701213 - Lecture SB 06.01.22-25 - Indore

Lectures by Date, 1970

His Divine Grace
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 Listen to a 'Nectar Drop' created from this lecture

701213SB-INDORE - December 13, 1970 - 65:32 Minutes

Haṁsadūta: (introducing recording) The following lecture was recorded the morning of the 13th December, 1970.

Prabhupāda: So Gītā Bhavan is also imitating?

Haṁsadūta: They're also getting up earlier.

Prabhupāda: Earlier?

Haṁsadūta: I don't know. (laughs)

Prabhupāda: So this is very important point, Śukadeva Gosvāmī says. This is authority that, naṣṭa-sadācāro dāsyāḥ saṁsarga-dūṣitaḥ (SB 6.1.21). As soon as there will be contamination of illicit sex life, he will be bereft of all good character. This basic principle. And the whole world is now encouraged in that way. So how we can expect good character from the modern man? There is no possibility, if we accept this statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam given by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, naṣṭa-sadācāro dāsyāḥ saṁsarga-dūṣitaḥ.

So Ajāmila, being contaminated by that illicit sex life with a prostitute, he lost all his brahminical qualifications, and gradually he was in need of money. Just like the other day I gave you the instance of a big high-court judge, because he was also of that type. I know his private character. He was most debauched, and therefore he wanted money, ten thousand rupees per month. And in spite of his position as a high-court judge and getting four thousand, five thousand salary, he could not check from his falldown.

So this is natural. If you indulge in illicit sex life and naturally other things, intoxication, gambling, then there will be no limit of expenditure. And to meet all those expenditure one has to adopt cheating or stealing. These processes has to be.

Woman: . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: But, Kal tum udhar pahunchi thi hum dekha tha, mene dekhi hai. (Yesterday you reached there, I had seen.) . . . (indistinct Hindi) . . . Tum gayi thi udhar, nahi? (You went there, didn't you?)

Woman: Nahi main nahi, wo dusri ladki thi. (No it wasn't me, that was another girl.)

Prabhupāda: Nahi, aur ek ladki ko dekha tha bilkul tumhari jaisa. (I saw another girl just like you.) (laughing) So by any means money wanted. So he adopted all disrespectful professions—cheating, gambling and stealing, any way to live.

bandy-akṣaiḥ kaitavaiś cauryair

garhitāṁ vṛttim āsthitaḥ

bibhrat kuṭumbam aśucir

yātayām āsa dehinaḥ

(SB 6.1.22)

The only attraction is family, kuṭumba. So for the sake of maintaining family, he was committing all kinds of sinful activity.

So there was one Ajāmila at that time, but you will find many Ajāmilas like that at the present moment, because it is the age of Kali. There was one Rāvaṇa. In the dress of a sannyāsī he kidnapped Lord Rāmacandra's wife. And nowadays you will find many Rāvaṇas like that. You see? The so-called sannyāsīs, their business is to . . . this tendency is always there, but according to the age, sometimes it is very prominent and sometimes not so prominent.

But this material world is so contaminated. In the days of Rāmacandra . . . people are hankering after the kingdom of Rāma, even there was Rāvaṇa in the days of Rāmacandra. And what to speak of all these nonsense debauchees? Rāmacandra was so strict, and God Himself was ruling, and still, there was Rāvaṇa.

But because Rāmacandra was there, he was also killed. Paritrāṇāya sādhūnām (BG 4.8). God's business is to protect the faithful and kill the demons. That is always. Therefore we find Lord Viṣṇu, the four symbolic representation: for killing, the club and the cakra; and for protecting, the lotus flower and conchshell.

evaṁ nivasatas tasya

lālayānasya tat-sutān

kālo 'tyāgan mahān rājann

aṣṭāśītyāyuṣaḥ samāḥ

(SB 6.1.23)

In this way he was living with his prostitute wife, and many children he got, because he was attracted to the prostitute, say, at the age of twenty, very young man. And as such . . . aiye. He begot many children. He begot many children. Evaṁ nivasatas tasya lālayānasya tat-sutān. Tat-sutān. Here it is not stated that it is Ajāmila's son. The tat-sutān means the children were of the prostitute. Because she was not married, therefore that woman did not belong to him.

