Interpretation (Lectures, Other)

So many ladies and gentlemen are present here. We are, whatever we are doing it is not whimsical or mental concoction. It is authorized and just to the standard of Bhagavad-gītā. Our present movement is based on Bhagavad-gītā—Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We don't interpret. We do not interpret foolishly because... I say purposefully this word "foolishly," that why should we interpret Kṛṣṇa's words? Am I more than Kṛṣṇa? Or did Kṛṣṇa leave some portion to be explained by me by interpretation? Then what is the importance of Kṛṣṇa? If I give my own interpretation, thinking myself more than Kṛṣṇa, this is blasphemy. How I can become more than Kṛṣṇa? If actually we want to take advantage of this Bhagavad-gītā, then we must take Bhagavad-gītā as it is.

Just like Arjuna took. Arjuna, after hearing Bhagavad-gītā, he said, sarvam etam ṛtaṁ manye: "I accept all the words, my dear Keśava, whatever You have said. I accept them in toto, without any change." This is understanding of Bhagavad-gītā, not that I take advantage of the Bhagavad-gītā and I interpret in my foolish way so that people will accept my philosophy. This is not Bhagavad-gītā. There is no question of interpretation in the Bhagavad-gītā. Interpretation is allowed when you cannot understand. When the things are clearly understood... If I say, "This is microphone," everyone understands this is microphone.

Where is the necessity of interpreting it? There is no necessity. This is foolishness, misleading. There cannot be any interpretation in the Bhagavad-gītā. It is... Everything is clear to the point. Just like Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says... Kṛṣṇa does not say that "You all become sannyāsī and give up your occupational duty." No. Kṛṣṇa says, sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarcya saṁsiddhiḥ labhate naraḥ (BG 18.46). You remain in your business. You remain your occupation. There is no need of changing. But still, you can become Kṛṣṇa conscious and make your life successful. This is the message of Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā is not going to make any topsy-turvy of the social order or spiritual order. No. It should be standardized according to the authority. And the best authority is Kṛṣṇa.

So this is a great culture, Bhagavad-gītā as it is. So those responsible ladies and gentlemen are present here, make this center very successful and come here, study Bhagavad-gītā as it is without any foolish interpretation. I say foolish again and again because interpretation is not at all required. Everything is clear, from the very beginning.

Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968:

So very clear. Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra still. In the Vedas it is stated, kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret: "One should go to Kurukṣetra and perform religious rituals." Therefore it is dharma-kṣetra from time immemorial. And why should we interpret it that "This Kurukṣetra means this body, dharmakṣetra, this body"? Why? Why mislead people? Stop this misleading. And Kurukṣetra is still there. Kurukṣetra station, railway station, is there. So try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, make your life successful, and spread this message all over the world. You will be happy; the world will be happy. Of course, I am now very old man. I am eighty years old. My life is finished. But I want some responsible Indian and combined with other countries...

General Lectures

Therefore we have the opportunity to publish the Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We have entrusted the matter to Messrs. Macmillan Company. They are going to publish the book next month. So try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is without any interpretation. Then you will understand the origin.

So the process of understanding Bhagavad-gītā is very nicely stated in the Bhagavad-gītā itself. And in our disciplic succession the Ṣaḍ-gosvāmī, the six Gosvāmīns, of whom I offered a prayer in the beginning, vande rūpa-sanātanau raghu-yugau śrī-jīva-gopālakau... So we are publishing another book, Teachings of Lord Caitanya. So the printing is complete. That book also will come next month. So I shall request some of you to read the teachings to Lord..., teaching to Sanātana Gosvāmī. Will somebody come here? You'll read? Yes. Sit down there.

Madhudviṣa: Yes. But is he receiving a good interpretation from his disciplic succession or his bishop? Because there seems to be some kind of a discrepancy in the interpretation of the Bible. There's many different sects of Christianity that interpret the Bible in different ways.

Prabhupāda: Of course, there cannot be any interpretation in the Bible. Then there is no authority of Bible. If you interpret something... Just like "Call a spade a spade." So if you call something else, that is a different thing. He's not spiritual master. Just like this is watch. Everybody has called it watch, and if I call it spectacle, then what is the value of my being spiritual master?

I say it is spectacle," then what kind of a spiritual master I am? Reject him immediately. That intelligence you must have, who is a pseudo spiritual master or real spiritual master. Otherwise you'll be cheated. And that is being done. Everyone is interpreting in his own way. The Bhagavad-gītā, there are thousands of editions, and they have tried to interpret in their own way, all nonsense. They should be all thrown away. Simply you have to read Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then you'll understand. There is no question of interpretation. Then the authority is gone.

As soon as you interpret, then there is no authority. Lawbook. Do you mean to say in the court if you say before the judge, "My dear lord, I interpret this passage in this way," will it be accepted? The judge will at once say, "Who are you to interpret? You have no right." Then what is the authority of this lawbook if everyone comes, "I interpret in this way"? And interpretation when required? When a thing is not understood. If I say, "It is watch," and everyone understands that "This is watch, yes," then where is the opportunity of interpreting that this is spectacle? If anyone can understand the clear passage... Just like in the Bible, "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was creation." Where is the question of interpretation? Yes, God created. You cannot create. Where is the opportunity of interpretation?

