# Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta 6.124 with Hanuman Prasad Poddar [Hindi translated into English] — February 3, 1971, Gorakhpur <audio controls preload="metadata" src="https://media.prabhupada.io/audio/1971/710203CC-GORAKHPUR.mp3"></audio> **Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa:** The last discussion was between Śrīla Prabhupāda and Hanuman Prasad Poddar invited at Gītā Press *āśrama* Wednesday. There was also a *kīrtana* and also some recorded fragments of the conversation. The next recording is the same evening, 3rd of January [sic] 1971. Śrīla Prabhupāda speaks to a gathering of university students in this Gorakhpur community, after *ārati* from *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*. **Prabhupāda:** [Microphone interference] That will not stay. Why not fix it and give one glass of water... [break] > ...unmīlitaṁ yena tasmai śrī-gurave-namaḥ > [Gautamīya-tantra 7.11] > śrī-caitanya-mano-'bhīṣṭaṁ sthāpitaṁ yena bhū-tale > svayaṁ rūpaḥ kadā mahyaṁ dadāti sva-padāntikam > [Śrī Rūpa praṇati] > vande 'haṁ śrī-guroḥ śrī-yuta-pada-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 > [Antya 3.1] > nama oṁ viṣṇu-pādāya kṛṣṇa-preṣṭhāya bhū-tale > śrīmate bhaktisiddhānta-sarasvatīti nāmine > [Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta praṇati] > he kṛṣṇa karuṇā-sindho dīna-bandho jagat-pate > gopeśa gopikā-kānta rādhā-kānta namo 'stu te > [Śrī Kṛṣṇa praṇati] > tapta-kāñcana-gaurāṅgi rādhe vṛndāvaneśvari > vṛṣabhānu-sute devi praṇamāmi hari-priye > vāñchā-kalpa-tarubhyaś ca kṛpā-sindhubhya eva ca > patitānāṁ pāvanebhyo vaiṣṇavebhyo namo namaḥ > [Śrī Vaiṣṇava praṇati] So where is Dr. Rao? **Devotee:** Dr. Rao? **Prabhupāda:** I have to speak in English or Hindi? If I speak in... **Poddarji:** Hindi would be much better. **Prabhupāda:** Eh? **Poddarji:** Hindi would be much better because a greater number of people will be able to follow. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but these, my students. **Poddarji:** [Transl.In Hindi, Mahārāja, more people...] **Prabhupāda:** Eh? **Poddarji:** [Transl.Hindi speaking people are more, kindly...] **Prabhupāda:** [Transl.More votes for Hindi.] [laughs] **Poddarji:** [Transl.English they will not be able to understand.] **Prabhupāda:** Ah. [Transl.Hmm. These poor devotees will not be able to understand.] **Poddarji:** [Transl.They hear daily.] **Prabhupāda:** [Transl. No problem. In the morning they hear once.] **Guest:** [Transl. You speak in English.] **Poddarji:** [Transl. Then these people will not understand.] **Guest:** [Transl. Some of them will neither understand English nor Hindi. Well, someone can translate it into English.] **Prabhupāda:** [Transl.I can't speak much Hindi, that's why. Anyway what can be done.] > aṣṭama-divase tāṅre puche sārvabhauma > sāta dina kara tumi vedānta śravaṇa > [[cc/madhya/6/124|[Cc. Madhya 6.124] ]] There was one person named Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, a contemporary of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he was a great logician. He was a follower of Śaṅkara-sampradāya. An impersonalist. He and Caitanya Mahāprabhu met each other at Jagannātha Purī. This Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was a learned scholar in the assembly of King Pratāparudra. He used to teach Vedānta to big, big *sannyāsīs*. How He met Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was that when Caitanya Mahāprabhu went to take *darśana* of Lord Jagannātha and the moment He saw Jagannātha He fell down unconscious. He became unconscious. At that time Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya was present in the temple. He was a learned person and knew everything. He understood that these ecstatic symptoms cannot be manifested in ordinary person. He carefully observed Him and held a piece of cotton near His eyes [nose] and found that the cotton was slowly moving. But all His other functions stopped. So he asked the servants and others who were present there, "Bring this *sādhu*, *sannyāsī* to my house." Thus He was taken to his house. In the meantime the accompanying devotees and associates of the Lord arrived in the temple and saw that He is not in the temple. But they heard other people in the temple talking among themselves, "One very attractive looking young *sannyāsī* just now came to the temple and as soon as He saw Lord Jagannātha He fell down unconscious." They were talking like that. So they immediately understood that Caitanya Mahāprabhu came here and was taken somewhere else. They were aware that He falls down unconscious. There was another learned person at the temple who was Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya's son in law and a friend of Gadādhara Paṇḍita, he took the associates of the Lord to his house. As they arrived at the house of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya they immediately began to loudly chant Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare. Then gradually Caitanya Mahāprabhu regained His external consciousness. Thereafter He took little rest and honoured Lord Jagannātha's *prasādam*. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya's father and Caitanya Mahāprabhu's maternal grandfather were class friends. So they had some kind of native relationship. Natuarally Sārvabhauma became affectionate to Him. So he said, "My dear son, You have accepted *sannyāsa* at an early age! You are only twenty-four years old! Therefore how will You maintain Your renounce order of life? You study Vedānta all the time and remain absorbed in it then only will be able to keep Your sannyās position intact." Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, "You are right. You are like my father and I am like your child. So as you will advise I will follow. You are *guru* of many *sannyāsīs*." In this way He gave Sārvabhauma some respects. Then he started speaking on Vedānta. Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya began to speak on Vedānta and Caitanya Mahāprabhu began to hear. He continuously heard for seven days. So Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya became little suspicious that this young man is simply hearing and not asking anything. Only hearing. Let me find out what He is listening? > sāta dina paryanta aiche karena śravaṇe > bhāla-manda nāhi kahe, vasi' mātra śune > [[cc/madhya/6/123|[Cc. Madhya 6.123] ]] Caitanya Mahāprabhu was simply hearing Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya's presentations but did not say whether it was good or bad. He was just hearing. *Aṣṭama-divase tāṅre puche sārvabhauma*, on the eighth day, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya asked Him. What did he asked? *Sāta dina kara tumi vedānta śravaṇa*. [[cc/madhya/6/124|[Cc. Madhya 6.124] ]] > bhāla-manda nāhi kaha, raha mauna dhari' > bujha, ki nā bujha,-ihā bujhite nā pāri > [[cc/madhya/6/125|[Cc. Madhya 6.125] ]] He said, last seven days I am giving discourse on Vedānta to You and You simply listening silently. Whether it is right or wrong or if You have any question You can ask. What is Your intention to listen quietly? *Bhāla-manda nāhi kaha*...Therefore, *bujha, ki nā bujha,* I can't understand whether You are realising anything after hearing Vedānta? Or just listening for the sake of listening? What is it? He became little surprised. > prabhu kahe-" mūrkha āmi, nāhi adhyayana Now Prabhu, Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, Mahārāja, I am a great fool. Nor did I ever study Vedānta. Just see. The purpose of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's statement will be disclosed by Him later on. Caitanya Mahāprabhu presented Himself as a fool. But He was not a fool. It will be proved later on in this chapter. Why did He call Himself a fool? The purpose of His statement is that nowadays everyone in this world is a fool. How can they understand Vedānta? This is His intention. Therefore He became the leading representative of all the foolish men. I am a fool. Besides, I haven't studied Vedānta. *Tomāra ājñāte mātra kariye śravaṇa* [*Madhya* 6.126] Since you have said that I have taken sannyāsa at a very early age and therefore to protect My *sannyāsa* order I should hear Vedānta. That's why I am hearing. As a matter of fact I am a fool and I haven't studied Vedānta, nor am I qualified to understand Vedānta. *sannyāsīra dharma lāgi' śravaṇa mātra kari.