehi means possessor of this body, the owner of this body. So owner of this body is different from this body. But in case of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu-tattva, there is no such difference, the self and the body, no difference. That is confirmed in the Kūrma Purāṇa. Unfortunately the Māyāvādīs, they, either due to their poor fund of knowledge of the śāstras or by their whims, they say that "Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, when comes, or the Absolute Truth when He descends, He assumes, He accepts, a material body." That is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa says, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). It is not that Kṛṣṇa accepts a material body. No. Kṛṣṇa has no such distinction, material world. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Because I present myself, descend Myself as a human being, the mūḍhas, or the rascals, they think of Me or deride at Me." The Māyāvādīs, they will never worship the transcendental form of the Lord. They'll not worship. They will worship the imperson. And Kṛṣṇa has said, kleśo adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Of course, impersonal, personal, is the same Absolute Truth. But if you try to reach the Absolute Truth through His impersonal attachment, then it will be more troublesome. The jñānīs, those who want to understand the Absolute Truth by their material, imperfect knowledge, how... Ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). Our manipulation of the senses is not possible to understand what is Kṛṣṇa.
Now, Brahmā says that "This form is bhuvana-maṅgalam maṅgalāya. This form, Kṛṣṇa, is meant for all auspicity for everyone." Bhuvana-maṅgalāya dhyāne sma daraśitaṁ ta upāsakānām. "Those who are observing You in meditation..." Meditation means to concentrate the mind only on Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. This is meditation. I do not know Nowadays so many meditators are there, they have no objective. Something they try to think of impersonal, nonmanifested. And that is condemned in Bhagavad-gītā, that kleśādhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Those who are trying to meditate upon that impersonal void, they are simply, I mean to say, taking unnecessary trouble. If you want to meditate, just meditate on Kṛṣṇa or the$ Paramātmā, the catur-bhuja Viṣṇu, four-handed Viṣṇu. That is the process of meditation everywhere recommended. So why should we go to the impersonal or voidness of meditation and waste our time? Yes.
Festival Lectures
So we have concluded this verse, that Yamarāja says that the holy name of the Personality of Godhead, Bhāgavata, not only His name, but also His activities and His qualities, these qualities... Last night, somebody was discussing with me saguṇa and nirguṇa. Saguṇa means, according to their version, or a standard version, saguṇa means the material quality. They worship saguṇa-rūpa. Saguṇa means forms of this material world. Sādhakānāṁ hitārthāya brāhmaṇa-rūpa-kalpanaḥ.(?) Kalpanaḥ. According to Māyāvādī school, the Absolute Truth is imperson. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is also said, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām, adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Say, for meditation, it is very difficult to meditate on impersonal feature. Therefore, they artificially think like that: "I am the whole. I am moving the stars, I am moving the moon." Or some color display is taking place. Artificially. This meditation is artificial. Therefore, they do not get any result. Simply waste time, and they remain the number one debauch, as they are. So this kind of meditation... Because they will not put any form... "The Brahman is impersonal." So how they can think of any form? It is very difficult to adjust. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā says, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām (BG 12.5). They want to meditate upon impersonal Brahman, but it is very troublesome. Because Brahman is not impersonal, but force, they want to make Brahman impersonal.
Just like we are interested with Kṛṣṇa. Here is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa's form is there, Kṛṣṇa's color is there, Kṛṣṇa's helmet is there, Kṛṣṇa's advice is there, Kṛṣṇa's instruction is there, Kṛṣṇa's sound is there—everything Kṛṣṇa. Everything Kṛṣṇa. There is no difficulty. But if you turn your attention to the impersonal and to the Supersoul, it is very difficult. It is very difficult. You cannot fix your attention to the impersonal. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: (BG 12.5) "Those who are attached to the impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth, their business is very troublesome, very troublesome," not like that, chanting, dancing and eating. Oh, it is very nice. That is very troublesome-speculate, "This is not, this is not. This is not Brahman. This is not Brahman." Go on. And the result is also achieved—by working so hard for many, many lives you'll have to come to Kṛṣṇa.
Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). This morning we have been discussing this śloka. So here also Bhāgavata says that tasmād ekena manasā: "With your one attention," tasmād ekena manasā bhagavān sātvatāṁ patiḥ, "you have to fix your mind on the Supreme Personality of Godhead," sātvatāṁ patiḥ, sātvatāṁ patiḥ, "the master of the devotees."
General Lectures
It is simply troublesome, kleśa. Kleśa means troublesome. Because they cannot concentrate. Avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate. Those who have accepted this body, for them, to think of something impersonal is simply artificial, is simply artificial. Therefore the impersonalists or the void philosophers, their process of so-called yoga is simply troublesome, and maybe some profit there, but the ultimate profit, they cannot have. It is not possible. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly said that yoginām api sarveṣāṁ: (BG 6.47) "Of all the yogis, the one who is thinking of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu..." Because that is the ultimate goal. One has to come to the point. That point, of course, one has to come ultimately, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19), after many, many births. It is simply obstinacy. One who does not take to the meditation of God, or they want to meditate in something other, void or impersonal—that is not possible; that is simply troublesome—so simply they are wasting time because ultimately they have come to this point of personal conception of the Supreme Lord. Bahūnāṁ janmanām, after many, many births, if they are fortunate enough to meet some real devotee, then he becomes enlightened. And vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19). He then accepts Vasudeva, Kṛṣṇa, as everything. Sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ: "Such kind of great soul is very rare."
Philosophy Discussions
Prabhupāda: (laughing) That's right. That is very good. Impersonal conception of God is a troublesome business. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyakta āsakta cetasām. Find out this verse.
Hari-śauri:
- kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām
- avyaktāsakta-cetasām
- avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
- dehavadbhir avāpyate
- (BG 12.5)
"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied."
Prabhupāda: Purport.
Hari-śauri: The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jñāna-yogīs, and persons who are in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogīs. Now, here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jñāna-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body. Therefore, the bhakti-yogī accepts the Deity of Kṛṣṇa as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind, which can thus be applied. Of course, worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His form within the temple is not idol worship. There is evidence in the Vedic literature that worship may be saguṇa and nirguṇa—of the Supreme possessing or not possessing attributes. Worship of the Deity in the temple is saguṇa worship, for the Lord is represented by material qualities. But the form of the Lord, though represented by material qualities such as stone, wood, or oil paint, is not actually material. That is the absolute nature of the Supreme Lord.
A crude example may be given here. We may find some mailboxes on the street, and if we post our letters in those boxes, they will naturally go to their destination without difficulty. But any old box, or an imitation, which we may find somewhere, which is not authorized by the post office, will not do the work. Similarly, God has an authorized representation in the Deity form, which is called arca-vigraha. This arca-vigraha is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. God will accept service through that form. The Lord is omnipotent and all-powerful; therefore, by His incarnation as arca-vigraha, He can accept the services of the devotee, just to make it convenient for the man in conditioned life.
So, for a devotee, there is no difficulty in approaching the Supreme immediately and directly, but for those who are following the impersonal way to spiritual realization, the path is difficult. They have to understand the unmanifested representation of the Supreme through such Vedic literatures as the Upaniṣads, and they have to learn the language, understand the nonperceptual feelings, and they have to realize all these processes. This is not very easy for a common man. A person in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service, simply by the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, simply by offering regulative obeisances unto the Deity, simply by hearing the glories of the Lord, and simply by eating the remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Lord, realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. There is no doubt that the impersonalists are unnecessarily taking a troublesome path with the risk of not realizing the Absolute Truth at the ultimate end. But the personalist, without any risk, trouble, or difficulty, approaches the Supreme Personality directly. A similar passage appears in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. It is stated there that if one has to ultimately surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead (This surrendering process is called bhakti.), but instead takes the trouble to understand what is Brahman and what is not Brahman and spends his whole life in that way, the result is simply troublesome. Therefore it is advised here that one should not take up this troublesome path of self-realization because there is uncertainty in the ultimate result.
A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jñāna-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independant, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is the danger of turning to atheism. Thus this process of centering attention on the unmanifested, the inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the senses, as already expressed in this verse, should never be encouraged at any time, especially in this age. It is not advised by Lord Kṛṣṇa.