Just like in the Bible, "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was creation." Where is the question of interpretation? Yes, God created. You cannot create. Where is the opportunity of interpretation? So unnecessary interpretation is not required and that is not bona fide, and those who are interpreting unnecessarily, they should be rejected immediately. Immediately, without any consideration. God said, "Let there be creation." So there was creation. Simple thing. Where is the question of interpretation? What can be the interpretation here? Suggest that this can be interpretation. Am I right? In the beginning of the Bible it is said like that? "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was creation. So what is your interpretation? Tell me what is your interpretation. Is there any possibility of interpretation?

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

Can any one of you suggest? Then where is the opportunity of interpretation? One can explain. That is different thing, but the fact that God created, that will remain. That you cannot change. Now, how that creative process took place, that is explained in Bhāgavatam: First of all, there was sky, then there was sound, then there was this, that. This is the process of creation, that is another thing. But the fact, the primary fact that God created, that will remain at any circumstances. Not the rascal scientist says, "Oh, there was a chunk and it is split up, and there was these planets. Perhaps this and likely this," all this nonsense. They'll simply interpret, "likely," "perhaps."

Young man (5): But taking one of the commandments of the Christian Bible, "Thou shall not kill," and applying that to a federal law or our American scriptures, there you have two laws that are not stemming from the same law, with different interpretations...

Prabhupāda: What is that?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: The law in the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill." But the federal law of the United States says you must go into the Army and kill. So which to follow? There is a difference. They both say opposite things.

Prabhupāda: Yes. The thing is... It is very simple to understand that... Just like a soldier is killing and the state is awarding him medal. And the same soldier when comes home, if he kills somebody, he's hanged. Why?

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

Young man (5): How does one interpret if the cause is great?

Prabhupāda: By satisfy... That I have already explained. Saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam (SB 1.2.13). You have to see whether God is satisfied. That cause is great. Perfection of your activity will be judged whether by your action God is satisfied.

Young man (5): But you say that the way we hear from God is through words. And if these words are printed by the men that are making you fight, that's by the men that are making you fight. I have no assurance that it's the word of God unless every movement is God movement.

Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969:

So we have got this literature printed in English. Bhagavad-gītā is already printed in so many editions, but unfortunately, those Bhagavad-gītās are interpreted in their own interest. You see? Therefore we have published this Bhagavad-gītā. It is the essence of all Vedic literature, Bhagavad-gītā as it is. You have to learn Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't interpret in your own way. There is no possibility. But people do it, and foolish persons, they accept it. No, there is no question of interpretation.

Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969:

So these are plain truths. Kurukṣetra... Still there is a place of the name Kurukṣetra near Delhi. And people interpret, " 'Kurukṣetra' means this body." We do not know wherefrom he gets this meaning, what is that dictionary. Now, how he can establish? Kurukṣetra is still existing, and it is called dharma-kṣetra; it is a place of religious pilgrimage. So everything is clear. There is no need of interpretation. Simply you have to take the teachings. Then you will be benefited. So in this Bhagavad-gītā you will find so many nice information that if you see... If you don't see, that is another thing. You have to see that "Why I am put into so many miserable conditions of life although I do not want it?"

Lecture at Engagement -- Columbus, may 19, 1969:

Try to understand. It is not very expensive or very difficult, but you have to understand it with full brain, then your life will be successful.

So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means to preach the teachings of Bhagavad-gītā as it is, not to interpret it any nonsensical way and mislead the people. We don't try to mislead the people. We give without any changes and without any cost, any loss on your part. But, give a try, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, simple thing, just chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, these sixteen words: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. You practice it, you chant anywhere you like, either in your home or anywhere. There is no restriction, there is no hard and fast rules and regulation for chanting, and anyone can chant.

Lecture with Allen Ginsberg at Ohio State University -- Columbus, May 12, 1969:

The Kali-yuga concept is one that you can, in a sense, interpret ecologically. If you've been following the scientifical pronouncements of doom possibility coming over television, radio, and slick magazines, as well as from the underground press, you will notice that there's increasing attention to the fact that our own fecal material, the waste products of our robots, have now so polluted Lake Erie that it's a great lake of green goo slime, biologically dead; that our atmosphere, the planetary atmosphere, is increasingly polluted with carbon wastes; and that we are so sunk in our attachment to automobile exhaust fumes, to sulphur wastes from great steel factories producing metals that can be sent flying to explode on the other side of the planet with the collaboration of the science faculties in such universities as this, (applause) so that we find ourselves increasingly sunk into what is called a materialistic habit, like a junky stuck on his junk.

