Embedded Files
Impersonalism - Vaniquotes
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Chapters 7 - 12
BG Chapters 7 - 12
As the demigod in the sun is a person and is perceived by his all-pervading energy, the sunshine, so the Lord, although in His eternal abode, is perceived by His all-pervading diffusive energies. The taste of water is the active principle of water. No one likes to drink sea water, because the pure taste of water is mixed with salt. Attraction for water depends on the purity of the taste, and this pure taste is one of the energies of the Lord. The impersonalist perceives the presence of the Lord in water by its taste, and the personalist also glorifies the Lord for His kindly supplying tasty water to quench man's thirst. That is the way of perceiving the Supreme. Practically speaking, there is no conflict between personalism and impersonalism. One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva—simultaneous oneness and difference.
The living entity, while executing devotional service or transcendental rituals after many, many births, may actually become situated in transcendental pure knowledge that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate goal of spiritual realization. In the beginning of spiritual realization, while one is trying to give up one's attachment to materialism, there is some leaning towards impersonalism, but when one is further advanced he can understand that there are activities in the spiritual life and that these activities constitute devotional service. Realizing this, he becomes attached to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and surrenders to Him. At such a time one can understand that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa's mercy is everything, that He is the cause of all causes, and that this material manifestation is not independent from Him. He realizes the material world to be a perverted reflection of spiritual variegatedness and realizes that in everything there is a relationship with the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa. Thus he thinks of everything in relation to Vāsudeva, or Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Such a universal vision of Vāsudeva precipitates one's full surrender to the Supreme Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the highest goal. Such surrendered great souls are very rare.
One should know, then, that scholarship is not the qualification necessary to understand Kṛṣṇa. Even the demigods and the great sages have tried to understand Kṛṣṇa by their mental speculation, and they have failed to do so. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also it is clearly said that even the great demigods are not able to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They can speculate to the limits of their imperfect senses and can reach the opposite conclusion of impersonalism, of something not manifested by the three qualities of material nature, or they can imagine something by mental speculation, but it is not possible to understand Kṛṣṇa by such foolish speculation.
A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jñāna-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independent, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way.
Srimad-Bhagavatam
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Canto 3
SB Canto 3
Even the quality of goodness here in the material world is not free from tinges of passion and ignorance. But in the transcendental world, only pure goodness, without any tinge of passion or ignorance, exists; therefore the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His variegated pastimes and paraphernalia are all pure sattva-guṇa. Such variegatedness in pure goodness is exhibited eternally by the Lord for the satisfaction of the devotee. The devotee does not want to see the Supreme Personality of Absolute Truth in voidness or impersonalism. In one sense, absolute transcendental variegatedness is meant only for the devotees, not for others, because this distinct feature of transcendental variegatedness can be understood only by the mercy of the Supreme Lord and not by mental speculation or the ascending process. It is said that one can understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead when one is even slightly favored by Him; otherwise, without His mercy, a man may speculate for thousands of years and not understand what is actually the Absolute Truth. This mercy can be perceived by the devotee when he is completely freed from contamination. It is stated, therefore, that only when all contamination is rooted out and the devotee is completely detached from material attractions can he receive this mercy of the Lord.
The varieties of the transcendental Lord—His body, His form, His dress, His instruction, His words—are not manufactured by the material energy, but are all confirmed in the Vedic literature. By performance of yoga Kardama Muni actually saw the Supreme Lord as He is. There was no point in seeing an imagined form of God after practicing yoga for ten thousand years. The perfection of yoga, therefore, does not terminate in voidness or impersonalism; on the contrary, the perfection of yoga is attained when one actually sees the Personality of Godhead in His eternal form. The process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is to deliver the form of Kṛṣṇa directly. The form of Kṛṣṇa is described in the authoritative Vedic literature Brahma-saṁhitā: His abode is made of cintāmaṇi stone, and the Lord plays there as a cowherd boy and is served by many thousands of gopīs. These descriptions are authoritative, and a Kṛṣṇa conscious person takes them directly, acts on them, preaches them and practices devotional service as enjoined in the authoritative scriptures.
When we say that we give up our ego, this means that we give up our false ego, but real ego is always present. When one is reflected through the material contamination of the body and mind in false identification, he is in the conditional state, but when he is reflected in the pure stage he is called liberated. The identification of oneself with one's material possessions in the conditional stage must be purified, and one must identify himself in relationship with the Supreme Lord. In the conditioned state one accepts everything as an object of sense gratification, and in the liberated state one accepts everything for the service of the Supreme Lord. Kṛṣṇa consciousness, devotional service, is the actual liberated stage of a living entity. Otherwise, both accepting and rejecting on the material platform or in voidness or impersonalism are imperfect conditions for the pure soul.
Etair anyaiś ca. The general yoga process entails observing the rules and regulations, practicing the different sitting postures, concentrating the mind on the vital circulation of the air and then thinking of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His Vaikuṇṭha pastimes. This is the general process of yoga. This same concentration can be achieved by other recommended processes, and therefore anyaiś ca, other methods, also can be applied. The essential point is that the mind, which is contaminated by material attraction, has to be bridled and concentrated on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It cannot be fixed on something void or impersonal. For this reason, so-called yoga practices of voidism and impersonalism are not recommended in any standard yoga-śāstra. The real yogī is the devotee because his mind is always concentrated on the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the topmost yoga system.
There is no difference between constantly visiting the temple and directly seeing the transcendental form of the Lord; they are of equal value. The advantageous position of the yogī is that he can sit anywhere in a solitary place and meditate upon the form of the Lord. A less advanced person, however, has to go to the temple, and as long as he does not go to the temple he is unable to see the form of the Lord. Either by hearing, seeing or meditating, the objective is the transcendental form of the Lord; there is no question of voidness or impersonalism. The Lord can bestow the blessings of transcendental pleasure upon either the visitor of the temple, the meditator-yogī or one who hears about the Lord's transcendental form from scriptures like the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or Bhagavad-gītā. There are nine processes for executing devotional service, of which smaraṇam, or meditation, is one. Yogīs take advantage of the process of smaraṇam, whereas bhakti-yogīs take special advantage of the process of hearing and chanting.
A materialistic person has manifold demands, and thus there are manifold demigods to satisfy his senses. The gṛhamedhīs, who want to continue a prosperous materialistic way of life, generally worship the demigods or the forefathers by offering piṇḍa, or respectful oblations. Such persons are bereft of Kṛṣṇa consciousness and are not interested in devotional service to the Lord. This kind of so-called pious and religious man is the result of impersonalism. The impersonalists maintain that the Supreme Absolute Truth has no form and that one can imagine any form he likes for his benefit and worship in that way. Therefore the gṛhamedhīs or materialistic men say that they can worship any form of a demigod as worship of the Supreme Lord. Especially amongst the Hindus, those who are meat-eaters prefer to worship goddess Kālī because it is prescribed that one can sacrifice a goat before that goddess.
SB Canto 4
SB Canto 4
Sometimes it is necessary to preach a philosophical doctrine which is against the Vedic conclusion. In the Śiva Purāṇa it is stated that Lord Śiva said to Pārvatī that in the Kali-yuga, in the body of a brāhmaṇa, he would preach the Māyāvāda philosophy. Thus it is generally found that the worshipers of Lord Śiva are Māyāvādī followers. Lord Śiva himself says, māyāvādam asac-chāstram. Asat-śāstra, as explained here, means the doctrine of Māyāvāda impersonalism, or becoming one with the Supreme. Bhṛgu Muni cursed that persons who worshiped Lord Śiva would become followers of this Māyāvāda asat-śāstra, which attempts to establish that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is impersonal. Besides that, among the worshipers of Lord Śiva there is a section who live a devilish life. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Nārada Pañcarātra are authorized scriptures that are considered sat-śāstra, or scriptures which lead one to the path of God realization. Asat-śāstras are just the opposite.
He has all the six opulences in full and beyond comparison, He is the master of material nature, His intelligence is not broken under any circumstances, and He stands aloof, although He is the maintainer of the whole creation. As stated in the Vedas (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13), nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām. The Lord is the supreme maintainer. Living entities are meant to serve Him by offering sacrifices, for He is the rightful enjoyer of the results of all sacrifices. Everyone, therefore, should engage himself in the devotional service of the Lord with his life, his riches, his intelligence and his words. This is the original, constitutional position of the living entities. One should never compare the sleeping of an ordinary living entity to the sleeping of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Causal Ocean. There is no stage at which the living entity can compare to the Supreme Person. The Māyāvādī philosophers, being unable to adjust to all this, come to the conclusion of impersonalism or voidism.
SB Canto 6
SB Canto 6
There are two parties—namely, the theists and the atheists. The theist, who accepts the Supersoul, finds the spiritual cause through mystic yoga. The Sāṅkhyite, however, who merely analyzes the material elements, comes to a conclusion of impersonalism and does not accept a supreme cause—whether Bhagavān, Paramātmā or even Brahman. Instead, he is preoccupied with the superfluous, external activities of material nature. Ultimately, however, both parties demonstrate the Absolute Truth because although they offer opposing statements, their object is the same ultimate cause. They are both approaching the same Supreme Brahman, to whom I offer my respectful obeisances.
SB Canto 8
SB Canto 8
I offer my respectful obeisances to Lord Vāsudeva, who is all-pervading, to the Lord's fierce form as Lord Nṛsiṁha-deva, to the Lord's form as an animal (Lord Varāhadeva), to Lord Dattātreya, who preached impersonalism, to Lord Buddha, and to all the other incarnations. I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Lord, who has no material qualities but who accepts the three qualities goodness, passion and ignorance within this material world. I also offer my respectful obeisances unto the impersonal Brahman effulgence.
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
The śāstra says, na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum (SB 7.5.31). One achieves the perfection of life by becoming a devotee of Viṣṇu, but people do not know this. Therefore, as stated in Bhagavad-gītā (12.5), kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Persons who do not ultimately accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead and take to devotional service, but who instead are attached to impersonalism and voidism, must undergo great labor to achieve their goals.
śreyaḥ-sṛtiṁ bhaktim udasya te vibho
kliśyanti ye kevala-bodha-labdhaye
To achieve understanding, such persons work very hard and undergo severe austerities, but their hard labor and austerities themselves are their only achievement, for they do not actually achieve the real goal of life.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Adi-lila
CC Adi-lila
Lord Viṣṇu and His activities can bestow all good fortune, directly and indirectly. In other words, being favored by Lord Viṣṇu and being punished by Lord Viṣṇu are one and the same because all the activities of Viṣṇu are absolute. According to some, Maṅgala was another name of Advaita Prabhu. As the causal incarnation, or Lord Viṣṇu's incarnation for a particular occasion, He is the supply agent or ingredient in material nature. However, He is never to be considered material. All His activities are spiritual. Anyone who hears about and glorifies Him becomes glorified himself, for such activities free one from all kinds of misfortune. One should not invest any material contamination or impersonalism in the Viṣṇu form. Everyone should try to understand the real identity of Lord Viṣṇu, for by such knowledge one can attain the highest stage of perfection.
“Everything about the Supreme Personality of Godhead is spiritual, including His body, opulence and paraphernalia. Māyāvāda philosophy, however, covering His spiritual opulence, advocates the theory of impersonalism.
The falsity of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's explanation of vivarta-vāda and pariṇāma-vāda has been detected by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, especially Jīva Gosvāmī, whose opinion is that actually Śaṅkara did not understand the Vedānta-sūtra. In Śaṅkara's explanation of one sūtra, ānanda-mayo ’bhyāsāt, he has interpreted the affix mayaṭ with such word jugglery that this very explanation proves that he had little knowledge of the Vedānta-sūtra but simply wanted to support his impersonalism through the aphorisms of the Vedānta philosophy. Actually, however, he failed to do so because he could not put forward strong arguments. In this connection, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī cites the phrase brahma pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā (Taittirīya Up. 2.5), which gives Vedic evidence that Brahman is the origin of everything. In explaining this verse, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya interpreted various Sanskrit words in such a way that he implied, according to Jīva Gosvāmī, that Vyāsadeva had very little knowledge of higher logic.
CC Madhya-lila
CC Madhya-lila
The Māyāvādī philosophers offer lip service to Vedic authority but try to escape the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies. They concoct some idea of a transcendental position and call themselves Nārāyaṇa, or God. However, God's position is completely different from their concoction. Such Māyāvādī philosophers consider themselves above the influence of karma-kāṇḍa (fruitive activities and their reactions). For them, the spiritual world is equated with the Buddhist voidism. There is very little difference between impersonalism and voidism. Voidism can be directly understood, but the impersonalism enunciated by Māyāvādī philosophers is not very easily understandable. Of course, Māyāvādī philosophers accept a spiritual existence, but they do not know about the spiritual world and spiritual beings.
The karmīs are fully under the bodily conception of life, and the jñānīs, although theoretically understanding that they are not the body, also have no information about the lotus feet of the Lord because they overly stress impersonalism. Consequently both karmīs and jñānīs are unfit for receiving the mercy of the Lord and becoming devotees. Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura therefore says, karma-kāṇḍa jñāna-kāṇḍa, kevala viṣera bhāṇḍa: those who have taken to the process of karma-kāṇḍa (fruitive activity) and jñāna-kāṇḍa (speculation on the science of transcendence) have simply eaten from poisoned pots. They are condemned to remain in material existence life after life until they take shelter of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa.
Previously Gopīnātha Ācārya had informed Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya that when he would be blessed by the Lord he would thoroughly understand the transcendental process of devotional service. This prediction was now fulfilled. The Bhaṭṭācārya was fully converted to the cult of Vaiṣṇavism, and he was following the principles automatically, without being pressured. In the Bhagavad-gītā (2.40) it is therefore said, sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt: "Simply by performing a little devotional service, one can escape the greatest danger." Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya had been in the greatest danger because he had adhered to Māyāvāda philosophy. Somehow or other he came into contact with Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and became a perfect devotee. In this way he was saved from the great falldown of impersonalism.
