Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Deny (Lectures, Other)

Lectures

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 19, 1972:

But especially those who are impersonalists, they can see God in that way. Śabdaḥ khe pauruṣaṁ nṛṣu. There are descriptions in the Seventh Chapter, how you can see God in your common dealings. Still, if you do not see God, then you can see, you must see one day God at the time of your death. Mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34). Death is God. So the atheist class men, just like Hiraṇyakaśipu, who always challenges God, in spite of so many things wherein we can see God, they deny to see God; therefore God comes before them as death. So everyone has to meet death. So God is there. And you are seeing. But because we are atheist class of men, we are denying, "There is not God." So Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu says that, "After all, you have to meet with God at the time of death. So before death, why don't you see God in so many ways?" That is Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. The science of devotional service which is giving you indication how to see God always and everywhere. Go on reading.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 23, 1972:

He's not imitating, or he's speaking falsely. He feels like that. A mahā-bhāgavata feels like that, that "I am the lowest." Just like Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has sung, āmāra jīvana sada pāpe rata nāhika puṇyera leśa (?). He says like that, that "My life is always engaged in sinful activities. I've not a trace of pious activity." Āmāra jīvana sada ape rata nāhika puṇyera leśa. "I have given so much distress to all other living entities." He's representing common man. But he's feeling like that. It is not that artificially speaking. He's feeling like that. Just like Rādhārāṇī. She thinks always Herself as the lowest of the devotees. She thinks always. She sees always that the gopīs, other gopīs, they are better qualified to serve Kṛṣṇa. And She is not qualified, so much qualified. Therefore in Vṛndāvana, you'll find, the devotees approach Rādhārāṇī. "Jaya Rādhe." Because if Rādhārāṇī advocates for him to Kṛṣṇa, it is very easily accepted. And Rādhārāṇī says... If Rādhārāṇī's pleased, then She represents the devotee's case that "Here is a devotee. He's better than Me. Kindly accept his service, Kṛṣṇa." So Kṛṣṇa cannot deny. So mahā-bhāva. Rādhārāṇī is mahā-bhāva.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 29, 1972:

Therefore this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is awakening that spiritual energy of the living entity. Mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ (BG 9.13). The mahātmā and durātmā. What is the difference? The difference is the durātmā is under the influence of external energy. Bahir-artha-māninaḥ. Na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ (SB 7.5.31). When we are too much engrossed with the concept of bodily life, "I am this body," "I am American," "I am Indian," "I am brāhmaṇa," "I am kṣatriya," when we are influenced by the bodily concept of life, that is called material energy. And when we are influenced by the spiritual energy, we always think that "I am servant of the servant of the servant of Kṛṣṇa." Gopī-bhartuḥ pada-kamalayoḥ dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ (CC Madhya 13.80). Nāhaṁ vipro na ca nara-patir. "I am neither brāhmaṇa or kṣatriya or vaiśya and śūdra or sannyāsī or brahmacārī." This, this is a verse given by Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He denies any material designation, and He informs us also that jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇera dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). When we feel actually that "I am eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa," that is our liberation. Hitvā anyathā rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ (SB 2.10.6). This is svarūpa. When you are existing as servant of Kṛṣṇa, then you are mukta, liberated. You haven't got to endeavor separately for becoming free or liberated.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 31, 1972:

Suppose he's representing some book seller, publisher, so he should canvass for selling the books published by his firm, not for anything else. Suppose he has taken the advantage of becoming representative of a business firm, but he's doing his own business. He's not bona fide. He's not bona fide. So real guru is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa... Aham eva āsam agre. Kṛṣṇa existed before the creation. Then He made His representative, Brahmā. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. He instructed the original guru, Brahmā. Because there was no other living creature, except Brahmā, in the beginning of creation, and He instructed Brahmā. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. There are other versions in the Vedas, that He instructed Brahmā. So therefore, the original guru is Kṛṣṇa. The same guru, Kṛṣṇa, is instructing Arjuna also. Kṛṣṇa became guru of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Him guru: śiṣyas te 'ham (BG 2.7). Arjuna said, "Now I am not talking with You as friend, but I accept You as my guru." Therefore, by sastric conclusion, Kṛṣṇa is the original guru. Who can deny it? Kṛṣṇa is jagat-guru. He's guru of everyone, because everyone (is) accepting this authority of Kṛṣṇa. Anyone is accepting the authority of Bhagavad-gītā, he's accepting, imperceptibly, Kṛṣṇa as guru. Therefore, bona fide spiritual master means who is representing Kṛṣṇa. Who can deny it?

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 2, 1972:

But at the present moment, we are engaging our senses, ourself, in designation. I am thinking, "I am American," I am thinking, "I am Hindu," I am thinking, "I am brāhmaṇa" or "I am sannyāsī." So many designations. Caitanya Mahāprabhu presented Himself, how to become designationless, sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam (CC Madhya 19.170). He said, "I am not a brāhmaṇa. I am not a śūdra. I am not a kṣatriya. I am not a brahmacārī." He denied. At last He said, gopī-bhartuḥ pada-kamalayoḥ dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ (CC Madhya 13.80). This is our position. We are not Indian; we are not American; we are not Hindu; we are not Muslim. These are all designations. Therefore (the) Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to make people free from designation. Just like, actually, you see. Here are American, European boys and girls. They have forgotten that they are American or European or they come from Christian group or Jewish group. Similarly, we should also forget that "I am Hindu," "I am Muslim," or "I am brāhmaṇa," "I am śūdra," "I am kṣatriya." No. This is the only platform, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, where we can unite on spiritual platform. We cannot be united by resolutions. Just like the United Nations: they are trying for the last thirty years to become united—simply resolution. On that platform we cannot be united. On political platform or social platform, that is not possible, because the designations are there. When we are free from designation, sarvopādhi-virnirmuktam tat-paratvena nirmalam, when we are purified, then we can unite in the service of the Lord, Kṛṣṇa. That is real unity.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 6, 1972:

Yes. This, these four kinds of stages of sinful activities, in stock, almost fructified, manifest, all the stages of sinful activities can be immediately nullified. Because it is assured by Kṛṣṇa, ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi. It is not imagination. If we believe in the words of Kṛṣṇa, then there is no question of denying this fact. Kṛṣṇa personally says, ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣa... Sarva-pāpebhyo (BG 18.66). The kūṭa-stha, phalonmukha, prārabdha, everything, it become immediately nullified, simply by this process, by surrendering: "Kṛṣṇa, I, I was mistaken. I got..., forgot your mastership; You are my eternal Lord. So I was bewildered. I was wandering. Now I have come to my senses. I surrender unto You sincerely. You accept me." This very thing will give you immediately protection from all sinful activities.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972:

So this is called faith. The faith is not blind. There is proof. He, the cobbler was not blindly believing that Nārāyaṇa was pulling an elephant through the hole of an needle, but he sees practically the potency, the power of the Lord, bījo 'haṁ sarva-bhūtānām (Bg 7.10), how He keeps all the potencies of the banyan tree within the seed. So otherwise there is no meaning, "all-powerful." He can do whatever He likes. Inconceivable. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī therefore explains that unless we believe (in the) inconceivable potency of the Lord, then we cannot understand that activities... Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate, svābhāvikī-jñāna-bala-kriyā ca (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). We cannot judge how things are happening, but we have to believe. Therefore Vedic knowledge is so important. We cannot make research. We cannot judge. Simply if we take the Vedic truths... Just like we have several times explained, the Vedas accept the cow dung pure, whereas the stool of other animal is impure. So we have to accept like that. So Veda-vāṇī. Veda-vāṇī means you cannot deny it. You cannot argue on it. You have to accept as it is. Therefore learned scholar, when he speaks something, he gives evidence from the Vedas, śruti, śruti-pramāṇa. That is the best evidence.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 28, 1973:

"When one is freed from material anxieties..." This is the process. Therefore we have started this society. People may take advantage of it, and he becomes free from all anxieties. Simply Kṛṣṇa consciousness will make him anxiety-less. Otherwise there is no question. Because anxiety means asad-grahāt. Prahlāda Mahārāja says, sadā samudvigna-dhiyām asad-grahāt (SB 7.5.5). Those who are materially inclined, asat, sad gamaḥ, asato mā. That is the Vedic injunction. Don't keep yourself in the asad. Asad means material, "which will not exist." That is called material. Sad-gamaḥ. And sat means which is spiritual. So, so long one is in asat, asat grahāt, implicated, involved in material things, there is no question of... Therefore viṣaya... Caitanya Mahāprabhu has warned us not to be involved in viṣaya. Viṣaya means material things, money, woman. They are called viṣaya. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has taught us by His practical behavior that... Mahārāja Pratāparudra, he was a great devotee and serving Caitanya Mahāprabhu in every way. But when he wanted to see Him, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He denied: "No, no, no. I cannot see a king. I cannot see." So His personal devotees, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, Rāmānanda Rāya, very confidential devotees, they requested, "Sir, he's a great devotee. He serves You in so many ways." "Yes, I know that, but because he's king, I cannot see him. Because he's king, I cannot see him."

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.1 -- Atlanta, March 1, 1975:

This is the benefit of devotional service. Material thing, if you cannot do it perfectly well, whatever you have done, that is all lost. But in spiritual, whatever you have done, one percent, two percent, three percent, as you have done, that is not lost. Therefore the śāstra says that those who are not devotees, what is their profit? Even they are doing their duties very nicely, what is the profit? Because he remains under the stringent laws of nature. Suppose this life I have done my duty as a politician very nicely, but the next life I become a dog. Then what is the benefit? What is the benefit? To become next life as a dog or god, that will not depend on you; that will depend on the nature. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). It is being automatically done. Two plus two equal to four. Similarly, whatever we are doing, we are preparing for the next life. Karmaṇa. Simply material nature has to give you a post: "Now you have done like this. Take this post." You cannot deny. You cannot say, "No, no, I don't like this post." No, you have to take it. So for the karmīs, even they have done their so-called duties very perfectly well, what is the profit? There is no profit, because we are under the control of material nature. But the devotees, whatever little service they have done, that is permanent asset. That is not controlled by nature. That is controlled by God.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967:

We should worship Kṛṣṇa. We should think of Kṛṣṇa. We shall chant of Kṛṣṇa. This is the straight meaning. But the commentator says, "Oh, not to Kṛṣṇa." Just see. "Not to Kṛṣṇa." So this nonsensical commentation is... Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, mukhya-vṛttye. Mukhya-vṛttye, directly, as you understand it. If I say, "My dear such and such, give me a glass of water," now you interpret, "Oh, Swamijī wants water. Oh, he has taken water. Let me supply this or that, interpretation," what is the use of interpreting? I'm asking for water. Give me water. Call a spade a spade. This should be the... This should be the understanding of Vedānta. Because all foolish nonsense, they are interpreting... "Such and such person's commentation of Vedānta-sūtra." Because they were trying to manifest and expose their thinking power, that "I think that this should be like this." What nonsense you are? What you can think? You think as it is. This is... Caitanya Mahāprabhu says. Don't think otherwise. As it is. In the Upaniṣads, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam: "Everything belongs to God." Believe it as belongs to God. Don't interpret. Then you'll understand Vedas. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvaṁ yat kiñcit jagatyāṁ jagat: (ISO 1) "Anything, any minute thing in this material world, everything belongs to that Supreme Lord." Who can deny it? Why do you interpret? Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā: "So you enjoy as He orders you."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967:

So He's not so easy to understand. "Oh, Kṛṣṇa is born in Mathurā. His father is Vasudeva. Oh, He..." No. He's unborn. He's unborn, but I am seeing that He's born. Just like sun is unborn. I am seeing that at five o'clock sun is born in the eastern side of New York City. This is my foolishness. Sun is never born. He's always there. It is my imperfectness that I am seeing that sun is born this hour. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is never born. Kṛṣṇa is just like sun. So as they are, if we want to understand... Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet: "Things which are beyond your conception," avāṅ manasā gocaraḥ, "beyond your expression, beyond your knowledge, don't apply your so-called argument and reason." That is Vedānta study. If, if you do not understand, put question to your spiritual master, try to understand, but as a matter of fact, you should know, "What is stated here, that is all right. It is due to my imperfectness of knowledge I cannot just now understand it. Let me ask my spiritual master and let me understand it properly." But a thing as it is, that is all right. We must take it. Mukhya-vṛttye. Mukhya means "as it is." Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). What commentation you can give? If the Vedas says, Īśopaniṣad, that "Everything belongs to God," how can you deny it? What is your argument?

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

Otherwise, there was no alternative. That is stated in the Padma Purāṇa. When there is conversation between Lord Śiva and his wife Pārvatī, he disclosed that "In the age of Kali, as a Brāhmaṇa, I preach this Māyāvāda philosophy, which is covered Buddha philosophy." Buddha philosophy says that "This material life is all. After this material life, there is nothing, all void." And Śaṅkarācārya said that "It is impersonal. There is no variety." So in both the philosophies there is no acceptance of Lord, the Supreme Lord, Personality of Godhead. Therefore they are called nāstika-vāda. Nāstika-vāda means atheism, atheism. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described Buddha religion as atheism. "And Māyāvāda philosophy," He has said, "dangerous atheism." He has given little preference to Buddhism, but to Māyāvāda philosophy He has stated, "It is dangerous atheism." His exact version is like that, bheda namiya bauddha haila nāstika. Vedāśraye nāstika-vāda bauddha ke adika. He says that "We call the Buddhists as atheists because the simple reason is that they do not accept Vedas." Lord Buddha, he denied, that "I don't care for the Vedas. I have got my this own proposition, that ahiṁsā. Nonviolence is the religion. That's all." So he did not accept Vedas. Therefore, those who are Vedantists, those who are followers of Vedas, they called Buddhist religion atheism. Atheism means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is called atheism.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So these are stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore natural conclusion, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, that His potencies, His body and His activities—everything spiritual. There is nothing material. Cid-vibhūti ācchādi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra.' And when there is some indication of impersonalism in the Vedas, it should be understood that His body is not of this material nature. If somebody says that "God does not belong to this matter," that is all right. That does not mean He's impersonal. He has got a spiritual body. Matter is denied. The whole Upaniṣad... First of all they describe the Supreme... Just like apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā. There are Vedic statements that "The Supreme has no hands, but He can accept whatever you offer." Now, this is contradictory. If He has no hands, how He can accept? What for He's accepting. Therefore it is to be understood that He has His hand, but not this hand. My hand is, er, can stretch, say, one yard only, but because He's unlimited, His hand can be stretched... Just like we are offering foodstuff, so how He is eating? That is His... He's eating by His transcendental body. We cannot see at the present moment, but He is eating. How He's eating? Because we have got the information, "Yes, I eat." Tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ: "Anyone who is My devotee and offers in love, I take them." So that cannot be... There is no mistake. But how He is taking, how He is eating, because we are in this material body, we do not see it, but He is taking.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.113-17 -- San Francisco, February 22, 1967:

So His vision, His presence, His activities, they are all spiritual. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, janma karma me divyaṁ yo jānāti tattvataḥ: "Anyone who understands the absolute nature of My birth, of My appearance, disappearance and activities," tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9), "he becomes immediately liberated." Sa aikṣata. Sa imāḻ lokān asṛjata. This is Aitareya Upaniṣad. What is that? Sa aikṣata. The same thing: "He saw. He put His glance." Sa aikṣata. Sa imāḻ lokān asṛjata: "He has created all this material manifestation, cosmic manifestation." So tad vā īśan vijato tebhya ha prabhur babhūva. In this way, there are so many instances, so many quotations. Apāṇi-pādaḥ. In the Śvetāśvatara, apāṇi-pādaḥ. He has no, I mean to say, hands and legs. If He has no hands and legs, then how can He see? Is there any instance in your experience that something which has no hands and legs, he can see? No. He has no... Whenever... This is impersonal... The impersonalists quotes these authorities, that "He has no hands and... Therefore He's impersonal." No, it is not... If He sees, sa aikṣata, if He sees, if He hears, if He creates, then there is hand, there is eyes. But another place, if it is said, apāṇi-pādaḥ: "He has no hands and legs." That means He has no hands and legs like us. Because we have got material hands and legs, but the... "He saw; therefore there was creation." Therefore His seeing power existed before this material creation. So it is natural that He has no material hands and legs. So when it is denied that "He has no hands and legs," it is to be understood that He has no material limited hands and legs, but He has spiritual.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.119 -- Gorakhpur, February 17, 1971:

So jñānī, those who are appreciated in the Bhagavad-gītā. And there are other four classes of men, they are called duṣkṛtinaḥ. Duṣkṛtina means miscreants. They're simply busy in sinful activities: "Any way, bring money; never mind what is the process." Or not that always they get money. But they aspire after material happiness by so many... Just like in Calcutta. The party, Naxalite, they are committing so many sinful activities thinking that by that way they will be happy and they will get the political supremacy. They are called duṣkṛtina. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). Four class, the four classes of men who are pious, whose background is piety, they go to worship Kṛṣṇa. Similarly, there are four classes of men who are called duṣkṛtina, very sinful, simply miscreants, and mūḍha, rascals, no knowledge, completely in ignorance, almost like animals, mūḍha. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ, and narādhamāḥ, lowest of the mankind. Because lowest of the mankind and highest of the mankind, what is the difference? The highest of the mankind means one who knows what is the value of life. And the lowest of the mankind is one who does not know the value of life. Na mam duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ, māyayāpahṛta-jñānā. And there are so-called learned scholars also, whose knowledge has been taken away by the influence of māyā. They're supposed to be very learned scholar, but they do not know that what is the aim of knowledge. They are called māyayāpahṛta-jñānā. And these classes of men are called āsuriṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ. Asuric bhāva means denying the existence of God, or defying the supremacy of God. That is āsuri bhāva. Just like example... We have got many examples in our śāstras—Hiraṇyakaśipu, Kaṁsa, Rāvaṇa. They were very powerful materially, but their only fault was that they denied the supremacy of God. Therefore they are called asuras, rākṣasas. Āsuriṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ. So four classes this way, four classes that way.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.149-50 -- Gorakhpur, February 13, 1971:

So it is very unfortunate that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, accepted by all the ācāryas, not only at the present age, previously also... Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita, Devala, they are all great ācāryas. And in the recent years, Śaṅkarācārya, he also admitted. Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya—all these authorities, they are accepting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then how is that—a less intelligent class of men, they are commenting differently? That is not good. They may comment, they go on talking all nonsense, but no sane man will accept them. That is a different thing. But those who are sane, they should judge over this, that "Why we should deny, that 'God is impersonal'? God is person. Kṛṣṇa came." Kṛṣṇa exhibited His godly potencies, energies, when He was present. There is no... In the history you won't find another second person like Kṛṣṇa in the whole history of the world. Apart from other points of view, Bhagavad-gītā, that is admitted, spoken by Kṛṣṇa, such deep, profound knowledge—there is no second imitation or second copy like Bhagavad-gītā in the whole world. That is admitted by all scholars, all religionists. Therefore He is pūrṇa-jñāna, pūrṇa-brahma. Bhagavad-gītā is pūrṇa-jñāna. The Bhagavān's one qualification—He is fully wise. Nobody is wiser than Him. That is one of the qualifications. Nobody is richer than Him, nobody is powerful than Him, nobody is influential than Him, nobody is beautiful than Him, and nobody is renouncer than Him. Ṣaḍ-aiśvarya. That will be explained.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154-155 -- Gorakhpur, February 19, 1971 (Krsna Niketan):

Similarly, if everything is going on nicely—the sun is rising exactly in the time; the moon is rising exactly in the time; they are illuminating; they are appearing, disappearing; everything is going on, seasonal changes—so if things are going on nicely you cannot say that these things are automatically happening. No. There is no such thing within your experience which is automatically managed. We must appreciate there is some brain behind it. Professor Einstein, the greatest scientist, he admitted that "As we are advancing in scientific research, we are coming to the conclusion that there is a very big brain behind all this." How you can deny that? And we are getting direct information from Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
sūyate sa-carācaram
hetunānena kaunteya
jagad viparivartate
(BG 9.10)

So the progress of the material world... Progress, no... Progress means... In the material objects progress means... Just like a flower: it is in the bud, then it fructifies. That is progress. Again dwindles and vanishes. Ṣaḍ-vikāra. Just like your body, my body—progress means from babyhood, childhood, boyhood, youthhood. That is, up to that, youthhood, progress. Then as soon as youthhood passed, old age comes in, then dwindling, then finish. That means janma-sthiti-pralaya. It comes into existence, then it remains for some time, and again pralaya, vanishes, vanquish. This is the way of material existence. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate (BG 8.19).

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.254 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1968:

So in the Vedic literature (it) says that without religion, without accepting religion... Dharmeṇa hīnāḥ paśubhiḥ samānāḥ. If in some society there is no religion... Religion means to abide by the laws of the Supreme. That is religion. It doesn't matter whether it is Christian religion or Muhammadan religion or Hindu religion, religion means... Just like citizen, good citizen. Good citizen means who abides by the law of the state. It doesn't matter what he is. Similarly anyone, either he may be a Christian or may be Muhammadan or may be Hindu, that doesn't matter. Anyone who accepts the Supreme Lord, God, and abides by the laws of God, or laws of nature, he's called religionist or an advanced human being. But Kṛṣṇa says, "Either advanced or not advanced, that doesn't matter. It is a kind of dress only. But I am the father." Ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4). Just like father is the seed-giving agent into the womb of the mother, and then the child, baby, comes out... Without the combination of father and mother, there is no possibility of generation. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says that "In all species of life, the living entities, I am the seed-giving father, and this material nature is the mother." Nobody can deny. Because our this body... Just like the child's body is made by the mother. Father gives the opportunity to develop the body, and the mother supplies the ingredients for developing the body, similarly, God impregnates, God impregnates material nature with the living entity, and they come out in different forms: aquatics, birds, beasts, animals, trees, plants, vegetables, so many. And Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the father of all of them."

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.254 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1968:

So my request to you (is) that don't accept Kṛṣṇa as something Indian god or Hindu god. No. Kṛṣṇa is the original father of all living entities. He claims. If you don't accept... If the father says, "You are my son," and the son says, "No, I am not your son," oh, that is son's prerogative. He may deny it if he doesn't believe his mother. Now what is the proof that one man is my father? The mother is the proof. There is no other source of understanding who is my father. If a boy wants to understand, "Who is my father?" the only authority is the mother. Mother will say, "My dear boy, my dear child, here is your father." You have to accept. If you say, "I don't accept. I must have proof that he is my father." How it is possible? It is not possible. Similarly, the Vedic literature is to be considered the mother and Vedic literature says, janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) "The Supreme Absolute Truth is that who is the source of all generation, all emanations." And what is that source? Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "I am the father." So if you believe scriptures, Vedic literatures, if you believe Bhagavad-gītā, then you have to accept Kṛṣṇa as the supreme father because the mother... Vedic literature is considered to be the mother. She gives evidence that Kṛṣṇa is the father. Just like mother gives evidence who is your father, similarly, the Vedic literatures is compared to a mother, and the Vedic literature says that Kṛṣṇa is the father.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.254 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1968:

So Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement is to understand the father. It is nothing new. It is old. But in a new process, convenient for the people of this age. Ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam (CC Antya 20.12). We have forgotten our father. We have forgotten God. The modern civilization, wherever you go, they say that "We are secular state." Secular state. Secular state means without knowing who is the father of the mankind. That is secular state. But the Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, a great logician during the time of Lord Caitanya, he was also godless. And generally, the so-called learned philosophers, scientists, or so-called educators, they deny the existence of God. They depend more or less on their experimental knowledge of science. But actually, the fact is that there is God. There is God. In every religion they accept there is God, and actually, the fact is there is God. In the Vedic literatures it is accepted, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). And in the Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly said by Kṛṣṇa that "I am the father." Not only one place, in many other places. I am especially referring to the Bhagavad-gītā because most of you, you're acquainted with the study of Bhagavad-gītā. Similarly, in the Tenth Chapter you'll find, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the origin of everything." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate: "Whatever you see, that is from Me.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 8.128 -- Bhuvanesvara, January 24, 1977:

Guest (5): No. That is true. If we will not believe that, then we will be helping people? We will be helping lot of people? No, that is not...

Prabhupāda: Well, we understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We don't make any interpretation.