Just like a land you possess, the production goes to the possessor of the land, not to others. Therefore, because the prostitute was not married to Ajāmila, her sons were not Ajāmila's sons. They were all sons of the prostitute. Therefore, at least still in India, a prostitute's son has no position in the society.

evaṁ nivasatas tasya

lālayānasya tat-sutān

kālo 'tyāgan mahān rājann

aṣṭāśītyāyuṣaḥ samāḥ

(SB 6.1.23)

In this way, when he was about eighty years old, at that time, time came when he was to die.

tasya pravayasaḥ putrā

daśa teṣāṁ tu yo avamaḥ

bālo nārāyaṇo nāmnā

pitroś ca dayito bhṛśam

(SB 6.1.24)

Out of his many children, elderly children . . . he was eighty years old. They were all elderly children, grown-up children, and there were ten, ten elderly children. Out of them, tesam tu yo avamaḥ, the youngest child, youngest child was named as Nārāyaṇa.

Tasya pravayasaḥ putrā daśa teṣāṁ tu yo avamaḥ, bālo, "a boy," nārāyaṇo nāmnā, "his name was Nārāyaṇa." Pitroś ca dayito bhṛśam. Naturally the youngest child becomes very favorite to the parents. So this Ajāmila was very much attached to the youngest child.

Sa baddha-hṛdayas tasminn arbhake kala-bhāṣiṇi. The youngest child, naturally . . . this is the attraction of family life. When a small baby smiles, immediately the father, mother and relatives become attracted. When the child begins to talk broken language, they enjoy.

Unless this attraction is there, it is not possible to raise the child with affection. That is natural. That affection is even in the animals. You'll find a dog, even a tiger, everyone. That affection is there in every . . . monkey. I have seen it practically. In Kanpur I was staying in a room, and one monkey came with a child, and the child somehow or other entered into the window through the bars, and the mother became mad.

She thought, "My child is gone." She became mad. So somehow or other, again I pushed that monkey out of the bars, and immediately she embraced the child and took away. Just see. The affection is there.

Guest (1): Can I ask you one thing?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (1): I am informed rather that female monkey has got the highest affection for the baby, and when, after the death of the baby, she attaches the baby to her chest, to her . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes. It dries up. When the dead body dries up.

Guest (1): . . . to her, and continues to carry on the dead body until the dead body falls away. They need to jump from one place to another . . . (indistinct) . . . to that . . . up to that period she goes on carrying the dead body on her bosom. This is so sad about the female monkey . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: So therefore in the society the parental affection is taken as very good qualification. But such qualification is visible even in the animals. So that is not a very good qualification. That is nature's law. Unless the mother and the child are not so affectionately connected, it is not possible for the child to grow up. That is nature's law. But that is not a qualification.

Child simplicity . . . things are very much eulogized in the society, child's simplicity, mother's affection. They are necessary. But they are not qualification to raise one to the spiritual platform. Just like this debauch, Ajāmila. His character is abominable, but he's still very much affectionate to the youngest child. That is stated here.

In one place his character is described, that he used to live by cheating, by stealing, by gambling. This was his life's profession. But still, he was very much affectionate to the child, the youngest child.

sa baddha-hṛdayas tasminn

arbhake kala-bhāṣiṇi

nirīkṣamāṇas tal-līlāṁ

mumude jaraṭho bhṛśam

(SB 6.1.25)

Jaraṭhaḥ vṛddhaḥ. So although he was very old, still he was enjoying the child's play, pastimes, the same thing. Just like Mahārāja Nanda, Yaśodā was enjoying the childish pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa, the same thing is pervertedly reflected in this material world: father's affection, child's activities.

Because we are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, the same thing you'll find in the transcendental world. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot adjust. They think that if the same things are there in the spiritual world, then what is the difference between the spiritual and the material? That is the defect of Māyāvāda philosophy.

But if they are seriously students of Vedānta-sūtra . . . it is stated clearly in the very beginning, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1): the Supreme Absolute Truth is that from which everything emanates. So this affection between the child and the father or mother, if it is not there in the original Absolute Truth, wherefrom it comes? Do you follow?

If the Absolute Truth is the source of everything, then whatever you will see here in this material world, they are simply reflection of the original. How you can defy? How the Absolute Truth can be nirākāra, nirviśeṣa, without any variety, if the Absolute Truth is the source of everything? So these varieties of this material world, wherefrom it came? What is the answer?

