Not God (Lectures, Other)

Expressions researched:
"not god" |"not the Supreme Personality of Godhead" |"not the Supreme" |"not the supreme enjoyer" |"so-called bhagavan"

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

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

So the atheist class men, just like Hiraṇyakaśipu, who always challenges God, in spite of so many things wherein we can see God, they deny to see God; therefore God comes before them as death. So everyone has to meet death. So God is there. And you are seeing. But because we are atheist class of men, we are denying, "There is not God." So Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu says that, "After all, you have to meet with God at the time of death. So before death, why don't you see God in so many ways?" That is Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. The science of devotional service which is giving you indication how to see God always and everywhere. Go on reading.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 21, 1972:

It is not very difficult. You believe it. You be convinced on the statement that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1).

Īśvara means controller, governor. So there are governors, many governors in your country, but there are not supreme governor. Everyone is governor. You are also governor, or īśvara, controller. But not the supreme controller. Our message is that here in this material world, there are many controllers, many governors, many īśvaras, but nobody is the supreme īśvara. Supreme īśvara means He has no controller over Him. He has no controller over Him. He's the supreme controller. Here, everyone is controller, but he has got another controller over him. But even big, big demigods... Just like Indra, Candra, Sūrya, Vāyu, Varuṇa, they have also controller. Even Lord Brahmā. He's also controlled. Only Kṛṣṇa or Kṛṣṇa-tattva, Viṣṇu-tattva, He's not controlled. He's the supreme controller.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 1, 1973:

When we are actually brahma-bhūtaḥ, as explained by Caitanya Mahāprabhu, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ (BG 15.7). That is self-realization. When we understand perfectly well that "I am eternal servant of God," servant... I'm not God; I'm servant of God. But one cannot be servant of God without becoming God. That they do not know, the Māyāvādī philosophers. Servant... Just like if one becomes secretary or servant of a very big man, he's in the same position. He's sitting on the same place. He's eating the same way. He's in the same atmosphere. So everything is same. Simply the relationship is different. That's all. So when one goes to the spiritual world... Just like the cowherd boys, the gopīs, they are on the same platform of Kṛṣṇa. They do not think that "We are lesser than Kṛṣṇa." The cowherds boy, they sometimes chastise Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is obliged to take them on the shoulder. Sometimes. They do not know that Kṛṣṇa is God, or "Kṛṣṇa is greater than me." That is the position. Equality.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.12 -- Mayapur, April 5, 1975:

You go on searching, īśvara over īśvara over īśvara. When you come to the point there is no more other īśvara, then He's God. That is definition. That is Kṛṣṇa. You go on searching out, searching out. Just like... Generally, you know, Brahmā is the cre... He's also īśvara. He has created this universe. But he's not the supreme īśvara. He's created by Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. He's also Īśvara, but He is expansion of Mahā-Viṣṇu. Then He is also Īśvara. Then He's also expansion of Sankarsana. Then Saṅkarṣaṇa is expansion of Nārāyaṇa. In this way, you go on, go on, go on, searching out. When you come to the point that no more īśvara-īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, anādi... (Bs. 5.1). So He has no ādi. Anādir ādiḥ: "He is the beginning of everything, but He has no beginning." How it is, that? He has no...? So many īśvaras have beginning. And why? Now, svarāṭ. That is the dis... Svarāṭ, completely independent. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). This is the Vedānta-sūtra.

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

You cannot have conception of the greatest, unlimited, unless you place six kinds of opulence, opulences in full. Because aiśvarya, the opulences... Just like wealth, fame, and beauty, knowledge, and renunciation, they should be unlimited. Now, when they are not unlimited, he's not Brahman, or he's not the Supreme Lord.

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's interpretation... Not interpretation—He says Brahman means that "One who is in full opulences, He's Brahman." Tāṅhāra vibhūti, deha—saba cid-ākāra: "Therefore, because He's the greatest, therefore He cannot be under the control of this māyā." The Māyāvāda philosophy says that "We are now under the control of māyā. Therefore we have forgotten that we are all Gods." In the Nikhilananda's book, this is explained. He is discussing Vivekananda's speech, that "We are all Gods. Every one of us, we are God." "Then why you have become dog?" "That we do not know." That is the explanation.

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

Every one of us, we are God." "Then why you have become dog?" "That we do not know." That is the explanation. But actually, the explanation is that we are also Brahman, but not Bhagavān, the Supreme Brahman. That is the explanation. Therefore we are prone to be under the subjugation of māyā. This is real explanation. I am, I am not the Supreme Brahman. The greatest Brahman, I am not. Brahman means 'greatest,' but I am also Brahman, but I am... The infinite and the infinitesimal. We are infinitesimal. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā also—mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ: (BG 15.7) "My, these living entities, they are My parts and parcels." Such parts and parcels of the Brahman is also Brahman. As part and parcel, minute particle, of gold is also gold, minute particle of poison is also poison, so similarly, we are minute, atomic part and parcel of the Supreme. Therefore we are not the unlimited or the biggest. We are Brahman, undoubtedly, but we are not the biggest.

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

Now, Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "Jīva-tattva, the living entities, they are never the energetic; they are energy." Energetic and energy. So how it is so? The evidence is from Bhāgavata, Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhagavad-gītā. Because one has to give evidence. How do you say that jīva-tattva, the living entities, they are not the Supreme? Caitanya Mahāprabhu sa..., they are not su... Not to say, I mean to say, speak of Supreme, they are not even of the same category. Because there are different categories. Viṣṇu-tattva, jīva-tattva and śakti-tattva—there are so many categories. So He says that "Jīva, the living entities, they are in the categories of energy. They are not energetic." Energetic and energy, you should try to understand. Just like the fire, fire and its heat. Heat is the energy, and the fire is the energetic. Similarly, the Supreme Lord, He is the energetic, Supreme Person, and we, the living entities, we are energy.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967:

That is the difference. God is never covered by ignorance. This is nonsense. Those fools and rascals say that "God... We are God. We are now covered." It is the most rascaldom. How? If we are God, how we can be covered by ignorance? Then what is your value of your becoming God? You are not God. You are... This is very nicely explained here. Try to understand. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "Living entities, they are energy of God. They are never God." The Śaṅkarācārya's theory is nullified by evidences from Vedic scripture, just like Bhagavad-gītā, Viṣṇu Purāṇa. So never claim that "We are God." That is most darkest part of your ignorance, when you say that "I am God." There is neither voidness; neither you are God. You are eternal, perpetual blissful, but your blissful is now covered by this māyā. You get out of it, be one with Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Your life is successful. This is this theory.

