Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.109-114 Prabhupada: (chants mangalacarana prayers) So Caitanya Mahaprabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Vedanta, Upanisad—these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge— then Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, all these books should be studied from the direct meaning. Don’t try to interpret. According to ordinary, I mean to say, dealings, suppose in the law court there are two parties. Two lawyers are fighting on the principle of one clause or section in the lawbook. One is interpreting in a different way, one is interpreting in a different way, and the judges give their judgment. Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. A very good example is given by the grammarians, or Sanskrit scholars, that gangayam ghosapali, that “There is a neighborhood which is called Ghosapali on the Ganges.” Now somebody may ask, “How there can be a quarter on the Ganges? Ganges is water.” So there is interpretation required. So somebody says, “ ‘On the Ganges’ means on the bank of the Ganges.” That makes it clear. “On the Ganges” does not mean that in the middle water there is a, I mean to say, residential quarter. No. “On the Ganges” means on the bank of the Ganges. So when there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt—everyone can understand clearly the meaning—there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s stressing, that gauna-vrttye yeba bhasya karila acarya. Therefore each and every aphorism and verse of Vedanta-sutra has been indirectly interpreted by the Sariraka-bhasya. Such interpretation, if somebody hears, then his future is doomed. Just like our Gandhi, he wanted to prove, from Bhagavad-gita, nonviolence. The Bhagavad-gita is being preached in the battlefield, and it is completely violence. How he can prove? Therefore he is dragging the meaning out of his own con… It is very troublesome, and anyone who will read such interpretation, he is doomed. He is doomed because the Bhagavad-gita is meant for awakening your Krsna consciousness. If that is not awakened, then it is useless waste of time. Just like Caitanya Mahaprabhu embraced the brahmana who was illiterate, but he took the essence of Bhagavad-gita, the relationship between the Lord and the devotee. Therefore, unless we take the real, I mean to say, essence of any literature, it is simply waste of time. tanhara nahika dosa, isvara-ajna pana gaunartha karila mukhya artha acchadiya Now, at the beginning, He criticized Sankaracarya that “If somebody hears Sankaracarya’s commentation, then he’s sure to be doomed.” But again He supports Sankaracarya. Why? Sankaracarya is the incarnation of Lord Siva, and he’s a great devotee. Sankara… Vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh: “There are many devotees of the Lord, but the foremost devotee is Lord Siva.” And he has got a disciplic succession which is called Visnuswami-sampradaya. So Sankaracarya was covered devotee. He’s covered devotee. His aim was to bring men to the standard of devotional service, but the time and circumstances in which he was preaching, he could not place his real object because they were unable to understand. At last, at the end of his life, he composed so many poetries in praise of Vrndavana-lila, and especially his very famous Catpar pandika (?), that is, he has stated, bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha-mate prapte sannihite kala marane na hi na hi raksati dukrn-karane “My dear foolish brothers, you kindly worship Krsna, Govinda…” Thrice he has said, bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha-mate. Mudha-mate means “You foolish nonsense, you kindly worship Govinda.” Why? Now, prapte sannihite kala marane: “When death will be nearer, your this grammatical interpretation, dukrn karane, this pratha (?), that pratha (?), arguing, jugglery of words, will not save you, will not save you. You please worship Govinda.” That is his instruction. And there are many others. So Sankaracarya was a covered devotee. He was devotee. Somebody accuses Sankaracarya that he was covered Buddhist. But so far I am concerned, I say that Sankaracarya was covered devotee. He was devotee at heart, but because he was ordered to preach in that way… Otherwise, there was no alternative. That is stated in the Padma Purana. When there is conversation between Lord Siva and his wife Parvati, he disclosed that “In the age of Kali, as a Brahmana, I preach this Mayavada