Guest (5): In Bhagavad-gītā Śrī Kṛṣṇa says, "I live in everybody."

Prabhupāda: Who denies that? That does not mean God is everything.

Guest (5): No. God is not everything.

Prabhupāda: Then dvaitavāda—everything and God is different. That is dvaitavāda.

Guest (5): Then we have to love everybody, everything.

Prabhupāda: So who says no? Unless we love everyone, why we are traveling all over the world?

Guest (5): Love is God, accept, paraṁ dharma.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.100 -- Washington, D.C., July 5, 1976:

So these are Vedic instructions, and Sanātana Gosvāmī, although he was a minister in Muhammadan government, Nawab Hussain Shah's, but in touch with Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he has come to his knowledge that grāmya-vyavahāre paṇḍita: "Actually, I am not paṇḍita, but in village, in ordinary common sense, because I happen to be a brāhmaṇa, they call me paṇḍita. I also accept as paṇḍita. But my real position is that I am such a paṇḍita, such a learned man, that I do not know what is good for me. This is my position." He is submitting to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, his guru. Why guru is necessary? Tad vijñānārtham. When we are perplexed that "I do not know what is my actually goal of life, what is benefit here for me..." Just like Arjuna did. When he was talking with Kṛṣṇa on equal terms, two friends... But when he saw that the actual solution is not coming, then he submitted himself to Kṛṣṇa, that "Kṛṣṇa, now we are not friends. We are friends, but treat me as Your disciple." Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). So "Make me paṇḍita. I am talking all foolishly. I am kṣatriya, it is my duty to fight and I am denying it. I know that I am deviating from my duties. So how it has happened? What is the cause? So kindly, śiṣyas te, I am submitting myself before You as Your student. Śādhi māṁ prapannam, I am surrendering."

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.100-108 -- Bombay, November 9, 1975:

So approaching the guru, Sanātana Gosvāmī, his submission was that "People in general, they talk of me as very learned scholar." He was very good scholar in Sanskrit, in Arabic and Persian language because he was minister, very responsible post. So... And he was born in brāhmaṇa family, Sārasvata brāhmaṇa family. So naturally he was supposed to be very learned scholar, paṇḍita, brāhmaṇa paṇḍita. Still we address a brāhmaṇa as paṇḍitajī. Never we address a brāhmaṇa as mūrkhajī. So, that is the etiquette. Brāhmaṇa means he must be very learned scholar and a very advanced devotee. Brāhmaṇa paṇḍita, brāhmaṇa Vaiṣṇava. These are the qualification of brāhmaṇa. So naturally he was addressed as paṇḍitajī, but he denied to accept that he is actually paṇḍita. So he submitted that,

grāmya-vyavahāre kahaye paṇḍita satya kari māni
āpanāra hitāhita kichui nā jāni

That "People, they address me as paṇḍita, but I am such a paṇḍita that I do not now what I am." This is the position of everyone. Everyone is very much proud of his learning, scientific knowledge and so on, so on. But if you ask him, "What you are?" "I am Indian," "I am brāhmaṇa," "I am kṣatriya," "I am American." This is the answer you'll get. But that is, I am not. I am not this body. This is the beginning of paṇḍita. This is the beginning. Bhagavad-gītā teaches in the beginning this primary lesson, that "You are not this body."

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.101-104 -- Bombay, November 3, 1975:

The description of the living being is given in the śāstra that the magnitude... Keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya śatadhā kalpi...: "One ten-thousandth part of the tip of the hair." And anantyāya kalpate: "There is limitless." As in practical experience also, we have this understanding that we require a leader. In the present moment there are so many parties, so many nations, so many societies, but there is a leader. That you cannot deny. (loud popping noises from outside, like firecrackers) Just like in our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness society—it is a society—I happen to be the leader. Similarly, there are other parties, political parties, and business parties. Everywhere there is a leader. You cannot avoid the leader. That is not possible. You may... I put this question to Professor Kotovsky, that "What is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You are Leninist; you are following the leader Lenin, and we are following the leader Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference in philosophy?" You have to follow one leader. That you cannot avoid. Without leader you cannot be guided, you cannot form a party. Everywhere you go... Just like in our country we followed the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, so we became a nation. So everywhere you will find: there must be a leader. Without leader you cannot become a community or a nation. Similarly, who is the supreme leader? That is God, or Kṛṣṇa. Therefore He is described in the Vedas, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānāmv. He is the leader.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.111 -- New York, July 19, 1976:

These are material energies, gross. And there are subtle material energies, mind, intelligence and egotism. Beyond that, apareyam... These are inferior energies. Beyond that, there is spiritual energy. What is that spiritual energy? Jīva-bhūtaḥ. That you know. (?) That is spiritual energy. That spiritual energy is always different from the material energy. Unfortunately the so-called scientists, they have no sufficient intelligence. On account of poor fund of knowledge, they are mixing up. They are thinking that there is no spiritual energy separately, but by combination of matter, chemicals, the spiritual energy comes into existence. That is wrong; that is not fact. Spiritual energy is completely different from the material energy. That is energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but spiritual energy is direct, and material energy is indirect. Both of them are energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and when there is question of energy, śakti, some energy, so we have to accept the source of energy. Just like electric energy. We see there is electric energy, but there is source of electricity, the powerhouse. How can you deny it? Those who are foolish persons, they think that a childish, that this bulb is giving light automatically. No. That is not fact. The fact is, the electric energy is coming from the background, the powerhouse, then about the bulb is giving light.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.137 -- New York, November 28, 1966:

So yoga process is very difficult at the present moment. Yoga... Because it is stated in the Vedic literature, that is an approved method. That's all right. But that method is very difficult in the modern age to perform. And what to speak of us, even five thousand years before, when the circumstances were more favorable and people were not so polluted and they were advanced in so many things, still, at that time a personality like Arjuna, he refused. When Kṛṣṇa asked him that "You become a yogi like this," he said, "It is not possible for me. It is not possible for me." So this is an overendeavor, to practice yoga in this age, which was refused by a personality like Arjuna. So yoga is not at all possible. It was possible in the Satya-yuga, when every man was in the modes of goodness. Every man was highly elevated. The yoga process is meant for the highly elevated personalities, not for ordinary man. So even that yoga practice is done very nicely and perfectly, that cannot take you to the Supreme Lord. That is denied here. What to speak of this pseudo yoga process, even if you perform it rightly, even if you do it nicely, perfectly, still, you cannot reach God. That is denied here. Na sādhayati māṁ yogaḥ na sāṅkhya. Sāṅkhya means just discriminate what is spirit and what is matter. That is called sāṅkhya. Samyak khyāpayate.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.137-146 -- Bombay, February 24, 1971:

Just like Prahlāda Mahārāja requested his father so many times, but still, he did not agree that there is God. (break) But he agreed there is God when he was killed by God. Yes. That you cannot escape. Then you'll see God: "Here is God." The asuras, they'll never accept God, but when they are killed by God, they understand that "Yes, there is God." That is the difference between asuras and devas. The devas, they accept God while living, and the asuras accept God by being killed. That's all. And who can escape killing? Is there any scientist, is there any philosopher, any great man who can stop being killed by the cruel death? Is there any man? That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34). "I am mṛtyu." Mṛtyu means death, which takes away everything at a time. Just like "I am very rich man," "I am very big industrialist," "I am prime minister," this, that, so many things. "I am in possession of all I survey. I am the master of my country and everything." That's all right. As soon as death comes, "Oh, I am Jawaharlal Nehru," "I am Gandhi," "Oh! Never mind! Please go away! Finish Stop your all leadership." That is God. You don't believe, you may not believe God, but when death comes you have to believe in God. Let the scientists and let the big leaders and rich men protect himself from death. Then you can say that there is no God. (break) This atheism, denying the existence of God, is not very good. Therefore Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is very important. (pause) Prasāda, you have given prasāda? I'll take first of all... (end)

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.156-163 -- New York, December 11, 1966:

"I worship the primeval Lord, Govinda, whose bodily effulgence is brahma-jyotir." The brahma-jyotir, that is nothing but His bodily effulgence. And in that brahma-jyotir... Yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi (Bs. 5.40). Or that brahma-jyotir being manifested, there are innumerable planets and universes. There are. The same example: just like in the sun, sunshine, there are innumerable planets, so similarly, in the original shine, Kṛṣṇa shine—this is sunshine; the original shine is Kṛṣṇa shining—in that effulgence there are innumerable Vaikuṇṭha planets, spiritual planets. Ekāṁśena sthito jagat (BG 10.42). In the Bhagavad-gītā, you'll find, all these planetary manifestations is situated in one fourth of His effulgence. Three fourths of the manifestation are in the spiritual sky. Tad brahma niṣkalam anantam aśeṣa-bhūtam. Aśeṣa-bhūtam. It is so much extended that nobody can calculate how far. We cannot calculate even the sunshine, how far it is extended, and what to speak of that original effulgence. So our knowledge is always imperfect. We cannot study even millions and millionth part of the opulence of the Supreme Lord. So it is futile to deny God because we cannot calculate His potencies and expansion of potencies.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.164-173 -- New York, December 13, 1966:

You cannot get anything, any idea, without its being situated in Kṛṣṇa. The rāsa dance, that is described in the Thirty-second Chapter of the Tenth Canto in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Five chapters, from Twenty-ninth Chapter to Thirty-fourth Chapter, Kṛṣṇa's rāsa dance is described there. The rāsa dance... The short history of rāsa dance is that Kṛṣṇa was sixteen years old, and the girls of the village, Vṛndāvana, and the boys, they were all friends. Naturally in India the girls were early married, some at the age of twelve years, some at the age of thirteen years, some at the age of ten years. The boys remain... So the girls who were friends of Kṛṣṇa, they always prayed to different demigods, Lord Śiva, that "Kṛṣṇa may be our husband." So that desire was there, but it was not possible to get Kṛṣṇa to become everyone's..., because He was only a boy. But they maintained that idea although they were married and some of them were mothers. Some of them were unmarried. So Kṛṣṇa, to fulfill their desire, He blew on His flute on a nice moonlight night, and all the gopīs, all those girls, they came. And Kṛṣṇa advised them, "Oh, you are now married. You have come at dead of night to Me. It is not good." In this way He advised so many things. They were very moral instruction. But the gopīs denied to go back, and they arranged that dancing. That is called rāsa dance.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:

This is another significance of incarnation. Incarnation never says that "I am incarnation of God." I have read one book about a big avatāra in India. He was canvassing his students, "Do you now accept me as incarnation? Do you now accept me as incarnation?" And the... Perhaps you know. (laughs) And the disciple was denying, "No." Then, at a time the disciple said, "Yes, I accept you." So this is not avatāra. Here Caitanya Mahāprabhu says avatāra does not canvass that "I am..." Guru does not canvass. Sādhu does not canvass. He automatically, by his qualities, he becomes accepted. Yes.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.367-84 -- New York, December 31, 1966:

So far Buddha is concerned, he's also considered śaktyāveśa avatāra. He preached this nirvāṇa philosophy. Although he did not speak about God, because it is considered that he was himself God, but the people amongst whom he preached, they were mostly atheistic people; therefore he did not preach about God. But he did not deny also. He simply wanted to make extinction of this present worldly activities. That was, yes... Nirvāṇa. And he represented the sacrifice of renouncement. He..., you may remember that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, out of His six opulences, one opulence is renouncement. So Lord Buddha's life is renouncement. He was prince. He, he was in a very young time. He renounced the world and underwent severe penances. These are the symptoms by which we can understand that he's also śaktyāveśa avatāra. And the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find, yad yad vibhūtimat sattvaṁ mama tejo-'ṁśa-sambhavam. Anyone, not only Lord Buddha or others, but anyone, Lord, in the Bhagavad-gītā it is stated, anyone who has got some extraordinary power, uncommon power, he's to be considered vibhu. Śaktyāveśa avatāra, there are two kinds, one directly empowered for particular mission, comes from the transcendental spiritual sky, and others, those who are in this material world, but they have got some specific power, uncommon power, not found in ordinary man. They are called vibhūti. This vibhūti (is) explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: yad yad vibhūtimat sattvaṁ mama tejo-'ṁśa sambhavam. That is out of the opulence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.21-28 -- New York, January 11, 1967:

Cāri varṇa. Cāri varṇa means four castes, four division of human society: the brāhmaṇas, the kṣatriya, the vaiśyas and the śūdras. They have got their specific duties. One who is brāhmaṇa, he has got his specific duty. Culture, cultivation of knowledge is their first and foremost duty. Similarly, kṣatriya, he has got his specific duty. The fore and foremost is to establish good administration in the state. And vaiśya, he has got also specific duty. What is that? Cow protection and agriculture. That is the duty of vaiśya. And the śūdras, they have no responsibility. Therefore they serve these three higher class: the intelligent class, engaged in cultivation of knowledge; the administrator class, who are engaged in good government; and the mercantile, class who are looking to the productive side of the society. So this is natural. There is no denying the fact. In every society there is a natural division. A certain class of men, they are intelligent class, a certain class of men, they are, take part in politics, and a certain class of men, they delight in doing business. And there are certain classes—they do not do anything; simply by serving, they maintain themselves. So these four classes are there.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.29 -- San Francisco, January 21, 1967:

So God means the greatest. Caitanya Mahāprabhu explains on that line. Brahman means the greatest, the Supreme. And how we can estimate one's greatness? These are the symptoms of greatness. So how He can be impersonal? If the Brahman is the richest, if the Brahman is the most beautiful, if Brahman is the most learned, then where is the question of impersonality? Can any impersonal thing become learned? Can any impersonal thing can become richest? That is... Who can challenge this explanation? If you say "God is great," then how we estimate God is great? These are the symptoms. He must be great in richness. He must be great in strength. He must be great in beauty. He must be great in knowledge. He must be great in renunciation. These are the symptoms of greatness. How you can deny it? Where is the... Now, if you say, "Our idea of great means the sky," oh, then God creates the sky; therefore sky is not great. God is great. Just like you see the sunlight distributed all over the universe. If you say, "This is greatest," oh, the sun planet is creating the sunlight; therefore sun planet is greatest, not the sunshine. So we are captivated, tribhir guṇamayī, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. We are captivated by the greatness of the three qualities of nature or the energies of God. And we do not approach God. That is our difficulty. We are simply amazed by seeing the wonderful activities of God's energy. That's all. But we do not approach God. Therefore we are less intelligent. One who does not approach God (and) simply is captivated by the display of His energy, they are called śakta. Śakta means appreciating the strength or the energy of God. That's all.

Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Verse 32 -- New York, July 26, 1971:

Each and every part of the body has got the capacity for other parts of the body. Just like if you want to eat, we have to taste it through the tongue, through the mouth, but Kṛṣṇa, or God, if He simply sees only, He can eat, simply by seeing. This is spiritual body. Aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti, paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti (Bs. 5.32). In another sense, this whole cosmic manifestation is also the body of God; therefore you cannot hide anything from God's vision. In the Brahma..., the same Brahma-saṁhitā, it is said that yac-cakṣur eṣa savitā sakala-grahāṇām. Savitā. Savitā means the sun, the sun-god, or the sun planet, is the eye, one eye of God. And the other eye is the moon. So He can see all things, what is happening within this universe—in daytime with His eye called the sun, and at night with moon. And in the Bhagavad-gītā it is confirmed. Kṛṣṇa says, prabhāsmi śaśi-sūryayoḥ. Prabhāsmi śaśi-sūryayoḥ: "I am the sunshine and the moonshine." So people who deny existence of God, they say that "Can you show me God?" You are seeing God. Why you are denying? God says that "I am the sunshine. I am the moonshine." And who has not seen the sunshine and moonshine? Everyone has seen. As soon as there is morning, there is sunshine. So if sunshine is God, then you have seen God. Why do you deny? You cannot deny. Kṛṣṇa says, raso 'ham apsu kaunteya: (BG 7.8) "I am the taste of the water." So who has not tasted water? We are drinking, daily, gallons of water. We are thirsty, and the good taste which quench our thirst, that is Kṛṣṇa.

Festival Lectures

Sri Rama-Navami, Lord Ramacandra's Appearance Day -- Hawaii, March 27, 1969:

So Mahārāja Daśaratha agreed and called for Rāmacandra. "My dear boy, your..." She asked also that... She was very diplomatic. She wanted that Rāmacandra go to forest for fourteen years. The idea was political, that "The king may agree to install my son just now. Now, after a few days, this Rāmacandra may come with His army, and there may be some difficulty to continue the kingdom." So she wanted that Rāmacandra should go to the forest and He should not come back till the end of fourteen years from this day. So Mahārāja Daśaratha agreed. Because he was kṣatriya. Just see the promise. A kṣatriya never goes back from the promise, never refuses any challenge. If a kṣatriya is challenged by somebody, that "I want to fight with you," oh, he cannot refuse. This is kṣatriya spirit. He cannot say that "I am now busy." Suppose somebody comes to you, that "I want to fight with you." You may say, "What nonsense fight? I have no time. We are in the temple." But a kṣatriya cannot deny that. A kṣatriya at once must accept. "Oh, yes. Come on." And the weapon should be, if he has no sword or weapon, he should be supplied weapon and fight. This is kṣatriya spirit. They were highly charitable and chivalrous and keeping promise and with a great tendency for ruling over. They shall rule over. Administrators.

Nrsimha-caturdasi Lord Nrsimhadeva's Appearance Day -- Boston, May 1, 1969:

Huh? Anyway, the ointment which is applied to the eyes for clear vision. So when the ointment of love of Godhead will be applied in our eyes, then with these eyes we shall be able to see God. God is not invisible. Simply just like a man with cataract or any other eye disease, he cannot see. That does not mean the things are not existing. He cannot see. God is there, but because my eyes are not competent to see God, therefore I deny God. God is there everywhere.

So in the material condition of our life, our eyes are blunt. Not only eyes, every sense. Especially eyes. Because we are very proud of our eyes, and we say, "Can you show me God?" You see. But he does not think that whether his eyes are competent to see God. That is atheism. He does not consider his position, "In what position I am." Even one cannot see a big man like President Nixon, and he wants to see God without qualification. That is not possible. Nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ (BG 7.25). Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "I am not exposed to everyone. There is a curtain of yogamāyā." The yogamāyā will not allow to see God. Just like we have our condition that if anyone wants to see here in the temple, we ask him that "First of all take your shoes." Just like a little condition. Similarly, to see God, there must be some condition.

Nrsimha-caturdasi Lord Nrsimhadeva's Appearance Day -- Boston, May 1, 1969:

So Prahlāda Mahārāja is protected by Nṛsiṁha-deva, and... Now, it is a fact that an atheist like Hiraṇyakaśipu, who denied the existence of God, so he was shown God at his last stage of life. Yes. So the atheist will see God, but when he will see, his life is finished. That means death. Atheist will see God in the form of death. And theist, Kṛṣṇa conscious devotee, will see God twenty-four hours within his heart. That is the difference. Nobody can avoid death. So atheist will see God. If he denies God, but he will see God in the form of death. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, that every moment our things are being taken away by time. It is not difficult to understand. Just like my age, seventy-four years, seventy-five, that means seventy-four years from my whole duration of life is already taken away. Therefore everyone of you should think that every moment, whatever asset you have got, the most valuable asset is the life, duration of life. That is being taken away. That is the law of nature. And the last taking away is death. So Kṛṣṇa says that mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34). Mṛtyu, death, takes away everything. Your education, title, M.A., Ph.D., D.A.C., your bank balance, millions of dollars, your good name, your house, your family, your friends, your country—all taken away. All taken away. So for atheist, this is God. When He'll take away everything, he'll understand, "Yes, there is God." Yes. Just like a civil disobedient person, when he's arrested and he's put into the bars and given severe punishment, then he understands, "Yes, there is government. There is government." So government is there. For a nice citizen, government is there. He's taking all advantage offered by the government and he's obeying the laws of the government. No trouble. But one who says "I don't care for the government. I am free. I shall become naked..." Just like that John Lennon. (chuckling) He exposed himself naked, and government stopped immediately, that "You cannot do this."

Ratha-yatra Lecture at The Family Dog Auditorium -- San Francisco, July 27, 1969:

Therefore in the Vedas it is said that the living entities are maintained by the Supreme Lord. That you can understand by your practical experience. There are millions and trillions of living creatures. The human society is only a small portion of this. If you take a portion of a drop of the Pacific Ocean, how many aquatics are there? There are 900,000 species of aquatics. So there are 8,400,000 species of living creatures, and all of them are being maintained by God, the Supreme Lord. We are also being maintained, but because we have become advanced in knowledge, therefore the result is we have forgotten God. This is the result of our education. The more we become advanced in so-called knowledge, you forget your relationship with God. Actually, that is not knowledge. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, "Those who are atheists, those who are godless, their knowledge is already taken away by māyā. They are so-called men of knowledge, wise men. Actually they are fools, rascals, those who are atheistic." This is the statement of Bhagavad-gītā. "Those who are lowest of the mankind..." Nara means man and adhama means lowest. The lowest grade of man denies the existence of God. So as we are forgetting our eternal relationship with God, so we are gradually degraded to the lowest position of living creatures. Our knowledge has no value. Anyone who is atheist, who has no knowledge of God, he has no good qualifications. These are the statements from the scriptures.

Janmastami Lord Sri Krsna's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 16, 1968:

So for anything which exists there must be a reason, and for anything which does not exist, then there is a reason why it does not exist. Now Kṛṣṇa's existence therefore is most certain because any reason which could deny Kṛṣṇa's existence is impossible to be found. Kṛṣṇa means He is the all-inclusive entity. Therefore any reason which could prevent Kṛṣṇa's existence would have to be either external to His own divine nature or in His own nature. Nothing can be outside of Kṛṣṇa's all-inclusiveness. Therefore no external agent can prevent Kṛṣṇa's existence. And it is again self-contradictory to attribute any imperfection to the perfect being. Therefore the conclusion is that Kṛṣṇa necessarily exists because no one can prevent His existence.

Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami's Appearance Day -- Vrndavana, October 19, 1972:

So unless one approaches a bona fide spiritual master, his so-called knowledge has no value. māyayā apahṛta-jñānā. This atheistic view of life means he has no knowledge. Anyone who denies the existence of God, superior authority of God, he must be considered as māyayā apahṛta-jñānā, asurī-bhāvam āśritāḥ. "I was suffering in the dark well of material enjoyment, and I never knew the actual goal of my life." That is the position of everyone. We get here a little material opulence and we forget our real business. We remain intoxicated in material enjoyment and forget the real business of life. That is a great blunder. So Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura has sung this fact: hari hari viphale, janama goñāinu. "My dear Lord, I have simply spoiled my life." How? Manuṣya janama pāiya, rādhā kṛṣṇa nā bhajiyā, jāniyā śuniyā viṣa khāinu. Any human being who has no knowledge of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he's committing suicide. Jāniyā śuniyā, knowingly, knowingly. Everyone should know, at least, that human life is meant for developing Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and if he, if he knows, at least he gets this information... Just like we are broadcasting this information all over the world, that everyone should become Kṛṣṇa conscious. So in spite of this knowledge, broadcast of this knowledge, if a person does not take advantage of this movement, then it is to be understood that knowingly he's drinking poison. Jāniyā śuniyā viṣa khāinu.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Disappearance Day, Lecture -- Hyderabad, December 10, 1976:

So by that process, lower animals and then the chronological order is there... First of all aquatics, jalajāḥ. Jalajāḥ means aquatic. Then sthāvarāḥ, trees, plants. Then flies, then birds, then beasts, then human being. In this way, bahu sambhavante, after many, many millions of years we get this opportunity of human life to realize God. And this civilization is denying, refusing the opportunity to the human society to understand God—such a soul-killing civilization. It is a fact. They are denying "What is God? There is no God. Everything is science," although they cannot explain science. They cannot do anything, simply talking like nonsense. Last night some girls came, so they are students of botany. So I asked them, "Can you manufacture a seed which can give birth to a big banyan tree?" "No, sir, it is not possible." Then what kind of botany you are studying? Actually what is their science? They talk simply something which is going on in the middle portion. Where is the beginning and where is the end of knowledge, that they do not know. They are theorizing only in the middle. They do not know janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), where is the beginning of this science. That is... Beginning is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo (BG 10.8). He is the beginning. Bījo 'haṁ sarva-bhūtānām (Bg 7.10). That seed, you scientist, you cannot manufacture. What chemicals are there that if you put in the earth and pour some water and it will grow a big tree? These scientists, they cannot explain what is the chemical composition is there. But there is. So that is in the hand of Kṛṣṇa.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Lecture -- Los Angeles, June 29, 1971:

A Kṛṣṇa conscious person, after giving up this body, he does not accept any more material body. Then what happens to him? Kṛṣṇa says, mām eti. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti: "He comes to Me." So why don't you take this simple formula? Be Kṛṣṇa conscious. How nice it is to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. We are living in... Not heaven. Heaven is nothing for us. We are living in Vaikuṇṭha in this temple. Anyone can practically see how they came from hellish life; now they are living in Vaikuṇṭha. So Kṛṣṇa consciousness is so nice and so simple. Why people are so foolish they do not take it? What is their complaint? We are living so nicely that sometimes people are envious, that "These people have no business, no occupation, and they are living in nice house, eating nice Kṛṣṇa prasādam, and chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, and dancing!" They're envious. But when we say, "Why don't you come here?" they will deny: "No, sir. I cannot go." (laughter) Why you are envious? You come and participate and live like us, happily. "No." That he will not. (laughter) And this is the māyā. You see? Māyā will say, "Oh, why you are going there? (laughter) You just come here in the Bowery Street, and as soon as you get some money, you purchase one bottle and lie down." That is life.

