View source for To become God is not easy thing. There are some qualification, that He must be the richest, the most powerful, the most famous, He must be the most learned, He must be the most beautiful, and He must be the most renounced. This is the definition of God

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"To become God is not easy thing. There are some qualification, yesterday we discussed, that He must be the richest, He must be the most powerful, He must be the most famous, He must be the most learned, He must be the most beautiful, and He must be the most renounced. This is the definition of God"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Soham}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2023-02-12T13:18:07Z}}
{{last|2023-02-12T13:18:07Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Become God]]
[[Category:Not Easy]]
[[Category:Thing]]
[[Category:There Is Some]]
[[Category:Qualification]]
[[Category:God Must Be]]
[[Category:God Is The Richest]]
[[Category:God Is Most Powerful]]
[[Category:God's Fame]]
[[Category:God's Learning]]
[[Category:Most Beautiful]]
[[Category:God's Beauty]]
[[Category:God's Renunciation]]
[[Category:Definition of God]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - SOHAM]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
To become God is not easy thing. There are some qualification, yesterday we discussed, that He must be the richest, He must be the most powerful, He must be the most famous, He must be the most learned, He must be the most beautiful, and He must be the most renounced. This is the definition of God. A poor man, begging from door to door, he cannot become God, as it is misconceived, daridra-nārāyaṇa. Why Nārāyaṇa can be daridra? What is this nonsense? He is the richest. He is the richest. And why He can . . . We can . . . He will be daridra? The argument is forwarded that "God is everyone's heart; therefore everyone is God." What is this argument?.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:750310 - Lecture BG 07.02 - London|750310 - Lecture BG 07.02 - London]]
</div>
<div class="text">
So Kṛṣṇa is personally speaking about Himself as we understood in the previous verse, that asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu ([[Vanisource:BG 7.1 (1972)|BG 7.1]]). Asaṁśayam, without any doubt. If we speculate about God, that will never be sufficient. Not even we can touch the precincts of the knowledge. If we want knowledge without any doubt, asaṁśayam, samagram, and complete, then we must hear from God Himself. This is very easy to understand. By hypothesis, by speculation, you cannot understand anything. It must be known scientifically, and this science can be understood if a person knows the science. So who can know God better than God Himself?

Therefore our process is—we have repeatedly explained this—that we do not speculate about God. Just like there are so many others, theosophists and theologists, they're speculating what is God. They don't accept . . . God personally explaining, they would not accept. They would simply speculate. This is their disease. When God is explaining Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā . . . Rather, they will mislead the readings of the Bhagavad-gītā in different interpretation, but they will not accept what is being taught by God Himself. This is their misfortune. "Why shall I accept Kṛṣṇa as God?" Although He has proved Himself when He was present by the qualification which God needs . . .

To become God is not easy thing. There are some qualification, yesterday we discussed, that He must be the richest, He must be the most powerful, He must be the most famous, He must be the most learned, He must be the most beautiful, and He must be the most renounced. This is the definition of God. A poor man, begging from door to door, he cannot become God, as it is misconceived, daridra-nārāyaṇa. Why Nārāyaṇa can be daridra? What is this nonsense? He is the richest. He is the richest. And why He can . . . We can . . . He will be daridra? The argument is forwarded that "God is everyone's heart; therefore everyone is God." What is this argument? Everyone's heart, God is there. God said, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati ([[Vanisource:BG 18.61 (1972)|BG 18.61]]). Where God says that because īśvara, the Supreme Being, is situated in everyone's heart, therefore everyone is God? What is this argument? Where Kṛṣṇa says that because īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati, therefore everyone is God? Is that a very sound argument?

So this is going on. They do not know what is God, and still, there are so many incarnations of God. And foolish people accept that "Here is an incarnation of God." He does not know what is God, and he accepts, "Here is incarnation." We do not do so. If there is incarnation of God . . . That is mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Their activities are mentioned, wonderful activities. We accept Lord Rāmacandra as God, Lord Kṛṣṇa as God, Caitanya Mahāprabhu as God, because They are mentioned in the śāstras, all the incarnations, even this age. One may say that "Lord Rāmacandra is accepted God, Lord Kṛṣṇa is also accepted, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He is the greatest devotee of God, but . . ." There are some persons in the Nimbārka-sampradāya, they put this argument. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu's name is there in the śāstra, many Upaniṣads, especially in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that in the Kali-yuga this incarnation of God should be worshiped.
</div>
</div>
</div>