721119 - Lecture BG 02.13 - Hyderabad
- . . . tathā dehāntara-prāptir
- dhīras tatra na muhyati
- (BG 2.13)
We began this verse yesterday. This is the criterion of understanding spiritual life. People generally do not understand that there is another element beyond this body. Generally, people, they are under the impression that, "I am this body. I am Indian." Why I am Indian? "Because this body's born in India, therefore, I'm Indian." "I am American."
Why? "Because body is born in America, therefore I am American." Similarly, this dehātma-buddhiḥ, bodily concept of life, is going on all over the world. This is ignorance, ajñāna. This is called ajñāna. Jñāna and ajñāna. Jñāna means one who knows that he is not this body; he's spirit soul. Ahaṁ brahmāsmi.
(aside) (taps microphone) It is . . . little strong make it, yes.
So when one is freed from the bodily concept of life, he's called jñānī. Otherwise, ajñānī. They are so much proud of jñāna. In our India, there are so-called Māyāvādīs. They think of themself as jñānī-sampradāya. What is that jñānī? "I am Hindu. I am Indian. I am sannyāsī."
This is their jñāna. But actually it is ajñāna. If you think yourself that you are Indian, if you think yourself as Hindu, if you think yourself as brahmin, if you think yourself as a śūdra, then you are ajñānī; you are not jñānī. Because you are giving your identification . . .
(aside) Why it is stopped?
If you are giving your identification on the ground of your body, then you are ajñānī. Jñānī means paṇḍita. Paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ.
- brāhmaṇe gavi hastini
- śuni caiva śva-pāke ca
- paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ
- (BG 5.18)
Actually who is jñānī, who is paṇḍita, he will not see, "Here is an Indian," "Here is an American," "Here is an Hindu," "Here is a Muslim," or "Here is a cat," "Here is a dog." No Because he will see not the outward bodily identification.
Just like while I am talking with you, because your dress is white and because my dress is saffron color, it does not mean that we are different. Simply on the ground of dress, if we think we are different, then that is ajñāna. Nobody does so.
When a gentleman talks with another gentleman, none of them consider that, "I am this dress." Similarly, if I consider about . . . about my identification on the ground of this dress, then am I not ajñānī? Yes, I am ajñānī; I do not know my identification.
Therefore śāstra says, yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke (SB 10.84.13). Anyone who is identifying himself with this body, which is made of tri-dhātu . . . tri-dhātu means kapha-pitta-vāyu. According to Āyur Veda system, this body is a combination of kapha-pitta-vāyu, mucus, bile and air.
So śāstra says, yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke. If anyone identifies himself with this bag of kapha-pitta-vāyu, a bunch of bones and flesh and blood and stool, sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu, and his own kinsmen, his wife and children, sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu bhauma ijya-dhīḥ, and worship, worshipable is the land; bhauma, yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile, one who goes to the place of pilgrimage and takes the water as all in all, yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile na karhicij janeṣu abhijñeṣu, but does not go to the actual learned saintly persons, sa eva go-kharaḥ, such person is no better than cow and ass.
This is the injunction of the śāstra, that our identification with the body is animal life. The animal, a dog, it knows that he is body. A cat knows that he is body. A tiger knows that he is body. A human being, also, if he knows like that, that he is body, then why . . . how he's advanced?
He's no better than the cats and dogs. Yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu bhauma ijya-dhīḥ (SB 10.84.13). The whole world is going on on this misimpression, misidentification with the body. Therefore there is fight between one nation to another, one man to another, and so many.
So jñānī means one must be above this bodily concept of life. He's jñānī. Therefore to become jñānī, the first instruction, as Kṛṣṇa is giving to Arjuna, He's pointing out that "You are not this body, My dear Arjuna. You are decline . . . declining to fight because you are bodily infected. You are thinking that your bodily, blood relation with the other party, namely your brother, nephews and others, that is wrong conception. You are not this body."