Arrival Talk in Room -- Mayapur, March 23, 1975:

Prabhupāda: All of them are going to Russia to take birth. Yes. Not Russian people are bad. That is a mistake. Some of them. Some people are good. That I have experienced. Otherwise how... (aside:) Don't do that. Otherwise how that Anatole came to become my...? And there are many like that, mostly like him. It is by artificial suppression that it has been advertised, "The Russian people are all Communist." That's not fact. That's not fact. Simply some rogues and thieves and demons, by threats... It is a country of, what is called? Terrorism. A terror. People have decided to leave this country, but they cannot leave. Mostly Russians, they want to leave that country, and some of them already done so. Many Russians have fled away. Many Chinese men have fled away. They don't like this philosophy.

Paramahaṁsa: Also the East Europe countries, Eastern Europe countries.

Prabhupāda: Many countries. It is unnatural to deny God. It is unnatural. This is also Kṛṣṇa's another magic. All such people who had any doubt about Kṛṣṇa, they have been kept over there in Russia. Just like the other day there was a train crash accident. So all these rascals they are brought together in that way in a train or two train, and they smashed. That is... Just like Kṛṣṇa did in Battle of Kurukṣetra. All the rascals were brought into the battlefield and finished. (end)

Initiation Lectures

Initiation of Jayapataka Dasa -- Montreal, July 24, 1968:

So Lord Buddha, he, of course, did not preach directly God consciousness, but we accept him as the incarnation of God. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. He had to preach amongst the atheist class of men who were too much addicted with animal slaughter and he wanted to stop animal slaughter. That was his main business. So I've several times explained. Therefore he rejected Vedic authority. Because in the Vedic authority there is recommendation, under certain condition, of animal sacrifice. But he wanted to stop completely animal sacrifice. Therefore superficially he said, he denied the authority of Vedic ritual. Because if he accepted Vedic rituals then he could not preach this ahiṁsā paramo dharma. So that is a great story. Anyway we accept, we Vaiṣṇavas, we accept Lord Buddha as incarnation. That is mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra. So indirectly the Buddhists are worshiping God. They are denying, there is no existence of God but they are accepting the incarnation of God.

Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

Yes. This is one offense. These are offenses. When we accept spiritual master, it is understood that you cannot deny his order. Just like Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna was talking as friends, but when Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as spiritual master, he was simply hearing, and whenever there was difficulty to understand, he was questioning. Not that he was equally arguing with Kṛṣṇa. Before accepting Him, he was arguing. So this is the position. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He said that "My spiritual master found Me a great fool (CC Adi 7.71)." Caitanya Mahāprabhu is not a fool, but it is the good qualification of a disciple to remain a fool before the spiritual master. Therefore he'll never, I mean to say, dare to argue or disobey. That is offense. Now, go on. That does not mean that when you cannot understand, you cannot question. Question must be there. That is stated in this Bhagavad-gītā, tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). Your relationship is to know from a spiritual master everything, but you should know that with three things. What is that? First of all you should surrender. You must accept the spiritual master as greater than you. Otherwise what is the use of accepting one spiritual master? Praṇipāt. Praṇipāt means surrendering; and paripraśna, and questioning; and sevā, and service. There must be two sides, service and surrender, and in the middle there must be question. Otherwise there is no question and answer. Two things must be there: service and surrender. Then answer of question is nice. Yes.

Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

Yes. Scriptures, authority of Vedas, they must be accepted. Just like the other day I was explaining, the Veda says the conchshell is pure although it is a bone of an animal. In other places Veda gives you the injunction that bone of an animal is impure. But it says the conchshell is pure. It can be placed before the Deity, it can be used in the Deity room in His service. Now there may be argument, "Oh, this is a bone of an animal. How is that? Contradiction." No. So one should accept the injunction of the Vedas like that. Whenever it says this is impure, it is impure; when it says it is pure, it is pure. Now if there is any doubt, that should be understood by questioning submissively and with service from the spiritual master. The spiritual master is there. Then? But we should always accept the injunction of the scripture as truth. Just like there is a proverb, "Bible truth," "Biblical truth." Nobody can deny Bible. This should be the attitude. Bible is also part of Vedas. Therefore Vedic injunction should be accepted as it is, without any interpretation. Just like Bhagavad-gītā is Veda. Why Veda? The Supreme Personality of Godhead personally speaking; therefore it is Veda. There is no mistake. One should accept—no interpretation—as it is. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Yes. Go on.

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, jñāne prayāsam. Jñānīs, the empiric philosophers, they simply speculate and try to prove that "I am God." That means āsuriṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ. The atheist says that "There is no God," and here the Māyāvādī philosophy says, "Yes, there is God, but God I am." That's all. It is the same philosophy, atheism. He is also denying that "There is no separate God. I am God." That atheistic philosophy, like Buddha philosophy, "There is no God..." But Buddha himself is God. That is... Another Bhāgavata interpretation is that he is cheating the atheist person. The atheists, they say, "There is no God," and Lord Buddha said, "Yes, there is no God, but you follow me." But He is God. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. So Bhāgavata therefore says, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). It is something like that. A naughty boy does not want to go to school. So somebody, some friend, says, "Yes, you don't go to school. All right, you sit down. Now, what is this?" "Oh, this is cow." "What is this?" "This is leg." "Can you count how many legs are there?" "Yes. One, two, three, four." So... (aside:) What is that?

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

So Lord Buddha's philosophy is like that. The atheistic people, they are against God. "Yes, there is no God. But you take this philosophy, ahiṁsā. Don't kill animals." That means if they stop animal-killing, then one day they will be able to understand what is God. Some day. Because so long one is accustomed to kill animals, he will never be able to understand what is God. That is Buddha philosophy. He situated the atheistic people on the line of understanding God. So this is, in one way, cheating. But this cheating is not cheating. Just like father or guardian sometimes cheats the young boy. That is not cheating; that is for his good. But actually, if you take the, I mean to say, behavior, it is something like cheating. So the Māyāvāda philosophy... This Buddha philosophy is also another Māyāvāda philosophy. Both of them are, on the face value, atheistic, denying the existence of God. One is saying, "There is no God"; another is saying, "It is impersonal," in this way. But our philosophy is neither atheistic nor impersonal. It is directly person. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Directly we say, "There is no..." Kṛṣṇa, in the Bhagavad-gītā, says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nāsti: "There is nobody greater than Me." If God is great, how anybody can be greater than Him? It is right. Eh? Nānyat parataraṁ nāsti: "There is nothing more greater than Me." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: (BG 10.8) "I am the origin of everything." Vedānta-sūtra says, "Brahman, or the Supreme Absolute Truth, is the source of everything." And here is the direct answer by Kṛṣṇa, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the source of everything."

Initiation Lecture -- Hamburg, August 27, 1969:

Yes. Demon means when he is forgotten, when has lost his sense, that is demon. When has lost his sense, that is demon. Demon means māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ (BG 7.15). Māyā, by the influence of māyā, the true aspect of knowledge is taken away. Anyone who is trying to establish it that "There is no God," he is demon. That's all. There are so many philosophers, so many atheists, so many scientists. Their only business is to deny God. They are demons. Yes.

Initiation and Brahma-samhita Lecture -- New York, July 26, 1971:

The origin also, even within this universe, is a learned person. Ādi-kavi. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ. Ādi-kavi is person. Ādi means original learned person, learned creature, he's person. And his origin also person. Brahmā's description is there. I forget that verse now. The purport of that verse is that Brahmā, the first creature, he's also receiving knowledge from the ādi person, ādi person, or original person. Tene. That is described in Bhāgavatam. Brahma... Brahma means jñāna, knowledge. Brahma-jñāna. Tene brahma. People may doubt how Brahmā can learn. "He's the original creature. Where is the other person? A spiritual master is also person. So if he was initiated, where is another person?" Therefore in the Bhāgavata it is tene hṛdā, from within, from the heart. God is situated in everyone's heart. So at that time, although Brahmā is the first creature and there was no other person, but the other person, ādi-puruṣa, is there, within the heart. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). Īśvara, the Supreme Lord, is situated in everyone's heart. Therefore it is said hṛdā. Sometimes we get education, instruction from hṛdā. That hṛdā, Kṛṣṇa, sitting in everyone's heart, instructs everyone. But those who are not devotee, they cannot understand what is the dictation. They deny. But those who are devotees, they can understand that "Here is the dictation from the Lord." Buddhi-yogaṁ dadāmi tam.

Initiation and Brahma-samhita Lecture -- New York, July 26, 1971:

So this is going on. Therefore the ādi-puruṣa, Kṛṣṇa is ādi-puruṣa; He's a person. But because He's not a person like us, therefore ordinary person cannot understand God can be person. He thinks that "God must be a person like me." His limited knowledge, speculator, poor fund of knowledge, he thinks that "God must be like me." Therefore in some of the scriptures He's denied personality, because this rascal thinks that "God is a person like me." Therefore it is said: not person. When it is said God is not person, that means He's not a person like you. He's not a rascal like you. That is description. When it is negatively described that He's not a person, that means He's not a person like you. But He's a person, a different person. Sac-cid-ānanda vigraha. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His person is eternal. He does not die. We die. He's full of bliss. Our, this body, is not full of bliss; full of miseries. So how God can be a person like you? Therefore sometimes He is described as impersonal. Otherwise God is a person. He's a person like us, and He's the original person. Govindam ādi-puruṣam tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. So those who are in poor fund of knowledge, they can understand that the Absolute Truth is a person. Therefore we have to take lessons from Brahmā, the supreme poet, or learned person, who is the original person. And he says: govindam, govindam ādi-puruṣam. And he says, tam ahaṁ bhajāmi: "I worship."

Wedding Ceremonies

Wedding of Syama dasi and Hayagriva -- Los Angeles, December 25, 1968:

They're amongst the elder generation. But I see the boys and girls, they come to me as friends. But according to our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, we do not allow boys and girls living without any marriage bondage. Illicit sex life we don't allow. We prohibit four things: illicit sex life, intoxication, and meat-eating and gambling. Those who become our student, we prohibit first of all these four things. And if we find some of the girls and some of the boys, they are strictly following, and if they are agreeable, then we arrange for their marriage. So there are many instances of marriage like this. They were living very irresponsibly in the former life. Now they are preaching this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Some of my students, they are married couples, young men. Six of them have gone to England. They are preaching very nicely. Very nicely. They have attracted the attention of respectable gentlemen like Lord Mountbatten, Lord Sorenson, and the High Commissioner of India, Mr. Dhavan. So they're doing very nicely. So our principle is to make people God conscious; thereby they will be happy. And the method is very simple. Just like we do not deny anything. We give nice wife, we give nice husband, we give nice foodstuff, we give nice philosophy, and at last, we give the nicest thing, Kṛṣṇa. So our program is very nice. Any gentleman come and discuss with us. We shall prove this is the nicest program at the present moment.

General Lectures

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

So in every respect, if we think... This is called philosophy. If we have got thoughtful propensities, if we can little think over every matter, you will find that God is present everywhere, and still, He is personally present in His own place. The same example: the sun is present everywhere by heat and light; still, sun, the sun, has its own location. That you cannot deny. Similarly, God is present everywhere. Not only everywhere... We learn from Brahma-saṁhitā,

eko 'py asau racayituṁ jagad-aṇḍa-koṭiṁ
yac-chaktir asti jagad-aṇḍa-cayā yad-antam
aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-sthaṁ
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
(Bs. 5.35)

This Govinda, anādir ādir govindaḥ (Bs. 5.1). So the prayer is, "I worship that Govinda," sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam, kāraṇa, "who is the cause of all causes." Cause of all causes. Now, in this verse of Brahma-saṁhitā we find that one of His plenary portion... In the Vedic hymns we find that God has become many. Eko bahu syām. God is one without second, but He has become Himself many. We are also God. Out of that many, we are one. We are one. We are not separate from God. So, but there are amongst the "many"s there is a difference of potency, difference of potencies. Just like what you can do, I cannot do. Your workmanship may not be equal with my workmanship. Your brain work may not be equal to my brain work. There are differences.

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

So, but there are amongst the "many"s there is a difference of potency, difference of potencies. Just like what you can do, I cannot do. Your workmanship may not be equal with my workmanship. Your brain work may not be equal to my brain work. There are differences. Each and every living entity, they are different from each other so far individual capacities are concerned. So in spite of many... That is God's creation. In spite of many, each and every thing, you will find there is some difference. You can sit down at a place in New York and go on counting and seeing all people passing before you—you won't find one man is exactly like the other man. Not only that, in court, you know, every one of you know, that they take impression of the left hand thumb impression. Now, this thumb impression... You go on taking millions and millions of thumb impression, and you won't find one thumb impression is exactly like the other. And because there is difference of thumb impression, therefore the identity is taken in that way, that "This particular man's thumb impression, even if he denies his signature, the thumb impression will corroborate that his signature is this." So that is God's creation.

Lecture to Technology Students (M.I.T.) -- Boston, May 5, 1968:

In the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna, he was a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, a friend of Kṛṣṇa. Perhaps you know it. So in the beginning he did not like to fight. He denied. So any devotee of God or Kṛṣṇa is not fond of war or fighting with any others. But if there is necessity, if Kṛṣṇa wants that fight, a devotee of Kṛṣṇa will accept such fight. If you think that your Vietnam fighting is ordered by Kṛṣṇa, then it is all right. If it is not, then it is not. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We act in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If Kṛṣṇa says, if God says, "This is right," we accept it right. If God says it is wrong, we accept it wrong. Because we think, we have poor fund of knowledge. We do not know what is right and wrong. Therefore if God says or Kṛṣṇa says this is right, we accept it right. If God says or Kṛṣṇa says it is wrong, we accept it wrong. Yes?

Lecture at Engagement -- Boston, May 8, 1968:

So, so far atheist class of men, it is very difficult for them to understand. But atheist or theist, it doesn't matter. Everyone is conscious. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether you believe in God or do not believe in God, but you are conscious. As soon as I pinch in any part of your body, you at once protest. You feel that "Somebody is pinching me. I am feeling pain." This consciousness is there even in the animal or in man and everyone. Now what is this consciousness? The Bhagavad-gītā replies what is this consciousness. The Bhagavad-gītā says, avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam. That consciousness which is spread all over your body, that is eternal. How it is eternal? That also you can understand by practical experience. Just like in your childhood, there was consciousness. When you were in the womb of your mother, of course, at a certain stage there was consciousness. In your boyhood, there was consciousness. In your youthhood, there is consciousness, and as you make progress, in your old age, there is also consciousness. Now, your body is changing but consciousness is continuing. That you cannot deny. Therefore the Bhagavad-gītā says, avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam. That consciousness is eternal, and that does not vanquish with the destruction of the body. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). Now as soon as this consciousness is over, the body is called dead body. Now what is this consciousness? This consciousness is the symptom of the soul. That is... Just like in a light, in a fire, there is distribution of heat and light. Similarly, the spirit soul being present in your body, the consciousness is spread all over your body. This is the fact. Now this consciousness is being carried.

Lecture Engagement -- Montreal, June 15, 1968:

So this movement is very scientific movement, and we have got authoritative statements. You cannot defy authority, authority. As an authority, minister of this Unitarian Church, in one place he has denied authority, and in another place he has quoted so many authorities. So many authorities he has quoted. Why? If you deny authority, then why you quote other authority? So you cannot defy authority. This is not possible. From the beginning of your life, when you were child, you asked your parents, "Mother, father, what is this?" Why? That is the beginning of life. You cannot go even a step without authority. You are governed by authority. You are running your car by authority—"Keep to the right." Why? Why don't you defy it? So authority we have to obey. But the difficulty is: who is authority? That we require to learn who is actually authority. So authority means who has no mistakes, who has no illusion, who does not cheat, and whose senses are perfect. That is authority. That is the definition of authority. A conditioned soul who... Just... "To err is human." Any human being is sure to commit mistakes. However learned he may be, however advanced he may be, he must commit mistake.

Lecture -- Seattle, September 30, 1968:

He simply feels your pulse and sees that you have got a disease and he gives you the medicine: "Yes. You take it." Similarly, we are suffering. That is a fact. Nobody can deny. Why you are suffering? Forgetting Kṛṣṇa. That's all. Now you revive your memory about Kṛṣṇa, you become happy. That's all. Very simple thing. Now don't try to find out the history when you forgot. You have forgotten, that is a fact, because you are suffering. Now here is an opportunity, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Revive your memory, your love for Kṛṣṇa. Simple thing. Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, dance, and take Kṛṣṇa prasāda. And if you are not educated, you are illiterate, hear. Just you have got natural gift, ear. You have got natural tongue. So you can chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and you can hear Bhagavad-gītā or Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from persons who are in the knowledge. So there is no impediment. No impediment. It does not require any prequalification. Simply you have to use whatever asset you have got. That's all. You must agree. That is wanted. "Yes, I shall take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness." That depends on you because you are independent. If you disagree, "No. Why shall I take to Kṛṣṇa?" nobody can give you. But if you agree, it is here, very easy. Take it.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

That requires training; that requires understanding. But the standard of... The same example, that the same state, the same man, when he was fighting in the battlefield, he was being elevated to higher position, rewarded. But same man coming back from the battlefield, he has killed somebody, some of his neighbor, he's hanged. But the same state is there. But man is there, the action is there, the same, but why the judgment is different? Similarly, we have to satisfy the great, and the greatest of the great is God, or Kṛṣṇa. If by your action Kṛṣṇa, God, is satisfied, then it is all right. I don't say that this fight is good, that fight is bad. Fight or no fight. Even without fighting, he may be bad. Just like the instruction which we get from Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna was denying to fight and he was considered by Kṛṣṇa bad, because He was not satisfied. This is the evidence. And when Arjuna decided to fight to satisfy Kṛṣṇa, it was taken as good. So whole thing should be tested, judged, by the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord. Saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam (SB 1.2.13). The perfection of any action... In the material world, "This thing is good," "This thing is bad," that is our mental concoction. Everything is bad here. Everything is bad. We have simply manufactured by our own imagination that "This is good," "This is bad." But to keep pace with the human society or peace in the human society, there is necessity of doing or adopting something which is approved by somebody, or the state. That is different thing. That is material.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

Young man (6): Don't you think that since there are people of different temperaments, different kinds of people, that... How should I say it? Don't you think that by denying rāja and jñāna and some of the other yogas that you're denying the infinite aspect of mankind? Don't you think that by asserting bhakti-yoga as the only way that you're saying that...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Infinite aspect. We are publishing one article, "Dr. Frog." Dr. Frog means... Perhaps you know, everyone. The frog lives in a well. That is only a few feet. And one, another frog, he's giving information to his friend in the well, "My dear friend, I have seen a vast water, Atlantic Ocean." But this frog has never seen Atlantic Ocean. He's calculating, "It may be so much big. It may be so much big. It may be so much big." So how this infinity can be calculated by the frog? So those who are calculating infiniteness of this tiny soul, they're all Dr. Frogs. You are not infinite. You are finite. How you can be infinite? You can be infinite only when you dovetail yourself with the infinite. Individually you are finite. That is the position, real position. In the Bhagavad-gītā in the Fifteenth Chapter... You have read Bhagavad-gītā? So did you not read this verse in the Fifteenth Chapter, mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ jīva-loka sanātanaḥ (BG 15.7)? Have you read this? That "These living entities, they're My parts and parcels, fragmental parts." So you are... God is infinite. You are infinitesimal part and parcel. So how you can be infinite?

Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968:

So we are worshiping Govindam, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the original person. So this sound, govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi, is reaching Him. He is hearing. You cannot say that He is not hearing. Can you say? No. Especially in this scientific age, when television, radio messages are broadcast thousands and thousands of miles away, and you can hear, now why can you...? Why Kṛṣṇa cannot hear your prayer, sincere prayer? How can you say it? Nobody can deny it. So, premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti (Bs. 5.38). Just like thousands and thousands of miles away you can transfer the television picture or your radio sound, similarly, if you can prepare yourself, then you can see always Govinda. It is not difficult. This is stated in Brahma-saṁhitā, premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena. Simply you have to prepare your eyes, your mind in that way. Here is a television box within your heart. This is the perfection of yoga. It is not you have to purchase one machine, or television set. It is there, and God is also there. You can see, you can hear, you can talk, provided you have got the machine. You repair it, that's all. The repairing process is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968:

So here in the Bhagavad-gītā, the Supreme Personality of Godhead explaining Himself, Kṛṣṇa. So if you say, "How can I believe that Kṛṣṇa said? Somebody has written in the name of Kṛṣṇa that 'Kṛṣṇa said,' 'God said.' " No. This is called disciplic succession. You will see in this book, Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa, what Kṛṣṇa said, and how Arjuna understood. These things are described there. And the sādhu, saintly person, beginning from Vyāsadeva, Nārada, down to many ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, and latest, Lord Caitanya, in this way, they have accepted: "Yes. It is spoken by Kṛṣṇa." So this is the proof. If saintly persons have accepted... They have not denied. Authorities, they have accepted, "Yes." This is called sādhu. And because sādhu, saintly persons have accepted, therefore it is scripture. That is the test. Just like... It is common sense affair. If the lawyers accept some book, then it is to be understood that this is lawbook. You cannot say that "How can I accept this is law?" The evidence is the lawyers are accepting. Medical... If the medical practitioners accept, then that is authoritative medical. Similarly, if saintly persons are accepting Bhagavad-gītā as scripture, you cannot deny it. Sādhu śāstra: saintly persons and scriptures, two things, and with spiritual master, three, three parallel lines, who accept the sādhu and the scripture. Sādhu confirms the scriptures and spiritual master accept the scripture. Simple process.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968:

Yogamāyā? Yogamāyā means that which connects you. Yoga means connection. When you are being gradually advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that is the action of yogamāyā. And when you are gradually forgetting Kṛṣṇa, that is the action of mahāmāyā. Māyā is acting upon you. The one is dragging you, and one is pushing you opposite way. Yogamāyā. So, just like the example, that you are always under the laws of government. You cannot deny. If you say, "I don't agree to abide by the laws of government," that is not possible. But when you are a criminal, you are under the police laws, and when you are gentleman, you are under the civil laws. The laws are there. In any situation, you have to obey the laws of government. If you remain as a civilized citizen, then you are always protected by the civil law. But as soon as you are against the state, the criminal law will act upon you. So the criminal activities of law is mahāmāyā, threefold miseries, always. Always putting in some sort of misery. And the civil department of Kṛṣṇa, ānandāmbudhi-vardhanam. You simply go on increasing the, I mean to say, depth of the ocean of joy. Ānandambudhi-vardhanam. That is the difference, yogamāyā and mahāmāyā. Yogamāyā is... Yogamāyā, the original yogamāyā, is Kṛṣṇa's internal potency. That is Rādhārāṇī. And mahāmāyā is external potency, Durgā. This Durgā is explained in Brahma-saṁhitā, sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktir ekā chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni bibharti durgā (Bs. 5.44). Durgā is the superintending goddess of this whole material world.

