To become God is not easy thing. There are some qualification, yesterday we discussed, that He must be the richest, He must be the most powerful, He must be the most famous, He must be the most learned, He must be the most beautiful, and He must be the most renounced. This is the definition of God. A poor man, begging from door to door, he cannot become God, as it is misconceived, daridra-nārāyaṇa. Why Nārāyaṇa can be daridra? What is this nonsense? He is the richest. He is the richest. And why He can, He will be daridra? The argument is forwarded that "God is in everyone's heart; therefore everyone is God." What is this argument? Everyone's heart, God is there. God said, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). Where God says that because īśvara, the Supreme Being, is situated in everyone's heart, therefore everyone is God? What is this argument? Where Kṛṣṇa says that because īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61), therefore everyone is God? Is that very sound argument?
Misconceive
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Canto 1
There is no difference between the Lord's Self and the Lord's transcendental body. The expansions execute differential activities. When the Lord, however, appears in His person as Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, His other plenary portions also join in Him by His inconceivable potency called yogamāyā, and thus the Lord Kṛṣṇa of Vṛndāvana is different from the Lord Kṛṣṇa of Mathurā or the Lord Kṛṣṇa of Dvārakā. The virāṭ-rūpa of Lord Kṛṣṇa is also different from Him, by His inconceivable potency. The virāṭ-rūpa exhibited on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra is the material conception of His form. Therefore it should be understood that when Lord Kṛṣṇa was apparently killed by the bow and arrow of the hunter, the Lord left His so-called material body in the material world. The Lord is kaivalya, and for Him there is no difference between matter and spirit because everything is created from Him. Therefore His quitting one sort of body or accepting another body does not mean that He is like the ordinary living being. All such activities are simultaneously one and different by His inconceivable potency. When Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira was lamenting the possibility of His disappearance, it was just in pursuance of a custom of lamenting the disappearance of a great friend, but factually the Lord never quits His transcendental body, as is misconceived by less intelligent persons. Such less intelligent persons have been condemned by the Lord Himself in Bhagavad-gītā, and they are known as the mūḍhas. That the Lord left His body means that He left again His plenary portions in the respective dhāmas (transcendental abodes), as He left His virāṭ-rūpa in the material world.
SB Canto 2
The Supreme Lord is not impersonal, as misconceived by less intelligent thinkers. Rather, He is the Supreme person, as confirmed in all authentic Vedic literatures. But His personality is different from what we can conceive. It is stated here that Brahmājī acts as His genitals and that the Mitrā-varuṇas are His two testicles. This means that as a person He is complete with all bodily organs, but they are of different types with different potencies. When the Lord is described as impersonal, therefore, it should be understood that His personality is not exactly the type of personality found within our imperfect speculation. One can, however, worship the Lord even by seeing the hills and mountains or the ocean and the sky as different parts and parcels of the gigantic body of the Lord, the virāṭ-puruṣa. The virāṭ-rūpa, as exhibited by Lord Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna, is a challenge to the unbelievers.
Nāradajī is one of the liberated souls, and after his liberation he was known as Nārada; otherwise, before his liberation, he was simply a son of a maidservant. The questions may be asked why Nāradajī was not aware of the Supreme Lord and why he mis-conceived Brahmājī to be the Supreme Lord, although factually he was not. A liberated soul is never bewildered by such a mistaken idea, so why did Nāradajī ask all those questions just like an ordinary man with a poor fund of knowledge? There was such bewilderment in Arjuna also, although he is eternally the associate of the Lord. Such bewilderment in Arjuna or in Nārada takes place by the will of the Lord so that other, nonliberated persons may realize the real truth and knowledge of the Lord. The doubt arising in the mind of Nārada about Brahmājī's becoming all-powerful is a lesson for the frogs in the well, that they may not be bewildered in misconceiving the identity of the Personality of Godhead (even by comparison to a personality like Brahmā, so what to speak of ordinary men who falsely pose themselves as God or an incarnation of God). The Supreme Lord is always the Supreme, and as we have tried to establish many times in these purports, no living being, even up to the standard of Brahmā, can claim to be one with the Lord. One should not be misled when people worship a great man as God after his death as a matter of hero worship.
There is no necessity of tracing out the history of when the living entity desired this. But the fact is that as soon as he desired it, he was put under the control of ātma-māyā by the direction of the Lord. Therefore the living entity in his material condition is dreaming falsely that this is "mine" and this is "I." The dream is that the conditioned soul thinks of his material body as "I" or falsely thinks that he is the Lord and that everything in connection with that material body is "mine." Thus only in dream does the misconception of "I" and "mine" persist life after life. This continues life after life, as long as the living entity is not purely conscious of his identity as the subordinate part and parcel of the Lord.
In his pure consciousness, however, there is no such misconceived dream, and in that pure conscious state the living entity does not forget that he is never the Lord, but that he is eternally the servitor of the Lord in transcendental love.
