730813 - Conversation C - Paris
(Discussion about Guru Maharaji)
Prabhupāda: Is it not?
Prabhupāda: So what is the evidence that he is God? Anyone can say: "I am God." Then, anyone will be accepted as God?
Haṁsadūta: Well, I think they take it just on the strength of this, whatever it is, experiences that they have. When they become initiated, they get some kind of an experience. So . . .
Prabhupāda: What is that experience?
Haṁsadūta: They say they see some light and . . .
Prabhupāda: Light-seeing means he becomes God?
Haṁsadūta: Well, people are so . . . that's the . . .
Prabhupāda: Then you have to make propaganda against that, that simply pushing two eyes . . . anyone can push two eyes and there is natural some light. Is that the proof that he has become God? You are so foolish. And you say that God is . . . God has created the universe. So what he has created? What he has done, wonderful thing, that simply by pushing your eyes you see some light, and you become God? You have become so foolish, European brain? You have no intelligence. Preach against him. What is the proof that he is God?
Now, those who do not know anything about God, they can be convinced. Just like—what is called?—agnostic. The agnostic . . . sometimes we say that there is a creator because everything, just we say, that everything, whatever we have got in our experience, it is created. So this gigantic universe or one or many, there must be one creator. This is one hypothesis. So that creator, if I accept this man, whether he can create something, such wonderful? Has he done so? In this way, you have to make propaganda.
So far our position is, we accept God Kṛṣṇa, on the authority, as well as by the action. Both. We, we make hypothesis that there must be a creator. Vedānta says, "Yes, there is a creator." And Kṛṣṇa says, He says: "I am the creator of everything." And when He was at . . . on this planet, He did so many wonderful things. And He is accepted by big, big stalwarts. Just like Arjuna accepts. He heard Bhagavad-gītā. So before that, Nārada accepts, Vyāsadeva accepts, great . . . later on, big, big ācāryas accept. So these are the proof. But what proof he can give that he's God, that we shall accept him God? Simply he shows some light. We have to make some propaganda. That will be our propaganda. And he has to be . . . if we remain silent, then whatever he says, that means we are accepting.
So we should not allow this man to grow popularity. We must make propaganda wherever meeting is there. "I can kick on the face of this God. I can urine on the face of . . ." What can he do? Like that. Let him come. If he's God, then let him kill me by his power. When I go to kick on his face, let him stop me. Then I shall accept that he's God. So why don't you do that? He's saying "God." You just kick on his face, if he can do something. In this way, make some counterpropaganda. If we allow him to go on, then so many people falsely being misled.
Śrutakīrti: Someone showed me a small article in the newspaper the other day in London. At one of his meetings he was speaking, and someone walked up to him like he was going to hand him a bouquet of flowers, and instead he threw a pie in his face. (laughter)
Śrutakīrti: He threw a pie in his face. He appeared like he was going to give him something, but he put a pie in his face.
Haṁsadūta: A pie is a cake.
Śrutakīrti: A cake.
Haṁsadūta: An apple cake . . .
Śrutakīrti: Pastry, pushed it in his face.
Prabhupāda: Therefore he became God?
Śrutakīrti: No. Therefore, I don't think he's very widely accepted as God.
Prabhupāda: No. That's all right. But whatever propaganda, little, he has made, we must make some counterpropaganda. We must prove him . . . simply pushing eyes, pushing eyes. And anyone can push one's eyes and there is some light within. That is called retina light or . . . what is called? And he has become God. At least, we, we should not allow the people to be in darkness and accept him as God.
We have got our meeting. We shall say that he is a rascal. Call him by all ill names. A cheater. He does not believe in the authoritative scripture. And he has become God? What he has done? How you have become so foolish? God has created the universe. What he has created? A cake, creating, he's God?
Haṁsadūta: A what?
Prabhupāda: He has created one cake?
Śrutakīrti: No, no. No.
Haṁsadūta: No, you misunderstood the point.
Śrutakīrti: One person walked up to him and he threw a pie in his face—as an insult, as insulting him.
Prabhupāda: Oh. The man insulted him.
Prabhupāda: So he should be insulted everywhere. Our men should go and do that, pie. (laughter) And when you have to . . . (indistinct) . . . "He's God, why can't you protect?" He should have been killed. We have no such power. Otherwise, I would have obliged to kill him. Anyone says: "God," he should be killed. That is the example given by Kṛṣṇa. He should be killed. No other remedy. Only kill him. That's all. Then this false propaganda will stop. Just like the Christians saying: "Jesus Christ, God." And how God can be killed by crucification?