Because Arjuna surrendered to Kṛṣṇa: śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). When he was puzzled in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, he thought it wise to accept Kṛṣṇa not as his friend; his friend, but at the same time, he accepted Him as his spiritual master.
Śiṣyas te' haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam. And the duty of the disciple is to fully surrender unto the spiritual master. Unless you can surrender, you do not accept anyone as spiritual master. If you want the spiritual master to abide by your order, then that acceptance of spiritual master is a farce. It is not acceptance.
Acceptance of spiritual master means that one should surrender unto the spiritual master. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). If you want to learn that transcendental science, tad viddhi, you try to understand. How? Praṇipātena. Prakṛṣṭa-rūpeṇa nipāta. Fully surrendering, falling flat: "Sir, I surrender unto you." Praṇipātena paripraśnena. And then inquire question.
According to our Vedic principle, nobody has got the right to question anyone unless that person is accepted as spiritual master. Otherwise, it is waste of time. Spiritual . . . if you want to question somebody, you must accept his answer. You cannot argue. That is acceptance of authority. Just like in Vedas, whatever injunctions are there, we accept it without any argument. That is Vedic instruction.
People sometimes say: "Is it Vedic instruction that I have to accept it without argument?" Actually, that is Vedic instruction. Just like, for example, the Vedas says cow dung is pure. Now actually we are accepting, those who are following the Vedic principles, they accept cow dung as pure. Actually, it is pure.
But if we argue, "How is that, that animal stool is impure, even human stool is impure. How cow dung, which is stool of another animal, is pure? It is contrary." But actually, we accept. Actually we accept. Similarly, conchshell, conchshell is nothing but bone of an animal. According to our Vedic version, if you touch the bone of an animal, you become immediately impure; you have to take bath. But this bone of animal, conchshell, is taken to the Deity room, it is so pure.
So from our human consciousness we find contradiction in the Vedic instruction, that in the Vedas, in one place it says that the bone of an animal is impure, in another place says the bone of a particular animal is pure. The Vedas says the stool of an animal is impure, but in another place it says that the stool of the cow animal is pure.
So apparently we find contradiction. But still, because we accept the authority of the Vedas, therefore we accept the statement also. We accept the bone of the conchshell, and we accept the stool of cow as pure. That is acceptance of authority. You cannot argue. Even though it appears it is contradictory, you cannot argue.
Similarly, acceptance of spiritual master means representative of God. Of course, he, he must be representative of God. If unfortunately I accept a bogus man as representative of . . . that is my misfortune. But actually, acceptance of spiritual master means he's a bona fide representative of God. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2). That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, you'll find, that paramparā system, disciplic succession, ācārya.
Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. Just like we accept our philosophy, Vaiṣṇava philosophy, or any Indian philosophy, they accept this paramparā, guru-paramparā. They accept it. Sampradāya. Just like we have got sampradāya, Rāmānuja-sampradāya, Madhva-sampradāya. So we have to accept the sampradāya, disciplic succession, to receive real knowledge.
So that sampradāya begins from Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the original spiritual master of Lord Brahmā, of Lord Śiva, Nārada, so many other authorities. There are twelve authorities: svayambhur nāradaḥ śambhuḥ . . . (SB 6.3.20). Svayambhu means Lord Brahmā; Nārada; and Śambhu, Lord Śiva; Kumāra; Kapila; Manu.
They are all authorities. So that is the indication of the śāstra, that if you want to understand the transcendental science, the science of God, then tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). That is the injunction of the Vedas, that if you really interested to learn the transcendental science, you must approach. Abhigacchet. This is vidhiliṅ. Vidhiliṅ. This form of verb is used in Sanskrit grammar where it is meant, "You must." You cannot say, "I may accept or may not accept." That will not do. You must accept. Tad . . .
- tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet
- samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham
- (MU 1.2.12)
These are the injunction of the Vedas.
So Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as spiritual master. In the beginning, he was talking like friend. Friend to friend talking, sometimes it comes to nil, no conclusion, simply waste of time. It is called vitaṇḍā. That sort of argument has no value, because it will never come into conclusion.