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

Sun is very, very, very, very big. What is the cloud? Maybe hundred miles' spread. But the sun globe is fourteen lakhs... (break) ...that correct? So how the cloud, hundred miles' spreading cloud, can cover the sun? It is foolishness that "God is covered by māyā." No. God is never covered by māyā. But God's particles, they are covered by māyā. Jīva is covered by māyā, not God. Māyāṁ ca tad-apāśrayam. Just like you face the sun, there is no darkness. If you keep the sun back side, there is a big dark, shadow. The shadow is māyā. It has no existence. It is simply impeding the sunshine. Therefore it is shadow. Māyā means which has no existence of its own accord. It is also created by the sun, the darkness. Similarly, this avidyā, when you forget Kṛṣṇa, there is avidyā. That is also Kṛṣṇa's creation. Because you want to forget Him, therefore He covers you with avidyā. Avidyā-karma-saṁjñā anyā. Another, another energy of Kṛṣṇa which is known as avidyā, or darkness, covers you. And what is the symptoms, that avidyā? Karma-saṁjñā.

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

Guest (5): Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Hari...

Prabhupāda: No. Your answer is this, that "Why God does not...?" God wants that "These so-called brāhmaṇas who eat Jagannātha-prasāda with fish, let them remain in darkness, not to understand who is Vaiṣṇava."

Guest (5): That is true...

Prabhupāda: That is true. Take it, that. That's all. (laughter)

Guest (5): But to understand the God...

Prabhupāda: Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram andhā-yoniṣu (BG 16.19). Those who are vaiṣṇava-dveṣi, bhagavad-dveṣi, God keeps them in darkness perpetually.

Guest (5): What is the reason between man and God? That is the point we have to understood.

Prabhupāda: We have to understood... Come to this school and learn it, not in a minute.

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

Prabhupāda: The God never says the ātmā is Parabrahman. Why you are talking like that?

Guest (5): No. If the ātmā is not God, then what is there?

Prabhupāda: God is...

Guest (5): Due to the presence of a God... This life force is not God. Due to presence of God this ātmā is living.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. Ātmā is there. You have studied Bhagavad-gītā or not? First of all tell me. Do you think ātmā and Paramātmā are the same thing?

Guest (5): Mostly the same thing. Yes. (laughter)

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

Prabhupāda: Surrender. Who will surrender? Unless you are servant, why shall you surrender? You are servant; God is master. So therefore master and servant different.

Guest (5): No, that is true. I am not God. But God is there within me. God is everybody.

Prabhupāda: That's all... God is everywhere.

Guest (5): He's within ant and dog and elephant and everybody.

Prabhupāda: That...

Guest (5): Due to presence of God, this small living being, due to presence of God...

Prabhupāda: God is within dog. Therefore does it mean God is dog also?

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.108-109 -- New York, July 15, 1976:

We know this word, "struggle for existence," "survival of the fittest." So this is struggle. We are not master; still, we are trying to become master. The Māyāvāda philosophy, they also undergo severe type of austerities, penances, but what is the idea? The idea is that "I shall become one with God." Same mistake. Same mistake. He's not God, but he is trying to become God. Even though he has performed so much severe austerities, vairāgya, renunciation, everything... Sometimes they give up everything of material enjoyment, go to the forest, undergo severe type of penances. What is the idea? "Now I shall become one with God." The same mistake.

So māyā is very strong, that these mistakes continue even one is very advanced so-called spiritually. No. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu touches the main point immediately with His instruction. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.108-109 -- New York, July 15, 1976:

It will never go in vain. Svalpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura also sings, keno māyār bośe, yāccho bhese', khāccha hābuḍubhu bhāi, jīv kṛṣṇa-dās, ei viśvās, korle to' ār duḥkha nāi. Everyone is being washed away by the big waves of the ocean of nescience, but if he simply accepts, "No, I am Kṛṣṇa dāsa. I am not master. I am not God. I am simply a servant..." And the more you become servant of the servant, more you are perfect. Not directly servant. Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, gopī-bhartuḥ pada-kamalayor dāsa-dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ (CC Madhya 13.80). This is perfection. Don't try to become directly Kṛṣṇa dāsa. Kṛṣṇa's servant, his servant, his servant, his servants—you come down to the hundredth point of servant; then you are perfection.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.112 -- Bombay, November 24, 1975:

They have no intelligence. Asama urdhva. Na tasya samaḥ. Nobody is equal to Him, neither urdhva. Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) "Nobody is greater than Me." Therefore God is great. If somebody is equal to Him or greater than Him, then he is not God. God is Kṛṣṇa.

īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ

sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ

anādir ādir govindaḥ

sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam

(Bs. 5.1)

He is the original cause of everything. So he has got... He is working the whole cosmic manifestation is exhibited by His potency. That is described here: viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā (CC Madhya 6.154). That is spiritual potency.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.124-125 -- New York, November 26, 1966:

"I have got my duty: to love my father." That is very simple thing, to love father. "Father has done so ma..., so much for me, I am just going to own the estate of father, and I am enjoying the earnings of my father. So is it not my duty to show respect to my father?"

So those who are against God-principle, those who are not God-minded, they're the lowest creature. They're the lowest creature. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ: (BG 7.15) "Anyone who does not recognize God, he's the lowest of the lowest creature." Duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ. These, these terms have been used. Just like mūḍha, ass; duṣkṛtina, miscreant; and narādhamāḥ, and lowest of the mankind. Mankind. Mankind is meant for recognizing. This is the life. In animal life, one cannot recognize that there is God and everything is coming from God. They cannot read Vedas, or scriptures. They cannot take any instruction. So these Vedas and scriptures are there for human beings.

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

"Yes, it is real." So you have to go to the authorities. Who are the authorities? At least, in our country. Not only in... All countries. So our authorities, the whole Vedic civilization is going on under the authorities of ācāryas. They are coming by disciplic succession. Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya—there are so many authorized ācāryas. The śāstra is there, the authoritative statement is there, and the activities are there. Then what reason you have got not to believe that Kṛṣṇa is not God? What reason you have got? Here is God. And those who are devotees of Kṛṣṇa, actually see their life, how they are advanced in God consciousness, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

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

So somebody may say, somebody questioned that "How is that, sixteen thousand? He was very lusty," somebody says, poor fund of knowledge. Or "It is simply story." No. It is... Kṛṣṇa is neither lusty, nor it is story. He is Supreme, full in Himself. He did not require even one wife. Because we require the association of wife or girl because we feel the need, if God is in need, then He is not God. He must be full. But just because His devotees wanted Him her husband, therefore He played the part of a perfect husband. That is the position. Nobody, no husband, can expand himself in many ways. Suppose one has got many girls friend. Oh, he can go to one girl friend, not to many. This is. Another point is that īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe arjuna tiṣṭhati: (BG 18.61) "The Lord is situated in everyone's heart." So if the girls prayed God that "You become our husband," so if God comes out of the heart and becomes her husband, what is the difficulty for God?

