670416 - Lecture CC Adi 07.109-114 - New York
Revision as of 15:14, 15 February 2021 by Anurag
Prabhupāda: (chants maṅgalācaraṇa prayers)
- . . . kamalaṁ śrī-gurūn vaiṣṇavāṁś ca
- śrī-rūpaṁ sāgrajātaṁ saha-gaṇa-raghunāthānvitaṁ taṁ sa-jīvam
- sādvaitaṁ sāvadhūtaṁ parijana-sahitaṁ kṛṣṇa-caitanya-devaṁ
- śrī-rādhā-kṛṣṇa-pādān saha-gaṇa-lalitā-śrī-viśākhānvitāṁś ca
- he kṛṣṇa karuṇā-sindho dīna-bandho jagat-pate
- gopeśa gopikā-kānta rādhā-kānta namo 'stu te
- rādhe vṛndāvaneśvari
- vṛṣabhānu-sute devi
- praṇamāmi hari-priye
- vāñchā-kalpatarubhyaś ca kṛpā-sindhubhya eva ca
- patitānāṁ pāvenebhyo vaiṣṇavebhyo namo namaḥ
- prabhu nityānanda
- śrī-advaita gadādhara
- hare kṛṣṇa hare kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa hare hare
- hare rāma hare rāma rāma rāma hare hare
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Vedānta, Upaniṣad—these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge—then Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these books should be studied from the direct meaning. Don't try to interpret. According to ordinary, I mean to say, dealings, suppose in the law court there are two parties. Two lawyers are fighting on the principle of one clause or section in the law book. One is interpreting in a different way, one is interpreting in a different way, and the judges give their judgment.
Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. A very good example is given by the grammarians, or Sanskrit scholar, that gaṅgayaṁ ghoṣapali that, "There is a neighborhood which is called Ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now somebody may ask, "How there can be a quarter on the Ganges? Ganges is water." So there is interpretation required. So somebody says: " 'On the Ganges' means on the bank of the Ganges." That makes it clear. "On the Ganges" does not mean that in the middle water there is a, I mean to say, residential quarter. No. "On the Ganges" means on the bank of the Ganges.
So when there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt—everyone can understand clearly the meaning—there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's stressing, that gauṇa-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya (CC Adi 7.109). Therefore each and every aphorism and verse of Vedānta-sūtra has been indirectly interpreted by the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. Such interpretation, if somebody hears, then his future is doomed.
Just like our Gandhi: he wanted to prove, from Bhagavad-gītā, nonviolence. The Bhagavad-gītā is being preached in the battlefield, and it is completely violence. How he can prove? Therefore he is dragging the meaning out of his own con . . . it is very troublesome, and anyone who will read such interpretation, he is doomed. He is doomed because the Bhagavad-gītā is meant for awakening your Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
If that is not awakened, then it is useless waste of time. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu embraced the brāhmaṇa who was illiterate but he took the essence of Bhagavad-gītā, the relationship between the Lord and the devotee. Therefore, unless we take the real, I mean to say, essence of any literature, this is simply waste of time.
- tāṅhāra nāhika doṣa, īśvara-ājñā pāñā
- gauṇārtha karila mukhya artha ācchadiyā
- (CC Adi 7.110)
Now, at the beginning, He criticized Śaṅkarācārya that, "If somebody hears Śaṅkarācārya's commentation, then he's sure to be doomed." But again He supports Śaṅkarācārya. Why? Śaṅkarācārya is the incarnation of Lord Śiva, and he's a great devotee. Śaṅkara . . . vaiṣṇavānāṁ yathā śambhuḥ (SB 12.13.16): "There are many devotees of the Lord, but the foremost devotee is Lord Śiva."
And he has got a disciplic succession which is called Viṣṇu-Svāmī-sampradāya. So Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He's covered devotee. His aim was to bring men to the standard of devotional service, but the time and circumstances in which he was preaching, he could not place his real object because they were unable to understand.
