721130 - Lecture BG 02.26 - Hyderabad
- atha cainaṁ nitya-jātaṁ
- nityaṁ vā manyase mṛtam
- tathāpi tvaṁ mahā-bāho
- nainaṁ śocitum arhasi
- (BG 2.26)
So this is the opinion of the modern scientists or the Buddha philosophy, the soul, there is nothing like soul separately, but by combination of matter, at a certain stage, the living symptoms are manifest. And as it is combination of several chemicals, so it is also finished as soon as the body is finished. There is no . . . nothing as soul. That is their opinion.
So for argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa says: "If you think like that, that the body is all in all, by certain condition the material elements combine, and again it is finished . . ." So Arjuna was declining to fight. So the, for argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa says that, "If you think like that, the body's everything, so it will be destroyed automatically, so why you are so much afraid?" Suppose I have combined some chemical and it is destroyed . . . say, bottles of chemicals, some way or other, it is destroyed. So who laments for that? You can purchase another bottle. That is simply for argument's sake. Actually, that is not the position.
Now, if you think that the combination of chemicals can produce living force, then why don't you do it in the laboratory? The chemicals are there. You can combine and just produce a small ant, moving. Then it is . . . science means observation and experiment. So if you simply observe, and cannot make any experiment, practical, so then that is not science; that is only theory.
That is not possible. No scientist has ever made any living entity by combination of chemicals in the laboratory. Nobody can do that. (pause)
- jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur
- dhruvaṁ janma mṛtasya ca
- tasmād aparihārye 'rthe
- na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi
- (BG 2.27)
Jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyuḥ. "It is a fact that by the cycle of birth and death, one who dies, he has to accept again another body. So why you are deviating from your duty?"
The warfare of the kṣatriyas and the warfare at the present moment of the whimsical politicians, it is . . . they are different. Formerly it was not democracy. Only the kṣatriyas would fight. Especially the king, the royal order, they should come forward. Not that the politicians are sitting very comfortably at home, and poor people, they are given to fight in front of the enemy.
No. That was not the system. The king must come forward. The other side, the king also come. And the opposite side, they also, he also should come forward and fight. It was duty. And as soon as the king is killed by the other party, then the other party becomes victorious. There was no more fighting.
It is not the so-called king and president is sitting very comfortably and the poor soldiers, they are fighting unlimitedly, and the war is going on for many years. Just like last war we saw at least eight years it continued. Eight years, six years, no. The Battle of Kurukṣetra, it was finished within eighteen days. There is no use of prolonging the war unnecessarily. If the chief man is killed, then war is finished.
Therefore Kṛṣṇa is advising Arjuna that, "Suppose your grandfather on the other side dies, so where is the cause of lamentation? He's old man. He will get another, new body. So you should be, rather, happy that your old grandfather is going to have a new body." Jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyuḥ. "And everyone will die. You die today or tomorrow, or, say, fifty years after, you have to die. It is as sure as death. So why should you deviate from your duty? You are a kṣatriya. Your duty is to fight. Why you are afraid of being dead or killing others? This is your duty."
- avyaktādīni bhūtāni
- vyakta-madhyāni bhārata
- avyakta-nidhanāny eva
- tatra kā paridevanā
- (BG 2.28)
So the body was not existing before, and it will not exist after death. So in the via media, if the manifestation of body is there, so why it should be the object of lamentation? In this way, Kṛṣṇa is trying to convince Arjuna that he should act as kṣatriya and perform his duty.
A kṣatriya is profited, either dead or alive. That will be explained. Because in a . . . in a fighting, I mean to say, real religious fighting, on principle it is . . . a kṣatriya is not responsible for killing. Just like in sacrificial ceremony, if the animal is killed, the brāhmin is not responsible for killing an animal. So because it is duty, it is ordained by the śāstras, therefore they are not ordinary killing. Avyakta-nidhanāny eva tatra kā pari . . . "It was nonmanifested before, and it will become nonmanifested again. So why should you lament for the via media?"
