That is wrong (Lectures, SB)

Expressions researched:
"This is a wrong" |"that is a wrong" |"that is also wrong" |"that is another wrong" |"that is his wrong" |"that is the wrong" |"that is wrong" |"that is your wrong" |"that is, means wrong" |"this is all wrong" |"this is also wrong" |"this is now wrong" |"this is the wrong" |"this is wrong" |"this is your wrong"

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.2.7 -- Delhi, November 13, 1973:

He is bhagavān. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). There are many bhagavāns, but the original bhagavān is Kṛṣṇa. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8). So in this way, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme. Therefore here it is said, vāsudeve bhagavati. Don't consider Kṛṣṇa as human being. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). Because He comes to show actually what is God, He comes as human being. That does not mean He is like us, human being. Just like in the prison house, if sometimes the governor goes to inspect and the prisoners think, "Oh, now governor is also one of us. He has become prisoner..." Just like Mahatma Gandhi went to the prison house, and the pickpocket, if he thinks, "Now Mahatma Gandhi is also one of us," this is wrong. This is wrong. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ (BG 9.11). Because he is mūḍha, the pickpocket, he is thinking that "Mahatma Gandhi is also like me." Or "The governor, he has come into the prison house; therefore he is also like one of us." No. Out of his mercy, he comes.

People are searching after God. The so-called speculators, big, big scholars, they are trying to understand God. "God may be like this, may be like that." Why "may be"? You do not know God. Just admit that you do not know. Why you are cheating? "May be" means you do not know. So why don't you say, "I do not know"? But these rascals will say "may be like this." And why "may be"? Here is God. "I am like this," Kṛṣṇa says. Kṛṣṇa says, "Here I am." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8). And He is worshiped by all sages, saintly persons. When Arjuna admitted Him that "Kṛṣṇa, You are paraṁ brahma," paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān puruṣaṁ śāśvatam (BG 10.12). "You are puruṣa." Puruṣa means enjoyer. Śāśvata means eternally. Not that "You are now enjoyer and formerly You were something else." No. Śāśvataṁ puruṣam ādyam, original. So this is the appreciation of Kṛṣṇa. After reading Bhagavad-gītā, if you do not understand Kṛṣṇa, if you try to banish Kṛṣṇa, then what kind of reading of Bhagavad-gītā? This is all nonsense. If actually one understands Bhagavad-gītā, if he has actually studied, then... Just like Arjuna, he'll admit, "Oh, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12)."

Lecture on SB 1.2.17 -- Los Angeles, August 20, 1972:

So Kṛṣṇa is very selfish. He says... Here it is said: sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ. Anyone who is engaged in hearing Kṛṣṇa's kathā. Kathā means words, messages. So, in the Bhagavad-gītā also, Kṛṣṇa says, mām ekam: "Only unto Me." Ekam. This is required. Although everything is Kṛṣṇa, but according to the pantheist theory we cannot worship everything. Everything is Kṛṣṇa, that's a fact, but that does not mean we have to worship everything; we have to worship Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say, "If everything is Kṛṣṇa, so whatever I worship, I am worshiping Kṛṣṇa." No. That is wrong.

Just like the same example can be given that in the body, I am this body, everything "I," or "mine," but when foodstuff is to be taken, it is not to be pushed through the rectum, but through the mouth. That is the only one. You cannot say, "The body has got nine holes: two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, one mouth, one rectum, one genital-nine holes. So why not push the food in any hole?" That is Māyāvādī theory. "After all," they say, "the foodstuff has to be given to the body, inside the body. So I can push the foodstuff through any hole. There are so many holes." Sometimes in medical science, when it is impossible to push food through the mouth, they push through the rectum. That is artificial. But emergency, they do sometimes. But that is not the way. The real way is that food is required to be given to the body, but it must be given through the mouth, not through any other hole.

Lecture on SB 1.2.20 -- Los Angeles, August 23, 1972:

They are getting their shelter. They are satisfying their sex. They are also defending without any extra endeavor. By nature, they are doing their own way. So why human being, so-called civilized human being, is so much harassed for these four things? We have got better intelligence. We shall be, rather, more comfortable without struggling for existence than the animals. But our struggle for existence is greater than their struggle of existence. What is this civilization? This is not civilization. Everyone wants peaceful, calm life. Even those who are struggling so hard, big business magnate. Still, at the weekend, they find out some secluded place, nice place, without trouble. That is the nature.

That human nature should be like that, that "Why should we work so hard, simply for eating, sleeping, mating?" This is a wrong type of civilization. But at the modern age, the human society is so made that one has to work like ass, whole day and night, simply for satisfying these four necessities of life. That is also not guaranteed. We thought that in your country... When I was in India, I was contemplating coming to your country. I thought that America is very rich. "There is no problem for eating, sleeping, mating." Actually, there is nil. There is no problem. But the civilization is so made that there is no shelter. They are lying down on the park, on the street. Why? There was no necessity, but they have created such civilization, that a certain section of people are voluntarily, or being obliged, lying down on the street, on the park, no dress, no food, no fixed..., fixed-up sex life. Everything is topsy-turvied. Everything is topsy-turvied. But this is not civilization, this is not civilization. Then how they can understand God? Their mind is always disturbed and full of anxiety.

Lecture on SB 1.7.10 -- Vrndavana, September 9, 1976:

The material elements means earth, water, air, fire. A scientist means, or a craftsman means he can utilize the ingredients in such a way. Just like this temple. It is a composition of earth, water, and fire. Tejo-vāri-mṛd vinimayaḥ. Tejo means fire, and vāri means water, and mṛt means earth. So what is this building? It is... You have collected earth, and shaped it into a brick, and then put it with water, and then put into the fire—it becomes brick. Then you smash it, powder it, it becomes mortar. Then you set up. In this way... The, originally, tejo-vāri-mṛt. Fire, water, and earth. So the fire, water, earth, has not made this nice temple. It is the person, the brain, the engineer, the architect—they have made.

So this is a wrong idea, that matter is doing independently. That is not possible. Therefore it is clearly said in the Bhagavad-gītā, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). Matter does not work. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, by His different energies, He is working. That is Kṛṣṇa. You have to understand like that. Kṛṣṇa is in the background. In another place in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). If you say that Lord Brahmā has created, because he is the creator of this universe... Deva, there are three principle devas-Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara. Kṛṣṇa says aham ādir hi devānām. Actually that is the fact. Even Brahmā is originated from Viṣṇu's navel; therefore Brahmā's name is Padma-yoni. And he, when he was created, he saw everything dark, so he was instructed to undergo tapas—these are explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam—then he was given the intelligence how to work. So even a person like Brahmā is also instructed by Kṛṣṇa how to create. So any person, any ingredient, any matter, everything is working under the direction of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore His name is Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976:

Similarly night. Then day and night becomes one day. Similarly one month, and then twelve months, a year—such hundred years. So there is difference between our hundred years and his hundred years. Similarly, ant's hundred years and my hundred years different.

