View source for How is it that I cannot explain my position (I can explain Krsna consciousness, but you cannot explain nirvana. That is the difficulty. I can explain my position but you cannot explain your position)?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"How is it that I cannot explain my position"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|15Jun11}}
{{last|15Jun11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1974]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationMarch161974Vrndavana_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="39" link="Room Conversation -- March 16, 1974, Vrndavana" link_text="Room Conversation -- March 16, 1974, Vrndavana">
<div class="heading">Then explain what do you mean by nirvāṇa.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- March 16, 1974, Vrndavana|Room Conversation -- March 16, 1974, Vrndavana]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: What philosophy you are following?</p>
<p>Guest: Pardon?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Which philosophy you are following?</p>
<p>Guest: Uh, Buddha philosophy, and uh, Vedānta and uh, Kṛṣṇa philosophy. I have a Tibetan teacher now, (indistinct).</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He also teaches Kṛṣṇa?</p>
<p>Guest: Uh, he teaches uh...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Buddha.</p>
<p>Guest: Buddha. Buddhism.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So how you will adjust Kṛṣṇa philosophy and Buddha philosophy?</p>
<p>Guest: Well it's just a different uh, approach. But I don't think there's any fundamental difference. I mean if you, if you, uh, have the ultimate consciousness in one, you have it in the other, too.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So there is difference. Buddha philosophy does not accept God.</p>
<p>Guest: Yeah. It's a atheistic approach.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: It's a atheistic approach.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No soul, no God. Our Kṛṣṇa philosophy is God, soul, and Vedānta philosophy, that is also God. So Buddha philosophy different from Vedānta philosophy and Kṛṣṇa philosophy.</p>
<p>Guest: The approach is different, yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hm?</p>
<p>Guest: The approach is different.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Approach? The end is different. Now how you'll adjust Buddha philosophy and Kṛṣṇa philosophy?</p>
<p>Guest: There's a few, uh, paradoxes I..., but uh, anyway, I asked the same key question to uh, to my, uh, Tibetan teacher, and, uh, because he was, he was putting down everybody else and calling everybody else except his philosophy heretics. So then I asked him, I said, "Now this experience that all those different people say that they have achieved, you know," I says, uh, "is it substantially different or not?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Achieved?</p>
<p>Guest: Achieved. You know-attained.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Achieved. Oh.</p>
<p>Guest: And uh, then he started to say, "Well if they believe in an external God," or something like that, "then it is heretical." I says, "But nevertheless," I says, "Uh, like in the writings of, say, Meister Eckhart or the different mystics, they all seem to describe their experience in pretty much similar terms." So I said, I asked him, "Does this mean that the experience is different or not?" So then he argued, he finally says.... Well, he didn't say it directly, but what he said is that if, if you want to get the experience of touching something to find out what hot is, he says you may have different motive. Like some people may do it because it's pretty, some out of curiosity or different motive. In other words, he admitted that the experience finally was the same, even though the approach was different.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If the approach is different, suppose in the approach is to fire, the approach may be different, but heat or light is there. So why do they approach fire? But if you are approaching something else, how the same experience is there?</p>
<p>Guest: Well...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Say we approach fire, then approach may be a different way, but the goal, it is fire, you will experience heat and light.</p>
<p>Guest: Well, approaching means...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But if the approach is different, then how you will experience heat and light?</p>
<p>Guest: Yes, but what are we approaching?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: What are we approaching?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That you have to explain.</p>
<p>Guest: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We say...</p>
<p>Guest: The Absolute.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We say approaching Kṛṣṇa, the Absolute. We have got Kṛṣṇa's form, we have Kṛṣṇa's name, we have personal address, His pastime. Just like you know me, I know you, means I have got form, you have got form, I know your qualities, you know my qualities; therefore we know each other. But if the approach is void, then how the approach is the same? There must be something tangible; then the approach is the same.</p>
<p>Guest: Well, I know your philosophy, cause I was very intimately involved with it, but I still believe that if, uh, your uh, you may have a different style, and you may call it Kṛṣṇa consciousness or you may call it nirvāṇa, but I think that ultimately it's, uh...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I can, I can explain Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but you cannot explain nirvāṇa. That is the difficulty. I can explain my position but you cannot explain your position.</p>
