Just like in a unknown path in a village, especially when there is a field . . . now, in . . . in the city, you can know that, "I have come so far" because the streets are numbered and the . . . you have got the location and there are some symptoms, this house or that house. But in the country, everything, every . . . every place is of the same similar nature—the same jungle, the same field, the same grass. We do not know where I am going. Or in the sea. Or in the sea. I have got experience. Have you ever traveled in the sea? No. But, while I was coming from India, so everywhere I see a round only, round of water. I do not know which way the ship is proceeding. You see? But they have got a chart. They have got a chart. By latitude, longitude, by time and by chart, they are calculating.
Now, I was asking the Captain, "Where we have come?" He was saying, in the Mediterranean Sea, "Oh, we are so many miles from Italy. We are so many miles from . . ." Like this. "Tunisia. Now we are coming to Gibraltar." Like this. But I was seeing all vast of water only. I was seeing, "Just after ten miles I shall reach," but it never reaches. So then how, what are these charts? The charts are that experienced sailors, they have made the chart. The captain was also consulting that chart because it was made by experienced sailors. That is nothing. So similarly, in calculating in which way we have to find out our salvation is to follow such liberated souls.
So last day we had been discussing that difference between the conditioned soul and liberated soul is that a conditioned soul is imperfect in four ways. A conditioned soul is sure to commit mistake, a conditioned soul is in illusion, a conditioned soul has the tendency for cheating others, and a conditioned soul has got his senses imperfect, imperfect senses. Therefore knowledge should be taken from a liberated soul. Why this Bhagavad-gītā is so honored? Now, this Bhagavad-gītā was spoken in India, and it is understood that it is a scripture of the Hindus.
But why . . .? Now, you are Americans. You are also keeping this Bhagavad-gītā, and not only in America: in other countries also, in Germany. In Germany there are great, great scholars, in England, in Japan, in all countries. So why? Because it is spoken by a great personality. Apart from . . . we may . . . we Hindus, we accept Him the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but others, even not accepting Him the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they accept it as, at least, that He was a great personality. Therefore, besides the Hindu community, others, they are also consulting the knowledge.
Now, my point is that when such a great personality, and when a . . . we accept Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that His version is right. What He says, that from our practical experience we can conclude that every individual persons who were in the past individuals, they are also individuals at the present, and they'll continue to be individuals, and this is by our common sense: but it is confirmed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa, whom we call the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He is accepted as a great personality.
He says, na tu eva ahaṁ jātu nāsam: "Don't think that I was not in existence." That means "I was in existence," not that "Just now I have come before you as God, as Śrī Kṛṣṇa. I was Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the past also, and I am Śrī Kṛṣṇa at the present. So also yourself, and so also others—all individuals. So, and at the present we are." Na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ: "And don't think that we shall not remain." Sarve. This sarve means "we all," not that . . . sarve is plural number. Janādhipāḥ is plural number. "So they are all individual souls."
So the individual soul continues. That is the version. That is the version of the Bhagavad-gītā, and we . . . it is better to accept this version without unnecessarily commenting it or interpreting it in a different way so that one . . . interpretation is very bad. You see? A scripture should not be interpreted. A scripture should be taken as it is. As it is. And besides that, interpretation . . . when interpretation is required? When a thing is not properly understood, at that time, interpretation is required. Otherwise, there is no necessity of interpretation.
Just like you . . . that "Such-and-such village or such-and-such town is on the sea." Somebody says. Now, the person who hears that "Such-and-such town is on the sea," and he may be confused—"How is that? On the . . . on the water, how there can be a town?" So there is explanation required. Now that explanation is that, " 'On the sea' does not mean 'in the midst of the sea,' but 'on the bank of the sea.' " Here is an interpretation.
So similarly, a thing which is very clear to everyone, so there is no necessity of interpretation. Here the, the statement of Bhagavad-gītā as by . . . spoken by Lord Kṛṣṇa is very clear that, "Myself, yourself and all these people who have assembled here, they are all individual persons. And they were individual persons in the past, and at the present moment, we see that they are individual persons, and they will continue. We will continue." I may not know what they will become in the future, but because He is God, because He is the Supreme Personality, His statement should be accepted. That makes my knowledge perfect.
Just like I give you one very simple example. Now, if a little boy asks his mother that, "Who is my father?" The mother says that, "Here is your father." Now, if the child says: "I don't believe it, that he is my father," is it possible to convince him in any other way than the statement of the mother? Is it possible? No. That is the final. That is the final. And if he says: "I don't believe it," that is his foolishness. Similarly, a thing which is beyond our conception, beyond our limit of knowledge, that should be taken from the authority.
So here is an authority, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Authority. His authority, authorityship, is accepted by all over the world. In . . . in our India there are five different disciplic succession of authorities, just like the Śaṅkarites, followers of Śaṅkarācārya, and Vaiṣṇavites. Generally, they are two: Māyāvādī, impersonalists and personalists. The personalist school, philosophers, they are divided into four: Rāmānuja-sampradāya—that means followers of Ācārya Rāmānuja: Madhvācārya-sampradāya, or the followers of Madhvācārya: Nimbārka-sampradāya, followers of Nimbārka Ācārya: and Viṣṇu-Svāmī-sampradāya. They, their conclusion is the same. Although they are four in number, their conclusion is the same. And another sect is Śaṅkarite sampradāya.
So all these four, I mean, five different section of the Hindus, they accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All of them. There is no denial. Although they are five, they have got different theses and philosophies, little, little difference, not, I mean, conclusion, but still . . . now, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, he, he is supposed, he is considered to be impersonalist. Impersonalist means he does not believe in the personal form of God. But still, he has commented in this, of this Bhagavad-gītā, Śaṅkara-bhāṣya. He has admitted there that "Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Personality of Godhead." He has also admitted.
Others, they are Vaiṣṇavites. Other ācāryas, other authorities, they are Vaiṣṇavites. They have naturally admitted, because they believe from the beginning. But even Śaṅkarācārya, who is impersonalist, he has also clearly written that sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ: "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." And there are many evidences in many scriptures and Vedic scriptures that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.