The modern science admits that everything is relative. Relative world. According to the body, according to the time. Relative world, not absolute. The absolute world is different. Where there is no relativity. Everyone is as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is oneness. Not that one has become as powerful as the Supreme Lord. No. Maybe as powerful. Still, they're individual. They're not amalgamation. That is wrong theory. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that in the past we were all individuals. He says that "It is not that in the past we did not exist, and it is not that in the future we shall not exist. We shall exist." Nityaḥ śāśvato yaṁ na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). So we are eternal. We existed in the past, we are existing now, and we shall continue to exist. And individual. Kṛṣṇa says, "You, Me, and all these soldiers and kings, they are all individual, and they existed as individual in the past, and we are existing now as individuals, and we shall continue to exist as individuals." So there are three phases of time: past, present, and future. So there is no question of being amalgamated at any time. They remain always individuals. And this is in the material..., either material world or spiritual world, the individuality is there. It never ceases. Nitya-yuktā upāsate. Here, we have got temporary life. Therefore we cannot be nitya-yukta. This life will be finished, and the next life we do not know what kind of life we shall have. It may be human form of life or it may be dog's form of life. You have to change this body. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). Kṛṣṇa does not say that a man after death becomes a man. No. There is no guarantee. He says tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ. There will be change of body. And so far the body is concerned, there are 8,400,000 of different bodies. So any one of them you have to accept. There is no guarantee. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ.

Lecture on SB 1.8.36 -- Mayapura, October 16, 1974:

And then it is turned into blood, and there are different veins, they are distributed all over the... This big machine is going on, big factory; simply you have to give the raw materials to the factory, and things will come out.

So similarly, you have to satisfy Kṛṣṇa. But we do not know that. Durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ. These rascals, they are thinking that "Without Kṛṣṇa, without Kṛṣṇa consciousness, without satisfying Kṛṣṇa, we shall adjust by this material advancement." That is durāśayā. Everything has been discussed. It will never be possible, sir. If you don't take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness... This is your wrong idea, that you will be able... Durāśayā. Therefore this very word is used, durāśayā. Āśā. Āśā means hope. So this is a wrong hope. You cannot. The exact, the same example: If the combined together, all the senses, they pass resolution—"Not to give any food to the stomach, and we shall be easier, not to work so hard"—but that is durāśayā. That is not possible. You are hoping wrongly. That is not possible.

So durāśayā ye... Na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ (SB 7.5.31). Then why people are leading in that way, the so many political leaders, social leaders? Nobody speaks of Kṛṣṇa. They are simply making plan... This party, the Communist Party, is making one plan. The other party is making plan; another party... But the world is suffering. So therefore they have been described in the śāstra: andha. Andha means blind, rascal They do not know. Actually they have no knowledge that without Kṛṣṇa consciousness the human society can be happy.

Lecture on SB 1.8.41 -- Mayapura, October 21, 1974:

And the vaiśyas, two āśramas: brahmacārī and gṛhastha. And śūdra, only one āśrama, only gṛhastha. A śūdra is never offered sannyāsa. A... Only the brāhmaṇa is offered.

So in Śaṅkara-sampradāya, strictly, unless one is born in brāhmaṇa family, he's not offered sannyāsa. He's not given sannyāsa. So far we are concerned, we also offer sannyāsa to the brāhmaṇa, not to the śūdras. But according to quality we create brāhmaṇa, not that we are offering sannyāsa to the śūdras, No. The principle is: sannyāsa can be offered only to the brāhmaṇas. So one may not mistake that we are offering to the..., offering sannyāsa to the mlecchas, yavanas, as they complain. Some of my Godbrothers, they criticize like that, that I am offering sannyāsa to the mlecchas, yavanas. This is wrong idea. This is nārakī-buddhi. Actually, a Vaiṣṇava is above this varṇāśrama-dharma. But we don't claim that we have become perfect Vaiṣṇava. We are not so impudent. We want to remain under the Vaiṣṇava. Under the Vaiṣṇava. Otherwise Vaiṣṇava means... In Caitanya-caritāmṛta you'll find the Vaiṣṇava is paramahaṁsa. Vaiṣṇava has no saffron cloth. Vaiṣṇava is white cloth because Vaiṣṇava is paramahaṁsa, above. But we don't claim the position of Vaiṣṇava. We want to remain servant of Vaiṣṇava. Therefore sannyāsa order is below the position of Vaiṣṇava. Sannyāsa order means still in the material classification. But this Vaiṣṇava is paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satām. Dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmat... (SB 1.1.2). This Vaiṣṇavism is meant for paramo nirmatsarāṇām, paramahaṁsa. Sa guṇān samatītyaitān brahma-bhūyāya kalpate (BG 14.26).

Lecture on SB 1.10.4 -- London, November 25, 1973:

Why should you kill these innocent animals? You take. You keep them mudā, happy, and you get so much milk that it will moist, it will make wet the ground. This is civilization. This is civilization.

That was being maintained during the time of Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira. That is being described. Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira maintained this standard of civilization. Just see how the economic problems will be solved simply by one movement, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Try to understand. Mahī. Because mahī will produce everything. Just like here in this Letchmore Heath there are so many, so much land lying vacant. You produce you own food. Why you are going to London, to the factories? There is no need. This is wrong civilization. Here is land. You produce your food. If you produce your food, there is no need of going hundred miles, fifty miles on your motorcycle or motor to earn your livelihood. Why? There is no need. Then you require petrol. And petrol there is scarcity. Then you require so many parts, so many That means you are making the whole thing complicated unnecessarily. Unnecessarily. There is no need. Simply you keep to the land and produce your food, and the cows are there. They will supply you milk. Then where is your economic problems. If you have sufficient grains, sufficient vegetables, sufficient milk from the land where you are living, where your economic problem? Why you should go to other place? That is Vedic civilization. Everyone should remain in the spot and produce everything as he requires, and God will help you. Because you can produce from the land anywhere. The rainfall is there. If you have got land and the rainfall is regular, then you can produce anything. Kāmaṁ vavarṣa parjanyaḥ (SB 1.10.4). And how the rainfall will be possible? How regular rainfall? That is described in the Bhāgavata. Yajñād bhavati parjanyaḥ parjanyād anna-sambhavaḥ (BG 3.14). Is there a Bhagavad-gītā here? Yajñād bhavati parjanyaḥ.

Lecture on SB 1.15.31 -- Los Angeles, December 9, 1973:

That we were discussing in our walking, that the basic principle of this modern civilization is wrong. Everyone, the so-called advanced scientists, so-called advanced philosopher or politician, everyone is thinking that "I am this body." So on the basic principle they're wrong. Therefore the so-called advancement of civilization is wrong. It's... At one point mathematical calculation, if you have done mistake in one point... Two plus two equal two. Why if you have made up three, the mistake, then the whole calculation will be mistaken. The balance, it will never tally. Similarly, our present civilization... Not present; it is always there. Now it is very strong bodily conception of life, so the basic principle is wrong. Therefore what..., whatever we are advancing, that is wrong. Parābhava That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Parābhavas Basic principle is wrong, abodha, in ignorance. In ignorance. Abodha means without any perfect knowledge.