<p>Guest: How is it that I cannot explain my position?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then explain what do you mean by nirvāṇa.</p>
<p>Guest: Well it's the ultimate state of consciousness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Where is nirvāṇa when you do not know the meaning of nirvāṇa? Nirvāṇa means finished.</p>
<p>Guest: Uh, yes. I think that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nirvāṇa means everything finished, void.</p>
<p>Guest: Etymologically it means "no wind."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: "No wind."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No wind?</p>
<p>Guest: The root of the word, I believe, means "no wind." There's no wind.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. You can derive many meanings, but nirvāṇa means, just like flame is there, extinguished, finished.</p>
<p>Guest: That's not the way I understand nirvāṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: That's not the way I understand nirvāṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But this is the meaning, dictionary meaning, nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa means there is flame and you extinguish. This is nirvāṇa.</p>
<p>Devotee: You want some more vegetables and purīs?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Give him. More, more.</p>
<p>Guest: Not more.</p>
<p>Devotee: Yes.</p>
<p>Guest: If it is an extinguishing, it's only an extinguishing of desire.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: If there's an extinguishing...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If desire is extinguished, then what you are?</p>
<p>Guest: But it's not extinguishing of desire; it's transforming of desire. Like this is one...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is not extinguishing.</p>
<p>Guest: Right. But in the sense it is, uh, the uh, flame of, uh...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That we say. You don't extinguish desire but we purify desire. That is our... But that is not the void, nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa means finished.</p>
<p>Guest: Well, the way, uh, the way it's interpreted, you know, by the people that practice it, is that, uh, you don't extinguish your desires either but they're transformed into the Buddha principles. They say this is the meaning of Mahayana Buddhism, is that you, uh, learn to identify the desire passions with the Buddha principles, and so they become transformed so that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Transformed to what?</p>
<p>Guest: Well, for instance lust is supposed to be transformed into compassion, and the other uh, the other passion desires are transformed to something else.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then it is not nirvāṇa. It is real condition. Then that is our principle. That is not nirvāṇa. Just like...</p>
<p>Guest: Well, this is what I mean by nirvāṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You mean, but you the word nirvāṇa. Suppose I take out your eyes. This is one thing. And I...</p>
<p>Devotee: Śrīla Prabhupāda.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh? What is that?</p>
<p>Devotee: Gopāla wants to see you. (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Suppose I take out your eyes. That is nirvāṇa. But if there is some disease, I cure it, that is (indistinct). Suppose cataract, cataract operation.</p>
<p>Guest: Well, um, whatever the origin, so the word may be etymologically, the way it's used by the people that I'm studying with and the way I understand the meaning of the word is a little different than meaning just uh, sheer nothingness. Sheer nothingness is supposed to be a misunderstanding of what nirvāṇa means.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Now you have to understand as it is in the dictionary.</p>
<p>Guest: Well, as it is used by people. You have to understand it as, as it's used, you know, in uh, by, by the people who are using this word to...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa means, I have already explained, this is the people take, those who know Sanskrit, nirvāṇa means extinguished. Now, you may have different meaning.</p>
<p>Guest: Right. Words change meaning as time goes on.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: Words, I mean their root may be one thing, but then as time goes on the, uh, word doesn't remain, uh, the same as used by uh...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Anyway, you can give your own meaning. What do you mean by nirvāṇa.</p>
<p>Guest: Nirvāṇa is identifying your, uh, ah, passion desires with the innate Buddha principles, in this system.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The life symptoms?</p>
<p>Guest: Hm?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Symptoms of life?</p>
<p>Guest: In this system.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: System? What is that system?</p>
<p>Guest: The, uh, Mahayana Buddhism.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh. So what is that practically?</p>
