Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Rejection (Lectures, Other)

Expressions researched:
"reject" |"rejectable" |"rejected" |"rejecting" |"rejection" |"rejections" |"rejects"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: reject* not "not reject" not "not rejecting" not "not rejected" not "not, therefore, reject" not "not have rejected" not " not be rejected" not "no rejection" not "not to reject" not "Don't reject" not "not to be rejected" not "do not reject" not "don't reject"

Lectures

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 16, 1972:

Pradyumna (reading): "The Nectar of Devotion is a summary study of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, which was written in Sanskrit by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhupāda. He was the chief of the six Gosvāmīs who were the direct disciples of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. When he first met Lord Caitanya, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhupāda was engaged as a minister in the Muhammadan government of Bengal. He and his brother Sanātana were then named Sākara Mallika and Dabira Khāsa respectively, and they held responsible posts as ministers of Nawab Hussain Shah. At that time, five hundred years ago, the Hindu society was very rigid and if a member of the brāhmaṇa caste accepted the service of a Muhammadan ruler he was at once rejected from brāhmaṇa society. That was the position of the two brothers, Dabira Khāsa and Sākara Mallika. They belonged to the highly situated Sārasvata brāhmaṇa..."

Prabhupāda: These two brothers, at that time their name was Sākara Mallika and Dabira Khāsa. So they were ostracized from the brāhmaṇa community. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's special grace, that He accepted two rejected gentlemen from the brāhmaṇa society and made them gosvāmīs. That is the special significance of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement. He accepted Haridāsa Ṭhākura from born in Muhammadan community and He made him the ācārya, namācārya. The, practically Caitanya Mahāprabhu appeared to glorify the significance of the holy name. He is actually the ācārya, namācārya, but He transferred His namācārya-ship to Haridāsa Ṭhākura. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement, kibā vipra kibā śūdra nyāsī kene naya. It doesn't matter whether he's a brāhmaṇa or a śūdra or anyone, if he's kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, if he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa, then he can be made the spiritual master. Yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā sei guru haya (CC Madhya 8.128). That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement's significance.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 16, 1972:

They should live independently. Brāhmaṇas, by culture of Vedic knowledge. Kṣatriyas by exacting taxes from the citizens. And vaiśyas by trade, agriculture. They should live. To serve one is the business of the dog. That is mentioned in Bhāgavata. So if there is dire necessity, a brāhmaṇa can accept the profession of a kṣatriya or the, even the profession of a vaiśya, but not the profession of a śūdra. But at the present moment, because everyone accepts the profession of śūdra, therefore śāstra says: kalau śūdra-sambhavaḥ. Here is the example, that Sākara Mallika, he was brāhmaṇa, Sārasvata brāhmaṇa. But because he accepted... They were learned brāhmaṇas, not fools. Very good scholar in Sanskrit and Arabian language, still because they accepted service in the Muhammadan government, they were rejected. Immediately. No. Punishment. That is punishment. In Hindi it is called hookah panibhyam. In the society, in villages still, if one is ostracized, nobody will smoke with him. Hookah. Hookah means smoking. And pani means not to accept his water. Hookah panibhyam. So that is ostracization. That was taken against Sanātana Gosvāmī. They were not gosvāmī at that time. Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted them. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's special grace.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 26, 1972:

So now, from the social point of view, this is sin. This is sin when the gopīs went to Kṛṣṇa. Similarly, Prahlāda Mahārāja was standing without any protest and his father is being killed. Now can any sane man see that his father is being killed, and he's standing silently, without any protest? And Bali Mahārāja, he rejected his spiritual master. When Śukrācārya said that "Don't promise. He's Viṣṇu. He'll take everything of your. Don't promise anything," the Bali Mahārāja said, "He is Viṣṇu? And you are asking me not to promise to Him? Oh, I don't want such spiritual master. I reject him." To reject spiritual master is a great sin. So these are, from social point of view, from religious point of view, these are irreligious, sinful activities, to reject one's spiritual master; to see one's father being killed in one's presence; one woman is going to another boy, dead of night. Superficially they are sinful activities. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommends, ramyā kācid upāsanā vrajavadhū-vargeṇa yā kalpitā. There is no upāsanā, method of worship, as it was conceived by the gopīs. First class.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 17, 1972:

It is not a question of any personal religion or personal ambition or something manufactured by some imperfect sense enjoyer. It is authorized because Bhagavad-gītā is authorized. Bhagavad-gītā is accepted... First of all, He was, it was accepted by Arjuna in toto. Sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi keśava (BG 10.14). "My dear Kṛṣṇa, whatever You are saying, I accept it in toto, without any interpretation, without any rejection." Somebody says, somebody may say, "Arjuna was Kṛṣṇa's friend. To praise Him, he might have said like that." No. Arjuna immediately gives evidence that "It is not that I am accepting but you are accepted as, as such by such great personalities as, like Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita." He gives authority. So that was five thousand years ago. Later on, all the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka, even Śaṅkarācārya. We Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, they differ little with Śaṅkarācārya. Impersonalist and personalist. But Śaṅkarācārya even, even though he was impersonalist, he accepted Kṛṣṇa in his commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. Sai bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa. So Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

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

So this is the position of the materialistic person. Therefore sometimes they take to the path of rejection, giving up. Brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. They come, by knowledge, by advancement of knowledge. But sometimes that also becomes failure. Even liberation. I have several times explained that many persons on the platform of liberation also falls down. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ (SB 10.2.32). One who does not take shelter of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, even he is raised to the platform of liberation, there is chance of fall down. Āruhya kṛcchṛena paraṁ padam. Paraṁ padam means liberation, not material platform, but paraṁ padam. spiritual platform. Spiritual platform means liberation. So unless one is attached to... Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32), why they fall down? Anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ. One who neglects to worship the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, even he is on the liberation platform, mukti, there is chance of falling down. And there are many examples.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 23, 1972:

So nobody is independent of the laws of Kṛṣṇa. Everyone is under the obligation of the laws of the Kṛṣṇa. But one is voluntarily accepting and one is whimsically rejecting. Rejecting means to be under the control of māyā, and voluntarily accepting the service of the Lord means to be under the protection of spiritual energy. Daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ: (BG 9.13) "Those who are mahātmā, they are under the protection of the spiritual energy." And those who are not mahātmās, durātmās, they are under the protection of the material energy. And the living entity is called marginal energy. Because he has to remain under the control or under the supervision of one of these two energies, material energy and spiritual energy. And he can select whether to remain under the control of material energy or under the control of spiritual energy. Therefore he's called marginal. The living entity's position is marginal, in between the two energies. So he can select.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 24, 1972:

So if we are on the spiritual platform... On the spiritual platform means to understand the Science of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Spirit. Then if we are conversant with the science of Kṛṣṇa, then anyone who is such enlightened, he is perfect spiritual master. It doesn't matter what he is. Just like Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He was born in Muhammadan family. Sanātana Gosvāmī, Rūpa Gosvāmī, they were rejected from the brāhmaṇa community and they took the Muslim names, Sākara Mallika, Dabira Khāsa. But it is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's preaching that He collected all these exalted personalities. They were associates of Kṛṣṇa, Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

But the universality of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement is such that anyone can become Kṛṣṇa conscious, and anyone can accept or be elevated to the exalted post of gosvāmī, namācārya. Just like Haridāsa Ṭhākura was made the Namācārya. And Sanātana Gosvāmī, Rūpa Gosvāmī, although rejected by the brāhmaṇa community, they were the exalted Gosvāmīs, six Gosvāmīs. Śrī-rūpa sanātana bhaṭṭa-raghunātha. Ei chaya gosi yāra tāra mui dāsa. So our whole Vaiṣṇava, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava community are servants of all these Gosvāmīs. So it doesn't matter. Kṛṣṇa also confirms, māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye 'pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ (BG 9.32). It doesn't matter one is born in lower family. It doesn't matter.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 5, 1973:

So varṇāśramācāravatā puruṣeṇa paraḥ pumān (CC Madhya 8.58). This is the beginning of actual human life. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu immediately replied, ihā bāhya āge kaha āra. Ihā bāhya. Bāhya means this is external. This will not very much help at the present moment. And actually that is being done. Just like we are preaching in the Western countries. If we wanted to establish varṇāśrama-dharma in the beginning, that "You become brāhmaṇa, you become gṛhastha, you become sannyāsī..." No. Then everyone would have rejected: "Sir, we are prepared for this purpose." But the process introduced by Caitanya Mahāprabhu... It is not introduced by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. It is the sanction in the śāstras: śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam (SB 7.5.23). This is standard method. Because we gave them the chance of hearing, gradually they're coming. Not that immediately you become brāhmaṇa. Now they are becoming more than brāhmaṇas. Here, in India, the brāhmaṇas, they are doing everything.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 9, 1973:

So our Bhakti-rasāmṛta teaches, just, just become a shark fish or even small fish. Actually there are many types of fishes, even a small fish, that also not become evaporated. That remains in this water, because it has taken shelter completely of the ocean. Similarly, if you take shelter of Kṛṣṇa, of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, there is no chance of falling down. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adho 'nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ (SB 10.2.32). Those who are not taking shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is chance of falling down. Brahmā satyaṁ jagan mithyā, they take shelter of Brahman, and reject this world, material world as mithyā, but unless they take shelter of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, he cannot stay there. He has to again come back. That is the position.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 11, 1973:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu was approached by Sanātana Gosvāmī. They were ministers in the government of Nawab Hussain Shah, in Bengal. In those times there was a Pathan government, and they were responsible ministers. One was chief minister, one was finance minister. Very responsible post, Rūpa Gosvāmī. And they almost became Muhammadans. Because formerly the brahminical society was very strict. If any brāhmaṇa accepts service of another person... Generally kṣatriyas. And he, they were Muslims. So they were, I mean to say, rejected from brāhmaṇa society, and they changed their name also. Almost they became Muhammadans. Sākara Mallika and Dabira Khāsa—both the brothers, Sanātana Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī. And they met Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Then they decided to resign from the government post and join this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not new. It, it, it is continuing, it is going on since Kṛṣṇa appeared. And later on, five hundred years ago, Caitanya Mahāprabhu revived it, this Hare Kṛṣṇa movement. Harer nāma harer nāma harer nāma iva kevalam (CC Adi 17.21). So when they met Caitanya Mahāprabhu, both the brothers decided that "Now we shall join Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement. It is very nice movement." So, after resigning their posts, Rūpa Gosvāmī stealthily left the country and Sanātana Gosvāmī was situated. He formally wanted to resign the post, but the Nawab would not allow him to resign; therefore he was arrested. And somehow or other, he managed to come out of the prison and then join Caitanya Mahāprabhu at Benares.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 1, 1972:

Therefore Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has discussed this point in his Tattva-sandarbha, that we cannot accept any manufactured ideas. Because everyone is defective by the four defects of material life, we have to accept the version of Vedas, Purāṇas. He has tried to establish Purāṇas as Vedic supplementary. Others, they reject Purāṇas out of the Vedas. But Jīva Gosvāmī established. All the Gosvāmīs. Just like Rūpa Gosvāmī has given, śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-pāñcarātriki-vidhiṁ vinā, aikāntikī harer bhaktir utpātāyaiva kalpate (Brs. 1.2.101). It is utpātā, disturbance. If you do not follow the principles of śruti, smṛti, purāṇa, pāñcarātriki-vidhi... Just like we were discussing this point, sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam (CC Madhya 19.170). This is pāñcarātriki-vidhi. So if we do not follow these principles... Without following these principles, the so-called devotional service, Hari-bhakti, utpātā, simply disturbance, simply a disturbance. Therefore we have to follow the principles laid down by the Gosvāmīs, Ṣaḍ-gosvāmīs. Vande rūpa-sanātanau raghu-yugau śrī-jīva-gopālakau. And then our attempt will be successful.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 2, 1972:

Pradyumna: "There are five kinds of liberation, namely, to become one with the Lord, to live with the Supreme Lord on the same planet, to have the same features as the Lord, to enjoy the same opulences as the Lord, and to live as a companion of the Lord. A devotee, not to speak of rejecting material sense gratification, does not even want any of the five kinds of liberation. He is satisfied simply by discharging loving service to the Lord. That is the characteristic of pure devotion."

Prabhupāda: Yes. This is instructed by Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He rejects: na dhanaṁ na janaṁ na sundarīṁ kavitāṁ vā jagadīśa kāmaye (Cc. Antya 20.29, Śikṣāṣṭaka 4). The karmīs, they want all these things. Na dhanam. Great riches, and beautiful wife, great followers. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is rejecting these, and He's rejecting also liberation. Dhiyamanaṁ na ghṛnanti (?). A pure devotee is not interested even in liberation. That is pure devotee. That... Just like Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, he says, kīṭa janma ha-u yathā tuyā dāsa, bahir mukha brahma janme nāhi mora āśā. A devotee does not pray that "Give me this, give me that, give me that." No. He prays that "Whatever you like, if you like me to take birth as an insect, that's all right. But my only request is that I may become an insect in the house of a devotee so that I may get the chance of prosecuting my devotional service. I may eat the remnants of foodstuff eaten by the devotee."