Lecture on SB 1.16.2 -- Los Angeles, December 30, 1973:

Prabhupāda: Utpādayat, "married"? This is wrong.

Pradyumna: Should be "produced."

Prabhupāda: "Begotten." It should be "begotten." Who has corrected?

Pradyumna: Translation: "King Parīkṣit married the daughter of King Uttara and begot four sons, headed by Mahārāja Janamejaya." (SB 1.16.2)

Prabhupāda: Sa uttarasya tanayām. Mahārāja Parīkṣit, his mother's name was Uttarā, Uttarā. Means King Virāṭa, he had two issues, one son, one daughter. The son's name was Uttara and the daughter's name was Uttarā. This Uttarā was taught dancing by Arjuna. When Arjuna was staying at Mahārāja Virāṭa's house as an ordinary dancing master, they did not know that he is Arjuna. Because the promise was for one year, they should remain incognito. If they are detected, then again for twelve years they will be banished.

So Arjuna, Bhīma and others, they took different types of services in the house, palace, of Mahārāja Virāṭa. So he was appointed as a dancing master, teacher, to the daughter Uttarā. Just see. Arjuna was a great warrior, and he was expert dancing master also. So when it was disclosed that "These servants, they are the Pāṇḍavas. They remained here as ordinary servant," so Mahārāja Virāṭa was very much pleased, that "Such exalted persons are living in my house incognito." So he offered Uttarā to Arjuna, that "You marry my daughter. You have taught her dancing." So Arjuna said, "How can I marry her? I am teacher, and she is my disciple. She is my daughter. How can I marry her?" Then Arjuna said that "If you want to keep this daughter in our family, I have got a grown-up son, sixteen years old." That means Abhimanyu, the son of Subhadrā, this Subhadrā, Kṛṣṇa, Balarāma, Subhadrā. So Subhadrā was married to Arjuna, and the son was Abhimanyu. So Uttarā was married to Abhimanyu. And the son was Mahārāja Parīkṣit. Abhimanyu was just married and the war was declared.

Lecture on SB 2.9.13 -- Melbourne, April 12, 1972:

Prabhupāda: So how this nonsense theory can be accepted? According to our Vedic information, from the very beginning the one person, one living creature, was Brahmā, the most intelligent person. Not that he developed from monkey. This nonsense theory killed the human civilization. The intelligence is coming from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And the most intelligent person is receiving that, Brahmā. And then he is distributing this knowledge. So knowledge has not developed with the development of the brain of the living entities. That is a wrong theory. Knowledge is already there. And the most intelligent person received it, and it is being distributed still. Therefore Vedic knowledge is considered to be the perfect. And if we take knowledge from the Vedas, then our knowledge is perfect. Now here is the knowledge. What is the purport?

Pradyumna: "Purport: It appears that in the Vaikuṇṭha planets there are airplanes also, brilliantly glowing, and they are occupied by the great devotees of the Lord, with ladies of celestial beauty as brilliant as lightning. As there are airplanes, so there must be different types of carriages also, like the airplanes, and they may not be driven machines as we have experience in this world. Because everything is of the same nature of eternity, bliss and knowledge, the airplanes and carriages are of the same quality as Brahman. As there is nothing except Brahman, so it should not be misconceived that there is only void and no variegatedness. To think like that is due to a poor fund of knowledge. Otherwise no one would have such a misconception of voidness in the Brahman. As there are airplanes, ladies and gentlemen, so there must be cities and houses and everything else just suitable to the particular planets. One should not carry the ideas of imperfection from this world to the transcendental world without taking into consideration the nature of the atmosphere as completely free from the influence of time, etc., as described previously."

Lecture on SB 3.25.4 -- Bombay, November 4, 1974:

So explanation of Vedānta-sūtra is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins that what is that tattva. Janmādy asya (SB 1.1.1). Janmādy asya, from whom everything has emanated, or the Supreme, which is the source of everything, so what is the nature of that source? That is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ (SB 1.1.1). That source is abhijñaḥ, cognizant, not matter. Matter is not cognizant. Life. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), cognizant. So these scientists' theory, modern theory, that life comes from matter, this is wrong. The life comes from life. Because in the Bhagava..., Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is explained that janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ (SB 1.1.1). The identity from whom everything emanates, He's abhijñaḥ, cognizant. He can understand. So cognizant means life. Not only that. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. He instructed knowledge to Lord Brahma, about Vedic knowledge. So unless one is living entity, how he can impart knowledge?

So actually, the Absolute Truth is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, or the Vedānta-sūtra's explanation, natural explanation,... Actually, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was written by Vyāsadeva. Here it is said, dvaipāyana-sakha. Dvaipāyana means Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva compiled this Brahma-sūtra, and he explained it, bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **, this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. If we read some artificial comments on Brahma-sūtra, we'll misunderstand. Generally, these Māyāvādīs give prominence of the comment given by Śaṅkarācārya about Brahma-sūtra, Śārīraka-bhāṣya. But that is unnatural. The natural commentation is given by the author himself, Vyāsadeva. So we have to understand... Vyāsadeva has written Brahma-sūtra, and we have to understand the meaning of Brahma... Brahma-sūtra means codes only. So codes can be explained by the author himself. So our process is to accept the Brahma-sūtra. Brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ (BG 13.5). Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture on SB 3.25.33-34 -- Bombay, December 3, 1974:

So the sun planet is also material planet like this earthly planet, but it is made of fire. Just like there are so many things we have got experience. There is water, sea. There also, living being, aquatics. They are not dying. But if you are thrown into the water, you will die. But that does not mean that in the water there is no living being. There is. There are hundreds and thousands. Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi. We are the men population. We are only 400,000. And in the water there are 900,000's, aquatics. Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi sthāvarā lakṣa-viṁś... Everything is there is the śāstras. So... But you cannot live within the... You have got a separate body. Similarly, these so-called scientists, they are thinking that nobody can live in the sun planet. "There is no life." That is wrong. They have got a separate type of body—they can live in the fire. That is the information. There is also towns. There is also palaces. Everything is there. But they are made of fire. We cannot understand that. In the fire you cannot live. In the water you cannot live. But there are living entities. Just like you see in the beach there are crabs. They are living within the sands, but you cannot live. That does not mean in the sand there is no life. There is life. Life sarva-gaḥ. It is said life can exist everywhere, either in the fire or in the water or in the earth or in the air. We are practically experiencing. So everywhere there is life. So... But different position. As you cannot enter in this body either in the moon planet or in the sun planet, similarly, unless you are fully qualified devotee, you cannot enter into the Vaikuṇṭha planets. You have to live outside. You have to live outside in the brahma-jyotir. That is called aikānta.

