Opinion (Lectures, BG)

Expressions researched:
"opinion" |"opinion's" |"opinionated" |"opinions"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG Introduction -- New York, February 19-20, 1966:

Bhagavad-gītā is known also Gītopaniṣad, the essence of Vedic knowledge, and one of the most important of the various Upaniṣads in Vedic literature. This Bhagavad-gītā, there are many commentations in English and what is the necessity of another English commentation of the Bhagavad-gītā can be explained in the following way. One American lady, Mrs. Charlotte Le Blanc asked me to recommend an English edition of Bhagavad-gītā which she can read. Of course, in America there are so many editions of English Bhagavad-gītā, but so far I have seen them, not only in America but also India, none of them can be said strictly as authoritative because almost every one of them have expressed their own opinion through the commentation of the Bhagavad-gītā without touching the spirit of Bhagavad-gītā as it is.

The spirit of Bhagavad-gītā is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā itself. It is just like this. If we want to take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the particular direction mentioned on the label of the medicine. We cannot take the particular medicine according to our own direction or by the direction of a friend, but we have to take the medicine under the direction given on the label of the bottle and as directed by the physician. Similarly, the Bhagavad-gītā also should be taken or accepted as it is directed by the speaker Himself. The speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā is Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He is mentioned in every page of the Bhagavad-gītā as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavān. Of course, "bhagavān" is sometimes designated to any powerful person or any powerful demigod, but here bhagavān is certainly designated to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, a great personality, but at the same time we must know that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, as He is confirmed by all the ācāryas...

Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 :

"The Bhagavad-gītā is also known as the Gītopaniṣad. It is the essence of the Vedic knowledge and one of the most important Upaniṣads in Vedic literature. There are many commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā, and the necessity for another should be explained in the following basis. An American lady asked me to recommend an English edition of the Bhagavad-gītā which she could read. I was unable to do so in good conscience. Of course there are many translations, but of those I have seen, not only in America but those also in India, none can be said to be authoritative, because in almost every one of them the author has expressed his personal opinion through the commentaries without touching the spirit of the Bhagavad-gītā as it is. The spirit of the Bhagavad-gītā is mentioned in the Gītā itself. It is like this: If we want to take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the directions written on the label of the bottle. We cannot take the medicine according to our own directions or the directions of a friend ot in knowledge of this medicine. We must follow the directions on the label or the directions of our physician. The Bhagavad-gītā also should be accepted as it is directly by the speaker Himself. The speaker is Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He is mentioned on every page as the Supreme Personality of Godhead or Bhagavān. Bhagavān sometimes means any powerful person or demigod, but here it means Kṛṣṇa."

Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 :

Lord Buddha made His propaganda from Bihar. He was Indian. But the defect was that He did not acknowledge the authority of the Vedas. Therefore His philosophy was considered atheism. And this Śaṅkarācārya drove away all the Buddhists from the land of India. Therefore they took shelter in China, Japan, Burma. Outside India. So anyway, strict religionists they are followers of Vedas, and they are divided into two groups: one group led by Śaṅkarācārya and the other group is led by the Vaiṣṇavas, or generally Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya or Lord Caitanya. They are all the same, Vaiṣṇava. Now all these two groups, following the Vedic principles, they accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So far India's authoritative persons are concerned, there is no two opinions, that Kṛṣṇa is not God. Both of them accept Kṛṣṇa the Supreme Personality. So far we are concerned, Vaiṣṇavas, we accept. There is no doubt about it. There are four different parties of Vaiṣṇavas. All of them accept Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are eight commentaries on the very authoritative, very large commentaries on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam of these Vaiṣṇavas, and all of them accept Kṛṣṇa. So far the other party is concerned, the impersonalists led by Śaṅkarācārya, a great stalwart scholar, he also accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He says, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa: "The concept of Personality of Godhead, here is Kṛṣṇa." And people may misunderstand; therefore he has specifically mentioned Kṛṣṇa who has appeared as the son of Devakī and Vasudeva. Particularly, just like when you have to put your identification, you have to give the, your father's name or your husband's name. Similarly, the same principle as Śaṅkarācārya has followed. He has said "Kṛṣṇa, the Kṛṣṇa who is, wh has appeared as the son of Devakī and Vasudeva." So there is no two opinions. No, "Or this Kṛṣṇa, maybe another Kṛṣṇa." No. So that is stated here. Yes. Kṛṣṇa is accepted the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all the followers of Vedas. That is a fact. Yes.

Lecture on BG 1.1 -- London, July 7, 1973:

So the history is that same family, there was dispute who would occupy the throne. Dhṛtarāṣṭra and, actually he was the eldest son of the king, and next was Pāṇḍu. So every country the law of primogeniture, what is called? The eldest child... In your country even the eldest child is a girl, she also occupies the throne. Just like present Queen Elizabeth. Formerly there was Queen Victoria; before that, another Elizabeth. But in India woman has no such right. Woman is never given any responsible post. That is the opinion of the greatest politician in the history of the world, Cāṇakya Paṇḍita. According to his opinion, viśvāso naiva kartavyaḥ strīṣu rāja-kuleṣu ca. He has given his explicit opinion that "You cannot trust with any responsible post or any responsibility with a woman and politician." Those who are diplomat, politician, you cannot trust them.

So the general regulation is that woman should remain under the protection of husband, er, father, husband and children. Just like these Pāṇḍus, their mother, Kuntī, she was very, very qualified lady. But still, after the death of her husband, she always remained with the sons. The sons are going to the forest; the mother is also going. Also the wife is also going, Draupadī. This was the... So two parties... Dhṛtarāṣṭra was the eldest son, but he was blind, bodily defect. Therefore he was not awarded the throne. His next brother, Pāṇḍu, he was offered the throne, but he died very early age, a young man. When these Pāṇḍus, the five sons, Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja, at at that time not Mahārāja, Yudhiṣṭhira, Bhīma, Arjuna, Nakula, Sahadeva, they were very small children, so they were taken care of by Dhṛtarāṣṭra and other elderly family... Bhīṣmadeva. He was the grandfather of the Pāṇḍavas.

Lecture on BG 1.1 -- London, July 7, 1973:

They might have settled up." Actually, the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra might have admitted, "Yes, Pāṇḍavas, you are actually the owner. What is the use of unnecessarily fighting?" So he was very much anxious whether they had changed their decision. Therefore he is asking. Otherwise there was no question of asking, kim akurvata. He... Just like if you are given food, if I ask somebody that "Such and such gentleman was served with nice dishes. Then what did he do?" This is foolish question. He would eat. That's all. (laughter) What is the question of "What did he do?" Similarly, when it is already settled up that they were to fight, there was no such question as kim akurvata, "What did they do?" But he asked this question because he was doubtful whether they had changed their opinion.

Kim akurvata sañjaya (BG 1.1). He was asking his secretary. He was blind man. He was always conducted by his secretary Sañjaya, a very faithful secretary. And he is explaining the Bhagavad-gītā by experiencing, by television within the heart. That art is not yet developed. You have got television through machine, but there is another television—you can see within your heart everything, what is going on outside. So that television was known to... That will be explained by Sañjaya, that by the grace of Vyāsadeva, he learned this televisioning, and he was sitting with his master within the room and he was actually seeing how the fighting is going on. And he was explaining. This is the basic principle of Bhagavad-gītā, I mean, the basic platform. So let us discuss gradually, one after an... Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa. (break)

Lecture on BG 1.31 -- London, July 24, 1973:

Because there is no chance of becoming Kṛṣṇa conscious. Why you shall make a show? There is no benefit by making a show. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna is trying to make a show of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He has good attachment for other things. And the whole Bhagavad-gītā is taught to Arjuna to give up that attachment.

So ultimately it is said that, Sañjaya said, yatra yogeśvaraḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (BG 18.78). Yatra yogeśvaraḥ kṛṣṇo yatra pārtho dhanur-dharaḥ/ tatra śrīr vijayo bhūtir, bhuva, dhruvā nītir matir mama. This is the conclusion of Bhagavad-gītā. Sañjaya uvāca. And at last Sañjaya said to his master, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, "My dear master, you are expecting victory between the fight, fight between your sons and..., but don't expect it. It is," matir mama, "in my opinion, yatra kṛṣṇaḥ yogeśvara, the party where Kṛṣṇa the Yogeśvara...," Yogeśvara. Yoga, yoga there are powerful mystic power. Yoga means mystic power. Not this yoga, this playing some gymnastics. That is not yoga. Yoga means when one becomes perfect in yoga, he gets many siddhis. They are called aṣṭa-siddhi, eight kinds of siddhi. Aṇimā, laghimā, prāpti-siddhi, like that, so many. Īśitva, vaśitva. So a yogi, aṇimā, he can become the smaller than the smallest. We are already smaller than the smallest, because our real dimension, spiritual dimension, is one ten-thousandth part of the tip of the hair. This is our dimension. This is only outward covering, this body. Keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca (CC Madhya 19.140). So a yogi can give up this body and come to his original, spiritual body, and it is so small that you cannot keep yogi in prison. Anywhere. Because there is some hole, he'll get out. This is yogi. This is mystic power. What do they know about mystic power? Simply press the nose, that's all.