Class in Los Angeles -- Los Angeles, November 15, 1968:

So he inquired from this preacher, my Godbrother, that Bannerji, he was Mr. Bannerji, Goswami Bannerji: "Bannerji, can you make us brāhmaṇa?" Bannerji said, "Why not? Yes, we can make you brāhmaṇa. Then you have to follow the rules, these four principles of rules. Then you can become a brāhmaṇa." He said, "Oh, it is impossible." He said. You see? Such a big personality, he is interested in philosophy, he holds some position, responsible man, he flatly denied, "Oh, it is not possible to give up these habits." But our student, hundreds of students who are coming to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they are giving up very easily. They don't feel any inconvenience. This is spṛśaty anarthāpagamo yad-arthaḥ. Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the first test is that in the beginning, from the very beginning, all misgivings will go on. Will go on. Our student can twenty-four hours sit down before a Deity and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. Bring any student of any yoga society, let him sit down for five hours. He'll fail. They are so restless. Simply official fifteen minutes, half an hour, by closing the eyes and murmuring something, meditation. These boys are twenty-four hours engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 4, 1968:

"My dear Arjuna, whatever you do," yat karoṣi, yad aśnāsi, "whatever you eat," yat karoṣi yad aś..., yaj juhoṣi, "whatever you sacrifice," dadāsi yat, "whatever you give in charity," kuruṣva tat mad-arpaṇam, "do it for Me." This is called karma-yoga. Somebody is very much fond of giving in charity. Just like in your country there are so many foundation for giving charity. But as soon as you go that "We are spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness. You give us some charity," they will immediately deny, "Oh, we are, we have no concern with religious movement." You see? But Kṛṣṇa says, "If you are so much charitable, give Me something, at least portion of your charity, to Me." Dadāsi yat. Yad aśnāsi. "Whatever you eat, you offer Me." In this way, when people are not directly coming to the bhakti-yoga, so he's advised, "All right, you do like this. Whatever you eat, whatever you give in charity, whatever you make in sacrifice, do it for Me." Then... Just like Arjuna's example is karma-yoga. Arjuna is a fighter, he's a warrior, military man. And he fought for Kṛṣṇa. This is called karma-yoga. You be whatever you may be. You may be a brāhmaṇa, you may be a kṣatriya, you may be a vaiśya, you may be a intelligent man, you may be a military man, you may be a administrator, you may be a business man, or you may be ordinary worker, it doesn't matter. But if you offer the result of your work for the satisfaction of God, then you are perfect. This is the whole thing.

Press Release -- Los Angeles, December 22, 1968:

I shall speak. Record it. "Manifesto of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness." The International Society for Krishna Consciousness is a movement aiming at the spiritual reorientation of mankind through the simple process of chanting the holy names of God. The human life is meant for ending the miseries of material existence. Our present-day society is trying to do so by material progress. However, it is visible to all that in spite of the extensive material progress, the human society is not in peaceful condition. The reason is that a human being is essentially a spirit soul. It is the spirit soul which is the background of development of the material body. However the materialist scientist may deny the spiritual existence in the background of the living force, there is no better understanding than accepting the spirit soul within the body.

Recorded Speech to Members of ISKCON London -- Los Angeles, December 23, 1968:

We are, however, misled by persons and leaders who have very little connection with God, or Kṛṣṇa. Some of them are denying the existence of God, some of them are falsely trying to place themselves in place of God, some of them are in favor of the impersonal feature of God, and, at last, some of them, without being able to reach any right conclusion, are accepting the ultimate goal of life as void, or zero, in utter hopelessness and frustration. But Kṛṣṇa consciousness is solid ground for understanding Kṛṣṇa, or God, directly by the simple method of chanting the holy name of God, or Kṛṣṇa. Misled by blind leaders, the followers who themselves are blind have failed to achieve the desired success, but here is a method called by the name Kṛṣṇa consciousness which is directly offered by Kṛṣṇa, and the instructions are plainly described in the Bhagavad-gītā, given to us five thousand years ago, and again confirmed by Him in the form of Lord Caitanya five hundred years ago. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is a great art of life, very easy and sublime. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement gives you everything you want, without any artificial endeavor. It is transcendentally colorful and full of transcendental pleasure.

Lecture Excerpt -- Los Angeles, January 13, 1969:

Just like in a stage, we play—somebody is playing the part of a king, somebody is playing the part of a queen, and so many things—similarly, we are, on the material stage, playing different parts, but we are all living entities, pure soul. Antavanta ime dehā: (BG 2.18) "This body is perishable." Nityasyoktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ: "But the proprietor of the body, that is eternal." (break) ...vāṇī and vapu, and vapu means the physical body, and vāṇī means the vibration. So we are not concerned about the physical body. Not concerned means... We are concerned, of course, because the spiritual master, those who are ācāryas, their body is not considered as materiel. Arcye śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matir. Just like the statue of Kṛṣṇa, to consider that "This is a stone..." Similarly, arcye śilā-dhīr guruṣu na... Guruṣu means those who are ācāryas, to accept their body as ordinary man's body, this is denied in the śāstras. So although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the spiritual master, vibration. What we have heard from the spiritual master, that is living. You'll see in these pictures. This movement was started by Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and then it was entrusted to Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. Then we are trying to serve his word, and many of my Godbrothers, they are also... (break—end)

Lecture -- Hawaii, March 23, 1969:

"What should one know about Kṛṣṇa consciousness? Is it something mystical?" No mystical. No bluffing. You are part and parcel of God. Who can deny it? There is no secrecy. As you are part and parcel of your father—God is the supreme father—so you are the part and parcel of your father, and it is your duty to love God. So what is the secrecy and what is the mystical? We don't teach that you press your nose, you put your head, you go up and down. Nothing required. Simply to know that "God is my father; I am His eternal son. My duty is to love Him," that's all. There is no secrecy. There is no so-called bluff or mystical, this or that. It is simple truth. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). God is teaching that "You simply surrender unto Me, My dear son. Why you are independently...?" Just like here is one of my students. His father is a very big doctor. But he said, "My dear son, you come home." He's very moneyed man. He can give him some few hundred thousands of dollars. "But you don't go to Kṛṣṇa consciousness." That is his view. Similarly, as the father is claiming from the son, "My dear son, you just surrender unto me. I shall give you my wealth, my everything," similarly, God is also canvassing us, "My dear sons, why you are unnecessarily traveling here and making plans to be happy here, nonsense place? You just surrender unto Me. I shall give you all protection." Ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ: (BG 18.66) "I shall give you all protection." Father is always ready to give son all protection. That is natural.

Lecture -- Hawaii, March 30, 1969:

The sun is so powerful that it is the life of every planet. Without sunlight, nobody can see anything. We are very much proud of testing everything by seeing: "I want to see." Now that seeing power is resting on the sunlight. Without sunlight, your eyes are useless. Therefore sun is the eyes for all planets. All planets means all the residents of each and every planet. Yac-cakṣur eṣa savitā sakala-grahāṇāṁ rājā samasta-sura-mūrtiḥ. Therefore he is the king of all planets. These are described in Brahma-saṁhitā. Aśeṣa-tejaḥ, unlimited potencies or unlimited heat. There is no limit how much heat is there in the sun globe. So that sun also rotating. Yasyājñayā bhramati sambhṛta-kāla-cakro. That sun is also rotating under the guidance of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. The sun is rotating; it has got its orbit. It is rotating sixteen thousand miles per second. It is rotating. That you cannot deny. These are facts described. So somebody has arranged how the sun is rotating. Just like your sputnik rotates in the space by the scientist who is playing on the electronic machines in the laboratory, and the sputnik is rotating. So why don't you think that the sun is also rotating under some guidance? How you can deny it? So that is explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā: yasyājñayā bhramati sambhṛta-kāla-cakro. It has also a lifetime duration.

Lecture -- New Vrindaban, June 7, 1969:

If you chant this Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, even if you do not realize, simply if you come here and chant and dance, puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ, because you are chanting and hearing, you are getting piousness; you are becoming purified—simply by joining. This temple is situated just to give you facility for your purification. Why don't you take advantage? I am very glad that you have all come, and it will be further our enjoyment and pleasure if you come and join. Please come here, join here. We have got very nice arrangement. We supply prasādam, we have got dancing, we have got chanting. Why you should deny it? (laughter) And if you join us, then gradually you realize what you are, what is God, what is this world, what is your relationship. Then your life becomes successful. You'll not be confused. You will understand what is real life. Simply by the spell of the material qualities you have become covered. But if you come here, if you hear and chant, then gradually... Kṛṣṇa is within you. He is sitting within your heart as a friend, not as an enemy. Kṛṣṇa is always your friend. Suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām (BG 5.29). You are searching out friends to talk with, to joke with, to love. Kṛṣṇa is sitting there for that purpose. If you love Kṛṣṇa, if you make friendship with Kṛṣṇa, if you love Kṛṣṇa, then your life will be successful. You haven't got to search out any other friend. The friend is already there. Either you are a boy or a girl, you will find a nice friend within yourself. That is yoga system, when you realize this friend.

Lecture -- London, September 14, 1969:

So we should know when to be angry. Not that for our personal interest we shall be. Generally, those who are devotees, they are not angry. Just like see the example of Arjuna. Arjuna was so much harassed, all the five brothers, by the opposite party, his cousin-brothers. They insulted their wife, Draupadī. They wanted to make naked Draupadī because they lost Draupadī in the gambling. Therefore gambling is so sinful, you see. The kṣatriyas are allowed to gamble. So the bet was... They made a trick: "Now bet your wife." So if a kṣatriya is challenged to bet something, they cannot deny it. "Yes, I am betting my wife." And they lost in the game. So the wife became the property of the other party. So they wanted to retaliate only. So then, in the assembly they said, "Well, Draupadī has now become our property. Whatever we like, we can do. So we want to see her naked beauty." You see. This was the demand. So one of the brothers of Duryodhana was asked, "Make her naked. Let us see naked." So she became the property. The others, they did not protest. But Kṛṣṇa supplied clothing as much as required. You have seen the Draupadī's vastra-haraṇa. So these Pāṇḍavas, they were so much harassed. They were by trick taken away their kingdom; they were put into a house which was set into fire; their wife was insulted; they were driven to the forest for twelve years. So many things harassed. But still, when there was fighting in front, when he saw his brothers are standing, he said, "Oh, I will have to fight with my, these cousin-brothers. Kṛṣṇa, I am not going to fight." Just see how much tolerant.

Conway Hall Lecture -- London, September 15, 1969:

Guest (2): Because what I meant... I would like to know... Suppose... This is the point that we want to recommend. We are like drones(?), and we could go to Gokula in any way, in any other way.

Prabhupāda: No. That is not explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, and that is your wrong interpretation. Any way, no. The same way you have to go. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ (BG 4.11): "Everyone is trying to come to Me," but someone has come a few steps, another has come to another few steps, another step. Ultimately... That was... I explained it. You have to reach that Vāsudeva. That comes to the..., or that is possible after many, many births. It is clearly said, "After many, many births," bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19), "one comes to this point." Another verse in the Bhagavad-gītā, it is said that kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante 'nya-devatāḥ (BG 7.20). Anya-devatāḥ. Those who are bewildered by lust, material lust, they go to worship other demigods. So these things are there. How can you deny it?

Guest (2): I'm sorry, I couldn't agree with you that Śiva is a demigod. I couldn't believe it.

Prabhupāda: That is stated in everywhere. You have to learn it.

Lecture at Harvard University -- Boston, December 24, 1969:

So the Bhagavad-gītā is there. We are fighting in two ways. One way is that this chanting, Hare Kṛṣṇa. Very simple thing. Everyone can join: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. By chanting this movement, by the vibration, gradually one's heart, which is so contaminated that he is denying the existence of God, will be gradually simplified or clarified. Ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam (CC Antya 20.12). Just like the mirror, when it is overcast with dust, you cannot see your face nicely. But if you clear the dust you can see clearly. Similarly, our, this disease, denial of God, or "God is dead," "There is no God," "I am God," "You are God," such kinds of conception is due to covering of material dust on the mirror of our heart. Ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam. If you simply chant this transcendental vibration, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, you don't require any qualification and you don't require that you have to become intellectual man or an administrator or a productive man or... Never mind whatever you are. You be situated in your place, but you try to chant this Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare. The result will be that your heart, the dust on the mirror of your heart, will be gradually cleansed. And when it is completely cleansed, then you will understand that you are not this body. Ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanaṁ bhava-mahā-dāvāgni-nirvāpaṇam (CC Antya 20.12).

Lecture at Krsna Niketan -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is everything. The bhūmir āpo analo vāyuḥ kham... (BG 7.4). Kṛṣṇa says, "My energy." As you cannot separate energy and the energetic, Kṛṣṇa is everything. So Kṛṣṇa can accept your service through everything. Don't consider that "This is metal." The metal is also Kṛṣṇa. Therefore we should know bhūmi..., bhūmi... Metal, what is metal? Metal means earth. Kṛṣṇa says, first of all says, bhūmir āpo analo vāyuḥ: "They are My all energies." So from argument's point of view, Kṛṣṇa is everything. Therefore Kṛṣṇa can accept service through everything. So this Deity, vigraha, either made of wood, made of stone or earth or metal or painting, they are not different from Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa has got the potency to accept your service through this medium. So they are not pictures or they are not ordinary idols. You should never... Similarly, a sound vibration. Kṛṣṇa is present through sound vibration because the five elements, ākāśa, the sky... Sky, within sky, there is sound. So from argumentative point of view also, nobody can deny that this chanting of the holy name of Kṛṣṇa is not identical. It is identical. Because identical... Everything is identical.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 6, 1971:

These, our present senses, are very blunt, imperfect. It is to be purified by sevonmukha, being eager to serve Lord Kṛṣṇa. Then our senses will be purified. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170). Nirmalam means without any contamination. At the present moment our senses are contaminated. I am thinking in so many different consciousness. I am thinking in consciousness of nationality, community, society, friendship—so many ways—but without Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore our consciousness is impure. We have to be freed from all the designated consciousness. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, "I am not a brāhmaṇa. I am not a kṣatriya. I am not a sannyāsī. I am not a brahmacārī. I am not a gṛhastha." In this way He denied His identity to all these eight kinds of forms and stages, varṇāśrama. Then He said that gopī-bhartur pada-kamalayor dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ: "I am the servant of the servant of the servant of Kṛṣṇa, who is maintainer of the gopīs." This is the identification of Caitanya (CC Madhya 13.80).

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 11, 1971:

Acyutānanda: We have made the statement that we attain a certain amount of bliss by engaging in this Kṛṣṇa consciousness process. Do we deny the fact that other people have attained similar bliss from doing other things, such as...?

Indian man: Such as religion and other.

Acyutānanda: Religion?

Indian man: Yeah, religion.

Prabhupāda: The thing is, there are three qualities of men, and each one's feeling of pleasure is different. Just like there are crows, and there are swans. The crows take pleasure in a different way, and the swans take pleasure in a different way. That is natural. The crows are different from the swans, although they are birds, but because they are being conducted under different qualities of nature, their propensities are also different. So one may take pleasure by howling and drinking, and one man takes pleasure by chanting and dancing in Hare Kṛṣṇa. It is a different quality only. So in the Bhagavad-gītā everything is divided into three divisions. There are religions of different qualities, and there are actions of different qualities. Exactly the same example: as there are differences between the crows and the swans, similarly there are different persons in the human society. One class of person, they take pleasure in one class of thing, and another person, they take in a different type.

Speech at Olympia Theater -- Paris, June 26, 1971, (with translator):

So it is the duty of every human being to understand his constitutional position, his relation with God, and understanding the relation, to act accordingly, and then our life becomes successful. This human form of life is meant for that purpose. We are missing the point. So long we are living, sometimes we challenge that "There is no God," "I am God," or somebody says, "I don't care for God." But actually this challenge will not save us. God is there. We can see God in every moment. But if we deny to see God, then God will be present before us as the cruel death. There are different features of the Supreme Personality of Godhead because He is the original root cause of all cosmic manifestation. In the Bhagavad-gītā there is nice description how you can gradually understand and see God personally, face to face. Just like the Personality of Godhead says therein that "I am the taste in water. I am the sunlight. I am the moonlight. I am the sound vibration in the sky and I am the supreme character of a great personality." So if we (are) actually serious to understand the science of God, if we try to follow the injunction given in the Bhagavad-gītā... Just like God is the taste of the water.

Speech at Olympia Theater -- Paris, June 26, 1971, (with translator):

So if we remember this instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, that the taste of the water is God, then the God realization begins, becomes, begins. Similarly, it is said there that God is the light of the moon, God is the light of the sun. Every one of us has seen the sunlight and the moonshine, so how we can say that we have not seen God? Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the sound vibration in the sky." So who has not heard the sound vibration of the cloud in the sky? So as soon as we hear the sound vibration in the sky, we can see God or we can hear God. At last, Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34). If one does not see God, then, Kṛṣṇa says, "I am the death, cruel death, who takes away everything from everyone." The conclusion is that everyone sees God at every moment, but the atheist class, they do not accept that he is seeing God. He denies or telling lies that he is not seeing God. But a devotee of God, he sees God at every moment within his heart. So the difference of seeing God by a devotee and difference of, and denying, denial by the nondevotee, is this, that the atheist class or the atheist can see God at his last stage as death, whereas the devotee sees God by his devotional service every moment and every step of his life.

Lecture -- Detroit, July 16, 1971:

So many facilities are there for a human being. But an animal, because it is animal, it has no facility. A cow is born in America, and a gentleman is born in America, but the state takes care of the gentleman, not of the cows. They say "national," "nationality." Why nationality is refused to the animals? Just like few days or few years ago the nationality was also awarded to the black man. This is nice. Why one section of humanity should be denied nationality? That was very nice. So similarly, if national means the living entity born in that land... That is natural. If a child, even of an Indian, if a child is born in your country he gets immediately the citizenship. That is the law. So the conclusion is that anyone who is born in this land, he gets nationality. But why we should refuse nationality to the poor animals? This is called ignorance. He is also... But we have made concoction, law, that "Animal has no soul." Why it is, it has no soul? What is the difference between you and animal? You eat; the animal eats. You sleep; the animal sleeps. You have sex life; the animal has sex life. You also try to defend yourself and the animal also tries to defend himself. So āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithunaṁ ca, eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, these four principles, bodily demand, are similar to the animal and to the man. So why the animals should be denied nationality? It is not that because they are less intelligent they should be denied nationality. No. Just like a father has got four boys. Not that everyone is of the same intelligence. But does the father give less protection to the less intelligent son? No. The protection, the family protection, is equal for everyone.

Lecture -- Los Angeles, July 20, 1971:

Nanda-Kiśora: What happens to a person if we just give him out on the street one Simply Wonderful or some prasādam, one piece of prasādam?

Prabhupāda: That is wonderful, simply wonderful. (laughter) He has not tasted such wonderful sweet in his life. Therefore you give him wonderful, and because he's eating that wonderful sweet, one day he'll come to your temple and become wonderful.

Devotees: Jaya!

Prabhupāda: Therefore it is simply wonderful. So go on distributing this Simply Wonderful. Your philosophy is simply wonderful. Your prasādam is simply wonderful. You are simply wonderful. And your Kṛṣṇa is simply wonderful. The whole process of simply wonderful. And He acts wonderfully, and it is acting wonderfully. Who can deny it?

Devotee: Prabhupāda is simply wonderful.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. You can become... Everyone. All right, have kīrtana. (end)

Lecture at Christian Monastery -- Melbourne, April 6, 1972:

Similarly, if the fishes are taken—that also we experienced—from the water, they will die on the land. Here we can see that some of the living entities, they can live comfortably within water. Some of the living entities, they can live comfortably on land, some of them in the air. Similarly, why not some of them in fire? Because after all, fire is also one of the material elements. So according to Vedic scripture there is life in the sun planet also. They have got fiery bodies. That's all. That is the difference. Just like the fishes here we see they have got watery bodies, similarly, one may have got fiery body. From logic, from argument, we cannot deny that. So this example, that in the sun planet there is a predominating deity or president or god, whatever you call... He is called sun-god, and his name is also mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā, Vivasvān. His name is also there. And Kṛṣṇa says,

imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ
proktavān aham avyayam
vivasvān manave prāhur
manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt
(BG 4.1)

Kṛṣṇa says that "This instruction, bhakti-yoga instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, was first imparted by Me to the sun-god, Vivasvān." That is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture at Christian Monastery -- Melbourne, April 6, 1972:

No. Just like in the Bible it is said, "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was creation." Is it not? It is fact. It is fact. Now you find out who created this universe. If you deny this fact, "No. God does not create," then you explain how it was created. So there is no difference between Bible and Vedic literature. We accept also, "God created." But in the Vedic literature you will find how God created. That you'll find. So if you are actually serious to understand how God created, why don't you come to Vedic literature? That is the duty of every student. If you are after the knowledge, why should you stick to one particular place or...? If the knowledge is available in other places, you must have it. That is inquisitiveness, seriousness. But if you say, "No. We are Christian. We have studied Bible. That is all. We do not touch," I don't think that is very nice conclusion. You remain Christian, but what is the harm to study other literatures where more informations are there? That is quite reasonable. We are not asking you to become Hindus. We simply want to, everyone, that you become God conscious. That is our mission. Our mission is not that to convert. What is the use of converting? If my habits are the same... Suppose I am Hindu. I become Christian, but my habits are not changed. Then what is the use of becoming from Hindu or Christian or to Christian or Hindu?

Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972:

So there is no scarcity if we believe in Kṛṣṇa. If Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then there will be no scarcity. Actually there is no scarcity. You have been already informed that we have got ninety-five centers and we are spending seventy to eighty thousand dollars per month. But we have no fixed-up income. We are traveling all over the world with party. You can imagine. This is very expensive job. But Kṛṣṇa is supplying us all our necessities. Why not? If you are serving for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, why He will not supply you? Kṛṣṇa is supplying food to everyone, those who are not devotees, and why not to the devotees? What we have done? Those who have denied the existence of God, they are also being fed by Kṛṣṇa, or God. And we are preaching the glories of God. Why we shall be in want? That is not possible. And actually we are not. So this is not very important subject matter. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, automatically, if you take care of the spiritual side of your existence, the material side of your existence will be automatically taken care, automatically. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ (BG 2.11). The so far the body is concerned, either it is dead... Dead, so far dead body is concerned, everyone knows that now it is useless. But even the living body's function, that is also useless. Because, after all, it is useless. It is useful so long the spirit soul is there.

Lecture -- Los Angeles, May 18, 1972:

Real advancement means to know God. That is advancement. If you are lacking that knowledge, what is God... And because you cannot understand... There are so many rascals, they are denying the existence of God. That is very nice. If there is no God, then they can go on with their sinful activities unrestricted: "There is no God. Very nice." But simply by your denying, God will not die. God is there. God is there, His administration is there. By His order, the sun is rising, the moon is rising, the water is flowing. The ocean is abiding by His order. Everything under His order, everything going on nicely, without any change. How you can say God is dead? If there is some mismanagement, you can say there is no government, but if there is nice management, how you can say there is no government? So God is there. You do not know God. Therefore some of you say that "God is dead," "There is no God," "God has no form," "God is zero," so many things. But no. We are firmly convinced that there is God, and Kṛṣṇa is God, and we are worshiping Him. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Try to understand it.

Lecture Excerpt -- Los Angeles, June 7, 1972:

This is the secret. People are trying to bring in peace and prosperity in the world by so many activities—philanthropism, altruism, nationalism, socialism. And so-called religion also, they are trying to bring in. The whole idea is the human society should remain in peace and prosperity. And the vivid example is the United Nations in your country. America invited all nations that "Let us form a community of United Nations," but the America herself is fighting. You see? Because the idea was there to unite, but they do not know the basic principle, how to unite. That is the defect. There is a church in the United Nations, and we tried to get a room there for making our propaganda. The church unity denied to give us. So their crippled mind is not expanded. Sa mahātmā... Mahātmā means broad-minded. Su-durlabhaḥ. So mahātmā, unless one becomes nonenvious, mahātmā, there is no question of so-called unity or fraternity. These are all false propaganda. It is not possible. But they will stick to that proposition, that "We have got this..." For the last twenty years... Why twenty years? More than twenty years. When this United Nations was started?