Guest (2): From God.

Prabhupāda: Then how God can be nirākāra or impersonal?

Guest (2): Nirākāra means all-pervading.

Prabhupāda: That is another thing. All-pervading we also accept. He is brahma-jyotir. He is spread all over the creation. That is His nirākāra. Another meaning of nirākāra, that He hasn't got His form like us—sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1)—you may say that. Or nirākāra means where the varieties are not manifested. Just like you go to the sunshine.

You don't find any rest. Your plane must fly on, fly on, fly on, unless you get a support in some planet. Either you go to the moon planet or remain in this planet, you must have a support. Otherwise the effulgence, the sun effulgence, the sunlight is not your place. Similarly, brahma-jyotir is like that, just like sunshine; but you cannot rest there. If you want rest, then you have to take shelter under the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa.

That is stated in the Bhāgavatam. Ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas (SB 10.2.32): Those who are in the impersonal situation, they think themselves that they have become liberated. Exactly the same example: Suppose you are very high in the sunshine. Do you think, "Now I am liberated from worldly connection. I am far, far away, or high"?

But unless you get shelter, you have to fly. This is crude example. Similarly, these impersonalist, they are in the liberated atmosphere. That's a fact. Brahman. He has realized that "I am not this matter. I am Brahman." And because he has no information in the brahma-jyotir there are innumerable planets, he thinks that "This is all in all, this jyoti, brahma-jyotir." That is his imperfect knowledge.

Guest (2): That is not ultimate end.

Prabhupāda: No.

Guest (2): He was just in the . . .

Prabhupāda: Ultimate end means you can remain. Go on flying, flying, flying, just like. But that will exhaust your energy, and you'll like to take shelter in any planet. And because they have no information of the Vaikuṇṭha planets, they again come to these material planet. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Because they have no rest, they become perturbed.

Therefore this śloka says, ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas tvayy asta-bhāvād aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32): "Because these impersonalists, although they are almost liberated, still, on account of their negligence to the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord, without having shelter, their intelligence is not purified still." They are simply accepting something opposite to these imperfect varieties of this material world. They want to make the spiritual world without varieties, because they have got a very bad experience of this material varieties.

So their conception is just the opposite. Just the opposite. There must not be any varieties. Just like there are . . . they say Kṛṣṇa . . . because they are convinced that the Supreme Brahman is impersonal, brahma-jyotir, so when brahma-jyotir appears, He must take a form of this material world. Just like we are spiritual sparks, but we have taken this material form in this material world, so they take it also that God, when He comes, appears, He also accepts a material body. That is called Māyāvādī.

But Kṛṣṇa says that janma karma me divyam (BG 4.9): "When I come, I do not accept a material body." Divyam, janma divyam. It is completely spiritual. And yo jānāti tattvataḥ: "Anyone who knows it, he becomes liberated." But these Māyāvādī philosophers, they do not know Him—therefore they are not liberated. Do you follow? Yes. They are not liberated.

Kṛṣṇa says, "One who knows perfectly well about Me, he becomes liberated." But they do not know. They accept Kṛṣṇa as ordinary man. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ (BG 9.11). Because they are rascals, they accept Kṛṣṇa as ordinary human being. God can display Himself, manifest Himself, just exactly like ordinary human. Just like when He was displaying Himself as a child, a perfect child, to Mother Yaśodā, He would break everything if Mother Yaśodā would not supply mākhana, you see, as if He is in need of mākhana.

But these Māyāvādīs, they said: "Oh, here is . . . how He can be God?" Brahmā became bewildered: "How this boy can be the Supreme Lord? Let me test." So . . . Indra became bewildered. Muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ (SB 1.1.1), the Bhāgavatam says. Even big, big demigods, they become bewildered to understand. So when Kṛṣṇa was present, Indra, he wanted to test Him, and Brahmā wanted to test Him, whether He is actually God.

So that is intelligence. If anyone declares . . . people are . . . sometimes so-called incarnations are . . . they are declaring, "I am God." Then one should test whether actually God. That is intelligence. Simply by declaring, if somebody declares falsely that "I am God . . ." Just like this Ramakrishna. He declared that "I am the same Kṛṣṇa and Rāma." Is it not? You do not know?