Lecture on BG 1.43 -- London, July 30, 1973:

So anyway, why this living entity is wandering, not fixed up? So there must be some goal. He is hankering after that. There must be some goal of life. To achieve that goal of life that is called sādhya. Why we are struggling here for happiness or something else? We are struggling. So this question was raised by Caitanya Mahāprabhu, that "What is the goal of life?" Unless there is goal of life, why there is struggle? Why... There must be some goal of life, sādhya. And sādhana. Sādhana means the means by which we can achieve that goal of life. That is called sādhana, sādhana. So Rāmānanda Rāya quoted... Because when there is talk between two learned persons, they... Just like nowadays it has become a fashion: "In my opinion," "I think in this way." What, nonsense, what you can think? What is your knowledge? But he is very proud. Everyone like that. The other day, that Sir Alistair? Alistair Hardy came. He also said, "It is my opinion." Nobody thinks that he is a nonsense number one; what is the value of his opinion? Nobody thinks. But this is the Vedic principle. Even Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He, when He was asked by Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī that "You are a sannyāsī. You do not engage Yourself in the study of Vedānta. You are simply chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa." So... Because a sannyāsī is supposed to be always reading Vedānta philosophy especially and all other philosophy. So "What is this, that you are chanting like a sentimental person?" So Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, "Yes, My Guru Mahārāja, spiritual master, saw Me a fool number one." So Caitanya Mahāprabhu, it was known to Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, He was a great learned scholar in His student life. So He is posing Himself as a fool number one. So this is the way. Caitanya-caritāmṛta the author of Caitanya-caritāmṛta, he is presenting himself: purīṣera kīṭa haite muñi sei laghiṣṭha: (CC Adi 5.205)

Lecture on BG 1.43 -- London, July 30, 1973:

"I am lower than the worm of the stool." Purīṣera kīṭa haite muñi sei laghiṣṭha. Laghiṣṭha means lower, lowest. Jagāi mādhāi haite muñi sei pāpiṣṭha. Jagāi and Mādhāi was taken, they were drunkards, woman hunters. Therefore they were sinful. So Caitanya-caritāmṛta kahe, says that jagāi mādhāi haite muñi sei papiṣṭha. This is the way, nobody think himself as one has become very big man and he has his own opinion to give. This is rascaldom. So everyone should think that "What is my value?" That is really learned, humble and meek. Nobody should think that "Now I have learned everything. I can surpass everyone. I have become above all rules and regulation. Now I have become paramahaṁsa." This is rascaldom. Everyone should always think, "I am fool number one." Therefore the endeavor will go on, to become perfect. If we think that "Now I have become perfect, paramahaṁsa," then the spiritual regulative principles will never be followed, and you will fall down.

So here Arjuna also says that narake niyataṁ vāso bhavati iti anuśuśruma: (BG 1.43) "Kṛṣṇa, I have heard it from authorative sources." He never says, "Kṛṣṇa, in my opinion, if it is done like that, then people will go to hell." He does not give his own opinion. He says iti, "Thus," anuśuśruma, "I have heard." This is called paramparā system. Nobody should give his own opinion. He must quote the authoritative statement to support his proposition. So similarly, when Caitanya Mahāprabhu asked that "What is the aim of life and how to achieve it?" so Rāmānanda Rāya, he did not give his own opinion, that "In my opinion, like this." Here also Arjuna says, ity anuśuśruma, "I have heard it." He heard it means... Śuśruma means "heard from authority." So Rāmānanda Rāya said that "Real purpose of life, goal of life, is to satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Just like as we are citizens, what is our duty?

Lecture on BG 2.1-10 and Talk -- Los Angeles, November 25, 1968:

Prabhupāda: He'll accept. So acceptance of spiritual master means to accept anything, whatever he says. Therefore one has to select a spiritual master whom he can completely surrender. That is the technique. Veda-vākya. Just like in the Vedic injunction, nobody can deny. Similarly, spiritual master is also representative of Veda. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. So similarly, it is just like Vedic injunction. So spiritual master has also got the great duty. He has to instruct the disciple in such a way that he may not be misled, and that is not possible because a spiritual master is he who will simply speak from authoritative sources. He'll speak from Bhagavad-gītā, Bhāgavata, or what was spoken by Nārada, Vyāsa, that is his authority. He does not say, "In my opinion it is..." No. Therefore it is perfect, it is coming from the disciplic succession, and if one agrees to such instruction, then he's also perfectly advancing. It is not difficult to understand. So he's accepting. "Now I accept You as my spiritual master. You teach me." Is that the statement? Yes. What is that?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "He offers himself to Kṛṣṇa as a disciple. He wants to stop friendly talks. Kṛṣṇa is therefore the original spiritual master in the science of the Bhagavad-gītā, and Arjuna is the original disciple in understanding the Gītā. How Arjuna understands the Bhagavad-gītā is stated in the Gītā itself, and yet foolish mundane scholars explain that one need not submit to Kṛṣṇa as a person but to the unborn within Kṛṣṇa. There is no difference between Kṛṣṇa's within and without, and one who has no sense of this understanding is the greatest fool, the greatest pretender."

Lecture on BG 2.1-11 -- Johannesburg, October 17, 1975:

Here is Kṛṣṇa. So you have to accept Kṛṣṇa or His representative as guru. Then your problems will be solved. Otherwise it is not possible, because he can say what is good for you, what is bad for you. He is asking, yac chreyaḥ syān niścitaṁ brūhi tat (BG 2.7). Niścitam. If you want advice, instruction, niścitam, which is without any doubt, without any illusion, without any mistake, without any cheating, that is called niścitam. That you can get from Kṛṣṇa or His representative. You cannot get right information from the imperfect person or a cheater. That is not right instruction. Nowadays it has become a fashion; everyone is becoming guru and he is giving his own opinion, "I think," "In my opinion." That is not guru. Guru means he should give evidences from śāstra. Yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ: (BG 16.23) "Anyone who does not give evidences, proof, from the śāstra, then" na siddhiṁ sa avāpnoti, "he does not get at any time success," na sukham, "neither any happiness in this material world," na parāṁ gatim, "and what to speak of elevation in the next life." These are the injunction.

So we must select guru. Here it is, example, Arjuna. He's accepting Kṛṣṇa as guru. Why he is accepting? Because, he says,

na hi prapaśyāmi mamāpanudyād

yac chokam ucchoṣaṇam indriyāṇām

avāpya bhūmāv asapatnam ṛddhaṁ

rājyaṁ surāṇām api cādhipatyam

(BG 2.8)

So he has selected that the right person, guru, and he said that "Unless I hear from You what is right and wrong, I cannot decide whether I shall fight or I shall not fight. Which way is better for me I cannot understand." In this way,

Lecture on BG 2.2 -- London, August 3, 1973:

Mahābhārata, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Vedānta-sūtra. Everything is given by Vyāsadeva in writing, and we'll accept it, Nārāyaṇa, incarnation of Nārāyaṇa, mahāmuni-kṛte. He is also Vyāsa-muni, but He is also mahāmuni-kṛte. So there cannot be any mistake in the words of Vyāsadeva. This is the difficulty. If one does not come through the channel of disciplic succession, so they are in so many ways mistaken. Vyāsadeva is above all this. He is not an ordinary writer, material description or material name and faith. He cannot be mistaken. As Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa cannot be mistaken. Similarly, Vyāsadeva, incarnation of Bhagavān, he also cannot be mistaken. Neither devotee of Kṛṣṇa can be mistaken. Devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he does not say anything as his own opinion. He never says. What Kṛṣṇa says, he says. He may be not perfect, but what Kṛṣṇa has said, that is perfect.

Therefore, a pure devotee, who does not say anything beyond which was spoken by Kṛṣṇa, therefore his statement is also without mistake. Common man within this material world, he commits mistake: "To err is human." Even big, big personalities, they commit mistake. But nārāyaṇa paraḥ. He is transcendental. Kṛṣṇa is transcendental. There cannot be any mistake; there cannot be any illusion. Those who are in this material world, they have got four defects: they commit mistake, they are illusioned, and their senses are imperfect, bhrama, pramāda, vipralipsā, and they're cheaters. Because... Just like modern-day scientists and philosophers, they propogate so many branches of knowledge, but when, on the crucial point, they are caught, they say, "I do not know perfectly. I do not know perfectly.

Lecture on BG 2.8 -- London, August 8, 1973:

And the Vedic knowledge is explained by guru. Therefore one has to take shelter of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme guru, or His representative. Then all these troubles, means ignorance, can be dissipated. Yac chokam ucchoṣaṇam indriyāṇām (BG 2.8).

So now Kṛṣṇa may say: "There are, that's all right. You are, for temporarily... You go on fighting. And when you will get the kingdom, you'll be happy. There is no need of making Me guru. Neither it is..." Just like ordinary men, they think that: "We are earning so much money. What is the use of making a guru? I can understand everything in my own way." And another rascal is: "Yes, yata mata tata patha. Whatever their opinion, that's all right. You can make your own opinion." That is going on. You can make your own opinion to understand God. So all foolish rascals, they're making their own opinion. No, that is not possible. Therefore Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna says: avāpya bhūmāv asaptnam ṛddham (BG 2.8). This is a very significant word. Sapatni. Sapatni means "rival wife, co-wife." If a man has got two, three wives... Why two, three? Our Lord had 16,100. So this is God. Sapatnya, but there is no competition. You'll find in the statements of all the queens in Kṛṣṇa book, when they were talking with Kuntī, er, Draupadī, every wife was giving description that how much she was anxious to become maidservant of Kṛṣṇa. Nobody is rival. In the material world, if a man has got more than one wife, there is rivalry. Rivalry. This example is given in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that just like we have got our senses, similarly, if somebody has got different wife, so one wife is snatching him that: "You come to my room," another wife is snatching:

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

Now, apart from statement of authority, you have to apply your reason and arguments. Can you say anywhere there is agreement between two parties? No. You go, study. In the state, in the family, in the community, in the nation, there is no agreement. Even in the assembly, even in your country. Suppose there is Senate, everyone has got country's interest, but he's thinking in his individual way. One is thinking that "My country's welfare will be in this line." Otherwise, why there is competition during election of president. Everyone is saying that "America needs Nixon." And another person, he also says, "America needs me." So, but why two? If America you, and you are both... No. There is individuality. Mr. Nixon's opinion is something else. Mr. another candidate's opinion is something else. In the assembly, in the Senate, in the Congress, in the United Nations, everyone is fighting with his individual view. Otherwise why there are so many flags in the world? You cannot say anywhere impersonalism. Personality is predominating everywhere. Everywhere, the personality, individuality, is predominant. So we have to accept. We have to apply our reason, arguments, and accept the authority. Then the question is solved. Otherwise it is most difficult.