Indeed, there is a gulf of difference between the two. This subject matter has been very diligently described by Śrīman Madhvācārya. Since material philosophers are situated in the material conception of life, they are unable to realize the spiritual prema-vilāsa-vivarta. They cannot accommodate an elephant upon a dish. Similarly, mundane speculators cannot capture the spiritual elephant within their limited conception. It is just like a frog's trying to measure the Atlantic Ocean by imagining it so many times larger than his well. Materialistic philosophers and sahajiyās cannot understand the talks between Rāmānanda Rāya and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu concerning the pastimes of Śrī Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. The only tendency of the impersonalists or the prākṛta-sahajiyās is to face the platform of impersonalism. They cannot understand spiritual variegatedness. Consequently, when Rāmānanda Rāya attempted to sing his own verses, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu stopped him by covering his mouth with His own hand.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura points out that the word "Tattvavādī" refers to the followers of Śrīla Madhvācārya. To distinguish his disciplic succession from the Māyāvādī followers of Śaṅkarācārya, Śrīla Madhvācārya named his party the Tattvavādīs. Impersonal monists are always attacked by these Tattvavādīs, who attempt to defeat their philosophy of impersonalism. Generally, they establish the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Actually the disciplic succession of Madhvācārya is known as the Brahmā Vaiṣṇava sect; that is the sect coming down from Lord Brahmā. Consequently the Tattvavādīs, or followers of Madhvācārya, do not accept the incident of Lord Brahmā’s illusion, which is recorded in the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīla Madhvācārya has purposefully avoided commenting on that portion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in which brahma-mohana, the illusion of Lord Brahmā, is mentioned.
The Brahma-saṁhitā also explains the demigod Gaṇeśa, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, the origin of the Gāyatrī mantra, the form of Govinda and His transcendental position and abode, the living entities, the highest goal, the goddess Durgā, the meaning of austerity, the five gross elements, love of Godhead, impersonal Brahman, the initiation of Lord Brahmā, and the vision of transcendental love enabling one to see the Lord. The steps of devotional service are also explained. The mind, yoga-nidrā, the goddess of fortune, devotional service in spontaneous ecstasy, incarnations beginning with Lord Rāmacandra, Deities, the conditioned soul and its duties, the truth about Lord Viṣṇu, prayers, Vedic hymns, Lord Śiva, the Vedic literature, personalism and impersonalism, good behavior, and many other subjects are also discussed. There is also a description of the sun and the universal form of the Lord. All these subjects are conclusively explained in a nutshell in the Brahma-saṁhitā.
Not understanding the process of disciplic succession, so-called logicians put forward the theory of pañcopāsanā, in which a person worships one of five deities—namely Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, the sun-god or Ganeśa. In this conception the impersonalists imagine one of these five deities as supreme and reject the others. Such philosophical speculation, which is certainly idol worship, is not accepted by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu or by Vaiṣṇavas. This imaginary deity worship has recently been transformed into Māyāvāda impersonalism. For want of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, people are victimized by the Māyāvāda philosophy, and consequently they sometimes become staunch atheists. However, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu established the process of self-realization by His own personal behavior. As stated in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (CC Madhya 8.274):
sthāvara-jaṅgama dekhe, nā dekhe tāra mūrti
sarvatra haya nija iṣṭa-deva-sphūrti
"A Vaiṣṇava never sees the material form of anything, moving or nonmoving. Rather, everywhere he looks he sees the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and immediately he remembers the transcendental form of the Lord."
Even though all dirty things may be cleansed away, sometimes subtle desires remain in the mind for impersonalism, monism, success and the four principles of religious activity (dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa). All these are like spots on clean cloth. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu also wanted to cleanse all these away.
By His practical activity, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu informed us how to cleanse our hearts. Once the heart is cleansed, we should invite Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa to sit down, and we should observe the festival by distributing prasādam and chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu used to teach every devotee by His personal behavior. Everyone who spreads the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepts a similar responsibility. The Lord was personally chastising and praising individuals in the course of the cleaning, and those who are engaged as ācāryas must learn from Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu how to train devotees by personal example.
A devotee knows that there is oneness in diversity. The mantras of the śāstras do not support the monistic conclusions of the impersonalists, nor does Vaiṣṇava philosophy accept impersonalism without variety. Brahman is the greatest, He who includes everything, and that is oneness. As Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.7), mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: there is no one superior to Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is the original substance because every category emanates from Him. Thus He is simultaneously one with and different from all other categories. The Lord is always engaged in a variety of spiritual activities, but the monist cannot understand spiritual variety. The conclusion is that although the powerful and the power are one and the same, within the energy of the powerful there are varieties.
The omniscient Personality of Godhead could immediately understand the incident, and He came with His eternal consort, the goddess of fortune. The Catuḥsana Kumāras immediately offered their obeisances unto the Lord. Simply by seeing the Lord and smelling the aroma of tulasī and saffron from His lotus feet, the Kumāras became devotees and abandoned their long-cherished impersonalism. Thus the four Kumāras were turned into Vaiṣṇavas simply by smelling the aromatic tulasī mixed with saffron. Those who are actually on the platform of Brahman realization and who have not offended the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa can immediately become Vaiṣṇavas simply by smelling the aroma of the Lord's lotus feet. But those who are offenders or demons are never attracted to the Lord's personal feature, even though they may visit the Lord's temple many times. In Vṛndāvana we have seen many Māyāvādī sannyāsīs who do not even come to the temple of Govindajī, Gopīnātha or Madana-mohana because they think that such temples are māyā. Therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore said that the Māyāvādīs are the greatest offenders.
CC Madhya 18.189, Translation:
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “The Koran certainly establishes impersonalism, but at the end it refutes that impersonalism and establishes the personal God.
The revealed scripture of the Muslims is the Koran. There is one Muslim sampradāya known as the Sufis. The Sufis accept impersonalism, believing in the oneness of the living entity with the Absolute Truth. Their supreme slogan is "analahak." The Sufi sampradāya was certainly derived from Śaṅkarācārya's impersonalists.
CC Madhya 19.183-184, Purport:
The śānta-rati realization of Kṛṣṇa is in the neutral stage between the conception of impersonalism and personalism. This means that one is not very strongly attached to the personal feature of the Lord. An appreciation of the greatness of the Lord is called śānta-rati. This is attachment not to the personal feature but to the impersonal feature. Generally, one in this stage is attached to the Paramātmā feature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
CC Antya-lila
CC Antya-lila
The purport of this chapter is explained by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in his Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya as follows. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, the author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, wanted to explain direct meetings with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, meetings with those empowered by Him, and His āvirbhāva appearance. Thus he described the glories of Nṛsiṁhānanda and other devotees. A devotee named Bhagavān Ācārya was exceptionally faithful to the lotus feet of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Nevertheless, his brother, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Ācārya, discoursed upon the commentary of impersonalism (Māyāvāda). Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī, the secretary of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, forbid Bhagavān Ācārya to indulge in hearing that commentary.
Other Books by Srila Prabhupada
Other Books by Srila Prabhupada
Teachings of Lord Caitanya
Teachings of Lord Caitanya
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 19:
"The Māyāvāda philosophy is veiled Buddhism. (In other words, the voidist philosophy of Buddha is more or less repeated in the Māyāvāda philosophy of impersonalism, although the Māyāvādīphilosophers claim to be directed by the Vedic conclusions.) As a brāhmaṇa boy, I manufacture this philosophy in the Age of Kali to mislead the atheists. Actually, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His transcendental body, but I describe the Supreme as impersonal. I also explain the Vedānta-sūtra according to the same principles of Māyāvāda philosophy."
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 25:
The actual devotees of the Lord are always in disagreement with the Māyāvādī philosophers. Impersonalism cannot possibly represent eternity, bliss and knowledge. Being situated in imperfect knowledge of liberation, the Māyāvādīs decry the eternity, knowledge and bliss of the devotees as materialism. Because they reject devotional service, they are unintelligent and unable to understand the effects of devotional service. The word jugglery they use in an attempt to amalgamate knowledge, the knowable and the knower simply proves that they are unintelligent. The doctrine of by-products is the real purport of the beginning of the Vedānta-sūtra. The Lord possesses innumerable unlimited energies, and He displays the by-products of these energies in different ways. Everything is under His control. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is also the supreme controller, and He is manifested in innumerable energies and expansions.
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 28:
Lord Caitanya rejected the statement cited by Rāmānanda Rāya from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa because the Lord wished to reject a class of philosophers known as Mīmāṁsakas. The followers of Karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy teach that God is subject to one's work. Their conclusion is that if one works nicely God is bound to give good results. Thus from the statement of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa cited by Rāmānanda Rāya one might conclude that Viṣṇu, the Supreme Lord, has no independence but is bound to award a certain kind of result to the worker. Such a dependent God becomes subject to the worshiper, who accepts the Supreme Lord as both impersonal and personal, as he wishes. Actually, the Karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy stresses the impersonal feature of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Because Lord Caitanya did not like such impersonalism, He rejected it.
Nectar of Devotion
Nectar of Devotion
Nectar of Devotion Introduction:
The definition of a pure devotee, as given by Rūpa Gosvāmī in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, can be summarized thus: his service is favorable and is always in relation to Kṛṣṇa. In order to keep the purity of such Kṛṣṇa conscious activities, one must be freed from all material desires and philosophical speculation. Any desire except for the service of the Lord is called material desire. And "philosophical speculation" refers to the sort of speculation which ultimately arrives at a conclusion of voidism or impersonalism. This conclusion is useless for a Kṛṣṇa conscious person. Only rarely by philosophical speculation can one reach the conclusion of worshiping Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā itself. The ultimate end of philosophical speculation, then, must be Kṛṣṇa, with the understanding that Kṛṣṇa is everything, the cause of all causes, and that one should therefore surrender unto Him. If this ultimate goal is reached, then philosophical advancement is favorable, but if the conclusion of philosophical speculation is voidism or impersonalism, that is not bhakti.
In the same Lalita-mādhava there is an account of Kṛṣṇa's kidnapping Rukmiṇī at her royal marriage ceremony. At that time all of the princes present began to converse among themselves, saying, "We have our elephants, horses, chariots, bows, arrows and swords, so why should we be afraid of Kṛṣṇa? Let us attack Him! He is nothing but a lusty cowherd boy! He cannot take away the princess in this way! Let us all attack Him!" This is an instance of emotion caused by the presence of enemies.
Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī is trying to prove by the above examples that in relationship with Kṛṣṇa there is no question of impersonalism. All personal activities are there in relationship with Kṛṣṇa.
There is the following statement by an impersonalist who had just seen Kṛṣṇa: "When a person has passed completely from all contamination of material existence, he relishes a transcendental bliss of being established in trance. But as soon as I saw You, the original Personality of Godhead, I experienced the same bliss." This perverted reflection of mellows is called śānta-uparasa, or a perverted reflection of mixed impersonalism and personalism.
There is another statement as follows: "Wherever I am glancing I simply see Your personality. Therefore I know that You are the uncontaminated Brahman effulgence, the supreme cause of all causes. I think that there is nothing but You in this cosmic manifestation." This is another example of uparasa, or a perverted reflection of impersonalism and personalism.
Renunciation Through Wisdom
Renunciation Through Wisdom
Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.3:
Becoming first enamoured of then deluded by vivartavāda (the theory of evolution), they conclude that the entire cosmic body also lacks a Soul. Since the fallacious theory they apply to their own physical existence leads them to reject any research into the existence of a soul residing within the body, they fail to perceive the presence of the Supersoul within the gigantic body of the cosmic manifestation. They falsely conclude that the body is everything, that there is nothing beyond it; similarly, they think that the material creation, which is the universal body, is factually governed only by the laws of nature. Any discussion on this subject is invariably put to premature death by their insistence that nature is the be—all and end—all. The more intelligent among them carry this discussion a little further and postulate that impersonalism is the quintessence of everything. But far beyond this realm of manifest and unmanifest material nature is the transcendental and eternal state. The atheists, however, are characteristically unable to believe in its existence.
Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.9:
The pious and saintly Vaiṣṇavas understand the exact meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā. The simple message of the Gītā is self-illuminated like the sun. Its knowledge is not hidden under a gloomy shroud of impersonalism. There is actually no room for extracting some alternative meaning and then giving a so-called esoteric dissertation on it. The devotees of Lord Kṛṣṇa alone can fully take to heart the instructions of the Gītā, and by acting accordingly they are liberated from the awesome and eternal enslavement of the cycle of karma. Such persons are not restricted to a particular country, race, or society. The Lord's devotees belong to a class of their own—they form a spiritual society unhindered by geographical conditions. God is not the monopoly of any particular group. Therefore the message of the Gītā, being universal can be followed by anyone and everyone.
Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.1:
These materialistic sentimentalists reject the spiritual conclusions of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and try and take shelter of impersonalism. Yet they miserably lack the scholarship and discipline of the impersonalists. They divorce themselves from the impersonalists' scriptural studies and philosophical discussions, regarding discussions on the scripture as dry speculation and their ignorant, sentimental outbursts as spontaneous devotional fervour.
Some of these pretenders very closely follow in the impersonalists' footsteps and so may be accepted as a deranged offshoot of the impersonalist line. But they are certainly not part of the Vaiṣṇava discipline followed by those in the line of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī. These pretenders diligently cultivate and exhibit certain mannerisms of devotees, and so the impersonalists reject them from their fold. Thus ostracized by both impersonalists and Vaiṣṇavas, they form a cult of demented sentimentalists.
Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.1:
If one pretends to be a devotee of the Lord but does not understand the difference between dry speculative knowledge and knowledge of the Supreme Absolute Truth, then such a person's devotion borders on impersonalism and is rank with cheap sentimentalism, which is totally against the spiritual teachings of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī. Therefore jñāna-yoga is not speculation or empirical research; nor is it the sudden emotional outbursts of upstarts pretending to be devotees. By practicing genuine jñāna-yoga, even an empirical philosopher will develop a taste for hearing purely spiritual topics from the scriptures. Eventually he will come to understand the Supreme Lord's transcendental position and potency, and ultimately he will relish the Lord's form, which is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss. He will perceive the Lord as the embodiment of all transcendental mellows. And if the pretentious nondevotee sentimentalists, who like to imitate the empiricists, practice genuine jñāna-yoga, then they too will gain an accurate perspective on the Absolute Truth. They will become firmly established in the understanding that the Supreme Lord's form is spiritual and transcendental, and then they will begin to render unflinching devotional service.
Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.2:
In general, the monists cannot grasp the intricate philosophy of nondualism. So Dr. Radhakrishnan has spun out of his imagination a theory by which he tries to establish dualism in nondualism. When Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that we must surrender to "the Unborn, Beginningless, Eternal who speaks through Kṛṣṇa," he implies that it is the impersonal Brahman within Kṛṣṇa who is speaking about surrender. Once it is established that the impersonal Brahman can speak, then He must also possess the instrument of speech, namely the tongue. Thus we see that Dr. Radhakrishnan's whole concept of impersonalism is immediately undermined. There is sufficient evidence in the scriptures to conclude that one who talks can also walk. And a being capable of speaking and walking must indeed be endowed with all the senses. Then He must also be able to perform other activities, such as eating and sleeping. So how can Dr. Radhakrishnan claim that his beginningless, eternal object is impersonal?