Hayagrīva: He says, "If you throw away His grace, He punishes you by behaving objectively toward you, and in that sense one may say that the world has not got a personal God in spite of all the proofs. But while dons and parsons," that is priests, "drivel on," talk on, "about the millions of truths about God's personality, the truth is that there are no longer the men living who could bear the pressure and weight of having a personal God." Because he feels that a personal God would make demands on man, and so therefore men reject the idea of a personal God.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Personal God means He is demanding, as Kṛṣṇa is demanding, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Always think of Me, or offer Me worship, offer Me obeisances, and become My devotee. And give up all other engagement. Simply be engaged in My service." This is the demand of God, and if we carry out His demand, then we are perfect. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9). If you simply carry out the orders of God then you become qualified, fit for going back to home, back to Godhead. This is clearly stated. Tyaktvā deham. We have to give up this body, but a devotee, a pure devotee, after giving up this body, he doesn't accept another material body, but in his original, spiritual body he goes back to home, back to Godhead.
Hayagrīva: That's the end of Kierkegaard. (end)
Śyāmasundara: He says that this is..., because of this spiritual personality that he can know and love God.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Without person how there can be love? There is no question of love. You cannot love air or sky; you must find out a man or woman in the, under the sky. So therefore if you want to love God then you must accept God is a person; otherwise there is no question of love. Therefore for the Māyāvādī philosopher there is no question of love. They merge. They want sāyujya-mukti, to become one. They have no other conception, because they cannot conceive personal God. So there is no love. Therefore they manufacture an idea that in the material condition of life, you just imagine any form of God and love Him, and ultimately you become one. That is their philosophy. Ultimately you throw away this... The example is given that you want to rise on some top floor you take a ladder and go to the top and throw away the ladder: there is no need of this ladder, now you have come to the position. So their theory is that because you cannot love or worship something impersonal, because it is difficult, it is troublesome... It is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśa adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: those who are attached to impersonal deities, their progress in spiritual life is very troublesome because they never fix up. So in order to give them some facility, they say that "You imagine some form of the Absolute Truth, and when you are perfect, then throw away that form. You become one." This is their philosophy. But if God is God, then how I can throw Him? That means while they are thinking of God, that is not God. And they say it is imagination. Then what is the value of imagination if it is not reality? So how by imagination, by kalpana, by taking something false, you can reach the reality? That is the defect of their philosophy. If you take it something wrong, how you can reach the reality? Your process is wrong, because you are accepting something wrong: imagination, imagination.
Purports to Songs
Woman: How do you call devotion to the Lord?
Prabhupāda: Eh? Yes. Lord... We worship Kṛṣṇa, the symbol of Supreme Consciousness. Because in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that kleśa adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. If you take up impersonal, simply consciousness, then you have to pass through difficult process, but if you accept the symbol, Kṛṣṇa, the symbol of Supreme Consciousness, that will be easier for you. Yes. It is said. So Kṛṣṇa... I can concentrate my mind. I can focus my mental activities in the service of the Lord, Kṛṣṇa. Because He is Supreme Consciousness, therefore automatically I concentrate on the Supreme Consciousness. So
- bhajahū re mana śrī-nanda-nandana-
- abhaya-caraṇāravinda re
- durlabha mānava-janama sat-saṅge
- taroho e bhava-sindhu re
Then he says that "What I am doing? What is my present occupation?" The present occupation is:
- śīta ātapa bāta bariṣaṇa
- e dina jāminī jāgi re
- biphale sevinu kṛpaṇa durajana
- capala sukha-laba lāgi' re
He says that "I am working hard, day and night. And there is no question of winter or summer or rainy season. I have to work hard, day and night. If there is night duty in the winter season, I have to join my office at twelve o'clock at night. So I must go. There is snowfall. If I don't go, then I'll be absent. So I am working so hard, very hard." Śīta ātapa bāta bariṣaṇa, jāminī jāgi re. "And what for I am working?" Now, biphale sevinu kṛpaṇa durajana: "Just to serve persons who cannot protect me, who cannot protect me." We think that my wife, or my husband, or my children, or my relatives, or my friends, and, oh, so many we have got, relationship with this material world And everyone is working to satisfy his relatives. A family man is working so hard because he has to satisfy his wife, children, friends and so many other persons. But one should be conscious that "These friends and relatives, they cannot protect me ultimately. They are Neither I can protect them, nor they can protect me." You see? Everyone responsible.