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

He did not assume that title. And besides that, when Caitanya Mahāprabhu was going to Lord..., see Jagannātha Purī, His rod was taken away by Nityānanda and it was broken and thrown away. So He, apparently He became very angry that "You have broken My rod, sannyāsa rod. So I am not going with You." He separated. These statements are there in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (CC Madhya 1.97). So in one sense, Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not require to accept any sannyāsa guru, but He accepted the formality that if one takes sannyāsa, one has to take sannyāsa from another sannyāsī. That is the system. Just like if you want to get yourself married, you have to call for a priest. That does not mean that you have to agree with the priest's personal opinion. Do you follow? Yes. He may execute the rules and regulation of marriage ceremony, but that does not mean that one has to agree with the priest's opinion, personal opinion. This is the answer. But when you accept a spiritual master, that is not allowed. Unless you cent percent agree with the spiritual master's opinion or philosophy, there is no need of accepting a spiritual master. There is no need. Yes.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

We cannot maintain even one wife, but He maintained 16,108 wives, and each wife had big palatial buildings. This description we have got. So that means so far riches are concerned, Kṛṣṇa showed that there is no second comparison in the whole history of the world that one is maintaining sixteen thousand wives and each wife has got special palace. These descriptions are there. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and, by all the authorities of Vedic knowledge. Formerly, during Kṛṣṇa's time, there were authorities like Vyāsadeva, like Nārada. They also accepted that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And you will find in the Tenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā Arjuna, after understanding Kṛṣṇa, he expressed his opinion, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān puruṣaṁ śāśvatam ādyam (BG 10.12). He accepted. And he also said that "I am not accepting... Because it may be said that I am Your friend, so I am accepting You as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but great ācāryas or great stalwart authorities like Parāśara Muni, Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita, Devala..." He gave evidence. So Kṛṣṇa is accepted. So far Vedic literature is concerned, the ācāryas are concerned... Recently, within, say, two thousand years, there have been many ācāryas like Śaṅkarācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka, Rāmānujācārya. They have all accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And, say, within five hundred years, Lord Caitanya, He also accepted Kṛṣṇa. By His symptoms, by the historical fact, by the evidence of the Vedas, He is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, when Kṛṣṇa is speaking, the very words are used, śrī bhagavān uvāca. Bhagavān means the Supreme Personality of Godhead is speaking. Uvāca means speaking.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

Madhudviṣa: She also disagrees with hanging.

Prabhupāda: You may disagree, but what is the principle? Do you mean to say the state is wrong, the government is wrong?

Woman (1): (Yes)

Prabhupāda: Well, that is an individual opinion. But according to śāstra, we have to understand that... Suppose your dress, something unclean dress, you have got. So if somebody says that "You take out this unclean dress. Get a...," so is that very (sic:) enimating. Because after all, the soul is within the body. So if the body has become unclean, or some other reason, the body has to be changed, so that is not lack of love. Therefore we have to understand actually what we are. Am I this body or something else?

Woman (1): No, I quite agree that I'm spirit soul. I quite agree with that.

Prabhupāda: Then that's all right. So similarly, when there is duty, when..., because I have already explained that the kṣatriyas are meant for maintaining the social order. The brāhmaṇa is meant for giving good intelligence. The vaiśyas are meant for maintaining the economic condition. So as the government maintains the force, military police, their business is to chastise. This is required for maintenance of the whole thing. So you cannot avoid this war, fighting, when it is for good cause. We should not be so foolish that war can be, I mean to say, completely abolished. That is not possible. If you want to keep the social order, you must have to maintain the military strength, the police strength, and the court or the university. Everything is required. You cannot neglect one of them. Similarly... But if you are afraid of being killed—that is the medicine we are preaching—then you get out of this entanglement. You be situated in your spiritual body. There is no more question of killing. But so long you are in the material world, you have to abide by the rules and regulation of material nature. That you cannot avoid.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

Prabhupāda: That glorious... First of all we must know what we are. The mistake is that we are accepting this body as ourself. I am thinking Indian, you are thinking Australian, he is thinking American, he is thinking Mohammedan, he is thinking Hindu. In this way, because we are thinking different way, we have got difference of opinion. But as soon as we come to the spiritual platform. There will be no more different opinion. That we are trying, that come to the spiritual platform. Then everything will go on. The first lesson of coming to the spiritual platform is to understand that "I am not this body." This the first lesson of spiritual understanding.

Man (4): I've read about Hubbard's Scientology and a lot of the writings that Hubbard writes sound a lot like the theory of Hare Kṛṣṇa. Is there any parallel at all between the two, or have you taken any opinion on side (?) both your cases? You know anything about that?

Madhudviṣa: He is saying is there any similarities between the philosophy of Scientology...

Prabhupāda: What is that Scientology? I do not know. (laughter, applause) I do not know. Can you explain what is this Scientology?

Man (4): It's just a teaching that's supposed to be fairly widespread. (laughter)

Madhudviṣa: Yes?

Man (5): Can you give any explanation about the spiritual, around the earth. If they are all luminous?

Lecture on BG 2.11 -- Edinburgh, July 16, 1972:

You can study God, what is God, by studying yourself. Because I am part and... Just like from a bag of rice, if you take a few grains of rice, you see, you can understand what quality of rice is there in the bag. Similarly, God is great, that's all right. But if we simply study ourself, then we can understand what is God. Just like you take a drop of water from the ocean. You can understand what are the chemical composition of the ocean. You can understand. So that is called meditation. To study oneself, "What I am." If one has actually studied himself, then he can understand God also. Now take, for example, "What I am." Even you meditate upon yourself, you can understand that you are an individual person. Individual person means you have got your own opinion, I have got my own opinion. Therefore sometimes we disagree. Because you are individual, I am individual. And because we are all individuals, as part and parcel of God, then God also must be individual. This is study. As I am a person, so God is also person. God cannot be imperson. If we take God as the original father, supreme father... The Christian religion believes. All other religion believes. And we also believe, Bhagavad-gītā. Because Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4), "I am the original father of all living entities." So if God is father of all living entities and we all living entities, we are individual person, how God can be imperson? God is person. This is called philosophy; this is called logic.

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966:

Kṛṣṇa is trying to convince Arjuna that death does not take place. He says clearly that "Myself—I am the Supreme God, Kṛṣṇa—yourself, you, and all the other kings and the soldiers, those who have assembled in this great battlefield, it is not that in the past, we were not existing. And in the present, we are now face to face. We are seeing that we are existing. And in the future, we shall also exist in the same way." "In the same way" means individually. Just like I am an individual person. You are an individual person. He is an individual person. So I, you, he, or they—first person, second person and the third person—so that individuality continues. Individuality of every living being is a fact. Therefore in the actual field also, we see that we have got difference of opinion. What I think, you may not agree with me because you have got your individuality. Similarly, your thinking may not be agreed by another gentleman. So everyone has got his individuality. That is a fact. Not that the... Just like there is a class of philosophers who says that the soul is a homogeneous, one entity, and after the destruction, after the annihilation of this body, the soul, as a substance, will mix up. Just like water. You keep in different pots. In different pots you keep water. So the water takes the shape of the pot, the bowl, round bowl. You keep water. The water takes the shape of round. So similarly, there are thousands of, or millions of, waterpots, and suppose all the waters are mixed up. Then there is no distinction. Just like they were in the pots. So their theory is that when a soul is liberated then the, that it mixes up with the Supersoul. Just like a drop water taken from the sea water and again put it into the sea, it mixes up. It loses its identity.

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 9, 1966:

God has given us. Now, by our independence, I may accept as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I may accept Him that the all-pervading Supersoul, and I may accept Him that the all-pervading Brahman, impersonal brahma-jyotir effulgence. So all these are applicable to the Absolute Truth. Now, it depends on my discretion whether I want to merge into the existence of the Lord, whether I want to keep my individuality and associate with Him as friend, as father, mother, as wife. Just like we have got relation. So that depends on my discretion. But now, comparatively, if we study that if we merge into the existence of God, the, at least, in the opinion of the bhaktas, that is not acceptable. That is not acceptable. They know that, that "God has created me as an individual being, so He has got some purpose. And because He has created me for some purpose, I must fulfill that purpose. I must fulfill that purpose."

Now, I can give you another crude example that a, that a, from the mother... Suppose a few children, half a dozen children, has come. Now, what is the intention of the mother? The mother or the father... Mother or father, same thing—who has taken the responsibility of the children. They, they want to be happy. Otherwise, why people are taking so much trouble, whole day, for, I mean, maintaining their children? There is some happiness. Nobody wants to take so much trouble, but at home, because there is some happiness by seeing the children, by maintaining the children, by..., therefore he takes so much trouble. Now, at the same time, the children has also some troubles of life. Now, if one of the children requests the mother, "Mother, you have given birth to me, and... But I find my life very troublesome. Better you again put me in your belly." (laughs) Is it a good proposal? It is not at all a good proposal.

Lecture on BG 2.16 -- London, August 22, 1973:

Is He speaking something nonsense, utopian? No, He is speaking the fact. Otherwise, if Kṛṣṇa speaks something nonsense, utopian, then nobody would be interested to read Bhagavad-gītā. We may be third-class men, that we indulge in Bhagavad-gītā, and Kṛṣṇa is speaking something utopian, nonsense. But there are big, big ācāryas—Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya. Why they are giving attention to the reading of Bhagavad-gītā? Kṛṣṇa does not speak anything nonsense. It is fact. So if it is the fact that there is possibility of becoming immortal... That is sat.

So sat... Our business should be to be engaged in the sat platform, not in the asat platform. Asat platform, nonpermanent, or according to somebody's opinion, false. So false or nonpermanent, whatever it may be, the real human civilization should be based on the purpose of becoming immortal, sat, not asat. That is the distinction between India and other countries. Now I am not speaking of India of today, but India as it is. Big, big ācāryas, just like Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva is the original ācārya. Therefore the birthday of guru is called vyāsa-pūjā. Vyāsa-pūjā means original guru. Guru is the representative of Vyāsadeva. This throne is called vyāsāsana, sitting place of Vyāsadeva. So one who is representative of Vyāsadeva, he can sit on this throne. So guru, by paramparā system, guru is seated on the vyāsāsana because he is the representative. Just like in the high-court, the bench, it is called bench. Actually, the bench is to be used by the head of the executive power, the king or the president. But the high-court judge is the representative of the head executive; therefore, he sits on that bench.

