View source for Is it possible to sing the maha-mantra for someone else who has died, and will it have the same effect?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Is it possible to sing the maha-mantra for someone else who has died, and will it have the same effect"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|09Jul11}}
{{last|09Jul11}}
{{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... 1975]]
</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="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithMetaphysicsSocietyFebruary211975Caracas_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="10" link="Room Conversation with Metaphysics Society -- February 21, 1975, Caracas" link_text="Room Conversation with Metaphysics Society -- February 21, 1975, Caracas">
<div class="heading">If you say, "I am servant," and God says, "I am master," then it is perfect.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Metaphysics Society -- February 21, 1975, Caracas|Room Conversation with Metaphysics Society -- February 21, 1975, Caracas]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Guest: May I ask a question, please? Master, perhaps... It seems to me we have sort of misunderstood. These people is trying to inquire whether or not a sort of a mantram I would say invented here in the western hemisphere or a so-called master is or is not good for realization of the self. But I am thinking more in terms of the question, it is perhaps more suitable to make the question a question, not affirmation. "Who am I?" perhaps, is the best of the mantrams instead of affirming, "I am," because we cannot realize who I am.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. But you are basing your knowledge, "Perhaps." Therefore you are imperfect. "Perhaps." That means you are imperfect. Your statement will not be accepted. Because you are imperfect, you say, "Perhaps, maybe." So this is not knowledge. This is not knowledge. This is ignorance. As soon as you say, "Perhaps, maybe," that means you do not know what is, the actual thing is. Knowledge must be perfect. There is no question of "Perhaps, it may be." No, that is not knowledge. That is speculation. That is speculation. That is not knowledge. Because you are sitting, "Perhaps," therefore your knowledge cannot be accepted.</p>
<p>Guest: No, no, I'm just asking the question whether or not the right question could be: "Who am I?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that's nice. That's nice. Therefore I say when you say, "I am," and when I say, "I am," I must understand who I am, you must understand who you are. That I am saying, that simply saying "I am," is not the final. Is not the final. Everyone is "I am," but he must know what I am, what that "I am." That is knowledge. If you blindly say, "I am," and you do not know what you are, then what is the use of using "I am"? Therefore I ask, "What you are?"</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): She says that everyone has to decide.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That decision is required, that is knowledge. Simply saying, "I am," everyone can say, "I am." What is that? You must know what you are. That is required. Therefore I am asking, "What you are?"</p>
<p>Lady: I agree. I am just mentioning that "I am" is the name of God, and then you add the adjective, and He will be established unto you.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no, no. "I am" is not the name of God. That is identification. That is the identification. God can say, "I am," you can say, "I am," but that does not mean you are God.</p>
<p>Lady: Jesus Christ said that if you establish what you are after you say "I am"...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right, everyone is saying, "I am." Everyone is saying in ordinary dealing, "I am." That is there. But that does (not) mean different "I am" is the same.</p>
<p>Lady: You decree it. You decree what you are. You decree. With "I am," you decree. You make a decree.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, that decree is already there. Just like in the Bible, "God is great." You are not great. Therefore you "I am" and God "I am" different.</p>
<p>Girl: Is it possible to sing the mahā-mantra for someone else who has died, and will it have the same effect?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If you say, "I am servant," and God says, "I am master," then it is perfect.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): You said that when I say, "I am," and when you say, "I am," they are different. But she understands that the essence of everyone is the same.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. But still, in the essence, in the essence means the spirit; that God is the supreme spirit, I am the particle spirit. So far spiritual constitution is concerned, God and the living entity, one. Both of them are spiritual. But the power, God's power and your power, is not the same. It is said in the Bible, so far I remember, "God said, 'Let there be creation.' There was creation." Can you do that, "Let there be creation" and create something? Therefore when God says, "I am" and you say "I am," that is different. So "I" means person. As person, He is also person. And "I" means persons. You are also person. But that person and you person is different. He is almighty, all-powerful. You have no... You have limited power.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): This is Māyāvādī philosophy. She's saying that when she says, "I am," she doesn't mean "I" in the sense of the lower self but in the higher self.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That we have admitted. God is spirit; I am spirit. So both of them "I." But God's power and your power is not equal. God said, "Let there be creation." There was creation. But you say, "Let there be capati," there will be no capati unless you work. (laughter) You have to work for it.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): God is the whole, and we are parts, and we are evolving to integrate ourselves with that whole.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is all right. But as part... Just like the finger. You can say, "part of the body," but it is not the whole body. So finger is working. Just like I am rubbing the head. The finger is... But the head is different, the finger is different, but if you take the whole thing, it is body.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): She said without all the parts, it would not be the body so we are all parts of the whole.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. Still, this is axiomatic truth. Part is not equal to the whole.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): But we are in evolution.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Evolution? No, there is no evolution. The part is part eternally, and the whole is whole eternally.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): So she's asking does that mean that one does not integrate himself with the whole when he becomes evolved?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, you are already in the whole. What is that?</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): She says, "Therefore we're all one."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: One and different, that is our philosophy. Just like the one small screw is in the machine. So the whole is one, but the small screw is not equal to the whole machine. But the screw cannot be called the whole machine.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): She said, "We are part of this whole."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is, that is. We also. Mamaivāṁśo jīvabhūtaḥ jīva-loka sanātanaḥ. Find out.</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda:</p>
:mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke
:jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ
:manaḥ ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi
:prakṛti-sthāni karṣati
:([[Vanisource:BG 15.7|BG 15.7]])
<p>(reads translation in Spanish)</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): She said they admit the same thing. They want to know if...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Same thing, but why he is manaḥ ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi prakṛti-sthāni, Why he is struggling here? God doesn't struggle.</p>
<p>Guest (Hṛdayānanda): He said because there was a misunderstanding.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Who misunderstanding?</p>
<p>Guest (Hṛdayānanda): So he has said that we have given the name Kṛṣṇa to God, but actually there are so many names of God, that it doesn't matter what the name of God is. It can be "I am" or it can be whatever it may be. Just like in India, he's understood that in India there are so many different names of God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So do you think that "I am" is the name? (Guest speaks in Spanish-gives different names of God) That's all right. Allah is name, Kṛṣṇa is name, Jehovah is name. But "I am" is not name.</p>
<p>Guest: Si, es un nombre. Yaveḥ, Yaveḥ.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If I ask you, "What is your name?" you say, "I am." Is it very clear? (Prabhupāda speaks to those near him as Hṛdayānanda discusses with man in Spanish:) Simply... "What is your name?" "I am." How foolishly they are.</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: They thought we meant why are we struggling here? But I explained no...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, I mean to say, they said that "I am" is the name of God. So is it practical that if I ask your name, "What is your name?" "I am."</p>
<p>Guest (Hṛdayānanda): He said that say, for example, suppose that his parents were crazy and gave him the name "I am"...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But there is no business in crazy. We have no business with crazy. (some people are laughing and some are talking) All right, what is the time now? We have no business with crazy. This is practical. This is practical. If in the court the judge inquires, "What is your name," and if you say, "I am," he will immediately say, "He is a crazy man. Get him out." (several people start talking at once) This kind of knowledge has got no value. No, no. If he does not like to accept Kṛṣṇa as the name of God, he has got his name, say, Jehovah or Allah. That is all right.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): They're saying it's not that they don't like Kṛṣṇa. They like Kṛṣṇa very much, but they are saying that everything is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, they must have some name of God. "I am" is not the name. That is false conception.</p>
<p>Guests (Hṛdayānanda): They say it's something very personal.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. When you ask name, that is personal.</p>
<p>Lady: God?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: God means controller. God is not name. Just like the president, Mr. Ford. That is name, and president is the controller. So every controller has got name. So why the supreme controller will not have any name? That is ignorance.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): She's saying that Christ said that "I am the way."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well, every guru is the way to approach God. That's a fact. But he has got his name, Christ. So why do you deny this name? "Christ says,"—that means either you take him anything, but he has a name, Christ.</p>
<p>Lady: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No? What is this? (laughter) That is your conception. It is not Bible's conception. Bible says the son of God is Christ. You can create by mental concoction anything, but if you refer to the Bible, the name is Christ. Everyone says, all Christians says, all Christians says, "the Jesus Christ." Why do you deny it?</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): Māyāvāda. She says that everyone has the Christ within him.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we don't agree with all these things.</p>
<p>Lady (Hṛdayānanda): If we agree with Buddhist consciousness?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, whatever consciousness may be, I say that in the Bible it is said that son of God is Christ. His name is Christ. How you can deny the name? No, no, that is their interpretation, "Christ means 'I am.' " They want to interpret in their own way. There is name. How can you deny it?</p>
<p>Guest (Hṛdayānanda): He is saying that you have said that we have a material body and also a spiritual body. So he wants to know if the spirit and matter are born simultaneously or if the matter is born, the material body is born, and later the spirit comes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, from spirit the matter has come out. Just like God said, "Let there be creation." So God was there and creation later on. So God is spirit and creation is matter.</p>
<p>Guest (Hṛdayānanda): He has understood from what he thinks is Indian philosophy that you cannot give God a name because that would be limiting God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, you don't give God name. But God is named by His action. Just like Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa means all-attractive. Kṛṣṇa means all-attractive. That is the quality of God, that He is all-attractive. Similarly, Allah. Allah means "the great." So God is great; therefore He is called Allah. So actually God has no name, but according to His action, He has name. That's all right. You can...</p>
<p>Guest (Hṛdayānanda): He thanks you very much, and he considers it a great privilege to have been here today.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Thank you for your coming here. (end)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>