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 2, 1972:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore said, mama janmani janmani īśvare bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi. Ahaitukī apratihatā. Our simply, simple desire is how to be engaged in the service of the Lord. Janmani janmani. When, when Caitanya Mahāprabhu speaks janmani janmani, that means He rejects liberation also. Na dhanaṁ na janaṁ na kavitāṁ vā yāce. This is the karmī's, jñānī's... And even liberation. He rejects liberation. Mama janmani. If one is liberated, then where is the question of janmani janmani? So liberation is also not aspired by a devotee. These are the characteristics of pure devotion. This chapter is "Characteristics of Pure Devotional Service." Pure devotional service should be without any desire, anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam (Brs. 1.1.11). The others, they are trying to make Kṛṣṇa-śūnyam, śūnyavādi; our attempt should be to make our desires śūnyam. Simply we be engaged in the service of the Lord. That is pure devotion. Go on, one paragraph more. What is the time now?

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 9, 1972:

Uh? That means they could not realize the happiness of Brahman. What is your opinion, Gosāi? If they would have derived any happiness from that Brahman platform, then why would (they) come down to this platform which was rejected as mithyā? So accepting that Brahman realization is real happiness, but they could not realize that happiness. Under the circumstances, they must come down to realize happiness in these varieties of material world. Because they found it better happiness by taking in politics and on political movements or opening school, hospitals. They found better happiness in these activities. Then why the, they say that this jagat mithyā? These are activities of the material world.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 10, 1972:

Dharmārtha-kāma-mokṣa (SB 4.8.41). There are, people are generally after four principles of happiness: being religious, being economically developed, being very good candidate for satisfying senses, and when one is frustrated to derive any happiness from these three principles, he wants liberation, nirbheda-brahmānu-sandhana. That is also not actual happiness, because, as I was explaining this morning, that even one merges into the Brahman effulgence after severe penances and austerity, there is chance of falling down. There is chance. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanti (SB 10.2.32). Paraṁ pada is to merge into the Brahman effulgence existence. But from there also, one falls down, as I was giving the example of many big sannyāsīs in the modern age. They are very learned scholar. They took to sannyāsa, giving up this world as false, but again, after some time, they come to politics, sociology. That means that is their falldown. Because they could not actually taste the Brahman, brahmānanda, for which they sacrificed everything... So brahmānanda is not such a thing that one will come again to this false platform which they rejected as brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. If jagat is mithyā, then why such exalted persons, who gave up everything for brahmānanda... That means they could not taste brahmānanda. Therefore they fell down. Go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 28, 1973:

That Rajani Sena, Bombay, he's also preaching in that way. And their process is very abominable. The, the sahajiyās, they also think like that, that by sex one can rise to that platform of merging into the effulgence of Brahman. Even Vivekananda was talking that "This Vaiṣṇava religion is a religion of sex." They have been so much misrepresented. By sexual indulgence, one can become one with the Supreme. This is their theory, very dangerous theory. Therefore these sahajiyās are amongst the thirteen rejected apa-sampradāyas. In the name of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, there are so many apa-sampradāyas. Apa-sampradāya means they present themselves as belonging to the Caitanya cult. But they are not at all bona fide. They are rejected. (break) Even such sahajiyās, they would not read even Bhagavad-gītā. They think themselves that they are so, I mean to say, elevated, they have surpassed reading of Bhagavad-gītā. Similarly there are sahajiyās, they also say that kīrtana is not required for them. Kīrtana, one who has very much advanced, he doesn't require to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. I have heard it.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 28, 1973:

We studied under guru maharṣayaḥ in our childhood. Pāṭha śālā. So anywhere a brāhmaṇa can sit down and the village boys, small boys, children would come there. He doesn't charge anything, but their father, mother sends everything—rice, dahl, cloth. So he has no much demand for bodily necessities. This was paṭhana. This is brāhmaṇa. Brāhmaṇa should not accept any service. Formerly Sanātana Gosvāmī, because he accepted the service of Nawab Hussein Shah, he was rejected from the brāhmaṇa society. In the Bhāgavata also it is stated if a brāhmaṇa is in difficulty, he may accept the profession of a kṣatriya or a vaiśya, but never of a śūdra. Śūdra has been described there as dog. A dog, without having a master, he cannot live very nicely. Street dog is very wretched, but a dog under the care of a good master is very healthy and very happy. Similarly a śūdra cannot live without having a master. That has been described as the dog's business. So similarly a brāhmaṇa will never accept any service. He'll starve, but he'll never accept any service. That is against brāhmaṇa principles. Therefore ṣaṭ-karma-nipu... He can accept charity if somebody gives willfully. Dana pratigraha. But pratigraha dāna. He'll take, pratigraha, accept charity, but whatever he requires, he'll spend, and the balance he'll immediately distribute. Dāna. In Bengal it is said, lakteke baundiki (?). The... Why? A brāhmaṇa gets one lakh of rupees; next day, he's again beggar. Why? He'll not keep anything. Whatever he requires for the day's expenditure, he will take it and balance he will again distribute.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 28, 1973:

Just like Ganges water. So many sewage ditches, water coming, mixing in Calcutta. Everyone knows. But nobody says, "Oh, it is Chhitergar Paper Mills sewage water." No. That is Ganges water. Everyone takes bath, without any objection. Everyone is taking water and giving, bringing to the Deity room. Nobody distinguishes that this, with this water, so many mill water has been mixed up. Therefore it is rejected. No. Similarly, when one becomes Vaiṣṇava, never mind from which family's he's came. Māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye 'pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ (BG 9.32). One should not distinguish, "Oh, here is American Vaiṣṇava. Here is a European Vaiṣṇava. How can I eat with them?" This is not... Vaiṣṇava should be respected. Sad vaiṣṇavaḥ śvapaco guru.

Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms, kibā vipra... Haridāsa Ṭhākura, he came from Muhammadan family. Caitanya Mahāprabhu gave him the title Nāmācārya, Ācārya. He became, he became the teacher of the science of chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. Nāmācārya. We, every day, we glorify Haridāsa Ṭhākura: nāmācārya Haridāsa Ṭhākura ki jaya. Why? Because... If you can say, "Oh, he was born in Muhammadan family..." No. So all Caitanya Mahāprabhu's big assistants... Sanātana Gosvāmī, he, Sanātana, Rūpa Gosvāmī, they were practically Muhammadan, because the brāhmaṇa society rejected them. They changed their name. Dabira Khāsa. Sākara Mallika. But Caitanya, by association of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they became Gosvāmī.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 29, 1973:

Therefore one should concentrate upon devotional service. Everything is there. Sarvārhaṇam acyutejyā. If you..., one is devotee of Acyuta, everything is complete there. And he's śānta. He does not require it. He does not endeavor for it. But because he's Kṛṣṇa-bhakta, everything follows him. Everything follows him. That ānanda is nice. There is no need of showing magic or renouncing this world or accepting this world. These things are not required by Kṛṣṇa-bhakta. Because if he accepts, it is for Kṛṣṇa. If he rejects, that is for Kṛṣṇa. Ānukūlyasya saṅkalpa prātikūlyaṁ vivarjanam. We advise, "Give up this habit. No illicit sex, no intoxication, no gambling, no meat-eating." So this is tyāga. Why tyāga? For Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa wants this. Kṛṣṇa does not want to see us debauchees. Therefore we must give it up. And Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī mām... (BG 18.65). We accept it. So our business is to accept by which Kṛṣṇa is pleased, and reject by which Kṛṣṇa is pleased. Our central point is how Kṛṣṇa is pleased. So we have nothing to do with acceptance and rejection. We have to see whether Kṛṣṇa or His representative is pleased. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasya prasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi **. That is our practical... And if we live in that way, then we shall be happy. That is called happiness by devotional service. Go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 31, 1973:

So Nārada was very much surprised that this stage of dependent on devotee is very, very difficult to achieve. To achieve liberation is not very difficult, but when Kṛṣṇa becomes dependent on the order of a devotee, that is very difficult to achieve. So therefore pure devotional service surpasses all kinds of liberation. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also teaches, mama janmani janmanīśvare bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi. Liberation means no more birth. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, mama janmani janmani. Birth after birth. But the, a devotee does not want anything of the material things. Na dhanaṁ na janaṁ na sundarīṁ kavitāṁ vā jagadīśa kāmaye (Cc. Antya 20.29, Śikṣāṣṭaka 4). So this pure devotional service is a different subject matter. Dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo atra (SB 1.1.2). Therefore Vyāsadeva says that all kinds of motivated religious system is rejected from devotional service. Projjhita-kaitavaḥ. Kaitava means motivated. In devotional service, there is no motive—simply to serve Kṛṣṇa. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167). That is pure devotional service. Go on.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.14 -- Mayapur, April 7, 1975:

So Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu, has five features. Kṛṣṇa has five features. Kṛṣṇa means these five features. What are those? Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa's manifestation, Kṛṣṇa's incarnation, Kṛṣṇa's different potencies, in this way. And Kṛṣṇa, the source of devotional service, He is Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, bhakta-śaktikam. To advance in devotional service requires spiritual strength. It is not so easy thing. That spiritual strength is also Kṛṣṇa, bhakta-śaktikam. There is nothing except Kṛṣṇa, ekaṁ brahmā dvitīya-nāsti. So we have to understand Him especially in these five features for advancing in devotional service. Therefore His name is pañca-tattvātmakam, with five features, kṛṣṇam, bhakta-rūpa-svarūpakam. Kṛṣṇa is so kind upon us that... He is coming as He is. Kṛṣṇa is original, and trying to convince us about the necessity of our life, or the goal of our life. Prayojana, prayojana: it is necessary. It is not optional—compulsory. If you don't take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then you will continue to suffer; therefore it is necessity. It is not that if you like, you can take it; if you don't like, you reject it. If you reject it, then you will suffer. And if you take it, then actually you will enjoy life.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.39-47 -- San Francisco, February 1, 1967:

So when their, I mean to say, chief man met the manager, so, and asked that "Whether you want to compromise with us?" the manager said, "No. I don't wish to compromise with you. I don't care for you because you are educated laborer." He gave the title to the clerks, "educated laborer." So actually in Hindu society, the clerks were called educated laborers. So here it is lekhaka śūdra. Lekhaka śūdra means clerk, but he's śūdra. Lekhaka śūdra śrīcandraśekhara, tāṅra ghare rahilā. But spiritually there is no such distinction. We should always remember that materially, there may be higher, lower class. There is, always, in every society, in every country. But spiritually there is no such consideration. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's propaganda. He made Haridāsa Ṭhākura—he was a Muhammadan—as the spiritual master for saṅkīrtana, namācārya. And He picked up Sanātana Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī, who were rejected by the Hindu society, and He made them gosvāmīs. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's peculiarity. And here also we see that a śūdra, a laborer class, a clerk, who is considered to be lower in the society, He was staying at his house.

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

Suppose a rich man comes into this store, so he becomes poor just like us. Because he has kindly come here in this store, so because we are all poor men, he'll also becomes poor man? This is the reason. But these are all nonsense. Nārāyaṇa never becomes poor. The poor, poverty-stricken man, all these things are for the jīvas, the living entities. Nārāyaṇa is never poor. Nārāyaṇa is never under ignorance. Nārāyaṇa never becomes dog. We become dog. We become cat. You should always... Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore rejects, that "This sort of philosophy propounded by Śaṅkara is a great mistake because he has minimized the value of the Supreme Lord. By making a dog a god, he has insulted God. Therefore this Māyāvāda philosophy is the most offensive activities of the living being." So you should be very, very careful, very careful. Hena jīva-tattva lañā likhi' para-tattva. "And I have just studied the ordinary living entities, and I am speaking of the Absolute Truth? Oh, this is the greatest nonsensical activity." Ācchanna karila śreṣṭha īśvara-mahattva: "By this the glorification of the Lord has been diminished, and therefore it is a great offense."