So if you desire that, Kṛṣṇa will give you the oppor... Ye yathā māṁ prapadyante (BG 4.11). Mām... Kṛṣṇa is everything. Kṛṣṇa is brahma-jyotir; Kṛṣṇa is Paramātmā. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). So if you want oneness, so you will be allowed outside the Vaikuṇṭha planet in the brahma-jyotir. But there you cannot stay. That is the difficulty. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32). Because we want varieties of enjoyment... In the brahma-jyotir you are simply live eternally, but there is no varieties. But because these persons, they have no information of the Vaikuṇṭha varieties, they have to come down again to these material varieties. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ (SB 10.2.32). This is the process.

Lecture on SB 3.26.15 -- Bombay, December 24, 1974:

We require a leader. Any field of activities, we require a leader. Suppose for getting independence, we had to follow one leader, Mahatma Gandhi. Therefore for guidance we require a leader. And the supreme leader is Kṛṣṇa. So if we follow Kṛṣṇa, the supreme leader, then our life is successful. And if we do not follow... Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, "You rascal, you fool, mūḍha, you just follow Me." Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). This is the whole story of spiritual life. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme leader. He is also a living being, He is also person like you and me, but He is ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa. Therefore He is called Bhagavān. We cannot be called Bhagavān because our power is very limited, not pūrṇa. Therefore we become saguṇa. Kṛṣṇa does not become saguṇa. The Māyāvāda theory, that God, when He incarnates, He becomes saguṇa, that is wrong theory. Here it is said that brahmaṇaḥ saguṇasya ha. Saguṇasya brahmaṇaḥ, these twenty-five elements, they cover him, that means the living entity who has come in this material world. But Kapiladeva or Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān, He is not saguṇa; He is always nirguṇa. Nirguṇa guṇa ca. In... The Bhagavān says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "Although He is nirguṇa, but He is the controller of the guṇas." Kṛṣṇa is not controlled. Mama māyā guṇamayī. Kṛṣṇa says, daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā (BG 7.14). Mama māyā: "This māyā, this energy, is My energy." So energy is controlled by the energetic. Suppose if you have got some energy, you can control it. Suppose if you have got very good energy to kill anyone or to hurt one or to beat anyone, good strength, but that strength is not beyond you. The strength is under your control. When you like, you can use it; when you do not like, you cannot use it, you do not use it.

Lecture on SB 3.26.15 -- Bombay, December 24, 1974:

Therefore this māyā, this material world, saguṇa, that is also Kṛṣṇa's energy. Daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā (BG 7.14). Kṛṣṇa is not māyā's, but māyā is Kṛṣṇa's. We have to understand that way, not that Kṛṣṇa becomes enveloped or overpowered by māyā. That is wrong theory. The Māyāvādī theory is like that, that "I am Kṛṣṇa. I am God. Now I am overpowered by māyā, and as soon as I become free from māyā, again I become Kṛṣṇa." But the question is that "If you are Kṛṣṇa, if you are God, then why you became under the control of māyā? What kind of God you are?" Just like in the English Constitution it is said that "The king can do no wrong." So you cannot bring king under any law. Others will come—even if he is minister, he will come under the law—but the king cannot come under the law. This is the English Constitution. Similarly, God cannot be under māyā. Others, everyone under the...

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni

guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ

ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā

kartāham iti manyate

(BG 3.27)

Everyone is under the control of māyā. Nobody is free. But there are two māyā, yoga-māyā and mahā-māyā. Mahā-māyā, this material world, and yoga-m āyā the spiritual world. If you agree to be under the yoga-māyā, then you are happy. Just like there are two kinds of laws: civil laws and criminal laws. You have to remain under one of these laws. But if you live under criminal law, then you go to the jail, and if you live under civil law, then you are free. But in either condition, you cannot say that "I am free of law." That is foolishness. That is foolishness. The atheist class of men, they say that "We do not believe in God." But that is craziness.

Lecture on SB 3.26.17 -- Bombay, December 26, 1974:

Therefore He is called almighty. We have got experience. If we want to make pregnant my wife, then we have to use certain sense. That particular sense can make pregnancy. But the Supreme Personality of Godhead, being all-powerful, He can do anything from anywhere from any sense. That is almighty. We speak of almighty—"God is almighty"—but we do not understand what is the almighty. This is almighty. The almighty Lord, simply by glancing over prakṛti, He makes the prakṛti pregnant, and the prakṛti produces so many varieties of life. Ceṣṭā. Ceṣṭā yataḥ sa bhagavān.

So the prakṛti cannot give birth to the varieties. That is wrong theory. That is wrong theory. The real variety begins when the prakṛti is in touch with the Puruṣa. That is our experience also. How we can say that prakṛti can give birth or woman can give birth to a child or many children without being touch with man? Where is our experience? There is no such thing. Therefore we should not take prakṛti as everything. We must find out the Puruṣa. Therefore the puruṣa who gives birth to these material varieties, that is Lord Śiva, and the prakṛti which gives birth to these varieties, that is Durgā. Therefore the original prakṛti and puruṣa is represented by śiva-liṅga, and devī-patha(?). Those who are worshiper of śiva-liṅga, they know the devī-patha(?) and the śiva-liṅga, they are worshiped. The original father, Kṛṣṇa, says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā: "I am the seed-giving father." Sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ (BG 14.4). There are varieties of forms of life. How they are being begotten? Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā. That pitā, father, is Lord Śiva.

Lecture on SB 3.26.17 -- Bombay, December 26, 1974:

Kāla-bhairava. And he is the master of the annihilation. When this whole material creation will be required to be destroyed, it will be done by Lord Śiva. It is created by Lord Brahmā, it is maintained by Lord Viṣṇu, and when it will be destroyed, it will be done by Lord Śiva. Therefore there are three original demigods. So Kāla-bhairava, ceṣṭā yataḥ sa bhagavān kāla ity upalakṣitaḥ. So kāla, time factor, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is above these twenty-four ingredients of material elements. It is in between the spiritual element and the material element, via media, that kāla. This is the description of kāla.

So we should not think... The real purport of this verse should be understood that if we are misled by thinking that prakṛti is working alone and is giving birth of varieties of things, saviśeṣa, that is wrong theory. It is examplified like—in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta—just like in goats you will find on the neck, on the... It is called neck, or throat? There are some nipples. Have you seen it? So if somebody thinks that "There is nipple; there will be milk also," no. There is no milk. That is different thing. Similarly, if some person foolishly think that material nature, prakṛti, is the cause of varieties of manifestation, that is wrong. That is wrong. It is done by the Puruṣa, the Supreme Person, through the agency of prakṛti. Just like a man begets children through the agency of woman, similarly, the varieties of this material world is due to the Supreme Person, Puruṣa. Puruṣaṁ śāśvatam, original, eternal Puruṣa. That is accepted by Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gītā: paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). Bhavān: "You are puruṣaṁ śāśvatam."