Lecture on BG 2.16 -- London, August 22, 1973:

That tattva is called sometimes Brahman, sometimes Paramātmā, and sometimes Bhagavān. The Bhagavān is the last word of tattva. Therefore, you'll find in every stanza, Vyāsadeva is writing, but he's writing śrī bhagavān uvāca. Don't think... Vyāsadeva says, that "Although I am writing, I am not the speaker. The speaker is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Śrī bhagavān uvāca. "The authority is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not I." The modern so-called philosophers, scientists, scholars, they say, "I think. I think." What is your value? The great personalities, they will not say like that. Never they will say. Therefore Kṛṣṇa even says, tattva-darśibhiḥ: "It has been concluded by higher authorities." He is Himself authority; still He's not speaking that "I say." No. Sometimes He says mataṁ mama: "That is My opinion." But He's also following the principle, authoritative, tattva-darśibhiḥ. Tattva-darśibhiḥ saṅkhye (?) ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntaḥ, conclusion. Although Kṛṣṇa is saying that this is sat and this is asat, this is permanent and this is nonpermanent, but still, He is giving evidences that tattva-darśibhiḥ, those who have seen the truth, they have concluded like that. This is, means, authority. "They have concluded like that. Don't think that I am manufacturing something. No." Tattva-darśibhiḥ. This is the way of understanding. Whether tattva-darśibhiḥ. We also give reference sometimes in the modern age that such and such professor says such and such. But they are not tattva-darśibhiḥ. They are all speculator. They are not tattva-darśibhiḥ. But we have to go to the tattva-darśī.

Lecture on BG 2.18 -- Hyderabad, November 23, 1972:

So this age... Therefore śāstra says, prāyeṇa alpa āyuṣaḥ. Generally, almost everyone is short-living. Prāyeṇa alpa āyuṣaḥ kalau asmin yuge janāḥ. Asmin yuge, kalau, they are very short-living. Then again, mandāḥ: all rascals. Mandāḥ, third class; no first-class men. Practically no brahminical qualification. All śūdra qualification. Therefore mandāḥ. Sumanda-matayaḥ. And if one comes forward to be spiritually enlightened, he accepts something bogus, which has no meaning, without any reference to the śāstras. Therefore mandāḥ sumanda-matayaḥ. They have got a opinion, and that is going on. You may have any opinion. That is all right. This foolishness is going on in this age. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayaḥ. Manda-bhāgyāḥ, and most unfortunate. Everyone is practically unfortunate. Nobody has certainty what he will eat tomorrow, or in the evening. Everywhere... Don't think only it is only in India. In America. When I went there, I thought everyone is very rich. There are so many poor men. They are lying on the street. The street-lying population is everywhere, either in India or in America or in England. I have seen. The first-class, second-class, third-class men will remain there. You may however try to make everyone first class; the division, first class, second class, third class, will go on. That is nature's arrangement. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayo manda-bhāgyā hy upadrutāḥ (SB 1.1.10). And disturbed. Just like today's strike, unnecessarily. Disturbance. So many disturbance everywhere, all over the world, because the population has degraded, degraded. They must be like that. This is the way.

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Hyderabad, November 30, 1972:

So this is the opinion of the modern scientists or the Buddha philosophy, that soul, there is nothing like soul separately, but by combination of matter, at a certain stage, the living symptoms are manifest. And as it is combination of several chemicals, so it is also finished as soon as the body is finished. There is no, nothing as soul. That is their opinion. So for argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa says, "If you think like that, that the body is all in all..., by certain condition, the material elements combine, and again it is finished..." So Arjuna was declining to fight. So the, for argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa says that "If you think like that, the body's everything, so it will be destroyed automatically. So why you are so much afraid?" Suppose I have combined some chemicals and it is destroyed... Say, bottles of chemicals, some way or other, it is destroyed. So who laments for that? You can purchase another bottle. That is simply for argument's sake. Actually, that is not the position. Now, if you think that the combination of chemicals can produce living force, then why don't you do it in the laboratory? The chemicals are there. You can combine and just produce a small ant, moving. Then it is... Science means observation and experiment. So if you simply observe, and cannot make any experiment, practical, so then that is not science. That is only theory. That is not possible. No scientist has ever made any living entity by combination of chemicals in the laboratory. Nobody can do that. (pause)

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Hyderabad, November 30, 1972:

Because you are here. It is for you. For us. You means you, me. Because we wanted to enjoy, we became, we wanted to lord it over the material nature, therefore God has given you the facility that "You enjoy." But just to make you convinced that we cannot enjoy, we become enjoyed... This conviction, when you come to this conviction, that we cannot enjoy, we become enjoyed, at that time, we seek after God. That is natural. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. So God has created this material world because we wanted it. That is the philosophy... (break) ...your opinion, why God has created? Eh?

Lecture on BG 2.27-38 -- Los Angeles, December 11, 1968:

Nara-nārāyaṇa: I am yet not so clear to understand why it is so important to Arjuna that Kṛṣṇa should say to Arjuna that it is so important, the reputation. Because in Arjuna's own heart he knows that he is being kind, or that he is in confusion because of his kindness. Does this make a difference, the opinion that one's fellow kṣatriya would have of him?

Prabhupāda: Arjuna was reputed as a great warrior. So he should remain a great warrior. A warrior's business is not to stop fighting on the plea of becoming kind. If you have gone to the warfield and if you practice nonviolence there, this is useless. Why should you go? There is a Bengali proverb that naste bose guṇṭhanam(?), that... In India, the girls, they cover their head. That is the system of married girl's shyness. So it is said that one girl is on the stage for dancing. Now while she is to dance, she's covering the head. What is the use of covering the head? You have come to dance, you dance. Similarly, in the warfield, you have gone there to fight. Where is the question of becoming nonviolent? So things should be done according to the time and atmosphere. In the warfield, there is no question of nonviolence. The war is arranged for committing violence. Where is the question of preaching there nonviolence?

Devotee: I don't know how to exactly word this. It seems like... I didn't quite understand the explanation, but it seems that although the battlefield is arranged for this war, there was almost a test for his principles and for him to renounce his place in the kṣatriya class. This is where I get confused in the Gītā. It seems like this is a very noble thing for him to renounce his place in the caste. I'm not clear here.

Lecture on BG 3.27 -- Melbourne, June 27, 1974:

Puruṣa. Puruṣa means the enjoyer. Everyone of us sitting in this hall, we have got different mentality to enjoy differently, different dress, different mentality, different opinion, because everyone of us we are individual. So this individuality is both in spiritual world and the material world. But in the material world our individuality is different on account of associating or infecting different qualities of the material nature. Just like there are different types of patients in the hospital. Why? Because each and every one of them is infected by different types of germs of disease.

Here it is explained, puruṣa, the living entity, prakṛti-stha, being in this material world. Prakṛti means this material world. We do not belong to this material world. Just like a person in the prison house, he is a citizen, but when he goes into the prisonhouse, he has got different sense, different, I mean, punishment, different dress. They are also dressed differently. So similarly, we are all criminals. Criminals. What is that criminality? Because we have forgotten God. This is criminality.

Lecture on BG 4.1 and Review -- New York, July 13, 1966:

Yes. The trick is that because Gītā is a very reputed literature and Dr. Radhakrishnan, he's also a reputed scholar, so he thought that "I can..." Now, at the present moment, the things are going that everyone can give his own interpretation. That is the modern tendency, that everyone can give his own interpretation in any literature. So that, I mean to say, propensity, is also in Dr. Radhakrishnan, in Gandhi, and many other persons also. They are renowned persons of the world. So they have translated, and they have given their own opinion. But actually, so far Bhagavad-gītā is concerned, it is to be understood in the process as recommended by Kṛṣṇa. That is clear here. Otherwise, Kṛṣṇa would not have said that is lost. Five thousand years before, there were many scholars, but still, Kṛṣṇa said that "The Bhagavad-gītā..., the purport of the Bhagavad-gītā is now lost." Why it is lost? That means simply scholarship will not do. One has to...

I'll give you one practical example how things are misinterpreted. Now, in India, there was a great dramatist. He was known as Mr. D.L. Raya. He wrote one book which is called Shahjahan. Now this Shahjahan, the theme of this book is that Aurangzeb, the son of Shahjahan, he was the second son of Shahjahan, Emperor Shahjahan, and he made a clique. He killed his elder brother, he killed his younger brother, and he arrested his own father in the fort, and he manipulated things in such a way, politician, and he became the king, emperor, king, emperor. Now, the whole activities of that book is the Aurangzeb's activities. So one friend of the author, D.L. Raya, he inquired from D.L. Raya that "Mr. Raya, you have written this book and this book is full of the activities of Aurangzeb. Now, why you have made the hero Shahjahan? Shahjahan is on the background. The old man is arrested in the fort of Agra. He is sitting there. Why you have named the Shahjahan?" Now, just see the purpose of the author.

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

If we take it, accept it as it is, as Kṛṣṇa says, then actually, we shall be benefited. And great stalwart scholars just like Rāmānujācārya, Śaṅkarācārya, Madhvācārya, in India, they have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the supreme authority.

Even Śaṅkarācārya, who is, who has got a different opinion from the Personality of Godhead. Because we, we, the Vaiṣṇavas, we are, we accept the personal Godhead, but there are other philosophers who do not accept the personal feature of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Śaṅkarācārya was the head of this impersonal school. Still, he has admitted in his commentation of Bhagavad-gītā that sa kṛṣṇaḥ svayaṁ bhagavān: "Oh, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord. He's the Supreme Lord." So Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, and He's accepted.

Now, now Śrī Kṛṣṇa says that "This Bhagavad-gītā, this science of Bhagavad-gītā, was first spoken by Me to the sun-god, sun-god. So whatever I am speaking to you, Arjuna, it is not a new thing." The Vedic knowledge, whatever Vedic knowledge you know, it is not, nothing like some discovery of knowledge. No. Everything is old, revealed knowledge. Everything is old, revealed knowledge. Going on. Just like history repeats itself. Just like this is, this is summer season. It is no new newcomer. The summer season comes. You know in your life. The summer season came last year, and again it has come. And we can foretell also that in the month of December there will be winter season. It is not foretelling. It is going on like that, circle. So everything is rotating, history is repeating. So knowledge, whatever knowledge is there, that is not a new thing. It is all old.

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

Here it is distinct... If you have to believe Bhagavad-gītā, then the distinction you have to believe, you have to take. You cannot say that "There is no difference between me and Kṛṣṇa." No, there is difference. Here the difference is clearly explained that "That is the difference between you and Me, that you forget. You cannot remember all the incidences of your life, past, present and future, but I can remember." That is the difference.

