View source for This is the defect of our understanding, that we accept everyone as realized soul. How he is realized soul? If he is speaking something wrong, how he is realized soul? Against the sastra. That is not realized soul

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"This is the defect of our understanding, that we accept everyone as realized soul. How he is realized soul? If he is speaking something wrong, how he is realized soul? Against the sastra. That is not realized soul"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|25Aug12}}
{{last|25Aug12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:That is the Defect]]
[[Category:our]]
[[Category:understanding]]
[[Category:that]]
[[Category:accept]]
[[Category:everyone]]
[[Category:realized]]
[[Category:souls]]
[[Category:how]]
[[Category:speak]]
[[Category:something]]
[[Category:wrong]]
[[Category:against]]
[[Category:that is not]]
[[Category:Questions Posed by Srila Prabhupada]]
</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="MorningWalkApril51974Bombay_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="55" link="Morning Walk -- April 5, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 5, 1974, Bombay">
<div class="heading">You cannot say everyone is realized soul because he recommends something. No. We have to corroborate. (aside:) Hare Kṛṣṇa. This is the defect of our understanding, that we accept everyone as realized soul. How he is realized soul? If he is speaking something wrong, how he is realized soul? Against the śāstra. That is not realized soul. Yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ, na siddhim avāpnoti (BG 16.23). Śāstra reference must be there.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 5, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- April 5, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Bahudhā vadanti, but bahudhā are mentioned. Mentioned. Just like Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma. That is in the śāstra. Therefore, if you take one of the names, then you have to refer to the śāstra, not that you manufacture one word. That you cannot do.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): The śāstras were also made by men, sages.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, then which one you will accept?</p>
<p>Indian man (2): ...by the realized person.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Śāstra means...</p>
<p>Indian man (2): But you cannot say that in this age there are no realized persons.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. It must corroborate.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): Corroborated by whom?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Corroborated by you. By you. If somebody says that "I am correct," then you have to refer to the śāstra whether he is correct or wrong. Just like a medical man. There is characteristic of certain chemicals. That is mentioned. So when accepting some chemical, the medical man tests in his laboratory whether it is correct. Not that somebody brings some chemical, some bunch of lime, and he says, "It is sodium chloride," or "Something, something." It must be tested. So the testing method is mentioned there, that the avatāra means, "This avatāra means his feature of body is this, his work is like this, he will come on such and such." Just like Kalki avatāra. Kalki avatāra, it is mentioned in the śāstra... Although He will come after four lakhs of years, it is stated in the śāstra that in Sambal... Sambal, in the house of Viṣṇu-josi, Kalki-avatāra will come.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: In central provinces.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not central provinces. Not mentioned there. Sambal it is.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: In northern part of India.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that is also not mentioned. Simply Sambal. And Bhāgavata was written five thousand years ago, and there is also mention of Lord Buddha's name. Kikaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati. Bhaviṣyati. This word is used, "in future." So this is śāstra, that even the incarnation will come four lakhs of years after or 2,500 years after, still, there is mention. His feature, his work—everything is there. Why should we accept a false imitation unless it is corroborated by the śāstra? You cannot say everyone is realized soul because he recommends something. No. We have to corroborate. (aside:) Hare Kṛṣṇa. This is the defect of our understanding, that we accept everyone as realized soul. How he is realized soul? If he is speaking something wrong, how he is realized soul? Against the śāstra. That is not realized soul. Yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ, na siddhim avāpnoti ([[Vanisource:BG 16.23|BG 16.23]]). Śāstra reference must be there.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: In śāstra all the signs, symptoms, and characteristics of a siddha are mentioned. And those characteristics must be there with the siddha.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yeah, then we shall accept. Sādhu-śāstra-guru-vākya tinete karīyā aikya. Śāstra will say, and guru will say, "Yes, it is rightly said." Saintly person also will accept. Just like Kṛṣṇa is accepted by Arjuna. Paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān. He immediately mentioned that "Such sage, authorities, accept. The śāstra says." Not that because Kṛṣṇa was His friend, he accepted blindly. No. That is corroboration. Whether it is mentioned in the śāstras, whether other saintly persons... Just like there are so many avatāras, but we have got our ācārya-sampradāya, Rāmānuja, Yamunācārya. Whether they are accepting? Not a third class man accepted, and it is accepted. The ācārya. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. This is the way of accepting. (break) Everyone will create his authorities, and unlimited imitation of God will come into existence, and people will be diverted from the reality. (break) The same example, that "Here is an imitation medicine, very cheap, as good as the original one." Even taking it for acceptance that it is as good as the other one, but why in the presence of the original, I shall accept this imitation? What is your answer? Accepting this imitation is as good as the other, but if the other original is present, I can get it, why shall I go to the imitation? (break)</p>
<p>Indian man (2): No, no, that is my understanding. You correct me. According to me, Vedas are first.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): You also say that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): Vedas only repeat the Vedic rites.</p>
<p>Indian man 3: Veda means Vedānta. Vedānta-sūtra comes afterwards. (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Purāṇas are not Vedānta?</p>
<p>Indian man (2): Purāṇas, how can it be? (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is your mistake.</p>
<p>Indian man (3): Well I, I'm not a...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You see, Madhva... (break) They are supplementary to the Vedas.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: These are the agamas and nigamas.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is the Māyāvādī's version. They do not accept the Purāṇas. This is Māyāvādī version. But our paramparā system, Madhvācārya, he has accepted Purāṇas, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, as Vedic literature. So we have to follow the ācārya. Ācāryavān puruṣo... Yes. Not only Madhvācārya, all, all other ācāryas.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): Ācārya, ṛṣis, they have got all different...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But those people are following Śaṅkarācārya...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, but Śaṅkarācārya accepted Bhagavad-gītā. Then... He commented, and he accepted Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: His commentation is different, you see.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. No, no. He has accepted Kṛṣṇa, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. He has accepted. You have read, Bhagavad-gītā. He has accepted.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Yes, I have read it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why the Śaṅkarites will not accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead? (break) ...destructful question that Vedas and Purāṇas...? No. Śaṅkarācārya accepted. If you are real follower of Śaṅkarācārya, you accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): Śaṅkarācārya also accepted Śiva also. Śiva and Kṛṣṇa is non-different.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: No, don't say that. (Hindi) (laughter)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They worship Viṣṇu. They worship Viṣṇu.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): They worship Viṣṇu but their prime deity is Śaṅkara, and not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. They worship five mūrtis. So they give equal im... Because Śiva is also not ultimate. Śaṅkarācārya's thesis is "Ultimately, the Absolute Truth is nirākāra." Not even Śiva. Therefore, either Śiva or Viṣṇu or Gaṇeśa, the same thing, same thing. They are not sticking with the Śiva form. They worship Viṣṇu form, also Gaṇeśa, as it is recommended in that book. (break) The difference is there. That difference is there. But we have to take which is correct.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>