660302 - Lecture BG 02.07-11 - New York
Revision as of 01:33, 22 June 2020 by RasaRasika
Prabhupāda: Now Arjuna is perplexed. He is perplexed in the matter whether to fight or not to fight. That was his perplexity. After seeing his relatives in front of him, with whom he was to fight, he was perplexed. And there was some argument also with Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa, of course, did not encourage him. Now, here is a point, that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. What is that?
Young man: What?
Prabhupāda: What is this book?
Young man: Well, this is the . . . the . . . the translation of the Bhagavad-gītā.
Prabhupāda: Well, no, you can hear me.
Young man: I am hearing. I am hearing.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Don't turn your attention. Just hear me. Kṛṣṇa, although He is present there, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but still, He did not encourage him. From worldly point of view, when somebody says that, "I'll . . . I give it up. I don't want it. I don't want to fight with my friends or my relatives. Better let them enjoy. I shall forego my claim," from worldly point of view, this is a very, I mean, gentlemanly behavior, that one is foregoing his claim for the matter of his relatives or friends.
But Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging that proposal. We have to mark it. Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging. Kṛṣṇa is rather . . . Kṛṣṇa is, rather, inducing Arjuna that, "It is not a very good proposal. It is not befitting your position. You belong to the Āryan family. You belong to the kṣatriya, royal family. And you are denying to fight? No, no, this is not good. And I am your friend. I have taken the responsibility of your chariot driver, and, if you do not fight, what people will say?" So He is not encouraging. Just see.
Now, here is a good proposal from the worldly point of view that Arjuna does not want to fight, and Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging him. Now, what is the point? Somebody may say that, "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, why He is encouraging in the matter of fighting?" People, at the present moment, when there is a question of war, people want to stop that war. At the present moment, the movement is going on between all nations that they do not want war. But here we see that Kṛṣṇa is not discouraging war. We have to mark this point. He is not discouraging war, but He is, rather, advocating, inducing Arjuna that "No, no, no, this is not befitting your position. You must fight. Must fight."
So here is a point, that sometimes we may do something which is approved by the general public, but it may not be approved by the supreme authority. Superficially it may appear very appealing to the sentiment of the public, but factually such thing may not be correct. May not be correct. If we accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and "Why He was inducing Arjuna to fight?" it does not mean that He was inducing Arjuna to do something wrong. But from worldly point of view, Arjuna was a very pious man and he was declining to fight, not to kill his kinsmen, not to kill his friend. This . . . this is a very important point.
So he argued, "No, no. If I fight, my people will die, and their wives will become widow, and they will be adulterated, and then, by adulteration, unwanted population will increase, and who will offer śrāddha?" Śrāddha . . . there is a ceremony of śrāddha according to Hindu scripture. I do not know whether you have in your Christian religion, but according to Hindu, a dead body is offered some respect every year. Just like death anniversary observed, similarly, in the family, the descendant, they offer some foodstuff after some religious ceremony. That is called śrāddha. And it is believed that that offering goes to the dead forefathers. So that is a family religious ceremony. So Arjuna said that "If these people will die, who will offer that ablution to the forefathers?"
So from ordinary point of view, from the point of view of a family man, he argued with Kṛṣṇa in so many ways. And after, at the end, he decided that "I cannot fight. I cannot fight." Then Kṛṣṇa tried to induce him, and he said that "Yes, whatever You are saying, that I am a kṣatriya and I am not doing my duty, this is all right, but My mind is perplexed." So he was at the same time conscious that Śrī Kṛṣṇa only can make a solution of this perplexity. So he said:
- pṛcchāmi tvāṁ dharma-sammūḍha-cetāḥ
- yac chreyaḥ syān niścitaṁ brūhi tan me
- śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam
- (BG 2.7)
Kārpaṇya-doṣa. Kārpaṇya-doṣa means a miserly man. Miserly man. He was conscious of the fact that he was a great hero, he was a great fighter and, at the same time, the enemies were there. So his actual duty was to fight with the enemy. They were offering fight. For a kṣatriya there are some obligations. If somebody challenges that, "I want to fight with you," a kṣatriya cannot deny. If somebody challenges, "Yes, I want to bet with you, gambling," a kṣatriya cannot deny. And for that reason, the Pāṇḍavas lost their kingdom.