Lecture with Allen Ginsberg at Ohio State University -- Columbus, May 12, 1969:

In other words, the indigenous, the importation of a very strange oriental form, almost a hard-shelled Baptist oriental form, in the sense of its traditionality and its fundamentalism, its reliance on ancient texts and interpretation of ancient texts by long tradition of teachers—it's strange it's so far-out and ritualized an Indian form should take root in the United States a little more naturally than the more Protestant Vedānta Society or the extremely rigorous Zen groups that have taken root. I think partly it's due to the magnanimity or generosity or the old-age charm, wisdom, cheerfulness of Swami Bhaktivedanta, his openness of heart, his willingness to come down on to the street, and his sense of his own divinity and the divinity of others around that it's been possible for the bhakti-yoga cult of India to be planted very firmly here in America so that now there are communes, or ashrams, functioning on the basis of the Kṛṣṇa rituals, which are, in some respect, a model for all those anarchists and political people who are interested in establishing indigenous American communes.

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

That is our hankering. But we do not know, do not know because we do not care to know. Otherwise everything is explained. You haven't got to study many books. You just simply study Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. We have therefore published this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is without any nonsensical interpretation. "As It Is." Then you'll get all this knowledge and you'll know what you are meant for. So this movement is just to revive your consciousness, original consciousness. Original consciousness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And all other consciousness which you have now acquired, these are superficial, temporary. "I am Indian," "I am Englishman," "I am this," "I am that"—these are all superficial consciousness. Real consciousness is ahaṁ brahmāsmi.

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

So this movement is neither manufactured nor bogus nor bluff, but it is genuine. It is authorized and it is natural, constitutional. Try to understand this philosophy. We are teaching nothing, no new philosophy. Bhagavad-gītā as it is, that's all. Unfortunately, Bhagavad-gītā is read all over the world, but there are many rascal interpreters. They have spoiled the whole thing. Simply spoiled. So we are struggling against them. You try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, and you get the thing. The thing is immediately delivered. That is our request.

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

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.

Speech to Maharaja and Maharani and Conversations Before and After -- Indore, December 11, 1970:

That is the practically basic idea of the whole Mahābhārata and Bhagavad-gītā. So we are very much concerned to preach the message of Lord Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavad-gītā. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is without any malinterpretation. We cannot interpret on the words of God because religion means the words of God. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). The principles of religion cannot be made by any human being as much as law cannot be made by the citizens. Law is made by the government. That law is accepted. That is obligatory. Similarly, religion means the words of God. Man-made religion has no value. The Bhāgavata says, dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo atra: (SB 1.1.2) "Such cheating process or pseudo religion process is completely eradicated from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." Religion means obedience to the Supreme Lord. And the ruler and the king or the chief of the government is also accepted as representative of Nārāyaṇa.

The sun-god, the president or the predominating Deity in the sun planet, is known as Vivasvān. So we have to study Bhagavad-gītā as it is by the paramparā system. As Śrī Kṛṣṇa says, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2). Not that whimsically somebody purchases a book from the market and he takes his pleasure to make an interpretation of his own intelligence. Bhagavad-gītā was spoken by Kṛṣṇa. He did not leave it for being interpreted by an ordinary man. There is no need of explaining Bhagavad-gītā in a different way.

Just like in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā we understand the statements very clearly:

That is the statement of the Vedas. So from time immemorial this Kurukṣetra, land of Kurukṣetra is known as dharma-kṣetra. So what is the difficulty to understand dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre (BG 1.1)? There is no difficulty. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous commentator says that "Kurukṣetra means this body." Where is the chance of interpreting like that, "Kuru-kṣetre is meaning body"? In no dictionary you will find that kuru-kṣetra is meant by body. Neither there is any chance. Interpretation is required when you cannot understand the word very clearly. In that case you can interpret. Just like the example is gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣapali:

"There is a neighborhood which is known as ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now one may question how on the Ganges, Ganges is water, there can be a neighborhood? Then you can interpret that "It is not on the Ganges water, but it is on the bank of the Ganges." Then there is chance of interpretation. But when you can clearly understand that "The thing is like this: Kurukṣetra is a place, and that is a place of pilgrimage," why should you interpret that Kurukṣetra means the body? In this way Bhagavad-gītā is being misinterpreted. In the Ninth Chapter, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), one great commentator, very erudite scholar, he says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa; it is to the unborn principle which is within Kṛṣṇa."

So we are to follow the ācāryas, not these casual interpretations, interpreters, to understand Bhagavad-gītā. Then we will be misled. We cannot understand. Because Kṛṣṇa says that "The mystery of Bhagavad-gītā will be understood by you because you are My very dear friend." So... "Because you are My devotee." So unless one is devotee, how one can understand Bhagavad-gītā and Kṛṣṇa? That is not possible. Kṛṣṇa says plainly in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yas cāsmi tattvataḥ: (BG 18.55) "Only through devotional service one can understand." Although Kṛṣṇa has explained in the Bhagavad-gītā jñāna, yoga, karma, and other things, dhyāna, but He specifically recommends that simply by devotional service you can understand Him.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 7, 1971:

"God may be like this, God may be like that," and different philosophers will differ from one another. It is not like that. It is a great science. As two plus two equal to four, nobody can make it "Two plus two equal to five" or "Two plus two equal to three." Anywhere, science is science, fact. Similarly, Bhagavad-gītā you cannot interpret differently. Just like "Two plus two equal to five"—that cannot be. You have to accept "Two plus two equal to four."