<p>Guest: The practical result?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: The practical result is, uh.... I don't see it as being far different from Kṛṣṇa consciousness, though the approach may be different.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What Kṛṣṇa consciousness is stress is always thinking of Kṛṣṇa, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65|BG 18.65]]). It is directly always thinking of Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Guest: So that is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: To offer obeisances to Kṛṣṇa, to worship Kṛṣṇa, to become devotee of Kṛṣṇa, this is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.</p>
<p>Guest: Buddha is Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: Buddha is Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Buddha is Kṛṣṇa, that I know, but the...</p>
<p>Guest: So that if you...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: ...those who Buddhist, they do not know. They do not know. We know, but they do not know. Neither they agree to believe.</p>
<p>Guest: So that if you're aware of Buddha, then you're aware...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But you should talk from the platform of Buddha. We know the secrecy. Our, our understanding of Buddha, that he is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. But the Buddhists, they do not believe.</p>
<p>Guest: No, they've rejected the Vedas.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. But we say.</p>
<p>Guest: But I'm not trying to, uh, to set up, to argue sect against sect.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's not the question. It's a question of philosophy. Here we just say, we know, just like we, we are devotee of Lord Buddha, keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. We glorify Lord Buddha because we know what is Buddha, sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. So we know perfectly that he is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, but those who are cheated by Buddha, from their point of view I want to know what is their perspective.</p>
<p>Guest: Now how, how, how, why would Buddha want to cheat people?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, cheated because they did not believe in God. So, but he is God, he is God; therefore he says, "What I say, you believe." That means he is cheating them.</p>
<p>Guest: He didn't say that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Guest: Buddha didn't say that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why do you, why do you study Buddha philosophy?</p>
<p>Guest: Well he said, "You study Buddha philosophy to arrive at principles of truth," but what Buddha said...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. Buddha philosophy...</p>
<p>Guest: What Buddha said was, he says, "Don't accept anything because I tell it to you. Don't accept anything because it's been believed for a long time by many people in many different places." He says, "Only believe that which you find true for yourself, and that is for your own good and for the good of others."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But these are teachings of Buddha.</p>
<p>Guest: Huh, but...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But...</p>
<p>Guest: But he's pointing at how to arrive at principles of truth. This, this is, uh, more uh, of an independent approach. He's not uh, I don't think he was trying to cheat anybody but he was trying to...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not that. Cheating this sense, sometimes just so you, I cheat my child. The father is not cheater, but sometimes it is required.</p>
<p>Guest: Cheating, yeah, tells him that forest leaves are made out of gold to keep the child from crying.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So the father's cheating is not cheating, but from external point of view it is cheating. You want something, I give something. That is cheating. But that cheating is good for you. When father cheats the child, it is good for the child, but it is cheating. Therefore cheating is not always bad.</p>
<p>Guest: Yes. A great Buddhist saint once said the same thing. He says that "All the scriptures and everything, it means just this, is that it's pretending that forest..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Good, good lessons for...</p>
<p>Guest: "...leaves are made out of gold to keep children from crying," meaning that you have to arrive at truth from your own self, your own understanding. Nobody can, you know, no blind following, as you yourself say. I remember correctly that you used to preach and say, uh, that uh, you shouldn't accept anything blindly.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That, in the Bhāgavata it is said, sammohāya sura-dviṣām ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.24|SB 1.3.24]]). Lord Buddha appeared for cheating or bewildering the atheistic person. They do not believe in the (indistinct). They did not, did not believe in God, but God is there. Lord Buddha himself is God. Just like if I say I don't want (indistinct), but you come in a different place. So (indistinct) is there, but I am thinking it is not (indistinct). Similarly, God is there—Buddha—but they are thinking that they don't believe in God. This is cheating. God is there. They are worshiping Lord Buddha exactly as we worship Kṛṣṇa. Then is it not the same? Then how do they say they don't believe in God? They are made to believe in God in a different way. That is cheating, and it is good for them. That is written in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, sammohāya sura-dviṣām ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.24|SB 1.3.24]]). (break) They're Australian. (Hindi conversation with another guest about Lakṣmī's position in relation to Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs) (break)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>