Renunciation Through Wisdom 5.1:
The Upaniṣads describe the Supreme Lord as asamaurdhva, "one without a second." We have already established this truth. Similarly, Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself says in the Bhagavad-gītā (Chapter 10) that He is the Aśvattha tree, fire, Śrīla Vyāsadeva, Arjuna, and so on. These facts have also been firmly substantiated. To perfectly comprehend the absolute pastimes of the absolute Supreme Godhead is impossible through any of the "isms," such as empiricism, impersonalism, or sophism. Only by the Lord's mercy can one fathom the Supreme Godhead. That same Supreme Personality benignly reveals the truth about Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā. This text is the essence of all the Vedic scriptures and is the synthesis of all conflicting "isms." Lord Caitanya is the unchallenged spiritual stalwart who propagated the process of surrender to Kṛṣṇa, the conclusion of all the Bhagavad-gītā's teachings. Those who follow in His footsteps are the real yogīs and devotees.
Sri Isopanisad
Sri Isopanisad
They are generally known as Vedāntists, led by Śaṅkarācārya. And there is another class of transcendentalists, called Vaiṣṇavas, like Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī. Both the Śaṅkara-sampradāya and the Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śaṅkarācārya is supposed to be an impersonalist who preached impersonalism, impersonal Brahman, but it is a fact that he is a covered personalist. In his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā he wrote, "Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this cosmic manifestation." And then again he confirmed, "That Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, is Kṛṣṇa. He has come as the son of Devakī and Vasudeva." He particularly mentioned the names of His father and mother. So Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it.
Mukunda-mala-stotra (mantras 1 to 6 only)
Mukunda-mala-stotra (mantras 1 to 6 only)
Mukunda-mala-stotra mantra 2, Purport:
Some great devotees of the Lord cannot surpass the boundary of awe and veneration. But other devotees are in such an intense compact of love with the Lord that they forget His exalted position and regard themselves as His equals or even His superiors. These eternal associates of the Lord relate with Him in the higher statuses of friendship, parenthood, and consorthood. Devotees in a transcendental parental relationship with the Lord think of Him as their dependent child. They forget His exalted position and think that unless they properly feed Him He will fall victim to undernourishment and His health will deteriorate. Devotees in a conjugal relationship with the Lord rebuke Him to correct His behavior, and the Lord enjoys those rebukes more than the prayers of the Vedas. Ordinary devotees bound up by the formalities of Vedic rites cannot enter deep into such confidential loving service to the Lord, and thus their realization remains imperfect. Sometimes they even fall victim to the calamity of impersonalism.
Mukunda-mala-stotra mantra 4, Purport:
The spiritual master in the authoritative line of disciplic succession is the "son of God," or in other words the Lord's bona fide representative. The proof that he is bona fide is his invincible faith in God, which protects him from the calamity of impersonalism. An impersonalist cannot be a bona fide spiritual master, for such a spiritual master's only purpose in life must be to render service to the Lord. He preaches the message of Godhead as the Lord's appointed agent and has nothing to do with sense gratification or the mundane wrangling of the impersonalists. No one can render devotional service to an impersonal entity because such service implies a reciprocal personal relationship between the servant and the master. In the impersonal school the so-called devotee is supposed to merge with the Lord and lose his separate existence.
Mukunda-mala-stotra mantra 6, Purport:
Therefore any relationship the Lord has with His many devotees—whether fatherhood, sonhood, or any other—is not at all material. The Lord is pure spirit, and only when the living being is in his pure spiritual state can he have all sorts of relationships with Him. Philosophers with a poor fund of knowledge cannot conceive of these positive spiritual relationships between the Lord and the all-spiritual living beings, and thus they simply think in terms of negating material relationships. In this way such philosophers naturally adopt the concept of impersonalism.
Lectures
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Lecture on BG 2.1 -- Ahmedabad, December 6, 1972:
When we use this word, nirākāra, that means His form is not anything of this material world. But He has got His form. That is a transcendental form. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Nirākāra means He, He has no such form, as we have got this material form. This material form is neither of the three transcendental bliss, sac-cid-ānanda. This is asat, acit, and nirānanda. This body, this material body is asat, acit, and nirānanda. Therefore, when in the Vedic literature or in authorized statement we find "nirākāra," that means His form does not belong to this asat, acit, or nirānanda. But He has His form. Divyam. Janma karma me divyam (BG 4.9). Divyam, transcendental. And Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya also, who especially preached impersonalism, he also admits that nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa, the form of Nārāyaṇa, is beyond the range of this avyakta."
Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:
So He has got individuality, you have got individuality, everyone has got individuality. Where is the question of impersonalism come? There is no possibility. And if you don't believe Kṛṣṇa, you don't believe Vedas, apart from anything else, Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the supreme authority, the Personality of Godhead. Then if we don't believe Him, then where is the possibility of advancing in knowledge? There is no possibility of it. So there is no question of individuality. This is the statement of authority. Now, apart from statement of authority, you have to apply your reason and arguments. Can you say anywhere there is agreement between two parties? No. You go, study. In the state, in the family, in the community, in the nation, there is no agreement.
Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:
Even in the assembly, even in your country. Suppose there is Senate, everyone has got country's interest, but he's thinking in his individual way. One is thinking that "My country's welfare will be in this line." Otherwise, why there is competition during election of president. Everyone is saying that "America needs Nixon." And another person, he also says, "America needs me." So, but why two? If America you, and you are both... No. There is individuality. Mr. Nixon's opinion is something else. Mr. another candidate's opinion is something else. In the assembly, in the Senate, in the Congress, in the United Nations, everyone is fighting with his individual view. Otherwise why there are so many flags in the world? You cannot say anywhere impersonalism. Personality is predominating everywhere. Everywhere, the personality, individuality, is predominant. So we have to accept. We have to apply our reason, arguments, and accept the authority. Then the question is solved. Otherwise it is most difficult.
Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:
Yes. He says that there was no such time when we are not individual, and there will be no such time in the future when we shall not remain individual. And so far present is concerned, we are all individual. You know. So where is the possibility of losing individuality? Become imperson? No. There is no possibility. This voidism, impersonalism, they are artificial ways of negating the perplexing variegatedness of this material existence. That is the negative side only. That is not a positive side. A positive side is that, as Kṛṣṇa says, tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti kaunteya (BG 4.9). "After giving up this material tabernacle, one comes to Me." Just like after leaving this room, you have to enter another room. You cannot say that "After leaving this room, I shall live in the sky." Similarly, after leaving this body, if you go to Kṛṣṇa in the spiritual kingdom, your individuality will be there, but you'll have that spiritual body. When there is spiritual body there is no perplexities. Just like your body is different from the body of the aquatics.
Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:
Kṛṣṇa says, "After leaving this body, he does not come to this perplexities of material world." Mām eti, "He comes to Me." "Me" means His kingdom, His paraphernalia, His associates, everything. If some rich man or some king says, "All right, you come to me," that does not mean that he's impersonal. If a king says, "Come to..." means that he has got his palace, he has got his secretary, he has got his nice apartment, everything is there. How he can be imperson? But he says only, "Come to me." This "me" means everything. This "me" does not mean impersonal. And we get information from Brahma-saṁhitā, lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānaṁ surabhīr abhipālayantam (Bs. 5.29). So He's not impersonal. He's raising cows, He's with hundreds and thousands of goddesses of fortune, His friends, His paraphernalia, His kingdom, His house, everything is there. So there is no question of impersonalism. Yes.
Devotee: "The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual but material.
Lecture on BG 2.13-17 -- Los Angeles, November 29, 1968:
Just like you see one airplane is flying in the air, and when it goes too far, it appears that it has disappeared. It seems to us that there is no more that airplane. It has mixed with the sky. But actually it is not. It is still there, individual existence. It is my ignorance that I see that it is no more separate, it has mixed with the sky. Just like in the daytime we don't find any star in the sky. Due to the dazzling sunshine, we cannot see any stars. At night, we can see millions of stars, there are. Similarly, that is the impersonalism and personalism. One whose knowledge is not perfect, they think imperson, everything homogeneous. And one whose knowledge is perfect... Vedas also confirm it... Just like in the Īśopaniṣad, there is a verse in which it is stated that "Please withdraw Your effulgence so that I can see Your real face." Just like the sun globe. You cannot see it perfectly due to the dazzling sunshine. But the sun globe is there, and in the glow there are living entities, and there is a principal head man, god. They are not man because their body is made of fire. So similarly, the first, impersonal impression, Brahman, then further advanced, Supersoul, and when further advanced, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). First realization, Brahman, impersonal; the second realization is Paramātmā, Supersoul; and the last realization is the personal form of God, Kṛṣṇa. Go on.
Lecture on BG 4.39-42 -- Los Angeles, January 14, 1969:
Just like there is no fever. In diseased condition one is trying to get out of the feverish condition. So by medicinal treatment one gets out of fever. But that is not healthy condition. That is not final. There is negation of fever. That's admitted. That's all right. But that is convulsion (convalescent) stage. You may relapse again. When you actually come to the healthy state, that is your life. So negation of fever is not as good as your healthy life. So negation of this materialistic idea, impersonalism, is not complete knowledge. Because I am spirit soul, I am active even in this material diseased condition. How much active I must be in my healthy condition. That is real knowledge. Healthy condition does not mean that I am dead. This is no treatment.
Lecture on BG 5.26-29 -- Los Angeles, February 12, 1969:
And nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa, the Buddha philosophy is just above the material conditional life but on the margin of spiritual existence. That is... Nirvāṇa means void of material existence. Nirvāṇa, this impersonal conception is also nirvāṇa. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that this impersonal philosophy is another phase of the void philosophy. Veda... Covered void philosophy. Impersonalism is covered void philosophy. They are all the same. Śaṅkara's philosophy of impersonalism and Lord Buddha's philosophy void is almost the same. Real life, real spiritual life is this Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Vaiṣṇava philosophy, to associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead face to face. Just like we are sitting here face to face. We are talking, you are hearing. You can have this perfection. That is personal conception of spiritual perfection. Go on.
Lecture on BG 6.46-47 -- Los Angeles, February 21, 1969:
That is very good. But just how great God is, that you can understand from Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. But there is acceptance that God is great. That is therefore that is beginning of bhakti. You can apply that bhakti. Even the Mohammedan religion. That is also bhakti-yoga. Any religion where God is the target, that is applied in bhakti. But when there is no God or impersonalism, there is no question of bhakti-yoga. Bhakti-yoga means bhaja jayukti bhaja-sevayā(?). Service. Service means three things: the servitor, the served, and service. One must be present who will accept service. And one must be present to render service. And in the via media, the process of service. So bhakti-yoga means service. If there is nobody to accept the service, then where is the bhakti-yoga? So any philosophy or religious principle where there is no acceptance of God, the Supreme, there is no application of bhakti. Yes.
Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Sydney, February 16, 1973:
The Supreme Absolute Truth is one, but He's realized from different angles of vision. Those who are trying to realize the Supreme Absolute Truth by speculation, they come to the impersonal conclusion. And those who are trying to think Him, think about Him within the heart, dhyānāvasthita... That is the yogic, yogic principle, to think of the Supreme within the heart. He is there within the heart. Both the living entity, individual living entity and God, is sitting within this heart. That's a fact. We have to search it out, catch Him by yogic process. So those who are trying to understand the Absolute Truth by speculative method, they come to the conclusion of impersonalism. And those who are trying to capture the Supreme Personality of Godhead within the heart—yogis, Paramātmā—they understand Kṛṣṇa or God as Paramātmā, the Supersoul. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānām hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). You will find in the Bhagavad-gītā. Īśvara, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is sitting in everyone's heart. Not only human beings, even animals, everyone. So that feature is called Paramātmā.
Lecture on BG 8.21-22 -- New York, November 19, 1966:
Some philosophers think that that spiritual atmosphere must be impersonal, impersonal, void. There are some philosophers, they think like that, that "There is. We accept the spiritual atmosphere." The impersonalists, Śaṅkarites, even the Buddhists, they also, some way or other, they accept that there is the voidness. But the Bhagavad-gītā does not disappoint you in that way. That voidness philosophy has created atheism. Because, just try to understand clearly, I am spiritual being. I want enjoyment. That is my life. I want enjoyment. But as soon as my future is void, I must be inclined to enjoy this material life. Therefore they simply discuss this voidness impersonalism, but they enjoy as much as possible this material life. Simply armchair philosophical discussion. But as soon as we see their behavior, they're too much attached with the material enjoyment.
Lecture on BG 8.21-22 -- New York, November 19, 1966:
It is very clearly stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Just like a diseased man, he's forbidden by the doctor, "Oh, you don't eat. You don't have sex life. You don't, don't..." So many don't's. But he is forced to accept that don't, but inner side he feels, "Oh, if I get, I'll be happy." Inner side is want. But a spiritualist, inner side is strong. He's not impotent, but he'll don't like sex intercourse. Doesn't like. He hates. That is spiritual life. Inner side is strong enough. He can marry thrice, but he has got a detachment. That is spiritual life. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate. Just like if you get something superior, naturally, you give up all inferior things.
So we want enjoyment, but this atheism or this voidness, this impersonalism, they have created such an atmosphere that we are simply speculating, but we are addicted to these material enjoyments.
Lecture on BG 9.2 -- Calcutta, March 8, 1972:
On the sunshine all these material planets are resting. Similarly, everything, these universes are resting on Kṛṣṇa's bodily shine, brahma-jyotir. Yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi (Bs. 5.40). Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ. These māyāvādī philosophers say, "Because everything is Kṛṣṇa, then why shall I go to temple? Why shall I say 'Worship Kṛṣṇa'?" But everything is Kṛṣṇa, why not this Kṛṣṇa? This is also Kṛṣṇa. But their poor brain cannot understand. They simply preach impersonalism. But here it is described, what is impersonalism. Impersonalism means expansion of Kṛṣṇa's energy. That is impersonal. That is also Kṛṣṇa, but indirect. Everything is there, mat-sthāni sarva..., but you cannot find out Kṛṣṇa there. So this material world is also expansion of Kṛṣṇa's energy. Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vayuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca bhinnā me prakṛtir aṣṭadhā (BG 7.4). "They are also My energy, but they're separated." So although separated, because it is coming from Kṛṣṇa, it is also Kṛṣṇa. Because everything coming out of gold, that is also gold. So in higher sense, practically there is no... (end)
Lecture on BG 9.4 -- Calcutta, March 9, 1972:
This verse, we have been discussing last night, this is distinct explanation of impersonalism and personalism. Actually, there cannot be any impersonal idea. Here, Kṛṣṇa says avyakta-mūrtinā. Even avyakta, nonmanifested, it has also a mūrti, a form. Generally we conceive impersonalism, voidism, voidism, compared with the sky. Sky is called zero, void, but sky has also a form. We see daily, a big round form. So there cannot be anything without form. That is not possible. Therefore Kṛṣṇa particularly says avyakta-mūrtinā. Although it is nonmanifested, but it has got a form. But one who does not take to the real form and takes to the imaginary form, that has been explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhika-taras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Those who are attached to the impersonal form, they unnecessarily take some trouble, kleśaḥ adhika-taraḥ.