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.98-102 -- April 27, 1976, Auckland, New Zealand:

So there is a long history how he resigned. He was the trustee of the government. Formerly, although the government was Muhammadan, the best Hindu personality was engaged to take charge of the ministership. Even in Akbar's time the same principle was done. Mahārāja Jayasingh. Even Aurangzeb, he was a very rigid Muhammadan, still, his principal minister was Mahārāja Jayasingh. Similarly, Sanātana Gosvāmī and his brother Rūpa Gosvāmī, they accepted the government service coming from a very respectable brāhmaṇa family. But they were rejected by the brāhmaṇa community because they accepted the service of Muhammadan. Formerly, the Hindu society was very strict. Brāhmaṇas would not accept anyone's service. So Sanātana Gosvāmī, after joining Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he left Bengal. And when Śrīla Caitanya Mahāprabhu was residing in Benares to deliver the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, at that time, his bavarṇasee (?) ... So after he was clean-shaved... This is one of the items of our movement. If one wants to be initiated, he must be clean-shaved. So Sanātana Gosvāmī was clean-shaved.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.98-102 -- April 27, 1976, Auckland, New Zealand:

"My dear Sir, although I was born in brāhmaṇa family, but now I am rejected. I am counted amongst the Muhammadans." Because their name was also changed, these two brothers. And even they were rejected by the brāhmaṇa community, and their association was these big, big zamindars, most of them viṣayīs, only concerned with pound, shilling, pence. So about him it is said by Śrīnivāsa Ācārya, tyaktvā tūrṇam aśeṣa-maṇḍala-pati-śreṇīṁ sadā tucchavat. These Gosvāmīs, they were very exaltedly posted as minister and were associate Minister means associated with big, big men, big businessmen, big zamindars, like that. So maṇḍala-pati. And big men maṇḍala-pati, who controls a very big circle, especially the zamindars, landholders. So tyaktvā tūrṇam aśeṣa-maṇḍala-pati-śreṇīm. He gave up the association of these big, big men. Tyaktvā tūrṇam aśeṣa-maṇḍala-pati-śreṇīṁ sadā tucchavat. Tuccha means, "Eh, what is this? It has no value." So this is not ordinary thing, one can give up. But by the grace of Kṛṣṇa, by the grace of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, one may think of this material enjoyment very insignificant. (child making noises) (aside:) The child may be taken out.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.101-104 -- Bombay, November 3, 1975:

So here we are talking about Caitanya's instruction to Sanātana Gosvāmī. This Sanātana Gosvāmī was one of the important ministers in the government of the then Pathan Nawab Hussein Shah. He is very important person. He was very great scholar in Persian language, in Arabian language, and Sanskrit. And because he joined the Muslim government, he accepted the service of a Muslim government, he was rejected by the brāhmaṇa community. He was born in brāhmaṇa community, Sārasvata brāhmaṇa. There are many Sārasvata-brāhmaṇas in Bombay. So he belonged to that community. And because the brāhmaṇa community exterminated him, then he became almost like Muslim. Their name was also changed, Dabira Khāsa and Sākara Mallika, two brothers. Later on, by the association of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, these half-converted Muslim brāhmaṇas were again claimed by Caitanya Mahāprabhu to become the first-class brāhmaṇa, gosvāmī. They were Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī. So this Sanātana Gosvāmī retired. First of all Rūpa Gosvāmī retired from the government service, and then Sanātana Gosvāmī also retired. With great difficulty he got rid of the responsibility of government. The Nawab arrested him because he was declining to obey his order.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.105 -- New York, July 11, 1976:

So this, the one, that... We should seek the shelter of the lotus feet of guru. Then everything... And vede gāya yāṅhāra carita. It is not that it is sentiment that one has to become very strong devotee of guru. Therefore Narottama dāsa Tha..., vede gāya yāṅhāra carita. Not that I am talking something nonsense. It is because... Śruti-pramāṇam. Whatever we talk, it must be supported by Vedic injunction. Then it is right. Just like we sometimes challenge these big, big scientists and others, and what is our strength? I am not a scientist, but how I can challenge? The Veda gāya. We have got evidence from the Vedas. Just like so many people are thinking that the moon planet is first. We are challenging, "No, moon planet is second." What is the strength? The strength is Vedic knowledge. We cannot accept it. So vede gāya yāṅhāra carita. Vedic knowledge is so perfect that you can challenge so many scientists. Yes. If it is not in accordance to the Vedic knowledge, then it is... We do not accept. If it is not to the Kṛṣṇa's instruction, we reject immediately. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). As soon as we see that one man is not Kṛṣṇa conscious, then we immediately group him in four classes: duṣkṛtina, mūḍha, narādhama, māyayāpahṛta-jñānā. Finished, that's all. "No, I am learned, and you are nothing. You have not... You have no degrees of university. I have got degrees." "Yes, that is all right, but your degrees and knowledge have been taken away by māyā. You remain in darkness. Ye timire jeti (?). You remain in the darkness." That's all.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.110-111 -- Bombay, November 17, 1975:

So here the same kṣetrajña. Kṣetrajñākhyā tathā parā. The jīva-śakti, that is also spiritual. We are all spiritual, and this is our mistake, that I am thinking "I am this body." This is ignorance. The whole world is going on under this ignorance, that "I am this body," "I am this body." Yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke, sa eva go-kharaḥ (SB 10.84.13). If we study this verse, that anyone who is under the conception of..., bodily conception—"I am this body"—then he is no better than the animal. Sa eva go-kharaḥ. Go means cow, and khara means ass. But this is going on. The whole, the so-called nationalism, nations... So what is this idea of nation? "I am American," "I am Indian," "I am Hindustani," "I am Pakistani." Bodily concept of life. But śāstra rejects immediately. If anyone is under the bodily conception of life he is... Sa eva go-kharaḥ: "He is no better than the animal." This is the challenge of the śāstra. So all these so-called nationality, big, big nations, big, big races, caste, and so on, so on, what is their position? The position is that all of them are animals. That's all. This is the verdict of the śāstra. Sa eva go-kharaḥ. Actually this morning we were talking, one dog sees another dog: "Oh, he is coming from another neighborhood." He immediately begins to bark. Immigration department: "Why you are coming in this neighborhood? All right, you can stay here for three days.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.118-119 -- New York, November 23, 1966:

So the answer was given by Śukadeva Gosvāmī that "This very question was also put to Kṛṣṇa by your grandfather. So instead of answering myself, I'll put that very question and answer between your grandfather and Kṛṣṇa." So what is that? "Now, a similar question was put by your grandfather Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira to Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa answered like this." What is that? Yasyāham anugṛhṇāmi hariṣye tad-dhanaṁ śanaiḥ: (SB 10.88.8) "If I do somebody some special favor, then My first duty is I become him crushed in all material possessions." You see? Why? "Because to make him more surrendered to Me." When he becomes helpless, he has no other way. "Kṛṣṇa, please take me." When he has something, he thinks, "Oh, these things will protect me, my material possessions." Therefore he does not surrender. Now, Kṛṣṇa sees that "This man, this living entity, is very much devotee, but he wants something, this nonsense. So crush him so that when he'll feel helpless, he will come to Me. No more. So I'll give him all protection." So there is a policy of Kṛṣṇa. Sometimes He puts us into test, whether we are sincerely devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Because we are always after sense gratification, so if Kṛṣṇa is not a order-supplier, then one rejects Kṛṣṇa. We want God, or Kṛṣṇa, to be our order-supplier. So we must order Kṛṣṇa, "Give me this. Give me that. If You cannot give me, then what are You, Kṛṣṇa? I don't want You." This sort of bhakti, or devotional service, is not accepted by Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:

He did not accept Vedic authority. But according to Hindu culture, if somebody does not accept the Vedic authority, then he's not a authority. Vedānta philosophy, there are different parties in India. The Māyā... Generally, two parties: the Māyāvāda philosophers and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, or the impersonalists and the personalists. Otherwise, there is no difference. Ultimately, the Māyāvādī philosophers they say that God, the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal, and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, they say in the ultimate end, the Absolute Truth is Person and He is, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). This is little difference, and they stick to their position and they fight. Fight means by philosophical arguments. That is going on since a very long time. But both of them belong to the sanātana Hindu dharma because both of them will talk on the Vedānta philosophy. They'll simply, they can give different interpretation, but they cannot say that "We don't accept Vedānta." Oh, that will..., then it is at once rejected. So one must give an interpretation on the Vedānta philosophy; then he'll be accepted as ācārya. Three things: Vedānta philosophy, Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One must be able to explain these three books. Then he'll be accepted ācārya. These are the principles.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.354-358 -- New York, December 28, 1966:

So, so that, just like everything has to be understood by the symptoms, that is the scientific advancement. Just like a drug is tested in the laboratory and the drug, the symptoms and the taste, how it is, how the color changes, how it tastes in the tongue, everything is described there, so scientists proves, understands the genuineness of a particular chemical by testing. Similarly, nobody should be accepted as incarnation. That is foolishness. Incarnation, they are stated in the scriptures. Their symptoms, everything is there, and one should understand from that. The avatāra never advertises. Anyone who advertises himself that "I am incarnation," he should be at once rejected. He should be at once rejected.

yasyāvatāra jñāyante
śarīriṣv aśarīriṇaḥ
tais tair atulyātiśayair
vīryair dehiṣv asaṅgataiḥ

The first thing is that avatāra, incarnation, He hasn't got this material body. The first symptom is... And still, the avatāra appears before us. Because, so far our senses are concerned, we can see the material objects. We can see a stone. We can see, I mean to say, wood. We can see water. We cannot see even air, the finer material things. We cannot see mind. We know that mind is there in every soul, every body. Every one of us has got mind, but we cannot see.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.27-31 -- New York, January 15, 1967:

What is renunciation? Renunciation means paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate (BG 2.59). One is engaged in the material activities, being attracted in it, and when he loses his attraction in this material world—he is attracted by the Supreme, Kṛṣṇa—that is renunciation. By seeing the Supreme, he rejects this. Just like sometimes we also, if we get some better type of foodstuff, then we reject inferior type of foodstuff naturally. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate. Because, "Oh, it tastes very nice, so let me take this, reject this." Similarly, material attraction is so long..., as long as we are not in touch with Kṛṣṇa. As soon as we are in touch with Kṛṣṇa, in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the result will be that we shall lose our material attraction. Those who are falling down from Kṛṣṇa consciousness again to the material attraction, that means they are not serious about advancing in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kṛṣṇa consciousness is not ordinary thing. It is very easy. At the same time very, I mean, difficult also. Those who are not attracted by the Kṛṣṇa conscious activities, there is every chance of falling down again in the... Because he has no other alternative. Either he has to serve this way or serve that way. If he is not attracted to serve in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then he has to serve in material consciousness. So those who are not fixed up in Kṛṣṇa, however he may be advanced in spiritual realization, that, there is falldown. It is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32). Again falls down.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 2-4 -- Los Angeles, May 6, 1970:

There are six phases of surrender. The first thing is that we should accept which is favorable for devotional service; we shall reject anything which is unfavorable to devotional service. And the next is that to introduce oneself with the associates of the Lord. Just like Kṛṣṇa has got so many associates, you can... That will, of course... Not artificially. When you are advanced you'll understand what is your relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Then if you introduce yourself with that association, then the next stage is confidence that "Kṛṣṇa will give me protection." Actually, He is giving protection to everyone. That is a fact. But in māyā we think that we are protecting ourself, we are feeding ourself. No. That's not the fact.

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 6 -- Los Angeles, May 8, 1970:

Prākṛtaḥ means, from material platform, one is coming to the spiritual platform at that stage one is taught or trained to worship the Deity with great faith and devotion under regulative principle. But in the neophyte stage, na tad-bhakteṣu cānyeṣu, he, the neophyte devotee, cannot understand who is highly elevated or devotee or what is his interest with other people. He cannot discriminate. Na tad-bhakteṣu cānyeṣu sa bhaktaḥ prākṛtaḥ smṛtaḥ. That neophyte devotee is almost material. Then next stage is to make friendship, to love God, and to make friendship with devotees, and to be merciful to the innocent and to reject the atheist. Four classes of men. You have to offer all your love for Kṛṣṇa and you have to make friendship with the devotees of Kṛṣṇa. And those who are innocent, just preach this Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra and try to attract them to Kṛṣṇa. And another class, atheists, don't go there. Don't try there. Hopeless. Not hopeless. For a person who is not very much elevated, for him it is hopeless.

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 11 -- Los Angeles, May 16, 1970:

The more you become implicated in material knowledge, entangled, you..., less you can understand Kṛṣṇa consciousness. People, those who are supposed to be very advanced in material knowledge, they think, "Eh, what is this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement?" They have no attraction. Just like some of our Indian boys sometimes come. They have come here to learn technology. So sometimes they question. They are surprised that... They have rejected these things, and they have come here to learn technology. So when they see that Swamijī introduced the things which they have rejected in India, so they are surprised.