The other side, his cousins, offered them that, "All right, let us come to betting." So betting, the bid was they offered the kingdom. "Now, if you, if you," I mean to say: "Defeated, if you are defeated, then you lose your kingdom." So they lost their kingdom. Then the next, next offer was that, "If you are defeated, you lose your wife." So they lost their wife. And similarly, they were put, "Now this time if you are defeated, you have to go to the forest for twelve years."
So there was a great plan behind them, and the Pāṇḍavas were defeated in so many ways, and they were harassed, embarrassed, for not less than twenty years. And now they were to fight, face to face. Now he is not prepared to fight. That means he has become miserly, means he is deviating from his duty. Now . . . so he is conscious that "Practically, I am deviating from my duty." Kārpaṇya-doṣa, "This is my miserly behavior." Doṣa. Doṣa means "It is a fault on my part. I should not have deviated from this fighting, but my sentiment does not allow me to fight with my kinsmen." So here is a perplexity.
So kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ, dharma-sammūḍha-cetāḥ: "Not only I am miserly, but I am deviating from my duty, dharma." Dharma. Every . . . this dharma means, according to different position. Just like brāhmaṇa, the intellectual society: the kṣatriyas, the administrator society: the vaiśyas, the mercantile society: and the śūdras. Śūdras means the laborer class. So these four divisions are always. Now you can name in a different way—that doesn't matter—but in every society and for all time these divisions are there.
So according to Vedic system, this system is observed by generation. So he was a kṣatriya. Now, kṣatriya's duty was to fight with the enemy, and he was not executing that, I mean to say, injunction. Therefore, he is conscious that dharma-sammūḍha-cetāḥ: "Oh, I am deviating from my religion also. It is the duty of kṣatriya. No. So I am now perplexed." So yac chreyaḥ syān niścitam: "Now You should kindly, definitely, say." Now, here is a position—"I do not understand what is to be done. You kindly . . ." Yac chreyaḥ syān niścitam. Niścitam means definitely what is right. Brūhi tan me.
Now Kṛṣṇa can say: "Well, I have already saying you that you should fight, but you are not carrying out the order." So he says that śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). So he accepted that "All right, whatever arguments we have done so far, let us forget that. Now I accept You as my spiritual master, not my friend."
Now, the idea of accepting spiritual master, that is also very obligatory. You see? As soon as you accept one as the spiritual master . . . first of all, we have recorded in your . . . you have heard it, that acceptance of spiritual master must be selected, you see, after careful examination, just like one selects his bride or bridegroom after careful examination. And in India they are very careful, because the marriage of the boys and girls take place under the guidance of the parents. So the parents very carefully see.
So similarly, if one has to . . . the acceptance of spiritual master is necessary. According to Vedic injunction, one . . . everyone should have a spiritual master. Perhaps you have seen a sacred thread. We have got sacred thread. Mr. Cohen, you have . . . this kind of . . . sacred thread. That sacred thread is the sign that this person has his spiritual master, has a spiritual master. Just like—here, of course, there is no such distinction—a married girl, according to Hindu system, they have got some sign so that people can understand, "This girl is married." They put on a red, I mean to say, painting here so that others know that "This girl is married." And, according to . . . what is called this? The division of the hair? What is this line, you call?
Young man: Part.
Young man: Part.
Prabhupāda: What is the spelling?
Young man: To part.
Prabhupāda: To part. This parting, this parting is also . . . there is some meaning. When the parting is here, in the middle, then that girl has her husband and she is coming from respectable family. And if the, I mean to say, partition is here, then she is a prostitute. You see? A prostitute cannot . . . there was king's ruling that a prostitute cannot (laughs) part here. And then again, when a girl is well dressed, then it should be considered that she has got her husband at home. And when she is not well dressed, then it should be understood that her husband is out of home. You see? And a widow's dress . . . there are so many, there are symptoms.