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.11-15 -- New York, January 9, 1967:

Without individual person, there is no question of love. When I, when the word "love" is used, there must be two lovers. Then the word is applicable, love. If there is no person, love is not with the air. There must be person. So the Supreme Lord is person, and the lovers, the living entities, they are also persons. They forget who is God, who is not God, but the central focus is in Kṛṣṇa. Everyone loves Kṛṣṇa. Without seeing Kṛṣṇa they are mad. This is the position in the spiritual world. Simply love Kṛṣṇa, that's all. Bhuñje sevā-sukha. And by loving, as we have got a little perverted experience of love affairs, so just imagine when that love is pure and true, how much pleasure there is. So that thing is there in the spiritual world, pure love. And object is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore they are so much in bliss... That is bliss. That is bliss, sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1), eternal love with knowledge that "Here is Kṛṣṇa," and ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12).

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

So if you give up the coconut and simply quarrel with the fibers, what profit is there? There is no profit. Similarly, if you give up God, or Kṛṣṇa, who is the essence of everything, and you make your advancement in scientific knowledge, in physics and chemistry and so many departments of knowledge, so according to Bhāgavata this is simply waste of time. Simply waste of time. But what we'll gain? Kevala-bodha-labdhaye. Suppose you understand in your human form of life the whole constitution of the universe... That is stated in Bible also, that "If somebody understands everything, but not God, then what does he gain?" Similarly, there is another verse in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that one may be very much expert to count even the atoms of the universe. You smash the universe and grind it into powder, and you just count all the atoms. That is possible . But still, it is not possible to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore who understands the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he understands everything. Tasmin vijñāte sarvam evaṁ vijñātaṁ bhavanti. If somebody understand the Supreme Absolute Truth, Personality of Godhead, he understands everything because He is everything.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 1 -- Los Angeles, April 29, 1970:

This is commonsense affair. Therefore this Māyāvādī philosophy that "Everyone is God. I am God; you are God...," Just like the other, who was speaking, that Meher Baba's... Yes. That he was speaking, "I am God, you are God." So God is never controlled. If somebody is controlled, immediately he is not God. This is simple definition, that God is not controlled. If somebody claims that he is God, then first of all question "Whether you are controlled or not controlled?" Common sense. Nobody can say that he's not controlled. I have seen a rascal, he has got a society and he is preaching this, that "I am God." But one day I saw him, he had some toothache, and he was doing, "ohhh." (laughter) So I questioned him that "You claim that you are God, and now you are simply under the control of toothache. So what kind of God you are?" (laughter) You see. So these societies, those who are claiming that "I am God. You are God.

Festival Lectures

Ratha-yatra -- Los Angeles, July 1, 1971:

So these are our foolishness. Meditation means to think over all this subject matter very intelligently, not like a rascal, that "If I am person, why God should be imperson? If I am eternal, why God should be dead?" This is meditation, to study diligently. If I have got an instinct to love others, so why God shall not, God will not have this instinct to love others? If I have got attraction for the opposite sex, why God should not have? Why He should not be attracted by Rādhārāṇī? Very simple truth. And why Rādhārāṇī should not be attracted by Kṛṣṇa? But the difference is: here everything is false. False means the attraction is not real attraction. But there the attraction is real. Here I am attracted with a boy, with a girl—after six months, finished. Because there are so many defects, therefore the attraction does not exist. It is all defective. This body is false, false in the sense it is an imitation. Just like you see one idol in the dress shop, very nice girl standing, but it is a false; similarly, this body made of material elements is not our real body.

Janmastami Lord Sri Krsna's Appearance Day -- Bhagavad-gita 7.5 Lecture -- Vrndavana, August 11, 1974:

That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninaḥ. They are thinking that they have become liberated, but actually, aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32), their intelligence is not purified. Therefore falsely claiming. If one is God, then how he has become dog? This much common sense there is not. God is God; dog is dog. This Dvaitavāda philosophy is perfect. Acintya-bhedābheda, simultaneously one and different. We have got... Because we are spiritual energy, therefore... Kṛṣṇa is Supreme Spirit. Therefore we are in one in quality, but Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme. Aṇor aṇīyān mahataḥ. He's mahato mahīyān, and we are aṇor aṇīyān. We are smaller than the smallest. This relationship with Kṛṣṇa is perfect. If we had been actually God, then why we are fallen? This is not possible. God is God. He's never... God's name is Acyuta. He never falls down. But jīva-bhūta, jīva, living entities, they are cyuta. They falls down from the spiritual platform to the material platform.

Sri Vyasa-puja -- New Vrindaban, September 2, 1972:

Why? Sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstraiḥ. They have already chanted this song. Samasta-śāstraiḥ, in all Vedic literatures. Samasta, all. Samasta means all. Śāstra means Vedic literature. The all the śāstras in Vedic literature, they have declared that spiritual master is as good as God. Not God, but as good as God. The Māyāvādī, they think that the spiritual master is also God. No. We Vaiṣṇava, we don't accept that theory. But actually how a man can become God? No. But because he is God's representative, he is honored as God, not that he has become God. Kintu prabhor yaḥ priya eva tasya. Just like you have got a dear son. If somebody pats your son, even pats your dog, you become pleased. So the spiritual master is very confidential servant, dog of God. Therefore if you can please him, yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādaḥ **. If you can please the spiritual master, then God is pleased. Just like your small child. If somebody pleases that child, you become automatically pleased.

Jagannatha Deities Installation Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.13-14 -- San Francisco, March 23, 1967:

These are the process. These are the process, and it is concluded that therefore, everyone—never mind what he is—his duty is to satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And how we can satisfy? We have to hear about Him, we have to speak about Him, we have to think about Him, we have to worship Him, and that is regularly. That will make, help you. If you have no worship, if you have no thought, if you have no hearing, if you have no speaking, and you are simply thinking of something, something, something, that "something, something," it is not God.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Address -- Los Angeles, February 9, 1975:

It is all stated there. So Kṛṣṇa can be understood only by devotional service, by no other. You cannot speculate, "Kṛṣṇa may be like this." Just like Māyāvādīs, they imagine. The imagination will not help you. You cannot imagine God. That is foolishness. God is not subjected to your imagination. Then He is not God. Why He should be subjected to your imagination? So these things are to be understood properly, and one can understand properly when he's pure devotee. Otherwise not. Nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtāḥ: (BG 7.25) "I am not exposed to everyone." Why He should be exposed to everyone? When He's pleased, He will reveal Himself to you. Sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ (Brs. 1.2.234). You cannot ask the sun to appear immediately. When he is pleased, he will appear in the morning. Similarly, you have to please Kṛṣṇa so that He will appear before you and talk with you and bless you.