At last, at the end of his life, he composed so many poetries in praise of Vṛndāvana-līlā, and especially his very famous—Charpat Panjarika, that is, he has stated:
- bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ
- bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate
- prāpte sannihite kāla maraṇe
- na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛñ-karaṇe
"My dear foolish brothers, you kindly worship Kṛṣṇa, Govinda . . ." Thrice he has said, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate. Mūḍha-mate means "You foolish nonsense, you kindly worship Govinda." Why? Now, prāpte sannihite kāla maraṇe: "When death will be nearer, your this grammatical interpretation, ḍukṛñ karaṇe, this pratha that pratha, arguing, jugglery of words, will not save you. Will not save you. You please worship Govinda." That is his instruction. And there are many others.
So Śaṅkarācārya was a covered devotee. He was devotee. Somebody accuses Śaṅkarācārya that he was covered Buddhist. But so far I am concerned, I say that Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He was devotee at heart, but because he was ordered to preach in that way . . . otherwise, there was no alternative. That is stated in the Padma Purāṇa. When there is conversation between Lord Śiva and his wife Pārvatī, he disclosed that "In the age of Kali, as a brahmin, I preach this Māyāvāda philosophy, which is covered Buddha philosophy."
Buddha philosophy says that, "This material life is all. After this material life, there is nothing, all void." And Śaṅkarācārya says that, "It is impersonal. There is no variety." So in both the philosophies there is no acceptance of Lord, the Supreme Lord, Personality of Godhead. Therefore they are called nāstika-vāda. Nāstika-vāda means atheism, atheism.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described Buddha religion as atheism. "And Māyāvāda philosophy," He has said, "dangerous atheism." He has given little preference to Buddhism, but to Māyāvāda philosophy He has stated, "It is dangerous atheism." His exact version is like that, veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta’ nāstika, vedāśraya nāstikya-vāda bauddhake adhika (CC Madhya 6.168). He says that, "We call the Buddhists as atheists because the simple reason is that they do not accept Vedas."
Lord Buddha, he denied that, "I don't care for the Vedas. I have got my this own proposition, that ahiṁsā. Nonviolence is the religion. That's all." So he did not accept Vedas. Therefore, those who are Vedāntists, those who are followers of Vedas, they called Buddhist religion atheism. Atheism means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is called atheism.
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that Buddha philosophy is atheism undoubtedly, but Śaṅkara philosophy is dangerous atheism because he is accepting Vedānta, but he is preaching atheism. He's accepting . . . under the shelter of Vedānta, he's preaching atheism. So therefore they are more dangerous. Just like you are fighting with your enemies, that is very clear: "The other party is my enemy."
But if somebody's treating as your friend and within he's trying to kill you, enemy, oh, that is very dangerous enemy. So similarly, Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that Buddhism is atheism. That's all right. But this Śaṅkara's philosophy is more dangerous than atheism.
And actually, so-called, so many svāmīs and sannyāsīs, they came. They come from India. They are this same, dangerous atheists. Nobody has preached in your country this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness or . . . Bhagavad-gītā is widely read, but differently interpreted. So therefore they are dangerous atheists. They are . . .
Under the garb of Bhagavad-gītā, they are preaching atheism. So they are very dangerous. But still, because he was Lord Śiva, incarnation of Lord Śiva, and he had a particular duty, therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu supports now that tāṅhāra nāhika doṣa (CC Adi 7.110): "He's not faulty. He's not faulty, because the time required to propagate such philosophy, and he had done that under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He wanted."
There is, Padma Purāṇa, there is statement. In the Padma Purāṇa there is: māyāvādam asac-chāstraṁ pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate (Padma Purāṇa, Uttara Khaṇḍa 25.7). In the Padma Purāṇa it is stated that, "This Māyāvāda philosophy is covered Buddhism." Mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇa-mūrtinā (Padma Purāṇa). Lord Śiva says to his wife, "My dear Pārvatī, in the age of Kali, in the garb of a brahmin, I'll have to preach this philosophy." Brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ nirguṇam vakṣyate mayā.
Brāhmaṇaś ca aparaṁ rūpam: "Brahman, the Supreme Lord, He has got transcendental form, but I'll have to preach that He has no form, nirguṇam." Sarvasvaṁ jagato 'py asya mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge: "In the age of Kali, just to bewilder the persons, I'll have to preach this philosophy." Vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam: "And, when I shall explain Vedānta, I shall explain everything against Vedas."