- āścaryavat paśyati kaścit enam
- āścaryavad vadati tathaiva cānyaḥ
- āścaryavac cainam anyaḥ śṛṇoti
- śrutvāpy enaṁ veda na caiva kaścit
- (BG 2.29)
There are many theories and philosophical speculation all over the world about understanding the soul. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is concluding that, "Somebody's explaining wonderfully, somebody is hearing wonderfully, but even after hearing and speaking, it remains a mystery, and less intelligent person cannot understand it."
That is the fact. There are so many theories. Therefore we have to accept the reality from the authority. By theorizing, by speculating, we cannot come into any decision. I may be very good logician. You may be greater logician. So you can defeat my logic; I can defeat your logic. So what is the conclusion? This kind of talking, it is called ku-tarka, unnecessarily talking, because you'll not come to my decision, I'll not come to your decision. So everyone is mysterious.
So in this way we cannot understand which is beyond the perception of our knowledge. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are beyond our perception, you . . . we should not simply try to understand by logic and argument. It is useless waste of time, because nobody can decide theory.
The modern so-called scientists, they also write like that, "Perhaps," "It may be," like that. "It may be millions of years. It was like this." "It may be." What is the value of saying "It may be." Say definitely. That they cannot do. All the scientists' theory like "Perhaps," "Maybe." "Perchance, if it comes to be true . . ." So such kind of argument has no value.
Therefore our śāstra says, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvāḥ. Beyond your perception, beyond your sense perception, don't try to understand it by argument and logic. Then how to know it? Know it from the person who knows it. That is knowledge. Just like we are trying to get knowledge about the soul, not by experiment, but we are trying to understand from the words of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the authority. So He says, in the beginning, dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā (BG 2.13). We can . . . Kṛṣṇa says, and we can think over it and ponder over it. Then we come to conclusion. And the other process, Vedic process, is:
- yasya deve parā bhaktir
- yathā deve tathā gurau
- tasyaite kathitā hy arthāḥ
- prakāśante mahātmanaḥ
- (ŚU 6.23)
Our process is descending process. We are not trying to understand by the ascending process. Inductive or deductive. We accept the statements of the Vedas. Therefore we haven't got to make much effort to understand the thing. Veda-vacana. Śruti, śruti-pramāṇa. There are three kinds of evidences: direct perception, and evidence from the Vedas, and evidence from history. Aitihya. Pratyakṣa, aitihya, śruti. Three kinds of evidences.
So pratyakṣa and aitihya is neglected. According to our Vedic system, śruti-pramāṇa, if it is statement, the statement is there in the śruti, in the Vedas, then we accept. We have got a society in India, they call veda-pramāṇa: "We cannot accept without it is not mentioned in the Vedas." That's a . . . that's nice. But there is another class, who are described in the Bhagavad-gītā by Kṛṣṇa Himself: veda-vāda-ratāḥ. They are simply unnecessarily fight on the basis of so-called Vedic knowledge. Vedic knowledge must be understood from the guru. That is injunction. They defy that. They . . .
The Vedic injunction is . . . Kaṭhopaniśad. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). You . . . to understand the Vedas, you must approach a guru. Otherwise, you cannot understand. Just like it is forbidden that without becoming a brāhmin, nobody should read Vedas. Because he cannot understand. Unless one is qualified brāhmin, unless one has approached another qualified brāhmin who knows, there is no question of understanding Vedas. Just like Max Mueller translated Veda. What does he know about Veda? Such kinds of translation, understanding, is useless.
Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet. Abhigacchet means "He must!" There is not that "I may go or I may not." No, you must, if you really serious. In our vaiṣṇava-paramparā also—vaiṣṇava-paramparā is actually Vedic paramparā—that ādau gurvāśrayam. Ādau gurvāśrayam: "To enter into the spiritual life, first thing is first of all to accept a guru." That is . . . all big, big stalwarts . . .