Conversations and Morning Walks
1974 Conversations and Morning Walks
Prabhupāda: ...impersonalist or personalist. Who is better? That is explained, that personalists are better posted than the impersonalists. Gatir duḥk..., avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate.
Mr. Sar: Yes.
Prabhupāda: They simply suffer, that's all. It is already explained. The impersonalists, they cannot concentrate their mind upon the Supreme, and simply hodgepodge. Therefore they suffer.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore, according to Vedic civilization, one must accept sannyāsa at a certain stage.
Mr. Sar:
- kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām
- avyaktāsakta-cetasām
- avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
- dehavadbhir avāpyate
- (BG 12.5)
Dr. Patel: Ye tu sarvāṇi karmāṇi mayi sannyāsya mat-parāḥ. Now, you have all your...
Prabhupāda: Sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ, that, it is very difficult. Because even Mahatma Gandhi, such a great person, he said, "Englishman, you go away." Just see. Who can be better than Mahatma Gandhi?
Prabhupāda: No, no. Sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ means who is devotee of Kṛṣṇa. He is sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ.
Dr. Patel: Because Kṛṣṇa's representative.
Prabhupāda: He is the root. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8). The root, if you water the root, then sarva-bhūta hite ratāḥ, the water will go to the branches, to the twigs, to the leaves, to the flowers. He is sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ. They do not know the way how to become sarva-bhūta-hite. And because... Just see the example. I am not becoming proud, but because I have got little taste for it, therefore I am preaching all over the world. I don't say I am perfect. I have got little taste of kṛṣṇa-bhakti. So I have no distinction that "This is Indian. This is American. This is African." Everyone, I am giving this hari-nāma. This is sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ, no distinction. We are trying to give protection the the cows, to animals, to the trees. This is sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ. Unless one is... Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad... If one is not devoted to Kṛṣṇa, he cannot become sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ. Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām (BG 12.5). Simply they will suffer, that's all.
Mr. Sar: Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām.
Prabhupāda: Avyakta. This avyakta... They do not find where is the point where sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ. Just like one who knows the electric button, he push. He does not know that. Mūḍha.
Dr. Patel: You have to work the main switch.
Prabhupāda: Yes! That is sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ. You must know how to do it.
1975 Conversations and Morning Walks
Prabhupāda: He has said somewhere, I don't particularly know, "The Indian priests(?) think like that."
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: In his Gītā, in the verse that describes how to meditate on the formless, he states that although it says in the Bhagavad-gītā that it is very difficult to understand the formless aspect, he says this was true five thousand years ago but now it is no longer true.
Prabhupāda: Just see.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: I have read in his Gītā.
Guest: Five thousand years ago it must have been true but now...
Prabhupāda: No, no. There is the verse, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktā-sakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). So in explaining that śloka he said, "It was painful five thousand years ago, but it is not now painful. It has become easy." That means the version of Gītā can be changed after five thousand years. Then what is the importance of speaking by Kṛṣṇa if it is changeable like material things? then what is the authority of Kṛṣṇa? Is it changeable?
1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
Prabhupāda: Find out this verse. (Hindi) Somebody, you can read? (rings bell) (more Hindi) Somebody... Why don't you send? What they are doing? All these rascals, that they cannot read.
Devotee: Someone should come in?
Prabhupāda: Yes. But they do not know that somebody should remain here. Why are there? What they are doing there?
Hari-śauri: Harikeśa is typing. Pradyumna is reading Sanskrit books.
Prabhupāda: Send Pradyumna immediately. Kleśo 'dhikarataras teṣām avyaktasakta-cetasam. Kleśa. Beginning with kleśa. You could not? Kleśa. K-l-e-s. Why don't you come here? And who will find out? Come here.
Devotee: Kleśo 'dhikarataras teṣām?
Prabhupāda: Why do you say that you do not find? Find out. They are not accustomed. Kleśo'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). (Hindi) Read it.
Pradyumna:
- kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām
- avyaktāsakta-cetasām
- avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
- dehavadbhir avāpyate
- (BG 12.5)
Prabhupāda: Ah. Avyaktā hi gatir duḥkham. (Hindi) Read it.
