Dogmatic (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"dogma" |"dogmas" |"dogmatic" |"dogmatically" |"dogmatism" |"dogmatist" |"dogmatists"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- New York, March 11, 1966:

So for such spiritual knowledge we have to accept the authority. Now, here, the Bhagavad-gītā is authority. It is accepted. Don't think that it is a scripture of the Hindus. No. It is for all human beings. There is reason. There is science. There is philosophy. It is not dogmatic. So it is to be understood simply. And not only that, actually it is accepted by all countries. Not only in your country, but in other countries also, Bhagavad-gītā is accepted as one of the greatest book of authority. So this is the process. You should know it that the spirit soul, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā,

dehino 'smin yathā dehe

kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā

tathā dehāntara-prāptir

dhīras tatra na muhyati

(BG 2.13)

As the soul is within the body and the body is changing every moment, similarly, the last stage of change is called death. Death is nothing but the final change of this present body. That's all.

Lecture on BG 2.18 -- London, August 24, 1973:

Now Kṛṣṇa here also says ukta. Ukta means "it is said." Not that dogmatically I am speaking, I am putting up some theory. No. It is said. It is already settled, it is already ascertained. And in the Vedic literature, by authorities it is so said. This is the way of presenting evidence. Even Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He does not theorize. He said, "It is said," authorized. Anāśino 'prameyasya. Anāśinaḥ. Nāśinaḥ means destructible, and anāśinaḥ means not destructible. Śarīriṇaḥ, the soul, anāśinaḥ, it will never be destroyed. And aprameyasya. Aprameyasya, immeasurable. It cannot be measured also. In the Vedic literature the measurement is described there, but you cannot measure it. Anything, so many things are described in the Vedic literature. So you are so advanced in scientific knowledge, but neither you can say that it is not fact. Neither you can estimate. Just like in the Padma Purāṇa, the varieties of living entities are expressed: jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi. The aquatic animals or living entities are nine hundred thousand. So you cannot say, "No, it is not nine hundred thousand. It is less or more." It is not possible for you to see within the water how many varieties of. You might have, the biologists, they might have experimented, but it is not possible to see nine hundred thousand forms. That is not possible.

Lecture on BG 2.18 -- London, August 24, 1973:

You can learn. Śāstra-yonitvāt. Yoni means source, source. Śāstra-yonitvāt. Śāstra-cakṣus. Your eyes should be the śāstra. Not these blunt eyes. Everything we also experience by śāstra, by book.

So we have to see through the authorized books the description which is beyond our perception. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Tarkeṇa, by argument, which is beyond your sense perception. So many things. Even we see daily so many planets, stars in the sky, but we have no information. They are going directly to see the moon planet, but hopelessly coming back. It is very doubtful to say so. And they have got dogmatic impression: "Except this planet, in other planets, so many, there is no life." These are not perfect understanding. From śāstra-yoni, if you want to see through the śāstra... Just like moon planet. We have got information from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that there, the people, they live for ten thousands of years. And what is that measurement of year? Our six months equal to their one day. Now such ten thousands of years, just imagine. It is called daiva-varṣa. Daiva-varṣa means year according to the demigods' calculation. Just like Brahmā's day, that is demigods' calculation. Sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ (BG 8.17). We have got information from Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa says that they calculate the years of the demigods. Everyone's year is calculated.

Lecture on BG 2.18 -- London, August 24, 1973:

Just like light year, we have got calculation.

So we cannot estimate by direct perception, even in this material world, and what to speak of the spiritual world. Not (possible.) Panthās tu koṭi-śata-vatsara-sampragamyo vāyor athāpi manaso muni-puṅgavānām (Bs. 5.34). By mental, muni-puṅga means mental speculation. You can go on mental speculating, but if you do even for many hundreds and thousand of years, it is not possible to calculate. You have to accept this truth through the śāstra; otherwise, it is not possible. Therefore Kṛṣṇa said, nityasyoktāḥ śarīr-ukta. Ukta means it is said. Not that "I am presenting some dogma," although He can do so. He's Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the method. Unless there is ukta, said by authorities, previous authorities, ācāryas, you cannot say anything. This is called paramparā. You try to understand with your intelligence, but you cannot make any addition or alteration. That is not possible. Therefore it is called nityasyoktāḥ. It is said, it is already settled. You cannot argue. Nityasyoktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ anāśino 'prameyasya, immeasurable.

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

There may be. Because you are going on with your personal experience, but your personal experience is always imperfect. That I have already discussed. Because we have got our senses with limited power. And there are so many defects in our conditioned stage. Therefore inductive process is not always perfect. The deductive process, from the authority, the knowledge received, is always perfect. So Vedic process is deductive process. Vedic process is deductive process.