Initiation Lectures

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

"Oh, I am the same. I am..." So 'ham: "I am the same." How you are the same? If you are the same, why you are fallen in this condition? They will say, "It is māyā. It is illusion." No. Why you are in illusion? If you are great—"God is great"—if you are that great, then why you are captured by illusion? Then illusion is great, not God is great. This commonsense philosophy they do not understand. Therefore my Guru Mahārāja used to say, "Poor fund of knowledge." Whenever he used to designate these Māyāvādī philosophers, he would say, "Poor fund of knowledge."

So this is the opportunity to... You are part and parcel of God. Don't try to become artificially like God. That is not possible. That will be simply waste of energy. This is māyā. Everyone under the spell of māyā, they are working very hard. Why? Everyone is trying to become God: "I shall be the great man of this country," or "My country shall be the greatest country in the world."

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

Don't try for it. If you actually want to be happy, and if you want, actually, you want to be God realized or Kṛṣṇa conscious person, then the first thing is that you give up this nonsense habit—by speculation, you want to be God. Puffed up: "I am God. I am God. I am God." But you are not God. You are God qualitatively, not quantitatively. Why don't you understand this?

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, jñāne prayāsam. Jñānīs, the empiric philosophers, they simply speculate and try to prove that "I am God." That means āsuriṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ. The atheist says that "There is no God," and here the Māyāvādī philosophy says, "Yes, there is God, but God I am." That's all. It is the same philosophy, atheism. He is also denying that "There is no separate God. I am God." That atheistic philosophy, like Buddha philosophy, "There is no God..." But Buddha himself is God.

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

So Bhāgavata says... Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "Don't be situated in the speculative method, that you are God, you are something—'There is no God,' or 'I am God, this God, that God.' Give up this habit kindly. Give up this nonsense habit." There is God, and you are not God. You are God partially, part and parcel, just like I have explained. So we have to give up this nonsense habit. Jñāne prayāsam udapāsya. Udapāsya means give up. Then what is next? Namanta eva. Just be submissive. Don't be puffed up artificially. You are being slapped always by the laws of material nature. Don't think that you are independent. It is foolishness to say that "I am independent. I don't care for anything of..." No. You have to care. You are being kicked every moment by the laws of nature. You should know it. You are not independent. Therefore be namanta eva, be submissive. Namanta eva. Jñāne prayāsaṁ namanta eva, be submissive.

General Lectures

Sunday Feast Lecture -- Los Angeles, January 19, 1969:

Similarly, the Sanskrit word, equivalent word of the English word "God" is Bhagavān. Bhaga... God... Generally described, God is great. That is perfect. Actually God is great. Nobody can be equal to God, and nobody can be greater than God. Greatness... If I am great and if there is another competitor great, then I am not God, neither he is God. When we say, speak of God, there is no competitor. The Sanskrit word used, asamaurdhva... Asama. Sama means equal; a means not. Nobody is equal. Asama, urdhva. There are three positions. Just like we are sitting here. Somebody is equal to me, somebody is greater than me and somebody is lower than me. You will find, everyone. Anywhere you go, you'll find, somebody is greater than you, somebody is equal to you and somebody is lower than you, anywhere you go. But in case of God, there can be only lower; nobody greater or equal. That is God, simple definition of God. Nowadays there is a disease, to declare oneself as God, "I am God."

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

"God has many energies." Parāsya śaktiḥ. Śakti means energy, power. Vividhaiva, multi, various. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svabhāva... Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva, na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate. This is the injunction of Vedas. "You cannot find anyone equal or greater than God. Nobody can be equal with God; nobody can be greater than God." Then he is not God. Na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca. Sama means equal; adhika means greater. Na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate. They have analyzed who is God. The great sages, the liberated sages, they are not fools, rascals, that they will accept anyone God. No. They will test. This is the test. If you find somebody, that he is neither lower than anyone, neither equal to anyone, then he is God. There are other, many definitions of God. Aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47). Analytical study. Try to understand God. This is the business of human form of life, not that simply eating, sleeping and mating and defending. These are animal business. The animal knows how to eat, how to sleep, how to mate, and how to defend in its own way. So that is common formula for human being or animal. But there is one speciality in human society or human being—he can understand God, what is God. If I explain to a human being, however illiterate, uneducated, he may be, if he has simply these two ears, he will understand what is God.

Lecture 'Nobody Wants to Die' -- Boston, May 7, 1968:

So you have to prove that nobody's greater than you. If you simply think falsely that "Nobody's greater than me. Nobody's...I am moving this sun. I am moving this moon. I am...," so you have to prove it. Otherwise, it is nonsense. But if you remain in your actual position, that "I am not God, but I am part and parcel of God, and God is nondifferent..." Just like the part and parcel of your body, this finger, and the whole body... If you make analytical study: "Oh, there is blood, there is vein, there is muscle, there is skin, there is bone, everything complete," as much as there is blood, vein, muscle, bones, everything in the whole body, so, as part and parcel, the, all the qualities, or all the ingredients of God are there. But he is a small quantity; therefore part and parcel. But even it is small quantity, if you actually come to the platform of God, then you'll become almost equal like God. But you cannot be God. That is not possible. Then there is no meaning of God, because God is great.

Lecture 'Nobody Wants to Die' -- Boston, May 7, 1968:

Yes. Therefore you are not God. God consciousness is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: idaṁ śarīraṁ kṣetra. The Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, says that "This body is the field of our activities." Otherwise, it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā that kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi: "I am also conscious. I am also knower." As you are knower, so God is also knower. But the difference of His knowledge—that He's omnipotent, omnipresent; you are not omnipotent, omnipresent. That is the difference. You have got some potency, and you are also present in some limited circle, but He is present everywhere. You are not present in another planet, but God is present everywhere. That is His omnipresence, omnipotent. So He's also conscious, kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi: "Also know that I am also knower, but My knowledge expands everywhere, but your knowledge expands only within this body." That is the difference.

Lecture -- Boston, December 23, 1969 :

He will give you all facility. And so long you want to become God, you will be cheated, because you are trying to cheat yourself. How you can become God? First thing is that, you are trying to become God, then how you became a dog? God cannot become a dog. God is always God. The Māyāvādī philosopher says that "I am God, but I am, by māyā, I am thinking I am not God. So by meditation I shall become God." But that means he is under the punishment of māyā. So, God has become under the influence of māyā. How is it that? God is great, and if he is under the influence of māyā, then māyā becomes great. How God becomes great?

