711115 - Lecture SB 07.06.01 - Delhi

From Vanisource
Jump to: navigation, search
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

711115SB-DELHI - November 15, 1971 - 44:43 Minutes

Prabhupāda: (prema-dhvani) Thank you very much. (devotees offer obeisances)

Dr. Atmaram, Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you very much for your kindly coming here and participating in this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Today I shall discuss one chapter from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. This is Seventh Canto, Sixth Chapter, the statement by Prahlāda Mahārāja. (SB 7.6.1)

Prahlāda Mahārāja was a great devotee, and his father was a great atheist. The struggle between the theist and the atheist is perpetual; it is not new. Actually, anyone who is in this material world, he is supposed to be atheist. Because just like the government gets together all the criminals in the prison house, similarly, those who are disobedient to the laws of the Supreme Lord, such criminals are sent into this material world.

sarge yānti parantapa
(BG 7.27)

Icchā and dveṣa. Icchā means desiring, and dveṣa means hating. These two things are there; it is natural. A living entity... Even in God there is such things, but in God, because He is absolute, His hiṁsā, dveṣa or love is the same thing, advaya-jñāna. Just like, for example, those who are scientifically searching after God, the jñānīs, they also merge into the existence of God; and similarly the enemies, the atheists, just like Hiraṇyakaśipu, Rāvaṇa, Kaṁsa, they were killed by God, but they got the same salvation. That is God, absolute.

So Prahlāda Mahārāja was a son of atheist. His father would not allow him to cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but he was naturally Kṛṣṇa conscious, and as soon as he would get some opportunity in the school... Because the school was also full of students who were born of atheistic father. So as soon as he would get some opportunity, in the tiffin hour, he would speak something about God consciousness. So that chapter is here. He is teaching to his fellow students:

kaumāra ācaret prājño
dharmān bhāgavatān iha
durlabhaṁ mānuṣaṁ janma
tad apy adhruvam arthadam
(SB 7.6.1)

This is the science. Durlabhaṁ mānuṣaṁ janma: this human form of body is very, very difficult to obtain. In this material world there are 8,400,000 species of life: jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi sthavarā lakṣa-viṁśati (Padma Purāṇa). The aquatic animals, there are nine lakhs, 900,000's. Similarly, sthavarā. Sthavarā means those who cannot move, just like trees, plants, hills, they are called sthavarā. And those who can move, they are called jaṅgama. Sthāvara-jaṅgama: moving and not moving. But all of them are living entities.

So this non-moving entities, namely the trees, the plants, the grass, they cannot move, apadāni. They are called apadāni, apadāni catuṣ-padām. Everything is described there, the nature's law. Ahastāni sahastānām apadāni catuṣ-padām (SB 1.13.47). Nūnaṁ mahatāṁ tatra jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. Ahastāni sahastānām: just like man has got hands; therefore he eats some animal which has no hand, only legs—that means paśu. Similarly, apadāni catuṣ-padām. Apadāni means one who hasn't legs, cannot move—that means the trees and the plants and the grass and the straw—they are foodstuff for the catuṣ-padām, for the animals: goats, cows, buffalo. They eat them. Nūnaṁ mahatāṁ tatra: and those who are weak, they are eatable by the strong.

In this way, jīvo jīvasya jīvanam: every living entity is the food of some other living entity. Just like we are eating here animals—not we, but some of us—but we are also eatable by the tigers, because the tiger is strong. So nūnaṁ mahatāṁ tatra. In the jungles there are snakes, big snakes—they eat small snakes. So this is struggle for existence is going on.

So we have to pass through all these lives: this tree life, the aquatic life... When the whole world was merged into water, pralaya-payodhi jale (Śrī Daśāvatāra Stotra 1), at that time the living entities were in fish form, aquatics. Then as the land dried, the living entities began to take the forms of trees, plants and grasses. Then gradually, jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi sthāvarā lakṣa-viṁśati kṛmayo rudra-saṅkhyakāḥ (Padma Purāṇa). Kṛmayo means insects. There are different kinds of insects; there are eleven lakhs species. And then, pakṣiṇāṁ daśa-lakṣaṇam. You know, every one of you have seen, that worms, they develop their feathers. The ants also, at the time of death they develop their feather.

