View source for Authorityship

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"authorityship"}}

{{notes|}}

{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}

{{complete|ALL}}

{{first|20Jan08}}

{{last|05Dec08}}

{{total|1}}

{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}

{{toc right}}

[[Category:Authority]]
</div>

<div class="section" id="Lectures" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2></div>

<div class="sub_section" id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3></div>

<div class="quote" book="Lec" 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">A thing which is beyond our conception, beyond our limit of knowledge, that should be taken from the authority. So here is an authority, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Authority. His authority, authorityship, is accepted by all over the world</div>

<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966|Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966]]:''' 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.

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.</div>
</div>
</div>