Pradyumna: "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied."
Prabhupāda: Yes. (Hindi) You are expecting happiness by thinking of impersonal form of the Lord. That is not possible. You simply get troubles, that's all. (Hindi) What is the purport?
Pradyumna: "The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jñāna-yogis, and persons who are in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord are called bhakti-yogis. Now here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed."
Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa personally says bhaktyā mām abhijānāti (BG 18.55). (Hindi) If you like to tolerate adi-kleśa, that is your choice.
Prabhupāda: It is not material. Because matter, chindanti, any matter it can be destroyed. It can be cut into pieces, it can be melted in fire, it can be moistened. So when we cannot understand things, it is given in the definition of negation.
Doctor: But then it's much better to worship God in form.
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is intelligence. If you accept Kṛṣṇa immediately, man-manā bhava mad..., then your life is successful. Kṛṣṇa says man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru, mām evaiṣyasi satyaṁ te (BG 18.65), He said. But they are not interested. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ (BG 9.11). "Ah, Kṛṣṇa is a historical person. Why shall I think of Him? I shall think of oṁkāra." You cannot think of oṁkāra. You can hear. And as soon as you think of oṁkāra it comes from? There is no impersonalism. It again becomes personal. So they want to avoid personality and as well as think of Him—it becomes a very troublesome job. Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). They cannot think of avyakta, impersonal. But they are trying to think of. That is a very troublesome job. Kleśala eva avaśiṣyate.(?) Such attempt means he simply gets the result of his hard endeavor. That's all. He doesn't get any substance.
Prabhupāda: Yes. But he's a person. So how the father is imperson? What kind of father?
Dr. Patel: Sir, instead of calling person, we say he's an individual. Person means this body.
Prabhupāda: Person is individual.
Dr. Patel: Individual. So God is an individual then?
Prabhupāda: No, person. God is a person. Individual means person. Individual person.
Dr. Patel: Everything person is body.
Prabhupāda: Body or no body, that is separate thing. But when you say individual, he is a person. And it is explained also in the Bhagavad... Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Those who are inclined to the impersonal feature... God has got that impersonal feature. So they have to undergo more troubles to understand Him. And after going through troublesome business, bahūnāṁ janmanām, many, many births, then he understands, "Oh, vāsudevaḥ sarvam, here is the person." Everywhere this disease is very prominent, that God is impersonal. Perhaps this is the only movement in the world that's preaching, "No, God is person."
1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
Prabhupāda: ...that a high-court judge and he does not know what is God. How misfortunate he is. And he's speaking of God, "Surrender," all theoretical. They do not know what is surrender. If I say anybody that "Go to Dr. Patel and surrender unto him, and whatever he'll prescribe, you take it," but if he does not know what is Dr. Patel, then where he'll go and what to surrender? This is their position. They speak big, big words but do not know where to go. It is not? What do you think?
Dr. Patel: They do not believe in what you say...
Prabhupāda: Huh? That is the truth. Actually they do not know, and they cheat others, speaking about God. That is the difficulty. All rascals are doing that. And if I say, "All rascals," it is little harsh, but it has to be said. They do not know what is God, and they speak of God. Let them say frankly that "I do not know what is God." That is answered in the Bhagavad-gītā, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). If they are sincere, then after many, many births... Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta... (BG 12.5). They do not know, and they will not accept ācāryopāsanam. The ācārya says, Rāmānujācārya says, Madhvācārya says, big, big ācārya, Caitanya Mahāprabhu... They will not believe them. They will speculate in their nonsense speculation. This is the difficulty. Without going to the ācārya... Tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). This is the Vedic process, how one can know. But they will speculate. Ciraṁ vicinvan. Athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvayaṁ jānāti tattvam... Athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvayam, leśānugṛhīta eva hi jānāti tattvaṁ na cānya eko 'pi ciraṁ vicinvan (SB 10.14.29). One who has little mercy of God upon him, he can understand, but others, they can speculate for many, many births; still, they'll never be able. Athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvayaṁ leśānugṛhīta jānāti tattvam. Leśānugṛhīta eva hi. Leśa. One cannot know God full. That is not possible because you are limited; He is unlimited.
