View source for But can you prove that ("This (Krsna consciousness movement) is the only association for understanding Krsna throughout the whole world"?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"But can you prove that"|"Krsna consciousness movement"|"This is the only association for understanding Krsna throughout the whole world"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|15Jul11}}
{{last|15Jul11}}
{{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="RoomConversationwithYogaStudentMarch141975Iran_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="31" link="Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran" link_text="Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran">
<div class="heading">Yes. Find out another association like this... No, you find out another association like this... Therefore there is no second You said that association may be as pompous. That means there is no another association.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran|Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Indian man: No, enthusiasm is there, but there are breaks.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Breaks means he is not serious.</p>
<p>Indian man: No, but there may be so many other things over which he has no control.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Other things, that is anartha. If you are really enthusiastic, these anarthas will be vanquished automatically. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate ([[Vanisource:BG 2.59|BG 2.59]]). They are all Europeans, Americans, they are from the childhood accustomed to meat-eating. How they have given up? Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate: they have got better things to eat, therefore they have given up meat-eating. So the rules and regulation are there; if we follow them strictly, then everything one after another will come, the stages.</p>
<p>Indian man: Then it is not necessary that one should join the Kṛṣṇa conscious movement for that type of helping.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You cannot understand. I have said sādhu-saṅga ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 22.83|CC Madhya 22.83]]).</p>
<p>Indian man: That's all.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is... Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement should be associated; otherwise how you can understand Kṛṣṇa?</p>
<p>Indian man: But this is not the only association where one can go in for...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is the only association for understanding Kṛṣṇa throughout the whole world.</p>
<p>Indian man: But can you prove that?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Find out another association like this.</p>
<p>Indian man: No, but then...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, you find out another association like this.</p>
<p>Indian man: No, association may not be as pompous as this association is.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore there is no second.</p>
<p>Indian man: No, no, no.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You said that association may be as pompous. That means there is no another association.</p>
<p>Indian man: No, pompous is different from the real purpose.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then I do not know what is your real purpose. You say, "There may not be. There may be." Again you say...</p>
<p>Indian man: No, Guruji, you yourself have quoted the ācāryas.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So one who is following the ācāryas...</p>
<p>Indian man: Were they not Kṛṣṇa conscious?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, they say. Therefore I am giving their proof.</p>
<p>Indian man: So that means those maṭhas also are Kṛṣṇa conscious.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, yes.</p>
<p>Indian man: We can join them also.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, yes. That is Kṛṣṇa conscious.</p>
<p>Indian man: Oh, I thought Kṛṣṇa conscious only for this...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. Any association which is Kṛṣṇa conscious, you can join.</p>
<p>Indian man: Thank you for the enlightenment. But I have got one other doubt. You had told that some great scholars like Mahatma Gandhi had confused and they did not believe in the Kṛṣṇa living, He ever lived, and Dr. Radhakrishnan and another also were not clear in enunciating the theory of Kṛṣṇa. I would like to know whether Kṛṣṇa living or not living, is it very important? And will the movement depends upon one Kṛṣṇa living, positive...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. No, no. Kṛṣṇa is never not living—He is living. Otherwise how He can be Kṛṣṇa? But if you do not know whether He is living or not living, that is your lack of knowledge.</p>
<p>Indian man: Do you believe Kṛṣṇa...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, first of all settle up this one question, that Kṛṣṇa is always living, and if you do not know whether Kṛṣṇa is living or not living, then your knowledge is imperfect. Therefore your knowledge will not be accepted, because you are imperfect. That is the point.</p>
<p>Indian man: When we speak of Bhagavad-gītā, do we mean...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You cannot say, "Kṛṣṇa is living or not. That doesn't matter." No, it matters.</p>
<p>Indian man: It matters.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Because Kṛṣṇa is living but you do not know; therefore your knowledge is imperfect.</p>
<p>Indian man: OK. Taking for granted that is the basis, does this movement believe in Kṛṣṇa Bhāgavata or Kṛṣṇa who preached Bhagavad-gītā, only this much or that much. Kṛṣṇa Bhāgavata...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You cannot say that Kṛṣṇa Bhāgavata, Kṛṣṇa as described in the Bhāgavata, should be rejected, and Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad-gītā should be accepted. You cannot say that.</p>