So from the insect life, the evolution comes to the birds' life, pakṣiṇāṁ daśa-lakṣaṇam. And we have to pass through these 10,000 species of life in the bird life. Then paśavaḥ triṁśal-lakṣāṇi: then 300,000's of species of life in the animal kingdom. Then we get mānuṣaḥ catur-lakṣaṇi: there are 400,000 species of life in the human form of body.

Out of them, ninety percent, they are not to be considered as human being—uncivilized. Maybe ten percent, five percent only, civilized. Amongst the civilized beings, most of them, they are not following the Vedic principles, or even they are following Vedic principles... In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, veda-vāda-ratāḥ pārtha (BG 2.42): simply falsely talking of Vedas, but he does not know what is Veda, what is the purpose of Veda.

The purpose of Veda is stated in the Vedānta-sūtra, that "Vedānta means the last stage of knowledge, or the topmost understanding of knowledge." Veda, veda means knowledge, and anta means this end, Vedānta. So Vedānta, in the Vedānta-sūtra, the first aphorism is called athāto brahma jijñāsā. Athāto brahma jijñāsā means that this Vedānta, or this Vedas, they are not meant for the animals. The animals cannot understand what is Veda. They have got knowledge of this āhāra-nidra-bhaya-maithuna.

We are trying to improve our material status: how to eat, how to sleep, how to mate, how to have sense enjoyment, sex life, and how to defend. So the defending process, the so-called advancement of civilization in eating, mating and sleeping, these things can be learned without any scientific knowledge. Āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithuna ca sāmānyam etat paśubhir narāṇām.

Eating—we are eating; the dog is also eating; the tiger is also eating; the elephant is eating; the ant is also eating; but they have no problem. The elephant is eating at a time forty kilos, and the ant is eating one grain, but by the arrangement of the Supreme Lord the one grain is also there, and the forty kilos are also there.

Who is providing for the elephant? Who is providing for the tiger? And who is providing for the ant? But there is arrangement. In the Vedas it is stated, eko bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān.

nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān
(Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13)

These are the statements of Vedas, that the nityo, the Supreme Lord, is eternal, and we, the living entities, we are also eternal:

na jāyate na mriyate vā
nityaḥśāśvato 'yaṁ
na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre
(BG 2.20)

So we are also eternal, and Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord, or the Absolute Truth, or the paraṁ brahma, Paramātmā, He is also eternal. We are equal in quality; and similarly, God is also living force, the creative force—we are also creative force. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām. Then what is the difference between God and me? The difference is He is eko; He is only one. God is one and we are many, bahūnāṁ. Then what is our relationship? Eko, this one, is feeding all these numer..., manys.

So by nature—either you call by nature or by God's arrangement—these problems, āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithuna, is already there. You can see it that out of 8,400,000 species of life, there is only 400,000 species of life in the human kingdom. Out of them, most of them are uncivilized. But except the so-called civilized human being, there is no problem for their eating, sleeping, mating and defending. So why the civilized man will have the problem of eating, sleeping and mating? Why? What is the reason?

Because in his civilized form he wants to forget God. That is the fault; that is the offense of the so-called human civilized life. Therefore they are suffering. And Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā,

teṣāṁ nityābhiyuktānāṁ
yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmy aham
(BG 9.22)

He is supplying food to everyone. Suppose there are 8,400,000 species of life, and if He is supplying 8,300,000 species of life, why not for the 100,000 species of life, the civilized human form of life? Why? Why God should be so much partial? No, that is not the thing. The real thing is that the so-called civilized man, they are trying to forget God. That is their fault.

Our process is that whatever you may be—you may be a scientific man, you may be something else, it doesn't matter—but you must see whether you are making perfection of your life. That formula is there in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. It is said there,

ataḥ pumbhir dvija-śreṣṭhā
svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya
saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam
(SB 1.2.13)

You may be engaged in any occupational duty of your life. Duty means according to position. A scientist's duty is to work in the laboratory; a lawyer's duty is to practice in the court; a businessman's duty is to go and keep up his shop nicely. So there are different kinds of duty. You cannot say that everyone will have the same duty. That is not possible. Just like in our body there are different parts of, limbs. The mouth is doing something, the hand is doing something, the belly, the abdomen, is doing something, the leg is doing something. Similarly, as there is division in the body, there must be social division in the social body. That is called varṇāśrama-vibhāgaśaḥ.

