Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Jugglery of words (Lectures)

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

This dukṛn karaṇe, your grammatical jugglery of words, will not save you at the time of death. You rascal, you just worship Govinda, Govinda, Govinda. That is the instruction of Śaṅkarācārya also.
Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu says three times, harer nāma harer nāma harer nāma (CC Adi 17.21). Three times means giving too much stress. Just like we sometimes say, "You do this, do this, do this." That means no more denial. Finish all stress. So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final. So Śaṅkarācārya says, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate. Mūḍha, mūḍha I've several times explained. Mūḍha means rascal, ass. You are depending on your grammatical understanding, dukṛn karaṇe. Dukṛn, these are grammatical affix and prefix, pratya, prakaraṇa. So you are depending on this verbal root, that verbal root, and creating, interpreting your meaning in a different way. All this is nonsense. This dukṛn karaṇe, your grammatical jugglery of words, will not save you at the time of death. You rascal, you just worship Govinda, Govinda, Govinda. That is the instruction of Śaṅkarācārya also. Because he was a devotee, he was a great devotee. But he pretended to be an atheist because he was to deal with the atheists. Unless he presents himself as an atheist, the atheist followers will not hear him. Therefore he presented Māyāvāda philosophy for the time being. The Māyāvāda philosophy cannot be accepted eternally. The eternal philosophy is Bhagavad-gītā. That is the verdict.

Aham. Aham means Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. Now sometimes we make some grammatical jugglery of words, but I cannot understand.
Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 9, 1966:

I am an imperfect person. I cannot give you any knowledge. I cannot manufacture any knowledge. If I do that, then I shall deceive you. I can simply present before you the original knowledge. I can explain it in an understandable way but not deviating from the original text. Now, here it is clearly stated by the Supreme Personality of Godhead that na tu eva ahaṁ jātu (BG 2.12). Aham. Aham means Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. Now sometimes we make some grammatical jugglery of words, but I cannot understand. Now, aham, "myself," when I speak aham, or "myself," is applicable to me. When you speak, the aham is applicable to you. But that does not mean because there is a common understanding of myself between you and me, therefore I... Now that I and you become one. When you speak, you say, "I speak." When I say, I say, "I speak." That does not mean this "I" and that "I" becomes one. So Śrī Kṛṣṇa says like that, na tu aham.

We should always understand that we are meant for serving the supreme whole. That is our position. So this, this position, maintaining, and mental speculation, that "I am the Lord," by argument, by jugglery of words, the Lord says, Kṛṣṇa says, you should give up all these things.
Lecture on BG 2.55-58 -- New York, April 15, 1966:

Now, we should always understand that we are meant for serving the supreme whole. That is our position. So this, this position, maintaining, and mental speculation, that "I am the Lord," by argument, by jugglery of words, the Lord says, Kṛṣṇa says, you should give up all these things. Mano-gatān. Mano-gatān. There is another instruction in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ (SB 5.18.12). Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ: "If one is situated in pure devotional service of the Lord, then, whatever he may be, all the good qualities of the Lord will develop in him, will develop, all the good qualities." And harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ: "And one who is not a devotee of the Lord, however academically he may be educated, his qualification has no value." Why? Now, manorathena: "Because he's on the platform of mental speculation, and due to his mental speculation, he is sure to be influenced by this material nature." He's sure to. So if we want to be free from the influence of the material nature, then our habit of mental speculation may be given up. That is the instruction in this verse.

You can show by jugglery of words your academic qualification, but it will not take you to the right...
Lecture on BG 3.1-5 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1968:

Philosophical process... You can show by jugglery of words your academic qualification, but it will not take you to the right... We have seen many such philosophical speculators. They are simply talking in the meeting. But that's all. And if we take, study their private character it is less than ordinary man. Less than ordinary man. That will not help us in this age. You see? You may take some credit in a meeting, "Oh, he is a very nice speaker." So what is that if you become a nice speaker? What will help you in your spiritual realization? This is. If you do one minute's Hare Kṛṣṇa, it will give you immediate result. One second, if you chant or hear. This is so nice. Direct method. Immediate effect.

By the result one has to take account. Not by simply jugglery of words.
Lecture on BG 3.1-5 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1968:

Take for example our students. We may not be very much highly advanced. Admitting that, but at least if any gentleman comes, if he's sincere, he'll appreciate how pure they are. At least they are practiced. You see? So by the result, one has to see. But we have seen so many meditators, they cannot change even their daily nonsense habits. So what result they have obtained, they have achieved? I cannot understand? By the result one has to take account. Not by simply jugglery of words.

The so-called scientists, they are talking in jugglery of words, advancement.
Lecture on BG 3.25 -- Hyderabad, December 17, 1976:

But these fools, they do not take the suffering into consideration. They are making plans for more suffering. This is foolish civilization. They cannot... The so-called scientists, they are talking in jugglery of words, advancement. And as we were discussing this morning, any intelligent can ask, "So what you have solved? What kind of solution you have made of this problem of birth, death, old age and disease? Have you solved this problem?" That they will not say, "Yes." "Yes, we are trying after millions of years it may be possible." That is also... "It may be that we shall live forever." They say like that. Now, who is going to live for millions of years to see, to confirm your proposal? Everyone will be finished within fifty, sixty years. You will be... You rascal, you also will be finished. And who is going to see your resultant action?