So the real idea is, so long we shall continue this hallucination, that "I am God," "There is no God," "Everybody is God," so many things like that, there is no question of getting favor of God. Then you do your own business, and try to find yourself, whether you are God or something else.

Lecture -- Boston, December 23, 1969 :

So, you are trying to become God, that means you are not God. Is it not? How you became not God? (laughter) How you became not God? God is (indistinct) just like so many think that, there are, it, it becomes not. That God is great, then how He is great? Then you, your conclusion should be that "I am not that God who is great. I am a different God who becomes sometimes not God." (laughter) Therefore you are a different God from that God who is great. Is it not? So that is a fact. Because you are part and parcel of God, you are minute God, therefore you have the potency of becoming not God. Just like fire and spark of fire. The spark, when it is with the fire it is bright fire, but as soon as it goes out of the fire, it extinguishes. But the big fire never extinguishes. Similarly, you are not that big fire, you are that small spark fire. You have fallen down; therefore you are not God. Now you have to raise yourself again to the fire, you will be again blazing spark. So that is the difference. Thatis stated in the Vedic literature Brahman, every living entity is Brahman, but the Supreme Brahman is Kṛṣṇa. He never becomes not God.

Lecture -- Boston, December 23, 1969 :

We see Kṛṣṇa's life, when He was a child on the lap of His mother, He is God. So many demons they are killed. He hasn't got to meditate to become God. When He was playing, He was God, and when He was fighting in the battlefield of Kurukṣetra, He is God. That is God. Not that sometimes not God, sometimes God. That is not God. God is always God, in any circumstance. That is God. (pause) Hare Kṛṣṇa. I am not God. I cannot give so many things. (laughter) So distribute prasādam. (everyone chants japa) (indistinct) Huh? Oh, yes, why not? Nobody, who will please go, please take prasādam.

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

Anyone, you will find somebody lower than him and higher than him. But nobody can say that "I am the supreme." Nobody can say. That is not possible.

According to our Vedic literature, Brahma, the creator of this universe, he is considered to be the highest creature within this universe, but he is also not God. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ. God instructed him to create. Ādi-kavi. He is the original creature within this material world. Somebody may question that "If he is original creature, than how he got this knowledge of creating?" So that is explained. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. Hṛdā: "From the heart God instructed." God is situated in everyone's heart. That is called paramātmā. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānām hṛd-deśe arjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). God has got three features: Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān. Brahman is impersonal feature, and then Paramātmā, the localized feature, and Bhagavān, the personal feature.

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

Guest (3): Well even in revealed religion, where we have the scripture, say, a Vedic scripture or Jewish or Christian scripture, it's still being put into human words and therefore become circumscribed again. And so it seems to me that you've still got the same problem even in revealed religion—that it's not God. It's something short of God.

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

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

That is our practical experience. But the supreme controller means who is not controlled by anyone, but He is controller of everyone. That is God. Nowadays it has become a cheap business, to see so many Gods. But you test this, whether he is controlled by anyone. If he is controlled by somebody, then he is not God. If He is simply controller, then you can accept Him as God. That is the definition of God, a very simple definition.

īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ

sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ

anādir ādir govindaḥ

sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam

(Bs. 5.1)

So sac-cid-ānanda... There is... In the Vedānta-sūtra there is another aphorism, that ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt: (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12) "By nature the Supreme Absolute Person is ānandamaya." The artistic sense... You are engaged in artistic work just to have a pleasure, ānanda. Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt. That pleasure, rasa, a mellow... By painting one picture, you enjoy some rasa or mellow; otherwise why you are working so hard? There is a pleasure.

Lecture -- Laguna Beach, September 30, 1972:

So this world, this material world, although it is not different from God, but still, it is not God. So we have to transfer ourself from this material energy to the spiritual energy. That is the business. So long we are in the lower form of life... This human form of life is considered the upper or better form of life, whereas the animals, the trees, the aquatics, the insects, the reptiles... There are so many, 8,400,000 forms of life. Out of that, this human form of life, especially the civilized form of life, this is elevated life of developed consciousness. The consciousness of human form of life is different from the consciousness of aquatic life or tree life or plant life or cat life or dog life. This is the developed consciousness of life. Why this developed consciousness of life is given by God? To understand God. This is the only business. This developed consciousness of life is being misused in the matter of animal life. The modern scientific advancement or philosophical speculation, they are trying to adjust how we can enjoy our sense life better. But after all, it is sense life. Better or inferior, there is no such question. Suppose a glass of water, given in golden glass tumbler or in earthen tumbler. The taste of the water is the same. Similarly, the taste of life is eating, sleeping, sex life and defense.

Lecture -- Laguna Beach, September 30, 1972:

You, me—every one of us—is encaged within this body. I am spirit soul; you are spirit soul. That is the Vedic injunction. Ahaṁ brahmāsmi: "I am Brahman." That means spirit. Not Parabrahman. Don't mistake. Parabrahman is God. We are Brahman, part and parcel of God, fragments, but not the Supreme. Supreme is different. Just like you are American, but the supreme American is your president, Mr. Nixon. But you cannot say that "Because I am American, therefore I am Mr. Nixon." That you cannot say. Similarly, you, me, every one of us, Brahman, but that does not mean we are Parabrahman. Parabrahman is Kṛṣṇa. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ. Īśvara means controller. So every one of us is controller to some extent. Somebody is controlling his family, controlling his office, business, controlling his disciples. At last, he is controlling a dog. If he hasn't got to control anything, he keeps a dog to control, a pet dog, a pet cat. So everyone wants to be controller. That's a fact. But the supreme controller is Kṛṣṇa. Here the so-called controller is controlled by somebody else. I may control my disciples, but I am controlled by somebody else, by my spiritual master.

Lecture at St. Pascal's Franciscan Seminary -- Melbourne, June 28, 1974:

This is real God consciousness. This is real God consciousness, yes, not that "I am God conscious, and I kill the animals." That is not God conscious. To accept the trees, plants, lower animals, insignificant ants even, as brothers... Samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu. This is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā.

brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā

na śocati na kāṅkṣati

samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu

(BG 18.54)

Samaḥ. Samaḥ means equal to all living entities, to see the spirit soul, anyone... It doesn't matter whether he is man or cat or dog or tree or ant or insect or big man. They are all parts and parcel of God. They are simply dressed differently. One has got the dress of tree; one has got the dress of king; one has got the, insect. That is also explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. Paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ: (BG 5.18) "One who is paṇḍita, learned, his vision is equal." So if St. Francis was thinking like that, that is highest standard of spiritual understanding. Similar expression is there in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, that sthāvara-jaṅgama dekhe nā dekhe tāra mūrti (CC Madhya 8.274). A spiritually advanced devotee of the Lord, he sees the trees or the animals or the stone or the anything he sees—he sees that it is the energy of God.

