View source for Our process is - we have repeatedly explained this - that we do not speculate about God. Just like there are so many others, theosophists and theologists, they're speculating what is God. They don't accept

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Our process is"|"we have repeatedly explained this"|"that we do not speculate about God"|"Just like there are so many others, theosophists and theologists, they're speculating what is God. They don't accept"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Asli}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2015-01-19T16:30:36Z}}
{{last|2015-01-19T16:30:36Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Our Procedures (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:We Have (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:Our Repeating (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:I Have Explained (Prabhupada)]]
[[Category:That]]
[[Category:We Do Not (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:Speculating]]
[[Category:About]]
[[Category:God]]
[[Category:Just Like]]
[[Category:There Are Many]]
[[Category:Others]]
[[Category:Theosophy]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:They Are]]
[[Category:What Is God]]
[[Category:They]]
[[Category:Do Not Accept]]
[[Category:1975 Pages Needing Audio]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
Therefore our process is—we have repeatedly explained this—that we do not speculate about God. Just like there are so many others, theosophists and theologists, they're speculating what is God. They don't accept... God personally explaining, they would not accept. They would simply speculate. This is their disease. When God is explaining Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā... Rather, they will mislead the readings of the Bhagavad-gītā in different interpretation, but they will not accept what is being taught by God Himself. This is their misfortune.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:750310 - Lecture BG 07.02 - London|750310 - Lecture BG 07.02 - London]]
</div>
<div class="text">
<div class="quote_verse">
:jñānaṁ te 'haṁ sa-vijñānam
:idaṁ vakṣyāmy aśeṣataḥ
:yaj jñātvā neha bhūyo 'nyaj
:jñātavyam avaśiṣyate
:([[Vanisource:BG 7.2|BG 7.2]])
</div>

So Kṛṣṇa is personally speaking about Himself as we understood in the previous verse, that asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu ([[Vanisource:BG 7.1|BG 7.1]]). Asaṁśayam, without any doubt. If we speculate about God, that will never be sufficient. Not even we can touch the precincts of the knowledge. If we want knowledge without any doubt, asaṁśayam, samagram, and complete, then we must hear from God Himself. This is very easy to understand. By hypothesis, by speculation, you cannot understand anything. It must be known scientifically, and this science can be understood if a person knows the science. So who can know God better than God Himself?

Therefore our process is—we have repeatedly explained this—that we do not speculate about God. Just like there are so many others, theosophists and theologists, they're speculating what is God. They don't accept... God personally explaining, they would not accept. They would simply speculate. This is their disease. When God is explaining Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā... Rather, they will mislead the readings of the Bhagavad-gītā in different interpretation, but they will not accept what is being taught by God Himself. This is their misfortune. "Why shall I accept Kṛṣṇa as God?" Although He has proved Himself when He was present by the qualification which God needs...

To become God is not easy thing. There are some qualification, yesterday we discussed, that He must be the richest, He must be the most powerful, He must be the most famous, He must be the most learned, He must be the most beautiful, and He must be the most renounced. This is the definition of God. A poor man, begging from door to door, he cannot become God, as it is misconceived, daridra-nārāyaṇa. Why Nārāyaṇa can be daridra? What is this nonsense? He is the richest. He is the richest. And why He can... We can... He will be daridra? The argument is forwarded that "God is  everyone's heart; therefore everyone is God." What is this argument? Everyone's heart, God is there. God said, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati ([[Vanisource:BG 18.61|BG 18.61]]). Where God says that because īśvara, the Supreme Being, is situated in everyone's heart, therefore everyone is God? What is this argument? Where Kṛṣṇa says that because īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati, therefore everyone is God? Is that a very sound argument?

So this is going on. They do not know what is God, and still, there are so many incarnations of God. And foolish people accept that "Here is an incarnation of God." He does not know what is God, and he accepts, "Here is incarnation." We do not do so. If there is incarnation of God... That is mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Their activities are mentioned, wonderful activities. We accept Lord Rāmacandra as God, Lord Kṛṣṇa as God, Caitanya Mahāprabhu as God, because They are mentioned in the śāstras, all the incarnations, even this age. One may say that "Lord Rāmacandra is accepted God, Lord Kṛṣṇa is also accepted, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He is the greatest devotee of God, but..." There are some persons in the Nimbārka-sampradāya, they put this argument. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu's name is there in the śāstra, many Upaniṣads, especially in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that in the Kali-yuga this incarnation of God should be worshiped. What is that description?

<div class="quote_verse">
:kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ
:sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam
:yajñaiḥ saṅkīrtana-prāyair
:yajanti hi sumedhasaḥ
:([[Vanisource:SB 11.5.32|SB 11.5.32]])
</div>

Clearly Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣā akṛṣṇam. He is Kṛṣṇa. Or kṛṣṇaṁ varṇayati, iti kṛṣṇa-varṇam. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the most authoritative ācārya of our sampradāya, he has explained like this. Kṛṣṇa-varṇam means always chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇaṁ varṇayati, describing Kṛṣṇa, "Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa." This is description of Kṛṣṇa, addressing Kṛṣṇa. So therefore kṛṣṇa-varṇam, or varṇam means category, just like brāhmaṇa-varṇa, kṣatriya-varṇa. So in that way kṛṣṇa-varṇa means He is Kṛṣṇa, in the category of Kṛṣṇa. Either you take this meaning or that meaning, kṛṣṇa-varṇam. But Kṛṣṇa is black, and He is tviṣā, by the complexion, akṛṣṇa. Akṛṣṇa means not Kṛṣṇa. Now, there are so many colors. So everything is akṛṣṇa. That color, all the colors are mixed together, it becomes black. Otherwise there are many different colors. So akṛṣṇa means different color, "not kṛṣṇa," not black. So what is the actual? That we have to refer to śāstra again, that Kṛṣṇa, in how many categories of color He appears? That is stated in the Bhāgavatam. When Kṛṣṇa was born, then Gargamuni was calculating about His horoscope, and he said to Nanda Mahārāja that "This your child..." Idānīṁ kṛṣṇatāṁ gataḥ. Śuklo raktas tathā pīta idānīṁ kṛṣṇatāṁ gataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 10.8.13|SB 10.8.13]]): "Your child had formerly white color." White color... Sometimes some critics criticize us that "Kṛṣṇa everywhere, He is black. Why in your temple white?" But it is said that śukla, śuklo raktas tathā pīta idānīṁ kṛṣṇatāṁ gataḥ: "Your son had other colors also, white and red and yellow, and now He has assumed blackish color."
</div>
</div>
</div>