Hare Krishna Festival Address -- San Diego, July 1, 1972, At Balboa Park Bowl:

So in the Vedic conception of life the sex life is there, but you become indebted. You must repay the debts. If you simply beget children like cats and dogs and go away, then you become responsible for the sinful activities. You must take responsible. So this man was suggesting, he wants sex life at least once in a month. Yes, that is allowed. That is allowed in the Vedic civilization. When the wife is in menstrual period, after five days of the menstrual period, the wife and husband can have sex life for begetting rightful children. And before be getting a child, one must go... If he is in the higher orders of society, one must accept the garbhādhāna-saṁskāra. Garbhādhāna-saṁskāra means that child born out of the sex life of the father and mother must come out a very nice child, not like the cat and dog. That is called garbhādhāna-saṁskāra. Those who are in the higher position of the society, they are obliged to observe ten kinds of purificatory processes, out of which, the first purificatory process is garbhādhāna-saṁskāra. So the parents, when they take to sex life for begetting nice children, there is garbhādhāna-saṁskāra, and if one does not observe this garbhādhāna-saṁskāra, he immediately falls down to the group of śūdra from brahminical position. These are the injunctions in the Vedic literature. Sex life is not denied, but one must take responsibility for sex life; otherwise, he becomes entangled in so many sinful activities.

Hare Krishna Festival Address -- San Diego, July 1, 1972, At Balboa Park Bowl:

So there is regulated principle. You can have sex life once in a month. That is prescribed. Because the woman has once in a month menstrual period. So sex life is meant for simply begetting nice children, not for sense gratification. Therefore, because the woman is, gets the menstrual period once in a month, therefore the man can have sex life just after the menstrual period, over, after five days, he can sex life, have sex life with his wife under garbhādhāna-saṁskāra, responsibility. Otherwise he becomes implicated in sinful activities. That is Vedic injunction. So sex life is not denied. Just like in our society, the boys and girls, they come to our society, and as far as possible, we get them married. We don't allow to live, the boys and girls and friends, like friends. No. That is a great sinful activity. So nothing is denied. The problem of life is eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. So everything is there, but in a regulated form. In regulated form so that the world may not become hell. If it is irregulated form, then the whole world will be hell. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, narakāya varṇa-saṅkaraḥ. When we produce unwanted children, the whole world becomes just like hell. It is going to happen like that at the present moment. The sex life is not denied. The point is discussed because it was raised. Sex life is not denied, but in a regulated form so that you can get nice population, you can live very happily. Not that you produce unwanted children and they turn out rogues, thieves and drunkards, like that. That is not allowed.

Rotary Club Lecture -- Hyderabad, November 29, 1972:

So my interpretation..." Just like "Kurukṣetra means this body," or "The five Pāṇḍavas means the five senses." If we interpret in that way, Bhagavad-gītā, according to our whims, we'll never understand what is the purport of Bhagavad-gītā. We have to learn Bhagavad-gītā as it is; otherwise, we'll miss the opportunity. Just like Kurukṣetra. Kurukṣetra is still there, existing. Everyone, you know. While passing through Delhi to Punjab side you find the Kurukṣetra. The, the field is also there. It is a very big field, and in the śāstra, in the Vedas, it is said, kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret. So people go as a place of pilgrimage. So you cannot interpret Kurukṣetra otherwise. Kurukṣetra should be accepted as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre (BG 1.1). Then you'll understand Bhagavad-gītā. Everything is there. Our request is—you are all respectable gentlemen, ladies, present here—that kindly try to read Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then you will understand the problems of your life, the solution also there. The solution is there, and the ultimate end of Bhagavad-gītā speaking: sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). That is the ultimate solution, that we have to surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is our... Because every one of us, in this material condition, we are trying to become master, ultimately to become God. That is māyā. That is illusion. We cannot become master. We are servant by constitution. Every one of us sitting here is a servant to somebody. Nobody can deny it. Either he may be servant of his family or his community or his country or... So many things... If one has no master, then he keeps a dog to become his servant. That is the nature. We are all servants. The, our thinking that "I shall become master," that is māyā.

Lecture at Bharata Chamber of Commerce 'Culture and Business' -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973:

God inspiration comes for every work. That's a fact. But we deny... Just like... You take this simple exam, example. Just like a thief. From within, he's forbidden: "Don't commit theft." But he does it. He does it. You have got all experience about these things. God says from within, "Don't do it," but we do it. That is the defect of without being Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Just like a thief. He knows that for his criminal activities he'll be punished. He has seen it, that a thief is arrested and he's taken to the prison house. And he has heard from the śāstra and from lawbooks that committing theft is not good. Why does he commit it? He knows and he has seen it. Why does he do it? Can you answer? He knows that it is not good, and he has heard it from śāstra and from learned lawyers. But why does he do it? This is the influence of nature. As he associated with the nature, ignorance, dark ignorance. He cannot check it. Therefore the best service to humanity is to give him knowledge. Because everyone is in ignorance. Parābhavas tāvad abodha-jāta yāvan na jijñāsata ātma-tattvam. Everyone is being defeated out of this ignorance. Therefore one should come to the platform of inquiring about the self. That is the best service, athāto brahma jijñāsā, To revive, invoke people to inquire about Brahman, and that will solve all the questions.

Lecture at Indo-American Society 'East and West' -- Calcutta, January 31, 1973:

Yes. (aside:) It is not working. (break) ...eternal soul is there in the Bhagavad-gītā that... That I have already explained. Asmin dehe, in this body there is the proprietor of the body. This is conception of soul. Just like whenever we see some apartment or house we can understand that there is a resident or proprietor of this house. Similarly, we can understand, this body, there is some proprietor within this body. Therefore the body is working. If we see one house, nicely cleansed, there is light and everything is in order, we can understand there is resident. Similarly, when the proprietor of the body is there, the body is healthy... (break) ...That is the conception of existence of the soul. Nobody can deny it. (break)

...as soul without the body means ghost. Yes, that's a fact. Ghost means he has got no gross body, but he's working with the subtle body. We have got two kinds of bodies. The gross body is made of five elements, earth, water, air, fire, sky. And the subtle body is made of intelligence, mind and ego. So when a soul does not get a gross body, he has to work with the subtle body, that is ghostly life. So ghostly life is not false. Those who are too, too much sinful, sometimes they are condemned not to get a gross body. Just like if a man commits suicide. So nature gave him this gross body. He misused it. Therefore he's punished sometimes not to get again gross body. He becomes ghost.

Lecture -- Jakarta, March 1, 1973:

Just try to understand how much qualified he was. Not only that, he belonged to the royal family. He was a great warrior, great hero, so many qualities. But he said that "I cannot practice this yoga system. It is not possible. I cannot control my mind and practice this haṭha-yoga system." Now just try to understand. He is such a personality, great personality, and five thousand years ago, when things were so nice. So at that time a person like Arjuna felt that he's unable to practice this yoga system. And nowadays a (indistinct) people with teeny knowledge, they are trying to practice yoga system as if they're..., he has become more than Arjuna. It is very difficult subject matter. It is not possible for ordinary man. The first principle is that he has to sit down alone in a sacred place, alone. Yoga practice is not possible in a big city, with friends and smoking habit and drinking habit. This all first. One has to become very strong in controlling the mind, controlling the senses, sitting in a solitary place, sacred place like Himalaya or Hardwar, like that. And who is going there, and who is practicing? It is not possible. Not only that, he has to sit down straight, and not bending, and looking on the tip of the nose, and not closing the eyes completely, half closed—so many rules and regulations—and always thinking of Viṣṇu. Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā pra... It is not possible. This yoga system, Arjuna denied five thousand years ago. And what we are? This is going on, all farce.

Arrival -- Dallas, May 19, 1973:

Prahlāda Mahārāja said, "My dear friends, Kṛṣṇa consciousness should be learned from the very beginning of life, kaumāra." The learning should be beginning between five years old to ten years old, between this time. This Bhāgavata-dharma especially, first thing is, the children from the very beginning of their life should be given instruction on religious principles of life. What are the religious principles? Religious principle means to understand what is God. That is religious principle. It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or Hindu or Muslim or any... There are many hundreds and thousands patterns of religious system, but according to our Bhāgavata school, we accept that religion as first class which teaches how to love God. That is religion. Sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje (SB 1.2.6). That system of religion is first class wherein the followers are given lessons how to love God. Unfortunately, at the present moment there is no question of how to teach them for loving God. They deny the existence of God. This is the present situation. People have become so rascal that they do not believe in the existence of God. Or somebody believes... Not believes. That is affirmed. Some of them say, "God is dead. Now we have to take to social work, political work. Let the subject matter of God be set aside." Especially in India. In India, the country where still God consciousness is so strong, the government wants that they should forget about this God business. So this is Kali-yuga. Kali-yuga means simply for fight on trifling things and forget God.

Lecture -- London, August 23, 1973:

Similarly, here it is stated, dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam na vai vidur ṛṣayo nāpi devāḥ (SB 6.3.19). Ṛṣaya, ṛṣaya means great sages. Ṛṣaya, great sages, great saintly persons or great thoughtful philosophers, even scientists, they cannot create dharma. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād. Sākṣād: directly. Dharma is directly made by God. Not that because one is very great saintly person, great philosopher, great scientist, he can make a kind of religious system. No. That is not possible. That will not be religion. That may be something else, but that is not religion. Religion must be given by God. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād (SB 6.3.19). Denied here in this verse: na vai vidur ṛṣayo nāpi devāḥ. Vidur, vidur means knowing; ṛṣaya, great saintly person. Na vai vidur ṛṣayo nāpi devāḥ. Devāḥ means demigods. There are very, very big powerful demigods, just like Indra, Candra, the sun. Sun is also demigod. The sun is distributing the light, that is by the order of God, not independently. Anything you find, they are abiding by the laws of, or by the order of God. The whole total cosmic manifestation which is called material energy, that is also acting by the order of God. Many śāstras, we have to take knowledge from the śāstras. And if you judge from good sense and intelligence, you'll have to admit what is said in the śāstra. Now just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10).

Lecture -- Hong Kong, January 31, 1974:

Lord Buddha appeared to stop animal-killing. Sadaya-hṛdaya-darśita-paśu-ghātam, nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātaṁ. Lord Buddha, he declined to accept Vedic authority. Why? Because in the Vedas also there is sanction sometimes in yajña, animal sacrifice. But he wanted to stop animal sacrifice, animal-killing. Therefore he denied the authority of Vedas. Because people will give evidence that "You are preaching no animal-killing, but in the Vedas sometimes in sacrifice the animals are sacrificed. How you can stop this?" Therefore Lord Buddha had to deny the authority of Vedas. That is described, nindasi yajña-vidher. The animal-killing is described in the Vedas, in the yajña-vidher, not in the slaughterhouse. In the Yajña-vidher. That also was decried. Nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam. Because according to Vedic civilization, śruti, Veda, is the evidence. Therefore if Lord Buddha accepts the authority of Vedas, he cannot say, "Stop animal-killing." Then he said, "No. I do not follow Vedic principles." Therefore he is called nāstika. Anyone who defies the authority of Vedas, he is called nāstika. Sri Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore says, veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. On account of denying the authority of Vedas, the Buddhas became nāstika. Vedāśraya nāstikya-vāda bauddhake adhika. And those who are lip-sympathy vedī—"I am following Vedic principles" and doing all nonsense—they are lower than these nāstika. Lower than the nāstika. Veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. So Lord Buddha appeared to stop animal-killing, ahiṁsā. He did not say anything more. His only mission was, "Let these rascals first of all stop this animal-killing, they'll understand further about spiritual advancement." Those who are animal killer, they cannot understand anything about spiritual advancement. That is not possible. Therefore this thing must be stopped first. That is Buddha philosophy. But in spite of that... (end)

Lecture at the Hare Krsna Festival at La Salle Pleyel -- Paris, June 14, 1974:

Your Bible says that in the beginning there was word only, and the word is God. So before the creation, the God was there. Then all the created creatures, wherefrom they came? They came from God. It is clearly stated in this verse, "All things were made by Him." So original creator of everything was God. Everything means including all, not only a certain person or certain thing. Everything means everything, all. So all things were made by God means..., "made by Him" means that all these creatures... There are different creatures, 8,400,000. They were created by God. One who creates, he is the father. Just like in the material sense also, a father creates his children. So how can you say "No"? Because here in the Bible it is said that "All things were made by Him, created by Him." Therefore He is the father of everything. "And without Him was not anything made that was made." So you cannot deny the authoritative statement of Vedas or Bible by your whimsical way. When you go to your church, you ask, "Father, give us our daily bread." That means He is father of everyone. This is perfect knowledge, that God is father of everything that is made. Here it is clearly stated, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." That is also statement of the Vedānta-sūtra, the most perfect philosophy of Vedic language. In the Vedānta-sūtra it is said, athāto brahma jijñāsā, means "This human life is meant for inquiring about God." So the first understanding of God is that He is the creator of everything.

Lecture -- Honolulu, May 25, 1975:

So Prahlāda Mahārāja is one of the great personality in devotional line. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). It is very difficult to understand what is the purpose of religious principle. People actually do not know what is religion; therefore we have got so many religious system, man-made, or concocted ideas. Actually, religion means the law given by God. That is religion. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). Just like the law given by the state, by the government, you have to accept it. There is no question that the government is Christian government or Muhammadan government or Hindu government. It doesn't matter. The law given by the government, you must accept. You cannot deny it. So actually God is neither Hindu God nor Muhammadan God nor Christian God. God is God. His power is omnipotent. It is equally applicable to Hindu, to Muslim, to Christian—anyone—to animal, to human being. Just like God has given this law, "You must die." This is applicable to everyone—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, man, animal, trees, birds, beasts, everyone. It cannot be disobeyed. That is law. That is God's law. You may be very much advanced in knowledge or so-called science, but because God says that in the material life you must die, you cannot avoid this law. That is called dharma. Dharma means the characteristic, that God has given this law that everyone should die; therefore all living beings' characteristic is that he must die. This is called religion. Similarly, God says that "You are My eternal servant. You must obey Me." That is religion. You try to understand the meaning of religion. Religion means the law given by God, and you must accept it. That is religion.

Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976:

Kṛṣṇa was engaged as the chariot driver of the chariot of Arjuna. And while the chariot was brought in the battlefield between the two groups of soldiers... Senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me 'cyuta (BG 1.21). Arjuna requested, "My dear Kṛṣṇa..." Kṛṣṇa was his friend and Kṛṣṇa was familywise related both with the Kurus and Pāṇḍavas. Kṛṣṇa's father and the Pāṇḍavas' mother, they were real brother and sister. In this way there were family relationship, and Kṛṣṇa therefore denied to take part in the actual fighting. The whole world was divided. Some of them joined this party; some of them joined that party. Just like it actually happens when there is big war. Even nowadays, all the nations, they make a group. Some of them forming were forming one group; another some of them, they formed another group. Exactly the same thing was done. Now Kṛṣṇa was the charioteer, but when the chariot was brought in front of the two soldiers' party, Arjuna became little bit disturbed that "I have to fight. On the other side they are my brothers, they are my nephews, they are my gurus, Dronācārya, and they are my grandfather, Bhīṣmadeva. So what kind of fight this is that I have to fight with my friends and relatives and family members?" So he hesitated, that "Kṛṣṇa, what kind of fight this is? They are not my enemies; they are all family members. So I am not interested in this fight."

Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976:

Yes. So Arjuna understood his weakness, his weak point. Therefore he said to Kṛṣṇa that kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ. Kārpaṇya, this word, comes from kṛpaṇa. Kṛpaṇa... Kṛpaṇa, this word, is known practically everyone. Kṛpaṇata means miserly. A person who has got enough resources but if he does not use it properly, it is called, he is called a kṛpaṇa, miser. And the opposite word of kṛpaṇa is udhara, or liberal. So there are two words, kṛpaṇa. So Arjuna said, kārpaṇya-doṣa: "I know I can fight. I am quite competent military person, but I am not using my resources; therefore it is kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ." Svabhāvaḥ means naturally a military man, a kṣatriya, is very bold enough to fight. That is one of the qualification of a military man. Yuddhe cāpalāyanam. The śaurya, vīrya, tejaḥ, yuddhe cāpalāyanam, these are the symptoms of kṣatriya. He would never go away from fighting. When there is challenge, fighting, a kṣatriya will never deny. Yuddhe cāpalāyanam. So when kṣatriya, is especially a kṣatriya like Arjuna... He is the best military man of that age, and he was denying to fight. So he could understand his weakness. He said, kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ: (BG 2.7) "Naturally I should fight, but on account of my crippled decision or miserly decision, I am perplexed." So Kṛṣṇa... He knew Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. "Therefore I am surrendering unto You." What is that? Two, last lines?

Evening Address to Pandas and Scholars -- Jagannatha Puri, January 26, 1977:

Paris. So in the Western countries Ratha-yātrā is being introduced one after another, and Jagannātha Swami is attracting the attention of the Western people. (someone talking in background) What is that? So people will come in your Jagannātha Purī now from all parts of the world. That is beneficial from various point of view. From the point of tourist program, the government will benefit. And when they're attracted to see Jagannātha Purī, Jagannātha Swami... Unfortunately, you do not allow these foreigners to enter the temple. How it can be adjusted? This stumbling block should be dissolved. If you want Jagannātha Swami to pack up within your home, and you do not expand the mercy of Jagannātha... He is Jagannātha. He's not only this Purī-nātha, or Oriya-nātha; He's Jagannātha. Kṛṣṇa declares in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ sarva-loka-maheśvaram (BG 5.29). That is the definition of Jagannātha, sarva-loka-maheśvaram. So why you should deny the inhabitants of Sarva-loka the darśana of Jagannātha? That is not... Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu never approved such thing. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He said,

pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma
sarvatra pracāra haibe mora nāma
(CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126)

When that thing is being done and when they are eager to come here, why you should restrain? What is the cause? This is not very good. Arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhiḥ. It is not good.

Evening Address to Pandas and Scholars -- Jagannatha Puri, January 26, 1977:

So there is ample śāstra-pramāṇa, approved by the ācāryas. Caitanya Mahāprabhu converted many Pathans into Vaiṣṇava, changed their name. So things are going according to śāstra and mahājana. Why you should not receive them as Vaiṣṇava and give them proper reception? That is my request. I hope... There are many learned scholars and devotees present here. They should endeavor to remove this, I mean to say, restriction or short-sightedness, and let us combinedly work for Jagannātha to preach the bhakti cult for the benefit of the whole world. Janma sārthaka kari kara para-upakāra (CC Adi 9.41). This Bhārata bhūmi is for para-upakāra, because this knowledge, the Vedic knowledge, is here in the Śrīmad Bhāratavarṣa. So we should assimilate the bhakti cult to the right direction, and making our life successful, we should distribute this knowledge, this cult, all over the world. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's mission. Janma sārthaka kari para-upakāra. The modern civilization is very vicious civilization. Because in the human form of life there is the opportunity, athāto brahma jijñāsā—to inquire about the Supreme Truth—so if they are denied... The knowledge is there in India. If it is denied, that is not very good human society. So I shall request you all, learned scholars, paṇḍita present here, to cooperate with this movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and let us conjoinedly work for Jagannātha cult.

Lecture -- Bhuvanesvara, January 29, 1977, (with Oriyan translator):

So we must know what is God, what is our relationship with Him and how we shall act in that relationship. You cannot say, "There is no God," from logic also. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya: (BG 14.4) "I am the bīja-pradaḥ pitā, the seed-giving father." He says that sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ. There are different types of body, and we can see that all types of living entities, they are coming from the earth. So everything is coming out of the earth, beginning from the grass to the big, big animals or other thing. Therefore this pṛthivī, or the earth, is our mother. Everything is coming from the earth. So mātā is there, mother is there, and the offsprings or children are there—there must be father. Without father, mother cannot beget any children. So when you see so many varieties of life, the mother is the... We say dhātrī-mātā. We have got seven mothers. One of them is the earth.

ādau-mātā guroḥ patnī
brāhmaṇī rāja-patnikā
dhenur dhātrī tathā pṛthvī
saptaitā mātaraḥ smṛtāḥ

According to our śāstra, there are seven mothers: my original mother, ādau-mātā... Guroḥ patnī is my mother. Dhenu, cow, is my mother. Dhātrī, the nurse, is my mother. Tathā pṛthvī. Also earth is also my mother. So mātā is there, and the sons are there. How you can deny, that "There is no father"? I may not see my father, but there is father; there is no doubt of it. That pitā is personally presenting Himself-ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā: (BG 14.4) "I am the seed-giving father."

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: So any mathematical calculation is like that. Why this example? Mathematical means this: Two plus two equals four. That is always the truth.

Śyāmasundara: He is trying to prove that there are certain truths that we cannot deny they exist independent of our knowledge. Fundamental. And there are other truths that people say, like snow is white, which may not be true because our senses deceive us.

Prabhupāda: That is your defective senses. But snow is white, that's a fact. Why should it be red? At least we have no experience with red snow.

Śyāmasundara: I've seen red snow.

Prabhupāda: How it is?

Śyāmasundara: Particles of lava dust gathered in the snow and in the air...

Prabhupāda: That is not pure snow. That is another thing. Pure snow is white. Just like water. Water, by nature, it is crystal. But when it comes in touch with the earth, it becomes muddy. So that muddiness is due to contact with something external. Snow is white by nature, but in contact with something else it looks red. But the truth that snow is white, that is truth. Not that snow becoming red... You are making, or by some other contact it is looking like that. But snow is white, that's a truth.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: So we have no free will?

Prabhupāda: No. Without sanction of Kṛṣṇa we cannot do anything. Therefore He is the ultimate cause.

Śyāmasundara: But I thought you had been saying that we have a little independence.

Prabhupāda: That independence that Kṛṣṇa wants me to do something but I want to deny it. But unless Kṛṣṇa sanctions, you cannot do that also.

Śyāmasundara: What I'm trying to get at is that if we desire something and we take a body because of that desire, can a hydrogen molecule desire to become part of water and be given that body? Does it have the independence to desire something and take a body accordingly? The hydrogen molecule, does it have a life?

Prabhupāda: So far as we get information, our knowledge is from the Vedic information, aṇḍāntara-stha paramāṇu: Kṛṣṇa is within, the Paramātmā. It does not say the soul is within, the Paramātmā.

Śyāmasundara: It doesn't say that an individual soul is present within the atom?

Prabhupāda: No. Kṛṣṇa is present.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: He says that men, because they are...

Prabhupāda: The atheist demons are like that. If he exists to accept God, then he cannot work irresponsibly. To facilitate his sinful activities he is denying that there is a God.

Śyāmasundara: He says that God is an absolute necessity because we cannot conceive not-God. But man, individual men, are relative truths because they are not absolutely necessary. Because I can conceive that I am not here, that I may die. So he says that we are conditioned, that men are conditioned. They are governed by the principle of sufficient (indistinct).

Prabhupāda: That we can see. There are so many politicians, they are very busy. They think that "If I do not remain in the state, everything will collapse." But when he dies, everything goes on nicely without him. That is māyā. So many politicians work so hard, up to the last point of his death he is thinking that "Without me, everything will be topsy turvy." But he dies in spite of his not willing to die. He dies, but things go on without depending on him. Therefore God's will is working, the Supreme Will. You may think so many ways—that is a different thing. Actually God's will is working.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Hayagrīva: He says there are no entirely separate souls without bodies.

Prabhupāda: That is rascal. That means he is imperfect. How he can say so when we practically see that the soul is changing from childhood to boyhood, boyhood to youthhood? How he can say like that? He is transmigrating. That is, every day we have experience. How he can deny that? Otherwise, if he, if the soul does not transmigrate, then how the child becomes a young man? The body is different. The, this is simple understanding, that he has changed the body. The body changes and the soul remains eternal.

Hayagrīva: He further writes on this... He says, "There is strictly speaking neither absolute birth nor complete death consisting in the separation of the soul from the body. What we call birth is development or growth, as what we call death is envelopment and diminution."