Even Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva, the wonderful literature, this reading. We are reading Bhagavad-gītā. It is Vyāsadeva's literature. He heard from Kṛṣṇa and wrote it. And not only this—the Mahābhārata, the Puranas, the Vedānta-sūtra and the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Wonderful literatures. There is no possibility of producing such literature by any scholar of these days. It is not possible. But he accepted guru, Nārada, Nārada Muni.
When, after compiling all the Vedas and Puranas, even Vedānta-sūtra, Vyāsadeva was not satisfied himself, he was seeming very morose. At that time his spiritual master, Nārada, came, and he asked that, "Why you are morose? You have done so much nice literary work. So why you are not very happy?" So Vyāsadeva replied: "Yes, my lord, I am actually not happy, but I cannot understand why I'm not happy. So you know everything. Kindly describe why I am not happy."
So at that time, Nārada replied him that, "All the literatures you have so far made, they are with reference to the body and the mind. You have nothing described very nicely about the Supreme Soul. So now you try to describe something about the Supreme Lord, about the Supreme Soul. That will make you happy."
Therefore he described the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. This is the history of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And his last contribution was, mature contribution, was Vedānta-sūtra. So from the Vedānta-sūtra, he began writing Śrīmad-Bhāgavata: janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). This is the beginning of Vedānta-sūtra. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. He said, in a different language, jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā.
So a human life should be engaged inquiring about the Absolute Truth, and he should inquire from a person who . . . who has heard about the Absolute Truth from a realized person. This is a . . . therefore it is called śruti, paramparā, disciplic succession. One . . . just like Vyāsadeva is hearing from Nārada. Nārada is authorized. He has heard from Brahmā. Brahmā has heard from Kṛṣṇa. So this is the paramparā system, disciplic succession.
So there are four paramparā systems. They are known as, at the present moment, Rāmānuja-sampradāya, Brahmā-sampra . . . Brahmā-samprada . . . yes, Madhva-sampradāya, Brahmā-sampradāya, Madhva-sampradāya, the same, and Rudra-sampradāya and Śrī-samp . . . Śrī, Rāma, Kumāra-sampradāya. There is four sampradāyas. So we should hear from the sampradāya-ācārya by disciplic succession. As Kṛṣṇa recommends in this Bhagavad-gītā: evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2).
- imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ
- proktavān aham avyayam
- vivasvān manave prāha
- manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt
- (BG 4.1)
Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ. So that is the system. We should receive knowledge by the bona fide, paramparā system. Otherwise it may be bogus. Because without paramparā system, we cannot understand actual fact. And we have to become in the disciplic succession. We must accept a guru. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam (SB 11.3.21). If you are actually eager, anxious to understand the spiritual science, then you must approach a guru. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam.
Uttama means transcendental subject matter. You cannot learn it. Just like if you purchase one pharmacology book from the bookseller's shop, and if you read, at home, do you mean that you become a medical practitioner, pharmacist? No. You must go to the university, you must go to the college. You must hear the experienced professor and learn it and practically experiment it. Then you can learn. Not that by purchasing a book you become a medical practitioner or lawyer. That is not possible. Therefore the direction is that tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12): "Must."
Here also we see, Kṛṣṇa in the beginning was talking with Arjuna just like friends. But when Arjuna understood it that, "We are talking like friends, so we cannot come into conclusion . . ." The friend, they talk, they argue, they put logic. In that way, we cannot understand. Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Then? Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet. So therefore Arjuna surrendered himself: śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7).
Kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ. "I, I can understand that I am a kṣatriya. It is my duty to fight. But in front of my grandfather and relatives, I am declining to fight. Therefore I am affected with kārpaṇya-doṣa. I am deviating from my duty. So why I am deviating from this duty? Therefore I am surrendering myself unto You."