So anyone who is trying to divert people's attention from Kṛṣṇa to non-Kṛṣṇa... That is the business of the modern so-called philosophers and educationists or religionists. They'll continue to read Bhagavad-gītā life long but will interpret in a different way so that people may not surrender to Kṛṣṇa. That is their business. Such persons are called duṣkṛtina. They are themselves also not ready to surrender to Kṛṣṇa, and they are misleading others also not to surrender to Kṛṣṇa. That is their business. Such persons are duṣkṛtina, miscreants, rogues, rascals, those who are deviating people in other ways. A great scholar—I do not wish to name—he is writing in his commentary, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." Just see. Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ: "You just become My devotee." Mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: "You just worship Me and offer your obeisances unto Me. In this way you will get Me. You will achieve Me."

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 10, 1971:

Then how we can think of Kṛṣṇa as ordinary human being? What is your answer? How do you form such idea? These are the challenges by Kṛṣṇa. And I cannot understand how Kṛṣṇa is accepted as ordinary person. Then either you don't believe in Bhagavad-gītā... That is a different thing. But don't try to malinterpret, wrongly interpret Bhagavad-gītā in your own way. That will not help you. You can propound your own philosophy as you like. Everyone has got the right. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam: "One cannot be a philosopher, muni, thoughtful man, unless he has got a different philosophy." That's a fact. Everyone wants to propound a type of philosophical method and tries to become famous.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 10, 1971:

Everyone wants to propound a type of philosophical method and tries to become famous. That is the natural way. But you make your philosophical presentation in different way. You have got right. But don't try to interpret in Bhagavad-gītā in your own way. That cannot be accepted. And that will not give you the effect of Bhagavad-gītā. You have to accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is.

Our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, we are not presenting Kṛṣṇa in a different way. Our only method is to present Kṛṣṇa as He is. That is our... If there is any credit for this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement or for us, now, our credit is that we are not adulterating Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture -- Visakhapatnam, February 18, 1972:

It is not very difficult. Anyone can do provided he does not make the mistake adulterating the statements of Bhagavad-gītā. Those who are adulterating, interpreting in a different way this Bhagavad-gītā, they are very mischievous. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa has already declared, na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). Duṣkṛtinaḥ. Those who are not surrendered to Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet, they have been described by Kṛṣṇa Himself as Duṣkṛtinaḥ, mischievous. Narādhama, the lowest of the mankind. Mūḍhā, asses, rascals. And if somebody says... We find so many learned scholars, they do not surrender to Kṛṣṇa, then what is their position? Kṛṣṇa says, "Yes, māyaya apahṛta-jñānā."

It is very difficult. People have been misled by the so-called commentaries. There is no need of unnecessarily commenting on certain things. There is no necessity. Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest, "The meaning may be like this." But when the things are clear, why should you comment? There is no necessity of comment. Just like, for example—this is also from Sanskrit scholar's example—that gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Gaṅgāyam: "On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli." Now, this statement is in your front.

How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli? On the water how there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation?" You can question that. Gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. 'On the Ganges' means 'on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice. When one cannot understand clearly, there is interpretation. But when the matter is clear... Just like sunlight. The sunlight, sunshine, does it require your lamp to show the sunlight? The sunlight is itself so illuminous that everyone can understand, "This is sunlight." If somebody brings some lamp, "I will show you the sun," sun is already visible. Why your lamp is required? So these unauthorized commentators, they bring some lamp to show the sunlight of Bhagavad-gītā. That is their business.

So Kurukṣetra is from the Vedic age. Millions of years, from time immemorial, it is a dharma-kṣetra. And still it is there. There is a station, railway station, called Kurukṣetra near Delhi, about hundred miles away from Delhi. So these are facts. Why there should be interpretation? These are facts. Why there should be... It is clear. Dharma-kṣetra is... Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra, and historical fact is māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Two groups of cousin brothers, they wanted to fight to settle up. Formerly the war was declared—the leader of the war, if he is killed, then the other party is victorious. Not that unnecessarily killing the civil citizens, no. This was nonsense.

Three times means he is giving stress. Bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate: three times. Prāpte sannihite kāle marane: "When your death will be near, at the point of your death," na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛñ-karaṇe. Ḍukṛñ-karaṇe means a grammatical jugglery, that "This word should be interpreted like this. This word should be interpreted like this." So, "This fight of interpretation will not save you. Better from the very beginning you worship Govinda. That will save you." This is his instruction. Bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate. And so far we are concerned, Vaiṣṇavas, we all accept govinda, ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi, Govinda, the Supreme Person, the original Personality Godhead, govindam.

Therefore the Veda says that in order to learn that spiritual science, you must approach a person, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva (MU 1.2.12), who is guru. Guru means spiritual master. And who is spiritual master? Who abides by the disciplic succession. He does not change. He does not interpret. He presents things as they are. Just like we are doing. We are presenting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa says that... For spiritual realization, He says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). Kṛṣṇa says that "Always think of Me." Man-manā. Man-manā means "about Me."