Because he wants to be important man and he wants to show that "Here is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā," and they present some jugglery of words and mislead the people.
Lecture on BG 4.7-9 -- New York, July 22, 1966:

Guest: Swamiji, I suppose (indistinct) of people realize.

Prabhupāda: No. It, simply, simply we have to hear it as it is. Don't try to interpret in a different way. The, the whole mischief is that everyone has got his own theosophy. And Bhagavad-gītā is a popular book, and he wants to prove his own philosophy through Bhagavad-gītā. Because he wants to be important man and he wants to show that "Here is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā," and they present some jugglery of words and mislead the people.

How you can deny the living force behind this gigantic, mechanical arrangement? Call it material world, material machine, or whatever you may call. How you can deny? At least from your practical experience you cannot deny. You may put some jugglery of words, but the actual fact is this.
Lecture on BG 4.8 -- Montreal, June 14, 1968:

Similarly, the statement of Bhagavad-gītā, that mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10), this material world, this cosmic manifestation, is working very wonderfully, and controlling the moving and the not moving... We have got experience. Just like we are moving, man, animals. But there are certain other things, just like trees, mountains. They do not move. So moving or unmoving. But everyone is being controlled by the laws of nature. Carācaram. Cara means moving; acaram means not moving. Hetunānena kaunteya: "Because I am on the background," kaunteya, "my dear Arjuna, for this reason..." Hetunānena kaunteya.

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

Jagat, the progressive world, is parivartate, changing. In so many ways they are changing. This is the fact.

But how you can deny the living force behind this gigantic, mechanical arrangement? Call it material world, material machine, or whatever you may call. How you can deny? At least from your practical experience you cannot deny. You may put some jugglery of words, but the actual fact is this.

Just like when I say, "I want a glass of water," does it mean that you want a glass of water? No. My individuality, "I want a glass of water." But they are making, by jugglery of words, that when I say, "I want a glass of water," that means, "everyone wants a glass of water."
Lecture on BG 4.13-14 -- New York, August 1, 1966:

So actually, in the Bhagavad-gītā, the most important part is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In every verse, in every chapter, in every conclusion, you'll find Kṛṣṇa, the speaker of Bhagavad-gītā is giving stress on His personal self. Māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye 'pi syuḥ... (BG 9.32). Mām, this mām. Mām means "Me," "Unto Me." Kṛṣṇa says, "Unto Me." But there are many miscreants who are interpreting this mām as "everyone," as "everyone." Just like when I say, "I want a glass of water," does it mean that you want a glass of water? No. My individuality, "I want a glass of water." But they are making, by jugglery of words, that when I say, "I want a glass of water," that means, "everyone wants a glass of water." Is it a fact? Similarly, when Kṛṣṇa says, "I," they identify with the "I" themselves. That is their interpretation. That is misinterpretation.

So kāma, this kāma, lusty. "I am very learned scholar. I can give my opinion on the Bhagavad-gītā. I can translate it in a different way. I can screw out some meaning by jugglery of words, grammatical jugglery."
Lecture on BG 4.19 -- Bombay, April 8, 1974:

That is ācārya. So we have to accept. At the present moment, the ācārya, Kṛṣṇa, is instructing Arjuna. So Arjuna is ācārya. One who is speaking exactly like Arjuna, he's ācārya. Not that one is speaking nonsense according to his own opinion. What is he? What is his value? We are all defective. We cannot give our opinion. That is the disagreement with our preaching and others." We are preaching that nobody can give opinion on the Bhagavad-gītā if he does not come in the disciplic succession as it is spoken by Kṛṣṇa. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2). Otherwise it is naṣṭaḥ. Sa kāleneha yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa. It is lost. So kāma, this kāma, lusty. "I am very learned scholar. I can give my opinion on the Bhagavad-gītā. I can translate it in a different way. I can screw out some meaning by jugglery of words, grammatical jugglery.

Unless there is development of God consciousness, this universal ideas, oh, these are nonsense. There cannot be. It is all false, jugglery of words.
Lecture on BG 10.8 -- New York, January 6, 1967:

This is universal. As soon as you become Kṛṣṇa conscious, as soon as you become God conscious, then your real universal, ideal, universal consciousness develops. Otherwise it is all simply jugglery. There are so many doctrines of universal love, universal friendship, fraternity, but they are fighting, and they are killing simply, because there is no God consciousness. If you are universal, if you are after universal love, then how you can maintain regular slaughterhouse? How you can think that an American gentleman or lady is your countryman and not a cow, and not a goat, not a serpent? Where is your universal idea?

So unless there is development of God consciousness, this universal ideas, oh, these are nonsense. There cannot be. It is all false, jugglery of words. So first business is to understand your identity, identity of God, your relationship, and your action reformed in that way. Then there is question of universal, brotherhood, universal... Otherwise it is simply jugglery of words.