Now, the next question is that if He does not change His body, why He takes, comes as incarnation? These are very difficult questions. There are some, many difference of opinions amongst the philosophers. Somebody says that Kṛṣṇa assumes the material body when He comes. No. He doesn't assume the material body like us. Then He could not remember. Just, here is a critical point. If He would have accepted material body like us, then He could not remember because we have got this material body, and due to this material body and change, we cannot remember anything. Therefore the natural conclusion is that He does not change His body.

Lecture on BG 4.6-8 -- New York, July 20, 1966:

Now, now the principal religions of the world—Hindu religion, Muslim religion, Christian religion, and Buddha religion—most of them believes some supreme authority or personality coming down from the kingdom of God. Just like in your Christian religion Lord Jesus Christ, he claimed to be the son of God and coming from the kingdom of God to reclaim you. So this claim of Lord Jesus Christ, we admit. We, the followers of Bhagavad-gītā, we admit this claim. So there is no difference of opinion between the followers of Hindu religion and Christian religion. In details there may be, according to country, climate and people, in details there may be difference, but that does not make any material difference.

So far devotional service is concerned, now, there are several items for offering devotional service to the Lord. They are called

śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ

smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam

arcanaṁ vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ

sakhyam ātma-nivedanam

(SB 7.5.23)

These are nine. Now, here, in this room, we are performing the process of śravaṇam and kīrtanam.

Lecture on BG 4.19 -- Bombay, April 8, 1974:

Ācārya means one who is speaking exactly the same instruction as Kṛṣṇa has given. That is ācārya. Not ācārya, everyone becomes ācārya. "In my opinion it is like..." Who are you? If you have got any opinion, then you write your own book. Why do you touch Bhagavad-gītā? Because Bhagavad-gītā is very well-known book all over the world, these rascals take advantage of Bhagavad-gītā and interpret it in their own way. That is not ācārya. Ācārya means, as Kṛṣṇa says, that "Millions of years ago I spoke this Bhagavad-gītā..." Imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam, vivasvān (BG 4.1). "I spoke to the sun-god millions and millions of years ago." Vivasvān manave prāha manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt. Manu... If you simply calculate the age of Manu, it becomes millions and trillions of years. So before that. Because Vivasvān spoke to Manu. So Manu's age we cannot calculate. Before that.

So this is the paramparā system. Kṛṣṇa said to the sun-god Vivasvān. Vivasvān exactly transferred the message to Manu. Manu transferred the message to Mahārāja Ikṣvāku. Mahārāja Ikṣvāku is the first king of the Sun Dynasty, sūrya-vaṁśa, kṣatriya, the forefather of the dynasty where Rāmacandra, Lord Rāmacandra appeared.

So the... 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.

Lecture on BG 4.34 -- New York, August 14, 1966:

So if we actually want to reach that point of perfectional knowledge where we can fully surrender... Now, the intelligent person... According to my opinion... I have several times discussed this point, that if it is a point that after many, many births, when I am fully perfect in knowledge, I have to surrender to Kṛṣṇa, then why not immediately surrender to Him? Why shall I wait for many, many births? That is very intelligent proposal. If that is the end of perfection, then why not accept the perfection immediately? But people are doubtful.

Somebody asked me... That, I think, Mr. Moscowitz asked me this question. I answered this point. His inquiry was: "How long it will take to be perfect in Kṛṣṇa consciousness?" So I replied that Kṛṣṇa consciousness can be had in one second, and it cannot be had in thousands of births and deaths. So why? But if we understand this principle that after attainment of full knowledge, I have to ultimately surrender to vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19), I have to become the, I mean to say, sa mahātmā, a great soul like that, why not immediately surrender to Kṛṣṇa? Why not become immediately the supreme, I mean to say, great soul. Sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ. That is a process.

Lecture on BG 6.1-4 -- New York, September 2, 1966:

Now, the whole process of spiritual realization is to come to this stage, transcendental stage. This relationship with the Supreme Lord is pervertedly reflected in this material world. And therefore we have got this relationship here, master and servant. But because it is perverted, therefore that relationship is not master and servant. That relationship is with the money and the benefit. There is no love. There is no love. Here in this material world, the master and the servant, that relationship continues so long the master is able to pay the servant. As soon as the payment is stopped, the relationship of master and servant also stops. Therefore that is not eternal. (to someone:) Come on. Sit down here. That is not eternal. Similarly, here also, there is relationship between friend and friend. But in slight difference of opinion the friendship breaks. The friend becomes enemy. Therefore it is perverted reflection. Similarly, the relationship between... (aside:) Come on here. Relationship between mother and son. A slight difference of opinion breaks the relationship, and the son becomes out of the relationship of mother, mother becomes out of... Every way. Husband and wife, a slight difference of opinion, there is divorce, separation.

Lecture on BG 6.47 -- Ahmedabad, December 12, 1972:

Therefore Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura laments... He was a great, responsible government officer, magistrate, but a great devotee of the Lord, and he's one of the ācāryas, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. So he writes about his own experience that jaḍa-bidyā jato, māyāra vaibhava, tomāra bhajane bādhā. The more we make advancement in the temporary materialistic comforts, the more we become implicated in unnecessary things and they are all impediments for making progress in spiritual life. That is his opinion. And that's a fact. We have seen in Western countries, they are still more materially advanced, but spiritually, they are dull, block-headed, spiritually. Very difficult to convince them spiritually. So sādhu-saṅga (CC Madhya 22.83), by association of sādhus one can achieve advancement in spiritual life. And in all śāstras it is recommended that associate.

Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, the great politician, you know, he also says: tyaja durjana-saṅgam, tyaja durjana-saṅgaṁ bhaja sādhu-samāgamam. Tyaja durjana-saṅga. Give up association with bad elements. What are the bad elements? That is also explained by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. A devotee asked him that what should be the behavior of a person who is spiritually inclined, or Vaiṣṇava? Spiritually inclined means Vaiṣṇava. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that: asat-saṅga-tyāga ei vaiṣṇava-ācāra (CC Madhya 22.87). Those who are interested in spiritual life, or to become a devotee, the first business is to give up the association of bad elements. Asat-saṅga-tyāga vaiṣṇava-ācāra. In one line. Then next question is then who is asat? Asat eka strī-saṅgī kṛṣṇa-abhakta āra. There... He has described who is asat. Strī-saṅgī.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Hyderabad, April 27, 1974:

So if you read Bhagavad-gītā as it is, that is mad-āśrayaḥ. But if you interpret Bhagavad-gītā according to your rascal imagination, that is not Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore it is called mad-āśrayaḥ, "under My protection, as I am tea..." We are therefore presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We do not change. Why should you change? What right you have got to change? If Bhagavad-gītā is a book of authority, and if I make my own interpretation, then where is the authority? Can you change the lawbook according to your interpretation? Then what is the meaning of that lawbook? That is not lawbook. You cannot change. Similarly, if you accept Bhagavad-gītā as the book of authority, you cannot change the meaning. That is not allowed. What right? If you have got some opinion, if you have got some philosophy, you can write in your own book. Why you are, I mean to say, killing others and yourself by interpreting Bhagavad-gītā? You give your own thesis in a different way. But these people, they take advantage of the popularity of Bhagavad-gītā and interpret in a different way according to their own whims. Therefore people do not understand what is Kṛṣṇa. That is the difficulty. And the purpose of Bhagavad-gītā is to understand Kṛṣṇa. And all the so-called scholars' and politicians' commentary is to banish Kṛṣṇa or to kill Kṛṣṇa—the Kaṁsa's policy. The Kaṁsa was always thinking of Kṛṣṇa, how to kill Him. This is called demonic endeavor. So that will not help you.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- London, March 9, 1975:

We can catch under certain condition. So therefore our senses are imperfect. Karaṇa apaṭu. Apaṭu means imperfect. Bhrama-pramāda-karaṇāpaṭava, and another defect is vañcana, or cheating. I am so much defective; still, I want to impress others that I have got full knowledge. How you can have full knowledge if you are so defective? Just like a diseased man. He cannot say, "I am perfect in health." That is not possible. Similarly, if we are defective in so many ways, and if I want to become teacher or preacher to give you the truth, then how can I give? This is not possible. So we cannot hear from anyone who is defective. That is not pure knowledge, that is not perfect knowledge. If we hear from some defective, who theorize, "I think," "In my opinion," "Maybe," "Perhaps..." These are nonsense speaking. So almost everyone, the so-called scientists, philosophers, they simply theorize, "I think." Who are you, you are thinking like that? You are imperfect.

So we cannot accept the theories or the statement of some defective person. We should hear from the person who is not defective, perfect. Therefore our process of hearing or getting knowledge is from the perfect person. That is called Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We are hearing Bhagavad-gītā, we are getting knowledge from Bhagavad-gītā, because Bhagavān Himself speaking. Therefore here it is said... Although it is said by Kṛṣṇa... Everyone knows that Kṛṣṇa spoke Bhagavad-gītā, and Vyāsadeva recorded it and then put it into the Mahābhārata, this statement. But here Vyāsadeva purposely says... One may not misunderstand that this knowledge is imperfect. Therefore he says, bhagavān uvāca. Bhagavān uvāca means there is no defect. You can accept it as it is and you get the full knowledge. This is the meaning of bhagavān uvāca. Many times he has said. So bhagavān uvāca, and He is speaking about Himself, Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa, coming here. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata, tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham (BG 4.7).

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Fiji, May 24, 1975:

If you are inquisitive, if you are actually philosopher, then you will find Kṛṣṇa: Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). That is the verdict of the Vedic śāstra. Kṛṣṇas tu... We are searching after Bhagavān, or God. We simply try to understand that God is very great. That's fact. But how great He is, that has to be known. That is called knowledge of God. Now we cannot think of that one person can become the proprietor of all the riches and wealth of the world. But unless we accept it, he is not God.

So this understanding of God requires a process, how to understand. The main process is that we cannot speculate about God. That is not possible. If we want to know God by speculation, there may be difference of opinion. I may say, "God is like this." You may say, "God is like this." Then difference of opinion. Therefore best thing is to know God from God. That is required. Let God speak Himself about Himself. That is perfect. If you simply conjecture, guess, that "Swamiji may be like this," another may say "Like this, like that." But if I say unto you, "I am like this," that is perfect. So here in the Bhagavad-gītā we have got this advantage, followers of Vedic literature, that the Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, is speaking Himself about Himself. That is perfect knowledge. Therefore it is said, bhagavān uvāca. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is speaking Himself.

Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- London, August 4, 1971:

"I want this. I want this. I want this. I want this." Kṛṣṇa says, "All right. Take this." But Kṛṣṇa says that "You give up all this nonsense," that we do not take. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekam: (BG 18.66) "Simply take Me." But that we do not do. We ask Kṛṣṇa, "Please let me do this." "All right, do it." Yathecchasi tathā kuru (BG 18.63). Kṛṣṇa inquires from Arjuna after teaching him Bhagavad-gītā, "Now I have spoken to you everything. What you want to do, you can do." That is Kṛṣṇa's proposal. Kṛṣṇa says that best thing is that you simply take to Kṛṣṇa. But Kṛṣṇa gives you the opportunity, liberty, that whatever you do, whatever you like, you can do. Now it is your choice. Just like father, (and) grown-up son. He says, "My dear boy, you do like this. That is my opinion." But when the son says, "No. I shall do like this." "All right, you do whatever you like." But without father's sanction, as the son cannot do anything, similarly, without Kṛṣṇa's sanction you cannot do anything. But the proposal is yours. Therefore this maxim: "Man proposes, God disposes." So God is not responsible for your work. If you act according to the order of God, then He's responsible. And if you act against the will of God, then you are responsible. Yes?

Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- Stockholm, September 10, 1973:

Swedish man (1): I may ask you, you see, that this foundation is a Christian foundation, and I wonder what is your personal opinion about the main figure in the Gospel, Jesus Christ.

Prabhupāda: I do not know much about him. What is that? You know? Anybody knows?

Haṁsadūta: The main feature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Guest: No, Jesus Christ.

Haṁsadūta: What is your opinion about his main teaching?

Prabhupāda: Yes. But main teaching, so far we read Bible, Jesus Christ said, "Thou shalt not kill." But they are, you are, everyone is killing. That's all. The first commandment is violated. It is clearly said, "Thou shalt not kill." But when I ask any Christian, "Why you are killing?" He cannot give me any satisfactory answer.

Swedish man (1): But in himself, Christ himself. I mean not the...

Prabhupāda: Christ. We offer our all respect to Jesus Christ. Yes. We call "Lord." We offer our sincere respects to him. That is all right. His teaching is all right. He gives you the message of God. We are doing the same thing. So therefore he is bona fide. Anyone who is spreading the knowledge of God, he is bona fide representative of God. That we admit. But unfortunately, his instructions are not being followed. That is our lamentation. Otherwise it is very nice.

Swedish man (2): Now, a question concerning the 8,400,000's of lives which man has to evolve through. A spiritual being, having entered, or placed(?), the way of man, can he ever gain a reincarnate in the kingdom of animals?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Lecture on BG 7.2 -- Nairobi, October 28, 1975:

When He was three months... He is neither old nor... But He was playing just like human child on the lap of Mother Yaśodā. The Pūtanā came to kill Him. So that child... You will read all this from Bhāgavatam, how He killed that big Pūtanā, when He was seven years old how He lifted Govardhana Hill. So although He was playing just like ordinary human child, human boy or hu..., but sometimes He was showing His almightiness. That is Kṛṣṇa. That is God.

So jñānaṁ te 'haṁ sa-vijñānam idaṁ vakṣyāmy aśeṣataḥ, and yaj jñātvā (BG 7.2). If you try to understand Kṛṣṇa or knowledge from Kṛṣṇa, yaj jñātvā... Yaj jñātvā neha. Na iha: "in this material." Yaj jñātvā neha bhūyo 'nyaj: "You will have nothing to learn." Because he understands, vāsudevaḥ sarvam idam: "Everything is Vāsudeva." So Vāsudeva will give him all knowledge about science, about politics, about philosophy, about astrology, astronomy. Everything will come out. You haven't got to go to some other expert in some particular type of knowledge. But if a devotee, Kṛṣṇa devotee... He knows everything, all department of knowledge. Just like we are challenging that "You cannot make any life by combination of chemicals." Why? Because we know from Kṛṣṇa what is what. Therefore we can challenge. We are not fools. We are challenging that "If you can prepare one egg only..." It is very easy. You can take any egg and analyze what are the chemicals. Then bring that chemical, put together and give it to the incubator and produce a chicken. Then I shall know that chemical combination can produce life. Eh? What is your opinion, doctor?

Lecture on BG 7.28-8.6 -- New York, October 23, 1966:

One philosopher is putting some theory, another philosophy is putting another doctrine or theory. So we are puzzled, which of them has to be accepted. Śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv ṛṣir ya... Because in the mundane philosophers, mundane scholars, they want to give his own interpretation of everything. That is their habit. They don't accept the interpretation of the higher authority. They want..., each and every one of them want to become the higher authorities. So our this principle, this devotional principle, is not like that. We don't pose ourselves as the higher authority. We just try to follow the higher authority. We don't pose ourself. We never... We'll never say that "In my opinion, it should be like this." Oh, what opinion I have got? What value I have got of my opinion? What is my value? I am a blunt man. I cannot acquire any knowledge perfectly. And what is the use of my opinion?

So this is the line. Kṛṣṇa consciousness is, er, they do not accept anything which is not authorized by the higher personality. But in the material world you'll find one philosopher is putting one doctrine, another philosopher is putting another doctrine, and they're differing with one another. So you cannot conclude what is real thing. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: "Therefore the truth, real truth, is lying in the very confidential part of your body." Then what is to be done? Now, best thing is mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "You just try to follow the higher authorities."

Lecture on BG 9.4 -- Melbourne, April 23, 1976:

So psychiatrists generally their patients are crazy fellows. Generally they treat crazy fellows. Is it not? No sane man goes to a psychiatrist. (laughter) Is it not a fact? So all these crazy men sometimes makes the psychiatrist a crazy also. So more or less, everyone is crazy. That is the... It is not my layman's opinion. It is the opinion of a big medical surgeon. There was a case in the court, murder case. The murderer pleaded that "I became crazy, mad, at that time." That is generally... So the medical man was called to examine. He was great civil surgeon in Calcutta. So he gave his opinion in the court that "So far I have treated many patients, so my opinion is that everyone is more or less a madman. More or less. It is a question of degree." So our opinion is like that, that anyone who is not under the direct connection with God, he's a crazy man. He's a madman. Now you can treat. So we are also psychiatrists. We are pushing this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So because anyone who is in this material world—more or less crazy, madman. Because he doesn't care for God, therefore he's crazy. He is completely under the control of God, but still, he has the audacity to say, "No, I don't believe in god." Crazy man. So anyone who does not believe in God, he's a crazy fellow. You can treat him. Everyone is patient.

Lecture on BG 9.15-18 -- New York, December 2, 1966:

So amongst the persons who worship the Absolute Truth not directly as the Personality of Godhead but as ahaṅgrahopāsanam... Ahaṅgrahopāsanam means taking himself as the Supreme. This we have already explained, that taking himself as the Supreme means, as the part and parcel of the Supreme, if we study myself, then I can understand also what is God. The only difference is: quantitatively, God is great and I am small. Otherwise, so far quality is concerned, that is one. So this ahaṅgrahopāsanam, that is number one. Then next upāsanā, next worship, is ekatvena pṛthaktvena (BG 9.15). Pṛthaktvena means pantheism. Just like there are persons who are worship any demigod as God. Their opinion is that there are different forms of God. So any form we accept as God and worship, we shall be benefited. We shall approach the highest perfection. That is another section. So this can be adjusted that God is everywhere. That... There is no denying this fact because by His energy, He is everywhere.

Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966:

So many, there are, literatures. They are also authorized. That's all right. But you cannot learn them by your own study. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). One must go and learn it from the spiritual master, exactly you purchase some scientific book, medical science, or engineering and study at home. Oh, you will never be acknowledged as a medical practitioner. You have to admit yourself into the, that disciplic succession, medical college. You have to attend lectures. Then, when you pass degree, then you will be admitted.

So śrutayo vibhinnāḥ, and nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you consult different kinds of philosophers, you will be bewildered. Because one philosopher is giving one opinion, another philosopher is... Because nāsāv ṛṣir yasya...: "A philosopher is not philosopher if he does not cut another philosopher." That is going on. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: "Therefore the purport of spiritual life is very confidential." How I can learn? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "Therefore we will accept the footprint of those recognized ācāryas." Ācāryopāsanam.

Lecture on BG 9.34 -- August 3, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm):

Prabhupāda: That is foolishness. One who is controlled by his mind, that is more foolishness.

Devotee: But if he forces his mind...

Prabhupāda: That's... Force or not force, one who is controlled by the mind, he's a rascal. He's a rascal. Manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā manorathenāsati (SB 5.18.12). They are driven by the chariot of mind—useless. No intelligence. No benefit. But all these rascal scientists, philosophers, they are going on the chariot of the mind, "I think." "In my opinion," This is their... Manorathena, on the mental platform. So they're all foolish. They have no value. Mental concoction, useless.

Yogeśvara: That means that our attraction for Kṛṣṇa must be spontaneous?

Prabhupāda: It is also spontaneous. You want to love somebody, but the love is misplaced, therefore you are baffled. Replace it to Kṛṣṇa, you'll be happy. Love is there, that is not a new thing. But you are misplacing the love. That information we are giving, that don't misplace your love. Place your love to Kṛṣṇa, you'll be happy.

Devotee: So we can bring the mind under control of Kṛṣṇa?

Prabhupāda: Yes. One who is under the control of Kṛṣṇa, he's no more under control of the mind. Sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayoḥ (SB 9.4.18). Mind is being controlled. So mind cannot dictate. Those who are not under control of Kṛṣṇa, the mind dictates to him. He's under the control of the mind, or senses, that's all. So, point is, that be fixed up in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Don't disturb yourself by the material environment, or enchantment. Be fixed up, chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, always fixed up, your mind at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. So far the necessities of life concerned, that will come automatically, you'll never be in trouble. Go on with this business. Thank you very much.

Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Bombay, December 30, 1972:

Similarly, if such rules and regulations are here, even in this planet, how you dare to go into the moon planet or other planet by force? This is all childish. Now they have stopped. The American government has stopped financing this foolish excursion. Going to the moon planet. They have stopped. They have now come to sense that simply these so-called scientists, they're experi, experimenting on public money and wasting.