- vedānte tu mahā-śāstre
- māyāvādam avaidikam
- mayaiva vakṣyate devi
- jagatāṁ nāśa-kāraṇāt
- (Padma Purāṇa)
"In order to kill the atheistic person, I'll have to preach this." This is stated in Padma Purāṇa. And similarly, in the Śiva Purāṇa also, there is another verse:
- dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā
- kalayā mānuṣadiṣu
- svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṁ ca
- janān mad-vimukhān kuru
- (Śiva Purāṇa)
Oh, the Supreme Lord is ordering Lord Śiva that, "In the age of Kali, you go and try to make them against Kṛṣṇa consciousness."
So there are so many policies and so many programs of the supreme authorities, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that that is time service. For the time being they are necessary. Actually, such interpretation is not necessary at all. We should take direct meaning. Now He's explaining Vedānta. The first thing he's explaining, brahma' śabde mukhya arthe kahe-'bhagavān. Whenever we speak of Brahman . . .
Because these Māyāvādī philosophers, they are very much uttering this word "Brahman." Ahaṁ brahmāsmi: "All Brahman." They don't utter "Kṛṣṇa" or "Govinda." Oh, that is very difficult for them. They simply utter "Brahman." Now . . . let them. Brahman is also Vedic word. That Caitanya Mahāprabhu says the direct meaning of Brahman is Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Cid-aiśvarya-paripūrṇa, anūrdhva-samāna (CC Adi 7.111). Now what is the grammatical meaning of Brahman? The grammatical meaning of Brahman is that "the greatest" and "expansive." That is the grammatical meaning of Brahman. Which is unlimitedly expanded and greatest, He is called Brahman.
Now, who can be unlimitedly expansive unless he's unlimitedly powerful? Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that . . . according to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also, the same meaning is there, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). So Brahman-Paramātmā ultimately means the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Without coming to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the conception of Brahman-Paramātmā is imperfect. Why? Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that cid-aiśvarya-paripūrṇa, anūrdhva-samāna.
You cannot have conception of the greatest, unlimited, unless you place six kinds of opulence, opulences, in full. Because aiśvarya, the opulences . . . just like wealth, fame and beauty, knowledge and renunciation, they should be unlimited. Now, when they are not unlimited, he's not Brahman, or he's not the Supreme Lord.
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's interpretation . . . not interpretation—He says Brahman means that "One who is in full opulences, He's Brahman." Tāṅhāra vibhūti, deha—saba cid-ākāra (CC Adi 7.112): "Therefore, because He's the greatest, therefore He cannot be under the control of this māyā." The Māyāvāda philosophy says that, "We are now under the control of māyā. Therefore we have forgotten that we are all Gods." In the Nikhilananda's book, this is explained. He is discussing Vivekananda's speech that, "We are all Gods. Every one of us, we are God." "Then why you have become dog?" "That we do not know." That is the explanation.
But actually, the explanation is that we are also Brahman, but not Bhagavān, the Supreme Brahman. That is the explanation. Therefore we are prone to be under the subjugation of māyā. This is real explanation. I am, I am not the Supreme Brahman. The greatest Brahman, I am not. Brahman means 'greatest,' but I am also Brahman, but I am . . . the infinite and the infinitesimal. We are infinitesimal.
That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā also—mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ (BG 15.7): "My . . . these living entities, they are My parts and parcels." Such parts and parcels of the Brahman is also Brahman. As part and parcel, minute particle, of gold is also gold, minute particle of poison is also poison, so similarly, we are minute, atomic part and parcel of the Supreme. Therefore we are not the unlimited or the biggest. We are Brahman, undoubtedly, but we are not the biggest. Therefore we are prone to be under the control of māyā.
But Supreme Brahman, He's never under the . . . therefore Māyāvāda philosophy, that "At the present moment, I am under the control of māyā, but as soon as I become free from the control of māyā, then I become the Supreme," therefore they cannot answer that "Why, if you are Supreme, why you are under the clutches of māyā? Then māyā becomes greater. You are not the greatest." They cannot answer this philo . . . this question. At that time, they become fool: "We do not know." So anyway, tāṅhāra vibhūti, saba . . . therefore Brahman, His body cannot be material. So material matter is under His control. Daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā (BG 7.14).