So I also came for that purpose, because our modern India has rejected spiritual knowledge. They are thinking that if they can imitate Westernized technology, then they will be happy. This is māyā. They do not see that those who are advanced three hundred times more than us in technology, what they have got? They do not see that. India cannot advance in technology like America or Europe at least for three hundred years more, because in these Western countries they have taken this business since a very long time, but Indian culture, beginning from the creation, is spiritual culture.

Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Verse 35 -- New York, July 31, 1971:

Yogis, jñānīs, they are trying to understand God, but they do not know they are in illusion. They're in illusion. So far karmīs are concerned, they're in illusion, māyā-sukhāya bharam udvahato vimūḍhān (SB 7.9.43). They're fools and rascals because for illusory happiness for a moment, they are working so hard. Therefore, they are rascal number one. They cannot, how they can have peace? There is no question. And next the jñānīs. Jñānīs, they want to get relief from this hard work of this material world. Brahmā satyaṁ jagan mithyā, they reject this material world. Mithyā, false. We have no, nothing to (indistinct). That is little higher than the karmīs, because the karmīs, they have taken this material world as everything. Here we shall be happy. Their dharma means: how we shall live peacefully here in this material world. Their religion means. I've talked with so many, their religion means to make a peaceful atmosphere within this material world. But the rascals do not know that it has been tried for millions of years for making this world peaceful. It has never happened. And never it will happen. How it will happen?

Festival Lectures

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

Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit, while he was touring on his kingdom, he saw that one man was trying to kill a cow. Parīkṣit Mahārāja saw. Immediately he took his sword that "Who are you? You are killing a cow in my kingdom?" Because the king is supposed, or the government is supposed to give everyone protection, not that the government is meant for giving protection to the human being and not to the animals. Because it is Kali-yuga, the government discriminates between two nationals. National means one who has taken birth in the land. That is called national. That is... You know, everyone. So the trees, they are also born in the land, the aquatics also born in the land. The flies, the reptiles, the snakes, the birds, the beasts, human beings—everyone is born in that land. Suppose your land, America, United States... Why the government should give protection to one class of living entities, rejecting others? This means they have lost their sympathy for others. This is Kali-yuga. Formerly, before Kali-yuga, unnecessarily even an ant would not be killed. Even an ant. There are many instances that a hunter who was taking advantage of killing animals, but when he became a devotee he was not prepared to kill even an ant.

Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami's Appearance Day -- Vrndavana, October 19, 1972:

So when he met, he very humbly approached and he said, "My dear Lord, I am born of lower family." Actually, he was born of a Sārasvata brāhmaṇa family, but because he associated with the mlecchas and yavanas, the Muhammadans, so they were rejected from the brāhmaṇa community, and therefore he represented himself as having born of a lower family. "My associations are all abominable." Ordinary men, especially he was mixing with the Mohammedans, they were habituated to drinking, meat-eating, which have become a fashion in the gentleman's society nowadays. So he considered himself as fallen. "The most wretched of mankind..." If a human being does not take advantage of this opportunity to have a human form of life, then he's missing the point. In the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord says... (much talking in background) (aside:) Stop them.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, Lecture -- Los Angeles, February 7, 1969:

So that is the history of Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī. That is the history of Sanātana Gosvāmī. None of them were belonging to the Vaiṣṇava sect or nothing. Caitanya Mahāprabhu turned them. This Sanātana Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī were rejected from the brāhmaṇa community because at that time the brāhmaṇa society was so strict, if somebody takes service of a Musselman or anyone, oh, he is immediately exterminated: "Oh, you cannot be accepted as pure..." Brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, according to Vedic system, the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, and vaiśya, they'll not accept any service, even it is worth $200,000. No. That he will not acc... Then that is degradation. Only the śūdras can accept. That was the Vedic system. To accept another's service was so abominable. In the Bhāgavata also it is stated that if the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśya, especially the brāhmaṇas, they have no livelihood, then they can adopt the business of kṣatriya and vaiśya, but never accept the occupation of the dog, śūdra. That is stated. You see? So to accept service of others was so abominable, even five hundred years ago. So this Sanātana Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī, they were also belonged to very rich family, but because they accepted ministership in the government of a Muhammadan, they were rejected. They were exterminated from the society. What is the extermination of society? He will never be invited. Nobody will offer his daughter to their family, because according to Vedic system, daughters and sons are not loitering in the street. The father and mother must engage. So if one is exterminated, oh, it is very difficult to get his daughter married. Nobody will accept.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Address -- London, September 11, 1969:

So if you want to (be) happy, then you must take to this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Otherwise the human race is doomed. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā (SB 5.18.12). Anyone who has no God consciousness, he has no qualification. However academically he may be very rich, he has no qualification. Manorathena asato dhāvato bahiḥ. His only qualification is mental concoction. Mental concoction. That's all. He has no other qualification. So we reject all these nonsense. We simply accept a sincere soul who wants to dedicate his life for God's service. So it is not easy thing. These boys and girls who are following me, they are very elevated. They are not ordinary boys and girls. They have taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Their quality is greater than any mundane erudite scholar. It is a challenge. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ (SB 5.18.12). Anyone who has developed God consciousness, love of God, all good qualities will automatically develop in him. All good qualities. Test any of our students, how they are good, how they are advanced. Test it. Bring anyone in this world and test any one of our boys. You'll find how much difference there is in their character, in their feeling, in their consciousness. So this is the only thing. If you want peaceful society, then you must make them God conscious, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Everything will be automatically solved. Otherwise your so-called United Nations will not help.

Arrival Lecture -- Mexico, February 11, 1975, (With Spanish Translator):

So the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is very, very important for the human society. It is not exactly a religious movement as it is understood in the Western countries. Religion is described in the English dictionary as "a kind of faith." Faith you may accept or may not accept, but religion is the word, as we understand from Sanskrit dictionary, it cannot be rejected. Or you and your religion cannot be separated. Therefore we should understand very clearly that we are experiencing two things: one is matter, and another is spirit. Just like there is a stone, and there is a small ant. The stone, it may be very big, but it cannot move. It has no life. But the small ant, although it is very small, it has life. So there are two things, we can very easily understand: one is dead matter, and the other is living force. We are actually living force. Living force, we are covered by the matter, and according to the different types of covering, we are representing different types of living condition. So this living force, being encaged by the dead matter, it is a struggle for existence. The living force trying to get out of the material encagement, that is called struggle for existence. The living force by nature is jubilant. The supreme living force is God, Kṛṣṇa, and we are part and parcel of the living force. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, two kinds of energies: one material energy, one spiritual energy. The material energy is earth, water, air, fire, sky, mind, intelligence, etc., and the spiritual energy is the living force which is trying to lord it over the material energy.

Arrival Lecture -- Calcutta, March 20, 1975:

So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is transcendental, paro dharmaḥ. Sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmaḥ. Para means above, above the so-called religious system. So this is not our manufactured thing. It is said in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in the beginning, dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavaḥ atra: "Any kind of kaitavaḥ, pretentious or false, illusory...," kaitavaḥ. Kaitavaḥ means cheating. "Cheating type of religion is rejected, thrown away," projjhita. Prākṛṣṭa-rūpeṇa ujjhita. Just like we sweep over the floor, we take the last particle of dust and throw it away, similarly, to become Kṛṣṇa conscious means we have to give up all these so-called or cheating type of religious system. Because experience has shown that following the so many different designated religious systems, nobody has attained the platform of how to love God. Nobody has attained. This is practical experience. It is Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He introduced. But Lord Kṛṣṇa gave hint that "This is real religion, mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja. This is religion." Any other religion, system of religion, which does not train the followers, how to love God, that is cheating type of religion. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, premā pum-artho mahān. And Bhāgavata says also. Real achievement of success in life is how to love God, or Kṛṣṇa. That is the highest perfection of life.

Initiation Lectures

Initiation of Jayapataka Dasa -- Montreal, July 24, 1968:

So Lord Buddha, he, of course, did not preach directly God consciousness, but we accept him as the incarnation of God. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. He had to preach amongst the atheist class of men who were too much addicted with animal slaughter and he wanted to stop animal slaughter. That was his main business. So I've several times explained. Therefore he rejected Vedic authority. Because in the Vedic authority there is recommendation, under certain condition, of animal sacrifice. But he wanted to stop completely animal sacrifice. Therefore superficially he said, he denied the authority of Vedic ritual. Because if he accepted Vedic rituals then he could not preach this ahiṁsā paramo dharma. So that is a great story. Anyway we accept, we Vaiṣṇavas, we accept Lord Buddha as incarnation. That is mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra. So indirectly the Buddhists are worshiping God. They are denying, there is no existence of God but they are accepting the incarnation of God.

Initiation Lecture -- Hamburg, August 27, 1969:

Is it very difficult service? Everyone will accept, "Oh, yes." But unfortunately, everyone does not accept. (laughter) (chuckles) You see. Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore says, etādṛś ī tava kṛpā bhagavan mamāpi: "My dear Lord, You are so kind that You have approached Me in..., by transcendental sound. Or You are always with Me." You can be. If I take, then Kṛṣṇa is always with me. If I reject, then... That is the ignora... "Kṛṣṇa is everywhere" means as soon as we accept, Kṛṣṇa is immediately with us. And as soon as we reject, oh, He is far, far away. So Kṛṣṇa can be with us very easily simply by this chanting or engaging the tongue in His service. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommended this process, or He inaugurated this process in this age. Although it is not new system, but He especially introduced because His incarnation is to reclaim the fallen souls of this age. So He... (break) ...before advent of Kṛṣṇa he's simply planning, "As soon as Kṛṣṇa will take birth, I will kill him." This is the plan of the demons, to kill God. Atheism. "God is dead." That is also killing, one sort of killing. "There is no God. I am God." These are all different processes of trying to kill. But God is never killed. (break) Rather, they are killed. That is the whole history everywhere.

Gayatri Mantra Initiation -- Boston, May 9, 1968:

So they have come and they are... This second process of initiation will be performed as far as possible. Real basic principle is bhakti, devotional service. So far lengthy process, in this age it is not possible. And pāñcarātrika vidhim, just like quoted from Rūpa Gosvāmī, it has made things very simplified. The Vedic vidhi is not possible at the present age. The pāñcarātrika-vidhim means... Vedic vidhi means one must be begotten by a brāhmaṇa and he must have followed the family tradition. Then, according to Vedic rites, he can be initiated or offered the sacred thread. But pāñcarātrika-vidhi is especially meant for this age, that anyone who has little, a slight tendency to become a devotee, he should be given all chance, all chance. That is Lord..., especially Lord Caitanya's special benediction. And He has actually performed this thing. Just like Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He happened to be born in a Muhammadan family, and Lord Caitanya made him the ācārya, nāmācārya, the authority of chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, nāmācārya, by His grace. This Sanātana Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī were rejected from brāhmaṇa society because they engaged themselves as ministers in the Muslim government.

Delhi Initiations -- Delhi, August 31, 1976:

Prabhupāda: Not different. Not different from God.

Pradyumna: Because God is perfect, because Kṛṣṇa is perfect, therefore His words and His ideas are also perfect. So these śāstras are the words of God. So they are also perfect. So the śruti-śāstra-nindanam means to think that there may be something wrong in the scripture or to take one verse out of Bhagavad-gītā and reject another verse. Because it is all coming from Kṛṣṇa and is all perfect, therefore everything is perfect within it. We must accept everything. We must accept it without any..., as being without any fault. So śruti-śāstra-nindanam. We should not think that it has any imperfection, that "This may be wrong." Śruti-śāstra-nindanam hari-nāmni kalpanam. We should not think that the..., should not speculate on the nature of the holy name.

Prabhupāda: Go on, next. Nāmnād balād pāpa-buddhiḥ.

Pradyumna: Nāmnād balād pāpa-buddhir na tasya śuddhiḥ, na tasya vidyate śuddhir yamaiḥ. The next offense is that..., if by chanting the holy name one becomes relieved from all his past sinful reactions. So if one thinks that "I will perform sinful activities. I'll have illicit sex, I'll eat meat, fish... (end)

Departure Talks

Departure Lecture -- London, March 12, 1975:

You cannot say that "I will manufacture my own law." No. That is not possible. Law means state's law, and you have to abide by that. That is law. You cannot avoid it. You cannot say that "I won't accept the state laws. I will make my own laws." That is not possible. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). Dharma means the laws and the regulation given by God. That is dharma. Therefore Kṛṣṇa said, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). This is real dharma. And Bhāgavata says, dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavaḥ atra: "In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam all cheating types of religious principle is rejected." The real dharma is to surrender to Kṛṣṇa. That is real dharma. And any religion which does not teach this principle, to surrender to God, Kṛṣṇa, and love Him... hat is real religion. Therefore Bhāgavata teaches that real religion, Bhāgavata-dharma. And Bhāgavata declares in the beginning that "All cheating type of religious system is rejected, kicked out." Projjhita. Projjhita means just like you wash your floor or sweep your floor and collect the dust and throw it away, similarly, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the unwanted so-called religious system, they have been collected and thrown away. Here in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is only one religious system, which is spoken in the Bhagavad-gītā in the last chapter, Eighteenth Chapter, that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). If we accept this principle, then we enter into the Bhāgavata-dharma. Otherwise there is no entrance in the Bhāgavata-dharma.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Prabhupāda: So another man can also say "what my conscience dictates." So there is a difference.