The demons, they do not know, this process. They speculate; they manufacture. Simply by jugglery of words they manufacture their truth.
Lecture on BG 16.7 -- Hawaii, February 3, 1975:

Therefore śāstra says, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintya, which is inconceivable, beyond your sense perception, don't try to argue and understand it and speculate. This is foolishness. It is not possible. Therefore we have to go to the guru. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet, samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). This is the process. But the demons, they do not know, this process. They speculate; they manufacture. Simply by jugglery of words they manufacture their truth. No. Satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi. That is in the big Bhāgavatam. You'll find. And what is satyam? Janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ tene brahma hṛdā... (SB 1.1.1). Everything is there.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

We don't manufacture anything, any jugglery of words, any magic or any new ideas of God. These nonsense things we do not do. We simply carry out the order of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and we simply repeat 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa. That's all.
Lecture on SB 1.2.5 -- Aligarh, October 9, 1976:

You become a guru. Don't manufacture ideas. Yenātmā samprasīdati. So is there any difficulty? No difficulty. The Bhagavad-gītā explains everything very nicely, how to become Kṛṣṇa conscious, how to worship Kṛṣṇa, how to understand Kṛṣṇa. Everything is explained there very lucidly. So people can take it very easily, and then he will be perfect. Then he'll not come... Mām upetya tu kaunteya duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam (BG 8.15). It is very easy. So take it very seriously. That is our propaganda. We don't manufacture anything, any jugglery of words, any magic or any new ideas of God. These nonsense things we do not do. We simply carry out the order of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and we simply repeat 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa. That's all. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. You can take it and also you can do it. You can also become guru. That we want.

"Always chanting about Me, and hearing about Me." Simple process. But the rascals will not take. They will make humbugs, jugglery of words: "This is meaning, this is meaning, this is meaning." Therefore they do not advance.
Lecture on SB 1.2.18 -- Vrndavana, October 29, 1972:

So this is the process of diminishing all dirty things within the heart. Śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ, hṛdy antaḥ-sthaḥ (SB 1.2.17). Kṛṣṇa is hṛdy antaḥ-sthaḥ, within your heart. Vidhunoti. He washes all dirty things. Kṛṣṇa is taking charge of washing your dirty things. Simply by hearing about, you... Why don't you take this opportunity? What is this nonsense? Kṛṣṇa simply says that "You hear about, from Me." Satataṁ kīrtayanto mām (BG 9.14). "Always chanting about Me, and hearing about Me." Simple process. But the rascals will not take. They will make humbugs, jugglery of words: "This is meaning, this is meaning, this is meaning." Therefore they do not advance. Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ (SB 7.5.31). The story of anchor. The anchor was not taken, and the whole night they rowed on the boat, and it was where it was there.

Vedānta philosophy does not mean to make some jugglery of words and deviate one from Kṛṣṇa. That is not Vedānta.
Lecture on SB 1.2.27 -- Vrndavana, November 7, 1972:

So ultimate end of knowledge is Kṛṣṇa. So Vedānta means the ultimate goal of knowledge is to know Kṛṣṇa. That is Vedānta. Vedānta does not mean anything else. Because Kṛṣṇa says, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ (BG 15.15). That is Vedānta. And He also confirms: vedānta-vid vedānta-kṛd ca aham. "I am the compiler of Vedānta philosophy, and therefore I know perfectly well what is Vedānta." Therefore if you follow the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, then you are completely in knowledge of the Vedānta. That's all. This is Vedānta philosophy. Vedānta philosophy does not mean to make some jugglery of words and deviate one from Kṛṣṇa. That is not Vedānta. That is misleading, bluffing. That is going on, in the name of Vedānta.

The devotees, they're not very much interested with the dry philosophical speculation because there is no acyuta-bhāva. There is no Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They, they, they have been described as vāk-cāturyam, simply jugglery of words, Māyāvādī philosophical speculation.
Lecture on SB 1.5.12-13 -- New Vrindaban, June 11, 1969:

That "Even there is advanced knowledge for getting liberation, and if there is no mention of acyuta..." Acyuta-bhāva. Acyuta-bhāva means bhakti, acyuta-bhāva. Just like here, in this temple, there is Acyuta-bhāva. Acyuta-bhāva means Kṛṣṇa consciousness. There may be another room in the neighborhood, but the difference between this room and that room: here the atmosphere is acyuta-bhāva, Kṛṣṇa conscious. The other room is not that. Similarly, Nārada says, "Even high, elevated discussions of knowledge, how to get out of this designated or decorated body to self-realization platform, spiritual realization, but if that is acyuta-bhāva-varjita, if there is no mention of Kṛṣṇa consciousness," Vyāsadeva, er, Nārada says, na śobhate, "that does not look very well." Therefore the devotees, they're not very much interested with the dry philosophical speculation because there is no acyuta-bhāva. There is no Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They, they, they have been described as vāk-cāturyam, simply jugglery of words, Māyāvādī philosophical speculation. There must be acyuta... We have got sufficient philosophy, but it is plus Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is the difference, Māyāvāda philosophy and our philosophy.

You have not created the sun, you so-called scientists. You can talk all jugglery of words only. But it is beyond your capacity to know what is the sun.
Lecture on SB 1.8.39 -- Los Angeles, May 1, 1973:

That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. You see the sunrise, immediately you can remember Kṛṣṇa. If you have read Bhagavad-gītā, it is stated there, prabhāsmi śaśi-sūryayoḥ: "I am the shining of the sun. I am the shining of the moon." So if you have learned how to see Kṛṣṇa, you can see in the sunshine Kṛṣṇa. You have not created the sunshine. You have not created the sun, you so-called scientists. You can talk all jugglery of words only. But it is beyond your capacity to know what is the sun. It is beyond your capacity. You cannot know. But you can know śāstra-yonitvāt. The Vedānta-sūtra says, through the śāstra.

