View source for Buddha and Sankaracarya (Lectures)

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Buddha"|"Buddha's"|"Buddhadeva"|"Buddhism"|"Buddhist"|"Buddhists"|"Sankara"|"Sankaracarya"|"Sankaracarya's"}}
{{notes|(1) VedaBase query: "buddh* sankara*"@40  (2) Duplicate transcriptions - Lecture -- Bombay, November 2, 1970 and Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, January 14, 1973}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|07Jan11}}
{{last|01Jan12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=35|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|35}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Buddha and Sankaracarya|1]]
[[Category:Compilations from Lectures]]
</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="IntroductiontoBhagavadgitaAsItIsLosAngelesNovember231968New2003_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="3" link="Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 (New-2003)" link_text="Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 ">
<div class="heading">Buddha made His propaganda from Bihar. He was Indian. But the defect was that He did not acknowledge the authority of the Vedas. Therefore His philosophy was considered atheism. And this Śaṅkarācārya drove away all the Buddhists from the land of India.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 (New-2003)|Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 ]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Buddha religion is also Indian religion. Lord Buddha, He was Indian. He, just like Lord Caitanya began His propaganda from Bengal, Lord Buddha made His propaganda from Bihar. He was Indian. But the defect was that He did not acknowledge the authority of the Vedas. Therefore His philosophy was considered atheism. And this Śaṅkarācārya drove away all the Buddhists from the land of India. Therefore they took shelter in China, Japan, Burma. Outside India. So anyway, strict religionists they are followers of Vedas, and they are divided into two groups: one group led by Śaṅkarācārya and the other group is led by the Vaiṣṇavas, or generally Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya or Lord Caitanya. They are all the same, Vaiṣṇava. Now all these two groups, following the Vedic principles, they accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So far India's authoritative persons are concerned, there is no two opinions, that Kṛṣṇa is not God. Both of them accept Kṛṣṇa the Supreme Personality. So far we are concerned, Vaiṣṇavas, we accept. There is no doubt about it.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG25556NewYorkApril191966_1" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="110" link="Lecture on BG 2.55-56 -- New York, April 19, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.55-56 -- New York, April 19, 1966">
<div class="heading">We may cite some of the authorities. Just like Lord Buddha. Then Śaṅkarācārya. Then Rāmānujācārya. Lord Caitanya. They're all big stalwart authorities, authorities. They have given different views.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.55-56 -- New York, April 19, 1966|Lecture on BG 2.55-56 -- New York, April 19, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So whole scheme of Bhagavad-gītā is like that, that we have to stand on the spiritual consciousness of life. And what is that spiritual consciousness of life? Now, some philosophers... Just like Śaṅkarācārya. There are many philosophers in the world. I, we may cite some of the authorities. Just like Lord Buddha. Then Śaṅkarācārya. Then Rāmānujācārya. Lord Caitanya. They're all big stalwart authorities, authorities. They have given different views. Lord Buddha's views is that you can be happy only when you are free from this consciousness. Lord Buddha says that consciousness is a production of this combination of matter. So therefore if, if you dismantle this material body, then there will be no consciousness and thus there will be no feeling of distress or happiness. That is called nirvāṇa, stopping, stopping the feelings of... It is just like a patient suffering from some disease, and the doctor gives him some pill so that he dies and there is no more feeling. Oh. Then he sees it is all right. If by stopping feeling like that, that a... "Doctor, my son is having hundred and seven degree temperature." "All right. I stop it. Give him some injection, poisonous." The child dies. Now there is no fever. Now the father says, "My child does not move." "Oh, whether this fever is stopped or not?" "Yes, there is no fever also." "That's all right. My business finished." That sort of foolish doctor will not do. (laughs) We should not stop consciousness. No.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG25859NewYorkApril271966_2" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="112" link="Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966">