You'll find so many verses in the Bhagavad-gītā which may appear to be dogmatic. The Lord says that mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: (BG 7.7) "My dear Arjuna, there is nobody else greater than Me. There is no greater authority than Me." Kṛṣṇa says. Now, apparently, it appears very dogmatic. Suppose if I say before you that, "There is nobody greater than me," oh, you'll think, "Oh, Swamiji is very proud." Yes. If a man like me, who is conditioned by so many, I mean to say, restrictions, if I say that I am the greatest of all, that is a blasphemy. I cannot say that. But Kṛṣṇa can say. Because the history of life from Kṛṣṇa, we can understand that actually He was the greatest personality. At least, during His time, He was the greatest personality in every field of activities. Now knowledge received from the greatest personality, greatest authority, is, according to Vedic system, that is accepted as perfect.

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

Now, here is Kṛṣṇa, the direct, I mean to say, highest authority. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). The Lord says that "There is no other superior personality than Me." And it has been accepted by great scholars. Otherwise, why Dr. Radhakrishnan would take so much trouble for commenting or reading Bhagavad-gītā? Why there are so many foreign scholars also in America, in England, in France, in Japan? All, they have... Why? Because it is an authority. So therefore we have to accept. To accept...

If we do not accept Kṛṣṇa the supreme authority and so not take His words as they are, then we cannot derive any benefit... It is not dogmatic. It is actually fact. It is not dogmatic. If you study scrutinizingly what Kṛṣṇa says, you'll find it is right. You'll find it, and if you take, if you follow... (kids screaming outside) Oh, they are making too much noise. Can you not ask them?

Lecture on BG 4.5 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968:

The whole process is hearing. You don't require any education, you don't require any scientific qualification, this or that. Simply if you kindly come here and hear this Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, you become completely learned and completely self-realized. Simply. Sthāne sthitāḥ. Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommended this process.

We are trying to open so many branches just to give facility to the poor people who do not know what is the end of life, what is the objective of human life, how one can become perfect. These knowledges, these informations are there. We are trying to distribute. It is not dogmatic, it is all scientific.

Now there are so many things that it is not possible even to understand by the modern process of scientific experimental knowledge. It is not possible. And what to speak of about God? You cannot know even material objects by your so-called scientific study and research. You simply... You can know little more, that's all. Not complete. So Vedānta-sūtra advises therefore, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are beyond your imagination, beyond your reach, beyond your thoughts, beyond your words, beyond your sense perception, how you can understand them by your experimental so-called scientific research? Acintya. Acintya means inconceivable. Inconceivable. Now we cannot conceive even these material things.

Lecture on BG 4.8 -- Montreal, June 14, 1968:

At the present moment people are denying the existence of God, or they are thinking that God is dead. That means imperfection of knowledge. They have to still make progress to the perfectional point. And that test is to understand, "Here is God, and He is the fountainhead of everything." That perfection of knowledge you will have simply by reading... Any scripture you can read. The same conception is there. But in the Bhagavad-gītā it is more clearly explained so that you can understand with all reason, arguments, and scrutiny too. It is not dogmatic. That is the beauty of Bhagavad-gītā.

Just like in some dictionary the word is explained in one word. In some dictionary it is explained that "The history of this world is like this. This word can be explained like this, like that, like that," some pages like that. Similarly, so far dictionary, the small pocket dictionary is also dictionary, and that Webster's International big dictionary, that is also dictionary. The difference is that international dictionary, you get details of one word. Similarly, any scripture is perfectly giving direction towards understanding what is God. But actually how God is great, how He is working, how His laws are working, all these things you can find in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Lecture on BG 4.11-18 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1969:

Action, just like you are active. You are working, you all Kṛṣṇa conscious devotees, you are also working. You are not sitting idly, but it is inaction. Inaction in this sense that it is not producing any reaction. It has no reaction. But others, those who are not acting in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they are also busy but they are producing their reaction. So things which are not producing reaction, that is inaction. One who can see that "I am acting in this way, there is no reaction," that is inaction. And one who sees that "I am doing this but there is reaction," that is action. So it requires little intelligence to see how it is action or inaction. Therefore it is said that one who can see action in inaction and inaction in action, he is intelligent.

Yes. Any other question? From the audience? Yes, you try to understand. Try to understand the science of God philosophically, intelligently, logically. There is no question of dogma. Everything is nicely explained in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is so you can try to understand. Yes?

Lecture on BG 4.34-39 -- Los Angeles, January 12, 1969:

Prabhupāda: Yes. Clear understanding. Don't accept anything. First of all there must be submissiveness, no challenge. But at the same time, you must clearly understand. Because you have submitted, it is not that you have to understand something dogmatic. No. Submission must be there, but at the same time, you should have clear understanding. This is science, not that if something is pushed and you are: "Oh, my spiritual master has said; therefore I accept it." That is fact, that you should, but at the same time, by inquiries, by inquisitiveness, you must clear everything. "Yes, God is like this." Go on.