philosophy, which is covered Buddha philosophy.” Buddha philosophy says that “This material life is all. After this material life, there is nothing, all void.” And Sankaracarya said that “It is impersonal. There is no variety.” So in both the philosophies there is no acceptance of Lord, the Supreme Lord, Personality of Godhead. Therefore they are called nastika-vada. Nastika-vada means atheism, atheism. Caitanya Mahaprabhu has described Buddha religion as atheism. “And Mayavada philosophy,” He has said, “dangerous atheism.” He has given little preference to Buddhism, but to Mayavada philosophy He has stated, “It is dangerous atheism.” His exact version is like that, bheda namiya bauddha haila nastika. Vedasraye nastika-vada bauddha ke adika. He says that “We call the Buddhists as atheists because the simple reason is that they do not accept Vedas.” Lord Buddha, he denied, that “I don’t care for the Vedas. I have got my this own proposition, that ahimsa. Nonviolence is the religion. That’s all.” So he did not accept Vedas. Therefore, those who are Vedantists, those who are followers of Vedas, they called Buddhist religion atheism. Atheism means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is called atheism. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that Buddha philosophy is atheism undoubtedly, but Sankara philosophy is dangerous atheism because he is accepting Vedanta, but he is preaching atheism. He’s accepting… Under the shelter of Vedanta, he’s preaching atheism. So therefore they are more dangerous. Just like you are fighting with your enemies, that is very clear. “The other party is my enemy.” But if somebody’s treating as your friend and within he’s trying to kill you, enemy, oh, that is very dangerous enemy. So similarly, Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that Buddhism is atheism. That’s all right. But this Sankara’s philosophy is more dangerous than atheism. And actually, so-called, so many swamis and sannyasis, they came. They come from India. They are this same, dangerous atheists. Nobody has preached in your country this philosophy of Krsna consciousness or… Bhagavad-gita is widely read, but differently interpreted. So therefore they are dangerous atheists. They are… Under the garb of Bhagavad-gita, they are preaching atheism. So they are very dangerous. But still, because he was Lord Siva, incarnation of Lord Siva, and he had a particular duty, therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu supports now that tanhara nahika dosa: “He’s not faulty. He’s not faulty because the time required to propagate such philosophy, and he had done that under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He wanted.” There is, Padma Purana, there is statement. In the Padma Purana there is: mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannam bauddham ucyate. In the Padma Purana it is stated that “This Mayavada philosophy is covered Buddhism.” Mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-murtina. Lord Siva says to his wife, “My dear Parvati, in the age of Kali, in the garb of a brahmana, I’ll have to preach this philosophy.” Brahmanas caparam rupam nirgunam vaksyate maya. Brahmanas ca aparam rupam: “Brahman, the Supreme Lord, He has got transcendental form, but I’ll have to preach that He has no form, nirgunam.” Sarvasvam jagato ’py asya mohanartham kalau yuge: “In the age of Kali, just to bewilder the persons, I’ll have to preach this philosophy.” Vedante tu maha-sastre mayavadam avaidikam: “And, when I shall explain Vedanta, I shall explain everything against Vedas.” vedante tu maha-sastre mayavadam avaidikam mayaiva vaksyate devi jagatam nasa-karanat “In order to kill the atheistic person, I’ll have to preach this.” This is stated in Padma Purana. And similarly, in the Siva Purana also, there is another verse: dvaparadau yuge bhutva kalaya manusadisu svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca janan mad-vimukhan kuru Oh, the Supreme Lord is ordering Lord Siva that “In the age of Kali, you go and try to make them against Krsna consciousness.” So there are so many policies and so many programs of the supreme authorities, but Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that that is time service. For the time being they are necessary. Actually, such interpretation is not necessary at all. We should take direct meaning. Now He’s explaining Vedanta. The first thing He’s explaining, ‘brahma’ sabde mukhya arthe kahe—‘bhagavan’. Whenever we speak of Brahman… Because these Mayavadi philosophers, they are very much uttering this word, “Brahman.” Aham brahmasmi: “All Brahman.” They don’t utter “Krsna” or “Govinda.” Oh, that is very difficult for them. They simply utter, “Brahman.” Now… Let them. Brahman is also Vedic word. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu says the direct meaning of Brahman is Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Cid-aisvarya-paripurna, anurdhva-samana. Now what is the grammatical meaning of Brahman? The grammatical meaning of Brahman is that “the greatest” and “expansive.” That is the grammatical meaning of Brahman. Which is unlimitedly expanded and greatest, He is called Brahman. Now, who can be unlimitedly expansive unless He’s unlimitedly powerful? Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that according to Srimad-Bhagavatam also, the same meaning is there. Brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate. So Brahman- Paramatma ultimately means the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Without coming to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the conception of Brahman-Paramatma is imperfect. Why? Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that cid-aisvarya-paripurna, anurdhva-samana. You cannot have conception of the greatest, unlimited, unless you place six kinds of opulence, opulences in full. Because aisvarya, the opulences… Just like wealth, fame, and beauty, knowledge, and renunciation, they should be unlimited. Now, when they are not unlimited, he’s not Brahman, or he’s not the Supreme Lord. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s interpretation… Not interpretation—He says Brahman means that “One who is in full opulences, He’s Brahman.” Tanhara vibhuti, deha,—saba cid-akara: “Therefore, because He’s the greatest, therefore He cannot be under the control of this maya.” The Mayavada philosophy says that “We are now under the control of maya. Therefore we have forgotten that we are all Gods.” In the Nikhilananda’s book, this is explained. He is discussing Vivekananda’s speech, that “We are all Gods. Every one of us, we are God.” “Then why you have become dog?” “That we do not know.” That is the explanation. But actually, the explanation is that we are also Brahman, but not Bhagavan, the Supreme Brahman. That is the explanation. Therefore we are prone to be under the subjugation of maya. This is real explanation. I am, I am not the Supreme Brahman. The greatest Brahman, I am not. Brahman means ‘greatest,’ but I am also Brahman, but I am… The infinite and the infinitesimal. We are infinitesimal. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita also—mamaivamso jiva-bhutah: [Bg. 15.7] “My, these living entities, they are My parts and parcels.” Such parts and parcels of the Brahman is also Brahman. As part and parcel, minute particle, of gold is also gold, minute particle of poison is also poison, so similarly, we are minute, atomic part and parcel of the Supreme. Therefore we are not the unlimited or the biggest. We are Brahman, undoubtedly, but we are not the biggest. Therefore we are prone to be under the control of maya. But Supreme Brahman, He’s never under the… Therefore Mayavada philosophy, that “At the present moment, I am under the control of maya, but as soon as I become free from the control of maya, then I become the Supreme,” therefore they cannot answer that “Why, if you are Supreme, why you are under the clutches of maya? Then maya becomes greater. You are not the greatest.” They cannot answer this philo…, this question. At that time, they become fool: “We do not know.” So anyway, tanhara vibhuti, saba… Therefore Brahman, His body, cannot be material. So material matter is under His control. Daivi hy esa gunamayi mama maya [Bg. 7.14]. In the Bhagavad-gita it is said that “This material nature is under My control.” And in another place it is said, mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivartate [Bg. 9.10] “The whole cosmic manifestation is rolling on under My superintendence.” Mayadhyaksena. “Under My order, under My supervision,” prakrtih, “this, oh, the huge, gigantic material nature, is working under Me,” hetunanena, “and, on this account, there is rules and regulations, everything is being done nicely.” So Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that “Because Brahman, or the Supreme Lord, is the greatest, therefore His body cannot be made of this material nature.” Because material nature is created at a certain interval, and who creates? Creates, the