Long, long ago, when I wrote my book, Easy Journey to Other Planets, I described: "This moon planet excursion, simply childish and foolishness." And about two, three years ago, in San Francisco the press reporters asked my opinion about the moon, moon planet. So I told them: "it is simply waste of time and money." Now, now it is happening. Long, long ago, I said this. This is not possible.

Although there are innumerable planets, but even if you go to the moon planet, your problem is not solved. What is the benefit? If you... Suppose if you go to moon planet. How your problem is solved? The real problem is that I am forced to accept different types of body. Janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi (BG 13.9). And as soon as I accept body, I have to be under the tribulation of material nature.

Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Paris, August 11, 1973:

Devotee: "O scion of Bhārata, you should also understand that I am also the knower in all bodies and to understand this body and its owner is called knowledge. That is my opinion."

Prabhupāda: So Arjuna inquired from Kṛṣṇa six things: kṣetra, kṣetrajña, prakṛti, puruṣa, jñānam, jñeyam. What is knowledge and what is the object of knowledge. Jñānam jñeyam. Kṣetra, field of activities, kṣetrajña, the worker on that field, kṣetra, kṣetrajña, and prakṛti, nature, and the puruṣa. Material nature and puruṣa means the enjoyer. Six question. Of course Bhagavad-gītā is each and every word and letter is full of knowledge. But these six inquiries, if actually can understand the six items, he becomes the perfect knower. That is said by Kṛṣṇa: yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama. Jñānam means knowledge. So if anyone can understand the six items, then he is in full knowledge.

Yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama. "You have asked me, Arjuna..." And bhagavān uvāca, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead speaking. Not only speaking, He says, just like a gentleman... Whatever He says is perfect but still He says, "This is My opinion." "This is My opinion." Now my opinion you can take or not take, that is up to you. But who can give better opinion than Kṛṣṇa? That is another knowledge. Why Kṛṣṇa? Arjuna is asking Kṛṣṇa. Because in the beginning he has said that "Nobody can make solution of my problem. You are the best." So following the footsteps of Arjuna, if we accept Kṛṣṇa's words, not blindly but with good logic, good scientific research, if we actually try to understand what Kṛṣṇa speaks, then all our problems are solved.

Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974:

Nitāi: Translation: "O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its owner is called knowledge. That is My opinion."

Prabhupāda:

kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi

sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata

kṣetra-kṣetra-jñayor jñānaṁ

yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama

(BG 13.3)

Jñānam, knowledge. The Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa is explaining about knowledge. People are being educated all over the world for advancement of knowledge. Knowledge is meant for the human being, not for the cats and dogs. Therefore, for human being, there are so many universities, schools, colleges, institutions, laws.

Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974:

Arjuna is disciple, and Kṛṣṇa is the teacher. The disciple submissively inquired from the teacher about knowledge. That is the Vedic injunction. You cannot have knowledge, I cannot have knowledge, without teacher. By speculative advancement, one cannot come to the real platform of knowledge. At the present moment, so many philosophers, scientists, they are trying to advance in knowledge by speculation. "I think," "In my opinion," "Perhaps," like this. These things are going on. Big, big philosophers, scientists, they give their opinion. "I think like this." Everybody is thinking, "I think..." And it is being supported. Knowledge means anyone can think in any way, and at the present moment that is being accepted as knowledge.

Just like at the present moment, amongst the scientists the knowledge is going on that life is made of matter, from matter, chemical evolution theory. And such person also being awarded with Nobel prize. He is going on on the wrong field of knowledge, that life is product of matter; by combination of matter, life is produced. It is not knowledge. It is ignorance. But by speculative process, one is writing a big volume of books and he is getting Nobel Prize. Where is the proof that by combination of matter life comes out?

Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974:

And Kṛṣṇa is answering. So if we want to receive real knowledge, then we should consult this Bhagavad-gītā.

That is our propagation. We are propagating this message, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, that "You take knowledge from Kṛṣṇa." That's all. Don't take knowledge from the rascals and fools. Then you will be misled. That is our propaganda. So why not take this opportunity?

Our business is not very difficult. Our business is very easy because we are not manufacturing knowledge like the rascals. "I think." What you are, you are thinking like this? You are rascal number one, and you are thinking? What is the meaning of your thinking? We reject immediately. "I think." "It is my opinion." This is going on. Big, big scientists, big, big philosophers. We don't accept. We must see whether he has received knowledge from Kṛṣṇa. And one who receives knowledge from Kṛṣṇa...

Just like Arjuna. Arjuna said to Kṛṣṇa, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam: (BG 2.7) "My dear Kṛṣṇa, the perplexity which has arisen in my mind, it cannot be solved by anyone except Yourself." Because Arjuna knew that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore he surrendered to Him. He surrendered. He was talking like friend. Friendly talking cannot give any good result, simply waste of time. But when there is talking between disciple and the spiritual master, that has got meaning.

Lecture on BG 13.4 -- Paris, August 12, 1973:

Just like yesterday one boy and girl came, he's poet. I asked him, "What poetry you write? What is the subject matter?" No subject matter. No subject matter. (laughter) This is pāgal, Pāgal means "mad." Piśācī pāile yena mati-cchana haya māyār grasta jīvera sei dāsa upajaya. Piśācī, ghost. Ghostly haunted. A person, when he becomes ghostly haunted, he speaks all kinds of nonsense. So māyā grasta jīvera sei dāsa upajaya. Those who have come to this material world under the influence of the external energy of Kṛṣṇa, māyā, they are all madmen.

It is not śāstra, it is the opinion of medical science also. The medical science. In India there was a case, a murderer. So his pleader, lawyer pleaded that "This man, when committed this murder, he was insane." So the judge called for the civil surgeon to examine him whether he has got such tendency, insanity. So he gave evidence, "My lord, so far my knowledge concerned, I have tested so many men, everyone is insane. It is a question of degree. Now if you consider that he was insane, you, that is your business to punish him, or not punish him. But so far my knowledge is concerned, I have studied so many men and I have found they are all insane." Actually that is the position.

Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Bombay, September 28, 1973:

Therefore they are called rājarṣi. The king used to rule over the citizens on the permission of the great, great sages. Just like Nārada, the Devarsi. He used to visit Mahārāja Yudhisthira. Similarly, other kings.

So spiritual science is meant for great personalities, brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, not for the vaiśyas and the śūdras. One has to get to the quality of brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya. So Kṛṣṇa says therefore, imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ. Unless one is ṛṣi, great ṛṣi, great saintly persons, one cannot understand the spiritual science. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says... Although Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself... He can personally say anything which is authorized. Still He is giving reference to the statement of the ṛṣis. This is the way of Vedic understanding. You cannot establish anything dogmatically, "In my opinion it is like that." What you are, nonsense? What is your opinion? Even Kṛṣṇa says, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. There are different kinds of ṛṣis—Gautama Ṛṣi, Kaṇada Ṛṣi... They have spoken different... In India there are six kinds of philosophies, but they are not recognized. Ṛṣibhiḥ, just like Devala Ṛṣi, Nārada Ṛṣi, Vyāsadeva, Asita Ṛṣi, Valmīki Ṛṣi, they are recognized. Ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. So they have got different philosophical ways to understand.

Therefore Bhāgavata summarizes that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. He's not a ṛṣi who's opinion is not different. Yes. You are a ṛṣi. You have got some different system of philosophy. And if I want to become a ṛṣi, then I must disagree with you. Just like in the modern days it is going on, scientific research, philosophical research. Therefore it is said, nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na vibhinnam: "One cannot become a rsi unless he gives his personal different opinion."

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973:

There are many scriptures and many philosophers, ṛṣis, as I explained yesterday, nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā: "He's not a philosopher who hasn't got a different opinion." Because this material world is practically a challenge to the supreme authority. The supreme authority Kṛṣṇa, He's the bhokta actually, He's the enjoyer.

bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ

sarva-loka-maheśvaram

suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ

jñātvā māṁ śāntim ṛcchati

(BG 5.29)

That point is missing. Real enjoyer or proprietor is Kṛṣṇa. Bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ sarva-loka-maheśvaram. He's the proprietor. Sarva loka, not only of this loka, earthly planet, but there are innumerable planets within this universe and there are innumerable universes also, not one universe. Yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi (Bs. 5.40). Jagad-aṇḍa means universe. It is just like egg shape. anda. You can see this universe, the sky is..., horizon. So it is just like egg shape. All the planets and the universes, they are egg shaped. Therefore they are called anda, jagad-aṇḍa, brahmanda. So this jagad-aṇḍa...

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973:

In Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said that "Only īśvara is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme." Ekala īśvara kṛṣṇa, āra saba bhṛtya (CC Adi 5.142). "All others, they are servants." Nobody is actually īśvara. And we find it practically. Everyone in this material world, he may become an īśvara is his group, but he is also controlled by somebody superior. That is the position of this relative īśvara. But Kṛṣṇa is absolute īśvara. Nobody is īśvara above Him. That is Kṛṣṇa. So, everyone is trying to be īśvara. This is the material world. Everyone is trying to be īśvara.

So Kṛṣṇa says that, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. Because everyone is trying to be superior. Nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, that every philosopher must give his own opinion and it must be refuted by another. Therefore śāstra says that in this way you cannot ascertain what is the reality. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me. And that is going on.

Therefore simply by arguments, you cannot reach the Absolute Truth. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. And if you simply depend on the śruti, śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. The Vedic literatures are different: Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Artharva. And not only that, other scriptures there are. So Śrutayor vibhinnāḥ nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihito guhāyām. To understand religious principle, it is very difficult.

Lecture on BG 13.18 -- Bombay, October 12, 1973:

Each universe has a principle living being. That is Lord Brahmā. So there are many innumerable Brahmās also, innumerable Śivas, innumerable suns, innumerable moons, because there are innumerable universes. And each and every universe, there are innumerable planets. Yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi-koṭiṣv aśeṣa-vasudhādi (Bs. 5.40). Vasudhā means this planet.