We do not discuss this point, but actually this is the fact. He was empowered man, that we can understand. But we cannot accept him God. In our history, God is never killed; God kills others. That we have got evidence. And ordinary men, they took him and crucified, and nobody, other, of the opposite party was killed. So that makes a little difference. So far son of God, that we accept. Everyone is son of God. We accept him śaktyāveśa avatāra, a living entity especially powered from God. That we can accept. So son of God, we can accept. That is another thing.
And where is the evidence in the śāstras that God was killed? Big, big giant, God fought them and killed them. Rāvaṇa, Hiraṇyakaśipu, Kaṁsa. Very, very great giant and demon. And God was never killed by them. Is it not? Yes. Prahlāda Mahārāja said that, "What is this material power? My father was so materially strong, even demigods, Indra, Candra, they were afraid. And You killed him within a moment. So what is the use of this material power?" And the God could not kill these crucifiers? As soon as they attempted to kill, there would have . . . he has . . . would have fought. He had to show some power. And they say that he agreed to take all our sin, and he crucified. Is it not? They say?
Haṁsadūta: Yes, this is the idea.
Prabhupāda: So God could not . . . Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣa . . . (BG 18.66). That God can, without dying Himself, He can immediately and, I mean to say, vanquish all sinful action. Why He should be killed for that purpose? Just like the Pūtanā gave Kṛṣṇa poison. But Pūtanā was killed, and Kṛṣṇa was never ki . . . Kṛṣṇa cannot be killed by poison. Even Kṛṣṇa's devotees are not killed by poison. Prahlāda Mahārāja.
If we discuss in detail, we create animosities. Therefore we do not discuss, because Christian religion is followed by large number. We do not wish to make . . . we say: "Yes. He says 'Son of God,' we accept it." That's all. To accept a person God, that requires great evidences from śāstra, especially. And when He's present, He will prove the statement of the śāstra. Then we accept Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as God. There are evidences . . . (break) We should not allow anybody to pass on as God, because we are presenting real God. We must make process. The real process is to kill him. But that much power we haven't got. We cannot do that. Otherwise, we would have done so. Nobody should be allowed to claim as God. And severe punishment for him. Kṛṣṇa has shown this example. (break)
We explain two, three lines from Bhāgavatam—how much people appreciated. So we have to preach like that, the substance. Not the sentiment. But if we cannot, the saṅkīrtana is sufficient.
(break) . . . anumāna-pramāṇa. Anumāna, hypothesy, and pramāṇa, śāstra-pramāṇa. Śruti-pramāṇa, evidences from the Vedas, evidences from authorized persons. And anumāna also. That is not good evidence, but even if you take anumāna, that if I make . . . this table is created by somebody. That is all right. But to find out that somebody is still further progress. Similarly, we have to accept that this gigantic universe . . . as I said, that what is the purpose? If there is purpose, whose purpose? Who is acting?
In this way, we have to make progress. We are passing on, on the street. If I say: "Here is a big building. So someone is proprietor," this is one guess. But to know the proprietor, how he has constructed it, that is another thing. But if somebody says: "I am the proprietor," and we accept, immediately. Similarly, if someone says: "I am God," there is no need of evidence. "I am God." The people have to accept like that? There is no need of śāstra. Huh?
How much degraded people have become that without any little evidence, they're accepting a rascal as God. How much degraded they have become. That is another proof. Because he has shown, by pushing the eyes, a light. That's all . . . we have to see that how much degraded the persons have be . . . they have no even brain. What are the evidence? That he showed some light, and what else?
Haṁsadūta: Some music.
Prabhupāda: Some music.
Haṁsadūta: They hear some music.
Prabhupāda: Just see. That is the evidence of God. Where is in the śāstra that by pushing eyes, Kṛṣṇa showed some light and somebody . . .? He never did with Arjuna like that. He showed His gigantic universal form, but He never showed some light. So what is this nonsense? So we must make some propa . . . counterpropaganda. Because you spoke several things about him, but you did not make any counterpropaganda upon him. You have studied him, but you have never made any counterpropaganda.
Haṁsadūta: Well, we have, whenever they come, whenever we meet them.
Prabhupāda: No, whenever you are meeting, "This rascal is going on as God. This is mistaken. What profit . . .?" You have to speak there. What proof is there? So consult with Bhagavān dāsa and begin this propaganda. I have no time . . . therefore, I say: "I do not know this man." That's all right. To avoid.
But in a meeting, and you are doing saṅkīrtana. People are coming, talking with you. So you make some propaganda, counterpropaganda. Although, practically, he'll be finished; there is no doubt. Two, three years. The Mahesh Yogi also became very famous . . . no-one cares for him now. (end)