Guest (2): I haven't got a basic idea, but he was taken to the world . . .

Prabhupāda: That is the . . . how he was taken? How he was taken? There is no, in the śāstras, any confirmation. He was accepted by Vivekananda. He said that "I am the same Rāma and Kṛṣṇa," and Vivekananda accepted. So anyone can say like that, anyone can accept. But what is the test? What is the proof? You can say that "I am the same Rāma and Kṛṣṇa," but because you say, I'll have to accept? So that is non intelligent.

So the Brahmā and Indra, they are not fools. When they saw that, "A boy is in Vṛndāvana, and He is accepted as the Supreme Lord, and He is doing something like God. Let us test," so Brahmā took away all His cows and calves and playmates. And so . . . and after a second, when he came, he saw the same cows, same calves, same boys were there. Kṛṣṇa has expanded.

Although His cows were taken away, He immediately expanded Himself in so many cows and calves and boys. And when they returned home, their mother could not recognize that they were the same or Kṛṣṇa has expanded. But their affection became very much acute for their children. These stories are mentioned in Kṛṣṇa. You have read it? Yes.

Haṁsadūta: Yes.

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa expanded. So Brahmā understood that "It was my fault that I wanted to test my Lord." Then he came and surrendered, and there is a very nice stotra of Brahmā.

Guest (3): Stotra says Brahmā didn't know something about . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes, even if he knew, but sometimes he become bewildered. Therefore it is . . . Bhāgavata says that even the big, big demigods, they become bewildered.

Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāt

tene brahma hṛdā muhyanti yatra sūrayaḥ

(SB 1.1.1).

That māyā is so strong that they can bewilder a personality like Brahmā and Indra, and what to speak of us? Māyā is so strong.

Similarly, Indra was also bewildered when He stopped Indra-yajña. Kṛṣṇa, when He asked His father, "There is no need of Indra-yajña . . ." He is under the order of the Supreme Lord. He did not say . . . Kṛṣṇa said, to Nanda Mahārāja that "I am the Supreme Lord," but He said, "He is working under the Supreme Lord. He has to supply water. There is no need of yajña."

In other words, Kṛṣṇa is not in favor of any type of demigod worship. No. In the Govardhana chapter He stressed: simply the Supreme Personality of Godhead should be satisfied. That is stated everywhere, in Bhagavad-gītā also, kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ (BG 7.20).

So Indra, when his yajña was stopped, so he tried to punish the inhabitants of Vṛndāvana by torrents of . . . incessant torrents of rain for seven days—havoc. The whole Vṛndāvana was to be drowned under water, and Kṛṣṇa immediately lifted the whole Govardhana Hill. And He stood seven days without taking any food, and protected all the inhabitants of Vṛndāvana.

Now God is displaying as God. When these things are there, the rascals will say: "Oh, these are all legends." When God displays Himself as God, the rascals take it as legend. Just see. They do not believe in the śāstras. They interpret in a different way. Is it not? Yes. And this is going on. And they are supposed to be . . .

What is their interpretation about this Govardhana Hill? Do you know? Kṛṣṇa's lifting the Govardhana Hill, what . . . how they interpret it? I know, the Māyāvādīs, they do not accept. Or "Kṛṣṇa is ordinary human being." The Ārya-samājīs and others, they take it as legend. But the ācāryas, they do not take it as legend. Therefore we have to follow the ācāryas.

Woman devotee: Is it true when you said that the hill, there is cracks?

Prabhupāda: Why not true?

Woman devotee: You said it cracked in the hill.

Indian guest: . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: So therefore Arjuna said, sarvam etam ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi mām (BG 10.14). This is devotee, that "I accept everything, whatever You say." This is devotee, not that "I make some amendment and then I accept." And this is nonsense. You cannot . . . this is called ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya. (Cc. Ādi-līlā 5.176)

Ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya means one man was keeping a hen, and it was delivering every day a golden egg. So the man thought, "It is very profitable, but it is expensive to feed this hen. Better cut the head so I shall save the expenditure of feeding her, and I'll get the eggs without any charge."