Lecture on SB 3.28.18 -- Nairobi, October 27, 1975:

This Kṛṣṇa's form is not like us. Just like if you take my statue or any other statue and if you pray or if you offer food, that does not go actually to the person. But Kṛṣṇa's His aṅga, His form, is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. Foolish people may say that "These men, they are offering food to a marble statue. Everyone knows." No. It is not the fact. The fact is Kṛṣṇa is omnipotent. He can accept your service, becoming a marble statue. Because I cannot see Kṛṣṇa by my present eyes, therefore He has appeared before you just like a marble statue. But He is not marble statue. We must know that. If you think, "Here is marble statue, and if I commit some offense, who is going to see?" this is wrong conclusion. He is, Kṛṣṇa, personally present here in a form which we can see. It is His mercy. It is called arcā-vigraha. Kṛṣṇa is everything. This marble is also Kṛṣṇa's energy. Bhūmir āpo'nalo vāyuḥ (BG 7.4). So He can accept your service from any of His energy. The marble is also His energy, the water is also His energy, the air is also His energy—everything. Without Kṛṣṇa nothing can exist. So He is omniscient, all-powerful. He can accept your service through His energy. This is arcā-vigraha. Samagrāṅgam.

Lecture on SB 5.5.1 -- Johannesburg, October 20, 1975:

If we remain restless like animals, then we cannot achieve the goal of our life. We do not know how the laws of nature is working. We can experience how the laws of nature is working in our present life. Present life... Just like a young man, if he thinks that "I shall not become old man. I shall remain young man," will the nature's law allow it? No. You must become old man. There is no question of saying that "I don't want to become old man." So, no, nature's law will not allow you. You must become old man and suffer the old age's disadvantages. That you must. Similarly, if the old man says, "Never mind. I have become old man. I will not die," no. Nature's law will not allow. He must die. Similarly, after death, if you think foolishly that there is no more life, that is also wrong. Nature's law is that you must accept another body. This is nature's law. So we are dependent on nature's law. However foolishly we declare that "We are independent. We don't care for anything," that will not stay. We are under the clutches of material nature's law. In this law, by evolutionary process we have come to this human form of life, and if we don't utilize it properly, then we are missing the chance.

Lecture on SB 5.5.1-2 -- Paris, August 12, 1973:

Prabhupāda: So you have seen that all Calcutta men are dying?

Guest: Yes, poor people are dying.

Prabhupāda: Ah, this is all lying propaganda. I don't believe it. I am also there. I am born in Calcutta.

Guest: I am not saying anything to contradict you, just explain to me...

Prabhupāda: No, there is no contradiction. I am speaking that God is feeding even the animals, even the elephants, even the serpents, and why God will not feed the human kind. This is a wrong impression. Everyone has food fixed by God. Even if he is not serving God, God is supplying all the necessities, to the animals why not to the human being? This is wrong impression. (break) Yes? (break)

Jyotirmayī (translating for Guest): ...that at the beginning one, the word, and this word was God and this word was with God. So what is this word?

Prabhupāda: God, God and God's word. They're identical. God's, God and God's form, God's quality. God's, I mean to say, entourage, everything is God. That is called absolute. As, when I speak, my speaking is different from me, so that is not the case with God. God's words, the vibration of God, that is also God. (break)

Jyotirmayī: ...name of God, can the name of God be pronounced, uttered?

Prabhupāda: Yes, why not.

Lecture on SB 5.5.18 -- Vrndavana, November 6, 1976:

So this is knowledge. Otherwise artificially if I think the same thing, that because I have gone very high in the sky, I have become mixed up with the sky... There is no question of mixing up. Therefore because it is not the question of mixing up, amalgamation, separate identity, but it is light, that is all right. But not that they have lost their individuality. Sanātana. Kṛṣṇa says, "They are individual parts sanātana, eternally." Not that now they are separated, and after liberation they will mix up. No. This is wrong conception. Therefore mixing up means... Just like we are here, mixed together. We have got individuality, but for a certain purpose we are sitting together very peacefully, and the real purpose is to learn how to serve Kṛṣṇa. So when we agree to serve Kṛṣṇa, then that is mixing up of the devotees. Tāṅdera caraṇa-sevi-bhakta-sane vāsa, that is mixing up. When you assemble together with the same purpose... That's why we can understand nation. What is that nation? Everyone is individual, but the purpose is how to improve the condition of the politics, or the combination of men. Similarly when you agree... Here in the material world we are individual, and in spiritual world we are also individual, but what is the difference between material world and spiritual world? In the material world we are individual to serve my own senses. Therefore there is fight. Everyone is trying to satisfy his own senses. I am trying to satisfy my senses, you are trying... So there is clash. That is material world. And the spiritual world: when all of them agree to satisfy the senses of Kṛṣṇa. There is like Vṛndāvana.

Lecture on SB 5.6.7 -- Vrndavana, November 29, 1976:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said, "Any rascal"—of course, "rascal" he did not say; I say—that. "Anyone who considers the body of Kṛṣṇa is prakṛta"—prakṛta means material—"that is the greatest offense." The Māyāvādīs, they say so. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, māyāvādī haya kṛṣṇe aparādhī. They think that when... "God is impersonal, but when He becomes a person, He accepts the material body." That is wrong. Here it is said that mukta-liṅgasya bhagavata ṛṣabhasya. It is no difference. Even a big scholar, while writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), he warns the reader, "It is not to the person. The soul or the spirit within the person." Means he is thinking Kṛṣṇa as ordinary person, and he's a big scholar. This is going on.

Kṛṣṇa condemns, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritaḥ (BG 9.11). Anyone who thinks that Kṛṣṇa has a different soul... No. Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's so-called soul, the same thing. There is no difference. That is the... Otherwise how Kṛṣṇa can lift, as a seven-years-old boy, Govardhana Hill? Is it possible by this material body? No. That is not possible. This is common sense. But they cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, mūḍhā. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā. They call, "It is mythology. Mythology. Everything mythology." First of all they cannot find out what is God, and when God comes, shows His opulences, these rascals say, "It is mythology." What God will do? He comes before you. He displays His mighty opulences. He expanded Himself into sixteen thousand form. "Mythology." So what can I do? What Kṛṣṇa can do? Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca (Bs. 5.33). Śāstra says He has got ananta-rūpam, but still one. There is no difference. They cannot understand the Absolute Truth, and they like to comment upon it foolishly.

Lecture on SB 6.1.8 -- New York, July 22, 1971:

So in this subject matter, topics between Śukadeva Gosvāmī and Mahārāja Parīkṣit, there is... Parīkṣit Mahārāja is anxious to know how these conditioned souls who are rotting in the hellish condition of life, they can be delivered. So Śukadeva Gosvāmī is first of all prescribing that they have to make atonement. Just like I gave you the example: If one man has committed criminal activities, he has to atone for the sinful activity. He must be arrested. He must be put into the jail and given some trouble for a certain period of time. And then he may be given freedom. So this atonement is there, by nature's law. You cannot avoid it. If you think that "God cannot see. I am doing this nonsense without His vision," that is wrong. Anything we do, that is recorded just like the service record. And the judgment... Just like in other literatures, there is the day of judgment. That's fact. We have to accept the judgment of the superior superintendent of all our activities.