Anyone who is thinking that "I am this combination of bones and blood or chemicals..." They will say some jugglery of words, combination of chemical. Take this chemical. No, that is not possible. Therefore it is my mistake to think that "I am a product of this material thing."
Lecture on SB 1.8.47 -- Los Angeles, May 9, 1973:

Now, you, daily you are slaughtering animals. Now, what do you see? The bones and the blood and the flesh and urine and the stool, after cutting this body. So these are the ingredients out of which this man has come or this animal has come. Take these ingredients and create another living entity. There is no answer. What do you think, scientist? These are the ingredients we will see. But can anyone manufacture a life? No, that is not possible. Therefore who are thinking, anyone who is thinking that "I am this combination of bones and blood or chemicals..." They will say some jugglery of words, combination of chemical. Take this chemical. No, that is not possible. Therefore it is my mistake to think that "I am a product of this material thing." That is nonsense. Sa eva go-kharaḥ (SB 10.84.13). Such person who is thinking like that, that "I am the combination of this matter," he is no better than the cows and the asses. Sa eva go-kharaḥ.

Now, in Kali-yuga, one who will simply play jugglery of words, he will be considered as very truthful.
Lecture on SB 1.15.46 -- Los Angeles, December 24, 1973:

Then udaraṁ-bharatā svārthaḥ satyatve dhārṣṭyam eva hi, dākṣyaṁ kuṭumba-bharaṇaṁ yaśo 'rthe dharma-sevanam. Udaraṁ-bharatā. The interest. I was speaking of interest. Now, in Kali-yuga, the interest will be if you can eat some day very sumptuously, then your all interest is fulfilled. That's all. Means people will be so hungry, so nothing to eat; therefore if they can eat some day very sumptuously, that will be fulfillment of all interests. And satyatve dhārṣṭyam eva hi. And one who will simply play jugglery of words, he will be considered as very truthful. Another, dākṣyaṁ kuṭumba-bharaṇam. One shall be considered very expert if he can maintain his family-wife and children. That means this will be difficult. It has already become difficult. To maintain wife and a few children, that is also a great burden at the present moment. Therefore nobody wants to marry. Evaṁ prajābhir duṣṭābhir ākīrṇe kṣiti-maṇḍale. In this way, when all the people will be infected by the poison of Kali-yuga, brahma-viṭ-kṣatra-śūdrāṇāṁ yo balī bhavitā nṛpaḥ.

Their so-called explanation that they have become God, that has been described by vāk-cāturya, jugglery of words, to befool another fool. That's all.
Lecture on SB 1.16.17 -- Los Angeles, January 12, 1974:

So these so-called gods are accepted by so-called devotees. These are all rascaldom. Therefore it is called māninaḥ. They are thinking, by mental speculation, that "I have become God." What you have got, power? What you have done that you have become God? But they are foolish. They do not calculate the value of his, strength of his becoming God. But they are thinking of... Therefore it is called māninaḥ. Now, you can think at your home that "I am the proprietor of the Bank of America." So you may become a crazy fellow like that. But to become proprietor of the Bank of America is different thing. But these foolish men will think like that. "I am God, I am moving the sun, I am moving..." This is their meditation. Perhaps you know. These rascals, these dogs, not gods, they think like that: "I am moving the sun, I am moving the earth..." Therefore it is called vimukta-māninaḥ. Mānina, thinking, foolishly thinking. Ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninaḥ.

Why they are thinking foolishly? We see they are advanced in knowledge. They can put forward so many words about becoming God. That has been described by Śrīdhara Svāmī, vāk-cāturya. Their so-called explanation that they have become God, that has been described by vāk-cāturya, jugglery of words, to be fool another fool. That's all.

Ultimately Śaṅkarācārya said, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindam, bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha mate. You rascal, you just worship Govindam. And this jugglery of words, grammatical jugglery, will not help you at the time of death.
Lecture on SB 5.5.14 -- Vrndavana, November 2, 1976:

We should simply remember this fact, whether this person is speaking the same thing as Kṛṣṇa says, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, as Rāmānujācārya says, even Śaṅkarācārya. He, superficially he might have said something which is not understandable, but he also followed the same thing, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha. But due to unfavorable time, he had to say about impersonal feature. But ultimately he said, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindam, bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha mate. You rascal, you just worship Govindam. And this jugglery of words, grammatical jugglery, will not help you at the time of death. Nahi nahi rakṣati dukṛn-karaṇe(?). If you misinterpret that "With this grammatical addition or grammatical alteration this meaning can be derived." No. That is mal-interpretation. Real understanding is bhaja govindam. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. Lord Brahmā, he also says, govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi. And Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, he is incarnation of Śaṅkara, he also saying, govindam, bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam. And we are following the same thing, so that is guru-paramparā, that is real knowledge. So don't approach a cheater, but actually approach a teacher, not a cheater. Then bhakti-yoga will be... That teacher is guru, and he is representative of Kṛṣṇa. He does not say anything else.