Supreme Lord. The creator, therefore, cannot be under the material nature. If I am creator of something, so I cannot be under the, that particular thing which is created. It is logical. So therefore, because the Supreme Brahman, or Bhagavan, is the creator of this material nature, He cannot be under the control of maya. He is… And that is also stated in Bhagavad-gita, many places. Sambhavamy atma-mayaya [Bg. 4.6]. Atma-mayaya. Not this maya. Maya means potency. So we have got the experience of this potency, material potency, but there is another potency which is called spiritual potency. So spiritual potency is the internal energy of Krsna, and material potency is the external energy. So Krsna says that “Whenever I come,” yada yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bharata [Bg. 4.7], “whenever there is discrepancies in the discharging of religious principles,” adharmasya abhyutthanam abhyutthanam adharmasya, “and there is great predominance of irreligiosity,” tadatmanam srjamy aham, “I, at that time, I come.” Paritra… Why? Paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam: [Bg. 4.8] “Just to save the pious and the righteous and to vanquish the impious.” So these are stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Therefore natural conclusion, as Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, that His potencies, His body and His activities—everything spiritual. There is nothing material. Cid-vibhuti acchadi’ tanre kahe ‘nirakara.’ And when there is some indication of impersonalism in the Vedas, it should be understood that His body is not of this material nature. If somebody says that “God does not belong to this matter,” that is all right. That does not mean He’s impersonal. He has got a spiritual body. Matter is denied. The whole Upanisad… First of all they describe the Supreme… Just like apani-pado javano grahita. There are Vedic statements that “The Supreme has no hands, but He can accept whatever you offer.” Now, this is contradictory. If He has no hands, how He can accept? What for He’s accepting. Therefore it is to be understood that He has His hand, but not this hand. My hand is, er, can stretch, say, one yard only, but because He’s unlimited, His hand can be stretched… Just like we are offering foodstuff, so how He is eating? That is His… He’s eating by His transcendental body. We cannot see at the present moment, but He is eating. How He’s eating? Because we have got the information, “Yes, I eat.” Tad aham bhakty-upahrtam asnami prayatatmanah: “Anyone who is My devotee and offers in love, I take them.” So that cannot be… There is no mistake. But how He is taking, how He is eating, because we are in this material body, we do not see it, but He is taking. Therefore cid-vibhuti acchadi’ tanre kahe ‘nirakara’. cid-ananda—tenho, tanra sthana, parivara tanre kahe—prakrta-sattvera vikara Now, the Lord’s body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge, and Sankaracarya says that prakrta-sattvera vikara. “This body of Krsna or Lord Rama, when They come,” according to Mayavada philosophy, that “actually, the Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, has no form, but when They assume form, They take help of this material nature.” That is not a fact. They come in Their own spiritual form. That is confirmed by Caitanya Mahaprabhu. tanra dosa nahi, tenho ajna-kari dasa ara yei sune tara haya sarva-nasa Now, he preached this bewildering philosophy because he was ordered to do so by the Supreme Lord. That was his duty. But we must be very much careful. If we hear Sankara’s interpretation, or commentation, then you are doomed. “You are doomed” means no more Krsna consciousness. You are thrown into wilderness for many, many births. Then sometimes, if you come in contact with some pure devotee, it may be possible. But so far Sankaracarya’s bhasya is concerned, or anyone who is following that commentation, they are doomed. Thank you very much. [break] Woman: If someone who does not believe in scriptures, um, what is his duty, and…? Prabhupada: His duty is to go to hell. One who does not believe in scriptures, they are meant for going to hell. Woman: What can one do to rectify his offenses? (?) Prabhupada: Well, just come… [break] That will help you. Woman: But if a person is not willing to do that, is there any way… (static) Prabhupada: Oh, how can you do that? If a person is not willing to take medicine, how he can be cured? He’ll go to death. He must be willing to. That is a, I mean to