<div class="heading">You will find a link, a link, although superficially we may see that Lord Buddha is speaking something which is contradictory to Lord Śaṅkarācārya's teaching, or Rāmānujācārya is speaking something which is contradiction to Śaṅkara. No. There is no contradiction. It is the question of studying how they are paving way for ultimate spiritual realization.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966|Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">This, all these Vedic scriptures, they are interrelated. They are not contradictory. If somebody says that "We find some contradiction from Vedic literature, from this literature to that literature," no. There is nothing at all, any contradiction, even, even in the preachings of the great ācāryas. I am speaking of India. There were many great ācāryas, I mean to say, reformers, came. Lord Buddha also appeared in India. Then, after Lord Buddha, Śaṅkarācārya came. Then, after Śaṅkarācārya, Śrī Rāmānujācārya came. Then, after Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, and then, lately, Śrī Caitanya, Lord Caitanya. He came. But you will find a link, a link, although superficially we may see that Lord Buddha is speaking something which is contradictory to Lord Śaṅkarācārya's teaching, or Rāmānujācārya is speaking something which is contradiction to Śaṅkara. No. There is no contradiction. It is the question of studying how they are paving way for ultimate spiritual realization. That requires a very, I mean to say, substantial knowledge, how they are paving the way, just step by step.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG25859NewYorkApril271966_3" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="112" link="Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966">
<div class="heading">Buddha did not say anything about spirit. He simply wanted that detachment of, from matter. But Śaṅkara, Śaṅkara said, "No, matter is our false position. Spirit is real position." But he did not say anything, what are the activities of the spiritual life. Then Śrī Rāmānujācārya came. He described the actual position of spiritual life.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966|Lecture on BG 2.58-59 -- New York, April 27, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Just like Lord Buddha's teaching. Lord Buddha's teachings is... That is also detachment from matter, nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa. But he does not speak anything about the spirit soul. Because the position in which he was speaking, that position, for the human, humanity, was not suitable for understanding what is the constitution of spirit, therefore he did not say anything about spirit. He simply preached nonviolence. So far our body is concerned, he stressed on the point that we should be nonviolent. We should not be killing animals anymore. That was his preaching. Similarly, Śaṅkara... A little more than Buddha. He said, "No, no. Matter is not all. The spirit is real thing. Matter is false." Brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. Now, he did not say about the activities of spiritual life. He simply gave hint that there, that matter is false. Matter is generated by spirit. Spirit is the real, principle thing. Just like Buddha did not say anything about spirit. He simply wanted that detachment of, from matter. But detachment from matter... Then where is my stand? Where is my stand? If I leave this room, I must have another room to stay. So that is the position of Buddha. He did not say about the spirit. But Śaṅkara, Śaṅkara said, "No, matter is our false position. Spirit is real position." But he did not say anything, what are the activities of the spiritual life. Then Śrī Rāmānujācārya came. He described the actual position of spiritual life. These are gradual development. Your, I mean to say, Lord Jesus, also, Lord Jesus Christ, he also gave hints of spiritual life, kingdom of God. So when we speak of kingdom of God, a kingdom, vacant, cannot be. Kingdom means there must be activities. Otherwise, what is the meaning of kingdom? So, of course, he did not give any detailed account of the kingdom of God, but he gave hint. So these are gradual development so far the human society is concerned.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG25969NewYorkApril291966_4" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="113" link="Lecture on BG 2.59-69 -- New York, April 29, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.59-69 -- New York, April 29, 1966">
<div class="heading">You can see from the examples of Lord Buddha, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Caitanya, Śaṅkarācārya, who were recently within the limit of our historical knowledge. They attained spiritual perfection after undergoing penances for many, many years. So spiritual perfection is not very easy thing.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.59-69 -- New York, April 29, 1966|Lecture on BG 2.59-69 -- New York, April 29, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So the whole thing is tāni sarvāṇi saṁyamya yukta āsīta mat-paraḥ. We should always remember that, that to attain to the spiritual life, it is a great penance. It is a great penance. But although it is very difficult, although it is very difficult... Perhaps you know that in, in the Purāṇas, in the Vedic literature, we have got information that there are sages who underwent penance for so many, many years. Why in the history or the Purāṇas? You can see from the examples of Lord Buddha, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Caitanya, Śaṅkarācārya, who were recently within the limit of our historical knowledge. They attained spiritual perfection after undergoing penances for many, many years. So spiritual perfection is not very easy thing, that simply by attending a, a, in either of the so many groups and hearing something, nice lectures from a person. No. It is practical. It is practical. If we are ac..., if we are actually serious about attaining, so we must be in a spirit of sacrifice. In this age, by the grace of Lord Caitanya, the matter has been simplified. Matter has been simplified. What is that? He prescribed that</p>
:harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam
:kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā
:([[Vanisource:CC Adi 17.21|CC Adi 17.21]])
<p>Simply by chanting the holy name of God—either this Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, or any name of God in any language, that doesn't matter... But this is recommended because Lord Caitanya Himself chanted this holy name. Therefore it is better recommended.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG26272LosAngelesDecember191968_5" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="114" link="Lecture on BG 2.62-72 -- Los Angeles, December 19, 1968" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.62-72 -- Los Angeles, December 19, 1968">
<div class="heading">Lord Buddha himself, he showed. He left his everything and became engaged in simply meditation. Who is doing that? Nobody is doing that. Śaṅkarācārya's first condition is that "First of all you take sannyāsa; then you talk of becoming Nārāyaṇa." Who is taking sannyāsa? So they are simply falsely thinking.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.62-72 -- Los Angeles, December 19, 1968|Lecture on BG 2.62-72 -- Los Angeles, December 19, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">You may be puffed up by such false prestige. Vimukta-māninaḥ. Bhāgavata says, tvayy asta-bhāvād aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 10.2.32|SB 10.2.32]]). "But because they have not searched out Your lotus feet, therefore their consciousness is impure, thinking 'I am something.' " Aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ. "Their intelligence, consciousness is not purified." Therefore āruhya kṛcchreṇa. "They perform very severe practice." Just like the Buddhists, they have got very... Now, those who are not practicing, that is different thing. But rules and regulations, Lord Buddha himself, he showed. He left his everything and became engaged in simply meditation. Who is doing that? Nobody is doing that. Śaṅkarācārya's first condition is that "First of all you take sannyāsa; then you talk of becoming Nārāyaṇa." Who is taking sannyāsa? So they are simply falsely thinking. Actually, their intelligence is impure, consciousness is impure. Therefore in spite of such endeavors, the result is, āruhya kṛcchreṇa param, although they go very high, say 25,000 miles or millions of miles up, they do not find any shelter, where is moon planet, where is... They come down again to your Moscow city, that's all. Or New York City, that's all. These are the examples.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG468NewYorkJuly201966_6" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="143" link="Lecture on BG 4.6-8 -- New York, July 20, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.6-8 -- New York, July 20, 1966">
<div class="heading">Under the king, under the Emperor Aśoka, the whole of India became Buddhist. But later on, Śaṅkarācārya appeared and he made against them, Vedantists. So India, Buddhist religion from India was practically banished.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.6-8 -- New York, July 20, 1966|Lecture on BG 4.6-8 -- New York, July 20, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">But when India was too much addicted for animal slaughtering under the plea of Vedic sacrifice, the Lord Buddha appeared. Why? They misused the Vedic injunctions. They misused the injunctions of the Vedas. So he, he proclaimed, "No, this animal slaughter should be stopped." He did, he did not agree even with the Vedic injunction. Therefore Lord Buddha's preaching was not accepted. It was... Once it was accepted, whole of India accepted. Under the king, under the Emperor Aśoka, the whole of India became Buddhist. But later on, Śaṅkarācārya appeared and he made against them, Vedantists. So India, Buddhist religion from India was practically banished. So these are historical facts.</p>
<p>The real fact is that as soon as the natural sequence of living entities is jeopardized, at that time, non-religious principle, unnatural life, becomes prominent and people become embarrassed. At that time, the incarnation of Lord is, I mean to say, appeared. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata: ([[Vanisource:BG 4.7 (1972)|BG 4.7]]) "Whenever there is discrepancy in the natural life..." Like I explained to you. Religion means the natural sequence of life. When there is some discrepancy in that natural sequence of life and there is artificial way of life, at that time, the Lord or His representative comes, either as incarnation or the representative of God. That is the rule. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG47MontrealJune131968_7" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="144" link="Lecture on BG 4.7 -- Montreal, June 13, 1968" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.7 -- Montreal, June 13, 1968">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya came and he preached this almost Buddhism.