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is transmigration. That is transmigration. He hasn't..., he is not dead, but he has developed into another body. That is transmigration. Then why does he deny that?

Hayagrīva: So he says, in other words, as soon as the human soul leaves the body, it must immediately...

Prabhupāda: Enters another body.

Hayagrīva: ...enter another.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Hayagrīva: Leibnitz did not believe that the city of God, what he called the city of God, is divorced from the natural world. Rather, it is a moral world within the natural world. He writes, "The assembling of all spirits must compose the city of God. That is the most perfect state possible and of the most perfect of monarchs," meaning God. "This city of God, this truly universal monarchy, is a moral world within the natural world and the highest and most divine of the works of God."

Prabhupāda: Yes. We can construct such city immediately if the League of Nation—they are trying to be united—they come to their right sense, that this planet does not belong to any particular nation; it belongs to God. This simple fact, if they accept and cultivate on this point, then immediately the whole world will be the city of God. But they will not do this. They have gone to the United Nation to settle up all problems of the world, but they keep themselves in the dog's mentality: "I am this body." "I am American," "I am Indian." But he is not. But if they give up this designation, that "I am American," "Indian" or "Hindu" or "Muslim," "Christian..." We are all part and parcel of God, and the whole planet belongs to God. We are His sons, and we can live peacefully as the sons of father. Father is supplying everything, so we can utilize. Now they, in some country, just like in Australia or New Zealand we find enough cows to supply milk, and in India practically there is no milk. So if the United Nations gives this, accepts this version, that everything belongs to God, so where is the scarcity? It may be in one place one thing is in scarcity, but other place it is enough. So where it is enough, that can be distributed where there is need. Then immediately it becomes city of God. If anyone abides by the order of God and everything produced is divided among the sons of God, then where is the question of scarcity? There is..., there cannot be any scarcity. But they have no reason. They are denying the actual fact that everything belongs to God. It is common sense. Such a vast ocean, who has created this? Has any nation has created, or any individual person has created? So to whom belongs this ocean? What will be the answer? Huh? What will be the answer? If I question that "Shall we dig a little ditch and there is water. We fill up." So such a big ditch, who has done it? Where is the question that there is no God? Somebody has done. That is common sense. And who has done it not only this one ocean-millions of oceans are floating in the sky—who has done it? Who has created? Huh? What will be the answer? So they, this modern so-called civilization, they have lost their common sense. They want to remain in animal consciousness; therefore they are suffering. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: He says just like a cherry, say a fruit...

Prabhupāda: In logic there is relative study, and at the end of all relative truth there is absolute truth, the summum bonum. So he has no idea of the summum bonum, or the substance.

Śyāmasundara: No. He denies any substance. He says just like a cherry or a fruit, it has certain sensory qualities such as sweetness, color, like that. He says that we are just like that, humans. We have certain "sensory qualities." We are made up of a series of mental activities or a complex of ideas, but this is all we are.

Prabhupāda: No. We have got senses also. The color is only, what is called, sensory qualities. It is a quality, but to appreciate that quality, we have the senses. An inert object, it has got the quality, but living entity, it has the senses to appreciate the quality.

Śyāmasundara: But he says these senses are only a bundle of perceptions, of ideas.

Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be, the living entity is superior to the inert matter. In Sanskrit language they are called tan mātrā. They are created for the sense; they are sense objects. I have got senses, I must appreciate something. That something is that quality or sensory quality. I have eyes, I must see something.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: He thinks that is what our being is—it is simply ideas. From our birth to our death we simply are made up of a bundle of perceptions and ideas. Simply that, nothing more.

Prabhupāda: Beyond this idea?

Śyāmasundara: He denies the existence of any ultimate reality. Only the phenomena of senses.

Prabhupāda: So wherefrom do these phenomena come, unless there is noumena?

Śyāmasundara: Well, he says that it is possible that all this existed since eternity and there was no cause. It's possible that there is no cause, that it's just existing.

Prabhupāda: What about the manifestation—past, present and future?

Śyāmasundara: He says that this may be an eternal existence of things, but there may not be any cause.

Prabhupāda: Then why death takes place, if there is no cause?

Śyāmasundara: It's just like any machine which is born and dies.

Prabhupāda: When you say machine, machine is made by somebody. You cannot compare it to a machine. A machine is created by somebody. There is beginning of the machine.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: As far as we can ascertain, Hume personally had no religion, no faith in the Christian or any other God. He also rejected that argument or reason could justify a faith. Thus Hume is a complete skeptic who denies the possibility of ascertaining certainty outside of a mere sequence of perceptions or ideas.

Prabhupāda: This, then the argument comes. If he does not believe in anyone's statement, why he is thinking his statement will be accepted? Then he is foolish. He is a child. Instead of becoming a philosopher, he is a child, talking all nonsense.

Hayagrīva: He maintains that man cannot know ultimate reality or possess knowledge of anything beyond a mere awareness of phenomenal sensory images.

Prabhupāda: That is sufficient. But if man cannot have any knowledge, so who is going to take your knowledge? Better you stop, don't talk. Is it not?

Hayagrīva: So much for Hume. (laughs) That's the end of Hume.

Prabhupāda: No, no, I mean is not that the conclusion? If he is skeptic, he does not take other's statement why he expects that his statement will be taken? Why does he propose any statement? Does he think that he is the greatest of all? Then everyone can think like that. That skeptic has no ground. He cannot say. If he is skeptic he should stop, he should not stand.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: How is it that someone else could apply their material reason and come to a different conclusion?

Prabhupāda: What is that reason? How can he prove? He must have proved by his experience. Thus his experience proving that things are... The man who is talking of this nonsense can he prove that he is born without his father? How is that? How his existing is there? How his material body came into existence? It was caused by his father. Then how can he deny the cause? His very existence is depending upon some cause.

Śyāmasundara: So according to one point of view, Hume's point of view, cause and effect are not necessarily related, that they are habitually connected.

Prabhupāda: The scientist, he'll say that the father begets the child. Why it is not related? It is simply lunacy not to believe this. Where is the instance that without father some child has taken birth? Where is such instance? He himself is talking such nonsense. He is born by his father. The cause is his father. Similarly, his father is also the effect of his father. Therefore there is supreme father, father of this cosmic manifestation. How you can deny it? That is the defect of the speculators: they contradict themselves.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: He comes to that point in a way by saying that he has limited all that we can know to mere phenomena, and he has therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge of God, freedom and immortality in order to find a place for faith. In other words, he says that through the reason and the senses we cannot know anything about God, soul, immortality or freedom, so the rest has to be done by faith.

Prabhupāda: No. Faith, that is a compromise, you see. That is not fact. But this is good that he admits that we cannot approach the final God by our senses or reason. To have faith, that is also not perfect. Therefore the Western philosophers, they have created different faiths, and religion means faith. Somebody may believe in some faith, others may believe in another faith. But that is not factual. The factual is this: if we are actually convinced that there is God, and God is omnipotent, so by His omnipotency He descends. As it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata (BG 4.7). "Whenever there is discrepancies in the process of religious principles," abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham, "when people become irreligious, at that time I descend." He descends for two reasons: paritrāṇāya sādhūnām (BG 4.8), for relief of the devotees. Devotees are always anxious to see God, but somehow or other they are unable to see. Of course, they are seeing God, but at the same time face to face(?). So in order to give them relief God descends to be seen face to face. The other reason is that vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām: rascals, miscreants, to kill them. Just like Hiraṇyakaśipu, Kaṁsa, Rāvaṇa, they are the symbolic representations of miscreants. So to kill them. Two things. So one may say that God is partial. No. God is not partial. God is kind to everyone, both to the devotees and to the demons. The demons being killed by God, they get immediate salvation, whereas the devotees, by seeing God, they can understand what is actually the position of God. So God displays himself factually as He does in the spiritual world in Vṛndāvana. His nature is to play with the cowherd boys, to dance with the gopīs. These things are actually displayed, and devotees became encouraged that "After finishing this material body, we are going to Kṛṣṇa, or God, to join these pastimes of the Lord." This is called paritrāṇāya sādhūnām. Sādhus, they heard from the śāstras, but Kṛṣṇa practically demonstrates. So they become doubly confirmed, doubly assured what they are going to have next life. So these things, the transcendental world, God, His activities, we hear. By hearing also we realize. Because God is absolute, therefore to see Him and to hear about Him, there is no difference. There cannot be any difference. By seeing eye to eye or to hear about Him, the same thing.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Hayagrīva: ...but that he rejects the traditional proofs of God. He says that God is morally necessary in a moral universe. His philosophy is a philosophy of ethics and morality.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. But if your, his morality does not accept God, and God is there—because we have already discussed that behind the nature there is God. So if his morality denies the existence of God, then where is the value of this morality? This morality can change at any time into degradation.

Hayagrīva: His, his emphasis are on morality is based on this. He says...

Prabhupāda: So what is morality?

Hayagrīva: He says, "For a rational but finite being..."

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: "...the only thing..."

Prabhupāda: So one man is thinking that animal killing is good, and another man is thinking animal killing is immorality. Then who is correct? Unless you know morality means this—it is coming from authority—that you have to follow it, otherwise you will be punished, then morality. Otherwise, if there is no background of forcing, that morality can be degraded into immorality at any moment.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: Why you are taking geological evidence as final? Why you are taking that? That is final?

Śyāmasundara: But it's logical...

Prabhupāda: What logic? Science is progressing. You cannot say that this is final.

Karandhara: Scientists couldn't deny; they could just say that we haven't found any evidence.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: But until there's something that disproves it to me, then I must accept it, because it..., because it's logical.

Karandhara: But that's a false platform. I'll conclude on the basis of my limited knowledge because I don't have the perfect knowledge. That's an abortion of the whole scientific...

Śyāmasundara: Yes. All right. You can say that I've never seen a purple man, so there must be no such thing as a purple man. You can say that, but as far as I can operate within my practicality, there are no purple men. I've never seen one; no one has ever seen purple men. So isn't this logical?

Prabhupāda: Purple men?

Śyāmasundara: I'm just using it as an example.

Prabhupāda: What is that purple men? But you have not also seen, why you are speaking like that?

Śyāmasundara: I'm using it as an example of an exception.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: You say they are all existing now, but I don't see the dinosaur. There are no dinosaurs on this planet.

Prabhupāda: That is not the denied. Dinosaur you may not have seen, it may be existing some other... Neither I have seen the 8,400,000 different species of, different forms of life. But my source of knowledge is different. Your source of knowledge is different. You are experimenter with imperfect senses. I am taking from the perfect who has seen, who knows things. Therefore my knowledge is perfect. Just the same example: I am receiving knowledge from my mother, "Here is your father," and you are trying to search out where is your father. You don't go to the mother, but you are searching out. So therefore, however you may search, your knowledge always will be imperfect.

Śyāmasundara: And your knowledge says that millions of years ago there were higher forms of living entities on this planet.

Prabhupāda: Oh, yes. Because our Vedic information is that the first creation is the most intellect, that is the most intellectual personality within this universe, Brahmā. So how we can say..., how we can accept your theory that intellect develops? We are receiving Vedic knowledge from Brahmā, so perfect. So that is the evidence. The first creature was so perfect.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Śyāmasundara: You mean by intuition can we understand.

Prabhupāda: Yes. One can understand. It is very easy. That I explained in the meeting, that we see, that any way you take, I have got my father, my father has got father, his father, his father, his father—so there must be some original father. That is supreme father. Another way: I don't find myself free. I am in American state, so I have to submit report to the immigration department. Or you, American citizens, you have got some obligation to the state: the draft man is there, calling you; if you don't go then you have to go to jail. So nobody is control-free; everyone is being controlled. Again, I see that the man who is controlling me, he is also controlled, and that man is also controlled, that man is... So here you see relative—I am controller and controlled. So when I approach the person who is simply controller, not controlled, that is God. How can you deny this definition of God? Simply (indistinct). Here by our experience we see, everyone is rejecting the controller and controlled. But if you can find out the Supreme Person, who is controller but not controlled, then He is God. Find out. Now, if i say that it is beyond my capacity, so go to experienced man, Brahma. He has got duration life a million times greater than you, and he got knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Hayagrīva: He saw, he saw change as maturation. He says, "We are seeking only the precise meaning that our consciousness gives to this word 'exist,' and we find that, for a conscious being, to exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly."

Prabhupāda: So, you want..., you are struggling, creating for the highest position, but Kṛṣṇa is giving you the idea. This is the highest position, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), that "You give up your so-called positions, you simply surrender unto Him..., Me, and I shall give you all protection." This is the idea. But he denies, and that because he thinks Kṛṣṇa is ordinary human being, "Oh, how He can give me the topmost position?" So he goes on, he..., with his plan-making, so that... But this plan-making, if he is actually advancing, then after many, many births he will come to that conclusion that everything is Kṛṣṇa. Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ (BG 7.19). But this happens after he is struggling for many, many births. So best thing is that instead of waiting many, many births, if we take Kṛṣṇa's instruction immediately, we become perfect. Why you should continue in ignorance, unsettled, and making plan? That is another foolishness.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Hayagrīva: And the enormous, what he calls the enormous influence of authority on the human mind. "Authority is the evidence on which the mass of mankind believe everything which they are said to know except facts of which their own senses have taken cognizance. It is the evidence on which even the wisest receive all those truths of science or facts in history or in life of which they have not personally examined the proofs. Whatever is thus certified to them by authority, they believe with a fullness of assurance which they do not accord even to the evidence of their senses when the general opinion of mankind stands in opposition to it."

Prabhupāda: Authority, that is authority. You can not defy it or you can not deny it. That is authority. We are presenting our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement on this principle, that you should carry out the orders of the authority, and Kṛṣṇa or God is the Supreme authority. Whatever He is speaking, instructing to the human society, they must accept it without any wrong interpretation. That will make them happy. So those who are sane persons, they do not hesitate to accept the authority of God and they become happy simply by abiding by the orders of the authority. And those who are following exactly the instruction of the Supreme Authority, they are also authority. So that is the difference between the Supreme Lord and spiritual master. Spiritual master is servant authority, and God is the master authority. Therefore sevyā bhagavān, sevā bhagavān. Just like government officer, a servant authority, and the king is the master authority. So if one follows the instruction of the authority and teaches the people in general the same principles, then he becomes servant authority or the spiritual master.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Hayagrīva: ...of immortality...

Prabhupāda: This is perfect knowledge.

Hayagrīva: Yes. Wouldn't knowledge of immortality...

Prabhupāda: If somebody thinks that "In future, fifty years after, I shall become old man," this is knowledge. And if somebody thinks that "No, no, I shall never become old," that is ignorance. Although it is future—a man of knowledge knows that this will be future. So I shall continue to live in future, and I was a child in the past, and I am a middle aged man at this time, so in these three, past, present and future, I am existing. Where is the difficulty? If this simple truth one cannot understand, that what kind of human being he is? I remain in the past as child, the body is finished. Now I am a middle-aged man or young man, the body is different. And in future I shall become old man, that body will be different. So I, as a child, I, as a young man, as an old man, I am the same, all the bodies changing. This is the fact. Who can deny it? So where is the difficulty to understand it? And in the Bhagavad-gītā, it is said, Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna, "Both you, Me, and all these soldiers, they existed in the past, and they are present existing, and in future they will continue to exist. This is immortality. He says when, I mean very openly, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20), na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin. This living soul, he is never born. That body is changed, that is called birth. But the soul is immortal. So he never takes birth, he never dies. "No, I see that he has died." No, that is the annihilation of his body. Take it from me that by the annihilation of the body, the soul is not dead. This, this is authority and this is, we have to accept this authority. If you don't accept authority, if you have no reason to understand how the soul is immortal, then what we are, except like the animals? So one who does not believe or cannot understand, he is no better than animal. He has no knowledge. This is the beginning of knowledge. Then other (indistinct). First of all one must understand what he is. If he does not know what he is, he is wrongly directed. He is taking care of the body. Just like he, the cage and bird. If you simply take care of the cage without taking care of the bird, is that very good knowledge? That is foolishness.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Śyāmasundara: Don't all living things have experience?

Prabhupāda: No. All the living things are experienced, but ultimately they are put into certain condition by the experience of the Supreme. And the flavor of the flower is stated in Bhagavad-gītā: puṇyo gandhaḥ pṛthivyāṁ ca. There are many flowers, but all of them have no flavor. It must be the arrangement of somebody else who has given flavor to some flowers. He has given somebody beauty and somebody not. Otherwise who will deny beauty? If it had been done by his own experience, then everyone would have been beautiful or every flower would have given flavor. Where is that experience? That means either you say flower's experience or your experience, it is conducted by another, superior experience. What is that?

Devānanda: Would another conception be that Kṛṣṇa is not only the experienced since time immemorial but He is also the experiencer now? He, being the prime enjoyer, enjoyment means experience. He knows nothing but enjoying, so all His experience is enjoying. All His enjoying is His experience. That experience...

Prabhupāda: That means that the sum and substance, that is supremely experienced, past, present and future. Unless He is supremely experienced, how He can know future? Past and present..., past, present and future for us, because of the time, eternal time... I am a fragmental production of this time; therefore there is a beginning of my appearance, date. And when I disappear, there is a date of my disappearance. And within this date of appearance and disappearance, there is past, present and future. So my past, present and future and an ant's past, present and future and Brahmā's past, present... They are all different.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Prabhupāda: This is logic. This is logic.

Śyāmasundara: ...like that, that God exists, unless he has a personal inner experience that God exists.

Prabhupāda: Yes. It is very simple logic. Because I am born of my father, my father is born of his father, his father is born of his father, go on, go on, and find out the supreme father. After all, there must have been a beginning of all the fathers. So how can I deny the supreme father?

Śyāmasundara: Unless I have the experience, inner experience of that...

Prabhupāda: This is inner experience. It is very simple. Because my father is, therefore I am born of him. He is born of his father, he is born of his father. Go on, that's it. That is, our śāstra says, ultimately you will come to Brahmā, the father of this universe. The Brahmā is also born of Nārāyaṇa, how you say, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and the Garbhodakaśāyī, wherefrom He comes? Mahā-Viṣṇu, Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Wherefrom Mahā-Viṣṇu comes? From Saṅkarṣaṇa. Wherefrom Saṅkarṣaṇa comes? From Nārāyaṇa. Wherefrom Nārāyaṇa comes? He comes from Baladeva. Wherefrom does Baladeva comes? Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Hayagrīva: James saw religion as the source of philosophy. He writes, "Since the relation of man to God may be either moral, physical or ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may secondarily grow."

Prabhupāda: So philosophy means advancement of knowledge. So we are making progress in knowledge when our knowledge is actually come to the point of perfection of knowledge, that is understanding of God. God is there, but on account of our foolishness, sometimes we deny the existence of God. That is the most foolish platform of living condition. But sometimes we have vague idea, some imagination, and sometimes impersonal, sometimes pantheistic. In this way different philosophies means they are searching after God, but on account of not being perfect, there are differences of opinion or different conception of God. But actually God is person, and when one comes to that platform—to know God, to talk with Him, to see Him, to feel His presence, even to play with Him—that is the highest platform of God realization. And the relationship is God is the great and we are small. So our position is always subordinate. (break)

Hayagrīva: This is the continuation of William James.

Prabhupāda: So to carry the orders of God is religion. So the more this fact is realized, that is perfection of religion, and dharma, religion, is perfect when he understands who is God and how to learn to love Him.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Hayagrīva: ...just another disease.

Prabhupāda: So disease, when you are in diseased condition, it means increasing suffering. Disease increases. Without treatment disease increases, as fire, without being extinguished, without attempt of extinguishing the fire, it increases. Debt, compound interest, increases. So therefore the instruction is that disease, fire, and debt should not be kept as it is without any attention. The attention must be there to see that it is not increasing, it is being completely extinguished. That is intelligence. So therefore we must know our suffering is on account of disobedience to the orders of God, or on account of becoming irreligious. So we must find out the real system of religion, and we, there is already, but on account of our ignorance it is now covered by material contamination. Otherwise our relationship with God is a fact. We are thinking independently. That is foolishness. The demons, or the atheist class, they falsely think independent of the orders of God; therefore they are forced to accept which they do not want. Ultimately they are forced to accept the punishment—birth, death, old age, and disease—but still, atheist class, they deny existence of God. That is their foolishness. Actually God is there, His order is there, and if we are deficient in carrying out the order, we should take the instruction of bona fide spiritual master, the representative of God, and we should execute it, and then we become happy.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: These utilitarians said that activity should be to achieve all that is desired by the people, but Dewey says that activity should be to achieve what is worthy to be desired.

Prabhupāda: No, no. First thing is, people are desiring happiness. Whatever one may desire, the ultimate end is happiness. Nobody can deny this. But a diseased fellow, if he thinks that "I am happy," that is false happiness. A diseased man cannot be happy unless the disease is cured. Sometimes we go to a diseased person and ask, "How are you?" "Yes, I am all right." If he is all right, why is he lying down? He is not all right. He is artificially saying that "I am all right." What is this "all right"? Similarly, these foolish people, they are thinking, "I am happy." What is their happiness? If you have to die, then where is your happiness? Janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi duḥkha-doṣānudarśanam. A real intelligent person will see that these are the things which are giving me distress: janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi. So where is the happiness? Foolishly if we accept something as happiness, that is not happiness. Real happiness is when you are free from these four principles of distress: janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi (BG 13.9). Otherwise, where is your happiness? But if you think that "Although I am dying, I am happy," that is another thing, a fool's paradise.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: If certain specific conditions are met, then the satisfaction is transformed into a value. In other words, if my hunger is satisfied by eating a certain foodstuff, then this foodstuff is given value.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So Kṛṣṇa gives that value. Just like Kṛṣṇa gave the value in Bhagavad-gītā, and Arjuna in the beginning denied to fight, but he agreed to fight. He agreed to fight.

Śyāmasundara: Because he was satisfied by his faith in Kṛṣṇa?

Prabhupāda: Yes. This is required.

Śyāmasundara: He says that moral laws are comparable to physical laws. In other words, they are guidelines to elicit certain responses under given conditions. Just like if I throw a ball up, I know it is going to come down. So a moral law will guide me in the same way. If I act in a certain way, there will automatically be a certain result, a response.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like we prescribe, ādau śraddhā tato sādhu saṅgasya. If you follow one after another, you get the result. If you have got faith, you make association with devotees. Then the next step, you will be eager to execute devotional service. Ādau śraddhā tataḥ sādhu-sango 'thya bhajana-kriyā 'nartha-nivṛttiḥ syāt (Cc. Madhya 23.14-15). Then all misgivings are eradicated. Then you become firm faith, niṣṭhā, then attachment, one after another. Unless you experience the next result, how can you make progress?

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: He says that rights are also social, just like if I claim a right, a certain social right, that I must also accept my responsibility. Just for instance free speech. If I accept free speech as my social right, that I must also accept others' right to free speech.

Prabhupāda: But that is lacking in the present society, because these rascals, they are proud of their nationals but they are denying this same national life to the animals. They are being sent to the slaughterhouse. Therefore they are rascals. Why the animals should be denied their national right? They are born in the same country. They have a right to live at the cost of God. Why we are interfering with their independence, given right? Therefore they are rascals. Their so-called social, moral, philosophical, political, they are all rascaldom. Therefore our decision is, harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā: (SB 5.18.12) anyone who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he has no good qualities. In the other direction, we will find so many defects with his so-called moral and social position.

Śyāmasundara: He says that God... He defines God as the active relation between the ideal and the actual.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We are active in God's service. People are thinking, "What service they are doing? They should be giving service to the country, to society, and they are making ārati and brass idols." They are thinking like that. But for us it is practical.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Hayagrīva: He says in the realm of philosophy and religion, certainty is impossible. He says, "The moment philosophy supposes it can find a final and comprehensive solution, it ceases to be inquiry and becomes either apologetics or propaganda. Any philosophy that in its quest for certainty ignores the reality of the uncertain in the ongoing processes of nature denies the conditions out of which it arises."

Prabhupāda: There is uncertain when you do not accept the reality. The reality is God, and God is explaining how things are going on, but you take it as mythology. Then how you will know?