Śyāmasundara: But in society, moral values are based upon the opinion of the whole society. In other words, my moral values are relative to public opinion.

Prabhupāda: When the majority opinion is something, you have to accept it. That is democracy.

Śyāmasundara: But still he says it's up to the individual whether to accept or reject it. This is where you were talking about the left side of the road and the right side of the road, that even though the law is there as agreed upon by society, still it's up to me whether I want to follow it or not. It's matter of my personal opinion.

Prabhupāda: If you don't follow, then you'll be punished. That will be the effect. You'll be punished. Therefore, the conclusion is that your independent thinking is not absolute; it is also relative.

Śyāmasundara: He says that logic or reason don't determine morality, but sentiment determines morality—how I feel, that's how I should act.

Prabhupāda: Or in other words, what is accepted by the supreme will, that is morality. You cannot decide what is morality. The supreme will decides whether it is morality or immorality.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the moral sentiments which are approved by society enhance the social good, whereas immoral attitudes are egoistic and antisocial. So that a society will always approve of a certain set of moral values, and then the individual living in the society must either accept or reject them. And if he rejects them, then he must act through politics, through the social body, to try to change their attitude, their opinion.

Prabhupāda: Therefore it depends on that social body, which is authority. So ultimately we have to depend on the authority for all sanctions. So our proposition is that the supreme authority is Kṛṣṇa. So whatever He sanctions, that is morality; whatever He does not sanction, that is immorality. Just like Arjuna was thinking to become nonviolent, not to fight, is good. But Kṛṣṇa said, "Now you fight." So fight became good. So ultimately it depends on Kṛṣṇa's will, what is morality, what is immorality, what is good, what is bad. Therefore our duty is, instead of depending on social body or political... (break) ...are so many, one is different from the other—we depend on the supreme will of the supreme authority.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: He says that there is no absolute morality, that everything is relative.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We say also. If it is sanctioned by Kṛṣṇa, then it is morality; otherwise the same morality may be immorality. Just like Yudhiṣṭhira was asked by Kṛṣṇa to speak lie—"Go to Droṇācārya and inform him that 'Your son is dead,' " because Droṇācārya had a benediction that unless he was shocked by the dead limbs of his son, he would not die. So he had to be shocked. But he would not believe anybody except King Yudhiṣṭhira because he was known as very honest and truthful. Therefore Kṛṣṇa employed this service that "You go." Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, he said, "Oh, how can I tell a lie?" So this is immorality. Kṛṣṇa is ordering, and he is saying that "How can I say lie?" This is immorality; he is disobeying the order of Kṛṣṇa. But Arjuna, he rejected all morality and immorality. He accepted Kṛṣṇa's order. That is morality. He was personally thinking that "If I kill my brothers, cousins, this, that," so many things, but because he was a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa, when he understood "Kṛṣṇa wants it," he said, "Yes." This is morality. That is the fact. When your actions are approved by the supreme authority, that is morality. If it is not approved by the supreme authority, that is immorality. Therefore so-called morality-immorality has no fixed position. When it is approved by Kṛṣṇa, it is morality. Even so-called immorality will be morality, and so-called morality will be immorality. That we practically see, the same example as I gave you, that a soldier killing so many human beings, he is awarded, and it is... (break) ...he does what he likes, then it becomes chaos.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: He says the only authority is public opinion, and it changes.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. Still it is authority. Public opinion, he says, or without public opinion, the king or royalty. There must be some authority to guide them. Otherwise there will be chaos.

Śyāmasundara: As far as his philosophy of religion, he rejected the idea of absolute matter and the concept of a soul as substance. He rejected the utility of scientific laws, and he rejected moral principles as objective realities. He says all religious ideas are relative. There is no certainty and anything religious may be merely probable but never certain.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That also he says. Therefore religion means love of God. The means may be different in different processes of religion, but ultimately if one develops love of Godhead, that is the prima facie factor, love of God. So if any religious principle love of God is absent, that is simply show, it is not factual religion.

Śyāmasundara: He says that even the idea of God is merely probable but not certain.

Prabhupāda: That he cannot say. As soon as he speaks of authority, there must be a supreme authority. That is God.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: These are notations on David Hume. Abstract objects, relations, space, matter and time are all considered by Hume to be mind-dependent perceptions. In other words, perceptions are all there is. He rejects revealed religion, that is, the religion of the śāstras, and embraces natural religion, that is, a religion wherein the existence of God can be proved or even shown to be probable by argument and reason. According to Hume we really know nothing of God, for at the most we can only know are peoples' ideas of God, and these are but perceptions. It would thus seem that it is impossible to know God according to Hume's natural religion because the senses are admittedly imperfect, and these are the only instruments of certainty Hume admits in his natural religion.

Prabhupāda: What is that natural religion?

Hayagrīva: Well, he says the self is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement. So he says there's nothing but perception. He rejects revealed scriptures as such, but he says, "The heavens and the earth join in the same testimony. The whole course of nature raises one hymn to the praises of its creator. I have found a Deity and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go further who are wiser or more enterprising."

Prabhupāda: First point is that our senses are imperfect. That is admitted. And God is perception. But whether he believes actually in the existence of God?

Hayagrīva: He believes in the existence of God.

Prabhupāda: And what is his perception of God? If he believes in God, then he must give some idea what is God.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: Hume is a famous skeptic, and he would reject a revealed scripture. He looks toward science. He says all the new discoveries in astronomy...

Prabhupāda: Then if he is skeptic, that why one should believe his words and take his instruction? He is skeptic, so others skeptically reject his statement also. So there is no use of his talking.

Hayagrīva: Well, he felt that...

Prabhupāda: Now you said that he is skeptic.

Hayagrīva: Oh, yes. He felt...

Prabhupāda: So he is also skeptic. So why people should be induced to believe him and hear him? He is immediately rejected.

Hayagrīva: He felt that instead of basing belief in God...

Prabhupāda: No, he should not think, because nobody will take his instruction. He does not believe others, does not take others' statement—why his statement should be accepted?

Hayagrīva: Well, well he believes at least in the material senses.

Prabhupāda: Everyone believes that. Materially everyone believes. But if he says none of them are correct, so why he is so..., pose himself as correct? He is rejected immediately.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Prabhupāda: Everyone believes that. Materially everyone believes. But if he says none of them are correct, so why he is so..., pose himself as correct? He is rejected immediately.

Hayagrīva: He says, "All the new discoveries in astronomy which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of nature are so many additional arguments for a Deity according to the true system of theism," that is his natural, what he calls natural religion. In this way Hume rejects the necessity or desirability of miracles as well as the conception of a God transcendental to his creation. He says it's not the being of God that is in question but God's nature. This nature cannot be ascertained through study of the universe itself. However, if the universe can only be studied by imperfect senses, what is the value of our conclusion? How can we ever come to know the nature of God?

Prabhupāda: Nature of God, it can be explained by God Himself. That is our Vedic process. We know who is God, and He explains, "My nature is this." Just like He says, "I am the greatest principle," mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). "There is no more higher principle than Me." This is fact. If something is greater than God, then how one can become God? That is not possible. So greatest means He is great in everything. He is great in richness, He is great in reputation, He is great in influence, He is great in bodily power, He is great in beauty and He is great in renunciation. If we can find out somebody that He tallies with this greatness, then He is God. So that we find in Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, and what He says in the Bhagavad-gītā we accept as fact. And if we analyze His statements intelligently, pruriently, then we will find that what Kṛṣṇa says, that is fact.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: As far as we can ascertain, Hume personally had no religion, no faith in the Christian or any other God. He also rejected that argument or reason could justify a faith. Thus Hume is a complete skeptic who denies the possibility of ascertaining certainty outside of a mere sequence of perceptions or ideas.

Prabhupāda: This, then the argument comes. If he does not believe in anyone's statement, why he is thinking his statement will be accepted? Then he is foolish. He is a child. Instead of becoming a philosopher, he is a child, talking all nonsense.

Hayagrīva: He maintains that man cannot know ultimate reality or possess knowledge of anything beyond a mere awareness of phenomenal sensory images.

Prabhupāda: That is sufficient. But if man cannot have any knowledge, so who is going to take your knowledge? Better you stop, don't talk. Is it not?

Hayagrīva: So much for Hume. (laughs) That's the end of Hume.

Prabhupāda: No, no, I mean is not that the conclusion? If he is skeptic, he does not take other's statement why he expects that his statement will be taken? Why does he propose any statement? Does he think that he is the greatest of all? Then everyone can think like that. That skeptic has no ground. He cannot say. If he is skeptic he should stop, he should not stand.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: He says because the mind imposes a priori these laws upon nature as both necessary and universal, that proves that the mind is creative and that it's not a blank slate or tabula rasa.

Prabhupāda: Mind is creative, that's a fact. Creative. He is creating and again rejecting. That is the mind's business, saṅkalpa-vikalpa.

Śyāmasundara: So he says that to apply those four categories of reason onto objects in order to understand them, he says this creates certain knowledge, and so that further judgment beyond these categories would be guesswork or unprovable dogma. But, he says, still the mind is not satisfied with these partial explanations. Even though knowledge that transcends these categories is guesswork, still the mind desires to know something beyond them.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is called philosophy. That inquisitiveness is called philosophy. Cause of the cause: this is caused by this; what is the cause of this? Unless he comes to the final cause, this research goes on. That is the nature of advanced mind. They are called munis, those who are very thoughtful. So that is the nature of greater mind, mahātmā, to find out the ultimate cause. That is human nature. Therefore, athāto brahma jijñāsā. The Vedānta-sūtra says this jijñāsā, inquiry, "What is after this? What is after this? What is brāhmaṇas? What is Brahman? This is not Brahman. This is not Brahman..." The next answer is that "Brahman means janmādy asya (SB 1.1.1), the supreme source from where everything emanates." So unless he goes to the supreme source, he is not satisfied.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: All of a sudden, as if it is coming from the sea.

Hayagrīva: He rejects the traditional proofs of God's existence in order to clear the ground for his assertion that God is morally necessary in a moral universe. In this universe, every soul is an end in itself, and these individual souls are like citizens in a kingdom of ends. He calls it "a kingdom of ends."

Prabhupāda: So why does he use that word kingdom if there is no king? This is unreasonable. Why does he say kingdom if...

Hayagrīva: Oh, he would say there is a king.

Prabhupāda: ...he does not believe in king? He does not believe in God. The individual souls are ends themselves.

Hayagrīva: Oh, he believes in God...

Prabhupāda: Oh.

Hayagrīva: ...but that he rejects the traditional proofs of God. He says that God is morally necessary in a moral universe. His philosophy is a philosophy of ethics and morality.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. But if your, his morality does not accept God, and God is there—because we have already discussed that behind the nature there is God. So if his morality denies the existence of God, then where is the value of this morality? This morality can change at any time into degradation.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: That is religion: how to please God. That is not only restricted among the children, but authorized(?) to the children's father. One must know how to please God. That is real religion.

Hayagrīva: He rejects temple attendance, church-going as a means to salvation. He says, "Sensuous representations of God are contrary to the command of reason. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." So he would reject...

Prabhupāda: If somebody imagines...

Hayagrīva: ...Deity worship.

Prabhupāda: ...some image, that is not required. But if a, actually just like you keep the photograph of your beloved, that is not image. Image is imagination. But when you keep the photograph of your beloved, that is not imagination, that's a fact.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: Reconciliation.

Prabhupāda: That's it. Conclusion is there, what is called? Premises, premises, (indistinct) are called premises. Man is mortal. Mr. John is a man, therefore John is mortal.

Śyāmasundara: No, but that's the Aristotelian process, he rejects Aristotle's process.

Prabhupāda: He may reject Aristotle's process, that is..., the real thing is like that, that by your scanty reason, you come to this conclusion, in that (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: His process would be more like: man is immortal. The antithesis is that man is not immortal. So then the synthesis would be the combination, the resolution of those two.

Prabhupāda: What is that synthesis?

Śyāmasundara: The synthesis would be perhaps that man's body is mortal and he's immortal.