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.7 -- Montreal, June 13, 1968|Lecture on BG 4.7 -- Montreal, June 13, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Then Śaṅkarācārya came and he preached this almost Buddhism. The Buddha, Lord Buddha preached that there is no God, there is no soul. This body is combination of matter and if we dissolve this material combination then there is no more perception of misery or happiness. That is nirvāṇa. That is his philosophy. But later on, Lord, I mean to say, Ācārya Śaṅkara, he appeared and he preached that brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. This bodily combination is temporary, or mithyā. He said flatly that it is false. False means... Of course, Vaiṣṇava philosophy, they say temporary. Temporary or false you can take on the same category. But Śaṅkarācārya said that brahma satyam. That spirit soul, Brahman, that is reality, and this external feature of the Brahman, or the body, that is false.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG4911NewYorkJuly251966_8" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="152" link="Lecture on BG 4.9-11 -- New York, July 25, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.9-11 -- New York, July 25, 1966">
<div class="heading">Buddha philosophy says that this material body is a combination of matter. After Lord Buddha, Śaṅkarācārya, Śaṅkarācārya came. He gave hint about the spiritual nature of the soul.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.9-11 -- New York, July 25, 1966|Lecture on BG 4.9-11 -- New York, July 25, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Krodha means there are other persons who are neither impersonalists nor personalists. They are what are called more or less atheists. Atheist means they don't believe in any transcendental nature. Even they do not believe in the existence of the soul. They simply concern themselves with this material body. Just like Buddha philosophy. Buddha philosophy does not accept the existence of the soul. Buddha philosophy says that this material body is a combination of matter. Now, as soon as the matter is dissolved, then the feelings of happiness and distress is gone. But according to Bhagavad-gītā, the existence of soul is accepted in the Vedic literature.</p>
<p>Just like after Lord Buddha, Śaṅkarācārya, Śaṅkarācārya came. He gave hint about the spiritual nature of the soul, and he said, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: "This matter is false and temporary, but spirit is eternal." And other ācāryas, just like Rāmānujācārya and Madhvācārya, they came after Śaṅkarācārya, and they established that in the spiritual world there is also life like this, but that is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG411BombayMarch311974_9" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="159" link="Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974">
<div class="heading">Artificially, the Buddha philosophy or Śaṅkara philosophy, they, artificially if you want to make it nirvāṇa, zero, that is not possible.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974|Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">The bhakti also says, bhakti formula, anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam: (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.11) "You have to make your heart cleansed of all material desire." Then spiritual life will begin.</p>
:yeṣāṁ (tv) anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ
:janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām
:te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā
:bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ
:([[Vanisource:BG 7.28 (1972)|BG 7.28]])
<p>This is the process. So artificially, the Buddha philosophy or Śaṅkara philosophy, they, artificially if you want to make it nirvāṇa, zero, that is not possible. Avyaktāsakta-cetasām... Te..., kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām ([[Vanisource:BG 12.5 (1972)|BG 12.5]]). Avyakta means zero, impersonal. If you become attached to simply making zero, or impersonal, that is not possible. Because we are accustomed. We are... As living beings, we want varieties. Variety is the mother of enjoyment. We cannot remain in the zero position.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG411BombayMarch311974_10" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="159" link="Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974">
<div class="heading">Because by the propagation of Lord Buddha, whole India became Buddhist. And Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish Vedas again. So they were temporary necessities, for certain reason.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974|Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So when Lord Buddha started this nonviolence, ahiṁsā paramo dharmaḥ, the Vedic scholars approached him that "How you can prescribe this ahiṁsā? There is already sanction in the Vedas, paśavo vadhāya sṛṣṭāḥ... How you can stop it?" So Lord Buddha said, "I don't care for your Vedas." Therefore he is considered as atheist. Anyone who doesn't care for Vedas, they are technically called as atheist. Veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika. Nāstika means atheist.</p>