Lecture at Art Gallery -- Auckland, April 16, 1972:

Because he has committed so many offenses, now he is living, but he has lost his memory. Very recently I went to see him. He cannot... He is like that. So all his intelligence is finished. So nature is so strong that you can malinterpret, but nature is so strong that one day he will make you forget everything, brain paralysis. So how you are going to interpret the powerful nature? That is also explained in the Bhagavad-gītā:

So if you simply try to understand that this taste is Kṛṣṇa, or God, you become God conscious. You become Kṛṣṇa conscious. So it is not very difficult to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. Simply you require little training. And if you read Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any rascaldom, I mean to say, interpretation, as it is, the way it is stated, raso 'ham apsu kaunteya, if you take this, you become God conscious. You become Kṛṣṇa conscious. And if you become Kṛṣṇa conscious, then your life is successful. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti (BG 4.9). It is very easy and no loss, but the gain is very great. Therefore we request you all who are present, try to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. Read Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, and you will find all information how to become Kṛṣṇa conscious.

Lecture -- London, July 12, 1972:

Prabhupāda: Material means it is to be finished. Where is the advancement? You do not want to die, but why you die? Where is your advancement?

Indian guest: No, I fully agree with your interpretation of Bhāgavata, but the comparison between Darwin's discoveries and what is mentioned in Bhāgavata, I don't agree with that. It is already mentioned in Bhāgavata, but Swamijī, you are from a different point of view. So...

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

They do not take it seriously that this, "This is the statement by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it cannot be commented with my poor knowledge. What I am in comparison to Kṛṣṇa? He is tri-kāla-jña. He knows present, past, future, everything. What do I know? 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.

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

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).

Rotary Club Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972 'The Present Need of Human Society':

You don't require to make any research. You simply accept and get the fact. This is Vedic truth.

So that is called āstikyam. Āstikyam means to accept the Vedic instruction as it is. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. There is no need of interpreting. If we accept it, the truth, as it is, then we are benefited. In the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the Supreme." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). "My dear Dhanañjaya, Arjuna,..." Arjuna is called Dhanañjaya. That's a background, how he became a dhanañjaya. So mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) "There is no more superior person than Me."

Lecture -- Jakarta, February 26, 1973:

They want to make the spiritual world as zero or imperson due to less intelligence. But actually, real life, real pleasure, eternal pleasure is there in the spiritual world, not in this material world.

So from Bhagavad-gītā, if you study scrutinizingly each word and each śloka—not by man interpretation, but actually as it is—then we can understand what is our eternal life, what is our eternal pleasure, how we can return and sport there. Everything is explained there. Everyone can go. Everyone can transfer himself in that spiritual world—simply by understanding Kṛṣṇa. That's all. And the Kṛṣṇa understanding is there. Kṛṣṇa is explaining Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā. He, if you do not introduce your so-called foolish scholarship, then you get actually back to home, back to Godhead, by simply studying Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture What is a Guru? -- London, August 22, 1973:

You'll find this instruction in the Bhagavad-gītā. The same thing was spoken by all the ācāryas. Rāmanujācārya also says the same, Madhvācārya says the same thing, Caitanya Mahāprabhu says same thing, the Gosvāmīs say the same thing, and we are also speaking the same thing. There is no difference. We do not interpret the words of Kṛṣṇa, that "In my opinion, Kurukṣetra means this body." This is rascaldom. The whole situation has been spoiled by these so-called rascal gurus who gives his own opinion. This is our plain declaration: Let any rascal guru come. We can convince him that he is not guru, because he is speaking differently. We can challenge any rascal. Just like somebody came here, he said that he's God, every one of us God.

Lecture at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan -- Bombay, October 18, 1973:

We have to stop it. Then you will be happy. You cannot become happy without God. That is not possible. Therefore if you actually interested to spread dharma, you take the principles of Bhagavad-gītā, standard, Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't try to interpret in a fashionable way: "This means that, that means that." No. "Kṛṣṇa" means Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa means... Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: (BG 7.7) "My dear Dhanañjaya, there is no more superior authority than Me." You have to accept that. Kṛṣṇa says, mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te. You have to accept that. Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). You have to accept that.

Lecture at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan -- Bombay, October 18, 1973:

Now I see there are still. So I shall request Nandajī that take the standard method as prescribed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Then you will be successful. Not only Nandajī—anyone. The example is already there. I am preaching all over the world Bhagavad-gītā as it is. There is no fashionable interpretation. No. As it is. And how they are being accepted. So why not in this country? And in this country Kṛṣṇa consciousness is natural. It is not artificial. From the birth of a man, (he) is Kṛṣṇa conscious. Artificially he is being cut down, "Forget Kṛṣṇa." This nonsense dharma should be stopped. Take Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is being accepted all over the world. Why not in India?