So in a position of perplexity, one must approach a bona fide spiritual master. That is the process, Vedic process. Otherwise, it is not possible. And our Sanātana Gosvāmī, our predecessor, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's direct disciple, he gives his direction that avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇa-pūta-hari-kathāmṛtam, śravaṇaṁ na kartavyam. He says. He says: "Do not hear from a person who is not a Vaiṣṇava." He must . . . one must become a Vaiṣṇava. Otherwise, his so-called ideas and interpretation has no value. Has no value.
Just like in your country, South India, Dr. Radhakrishnan, he has done so many works. But to tell you frankly, it is useless labor. Because he has said in one of his writing that Bhagavad-gītā is mental speculation. He is surpassing all the ācāryas who came, who appeared, in South India.
Rāmānujācārya appeared in South India, Madhvācārya appeared in South India. Nimbārka appeared in South India. Viṣṇu Svāmī appeared in South India. Śaṅkarācārya appeared in South India. South India is so blessed. And he also appeared in South India—he's decrying all the ācāryas. Just see the position.
He says: "Bhagavad-gītā is a mental speculation," and he has interpreted in a different way. Kṛṣṇa says that man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). And if you have seen Dr. Radhakrishnan's translation of Bhagavad-gītā, he says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa says directly that man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ. He says, "Not to Kṛṣṇa." You'll see.
So this defect will be there, unless one is sadācāra-sampanna-vaiṣṇava, self-realized. Therefore Sanātana Gosvāmī says, avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇa-pūta-hari-kathāmṛtam. Our first guru is Kṛṣṇa. To understand Bhagavad-gītā . . . Arjuna is understanding that Bhagavad-gītā from Kṛṣṇa directly.
So after understanding Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān, puruṣaṁ sāśvatam ādyam (BG 10.12). These are the words. And Arjuna also accepted, "It is very, very difficult to understand Your personality."
Now people may say that Arjuna was Kṛṣṇa's friend. To satisfy his friend, he has accepted Him as paraṁ brahma. But that is not the fact. Arjuna gives evidences that "Not only I, but the great authorities like Vyāsa, Nārada, Asita, Devala, they have also accepted You as the Supreme Personality of Godhead." In the recent ages . . .
This is five thousand years ago. Even one thousand, five hundred . . . Śaṅkarācārya, who is impersonalist, he has also accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa. He has written in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ avyakta, avyaktāt, para avyaktāt. Nārāyaṇaḥ para avyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa is not a creation of this material world. He's transcendental." He has accepted.
And what to speak of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, all—they have written so many nice commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā, Brahmā-sūtra, establishing that the Supreme Absolute Truth is person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa is speaking as person, and He is warning the rascals, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11): "Because I am speaking as a human being, the rascals, they deride." Paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ. "They do not know what is My influence, what is My power."
So this Personality of Godhead . . . it is a fact. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). The last word is Bhagavān. From Bhagavān, the expansion is Paramātmā, localized aspect. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe arjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). That is expansion. Ekāṁśena sthito jagat (BG 10.42).
That is one of the plenary portions. Viṣṭabhya aham. He enters within this universe, and therefore the universe becomes manifest. Just like I am soul, dehino 'smin yathā dehe (BG 2.13); I enter into this body. You enter into your body. Therefore the body expands. Similarly, the Supreme Personality of Godhead enters as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu within each and every universe. Then it becomes manifest. So there is no question of impersonal. The original source is person. Kṛṣṇa says:
- ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
- mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
- iti matvā bhajante māṁ
- budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ
- (BG 10.8)
Budha, not the abudha. Abudha means less intelligent. Those who are intelligent, budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ, with a bhāva, with an ecstatic position, can understand that Kṛṣṇa is the original person. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ. Sarvasya means including Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara, all the devatās. Aham ādir hi devānām (BG 10.2). He is the original source of all the devas, the original devas within this . . . Brahmā is the first deva in the first creation.
(aside) What is that?
So aham ādir hi devānām. The Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara. So He's the origin of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara. From Kṛṣṇa, for material creation, there are three puruṣa. First of all, three puruṣa. Not directly from Kṛṣṇa. From Kṛṣṇa, Baladeva.