Prabhupāda: Perhaps. There is no certainty.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Hayagrīva: This is Darwin. Darwin's conception of evolution rests on the contention that there is a real genetic change from generation to generation. In other words, Darwin rejects the platonic igos. Igos is the Greek for idea, type or essence. There is no human igos, human type or essence. There are no fixed species. This is in contradistinction to the platonic idea that the species exist in essence or, as Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā, bījam, "I am the seed of all existences." Darwin would not recognize any bījam, or seed, particular type for any species. Rather, he sees shifting, evolving physical forms constantly changing.

Prabhupāda: The different forms are already there. Just like the form of monkeys also there, the form of man is also there, other animals, other birds, beasts. So he has no clear conception how the evolution is taking place, neither he has any idea about whose evolution. He simply takes account of the body. A body never evolves. It is the soul within the body—he evolves, transmigrates from one body to another. Just we see that a child becomes a boy. The..., if the child is dead, it no more evolves. So it is the soul that is concerned. The soul is within the body, and he desires and evolves. That is Vedic conception and that is life. For example, if a man is within an apartment, the man desires to change the apartment to another apartment, it does not mean that the apartment evolves, but the man desires a change, and he goes to different apartment. That is (indistinct). So Darwin has no such conception. He has described the idea of evolution from the Vedas in his own way.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Hayagrīva: In the schools, now in the United States, the schools are not even allowed to mention God, not even allowed to mention God.

Prabhupāda: That means that is frustration. They could not get the idea of God. This is frustration. This kind of conclusion means they try to understand God, but there was no proper understanding of God, so they have given up the idea of understanding God. So frustration, rejection by frustration is not success. The best thing is they should learn about God from God and do accordingly. That is success. So we are preaching the message of God, and people should take to it to understand God and worship Him. That is success.

Hayagrīva: Bryan, the prosecutor, chastised the Darwinists for not telling us where life began and at the same time speaking of evolution. He says, "They do not dare to tell you that it began with God and ended with God. Darwin says, 'In the beginning of all things is a mystery insoluble by us.' He does pretend to say how these things started." And he goes on...

Prabhupāda: That means imperfect knowledge. We say that material world is creation, and within the material world the living entities are allowed to act. So the living entities coming from God; therefore He says bījo aham. So God... Just like our life begins from the womb of the mother, but the father gives the bīja. The mother's womb cannot produce itself; then there was no need of father. The father gives the bīja and the mother gives the body. Similarly, the living entity, part and parcel of God, is put into the material nature, and according to his desire the material nature gives him a body. That is the beginning.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Śyāmasundara: You mean by intuition can we understand.

Prabhupāda: Yes. One can understand. It is very easy. That I explained in the meeting, that we see, that any way you take, I have got my father, my father has got father, his father, his father, his father—so there must be some original father. That is supreme father. Another way: I don't find myself free. I am in American state, so I have to submit report to the immigration department. Or you, American citizens, you have got some obligation to the state: the draft man is there, calling you; if you don't go then you have to go to jail. So nobody is control-free; everyone is being controlled. Again, I see that the man who is controlling me, he is also controlled, and that man is also controlled, that man is... So here you see relative—I am controller and controlled. So when I approach the person who is simply controller, not controlled, that is God. How can you deny this definition of God? Simply (indistinct). Here by our experience we see, everyone is rejecting the controller and controlled. But if you can find out the Supreme Person, who is controller but not controlled, then He is God. Find out. Now, if i say that it is beyond my capacity, so go to experienced man, Brahma. He has got duration life a million times greater than you, and he got knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Śyāmasundara: And he sees also in the same way two types of religion. He sees the static religion and calls this... Static religion: myths devised by human intelligence as a means of defense against the depressing experiences of life. He says that being fearful of the future, man attempts to combat his fate by constructing religious myths. (break) ...mythology...

Prabhupāda: Well, that I have already answered. Anything manufactured by man, that is not religion. That is not religion. That I have already answered. Religion is not manufactured, but it is given by God. That is our point, that God is giving religion, "Here is religion: surrender unto Me." So any religious system may be different in method, but ultimately if it comes to this point, (surrendering to God), then it is religion. Otherwise it is not religion; reject it.

Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham:

Śyāmasundara: One of the tests is duration.

Prabhupāda: Duration, that duration will not allow to enjoy that kind of cheating happiness.

Śyāmasundara: He rejects duty or sense of duty or conscience to be the guide for moral conduct, good and bad conduct, and he accepts only the amount of pleasure or pain as the criterion of right conduct.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: Whether I'm doing right or wrong will be measured by how much pain or pleasure I am getting from it.

Prabhupāda: Yes, this definition we can also accept because we are try to Kṛṣṇa conscious, to derive the permanent happiness, first quality happiness.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Śyāmasundara: The mind doesn't deteriorate or get old.

Prabhupāda: Changing, that is a mind's business. Changing. Saṅkalpa, vikalpa-accepting and rejecting.

Śyāmasundara: Oh. So the mind I have now, the mind I have now...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: ...I may not have had in the past.

Prabhupāda: No. No. Why not? The same mind?

Śyāmasundara: Same mind.

Prabhupāda: Rejecting these circumstances, accepting another circumstances.

Śyāmasundara: Oh, the function is the same, but the contents may be different.

Prabhupāda: Same thing. Just like you are sitting here. You can, by the dictation of the mind, you can go somewhere else. You can immediately go to your American home. The mind will carry you.

Śyāmasundara: He had a vague idea of Brahman realization, by saying that the consciousness...

Prabhupāda: Everything is vague idea.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Hayagrīva: An assurance of safety and a temper of peace.

Prabhupāda: Yes. A devotee is always confident that "I am sincerely serving Kṛṣṇa, so in case of danger Kṛṣṇa will save me." The, just like Prahlāda Mahārāja life we see. He was helpless child, and his father, great demon, always chastising him, but he was confident that Kṛṣṇa would save him. So when the things became too much intolerable, so Lord appeared as Nṛsiṁha-deva and killed Hiraṇyakaśipu. So therefore a devotee's protection by God is always guaranteed, and one who is pure devotee, he is not disturbed by any material condition. He keeps his firm faith in God. That is called surrender. It is called avaśya rakśibe kṛṣṇa viśvāsa pālanam, to continue the faith that "Kṛṣṇa will give me protection." This full suvrender means to accept things which is favorable to God consciousness, to reject things which is unfavorable to God consciousness, to have firm faith of security under the protection of God, to enter into the family of God. These are the different processes of surrender.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: He says that...

Prabhupāda: Our formula is perfect.

Śyāmasundara: He says...

Prabhupāda: We say that if one is Kṛṣṇa conscious, then he is all right. Otherwise reject him. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ (SB 5.18.12). They are mano-ratha. They are mental speculators. They are hovering on the mental plane.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we must continually make satisfactory adjustment; that things change...

Prabhupāda: That you cannot do, because you are hovering on the mental plane. And the mind is always imperfect, rejecting and accepting. So nothing will be standard. Your mind is accepting something, I am rejecting it. So on the mental plane you cannot come to the standard. It is not possible.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Hayagrīva: Dewey was an American writing in the early part of the twentieth century, and he writes, "Logic demands that in imagination we wipe the slate clean and start afresh by asking what would be the idea of the unseen." In other words, he feels that it's time to set aside the orthodox, what he calls superstitious religions, and create a new religion. In other words, we must define God and religion anew.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is required. Because in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is also accepted that except a Vedic religion, all others are cheating religion because they have no perfect knowledge. It is clearly stated that cheating type of religion is rejected from the Bhāgavata religion. Bhāgavata... The sum and substance of Bhāgavata religion is accepting God as the supreme controller. Satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi. This is beginning. And what is that Absolute Truth? Janmādy asya yataḥ, itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ: (SB 1.1.1) that there is a principal, Brahman, from whom everything has come. So unless you find out what is the ultimate source of emanation, the knowledge is perfect, hum, imperfect. But you must have to admit, from your experience, that everything has a source of emanation. Anything has. You cannot go beyond your experience. You see this table. This table has got a history. Somebody has collected the wood and he has made into a shape. So everything that you see, it has got a history. So similarly the whole creation, it has got a history, and to know who has created, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), that is perfect knowledge. If you do not know, if you cannot reach, that is your inability. Don't think that it is imaginary, mythological. That is your imperfect of knowledge. You cannot reach, and you make a conclusion like a crazy man. That is not philosophical at all.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Hayagrīva: He says, "If you throw away His grace, He punishes you by behaving objectively toward you, and in that sense one may say that the world has not got a personal God in spite of all the proofs. But while dons and parsons," that is priests, "drivel on," talk on, "about the millions of truths about God's personality, the truth is that there are no longer the men living who could bear the pressure and weight of having a personal God." Because he feels that a personal God would make demands on man, and so therefore men reject the idea of a personal God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Personal God means He is demanding, as Kṛṣṇa is demanding, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Always think of Me, or offer Me worship, offer Me obeisances, and become My devotee. And give up all other engagement. Simply be engaged in My service." This is the demand of God, and if we carry out His demand, then we are perfect. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9). If you simply carry out the orders of God then you become qualified, fit for going back to home, back to Godhead. This is clearly stated. Tyaktvā deham. We have to give up this body, but a devotee, a pure devotee, after giving up this body, he doesn't accept another material body, but in his original, spiritual body he goes back to home, back to Godhead.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Hayagrīva: Well as, as to the nature of the world, Schopenhauer is vague, but he sees material life as basically irrational and whimsical.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that's a fact. Therefore you are changing body. Material mind is not fixed up; rejecting and accepting. This is going on. That Māyāvāda philosophers say as well. The Buddhists also say this material pains and pleasure is account to the material combination. It does not say material combination of this body. Soul is different, but he did not say because during his time they could not understand it. So he did not say that the..., there is soul, but he simply said that this body is combination of material thing; that is the cause of pains and pleasure. So dismantle it. Let earthly part of the body go to earth, watery part of the body, let it... Nirvāṇa, that is. Then I become zero, śūnyavādī. Because he does not get any information of the soul, he takes account of the body. Analyze the body and it is composition of earth, water, air, fire, like that. So when it is dismantled, then where is pains and pleasure? That is his philosophy, śūnyavāda, make it zero.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Śyāmasundara: Then he becomes purely...

Prabhupāda: Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, premā pumartho pumān: the highest perfection of life is to attain love of Godhead. And Bhāgavata also says, sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje (SB 1.2.6). That is first-class religious system, (indistinct) develops his dormant love of God. That is religion. That is first-class, transcendental religion. And Bhāgavata, in other place it is said, dharmaḥ projjhita kaitava atra: all cheating religious system is rejected here. Because Bhāgavata does not accept a religious system as genuine unless the followers develop love of Godhead. This is the test. And dharma means, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). This is dharma. Kṛṣṇa says that "You give up all types of religious system." That means they are not religious, they are not religious. Otherwise why Kṛṣṇa will ask that you give it up?

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Prabhupāda: He, in the beginning, says that "I come to establish religion," and He says that "Give up, kick out all these so-called religions." So they are not religion, and that is confirmed in the Bhāgavata, kaitava, dharma kaitava. Kaitava means cheating. Anything, any religious system which does not give knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, that is cheating religion. That is cheating religion. Dharma kaitava. Kaitava means cheating. And Śrīdhara Swami, he comments that atra mokṣa vāñchā (indistinct), those who are after mukti, liberation, they are also rejected herein. The jñānīs, they are after mukti. So Śrīdhara Swami says they are also within the category of these cheating religious systems, because they are being cheated. They are cheating themselves, that "I'll become God." So that is another type of cheating. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says that "Give up all these cheating type of religious systems. Just surrender unto Me." This is religion. Surrender unto Him. This is religion. And for teaching this religion, Kṛṣṇa appeared: dharma saṁsthāpanārthāya. What is that religion? Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) "Just surrender unto Me." This is religion. Anything which does not teach surrender unto the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, that is cheating religion. That's all.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: Their method begins with the things themselves, they say "to the things themselves," or in other words, they begin from phenomenon.

Prabhupāda: Yes (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: To reject all theories, scientific experiments, all these things.

Prabhupāda: When you study the phenomenon—the body—this is phenomenon, that "I am this body or not?" Then you come to the conclusion that "I am not body. I am the soul. Then what for I am soul, I (indistinct)?" Then you will get from Krsna, "I am part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa."

Śyāmasundara: They say that the phenomenon...

Prabhupāda: Just like one can analyze in this way: I am sitting on this comfortable, I mean, seat, cushion. Why I am sitting here? Because it is giving comfort to my body. Then I come to the study of body: Why I am maintaining this body? Because I am the soul, I am living in this body. Then ultimately I love my self, my soul. I love this seat because it gives shelter to my body. I love this body because it gives shelter to my soul. I love this soul because it is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore ultimately I love Kṛṣṇa. Is it not? That is pure consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: So here, Husserl reaches the point of understanding, of observing, of analyzing the transcendental observer, or transcendental ego. He comes to the understanding that there is a spiritual basis for everything. But still, we're talking about how he reaches that point. So he describes...