So similarly, this thread, sacred thread, is a sign that this person has accepted somebody as his spiritual master. He has got his . . . just like this red mark symbolizes that, "This girl has her husband," similarly, this sacred thread is the symbol that, "This man has got his spiritual master." So there is a ceremony. You see?
So according to Vedic system, one has to accept a spiritual master in order to make a solution of his life. In every step of his life the spiritual master guides him. He also makes question to the spiritual master and he guides him so that he will . . . his life, his progress of life, may be systematic.
Now, to take such guidance means the spiritual master should also be a very perfect man. Otherwise, how can he guide? Now, here Arjuna knows that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the perfect person. So therefore he is accepting Him as śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam (BG 2.7): "I am just surrendering unto You, You self, Yourself, and You accept me as Your disciple, because friendly talks cannot make a solution of the perplexity." Friendly talks may be going on for years together, but there is no solution. Here, accepting Kṛṣṇa as the spiritual master means whatever Kṛṣṇa will decide, he has to accept.
One cannot deny the order of a spiritual master. Therefore one has to select a spiritual master whose order, carrying, you'll not commit a mistake. You see? Now, suppose if you accept a wrong person as spiritual master, and if you, if he guides you wrongly, then your whole life is spoiled. So one has to accept a spiritual master whose guidance will make his life perfect. That is the relation between spiritual master and disciple. It is not a formality. It is a great responsibility both for the disciple and for the spiritual master. And . . . yes?
Young man (2): But if the disciple is in ignorance before . . .
Young man (2): . . . how does he know which master to choose? I mean, because he doesn't have the knowledge . . .
Young man (2): . . . to make a wise selection.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. So the first thing is that one should be searching after a disciple, er, or searching after a spiritual master. Now, just like you search after some school. You search after some school. So when you are searching after some school, you must have at least some preliminary knowledge what a school means. You cannot search after a school and go to a cloth shop. If you are so ignorant that you do not know what is a school and what is a cloth shop, then it is very difficult for you. You must know, at least, what is a school. So that knowledge is like this.
- tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet
- samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham
- (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.12)
The spiritual master is required for a person who is inquisitive to have transcendental knowledge. He requires a spiritual master. You see? So there is another verse in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam (SB 11.3.21). Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta: "One should search after a spiritual master who is inquisitive about transcendental subject matter." So unless one is at least conversant with the preliminary knowledge of transcendental matter . . . that transcendental matter here you can see. Arjuna is perplexed, and now he wants a definite answer. This is the enquiry about transcendental subject matter.
So every human being has to enquire. The enquiry must be there. What is that enquiry? That enquiry is that, preliminary, that every human being is suffering. A ignorant man . . . just like a cat and dog or an animal, they are suffering, but they do not understand. Suffering they do not understand. Just like we have seen . . . of course, here animals are slaughtered in slaughterhouse. In . . . according to Hindu system, of course, cow killing is not allowed. But there are meat-eaters.
So according to Hindu system, if anyone wants to eat meat, he should take a goat. According to Hindu system, only goats and lambs can be killed for meat-eating, no other animal. No other animal. Cow is not . . . forbidden. Just like in, in, the Hindus, they do not eat cow's flesh. And the Muslims, they do not eat, I mean to say, hogs. Hog's flesh they do not eat. They have got some sentiment. But meat-eating is also there in the Hindu society, but that is only by goat's meat or lamb's meat. Generally goat. Generally goat.
Now, these goats are sacrificed before a goddess Kālī. Goddess Kālī. So I have seen it, that one animal is being killed, slaughtered, and the another animal, which will be slaughtered next, he's . . . it has been given some grass, and it is standing there. You see? It has no knowledge that, "My next turn is mine," so it is not going away. So this is animal. This is animal. A human, human being, is not so fool. If there is sign that, "Next time my killing is to be taken up," then he . . . at least he will protest or try to go away, something like that. You see? But there is no such thing.