In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that, "This material nature is under My control." And in another place it is said:
- mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
- sūyate sa-carācaram
- hetunānena kaunteya
- jagad viparivartate
- (BG 9.10)
"The whole cosmic manifestation is rolling on under My superintendence." Mayādhyakṣeṇa. "Under My order, under My supervision," prakṛtiḥ, "this, oh, the huge, gigantic material nature, is working under Me," hetunānena, "and, on this account, there is rules and regulation, everything is being done nicely."
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that, "Because Brahman, or the Supreme Lord, is the greatest, therefore His body cannot be made of this material nature." Because material nature is created at a certain interval, and who creates? He creates, the Supreme Lord.
The creator, therefore, cannot be under the material nature. If I am creator of something, so I cannot be under the . . . that particular thing which is created. It is logical. So therefore, because the Supreme Brahman, or Bhagavān, is the creator of this material nature, He cannot be under the control of māyā. He is . . .
And that is also stated in Bhagavad-gītā, many places. Sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). Ātma-māyayā. Not this māyā. Māyā means potency. So we have got the experience of this potency, material potency, but there is another potency which is called spiritual potency. So spiritual potency is the internal energy of Kṛṣṇa, and material potency is the external energy.
So Kṛṣṇa says that, "Whenever I come," yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata (BG 4.7), "Whenever there is discrepancies in the discharging of religious principle," adharmasya, abhyutthānam . . . abhyutthānam adharmasya, "and there is great predominance of irreligiosity," tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham, "I, at that time, I come." Paritra . . . why? Paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām (BG 4.8): "Just to save the pious and the righteous and to vanquish the impious." 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 ācchadi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra' (CC Adi 7.112). 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 His spiritual body. Matter is denied.
The whole Upaniṣad . . . first of all they describe the Supreme, just like apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.19). There are Vedic statement that, "The Supreme has no hands, but . . .
(break) If He has no hand, how He can accept? What for He's accepting. Therefore it is to be understood that He has His hand, but not this hand.
My hand is, er, can stretch, say, one yard only, but because He's unlimited, His hand can be stretched . . . just like we are offering foodstuff, so how He is eating? That is His . . . He's eating by His transcendental body. We cannot see at the present moment, but He is eating. How He's eating? Because we have got the information, "Yes, I eat." Tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ (BG 9.26): "Anyone who is My devotee and offers in love, I take them." So that cannot be . . . there is no mistake. But how He is taking, how He is eating, because we are in this material body we do not see it, but He is taking. Therefore cid-vibhūti ācchadi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra'.
- cid-ānanda-teṅho, tāṅra sthāna, parivāra
- tāṅre kahe-prākṛta-sattvera vikāra
- (CC Adi 7.113)
Now, the Lord's body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge, and Śaṅkarācārya says that prākṛta-sattvera vikāra. "This body of Kṛṣṇa or Lord Rāma, when They come," according to Māyāvāda philosophy, that "actually, the Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, has no form, but when They assume form, They take help of this material nature." That is not a fact. They come in Their own spiritual form. That is confirmed by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
- tāṅra doṣa nāhi, teṅho ājñā-kārī dāsa
- āra yei śune tāra haya sarva-nāśa
- (CC Adi 7.114)
Now, he preached this bewildering philosophy because he was ordered to do so by the Supreme Lord. That was his duty. But we must be very full care . . . very much careful. If we hear Śaṅkara's interpretation, or commentation, then you are doomed. "You are doomed" means no more Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
You are thrown into wilderness for many, many births. Then sometimes, if you come in contact with some pure devotee, it may be possible. But so far Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣya is concerned, or anyone who is following that commentation, they are doomed.
Thank you very much. (break)
Woman: If someone who does not believe in scriptures, um, what is his duty, and . . .?
Prabhupāda: His duty is to go to hell. One who does not believe in scriptures, they are meant for going to hell.
Woman: What can one do to rectify his offenses?
Prabhupāda: Well, just come . . .
(break) That will help you.
Woman: But if a person is not willing to do that, is there any way? . . . (indistinct)
Prabhupāda: Oh, how can you do that? If a person is not willing to take medicine, how he can be cured? He'll go into death. He must be willing this. That is a, I mean to say, explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. So that is very dangerous position, one who does not take care.
Suppose if one wants to be educated without going to school. How it is possible? If somebody says: "Oh, I don't care for any school, colleges. I'll be educated at home," this is nonsense. Is it possible? Or will anybody recognize you? Then what is the use? Waste of time.