Madhudviṣa: "A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind towards his disciple, and therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect."

Prabhupāda: Perfect. This is the perfect way. Hm. Go on.

Madhudviṣa: Thirty-five: "And when you have thus learned the truth you will know that all living beings are My parts and parcels, that they are in Me and are Mine (BG 4.35)."

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Fiji, May 24, 1975:

So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is teaching throughout the whole world about the knowledge of the Absolute. There is no question of religion or dogmatism. It is a question of cultural advancement in knowledge. Every human being has got right to understand the absolute knowledge. That is the only business of human being. There is no other business. Unfortunately, for want of training, we are wasting our advanced intelligence for the same business as the cats and dogs are engaged. That is the difficulty. Cats and dogs, they cannot understand what is absolute knowledge. They are busy where to find out food, where to find out shelter, where to find out facility for sexual intercourse, and where to find out shelter to avoid danger, defense, in other words, defense.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Fiji, May 24, 1975:

Although He is so great, still, He is friend of all living entities. Sarva-loka-maheśvaram, suhṛdam... jñātvā māṁ śāntim ṛcchati. This is the culture. If anyone can understand that God is the proprietor of everything, God is the enjoyer of all activities, the resultant action, God is the supreme friend of everyone—simply by understanding these three formulas, one attains real platform of peaceful life. That is peaceful life.

So bhagavān uvāca. We don't say anything which is not spoken by Bhagavān, the Supreme. We don't manufacture concocted ideas, dogmas. No, that is not our business. One should not do that. But if you speak what Bhagavān has said, what Kṛṣṇa has said, that is perfect. Bhagavān means the supreme complete, the possessor of all opulences. Aiśvarya means riches, strength, influence, beauty, knowledge, renunciation. These are called aiśvaryas. So you try to find out who is that person who possesses all these things, bhaga, in complete. If you are inquisitive, if you are actually philosopher, then you will find Kṛṣṇa: Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). That is the verdict of the Vedic śāstra. Kṛṣṇas tu... We are searching after Bhagavān, or God. We simply try to understand that God is very great. That's fact. But how great He is, that has to be known. That is called knowledge of God. Now we cannot think of that one person can become the proprietor of all the riches and wealth of the world.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Fiji, May 24, 1975:

Just like Pārtha-sārathi. Pārtha-sārathi, the name is given to Kṛṣṇa because He acted as the chariot driver of Pārtha. He is addressed as Devakī-nandana. So Devakī-nandana is not His name, but because He acted, He appeared as the son of Devakī, He is called Devakī-nandana. He is called Yaśodā-nandana. Similarly, all the names of God... Actually, what you say, that there is no name of God, but He has His name, but the name is designated according to His activities. That means that God has His activities, and according to the different types of activities, He has got millions and trillions of name.

So our this propaganda, "Chant the holy name of God"... So somebody may decline that "Why shall I chant the name of Kṛṣṇa? This is Hindu name," or "Indian name." But Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that if you decline to chant the particular name "Kṛṣṇa," then if you have got your name of God, you can chant that also. We are not dogmatic. If you have got actually the name of God, you chant that. That is His instruction.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Fiji, May 24, 1975:

So our request is to everyone—I think there should be any objection—that "You chant the holy name of God." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. If you have got your own name of God, you chant that. If not, what is the objection? Take this name, "Kṛṣṇa," and chant. Why there should be objection? This is not dogmatism. We give freedom. We do not give. Caitanya Mahāprabhu gives that God has got many name. Why not? Just like one man in the family—somebody is calling him father; somebody calling him brother; somebody calling him by his name. There are so many ways to call the same man. Similarly, if you have got a name, holy name of the holy father, you chant that. This is our propaganda. Harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam (CC Adi 17.21). This is the recommendation in the Vedic literature, that in this age, this age of differentiation, this age of fight, quarreling, misunderstanding, if I say, "This is the name of God," and you say, "No, this is the name of God," then there will be fight. So better, Caitanya Mahāprabhu gives here, that whatever name you have got... But it must be God's name, harer nāma, not your manufactured name. It must be authorized God's name. You chant that.

Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- Ahmedabad, December 14, 1972:

I am not. But the whole world is going on under this conception, that "I am this body." "I am American," "I am Indian," "I am brāhmaṇa," like that. So the basic principle is illusion. And there are so many mistakes we commit. And the senses are imperfect. And although my senses are imperfect, I, still, I theorize, "It may be...," "It is like this," "It is like that." These are all imperfect things. Therefore whatever knowledge we may make progress, it is saṁśayam, it remains doubt, uncertainty.

