Guest guest Posted April 5, 2001 Report Posted April 5, 2001 Srila Prabhupada conversations 740604rc.gen Conversations Prof. Regamay: But I am struck that, for instance, for us in the West the idea of personal God is strongly rooted in our consciousness. Prabhupada: Yes. Lord Jesus Christ, he was Vaisnava. He directly gave you the idea of personal God. The personal God is the origin. Brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate. The... Just like, the same example: the sun god, the sun planet and sunshine, they are one. They are not different. But still, this is impersonal, that is localized, and within the sun globe, there is the sun god. So sun god is the origin of this light. Similarly, Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is the origin of everything. Aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam. That's the fact. But people with poor fund of knowledge they cannot understand it. Therefore stop... (break) ....light, that's all. So much. Just like Lord Buddha. He did not explain anything about God. He said, "Just obey me and stop this animal killing." Therefore this much sufficient for him, that's all. The lower class students, one plus two equal to three, two plus two..., that much mathematics, not higher mathematics. Higher mathematics is not possible to understand. Prof. Regamay: Yes, of course. Prabhupada: That's it. But there is higher mathematics. Not one plus two or two plus three, no. There is still higher mathematics. So that is not meant for them. That will be explained, explained in the Bhagavad..., ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham. Those who are expert, or sufficient, insufficient knowledge, they cannot understand the Supreme Absolute. That is also confirmed, bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate: "After many, many births, when one is actually in full knowledge, he can understand Krsna and surrenders unto Him." Vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma sudurlabhah. So Vedas and scriptures are there, differently, according to different conditions. Now, what Jesus Christ was teaching the people? You can understand. The first injunction is "Thou shalt not kill." So what class of men they were, just you can understand. Otherwise, why he is first of all telling "Thou shalt not kill"? The Mohammed also said, "From this day, there is no sex with your mother." So just see what class of men. So according to class of men, there should be teaching. Similarly, Buddha also, Lord Buddha said, "No, no, there is no God. Just try to understand me. You obey Me." "Yes, sir." It has to be done like that. Prof. Regamay: Still, there are two questions I have which remain. One is quite a small question. I have read in your commentary to the chastisement of Drona, killing of Drona, and where it was that violence for a right cause is better than the so-called nonviolence. Now I wanted to ask, for instance, to find that nonviolence or like Gandhi, it was wrong... Prabhupada: Gandhi was not a man of spiritual under... He was a politician, that's all. Prof. Regamay: Yes, but in his personal... Prabhupada: Gandhi, actually he did not know anything. Prof. Regamay: Yes, he read Bhagavad-gita in English. Prabhupada: That is also nonsense. There was no Krsna. There was no Mahabharata or Kuruksetra. He has written like that. Prof. Regamay: But he was dead with the words Rama, pronouncing, "Rama Rama." Prabhupada: Well, I... That is the process of India to chant the name of Krsna. Every Indian has got initial propensity, but actually Gandhi did not know anything about spiritual science. He was politician, that's all. That one Bengal governor, he was from Australia, Mr. Keziar (?). So he, I remember. "Gandhi is a politician amongst the saintly person or a saintly person amongst the politicians." This study was made. His moral principle, character, is very good. That is to be taken by the politicians. But so far his spiritual knowledge is concerned, that is nil. Prof. Regamay: But nonviolence is not well in every case? Prabhupada: No, nonviolence... Actually that is the subject matter of Bhagavad-gita. What do you mean by nonviolence. Because you are not this body. Suppose if I tear away your coat, does it mean that you are killed? So those who are in the bodily concept of life, "I am this body," for them, this kind of fighting or killing is violence. It is violence. But the thing is, there is sometimes necessity. Just like every state maintains the military force, the police force. What is this? The violence department. Required. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gita, paritranaya sadhunam. Suppose you are attacked by some rogue, and if somebody comes and kills him, there is a necessity. It is natural. If you say that time nonviolence, it is foolishness. It is foolishness. Vinasaya ca duskrtam. Those who are rogues and, I mean to say, culprit, criminal, they should be killed. They should be stopped by violence. So violence is required sometimes. Violence is not bad, but it is not to be used ordinarily. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.