<p>Anyway... Then Śaṅkarācārya came. Śaṅkarācārya wanted... Because by the propagation of Lord Buddha, whole India became Buddhist. And Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish Vedas again. So they were temporary necessities, for certain reason. Because people were addicted so much in violence, in killing the animals, therefore Buddha philosophy was needed. Again, this Buddha philosophy was driven out. The Śaṅkara, impersonal philosophy was established. But again, the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya and other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas.. . At last, Caitanya Mahāprabhu. They established that brahma satyam means brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.11|SB 1.2.11]]). Both, three, Absolute Truth. So these are the philosophical development.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG411BombayMarch311974_11" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="159" link="Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974">
<div class="heading">Either you follow Buddha philosophy or Śaṅkara philosophy or Vaiṣṇava philosophy, the ultimate goal is Kṛṣṇa.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974|Lecture on BG 4.11 -- Bombay, March 31, 1974]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So Kṛṣṇa is summarizing this philosophical development here in this one line, that mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ. Either you follow Buddha philosophy or Śaṅkara philosophy or Vaiṣṇava philosophy, the ultimate goal is Kṛṣṇa. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]). So you have to approach Kṛṣṇa through these different types of philosophy. They are partial realization. Just like Brahman realization means eternity realization. Paramātmā realization means eternity and knowledge. And Bhagavān realization means eternity, knowledge and blissfulness. Sac-cid-ānanda. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG52629LosAngelesFebruary121969_12" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="207" link="Lecture on BG 5.26-29 -- Los Angeles, February 12, 1969" link_text="Lecture on BG 5.26-29 -- Los Angeles, February 12, 1969">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkara's philosophy of impersonalism and Lord Buddha's philosophy void is almost the same. Real life, real spiritual life is this Vaiṣṇava philosophy.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 5.26-29 -- Los Angeles, February 12, 1969|Lecture on BG 5.26-29 -- Los Angeles, February 12, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">And nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa, the Buddha philosophy is just above the material conditional life but on the margin of spiritual existence. That is... Nirvāṇa means void of material existence. Nirvāṇa, this impersonal conception is also nirvāṇa. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that this impersonal philosophy is another phase of the void philosophy. Veda... Covered void philosophy. Impersonalism is covered void philosophy. They are all the same. Śaṅkara's philosophy of impersonalism and Lord Buddha's philosophy void is almost the same. Real life, real spiritual life is this Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Vaiṣṇava philosophy, to associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead face to face. Just like we are sitting here face to face. We are talking, you are hearing. You can have this perfection. That is personal conception of spiritual perfection.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG135ParisAugust131973_13" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="353" link="Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Paris, August 13, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Paris, August 13, 1973">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkara-sampradāya, they ascertain the Absolute Truth as impersonal, nirviśeṣa, and the Buddhists, they ascertain, "The Absolute Truth is zero."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Paris, August 13, 1973|Lecture on BG 13.5 -- Paris, August 13, 1973]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pradyumna: (Leads chanting, etc.)</p>
:ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītaṁ
:chandobhir vividhaiḥ pṛthak
:brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva
:hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ
:([[Vanisource:BG 13.5 (1972)|BG 13.5]])
<p>Translation: "That knowledge of the field of activities and of the knower of activities is described by various sages in various Vedic writings—especially in the Vedānta-sūtra—and is presented with all reasoning as to cause and effect."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So about the soul and Supersoul, ṛṣibhiḥ, great sages, saintly persons, they have also discussed. Just like in the present age also, we are different parties, the impersonalist and the personalist. Śaṅkara-sampradāya, they ascertain the Absolute Truth as impersonal, nirviśeṣa, and the Buddhists, they ascertain, "The Absolute Truth is zero."</p>
<p>We are struggling—nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. We are struggling against these nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi, voidists and impersonalists. So it is not now new. From time immemorial there are different views. But Kṛṣṇa refers herewith that brahma-sūtra-padaiḥ hetumadbhir viniścitaṁ. Others... There are many other books of knowledge. They are not very reasonable. That is dogmatic. But hetumadbhiḥ, if we accept with our logic and sense, that is first-class book which gives us information of the ātmā, Paramātmā.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB131112LosAngelesSeptember171972_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="109" link="Lecture on SB 1.3.11-12 -- Los Angeles, September 17, 1972" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.3.11-12 -- Los Angeles, September 17, 1972">