But when we talk with authority, the spiritual master, representative of Kṛṣṇa, then we cannot argue. We have to accept. guru-vākya. guru-vākya, you cannot deny it. It may not be agreeable to you in the beginning, but you cannot deny it. That is the system of Vedic system.
Here, Arjuna has accepted Kṛṣṇa as the spiritual master. Śiṣyas te aham: "I become Your disciple. Because we were talking till now as friends, but this will not decide the case. My case is very serious. My duty is to fight, but I do not like to fight. Some affection, some family relationship, is deterring me to fight, making me coward.
So therefore it is a very complex position. And I find that You can make a solution of this complex position. I therefore accept You as my spiritual master, and I fall down under Your lotus feet as Your disciple." Śādhi māṁ prapannam. "I am surrendered. Now You kindly protect the surrendered soul."
So here Kṛṣṇa is instructing. First of all, He chastised Arjuna, aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase (BG 2.11): "My dear Arjuna, you are talking like a very learned man, but I find that you do not know in which case you have to lament and in which case you have to joyful. That you do not know."
Gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ. Indirectly He said that, "You are not paṇḍita; you are a fool, because you are arguing in this way that, 'If I kill my brothers, their wives will be widow, and they will become prostitute and there will be varṇa-saṅkara.' "
These questions are very nice. If women become prostitute, then the population is varṇa-saṅkara. And varṇa-saṅkara means unwanted children. They become practically nuisance in the society. Narakāyate. If varṇa-saṅkara population is increased, then the whole society becomes a hell. That's a fact. Actually, that is the position at the present moment.
Therefore, according to the Vedic system, marriage is there. Without marriage, the population, increase of population, means varṇa-saṅkara. So these things were discussed; but that was not the main case. The main case was whether Arjuna was to fight and to kill the other party. He was thinking very serious.
So Kṛṣṇa in the beginning said that, "You are lamenting on the point that your brothers, your grandfather, they will die." That is the general impression of the people, that "I die. You die." But Bhagavad-gītā says, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20): nobody dies, even after the destruction of this body. This is the beginning of that instruction. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre. We are eternal. Nityaḥ śāśvato 'yam, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre.
Now where is the knowledge? We are traveling all over the world. We have never seen any university or any department of knowledge where this technique is instructed, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre. There is no such instruction. So just try to understand, in the name of education, how people are placed in ignorance. They are thinking that, hanyamāne śarīre, hanyate: after killing the body, the body's finished, the man is finished.
I was talking with a big professor in Moscow, Professor Kotovsky. He said: "Swāmījī, after destruction of this body, there is nothing more. Everything is finished." So just see, a big professor, a responsible person, he has no knowledge about the soul, what is soul, what is body. He's superficially, he is studying that after this body is finished, everything's finished. But that is not the fact.
And persons who do not know this fact, they are becoming leaders, they are becoming educators, they are becoming spiritual master and so on. So how these people will be in knowledge? Because those who are teaching them, they are in ignorance. Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ (SB 7.5.31). One blind man is leading so many blind men. So where is the education?
Here is the beginning of education, real education: what Kṛṣṇa says. I have already explained that . . .
(aside) Why they are talking?
I have already explained that our process of accepting knowledge is the paramparā system. Avaroha-panthā. There are two ways of acquiring knowledge: āroha-panthā and avaroha-panthā. Knowledge coming from the authorities, that is perfect knowledge, and knowledge acquired by experimental knowledge, that is not perfect. Because we are imperfect.
Suppose a big professor, just like that Russian Professor Kotovsky, they are trying to understand things by so-called inductive process, or āroha-panthā, going up by one's speculation, by speculative method. But our process of knowledge, Vedic process of knowledge: tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). Their knowledge should be taken from the authority. Do not manufacture knowledge.
Because how you can manufacture perfect knowledge? You are imperfect. Your senses are imperfect. You are defective in four ways. You are . . . "To err is human." You must commit mistake; you must be illusioned; your senses are imperfect; and you have got a cheating propensity. These four defects are there. Those who are not liberated, mukta-puruṣa, they have got four defects.