Immediately Caitanya Mahāprabhu embraced the brāhmaṇa: "You are reading Bhagavad-gītā. It is not the literacy or education or knowing grammar and putting jugglery of words. That is not reading. If one feels what is the purport of Bhagavad-gītā, that is reading Bhagavad-gītā."
Lecture on SB 5.5.16 -- Vrndavana, November 4, 1976:

While Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was touring in the southern India, in the Ranganātha temple He saw one brāhmaṇa. He was reading Bhagavad-gītā. So many persons were coming and criticizing him, "Well, brāhmaṇa, how you are reading Bhagavad-gītā?" So he did not reply. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu approached him and He saw the brāhmaṇa was reading Bhagavad-gītā and tears gliding down. So He could understand that "Here is a pure devotee." So He asked him, "Well, brāhmaṇa, what you are reading?" So he said, "Sir, I cannot read. I am illiterate. I am illiterate and I cannot read what is Bhagavad-gītā, especially Sanskrit." His neighbors were criticizing him. They knew that "This brāhmaṇa is illiterate, and he is making a show of reading Bhagavad-gītā." So they were criticizing. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He could understand that "Here is a pure devotee."

So He asked him that "What you are reading?" He said frankly, "Sir, I cannot read. I have no education. Illiterate." "Then? It appears that you are reading something. And if you are illiterate, why you are reading Bhagavad-gītā?" "No, my Guru Mahārāja said. He knew that I am illiterate, but still, my Guru Mahārāja said that 'You read every day the ślokas of Bhagavad-gītā.' So on account of his order, although I do not know anything what is written there, I am trying to read." "Oh, that's very nice. You are carrying the order of your Guru Mahārāja. But it appears that you are crying also. How you are crying if you cannot read?" "Yes, Sir, that's... Because as soon as I take this Bhagavad-gītā in my hand I see the picture that Arjuna is asking Kṛṣṇa to place his chariot in the warfield, and Kṛṣṇa is driving the chariot by his order. So this is creating some feeling in me: 'Oh, Kṛṣṇa is so kind, so nice, that although He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is carrying the order of His devotee as servant.' When I feel this, I cry: 'Oh, how Kṛṣṇa is kind. How Kṛṣṇa is merciful.' " So immediately Caitanya Mahāprabhu embraced him: "You are reading Bhagavad-gītā. It is not the literacy or education or knowing grammar and putting jugglery of words. That is not reading. If one feels what is the purport of Bhagavad-gītā, that is reading Bhagavad-gītā."

Māyāvādīs are attractive. They are very educated. They can put things in jugglery of words. That capacity they have got.
Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976:

So long we are aparādhī, offender, there is no possibility of understanding Kṛṣṇa. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore has warned, that "Don't hear about Kṛṣṇa or any transcendental subject matter from a Māyāvādī." Māyāvādī-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa (CC Madhya 6.169). If you hear from a Māyāvādī, then your advancement in devotional service is finished. Haya sarva-nāśa. You should be very, very careful.

avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇaṁ
pūtaṁ hari-kathāmṛtam
śravaṇaṁ na kartavyaṁ
sarpocchiṣṭa-payo yathā

If one is not Vaiṣṇava, don't be liberal, that "Oh, what is the wrong? He is talking Bhāgavatam." But he does not know who can speak Bhāgavatam. Here in Vṛndāvana there is a big Māyāvādī sannyāsī. He speaks on Bhāgavatam and speaks all nonsense, but there is a big crowd go to hear him. Yes.

So Māyāvādīs are attractive. They are very educated. They can put things in jugglery of words. That capacity they have got.

Even Śaṅkarācārya, he says: "Jugglery of words will not save you. This is my final instruction."
Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976:

Even Śaṅkarācārya, he also says sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa. Nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. Don't bring Nārāyaṇa in this material world. So... Bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha mate. "You rascal, you have studied so much grammar. Now give up all this. Bhaja govindam, govinda bhaja." Nahi nahi rakṣati dukṛn-karaṇe: "Your grammatical knowledge, du-pratyaya, kṛn-pratyaya, liṅ-pratyaya, din-pratyaya, oh, this will not do." Bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate, prāpte sannihite karaṇa, hita kāla-marane: "This is... Jugglery of words will not save you. This is my final instruction." Māyāvādam asac-chastraṁ pracchanaṁ bauddham ucyate. Kalau brahma-mūrtinā. He has some business to do that, but actually, we should not hear about..., especially Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya avoided to write any comments on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He has written comments on Bhagavad-gītā, but he has completely avoided to write any comment on Bhāgavata because he knew that "I am doing the wrong thing. How can I touch Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam?" Śrīmad-bhāgavatam amalaṁ purāṇaṁ yad vaiṣṇavānāṁ priyam. He has purposefully avoided. And the ācārya, other ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī and up to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, everyone has accepted, Śrīmad-bhāgavatam amalaṁ purāṇam.

Dr. Radhakrishnan is well known as a big philosopher, and Aurobindo, he's also known as great speculator, but he rejected. Yes, they should be rejected because it is vāyasa-tīrtha. What is the use, jugglery of words? It has no fact, all imaginary. All imaginary.
Lecture on SB 7.9.18 -- Mayapur, February 25, 1976:

There are literatures very artistical. Na tad vacaś citra-padaṁ harer yaśo pragṛṇīta karhicit. But there is no glorification of the Lord; simply literary presentation. Such kind of literature is described, tad vāyasa-tīrtham: "This kind of literature is preferred by the class of men who are like crows." Crows. But the Vedic literature, which is sung by Lord Brahmā or Lord Śiva or a devotee, even that is broken language presented, tad gṛṇanti śṛṇvanti sādhavaḥ: "They'll be accepted by saintly person. They'll sing it and they'll accept it." That is the secret of success. If your literature is exactly following the mahājano yena sa gataḥ, then it will be liked by highly advanced saintly person. And if it is a presentation of mundane literary career... Therefore that gentleman has rejected even Aurobindo and Dr... Others he has rejected: "They are useless." Other commentation on Bhāgavata, he has... But he has rejected even Aurobindo and Dr. Radhakrishnan. Dr. Radhakrishnan is well known as a big philosopher, and Aurobindo, he's also known as great speculator, but he rejected. Yes, they should be rejected because it is vāyasa-tīrtha. What is the use, jugglery of words? It has no fact, all imaginary. All imaginary.