Hayagrīva: No way.

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Hayagrīva: No way.

Prabhupāda: You are rascal. When it is explained by God Himself, and actually by doing it, you do not accept it. And still you imagine. So your position is very precarious. When God comes Himself and shows Himself, His activities, we think it is mythology. Then how we can be convinced? Direct perception and authority. And the direct perception, when He comes you take it that it is mythology. When the direct perception history is written about Kṛṣṇa in Mahābhārata, and then you take it as mythology. Then how he will believe it? And the authority accepts, "Yes, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme. He has done it." You say, "I don't accept it." Then how you will be convinced? What is the way to convince you? Huh? What is the way, possible way?

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Śyāmasundara: He says that real love means sympathy, not sex life.

Prabhupāda: No, sex life is animal. That is not love; that is lust. We always repeatedly say, sex life is lust. That is not love. Here is real love, that "They are suffering for want of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Let us do something so that they may understand the values of life." Here is love. Sex, simply means you satisfy your senses and the other party satisfies her senses. That is sex. That is lust. You are lusty, she is lusty, that is all. There is no love. That is going on in the name of love. Rascaldom. That is not love. It is lust; they do not know it. Lusty thing has been accepted as love. Mistake. Bhrama, pramāda. Bhrama, mistake. Illusion. Illusion is accepted as something else. Lust is accepted as love. This is illusion.

Śyāmasundara: He says that permanent happiness comes about when we lose our desire to live, when we deny the will to live.

Prabhupāda: That is frustration. That is frustration. That is suicide. Just like one man, who is very much suffering, he does not find any other means, then he cuts his own throat or hangs himself or takes some poison. It is like this.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Śyāmasundara: Suppose I am bound up by the desire to live, so that I am always...

Prabhupāda: So you desire good desire, to live good. Change your desire. That is our program. Change your consciousness and live nicely with Kṛṣṇa. That is our program. We don't say, "You die." You live, but live with Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and you will become happy.

Śyāmasundara: So the will to live must not be denied.

Prabhupāda: You cannot do that. That is not possible. That is impossible. The same man who was doing all nonsense, and now they are mad after Kṛṣṇa. So will is there. Formerly he was willing to do all nonsense, now he is willing to serve Kṛṣṇa. So will is not vanished, but he has been engaged in a good willing process, that is all.

Śyāmasundara: Will can never be...

Prabhupāda: No, not for a second. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Not for a second you can live without will. You must will. Because we are living.

Śyāmasundara: What about the Buddhists, who desire...

Prabhupāda: That... They do not believe in the soul. They have no idea.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Śyāmasundara: So tomorrow we will finish Schopenhauer. Today is finished. (break)

Prabhupāda: The will cannot be stopped. Therefore you have to reform your willing process. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Śyāmasundara: He says..., he mentions a third type of salvation, called religious salvation. He says that this is the highest. But his idea of religious salvation is ascetism. That by denying the will then we can quiet the will.

Prabhupāda: Yes that is in one sense, that you don't will anything which is not favorable to Kṛṣṇa's service. That is our prescription. Ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ prātikūlyaṁ vivarjanam. This is, out of the six items of surrender, these are the two items, that you should give up things which are not favorable in execution of devotional service. You should give up. That sort of willing, you should give up. And you should accept everything which is favorable for Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So willing cannot be... Our process is to purify willing. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170). So, just like you are working or others are working, somebody is working, "I am American, I must do this as American." And others say, "I am communist, I must do this." This is superfluous. According to designation, they are willing. And when you come to this willing: simply to serve Kṛṣṇa, that is designation-less. That sort of willing we should practice. Not willing with designation. He is thinking of willing of designation.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Hayagrīva: He says, "Voluntary and complete chastity is the first step in asceticism or the denial of the will to live. It thereby denies the assertion of the will, which extends beyond the individual life and gives the assurance that with the life of the body, the will, whose manifestation it is, ceases."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: Is this kind of extinction the purpose behind chastity?

Prabhupāda: Behind the willing activities there is a person who is willing. So simply by negation of this temporary willing will not help him. He has to will reality. That is eternal willing. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He has been willing his sense satisfaction, material world, because he does not know there is another field of willing. So the same willing, when he will satisfy the senses of the Supreme, that is his eternal willing. Jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). Because when he analyzes, comes to the real knowledge, he finds himself that he is eternal servant of God. As such, when willing will be concentrated how to serve God, that is his real position of life—eternity, knowledge and bliss. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Hayagrīva: Although it appears that Schopenhauer does not believe in God, although his stand appears atheistic, he writes, "If a man fears death as his annihilation, it is just as if he were to think that the sun cries out at evening, 'Woe is me, for I go down to eternal night.' Thus even already, suicide appears to us as a vain and therefore a foolish action. When we have carried out our investigation further, it will appear to us in a still less favorable light."

Prabhupāda: Investigation of father, that means God.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: That is not possible. Suppression willing, that is not possible. He has to change the quality of willing; then he will be happy. And that is bhakti. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170). The process of willing should be purified. Then he will be happy. And the process of purifying the willing is bhakti, śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ (SB 7.5.23), chanting and hearing of the pastimes, all about the Lord. That will purify him. He is missing the point that he is individual, accepting that life is eternal, and still he wants, prefers this nirvāṇa. But he does not know what is nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa means this kind of whimsical willing is troublesome. He has to stop this whimsical willing. He has to come to the standard willing. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Hayagrīva: He looked on the Indian philosophy and religion as basically a philosophy of the denial of the will, and he gives several examples of religious..., of suicide as a religious act. He says especially when it...

Prabhupāda: That is, that is Māyāvāda. That is not... He did not study Indian philosophy and religion perfectly well. He simply has taken some portion of the Māyāvāda philosophy or Buddha philosophy, but he did not know about Vaiṣṇava philosophy.

Hayagrīva: But he gives the example of...

Prabhupāda: Although he has touched Bhagavad-gītā...

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Hayagrīva: He speaks of the Indian religion, which demands the greatest sacrifices and which has yet remained so long in practice in a nation that embraces so many millions of persons cannot be arbitrarily invented superstition but must have its foundation in the nature of man. And he says that the religion has endured for more than four thousand years, despite the fact that the Hindu nation has been broken up into so many parts. But he sees the religion basically as a religion of the denial of will. But does the religion have its foundation in the nature of man?

Prabhupāda: Yes, the denial, both the... There are two kinds of sects: this Māyāvādī and the Vaiṣṇava. So both of them know that this material world is flickering, and sometimes they say it is false, unreal. So there is another life; that is spiritual world. So the Māyāvādī philosopher, their spiritual life means to merge into the Brahman effulgence, and the Vaiṣṇava philosopher to go back to Goloka Vṛndāvana, Vaikuṇṭha, where God is situated, and become His associate person. So both the ideas, spiritual ideas, that is attained after death. What does he say that is good about Hindus? He says that denial...

Hayagrīva: He sees it basically as a denial of the will.

Prabhupāda: Yes, but denial of the will for material happiness. So we will not deny willing, that willing for spiritual happiness. That is required. As you deny something, you must accept something; otherwise... You cannot remain in the neutral position. That is not possible. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nirvatanta. When you get a better position, then you give up this willing for lower position.

Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Oh, yes. Still more. He says that a man finds himself flung into the world, and he finds that he is a fact within this world. He cannot deny that he is here. And he is subject to the resultant mood of fear or dread that comes about when he discovers that there is no escape to being here. "I am here. There is no escape." So there is immediate anxiety always within the man, that "I am here." So...

Prabhupāda: So when one is under some condition, then there is (indistinct). So therefore, this material world, every one of us are living under conditions and everyone is anxious.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He said that the basic mood of existence is anxiety.

Prabhupāda: Just like there was a statement by Mujid Rāman that "I was put into a cell, and nobody could see me, there was no paper, I was not given paper, I did not know what is happening outside," and (indistinct) he has described. So this kind of existing under certain conditions, that conditional existence is cause of anxiety. (break) He does not want to die, and the death signal is there. The death signal is always there, but he has... Under the influence of māyā, he is thinking that "There is no danger. There is no danger." But that danger can take place any moment. And he is not making any solution. That is called māyā. He is thinking, "I am safe." What is safe? I am sitting here and talking, and immediately my heart can fail. So death can take place at any moment.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Devotee: He wants to help other people understand the nature of things.

Prabhupāda: He does not want that his books should be read by anyone.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He wants to understand the nature of things so that he can help others...

Prabhupāda: That means that he becomes authority. He becomes authority. If he wants to become authority, why he should deny other authority?

Śyāmasundara: He doesn't deny another authority, he just doesn't know which authority is the real, correct authority.

Prabhupāda: Well, that we know. Therefore we say that Vedic knowledge is authority. That is the difference between the Western philosophers and the Indian philosophers. They accept the authority of the Vedas.

Devotee (2): Well, even when one chooses a spiritual master, it's not as if he accepts anybody that comes along. He must have some criteria for choosing that person, and that criterion must begin with an observation of phenomena because that's all he has to work with. It's not as if you take any bhogī who is walking down the street and say, "All right, you become my spiritual master."

Prabhupāda: No. There is standard. There is standard. That is also authority. The Vedas says, tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet, abhigacchet śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). These are the qualities—śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham. So accepting an authority as spiritual master, you have to check this, whether he is śrotriyam, whether he is brahma-niṣṭham. Śrotriyam means whether he has heard perfectly from his spiritual master, and by hearing, whether he is completely, firmly standing on brahma (indistinct). These are the two qualities. So anything, you have to learn the same thing from authority.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: Well, that we haven't come to yet. That's later. We're still... I mean, if you want to jump to that we can, but we're missing a lot that goes between.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. That will come gradually. But we accept that transcendental ego.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But now he's discussing the phenomenological ego, or what we would call the false ego, the sense of "I." He says that this ego is an act, an activity—of doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, ruling, refusing, imagining, feeling...

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is called in Sanskrit language saṅkalpa and vikalpa: You accept something and reject something. That's all. You can make a different branches of these two words.

Śyāmasundara: He says that these are all intentional acts, that this ego, false ego, is responsible for all my intentional activities.

Devotee: Hm?

Śyāmasundara: Intentional activities—that means doubting something, understanding something, affirming something, denying something, feeling something—these are all activities that have an intent.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Without intent, how we can act?

Śyāmasundara: So this is the second part of the structure of the phenomenological understanding of things, the...

Prabhupāda: But that intention are two kinds. Just like a man works for himself and then he works for others. When I am alone, I work for myself, but when I am married, I work for my wife, my children. So the intentions are two kinds. So which one is better intention? That is also to be studied.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: He says, "After all, is not the destiny of childishness to be overcome? Man cannot remain a child forever."

Prabhupāda: No. What is his definition of childish? Whether he is childish, or he is condemning others?

Hayagrīva: One who needs...

Prabhupāda: Unless you can deny that you have born, you are born without father, then you are a child. You do not have conception how you are in existence without father. What is this argument? That everything must be argued, a sane man. So this is simple logic I am putting forward. Who can refute it, that you have father, your father had father, his father had father, father's father's, all? This is a disciplic succession of fathers. How can you deny the father? Therefore the ultimate father, the supreme father, He is also father but He is supreme father. That is the difference. So father conception of God is very practical, and it is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4). So how he can defy it if he is a sane man? Who can defy it? Is there any person to defy it?

Hayagrīva: Well, he says, "Man's helplessness remains, and with it his father-longing and the gods."

Prabhupāda: Hopelessness or no hopelessness...

Hayagrīva: Helplessness.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: What is that psy...? He is deficient in psychoanalysis also, because he is practically seeing in his daily life that a child is growing to become a boy, a boy is growing to a young man, but the body is changing and the soul is there. So if he has no sense to understand this, what kind of psychoanalysis he is? The body of the child is finished, then he accepts another body, boy. So how you can deny it? You say it has grown. I say that it is finished. Then what is the difference? Actually the child's body is not there. So you can show..., speak in a different language, but the, when the child's body is finished, there is the boy's body. When the boy's body is finished, the young man's body. So body is changing, but still my child, my son, John, I still call him John, although he has changed his body, because I know my son, the soul John, whom I call John, he is there. So the soul is there; the body is changing, we are experiencing every day. So what kind of psychoanalyst he is, that he cannot understand this simple truth? And still he says, "I cannot believe in the eternity of the soul." That how poor thoughts he is maintaining, and he is proclaiming himself a philosopher. What kind of philosopher he is?

Hayagrīva: He wrote a book called Beyond the Pleasure Principle, and in it he wrote, "The goal of all life is death." For him death is the cessation...

Prabhupāda: But why...

Hayagrīva: ...of suffering.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. That means you, why you are afraid of death? Why go to the medical man? Huh? When you are diseased you are afraid of dying. Why go to the medical man? If death is ultimate happiness, then why you are trying to avoid death? What is the psychoanalysis?

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: What is that sublimation? More sex? (indistinct) sex?

Hayagrīva: Sublimation is, well let me read, "The excessive excitations from individual sexual sources are discharged and utilized in other spheres, so that no small enhancement of mental capacity results from a predisposition which is dangerous as such." In other words, he didn't believe that..., in total sexual freedom as it's conceived today, but that a man would be better, instead of trying to totally deny the sex drive, to try to redirect it, oh, perhaps in artistic activity or in, in study, or in some other activity. Not to deny it.

Prabhupāda: That means, in one word, to divert his attention.

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: That is brahmacārī. That is recommended in the Vedic culture, that from the very beginning of his life, divert his attention for spiritual activities, he, he will forget about sex life. That is the experience. Not only a trained-up child, even a grown-up person, if he takes Kṛṣṇa consciousness seriously, he also forgets sex life. So that is possible by training, one can forget sex life. That, that is experience of Yamunacārya. He expressing, yad-avadhi mama cetaḥ kṛṣṇa-pādāravinde. He says that "Since my, my mind and attention has been diverted to Kṛṣṇa consciousness activities, as soon as I thing of sex life, I spite on it." That is possible. It is simply question of training. And if one indulges in sex life without any restriction, the physical problem is there. He will be impotent. He will not be able to, even though he has got sex organs, he will not be able to use it. That is nature's way of punishing. There are so many impotent person. So it is a question of training. So the Vedic training is to train the small child, from the very beginning of his life, how to avoid sex life. That cannot be artificially done, but there is a process of training. By accepting that training one can remain without sex life throughout the whole life. That is possible.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: He says, "I disagree with you when you go on to argue that man cannot in general do without the consolation of the religious illusion, that without it he would not endure the troubles of life, the cruelty of reality."

Prabhupāda: Man cannot do without education. Without education a man remains an animal. Therefore in the human society there is a school, college, an institution, teacher—not in the animal society. So the principle is, the man is meant for being learned or being educated. That you cannot deny, that man life should not be like cats and dogs, simply eating, sleeping, mating, and dying. That is not man's life. Man's life is to become advanced in knowledge and education. And as I have already described, the ultimate knowledge: to understand God. If he is so-called educated, without any understanding of God, then his education is imperfect. You can deny the existence of God, but the God conception is there in the human society. Some may accept it, some may not accept it—that is another thing—but the conception of God, the whole civilized world, they have got some type of religion. Either you become Christian or Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim, religion means there is some cultivation of knowledge to understand God. And to understand God is the ultimate knowledge. That is called Vedānta. Veda means knowledge, and the ultimate knowledge: Vedānta. So ultimate knowledge, it, what is that? That is the beginning of Vedānta education. What is that ultimate knowledge? Athāto brahma jijñāsā. The Vedānta begins with this word, "Now this human form of life is to acquire the ultimate knowledge." Athāto brahma. Brahma means the ultimate. So, the absolute. Now it is the time to understand. So far understanding of sex, the dog also knows. You don't require to give him any education. So nobody is given education... Now of course they have adopted, but there is a Bengali proverb, "How to cry and how to enjoy sex, it doesn't require any education." When you are aggrieved, you cry automatically. When there is a sex impulse, you enjoy it automatically. It doesn't require any Mr. Freud. Without the help of any educator, everyone knows-cats, dogs, animals, human being—everyone knows how to enjoy sex life. It doesn't require any education.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: And Freud says you must grow up.

Prabhupāda: He is a, he is a crazy fellow. That's all. And all these rascal philosophers, they are more or less crazy. One who does not know what is God, what is the value of his knowledge? But our criterion of knowledge is one who has known God. As long as you do not come to that point, your knowledge is useless. Simply misleading. And that is not knowledge. It is a fact that there is some supreme controller. Now if one give education how that supreme controller is working, how He is Supreme, that is real education. And you cannot understand how the Supreme is working, you simply deny the Supreme, that is not knowledge. Supreme is there because you are controlled. How can you avoid the control? How you can say there is no supreme controller? You make a plan and it is frustrated. There is supreme controller. You are making arrangement to live here very happily; next day you die. So you are under controller. How can you deny it? So there is supreme controller. Now, knowledge means, "Who is that supreme controller? How He is controlling?" Not that deny it, "Grapes are sour." Jumping, jumping, jumping, jumping, when he could not reach the grapes, he said, "Oh, there is no need of them. It is sour." Their position is like that. They cannot understand... God is there, that's a fact-supreme controller. But they cannot explain, neither they can understand. There is jackal struggle. Jackal jumping, jumping; when he cannot get the, reach the grapes, he says, " Why (indistinct)? It is sour." Their conclusion is like that. They cannot understand what is God, how He is acting, what is religion, and they are defying, "There is no need of religion, there is no need of God." Jackal struggling, that's all. Jackal struggling is no philosophy. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Prabhupāda: Because he did not, he did not teach about the soul. Therefore, how he could touch that personal?

Hayagrīva: He refused to respond to those questions.

Prabhupāda: Yes, because he did not accept the soul. That as soon as he denied the personal aspect of the soul, how there can be personal karma? So he wanted to avoid this; otherwise his whole philosophy becomes different.

Hayagrīva: Well this is Jung's conclusion on the matter. He says, "Have I lived before in the past as a specific person?" (break) (aside:) ...other track?

Hari-śauri: Yes.

Hayagrīva: This is a continuation of Jung. Concerning whether or not karma is personal, Jung concludes, "Have I lived before in the past as a specific personality, and did I progress so far in that life that I am now able to seek a solution?"

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is tle fact.

Hayagrīva: He says, "I do not know."

Prabhupāda: That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, tataḥ paurva-dehikaṁ yatate paurva-dehikam. This is individual.

Hayagrīva: He says, "Buddha left the question open, and I like to assume that he himself did not know with certainty."

Prabhupāda: (chuckles softly while Hayagrīva continues reading)

Hayagrīva: "I could well imagine that I might have lived in former centuries and there encountered questions I was not yet able to answer, that I had to be born again because I had not fulfilled the task that was given to me."

Prabhupāda: That is fact.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: Concerning God and the individual soul, he writes...

Prabhupāda: Now here is the perfection. Kṛṣṇa is speaking; individual soul, Arjuna, is hearing. So hearing, hearing, when he comes to the conclusion that "My all illusion is now over by Your mercy. Now I am fixed up in my original position." And what is that original position? Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava: (BG 18.73) "Whatever You say, I shall do. The Bhagavad-gītā began from the point that Kṛṣṇa said to Arjuna, "You fight," and he denied to fight. He put so many pleas, that "How can I fight with them?" and so on, so on, so on, so on, so on. This whole discussion was made. Now at the end he says, "Now my mohaḥ, illusion, is over. I am situated in my own original constitutional position." What is that? Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava: (BG 18.73) "Whatever You say, I shall do, that's all. That's my position." That conclusive platform, that we shall simply execute the orders of Kṛṣṇa, that is perfect. (break)

Hayagrīva: This is continuation of Jung. Jung noted that there are five types of rebirths, not he that particularly ascribed to them, but that he noted that in religions that there are five types of rebirth. One is called metempsychosis. He says, "According to this view, one's life is prolonged in time by passing through different bodily existences, or from another point of view it is a life sequence interrupted by different reincarnations. It is by no means certain whether continuity of personality is guaranteed or not. There may only be a continuity of karma." So this is like a transmigration of souls.

Prabhupāda: Yes. What is the technical name?

Hayagrīva: But... He called, its metempsychosis.

Prabhupāda: What is the meaning?

Hayagrīva: It means transmigration of souls...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: He says that we are condemned to be free.

Prabhupāda: Who has condemned you? (indistinct)

Śyāmasundara: He denies the existence of God.

Prabhupāda: Then who has condemned you? As soon as you say you are condemned, there must be somebody who has condemned you.

Śyāmasundara: He says it's an accident.

Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. By accident somebody is condemned and somebody is blessed. This is all nonsense. By accident somebody is put into jail and by accident somebody is hanged? Is there any experience like that? That is a judgment. When a man is condemned, that means it is done by some living judgment. So how is this accident? These are all imperfect knowledge, misleading. There is nothing an accident.

Śyāmasundara: He says that all living entities are condemned to be free, everything.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we can admit. Anyone who is in this material world, he is condemned. But the next question will be, if one is condemned, then he can be blessed also. The other side of condemnation is blessing. So what is the blessing side? Has he got any knowledge of the blessing side? Then he is imperfect. As soon as you say condemned, there must be blessing. So he does not know what is the blessing side. That he takes as nothing. That is nonsense.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: Well, he says, "Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view."

Prabhupāda: No, if you exist as others exist, then what is the fault there? God also exists. He exists. Others also existing. So if there is God, what is the fault if He exists? Why he is denying the existence of God? Let them all exist.

Hayagrīva: First of all, he feels that God does not exist.

Prabhupāda: Why? If you exist, if others exist, why God will not exist?

Hayagrīva: That is his position as an atheist.

Prabhupāda: No, atheist, that is there should be reasonable proposal. If you speak something nonsense, that "I exist," why he, does he bring the word God, if God does not exist? God is there, but He denies the existence. That is atheism. Otherwise, why bringing the word God? If God does not exist, why he is bringing the word God?

Hayagrīva: He wants, he's trying to...

Prabhupāda: That means God is there. He wants his existence; he does not want God to exist. That is his proposal.

Hayagrīva: Yes. Emphasis is on man.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is nonsense. If you believe in your existence, you should believe in others' existence also. Actually there is. Human being is not only existing, but there are so many, 8,400,000 different forms of living being. They are existing. So God is also one of them. According to Vedic understanding of God, that God is also one of the living being, but He is the chief, supreme living being. That is the difference. So, in the ordinary understanding a man is better than the animal, and another intelligent man is better than the nonintelligent man. So similarly, you go on with comparative study, one after another, when you come to the final living being, He is the Supreme. As it is said in the Bhagavad-gītā, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) there is no more superior living being, and that is God. That we have got practical experience. You may be more intelligent than me, he may be more intelligent than you, go on, go on searching. So when you find somebody that He is the final intelligent, that is God. So what is the difficulty to understand? Why God shall not exist? If one person better intelligent than me he can exist, so why a person who exceeds all others in intelligence, He cannot exist? So there is no meaning of atheism. That is ignorance.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: By..., by setting aside or denying the existence of God, he is able to write this: "Thus there is no human..."

Prabhupāda: That, that kind of understanding, denying the existence, that is foolishness. How he can? We have given the definition, that practical field you will find one man is more intelligent than the other man, or one animal is better intelligent than other animal. That is positive, comparative, superiority, divisions. So naturally we can think of, at least, that we approach this way to a certain personality, He is the final intelligent. No more exceeds in the intelligence than Him, and no more equal intelligence. That is God. There is possibility of such person's existence. How he can deny it?

Hayagrīva: But if God exists, then...

Prabhupāda: God exists, must exist!

Hayagrīva: ...then He must be the center.

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Hayagrīva: Then He must be the center.

Prabhupāda: No, no. He has to accept that God exists. He cannot deny it, because practically we see. You may be intelligent, more intelligent than me, and he may be more intelligent you. So go on, go on, and find out, if you have got power, that we come to a person there is no more more intelligent than Him, as God defines: mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). And Kṛṣṇa, "Above Me there is no more intelligent person." There is not. So you cannot deny this existence, a superpowerful, superintelligent person, because we practically see. Not that everyone is on the equal level. That is not the case. He is a philosopher, another philosopher more intelligent than him, another philosopher more intelligent. So you go on searching. Anyway, either in richness or in intelligence or in power, strength, beauty, there is comparative superlative degrees. So God means the superlative degree in everything. How he can deny this existence? That is not possible.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: According to him he says, "The first principle of existentialism is that man is nothing else but what he makes of himself, since there is no God to conceive of human nature."