So the distinction between animal and man is that that animal is not aware of the sufferings he is undergoing. There are sufferings both for the animals and for the man, but man is conscious. If a man is not awakened to his suffering, then he is in animal consciousness.
So we are . . . we should not forget that we are always under suffering. There are three kinds of sufferings. I don't say about this economic problem or . . . that is also another suffering. But according to Vedic knowledge—or it is a fact—there are three kinds of sufferings. One kind of suffering belonging to the body and the mind. Now, suppose I am getting some headache. Now I am feeling very warm, I am feeling very cold, and so many bodily sufferings there are. Similarly, we have got sufferings of the mind. My mind is not well today. I have been . . . somebody has called me something, so I am suffering. Or I have lost something or some friend, so many things.
So sufferings of the body and mind, and then sufferings by the nature. Nature. This is called adhidaivika, which we have no control. In every suffering we have no control, especially . . . suppose there is heavy snowfall. The whole New York City is flooded with the snow, and we are all put into inconvenience. That's a sort of suffering. But you have no control. You cannot stop snow falling. You see? (laughs) If some, some, there is wind, cold wind, you cannot stop it. This is called adhidaivika suffering. And the suffering of the mind and suffering of the body is called adhyātmika. And there is other sufferings, adhibhautika, attack by other living being—my enemy, some animal or some worm, so many.
So these three kinds of sufferings are there always. Always. And . . . but we do not want all these sufferings. When this question comes . . . now here Arjuna is conscious that, "There is a fight, and it is my duty to fight with the enemy, but there is suffering because they are my kinsmen." So he's feeling that. So unless a human being is conscious and awakened to the fact that we are always in suffering but we do not want all these sufferings, this question, such a person is required to approach a spiritual master, when he is conscious. You see? So long he is animallike, that he does not know that he's always in suffering . . . he does not know, he does not care, or he does not want to make a solution. Here Arjuna is suffering, and he wants to make a solution, and therefore he accepts a spiritual master.
So when we are conscious of our sufferings, we are awakened to the suffering situation . . . suffering is there. Forgetfulness or ignorance of suffering is no meaning. Suffering is there. But when one is very serious to make a solution of his suffering, then a spiritual master required. Just like Arjuna requires now a spiritual master. Is it clear? Yes.
So that suffering is there. It does not require any education, simply thinking that, a slight thinking, that "I do not want all these suffering, but I am suffering. Why? Is there any solution? Is there . . .?" But there is solution. All these scriptures, all these Vedic knowledge, everything . . . and not only Vedic knowledge.
Now . . . oh, why you are going to school? Why you are going to college? Why you are taking scientific education? Why you are taking law education? Everything is meant for ending our sufferings. If there was no suffering, then nobody would have taken education. You see? But he thinks that "If I am educated, if I become a doctor or if I become a lawyer or if I become an engineer, I will be happy." Happy. That is the ultimate aim. "I will get a good job, government job. I'll be happy." So happiness is the end of every, I mean to say, pursuance.
So . . . but these mitigation of sufferings, they are temporary. Real suffering, real suffering is due to our this material existence, these three kinds of suffering. So when one is conscious about his sufferings and he wants to make a solution of this suffering, then there is necessary of a spiritual master.
Now, if you want to make a solution of your sufferings, and you want to consult a person, now what sort of person you must meet who can end your all sufferings? That selection must be there. If you want to purchase a jewel and a diamond and very valuable thing, and if you go to a grocer's shop . . . such kind of ignorance—you must be cheated. You must be cheated. At least you must approach to a jewelry shop. Jewelry shop, you see? So much knowledge you must have. So is that question solved?
Young man (2): Yes, yes.
