View source for The whole purpose of practicing yoga is to control the mind, control the mind. Now, here Patanjali system, that unless you, I mean, conduct devotional service of Lord, or bhakti, there is no success of yoga

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"The whole purpose of practicing yoga is to control the mind, control the mind. Now, here Pataïjali system, that unless you, I mean, conduct devotional service of Lord, or bhakti, there is no success of yoga"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|22Jun12}}
{{last|22Jun12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:whole]]
[[Category:purpose]]
[[Category:Yoga Practice]]
[[Category:Control the Mind]]
[[Category:now]]
[[Category:here]]
[[Category:Patanjali Muni]]
[[Category:system]]
[[Category:that]]
[[Category:unless]]
[[Category:you]]
[[Category:Mean]]
[[Category:Conduct]]
[[Category:Devotional Service]]
[[Category:Service of the Lord]]
[[Category:bhakti]]
[[Category:There Is No]]
[[Category:Success]]
[[Category:yoga]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG212NewYorkMarch71966_1" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="52" link="Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966">
<div class="heading">The whole purpose of practicing yoga is to control the mind, control the mind. Now, here Patañjali system, that unless you, I mean, conduct devotional service of Lord, or bhakti, there is no success of yoga. The subsequent commentators and interpreters... The difficulty is that wrong interpretation of the original text delude the audience.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966|Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Now, how to understand that which is beyond our conception? The scriptures says like this, acintyaḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet: "Anything which is beyond our conception, beyond our reasoning power, beyond our approach of the material senses, such things we should not try to have conception simply by arguments." So in the Vedic injunction it is said that tarkaḥ apratiṣṭha: "By... What should be the... What should be our real understanding, that we cannot establish simply by argument." Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ smṛtayo vibhinnāḥ: ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]) "If we consult different scriptures, then we'll find that one scripture is speaking something, another scripture is speaking something else." Just like cow-killing. Take, take it for example. The Hindus, they say that cow-killing is irreligious. The Muhammadans say, "No, cow-killing is religious." There is some adjustment, but... Now, in the scripture I see that the cow-killing, in some scriptures it is said that cow-killing is irreligious, and another scripture says that cow-killing is religious. So which of them I shall accept? This is ni... This is all right, or that is all right? So therefore it is said that smṛtayo vibhinnāḥ. If you consult different scriptures, you'll find different contradictory statements. Your scripture may be different from my scripture. And nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. If you consult philosophers, you'll find one philosopher is differing from another philosopher. A big philosopher means who has cut down other philosophers and put up his own theory, "This is true." This is going on. So tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ smṛtayo vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Then how to conclude what is the right path? I cannot establish it by my imperfect arguments. I cannot consult even the scriptures. Neither I can take real instruction from different philosophers. Then what, what is the way of having the real thing? So it says that dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: "The truth of religiosity is very confidential, very secret." So how to know it? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]) "We have simply to see that great personalities, as they have taken up, we have to follow. That's all." Just like in your Christian religion you may not understand all the Biblical injunctions or you may not have the time, but you'll simply, if you follow the ideal life of Lord Jesus Christ, then you get the same result. Similarly, the Muhammadans, if they follow the ideal life of Muhammad, Hazrat Muhammad, so they get the result. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). Just like in a unknown path, in a village, especially when there is a field... Now, in, in the city, you can know that "I have come so far" because the streets are numbered and the, you have got the location and there are some symptoms, this house or that house. But in the country, everything, every, every place is of the same similar nature, the same jungle, the same field, the same grass. We do not know where I am going. Or in the sea. Or in the sea. I have got experience. Have you ever traveled in the sea? No. But when I was coming from India, so everywhere I see a round only, round of water. I do not know which way the ship is proceeding. You see? But they have got a chart. They have got a chart. By latitude, longitude, by time and by chart, they are calculating. Now, I was asking the Captain, "Where we have come?" He was saying, in the Mediterranean Sea, "Oh, we are so many miles from Italy. We are so many miles from..." Like this. "Tunisia. Now we are coming to Gibraltar." Like this. But I was seeing all vast of water only. I was seeing, "Just after ten miles I shall reach," but it never reaches. So then how, what are these charts? The charts are that experienced sailors, they have made the charts. The captain was also consulting that chart because it was made by experienced sailors. That is nothing. So similarly in calculating in which way we have to find out our salvation is to follow such liberated souls.</p>