From Baladeva, catur-vyūha: Saṅkarṣaṇa . . . Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, Aniruddha. Then from Saṅkarṣaṇa, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Nārāyaṇa. Then second catur-vyūha. From the second catur-vyūha Saṅkarṣaṇa, the puruṣa-avatāras, three puruṣa-avatāras, three Viṣṇus: Kāraṇodakaśāyī, Garbhodakaśāyī and Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu.
So the . . . in the Vedic literature all these informations are there. And as Kṛṣṇa says, personally, also . . . Arjuna accepted that, "I accept, on the authority of Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Devala, Asita, You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and You also speaking directly. Then where is my doubt?"
So we should follow . . . this is called paramparā system. As Arjuna understood Bhagavad-gītā, if we understand that way, then we are perfect. I may be imperfect, but because I understand Bhagavad-gītā as it was understood by Arjuna, I am perfect. Because the knowledge I am distributing, that is not imperfect. Just like a post peon. A post peon is delivering you one thousand dollars.
So he may be poor man, but the one thousand dollar he is delivering, that is a fact; that is not bogus. Because he has not manufactured something. He has received that money order from the post office. He's asked to deliver it to such-and-such person. His honesty is to deliver the money order as it is to the bona fide person. That is his perfection. He doesn't require . . . because he's delivering one thousand dollar, he doesn't require to become a very rich man. He may be a poor man.
Similarly, a guru, a guru is perfect when he delivers the words of the superior authority as it is. Then he's perfect. He may be imperfect in your estimation. But that is his perfection, that he is not misleading people by becoming a so-called rascal scholar and interpreting in a different way and misleading the whole population. That is perfection. People say so much about me, that I have done some wonderful thing. But I say that I am not a magician. I'm not a magician. My only credit is that I am presenting Kṛṣṇa as He is. That's all. I am not diluting Kṛṣṇa. That is not my business.
And therefore, because it is pure, pure ghee, therefore everyone accepts. And if you place dalda, mixing with ghee some rascal thing, then nobody will accept. Therefore, so many svāmīs went before me in the Western countries, and they presented adulterated, and there was not a single person became a kṛṣṇa-bhakta. Now, by thousands they are becoming. Why? Because it is presented pure thing.
Pure thing will be accepted everywhere. I give this example. In a, in Delhi, there is . . . I have seen, one, there is confectioner's shop. He rigidly prepares in pure ghee all the sweetmeats. So you'll find always hundreds of customers there. And there are by the side of that, there is dalda manufacture. It is not . . . people are still prepared to pay sufficiently if you give pure thing.
So our this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it. We have not manufactured anything. While I started this movement in America, some friend suggested that, "You are writing 'International Society for Krishna Consciousness'? Why not make it 'God consciousness.' It will be accepted by everyone." No. God is Kṛṣṇa. There must . . . there must be clearly stated: "Krishna consciousness." I don't mind if nobody accepts it, but there must be 'Kṛṣṇa.'
So actually it is very happy that Western countries, they are accepting Kṛṣṇa. Why not? Kṛṣṇa is for everyone. Kṛṣṇa is Go . . . Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya (BG 14.4): "In all forms of life, the living entities, they are My part and parcel. They are my sons. I am the father, original."
Bīja-pradaḥ pitā. So why Kṛṣṇa will not be accepted? And actually that is happening. They are coming from different groups, but because every one of us is Kṛṣṇa's son, Kṛṣṇa's part and parcel, therefore simply it requires a little attentive hearing about Kṛṣṇa. Śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya. Sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adhaḥ (Brs. 1.2.234).
In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said, śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya (CC Madhya 22.107). Kṛṣṇa is there, in everyone's heart. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānām (BG 18.61). But we do not know. But Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa consciousness can be awakened simply by hearing from the realized person.