But what Kṛṣṇa says, you can test even with your experimental knowledge. That is Vedic knowledge. Vedic knowledge, it is not dogma. The, the statement is there after sufficient experiment. So we, if we accept Vedic knowledge, we save so much time. We may go on experimenting with our limited power of senses, but that will always remain doubtful, that it is perfect. Asaṁśayaṁ samagram. This samagram, this word, is very significant. Samagram means "complete." To understand Kṛṣṇa means to understand the whole cosmic manifestation, God, the material nature, the time factor, the living entities, their respective relationship, everything. That is called samagram. Not that a Kṛṣṇa conscious person does not know about the creation of the material manifestation. He knows, by his reason. That will be explained in this chapter, Seventh Chapter, how this material creation is going on.

Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Paris, August 13, 1973:

We are struggling—nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. We are struggling against these nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi, voidists and impersonalists. So it is not now new. From time immemorial there are different views. But Kṛṣṇa refers herewith that brahma-sūtra-padaiḥ hetumadbhir viniścitaṁ. Others... There are many other books of knowledge. They are not very reasonable. That is dogmatic. But hetumadbhiḥ, if we accept with our logic and sense, that is first-class book which gives us information of the ātmā, Paramātmā.

Therefore, in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta the author says, caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra, vicāra karile citte pābe camatkāra. The author says that "You kindly put your consideration and judgement about the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And if you consider with logic and reason," vicāra karile pābe citte camatkāra, "you'll feel that these are wonderful things." So we haven't got to accept anything blindly.

The Brahma-sūtra, or Vedānta-sūtra, is called nyāya-prasthāna. There are three different processes for understanding the Absolute Truth: nyāya-prasthāna, śruti-prasthāna, smṛti-prasthāna. Brahma-sūtra is nyāya-prasthāna. Nyāya-prasthāna means everything, all the sūtras and codes, are there with full reasoning. Hetumadbhir viniścita. And whatever Brahma-sūtra says, that is viniścita, means ascertained. There is no doubt. Just like Brahma-sūtra says, athāto brahma jijñāsā.

Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Paris, August 13, 1973:

That is answered in the Bhagavad-gītā, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8). Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the origin of all births, everything." So the material world was not existing. This is insufficient. How you can say it is existing? Anything you see, material, it has got a date of birth. Who can deny it? Can you present anything material which was, which has no beginning? Everything has got beginning. So how you can say this material world has no beginning? This is nonsense.

Therefore hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ. Hetu means "with reason," not like dogmatic obstinacy. You must have the beginning. Then, as soon as you, we, accept that this material world has had a beginning... The śāstra says it has beginning. Just like Brahma-sūtra, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Why it says, janmādy asya (SB 1.1.1)? Everything has beginning.

And we see from the śāstra how this material world has a beginning. There was first of all Mahavisnu. From Mahavisnu, these universes came out.

Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Bombay, September 28, 1973:

So spiritual science is meant for great personalities, brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, not for the vaiśyas and the śūdras. One has to get to the quality of brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya. So Kṛṣṇa says therefore, imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ. Unless one is ṛṣi, great ṛṣi, great saintly persons, one cannot understand the spiritual science. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says... Although Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself... He can personally say anything which is authorized. Still He is giving reference to the statement of the ṛṣis. This is the way of Vedic understanding. You cannot establish anything dogmatically, "In my opinion it is like that." What you are, nonsense? What is your opinion? Even Kṛṣṇa says, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. There are different kinds of ṛṣis—Gautama Ṛṣi, Kaṇada Ṛṣi... They have spoken different... In India there are six kinds of philosophies, but they are not recognized. Ṛṣibhiḥ, just like Devala Ṛṣi, Nārada Ṛṣi, Vyāsadeva, Asita Ṛṣi, Valmīki Ṛṣi, they are recognized. Ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. So they have got different philosophical ways to understand.

Therefore Bhāgavata summarizes that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. He's not a ṛṣi who's opinion is not different. Yes. You are a ṛṣi. You have got some different system of philosophy. And if I want to become a ṛṣi, then I must disagree with you. Just like in the modern days it is going on, scientific research, philosophical research. Therefore it is said, nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na vibhinnam: "One cannot become a rsi unless he gives his personal different opinion."

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.1.9 -- Auckland, February 20, 1973:

I know this Christian religion, Mohammedan religion, Buddhist religion, Jain religion, this religion, that religion, this ism, that ism, they are all history. History. It is limited, within the limit of time. But this Vedic religion has no beginning or end. Therefore, Sumanda-matayo, they will theorize, "In our religion it is said this." "Oh, whatever your religion may be, but the real purpose of religion is to understand God. How far you have understood God?" That is practically nil. But the formulas and dogmas and this and that they're full of. Sumanda-matayo. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayo manda-bhāgyā (SB 1.1.10). And almost everyone is unfortunate. They haven't got even means to accommodate the bare necessities of life—eating, sleeping, mating. They're also deficient. mandāḥ sumanda-matayo manda-bhāgyā hy upadrutāḥ. And above all these there is always disturbance. Sometimes war, sometimes famine, sometimes earthquake, sometimes this, overflood. Just like recently in New York there was overflood, you know? So in this way we are so much complicated, this is the position. Now in this condition of life how you can take up very serious type of self-realization, that is not possible. Alright, thank you very much.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Mauritius, October 5, 1975:

Prabhupāda: He has come, but you have no eyes to see. You require the eyes to see.