Lecture on BG 9.34 -- New York, December 26, 1966, 'Who is Crazy?':
So long I am sitting on the car, I am displaying so much individuality, and so much discrimination. As soon as there is red signal, I stop my car. There is blue signal, green signal, I start my car. I'm using my consciousness. I'm working. And, simply by getting down from the car, I lose everything. I become void? What is this nonsense? No.
There is neither voidness, nor impersonalism. The Bhagavad-gītā does not agree to that. In the Second Chapter you have read it, that Kṛṣṇa, Lord Kṛṣṇa says that, "Arjuna, Myself, yourself, and all these persons who have come here to fight with one another, they were individual selves before, they are individual selves now, and they will continue to be individual selves in the future. So don't be mad that you shall not fight. Their, I mean to say, identity, spiritual identity, will continue."
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
Lecture on SB 1.2.11 -- Vrndavana, October 22, 1972:
As we are living beings, living entities, Kṛṣṇa is also living entity. He's not a dead stone. He's living entity. And as we have got all the propensities of living entity, He has got all the propensities of living entity. Here we are pervertedly... A young boy likes to love a young girl. A young girl likes to love a young boy. But wherefrom these natural propensities come? Because it is there in Kṛṣṇa. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8). So there cannot be any question of impersonalism. Because by studying the sample living entity, you can understand the chief living entity. Kṛṣṇa is the chief living entity, supreme living entity. So we are samples. Whatever propensities we have got, Kṛṣṇa has also got. But we have got in a limited proportion. Kṛṣṇa has got unlimited proportion. The... Take the same example. The loving propensity, yupat..., yupatidvan yatha yuna,(?) this is natural. But we may finish... Because it is perverted, we may finish these loving propensities within time and space. But Kṛṣṇa's loving propensity is not finished within time and space. It is eternal. That is the difference between Kṛṣṇa and ourself.
Lecture on SB 1.2.12 -- Delhi, November 18, 1973:
So they do not get that ānanda. They simply are elevated to the position of eternity. But eternity without ānanda. Just like you just imagine: suppose you are given a very nice place. You are ordered that "You live here eternally, but don't allow nobody else. You can live alone." How long you will live? Because as a living entity, as part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, you want ānanda. So ānanda, you require society, friendship and love. That is ānanda. That is not impersonalism. That is personalism. So unless you enter to the personal activities of Kṛṣṇa, there cannot be ānanda. There cannot be. Unless you are qualified to dance with Kṛṣṇa or to play with Kṛṣṇa, to become father of Kṛṣṇa, mother of Kṛṣṇa, and enjoy the ānandamayam, ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitābhiḥ (Bs. 5.37), you cannot be happy.
Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972:
So why they should write again? But still, when there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he wrote Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra. But still, Vedānta-sūtra does not mean to understand impersonalism. No. That's not the fact.
Therefore in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in the very beginning, the Vedānta-sūtra is discussed. Unfortunately, the professional Bhāgavata reciters did... Neither they have got brain, nor do they explain the, from the very beginning, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, from the very beginning, Vedānta-sūtra is explained: janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). In the Vedānta-sūtra, the answer is: "The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates."
Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972:
Impersonal, actually, there is, there cannot be any worship of the impersonal feature, Brahman. It is simply accepting some trouble. Kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. It is simply troublesome. But unfortunately, these impersonalists have spread all over the world. They have no sharp brain to understand the Supreme Person, and they are misguiding the whole population that either impersonalism or voidism. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi.
But this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is against this. We are giving directly the name and address and the activities, everything, of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They are trying to find out the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is the Supreme Person. Anvayāt and abhijñaḥ. Abhijñaḥ means conscious. And what kind of conscious? What kind of knowledge? Sva-rāṭ. Our, my knowledge, your knowledge is received from others. Without... The Vedantists... The Vedantists, they also receive their knowledge from another Vedantist—the so-called Vedantists. Vedantists are... Real Vedantists are the Vaiṣṇavas.
Lecture on SB 1.2.30 -- Vrndavana, November 9, 1972:
So here it is clearly said that sa evedaṁ sasarjāgre bhagavān ātma-māyayā: "Bhagavān created by His energy." It is not that Bhagavān is finished after this creation. The Māyāvāda philosophy is that everything is God; therefore there is no separate existence of God. That is impersonalism. But here it is said that bhagavān ātma-māyayā: He created this cosmic manifestation by His energy. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam eva avaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). His full energy, even it is taken away from Him, still, He is full, He's complete. He's not exhausted. So sa evedaṁ sasarjāgre bhagavān ātma-māyayā, sad-asad-rūpayā. The māyā is displayed... Māyā means energy. That is displayed in two ways: material and spiritual. Material is asat, and spiritual is sat. Asat means which does not exist permanent, permanently.
Lecture on SB 1.3.11-12 -- Los Angeles, September 17, 1972:
Therefore in the Padma Purāṇa this Buddhist theory, voidism, and the Śaṅkara's theory, impersonalism, they are taken as one and the same. Pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate. Pracchannaṁ bauddham. The Buddhists, they decline to accept the authority of Vedas, and the Māyāvādīs, the impersonalists, they want to accept the authority of Vedas, but under the garb of Buddhism. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has given His remark, veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. According to Vedic line of thought, anyone who does not accept the authority of Vedas, he is called atheist. Just like the Muhammadans, they also call "kafir." One who does not accept the authority of Koran, they call "kafir." And the Christians also, they call "heathens." So there are different terms. So according to our Vedic line of thought, anyone who does not accept the Vedic way of life, he is called atheist.
Lecture on SB 1.5.18 -- New Vrindaban, June 22, 1969:
Jagat means this cosmic manifestation, idam, this, bhagavān... "It is Kṛṣṇa." That means, "Try to preach or try to teach the people in general that everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa, everything is manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's energy." But not impersonalism. If... The impersonalists' view is that if everything is Kṛṣṇa... That is the... That is their material way of thinking. Just like if you take a big paper and, I mean to say, cut into pieces and the pieces are distributed, strewn over, then the original paper is lost. So their theory is, "If Kṛṣṇa is everything—Kṛṣṇa has expanded in this world, in cosmic manifestation—then Kṛṣṇa has no form, separate form." That is their theory. But the Vedic injunction is: "No, it is not like that." Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate: (Īśo Invocation) Kṛṣṇa is so full that even Kṛṣṇa expands million times, still, He's the same thing, Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is person. And even He expands, Kṛṣṇa, in many ways... Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). This is the fine philosophy. One has to understand how Kṛṣṇa, in spite of His being a person—He's person, without any doubt—He has expanded in so many universes, so many manifestations. Yes.
Lecture on SB 1.8.30 -- Los Angeles, April 22, 1973:
The other philosophers, they are trying to become dead stones by meditation. "Let me think of void, impersonalism." The, artificially how you can make it void? Your heart, your mind is full of activities. So these are artificial things. This will not help the human society. The so-called yoga, so-called meditation, they are all rascaldom. Because there is no engagement. Here there is engagement. Here everyone is engaged to rise early in the morning for offering ārātrika to the Deities. They are preparing nice food. They are decorating, making garlands, so many engagements. They are going for saṅkīrtana party, they are canvassing for selling books. Twenty-four hours engagement. Therefore they're able to give up this sinful life. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate.
Lecture on SB 1.8.32 -- Los Angeles, April 24, 1973:
Just like a diseased man. He's lying down on the bed and eating there, passing stool there, passing urine there, and he cannot move and very bitter medicine. So many inconvenience. He's lying down. So he's thinking of committing suicide. "Oh, this life is very intolerable. Let me commit suicide." So in desperate condition sometimes the philosophy of voidism, impersonalism is followed. To make the things zero. Because this life is so much troublesome, sometimes even one commits suicide to get out of this, I mean to say, troublesome life of material existence. So the philosophy of voidism, impersonalism is like that. Mean they cannot, shudder, to think of another life, again eating, again sleeping, again working. Because he thinks eating, sleeping, means on the bed. That's all. And suffering. He cannot think otherwise. So the negative way, to make it zero. That is void philosophy.
Lecture on SB 1.8.43 -- Mayapura, October 23, 1974:
So here Kuntīdevī says that "Please help me in cutting my affection with my family." Sneha-pāśam imaṁ chindhi: "Please cut off. Please help me cutting this family connection." Then Kuntī says that tvayi me ananya-viṣayā matir madhu-pate asakṛt. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means to cut off family connection and enter into Kṛṣṇa's family, not void. We are not impersonalists or voidists. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they are impersonalists. They think, "Kṛṣṇa is person. Kṛṣṇa's activities are all personal. So this is also māyā." Because they are Nirviśeṣavādī, their ultimate goal is nirviśeṣa-brahman. So anything personal, they cannot accept it. And the Buddhist philosophy is to zero, śūnyavādi. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. The whole world is now corrupted with these two kinds of philosophies: nirviśeṣa-śūnyavāda, impersonalism and voidism. But Vaiṣṇava philosophy is not voidism, not impersonalism. Vaiṣṇava philosophy means to know the Absolute Truth as person. Impersonal realization of the Absolute Truth is partial knowledge. It is not complete, because the Absolute Truth is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). Vigraha means form. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate.
Lecture on SB 1.8.48 -- Mayapura, October 28, 1974:
Just like Kṛṣṇa says to Yudhiṣṭhira, "Go and speak the lie," and He speaks to Arjuna that yudhyasva mām anusmara: (BG 8.7) "You fight," so not the instruction the same to everyone. Kṛṣṇa knows who is capable to do something particular, and similarly, guru also knows. So it is not that the same instruction is given to all. There may be, because variety. It is not impersonalism, one kind of... No. Variety. Kṛṣṇa is ānandamaya. Ānanda means variety is the mother of enjoyment. Unless there are varieties, how there can be ānanda? Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda. So Kṛṣṇa's business is variety. The Māyāvādīs, they cannot understand. They simply understand that we are one. No. Varieties. Cintāmaṇi-prakara-sadmasu kalpa-vṛkṣa-lakṣāvṛteṣu surabhīr abhipālayantam (Bs. 5.29). Kṛṣṇa is enjoying varieties. He is living in the cintāmaṇi-dhāma. There are surabhī. He's tending, tending the cows, and He's playing with the cowherd boys. He's making jokes with the gopīs. He is enjoying the company... Varieties. He's becoming the son, dependent son of Mother Yaśodā. So Kṛṣṇa is variety. Without variety, there cannot be enjoyment. So therefore variety of instruction also.
Lecture on SB 2.1.3 -- Vrndavana, March 18, 1974:
So long you are not free... Just like the bird is kept into the cage. He's unhappy. He's unhappy. It may be golden cage. It doesn't matter. Similarly, we cannot be happy with this encagement. We must be free from the encagement. Freedom. That is called liberty, mukti. That is required. So the Māyāvādī philosophers, they do no know that "Suppose, even I get free, so where shall I go?" He thinks, "I shall be free in the sky." Just like impersonalism. Sky is impersonal. So if suppose a bird is given freedom, but he flies in the sky, will he be happy? No. That also he'll not be happy. Then he'll again think of that "It was better to remain in the cage. Now what is the value of my, this freedom? I'm not happy." And again go back to the cage. You will see in India. There is a bird, fiftil.(?) Fiftil. The man who keeps that bird in the cage, sometimes he takes it to the open field, and he opens the door, opens the door, and the bird walks, sometimes flies. He is given freedom. Then again the man: (makes coaxing sound:) ts-ts-ts-ts. He says like that, and the bird comes again within the cage. You'll see. If you have seen, those who are Indian. But he thinks that "I have been given freedom now. But where shall I go? Where shall I go? I have to eat." So he again comes back: "Better to live within this cage. Better to live within this cage."
Lecture on SB 2.1.3 -- Vrndavana, March 18, 1974:
You get freedom from the cage, but if you do not get to eat something, how long you'll live? Therefore they prefer again to come to the cage. That fiftil... Because they have no other way. Therefore this Māyāvāda philosophy, voidism, impersonal philosophy, is not very good. You cannot remain impersonal or in void because your position is..., because you are living entity, because you are part and parcel of the supreme living entity, Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). He is always full of jubilation. So you also, being part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, you also want jubilation. But how you can get jubilation, how you can be jubilant in the sky, in the zero? This is the difference between Māyāvāda philosophy. Therefore you cannot be happy even by getting free from this encagement, material world, and if you place yourself in impersonalism and voidism, that will not help you. Try to understand it. That will not help you.
Lecture on SB 2.3.1-3 -- Los Angeles, May 22, 1972:
So he's playing childish, foolish things? He's giving some wrong information? Imagination? What business he has got to do that? But these Māyāvādī rascals will say that "the demigods are also māyā, Kṛṣṇa is also māyā, everything is māyā." Therefore we call them Māyāvādī, everything māyā. Kṛṣṇa-bhakti is māyā. They say it is good for raising oneself to the platform of impersonalism. Their process is that you, if you want to go higher platform, you take one staircase and get on it, and then throw it away. Because you don't require to come down again. That is their philosophy. So you take any means, the Ramakrishna Mission also says like that. Yata mata tata patha. "You can worship brahma-varcasa, you can worship Devī-māyā; you can worship Vasūn; you can worship Rudra; you can worship anyone; ultimately, you become one with the Supreme." Most misguiding. Here it is... But if you want this particular thing, then you worship this. In the Bhagavad-gītā also, it is confirmed, yānti deva-vratā devān pitṟn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ (BG 9.25).
Lecture on SB 2.9.14 -- Melbourne, April 13, 1972:
The Upaniṣad also it is stated that He... The two birds are sitting on the same tree, the jīvātmā and paramātmā. The one bird is eating forbidden fruit, and the other bird is seeing. So He is seeing. But how He is seeing? The Veda, the Vedic literatures, apaśyati. Therefore sees. Apaśyati means see. But you said, acakṣuḥ. He has no eyes. How He sees? That is His eyes. He has no eyes like you, a three feet distance, that's all, finished, your eyesight. He can see. From many thousands and millions of miles away He can see. So it is the distinction. When it is stated, impersonalism, He is not a person like us. Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Because I come here to be visible to the rascals, instead of taking advantage of this visibility, they are describing, nirākāra. Mūḍhā, rascals. I come here personally and still they say nirākāra, impersonal. Mūḍhā, rascals, fools, asses."