That is the disease. Everyone thinks, "Oh, I am everything. I am perfect." That is the disease, material disease. Everyone is thinking, "I am independent. I am perfect. Whatever I think, oh, that is all right." This is going on.
First of all, if anyone wants advancement, he must first of all think just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu is pretending that, "My spiritual master found Me a great fool." So one must agree to become a great fool and study these scriptures from bona fide spiritual master. Then there is hope of advancement.
Guest (1): (indistinct) . . . your description of the impersonalist philosophers does not correspond . . . it's happening, say, by themselves they make a distinction how those things make . . . (indistinct) . . . a part of that philosophy that seems crucial to understanding it, and that is sometimes called the "little self" and the "big self," the "little self" being the person who we are—personality, ego—and the other type of ego is the actual ego.
And once the ego is dissolved, he will wake up, as it were. As . . . like you wake up out of a dream and you find that you thought you were one of the characters in the dream while you were dreaming; when you wake up you realize that you didn't have this limited identity, you had a greater identity which encompassed all the characters in the dream.
Prabhupāda: Where you lose your personality? Either in dream or in awakenment, you are person. Why do you lose your personality? When you become imperson?
Guest (1): When do you lose it? When you wake up from the dream of this material world.
Prabhupāda: You are not imperson at that time, you are person. You are thinking, "I was dreaming." So your ego is there.
Guest (1): Yeah . . .
Prabhupāda: Then how . . . ?
Guest (1): Well, they say . . .
Prabhupāda: Then how . . . where do you lose your ego? Where your ego is dissolved?
Guest (1): Where is it dissolved?
Prabhupāda: Yes? It is never dissolved.
Guest (1): It is dissolved into a finer form of consciousness.
Prabhupāda: No, finer . . . just now, your example: you were dreaming. Now you are awakening. You are now seeing, "Oh, I was dreaming." So the same person who was dreaming and who is thinking that, "I was dreaming"—the same person. Where your identity is dissolved? In both the cases, you are standing "I." This is . . .
Guest (1): Yeah, but they say at the next awakening, you dissolve this "I."
Prabhupāda: This "I" is . . . this "I" is not in dream. That is the difference. The "I" in dream and "I" in not-dream, but "I" is there. Where is your "I" dissolved?
Guest (1): Well, when you're chanting it's dissolved, actually.
Guest (1): Forget yourself.
Prabhupāda: No. We don't forget. We always remember that we are servants of God. We don't forget. We forget this material nonsense. That's all. But don't forget ourself. Our identity is there. We are all servants of God, kṛṣṇa-dāsa. And this is real ego. So ego is not dissolved. Ego is there, but it is purified. It is purified.
Kīrtanānanda: Well, er, it's so difficult to control the senses. So we're engaging all of our senses in chanting and dancing and so forth. Now, the thinking mind is most difficult. So we can engage that in thinking of Kṛṣṇa. So . . .
Prabhupāda: Well, when you are chanting, that is thinking, practically thinking. When you are chanting, you are practically thinking. When you are cooking, it is practically thinking. You are cooking for Kṛṣṇa. You are typing for Kṛṣṇa. You are chanting Kṛṣṇa's name.
Kīrtanānanda: But there seems to be also a stage of not thinking. Is that . . . when one is chanting, should they not think or should they think of Kṛṣṇa?
Prabhupāda: No, no. Not thinking is not there. Thinking of Kṛṣṇa. Hare Kṛṣṇa means thinking of Kṛṣṇa and His energy. There is no question of destruction. It is purification. The psychic power—thinking, feeling and willing—is purified. Tat-paratvena nirmalam. Nirmalam means purified. But it is not lost. It is not lost. Purified.
And when it is purified, hṛṣīkena hṛṣīkeśa-sevanaṁ bhaktir ucyate (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.12, CC Madhya 19.170), with that purified sense, purified mind, when you apply it for Kṛṣṇa, that is called bhakti, Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Bhaktijana: Can you ever lose your identity?
Bhaktijana: Can you ever lose your identity?
Prabhupāda: Evolute? What is that?
Kīrtanānanda: Can you ever lose your identity?
Prabhupāda: What is that? What does it mean?