So Śukadeva Gosvāmī says that the volume of atonement should be according to the gravity of the offense. Just like when a man is diseased, he goes to a physician. He prescribes different type of medicine to the different type of patient according to the gravity of the disease. But there are many rascals, they say that any medicine we take, that's all right. No. That's not all right. You have to take the medicine through the physician, not independently. In your country there is law that you cannot purchase from the drug shop any medicine without being prescribed by the medical man. Is it not? So the prescription should be taken from the experienced physician to cure the disease. So in this age, Kali-yuga... It is called Kali-yuga. Kali-yuga means the age of quarrel and misunderstanding. This is the age. For nothing there is misunderstanding and quarrel and fight and war, for nothing. So in this age the medicine for delivering the conditioned souls from miserable, materialistic way of life is prescribed in the śāstras. What is that? Harer nāma, simply chanting of the holy name of Hari, Hare Kṛṣṇa. Harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam: (CC Adi 17.21) "In this age, simply this harer nāma kevalam, only." There is no other alternative. Therefore in the next line it is stressed, nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā: "There is no other alternative, no other alternative, no other alternative."

Lecture on SB 6.1.10 -- Honolulu, May 11, 1976:

So Parīkṣit Mahārāja, he said that everyone in this material world know what is, to some extent at least, or to his capacity, knows "This is right" or "This is wrong." May not be very advanced in knowledge, but something they know, "This is right; this is wrong."

So criminality we have described. Everyone knows "This is not good," but he is punished. Again he does that. So Parīkṣit Mahārāja said, "What is the use of this atonement?" He further explains in this verse that kvacin nivartate abhadrāt. Abhadra means unclean, wrong things. Bhadra means right thing. Bhadra and abhadra. In India bhadra means gentleman and abhadra means uncivilized man. So sometimes he does like gentlemen and sometimes like foolish rascal. Kvacin nivartate 'bhadrāt kvacic carati tat punaḥ (SB 6.1.10). After coming from the prison house, jail, he decides, "No more I shall commit. I shall now become gentleman." But as soon as his friends, criminals, again mix with them, he again commits the same sinful activity. So in this condition, atonement, if he cannot change his character, so what is the use of this atonement? Prāyaścittam atho 'pārtham (SB 6.1.10). Apārtham means useless. If he cannot change his character, change his mind, then the punishment or prāyaścittam is apārtha, useless. How useless? Manye, "I think it is as useless as kuñjara-śaucavat."

Lecture on SB 6.1.13-14 -- New York, July 27, 1971:

They don't want to do anything. Both sides are there in your country, bhoga and tyāga.

But in neither of the paths you'll be happy, because that is not your proper position. You cannot enjoy or you cannot renounce. Actually the whole thing belongs to Kṛṣṇa. Nothing belongs to anyone. Whatever you have got in possession, that is Kṛṣṇa's property. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). Everything. You do..., you try to understand. The trees, the plants, the water, the land—have you produced it? Then how do you claim that it is your land, it is your country, it is your water, it is your tree? That is the wrong position. And similarly, tyāga, renouncement... What can you renounce? What you had? What is the meaning of renouncement? You had nothing. You came here in this world from the womb of your mother empty-handed, a child. Then you falsely claim: "This is my country, this is my home, this is my wife, this is my children, this is my property, this is my bank balance, this is my skyscraper building..." All these false. Because you did not brought this. You came empty-handed, and when you go, you go empty-handed. The things are there. The bank balance is there. The building is there. You cannot take anything. So what is the meaning of bhoga and tyāga? There is no meaning. Either now, neither able to enjoy, because it is not your property. If you want to enjoy other's property, then you'll be implicated in criminal offenses. And if you say others' property, "I renounce this bank, I renounce this Bank of America," when did it belong to you, that you are making renouncement? It is all lunacy.

Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970:

What is the light? It is common sense. The sea water, Kṛṣṇa says, "It is Mine." And if I say, "The water is Kṛṣṇa's," what is the wrong there? Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "This bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ, this bhūmir, this pṛthvī, is Mine." So if I say that "Land is Kṛṣṇa's," then what is wrong there? Then why should I go to inside? Outside (indistinct) Kṛṣṇa's property. Why you bother for inside? Inside is very difficult to understand, but outside I can see directly. But I see it, "Oh, it is mine. It is my land. It is my house. It is my property." Therefore that is wrong. As soon as you see "It is Kṛṣṇa's," that is perfection. Why you bother about inside? Why don't you see outside? This outside whose property it is? Kṛṣṇa has simply hidden Himself inside and He is not outside? Inside He is also. Ṟśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati. That's nice. But why not outside? Then what is this outside? That is also explained by Kṛṣṇa: "It is Mine." So inside and outside you have to see. Any man can see outside. Any child, if I say, if I teach a child, "Well, this everything you see, it is Kṛṣṇa's," what is the wrong there? This tape recorder is Kṛṣṇa's, this microphone is Kṛṣṇa's, this fire is Kṛṣṇa's. What is the wrong there? Kṛṣṇa has kindly given me. So I should feel obliged, "Kṛṣṇa, You are so kind that You have given this fire so I am not suffering." Is that not Kṛṣṇa consciousness? We want to teach that. Not a bogus thing, "I am seeing within Kṛṣṇa." Why not outside? What is the wrong there? Tell me what is. Is it clear or not? If you have doubt, you go on questioning.

Lecture on SB 6.1.21 -- Honolulu, May 21, 1976:

This is very mischievous rascaldom. So we want to stop this. We present Bhagavad-gītā as it is, as Kṛṣṇa says. We don't allow any rascal to comment upon Bhagavad-gītā in a different way. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. This is very natural. If you have got a different type of philosophy, you can write. Why you should touch Bhagavad-gītā and misrepresent it? So because they are śūdras—their business is to cheat—they do that. But a brāhmaṇa will not do that. Yathānugītānām. Yathānugītānām. Brāhmaṇa means as it is, they will describe. That is brāhmaṇa. And if one has got some motive, that "Bhagavad-gītā is popular book. Let me utilize it and make my rascal philosophy popular..." This is going on. Big, big politician, big, big mental speculator... No. That is wrong. That is... A brāhmaṇa should present as it is. Yathānugītānām. This word is used.

So this dvijaḥ, brāhmaṇa. Brāhmaṇa means one who has acquired these qualifications. Satya śama damo titikṣa. The first qualification of brāhmaṇa is to become truthful. He'll never speak lies. That is the first qualification. Satya śama, then controlling the senses; dama, controlling the mind. Śama means controlling the mind, and dama is controlling the senses. Śama dama titikṣa (BG 18.42). Titikṣa means tolerance. Titikṣa ārjava, simplicity; and full knowledge, jñānam; vijñānam, practical. Simply theoretical knowledge, no practical application—he is not brāhmaṇa.

