Obstinacy (Letters)

Expressions researched:
obstinacies |obstinacy |obstinancy |obstinate

1969 Correspondence

Due to my obstinacy my father finally agreed. Later on when I was young and lost my father, I was very sorry to have lost such affectionate father, but by Krishna's Grace, I have now many American fathers and mothers.

Letter to Mukunda -- Los Angeles 20 February, 1969: My father was very much affectionate, and in my childhood, whatever I wanted from my father he would at once give me. One time he purchased for me one rifle, and so after taking it I demanded that he must give me another. My father denied "You already have one. Why do you ask me for another?" So my argument was that I must have two rifles, one for each hand. Due to my obstinacy my father finally agreed. Later on when I was young and lost my father, I was very sorry to have lost such affectionate father, but by Krishna's Grace, I have now many American fathers and mothers. So I am appealing to all of my American fathers and mothers to help me by this contribution. Please let me know if you will do this. I am waiting your early reply.

The mistake is due to their obstinacy. The impersonalists masquerade as Vedantists, but actually they are defying Vedanta.

Letter to Rupanuga -- Hawaii 14 March, 1969: Your second question, how the impersonalists mistake the difference between the soul and the Supersoul—The mistake is due to their obstinacy. The impersonalists masquerade as Vedantists, but actually they are defying Vedanta. In the Vedanta it is clearly said, the Original Source of all being; in the Upanisads it is clearly said that the Supreme is the Supreme being of all living beings. So all the Vedas affirm it vehemently that the Supersoul and the soul are two different identities, although qualitatively one. But the impersonalists they accept Vedas as authority, but they go against the verdict of the Vedas. Lord Caitanya has depicted this impersonalist class of men as more dangerous than the Buddhists. The Buddhists plainly declare that they do not accept the authority of the Vedas, but the impersonalists masquerade themselves as followers of Vedas, but actually they are hidden Buddhists. The idea is, if a person is actually fast asleep, it is easier to awake him but if a person pretends to be sleeping but actually is awake, then it is very difficult to wake him up. So from all Sastric point of view, the living entity and the Supreme Lord, or the Supreme Living Entity are always simultaneously different and one. One in quality, and different in quantity. this simple thing is understandable by any common man, but these impersonalists, they will simply invent jugglery of words to mislead innocent people. Therefore Lord Caitanya has warned not to associate with these impersonalist mayavadis because they will spoil one's life by diverting one from devotional service. It is very difficult to bring to reason the obstinate impersonalists. For example, Prahlada Maharaja, such a great authority, could not convert his father to devotional service, who preferred death, and still did not agree to accept that God is different from him. So better to avoid the impersonalists as far as possible.

1970 Correspondence

The atheist is so stubborn and obstinate that although he is very fearful of Death who will take away all his arrangements for sense gratification he lies that he does not see Him, and in the end he even attempts to resist Death, but he is killed as easily as anything and there is no doubt about it.

Letter to Syamasundara -- Los Angeles 15 April, 1970: So the atheist is hypocrite himself when he says that he does not believe in God. He has to believe in God in the form of Death. A criminal hypocritically says that he does not believe in the Government, but a civil citizen abides by the law of the Government. The Government is present therefore both for the criminal and for the law abiding citizen. To the criminal the Government is present as force of law and order, putting the criminal in the prison house and giving the civil citizen all facilities for peaceful life. So in both the cases how one can say that he has not seen God? Death is Krishna—mrtyuh sarvaharas ca aham (B.G. 10:34). "(Also) I am Death who takes away everything." The atheist is liar that he does not see God. God is there for him as Death. But the atheist is so stubborn and obstinate that although he is very fearful of Death who will take away all his arrangements for sense gratification he lies that he does not see Him, and in the end he even attempts to resist Death, but he is killed as easily as anything and there is no doubt about it.