Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Controversy (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"controverse" |"controversial" |"controversies" |"controversy" |"controverted"

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

We should approach the Supreme or the representative of the Supreme, just like the same example: when there is any controversy, we refer to the law book or to the lawyer, or we take the decision of the law court, and that is final.
Lecture on BG 2.11 (with Spanish translator) -- Mexico, February 11, 1975:

So our process of receiving knowledge is from the supreme controller because, according to the definition already given—wise, the most wise—Kṛṣṇa, or Bhagavān, is the most wise. Therefore, if we receive knowledge from the most wise, then there is no flaw. That is our principle, that we are receiving from Kṛṣṇa, the supreme controller, directly. Just like when there is some misunderstanding, we take help from the law books because in the law book or in the law court, the decision is obligatory to both the parties. So to give knowledge there are many, many parties, but when we receive knowledge from the Supreme, that is all-inclusive. So here Kṛṣṇa says, aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase (BG 2.11). Arjuna has accepted the guidance of Kṛṣṇa. He has said previously that "The position is very perplexing. Therefore I accept You as my spiritual master, and You kindly give me enlightenment." This is the process. We should approach the Supreme or the representative of the Supreme, just like the same example: when there is any controversy, we refer to the law book or to the lawyer, or we take the decision of the law court, and that is final.

So there was controversy, who will claim that hunt, I mean to say, killed animal. So Arjuna was claiming, and Lord Śiva as a hunter, he was also claiming. Then there was fight between Lord Śiva and Arjuna.
Lecture on BG 2.33-35 -- London, September 3, 1973:

To test Arjuna's fighting capacity, sometimes Lord Śiva, when Arjuna was hunting in the forest, so Lord Śiva also, as a hunter, he appeared before him, and when a boar was killed by hunting, Lord Śiva claimed that "I have done this killing." Arjuna said, "No, I have done this." So there was controversy, who will claim that hunt, I mean to say, killed animal. So Arjuna was claiming, and Lord Śiva as a hunter, he was also claiming. Then there was fight between Lord Śiva and Arjuna. So Lord Śiva was defeated. So he then disclosed his identity that "I am very much pleased that you (are) such a nice fighter." So he presented him one arrow which is called pāśupata-astra. Similarly, he sometimes fought with Indra. He gave him some astra, weapon. This was the system, that a kṣatriya is presented with a kind of weapon, a brāhmaṇa is presented with Vedas, and so far vaiśyas and śūdras are concerned, they are not very important.

In Oxford University there is a big research department. But here God is canvassing. He's explaining. There was a great controversy.
Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Bombay, February 22, 1974:

If we try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, at least we understand what is Kṛṣṇa, what is God. God is explaining Himself. And we are searching after God, making sear... There are so many institutions. In Oxford University there is a big research department. But here God is canvassing. He's explaining. There was a great controversy. What is that professor?

Pradyumna: Professor Al Zayner, Hardy.

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Pradyumna: Al Zayner, Professor Zayner.

Prabhupāda: Professor Zayner. So I invited him. So he did not dare to come before us. So there was another professor. What is that? Sir...?

Pradyumna: Sir Alistair Hardy.

Prabhupāda: Sir Alistair Hardy. He came. He admitted. He's making research. So these things are going on. Why research? Everything is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Everything is explained and commented by so many, many great, stalwart, I mean to say, commentator, especially Śrīdhara Svāmī, Rāmānujācārya, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana. So many great scholars, they have commented upon Bhagavad-gītā. So try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. That is the real necessity of life.

The controversy about the Absolute Truth, whether the Absolute Truth is form or formless... There are many philosophers. Some of them are impersonalists, and some of them are personalists. So here the decision is given by Kṛṣṇa Himself, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Vrndavana, August 13, 1974:

The controversy about the Absolute Truth, whether the Absolute Truth is form or formless... There are many philosophers. They, some of them are impersonalists, and some of them are personalists. They... In India the impersonalists are known as Māyāvādī, and the personalists, they are known as Vaiṣṇavas. So here the decision is given by Kṛṣṇa Himself, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa means Bhagavān. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). This is the conclusion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And in the Ṛg Veda also it is said, tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam: "Viṣṇu is the Supreme"; sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ, "Those who are demigods, or advanced in spiritual knowledge, they always look after the lotus feet of Viṣṇu." But the demons, they do not know that the Viṣṇu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Absolute Truth. They cannot. Because they have taken the atheistic attitude, they cannot understand the Absolute Truth as the Supreme Person.

Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, the same. But there is controversy whether Viṣṇu is secondary or Kṛṣṇa is secondary. According to śāstra, nobody's secondary. Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, They are simply expansion. They are not different.
Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Vrndavana, August 13, 1974:

Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, the same. But there is controversy whether Viṣṇu is secondary or Kṛṣṇa is secondary. According to śāstra, nobody's secondary. Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, They are simply expansion. They are not different. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Viṣṇu has ananta-rūpam, unlimited forms. Advaitam acyutam. They are not different. The other day I explained. The candle... First candle, second candle, third candle... But no candle is less powerful than the other candles. This is the conclusion. So either we say Viṣṇu or we say Kṛṣṇa or Rāma, Nṛsiṁha, Balarāma, They are all expansions of the Supreme Person Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) "There is no more superior authority than Me." This is the conclusion. Mattaḥ, "from Me," na anyat, "nobody else is superior." That is the conclusion of the śāstra. And Kṛṣṇa personally also says. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcit. "Nobody." There is controversy... In another place Kṛṣṇa says, aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). He is the origin of all demigods.

There is no controversy. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya, mayi sarvam idaṁ protam: "Everything is in Me."
Lecture on BG 7.7 -- Vrndavana, August 13, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa is admitted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all authorities. There is no doubt about it. And Kṛṣṇa personally confirms, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) "There is no more superior being than Myself." So where is the difficulty to understand what is God? There is no difficulty. But if we are obstinate, if we do not try to understand what is God, that is a different thing. But everything is there. So we should take it for acceptance that nobody is superior than Kṛṣṇa. Bhāgavata says, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Brahma-saṁhitā says, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). So it is concluded. There is no controversy. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya, mayi sarvam idaṁ protam: (BG 7.7) "Everything is in Me."

Just like the controversy is... The modern scientists, they say that "Life is generated from matter." We are protesting. We are protesting because... We are not scientists, of course, but we are scientists so far our knowledge is concerned. Because here it is said... Kṛṣṇa says, jñānaṁ te 'haṁ sa-vijñānam, so Kṛṣṇa is the authority.
Lecture on BG 9.1 -- Melbourne, April 19, 1976:

Jñānam. Jñānam means knowledge. And vijñānam means particular knowledge. Just like in scientific word there are knowledge and scientific knowledge or theoretical knowledge and experimental knowledge, two kinds of knowledge. Science... In the field of scientific knowledge there are things, just like observation and experiment. Things are going on. The scientists are observing that "This things is being done." Now there are so many observation, atomic observation. Proton, neutron, they are observing. And now, when that observation is complete, when they are put into experimental knowledge, that is called vijñānam. So Kṛṣṇa says that "I shall explain to you jñānam, theoretical knowledge, with practical experiment." Not that you have to accept this knowledge blindly. Practical experiment. Jñānaṁ te 'haṁ pravakṣyāmy anasū... Jñānaṁ vijñāna-sahitam. Just like the controversy is... The modern scientists, they say that "Life is generated from matter." We are protesting. We are protesting because... We are not scientists, of course, but we are scientists so far our knowledge is concerned. Because here it is said... Kṛṣṇa says, jñānaṁ te 'haṁ sa-vijñānam (BG 7.2), so Kṛṣṇa is the authority.

When there is, worship of God is there, either in the Bible or in Bhagavad-gītā, then there is no controversy.
Lecture on BG 9.1 -- Melbourne, April 19, 1976:

Guest (3): All right, furthermore, I have another question. All right? This is actually a statement which comes from the Bible, which is one... If you'll pardon me, I'm going to refer to it. The Supreme Lord... It is said, "I am the Lord, thy God." And I am not meaning who I am, we are, standing here (?). That is the statement of the Supreme Lord. "And thou shalt have no strange gods before Me. You must not make images or idols to bow to or worship in any other way. You may worship no other god than Me?" Well, then how is it that...?

Prabhupāda: But that is not any other way. You have to worship God. I have to worship God. Then where is any other way? Worshiping God is there, either you or in me. So where is other? There is no difference. The worship of God is there. I worship God; you worship God. You follow Bible; I follow Bhagavad-gītā. But the worship of God is there. Where is the difference? Why do you make difference?

Guest (3): Well, churches...

Prabhupāda: I eat; you eat. Eating is there. So in your country I eat in different way; I eat in different way. But eating must be there. Similarly, worship of God must be there. Either you worship through Bible or Bhagavad-gītā, but worship of God must there. That is wanted.

Guest (3): Yes.

Prabhupāda: Then that done, finish. Then there is no question of deter... Just like here we are hundreds of men. We are differently dressed but that does not mean that we are not human being.

Guest (3): No, I see no cause to...