* You have said that it is the duty of a *sannyāsī* to always study Vedānta, therefore I am listening. And > sannyāsīra dharma lāgi' śravaṇa mātra kari > tumi yei artha kara, bujhite nā pāri" > [[cc/madhya/6/127|[Cc. Madhya 6.127] ]] Now He started attacking. Just because you told Me that the duty of a sannyāsī is to hear Vedānta, I am sitting and listening. And the meaning you are presenting is beyond My comprehension. Totally incomprehensible. Just see who is a fool then? > bhaṭṭācārya kahe,-nā bujhi', hena jñāna yāra > bujhibāra lāgi' seha puche punarbāra > [[cc/madhya/6/128|[Cc. Madhya 6.128] ]] Bhaṭṭācārya says, all right, I accept that You don't understand Vedānta the way I am explaining. But at least You should have inquired. He smiled and further said, why did You keep quiet? This is very interesting. You are sitting quite, You should have asked. > tumi śuni' śuni' raha mauna mātra dhari' > hṛdaye ki āche tomāra, bujhite nā pāri > [[cc/madhya/6/129|[Cc. Madhya 6.129] ]] Bhaṭṭācārya was a very wise person. He understood that this boy, though speaking like this, has some other intention. He could understand that You are listening and keeping silent this means it seems You must have some intention in Your mind. *Prabhu kahe*,-"*sūtrera artha bujhiye nirmala.* Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, Mahārāja, I can very easily understand the meaning of the *sūtras* you are quoting. But I cannot understand anything about your explanation. The meaning of the *sūtras* I can understand. What is the difficulty of understanding clear statements. *Aathāto brahma jijñāsā.* Now in the human form of life one should inquire about what is Brahma: Absolute truth. Everyone can understand this. The answer is given, *janmādy asya yataḥ*: the Absolute truth is that from which everything emanates.* [[sb/1/1/1|[SB. 1.1.1] ]] Everyone understands this. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also understands it. Therefore He said that the meaning of the *sūtras* is very simple and I can understand it. But the way you explain it is completely different. I can't understand it. *Prabhu kahe,-"sūtrera artha bujhiye nirmala*. *Nirmala* means very clear. I can understand the meaning of the *sūtras* very clearly without any doubt. *tomāra vyākhyā śuni' mana haya ta' vikala* [[cc/madhya/6/130|[Cc. Madhya 6.130] ]] But by hearing your interpretation My mind is being bewildered. Completely agitated. Do you understand? Now this was a challenge. Prabhu kahe.... *Sūtrera artha bhāṣya kahe prakāśiyā.* Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, if anyone wants to write a commentary on the *sūtras*, or an explanation or a note then he supposed to make the meaning of the *sūtras* more clear. And what kind of comment are you presenting? *Tumi, bhāṣya kaha-sūtrera artha ācchādiyā.* [[cc/madhya/6/131|[Cc. Madhya 6.131] ]] And your interpretations are covering the actual meaning of the *sūtras*. They are not being disclosed. Just like the rays of the sun is self illuminated. There is no need to further illuminate it. But if someone tries to cover it with a host of clouds, please understand, your explanation is like that. Your explanations are completely covering the clear meaning of the sūtras. The *sūtras* are very clear to understand. There is no difficulty in it. But your interpretation has covered it. Just like nowadays they interpret *Bhagavad-gītā*. *Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ*. [[bg/1/1|[Bg. 1.1] ]] Some people say, Kurukṣetra is this body. You all know this that such interpretations are there. Now you see Dharmakṣetra Kurukṣetra, Kurukṣetra is still present today. The other day we were coming from Amritsar and our train stopped at Kurukṣetra station. I immediately told these boys that here is that Kurukṣetra station still present today. Yet some people say Kurukṣetra means this body. And Dharmakṣetra, Even today many people visit Kurukṣetra, *Dharmakṣetra* to perform religious duties. In the Vedas it is said, *Kurukṣetre dharmaṁ yājayet*: So Veda means...From long, long ago Kurukṣetra has been accepted as a place of pilgrimage. So when Vyāsadeva writes in *Bhagavad-gītā,* *dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre*, what is the problem to understand it? But people have different opinions. Kurukṣetra means this, or this, or this. You all are well aware that this type of interpretations on Gītā is going on nowadays. Therefore they become old reading *Bhagavad-gītā* but do not understand anything. All they know is how to remain entangled in this material world. In fact they don't take the real meaning and thus don't derive any benefit. Just like Dr. Rādhākṛṣnan has written a commentary on *Bhagavad-gītā* in which he says, especially on the *śloka*, *man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru* [[bg/18/65|[Bg. 18.65] ]], the meaning is very simple. The Supreme Lord said, "Always think of Me, *man-manā bhava mad-bhakta*, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me, and in this way you cultivate devotional service then I guarantee you that after