<p>So last day we had been discussing that difference between the conditioned soul and liberated soul is that a conditioned soul is imperfect in four ways. A conditioned soul is sure to commit mistake, a conditioned soul is in illusion, a conditioned soul has the tendency for cheating others, and a conditioned soul has got his senses imperfect, imperfect senses. Therefore knowledge should be taken from a liberated soul. Why this Bhagavad-gītā is so honored? Now, this Bhagavad-gītā was spoken in India, and it is understood that it is a scripture of the Hindus. But why...? Now, you are Americans. You are also keeping this Bhagavad-gītā, and not only in America, in other countries also, in Germany. In Germany there are great, great scholars, in England, in Japan, in all countries. So why? Because it is spoken by a great personality. Apart from... We may... We Hindus, we accept Him the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but others, even not accepting Him the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they accept it as, at least, that He was a great personality. Therefore, besides the Hindu community, others, they are also consulting the knowledge. Now, my point is that when such a great personality, and when a..., we accept Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then His version is right. What He says, that from our practical experience we can conclude that every individual persons who were in the past individuals, they are also individuals at the present, and they'll continue to be individuals, and this is by our common sense, but it is confirmed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa, whom we call the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He is accepted as a great personality. He says, na tu eva ahaṁ jātu nāsam: "Don't think that I was not in existence." That means "I was in existence," not that "Just now I have come before you as God, as Śrī Kṛṣṇa. I was Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the past also, and I am Śrī Kṛṣṇa at the present. So also yourself, and so also others—all individuals. So and at the present we are." Na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ: "And don't think that we shall not remain." Sarve. This sarve means "we all," not that... Sarve is plural number. Janādhipāḥ is plural number. "So they are all individual souls." So the individual soul continues. That is the version. That is the version of the Bhagavad-gītā, and we... It is better to accept this version without unnecessarily commenting it or interpreting it in a different way so that one... Interpretation is very bad. You see? A scripture should not be interpreted. A scripture should be taken as it is, as it is. And besides that, interpretation... When interpretation is required? When a thing is not properly understood, at that time, interpretation is required. Otherwise, there is no necessity of interpretation. Just like you..., that "Such and such village" or "such and such town is on the sea." Somebody says. Now, the person who hears that "Such and such town is on the sea," and he may be confused: "How is that? On the, on the water, how there can be a town?" So there is explanation required. Now that explanation is that " 'On the sea' does not mean 'in the midst of the sea,' but 'on the bank of the sea.' " Here is an interpretation. So similarly, a thing which is very clear to everyone, so there is no necessity of interpretation. Here the, the statement of Bhagavad-gītā as by, spoken by Lord Kṛṣṇa, is very clear, that "Myself, yourself and all these people who have assembled here, they are all individual persons. And they were individual persons in the past, and at the present moment, we see that they are individual persons, and they will continue. They will continue." I may not know what they will become in the future, but because He is God, because He is the Supreme Personality, His statement should be accepted. That makes my knowledge perfect. Just like I give you one very simple example. Now, if a little boy asks his mother that "Who is my father?" The mother says that "Here is your father." Now, if the child says, "I don't believe it, that he is my father," is it possible to convince him in any other way than the statement of the mother? Is it possible? No. That is the final. That is the final. And if he says, "I don't believe it," that is his foolishness. Similarly, a thing which is beyond our conception, beyond our limit of knowledge, that should be taken from the authority.</p>
<p>So here is an authority, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Authority. His authority, authorityship, is accepted by all over the world. In, in our India there are five different disciplic succession of authorities, just like the Śaṅkarites, followers of Śaṅkarācārya, and Vaiṣṇavites. Generally, they are two: Māyāvādī, impersonalists; and personalists. The personalist school, philosophers, they are divided into four: Rāmānuja-sampradāya—that means followers of Ācārya Rāmānuja; Madhvācārya-sampradāya, or the followers of Madhvācārya; Nimbārka-sampradāya, followers of Nimbārka Ācārya; and Viṣṇu Svāmī-sampradāya. They, their conclusion is the same. Although they are four in number, their conclusion is the same. And another sect is Śaṅkarite sampradāya. So all these four, I mean, five different section of the Hindus, they accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All of them. There is no denial. Although they are five, they have got different theses and philosophies, little, little difference, not, I mean, conclusion, but still... Now, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, he, he is supposed, he is considered to be impersonalist. Impersonalist means he does not believe in the personal form of God. But still, he has commented in this, of this Bhagavad-gītā, Śaṅkara-bhāṣya. He has admitted there that "Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Personality of Godhead." He has also admitted. Others, they are Vaiṣṇavites, other ācāryas, other authorities, they are Vaiṣṇavites. They have naturally admitted because they believe from the beginning. But even Śaṅkarācārya, who is impersonalist, he has also clearly written that sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ: "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." And there are many evidences in many scriptures and Vedic scriptures that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.</p>
<p>In the Brahma-saṁhitā it is stated,</p>
:īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ
:sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ
:anādir ādir govindaḥ
:sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam
:(Bs. 5.1)