<p>Indian man: No, just I wanted to separate Them together because...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why?</p>
<p>Indian man: Some people take Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā. So far as Bhagavad-gītā was preached by a philosopher like Kṛṣṇa, all other things are not so pertinent. But when people associate Kṛṣṇa with Bhāgavata, Kṛṣṇa of Mahābhārata and Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā, Bhagavad-gītā being a apart from Bhārata, if they all take together there's a lot of confusion.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa of Bhāgavata and Kṛṣṇa, Mahābhārata—the same.</p>
<p>Indian man: Thank you. I know a little about that, but still, if you we take Kṛṣṇa of Bhāgavata, and if you want to say, explain all the things that had happened pertaining to Kṛṣṇa, it would be very difficult to explain the same thing with Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā. That Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā will be separate to everybody.(?)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, therefore... No, therefore... Therefore we say that first of all you understand Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā. That is the ABCD of Kṛṣṇa. Then you go to Bhāgavatam.</p>
<p>Dr. Movebhed: I feel... If I am not wrong, I feel that what others have done, that Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Radhakrishnan, etc., etc., they have taught that Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā is very much important for us. Whether He was living or whether He did not live, or anything which was in the name of Kṛṣṇa, that is quite (sic:) impertinent. We want to have the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa as enunciated in Bhagavad-gītā, is just enough to tell others who are in need of...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. But if you do not believe in that person, how do you understand his philosophy?</p>
<p>Dr. Movebhed: That's where... I think I may be wrong. Please correct me if I go wrong. That's where people have taken little, two to three steps, as my friend has told, first advaita. She wanted to have two...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, why advaita, dvaita? First of all you take the preliminary things, that you are accepting the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavad-gītā, but you have no knowledge of the person who has spoken Bhagavad-gītā. Then where is your understanding? You do not understand the person who has spoken the Bhagavad-gītā. Then what is the meaning of your understanding Bhagavad-gītā?</p>
<p>Indian man: No, we have to try...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Try, try, another thing.</p>
<p>Indian man: We have to understand it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, you have to understand it... First of all you have to understand Kṛṣṇa, the person who is speaking.</p>
<p>Indian man: Oh, you mean Kṛṣṇa the person you must understand, then Kṛṣṇa of Bhagavad-gītā you must understand.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is the way. You read any book; you learn first of all about the author, his life, his everything.</p>
<p>Indian man: Sometimes we need not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, it is needed. It is needed. No, that is the way.</p>
<p>Indian man: We need not approach the guru. What he speaks that is enough sometimes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that is the way. You read any book. You try to understand, to know something about the author. That is natural.</p>
<p>Indian man: When He rips up (unclear) pārtha, that's enough, just we will start out. Then when He say, mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja, again we will go to Him. But we need not go through...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. That is needed. That is needed. That is needed. If you do not understand what is Kṛṣṇa, when Kṛṣṇa says, mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja, how you will accept it?</p>
<p>Indian man: I will accept, but not as Kṛṣṇa of Bhāgavata. I may not know anything about Him as of...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, this is not very good theory. You do not know anything about Him, and you surrender to Him. What is this?</p>
<p>Indian man: We may have our own idea.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we don't accept that. If we surrender, we must know Him first of all, what He is. Then we surrender. We are not blind. Suppose you tell me that "You surrender unto me." Shall I do that? Why shall I do it?</p>
<p>Indian man: But...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No "but." First of all answer this. If I do not know anything about you and you demand from me, "You surrender," shall I do it?</p>
<p>Indian man: I will be knowing what He has preached, if I... That preaching itself is enough and we need not look anything about Him. We can surrender.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That He preaches...</p>
<p>Indian man: That preaching is enough.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right.</p>
<p>Indian man: We need not know what He is.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. You accept His preaching?</p>
<p>Indian man: If it is accepted, then we can surrender. I was questioning only this point, whether the Kṛṣṇa of Bhāgavata is necessary to accept...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, set aside Bhāgavatam. I have told you that first of all you try to understand Kṛṣṇa from the Bhagavad-gītā.</p>
<p>Indian man: If that is enough, it's enough.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Enough. But if you say that you don't believe in the Kṛṣṇa, whether He was living or not, then you have not understood Bhagavad-gītā.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>