Prabhupāda: Yes. The, the necessity of a spiritual master is for him who is conscious of his material sufferings. If one is not conscious of his material sufferings, then he is not even on the human being status: he's still in the animal status. Animal status, you see? Now, the modern civilization . . . the modern civilization is practically . . . they are evading, evading the real sufferings. They are engaged in temporary sufferings. But the Vedic system is Vedic knowledge. They are meant for ending the sufferings of . . . for good, sufferings for good. You see? The human life is meant for that, ending all sufferings. Of course, we are trying to end all kinds of sufferings. Our business, our occupation, our education, our advancement of knowledge—everything is meant for ending suffering. But that suffering is temporary. Temporary. But we have to end the sufferings for good. Suffering . . .
That sort of knowledge is called transcendental knowledge, and if anyone is seeking after that transcendental know . . . this Bhagavad-gītā is not an ordinary thing. It is transcendental knowledge. And now here the ground is prepared. Ground is prepared. Arjuna is conscious of his suffering, perplexity. Now he is seeking a spiritual master.
So the, the . . . we should take the position of Arjuna: disciple. When a disciple is serious about making . . . about making a solution of the suffering, then he requires a spiritual master. And what sort of spiritual master? Kṛṣṇa, the most perfect man. The most perfect man. So a spiritual master is representative of Kṛṣṇa. Of course, Kṛṣṇa is not present before us. But at least we must have a person as our spiritual master who represents Kṛṣṇa. And who can represent Kṛṣṇa? One who is devotee of Kṛṣṇa, in the line, disciplic succession. You see? So see here. Arjuna accepts Kṛṣṇa as the spiritual master.
Now, question may be that "Why Arjuna . . .? There was many learned men, not only Kṛṣṇa, but there were Vyāsadeva and other great sages and brahmins. Why . . .?" Kṛṣṇa was also kṣatriya. Kṛṣṇa was not a brahmin. Of course, He took His, mean . . . He appeared in the family of a kṣatriya. And they were cousin-brothers. Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, they were cousin-brothers. Kṛṣṇa was the son of the brother, and Arjuna was the son of the sister. Arjuna's mother and Kṛṣṇa's father, they were brother and sister. So they are in the family relation. They were intimately related, and at the same time, they were of the same age and friends.
Now, the question may be: "Why Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the spiritual master?" That is the selection of the disciple, that Arjuna says:
- na hi prapaśyāmi mamāpanudyād
- yac chokam ucchoṣaṇam indriyāṇām
- avāpya bhūmāv asapatnam ṛddhaṁ
- rājyaṁ surāṇām api cādhipatyam
- (BG 2.8)
Now, he says that, "I am so perplexed that my lamentation cannot be satisfied even if I get the kingdom of the universe. I am going to fight for the kingdom only of this earth, or the India." Of course, formerly, India means Bhārata. Now India is a name given by the foreigners. The real name of this planet is Bhārata-varṣa, this planet.
Now, gradually, it has been cut up. It has been cut up, just like we have got immediate experience that some portion of India is now cut up, and that is named Pakistan. You know, all. Similarly, this whole planet, five thousand years before, this whole planet was known as Bhārata-varṣa. Bhārata-varṣa. And before that, thousands and millions of years before, this planet was known as Ilāvṛta-varṣa. Ilāvṛta-varṣa. And now, since the time of Emperor Bharata . . . there was an emperor whose name was Bharata. So from the name of Bharata, this planet's name became Bhārata-varṣa.
So up to five thousand years before . . . why five thousand years before? Say, up to four thousand years before, although the modern history cannot give account, chronological account, more than 2,500 years, but we are speaking, about four thousand years before, this planet was called Bhārata-varṣa.