English man: Sir, I have listened to your talk with very great interest. You're very clear and very lucid. But you're also very dogmatic, I feel. Is there any area of doubt in your own philosophy, or are you quite certain in every field?

Prabhupāda: What is that dogmatic?

English man: Dogmatic? You are very... When you have a question put to you, you are very clear what the answer shall be. (devotees chuckle) Have you any doubts yourself that have not appeared to us?

Prabhupāda: So you answer. You are American?

English man: I am Scottish.

Prabhupāda: Scottish, England. In Scotland we have got also. Edinburgh, we have got our temple.

English man: But you are very... You seem very... Your philosophy seems very clear cut.

Prabhupāda: Thank you very much. (laughter)

Lecture on SB 1.9.49 -- Mayapura, June 15, 1973:

So it is not that kind of kingdom. Here it is said, cakāra rājyaṁ dharmeṇa. Cakāra rājyaṁ dharmeṇa pitṛ-paitāmahaṁ vibhuḥ. He was so great, powerful. According to the tradition of the pitṛ-paitāmaham, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, recognized by his uncle, recognized by Kṛṣṇa, took up the reigns of the government, and dharmeṇa, according to the..., strictly to the shastric principle, he ruled over. This is king. So in the Bhāgavata you will find everything, politics, sociology, religion, culture, philosophy, science, everything you will find. It is not that simply dogmatic, something saying, some miracles. No, it is not like that. It is a great science, scientific. Therefore in the beginning it is said, nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam idam (SB 1.1.3). Nigama. Nigama means the Vedic literature. Nigama. So the essence, the quintessence of Vedic literature, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam... Veda means knowledge, I have several times explained. So Veda contains all kinds of knowledge. Āyur-veda, the knowledge about medical science. Dhanur-veda, the military science. Āyur-veda, Dhanur-veda, Yajur-veda. Veda means knowledge.

Lecture on SB 5.5.1-2 -- London (Tittenhurst), September 13, 1969:

So Ṛṣabhadeva instructed in this way. It is very instructive chapter. If you continue to understand this instruction of Ṛṣabhadeva... Now we have only read one verse. The next verse is that mahat-sevāṁ dvāram āhur vimukteḥ (SB 5.5.2). Mahat-sevā. If you want this platform of self-realization, or spiritual life, then your engagement should be mahat-sevā, to serve a great soul, to associate with great soul. Then that will be possible. We shall discuss this next śloka. Mahat-sevā. Who is mahat, who is great soul, how to serve, everything we shall discuss next meeting.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Any question? Try to understand this philosophy scrutinizingly. You have got intelligence, you have got brain. So if there is any doubt, whatever is spoken... It is not dogmatic, pushing, or thrashing something. No. It is scientific and reasonable, whatever is said in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Amalaṁ purāṇam. It is spotless. Nobody can find any fault. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam amalaṁ purāṇam. Amalam means spotless. Yes.

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

Their instructions are not blind, dogmatic. Naya-kovidāḥ. Everything, what is said by Kṛṣṇa or His representative, they are not dogmas. Those who are not representative of Kṛṣṇa, they will say simply dogmas. Just like in every religion there is a dogma. But in bhāgavata religion, bhāgavata-dharma, there is no dogma. Caitanya Mahāprabhu's bhāgavata-dharma, the Caitanya-caritāmṛta's author, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, says, therefore, that caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. Vicāra means you just try to understand the gift of Lord Caitanya by logic, vicāra. Don't follow blindly. Following blindly something, that is not good. That will not stay. But one should take everything with logic. But the servants of God, they put everything in logic. Caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. If you study the Caitanya's philosophy with logic and argument... Don't go by sentiment. The so-called missionary, they're simply bogus propaganda without any logic. Without any logic. Just like some missionary people are propagating a man to become God. How a man can become God? There must be evidences how God incarnates. Not that somebody by worshiping a demigod becomes God. So many false propaganda is going on. That is not logical at all. So one should be intelligent to understand the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa or philosophy of Lord Caitanya with logic and argument.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968:

We have to quit, leave this body, that is a fact. You'll also not remain in this body, I'll not also remain in this body. But before quitting this body, before leaving this body, if we can simply understand what is God, doesn't matter whatever you are doing. You remain occupied in your duties, you remain what you are. It doesn't matter. Simply try to understand what is God and what are His activities. Then you'll become liberated.