<p>Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ. Īśvara. Īśvara means the Lord. Now, there are different lords, different lords, degree. Lord means controller or proprietor. So you have got some lordship over your environment. He has got some lordship. I have got some lordship. He has got some lordship. Or the President Johnson, he has got some lordship. In this way you'll find different degrees of lordship. But here it is said that the supreme, superlative degree Lord is Kṛṣṇa. Above Him, there is no other Lord. Here we shall find that you are bigger lord than me, he is bigger than lord you, and somebody is bigger than him. In this way you can approach the lordship of Johnson. Then you can see another man. He is more than Johnson; another man, more than Johnson, like that. But when you reach Śrī Kṛṣṇa by such analytical process, you'll find that nobody is greater, nobody is equal than Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And He says something—we must agree to accept it. (laughs) We must... If we don't agree, that will not be beneficial for us. When a great man says something... And He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is saying that we are all individual persons. We are all individual persons. God is also individual person. It is confirmed in the Vedic literature. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). Nityo nityānām. Nitya means eternal. We are all eternal. This is plural number. So amongst all the eternal living entities, He is the chief. This is a definition of God, is given in the... Nityo nitya. Cetanānām, nit..., cetanaś cetanānām: "We are all conscious, conscious beings." So He is the supreme conscious. He is the supreme conscious. Now, of course, there are some yogic schools. In America you'll find. They do not believe in God. But it is not actually... The yoga principle does not deny the existence of God. God is there.</p>
<p>Now, just to inform you I have just brought one very authoritative book by two great professors of Calcutta University. The book is called Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Now he says... "He says" means he is giving, after studying all different kinds of philosophy, he is giving a nutshell idea of each type of system. Now, just see: "The place of God in the yoga... The place of God in the yoga, as distinguished from the Sāṅkhya, the yoga is theistic." Yoga system was introduced by Lord Patañjali, a great authority. You see? Now they have studied. Here is two persons. And this book is very authoritative. This is the sixth edition. Just see. It has very good sale in all the universities of the world. It is a very authoritative book. And this Dr. Chatterjee and Dr. Datta, they are not ordinary persons. This is accepted by all universities. And they are authoritative persons. Now, just... I am therefore reading his version. What does he say? The yoga system. Now, "As distinguished from the Sāṅkhya, the yoga is theistic." Yoga system is theistic. Theistic means believing in God. (From here for about four pages, Prabhupāda is mostly reading from the Indian Philosophy book.) It admits the existence of God and both practical and theoretical Gods. Patañjali himself, however, has not felt the necessity of God for solving any theoretical problem of philosophy. For him, God has more a practical value than a theoretical one. This is the version of Patañjali. You see?</p>
<p>Devotion to God is considered to be the great practical value, as much as it forms a part of practice of yoga. Those who are practicing yoga, they must be devotee of God. Otherwise, yoga will be a failure. You see? So inasmuch as it forms a part of practice of yoga and is one of the means for the final attainment of samādhi-yoga or the restraint of the mind... That yoga, citta-niruddha. The whole purpose of practicing yoga is to control the mind, control the mind. Now, here Patañjali system, that unless you, I mean, conduct devotional service of Lord, or bhakti, there is no success of yoga. The subsequent commentators and interpreters... The difficulty is that wrong interpretation of the original text delude the audience. You see? So they are... The subsequent commentators and interpreters of the yoga reveals also a theoretical interest in God and discuss more fully the speculative problems as to the nature of God and the proof for the existence of God. They practically take up the speculative way. But Patañjali, as he is, he takes practically, that without devotion of God, there is no success of yoga. Thus the yoga system has come to have both a theoretical and practical interest in the divine will. According to the yoga, God is the Supreme Person. Now just see. This is authoritative statement. A Supreme Person. Did you ever hear...? You have been in so many yoga societies. Did you ever hear that God is the Supreme Person? Now just see.</p>
<p>According to the yoga, God is the Supreme Person who is above all individual selves and is free from all defects. Now, the same thing, in the Bhagavad-gītā also, Lord Kṛṣṇa, He, He is telling. He is informing us about the future or of the past because He is perfect. He can see both past and future. Because we are not perfect, because we do not know... Now, accepting it that you existed in, in your, in the future... Say your age is thirty-four, thirty-five years. Can you say, thirty-six years before, where you were? You cannot say. Or suppose you live for hundred years. Can you say hundred years after where you shall be? You cannot say because you are imperfect, because you are imperfect. So God is not imperfect. God is perfect being. Here yoga system also accept like that. According to the yoga, God is the Supreme Person who is above all individual... Individual, now here you see the individual. The every, every living entity is individual. That, this particular word, that individual self and is free from all defects. And because He's free from all defects, His statement is defectless. And therefore we must admit. My statement, because I am imperfect, my statement is also imperfect. I have no idea of the past and future. How can I say that in future you will be like this, or in the past you were like this? I cannot say. That, who is defectless—who can see past, future and present equally, and there is no defect—he can say.</p>
<p>So here is the statement of the Supreme Person. We have to believe it. We cannot go out of it. If we don't believe it, then we are loser. If we don't believe it, then we are loser. He is the perfect being who is eternal and all-pervading. Just see, all-pervading. That means, although you can see Him as a person... Just like you are present before me as a person, but you are absent in your residence. Is it not? But God is not like that. God is, although He's present, Kṛṣṇa, although He's present just before Arjuna, instructing him, but He's all-pervading at the same time. A crude example. Just like at twelve o'clock in the midday, you see that the sun is above your head. And five thousand miles away, if you ask any friend, "Where is the sun?" he'll say, "It is on my head." Five thousand miles this way, that way, you inquire, and everyone will say, "The sun is on my head." So if a material thing... Sun is a material thing. If a material entity can be so all-pervading, at one and the same time, so is it not that the supreme spiritual being, He'll not be all-pervading? He is, certainly. He must be. He must be.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>