Prabhupāda: Eh? So to become Kṛṣṇa conscious, to take instruction from Kṛṣṇa and abide by the order, it is not meant for an ordinary person. Bhāgyavān, very fortunate. Those who are... Those who are unfortunate, they do not come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They manufacture some vague idea. Kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Find out this verse.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Twelfth chapter.
Pradyumna:
- kleso 'dhikataras teṣām
- avyaktāsakta-cetasām
- avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
- dehavadbhir avāpyate
- (BG 12.5)
"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied."
Prabhupāda: Artificial. Cyavanti te. There is one verse. They'll fall down. What is the purport?
Pradyumna: "The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord engaged in devotional service of the Lord are called (sic:) bhakta-yogīs. Now, here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jñāna-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body. Therefore the bhakti-yogī accepts the Deity of Kṛṣṇa as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind which can thus be applied. Of course, worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His form within the temple is not idol worship. There is evidence in the Vedic literature that worship may be saguṇa or nirguṇa, of the Supreme possessing or not possessing attributes. Worship of the Deity in the temple is saguṇa worship, for the Lord is represented by material qualities. But the form of the Lord, though represented by material qualities such as stone, wood, or oil paint, is not actually material. That is the absolute nature of the Supreme Lord. A crude example may be given here. We may find some mail boxes on the street, and if we post our letters in those boxes, they will naturally will go to their destination without difficulty. But any old box or an imitation which we may find somewhere, which is not authorized by the post office, will not do the work. Similarly, God has an authorized representation in the Deity form, which is called arcā-vigraha. This arcā-vigraha is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. God will accept service through that form. The Lord is omnipotent and all-powerful. Therefore, by His incarnation as arcā-vigraha, He can accept the service of the devotee just to make it convenient for the man in conditioned life. So for a devotee, there is no difficulty in approaching the Supreme immediately and directly, but for those who are following the impersonal way to spiritual realization, the path is difficult. They have to understand the unmanifested representation of the Supreme through such Vedic literatures as the Upaniṣads, and they have to learn the language, understand the nonperceptual feeling, and they have to realize all these processes..."
Prabhupāda: Just like in the Upaniṣads it is said, paśyaty acakṣuḥ: "He sees, but He has no eyes." So what is that? How we can think of, one is seeing without eye? Aiye. There are so many. Śṛṇoty akarṇaḥ: "He has no ears..." So both things are there. When it is said, paśyaty acakṣuḥ... Mean cakṣuḥ, eyes, as soon we think of eyes, we think of our eyes, own eyes, and therefore it is forbidden, "Not like your eyes." Paśyati. He can see everywhere. Therefore we have to discuss śāstra. In the Brahma-saṁhitā it is said, aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛttimanti paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti (Bs. 5.32). The aṅga, the different parts of the body of Kṛṣṇa, has got all the qualities of other aṅga. Just like we can see with eyes, but Kṛṣṇa can speak also with eyes. He can eat also with eyes. That is difference. Aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛttimanti. So paśyaty acakṣuḥ means He has different type of eyes, not like our eyes. When there is nirākāra... Nirākāra means He hasn't got a ākāra, a form, like ours. That is nirākāra. But He has his form. And Kṛṣṇa says... So dehino 'smin yathā dehe: (BG 2.13) "Within this body the owner of the body is there." But if the owner of the body has no form, how the material form has come into existence? Just like this shirt has got hand. Because I am the owner of the shirt—I have got hand-therefore the shirt has got also hand. I have got my leg; therefore the pant has got leg. If you say, "The pant has got leg, the shirt has got hand, but the owner of the shirt has no leg, no...," is it possible? And this external body described as dress... Vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya (BG 2.22). Vāsa, dress. Dress cannot show any hand and leg unless the man who is dressed, he has got his hand and leg. So how He is nirākāra? (Hindi)
| Page Title: | BG 12.05 kleso 'dhikataras tesam... cited |
| Compiler: | MadhuGopaldas, Visnu Murti |
| Created: | 01 of Mar, 2011 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=1, SB=12, CC=3, OB=4, Lec=31, Con=9, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 60 |