Now, Arjuna says that "We are going to fight for the matter of this Bhārata-varṣa planet. This is one of the planet in the universe. But if I get the whole planets of this . . . the complete planets of this universe, and without any competitor, still, the perplexity which has arisen in my mind, that cannot be mitigated." So . . . now, see what sort, what sort of responsibility is given to the Kṛṣṇa. Sañjaya uvāca. Now, Sañjaya said:
- evam uktvā hṛṣīkeśaṁ
- guḍākeśaḥ parantapaḥ
- na yotsya iti govindam
- uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha
- (BG 2.9)
"Just saying this, Arjuna became silent: 'Oh, I cannot fight.' "
- tam uvāca hṛṣīkeśaḥ
- prahasann iva bhārata
- senayor ubhayor madhye
- viṣīdantam idaṁ vacaḥ
- (BG 2.10)
Now here Kṛṣṇa is addressed as Hṛṣīkeśa. Hṛṣīkeśa . . . we should always remember that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is present as incarnation. Now, God is all-powerful. God is all-powerful. So if He comes before you, you cannot deny that, "How is that, God has come?" You cannot say that. If God is all-powerful, then it is His choice: it is His free will. He can come before you, come before you, provided you are such qualified devotee. So there cannot be any solid argument that "God cannot come" or "God . . ." Of course, so far Vedic literatures are concerned, they accept the incarnation of God.
So Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and so He is addressed as Hṛṣīkeśa. Hṛṣīka . . . Hṛṣīkeśa, it has got a significant . . . significant meaning. Hṛṣīka. Hṛṣīka means the senses, hṛṣīka. And īśa, īśa means Lord. Īśa means Lord. So He is the Lord of the senses. He is the Lord of the senses. Similarly, Govinda. Govinda . . . here also, Govinda name is also there. Yes. Na yotsya . . . Na yotsya iti govindam uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha (BG 2.9).
Govindam. Govinda. Go means also senses. Go means cow, go means land and go means sense. And inda. Inda means pleasure. One who gives pleasure to the cow, one who gives pleasure to the land, one who gives pleasure to the senses—so His name is Govinda. Now, two things . . . two names, are used here.
So we should try to understand what is the meaning of Hṛṣīkeśa. Hṛṣīka means indriya, and īśa means Lord. So whatever senses we have got, the actually the proprietor of the senses—not myself. The proprietor of the senses is God. Just like we are sitting in this room. This room is allotted for our sitting under some consideration of rent or whatever it may be, but this room is not ours. That's a fact. We should not consider that, "This is . . . I am the proprietor of the room." Although I am using it to my heart's desire, as I like, that is a different thing. But as soon as there is some misunderstanding or the landlord says: "Now you cannot room in this room. Vacate," I have to vacate. You see?
Similarly, this is also just like room, this, our body. This body is given to us by God under certain condition, and as soon as God likes that, "You should vacate from this body," I have to vacate. Nobody can allow us to stay here. And besides that . . . just like my hand, my hand, this hand . . . now, suppose if this hand is paralyzed. The power of this hand is so long . . . so long there is power from the Supreme. Otherwise, if my hand is paralyzed, there is no remedy. There is no remedy. You see? So we are not the owner of this body, not the owner of the senses. The senses are just like hired, hired from the Supreme Lord. This is a very subtle understanding. One should know. So therefore actually the proprietor of the senses is God.
Now, if I am the proprietor of this tape recorder, then it should be utilized for my purpose. Anything which I own, that should be utilized for my purpose. Your things should be utilized for your purpose. So if God is the proprietor of our senses, then these senses must be used for God's purpose. That is the constitutional position. That is the constitutional position. Now, when these senses are used for other than God's purpose, that is bondage, conditioned life. When the senses are purified and it is used for God's purpose, that is natural life. That is natural life.
So whole trouble is that although our senses and everything, whatever we have got . . . there is Īśopaniṣad, a part of Veda. It is stated there that īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (Īśo mantra 1):
"Everything, whatever you see, that belongs to God." That belongs to God. Now, it is our misunderstanding that we are claiming . . . all the people of the world, they are claiming as proprietor. Now, just like this American land. American land, now you are claiming as the proprietor. But is it a fact? Actually are you proprietor? Eh? Now, say, some hundreds and hundreds years, when Columbus came, so there were no Americans here, and so you were not proprietor. The land was there. Now, when you shall go away, the land will also be there.