So much facility is offered. And the Bhagavad-gītā is there. You can understand with all your reason, with all your argument, with all your senses what is God. It is nothing dogmatic. It is all reasonable, philosophical. Unfortunately they have decided that God is dead. How God can be dead? This is another rascaldom. You are not dead; how God can be dead? So there is no question of God's being dead. He is always present, just like sun is always present. Only the rascals, they say there is no sun. There is sun. It is out of your sight, that's all. Similarly, "Because we cannot see God, therefore God is dead," these are rascaldom. It is not very good conclusion. So one has to understand what is God, divyam. So Kṛṣṇa says anyone who understands this philosophy or science of God, philosophy... (break) ...called the science of sciences. So therefore I use this word "science." So science of God. Then, after leaving this body, tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma na eti (BG 4.9). He does not come back again to take this conditional material body. Then, he's finished? No. He says, mām eti so 'rjuna. "My dear Arjuna, that person comes to Me." That means you are transferred to the spiritual kingdom or God's kingdom.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.66-76 -- San Francisco, February 6, 1967:

Now the essence of all scripture is this Hare Kṛṣṇa. Essence. Sarva-śāstra-marma means essence of all scripture. And sarva-mantra-sāra. And there are different kinds of hymns and mantras, and this is the, I mean to say, topmost part of all mantras. "In this way, My Guru Mahārāja asked Me to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa."

Eta bali' eka śloka śikhāila more. (break) ...dogmatic or dictator. Because one cannot be a guru or spiritual master if he creates something. No. He cannot create. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu says to Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī that "My Guru Mahārāja, My spiritual master, has reason." Why? What is that reason? Kaṇṭhe kari' ei śloka kariha vicāre: "My Guru Mahārāja said, he gave Me one verse from authoritative Vedic literature, and he asked Me that 'You should always keep this verse within Your,' " what is called, " 'throat.' " That means, keeping in throat means... And what is that? This is a quotation from the Vedic literature, Bṛhad-nāradīya Purāṇa. There are four Vedas, and the, there are supplementary Vedas also. There are eighteen purāṇas.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 5 -- Los Angeles, May 7, 1970:

These are axiomatic truths. Similarly the Vedas, they are truth. We have to accept. Just like I've given example in my book: The conchshell is the bone of an animal. So Vedic injunction is if you touch the bone of an animal, immediately you become impure and you have to take your bath. But here is a bone which is used in the Deity room. But you cannot argue, "Oh, you said that bone is impure. As soon as you touch it, you become impure. And you are putting into the Deity room?" No argument. You have to accept it. This is Veda. You cannot argue. Similarly, spiritual master's order, you have to accept. There is no argument. In this way you can make progress. Sādhu śāstra guru vākya tinete kariyā aikya. If we argue... Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are inconceivable by you, you cannot argue. Then it will be a failure. You have to accept that axiomatic truth. It is not dogmatic. It is not dogmatic in this sense, because our predecessor ācāryas, they accepted. What you are that you are arguing? So that is the proof. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. If you argue, there is no conclusion. The argument will go on. You put some argument; I put some argument. That is not the process. Śrutayo vibhinnā. Scriptures, in different countries, different circumstances, different scriptures, they're also different. Then tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And so far philosophical speculation is concerned, one philosopher is putting some theory, another philosopher putting some theory—there is contradiction. And unless you defy another philosopher, you cannot be a famous philosopher.

Festival Lectures

Govardhana Puja Lecture -- New York, November 4, 1966:

Similarly, Kṛṣṇa said, jñātvā ajñātvā ca karmāṇi jano 'yam anutiṣṭhanti: "Generally, mass of people, they are ignorant. They perform some religious rituals knowingly or unknowingly as a matter of superstition or custom." So, viduṣa karma-siddhiḥ syāt. But one who is intelligent, he should know that "By this sacrifice, I must get the result." Viduṣo karma-siddhiḥ syāt tathā na viduṣo bhavet: "And those who are fools, they, simply by superstition, they do it."

So Kṛṣṇa did not recommend that you should do something under superstition. No. You must do it for practical result. This dogmatism, fanaticism—"Oh, why I shall chant Hare Kṛṣṇa? I am Christian. I am Jews"—this is fanaticism. If you find actually ecstasy by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, why should you not? Why should you not? "No. I am Jew." "I am Christian." "I am Muhammadan." Well, it is transcendental vibration from the spiritual platform. Your Muhammadism, Christianism, Hinduisim, Buddhism, this is skin disease. This is... Because you have got some particular body at particular circumstances, therefore you claim like that. But actually we are all spirit soul, and this sound vibration is from the spirit soul. It will appeal to everyone. See the effect. Then don't be fanaticist. Don't be, I mean to say, sectarian. So Kṛṣṇa wants that, that simply by custom, one should not follow the rituals. One should see the effect.

