CC Madhya 11.189 (1975): Difference between revisions
(Vanibot #0027: CCMirror - Mirror CC's 1996 edition to form a basis for 1975) |
(Vanibot #0020: VersionCompareLinker - added a link to the Version Compare feature) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<div style="float:left">'''[[Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (1975)|Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1975)]] - [[CC Madhya (1975)|Madhya-līlā]] - [[CC Madhya 11 (1975)|Chapter 11: The Beḍā-kīrtana Pastimes of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu]]'''</div> | <div style="float:left">'''[[Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (1975)|Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1975)]] - [[CC Madhya (1975)|Madhya-līlā]] - [[CC Madhya 11 (1975)|Chapter 11: The Beḍā-kīrtana Pastimes of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu]]'''</div> | ||
<div style="float:right">[[File:Go-previous.png|link=CC Madhya 11.188 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.188]] '''[[CC Madhya 11.188 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.188]] - [[CC Madhya 11.190 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.190]]''' [[File:Go-next.png|link=CC Madhya 11.190 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.190]]</div> | <div style="float:right">[[File:Go-previous.png|link=CC Madhya 11.188 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.188]] '''[[CC Madhya 11.188 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.188]] - [[CC Madhya 11.190 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.190]]''' [[File:Go-next.png|link=CC Madhya 11.190 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 11.190]]</div> | ||
{{CompareVersions|CC|Madhya 11.189|CC 1975|CC 1996}} | |||
{{RandomImage}} | {{RandomImage}} | ||
==== TEXT 189 ==== | ==== TEXT 189 ==== | ||
<div class="verse"> | <div class="verse"> | ||
:prabhu kahe, | :prabhu kahe,-tomā sparśi pavitra ha-ite | ||
:tomāra pavitra dharma nāhika āmāte | :tomāra pavitra dharma nāhika āmāte | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
<div class="translation"> | <div class="translation"> | ||
The Lord said, | The Lord said, "I wish to touch you just to be purified, for your purified activities do not exist in Me." | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 34: | Line 33: | ||
This is an example of the reciprocation of feelings between master and servant. The servant thinks that he is most impure and that the master should not touch him, and the master thinks that because He has become impure by associating with so many impure living entities, He should touch a pure devotee like Haridāsa Ṭhākura just to purify Himself. Actually both the servant and the master are already purified because neither of them is in touch with the impurities of material existence. They are already equal in quality because both of them are the purest. There is a difference in quantity, however, because the master is unlimited and the servant is limited. Consequently the servant always remains subordinate to the master, and this relationship is eternal and undisturbed. As soon as the servant feels like becoming the master, he falls into māyā. Thus it is by misuse of free will that one falls under the influence of māyā. | This is an example of the reciprocation of feelings between master and servant. The servant thinks that he is most impure and that the master should not touch him, and the master thinks that because He has become impure by associating with so many impure living entities, He should touch a pure devotee like Haridāsa Ṭhākura just to purify Himself. Actually both the servant and the master are already purified because neither of them is in touch with the impurities of material existence. They are already equal in quality because both of them are the purest. There is a difference in quantity, however, because the master is unlimited and the servant is limited. Consequently the servant always remains subordinate to the master, and this relationship is eternal and undisturbed. As soon as the servant feels like becoming the master, he falls into māyā. Thus it is by misuse of free will that one falls under the influence of māyā. | ||
The Māyāvādī philosophers try to explain the equality of master and servant in terms of quantity, but they fail to explain why, if the master and servant are equal, the servant falls victim to māyā. They try to explain that when the servant, the living entity, is out of the clutches of māyā, he immediately becomes the so-called master again. Such an explanation is never satisfactory. Being unlimited, the master cannot become a victim of māyā, for in such a case His unlimitedness would be crippled or limited. Thus the Māyāvāda explanation is not correct. The fact is that the master is always master and unlimited, and the servant, being limited, is sometimes curtailed by the influence of māyā. Māyā is also the | The Māyāvādī philosophers try to explain the equality of master and servant in terms of quantity, but they fail to explain why, if the master and servant are equal, the servant falls victim to māyā. They try to explain that when the servant, the living entity, is out of the clutches of māyā, he immediately becomes the so-called master again. Such an explanation is never satisfactory. Being unlimited, the master cannot become a victim of māyā, for in such a case His unlimitedness would be crippled or limited. Thus the Māyāvāda explanation is not correct. The fact is that the master is always master and unlimited, and the servant, being limited, is sometimes curtailed by the influence of māyā. Māyā is also the master's energy and is also unlimited; therefore the limited servant or limited living entity is forced to remain under the master or the master's potency, māyā. Being freed from māyā's influence, one can again become a pure servant and equal qualitatively to the Lord. The relationship between master and servant continues due to their being unlimited and limited respectively. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Latest revision as of 06:26, 27 January 2020
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
TEXT 189
- prabhu kahe,-tomā sparśi pavitra ha-ite
- tomāra pavitra dharma nāhika āmāte
SYNONYMS
prabhu kahe—the Lord said; tomā sparśi—I touch you; pavitra ha-ite—just to become purified; tomāra—your; pavitra—purified; dharma—occupation; nāhika—is not; āmāte—in Me.
TRANSLATION
The Lord said, "I wish to touch you just to be purified, for your purified activities do not exist in Me."
PURPORT
This is an example of the reciprocation of feelings between master and servant. The servant thinks that he is most impure and that the master should not touch him, and the master thinks that because He has become impure by associating with so many impure living entities, He should touch a pure devotee like Haridāsa Ṭhākura just to purify Himself. Actually both the servant and the master are already purified because neither of them is in touch with the impurities of material existence. They are already equal in quality because both of them are the purest. There is a difference in quantity, however, because the master is unlimited and the servant is limited. Consequently the servant always remains subordinate to the master, and this relationship is eternal and undisturbed. As soon as the servant feels like becoming the master, he falls into māyā. Thus it is by misuse of free will that one falls under the influence of māyā.
The Māyāvādī philosophers try to explain the equality of master and servant in terms of quantity, but they fail to explain why, if the master and servant are equal, the servant falls victim to māyā. They try to explain that when the servant, the living entity, is out of the clutches of māyā, he immediately becomes the so-called master again. Such an explanation is never satisfactory. Being unlimited, the master cannot become a victim of māyā, for in such a case His unlimitedness would be crippled or limited. Thus the Māyāvāda explanation is not correct. The fact is that the master is always master and unlimited, and the servant, being limited, is sometimes curtailed by the influence of māyā. Māyā is also the master's energy and is also unlimited; therefore the limited servant or limited living entity is forced to remain under the master or the master's potency, māyā. Being freed from māyā's influence, one can again become a pure servant and equal qualitatively to the Lord. The relationship between master and servant continues due to their being unlimited and limited respectively.