Scientifically we have divided—not we, but by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā:

cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ
(BG 4.13)

There are four divisions of the human society according to quality and according to karma. Not by birth. He never says by birth. This is not accepted in the śāstras, that these divisions of social life should be calculated by birth. No: by guṇa, by quality, and by karma.

Just like Dr. Atmaram is scientist because he has acquired the qualities of a scientist, and he is working in his laboratory for scientific research; therefore he is scientist. Similarly, there are divisions. Now there are many divisions, but formerly there were grossly four divisions only: the brāhmaṇa, the kṣatriya, the vaiśya and the śūdra. The most intelligent class of men were know as brāhmaṇas, and the next, the administrator class of men, they are called kṣatriyas, one who gives protection to the citizen from attack by others. So they are called kṣatriyas. And similarly, those who are producing the food products, kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.44).

So the intelligent class, the administrative class, the productive class and the śūdra, the laborer class—this is most scientific division. As there is scientific division in the body—there is brain, there is hand, there is abdomen, there is leg—similarly, these divisions are there, and they have their duty. The brāhmaṇas, they should be truthful: satyam, śamo, damaḥ, titikṣā ārjavaṁ, jñānaṁ vijñānam (BG 18.42).

This vijñānam science is the subject matter for the brāhmaṇas. It is not the understanding of God is unscientific. Jñānaṁ me sa-vijñānam (BG 7.2). Vijñānam: if we don't understand through science what is God, then that knowledge of God... Just like foolish person, they ascribe some, I mean to say, faulty behavior in the affairs of gopīs, because they know..., they do not know. They have no scientific knowledge of Kṛṣṇa.

Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that,

manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu
kaścid yatati siddhaye
(BG 7.3)

Not all men—manuṣyā. According to Śrī Rāmānujācārya, manuṣyā means one who has got control over the śāstra. He is called a manuṣyā, śāstra adhikāram. He has described manuṣyā. When he is commenting on this verse, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye (BG 7.3), Śrī Rāmānujācārya, he says, manuṣyāśāstra adhikāra yajña: "Those who are fit for understanding the śāstras, the Vedas, they are manuṣyā." Otherwise, according to ācārya, they are not considered as manuṣyā.

manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu
kaścid yatati siddhaye
yatatām api siddhānāṁ
kaścin vetti māṁ tattvataḥ
(BG 7.3)

Those who do not understand what is Kṛṣṇa scientifically, they commit that mistake. Unfortunately, in our society, the so-called reciters of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, they jump over the Tenth Canto, and especially the five chapters describing the rāsa-līlā of Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa, without understanding Kṛṣṇa, because they want cheap adoration from materialistic persons who are very much fond of sex life. So these so-called reciters, they take advantage of this weakness of the public, and at once they go to that rāsa-līlā chapter and recite. Therefore this impression has come.

Otherwise, one who knows scientifically Kṛṣṇa, he will not jump over like that to recite the five chapters in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam describing Kṛṣṇa's līlā with gopīs. That is very scientific; but these rascals, they do not know. They do not understand what is Kṛṣṇa. They think of Kṛṣṇa as ordinary man:

avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā
mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam
(BG 9.11)

And because they want cheap audience, they have caused this defamation against the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He was sannyāsī. No woman could offer Him respect, coming nearer. He ordered that "Women should offer Me respect from a distant place." He has given another verse, that niṣkiñcananam..., niṣkiñcanasya bhagavad bhajanonmukhasya (CC Madhya 11.8): those who are desiring to understand Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, niṣkiñcanasya bhagavad bhajanon mukhasya. Niṣkiñca means one who has no more desire for any material sense enjoyment; they are called niṣkiñca, and such person can engage himself in the devotional service of the Lord. This is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā:

yeṣāṁ anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ
janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām
te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā
bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ
(BG 7.28)

So this bhagavad-bhajan is not for ordinary man. Those who are completely uncontaminated from all sinful activities, such person can be engaged in devotional service. Therefore our students are forbidden the prime principles of sinful life: illicit sex life, intoxication, meat-eating and gambling. So when these people are trying to reach Kṛṣṇa, being completely pure from all contamination of sinful life, does it mean they are going to worship Kṛṣṇa who is sinful? Is that very reasonable?