<div class="heading">In the Padma Purāṇa this Buddhist theory, voidism, and the Śaṅkara's theory, impersonalism, they are taken as one and the same. The Buddhists, they decline to accept the authority of Vedas, and the Māyāvādīs, the impersonalists, they want to accept the authority of Vedas, but under the garb of Buddhism.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.3.11-12 -- Los Angeles, September 17, 1972|Lecture on SB 1.3.11-12 -- Los Angeles, September 17, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So here we see that you can have God as your son. There are so many instances. Just like Devakī got Kṛṣṇa as his (her) son; mother Yaśodā got God as his (her) son; Śacī-mātā, (s)he also got Caitanya Mahāprabhu as son. So this is better philosophy than to accept God as father. That is especially in the Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Others, the impersonalist, voidists, they have no conception of God. Voidists—"Ultimately everything is zero," and the impersonalists, "God has no form." Both are the same thing, in a different language. The voidists, they say, "Ultimately there is nothing but zero," and the impersonalists statement that "Maybe something, but it is not person, it is imperson."</p>
<p>Therefore in the Padma Purāṇa this Buddhist theory, voidism, and the Śaṅkara's theory, impersonalism, they are taken as one and the same. Pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate. Pracchannaṁ bauddham. The Buddhists, they decline to accept the authority of Vedas, and the Māyāvādīs, the impersonalists, they want to accept the authority of Vedas, but under the garb of Buddhism. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has given His remark, veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. According to Vedic line of thought, anyone who does not accept the authority of Vedas, he is called atheist. Just like the Muhammadans, they also call "kafir." One who does not accept the authority of Koran, they call "kafir." And the Christians also, they call "heathens." So there are different terms. So according to our Vedic line of thought, anyone who does not accept the Vedic way of life, he is called atheist. Therefore Buddhist, according to Vedantists, Buddhist are called atheist. Actually Buddha philosophy does not accept God, neither soul. They simply philosophize on the material elements, and they want to finish the material exis..., dismantle the material elements. Nirvāṇa. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has remarked that the Buddhists are honest. They frankly say that "We don't accept your Vedas." But the Shankarites, they are cheaters, because they are accepting Vedas, but on the basis of Buddha philosophy. That is cheating.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB1514NewVrindabanJune181969_1" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="140" link="Lecture on SB 1.5.14 -- New Vrindaban, June 18, 1969" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.5.14 -- New Vrindaban, June 18, 1969">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya came, and he drove away the Buddhists from the land of India. That's a long history.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.5.14 -- New Vrindaban, June 18, 1969|Lecture on SB 1.5.14 -- New Vrindaban, June 18, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Similarly, there is prayer for Lord Buddha also. The, that prayer is: nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam, "Although in the Vedic literature there is recommendation for animal sacrifice, you are forbidding, 'No, this should not be done.' " Therefore Buddhism is not Vedic religion, because he was against this Vedic sacrifice. Sadaya-hṛdaya darśi... His main business was to stop this animal killing, but people wanted to give evidence from the Vedas. Therefore he said, "I don't care for your Vedas." Veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika. Therefore Śaṅkarācārya came, and he drove away the Buddhists from the land of India. That's a long history.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB173031VrndavanaSeptember261976_2" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="184" link="Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976">
<div class="heading">Lord Buddha said that everything is zero, and Śaṅkarācārya gave further improvement that "It is not zero. Brahman is fact. Brahma satyam. Not zero. Jagan mithyā. This world is mithyā, zero. Not Brahman."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976|Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Bhakti, bhakti is described in so many places. Just like Rūpa Gosvāmī defines bhakti:</p>
:anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ
:jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam
:ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-
:śīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā
:(Brs. 1.1.11)