say, explained in the Bhagavad-gita. So that is very dangerous position, one who does not take care. Suppose if one wants to be educated without going to school. How it is possible? If somebody says, “Oh, I don’t care for any school, colleges. I’ll be educated at home,” this is nonsense. Is it possible? Or will anybody recognize you? Then what is the use? Waste of time. That is the disease. Everyone thinks, “Oh, I am everything. I am perfect.” That is the disease, material disease. Everyone is thinking, “I am independent. I am perfect. Whatever I think, oh, that is all right.” This is going on. First of all, if anyone wants advancement, he must first of all think just like Caitanya Mahaprabhu is pretending, that “My spiritual master found Me a great fool.” So one must agree to become a great fool and study these scriptures from bona fide spiritual master. Then there is hope of advancement. Yes? Guest (1): (static) …your description of the impersonalist philosophers does not correspond…, it’s happening, say, by themselves they make a distinction how those things make… (static) …a part of that philosophy that seems crucial to extending it, and that is sometimes called the “little self” and the “big self,” the “big self” being the person who we are—personality, ego—and the other type of ego is the actual ego. And when one’s ego is dissolved, he will wake up, as it were. As, like you wake up out of a dream and you find that you thought you were one of the characters in the dream while you were dreaming, when you wake up you realize that you didn’t have this limited identity. You had a greater identity which encompassed all the characters in the dream. Prabhupada: Where you lose your personality? Either in dream or in awakened, you are person. When do you lose your personality? When you become imperson? Guest (1): When do you lose it? When you wake up from the dream of this material world. Prabhupada: You are not imperson at that time. You are person. You are thinking, “I was dreaming.” So your ego is there. Guest (1): Yeah… Prabhupada: Then how…? Guest (1): Well, they say… Prabhupada: Where do you lose your ego? Where your ego is dissolved? Guest (1): Where is it dissolved? Prabhupada: Yes? It is never dissolved. Guest (1): It is dissolved into a finer form of consciousness. Prabhupada: No, finer… Just now, your example: you were dreaming. Now you are awakening. You are now seeing, “Oh, I was dreaming.” So the same person who was dreaming and who is thinking that “I was dreaming”—the same person. Where your identity is dissolved? In both the cases, you are standing, “I.” This is… Guest (1): Yeah, but they say at the next awakening you dissolve this “I.” Prabhupada: This “I” is…, this “I” is not in dream. That is the difference. The “I” in dream and “I” in not-dream, but “I” is there. Where is your “I” dissolved? Guest (1): Well, when you’re chanting it’s dissolved, actually. Prabhupada: Never. Guest (1): Forget yourself? Prabhupada: No. We don’t forget. We always remember that we are servants of God. We don’t forget. We forget this material nonsense. That’s all. But don’t forget ourself. Our identity is there. We are all servants of God, Krsna dasa. And this is real ego. So ego is not dissolved. Ego is there, but it is purified. It is purified. Yes? Kirtanananda: Well, er, it’s so difficult to control the senses. So we’re engaging all of our senses in chanting and dancing and so forth. Now, the thinking mind is most difficult. So we can engage that in thinking of Krsna. So… Prabhupada: Well, when you are chanting, that is thinking, practically thinking. When you are chanting, you are practically thinking. When you are cooking, it is practically thinking. You are cooking for Krsna. You are typing for Krsna. You are chanting Krsna’s name. Kirtanananda: But there seems to be also a stage of not thinking. Is that… When one is chanting, should they not think or should they think of Krsna? Prabhupada: No, no. Not thinking is not there. Thinking of Krsna. Hare Krsna means thinking of Krsna and His energy. There is no question of destruction. It is purification. The psychic power— thinking, feeling and willing—is purified. Tat-paratvena nirmalam. Nirmalam means purified. But it is not lost. It is not lost. Purified. And when it is purified, hrsikena hrsikesa-sevanam bhaktir ucyate [Cc. Madhya 19.170], with that purified sense, purified mind, when you apply it for Krsna, that is called bhakti, Krsna consciousness. Bhaktijana: Can you ever lose your identity? Prabhupada: Evolute? What is that? Kirtanananda: Can you ever lose your identity? Prabhupada: What is that? What does it mean? Rupanuga: Can you ever lose your “I,” the sense of “I”? Bhaktijana: Can I ever forget myself? Prabhupada: How you can forget yourself? Guest (2): Not self. Prabhupada: You cannot forget. You simply purify it. In diseased condition, your identification of “I” is different. Sometimes you are in convulsion. You forget… Rather, that is forgetfulness. Sometimes if we are, I mean to say, deranged in brain, we forget everything of our relationship. But when you are cured, you remember, “Oh, I was forgetful in my that delusion. Yes.” So your “I” is always there. This “I,” this “I,” remembering, is purified. So ego has to be purified. Ego has not to be killed. And that cannot be killed, na hanyate hanyamane sarire [Bg. 2.20], because it is eternal. How can you kill ego? It is not possible. So you have to purify your ego. The difference between is between false ego and real ego. Just like aham brahmasmi, aham… “I am Brahman.” Oh, this is also ego. This is, this Vedic version that “I am Brahman. I am not this matter,” so this ego is purified ego, that “I am this.” So that “I” is always there. Either in illusion or delusion or dream or in healthy stage, the “I” is always there. Bhaktijana: When you’re typing, should you think of Krsna first and your typing second? Prabhupada: Well, when you type, at least in our Society, whenever we type, we type something which is describing Krsna’s form, quality, beauty. We are typing this. We are not typing any business letter or any political propaganda. We are typing, “Oh, Krsna is so beautiful. Krsna says like this. Krsna told Prahlada like that. Prahlada told Krsna like that.” Everything Krsna. As you are chanting Hare Krsna, that (makes typewriter sound:) “cut, cut, cut” is also “Krsna, Krsna, Krsna, Krsna.” Bhaktijana: Can Krsna…? Is Krsna made out of atoms like we are? Prabhupada: Eh? Bhaktijana: Is Krsna made out of atoms like we are? When He comes down and takes the food? Prabhupada: No. Krsna is not atom. Krsna is big. The biggest. We are atom. That is the difference between Krsna and ourself. We are atom. Bhaktijana: Krsna takes the, er, takes the spiritual matter from the food and leaves us the physical matter…? Prabhupada: No. He takes, He takes… Bhaktijana: When we offer up… Prabhupada: …when He takes, He does not take anything material. He takes spiritual. Bhaktijana: And leaves the material for us…? Prabhupada: No. That is also spiritual. That is not material. Bhaktijana: What’s left, then? Prabhupada: Eh? Bhaktijana: What’s left when Krsna takes…? Prabhupada: That is spiritual. Unless it is spiritual… Just like… First try to understand how it is spiritual. Of course, in our gross vision, we see, “Oh, we offer this chapati to Krsna, and Swamiji said namo brahmanya devaya, and it becomes spiritual.” Yes. It becomes spiritual. How? That we have to understand by the result. Phalena pariciyate. If you eat this spiritual food, you’ll get spiritual strength. That is practical. Just like I’ll give you another example: milk. You take more milk preparation, you get diarrhea. You go to a physician, he’ll say, “Yes. Today you take only yogurt mixed with little salt and black pepper.” Cured, diarrhea cured. Now, you can say, “The same milk?” But it is treated. Therefore it cures. You can say, “Oh, the same milk? Yogurt is also milk.” But it is treated. Therefore it cures. So you’ll find that your material disease is being cured by spiritual foodstuff. That is practical. Therefore it is spiritual. Woman: Uh, does belief in any scripture, or…, any scripture whatsoever, such as the Bible or Koran…? Prabhupada: Yes. Woman: Does belief in any scripture… Prabhupada: Oh, yes. Woman: …lead to salvation? Prabhupada: Oh, yes, certainly. Certainly. Yes. The same thing, just like I have given example several times that pocket dictionary and the big dictionary, both of them are dictionaries. It is not that because it is small pocket dictionary, therefore it is not dictionary. It is also dictionary. So when he’s advanced and finished pocket dictionary, he may consult the big dictionary. That is the difference. Bible is not different from Bhagavad-gita, but when one is perfectly conversant with Bible, he’ll understand more nicely Bhagavad-gita. It is not contradictory. It is helpful. All right. Distribute prasadam. (end)
by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
San Francisco, February 20, 1967