But we do not understand Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa says,

manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu
kaścid yatati siddhaye
yatatām api siddhānāṁ
kaścin vetti māṁ tattvataḥ
(BG 7.3)

So understanding of Kṛṣṇa is not for ordinary man, but the most scientific and pure soul. Because Kṛṣṇa says only persons who are siddhas, in the perfectional stage of life, he can understand; not all. Those who are in the perfectional stage of life, brahma-bhūta (SB 4.30.20), out of them, yatatām api siddhānāṁ kaścin, out of them one may—kaścin means one—may understand Kṛṣṇa. And so far His connection with the gopīs, that is not understandable by persons who are not free from sinful activities.

Therefore there are twelve cantos in the Bhagavad-gītā, er, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and nine cantos are there for understanding what is Bhagavān. Just like here in the Seventh Chapter..., Seventh Canto, Prahlāda Mahārāja is describing about the bhāgavata-dharma. Bhāgavata-dharma means to understand God. Bhagavān is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and bhāgavata means the knowledge about the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

So Prahlāda Mahārāja recommends here,

kaumāra ācaret prājño
dharmān bhāgavatān iha
(SB 7.6.1)

This bhāgavata-dharma should be taught to the students from the very childhood, kaumāram. Kaumāra age is from five years to sixteen years. That is the recommendation: kaumāra ācaret prājño dharmān. Why kaumāram? Because if we do not teach the students what is Bhagavān... The scientific knowledge of the students, every educational quality, can be achieved or attained when it is attempted in childhood. In old age it is not possible.

Some times ago I read in the paper in the Yurjand(?) district one father and one daughter appeared in B.A. examination. The daughter passed nicely; the father failed. Therefore any educational system should be taught from the beginning of life. This Prahlāda Mahārāja says, kaumāra ācaret prājño. Prājño means one who is actually in knowledge, they should teach the science of God, bhagavad-vijñāna, this bhagavad-vijñāna:

evaṁ prasanna-manaso
(BG 7.1)

It is not sentiment; it is vijñānaṁ.

evaṁ prasanna-manaso
(BG 7.1)

If you train yourself in the bhagavad-bhakti-yoga, then you’ll become very joyful, prasanna-manaso. That is the scientific knowledge of God. The symptom... If anyone says that "I know what is God," the symptom must be there. What is the symptom? Joyfulness.

brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā
na śocati na kāṅkṣati
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu
mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām
(BG 18.54)

So this bhakti-yoga is so nice that if we execute it properly, according to the scientific way:

śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ
smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam
arcanaṁ vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ
sakhyam ātma-nivedanam
(SB 7.5.23)

These are the scientific process. The first process is that you must hear. As you go to college and hear the professor then you become advanced in that particular type of knowledge, similarly, you must hear first of all. Without hearing, how you can understand God? Without hearing, you cannot understand any ordinary subject matter. How you can understand the Absolute Truth without hearing? Therefore the Vedānta recommends, athāto brahma jijñāsā: "Now you inquire about this human form of life. Now inquire about God." But where is that education? Where is that education?

I was invited to speak in Massachusetts Technological Institute. So my first challenge was that "Where is your technology by which you can distinguish a dead man and a living man? What is that technology? How you distinguish, this dead man and the living man?" I speak of my father, my brother: "Here is my father, here is my brother," but when they are dead, I say, "My father has gone; my brother has gone." Where he has gone? He is lying there. Where is your science to see what..., who was your father, who was your brother? Where is that science? If you say, "This body is my father," then the body is lying there; why you are crying? Why you are saying that "My brother is gone"? That means you have never seen your brother, never seen your father—so in blindness.

So what is the use of that scientific knowledge? If you have got scientific knowledge, if you say that "This is a lump of matter, chemicals," then replace that chemical and make him alive again. That is scientific knowledge—not theory. Just like Darwin's theory: he has no knowledge, scientific knowledge, how these bodies are evolutionary. He says "something missing," or so many theories. No.