General Lectures

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

The ultimate, highest planet is called Brahmaloka. And the advantage of going to Brahmaloka is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, that you can get a life, sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ (BG 8.17). You can get there life for millions and millions of years. But still, there is death and there is birth and there is that old age and there is that disease. But mad-dhāma gatvā punar janma na vidyate. But if somebody is transferred to that planet which is called Kṛṣṇaloka, Goloka Vṛndāvana, or Vaikuṇṭha, then one hasn't got to come back to this material, I mean to say, temporary existence. So these informations are there, and they are very scientific. They are not dogmatic. If you accept them with reason and argument and with human consciousness, the solutions are there.

Lecture Excerpt -- Montreal, July 20, 1968:

Without sentiment, nobody can come to the stage of ecstasy. But that sentiment is transcendental sentiment. This is not ordinary sentiment. Sentiment, when religion or any faith is devoid of philosophy and logic, then it is material sentiment. And philosophy and logic without understanding of God is simply waste of time, mental... (break) So both should be combined, religion plus philosophy. One should understand the principles of religion with philosophy and logic. We are claiming college students, university students, because we are presenting religion on the basis of philosophy and logic. We are not blindly following. We have not dogmatism. We have got reason, philosophy, and everything, science. If you want to understand this Kṛṣṇa consciousness on the basis of philosophy, logic and science, we are prepared to present to you. But the ultimate goal is to surrender unto the Supreme. So although you will find some of the students joining us, they are not very great philosopher or great scientist or great educationist, but they have accepted the reality, Kṛṣṇa. Therefore they are the highest yogis. They are highest yogi. Just like if somebody is offering one million dollars, one may understand it or may not understand it, what is the value of one million dollars. But if one has got that one million of dollars, then he is rich man undoubtedly. Similarly, the boys and the disciples and the followers of this movement, who are accepting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Lord, oh, they have already got that millions of dollars.

Speech to Indian Audience -- Montreal, July 28, 1968:

So I'll request Indian ladies and gentlemen who are present here to join this movement. This is your duty. Because you are Indian, you have got this duty. If you forget your duty, then you are forgetting your identity. So my special request in this meeting is for the Indian ladies and gentlemen to support this temple, and by supporting this temple, to support this movement. It is good not only for the Indians—for everyone. It is no sectarian religion. It is completely scientific and philosophical. Everyone can accept it, not dogmatically, but with reason and argument. And you can practically see that all my students, none of them are Indians. Until now, they are all American. They are educated, they are intelligent. They are trying to understand it with all logic and philosophy, and when they understand it nicely, they take to it very seriously. So my request is that this is a very nice movement. Everyone, either Indian, American or Canadian, should take part in it and encourage us.

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

They are enamored by the glimmering manifestation of the cosmic body or the individual body, but they do not try to understand the basic principles of this glimmering situation. The body looks very beautiful working with full energy and exhibiting great traits of talent and wonderful brain work. But as soon as the soul is away from the body, all this glimmering situation of the body becomes useless. Even the great scientists who have discovered many wonderful scientific contributions could not trace out about the personal self, which is the cause of such wonderful discoveries. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement basically is trying to reach this science of the soul—not in any dogmatic way, but in complete scientific and philosophical understanding.

Pandal Lecture -- November 14, 1971, Delhi:

Religion means you must have peace of mind, tranquillity. That is religion. It is not a formality or dogmas. It is the ultimate goal of life.

So this Bhāgavata-dharma long, long ago was sometimes discussed by Prahlāda Mahārāja, a great devotee, a boy devotee, 5 years old boy, and he was a great devotee although born in an atheistic family. His father was a great atheist, Hiraṇyakaśipu. Hiraṇya means gold and kaśipu means soft cushion. That means complete materialist. The materialist want these two things, woman and money. So Hiraṇyakaśipu was very expert in this business. But fortunately he had a great son, Prahlāda Mahārāja. So this Prahlāda Mahārāja, when he was in the womb of his mother, he had the chance of hearing about Bhāgavata-dharma from Nāradaji. You have heard that there is always fight between the atheist and the theist, or the demigods and the demons, sura asura. So sometimes there was a fight between the asuras and the devas.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: So he says that to apply those four categories of reason onto objects in order to understand them, he says this creates certain knowledge, and so that further judgment beyond these categories would be guesswork or unprovable dogma. But, he says, still the mind is not satisfied with these partial explanations. Even though knowledge that transcends these categories is guesswork, still the mind desires to know something beyond them.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is called philosophy. That inquisitiveness is called philosophy. Cause of the cause: this is caused by this; what is the cause of this? Unless he comes to the final cause, this research goes on. That is the nature of advanced mind. They are called munis, those who are very thoughtful. So that is the nature of greater mind, mahātmā, to find out the ultimate cause. That is human nature. Therefore, athāto brahma jijñāsā. The Vedānta-sūtra says this jijñāsā, inquiry, "What is after this? What is after this? What is brāhmaṇas? What is Brahman? This is not Brahman. This is not Brahman..." The next answer is that "Brahman means janmādy asya (SB 1.1.1), the supreme source from where everything emanates." So unless he goes to the supreme source, he is not satisfied. So those who are going by mental speculation, they come to that impersonal feature. Then, if he makes further advancement, just like in Īśopaniṣad, that "You wind up Your glaring impersonal feature so that we can see You brightly."