What is that? He must commit mistake. Just like we can give you instance: Our Mahatma Gandhi, he was so great personality, but he also committed so many mistakes. Even on the day of his death, it is heard that he was forbidden not to go the meeting. The other persons, they scented some danger. But he forcibly went there and he was killed.
So mistake, committing mistake. To err is human. That is not fault, that is our habit. We commit mistake. And we also, we are illusioned. Illusioned. Just like I am not this body, I am spirit soul, ahaṁ brahmāsmi. But we are giving identification with this body, "I am Indian," "I am American," "I am brāhmin," "I am śūdra." So this is illusion. So to commit mistake and to become illusioned and cheating propensity: "Actually, I do not know things as they are, still, I am writing books, to educate people."
Big, big scholars, they have no clear thought, clear understanding; still they write books. Even Darwin's theory. He's proposing, "Perhaps," "It may be," and he's writing a big book, anthropology. And people are taking knowledge from that book. So if his knowledge based on "perhaps," "maybe," what is the value of that knowledge? Huh?
So things are going on like that. The senses are imperfect. He has got a cheating propensity. Cheating propensity means he has no perfect knowledge; still, he wants to give knowledge, to become famous in the world, to famous in the community. So what is the value of your writing books if you have no perfect knowledge?
But because we have got a cheating propensity, we do like that. So Vedic knowledge is not like that. There is no cheating. There is no imperfection. There is no illusion. There is no error. That is Vedic knowledge.
So the . . . the author of Vedic knowledge . . . who is the author of the Vedic knowledge? Not Lord Brahmā. The author of Vedic knowledge is Kṛṣṇa. As it is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ.
He imparted the knowledge, brahma, śabda-brahma knowledge, into the heart of Lord Brahmā. So Brahmā is not self-sufficient. Factually, we are supposed to get knowledge, Vedic knowledge, from Brahmā, beginning from Brahmā. But actually it is not the . . . from Brahmā. Brahmā got the knowledge from Kṛṣṇa. Tene brahma. Oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya.
- janmādy asya yataḥ anvayāt itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ
- tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ
- (SB 1.1.1)
So actually knowledge is coming from Kṛṣṇa.
So our proposal is, we are receiving knowledge, this Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa is directly giving you the knowledge. So we have to accept it as it is. We cannot interpret Bhagavad-gītā in my own way. That is not Bhagavad-gītā; that is something else. They take advantage of the Bhagavad-gītā and put their own conclusion. That is not Bhagavad-gītā. If you want to study Bhagavad-gītā, then you have to study as it is. Then it is nice.
In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Aham ādir hi devānām (BG 10.2). Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8), mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te, nānyat parataram (BG 7.14).
So these are the statements in the Bhagavad-gītā. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). If we do not accept Bhagavad-gītā in terms of the statement given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then it is useless. It is simply waste of time.
You cannot make any commentary of your poor knowledge. There is nothing very difficult to understand in the Bhagavad-gītā. It is written in very simple Sanskrit word, and things are very clear: as clear as the sunlight. Where is the question of showing the sunlight or the sun-god with your lamp? Suppose now here is sunlight, sufficient light. We can see the sun and everything very clearly.
If somebody brings some lamp and says, "Now I shall show you what is sun," it is useless. Bhagavad-gītā is clear itself. Just like the sunlight, it does not require any lamp-bearer to show the Bhagavad-gītā or Kṛṣṇa. It does not require. You try to see Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then you will be benefited. Otherwise, you'll be misled. Just like in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā it is said:
- dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
- samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
- māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
- kim akurvata sañjaya
- (BG 1.1)
It is very clear. Dharma-kṣetre. Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra, still. There is Kurukṣetra. All of you know. And it is dharma-kṣetra. People go for pilgrimage. And in the Vedas also it is stated that kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret: one should go to Kurukṣetra and perform religious rituals there. So it is dharma-kṣetra by Vedic version, by practical example.
Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre. But somebody's interpreting Kurukṣetra as this body. From which dictionary he can get this meaning, that Kurukṣetra means this body? This kind of interpretation is going on.
But our proposition is that if you want to be benefited by reading Bhagavad-gītā, don't read such malinterpretation. Read Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then you will be benefited. Kuru-kṣetre dharma-kṣetre, it is a fact. Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra.
Samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1): and the persons assembled there, namely, the Pāṇḍavas and the Kauravas, they wanted to fight. Yuyutsavaḥ. That's all right. Where is the interpretation? They wanted to fight. They selected a nice place, dharma-kṣetra, Kurukṣetra, and there they fought.
So it is . . . meaning is clear. Why there should be interpretation that, "The Pāṇḍava means the five senses and the Kurukṣetra means this body"? Why? Why? Where is the necessity of such interpretation? Interpretation is required where things are not clear. Actually, we do interpret.
Just like in the law court, if some clause is not very clear, the lawyers interpret: "It may be like this, it may be like that." But when the things are clear, there is no question of interpretation. That is the system. Amongst the scholars, if things are clear, there should be no interpretation.
So Bhagavad-gītā, in each and every verse the things are very, very clear, as clear as the sunshine. So there is no question of interpretation. Our this publication of Bhagavad-gītā, we have therefore mentioned: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is.
Because there are 640 different editions of Bhagavad-gītā, and almost every one of them has got a different interpretation. That is the system going on now. Therefore, before me, many persons, many svāmīs, went to Western countries and they presented Bhagavad-gītā in their own way, but not a single person became a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, throughout the whole history.
Now Bhagavad-gītā is being presented as it is, and thousands of them are becoming devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Practical. Thousands of them. The simple thing. I presented Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and they accepted it, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and by following the principles, within the four years so many devotees of Kṛṣṇa have come out.
Because there was no adulteration. So our request is try to understand Bhagavad-gītā without adulteration. Try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is presented. Then you will get knowledge. Otherwise, you will remain in the same ignorance before reading Bhagavad-gītā and after reading Bhagavad-gītā. This is our proposal.
Here Kṛṣṇa says that dehino 'smin yathā dehe (BG 2.13). Dehī, deha. Deha means this body, and dehī means the owner of the body. There is the owner of the body. Now, the modern scientists, modern philosophers, hardly they do know that there is a proprietor, owner of this body. This body is not the person. The person is within. Asmin dehe, within this body, there is the proprietor of the body, soul. Asmin dehe. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe (BG 2.13).
Now, kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā. The changes that are taking place, it is not of the owner of the body, but it is of the outward, external body. Just like if you live in a house. The house becoming older, it does not become . . . does not mean you are becoming older. The owner of the house does not become deteriorated. It is a crude example.
Similarly, the changes, difference, the different types of body, the soul is migrating, transmigrating through different types of body. Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi sthāvarā lakṣa-viṁśati (Padma Purāṇa). There are 8,400,000 forms of body, and the living entity is transmigrating from one body to another, one body to another, one body to another. This is the evolution.
Darwin's evolution theory is misplaced. Here is real . . . as it is stated in the Padma Purāṇa: asatiṁś cāturaṁś caiva lakṣams tān jīva-jātiṣu. The evolutionary theory is there in the Padma Purāṇa. Asatiṁś cāturaṁś caiva lakṣaṁs tān jīva-jātiṣu. Jīva-jāti. There are different forms of living entity, and they are 8,400,000. That is clearly stated. So one has to pass through from the beginning. Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi: 900,000 species of aquatics.
So in this way, when we come to the human form of body, it is very rarely obtained. Mānuṣaṁ durlabhaṁ janma. It is very rarely obtained. Therefore, it should be very properly utilized. In the human form of life one should try to understand that he's not this body. He must know that, "I am Brahman, I am spirit soul, part and parcel of God."