Prabhupāda: Yes. So then there is no question. When there is, worship of God is there, either in the Bible or in Bhagavad-gītā, then there is no controversy.

So how you can be allowed to enter into the moon planet, which is the residential place of demigods? That is a very controversial point.
Lecture on BG 9.3 -- Melbourne, April 21, 1976:

If you want to go to the higher planetary system, not by force you can go to the moon planet. That is not possible. That is simply childish. You cannot go. You must have to be qualified how to go there. Just like if somebody comes to your country, Australia, he has to take the visa, permit, passport, so many things. Then you allow. So how you can be allowed to enter into the moon planet, which is the residential place of demigods? That is a very controversial point. They say that they have gone to moon planet and there is no life. This is simply nonsense. Every planet is full of living entities. But if they say they could not find any living entities, then it is to be understood they haven't gone to the moon planet. There are many other points also, we do not wish to discuss. But moon planet is the higher planetary system, sun planet is the higher planetary system, and there are many others. If you like to go there, you can go. Yānti deva-vratā devān (BG 9.25). You have to make, prepare yourself for going there.

How you can be allowed to enter into the moon planet, which is the residential place of demigods? That is a very controversial point. They say that they have gone to moon planet and there is no life. This is simply nonsense. Every planet is full of living entities.
Lecture on BG 9.3 -- Melbourne, April 21, 1976:

If you want to go to the higher planetary system, not by force you can go to the moon planet. That is not possible. That is simply childish. You cannot go. You must have to be qualified how to go there. Just like if somebody comes to your country, Australia, he has to take the visa, permit, passport, so many things. Then you allow. So how you can be allowed to enter into the moon planet, which is the residential place of demigods? That is a very controversial point. They say that they have gone to moon planet and there is no life. This is simply nonsense. Every planet is full of living entities. But if they say they could not find any living entities, then it is to be understood they haven't gone to the moon planet.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

There is controversy about Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu amongst the Vaiṣṇava community.
Lecture on SB 1.16.11 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1974:

So Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is predicted in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other scriptures as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We do not accept Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu simply because He was a saintly person. There is controversy about Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu amongst the Vaiṣṇava community. Just like the Nimbārka Sampradāya. They say that "We accept Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as a great devotee," but we, Gauḍīya Sampradāya, we say that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because it is stated in the śāstra.

There are many controversial points. It may take long hours. But so far we are, Vaiṣṇava are, concerned, we don't accept that this world is false. No. Everything is meant for Kṛṣṇa's service.
Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 11, 1975:

There are many instances, many sannyāsīs. They give up this world as mithyā and again come to politics, again come to philanthropic work. Why? If jagat is mithyā, why you are coming to politics and philanthropic work? That is āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32). Again they fall down. So there are many controversial points. It may take long hours. But so far we are, Vaiṣṇava are, concerned, we don't accept that this world is false. No. Everything is meant for Kṛṣṇa's service. Kṛṣṇa says, bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ sarva-loka-maheśvaram (BG 5.29). He is the proprietor. And He is the bhoktā. So don't try to enjoy this world. That is false. Everything engaged for Kṛṣṇa's—that is reality. So jagat is not unreal. Our attitude, our mentality, is unreal, that "The whole world is for my enjoyment." No. The creator says, bhoktā aham: "I am enjoyer." Why you are claiming you are enjoyer? That is your false claim. So jagat is not false, but our claim to enjoy the jagat, that is false.

There are many controversial points. But so far we are, Vaiṣṇava are, concerned, we don't accept that this world is false. No. Everything is meant for Kṛṣṇa's service.
Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 11, 1975:

So there are many controversial points. It may take long hours. But so far we are, Vaiṣṇava are, concerned, we don't accept that this world is false. No. Everything is meant for Kṛṣṇa's service. Kṛṣṇa says, bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ sarva-loka-maheśvaram (BG 5.29). He is the proprietor. And He is the bhoktā. So don't try to enjoy this world. That is false. Everything engaged for Kṛṣṇa's—that is reality. So jagat is not unreal. Our attitude, our mentality, is unreal, that "The whole world is for my enjoyment." No. The creator says, bhoktā aham: "I am enjoyer." Why you are claiming you are enjoyer? That is your false claim. So jagat is not false, but our claim to enjoy the jagat, that is false. So we have to convert it, that it is enjoyable by Kṛṣṇa. Then you come to reality.