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

Kṛṣṇa is not subjected to this jugglery of words. Kṛṣṇa keeps always His independence, and if you fulfill the condition, if you surrender unto Him, then He will be revealed unto you. Not by your jugglery of words.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 9, 1973:

So Kṛṣṇa is not subjected to this logic, mīmāṁsā, grammar. No. Kṛṣṇa is transcendental. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says,

bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ
bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate
prāpte sannihite maraṇe
na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛñ-karaṇe

Ḍukṛn, du-prata, kṛñ-prata, these are grammatical jugglery. So these Māyāvādīs, they coin words by grammatical jugglery. This word may be meant, may be meaning like this. They're all grammatical jugglery. Then nyāya jugglery. So they take advantage of this jugglery. Kṛṣṇa is not subjected to this jugglery of words. Kṛṣṇa keeps always His independence, and if you fulfill the condition, if you surrender unto Him, then He will be revealed unto you. Not by your jugglery of words. That is not possible.

Not dry philosophy, simply jugglery of words. That is garbage. So that cannot, that kind of literature. Any literature, simply, simply trying to describe the glories of the ananta. Those who are sādhu, those who are devotees, they hear that literature.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 10, 1973:

Tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo. That type of literature which is describing Kṛṣṇa, nāmāny anantasya yaśo 'ṅkitāni yat. Yatra, in which, in that literature where simply there is glorification of the ananta, the Supreme Lord. Not dry philosophy, simply jugglery of words. That is garbage. So that cannot, that kind of literature. Any literature, simply, simply trying to describe the glories of the ananta. Yaśo aṅki, yaśaḥ aṅkitāni yat śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti sādhavaḥ. Those who are sādhu, those who are devotees, they hear that literature. They hear that literature. Otherwise, another, the next verse, I forget now. Tad vāyasaṁ tīrtham, it has been described, tad vāyasaṁ tīrtham uśanti mānasā (SB 1.5.10). So this kind of literature, even it is not properly, grammatically correct, tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo yasmin prati-ślokam, abaddha (SB 1.5.11). That, writing Sanskrit śloka, it requires very high education. It is not that whatever I write, three miles, one line, two lines, no. There is some metric system, canda, so saita (?). So the, Śukadeva Gosvāmī says, even it is not properly composed, but because there is anantasya, anantasya guṇani, the glorification ananta, the Supreme, śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti sādhavaḥ. Those who are sādhus, actually, they accept it. It doesn't matter if there is little grammatical mistake or some poetical discrepancies. There are literary rules and regulation. So śāstra says, it doesn't matter, even there is not perfectly, Śaṅkarācārya also says, na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛṅ-kāraṇe. You cannot be saved by simply grammatical efficiency. No. The grammatical efficiency is secondary. Real thing is how much you are feeling for Kṛṣṇa. That is wanted. Nāmāny anantasya yaśo 'ṅkitāni yat śṛṇvanti gṛṇanti gāyanti sādhavaḥ.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Just like we are accustomed to do: "I think the meaning should be like this," grammatical or this way or that way, jugglery of words. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu directly accuses Śaṅkarācārya that anyone who is hearing or trying to understand the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, he is going to hell.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967:

Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu is directly challenging Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī. Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī belonged to the Śaṅkara-sampradāya, Śaṅkara school of thought. Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu is directly challenging that gauna-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya. Ācārya means Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya has made a commentary which is called Śārīraka-bhāṣya of Vedānta-sūtra. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says this Śārīraka-bhāṣya, gauna-vṛttye, indirectly... Just like we are accustomed to do: "I think the meaning should be like this," grammatical or this way or that way, jugglery of words. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu directly accuses Śaṅkarācārya that the commentary which he has made indirectly, if we read that commentary or if we hear that commentary, then tāhāra śravaṇe nāśa haya sarva kārya, then anyone who is hearing or trying to understand the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, he is going to hell. He's not only wasting his time, but he's going to hell. Sarva nāśa. Sarva nāśa means "all auspicity lost." Why? Why lost? Lost because as soon as you indulge in the reading of the Śaṅkara-bhāṣya, the whole program is you have to think that "I am God." So if I am God, then who is else God, that I have to worship? That means the prospect of devotional service, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, is killed forever. Such rascal will never be able to come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore he says, haya sarva nāśa.