Vibhūti-bhinnam. Each planet has got different atmosphere. Therefore these people, they cannot understand what is the atmosphere. They understand. Some scientists, they say the atmosphere in the moon planet is two hundred degrees below zero. So there are difference of scientists' opinion, but according to Vedic literature we understand that there are innumerable planets, and one of the planets is the moon planet. Nakṣatrāṇām ahaṁ śaśī. Nakṣatrāṇām: "Among the stars and planets," Kṛṣṇa says, "I am the moon."

So jyotiṣām api jyotis tamasaḥ param. So this jyoti, this illumination, is beyond this material world. And because there is illumination, that illumination is reflected in the material world. You will find the reflection, bluish reflection, in the sky. It means that brahma-jyotir is bluish because it is coming out from the blue body of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore it is bluish. We see the sky bluish, and in darkness we see, although it is darkness, there is some brightness in the sky. Always the sky is... The sky is everywhere, but the covering is seven times covered by different types of material elements, and that brahma-jyotir is penetrating through the covers, and little reflection we can see in the sky.

Lecture on BG 13.24 -- Bombay, October 23, 1973:

Durāśayā, "expectation which will never be fulfilled, never be fulfilled." They are trying to adjust things by so-called material adjustment, and that will not be. Therefore it is said durāśayā. Āśayā means hope, and dur means "never to be fulfilled, far, far away." Durāśayā. Without God consciousness, without stopping the process of birth and death, you cannot be happy. That is not possibility. But they have become so foolish. They are thinking that this duration of life, say fifty or sixty years, that's all. After this...

Big, big leaders, they say like that, that "After death, there is no life. Everything is finished." Big, big professors, big, big learned scholars, they are of this opinion, that after death there is no life. Everything is finished. And wherefrom all these different forms of life come, they cannot answer. There are eight million four hundred thousand forms of life. Wherefrom they come? What is the purpose of so many forms of life. What is the purpose of life? What is the distinction between the form of human life and these lower grades of life. Higher grades of life—no knowledge, no knowledge. Everyone is ignorant, foolish. Therefore they have been addressed as mūḍha, mūḍha, all rascals.

If we say that "This is a civilization of rascals," it is not very strong word. Actually, they are rascals. They do not know the value of life. And the real problem of life. Simply like animals, they are eating, sleeping, having sex life and dying. That's all. This is their life. So one has to learn.

Lecture on BG 13.35 -- Geneva, June 6, 1974:

Kṛṣṇa is giving His opinion, the Supreme Authority, that "If you want to know, if you want to be in knowledge, this is knowledge." What is that? "That this body, you are not this body; you are the owner of the body.

And you should know also that the there is another person. As you are a person, you are owner of this body, there is another person." Who is that? "That is I am." Kṛṣṇa says. Kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi: "I am also owner of this body." Actually Kṛṣṇa is the owner of the body. Just like in a, in an apartment, there is the occupier and the landlord. So there are two men concerned. I do not know what is the system here. In India, there are two kinds of taxes, the occupier tax and the landlord's tax. Two kinds of taxes. So similarly, this body, I, the living entity, I am the occupier. I am not the owner. Although occupier is, to some extent, owner. But the real owner is the landlord.

Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is the real owner of this body because Kṛṣṇa has given me this body just to occupy it and work. So far. Not that I am the actual proprietor of this body. So when actually, one comes to this knowledge that "I am not this body"—this is one knowledge—and one comes to know also that "I am not proprietor, actual proprietor, of this body"... How can I be actual proprietor of this body? If you have got knowledge... Because this body is made of material ingredients.

So what are these material ingredients? Earth, water, fire, air, ether—they are physical elements. They are Kṛṣṇa's energies. So this body made by Kṛṣṇa's energy. And I, the person, I am also part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. We are two energies. I, as living entity, I am also the energy, superior energy. And this material body, that is also Kṛṣṇa's energy. I cannot prepare this body if I like. No. The body is made by Kṛṣṇa through the agency of this material energy, prakṛti. Prakṛti means the material energy. Kṛṣṇa will say that mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10).

Lecture on BG 16.7 -- Hawaii, February 3, 1975:

I am meditating upon the supreme truth, Absolute Truth." What is absolute truth? Janmādy asya yataḥ: "From whom everything has come into existence, that is Absolute."

So what is the nature of that Absolute Truth? Is it a dead body or a living body? There are two things, something dead and something living. So what is the nature of the absolute truth? So that is replied, janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ (SB 1.1.1). Abhijñaḥ means cognizant, living. The Absolute Truth is not dead; it is living. We are pushing forward this theory.

The modern scientists, they are of opinion that life comes from matter. We say, "No, life comes from life. Matter comes from life." This is satyam. I do not know how they get Nobel Prize, putting forward a false theory that life comes from matter. The matter... So why don't you produce life in the laboratory? Matter is there. Chemicals are there. You mix them and produce a life. When some such chemist is inquired, "Whether you can produce life if I give you the chemicals?" they will immediately say, "That I cannot say." Then why do you speak like that? So this is asuric. If they accept that everything comes from the living being, then they will have to accept God. So they want to avoid this: "Everything matter." But that is not the fact. Origin is life. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8). Aham. Kṛṣṇa is life. He's not dead matter. So...

Lecture on BG 16.8 -- Tokyo, January 28, 1975:

He is called sun-god. His name is Vivasvān. Everything is there, and Kṛṣṇa went there and talked with him. But this is a fiery planet. Similarly, the moon is very cold. So every planet has different atmospheric..., and they are moving in their orbit, their duration of their life—everything, there is good arrangement.

So all these arrangements, there is no good brain behind it? How is that? But the rākṣasas, the demons, they will say, asatyam apratiṣṭhaṁ te jagad āhur anīśvaram: (BG 16.8) "There is no controller and it is all false." False? So minute rules and regulation are being followed. The sun is rotating on the orbit in a such a perfect way that if the sun is inclined to this side or that side, there will be, whole world will be frozen or in blazing fire. This is the scientific opinion. It must rotate according to the diagram given by some controller. That is stated in Bhāgavatam, "By the order of the Supreme." Yasyājñayā. Here also, in the Brahma-saṁhitā, yasyājñayā bhramati sambhṛta-kāla-cakraḥ. The sun is rotating, yasya ājñayā. Ājñayā means by order.

So when the question of order is there, then there must be one order-giver, and there must be one order-carrier. Otherwise, what is the meaning, order? Yasya ājñayā, by whose order. Whose means this whose, somebody bigger who is giving order, and the sun planet is carrying out the order. Yasyājñayā bhramati sambhṛta-kāla-cakraḥ. So there is order-giver. There is controller, the Supreme Lord, and there is order-carrier, the sun-god. Otherwise who is carrying the order? If it is only a lump of matter, then who will carry out the order? Now, this Tokyo city if it is a lump of matter only, then how the systematic order of traffic rules and regulation is... It is not only lump of matter, but there is somebody, the government or the king or the president, who is maintaining the order. This is conclusion. This is analogy. Then how you say that there is no controller? Where is your logic? Can anybody give any logic that there is no...

Lecture on BG 18.67 -- Ahmedabad, December 10, 1972:

And Kṛṣṇa comes here to give you the idea what is the function of the Kṛṣṇaloka. That He displays in Vṛndāvana here. Rādhā-mādhava kuñja-vihārī. That is His business, simple life, village life. They're all young boys and girls, the gopīs and the cowherds boy. They're enjoying, dancing. Lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānaṁ surabhīr abhipālayantam (Bs. 5.29). And Kṛṣṇa, just like we have got some hobbies, we keep some cats and dogs, Kṛṣṇa has got also hobby. What is that? Surabhīr abhipālayantam (Bs. 5.29). He's always engaged in taking care of the surabhī cows. Gopāla. That is His business. So He's so simple, life.

So the difficulty is the people cannot understand these things. They are of opinion that after this life, everything's finished. The greatest scientists, philosophers, they are thinking like that. That means practically they have no sense. Why there is no life after death? I am experiencing that I was a baby, and after that baby body is finished, I got a body of child. Then, from child body, I got the body of a boy; then as a young man, then I have got this... Now, why not after changing this body, another body? Where is the reason? In my this experience I get that I have changed so many bodies. But I remember. I am existing. Although my different bodies are finished, I am existing. Similarly, tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati (BG 2.13). Similarly, I shall get another body. So what kind of body I shall get, that is the preparation stage in this life. What kind of body I'm going to get. That is karmaṇā daiva-netreṇa jantur deha upapatti (SB 3.31.1). As you are working here, this is a chance, human body. Here is a chance. You can make your next body as lower animals, or demigods, or go back to home to Godhead. Whatever you like. Yānti deva-vratā devān pitṟn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ (BG 9.25). These are the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture on BG Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972:

Prabhupāda: Puruṣa inside? That is Paramātmā.

Guest (1): Śaṅkarācārya says, Śaṅkarācārya says that...

Prabhupāda: No, we differ from Śaṅkarācārya. We follow Kṛṣṇa. We do not follow Śaṅkarācārya. So if you think Śaṅkarācārya is better than Kṛṣṇa, that is your opinion. We follow Kṛṣṇa. Śaṅkarācārya is not original person. Kṛṣṇa is original person. That is accepted by Vyāsadeva and all... Nārada, Devala. So our proposition is "Follow Kṛṣṇa." Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). The original person. Ādi-puruṣam. Govindam ādi-puruṣam. Śaṅkarācārya is, say, one thousand five hundred years, but Kṛṣṇa, He's the original puruṣa, before the creation. The creation was made... Śaṅkarācārya also admits in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. And he accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. So you cannot supersede Kṛṣṇa by accepting Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya admits, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. So Śaṅkarācārya admits Kṛṣṇa is the authority, but Kṛṣṇa says that this material body is prakṛti. How you can say it is puruṣa? Kṛṣṇa says that bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ, bhinnā me prakṛtir aṣṭadhā: (BG 7.4) "These eight kinds of prakṛti, they are My separated energy." How you can say it is puruṣa?

Guest (2) (Indian man): Sir, may I... Some reference(?) were written by Lord Kṛṣṇa in Gītā. He told us that api cet su-durācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk. And He, kṣipraṁ bhavati dharmātmā, and He also promised pratijāne priyo 'si. But it is difficult to understand that the same Lord Kṛṣṇa told, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyante (BG 7.19), manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye, teṣām api sahasreṣu (BG 7.3), "Can understand Me."