So these rascals, they take . . . accept śāstras like that: "Oh, this is not . . . this is very expensive. Cut this portion." And when Kṛṣṇa says that "Anyone who sees Me in everyone," "Oh, that is very palatable. That is very palatable." And when Kṛṣṇa says, "You give up everything. You surrender . . ." "Oh, that is not palatable."

And this is ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya: I accept things which are very favorable to my understanding, and other things I reject. This is called ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya. So people accept śāstras in that way, the Māyāvādīs.

Guest (3): But one who is self-realized, he interprets them out, the ślokas . . .

Prabhupāda: There is no interpretation. Kṛṣṇa says. In the Bhāgavata it is said that He lifted the mountain just like a child snatch one flower or the . . . what is called?

Devotee: Mushroom.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Mushroom. Yes. So easily. They do not believe.

Guest (3): (indistinct) . . . no, but in the language of Srimad Bhāgavatam there are many ślokas interpreted by many teachers and . . . those who believe in Bhāgavata . . .

Prabhupāda: Those who believe in Bhāgavata, they do not interpret. Those who do not believe in Bhāgavata, they interpret.

Guest (3): But its meaning has to be understood.

Prabhupāda: Meaning is clear. There is nothing to be understood. But the rascals, they draw their own meaning. Just like Bhagavad-gītā. What is the difficulty to understand this:

dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre

samavetā yuyutsava

māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva

kim akurvata sañjaya

(BG 1.1)

What is the difficulty to understand Kurukṣetra is a religious place, acknowledged by the Vedas, and it is going on still? Why do they interpret, "Kurukṣetra means this body"? Is he not a rascal? Why there is interpretation when you understand a thing very clearly? Eh?

Guest (3): Because Kurukṣetra is to be taken as a particular place.

Prabhupāda: Not taken; it is still there. Why do you interpret that it is body? Is it not rascaldom? No devotee, no ācārya has done this, but these modern so-called scholars and leaders, they have done it. Are they not rascals? What do you think? Eh?

Guest (3): No, rascals. My representative orders that "The people listen to me . . ."

Prabhupāda: So, why they should say? Now, you are a lawyer.

Guest (3): We do not know our . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: And why do they . . .? What is the difficulty? Dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra, is that is a very difficult Sanskrit?

Guest (3): . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Now, there is no question. Even in . . . if you do not understand Sanskrit, what is the difficulty to understand dharma-kṣetra? Is it not a Hindi word? Kurukṣetra is a name of place. So what is the difficulty? Why do you interpret that Kurukṣetra means this body? This rascaldom has killed the whole spiritual atmosphere of India. They are responsible, these rascal politicians, the rascal scholars, so-called. Actually if we want good of the people, these rascals should be disclosed and people should come back. We should . . .

Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Why we should interpret? You know, you, as a lawyer, when there is legal point, if it is not clear, one lawyer is trying to extract some meaning and the other lawyer is extract . . . it is after all, the judges give the judgment. So this interpretation between the two lawyers are there when the subject matter is not very clear. Is it not?

Guest (3): (indistinct) . . . amongst the judges now they have passed . . .

Prabhupāda: But judges are not perfect, and the law is also not perfect. But I am simply speaking of the procedure. The law is not perfect because it is man-made, and judges, because he is human, he is also not perfect. So that imperfectness you must find. But I am speaking of the procedure. You have to speak of the law books. You cannot . . . in the law court you cannot speak beyond the law books. And the law books . . . suppose one section is not very clear. You fight, "This should be interpreted like this. This should be interpreted . . ." I am taking that procedure. But when it is clear, do you interpret?

Guest (3): It is not possible.

Prabhupāda: That's not possible. Similarly, Bhagavad-gītā, it is clear: dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra. Why these rascals say that Kurukṣetra means body?

Guest (3): Even according to the rules of interpretation, in the books it is stated, "When the words are clear, you should . . ."

Prabhupāda: That is eternally fact.

Guest (3): . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes.

Guest (3): If the language is absolutely clear, the language should be interpreted . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Aiye. (Come.) Yes. So when the language is clear, it is . . . just like anything you take, all these Vedic literatures, simply by interpretation they have played havoc. Now, this Vedānta-sūtra, Vedānta, is accepted as the supreme authority of all Vedic literature. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), the sutra, that janmādy asya yataḥ: "The Absolute Truth must be the original source of everything." There is no question of interpretation.