Prabhupāda: Transcendental observer, that is sometimes known as conscience—something dictating. I reject or may accept. Something dictating from within. That is transcendental.

Śyāmasundara: He says that there are the phenomenological and the transcendental. The phenomenological ego, which uses conscience with...

Prabhupāda: Phenomenological ego means "I." "I am this individual soul." And transcendental ego is Paramātmā, Bhagavān.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. That's his distinction. The "I" feeling is, that would be the conscience which is made up of the data, day to day, that I observe, which is my world, the stream of consciousness, that "I think I am." So I may be allowed to...

Prabhupāda: No. At every moment I speculate my mind-accept something, reject something—then I am, "What is to be done?" Then something dictation is there. That is transcendental ego.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Prabhupāda: That's all right. That will come gradually. But we accept that transcendental ego.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But now he's discussing the phenomenological ego, or what we would call the false ego, the sense of "I." He says that this ego is an act, an activity—of doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, ruling, refusing, imagining, feeling...

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is called in Sanskrit language saṅkalpa and vikalpa: You accept something and reject something. That's all. You can make a different branches of these two words.

Śyāmasundara: He says that these are all intentional acts, that this ego, false ego, is responsible for all my intentional activities.

Devotee: Hm?

Śyāmasundara: Intentional activities—that means doubting something, understanding something, affirming something, denying something, feeling something—these are all activities that have an intent.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Without intent, how we can act?

Śyāmasundara: So this is the second part of the structure of the phenomenological understanding of things, the...

Prabhupāda: But that intention are two kinds. Just like a man works for himself and then he works for others. When I am alone, I work for myself, but when I am married, I work for my wife, my children. So the intentions are two kinds. So which one is better intention? That is also to be studied.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: He writes, "It was obedience which brought me grace. One must be utterly abandoned to God. Nothing matters but fulfilling His will. Otherwise all is folly and meaninglessness."

Prabhupāda: Very good. Surrender. Sarva-dharmān parityajya (BG 18.66). That is real life. Śaraṇāgati, to surrender to God, to accept things which is favorable to God, to reject things which are unfavorable to God, always maintaining conviction that "God will give me all protection," and remain humble and meek, and think oneself as one of the members of God's family—that is spiritual communism. As the Communist they think a member of a certain community, similarly a man's duty is to think always as member of God's family. The same idea I was speaking, that God is the supreme father, material nature is the mother, and anything, any living entity coming out of material nature, they are all sons of God. So practically we see that all living entities coming out, either from land or from water or from the air—everywhere there is living entity—so the material nature is the mother. There is no doubt about it. And we have got experience that mother cannot produce child without connection with the father. So this is absurd to think that without father a child can be born. That is foolishness. Father must be there, and that supreme father is God. This conception of a spiritual family is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, God consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: Just like these hippies, whenever they wake up, they wake up; whenever they want food, they eat. Like that.

Prabhupāda: So who cares for them? They are reject.

Śyāmasundara: Well, he says this is the condition of...

Prabhupāda: Urchins. No. This is the condition of the hippies, not for a gentleman.

Śyāmasundara: He says that because we are free, that we are susceptible to this condition. That's all. But he says that this condition...

Prabhupāda: Free means to make right or wrong decision. That is free. Freedom does not mean dullness or passive.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But because we are free we become susceptible to being dull.

Prabhupāda: Just like a dog. A dog is free. He can go to the right or the wrong side, and nobody cares for it. That is for the dog. But if a human being, if he decides instead of going to the right, to the left, then he is criminal, because he has got responsibility. So either you take dog's philosophy or man's philosophy. Dog's philosophy, he has no decision. He is an animal. He can go this side or that side. But we cannot do that. So whether he is man or dog. If he is a man, he must decide right and wrong. He is responsible. That is a man.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: There is Supreme Person, and we should be all obedient servant to Him. Then the society will be in order. That, that is responsibility. God gives us some duty, and if we carry that, that is our responsibility, and that makes the whole society perfect. That should... In the beginning if we reject God, so then it is chaotic. So religion means to avoid this chaotic condition, and in order, fulfilling the responsibility given by God, we make progress, and finally we live with God personally. That is our eternal right.

Hayagrīva: His final point is that..., is, "To be man means to reach toward being God, or, if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God."

Prabhupāda: So he, at last he accept there is God. (laughter) Otherwise what is the meaning of going to God? Yes, he is trying to deny God when there is God. Unless there is God, where is the question of accepting or denying? He is denying in the other way; that means there is God.

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Devotee: That is the difference.

Śyāmasundara: Another thing is that they reject the idea of modesty and sin. They say that sex is all right. It is a pleasant pastime like anything else. Freedom of sex life.

Prabhupāda: Just like animals. Sex life like animals.

Śyāmasundara: They said.

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) say that. (indistinct)

Śyāmasundara: They do not reinforce the sin of sex life.

Prabhupāda: Sex life, we don't say it is sin, but there is rules and regulations of sex life.

Śyāmasundara: However, they have contraceptive methods, because to bring children into the equation at this time is not good.

Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. That is the difficulty, that these people are coming as philosophers teaching. Rascals. That is the difficulty with the present society. (indistinct) Dogs, hogs, camels, and asses. They are taking the position of teacher. That is the defect. We don't take (indistinct) like that. Dogs, hogs, we cannot accept.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Prabhupāda: So that has not actually happened. Marx is dead and gone. The Communist theory is already there, but they are not in agreement. The Russians are not in agreement with the Chinese men. Why it has happened? The God is not there; the working class is there. Then why there is dissension and disagreement?

Hayagrīva: Marx felt that religion stood between man and happiness. He said, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to abandon the illusions about their condition is the demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. Hence criticism of religion is an embryo, or a beginning of a criticism of this vale of tears whose halo is religion." So religion was like a millstone around the neck of man, and that man must free himself of this illusion.

Prabhupāda: Religious system deteriorates, and without any understanding on philosophical basis. Then, if he is apt to, rejects that religion. But we understand that is fact that there is God on the top of all cosmic manifestation activities, and the law given by the supreme head of the cosmic manifestation, that is religion. And if we create our religious system on sentiments only, that will create troubles only and there will be misunderstandings. But actually it is a fact that there is some brain behind all this cosmic manifestation, and if we know what is that brain, how it is working, that is scientific understanding, and the law given by God is religion. That is our simple definition. Religion cannot be manufactured as law cannot be manufactured. So if we do not know what is God, how He is acting, what..., what are His words, how we have to follow that, that kind of religion will be failure.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: ...chemical law? (?)

Prabhupāda: Oh yes. Mind is saṅkalpa and vikalpa. Mind's business is to accept something and reject something. So in this way, accepting and rejecting, if the mind is sound, then we come to some conclusion by intelligence. Accepting and rejecting, this is conflict. Then by intelligence we take something out of this conflict.

Śyāmasundara: So this idea that no progress is made in any..., except through conflict.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: How is that exactly?

Prabhupāda: This is conflict. Conflict means if I don't agree with you and if you do not agree with me, that is conflict.

Śyāmasundara: So some progress is made from that conflict?

Prabhupāda: Yes. But the two can(?) fight or conflict and one judgement giver.

Śyāmasundara: And this is progress.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like this morning I was explaining that your statement should be according to the standard process, vidhi-mārga. So sādhu-śāstra-guru, three authorities: saintly persons, scripture, and spiritual master. So all of them should be, should agree. There is a con... Just like two litigants, they go to the court and the judges give judgement. Similarly, whenever there is conflict, to come to a conclusion, we must refer to sādhu, śāstra, and guru. Then we get the right judgement.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: Some Christians say that in the mind there is a struggle between God and the devil, and this conflict is always continually going on.

Prabhupāda: No, no. That is wrong thing. God does not come down to your mind, God and devil. That is mind's action. Sometimes he accepts, sometimes he rejects. So either you can say God and devil or whatever. That is mind's business. But that is not final conclusion. When you apply your intelligence with reference to the sādhu and śāstra and make a conclusion, that is right.

Śyāmasundara: So on this level progress is made through conflict.

Prabhupāda: Conflict with intelligence. That means conflict is in the lower stage. So to mitigate this conflict you have to take consultation from the higher stage. That is intelligence. That Mao's theory is simply by conflict of the mental concoctioners. That will not come to a conclusion. That will never be right conclusion.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Revatīnandana: Now they have invited the American president to come there for talks. The imperfect one, they are inviting to talk with him now for some compromise.

Prabhupāda: This is described in Bhāgavata: punah punaś carvita-carvaṇānām (SB 7.5.30), "chewing the chewed." Once it is chewed, it is thrown away, and then again, "Let me see if there is any juice." (laughter) Chewing the chewed. Or in plain words, mental concoction. The mind's business is acceptance and rejection. First of all, reject American capitalists; then again accept for consulting. That means they are hovering on the mental plane. They have no intelligence. In big scale, accepting and rejecting. That's all. It is the business of the mind. As in your personal mind you see, you accept something immediately and again reject, "No, no, it is not good." The same thing is going on in a bigger scale. That's all. They are not... Just like a pickpocket and a big scientific thief. Huh? They are trying to... Modern, scientifically, they want to rob the bank. They set the bomb. And pickpocket is satisfied by taking one paisa from your pocket. But the principle is stealing. Because you are very organized thief, it does not mean from the eyes of the law you are honest. You cannot say in the court that "I am organized thief. I am scientific thief, and he is a pickpocket." In the eyes of the law you are also punishable, he is also punishable. That's all. So they are, I mean to say, large-scale speculators. That's all. But it is, after all, speculation. It has no fact.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: Just like the seasons. If we just place ourselves in the seasons, they take us toward something, towards springtime.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. But you cannot compare. The analogy is mistaken. The season is matter, material changes. But the evolution is not matter. There is spirit soul. He is making his evolution. So he has got independence. He can reject and accept. Just like yesterday we were talking... (plane overhead) ...Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says that "You give up everything, just surrender unto Me," but because you are living entity, you can reject this proposal or accept this proposal. Not that blindly you have to surrender to Kṛṣṇa. No. That is not possible. The proposal is there, but it is up to you to surrender or not to surrender. Otherwise why Kṛṣṇa says that "You do it." If it is automatically, then there was no need of Kṛṣṇa's saying, "Do it." It would have come automatically to the surrendering point. Not like that. They are mistaken in that. The living entity has got the right to accept or reject. So if he takes, he makes his progress, accepting the right path, then he comes to the goal. But if he rejects, he'll not reach the goal (?). That depends on him.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: But, for instance, in ancient Greece, they fabricated so many myths, mythology...

Prabhupāda: Well, that I have already answered. Anything manufactured by man, that is not religion. That is not religion. That I have already explained. Religion is not manufactured, but it is given by God. That is our point. God is giving religion, "Here is religion. Surrender unto Me." So any religious system may be different in method, but ultimately, if it comes to this point, surrendering to God, then it is religion. Otherwise, it is not religion. Reject it.

Śyāmasundara: He says that prompted by this vital impulse, the human will identifies with the divine will in a mystical union...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: ...and that this is real religion.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We are teaching people that you agree with the divine will. The divine will is that you surrender. So you agree. You surrender. That we are teaching. That is real religion.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: So then he tries to describe what is this mind. The mind is emergent. It can rearrange things and create new things, arrange new things.

Prabhupāda: Mind creates some idea and again rejects it. It creates another idea. That is mind's business. He is not satisfied by creating something as final. Mind is creative. He creates something and he thinks, "Oh, this is not..." Just like you were making some doll (door?). You don't like it. Again you break it. Then again do it nicely, "Oh, it is not right." Then again break it. That is mind's business.

Śyāmasundara: Accepts and rejects.

Prabhupāda: Reject.

Śyāmasundara: He says that the mind has two functions also, but he describes them slightly different. He says that first one is contemplation, that is perceiving the qualities of an object. And this is a, it's called a neurological activity. In other words, when the nerve endings in the body react with the qualities of an object. If an object is red, my nerve ending perceives that it is red. This is the object.

Prabhupāda: Just like if there is a tamarind, immediately there is saliva in my tongue.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Prabhupāda: God is everything. There is no question of separation. That is defined in the Bhagavad-gītā, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam, "I am everything." So how He can be separate?

Hayagrīva: But he rejects God as a separate person.

Prabhupāda: He may reject, but God is everything. How he can reject God? The, the, these are the defects of speculators. They cannot give us tangible leading. That because they are defective themselves, so whatever interpretation they will give, all defective.