Here is the scientific theory, that Prahlāda Mahārāja says, durlabhaṁ mānuṣaṁ janma. He knows the science; therefore he says durlabhaṁ. This human form of life is very rare. Why? Because he knows that the soul had to pass through so many millions of bodies: vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya (BG 2.22). Just like we change our dress, one dress to another, similarly the soul is changing from the aquatic body to the plant life, to the plant life to the insect life, from insect life to bird's life, to bird's life to beast's life, from beast's life to human form—this evolution.

The body is not evolving; the soul is getting different types of body according to his desire, either by nature's arrangement or by his own will. So long he is living within the bodies less than human body, it is nature's arrangement.

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
kartāham iti manyate
(BG 3.27)
karmaṇā daiva-netreṇa
jantur dehopapattaye
(SB 3.31.1)

These are scientific statements. The difference is that we do not consult this scientific knowledge; we want to make research with our blunt senses. That is not possible. We have to take scientific knowledge from the authorities, Vedas. Just like Veda says that stool, animal stool, is impure, but the cow's stool is pure. Now you can argue both of them are animal by physiological, biological condition. So why one animal's stool is pure and other animal's stool impure? But if you analyze scientifically you will see the cow dung is full of antiseptic property.

So if you take knowledge, scientific knowledge, from the Vedas, you save the time. That is deductive knowledge. You take the knowledge from the perfect and you get perfect knowledge: yasmin vijñāte sarvam evaṁ vijñātaṁ bhavati (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.3).

But if you take knowledge from imperfect, then your knowledge is imperfect. Therefore scientific knowledge should be taken from the Vedas; it is everything there. Simply we have to search out a qualified professor, tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). This evābhigacchet means "must"; otherwise he will not be able to understand.

So God's knowledge is scientific, jñānaṁ me sa-vijñānam. So this religion without scientific knowledge is simply sentiment; it has no value. Generally religion is going on under sentiment; therefore the condition of the human society is so fallen. But the whole science is described there. It must be learned from the qualified professor; otherwise... And religion means, it is stated, dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītaṁ (SB 6.3.19). Religion is not unscientific, because it is coming from the most perfect, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). Aparuṣa. "How it is coming?" you can say. Therefore the Supreme Personality comes personally and establishes religion—most scientific. He comes here,

paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ
vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
sambhavāmi yuge yuge
(BG 4.8)

So a man cannot give religion. Man-made religion is not religion. But the religion given by God, that is religion. And what is that religion?

sarva-dharmān parityajya
mām ekaṁśaraṇaṁ vraja
ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo
mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ
(BG 18.66)

Kṛṣṇa says that "You give up everything, simply surrender unto Me, and I will give you all protection and all knowledge."

teṣām evānukampārtham
aham ajñāna-jaṁ tamaḥ
nāśayāmy ātma-bhāva-stho
jñāna-dīpena bhāsvatā
(BG 10.11)

So if you... Our only disease is that we have revolted against God; therefore we are under the clutches of māyā, illusion.

daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī
mama māyā duratyayā
mām eva ye prapadyante
māyām etāṁ taranti te
(BG 7.14)

This is the process. We are placed under the clutches of māyā, therefore we are in illusion; we do not know what to do. But if you put yourself under the protection of the Supreme, then you know everything.

But you cannot claim that you are independent. You are not independent. That is another māyā. We are dependent; every one of us, we are dependent. Just like we Indians, we are dependent on the government. So where is your independence? You want to do something, but the government will not allow it—then you are dependent. In any condition you are dependent.

I talked with Professor Kotovsky in Moscow. So there were many talks. I ultimately, I told Professor, "After all, you have surrendered to something, somebody. You have surrendered to Lenin, and we have surrendered to Kṛṣṇa." So the principle of surrender is there, either you become Communist or this "ist" or that "ist." So our conclusion is that "Why should we surrender to Lenin? Let us surrender to Kṛṣṇa." Paraṁ vijayate śrī-kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtanam (CC Antya 20.12).

Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Devotees: Jaya. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda! Hari haribol! (end)