This is the clear meaning. Janmādi. Janma means birth, and . . . Janma, sthiti and loya. There are three words in this material world. The things come out, just like this body has come out from the womb of my mother. It stays for some time, it grows, it gives some by-products, then it becomes old and again vanishes. So therefore janmādy asya: "Beginning from birth up to the annihilation, everything is emanation from the Absolute Truth."

So is not that very clear? Absolute Truth must be that which is the source of everything and reservoir of everything, and who is maintaining everything. That is the meaning of . . . now, Bhāgavata, because it is interpretation of the Vedānta-sūtra, it begins from that sutra, janmādy asya yataḥ. Now, how that janmādy asya yataḥ? It is explained: janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ.

If the original source . . . how the characteristics of the original source should be? The original source must be cognizant indirectly and directly of everything. The original Absolute Truth should be cognizant, abhijñaḥ. If He is the source of everything, then He must be cognizant of everything, either directly or indirectly.

Just like for example this body is my product. I am spiritual spark. This spiritual spark, as soon as takes shelter into the womb of a woman, it develops this body. The spiritual spark has that power, develops body. So I am a spirit soul, I have developed this body. That means I am a spiritual spark, which is source of this body, all mechanisms. And similarly, the whole creation, it . . . there is supreme spirit. The whole creation, janmādy asya yataḥ.

So He knows everything because He is perfect. But I do not know. Although it is by my energy this body is produced, I do not know how these veins are created, how these bones are created. I do not know. Therefore I am not God. I do not know . . . I say "my body," but actually this body has developed—me, as spirit soul—but I do not know how many hairs are there on my head and how it is growing. But He knows. That is a characteristic of the Absolute Truth. He must be knowing everything, and that is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Vedahaṁ samatītāni (BG 7.26): "I know everything in the past. I know what will happen in the future. I know everything." That is God.

When Arjuna was asked to Kṛṣṇa that, "How can I accept that You taught this philosophy to sun-god? Because You are my contemporary. We are born practically on the same date." So He replied, "Yes. Both you and Me, we took many, many births. But you have forgotten. I know everything." And that is God. That is God. Abhijñaḥ. God must be cognizant of everything. And I do not know everything, and still, I claim I am God, and people accept. How rascals.

The Bhāgavata explains that the Absolute Truth is cognizant of everything, abhijñaḥ. "So how His knowledge is so perfect?"—the next question. Because we become cognizant by taking knowledge or accepting knowledge from spiritual master. But how He has become so cognizant? The answer is svarāṭ: fully independent. He hasn't got to learn anything from anyone. I am . . . I am real . . . realize myself as God by taking knowledge from another Māyāvādī sannyāsī.

But He is God without taking knowledge from anybody. That is real God. Svarāṭ. In this way Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has explained the Vedānta-sūtras, that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the right explanation of Vedānta-sūtra. Bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtrānām. The Brahma-sūtra means Vedānta-sūtra. And the real commentary and explanation is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, of Vedānta.

But these Vedāntists, so-called Vedāntists, they do not read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Even read, they make a different interpretation. Because to make them popular, they have to go through Bhāgavata sometimes. I see Akhandānanda also tries to explain. But they explain in their own way. Just like "This Kurukṣetra, this body, and this means . . ." I, in a . . . long ago in Bombay this Akhandānanda explaining one śloka—I just forget—but I remember his interpretation, that "When I am satisfied, God is satisfied."

He explained like that. And he is passing on as a great scholar and great sannyāsa. He said like that, "When I am satisfied, God is satisfied—because I am God." We say: "When God is satisfied, then I am satisfied." If you say that, "When the finger is satisfied, the whole body is satisfied," it is possible?

Guest (4): No.

Prabhupāda: So in this way, misinterpretation, malinterpretation, and people are gliding down to abominable condition of this material life. So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is a protest against all this nonsense. And therefore we . . . sometimes we are unpopular. But we don't care for that. Popular or unpopular, we must go on with our business. What do you think?

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Guest (5): Do you mean one has to . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (5): Unpopularity also means you are creating something.

Prabhupāda: Yes. (laughs) That is the reaction.