Satāṁ prasaṅgān mama vīrya-saṁvido bhavanti hṛt-karṇa-rasāyanāḥ kathāḥ (SB 3.25.25). Satāṁ prasaṅgāt. From the lips of devotee when it is heard, then it becomes hṛt-karṇa-rasāyana: it becomes very pleasing to the ear and to the heart. Taj-joṣaṇāt, if one cultivates in that way, āśu apavarga-vartmani śraddhā bhaktir ratir anukramiṣyati. These are the formulas.
So the process should be to receive the knowledge by disciplic succession, not sporadically hearing sometimes this scholar, hearing sometimes this scholar. "I interpret in my scholarship." No. This thing will not. Our process is, as directed by Sanātana Gosvāmī, avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇa-pūta-hari-kathāmṛtam. Hari-kathā is amṛta. Amṛta. But still, it should not be received when it is uttered by some avaiṣṇava.
There is another direction: avaiṣṇavo gurur na sa syāt. Sat-karma-nipuṇo vipro mantra-tantra-viśāradaḥ (Padma Purāṇa). A person, a brāhmin, sat-karma-nipuṇaḥ. brāhmin's business is become to become scholar and to make others scholar. Paṭhana pāṭhana, yajana yājana. He must be a worshiper and he must teach others how to worship. Paṭhana pāṭhana yajana yājana dāna pratigraha. brāhmin should receive charity and he makes immediately distribute the charity.
So these, these are the occupational duty of brāhmin. Paṭhana pāṭhana. Sat-karma, sat-karma-nipuṇaḥ. A brāhmin, he is very expert in his business, sat-karma. Sat-karma-nipuṇo mantra-tantra-viśāradaḥ. And he has read the Vedic literatures and tantras very nicely. Viśārada. Still, if he's not a Vaiṣṇava, then avaiṣṇava gurur na sa syāt.
By that only qualification, that he's not a Vaiṣṇava, he cannot become guru, whereas, on the other's hand, sad-vaiṣṇavaḥ śva-pacaḥ guru. If a person, śva-pacaḥ—śva-pacaḥ means coming of the family of dog-eaters, caṇḍāla—if he has become a Vaiṣṇava, sadācāra-sampanna-vaiṣṇava, sa guruḥ syāt, you can accept him as guru. There are so many instances. Śrīman Rāmānujācārya's guru was not from a brāhmin family, but still, he accepted guru.
So in the Vaiṣṇava literature . . . just like Haridāsa Ṭhākura. Haridāsa Ṭhākura, we give "Jaya. Ṭhākura Haridāsa Ṭhākura ki jaya," we say. This Haridāsa Ṭhākura was born in a Muhammadan family. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu made him Nāmācārya Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He was chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra daily three hundred thousands of times. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu selected him nāmācārya. Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself came to broadcast the glory of Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. So instead of becoming Himself the ācārya, He designated Haridāsa Ṭhākura as ācārya.
And similarly, Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, they also became Muhammadans. They were born in Hindu Sārasvata brāhmin family, but due to their association as minister of the then Muslim government, they were rejected from the brāhmin society. Formerly, the brāhmin society was very strict.
Anyone becoming serving, serving, servant, he is immediately excluded: "Oh, you cannot become a brāhmin. You are serving." In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also, by the, spoken by Nārada, he says a brāhmin, if he's in difficulty, he should not accept the business of a dog, service. He should not accept service. He may go to the profession of a kṣatriya, or even up to vaiśya, not of a śūdra. These are the injunctions.
So they were strictly being followed. These Sanātana Gosvāmī, they were very learned scholar, in Sanskrit, in Arabic language, Persian language, but because they accepted the ministership of Nawab Hussain Shah, immediately they were rejected. And they changed their name. Almost they became Muslim. Sākara Mallika, Dabira Khāsa. Their name was that. These are Muhammadan names. So they were living like that. But when Caitanya Mahāprabhu blessed them, they became the first-class gosvāmī: Rūpa Gosvāmī, Sanātana Gosvāmī. This is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's mercy.