Prabhupāda: When, if he can see that man exists in his own idea, so why not a superman who exists in his own idea, or his own capacity, completely independent of anyone? Why, how he can deny that? That is not possible.

Hayagrīva: He feels that... He puts a great deal of emphasis on man's responsibility, of his existence on himself.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: That since he's not responsible to God, he's responsible for himself.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: Or to himself.

Prabhupāda: What does he mean, "responsible"? Responsible, if somebody gives you duties, and if you feel responsible to discharge that duty, then you are responsible. But there is no duty, nobody is to see above you, then where is your responsibility?

Hayagrīva: Well, he feels that all values... If there is no God, all values disappear. There are no values, there's no criteria.

Prabhupāda: So his value also disappear.

Hayagrīva: So from this he concludes that without God, everything is possible. He says, "Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist. If God did not exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism."

Prabhupāda: But he does not know what, what is the meaning of God. We have several times repeated this. God is the Supreme, Supreme Being. So we have defined in so many ways. Another thing that God is the Supreme, Supreme means He is supreme father. The Supreme everything means He is supreme father also. The conception of father is there. So as we are standing, we are talking with that gentleman priest, that mother nature, nature is giving, producing so many living entities. So she is supposed to be the mother. And as soon as we accept mother, there must be father. Mother cannot, alone cannot give birth to any offspring, so there must be the conception of father. And that is, practically we are seeing that mother nature... We say "mother nature" because she gives birth to so many forms of life, and if we accept mother, then you must to accept father, and that God is supreme father. How he can deny it? Father's duty is to maintain the children. So all living beings are being maintained, so there must be father. How he can deny that?

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: His final point is that..., is, "To be man means to reach toward being God, or, if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God."

Prabhupāda: So he, at last he accept there is God. (laughter) Otherwise what is the meaning of going to God? Yes, he is trying to deny God when there is God. Unless there is God, where is the question of accepting or denying? He is denying in the other way; that means there is God.

Devotee: As soon as he mentions God he's proved there is God.

Prabhupāda: No, as soon as he denies God, there is God.

Devotee: Or denies, because he has admitted God...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Devotee: ...one way or another.

Hayagrīva: He says that he prefers to set the question aside, but at the same time...

Prabhupāda: That is the main question. That is the main question, that God has created everything. He has created you, He has created your mind, intelligence, your body, your existential circumstances—everything He has created. So how you can deny God? In the beginning, that Bible says, "In the beginning there was God." Is it not?

Devotee: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: Well, new philosophy means to resolve this question. You can't possibly resolve it by setting it aside, if it's the major question. It's been the major question of all philosophers we studied. So how can you say let us just set it aside?

Prabhupāda: No. What the philosophers, the... Not all philosophers they denied the existence, but from our practical study we can see that take personal existence, that before I got this body, there was my father and mother. So how can I deny this fact? This whole cosmic manifestation is exactly like the manifestation of my body. Everything you take, there is practical experience. So far you take this spectacle, it is created by some spectacle..., spectacle manufacturer, and it will exist for some time, then it will annihilate. Similarly, the whole creation, annihilation. There is another crude example, just like earthen pot is made from the clay, earth. It is, it gets a shape, and it continues to exist for a certain time, and then it is broken. So when it is broken, again it is clay. So in the beginning the clay was there, in the middle there is a form, and at the end again clay. So clay is the original. Similarly, God is everything original. That is explained by God in the Bhagavad-gītā: ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8). And the Vedānta says, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). This is clear understanding where your existence comes from. You cannot say all of a sudden you dropped from the sky. You have your father and mother, and from them you have appeared. How you can say that "There was nobody else before my creation, and there will be nobody else after my annihilation"? That is foolishness. How you can do it? So you have to accept that before your manifestation there was your father and mother. So this is right philosophy. The mother is the material nature and father is God. So father gives the seed, and mother begets so many children. So it is a big family. Father is God and material nature is the mother, and then we, as children, we are taken care of by the father and mother, so our duty is to remain peacefully at the cost of the father and mother and become obedient to the father and mother. This is natural. Beyond this, all speculation. That will not give us real peace and prosperity. We must, have to accept. God is there, the nature is there, and we are also there, a big family. Let us live peacefully according to the order of the father. That is natural.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Rāmeśvara: He is not concerned.

Prabhupāda: That is his foolishness. He does not know that he appears on account of father and mother. How he can deny this? That is his foolishness. How can this man say, "I appeared all of a sudden. I dropped from the sky." It is a crazy fellow. How we can give time to hear it? That's not possible. You appeared on account of your father and mother. How can you deny it? That is not possible. Is it possible to deny it?

Hayagrīva: Not intelligently.

Prabhupāda: That means a rascal. A rascal can say that "I appeared without father and mother." That's not possible. So we say that everyone appears, not only human being. All animals, all plants, trees, everywhere—there are 8,400,000 species of life—they have appeared from these material elements. Either from the water... The fishes is appearing in the water, and the plants and trees, they are appearing on the land, and then insects, birds and everything. Everything is appearing. So material nature is the mother. That is accepted. So as soon as you accept mother there must be father. Where you get this conception that we are appearing without father and mother? How it, how it is possible?

Rāmeśvara: He just wants to put the question aside.

Prabhupāda: Why? This is the primary question, wherefrom you appeared.

Rāmeśvara: Christians also, and the Jew, the Western religions, they say there is a God, but He has put us here in this world. So He is in His heaven, and we are here on earth, and our business now is to become happy. They also put the question aside. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Devotee: It says he has a seventy-percent turnover. That means that people get disgusted and leave, seventy percent of them every year.

Prabhupāda: Leave? Why?

Śyāmasundara: Because it says that those who are more competent, they still expect special recognition for their talent, and so they make this demand that we cannot reinforce that kind of behavior. So we deny them and then we go away.

Devotee: So it seems that the whole philosophy (indistinct) and then in the course of there, the whole material world is attached to sex life, so that the whole thing is that all the philosophies that they are inventing are so that they may have liberty to think that they are free and that they are (indistinct). That is all.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Devotee: That is their whole thing. All their philosophy tries to have good sex life so that they don't have to think that they will be punished. So if I can have this freedom then I am right.

Prabhupāda: Yes. The real point is sense gratification. Freedom of sense gratification. That is their point. But these fools, they do not know that by sense gratification you are entangling yourself in repetition of birth and death.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Hayagrīva: Hegel said, "Because the accidental is not,..." because nothing is accidental, "God exists." Marx says you can say it the other way around.

Prabhupāda: How, how we, any sensible man can accept accidental?

Hayagrīva: He thought that...

Prabhupāda: Accidental... Just like a child takes birth, is it accidental? Beginning from the child, so it is not accidental. That there is a father-mother unity, and then, when the child is born, then how you can say accidental? Nothing is accidental.

Hayagrīva: He felt that man..., it is only man who gives reality to God, or, he said, "the gods."

Prabhupāda: Reality must be there. That we... Just like Mr. Marx, he certainly did not like to die, but he was forced to die. Why it takes place unless there is some superior force? We do not wish to have some accident but there is accident; so how you can check it? So in this way, the conception of God, there is always some superior, and there are many other things, common sense, we discuss daily that the, as the nature, things are going on so nicely, they are not accidentally. There are so many planets in the sky. Accidentally they are not colliding but they are remaining in their position. The sun is rising in due course of time, in the morning exactly in time. So there is nothing accidental. And because things are going on very systematically, so there must be some brain behind it, and that supreme brain is God. How you can deny it?

Hayagrīva: Marx felt that true philosophy would say, "In simple truth I bear hate for any and every God is its own avowal, its own judgment against all heavenly and earthly gods who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the supreme divinity. There must be no other on a level with it."

Prabhupāda: Human intelligence, unless he comes to the point of the Absolute Truth and the original cause of everything, then how his intellect is perfect? One must make progress. Progress means to go to the ultimate goal. If the human being does not know what is the ultimate cause, ultimate goal, then what is the value of his intelligence?

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Hayagrīva: Marx felt that religion is a symptom of a degraded man. He wrote, "Religion is the sigh of a distressed creature, the soul of a heartless world, as it is also the spirit of a spiritless condition. It is the opium of the people. The more a man puts into God, the less he retains in himself."

Prabhupāda: But practically we see that the Communist are also equally failure, even without God. Now these Chinese and Russians, they are not in agreement. So same thing—that those who believed in God and those who did not believe in God the difference existed. And now amongst the Communist there are coming out so many section. So the difference of opinion is still there even denying God, without God. So that is not improvement. The real purpose is to understand what is really God is. That is required both by the Communist or the capitalist. Denying God and acting independently, that has not brought any peaceful condition of the human society.

Hayagrīva: He felt, like Comte, that the proletariat, the worker, would eventually eliminate religion, and he wrote, "The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, the religious man in general is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, and from religion generally." So that the worker would become the savior of mankind in emancipating or freeing man from a religion that worshiped a supernatural being.

Prabhupāda: So that has not actually happened. Marx is dead and gone. The Communist theory is already there, but they are not in agreement. The Russians are not in agreement with the Chinese men. Why it has happened? The God is not there; the working class is there. Then why there is dissension and disagreement?

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Prabhupāda: And Lenin. So that leadership wanted. Now the question is who will be the leader—Kṛṣṇa or Lenin? That is to be understood. Without leader, either the Communist or the theist cannot work. So, so far accepting leadership, the philosophy is one. Now the question will remain, "Whose leadership is perfect?" That is to be decided. But the Communist cannot avoid leadership.

Hayagrīva: Like Comte, Marx believed that atheism was unnecessary because it was negative denial. He felt that socialism is positive assertion. He says, "Atheism no longer has any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God and postulates the existence of man through this negation. But socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the practically and theoretically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature the essence. Socialism is man's positive self-consciousness no longer mediated throught the annulment of religion, just as real life is man's positive reality through Communism." So that Communism really has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Prabhupāda: No. Our point is that religion is not sentiment. Leadership has to be accepted, either by the Communist or the theist or atheist. There is leadership. So when the leadership is selected and the direction given by the leader, you can take it as some "ism." So religion is the same thing. When we accept the leadership of God and His direction, that is religion. I don't think on principle the Communist can change this idea. The same leader is Lenin or Stalin, and he is giving his direction, and people must follow it. So where is the difference of philosophy? Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is there, His instruction is there, and we are following. So where is the difference in fact?

Hayagrīva: In either case there is authority.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Hayagrīva: Well the basic difference is that Marx believes that there's nothing spiritual; everything is material. He says, "An incorporeal substance is just as much a contradiction as an incorporeal body."

Prabhupāda: That is his ignorance, because this body is dead. That what is the difference between the dead body and the... The same Marx and same Lenin was lying, but because there is no spirit sould it was considered as dead. This is imperfect understanding of the man, of the body. Otherwise, I mean to say, man of sense studies there must be a spiritualism and materialism. Spiritualism..., spirit means the force behind the matter. It can be understood very easily that matter as it is, it is inactive. A machine may be very well made, but without a person, a living being, the machine is useless. So that is the difference between spirit and matter. Matter can be active only in touch with the spirit. Similarly, the body is active when there is soul within the body. This can be easily understood, unless one is very dull. Spirit cannot be denied. (break)

Hayagrīva: He says, "Since only what is material is perceptible, knowable, nothing is known of the existence of God. I am sure only of my own existence." He feels that material life precedes consciousness and gives rise to consciousness. He says li...

Prabhupāda: But he does not believe in spirit soul, is that not? Hayagrīva: He says, "Life is not determined by consciousness but consciousness by life."

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: He says that all ideas or theories find their verification or their fulfillment through social practice. In other words, if something is a theory, if it's practiced and found to be true, then it is true.

Prabhupāda: Here it is true. In India still, those who are spiritualists. We have seen. Now, they are tolerating severe cold without any difficulty. For a materialist it is very difficult. From practical also, those who are advanced in spiritual life, they have no disease practically. They don't go to doctor. So these are practical. How can you deny these are not practical? They can live any condition, without any food, without any vitamin. Are these not practical? So we take that advancement of spiritual life makes our life more comfortable. That is practical. Without being dependent on doctors and this vitamin and that, so many, so many things. That is practical. If I have to depend on so many things, then where is the practical? Śukadeva Gosvāmī recommends that if you can... (break)

Śyāmasundara: He says that natural laws and ideas, verification of ideas, comes about through class struggle, material production and scientific experiment. That which we know for sure, certainty.

Prabhupāda: (to guest) How are you?

Śyāmasundara: Certain knowledge is gathered from these three sources: class struggle, material production, and scientific experiment.

Prabhupāda: Yes. But so-called scientists, they sometimes put forward wrong theories.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: Well, this Mao Tse Tung's (sic:) systemology, or his method of knowing truth, of knowing things, is that first of all there is the perceptual, or the phenomenal, and this becomes the conceptual, or inferential. In other words, if you..., you can condition people to a certain type of truth by presenting some phenomenon repeatedly, over and over again, until they accept it, they make a conception: "This is the truth."

Prabhupāda: So that is our process. We say that perceptual fact is that we are controlled. Every one of us, controlled. Who can deny it? Why you are running on this fan? Because you are controlled. There is excessive heat controlling you. Therefore I am trying to counteract it. In every step you are controlled by the laws of nature. So how he thinks that he is independent? Why does he manufacture so many so-called laws of independence? In fact he is controlled. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). He is in contact with some modes of material nature, and he is controlled by them. So why does he not accept that "I am not independent, I am controlled. The basic principle is that I am controlled." Then if one is actually conversant with the laws of control, then he makes adjustment according to that. One being controlled, how he can become controller? This is phenomenon. Where one is... Let any man come and say boldly that "I am not controlled." Who is that man? Find out any man. We are sitting, so many men here. Let any one of us declare that "I am not controlled." So therefore basic principle is that "I am controlled." So how this position of being controlled can be perfect, that should be our study. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We say that you are controlled. So the supreme controller is Kṛṣṇa. So you voluntarily surrender yourself, that "Kṛṣṇa, from this day... I was struggling against Your laws. Now I fully surrender."

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: No. I would admit that I am controlled. Everyone in my Communist state is controlled because we work under the...

Prabhupāda: Apart from Communist state, by nature's law... You have spoken about nature's law. So we are controlled by the nature's law. Who can deny it? When there is severe cold, I am controlled. When there is severe heat, I am controlled. When there is epidemic, I am controlled. When there is famine, I am controlled. When there is flood, I am controlled. So how you can say that you are not controlled? You are not independent. The basic principle is that you are not independent.

Śyāmasundara: Mao Tse Tung uses this as the basis of his...

Prabhupāda: Basis is that you are controlled. That is mistake.

Śyāmasundara: His methodology is to present slogans to the people...

Prabhupāda: But you may manufacture slogans. First of all, let us talk on the principles. Everyone is controlled. How Mao can deny it?

Śyāmasundara: He wants to be the controller. He can control everyone's...

Prabhupāda: He is himself controlled. How he can be controller? If you are blind, how you can lead? I am also blind. You must have eyes; then you can control.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Devotee: Is it not a fallacy to think that by adding sense gratification we will decrease the demands, desires for more?

Prabhupāda: That is not possible. Adding sense gratification means adding ghee, pouring ghee on the fire.

Devotee: Yes. But some has to be there as the senses, which they're denying. The basis of their ideology is that conflict brings about growth or progress. If they want a peaceful society, they're still trying to get rid of their conflicts.

Prabhupāda: That we have discussed in the beginning. Conflict must be decided by higher intelligence. Just like I have given yesterday, there is conflict between two litigants and the high-court judge decides. So conflict there must be, but it must be decided by higher authorities. That's all. Otherwise it will go on. If you don't go to the higher authorities, then it will go on. It will never end, conflict.

Revatīnandana: It also follows from his philosophy that if somebody defeats him and throws him out, that other person was right.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the opposite of static religion is dynamic religion. He says that this type of religion...

Prabhupāda: Dynamic because he has no idea of God and God consciousness. He thinks it is dea..., static. But they can see practically. We are Kṛṣṇa conscious, how much activities we have got. Deny it. So he does not know what is God, what is religion, and he is philosopher. You see?

Śyāmasundara: He says that... He would probably call our type of religion dynamic religion.

Prabhupāda: Dynamic, yes.

Śyāmasundara: But there is also a type that is static religion.

Prabhupāda: Static religion... Religion is not static because religion (?) (ritual?) is on the spiritual platform. The spiritual platform is not static because the spirit is the dynamic force in this body. So when it is uncontaminated by this material body, then how it can be static? Because the spirit soul is there within the body, therefore my body is moving.

Śyāmasundara: But, for instance, in ancient Greece, they fabricated so many myths, mythology...

Prabhupāda: Well, that I have already answered. Anything manufactured by man, that is not religion. That is not religion. That I have already explained. Religion is not manufactured, but it is given by God. That is our point. God is giving religion, "Here is religion. Surrender unto Me." So any religious system may be different in method, but ultimately, if it comes to this point, surrendering to God, then it is religion. Otherwise, it is not religion. Reject it.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: So the second thing that he sees that characterizes everything, that all things possess in common, is existence, or being.

Prabhupāda: That is five elements. Just like there are differences between tree and your body, my body, but this body is made of the five elements: earth, water, air, fire. The tree is also made of the same elements, earth, water, air, fire... The aquatic body, fish's body, is also made of the same ingredients. Only difference is that one ingredient is prominent, other ingredients... Therefore you can take up this fact that there are living entities in the sun. The sun, because it appears fiery, you cannot exist. Your body cannot exist in the fire. But it does not mean there cannot be somebody whose body itself is fire. How can you deny it? And body being fiery, he can stay in the fiery planet of the same temperature.

Śyāmasundara: So the third and fourth categories he sees that relates to everything are relations and order. Everything relates to everything else and there is an order in everything. Everything is part of an order, a grand order.

Prabhupāda: Oh, yes. Prakṛti, there is order. Just like the sun is rising exactly in time. It is setting exactly in time. The sea waves, they are forbidden, "Not to come beyond this limit." Big, big waves are always coming, "Ohn, ohn!" but not beyond this beach (reach?). So there is order. Everything there is order.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: Continuation of Aquinas. Aquinas felt that the monastic vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience gave one a direct path to God but that they are not meant for the masses of men. He conceived of life as a pilgrimage through the world of the senses, through the world of nature, and to the spiritual world of God's grace. These, when a..., when one enters a monastery he takes a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience, these three vows.

Prabhupāda: Yes. It is called tapasya. According to Vedic instruction one must take to the path of tapasya. Tapasya means voluntarily self-denial, sense gratification denial. That is tapasya. Tapasā brahmacaryeṇa (SB 6.1.13). Tapasya, our austerity begins with brahmacarya, celibacy, no sex life. That is the beginning of tapasya. Tapasā brahmacaryeṇa śamena damena vā, controlling the senses, controlling the mind. Then tyāgena, renouncement or giving in charity, whatever you have got, for the service of the Lord, tyāgena; satya-śaucābhyām, by following the path of truthfulness and remaining cleansed; yamena niyamena vā, by practice of mystic yoga. In this way one makes advancement towards spiritual kingdom or spiritual world. But all these can be totally performed simply by engaging oneself in devotional service. That is also stated: kecit kevalayā bhaktyā vāsudeva-parāyaṇāḥ (SB 6.1.15). If one becomes devotee of Lord Vasudeva, Kṛṣṇa, then simply by executing devotional service he attains the result of austerity, celibacy, and mystic yoga practice, and the result of charity, truthfulness, cleanliness—everything attains simultaneously, without separate effort. Therefore our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is spreading devotional service. By one stroke, the candidate can attain the results of all other processes.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: Well that..., well then maybe this is saying the same thing. "By its nature the form of the soul is the form of the body. It is that form incorruptible."

Prabhupāda: No. The form..., material body is imitation, is false. Real body is the spiritual body. Because the spiritual body has form, the coating of the spiritual body by matter takes a form, as I have already explained, that the shirt and coat originally has no form, but when the shirt and coat is cut by the tailor according the form of the man, it takes a form. So actually this material form is illusion. It is not form. It, it takes the form, and when it is old enough, no more use, it again comes to the original position, earth. "Dust thou art, dust thou beist." This form is made by the material nature. It is just like a machine. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni yantrārūḍhāni māyayā (BG 18.61). The soul has its own form, but he is given a machine, a particular machine, which is this body, and therefore he enjoys by wandering throughout the whole universe in different conditions of life.

Hayagrīva: I think the problem with all of these is that they cannot conceive of spiritual form. When they speak of form they are thinking that there must necessarily be matter involved. Aquinas believed that the Augustinian and Platonic doctrines of the complete independence of the soul from matter or the material body denied man's substantial unity. That is, man is body and soul. He is a particular type of soul in a particular type of body.

Prabhupāda: It..., it is the same argument, that when you are dressed it appears that you are not different from the dress. The coat is moving, the pants is moving, but actually it is completely different from the person who is putting on the coat and shirt.

Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal:

Hayagrīva: Descartes was more in the jñānī tradition, and Pascal more in the bhakti tradition. He says, "Employ the rule of love not of intellect," and for Pascal, knowledge can only be attained by curbing the passions, submitting to God, and accepting the revelation of God. And he was also Christian. And he said "There is no happiness apart from religion."

Prabhupāda: Yes. We say the same thing, that without religion one is animal. Because the animal society there is no church, there is no religion, there is no discussion about God. So if the human society, as they are doing now, that they are denying discussion about God even in the schools and colleges, so it is the most degraded form of society, and the consequence is there: they are all suffering.

Hayagrīva: Although he was considered a great philosopher, he concluded that philosophy in itself only leads to skepticism, that faith is needed, and he always added here, "God."

Prabhupāda: Philosophy means, real philosophy means to understand the truth. That is philosophy. So without understanding about the truth, if he encourages untruth... Just like some philosophers are philosophizing on sex life. So the people are becoming degraded. So what is philosophy in sex life, that is an (indistinct). It is there in animal and man also. So sex life is not actual life; it is a symptom of life only. So if we stress on this point only, that is not philosophy. Philosophy means, as it is stated, tattva jñānārthaṁ darśanam. To find out the Absolute Truth, tattva, that is philosophy. And tattva means the spirit soul or the spiritual atmosphere. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). So those who are discussing about Brahman or Paramātmā, Supersoul, or Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are real philosopher because they are trying to find out the Absolute Truth, and others are bogus.

Hayagrīva: That's, that's all.

Prabhupāda: That's all. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: He writes, "The knowledge of our own being we have by intuition. The existence of a God, reason dearly makes known to us. We have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God than of anything our senses can discover." Now how is this? If this is the case, how is it that some men have no conception of God?

Prabhupāda: He has conception of God, practically, but because under the spell of māyā he has become foolish, he tries to cover that conception, that somebody is there. How any sane man can deny that some superior power is there who has created this vast ocean, vast land, vast sky? How one sane man can avoid this conception? Nobody can avoid, but artificially, foolishly, he tries to avoid. Atheism. But that will not endure, that will not stay. His foolishness will be exposed. So this is innate idea, but the atheist class, demon class, they want to cover this innate idea artificially.

Hayagrīva: And Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. That is to say a man may have a certain stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Īśopaniṣadic version?

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā: (ISO 1) everything belongs to God. Just like the father has got many sons and the father is the proprietor of the house. He gives one son, "This is your room," the other son, "This is your room." So the obedient son is satisfied what the father allows to him. Others, those who are not obedient, they want to disturb other brother that "This room also belongs to me." That creates chaos and confusion in the world. The United Nations, they have created a society for unity of the nations, but actually that is not unity. That is another way of encroaching upon others' property. Therefore there is no peace, unless they accept God is the Supreme proprietor. And we must be satisfied with the allotment God has given to us. Then there is no trouble. But the trouble is that we are not satisfied with the allotment given to us. That allotment can be understood by language or similar culture. So why one should encroach upon others' property which is allotted by God? That creates disturbance.

Page Title:Deny (Lectures, Other)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Mayapur
Created:23 of Feb, 2012
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=165, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:165