Lecture on SB 3.25.5-6 -- Bombay, November 5, 1974:
So this is the, I mean, the mentality. Why this mentality? The mentality is that "Without varieties we cannot enjoy." Variety is the mother of enjoyment. So the impersonal Brahman realization, or Paramātmā realization, does not give us steady ānanda. We want ānanda. Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). The living entity, or Brahman, or Para-brahman... Just like our Kṛṣṇa. He's Para-brahman. He's enjoying ānanda. Similarly, we also, being part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, mamaivāṁśo jīva... (BG 15.7), we want ānanda. So ānanda cannot be in impersonalism, or voidism. That is not possible. Ānanda means varieties. When you get varieties of foodstuff, made of the same ingredient—same, I mean to say, grains, or milk and sugar—but we can prepare hundreds and thousands of preparations... At least, hundred preparations, and we enjoy: this is peṛā, this is baraphi, this is kṣīra, this is rābṛi, this is dahi, and so many things. So variety is required. Variety is required. So therefore the last word of tattva-jñāna is to understand Kṛṣṇa, who is full of variety.
Lecture on SB 3.25.33-34 -- Bombay, December 3, 1974:
They do not actually believe in the form of Viṣṇu, but they take it as a means, a imagination, to imagine the form of Viṣṇu. This is Māyāvāda philosophy. Sādhakānāṁ hitārthāya brāhmaṇaḥ rūpa-kalpanaḥ.(?) They imagine. Just like they are worshiping Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādī will say, "This is imagination. Actually, the Absolute Truth has no rūpa, no form." That is impersonalism. They do not know that here is the actual form, Kṛṣṇa. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Vigraha. Vigraha means who has got form. They do not know that. Therefore they mistake that that is not... There are many so-called Vaiṣṇavas. They are worshiping Viṣṇu, but thinking of becoming one with the Supreme, imagining. They cannot be one. How it can be? That is not possible. They sometimes give the example: the drop of water, when it mixes with the vast mass of water in the sea, it becomes one. But does it actually become so? No. According to scientific division these, there are the atomic molecules of water.
Lecture on SB 6.3.16-17 -- Gorakhpur, February 10, 1971:
"These Viṣṇudūtas, they are not only worshipable by common men, but they are worshipable by the demigods." Sura-pūjitāni. Sura means the demigods. Pūjitāni: "They are worshiped." Bhutāni viṣṇoḥ: "Those who are associates of Lord Viṣṇu..."
So there is no question of impersonalism. This oneness with God and the living entity, these are the oneness, that they attain the same quality, the same characteristics, the same feature of the body. That is oneness. Not that they have no individuality. God has got individuality and His devotees or the living entities, even though not devotees, nondevotees, everyone has got individuality. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says that "I, you, and all these persons who have assembled here in the Battle of Kurukṣetra, they existed in the past, they are existing at the present moment, and they will continue to exist in the future."
Lecture on SB 7.9.1 -- Mayapur, February 10, 1977:
So these bad habits, kāma krodha-kāma means lust; krodha means anger—so if they are also coming from God, then how we can neglect it? How we can reject it? So there is no need of rejecting. That is the Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura's... You cannot reject. That is not possible. As you are a living being, there must be kāma, krodha, lobha, moha, mātsarya. You cannot reject it. You cannot make it zero. That is impersonalism. But it has its proper use. That you have to know. Unless you know the proper use of everything, everything... Proper use means it must be used for Kṛṣṇa. Then it is proper use. Otherwise it is misused. There is no such thing as bad. Everything is good when it is used for Kṛṣṇa. That is the difference between material and spiritual. Spiritual, everything is good, and material, everything is bad. You cannot make any distinction. When a thing is used materially it is bad. Therefore in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said, dvaite bhadrābhadra sakali samāna. Dvaite—means in this world of duality—everything is bad. They have invented some artificial meaning, "This is good, this is bad," but actually everything is bad in the material world. There is nothing good. And just the opposite: in the spiritual world, everything is good.
Lecture on SB 7.9.9 -- Montreal, July 4, 1968:
All your senses, in diseased condition, cannot work. Similarly, in material diseased condition you cannot understand what is God. You have to cure yourself from this diseased condition. Then you will see, you will touch, you will perceive, you will know, you will feel—everything. Those who are unable to cure the disease, they want to kill. Just like a patient is suffering in very bad type of disease. The physician cannot kill, then..., cannot cure him, then he thinks, "Let me die. Let me commit suicide." So this voidism or impersonalism is a symptom of frustration, not being able to cure the disease. But actually, the living entity is eternal. Just like a rascal or foolish man thinks that "I am suffering so much. Let me commit suicide, and it will be a great relief." It is foolishness. He will be put into further torture after this life. He will become a ghost. So because they do not know that living creature is eternal, therefore they want to make the ultimate solution as void, zero. But it cannot be zero. It is not possible, because you are eternal. Therefore you have to cure. And that curing process is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. (aside:) Ṛṣi Kumar? Why you are there? Come here. (chuckles) All right. Any other questions? Yes, try to understand nicely. Yes.
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 1, 1972:
Pradyumna: (reading:) "...as given by Rūpa Gosvāmī in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, can be summarized thus: his service is favorable and is always in relation to Kṛṣṇa. In order to keep the purity of such Kṛṣṇa conscious activities, one must be freed from all material desires and philosophical speculation. Any desire except for the service of the Lord is called material desire. And philosophical speculation refers to the sort of speculation which ultimately arrives at a conclusion of voidism or impersonalism. This conclusion is useless for a Kṛṣṇa conscious person. Only rarely by philosophical speculation can one reach the conclusion of worshiping Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā itself. The ultimate end of philosophical speculation, then, must be Kṛṣṇa, with the understanding that Kṛṣṇa is everything, the cause of all causes, and that one should therefore surrender unto Him. If this ultimate goal is reached, then philosophical advancement is favorable, but if the conclusion of philosophical speculation is voidism or impersonalism, that is not bhakti."
Prabhupāda: There is a verse in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: vāsudeva-parā vedā vāsudeva-paraṁ jñānaṁ vāsudeva-paraṁ gatim. So unless one is led to the conclusion vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19), jñāna-vairāgya-karma, anything that you are trying to achieve, if it is not targeted to the realization of Vāsudeva, then it... Śrama eva hi kevalam (SB 1.2.8). That is the conclusion of Bhāgavata. Whatever you do, the ultimate goal should be realization of Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). All Vedic conclusions should be ultimately to realize Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). This realization is achieved after many, many births of philosophical speculation, mystic yogic exercise or fruitive activities.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 3, 1972:
So they are now taking gradually to devotional service. They are trying to read Bhāgavata, although they are habituated to malinterpret. But they have no other. They have finished their job. Now they are gradually coming to bhakti-mārga. That is natural. If one is actually sincere, after suffering the distress of impersonalism, gradually they'll come to surrender to the person. Bahūnāṁ janmanāṁ ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). So when one becomes devotee, jñānīs, they give too much value to liberation, mokṣa, nirbheda-brahmānusandhana. But yogis, they give too much value for controlling the senses. Karmīs, they give too much value to, to the acts of promotion to the heavenly planets. But for a devotee these things are very teeny. They don't care for these things. Neither for the karmīs, or for the jñānīs, or for the yogis. They are... Yaṁ labdhvā cāparaṁ manyate nādhikaṁ tataḥ. A bhakta who has come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, pure devotional service, he has no more any desire for the resultant action of karmīs, jñānīs, and yogis. He's so fixed up.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 25, 1973:
Suppose you give in charity. So the laws of nature is that if you give one by charity, you get four. So now to accept that four, you have to take birth again. Therefore Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, karma-kāṇḍa jñāna-kāṇḍa sakali viṣera bandha. Karma-kāṇḍa means if you act very piously, next life you get good birth, good opulence, money, janma iśvarya-śruta, good education, beautiful body. These are the resultant actions of sat-karma. And asat-karma means you become poor, ugly, without any education, no riches, always hungry. These are the results of asat-karma. So this is called karma-kāṇḍa. And jñāna-kāṇḍa means to try to merge into the existence of the Lord, which, even if we do, but because you are under the impression of impersonalism, you again fall down. So both by the action of karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa one is not secure. Therefore Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, sakali viṣera bandha. Poison, either in a golden pot or in iron pot, it is the..., the effect is the same. So bhakti is neither for karma-kāṇḍa nor for jñāna-kāṇḍa. Jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam (CC Madhya 19.167). That is real bhakti.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.5 -- Mayapur, March 29, 1975:
So, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura explains, janmādy asya means the ādi-rasa, loving affairs between man and woman, that is from the Supreme Person. That's a fact. Unless the loving propensity is there in the Supreme, how it can be reflected? Because this is perverted reflection only, so there must be the origin. So the Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand this. Because they have got bitter experience of this material world, they try to make zero or without any varieties the ultimate goal. Śūnyavādi. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. The nirviśeṣavāda, impersonalism and voidism, they are of the same nature. The Buddhist philosopher, they say, "Ultimately, everything is zero." And the Māyāvādī philosopher says not zero, but impersonal. But actually that is not fact. There is everything, variety and personal. But because the philosophers with poor fund of knowledge, they cannot understand, they make it zero or varietyless, nirviśeṣavāda. That, to clean, that to clear the idea, our Kavirāja Gosvāmī says that this Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa prema, loving affairs between Rādhā Kṛṣṇa, it is a fact. It is not imagination. It is a fact. But this fact is different from the fact we have got experience in this world. That is to be understood.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.80-95 -- San Francisco, February 10, 1966:
What are the salvationists? When a person becomes frustrated by become a man of religiosity, a rich man of economic development, and satisfaction of sense gratification, when he, one has seen that all these things has not given him any peace of mind, then he wants to become out of this scene and become one with the Supreme. This is called salvationist. So somebody is thinking void, somebody is thinking impersonal Brahman. So the last stage is to become extinguished in the void or impersonalism. That is called salvation. Salvation from this material entanglement.
So general people, they have got these four kinds of ideas: religiosity, economic development, sense gratification, and at last monism, or become one with the Supreme. That's all. In the Bengal, there is a proverb that mullah do musjik (?). Mullah do (?). Amongst the Muhammadans, the priest is called mullah.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.80-95 -- San Francisco, February 10, 1966:
Oh, he has put wrongly. Stop it. (break) So all these activities are, up to the last stage, to become one. Therefore 99.9%, they will talk of void and impersonalism. They have no idea.
So Kṛṣṇa, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that this emotion, by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, developing love of God, is far, far beyond these four principles of perfection, above the idea of becoming one with the Supreme.
pañcama puruṣārtha-premānandāmṛta-sindhu
brahmandi ānanda yāra nahe eka bindu
This pañcama puru... This is fifth dimension. One, religiosity; two, economic development; and three, sense gratification; and four, to become one with the Supreme. So above these four, this is fifth. This is the fifth stage of perfection. What is that? Developing love of Godhead and getting emotion out of that. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says this emotional stage is so transcendental and so elevated that there is no comparison with the other four principles.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:
So these are stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore natural conclusion, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, that His potencies, His body and His activities—everything spiritual. There is nothing material. Cid-vibhūti ācchādi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra.' 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 Upaniṣad... First of all they describe the Supreme... Just like apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā. 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.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.106 -- New York, July 12, 1976:
So śāstra therefore forbids or gives warning, āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32). The same example. With great endeavor, with much expenditure you may go eighty thousand miles per hour, but unless you get shelter, you have to again come back to this, either in America or Russia. They tried, but they could not get shelter. Similarly, the one may understand that he is spirit soul and he may try his best to merge into the spiritual effulgence, Brahman—ahaṁ brahmāsmi, "I shall remain in Brahman"—but because he is person, the impersonalism condition will not be helpful to him, and because he has no personal view of the supreme spirit—he cannot surrender to Kṛṣṇa—naturally he again comes back to this material world and surrenders to the material subject matter. Sometimes he is engaged in philanthropic work or altruistic work. He thought, "This is the best service. instead of serving myself, let me serve the whole humanity, whole community, whole nation," so on, so on, so on. But they are all asad-dharma. They are not sad-dharma.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.118-119 -- New York, November 23, 1966:
That is the duty of this human form of life. Ābhajet tam bhaktyaika īśam. Simply by devotional... If you want to worship the Supreme Lord, then you have to worship Him simply by service. There is no other process. You cannot worship Kṛṣṇa by this controlling breathing or by mental speculation or by some pious activities or by charities. You have simply to worship Him simply by your devotional love. That is the only way. Bhaktyai, bhaktyaika, only one, bhakti. There is no other means. There is no second means to understand God without this devotional service. Rest assured. Foolish creatures, they take this, that. They do not understand. They come to the, that impersonal, void, all the nonsensical conclusions and... Because they do not take shelter of this, devotion, therefore they cannot have any conclusion. It is not possible. Therefore, more or less, they become atheists or after the voidness or impersonalism, and so many things there are. They create.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.146-151 -- New York, December 3, 1966:
Now, these universes and the brahmāṇḍas, or the Vaikuṇṭhas, they are manifestation of the energy of the Supreme Lord. God is all-pervading. "God is all-pervading" does not mean God has lost His identification. This is the mistake of the impersonalists. "Because God is everywhere, God is all-pervading; therefore there should not be any particular existence of God." This is impersonalism. But this is material thought. They do not study Vedic literature properly. In the Vedic literature it is said, pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). Just like I have several times explained before you that in the spiritual absolute identity, one minus one equal to one and one plus one equal to one. So although innumerable energies are coming out of the supreme body of the Supreme Lord, still He is full. There is no loss of energy. Just like we can have some material example: the sun. We do not know for how many millions of years the sunshine and temperature is coming out of the sun planet, but still the sun is the same. There is no loss of temperature.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.146-151 -- New York, December 3, 1966:
Even in Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa also says that "I am person. I am person." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). And it is confirmed by Arjuna. What is that? Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). Pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān. So the Bhagavad-gītā, the speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā, establishing Himself that "I am person," and the student of the Bhagavad-gītā, I mean to say, Arjuna, he is accepting, "Yes. You are person. I accept it." I do not know why these fools explain, from Bhagavad-gītā, impersonalism. Where is the chance of explaining impersonal about conception of God from Bhagavad-gītā? Now, how they can surpass the speaker and the student? The student is Arjuna. He is accepting that "You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead." And the speaker, Kṛṣṇa, He is also establishing Himself that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Now, wherefrom these fools take impersonal idea, I do not know. How they can? There is no chance. But still, they will poke their nose in that way. It is very sorry plight. You see? They are simply misleading persons.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:
So there is a very famous prayer made by Śaṅkara... Śaṅkarācārya has made many prayers about Kṛṣṇa, especially about His Vṛndāvana līlā, he has made. He has worshiped Kṛṣṇa in many ways. And last, this is his last composition of poetry. Bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha mate: "You fools, you mūḍha mate..." Muḍḥa mate means "you fools." He was addressing the whole world, "you fools." Bhaja govindam: "Just become devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Just become Kṛṣṇa consciousness." Prāpte sannihite kāle maraṇe na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛñ-karaṇe: "You are philosophizing. You are talking on grammar and this way and that way." Because these people, they want to establish impersonalism from Bhagavad-gītā by strength of grammar. Such a nonsense they are. They want to understand God by..., through grammar. God is so cheap that He can be understood through grammar. Therefore especially he specified, prāpte sannihite kāle maraṇe: "When death will catch you, your grammar, ḍukṛñ, prata, this will not save you. You fools. You please become Kṛṣṇa conscious, Kṛṣṇa conscious." That was the instruction of Śaṅkarācārya. And he has especially mentioned Bhagavad-gītā and Ganges water. He especially mentions. "A little quantity of Ganges water and a little study of Bhagavad-gītā will save you from many dangerous positions."