So the land belongs to God, and everything . . . now, we say that we have manufactured this typewriter. Now, this typewriter, the now ingredient, the iron, have we manufactured iron? No. Iron is received from the mines. It is given by God. Nobody can manufacture iron. Nobody can manufacture anything. They can transform from one thing to another. They can bring out the iron from the mine. They can melt, and they can transform the shape of the metal in a different way. So that they can do, but they cannot produce iron. They cannot produce anything—wood, iron, earth, anything whatever. So real proprietor is God. Real proprietor is God, everything. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam. This is God consciousness. This is God consciousness. One who is in God consciousness, he is a perfect man. He is a perfect man. So here, the significant word:
- tam uvāca hṛṣīkeśaḥ
- prahasann iva bhārata
- senayor ubhayor madhye
- viṣīdantam idaṁ vacaḥ
- (BG 2.10)
Now, Kṛṣṇa is smiling. Kṛṣṇa is smiling because . . .
(aside) You can open it. Yes. Open.
Kṛṣṇa is smiling: "Just see. Arjuna is such a hero. He is My friend, and now he is so much perplexed." Now, when he sat down and he, Arjuna, accepted Kṛṣṇa as the spiritual master, now Kṛṣṇa begins to speak: śrī-bhagavān uvāca. Śrī-bhagavān uvāca. Here the book does not say kṛṣṇaḥ uvāca. Śrī-bhagavān uvāca. Now, we should understand what is the meaning of bhagavān. Bhaga . . . bhaga means opulence. Opulence. There are six kinds of opulences. And what are . . .? Yes.
Young man (2): It means what?
Young man (2): Opulence.
Prabhupāda: Do you follow, opulence?
Young man (2): Yes, I do.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So what are these opulences? Wealth is opulence. Then strength is opulence. Then . . . aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47).
Strength and fame. Fame is also opulence. And just like Lord Jesus Christ: the whole Christian world knows. Lord Kṛṣṇa, everyone knows. Or the, apart from them, President Johnson. Now the whole America and the whole world knows who is President Johnson. Mahatma Gandhi. The famous. So fame is also opulence. And nobody knows me, but he is also a person. He is known throughout the whole world. So this is an opulence. Just like your Rockefeller. They are very rich. So everyone knows in the world. So they are opulent, opulent by wealth.
Similarly, somebody is opulent by fame, and somebody is opulent by strength. And so strength is opulence, wealth is opulence and fame is opulence. And then beauty: beauty is also opulence. If one, one man or woman, is very beautiful, he attracts persons. He attracts. So anything that attracts, that is called opulence. A wealthy man attracts. A strong man attracts. A famous man attracts. If somebody, famous man, comes here, oh, so many people will gather to receive him. So these are opulences: wealth, strength, fame, beauty, knowledge and renunciation—six things. Anyone who possess all these six opulences in full, He is God. That is the definition of God. Anyone.
So when Kṛṣṇa was present on this earth, He showed His opulence, opulences, in full. Opulences in full. Of course, we have got all these historical records about Him. Now, so far His wealth is concerned, He had 16, 108 wives. And for each of them, for each of them, He built a palace. And all those palaces were so nicely built that there was no need of electricity or light. It was bedecked with jewels. So day and night, they were, I mean, blazing. You see? So these description are there. But if we forget that . . . that He is God, then this will be something like story, that "How a man can marry sixteen thousand wives? How He . . .?" But we should always remember that He is God. He is all-powerful. And for no other person such historical records are there, only for Kṛṣṇa.
So in strength also nobody could conquer Him. And beauty . . . so far beauty is concerned, when He was on the battlefield . . . have you seen any picture of Kṛṣṇa? Have you seen? Oh, no. Of course . . . any one of you have seen Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa, when He was present in the battle, Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, at that time He was about ninety years old. Ninety years old. He had His great-grandchildren. He married sixteen thousand wives, and each wife had ten children. And those ten children, they also got, each, ten, twelve children.