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Śyāmasundara: He sees that there are two basic or fundamental philosophical temperaments. The one he calls tendermindedness, which is exemplified by the rationalist, the idealist, the optimist, the religionist, and the dogmatist; and toughmindedness, or the empiricist, the materialist, the pessimist, the irreligious, the fatalist and the skeptic. He says that philosophers are of two types: tender minded and tough minded.

Prabhupāda: So this depends upon one's education. If one is educated, in one way he may become tender, and another man, if he is educated in a different way, he may be hard. But our proposition is that originally the soul is good. This tenderness and hardness, they are developed later on. But they are not standard. When you come to the platform of soul, there everything is good. In that platform, either tenderness or hardness, both of them are in the absolute. So our philosophy is that, as we understand from Bhagavad-gītā, that every living entity is part and parcel of God. So God is good, pavitra. Just like Arjuna accepts, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitram (BG 10.12). Pavitra means pure. But because we are part and parcel of God, therefore we are pure. The impurities are acquired by our contamination with this material world. So either you become tender or hard—that is impurity of this material world. So we don't give any credit to any person, either he is tender or hard. These are all material qualifications.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: "One thing was clear. Freud, who had always made much of his irreligiosity, had now constructed a dogma, or rather in the place of God, whom he had lost, he had substituted another compelling image, that of sexuality."

Prabhupāda: Yes, that's a fact. He has taken sexuality as God. But our position is that we must accept a leader. That is our natural tendency. So he gave up the leadership of God and took the leadership of sex. That is his position. Leadership we must have. That is..., this question also I asked to Professor Kotovsky, that "Where is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You accept leader, Lenin. We accept leader, Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference in the process?" So this is the nature of human being, to accept a leader. But this man, unfortunately, he lost the leadership of God and he took leadership of sex. That is his position.

Hayagrīva: Jung concluded, concerning Freud, he said, "Freud never asked himself why he was compelled to talk continually of sex, why this idea had taken such possession of him. He remained unaware that his monotony of interpretation expressed a flight from himself, or from that other side of him which might perhaps be called mystical. So long as he refused to acknowledge that side," that is the mystical side, "he could never be reconciled with himself."

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: And on the other hand religion, the Christian religion which was understood in the Middle Ages, has become strange and unintelligible to the man of today.

Prabhupāda: It is because it is simply dogmatic. The preachers of the religion, they have no idea, clear idea, but officially they speak something. Neither he understands, neither he can make others to understand. But Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not such big thing. It is clear in every respect. Therefore this is the expected movement as Mr. Jung wanted. So every sane man should cooperate with this movement and liberate the human society from the gross darkness of ignorance.

Hayagrīva: He characterizes the true religious man as one who is accustomed to the thought of not being sole master of his own house. He believes that God, and not he himself, decides in the end.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Naturally that is the position. What we can decide? That there is already controller over me, so how I can be Absolute? No. Therefore everyone should depend on the supreme controller. That is called, technical language, it is called śaraṇāgati, full surrender. Full surrender. That is called śaraṇāgati.

Hayagrīva: He feels that the only thing that keeps modern man..., that will keep modern man from simply dissolving into the crowd is, he says, "We must ask, 'Have I any religious experience, an immediate relation to God and hence that certainty which will keep me as an individual from dissolving in the crowd of humanity?' " So one's relation with God assures one of one's individuality.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Prabhupāda: Discussing to defeat their philosophy. Because their philosophy is accepted in the world, so we are giving the weak points of that philosophy.

Devotee: When I (indistinct) they simply say I'm dogmatic, but when I defeat them in terms of their own premises, that they have to admit.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we are doing. We are defeating on their own principles. On principles. Just like we are speaking that Mao thinks that he is not controlled. He should be controller. But he is controlled by heart attack. Then how he can be controller? The same example. If you are blind, how you can lead other blind men? First of all, he has to know that "I am so powerful, why I am being controlled by heart attack?" Let them philosophize on this point. You must admit that "I am controlled." So if I am controller, then how I can be supreme controller?

Revatīnandana: Or if I am perfect, then why do I have to submit to imperfection?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Revatīnandana: That means actually I am not perfect. Therefore what qualification have I got to give truth?

Prabhupāda: Yes. You cannot give. You are cheating only. Because you are imperfect, but you are giving ideas to people. What right you have that you are teaching?