They cannot go there (to the moon); neither ever they went there. This is the conclusion. So that is a controversial point, controversial, but we have to see the result. According to Vedic culture, one has to judge by the result.
Lecture on SB 6.1.6 -- Honolulu, June 8, 1975:

There are millions of universes. We do not know. We do not know even one universe. We cannot study even one universe. They are... They were—not are—trying to go to the moon planet, but that has become a failure. From śāstra we understand that the moon planet is situated 1,600,000 miles away from the sun, and the sun is situated in the middle of the universe. And the total diameter from one circumference to the other of the universe it is four billions of miles. So the sun is situated at the point of two billions of miles from the circumference of the universe, and above the sun planet, 1,600,000, there is the moon. And above that there is Venus, there is Jupiter, there is Mars—all difference of 1,600,000 of miles. So it is not possible to go to the moon planet. Because first of all the sun is a little... According to the modern scientists calculation it is 93,000,0000. Taking it, accepted as 93,000,000's from this earthly planet, then again add 1,600,000, that means 94,600,000 miles away from the earth there is the moon planet. It is not possible. Therefore they are now silent. They cannot go there; neither ever they went there. This is the conclusion. So that is a controversial point, controversial, but we have to see the result. According to Vedic culture, one has to judge by the result.

There are sometimes controversy that "You do not worship Lord Rāmacandra" or "You do not chant the name of Rāmacandra first." These are all material consideration.
Lecture on SB 7.9.47 -- Vrndavana, April 2, 1976:

There are sometimes controversy that "You do not worship Lord Rāmacandra" or "You do not chant the name of Rāmacandra first." These are all material consideration. Either you chant Hare Rāma or Hare Kṛṣṇa, it does not make any difference. If you like, you can begin with Hare Rāma, and if you like, you can... These are, I mean to say, neophyte question, that "You are not chanting Hare Rāma. You are making discrimination." We do not make any discrimination. We equally... But I like the form of Kṛṣṇa. Hanumāncandra(?) liked the form of Rāma. But that does not mean that you like any form and he'll be God. No. You have to go according to the direction of the śāstra.

There was some political controversy between Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī's uncle, father uncle, and the government minister.
Lecture on SB 7.12.6 -- Bombay, April 17, 1976:

Whatever business is entrusted to him, he does it very nicely, dakṣa. Just like Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī, he had no interest in material things. His father's estate was very big, and he was not interested. But at a time when there was a political situation, he tackled it very nicely. This is the example of dakṣa. There was some political controversy between Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī's uncle, father uncle, and the government minister. So the minister, in order to take advantage, he came to arrest Raghunātha Gosvāmī's father and uncle, and they fled away from the house. So the minister arrested Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī, the son, because if he was chastised, he'll disclose the secret, where his father and uncle has fled. And so Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī—it is a long story—tackled the situation so nicely that there was peace between the minister and his father and uncle, and the misunderstanding was settled up. So this is called dakṣa. Not that because he has become Kṛṣṇa conscious, and Vaiṣṇava, he is unable to do anything of this material world. No. One who is Kṛṣṇa conscious, he is conscious of everything and he knows how to deal with them. That is called dakṣa.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

In Bengal there is a family, they say that they are descendants from Nityānanda Prabhu. So apart from controversy, even accepting that they are descendants from Nityānanda Prabhu, their business is also to act like Nityānanda Prabhu.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.2 -- Mayapur, March 26, 1975:

So how one can exhibit Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu, that is... By His personal example Nityānanda Prabhu has given us lesson. When Caitanya Mahāprabhu was sending His devotees to preach and Nityānanda Prabhu was doing that, He used to go with Haridāsa Ṭhākura to preach on the street, home to home. So when they saw there was a big crowd on the street, so Nityānanda Prabhu inquired from the people, "Why there is so many people assembled?" He was informed that "There are two gundas, rogues. They are creating some trouble." The gundas, their business is to create trouble, that's all. Every one of us we know, especially at the present moment in Bengal. Yes. This is due to lack of preaching of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Nityānanda Prabhu is not given the chance. Nityānanda Prabhu is very eager to preach, but He's not given chance. Actually, those who are proud of becoming descendants of Nityānanda Prabhu... In Bengal there is a family, they say that they are descendants from Nityānanda Prabhu. So apart from controversy, even accepting that they are descendants from Nityānanda Prabhu, their business is also to act like Nityānanda Prabhu.

The Lord is ānanda-mayo. This māyā-prātyaya, there is controversy between the Śaṅkarites and the Vaiṣṇavas.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

The Lord is ānanda-mayo. This māyā-prātyaya, there is controversy between the Śaṅkarites and the Vaiṣṇavas. They say that māyā-prātyaya... This prātyaya, from Sanskrit verbal root, is affixed in two cases—when there is excess and when there is transformation. So either cases, the ānanda, or the blissful nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is extensive, unlimited.

Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā manuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ. Mūḍha. Mūḍha means those who are not intelligent. "They think that I am also ordinary man." Therefore there is controversy.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.137-146 -- Bombay, February 24, 1971:

The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks because Kṛṣṇa is all-pervading, therefore He has no form. No. That is not fact. He has form, but His form is not like your form and my form. This form is explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā: advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Acyuta. And He does not fall down. Acyuta means thing which does not fall down. So just like we are, we are living entities, we fall down in the clutches of māyā. But Kṛṣṇa does not fall down. The Māyāvādī philosophers mistake that. They think that as we come to this material world with a material body, similarly, Kṛṣṇa also comes with a material body. No. That is not the fact. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā manuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ (BG 9.11). Mūḍha. Mūḍha means those who are not intelligent. "They think that I am also ordinary man." Therefore there is controversy, "Why I shall worship Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa cannot... The Supreme Lord cannot come in this way, just like ordinary man, and making friendship with Arjuna and driving his chariot, or dancing with the gopīs." They cannot conceive. They cannot accommodate within their tiny brain that Kṛṣṇa is so powerful.

General Lectures

When we become nirmalam, clear—clear consciousness and Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the same thing—then all our misunderstanding is vanquished immediately. Then we can understand what is God, what I am, what you are, what is our relationship, and when we act accordingly, there is no controversy, no misunderstanding.
Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, February 23, 1971:

The original consciousness is polluted by contamination of this material world. Just like water, when it falls from the cloud directly, it is clear and without any dirty things, but as soon as it touches the ground, it becomes muddy. Again, if you decant the muddy portion of the water, it becomes again clear. Similarly, our consciousness, being polluted by the three modes of material nature, we are thinking one another as enemy or friend. But as soon as you come on the platform of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you feel that "We are one. The center is Kṛṣṇa." And Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4). There are 8,400,000 species of life in different forms. The father, the seed-giving father, is Kṛṣṇa, or the Lord, the Supreme Lord. By misunderstanding, we are thinking that "I am Indian, you are American," or "You are brāhmaṇa, I am śūdra," or "You are Hindu, I am Muslim." These differences are only designations. So as soon as we are freed from the designation—sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170)—when we become nirmalam, clear—clear consciousness and Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the same thing—then all our misunderstanding is vanquished immediately. Then we can understand what is God, what I am, what you are, what is our relationship, and when we act accordingly, there is no controversy, no misunderstanding.

Why controversy? First of all let us settle this.
Sunday Feast Lecture -- Atlanta, March 2, 1975:

Woman: In the Christian Bible it says that God created all of earth.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Woman: He created the waters, he created the animals, but He created the human being in His image, which was the same.

Prabhupāda: That's nice. That's nice.

Woman: Explain to me then why you say...

Prabhupāda: Then the God is person. God created human beings after His own image—that means He has also two hands, two legs, like us.

Woman: No.

Prabhupāda: Why not? You say. (laughter) You say, "God has created human being after His image." Therefore His image must be like you. Why do you say no?

Woman: Well, then that's controversy to the...

Prabhupāda: Why controversy? First of all let us settle this.

Woman: Controversy not to your religion, but to the other religions that say that we are...

Prabhupāda: Other religion... Why you are concerned with other religion? Talk of what God says in your Bible.

Woman: What it says in my Bible?

Prabhupāda: Yes. You are saying that God created human being after His image. Is it not?

Woman: Yes.

Prabhupāda: Then God, His image is like human being.

Woman: Not according to way, way back because...

Prabhupāda: That is another thing, but... (laughter) God has got His two hands and two legs, one head, like human being, but that hands and legs and head may not be exactly like us. But He has got the image.

Woman: I have never seen Him. I do not know.

Prabhupāda: Then why you are speaking? You do not know. Don't talk. (laughter) Then you learn. If you do not know, then you learn who knows. Don't talk.

If I am equal to God or if I am God, then how I have become a dog? So this is a controversial going on.
Lecture -- Nellore, January 4, 1976:

There are two classes of philosophers. One is thinking that "I am one with the Supreme"—monism, or brahma-līna. And the Vaiṣṇava, they are thinking that "We are different from God"—that is the fact—"and God is great, and we are very, very small, minute fractional part of God." So bheda abheda. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu summarizes that bheda and abheda both. In quality we are abheda, but in quantity we are bheda. So therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy is acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. That is the fact. If I am equal to God or if I am God, then how I have become a dog? So this is a controversial going on. But from Bhagavad-gītā, as God explains Himself, He says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). He is the Supreme.

Page Title:Controversy (Lectures)
Compiler:Labangalatika, Ingrid
Created:13 of Jan, 2010
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=22, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:22