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

Yes. So why? What is the... Give the word meaning, Jehovah. Just like Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa's, the word meaning: all-attractive. So God must be all-attractive; otherwise how He can be God? If God is attractive for me only and not to others, then he is not God. God should be attractive... Just like God's knowledge. Kṛṣṇa is giving this Bhagavad-gītā. It is attractive all over the world, among the scholars, among the religionists, public. Not that simply my Bhagavad-gītā is being read. There are many other editions of Bhagavad-gītā. It is widely read because the knowledge is so perfect. So knowledge is an attraction. Riches, wealth, that is attraction. If a man is very rich, just like in your country, Ford, Rockefeller, they are attractive. A man, if he is beautiful, if he is strong, if he is wise, they become attractive. So you will find in Kṛṣṇa all these attractive features. Therefore He is God.

Tenth Anniversary Address -- Washington, D.C., July 6, 1976:

So this system, one system, to accept the real principles of religion. That is, Kṛṣṇa also explained. It is explained by Kṛṣṇa, that Kṛṣṇa came, appeared. Why? What is the purpose of Kṛṣṇa's appearing? Sometimes they argue, atheist class of men, that God cannot come. Why God cannot come? God is your father's servant, that He cannot come? You are ordering? If He cannot come, how He is God? God can do everything. Why you say that God cannot come? He is not under your rules and regulations. Then He is not God. God can come. God says, "Yes, I come!"

yadā yadā hi dharmasya

glānir bhavati bhārata

abhyutthānam adharmasya

tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham

(BG 4.7)

paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ

vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām

dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya

sambhavāmi yuge yuge

(BG 4.8)

So why God cannot come? So when God says, "Yes, I come for this purpose. This is My mission..." Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati. What is that glānir? Glānir means discrepancies. Not, the principles of religious..., when it is not executed properly, that is called glānir. So what is dharma? A simple definition is given: dharmaṁ tu sākṣāt-bhagavat-praṇītam. Dharma means the law given by God, that's all-three words: God and His words.

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

You can imagine any form of the Lord and try to worship Him." That is speculator. (break) ... Another type of atheism. The atheists, they say, Śūnyavādī, "There is no God." But these Māyāvādī, they say, "Yes there is God, but He has no head, no leg, no mouth, nothing." Means, indirectly, they are saying there is not God.

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has therefore clearly said that this Māyāvādī, nirākāravādī, is more dangerous than the Śūnyavādī. Śūnyavādī, they publicly declare, "There is no God," just like modern population, that "There is no need of God." Asatyam aprathiṣṭhaṁ te jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). That is also described in the Bhagavad-gītā. The atheist class, they say that "This world is asatya. There is no meaning." Asatyam jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). "And there is no God." We can understand that they are atheist. (break)... Māyāvādī philosopher, they take the shelter of Vedic literature and indirectly, directly, they try to wipe out the existence of God. (break) The Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore has said, māyāvādī-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: (CC Madhya 6.169)

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: No. We say if Kṛṣṇa desired, it would not have fallen. Kṛṣṇa desired it. Kṛṣṇa desires "Let it fall down"; therefore it falls. That is the cause. Kṛṣṇa desires that "Let the fruit fall down and the crow fly away."

Śyāmasundara: He says that God is absolute necessity because He is governed by the law of contradiction, and it is impossible to conceive of not God.

Prabhupāda: To God there is no contradiction. That is absolute. Whatever He does, whatever He says, that is absolute. There is no contradiction.

Śyāmasundara: Because it is impossible to conceive of not God. In other words, God is absolutely necessary because to conceive not-God is impossible.

Prabhupāda: That is artificial. The atheists say there is no God, so God is there, but he refuses to accept. Otherwise why does he say there is no God? The idea of God is there, but he refuses to accept. And unless God is there, wherefrom the idea is coming? The atheist... God is there, but he is refusing to accept. Just like the impersonalist: unless you have got personal understanding, how will you try to make it impersonal? The first is personal. You try to make it impersonal.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

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

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

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Prabhupāda: Yes, the dominant nation is, it is connected with the absolute truth that up to Mahārāja Parīkṣit, five thousand years ago, the king of Hastināpur, they were dominating the whole world. Because Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira were actually representing God, therefore their domination was possible. Now, that being lost, there are so many small states, they are not God conscious, therefore fighting each other, that's all, like cats and dogs. But it is a fact that the Vedic culture kings like Mahārāja Rāmacandra, Mahārāja Prthu, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, Mahārāja Parīkṣit, and later on some other kings also, they were actually representative of God, so there was no trouble. One king was ruling all over the world.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Śyāmasundara: And these three things may also be called...

Prabhupāda: That means he is creating God. Is it not? God is an idea. So his philosophy is that you create by imagination something as God. Actually there is no God. Just like Māyāvādīs, they say, "God is imperson. God is dead." Like that. And you can create a God. Just like Vivekananda, that is their theory. Therefore they create Ramakrishna as God.

Śyāmasundara: He said that God is the idea behind all concrete objects. Whatever is concrete there is a superior idea.

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) Idea can be changed so God becomes a thing which is subjected to the whimsical change of rascals. That is his idea.

Śyāmasundara: He says that God is the sum total of all concrete phenomenon.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: The idea in itself is that thesis, the idea for itself is the antithesis. Now the idea...

Prabhupāda: The first thing is that idea, anything... Idea is not God. God is substance.

Śyāmasundara: Oh.

Prabhupāda: Anything nonsense idea, that is not God. God has created you. You cannot create God. And they are creating God. Just like Vivekananda mission, yata mata tata patha. As many opinion you have got, you can have your religious way. Yata mata, this is their mission, yata mata tata patha, "Whatever you are thinking, all right." Ramakrishna, he wanted to realize God from any way. And later on he wanted to realize God by the Mohammedans' way and he asked the proprietor of the temple to allow him to take meat, cow's flesh. So when he asked, the proprietor said, "Please go out. Get out." Now don't real..., I don't want the (indistinct). This philosophy also you can realize God in any way, yata mata. Now he wanted to realize in the Mohammedan's way, therefore he thought it wise that he must eat cow's flesh. These things are there.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Hari-śauri: Well, can we do this?

Hayagrīva: Close? Oh, all right. Bergson maintained that God's reality can only be intuited by mystical experience. The creative effort is of God, if it is not God Himself. Knowledge of God leads to activity not passivity.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Knowledge of God is activity. Just like bhakti, we are twenty-four hours active, not that we are meditating on. So it is service. God says that anyone who preaches this message of Bhagavad-gītā, that is activity. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's order, that you, all of you, become guru. To become guru means activity, to train the disciples. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is full of activity for giving, rendering service to God, Kṛṣṇa. It is activity.