Just . . . and they had children also. Because He was at that time ninety years old, He got at that time great-grandchildren also. So His family was very great. Now, if you see the picture of Kṛṣṇa, you'll see Him just like a boy of twenty-two, twenty-five years old. He was so beautiful. He was so beautiful. Then . . . that is the sign of God. It is stated in Brahma-saṁhitā:
- advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam
- ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca
- (Bs 5.33)
He is the original person. Because from God everyone has born, therefore He is the original person, ādyam. Purāṇa-puruṣam. Purāṇa means the oldest person. Still, nava-yauvanaṁ ca. Whenever you will see God—that is the . . . this is the sign of God—you'll find Him just like a youth, a new youth. Youthfulness means, say, sixteen to twenty-four years. So nava-yauvanaṁ ca. That is the sign of God. So He was so beautiful that when He was a boy of fifteen years old His, the whole, I mean, of His, of the same age girls, girls of His age, they were after Him. He was so beautiful.
So in beauty He was superexcellent. In wealth He was superexcellent. In strength He was superexcellent. And in knowledge . . . now, here is a book, Bhagavad-gītā. Now, apart from other books, other knowledge which He imparted to other . . . now, here is a book which was imparted to Arjuna. Now, it is so. . . the depth of knowledge, that people are still considering, great, great scholars. We are not reading, but Dr. Radhakrishnan, one of the greatest scholars of the world—now he is the president of India—he is discussing. Professor Einstein, he was living here in America.
He was a German Jew, and I think he was living in America. He was a great student of this Bhagavad-gītā. Hitler. Hitler was a great student of Bhagavad-gītā. And there were many scholars still reading Bhagavad-gītā, trying to understand. Just see what best depth of knowledge He has given. It is made by Kṛṣṇa. So in knowledge, in wealth, in strength, in beauty and in everything He was opulent. Therefore He is Bhagavān. You cannot accept any ordinary man as Bhagavān. So therefore Bhagavān.
Now, bhagavān uvāca. And because He has been accepted as the spiritual master . . . just like a teacher has the right to sometimes rebuke the student, so in the first instance He is rebuking Arjuna in the following words, that:
- aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ
- prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase
- gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca
- nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ
- (BG 2.11)
That "Arjuna, you are speaking just like a very great, learned man, but you are . . . you are . . . in other words, you are a fool. You do not know how things are going on, because paṇḍitāḥ, those who are learned men, they would not have lamented just like you are doing." That means indirectly He says . . . paṇḍitāḥ means learned. Learned man does not lament over a dead body or a living body. Gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca. Asūn means life. One has lost his life, and one has got his life, a body, living body and a dead body. Living body and a dead body. Just mark the point that, "A learned man . . . as you are lamenting over the subject of killing your friends and relatives, but a learned man would not have lamented like this. That means you are a fool."
When He says . . . just like if I say: "Mr. Green, what you have done, any intelligent man should not have done this," so this is indirectly saying that "You are not intelligent." It is in a gentleman's way, speaking that "Mr. Green, what you are doing, no intelligent man can do this." That means "You are not intelligent."
So here He says that "You are lamenting over the bodies of your relatives because in the fight you are considering that 'My friends and my relatives will be killed,' so that means they are living bodies, and you are lamenting over the . . . over their killing. So this sort of lamentation is never done by a learned man. A learned man never does it." Gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ (BG 2.11). "Those who are learned, one who is learned, he does not lament over the body, either a living body or dead body. There is no question of."
Now, because one who knows the distinction between the body and the soul, firmly con . . . just like you have heard the name of Socrates. Soc . . . a great philosopher, Greek philosopher. He believed in the immortality of soul. So he was punished in the court, hemlock. Hemlock was offered to him that, "All right, if you believe the immortality of soul, then you drink this hemlock poison." So he drunk, because he was firmly convinced that "Even if I drink this poison, my body will be destroyed, but by destruction of my body, I am not going to be destroyed." He was convinced. So he did not lament. So a paṇḍita, learned man, must know that this body and soul, the distinction, the difference between body and soul . . . the body is not soul and the soul is not body, and one who knows, he is learned man. This instruction is given first.
So for spiritual advancement this first knowledge: that the body and the soul is different. This body cannot be identified with the soul. You see? The soul is there, but body is not soul. Body is not soul. So every learned man knows it, and we should be . . .
I think we can stop here. (end)