Very appropriate example

Expressions researched:
"An appropriate example" |"very appropriate example"

SB Canto 3

Only in ignorance does a living entity think that he is lost. If by attainment of knowledge he comes to the real position of his eternal existence, he knows that he is not lost. An appropriate example is mentioned herein: naṣṭa-vitta ivāturaḥ. A person who has lost a great sum of money may think that he is lost, but actually he is not lost-only his money is lost.

SB 3.27.15, Purport: Only in ignorance does a living entity think that he is lost. If by attainment of knowledge he comes to the real position of his eternal existence, he knows that he is not lost. An appropriate example is mentioned herein: naṣṭa-vitta ivāturaḥ. A person who has lost a great sum of money may think that he is lost, but actually he is not lost-only his money is lost. But due to his absorption in the money or identification with the money, he thinks that he is lost. Similarly, when we falsely identify with matter as our field of activities, we think that we are lost, although actually we are not. As soon as a person is awakened to the pure knowledge of understanding that he is an eternal servitor of the Lord, his own real position is revived. A living entity can never be lost. When one forgets his identity in deep sleep, he becomes absorbed in dreams, and he may think himself a different person or may think himself lost. But actually his identity is intact. This concept of being lost is due to false ego, and it continues as long as one is not awakened to the sense of his existence as an eternal servitor of the Lord. The Māyāvādī philosophers' concept of becoming one with the Supreme Lord is another symptom of being lost in false ego. One may falsely claim that he is the Supreme Lord, but actually he is not. This is the last snare of māyā's influence upon the living entity. To think oneself equal with the Supreme Lord or to think oneself to be the Supreme Lord Himself is also due to false ego.

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

But if something is mistaken for something else that exists, that does not mean it is false. The Vaiṣṇava philosophers use a very appropriate example, comparing this material world to an earthen pot. When we see an earthen pot, it does not at once disappear and turn into something else. It may be temporary, but the earthen pot is taken into use for bringing water, and we continue to see it as an earthen pot. Therefore, although the earthen pot is temporary and different from the original earth, we cannot say that it is false.

Krsna Book 87: The Māyāvādī philosopher sometimes puts forward the argument of the snake and the rope. In the dark of evening, a curled-up rope is sometimes, due to ignorance, taken for a snake. But mistaking the rope for a snake does not mean that the rope or the snake is false, and therefore this example, used by the Māyāvādīs to illustrate the falsity of the material world, is not valid. When a thing is taken as fact but actually has no existence at all, it is called false. But if something is mistaken for something else that exists, that does not mean it is false. The Vaiṣṇava philosophers use a very appropriate example, comparing this material world to an earthen pot. When we see an earthen pot, it does not at once disappear and turn into something else. It may be temporary, but the earthen pot is taken into use for bringing water, and we continue to see it as an earthen pot. Therefore, although the earthen pot is temporary and different from the original earth, we cannot say that it is false. We should therefore conclude that the earthen pot and the entire earth are both truths because one is the product of the other. We understand from the Bhagavad-gītā that after the dissolution of this cosmic manifestation, the material energy enters into the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is ever-existing with His varied energies. Because the material creation is an emanation from Him, we cannot say that this cosmic manifestation is a product of something void. Kṛṣṇa is not void. Whenever we speak of Kṛṣṇa, He is present with His form, qualities, name, entourage and paraphernalia. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa is not impersonal. The original cause of everything is neither void nor impersonal but is the Supreme Person. Demons may say that this material creation is anīśvara, without a controller or God, but such arguments ultimately cannot stand.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

This material world is blazing fire. Blazing fire means the forest fire. The forest fire... The example is very typical, because nobody goes to set fire in the forest, neither it is possible to extinguish the fire in the forest by your so many counteractive methods. This is very appropriate example.

Lecture on SB 3.26.21 -- Bombay, December 30, 1974: This material world is blazing fire. Blazing fire means the forest fire. The forest fire... The example is very typical, because nobody goes to set fire in the forest, neither it is possible to extinguish the fire in the forest by your so many counteractive methods. This is very appropriate example. Similarly, in the material existence nobody wants any trouble, but automatically the trouble comes. Everyone has got experience: everyone is trying for happiness—nobody wants for distress—but distress comes here. You cannot stop it. Therefore those who are advanced in knowledge, they take it for granted that "I do not want distress. So the distress cannot be checked. It comes upon me. Then why shall I try for happiness? It will also come." This is very right conclusion. If without my endeavor distress comes upon me, so there are two things, distress and happiness, two counterparts. So if distress can come upon me without any endeavor, so the happiness also will come without any endeavor because this is another counterpart. So why shall I waste my time for this material distress and happiness?