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.21-28 -- New York, January 11, 1967:
So Lord Caitanya says that "Simply by thinking that 'I am not this matter; I am spirit soul, ahaṁ brahmāsmi. I am Brahman,' that will not help you to get liberation." The real fact is that the individual living entities, they are part and parcel of the Supreme, but somehow or other, they wanted separation from the Supreme and wanted to lord it over the material nature. Therefore they are entangled. That is the real fact. And as such, we find from the Bhagavad-gītā, the Lord asked that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) "Just surrender." So therefore, unless there is surrender of the individual soul to the Supreme, there is no question of liberation. There is no question of liberation. You can cultivate knowledge that "I am not this body; I am spirit soul," but that will not help for your liberation. Because real thing is that you have or we have rebelled against the supremacy of the Supreme Lord. That is the attitude, everywhere we can see actually. Everyone is: "Oh, what is God? What is God?" especially in this age. So this impersonalism is another type of atheism, and this impersonal theory of the Absolute Truth has converted practically the major portion of the world into atheism. So therefore Lord Caitanya says that simply by cultivation of knowledge that "I am not this matter. I am not this matter. I am spirit soul," that will not help.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.31-38 -- San Francisco, January 22, 1967:
So are they not offenses against the friend? If I say, "You have no eyes," it is gentlemanly speaking that "You are blind." If I directly say, "You are blind," oh, will you be very happy upon me? No. If I say, if "You have no leg..." Suppose if I say if "You have no brain," that means "You are rascal. You are fool." So these impersonalists, they are always, I mean to..., trying to understand how God is eyeless, handless, legless, all less. Simply he has got eyes to see beautiful things. He has got his hands to touch nice things. No. These are offenses. According to Caitanya Mahāprabhu these are great offense against God. So therefore they are, life after life, they are studying this impersonalism, but there is no perfection.
Festival Lectures
Festival Lectures
Six Gosvamis Lecture, Sri Sri Sad-govamy-astaka -- Los Angeles, November 18, 1968:
So one who understands... In the Ninth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā also it is said, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: (BG 9.4) "Everything, whatever you see, I am there. It is My expansion." mayā tatam idam. Tatam means expanded. "I have been expanded everywhere." Just like this watch, this is also Kṛṣṇa. This is also Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvāda philosophy, they misunderstand that if Kṛṣṇa has expanded to become this watch, to become this pot, to become this light, to become this room, to become this cloth, then Kṛṣṇa is finished. No more Kṛṣṇa. That is impersonalism. But that is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa exists. That is also confirmed by the Vedas. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Iso Invocation). The Absolute Truth is so perfect that if perfectly taken from the perfect, everything is taken, still He's there. Just like this is a watch. If you take its hands, if you take its glass, if you take its machine, then what remains there? Nothing. It becomes zero. But Kṛṣṇa is so full and complete, if you take millions of Kṛṣṇa from Kṛṣṇa, then Kṛṣṇa is still there. That is Kṛṣṇa's omnipotency. God is omnipotent.
General Lectures
General Lectures
Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 20, 1971:
There are innumerable Vedic scriptures. So we cannot come to the conclusion what is right or wrong, because sometimes you will find contradiction from one... Of course, there is no contradiction, but because we are not advanced in knowledge, sometimes we will find contradiction. Just like in India there are two classes of transcendentalists: the impersonalist and the personalist. That is not contradiction. The Absolute Truth is both impersonal and personal, but somebody is stressing on the impersonal point of view and somebody is stressing on the personal point of view. But we Vaiṣṇava, we know what is the meaning of impersonalism and what is the meaning of personalism. We take it for understanding, as it is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). The Absolute Truth is simultaneously Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān. It is simply different stages of understanding. In the first stage, it is Brahman realization. In the second stage, it is Paramātmā realization. And at the last stage, it is Bhagavān realization.
Philosophy Discussions
Philosophy Discussions
Philosophy Discussion on William James:
Hayagrīva: James gave the following estimation of impersonalism and Buddhism. He wrote, "There are systems of thought which the world usually calls religious and yet which do not positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case. Popularly, of course, the Buddha himself stands in place of a God, but in strictness, the Buddhistic system is atheistic."
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). Lord Buddha appeared at a time when people became atheistic, and especially they began to kill animals in the sacrifice in large quantity. So God, Lord Buddha, appeared, being sympathetic to the poor animals. Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. He was very, very much aggrieved to see the poor animals are being killed unnecessarily. So he preached the religion of nonviolence, and because the people became atheist, so Lord Buddha, just to take them under his control, he also collaborated and said, "Yes, there is no God, but you hear me." But he is incarnation of God, so it is a kind of transcendental cheating that in the beginning he said there is no God, but he is God himself, and people accepted his words or instruction. That is Buddhism. So this very word is used, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). Sura-dviṣām, atheist class of men, are always against theist class of men. Therefore their name is that atheist means who are envious of devotees. So in order to cheat these persons who are envious of God or devotee, Lord Buddha appeared and established a system of religion on the platform of nonviolence—no more animal killing. Because those who are animal killers, they cannot understand God (indistinct). That is not possible. They may have some vague idea. So Lord Buddha wanted to stop these sinful activities, and he established the system of nonviolence.
Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:
Prabhupāda: A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jñāna-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independant, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is the danger of turning to atheism. Thus this process of centering attention on the unmanifested, the inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the senses, as already expressed in this verse, should never be encouraged at any time, especially in this age. It is not advised by Lord Kṛṣṇa.
Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:
Śyāmasundara: He wants to find the basis for individuality, strong individuality.
Prabhupāda: Individuality you may keep. It doesn't matter. Every one of us is individual. Every one of us is struggling, but we must know what for we are struggling, what is our existence. These things are required. Individuality is there. We are preaching this individualism. We do not say that impersonalism. No. So is that all right?. No. Still more.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. Oh, yes. Still more. He says that a man finds himself flung into the world, and he finds that he is a fact within this world. He cannot deny that he is here. And he is subject to the resultant mood of fear or dread that comes about when he discovers that there is no escape to being here. "I am here. There is no escape." So there is immediate anxiety always within the man, that "I am here." So...
Prabhupāda: So when one is under some condition, then there is (indistinct). So therefore, this material world, every one of us are living under conditions and everyone is anxious.
Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:
Prabhupāda: These are vague philosophy.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Not philosophy. It is simply ambiguous speculation, that's all.
Hayagrīva: He was also ambiguous when it came to a personal Deity, but he seemed to lean toward impersonalism.
Prabhupāda: We shall see impersonalism. First of all impersonalism, if you stick to impersonal, then there is no specific understanding of the master who is giving you duty.
Hayagrīva: He looks on the attribution of personality to God as simply a multiplication of one's self in his thoughts.
Prabhupāda: That's all right, but where is the leadership of impersonal understanding? Is there any leadership, impersonal understanding?
Hayagrīva: Well he feels that if you attribute personality to God, you're simply...
Prabhupāda: I am not attributing. God cannot be attributed! That is a false concept. I cannot manufacture God by giving my imaginary attributes. That is not God.
Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus:
Prabhupāda: We are servant—either māyā's servant or Kṛṣṇa's servant. Servant is our constitutional position. Jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109), Caitanya Mahāprabhu says. Our real identity is eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. So even if he is..., are in this material body, if you are engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service, that is liberation. Hitvā anyathā rūpaṁ sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ. When we give up our otherwise life... "Otherwise life" means to be engaged in māyā's service—as the head of the family, head of the community, head or member of this and... We have designated in so many ways. So that is our conditional life. And the same service, when we render to Kṛṣṇa cent percent, we are liberated. Sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ. That is mukti. Mukti, they, by impersonalism, account of poor fund of knowledge, they think mukti means no more activity. Why no more activity? Because the soul is active, and the active soul is within the body; therefore we find these bodily activities. The body itself is not active; the soul is active. So when he gives up this bodily concept of life, how his activities will be stopped? But this poor fund of knowledge, Māyāvāda, they cannot understand. The active principle is the soul. So, so long the active principle is within the body, the body is active, and the active principle gone, the body is lump of matter. So even one is liberated from this lump of matter, he must remain active.
Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:
Devotee: "On His Majesty's service."
Prabhupāda: Ah. (indistinct) That does not mean the..., Her Majesty is there. The Majesty, Her Majesty's power, order, is everywhere. Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni. The government is acting with the seed on Majesty's service, but that does not mean Her Majesty is there. This is simultaneously one and different, acintya-bhedābheda. Majesty is there because the order is there, but still personally he is not there. So the, another, that begun already, is that daridra, in daridra Nārāyaṇa is there, but not that daridra is Nārāyaṇa. But he has no vision. He is talking of this daridra-nārāyaṇa. This is mistake. Nārāyaṇa is there undoubtedly, but not that daridra is Nārāyaṇa. This is impersonalism, Māyāvāda mistake. That is pantheism.
Hayagrīva: Pantheism. So when Kṛṣṇa says, "I am sex life according to dharma," then this means that He can be perceived in this way.
Prabhupāda: Yes. If you, just like garbhādhāna ceremony. That is not a secret thing. That garbhādhāna ceremony is that "I am going to beget a child. I am going to have sex with my wife for begetting a Kṛṣṇa conscious child," so that Kṛṣṇa is remembered. While having sex, if he remembers, "Kṛṣṇa, give me a child who will be Your devotee," that is the duty of the father. So this kind of sex is Kṛṣṇa. And if we have sex for enjoyment, that is not. That is demonic.
Conversations and Morning Walks
Conversations and Morning Walks
1971 Conversations and Morning Walks
1971 Conversations and Morning Walks
Room Conversation -- February 17, 1971, Gorakhpur:
Prabhupāda: Avatāra means avatāran. (Hindi) What is the meaning of descent? What is the meaning of descent? Coming down. Coming down. Yes.
Guest: In the sense of quality or in the sense of form.
Prabhupāda: The sense of form. Because your brain is congested with impersonalism, you cannot understand what is spiritual form. That is your defect.
Guest: That is the trouble.
Prabhupāda: Yes. (Hindi) All hodgepodge things should be...
Guest: (Hindi)
Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore... (Hindi) What is this intellect? It is ignorance. This is not intellect. It is ignorance. You are accepting something wrong. That is ignorance. Ignorance is jñānavān. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). That is knowledge. This is ignorance. He does not know Kṛṣṇa. And one who does not know Kṛṣṇa, he has no value of his knowledge. Bhāgavata says, na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ (SB 7.5.31). Knowledge, what is the target of knowledge? To go up to Viṣṇu, to understand. Tad viṣṇuṁ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti surayaḥ. Those who are actually intelligent, they are simply observing the Viṣṇu form. This is Vedic mantra. So unless you reach to that point, your knowledge has no value. It is ignorance. Nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yogamāyā-samāvṛtaḥ (BG 7.25). So long you do not understand Kṛṣṇa, that means your knowledge is covered still.
1973 Conversations and Morning Walks
1973 Conversations and Morning Walks
Morning Walk -- December 16, 1973, Los Angeles:
Svarūpa Dāmodara: If we don't experience, we may not know that we are suffering.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Because we have got little freedom. Therefore this freedom is given, "All right..." So by freedom, sometimes we are becoming Lord Brahmā and sometimes the germ in the stool. This is going on. Otherwise, why there are so many different types of living entities? That freedom is acting under three modes: sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, and tamo-guṇa. And when they are multiplied, three into three equals nine, nine into eighty-one; therefore 8,400,000 species. They experience everything. That is evolution, coming down, again going up, coming down again. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate (BG 8.19). So when they become exasperated, "No more." They want to become merging into the Supreme. When they are fatigued. After being karmī, then jñānī: "This is not good. What is actually our aim of life, let us search out." But because they make research in their teeny brain, they come to the conclusion, voidism and impersonalism, that "Make it zero, this botheration." That is also imperfect. So when they come to Bhagavān and engage himself in the service, then it is perfect, original.
Morning Walk -- December 20, 1973, Los Angeles:
Karandhara: That is just a conventional term in relationship to you. That is just relative to you, relative to your relationship with that food.
Prabhupāda: This is called impersonalism...
Karandhara: But the food was always there.
Prabhupāda: ...that... We talk in relationship, everything, because this is relative world. Everything we talk, that is in relative consideration. That is Māyāvāda philosophy. They do not accept the relativity. Although when there is some toothache, he will go to the doctor. Why does he not..., "No, it is māyā. Why I shall be troubled with the toothache?" Why does he go to the doctor? That is the defect of Māyāvāda philosophy. They are being affected by the change, but still, they will say, "There is no change. It is all the same."
1974 Conversations and Morning Walks
1974 Conversations and Morning Walks
Morning Walk -- March 31, 1974, Bombay:
Mr. Sar: Vāsudeva still above.
Dr. Patel: That is... Nobody says that.
Prabhupāda: That is Māyāvāda. Yes. That is Māyāvāda, impersonalism. They don't accept the person. That... "Because Vāsudeva has expanded Himself in so many ways, therefore the identity of Vāsudeva is finished."
Dr. Patel: It cannot be exactly. Pūrṇam idaṁ pūrṇam adhaḥ.. (Īśopaniṣad, Invocation).
Prabhupāda: That's all right. But because they are fools, they cannot understand.
Mr. Sar: Celo. Celo. You are a fool; so you don't understand. (laughter)
Dr. Patel: No. Don't call me a fool. I'll hit him.
Mr. Sar: We are fighting! We are fighting! No, we are not fighting.
Prabhupāda: (laughing) Now, now one thing I must explain. I think Dr. Patel is the eldest of you.
Morning Walk -- June 8, 1974, Geneva:
Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: They want to gratify their senses.
Prabhupāda: Why do you make a different God? If you actually believe in God, I say, "Here is God." Why don't you accept? Eh?
Satsvarūpa: Impersonalism. They don't want...
Prabhupāda: That is not God. God is person. That means you do not know God.