Sunday Feast Lecture -- Atlanta, March 2, 1975:

So as a human being, we have got this privilege, to understand, to go to the right person to take the meaning. Meaning is very clear, but we create some mismeaning. That is another thing. Just like in the Bible it is said, "Thou shalt not kill." It is very clear and simple thing, but we make some interpretation, "This, that, this." Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Don't make the meaning perverted. Take it as it is. Then you become perfect. "Thou shalt not kill"—if you take this as it is, then you become perfect. But if you add your own meaning and go on killing and still you become a Christian, that is your business.

Lecture on Science of Krsna -- Hyderabad, April 14, 1975:

Prabhupāda: Who has interpreted?

Guest: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: What is that?

Guest: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we accept also. We say māyā. But one can be free from māyā. Mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te. If you surrender to Kṛṣṇa, then one is not captivated by māyā. Māyā is there. Just like police is there. If you are not a criminal, then police has nothing to do with you. Police may be there. But if you are a criminal, then police will arrest you. Similarly, māyā is acting as police force of Kṛṣṇa. So as soon as you become criminal, forget Kṛṣṇa as your master, then the police, māyā, will capture you. That is the business.

City Hall Lecture -- Durban, October 7, 1975:

So our only request is that you, all of you, you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't interpret in a different way. Then you will understand Kṛṣṇa. And as soon as you understand Kṛṣṇa, you become free from this material bondage, no more accepting... Tyaktvā deham. We have to give up this body, that is certain. The cats and dogs will also give up their body, we'll have also give... But before giving up this body, if we simply understand Kṛṣṇa, then our life becomes successful. What is that success? That after giving up this body we are not going to accept anything, our material body. Then we stand in our original, spiritual body. The spiritual body is there within the body. That will be explained very nicely.

Lecture Engagement at Birla House -- Bombay, December 17, 1975:

The success of human form of life is to understand this thing: our relationship with God. And we should act in relationship with God. Then our success of life will be achieved. This is the main purpose of Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. It is a very profound subject matter to understand, but everything is explained. Our only request is that you read Bhagavad-gītā as it is; don't try to interpret. That is useless. Otherwise why people have lost in India their own culture? Because they have interpreted wrongly. Every śāstra has been interpreted wrongly and therefore people are misguided.

Lecture Engagement at Birla House -- Bombay, December 17, 1975:

They could not take advantage of the instruction of Bhagavad-gītā because all through, the Bhagavad-gītā has been misinterpreted. So many so-called politicians, scholars, but it is maybe for the first time—not first time; it is there—but to make it broad propaganda wide, that try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any interpretation. That is our mission. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's mission. Don't try to interpret and spoil it. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra ei deśa (CC Madhya 7.128). Ei deśa means, He was born in Bengal, India—it may be Bengal or in India-He, we have interested with every man all over the world,

pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma

sarvatra pracāra hoibe mora nāma

(CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126)

So He was interested in all the parts of the world, how they can be delivered from the clutches of this material energy. So He wished especially the Indians to take this job of preaching the teachings of Bhagavad-gītā all over the world. He wanted it.

Lecture Engagement at Birla House -- Bombay, December 17, 1975:

"Mr. Birla may be..., so much (indistinct) may be had." That is always imperfect. But if you understand directly from Mr. Birla, then it is clear. So Kṛṣṇa, God, is explaining Himself, "I am like..." Asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu (BG 7.1). So there is not very difficult to understand Kṛṣṇa if we simply... But if we interpret foolishly, and try to understand Kṛṣṇa by misinterpretation, then the business is finished. Don't do that. Simply try to understand Kṛṣṇa as He is explaining Himself, then your life is successful. How it is successful?

Lecture with Translator -- Sanand, December 27, 1975:

Unfortunately, at the present moment especially... It was done formerly also five thousand years, that they make addition and alteration on the version of Kṛṣṇa. Just like Bhagavad-gītā is misinterpreted by so-called scholars and politicians. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Somebody interprets, "This dharma-kṣetra is this body." Why? Why one should interpret in that way?

Lecture with Translator -- Sanand, December 27, 1975:

Interpretation is required when things are not very clear. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre is still there. People go to Kurukṣetra for executing religious rituals. And in the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. So why it should be interpreted as "body"? And where is the dictionary where dharma-kṣetra means "body"? So in this way, if we interpret Bhagavad-gītā, then we spoil the whole thing. I spoil myself and spoil others. Therefore the conclusion is we shall accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is, as it is spoken by Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture with Translator -- Sanand, December 27, 1975:

So here the bhagavān uvāca, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is speaking. So we shall take it without any interpretation. The Bhagavān says, mayy āsakta-manāḥ.

mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha

yogaṁ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ

asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ (māṁ)

yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu

(BG 7.1)

So Bhagavān says, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme authority, says that "You require to transfer your āsakti, attachment, to Me." Everyone has got āsakti. Aśakti means attachment, this material attachment. Someone has got attachment for his family, some to society, some to nation, some in business and so many things.