And He therefore said, pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi-grāma (CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126). He asked to spread this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world, in every village, in every town. Does he mean that let them become śūdras? Let them remain śūdras, and they become Kṛṣṇa conscious? No. He did not mean like that. That means everywhere there should be Vaiṣṇava. And a Vaiṣṇava means above brāhmin. That is the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.
Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa. (break)
(answering question) Because you are here. It is for you. For us. "You" means you, me. Because we wanted to enjoy, we became . . . we wanted to lord it over the material nature, therefore God has given you the facility that, "You enjoy." But just to make you convinced that we cannot enjoy, we become enjoyed.
This conviction, when you come to this conviction, that we cannot enjoy, we become enjoyed, at that time we seek after God. That is natural. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. So God has created this material world because we wanted it. That is the philosophy . . . (break) . . . your opinion, why God has created? Eh?
Indian man: No, I am not . . . (indistinct)
Prabhupāda: But the . . . no, the trouble must be there because God has created this world for your enjoyment and for my enjoyment, there therefore must be struggle. Because I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me. So why there shall not be trouble? Because everyone, if everyone . . . just like in office, if everyone wants to become the proprietor, will not there be confusion and chaos? Do you think the office will go on nicely?
Similarly, here, God has given you chance to become master because you wanted. But everyone wants to be master. There is chaos. How there can be harmony when everyone wants to become God? Do you think it is all right? There must be chaos. Here is the position. Everyone in the material world, first of all, they want to become big man, big businessman, big, big this, big that, minister, president; and when everything is failure, then he wants to become God. That is the last snare of māyā.
So this is going on. How you can expect peace and prosperity here? That is not possible. Duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam (BG 8.15). It is stated by Kṛṣṇa Himself that this is a place only for misery, but under the influence of māyā, we are accepting all miserable conditions of life as happiness. This is called māyā.
Indian man (2): Who is a real brāhmin?
Prabhupāda: Who is qualified. Satya śama dama titikṣā ārjava āstikyam jñānam vijñānam (BG 18.42). When one has acquired all these qualities, then he becomes brāhmin.
Indian man (3): Caitanya Mahāprabhu (Hindi) . . . (break)
Prabhupāda: . . . come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Sa guṇān samatītyaitān brahma-bhūyāya kalpate. Māṁ ca 'vyabhicāreṇa bhakti-yogena yaḥ sevate (BG 14.26). Unless we come to that platform of bhakti-yoga and become re-related, not related, again revive our Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we . . . there cannot be equality. That is not possible. There must be distinction: some higher class, some middle class, some lower class. Even in European countries, there are, in America there are, so are in India.
So it is not very astonishing. Because the whole world is being conducted . . . the whole material nature is being conducted by the three guṇas, and anyone associating with a particular type of guṇa, he must suffer or enjoy according to that guṇas. Jaghanya-guṇa-vṛtti-sthā adho gacchanti tāmasāḥ. Tāmasa, they, those who are in the tāmasika-guṇa, they go adhaḥ. Madhye tiṣṭhanti rājasāḥ.
And via media, those who are in touch with the rajo-guṇa. And ūrdhvaṁ gacchanti sattva-sthāḥ (BG 14.18), those who are in the goodness, they go up, in the upper platform of the society or in the universe. But Kṛṣṇa says, ābrahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥ punar āvartino 'rjuna (BG 8.16). Either you go even to the Brahmaloka, one day you have come to the hellish loka. This is the way.
So some . . . cakravat parivartante sukhāni ca duḥkhāni ca. Just like the wheel turns round, sometimes up, sometimes down, so this is the position of this material world. There is no question of lamenting. You cannot say: "These people are suffering and that people are enjoying." The man who is enjoying, he'll also suffer next moment. This is going on, suffering and enjoying.
Unless we come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is no way of coming out of this duality of this world. This is duality. Everything you'll find in dual. Unless there is happiness, you cannot understand what is distress. And unless there is distress, you cannot understand happiness. You cannot understand light unless there is darkness. So this is the world of darkness and light, so-called light. You have to transcend. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9).