Lecture on SB 6.1.41-42 -- Surat, December 23, 1970:

And those qualities, guṇa-nāma, guṇa-nāma-kriyā-rūpaiḥ, when the qualities begin to act, they are represented in different varieties, these qualities. These qualities of goodness, passion, and ignorance, when they are interacted, they represent in different varieties of representation. Just like when there is quality of goodness, then it is brahmanism. That is the representation of the quality of goodness. And when the quality of passion is represented, that is the quality of kṣatriya. And when the quality of ignorance is represented, that is the presentation of the śūdras. And mixed-up quality of ignorance and passion, that is vaiśya. Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, that "These four qualitative representation, brāhmaṇas, kṣatriya..."

So when it is creation by the Supreme Lord, it is not that the brāhmaṇas are to be found only in India. That is another wrong conclusion. Because brāhmaṇas means representation of the quality of goodness. Anywhere you find the quality of goodness, that is brahmanism. So these American, European boys, when they have developed their quality of goodness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they are brāhmaṇas. If they are considered as mlecchas and yavanas, that is nārakīya-buddhi, hellish consideration. Vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhiḥ. If anyone considers a Vaiṣṇava, a devotee of the Lord, in the categorical estimation of birth, then that is hellish consideration. Vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhiḥ. Arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matiḥ. Just like here we are worshiping Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Deity. You have all come here early in the morning, and...

Lecture on SB 6.3.27-28 -- Gorakhpur, February 20, 1971:

Unless there is Kṛṣṇa, the family life... Without Kṛṣṇa, without Kṛṣṇa consciousness, family life is just like a blind well covered with grass. As soon as you go, and fall down. Prahlāda Mahārāja recommended that one should give up this blind well and go to the open forest. So here also it is said, gṛhe niraya-vartmani baddha-tṛṣṇān. And why they are staying in that blind well? Baddha-tṛṣṇān, conditioned by material desires. That's all. Thinking that "I am in family. My..., they are friends, they are countrymen, they are my children, and they'll give me protection. What this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement will give us protection? They have no money. They are begging. So how they can?" No. That is their idea, that "This, my family affairs, a nice situation, that will give me protection." But that is wrong. Teṣāṁ pramatto nidhanaṁ paśyann api na paśyati.

dehāpatya-kalatrādiṣv

ātma-sainyeṣv asatsv api

teṣāṁ pramatto nidhanaṁ

paśyann api na paśyati

(SB 2.1.4)

They think that "This atmosphere will give me protection," without seeing that they'll be all destroyed by the laws of nature. So Yamarāja says, "Those who are under this conception, that 'This secure home life will give me protection...,' " but that is not the fact. Such security means security for gliding down to hell. That's all. Juṣṭād gṛhe niraya-vartmani baddha-tṛṣṇān.

Lecture on SB 7.5.22-30 -- London, September 8, 1971:

Gṛha-vratānām: "those who have taken it as vow to be happy in this material world." Therefore they are called gṛha-vrata. Gṛhastha... There are two words in Sanskrit language. One is gṛha-stha, and one is gṛha-vrata or gṛha-medhi. Gṛhastha means gṛhastha-āśrama. As soon as... Those who are conversant with Vedic language, they know. Āśrama means something in connection with God. That is called āśrama. So gṛhastha-āśrama means one may live with family, children, wife, children, friends—that's all right. Live. Whatever life is suitable for you, you accept. But you change Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is āśrama. Therefore it is called brahmacārī-āśrama, gṛhastha-āśrama, vānaprastha-āśrama, sannyāsa-āśrama. This is varṇāśrama, four varṇas and four āśramas. We are wrongly called Hindus. This is a wrong designation given by the Muhammadans. We don't find this word in any Vedic literature, "Hindu." It is a foreign word. Real word is varṇāśrama. Varnāśramācāravatā puruṣeṇa parā pumān. That is Vedic civilization, four varṇas and four āśramas. Four varṇas means brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra, and four āśrama means brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha, and sannyāsa. One who follow this system of civilization, they are called varṇāśramī. So the "Hindus" is a foreign name given to these Indians by the neighborhood Muhammadans. Actually, Hindu is not to be found. So when we call ourselves Hindus, that is misconception of Indian civilization. Real concept of Indian civilization, Vedic civilization, is varṇāśrama dharma.

Lecture on SB 7.6.3-4 -- San Francisco, March 8, 1967:

That's all right. Then what you are, or what I am? The next stage is to understand that "I am not this body; I am spirit soul." Ahaṁ brahmāsmi. The exact Sanskrit language is that, to understand that "I am spirit soul." All right, then is that finished? No. Still you have to go farther. Then "I am a spirit soul." So the spirit soul in this material body has so much activities. Now, regarding this body, I have got so many activities. And when the body is finished, is it correct that the spirit soul stops to act? No. It does not stop to act. Because that is the active principle. Because the spirit is there within this body, therefore the body's acting. Now, suppose I am not this body. Then does it mean that the spirit has no activity? So this is now wrong theory. Spirit has various activities, but you do not know. That is illusion. So meditation means to understand oneself, that "I am not this body; I am spirit soul," and farther advancement of that meditation is to know that what are the activities of the spirit soul, and when one is actually engaged in those spiritual activities, that is the perfection of meditation.

Lecture on SB 7.6.9 -- New Vrindaban, June 25, 1976:

Because we are ajitendriya, we cannot control our senses. Very difficult. But if you take Kṛṣṇa prasādam, although apparently we are greedy, but on account of taking Kṛṣṇa prasādam, it is neutralized. Our greediness, by taking Kṛṣṇa prasādam, it is neutralized.

Sneha-pāśair. This sneha-pāśa, sneha is there. Sneha means affection. Everyone got affection. The cats and dogs they have got also affection. But the affection is wrongly placed. We are affectionate to the skin, to this body. So this is wrong affection. Real affection is to the soul. That we do not know, we have no information. We are loving our child, that is very good, but not the soul, but the body. If someway or other the child is dead or my father is dead, we cry, "Father has gone." Why father has gone away? The body which you loved, that is lying there. So we do not know whom to love. So if we love actually, let us love the soul. How the soul... Love..., to love means for benefit. That is real love. I love you for your benefit; you love me for my benefit. If I so-called love you for my benefit, that is lust. So in this material world there cannot be love. It is not possible. Because everyone loves, so-called love. He loves his sense gratification. A young boy loves a young woman for his sense gratification, not for her sense gratification. Similarly she also. So in this material, this cheating is going on. I want to satisfy my lusty desires, but it is going on in the name of love. There cannot be any love in this material world. Because love is between spirit and spirit. But if we try to love the Supreme Spirit, Kṛṣṇa, then we shall understand how our love can be spread in the spiritual world. Samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām.