Guest (5): Here because . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: So therefore so quickly we have become popular in the foreign country. Yes. Even the priestly class, the Christian priestly class, they have recognized that "We are preaching about God, Bible - we could not create such nice boys and girls. And all these young boys, they were Christians and they are attracted, attached to Swami, and they are so nice." They can appreciate that their character and their behavior, everything is so godly. They are astonished.

Guest (5): . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: So therefore the Christian priests, they do not go against us. They appreciate. One Christian priest was talking on plane when I was going to Hawaii. He was so much appreciating my students. So at heart, they are appreciating. The government is appreciating, the public is appreciating. Many fathers come and say, "Oh, Swāmījī, we are so fortunate that you have come. You have saved our sons and daughters."

And they fall flat to offer me obeisances, although he is not my disciple. And those are directly father and mothers, oh, they come to congratulate me in any way, because they understand that, "Here Swāmījī is giving our sons and daughters spiritual life." They hope. They were hopeless. They were confused.

So that is not my credit. I am simply presenting the right thing without . . . Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without malinterpretation, spoiling time and energy. Everywhere I say like that, that "I have no credit, but . . ." Because the only credit is that I do not adulterate.

Now here, you see, the Bhāgavata says that naṣṭa-sadācāro dāsyāḥ saṁsarga-dūṣitaḥ (SB 6.1.21). Because this man, this Brahmin boy, Ajāmila, in his boyhood . . . he became attached to the prostitute when he was about twenty years old, young man, and he lost his brahminical qualification. Naṣṭa-sadācāro. But the Bhāgavata says . . . now, at the present moment, there are so many so-called Brahmins. They have no sadācāra. Still they are passing as Brahmin. Illicit sex, intoxication, meat-eating—everything is there, but he is a Brahmin. Is it not?

Guest (5): Eighty percent. Accepted by birth.

Prabhupāda: But here Bhāgavata says, naṣṭa-sadācāra. As soon as . . . how? Dāsyāḥ saṁsarga-dūṣitaḥ: "Because he is attached with a prostitute, he has lost all his qualifications." At the present moment, to become attached to a prostitute is no fault. The society accepts, "Oh, that's not fault . . . young man goes to that." Does not mind. But he does not know that this association will make him fall down to the lowest stage of human life. And that is stated next, that he used to live on these principles—beg, borrow, steal and gambling—he was degraded. And how he was degraded? That will be explained.

So people do not take care of their śāstras. They make their own interpretation, and therefore India's position is so fallen. They are guided. The great ṛṣis and great sages, they have given them guidance. Vyāsadeva has given guidance. Lokasyājānato vidvāṁś cakre sātvata-saṁhitā, it is stated. "People are rascals, fools. In order to teach them nicely, this highest learned personality, Vyāsadeva, created the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." Lokasya ajānataḥ. Ajānataḥ means rascals who has no knowledge.

anarthopaśamaṁ sākṣād

bhakti-yogam adhokṣaje

lokasyājānato vidvāṁś

cakre sātvata-saṁhitā

(SB 1.7.6)

Whatever abominable characteristics we have developed, if we want to counteract it, we have to take to bhakti-yoga only. Anartha. Anartha. We have developed so many anartha. We don't require it, but we have developed all these symptoms. So anartha upaśamam. So if you want to cut down these anarthas, then bhakti-yogam adhokṣaje—you have to accept this bhakti-yoga principle to the adhoksaja.

Lokasya ajānato: "These rascal men, they do not know it." Therefore vidvāṁś cakre sātvata-saṁhitā: "The most learned Vyāsadeva compiled this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." And they do not take care of Bhāgavata. They do not take care of Bhagavad-gītā. They take care of a book written by some rascal leaders. That's all. The aim of that book is to kill Kṛṣṇa. That's all.

So how you can improve? It is not possible. If they actually want improvement, not only this country or that country, whole world to world, one has to take this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement—otherwise it is doomed. So we are giving the best service to the human society—Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

(aside) You came yesterday? No. This gentleman? Yes? No, you are coming first?

Indian man: . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: So that boy, he was to immediately offer his service to join us. (laughs) "We can join you if you flatter me. Whatever I know, if you accept, that's all. Then I can. And if you say something against my conviction, oh, then I am not going to join." But here the process is, first is, you first surrender. Whatever you know, nonsense, you give it up. First of all become blank slate.