Rūpānuga: Can you ever lose your "I," the sense of "I"?
Bhaktijana: Can I ever forget myself?
Prabhupāda: How you can forget yourself?
Guest (2): Not self.
Prabhupāda: You cannot forget. Simply purify it. In diseased condition, your identification of "I" is different. Sometimes you are in convulsion; you forget. Rather, that is forgetfulness. Sometimes if you are, I mean to say, deranged in brain, we forget everything of our relationship. But when you are cured, you remember, "Oh, I was forgetful in my that delusion. Yes." So your "I" is always there. This "I," this "I," remembering, is purified.
So ego has to be purified. Ego has not to be killed. And that cannot be killed, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20), because it is eternal. How can you kill ego? It is not possible. So you have to purify your ego. The difference between . . . is between false ego and real ego. Just like ahaṁ brahmāsmi, aham . . . "I am Brahman." Oh, this is also ego. This is, this Vedic version that, "I am Brahman. I am not this matter," so this ego is purified ego, that "I am this." So that "I" is always there. Either in illusion or delusion or dream or in healthy stage, the "I" is always there.
Bhaktijana: When you're typing, should you think of Kṛṣṇa first and your typing second?
Prabhupāda: Well, when you type, at least in our Society, whenever we type, we type something which is describing Kṛṣṇa's form, quality, beauty. We are typing this. We are not typing any business letter or any political propaganda.
We are typing, "Oh, Kṛṣṇa is so beautiful," "Kṛṣṇa says like this," "Kṛṣṇa told Prahlāda like that," "Prahlāda told Kṛṣṇa like that." Everything Kṛṣṇa. As you are chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, that (makes typewriter sound) "cut, cut, cut" is also "Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa."
Bhaktijana: Can Kṛṣṇa . . .? Is Kṛṣṇa made out of atoms, like we are?
Bhaktijana: Is Kṛṣṇa made out of atoms like we are? When He comes down and takes the food?
Prabhupāda: No. Kṛṣṇa is not atom. Kṛṣṇa is big, the biggest. We are atom. That is the difference between Kṛṣṇa and ourself. We are atom.
Bhaktijana: Kṛṣṇa takes the, er, takes the spiritual matter from the food and leaves us the physical matter?
Prabhupāda: No. He takes, He takes . . .
Bhaktijana: When we offer up . . .
Prabhupāda: . . . when He takes, He does not take anything material. He takes spiritual.
Bhaktijana: And leaves the material for us . . .?
Prabhupāda: No. That is also spiritual. That is not material.
Bhaktijana: What's left, then?
Bhaktijana: What's left when Kṛṣṇa takes . . .?
Prabhupāda: That is spiritual. Unless it is spiritual . . . just like . . . first try to understand how it is spiritual. Of course, in our gross vision, we see, "Oh, we offer this cāpāṭi to Kṛṣṇa, and Swāmījī said namo brahmaṇya devāya, and it becomes spiritual." Yes. It becomes spiritual. How?
That we have to understand by the result. Phalena paricīyate. If you eat this spiritual food, you'll get spiritual strength. That is practical. Just like I'll give you another example: milk. You take more milk preparation, you get diarrhea. You go to a physician, he'll say, "Yes. Today you take only yogurt mixed with little salt and black pepper."
Cured, diarrhea cured. Now, you can say: "The same milk?" But it is treated. Therefore it cures. You can say: "Oh, the same milk? Yogurt is also milk." But it is treated. Therefore it cures. So you'll find that your material disease is being cured by spiritual foodstuff. That is practical. Therefore it is spiritual.
Woman: Uh, does belief in any scripture, or . . . any scripture whatsoever, such as the Bible or Koran . . .?
Woman: Does belief in any scripture . . .
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes.
Woman: . . . lead to salvation?
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes, certainly. Certainly. Yes. The same thing, just like I have given example several times, that pocket dictionary and the big dictionary, both of them are dictionaries. It is not that because it is small pocket dictionary, therefore it is not dictionary. It is also dictionary.
So when he's advanced and finished pocket dictionary, he may consult the big dictionary. That is the difference. Bible is not different from Bhagavad-gītā, but when one is perfectly conversant with Bible, he'll understand more nicely Bhagavad-gītā. It is not contradictory; it is helpful.
All right. Distribute prasādam. (end)