Lecture on SB 7.9.1 -- Mayapur, February 8, 1976:

So here surādayaḥ sarve brahma-rudra-puraḥ sarāḥ na upaitum aśakan manyu. There is anger. Kṛṣṇa, to kill Hiraṇyakaśipu, He became so angry that even big, big stalwart demigods, brahmādaya... Because demigods... The list of demigods begins from Lord Brahmā. He is the original father of the demigods and all other living entities. He's therefore known as prajā-pati or called pitā-maha, grandfather, prajā-pati. He is the origin of everything. The Darwin's theory, a rascal theory, that there was no life, but according to Vedic knowledge there were the best life, Brahmā. From there begins life, and gradually they become degraded, material contamination. Not that there was no life. From low type of living condition one is elevated higher and higher. That is a wrong theory. The real theory is that life begins from the most exalted person, Lord Brahmā, prajā-pati. So in any auspicious matter they are forward, because you cannot approach God in your lower condition of life. You see? Lower condition of life means sinful reaction. In that condition you cannot approach God. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). (aside:) Who is talking? Pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme pure, pavitraṁ paramam. Paramam means extreme. So nobody can approach Kṛṣṇa while He is impure. That is not possible. Just like some rascals, they say, "It doesn't matter what you are eating, what you are doing. There is no hindrance for your spiritual advancement." These rascals, these fools, misleading the whole world that in the matter of understanding the Supreme Person one can behave like the low-grade persons. No. That is not possible. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12).

Lecture on SB 7.9.11 -- Montreal, August 17, 1968:

That is our natural life. When we are in consciousness that "Nothing belongs to me. Everything belongs to God, and everything is meant for God's enjoyment, not for my sense enjoyment," that is called Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kṛṣṇa consciousness means to be situated in the actual fact. Whenever we claim something that "This is mine," it is called moha, illusion. Ahaṁ mameti (SB 5.5.8). Janasya moho ayam. This conception of "mine" and "I" is the platform of illusion. Janasya moho 'yam. This world, whole world, is moving under this illusion that "I am this body, and everything..." "I am the monarch of all I survey." This is the philosophy. "Whatever I can acquire, that is mine." This is wrong. This is called illusion.

Therefore we should try to give to Kṛṣṇa, not to ask. Because He has given us everything without asking. Without asking. We go to temple or churches to ask for our daily bread, but the birds and beasts, they have no churches, no temples, they do not ask. But how do they get their bread? Therefore according to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, there is no actually bread problem. The only problem is that we have forgotten our relationship with God. Whatever... Tasyaiva hetoḥ prayateta kovido (SB 1.5.18). Therefore the instruction of Bhāgavata is, "Just try to revive your lost relationship with God, or Kṛṣṇa." That relationship is never extinguished, but sometimes it is covered. Just like a crazy boy forgets his father and mother and home, goes away. But the relationship between the son and the parents cannot be lost. As soon as the son comes back, the parents receives him very nicely. Similarly, we are all sons of the Supreme Lord. We have forgotten our father, we have forgotten our relationship, and we are loitering in this material world as helpless, and if we revive our consciousness, our Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that "My home is in the spiritual world. I am a foreigner in this material world..." Just like a foreigner is traveling from one place to another, similarly, I am also changing my body from one body to another, one planet to another. But there is no permanent settlement anywhere in this material world. This is our condition.

Lecture on SB 7.9.32 -- Mayapur, March 10, 1976:

Here is explanation, that sthito na tu tamo na guṇāṁś ca yuṅkṣe. This is Kṛṣṇa. This is Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa. Never, never think... There are some party, they say, "We worship Kṛṣṇa, Bāla-Kṛṣṇa, boy Kṛṣṇa." Sometimes they give reason that... Why not, I mean to say, grown-up Kṛṣṇa? They say that "Grown-up Kṛṣṇa was polluted by rāsa-līlā." Just see the fool nonsense! Kṛṣṇa is always Kṛṣṇa. This is foolish conclusion, that child Kṛṣṇa is pure than young Kṛṣṇa. This is wrong conception. Kṛṣṇa is... Just like Kṛṣṇa, when He was three months old, He could kill a big, gigantic witch, that Pūtanā. Can... A three months' old child can kill such a big...? No. Kṛṣṇa is always God. Either He appears in three months or three hundred years or three thousand years, He is the same. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam adyaṁ purāṇa puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca (Bs. 5.33). This is Kṛṣṇa.

So by studying Kṛṣṇa, you become liberated. So these verses should be studied very carefully, understanding each word very carefully. Then you'll understand Kṛṣṇa. Kavirāja Gosvāmī has said, siddhānta boliyā citte nā kara alasa, ihā haite kṛṣṇa lāge sudṛdha mānasa. Siddhānta, what is Kṛṣṇa, if you study from the śāstras, then siddhānta boliyā citte, don't be lazy in understanding Kṛṣṇa, because if you try to understand Kṛṣṇa sādhu-śāstra-guru-vākyaṁ cittete kariya aikya-through the sādhu, śāstra and guru—then you understand Kṛṣṇa, what He is. Then you'll not take Him as ordinary human being, as foolish person taking. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritaḥ (BG 9.11). Mūḍhās, rascals, they think Kṛṣṇa as one of us. Then you'll not be a mūḍha. You'll be intelligent. And what is the effect? Kṛṣṇa says personally, janma karma ca divyaṁ me yo jānāti tattvataḥ. If you understand Kṛṣṇa perfectly well...

Lecture on SB 11.3.21 -- New York, April 13, 1969:

This is common knowledge. So all the Vedic literature says that in order to learn that transcendental science about yourself or about God, then tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). In order to learn that science, don't manufacture, but scientific way, if you want to learn... Tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva..., gurum eva abhigacchet. Guru means spiritual master. Eva, eva means certainly. Not that if somebody thinks, "Oh, I can learn about myself without approaching any spiritual master." That is wrong. Actually eva, eva means certainly. One must. And this verb gacchet is used where this sense is used, "must." Gacchet, "must go," "must approach." That is the injunction of the Vedas. Similarly, the injunction of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is also tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam (SB 11.3.21).

Now, in order to approach a bona fide spiritual master, one must be very much disgusted with this material way of life. That is very nice qualification. Unless one is disgusted with this materialistic way of life, that actually in this materialistic way of life there is no happiness... This proposition must be convinced by one, that he should know certainly that "In the material way of life I cannot become happy." This is the first condition. Tasmād. Tasmād means "therefore." Similarly, in Vedānta-sūtra also, atha ataḥ brahma-jijñāsā. When we become fed up, disgusted with the materialistic way of life, natural inquiry is then "What is next?" That "next," in order to understand that "next," the Vedānta-sūtra says, the Vedic knowledge says that tasmād gurum evābhigacchet. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta. Therefore one should seek after a bona fide spiritual master and learn there.