That is the beginning of teaching of Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says, dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). As the soul, dehī, is passing through different types of body, even in this life . . . First of all, he gets a small body within the womb of the mother, just like a pea. And that pea changes into another form, another form, another form.
Then when the form is complete with hands and legs, it comes out, then again changes from babyhood to childhood, from childhood to boyhood, boyhood to youthhood. In this way, the living entity is changing the body. Not that the living entity itself is changing. It is changing simply body, according to the necessity.
That is explained here: dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). The point was to convince Arjuna that, "Do not be bereaved, because your grandfather will change the body. Your grandfather has got now old body."
So He was giving the logic: "Now, if your grandfather is killed, why you are lamenting? He will get a fresh, new body, another childhood body; then he will grow. You should rather become joyful, that 'My old grandfather is going to have a new body of childhood, boyhood, youthhood.' " That was the argument.
But the actual education is that we should not identify ourself with this body. That is ignorance. Unless we understand that, "I am Brahman; I am spirit soul," there is no advancement of education. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā you will find, when one realizes that he is not this body, he is Brahman, spirit soul, at that time:
- brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā
- na śocati na kāṅkṣati
- (BG 18.54)
When one becomes brahma-bhūtaḥ, self-realized that, "I am not this body," at that time one becomes jubilant, prasannātmā. Actually we are suffering, being identified with this body.
- mātrā-sparśās tu kaunteya
- (BG 2.14)
All our trouble, actually, it is so. The whole world is complete, but because we have identified with this body, we are thinking we are American, we are Indian, we are Englishman, we are German, Russian, and we have demarcated, "This is my country," "This is my country," "This is my country." Therefore there is so much fight. For example, just like Pakistan: twenty years before, there was no Pakistan. Now it is demarcated, "This is Pakistan," and there is fight.
So if you want actually peace and prosperity in the world, then you must come to the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement; otherwise there is no possibility. Without coming to Kṛṣṇa consciousness . . . now we . . . in the bodily consciousness or national consciousness or community consciousness, you cannot become happy at any time. You have to become brahma-bhūtaḥ. That is Kṛṣṇa conscious: brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā. You will be happy, others will be happy. Without coming to that stage, you cannot be happy.
So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is very important movement. We are trying to educate people to feel, or to understand clearly, that he is not this body; he is spirit soul. And at the present moment, all our activities are going on on the bodily concept of life. That is called ignorance, mūḍhā. Na māṁ prapadyante mūḍhāḥ duṣkṛtino narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15), Kṛṣṇa says. Because one is under the bodily concept of life, his interest has become on the ground of this body.
In other places also it is said, na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ (SB 7.5.31). Because they are under the bodily concept of life, they do not know what is their self-interest—one does not know actually what is his self-interest. His self-interest is to go back to home, back to Godhead. That is his self-interest. But he does not know.
- na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ
- durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ
- (SB 7.5.31)
He is trying to adjust things on the external, bodily concept of life. And the so-called leaders are leading in that way.
- andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās
- te 'pīśa-tantryām uru-dāmni baddhāḥ
- (SB 7.5.31)
They remain in the same condition. The actual fact is that. We are trying to be happy by political adjustment, but our mistaken point is that, "I am this body." Therefore the leaders are changing, but the improvement is not there. The same fight, the same antagonism, the same barking like dogs and cats is going on, because everything is built up on the bodily concept of life.
They're . . . not to speak of others, the first-class men of all nation, they assemble in United Nation. In New York we have seen, generally, there was simply flag increasing. There are hundreds and thousands of flags—this nation, that nation, that nat . . . where is unity?
The unity means increasing flags, that's all. There was no Pakistani flag; now there is Pakistani flag, there is Sikhistani flag, this flag, that flag. But we cannot see that we are one. That can be possible only by advancement of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, not on the bodily consciousness.
Here you will find there are boys from America—from England, from Canada, from Africa, from Australia—but they are not thinking in terms of that he is Indian, American, Australian, this or that. They are thinking in terms of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Every one of us, we are thinking we are servant of Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.
Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa. (end)