So we have to make arrangement. That facility is there to every human being, how he can get out of this world of duality and come to the transcendental platform, which is called avyabhicāriṇī-bhakti-yoga.
- māṁ ca yo 'vyabhicāreṇa
- bhakti-yogena sevate
- sa guṇān samatītyaitān
- brahma-bhūyāya kalpate
- (BG 14.26)
That is required. (break)
Indian man (4): . . . to know how to awaken kuṇḍalinī, and how to have permanent state of awakened kuṇḍalinī.
Prabhupāda: Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. (laughter) That's all. (break) Thank you.
Indian man (4): Cārvāka not to believe God at all.
Prabhupāda: Eh? What is that?
Indian man (4): Cārvāka, Cārvāka . . .
Indian man (4): And what was . . . (indistinct) . . . and secondly, the god among the daśāvatāras, Buddha accepted, supposed to be one avatāra. Buddha never told any idol worship, or any Rāma and Kṛṣṇa worshiping. And particularly one . . . (indistinct) . . . or holy place. And will never accept in such a way, how to believe and what to believe and what is the temples.
Prabhupāda: So you reject everything. (laughter) That's all right. That is the way. That is very nice process. You reject everything. Because you are doubt in everything, so you reject everything. That's all right.
Indian man (5): (indistinct) . . . even Lord Buddha . . . (break) . . . these are the contradictory.
Prabhupāda: Hmm. Therefore our philosophy is acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Acintya, inconceivable. Just like you are trying to conceive that whole world is God, and still, God is not there. That is spoken by God Himself, Kṛṣṇa: mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ (BG 9.4). Mayā tatam idam, avyakta-mūrtinā. So this impersonal feature, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti (SB 1.2.11), the impersonal feature is Brahman. Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. That means sarvedam akhilaṁ jagat, parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ sarvedam akhilaṁ jagat.
Just like the sunshine. You are in the sunshine. That is a practical faith. The sunshine is not different from the sun. The sun is ninety-three millions of miles away, but still, because you are in the sunshine, you are in sun. Can you deny it? That is the thing. You are in the sunshine. The sunshine is not different from the sun. But still, it is not the sun. This is the philosophy, inconceivably, simultaneously one and different. The sunshine is not different from the sun, but still, it is different.
Similarly, the whole manifested . . . the cosmic manifestation is God, but still He is . . . it is not God. This is, therefore, it is called inconceivable, acintya. With our teeny brain, we cannot accommodate how it is one and different. Therefore it is called acintya. Acintya-bhedābheda: different and separate, simultaneously. Everything.
Idaṁ hi viśvo bhagavān ivetaraḥ (SB 1.5.20). The whole world is Bhagavān, but it appears different from Bhagavān. So how? To a mahā-bhāgavata, who understands actually what is Bhagavān, he does not see any difference, because he, everywhere he sees his worshipable Deity, Kṛṣṇa. He does not see anything. I am seeing a tree, but a devotee is seeing tree, "No, it is the energy of Kṛṣṇa." Immediately he remembers Kṛṣṇa and worships Him.
So this is higher stage of realization of God, how the inconceivable things, simultaneously one and different, can be perceived. Therefore, there are three stages of devotional life: kaniṣṭhādhikārī, madhyamādhikārī and uttamādhikārī. So to become uttamādhikārī, it is not so easy, but we are generally in the kaniṣṭhādhikārī. But we shall try to come to the madhyamādhikārī. Then our life will be successful.
Indian man (6): That is correct, Swāmī. As you have told, . . . (indistinct) . . . he said we have no suffering. He suffered for others . . . (indistinct) . . . We should not condemn them. We should pray to the Lord that we may take . . .
Prabhupāda: No. No devotee condemns anything. But when he does not . . . just like when . . . father always gives, always merciful to his son, but if the son is very obstinate, he gives him a slap. (break) (end)