Devotee: They say Jesus Christ is God too.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Jesus Christ is God. That's right. But Jesus Christ said, "I'm son of God."
Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Yes. He said, "I'm at the right hand of the Father."
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: So he's different from the Father.
Prabhupāda: Even not different. But he says that he's son of God. We accept it. Why there are so many religions? If religion means acceptance of God, then here is God. Then make one religion. Why so many different religions?
Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris:
Jyotirmayī: Mr. (indistinct) has made very good progress, because before he was always teaching impersonalist Bhagavad-gītā, and now you see he is wearing a dhotī, he's coming to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, he's coming for Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam classes, and he teaches personalist Bhagavad-gītā. But he still thinks a little bit that maybe above there is something impersonalism. But there is good progress. (laughter)
Prabhupāda: Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). Brahman, Paramātmā... He understands English?
Devotee: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān, last stage. First realization impersonal Brahman, then localized Paramātmā, and then Personality of Godhead.
(Jyotirmayī translates into French)
Yogeśvara: Jyotirmayī, perhaps you can explain what Mr. Priest's qualifications are.
Jyotirmayī: Yeah, Mr. (indistinct) is a priest, and he has been for a long time in India, a Christian priest, and he was very glad to know what you are doing here. Kṛṣṇa consciousness was...
Prabhupāda: In India, where did you stay?
Priest: In Poona.
Prabhupāda: Poona, oh. How long you were there?
Priest: Twenty-five years.
Prabhupāda: Oh, then you are Indian. (laughter)
Morning Walk -- June 21, 1974, Germany:
Professor Durckheim: You know that the Christian theologian, they think the main difference between them and Eastern religions altogether is that the Christian are personalists and Eastern tradition is not personalist. This is the whole...
Prabhupāda: Misconception, yes. The majority of Indian population, they are personalists. Yes, majority. Either they worship God or demigod, but they are personalists. Recently the Māyāvādī philosophers, they have poisoned, the impersonalism, calamity. God is person. It is... In the Veda it is said, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). There are millions of persons. We are all persons. And God is the chief person. Just like in modern democracy, there is no monarch. But ultimately they have to select one president. Without person, there cannot be government. Why they do not remain without a president? Let it... Government, everything is government, impersonal. Why they select a president?
Professor Durckheim: Yes. One who takes lead, yes, sure.
1975 Conversations and Morning Walks
1975 Conversations and Morning Walks
Morning Walk -- May 12, 1975, Perth:
Amogha: Śrīla Prabhupāda, many times when I am seeing professors or students also, they seem to think that traditional Hinduism or whatever they think it is, they say that the Māyāvādī philosophy, or monist, they think this is traditional, and..., because there's so many translations of the Bhagavad-gītā and the Upaniṣads they've read, and they're all impersonal. So I was wondering what is the best way to convince them that actually, that is not actually the original tradition of understanding?
Prabhupāda: How they are becoming foolish, that they are reading Bhagavad-gītā and they are accepting original tradition of the Māyāvāda? In the original tradition of Bhagavad-gītā, it is said, Kṛṣṇa said, ahaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān: "I said. I am person." How these rascals are accepting imperson? Why do they read Bhagavad-gītā? If they have got different theory, let them differently... They are cheating. Bhagavad-gītā is popular. Therefore they are taking advantage of Bhagavad-gītā and pushing on impersonalism. But here the tradition begins, ahaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ. Where is imperson? So if they want to be cheated willingly, who can save them? They are reading Bhagavad-gītā and devīating from the words of Bhagavad-gītā. Then what is the meaning?
Room Conversation -- December 14, 1975, New Delhi:
Bhāgavata: Rajneesh says the same thing. He says that Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna did not speak, Kṛṣṇa simply looked at Arjuna and Arjuna understood. But in order for Dhṛtarāṣṭra to understand, because he was blind, Sañjaya is speaking and he is explaining everything and Vyāsa has written down what Sañjaya has explained. This is, that is what Rajneesh says like that. So why does Sañjaya say Bhagavān uvāca?
Prabhupāda: No, no. Sañjaya heard, then he said?
Bhāgavata: Yes.
Prabhupāda: So, then Kṛṣṇa is speaking, otherwise how he heard? Hm? This nonsense is going on. Everywhere, it is very difficult position. So many rascals. And we have to push on our movement through so many obstacles, but still we are going on, that is Kṛṣṇa's mercy. Otherwise we are simply meeting with obstacles. What can be done? We have to go, forward. I, I met in... same idea! Impersonalism, bogus thought and no clear idea.
1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
Morning Walk -- June 7, 1976, Los Angeles:
Prabhupāda: Very good.
Nalinīkaṇṭha: In the West, people are generally unfamiliar, I think, with the philosophy of Śaṅkara, yet in your books you devote so much argument to defeating Māyāvāda philosophy. I was wondering if it is within every conditioned soul's heart to be an impersonalist. Is it.... Does every conditioned soul have the propensity for impersonalism?
Prabhupāda: No, they cannot understand God; therefore it is impersonalism. It is due to their poor fund of knowledge. So most people are in poor fund of knowledge.
Hari-śauri: As soon as one forgets Kṛṣṇa, he's impersonal.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Mahendra: Just like many of us, Śrīla Prabhupāda, we were thinking, that...
Prabhupāda: They cannot think that a person, how he can produce a sky? That is beyond their conception. This is their illusion.(?) They say God is all-powerful, but He cannot produce a sky. This is their defect of knowledge. If God is all-powerful, why He cannot produce a sky? That they cannot think. Yes, He's all-powerful, cannot produce a sky. Their intellect. Poor intellect.
'Life Comes From Life' Slideshow Discussions -- July 3, 1976, Washington, D.C.:
Hari-śauri: "After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare." Purport. "The living entity, while executing devotional service or transcendental rituals after many, many births may actually become situated in transcendental pure knowledge that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate goal of spiritual realization. In the beginning of spiritual realization, while one is trying to give up one's attachment to materialism, there is some leaning towards impersonalism. But when one is further advanced he can understand that there are activities in the spiritual life and that these activities constitute devotional service. Realizing this, he becomes attached to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and surrenders to Him. At such a time one can understand that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa's mercy is everything, that He is the cause of all causes, and that this material manifestation is not independent from Him. He realizes the material world to be a perverted reflection of spiritual variegatedness and realizes that in everything there is a relationship with the Supreme Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Thus he thinks of everything in relation to Vāsudeva, or Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Such a universal vision of Vāsudeva precipitates one's full surrender to the Supreme Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the highest goal. Such surrendered great souls are very rare. This verse is very nicely explained in the Third Chapter of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad: 'In this body there are power of speaking, of seeing, of hearing, of mental activities, etc. But these are not important if not related to the Supreme Lord. And because Vasudeva is all-pervading and everything is Vasudeva, the devotee surrenders in full knowledge.' "
Prabhupāda: Vāsudeva, surrenders. That's nice. All right, continue tomorrow. Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19).
Devotees: Thank you, Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda: Distribute this prasādam. (break) Janayaty āśu vairāgyaṁ jñānaṁ ca yad ahaitukam (SB 1.2.7). Vairāgya and jñāna, both thing will develop, Vāsudeva. Hare Kṛṣṇa. Take prasādam. Give him twice, he has worked very hard. (laughter) Double, you should give double. So Kṛṣṇa will bless you. So push this scientific movement, go to every university, every college. How they are receiving now in the college circles?
Conversation with Prof. Saligram and Dr. Sukla -- July 5, 1976, Washington, D.C.:
Rūpānuga: But sometimes the impersonalists, they say, Prabhupāda, that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness is just the beginning platform, that after Kṛṣṇa consciousness then one can come to impersonal realization. They say that in the scriptures only Bhagavad-gītā and a few scriptures teach about Kṛṣṇa but the rest of the Vedas don't even talk about Kṛṣṇa's name. So, therefore, this impersonalism is higher realization, but one comes to it, after bhakti.
Prabhupāda: No. There are Vedas, there are so many names described. Kṛṣṇa says, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). If one has not understood Kṛṣṇa by studying Vedas, then he has not studied Vedas. It is very confidential. Otherwise, why Kṛṣṇa says vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15)? If one has studied Veda, but has not understood Kṛṣṇa, then his labor is useless. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). If one is actually jñānavān, then he (indistinct). Śaṅkarācārya said bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam. That is real knowledge. But if one says that in the Vedas, you don't find Kṛṣṇa's name, then he has not studied Veda. Because Kṛṣṇa says, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). The actual purpose of studying Vedas means to understand Kṛṣṇa. If one has not understood Kṛṣṇa, then śrama eva hi kevalam (SB 1.2.8). They have simply labored for nothing.
Morning Walk -- July 12, 1976, New York:
Prabhupāda: First of all, you study your animal, whether your father and mother is the same. Then go to other animals. First of all your animal, you study first.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: They can say though that the material nature is mother and father in this way, that both the mother and father are products of the material energy.
Rāmeśvara: They want this impersonalism. They don't like the philosophy of personalism.
Prabhupāda: Whole thing is personalism. You are talking because you are a person. You are talking all nonsense because you are person. Neither the air is talking, neither sky is talking. Because you are a person you are talking so many nonsense things.
Devotee (1): But then they'll say that after death that person doesn't exist any longer. That personality ceases to...
Prabhupāda: Talk of the present, when you are existing.
Devotee (1): Yes. Their mentality forces them to believe only what they see.
Prabhupāda: You see there is father and mother. Why don't you believe that there must be a father and mother for the whole cosmic? You see everywhere there is father and mother.
Room Conversation -- July 17, 1976, New York:
Prabhupāda: No, because they say, "Either way, you become impersonal at the end. You Brahma-liṅga;(?) you become one with Brahma. But before you become Brahma-liṅga, you can imagine some form, either Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu or Śiva or Durgā, the same thing." That is their...
Indian man: In fact some of the arguments that I received were... "If you go to heaven, let's say, Vaikuṇṭha, then you become... You join the impersonal Brahman. Then you have nothing else to do." He says, "In material world we have family. We have something to do." I said, "If you believe in impersonalism, you have nothing to do. If you believe in personalism, you will serve the Lord there."
Prabhupāda: Impersonal means if you have nothing to do, then you'll become mad.
Indian man: Exactly.
Prabhupāda: And again you come back to this material world.
Indian man: Now, Prabhupāda, I have taken too much of your time. I want to thank you very much. I humbly offer my obeisances.
Prabhupāda: Thank you very much.
Morning Walk -- August 23, 1976, Hyderabad:
Prabhupāda: Yes. Just now I am coming from Europe. States, Europe, then here.
Indian man: What is the method of attaining permanent and impermanent? Permanent ānanda?
Prabhupāda: That is spiritual life. When you are not enwrapped with this material body, then is ānanda.
Indian man: But that life itself is temporary and then...
Prabhupāda: No, that is not temporary. That is permanent. That is to stay with God. That is permanent.
Indian man: But you will do so only so long as you are in your body, is it not? After you leave the body then probably you might attain mokṣa for a temporary period.
Prabhupāda: No. That is impersonalism. And those who actually go to Godhead, they remain in their spiritual body.
Indian man: Between meditation and kīrtana, which is the easier and...
Prabhupāda: Kīrtana. Yes. Meditation means you'll think of your business and all sleep, snoring. That is meditation. (laughter) (end)
Room Conversation with U.N. Doctor -- September 29, 1976, Vrndavana:
Doctor: But then it's much better to worship God in form.
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is intelligence. If you accept Kṛṣṇa immediately, man-manā bhava mad..., then your life is successful. Kṛṣṇa says man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru, mām evaiṣyasi satyaṁ te (BG 18.65), He said. But they are not interested. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ (BG 9.11). "Ah, Kṛṣṇa is a historical person. Why shall I think of Him? I shall think of oṁkāra." You cannot think of oṁkāra. You can hear. And as soon as you think of oṁkāra it comes from? There is no impersonalism. It again becomes personal. So they want to avoid personality and as well as think of Him—it becomes a very troublesome job. Kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). They cannot think of avyakta, impersonal. But they are trying to think of. That is a very troublesome job. Kleśala eva avaśiṣyate.(?) Such attempt means he simply gets the result of his hard endeavor. That's all. He doesn't get any substance.
1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
Room Conversation -- February 2, 1977, Bhuvanesvara:
Yugadharma: Because it is a very arty community. They are very interested in art there and bogus impersonalism. There seems to be a lack of enthusiasm in the gṛhasthas in Laguna Beach.
Prabhupāda: No if they chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra...
Yugadharma: What I would like to do is make you very happy by doing this.
Prabhupāda: That is yajña. Yajñaiḥ saṅkīrtana-prāyair yajanti hi sumedhasaḥ (SB 11.5.32). This is the way of delivering them: Let them worship Gaura-Nitāi by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra or Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Prabhu Nityānanda, if not two, but one, Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, and let them take prasādam. These two things will make them advance very quickly, the spiritual life.
Yugadharma: Because they are very interested in these little figures.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So if you can do that, it will be very nice.
Yugadharma: How about Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa also?
Prabhupāda: Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa not now.
Prabhupada Vigil -- November 1, 1977, Vrndavana:
Prabhupāda: That may be (indistinct).
Brahmānanda: One of the delegates, he is sitting there, and he was spinning thread on a hand spinner. Then afterwards he stopped and even he fell asleep during the meeting. We were arguing about personalism and impersonalism, and Mr. Bajaj, he interrupted that "Now, you shouldn't... The purpose of this meeting is not to discuss Bhagavad-gītā but just to discuss how to promote Bhagavad-gītā."
Prabhupāda: No idea of... He has no authorized.
Brahmānanda: One thing they recognize is that the young people of India, they want to see the experience of Bhagavad-gītā. Just like Arjuna in the beginning was bewildered and in the end he agreed. So that experience... I said, "Yes, and we have had the same experience, because as Westerners, in the beginning we didn't even the know the name Kṛṣṇa, and now we are serving Kṛṣṇa twenty-four hours a day. So obviously there was some great experience. So that has been given to us by Śrīla Prabhupāda." And then he recognized, "Yes." I said, "So we are... We can actually give our experience." So then he suggested that some publication be made actually dealing with the experiences.
Prabhupāda: That we are giving. This Bhāgavata discourse...
Brahmānanda: I think now that our books are coming out in the Indian languages and are being distributed, I think this will cause young Indians...
Prabhupāda: Young Indians are not... They have already published these things. Scientific investigation of matter.