"When death will be nearer, your this grammatical interpretation, arguing, jugglery of words will not save you, will not save you. You please worship Govinda." That is Śaṅkarācārya's instruction.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He's covered devotee. His aim was to bring men to the standard of devotional service, but the time and circumstances in which he was preaching, he could not place his real object because they were unable to understand. At last, at the end of his life, he composed so many poetries in praise of Vṛndāvana-līlā, and especially his very famous Catpar pandika (?), that is, he has stated,

bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ
bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate
prāpte sannihite kāla maraṇe
na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛñ-karaṇe

"My dear foolish brothers, you kindly worship Kṛṣṇa, Govinda..." Thrice he has said, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate. Mūḍha-mate means "You foolish nonsense, you kindly worship Govinda." Why? Now, prāpte sannihite kāla maraṇe: "When death will be nearer, your this grammatical interpretation, ḍukṛñ karaṇe, this pratha (?), that pratha (?), arguing, jugglery of words, will not save you, will not save you. You please worship Govinda." That is his instruction. And there are many others.

If a person, strong in arguments and strong in presenting things in jugglery of words, oh, the neophyte, his idea can be changed.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.113-17 -- San Francisco, February 22, 1967:

We are not expert. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī means neophytes, neophytes who are not conversant with the conclusion of the Vedas. They have got some, I mean to say, faith. That's all. But faith can be changed. Any... If a person, strong in arguments and strong in presenting things in jugglery of words, oh, the neophyte, his idea can be changed. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu warns, therefore, in the Vaiṣṇava philosophy that "You should not worship any other demigods." It does not mean that you should show disrespect to demigods. No. That is not. But because he is in the lower stage, if he is allowed to worship or to show respect to the demigods, he will think that he is also like Kṛṣṇa. "Kṛṣṇa is another demigod, and this Candra is another demigod, Śiva is another demigod."

Why not purified? Because they have no shelter. So in spite of their so much austerity, penance, Vedānta reading and jugglery of words, they come back again to the hospital.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.29 -- San Francisco, January 21, 1967:

They are being kicked by the material nature, still, they have no sense. "I am God. I am God." These fools these rascals have created havoc in the world. Godlessness. So Bhāgavata says that "They are," in a very polished language, that "their intelligence is not," I mean to say, "pure." Aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ. Buddha means, buddhi means intelligence, and aviśuddha, not purified. Why not purified? Because they have no shelter. So in spite of their so much austerity, penance, Vedānta reading and jugglery of words, they come back again to the hospital. That's all. That is their business. So ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas tvayy asta bhāvād aviśuddha... (SB 10.2.32). They are simply thinking they are liberated. This is not liberation. Liberation means to have Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is liberation.

Just like an expert lawyer, he can get out of the entanglement of law by jugglery of words and interpretation, he is called a big lawyer, similarly, there are philosophers who can put different theories and not admit the existence of God.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967:

Just like an expert lawyer, he can get out of the entanglement of law by jugglery of words and interpretation, he is called a big lawyer, similarly, there are philosophers who can put different theories and not admit the existence of God. So Śaṅkarācārya's real purpose was no existence of God, because he had a very thankless task. He was dealing with the persons who are Buddhists. They did not believe anything except matter. So for them, to establish that there is God, it is very difficult. Therefore he adopted this means that "There is no separate God. We are all God. You are God, I am God." And a demonic person, if he is addressed, "Oh, you are God," oh, he becomes very happy because he does not become responsible to any higher authority. He becomes God. He can do anything. He can perform any nonsense. Nobody is going to punish him. It is very nice theory, that "I have become God. Because I have no more..."

General Lectures

Suppose I am very expert speaker, I can present things very nicely—but without any substance. Oh, that won't help you. Simply by jugglery of words, if I can captivate you, oh, that won't help you.
Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

This is a verse from scripture, that tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ, if you simply go on arguing about spiritual matters—"This is not, this is not, this is not, yes, this is not..." I say something; you say something. No, no, no. You cannot realize spiritual objects simply by this speculation, argument. Our argument or logical, I mean to say, strength has no access in the spiritual world. The Vedic mantra says, nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena: "Atma, the supreme self, cannot be realized pravacanena." Suppose I am very expert speaker, I can present things very nicely—but without any substance. Oh, that won't help you. Simply by jugglery of words, if I can captivate you, oh, that won't help you. Nāyam ātmā pravacanena. This is pravacana.

Join, chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and dance, and you'll realize. Very simple method. You haven't got to understand any high standard of philosophy or jugglery of words, this or that. Simple thing.
Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968:

We are not sentimentalists, that we are simply dancing. The dancing has got great value; that, if you dance with us, you'll feel. It is not that some crazy fellows are dancing. No. The most intelligent persons, they are dancing. It is so nicely made that even a boy like here, he is a boy, he can take part. Universal. Join, chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and dance, and you'll realize. Very simple method. You haven't got to understand any high standard of philosophy or jugglery of words, this or that. Simple thing. What is simple thing? God is great, everyone knows, and we are part and parcel of the great. So when we are combined with the great, we are also great.

We want to understand this simple philosophy in so many jugglery of words. That's all. So if you want to learn in jugglery of words, then this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not lacking. We have got volumes of books of philosophy.
Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968:

People are not inclined to surrender; therefore he has to learn so many things. Just like a child, he has simply a feeling of surrender to the parents, he's happy. There is no need of learning philosophy how to live very happily. The child is completely dependent on the care of parents and he's happy. Simple philosophy. But because we have advanced in civilization, in knowledge, therefore we want to understand this simple philosophy in so many jugglery of words. That's all. So if you want to learn in jugglery of words, then this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not lacking. We have got volumes of books of philosophy. But if you accept this simple process, that we have to... God is great and we are part and parcel; therefore my duty is to serve and surrender unto God. That's all. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu, without discussing all the constitutional position, philosophy, knowledge, and so many other things, yoga system, He immediately begins that the constitutional position of the living entity is to serve the supreme whole. That is... That is the beginning of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's teaching. That means where the teachings of Bhagavad-gītā ended, Caitanya Mahāprabhu begins from that position.