Hayagrīva: The word..., the word "mystic" is not a very clear word. It can mean so many different things. When he says God's reality can only be intuited by mystical experience, one doesn't really know what this means.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes, it is hospital. Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means curing the disease. That is described in Nārada-bhakti-sūtra, sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170), nirmalam. Nirmalam means purified. So when he becomes free from all this designation... The designation begins with this body, and the body accidentally born in Europe, he thinks, "I am a European." Born in America, "I am an American." Born in a Christian family, "I am Christian." He is born in Hindu family, "I am that." That is all misconception. His real position is that "I am part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, eternal servant." Then he is free from all. That is, that is beginning of..., that is brahma-bhūtaḥ, beginning of spiritual life. So nothing, not that a man can be made to God. He is not God; he is part and parcel of God. He has to simply understand his position. That is mukti. He is working under different impression, that "I am this body." Just like the other day with, concerning the philosopher Huxley. He is a philosopher but he is proud of becoming Englishman. Did you not say?

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Prabhupāda: But he does not know what is evil, what is good. He should know what is created by God is good, even if it appears to be evil to us. That is conception of God. I may think it is evil, but it is good. I do not know how it is good—that is my fault. That is my fault. But it is good. If I put God under my discrimination, under my judgment, that He is not good. He is not God; He is dog. God cannot be under my judgment. God is good always.

Śyāmasundara: So that's all for John Stuart Mill. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's a fact. You are thinking that this man is, so how he is good? He is limited in his power. He may think of his brother, of his nation, of his society but what does he do of other living beings? So how he can be good? A good man, speaking even a man like Gandhi, he is a good man, but when he was approached that stop cow killing, he could not do anything. Although he is advocating non-violence but he, the violence committing in the slaughterhouse, thousands and thousands of animals being killed, violence, what did he do? So how he is good man? Nobody can be good man.

Hayagrīva: Only a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Because he abides by the order of the Supreme Good, that's all. If Gandhi could not become a good man, so that as he was killed by enemy, so how the man can be good man? There is no good man, unless he is a devotee of the Supreme Lord, all good. It is physically impossible to become good man, even if he has got the desire. That is not possible. This is our mental concoction. This is good man or bad man. Anyone who is not God conscious, he is bad man, and anyone who is God conscious he is good man. This should be the question.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Prabhupāda: That's all right, but your state, Communist Russian state, is not overgrowing others. So that cannot be God. God is obeyed by everyone. Your state may not be obeyed by other states. God means the supreme controller. You are not the supreme controller. Then how can you make the state as God, your state?

Śyāmasundara: So actually his idea of God would change. For the Communists God means the state; for the primitive savage God means the...

Prabhupāda: Just like Gandhi made Cāṇakya his god.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. That to which one is supremely devoted, that means God.

Prabhupāda: Anyone may be supremely devoted to his wife or sometimes supremely devoted to his dog. The dog is God? Wife is God? So everyone has got one god, and I think that it is supported by Vivekananda, yata mata tata patha: "Whatever you think of God, that's all right." (Hindi with guest) Everyone can manufacture his own God. (laughter) Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Prabhupāda: Why does he say? That is his inexperience. God means supreme controller. So everything is being controlled. So how he can say there is not God? That is his imperfect knowledge. The nature is going on in perfect order, and we have got experience that without being a director, controller... (break) ...first proposition, that the natural phenomena, that is going on in systematic way, and we have no experience anything going on in a systematic way has no controller. How they can think of this big phenomena without any controller? At least any sane man cannot think like that, that it is going on automatically, it is happening automatically. The season is changing in time, the sun is rising in time, the moon is rising—everything is going on systematically—and how he thinks that there is no controller, there is no God? That is insanity. To become atheist is, means, a greatest insane person. It has no meaning to become atheist.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Śyāmasundara: So he is saying...

Prabhupāda: Everything which is not God, that is bad. That is real goodness.

Śyāmasundara: He says it's how we use the word good, not what the word good means.

Prabhupāda: Good means, I already explained, which satisfies my senses. That is good. But God is good. He satisfies my senses and all others' senses. The relative good is it may satisfy my senses but it may not satisfy your senses. Therefore it is not good. Therefore what is good to me is not good to you. One man's food is another man's poison. Therefore this is relative good.

Śyāmasundara: Something which satisfies God's senses, that is real good.

Prabhupāda: That is absolute.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Prabhupāda: Yes. Without person how there can be love? There is no question of love. You cannot love air or sky; you must find out a man or woman in the, under the sky. So therefore if you want to love God then you must accept God is a person; otherwise there is no question of love. Therefore for the Māyāvādī philosopher there is no question of love. They merge. They want sāyujya-mukti, to become one. They have no other conception, because they cannot conceive personal God. So there is no love. Therefore they manufacture an idea that in the material condition of life, you just imagine any form of God and love Him, and ultimately you become one. That is their philosophy. Ultimately you throw away this... The example is given that you want to rise on some top floor you take a ladder and go to the top and throw away the ladder: there is no need of this ladder, now you have come to the position. So their theory is that because you cannot love or worship something impersonal, because it is difficult, it is troublesome... It is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśa adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: those who are attached to impersonal deities, their progress in spiritual life is very troublesome because they never fix up. So in order to give them some facility, they say that "You imagine some form of the Absolute Truth, and when you are perfect, then throw away that form. You become one." This is their philosophy. But if God is God, then how I can throw Him? That means while they are thinking of God, that is not God. And they say it is imagination. Then what is the value of imagination if it is not reality? So how by imagination, by kalpana, by taking something false, you can reach the reality? That is the defect of their philosophy. If you take it something wrong, how you can reach the reality? Your process is wrong, because you are accepting something wrong: imagination, imagination.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: That, that means he has no clear conception of God, because God has to take power from some parliament. God does not take power from anyone. He is God. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataḥ ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ (SB 1.1.1), that the Supreme, God, or Supreme Truth, Brahman, He knows everything. He knows everything in details. And wherefrom? Abhijñaḥ. He is, abhijñaḥ means completely in awareness. Then the question may be raised that "How He got this complete knowledge? From whom He received?" The answer is immediate, svarāṭ. Svarāṭ means independent. That is God. If one has to take knowledge from Mr. Freud, then he is not God. Anyone, if you come to that person that He is independent, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport), naturally He is all-perfect. He hasn't got to become perfect by some process or from some authority. That is God. He is all-perfect automatically. That is God. So anyone who is trying to be perfect, he is not God.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Śyāmasundara: So the mentality of God.