Correspondence
Correspondence
1967 Correspondence
1967 Correspondence
Letter to Pradyumna -- Calcutta 17 October, 1967:
Regarding Kirtanananda, he is undoubtedly a good soul, but lately he has been attacked by maya; he thinks too much of himself—even at the risk of disobeying his spiritual master & talking nonsense about Krishna. As a man haunted by a ghost talks so much nonsense, so also when a man is overpowered by the illusory energy—maya, also talks all sorts of nonsense. The last attack of maya upon the conditioned souls is impersonalism. There are 4 stages of attack of maya; viz.: 1) stage is that a man wants to be a protagonist of religion, 2) is that man neglects religiosity and tries to improve his economic development, 3) is to be protagonist of sense enjoyment & when a man is frustrated in all the above mentioned stages he comes to, 4) which is impersonalism, and thinks himself one with the Supreme. This last attack is very serious and fatal. Kirtanananda has very recently developed the 4th stage malady on account of his negligence & disobedience to his spiritual master.
Letter to Brahmananda -- Calcutta 19 October, 1967:
So in all probability I am sure to return to USA as early as possible—just after my return from Lord Caitanya's birth place. Be assured always that Krishna is transcendental Personality & men with poor fund of knowledge cannot understand what is this transcendental form. Our Society for Krishna Consciousness stands pledged to this philosophy & I require strong men such as yourself for preaching this cult in this world. I am very glad that you are trying to understand this philosophy & there is nothing to be sorry about your being misled by Kirtanananda. It is not in his power to mislead a sincere soul such as yourself; but I must congratulate Gargamuni, the simple boy, who never believed in impersonalism. He is your younger brother as important as Lord Laksmana was younger brother to Lord Rama. I am very glad that that this simple & honest boy has saved you from calamity. I am praying to Krishna to bless you, your brother Gargamuni, Rupanuga etc. for their eternal life in Krishna Consciousness. Hope you are well.
Letter to Himavati -- Navadvipa 2 November, 1967:
You have rightly said that he and Hayagriva came like two children and took their things from the temple. Don't you think that all this is childish activities? If Kirtanananda donated the candle holders and clothes to the Temple of Krishna how could he take them back for his own purpose. If they think impersonally that Krishna is present everywhere, how could they think of Krishna not being present in the New York Temple. So all their activities are befitting children; so as children commit mistakes and again reforms similarly they will be reformed in due course. After their malady of impersonalism is over. You can go on with you regular classes, chanting Hare Krishna sincerely, without taking seriously into account the childish activities of Kirtanananda and his friend. Leave the __ to Krishna. Hope you are well.
Letter to Rayarama -- San Francisco 14 December, 1967:
As soon as you finish the Gitopanisad business and the matter is handed over to the MacMillan Co. we begin on the Bhagavatam work without delay. Bhagavatam must be finished before my mortal body stops to work and your help in this connection will be very much helpful. You can stop for the time being the London scheme. Brahmananda is shortly going there and after his return, we may all go together to London and start a branch there in grand scale, so also in Amsterdam and in Berlin or Moscow. We have to save the world-people from the misconception of voidism and impersonalism. "The absolute is sentient Thou hast proved all impersonal calamity Thou has moved." These lines were presented by me to my spiritual master and He was highly pleased with me. Let me follow the same principle and my Guru Maharaja will bless me. I have always my good wishes and blessings for you all because you are cooperating in a great mission. Thank you.
1968 Correspondence
1968 Correspondence
Letter to Janardana -- Los Angeles 21 January, 1968:
This voidness philosophy is simply nirvana, or absence of material manifestation, but actually it is a material stand whereas Impersonalist monism is transcendental to material manifestation and voidness. Therefore the conception of Brahmajyoti is advanced realization than conception of nirvana. Nobody can be satisfied in void or Impersonalist philosophy; they are against the nature of the spirit soul. We understand from Vedanta philosophy that the spirit soul is by nature joyful. There is no joy in voidness or Impersonalism and because such imperfect philosophers do not know of the association of Krishna which is full of bliss and knowledge, they will fall down repeatedly into voidness and Impersonalism with the result that they cannot stay there and they fall down to the material atmosphere. In Bhagavad-gita it is said by the Lord that these people, void and Impersonalist philosophers, are in great trouble.
Letter to Upendra -- Los Angeles 1 March, 1968:
Yes, you may take up such debate, but not any quarrel or argument should take place. It is good to have such debate, and to know the various arguments which the Mayavad philosophers put forth, and to know how to fully defeat each one. That God can come under Maya is one of their foolish arguments; therefore they say "I am God." This nonsense statement can be refuted in full with our information from Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam. What, then is the definition of God? How can God become a dog? If you are God, why are you suffering, life after life? God means Supreme Controller; can you control anything? Not even your own body. What to speak of the millions of planets spinning so perfectly in their orbit. In this way, we must learn all of us, to defeat these nonsense rascals, and curtail this epidemic of Impersonalism,, which is fatal to the innocent people. We can stop this epidemic with this information of Krishna Consciousness, and it is our duty to do it.
Letter to Hayagriva -- Montreal 10 July, 1968:
So I am very much anxious to know from you also how much this scheme has advanced. So far I could understand on the letter of Kirtanananda, that we had no freedom of action because the land belongs to Mr. Rose, who wants to develop an institution appealing to all sections of seekers in spiritual enlightenment. Such ideal of impersonal views can never be successful. That is the distinction between impersonalism and personalism. The impersonalists ultimate goal is something void, and therefore, any attempt for self-realization ending in voidness is all the same for the impersonalists. But we the personalists, we do not agree that all systems of self-realizing process ends in the same goal. In the Bhagavad-gita, it is explicitly said that the worshippers of different demigods ultimately reach the planets of respective demigods; the worshippers of forefathers also go to different pitri planets, respectively; the worshippers of mammon remain in the mammonish world; and the persons in Krishna Consciousness, ultimately reach to the planet of Krishna loka.
Letter to Gurudasa -- Los Angeles 14 December, 1968:
It is just like that in the milk, there is butter, but if you want concentrated butter, you have to churn milk and take out the butter. Similarly, Krishna is spread everywhere by different potencies but when there is question of love, we have to be in direct touch with Krishna. That is personalism. The heat of the impersonalist sunshine and the heat in the sunglobe is far different. One who is in personal touch with Krishna, their spiritual bliss is incomparable. The spiritual bliss derived from impersonalist realization is just like a drop of water in the presence of the Atlantic Ocean. That is the difference between personalism and impersonalism.
1969 Correspondence
1969 Correspondence
Letter to Carl Lange -- Los Angeles 12 July, 1969:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 9, 1969 along with your money order for $50. I thank you very much for your contribution towards my book fund. My next publication is going to be Nectar of Devotion and a paperback edition of Teachings of Lord Caitanya. I thank you very much for your appreciation of our Krishna Consciousness Movement. Except for the Krishna Consciousness Movement, any other attempt for spiritual realization, such as drugs, voidness, impersonalism, bodily exercises of Hatha Yoga, etc.—they are all something like unconsciousness under some super-intoxicant. Srila Rupa Goswami has given a very nice example in this connection. He says that a conditioned soul remains in the slumber of unconsciousness just like a patient bitten by a poisonous snake. In India there is a class of snake-charmers and physicians who treat snake-bitten persons with a particular type of jungle herbs. This treatment is to bring the herb near the nostrils of the patient for being smelled, and then the patient comes back to consciousness and finds relief from the snake bite effect.
Letter to Tamala Krsna -- Tittenhurst 13 October, 1969:
Srila Rupa Goswami, assisted by all other Goswamis have left immense literature for singing about the glories of Govinda. Whatever literature we are presenting, following the footsteps of Rupa Goswami and the others, they are also Govinda Ganamrta. So the more Govinda Ganamrta or the glories of Govinda will be spread the more the nonsense of impersonalism and monism will be defeated. It is said kaivalya nistaraka. This means the Goswamis deliver us from the danger of being lost in the philosophy of monism. As I wrote in my prayers to my Spiritual Master, "impersonal calamity Thou hast moved". So this impersonalism is a calamity for the spiritualist.
I understand that you have sent $1,000 to Brahmananda for the press instead of $5,000. So I have completed that $5,000 by sending him another check for $4,000. Whatever you have done is all right, but if you have taken anything from the book fund, you may replace it as soon as possible. I am so glad to learn that the book fund is doing very well.
1970 Correspondence
1970 Correspondence
Letter to Ksirodakasayi -- Los Angeles 10 January, 1970:
Regarding your Tuesday class at your place, you can continue it as a sub-branch of ISKCON Radha Krishna Temple. The procedure should be exclusively for chanting Hare Krishna mantra or singing other songs just like Govinda jaya jaya, Gopala jaya jaya . . ., and nothing more. Demigod worship in your house or thinking a demigod as equal with Narayana or Krishna should be stopped altogether, actually that is not the fact. Special stress should be given on chanting Hare Krishna mantra, reading from Bhagavad-gita As It Is or Srimad-Bhagavatam. In the Bhagavad-gita editions, you will find a peculiarity that, in place of Krishna, they have mentioned Paramatma or Paramisvara, or like that. These expressions are more or less indications of impersonalism. Therefore, when Bhagavad-gita should be recited, always read "Krishna." This transcendental word should be mentioned. So, in that way, you may continue your Tuesday class. Both you and your wife should decorate your foreheads with urdhapundra tilaka.
Letter to Robert, Karen -- Los Angeles 19 April, 1970:
Impersonalism is only a solace for the frustrated. When we are frustrated by the relative personalism of this material world, we try to find out, in material way, the opposite number. Just like a patient who is suffering in diseased condition tries to find out something opposite number. So this is a long course explanation, but actually impersonalism cannot give us the answer to our eternal search after peace. So far we are convinced from the Vedic literatures, God is a Person exactly like you are a person, I am a person, but His personality is very great, full with six opulences, and none of the living entities beginning from the highest like Lord Brahma down to the ant, nobody can be on the equal level with God. These things are all explained in our books, and I would request you to read these books especially the recently published Isopanisad.
There are many impersonalists within our experience who renounced this world to merge into the impersonal existence, but being baffled there they come down again to the material world to find out engagement as altruist, philanthropist, communist, etc.. So there is no stand on impersonalism, but there is steady stand in Bhakti cult because in this cult God is there, the devotee is there and the devotional service activities are there, and when they are joined together that makes us able to stand on the Absolute platform.
Letter to Damodara -- Bombay, India 12 November, 1970:
I am glad to see that you are working in the universities. They are a good field for spreading our Krishna Consciousness activities. Try and get all our books accepted in the college libraries and classroom courses. That will be our real success. Dr. Cenkner is correct in saying that Sankaracarya's belief is personal. Actually he is a covered personalist. He became impersonalist just to drive away Buddhism. All of India was Buddhist voidism. So, although a personalist, he had to keep pace with voidism by expounding impersonalism. There is very little difference between impersonalism and voidism, but because he had to bring Buddhists back to the Vedic cultural form, he adopted impersonalism. From the Padma Purāṇa, it is learned that Sankaracarya is Lord Siva, and who can be a greater devotee than Lord Siva? Lord Siva is considered to be the foremost Vaisnava.
Letter to Bhagavan -- Bombay 24 November, 1970:
Yes, we are fighting impersonalism and voidism with pure devotional service. Impersonalism and voidism kills the natural aptitude of devotion which is lying dormant in everyone's heart. Therefore we are printing books like our KRSNA book so that people may know it that the supreme absolute truth is a person. The perfection of every living creature is to render transcendental loving service to that Supreme Person and thereby go back home, back to Godhead. Krishna has said in Bhagavad-gita that "whoever explains my transcendental glories to others is most dear to me in this world and never will there be one more dear to me than he". So go on with your organization for distribution of my books through press and other modern media and Krishna will certainly be pleased upon you. We can use everything—television, radio, movies, or whatever there may be—to tell about Krishna and outside of devotional service all these modern paraphernalia are just so much rubbish. It is very nice that you are opening another center in Cleveland, Ohio. Please do it very thoughtfully.
1972 Correspondence
1972 Correspondence
Letter to Giriraja -- Bombay 3 January, 1972:
I am not surprised that Mr. Rathanam Iyer has decided to cancel the program you were planning. I was not eager to accept his proposal in the beginning because it has been our experience that it is never good to have to depend upon others for our preaching. I am sorry that now that it has been advertised in the newspapers that I am coming to Madras, if I do not come our prestige may suffer. Anyway what is done is done. The fact is that I am the only one in India who is openly criticizing, not only demigod worship and impersonalism, but everything that falls short of complete surrender to Krishna. My Guru Maharaja never compromised in His preaching, nor will I nor should any of my students. We are firmly convinced that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and all other are His part and parcel servants. This we must declare boldly to the whole world, that they should not foolishly dream of world peace unless they are prepared to surrender fully to Krishna as Supreme Lord.
Letter to Atreya Rsi -- Nairobi 26 January, 1972:
You speak of impersonalism. We welcome all impersonalists to come because if they are real impersonalists they will see that our Society is perfect and complete. Ramanujacarya is considered to be very stalwart acharya simply because he completely defeated the impersonalism of Sankaracarya. And even to this day in India, especially in the south, the followers of Ramanujacarya and Sankaracarya engage in talks and always the Sankarites are defeated. But most of the so-called impersonalists of today are rogues.
Letter to Atreya Rsi -- Bombay 4 February, 1972:
So we shall not expect that anywhere there is any Utopia. Rather, that is impersonalism. People should not expect that even in the Krishna Consciousness Society there will be Utopia. Because devotees are persons, therefore there will always be some lacking—but the difference is that their lacking, because they have given up everything to serve Krishna—money, jobs, reputation, wealth, big educations, everything—their lackings have become transcendental because, despite everything they may do, their topmost intention is to serve Krishna. "One who is engaged in devotional service, despite the most abominable action, is to be considered saintly because he is rightly situated." The devotees of Krishna are the most exalted persons on this planet, better than kings, all of them, so we should always remember that and, like the bumblebee, always look for the nectar or the best qualities of a person. Not like the utopians, who are like the flies who always go to the open sores or find the faults in a person, and because they cannot find any utopia, or because they cannot find anyone without faults, they want to become void, merge, nothing—they think that is utopia, to become void of personality. So if there is sometimes slight disagreements between devotees, it is not due to impersonalism, but it is because they are persons, and such disagreements should not be taken very seriously. The devotee is always pessimistic about the material world, but he is very optimistic about the spiritual life; so in this way, you should consider that anyone engaged in Krishna's service is always the best person.
Letter to Bhavananda -- London 14 July, 1972:
One thing, on the invitation card you have written All Glories to Our Guru Maharaja. This is impersonalism. As soon as we offer obeisances to guru, the name should be there. We are strictly personalists. The sahajiya's, they write Glories to Guru. Why you are learning this impersonalism, who has taught you? Daily I am offering obeisances to my Guru by vibrating his real name, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, otherwise it is impersonal.
taken from: https://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Impersonalism
Google Sites
Report abuse