"By your grammatical jugglery of words nonsense, you cannot be saved. You rascal, just engage yourself in the loving service of Govinda." This is Śaṅkarācārya's advice, although he was impersonalist.
Lecture -- Bombay, September 25, 1973:

...without being wise, nobody can surrender to Kṛṣṇa. Mūḍhas, rascals, they cannot. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). These are the qualification, who does not surrender to Kṛṣṇa. Duṣkṛtina, narādhama. "Oh, how he is narādhama? He is M.A., Ph.D., D.H.C., T.H.C. How he is narādhama?" Māyayāpahṛta-jñānā: his knowledge has no value because he does not know Kṛṣṇa. These M.A., Ph.D.'s will not help me. Śaṅkarācārya said, na hi na hi rakṣati ḍu-kṛñ-karaṇe. "By your grammatical jugglery of words nonsense, you cannot be saved." Bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate: "You rascal, just engage yourself in the loving service of Govinda." This is Śaṅkarācārya's advice, although he was impersonalist.

Philosophy Discussions

Jugglery of words. It has no meaning. This argument is called in Sanskrit kaka-tal-nyāya.
Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: It is not exactly the way it is. It says in the Vedic śāstras that the soul is the master of the body. Therefore how can you say that the body is working independently? This body, I am now liking to place my hand here, so I am desiring and the hand is there, not that all of a sudden my hand, by not desiring, it is coming...

Śyāmasundara: He would say the act of your desiring and the act of the hand coming are simultaneous but they are separate.

Prabhupāda: Jugglery of words. It has no meaning.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the example of the rock falling in the water. He would say that the water separating and the rock falling are two separate acts. Neither one affects the other.

Prabhupāda: This is nonsense. This argument is called in Sanskrit kaka-tal-nyāya. There was a tal tree, and one crow came, and immediately the fruit fell down. And there were two arguers: one said that the crow sat down on the fruit and it was so light it fell down, and the other said no, the crow was trying to sit down on the fruit but in the meantime the fruit fell and he could not sit. It is like that. It may be coincidence, the crow was just trying to sit on the fruit and the fruit fell. But these people's answer is no, the crow first sat down, then is was fallen. Another says no, the fruit has fallen down; therefore the crow could not sit. So this kind of argument has no value.

What is that law in the mind, you may think or may not think, the law will act. Simply speculation. It has no meaning. It is called jugglery of words, that's all.
Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: Well, that is imperfect human society. But nature's law, God's law, is not like that. Nature's law: just like fire burns; it burns everywhere. It is fact, perpetually. It is not that in certain cases it burns and in certain cases it does not. It burns. Even a child touches the fire, it will burn. No consideration. Just like in human law, a child steals and an adult steals. Court excuses, "He is a child. Let him be." But nature's law is not like that. The fire, whether adult touches or a child touches, it must burn. That is nature's law.

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.

He says that reality? A jugglery of words, that's all.
Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Prabhupāda: He cannot give any definition of reality because he has not experienced. He has not perfectly experienced, so how he can give the definition of reality? What definition he is giving, that is not reality. He has no experience. He is developing experience. So how he can give a definition of reality?

Śyāmasundara: Actually, he is defining the process.

Prabhupāda: What is that process?

Śyāmasundara: The process is to understand reality, but he is not describing reality.

Prabhupāda: He says that reality?

Śyāmasundara: He says that reality is the stream of consciousness or the flux of life.

Prabhupāda: A jugglery of words, that's all.

What is the difference, "how it is" and "what it is"? What is the difference? It is simply jugglery of words. If I can say how it is, I can say what it is.
Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Prabhupāda: Language is a sort of expression to understand reality. Language is not reality.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says that propositions or statements of ideas provide merely the form, telling us not what things are but how they are, but only how they are.

Prabhupāda: As well as what they are. If they are how they are, then what they are can also be explained.

Śyāmasundara: Just like if I describe this picture, I cannot really say what it is, but only how it is, what it is like, how it is.

Prabhupāda: What is the difference, "how it is" and "what it is"? What is the difference? It is simply jugglery of words. If I can say how it is, I can say what it is.

That is jugglery of word. Psychoanalysis, nobody will, can understand, a common man. Psychoanalysis, if there is meaning, that there is supreme controller, that is psychoanalysis.
Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: So what is his reality? Infantile conception of God, but what he is, except the child? Huh? He is also planning something. That is also childish. So how he becomes more than a child? He cannot give us any definite program by which everyone will be hopeful.

Hayagrīva: Well, he felt psychoanalysis was the answer.

Prabhupāda: That is jugglery of word. Psychoanalysis, nobody will, can understand, a common man. Psychoanalysis, if there is meaning, that there is supreme controller, that is psychoanalysis. We see everywhere controller, so it is natural. This is psychoanalysis, that there is a supreme controller. That is natural. Why defying this fact?

Page Title:Jugglery of words (Lectures)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Labangalatika
Created:27 of Sep, 2009
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=41, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:41