Prabhupāda: Not God—of the particular living entity.

Śyāmasundara: So to say that, for instance, the ocean is a female, has female characteristics, and the mountain has masculine characteristics...

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) I do not know why the ocean has female characteristics (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: Well, they say "mother ocean." They sometimes say "mother ocean."

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. That is just like because ocean keeps within, her cover, covering element. (indistinct) element. As the female keeps the child covered within the abdomen, so in that comparison you can say "mother." But similarly in the mountain also, there are so many minerals, so many gems, and so many nice stones. Simply by saying it is very strong. So generally male is strong and the female is weak. In that sense you can give a terminology.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: He says that this desire to be God is bound to fail.

Prabhupāda: Because he is not God. If he is God at all, then how will he fail to become non-God?

Śyāmasundara: What was that?

Prabhupāda: He is desiring to be God, that means he is not God at the present moment. So if he is God, how did he become non-God? Therefore he cannot become God, but he can become godly. That is our philosophy. Just like I am in darkness, I want light, so I can come into the sunshine. That does not mean I become sun. But when I come to the sunshine, I come to the light. Similarly, when you come to perfect knowledge, that is godly. But you cannot become God. If you are God, then there is no question of becoming non-God. Therefore Kṛṣṇa's name is Acyuta. Acyuta means He never becomes non-God. He is God always. When He is three months old on the lap of His mother He is God. When He is seven years old, lifting the hill, He is God. And when He is marrying 16,000 wives He is God. When He is dancing with the gopīs He is God. That is God. God is always God. Not that I am non-God now and I shall become God by some means, mystic factory. No.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: No. That is hopeless. That you cannot. That is wrong. We cannot become God. The only answer is that how we can become God? If you are God, then how did you become non-God? God cannot become non-God at any stage.

Śyāmasundara: I think he looks at it that we are not God. We know we are not God, but we are trying to become God.

Prabhupāda: That is Māyāvādī philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: But he says it's impossible to become God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's nice. That is our philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: But because it is impossible to become God, that means everything else is useless.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's nice. That is our philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: But because it is impossible to become God, that means everything else is useless.

Prabhupāda: No. That is another foolishness. You are not God; you are God's servant. Now you are posing to be God. So give up this idea and become servant. That is right idea. You are actually servant of God, but you are posing yourself as master. So you give up this wrong idea and become servant of God, then you are happy.

Śyāmasundara: So that's all... (break)

Devotee: That faith is not to choose, but that is a choice, as Kṛṣṇa explains in the Bhagavad-gītā, that there is action and inaction, and one who can see action in so-called inaction, he is intelligent. He is in that category of unintelligent people. They take this form of inaction as being inaction. And so he is thinking this so-called drifting as no choice; it is simply a way to make a choice very easily. You are choosing to go down the river with the current. It's choosing to remain in animal life.

Śyāmasundara: To be controlled completely by external forces.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Prabhupāda: His father?

Hayagrīva: His father, Marx's father. And Marx's mother, however, remained Jewish, and Marx was raised a Christian. But at the age of twenty-three, after having studied some philosophy at the university, Marx became an avowed atheist. And Hegel, it was Hegel who wrote, "Because the accidental is not God or the Absolute is," and Marx commented on this, "Obviously the reverse can also be said." That is because God is not, the accidental is.

Prabhupāda: God is not?

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: What, what does...?

Hayagrīva: So everything is accidental.

Prabhupāda: Accidental.

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

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

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Hayagrīva: Well he feels that if you attribute personality to God, you're simply...

Prabhupāda: I am not attributing. God cannot be attributed! That is a false concept. I cannot manufacture God by giving my imaginary attributes. That is not God.

Hayagrīva: Well he feels that if you attribute personality to God, you are simply projecting yourself onto God.

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: This is what he is saying.

Prabhupāda: He is saying, but it is not... Even if you attribute, it must be sensual. Just like, full of sense, just like we say "God is great." So at least we have got conception of greatness, so that must be in God. So we suppose a person very big, at least at the present moment if one is very rich. So then my attribution to God that He is the supreme richest person. That is quite reasonable. If we say God is the supreme wise, that is quite reasonable. So this definition given by Parāśara Muni, that aiśvaryasya samagrasya, that is perfect.

Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be, God is independent, satandhara (?). Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ (SB 1.1.1). Svarāṭ, independent. He does not depend on anything; still He is God. That is God. If He is dependent on anything, then He is not God.

Hayagrīva: But does the history of man necessarily make any sense? He saw it as progressing, as man, here again is evolution...

Prabhupāda: As soon as there is creation there is history, from the very beginning, that this is the point of creation and it will go on, history, until it is ended. Just like as soon as you are born, your horoscope is made, the history. Now throughout your whole life there are so many activities, and after, we also believe next life the history continues. But superficially we make history from the beginning to the end of this body, that's all. But God is not subject to such rule that "God is created at a certain point and He is ended at a certain point." Then where is the question of history? There is no history. History is for the small things. For me there is past, present, future. For God there is no such thing as past, present, future. So where is the history? History means past, present, future.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: He is worshipable by everyone. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: (BG 7.7) "Everyone has got higher than him for worship, but I have nothing to worship. I am the Supreme, mattaḥ parataram. No..., there is no more superior authority than Me." Then He is God. So long one has superior authority, he is not God. He is subordinate. But when he comes to a person who has no more superior than Him, then He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is Kṛṣṇa.

Hayagrīva: Although Alexander himself tries to describe God in philosophical terms...

Prabhupāda: Then his philosophy is right, that an ant's god is a bird; bird's god..., like that. So when he finds, comes to a person who has no more god, then He is Supreme God.

Hayagrīva: But he feels that ultimately God is beyond description. He says...

Prabhupāda: No. Why? We have, this, this is description.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: Yes. Everyone is dependent. There is no question about it.

Hayagrīva: But how is God dependent on man?

Prabhupāda: Not. God is not dependent, but...

Hayagrīva: No, but that, he seemed to be saying that.

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Hayagrīva: He says, "If man wants God and depends upon Him, God wants man and is so far dependent."

Prabhupāda: Yes. That, that is acceptable in this sense, that God is independent thoroughly, but sometimes He wants to become dependent. That is His pleasure. And He accepts some of His devotee so that He can depend upon. Just like mother Yaśodā, that God became dependent on mother Yaśodā. Unless mother Yaśodā allows God to suck her breast, God will die. God is thinking like that, and He is crying. That is God's pleasure, that everyone is dependent on Him, and He is not dependent on anyone, so in order to derive this pleasure how a dependent child enjoys the care of mother, He accept to become a son of a devotee. That is not very ordinary thing to understand, but He has In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is explained...