Hayagrīva: Oh, he would agree that God is everything.

Prabhupāda: That God is..., how he can reject? If God is everything, then how can he reject?

Hayagrīva: But he would not say that God is more than the creation.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Prabhupāda: So how everything He can create? You cannot create the Pacific Ocean, but Pacific Ocean is God. So you are limited, why you are trying to create God? God is already there. Everything is God. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4). Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. How he can reject God? Because the table is God, table is God and table is staying on God... The same example: the earthen pot is also earth and it is kept on earth. So earth both of them are. The earthen pot, a tumbler, and waterpot made of earth, everything is made of earth. This table is made of earth and it is staying on earth. So what you can reject?

Hayagrīva: But he rejects God's transcendental nature, and when you...

Prabhupāda: That thing is that everything is God, just I have given the example. The floor is God, the table is God. Now which you can reject?

Hayagrīva: He wouldn't disagree with that.

Prabhupāda: Then where is the rejection of God?

Hayagrīva: He would reject the transcendental personality.

Prabhupāda: Then as soon as you accept that everything is God, what you can reject?

Hayagrīva: The transcendental personality separate from the creation.

Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:

Hayagrīva: They do, they do deviate. They...

Prabhupāda: No, you can not deviate. Then no more you are Christian. So you can..., you have no platform to talk from the Christianity. Therefore they should be rejected.

Hayagrīva: Uh huh. So Plotinus was not Christian, neither was Origen...

Prabhupāda: If you say Christian, you must follow the four..., ten commandments of Christ. If you don't follow, you make your own ways to escape, then you are no longer Christian. So you cannot talk.

Hayagrīva: But Augustine was one of the ones who maintained that animals do not have souls.

Prabhupāda: Therefore he is a rascal.

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: He is a rascal.

Philosophy Discussion on St. Augustine:

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Hayagrīva: The belief in the creation of the soul. The soul is created, and that the body is a gift. And he also rejects, on the basis of this, he rejects reincarnation. He writes, "Let these Platonists..." Because Plato believed in it, reincarnation. "Let these Platonists stop threatening us with reincarnation as a punishment for our souls. Reincarnation is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a return to this life for the punishment of souls. If our creation, even as mortals, is due to God..."

Prabhupāda: Punishment of the soul? What is that return?

Hayagrīva: He says, "There is no such thing as a return to this life for the punishment of souls." And the reason he gives, he says, "If our..."

Prabhupāda: Soul is life. What does it mean, "returning to the life"?

Hayagrīva: He believes there is no reincarnation as punishment. Reincarnation is envisioned as a kind of a punishment. To have to take birth again is a type of punishment, and Augustine rejects this, saying that how can the return to bodies, which are gifts of God, be punishment? He doesn't see how that this is a form of...

Prabhupāda: But does he think that the body of a hog and the body of similar lower creatures eating stool and living in filthy place, is it not punishment? Does he think like that? Why one gets the body of King Indra or Lord Brahmā and why one gets the body of a pig and hog, and living in filthy place and eating stool? Is it not punishment and reward?

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Hayagrīva: In a sense he says that when one knows God he knows everything else, because...

Prabhupāda: Yes. If he knows God and follows the instruction of God then he is right, and as soon as he goes against the instruction of God, then he is wrong. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: "Now I have given you all instruction. It is up to you to accept or reject." Yathecchasi tathā kuru (BG 18.63). That is free will. So now it depends on me whether I shall act according to the instruction of God or I shall act according to my whims, according to my sensual inclinations.

Hayagrīva: He says, "I see that the certainty in truth of all knowledge depends on knowledge of the true God, and that before I knew Him I could have no perfect knowledge of any other thing, and now that I know Him I have a means of acquiring a perfect knowledge of innumerable things, not only in respect of God Himself and other intelligible things, but also in respect of that corporeal nature which is the object of pure mathematics." Now he says he knows God but at the same time he seems to be deceived in matters, certain matters that we haven't come to yet, but, uh...

Prabhupāda: No. If he has actually followed God's instruction and if he has actually knowledge of what is God, then he will never be misled. Either he selects a false God or he has not met God, real God. Then he is... But to save this danger there is God's instruction, Bhagavad-gītā. Anyone who will follow, he will be perfect.

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Hayagrīva: But he equates the mind and the higher mental processes with the soul.

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: And, uh...

Prabhupāda: Mind is an instrument through which the soul acts. Mind is rejecting and accepting by the dictation of the soul.

Hayagrīva: He looked on animals as machines that react, and the basis for this view is..., he called it radiosenation, or language, because they do not have language...

Prabhupāda: They have got language.

Hayagrīva: They react as machines.

Prabhupāda: They have got language. You do not understand it.

Hayagrīva: It's been proved scientifically...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Hayagrīva: Hegel considered history and theodicy to be integral. He looks on history as a justification of God, and he rejects the Vedic conception of history because he doesn't see it unfolding any particular meaning. That is, universes are created, maintained and annihilated in an apparently meaningless way. For Hegel, history has to tell the story of man's elevation to God. Apart from the history of man, God would be alone and lifeless. God seems to depend on human history. God is not transcendental but is manifest in the world.

Prabhupāda: But if He is dependent on history, how He is God? This is nonsense proposal. (laughing) He is dependent on history!

Hayagrīva: Doesn't the history of mankind necessarily...

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

Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Hayagrīva: He says the grandeur of Indian religion and poetry as well as Indian philosophy have been acknowledged especially in their rejection and sacrifice of the senses. Now his conception is typical nineteenth century...

Prabhupāda: He has no study of the Vedic literature; still he poses himself to remark on the Vedic literature. That is his ignorance.

Hayagrīva: He considers the goal of Indian philosophy to be spiritual as well as physical extinction. Nirvāṇa.

Prabhupāda: Physical extinction, everyone says that—even Christian religion says—you go to hell, go to heaven. So who goes to heaven? Who goes to heaven? What is the qualification? Reasonably, one who has given up this physical.

Hayagrīva: He says spiritual extinction as well as physical, nirvāṇa.

Prabhupāda: But then he has no idea what is spiritual. Spiritual is eternal, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). How does it, spiritually... Spirit is also annihilated, then where is the difference between matter and spirit? Imperfect knowledge. And still they are big philosopher. Scanty knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Prabhupāda: That is a definite, not vague, speculative. That is the difference between my translation and others. Therefore I have given the name "As It Is." So we will be no spoke or speculation. As soon as you speculate, you are rejected. Therefore others are seeing some danger that "This Bhaktivedanta's..., this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is accepted, then where we are?"

Hayagrīva: Everybody wants to speculate.

Prabhupāda: That's all. We are, I have stopped it. They cannot speculate on the words of Bhagavad-gītā. That is our mission. Won't allow you to speculate. You are finite, imperfect. How you can by speculation give the unlimited, infinite? How it is possible? That is reasonable. Waste of time, misleading others. Aṇḍhā yathāndair upanīyamānāḥ. You are blind; how you can show others, blind men? They are already blind. You open your eyes, then take the leadership of the blind. Ajñāna-timirāndhasya jñānāñjana-śalākayā. That is our process. That's all right. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Hayagrīva: When Huxley became a Darwinist he rejected a supernatural God and the Bible. In For Argument from Design... He believed in, previously he believed in a Christian God as the designer, but he believed that Darwin's theory gave this Christian conception its death blow. He did not accept a pantheistic God, like Spinoza did, as being identical... Excuse me. He did accept a pantheistic God, like Spinoza did, as being identical with nature. That is, he saw God as nature, and he believed in the divine government of the universe. He believed that the cosmic process is rational, not random...

Prabhupāda: How it becomes rational?

Hayagrīva: ...but he rejected a personal God concerned with morality.

Prabhupāda: That is his defect. The nature is dead body, matter. So how it can be rational? Just like this table is a dead wood. How it can be rational? That is nonsense. The carpenter is rational, who has made the wood in the shape. So he says the nature is rational. Nature is dead matter. How it can be rational? Therefore there is a rational being behind the nature. That is God. This, the wood, is dead. The wood, out of its own accord, cannot become a table. The carpenter is shaping the wood into table. That is rational. Therefore behind the dead nature, the rational being is God. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. I think Mr. Huxley is supposed to have read..., understand he has given some comment on the Ramakrishna Mission Bhagavad-gītā, but he has not studied Bhagavad-gītā thoroughly.

Philosophy Discussion on Auguste Comte:

Hayagrīva: He draws a distinction between atheism and positivism. He says, "Atheism, even from the intellectual point of view, is a very imperfect form of emancipation, for its tendency is to prolong the metaphysical stage indefinitely by continuing to seek for new solutions of theological problems instead of setting aside all inaccessible researches on the grounds of their utter inutility. In a word, atheism is still concerned with studying the 'why' instead of the 'how,' and positivism, true positivism, is concerned with the 'how' instead of the 'why.' " In other words, he felt that religion quo religion, religion as religion, had best be set aside because religious questions are basically childish. They can never be answered. So atheism is rejected because atheists "occupy themselves with theological problems and yet reject the only appropriate method of handling them." And for him the only appropriate method is to forget the whole thing.

Prabhupāda: So how can he forget? Atheism will help anyone to improve his position? Just like death. Atheist, if he does not believe in God and God sends him death, how he can counteract it? He has no power to counteract it. We understand from Bhagavad-gītā that death is God for the atheist. Atheists do not believe in God, but God comes to him as death to convince him that "Here I am." So how the atheist can avoid? How it will improve his present situation by atheistic speculation? So how the atheist can become independent? That is not possible.

Purports to Songs

Purport to Gauranga Bolite Habe -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1969:
This nice song was sung by Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, one of the great ācāryas of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. That is the sect of Vaisnavism started by Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Gauḍīya means belonging to Bengal. There are five Gauḍa-deśa in the northern part of India, out of which, part of Bengal, West Bengal, is called Gauḍa-deśa. So Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura's songs are very appropriate just to the conclusions of Vedic injunctions. So he sings this song, how one can rise up to the transcendental plane for associating directly with Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, what is that process. The process is one should begin this

Kṛṣṇa consciousness under the mercy of Lord Caitanya. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Kṛṣṇa Himself and He is teaching people how to become Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Lord Kṛṣṇa, He personally spoke about Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā, but people who are not very intelligent, who are described in the Bhagavad-gītā as mūḍha... Mūḍha means rascal. And duṣkṛtina, miscreant, and narādhama. Narādhama means lowest of the mankind. Such persons cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. But still, Kṛṣṇa was so merciful that in order to claim all these people, means the lowest of mankind, miscreant, and fools, and rascals, rejected, so He came in the form of Lord Caitanya to reclaim them. So God is so merciful that even some persons cannot understand Him... First thing is people cannot understand actually what is God, but God comes Himself to explain Himself. Still, they commit mistake. Therefore Kṛṣṇa comes as a devotee to teach us about Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Purport to Gaura Pahu -- Los Angeles, January 10, 1969:

He's saying that "I have invited my spiritual death by not worshiping Lord Caitanya." Gaura pahū nā bhajiyā goinu. Gaura pahū means "Lord Caitanya," and nā bhajiyā, "without worshiping." Goinu, "I have invited spiritual death." And adhame yatane kari dhanu tainu. "Why I have invited the spiritual death? Because I am engaged in something which is useless and I have rejected the real purpose of my life."Adhama means valueless things. And dhana means valuables. So actually, everyone of us, neglecting our spiritual emanicipation, we are engaged in material sense gratification, and therefore we are losing the opportunity of this human form of body to elevate myself on the spiritual platform. This human body is especially given to the conditioned soul to take a chance for spiritual emancipation. So anyone who does not care for spiritual emancipation, he is inviting spiritual death. Spiritual death means to forget oneself, that he's spirit. That is spiritual death.

Purport to Bhajahu Re Mana -- Los Angeles, May 27, 1972:

So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness society is the swans, paramahaṁsa. Haṁsa. Haṁsa means swan. Haṁsa, this example is given because the swan knows the technique how to take milk out of water. You give the swan milk and water, it will take the milk portion and give it up the water portion. Similarly a swan, a haṁsa, paramahaṁsa, means in this human form of life, one who takes the spiritual portion of life and rejects the material portion of life, he is called haṁsa, paramahaṁsa. We are mixed. Our body is material, but I am spirit soul. So we have to know the techniques how to get out of this material bondage. That is the process of jñāna vairāgya, knowledge and renunciation. The example is given, just like wood, firewood. If you somehow or other, you can ignite fire, then the fire will vanquish the wood. The blazing fire will consume the whole wood. Similarly, you have got the fire of spiritual consciousness.

Page Title:Rejection (Lectures, Other)
Compiler:Mayapur
Created:30 of Oct, 2011
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=100, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:100