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

Now this Kurukṣetra... Everyone knows there is a place Kurukṣetra. From time immemorial in the Vedic literature it is mentioned about Kurukṣetra. Kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret: "Go to Kurukṣetra and perform ritualistic ceremonies there." So it is dharmakṣetra. So how you can interpret Kurukṣetra as the body? Where is that dictionary, and where is the necessity of interpreting like that? There is no necessity. Interpretation is required when the meaning is not clear. But if the meaning is clear, why should you interpret it unnecessarily? That is malinterpretation, and that is going on. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but somebody says, "He is fictitious. There was no fight like Kurukṣetra.

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

There was no such person as Kṛṣṇa," and "Kṛṣṇa is a person from the black aborigines," so on, so on, so many interpretation. What is the benefit? The benefit is that we have lost our Vedic culture. This is the benefit.

Therefore our request is... This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is specially meant for this purpose, that do not try to be overlord of Kṛṣṇa. Don't speak anything manufactured by you on the plea of Kṛṣṇa speaking. If you want to speak something, good or nonsense, you can speak. Everyone has got the freedom to speak about his philosophy, about his thesis.

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

Everyone has got the freedom to speak about his philosophy, about his thesis. But why through Kṛṣṇa? Why through Bhagavad-gītā? This is our protest. Let Kṛṣṇa speak Himself as He is and as He wants. Why should you speak by malinterpretation? That is the practice now, that everyone can interpret Bhagavad-gītā as he likes. Then where is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? Can you interpret the law given by the government in your own way? That is not possible. Similarly, if Kṛṣṇa is accepted, He's accepted actually. (aside:) Find out this verse, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). Tenth Chapter.

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

So he understood Kṛṣṇa. He says, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma (BG 10.12). So we have to accept this paramparā system. If we take Bhagavad-gītā seriously then we should follow the footprints of Arjuna as he understood. He accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Paraṁbrahman. So what is spoken by Paraṁbrahman, the Supreme Lord, the Supreme Person, how we can interpret His words and squeeze out some meaning and mislead myself and mislead others? This is not good.

General Lecture -- (location & date unknown):

Because the Māyāvādī philosophers, they interpret Vedic mantras by grammatical jugglery, therefore Śaṅkarācārya has warned that "Your grammatical jugglery, this dukṛn-pratyaya, karaṇe, will not save you." Mūḍha-mate: "You foolish person, you kindly take shelter of Govinda." Bhaja govinda. So this is the verdict of all ācāryas. So our point is that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is nothing like manufactured religious principle. No. It is authorized. There is great background, all these, supported by all the ācāryas and summarized by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And we have got immense literature to support this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: When we conceive of "fire burns," we are shaping an interpretation of the phenomenon. We have experienced it, so we shape an interpretation, and that becomes a law in our minds.

Prabhupāda: What is that law in the mind, you may think or may not think, the law will act. (laughter) Simply speculation. It has no meaning. It is called jugglery of words, that's all. To some foolish men, he is accepted as a great philosopher, but it is simply jugglery of words, that's all.

Śyāmasundara: He says because the mind imposes a priori these laws upon nature as both necessary and universal, that proves that the mind is creative and that it's not a blank slate or tabula rasa.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: They have presented all these books as—what is called—allegory.

Śyāmasundara: Fiction, allegory.

Prabhupāda: Story. And the so-called swamis, they have also accepted like this. Therefore you can interpret in your own way. If it is a fact, how you can interpret it? But we are presenting as it is, fact. That is our business.

Śyāmasundara: They present so many newspapers every day and say this is fact, but it's lies, so many lies.

Prabhupāda: Even Dr. Radhakrishnan has said mental speculation is a big thing, of the Western propaganda.

Śyāmasundara: I think he said it is the crowning achievement of speculative thought.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Śyāmasundara: But the modern interpretation of the word mystic is something different. People take mystic to mean someone who is very mysterious and magic.

Prabhupāda: Yes. It has come to that. God consciousness... Just like at the present moment if a guru can show some miracles, just like that Sai Baba, so they accept. That's a mystic.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. That's the modern meaning of mystic.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore in the human society there is educational system. Man has to be made a right rational animal. Although he is animal, he has to be educated in nice way. That depends on education, system of education, but in that connection studying the whole world's education system, the Vedic education is perfect. Therefore every man should be educated as they are instructed in the Vedic literature and a summary of Vedic literature is Bhagavad-gītā. So every man should read it as it is without any unnecessary interpretation. That will make the man perfect educated.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

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.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Prabhupāda: This is the beginning of Kumāra-sambhava. Kumāra-sambhava means Lord Śiva's marriage with the daughter of Himalaya. He begins describing Himalaya: hasti uttarasyandesi himalayanamadira uttare syan deśe (?) (indistinct), in the northern side there is a king of mountains known as Himalaya. Somebody interprets it that is Arctic region. Urdhva pare yato nidhi upa rājan (?). North and east, there are two oceans—I think this is Atlantic and Pacific-abagajan-touching-sthita pratijñāna eva mana gandha (?)—as the whole (indistinct). In this way he became... He became famous poet by the grace of Sarasvatī. In the beginning he was cutting the same branch on the tree on which he was sitting.