So I was told by some authority, a very responsible man, that in Germany there are musical institution, so when a student who goes there who knows something about musical art, he is charged more. Is it a fact?

Guest: I don't know.

Prabhupāda: He is charged more. He is charged more because extra endeavor has to be done to make him forget what nonsense he has learned. (laughter) Because his learning is all nonsense, so one has to take . . . just like so many people come. I have to talk so many hours to forget, to make him forget what nonsense he has learned. So he should be charged more, this student.

And one who comes as blank slate . . . they have accepted Kṛṣṇa consciousness because they are blank slates. And in India, they think that they have learned so many things. Yes. They have learned from Radhakrishnan, they have learned from Aurobindo, they have learned from Vivekananda, the Ramakrishna, this, that, so many nonsense—except Kṛṣṇa. They have learned everything from so many nonsense except Kṛṣṇa. Now here there is so much advertisement of Ramakrishna . . . just see these American boys, they do not know even the name of Ramakrishna in America.

Guest (5): But there are . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Huh? But ask them. They do not know even. He might have gone to Chicago. That's all right. But what is his influence there? But here it is advertised, "Oh, Ramakrishna went to America. Vivekananda went to . . ."

Devotee: There was no temple like that in Chicago, Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Devotee: There was no temple like that in Chicago.

Prabhupāda: No.

Devotee: . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: They never heard of the Ramakrishna. And here . . . just like homeopathics. They advertise, "American homeopathics." But there is not a single shop of homeopathic medicine in America. Not a single shop. And this is going on. All these bogus homeopathic practitioners, they write, "American homeopathic medicine," and so on, so on.

They do not allow this homeopathic medicine as bona fide practice. They are not so foolish that you will give water and it will be accepted as medicine. There you cannot ask even any medicine directly from the drug shop without doctor's prescription. If you go, offering to a medical drug shop, and "Give me this medicine," no, he'll not do that. "Bring doctor's prescription." That is law.

Guest (5): He can't do that.

Prabhupāda: Eh? No, you cannot directly take supply of the medicine without doctor's prescription. So, so many things are going on, bogus.

Yamunā: You'll find Americans . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes. Even in my absence many centers are developing. When I came back to India this time, there were thirty-five or thirty-two centers. Now it is forty-two.

Haṁsadūta: (indistinct) . . . on Kṛṣṇa.

Prabhupāda: Yes. They are increasing.

Devotees: . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Here, India difficulty—we have to make them forget all nonsense he has learned. That is the difficulty. And here, there in America I got all nice blank slates, and whatever I say they accepted, and improvement is immediately there. And here the people are coming to test me, to talk with me nonsense and waste my time.

Guest (6): The ones who have come here, they are not aware of this morning . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: But they are not genuine. That is the difficulty. They want . . . they come, and as soon as they say: "Oh, Swāmījī is speaking something against our conviction," they reject that.

Guest (6): But are they aware that . . .?

Prabhupāda: No, even they are aware, so many came, and they are not coming. Because the nonsense was stopped, they are that, "Oh, Swāmījī is . . ." They have not come. They want that whatever nonsense they have learned, I have to confirm: "Yes, it is right." Just like the Ramakrishna Mission says: "Whatever you do, it is all right," I have to say that. Then I am good. And as soon as I say: "You are wrong, nonsense, rascal. You do not know anything . . ." (laughter) Satyaṁ bruyāt priyaṁ bruyāt mā bruyāt satyam apriyam. You tell truth, but it must be very palatable. If you say truth unpalatable, then you will create enemies. But how can I do so in the spiritual knowledge?

Guest (7): In the Bhāgavata . . . (indistinct) . . . I get up at four o'clock in the morning . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: There is a proverb that "If you go to a prostitute, go in the morning. (laughter) Not at night." (laughs) In the morning you will see her real beauty.

Give some prasādam to the . . .

Devotee: . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: All right. I am not . . . (break) Prasādam should be taken in any condition. This dhoop is very nice, though.

Guest (8): Yes . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Where is . . .? What is the brand of this dhoop? It is locally manufactured? No.

Guest (8): No, no . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Where is?

Guest (8): . . . (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes, it is very good. No, it is very good. So that discussion we shall have private? All right. So let us go to the other room. (break) (end)