The illusioned living entity appears in so many forms offered by the external energy of the Lord. While enjoying in the modes of material nature, the encaged living entity misconceives, thinking in terms of "I" and "mine."
The different positions of the living entities in the material world under multifarious manifestations of bodies are due to the misconception of "mine" and "I." The karmī thinks of this world as "mine," and the jñānī thinks "I am" everything. The whole material conception of politics, sociology, philanthropy, altruism, etc., conceived by the conditioned souls is on the basis of this misconceived "I" and "mine," which are products of a strong desire to enjoy material life. Identification with the body and the place where the body is obtained under different conceptions of socialism, nationalism, family affection, and so on and so forth is all due to forgetfulness of the real nature of the living entity, and the whole misconception of the bewildered living entity can be removed by the association of Śukadeva Gosvāmī and Mahārāja Parīkṣit, as all this is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
Misconceiving one thing for another thing is called illusion. For example, accepting a rope as a snake is illusion, but the rope is not false. The rope, as it exists in the front of the illusioned person, is not at all false, but the acceptance is illusory. Therefore the wrong conception of accepting this material manifestation as being divorced from the energy of the Lord is illusion, but it is not false. And this illusory conception is called the reflection of the reality in the darkness of ignorance. Anything that appears as apparently not being "produced out of My energy" is called māyā.
SB Canto 3
The simple process of self-realization for every living entity is described here. The first principle to be understood is that this world is a product of the supreme will. There is an identity of this world with the Supreme Lord. This identity is accepted in a misconceived way by the impersonalists; they say that the Supreme Absolute Truth, transforming Himself into the universe, loses His separate existence. Thus they accept the world and everything in it to be the Lord. That is pantheism, wherein everything is considered to be the Lord. This is the view of the impersonalist. But those who are personal devotees of the Lord take everything to be the property of the Supreme Lord. Everything, whatever we see, is the manifestation of the Supreme Lord; therefore, everything should be engaged in the service of the Lord. This is oneness.
It should not be misunderstood that because the Supersoul is dwelling within the heart of a living entity, the individual soul has become equal to Him. The equality of the Supersoul and the individual soul is misconceived by the impersonalist. Here it is distinctly mentioned that the individual soul should be recognized in relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The method of worshiping the individual soul is described here as either giving charitable gifts or behaving in a friendly manner, free from any separatist outlook. The impersonalist sometimes accepts a poor individual soul as being daridra-nārāyaṇa, meaning that Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has become poor. This is a contradiction. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full in all opulences. He can agree to live with a poor soul or even with an animal, but this does not make Him poor.
In Bhagavad-gītā it is said that one has to work to satisfy Yajña, or Viṣṇu, for any work done without the purpose of satisfying the Supreme Personality of Godhead is a cause of bondage. In the conditioned state a living entity, accepting his body as himself, forgets his eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead and acts on the interest of his body. He takes the body as himself, his bodily expansions as his kinsmen, and the land from which his body is born as worshipable. In this way he performs all sorts of misconceived activities, which lead to his perpetual bondage in repetition of birth and death in various species.
SB Canto 4
Although it is misconceived that formerly the monarchial government was autocratic, from the description of this verse it appears that not only was King Uttānapāda a rājarṣi, but before installing his beloved son Dhruva on the throne of the empire of the world, he consulted his ministerial officers, considered the opinion of the public, and also personally examined Dhruva's character. Then the King installed him on the throne to take charge of the affairs of the world.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Adi-lila
Māyā's influence is so strong that even learned scholars and spiritualists are also covered by māyā and think themselves to be as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Actually, however, to free oneself from the influence of māyā one must surrender to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as Kṛṣṇa also states in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.14): mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te. It is to be concluded, therefore, that Lord Viṣṇu does not belong to this material creation but to the spiritual world. To misconceive Lord Viṣṇu to have a material body or to equate Him with the demigods is the most offensive blasphemy against Lord Viṣṇu, and offenders against the lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu cannot advance in spiritual knowledge. They are called māyayāpahṛta-jñāna, or those whose knowledge has been stolen by the influence of illusion.
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
So two ways—one way is this entanglement, this kind of happy life, household life. People, 99.9%, they are after this happiness. It is described very nicely in this verse, ato gṛha-kṣetra-sutāpta-vittair janasya moho 'yam ahaṁ mameti (SB 5.5.8). The idea is that this material world, we are entangled with this body and anything belonging to the body. We are misconceiving that "This body I am, and anything in relation with the body is mine." That is going on in different name—family, society, community, nation, so on, so on, country. The basic principle is that "I am this body," and anything in relationship with this body, we are concerned with these two things. There are thousands and thousands of women, but one woman or one man with whom I have got bodily relationship, I think "She is my wife," "He is my husband." This is due to bodily relationship. And the attachment increases the more...
| Page Title: | Misconceive |
| Compiler: | Deepika, Labangalatika, Visnu Murti |
| Created: | 17 of Dec, 2008 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=11, CC=1, OB=0, Lec=2, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 14 |