Śyāmasundara: So maybe there is some hope for these philosophers.

Prabhupāda: What?

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: So how you can make your choice if you do not know yourself? You make your choice, "This is good, this is bad." So this choice is made when you know yourself. So this is my interpretation. I have interest in this; therefore it is good. That, so without knowing yourself, how you can make this choice? How you can make your decision?

Śyāmasundara: He says that you will know yourself when you begin choosing yourself. And when you begin making choices and examining them, you find the right choice for you, and you will begin to know yourself. That this passionate, inner awareness when one becomes engaged in life, in doing things actively, and making decisions...

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Śyāmasundara: So he says that not only individual analysis and dream interpretation are there, but also we must examine folklore, myth, religions, symbolisms and all these, to get a better psychological insight into the unconscious process.

Prabhupāda: So better psychology is that first of all human being or lower than human being. Lower than human being, they have got four principles—eating, sleeping, mating, and fearing—and human being extra, religion. Now which religion is higher, that you have to study. So that answer is given in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: the religious system which develops towards loving God, that is first class.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Śyāmasundara: These psychologists like Jung, all have different processes for finding out a person's unconscious mind. For instance, interpreting his dreams, or by sometimes they put a picture, they say, "How do you look at this picture? What do you see in this picture?"

Prabhupāda: But he does not know what is the standard status of the mind. He doesn't know. Even the psychiatrist, he is also not in sane mind. "Physician heal thyself." Because he's identifying himself with this body, so he is also insane. So that treatment will not perfect. How a diseased man can become a physician? Therefore the English word is, "Physician heal thyself."

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

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."

Prabhupāda: (aside:) You are feeling sleepy. So then sleep. Feeling disturbed. (break)

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

Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. That means one who is God conscious. He is mystic.

Śyāmasundara: But the modern interpretation of the word mystic is something different. People take "mystic" to mean someone who is very mysterious and magic.

Prabhupāda: Yes. It has come to that. God consciousness... Just like at the present moment, if a guru can show some miracles, just like that Sai Baba, (laughter) so they accept that he's mystic. Yes.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. That's the modern meaning of mystic.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Prabhupāda: He may reject, but God is everything. How he can reject God? The, the, these are the defects of speculators. They cannot give us tangible leading. That because they are defective themselves, so whatever interpretation they will give, all defective.

Hayagrīva: Oh, he would agree that God is everything.

Prabhupāda: That God is..., how he can reject? If God is everything, then how can he reject?

Philosophy Discussion on Origen:

Hayagrīva: As far as seeming contradictions and seeming absurdities in scripture are concerned, Origen considered these as stumbling blocks allowed by God to exist in order for man to go beyond the literal meaning. He says, "In some cases no useful meaning attaches to the obvious interpretation, but everything in scripture has a spiritual meaning, but not all of it has a literal meaning."

Prabhupāda: Literal... Generally, every word in the scripture there is literal meaning, but one who cannot understand properly because one does not hear from the proper person, he makes some interpretation. But there is no need of interpretation in the words of God. It may be that the words of God sometimes cannot be understood by ordinary person; therefore he requires to understand through the via-media of transparent guru.

Philosophy Discussion on Origen:

Prabhupāda: One has to accept, therefore, a guru to go through the scripture properly. Generally there is no ambiguity in the words of God, but due to our lack of perfect knowledge we sometimes cannot understand and try to interpret. But this is, this interpretation is not at all feasible, because imperfect person interpreting means whatever he interprets, that is imperfect. So the proper import of the words of scripture or words of God should be understood from a person who has realized God.

Hayagrīva: For Origen there are two rebirths. One is a baptism, which is something like an initiation, and then there is a complete purification, a rebirth in the spiritual world with Christ. So baptism is compared to a shadow of the ultimate rebirth, and when the soul is reborn with Christ, it receives a spiritual body like Christ and beholds Christ face to face.

Prabhupāda: Meaning is one, but interpreter are different. Just like even in the Bible it is said, "God created the universe." So that is a fact, God created. So unless you interpret in a different way, how you can say that the universe is created by some chunk and this way and that way? So we accept scripture in that sense, without any change; therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We cannot change the words of God. That is our principle. And interpretation with motive, there are so many interpreter, and that has spoiled the God consciousness of the human society.

Hayagrīva: Well this is rather strange, because Aquinas, his writings form the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church has always emphasized one meaning, which is interpreted by the Pope, by the head of the Church. The meaning is given by the Pope, of scripture, because...

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is...

Hayagrīva: But here he says that the scriptures may contain many meanings according to one's degree of realization.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Not many meaning. Meaning is one, but if one is not realized, then he can make many meanings. Otherwise meaning is one. What can be any other meaning? Suppose God created this universe. This is stated in the Bible, or in the Bhagavad-gītā the same thing is expressed in a different way, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8): "From Me everything emanates." So that's a fact, that everything is coming out from God's energy, so why there should be second meaning and second interpretation unless one is godless? What is the possible second meaning?