this life you will certainly come back to Me." There is no difficulty in understanding its meaning. But Dr. Rādhākṛṣnan says that what Bhagavān said, *man manā bhava*, it is not to Kṛṣṇa but to that which is inside Kṛṣṇa. Now you see, Kṛṣṇa has no inside or outside because He is absolute! How can there be inside and outside for the absolute? In the *śāstra* it is stated, *abhinnatvān nāma-nāminoḥ* [*Cc Madhya* 17.133 / *Padma Purāṇa*] The Absolute is like that. > brahmeti paramātmeti > bhagavān iti śabdyate > vadanti tat tattva-vidas > tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam > [[sb/1/2/11|[SB. 1.2.11] ]] The knowledge about the Supreme Personality of Godhead is nondual-one without a second. All one, there is nothing external. The Supreme Lord, the Lord's name, the Lord's body, the Lord's form, the Lord's pastimes, the Lord's associates, the Lord's characteristics, are all Bhagavān. This is the meaning of Absolute. And Dr. Radhākṛṣṇan says there is something else inside Him. A ghost? You understand? By misinterpreting and distorting the actual meaning of the *śāstra* in this way our Indian culture has been lost. All religious principles and knowledge have been vanquished. They wouldn't take the real meaning. They will simply speculate and make research. Nowadays people have started making research on Vedas. Did the big, big sages leave the Vedas to be researched by them? That in future some fools will make research? No. The meaning of the Vedas has to be accepted as it is. As Caitanya Mahāprabhu will explain in the following verses what is the meaning of Vedānta. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, *sūtrera artha bhāṣya kahe prakāśiyā*, if at all you want to write a commentary on the sūtras then you should try to make it more clear. Just like *dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ*, the meaning is clear. Kurukṣetra is a place of pilgrimage. And according to the history of Mahābhārata the Kauravas and the Pānḍavas were cousin brothers. They fought a huge battle there between themselves. The meaning is clear. So where is the room for interpretation? Where is the difficulty? Why Do I bang my head that Kurukṣetra means this body, the five Paṇḍavas means the five senses and so on so on. Why? What is the need? Did Kṛṣṇa, *dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ* leave it to somebody to interpret? That in future a more intelligent person than Me will come and write a commentary? Was Kṛṣṇa so fool that instead of speaking the actual truth clearly He left thinking some rascal will come in future and explain it explicitly? Is it reasonable? If at all you like to write a comment then try to explain it clearly. That is called commentary. What is the use of concealing the actual meaning? Suppose a student goes to a teacher and asks, sir, what is the meaning of "*vyāghra*?"And the teacher says it means "*Sārdūla*: tiger." Now the student became even more confused. *Vyāghra* means *sārdūla*. He could have said in a simple language that *vyāghra means vāgha*: tiger. Everyone can understand it. But no, he said *sārdūla*. So this type of commentary is completely useless. This is the purport of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's words. What Caitanya Mahāprabhu wants to say is that the meaning of Vedānta is very simple and easy to understand. But your comment I cannot follow. It is covering the actual meaning. > sūtrera artha bhāṣya kahe prakāśiyā > tumi, bhāṣya kaha-sūtrera artha ācchādiyā > [[cc/madhya/6/131|[Cc. Madhya 6.131] ]] *Ācchādiyā* means covering. Whatever you are speaking, you are simply covering. That's all. *Sūtrera mukhya artha nā karaha vyākhyāna*. *Mukhya* and *gauṇa* there are two meanings. When the meaning is incomprehensible it is called *gauṇa*. Just like in the śāstra the example is given, there a *ghoshpalli*: village of milkmen, in the Ganges. So someone may ask, Ganges is water how can there be a village in it? In that circumastance you can interpret that it is not in the water but Ghoshpalli is by the bank of the Ganges. This meaning is clear. But when the meaning is clear and there is no question of any doubt then there is no need to comment on it. No need to derive a secondary meaning. No need of interpretation. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, *sūtrera mukhya artha nā karaha*...You are not explaining the actual meaning of the *sūtras*. > mukhya artha nā karaha vyākhyāna > kalpanārthe tumi tāhā kara ācchādana > [[cc/madhya/6/132|[Cc. Madhya 6.132] ]] You are covering the real meaning by your imagination. > upaniṣad-śabde yei mukhya artha haya > sei artha mukhya,-vyāsa-sūtre saba kaya > [[cc/madhya/6/133|[Cc. Madhya 6.133] ]] Caitanya Mahāprabhu further says, whatever the *Upaniṣads* describe that is the real meaning. There is no need to imagine. > upaniṣad-śabde yei mukhya artha haya > sei artha mukhya,-vyāsa-sūtre saba kaya Taking the support of the *Upaniṣads*, Vyāsadeva has written the *Vedānta sūtr*a. So there is no need of giving any interpretation on them. > mukhyārtha chāḍiyā kara gauṇārtha kalpanā > 'abhidhā'-vṛtti chāḍi' kara śabdera lakṣaṇā > [[cc/madhya/6/134|[Cc. Madhya 6.134] ]] He continues, the process of your explanation is to reject the primary or real meaning. You imagine some other meaning and present it. In Sanskrit grammer it is called, *abhidhā vṛtti chāḍi' kara śabdera lakṣanā*. By rejecting *abhidhā vṛtti, lakṣanā vṛtti*.... [*Vedavyāsa nijakṛta sūtrera uddeśa kariyāchen. Tāhā chāḍiyā ye gauṇārtha kalpanā kara yāya, śabdera abhidhā chāḍiyā ye lakṣanā kara yāya, tāhā amaṅgalajanaka. 'Pratyakṣa', 'anumāna', 'aitihya' o 'śabda'-ei cāriprakāra pramāṇera madhye, śruti-pramaṇa', arthāt śabda-pramāṇai sakalera pradhāna.*] [Vedavyāsa has given elaborate commentary on his own sūtras. The secondary imaginary meaning derived by interpretation while rejecting his comment, in other words, deriving imaginative meaning by abandoning the direct meaning is harmful. Of the four evidences-direct perception, hypothesis, traditional knowledge and transcendental sound vibration, Vedic evidence or sound vibration alone is the concrete evidence; from *Amṛta pravāha bhāṣya*. Śrīla Bhakti Vinoda Ṭhākura] He explains, There are four kinds of evidences, *pratyakṣa*, *abhidhā*, *ah...pratyakṣa*, *aitihya*, and *śabda* *pramaṇa*. Of these three pramaṇas the *śabda-pramaṇ*a or Vedic statements is called *śabda pramaṇa* and that is most correct and accurate. *Pratyakṣa* *pramaṇa* or direct perception is also not right. *Pratyakṣa*, we see so many things daily but their actual form we cannot...Just like the sun. We see the sun every day. But what do we see? We see it like a small plate. But that is not the sun's actual form. According to *śāstra* the form of the sun...According to Geography, big, big learned men... *Surya-siddhānta*, and Astronomical experts say that the sun is 14,00,000 times bigger than our planet. But what we see through our senses, *pratyakṣa-jñāna*, that knowledge is not complete. Therefore in our *śāstra* *śabda-pramaṇa* has been accepted as the only concrete evidence. *Śabda-pramaṇa*, like Vedic statement that is *śabda-pramaṇa*. We have to accept as it is. Other *pramaṇas* like direct perception, hypothesis, traditional knowledge, etc. will not help. > mukhyārtha chāḍiyā kara gauṇārtha kalpanā > 'abhidhā'-vṛtti chāḍi' kara śabdera lakṣaṇā *pramāṇera madhye śruti pramāṇa-pradhāna.* Among all types of evidences *śruti-pramaṇa* is the best evidence. *śruti* *ye mukhyārtha kahe*, *sei se pramāṇa.* [[cc/madhya/6/135|[Cc. Madhya 6.135] ]] Śruti reveals the real meaning by reading which you will immediately understand. It is not proper to misguide people by presenting imaginary meaning. This is the purport of Caitanya Mahāprabh's statement. > jīvera asthi-viṣṭhā dui-śaṅkha-gomaya > śruti-vākye sei dui mahā-pavitra haya > [[cc/madhya/6/136|[Cc. Madhya 6.136] ]] *Jīvera asthi-viṣṭhā dui saṅkha-gomaya.* For example, the stool and bone of a man or an animal are considered impure according to our Vedic rules. Just like when we pass stool in the morning immediately we take a bath. Although it is our stool but because we have touched it our body has become impure. We all know this. Therefore we take a bath to purify ourselves. Similarly while walking in the street if we touch a bone we should take bath. This is scriptural prescription. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is presenting these evidences. *Jīvera asthi-viṣṭha dui saṅkha-gomaya*. Saṅkha which we blow in the temple of the Supreme Lord is *asthi* or bone of an animal, and *gobar* or cow *dung* is *viṣṭha* or stool of an animal. *Śruti vākye-sei dui mahā-pavitra haya*. The Vedas declare these two items as pure. Conch-shell is a bone, but if anyone interprets that bone is considered impure and stool is also impure. But how do the Vedas say that cow dung is pure and conch-shell is also pure? How can we accept? But we do accept. The whole Hindu community accepts the Vedic injunctions. Cow dung is smeared on the body of the Supreme Lord and conch-shell is blown after the *ārati* offered to the Lord. So if we bring in logic into consideration that how can the bone and stool be pure? It's impossible. Then that logic will not work. Generally in our daily life we accept things as pure which are recommended by the Vedas. The point of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's statement is that we should accept Vedic injunctions like that. We should neither argue nor comment on that. > svataḥ-pramāṇa veda satya yei kaya > 'lakṣaṇā' karile svataḥ-prāmāṇya-hāni haya > [[cc/madhya/6/137|[Cc. Madhya 6.137] ]] Generally we accept everything on the evidence of the Vedas. Whatever knowledge and understanding we have, we gather and accept them from the Vedas. Therefore we should accept the primary meaning of the Vedas and not try to interpret whimsically or make a research and derive other meanings. If someone says that stool and bone are impure then why do the Vedas declare them pure? Let us make a research why and how cow dung, conch-shell are pure? There is no need to make any research. Therefore He says, svataḥ pramāṇa: self evident. Vedic injunction is self evident. In our learned circle, if one wants to establish something he substantiates his claim by presenting Vedic evidence, and his words are accepted without doubt. If you go to law court and if you quote evidence from law book that in such and such case this judgement was given, the judge accepts it. In the same way, there is no need to make any changes in the Vedic injunctions. If you follow them as it is, if you understand as it is, and accept the primary meaning without any interpretation then your study of the Vedas will be fruitful. Otherwise you will be misguided. Vedic literatures do not refer only to the Vedas, but *Bhagavad-gītā* and so on. Just like the Supreme Personality of Godhead said in the *Bhagavad-gītā*, > mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat > kiñcid asti dhanañjaya > [[bg/7/7|[Bg. 7.7] ]] Why don't we accept it? Everyone accepts Kṛṣṇa as Bhagavān: God. All the *ācaryas* accept Him. And Bhagavān Himself says that there is no one greater than Me. Arjuna also says, > paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma > pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān > [[bg/10/12|[Bg. 10.12] ]] Arjuna also accepts it. So what is the need of interpreting and changing Kṛṣṇa's words? Our this Caitanya Mahāprabhu's sampradāya does not approve and accept such interpretations. We accept as it is whatever the Vedic literatures have enjoined. Therefore we are preaching *Bhagavad-gītā* as it is. You might have seen our books. We do not interpret that Kurukṣetra means this, Pāṇḍavas means this, and go on speculating. No. Whatever Bhagavān has said. Bhagavān said, > sarva-dharmān parityajya > mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja > [[bg/18/66|[Bg. 18.66] ]] And we also preach the same thing all over the world. This same thing. *Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam*. [[sb/1/3/28|[SB. 1.3.28] ]] Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān: the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nowadays people reject Bhagavān. Some say He is dead. Some look for Him here and there. Some say why are you searching after God? All poor people lying in the street are Gods. We do not misinterpret like that. We say *Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam*. All big, big *ācāryas* say this. All our Indian civilisation and culture all big, big *ācāryas*-Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka, Viṣṇusvāmī, Śaṅkarācārya whom we accept as Hindu, they all accept. All big, big *ācāryas...* Just like Śaṅkarācārya, though he was an impersonalist, he too accepted Kṛṣṇa as Bhagavān. *sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ devakī-nandanaḥ*. Other vaiṣṇava *ācāryas* like Nimbārka, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇusvāmī, Caitanya Mahāprabhu,they all accept *Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam*. The scriptures also confirm that Kṛṣṇa is the original Bhagavān, primeval Bhagavān. Bhagavān has many forms. *Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam* [Bs. 5.33] Bhagavān has unlimited forms, but the original form is *aham ādir hi devānāṁ* [[bg/10/2|[Bg. 10.2] ]] Bhagavān says this. I am the origin of all the demigods. > ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo > mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate > iti matvā bhajante māṁ > budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ > [[bg/10/8|[Bg. 10.8] ]] This is the verdict of Bhagavān Himself and the big, big ācāryas also accept Him like that. Then why do we not accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead? This is my point. That is why our dharma has dwindled. Bhagavān is present. Bhagavān is standing before you and giving instructions. The instructions are still present today. Great devotees are also present. Then why do we challenge, "Can you show me God? Is there God or not? We don't accept God. God is dead." Why do we speak like that? This we want to stop. This Kṛṣṇa Consciousness movement establishes that God exists. Why there is no God? God is there and He is present before you. His orders are there. And big, big *ācāryas* who accept Him are also there. Why you don't accept? This is the subject matter of our preaching. All of you contemplate on this. And after considering you all assist this Kṛṣṇa Consciousness movement. This movement is spreading. If you assist then it will spread even more. The result will be...India is identified as a poor nation in the world. If you co-operate then this country's rich property-Kṛṣṇa, if you distribute Him throughout the world the whole world will be benefitted and you will be benefitted. And your life will become successful. This is the mission of our Kṛṣṇa Consciousness movement. We have come to you. You think about it. Try to understand this movement very nicely and help us. Otherwise the whole country will turn into Naxalites. If you do not teach them the real thing then they will certainly hear Marx and others' words. As they say, Idle brain Devil's workshop. Therefore, *kaumāra ācaret prājño*. Prahlada Maharaja has instructed, > kaumāra ācaret prājño > dharmān bhāgavatān iha > [[sb/7/6/1|[SB. 7.6.1] ]] From the very young age, just like many of you are here who have not yet married, 15, 16, or 20 years old, they are called *kumāra*. So from young age, in other words, from the school age one should practice *Bhāgavata-dharma*. *Kaumāra ācaret prājño dharmān bhāgavatān iha*. *Bhāgavata-dharma* means what is Bhagavān, what am I, what this world is, what is the mutual relationship between me, and, Bhagavān and this world, what will I gain by worshiping the Supreme Lord? To understand all these is called *Bhāgavata-dharma*. Actually these things should be taught in the schools and colleges. But, *andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās.* [[sb/7/5/31|[SB. 7.5.31] ]] Our leaders want to get rid of Bhagavān altogether. This is not good. If the leaders do want to vanish Bhagavān let them do, but you, the younger generation, try to understand this mission very thoroughly and our Doctor sahib is also present here. Please try to understand the importance of these teachings of this movement. Preach vigoursly if you actually want to make people of the world happy. Without being connected to Bhagavān... > bhagavad-bhakti-hīnasya > jātiḥ śāstraṁ japas tapaḥ > aprāṇasyaiva dehasya > maṇḍanaṁ loka-rañjanam > [Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya 3.11] ["If one is born in a high family like that of a *brāhmaṇa*, *kṣatriya* or *vaiśya* but is not a devotee of the Lord, all his good qualifications as a *brāhmaṇa*, *kṣatriya* or *vaiśya* are null and void. Indeed, they are considered decorations of a dead body."] Without being related to Bhagavān if you desire to make your caste, community or nation prosperous there will be no improvement at all. You are thinking now you are independent. You have achived a paradise. But I have travelled all over the world and observed that India has no prestige anywhere. They say it is a country of beggars. Poor country. They don't expect a paisa from us. It has no value. If you carry rupee notes from here you will get nothing in exchange. It has no value. But if you bring American dollar here, its bank value is 7.50 rupees per doller. You can sell it. Simply because that country is prestigious! Your country has no prestige. You are falsely proud that you are now independent and you have become very expert. If you really want to make your country prestigious then join this Kṛṣṇa Consciousness movement and spread it everywhere. That will make you prestigious. [41.57] Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa. **Devotee:** *Kīrtana*? **Prabhupāda:** Yes a little *kīrtana*. [Transl.Prasāda. Yes, that is good.] [end]