<p>That is first-class bhakti. And bhakti means there is activity. Ānukūlyena: favorably. Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam: to satisfy Kṛṣṇa. Anuśīlanam means culture. The culture means there is activity. Bhakti does not mean zero. That is another thing. Zero, nirvāṇa, means make these material activities zero. That hint is given by Śaṅkarācārya. Lord Buddha said that everything is zero, and Śaṅkarācārya gave further improvement that "It is not zero. Brahman is fact. Brahma satyam. Not zero. Jagan mithyā. This world is mithyā, zero. Not Brahman." Because those who understood this zero philosophy, they're rascals, atheists. They cannot understand more. Therefore further improvement was given by Śaṅkara because he was preaching. The whole world became Buddhist, and he wanted to establish Vedic principles. So they have already made zero. So how Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya can say, "No, it is not zero. It is fact." They'll not understand. He said in a different way, that "Zero is this material world." Brahma satyam. But brahma is fact. This is zero.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB173233VrndavanaSeptember271976_3" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="185" link="Lecture on SB 1.7.32-33 -- Vrndavana, September 27, 1976" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.7.32-33 -- Vrndavana, September 27, 1976">
<div class="heading">Buddha's philosophy: zero, śūnyavādi; and Śaṅkara's philosophy: nirviśeṣa-vādi, impersonal. So we defy these, nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. But we have got all respect for them.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.7.32-33 -- Vrndavana, September 27, 1976|Lecture on SB 1.7.32-33 -- Vrndavana, September 27, 1976]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Sādhu, śāstra, guru, they'll speak the same thing. Guru means who speaks on the basis of śāstra; otherwise he's not guru. And śāstra means the opinion of the great authorities. Just like Vyāsadeva, Parāśara Muni, Nārada Muni, modern ācāryas. We do not neglect. We may differ from the philosophical point of view—just like Buddha, Śaṅkarācārya. Vaiṣṇavas, they do not accept the philosophy of Buddha or Śaṅkarācārya. Buddha's philosophy: zero, śūnyavādi; and Śaṅkara's philosophy: nirviśeṣa-vādi, impersonal. So we defy these, nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. But we have got all respect for them. Don't think that we disrespect. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. And the Vaiṣṇavas know Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkara, svayaṁ śaṅkara, he is incarnation of Lord Śiva, and Lord Buddha is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. So they come for particular purpose, to benefit the whole world. But that is for the time being. That is not permanent. The permanent solution is mataṁ ca vāsudevasya. That is permanent. Mataṁ ca vāsudevasya. That is permanent.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB2320LosAngelesJune161972_4" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="391" link="Lecture on SB 2.3.20 -- Los Angeles, June 16, 1972" link_text="Lecture on SB 2.3.20 -- Los Angeles, June 16, 1972">
<div class="heading">The two kinds of Māyāvādīs, generally headed by Saṅkara philosophy and Buddha philosophy. But our position is transcendental, above.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 2.3.20 -- Los Angeles, June 16, 1972|Lecture on SB 2.3.20 -- Los Angeles, June 16, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">The Māyāvāda philosopher, they have eaten sweet rice with grains, with sand grains. Therefore when you offer him next sweet rice, "Oh, I have got taste. Don't supply it." Or, "I wish to live without eating-zero." This is Māyāvāda philosophy. Try to understand, impersonal, making everything zero, without any varieties. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. Nirviśeṣa means without any varieties, and śūnyavādi means zero, voidist. The two kinds of Māyāvādīs, generally headed by Saṅkara philosophy and Buddha philosophy. But our position is transcendental, above. Karmīs ... Karmīs, they are on the material field. They are trying to enjoy on the material platform. Jñānīs, they are trying to make it varietyless, and the Buddhists, they are trying to make it zero. Our philosophy is substance. This is difference, substance, reality. Vāstava-vastu, real reality, not the false thing. So these people, the voidists and impersonalists, because they have no information of the Supreme Lord and His activities ...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB32532BombayDecember21974_5" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="454" link="Lecture on SB 3.25.32 -- Bombay, December 2, 1974" link_text="Lecture on SB 3.25.32 -- Bombay, December 2, 1974">
<div class="heading">The Buddha philosophy teaches nirvāṇa, devoid of all material desires, that much. He does not give any more. Śaṅkarācārya gives further, more, that brahma-nirvāṇa, that "You become desireless of this material world, but you enter, merge into Brahman."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 3.25.32 -- Bombay, December 2, 1974|Lecture on SB 3.25.32 -- Bombay, December 2, 1974]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">No more birth—there are two kinds of more more birth. For the Māyāvādīs, or impersonalists, they want to stop birth, to merge into the existence of the Supreme, brahma-nirvāṇa. Brahma-nirvāṇa... The Buddha philosophy teaches nirvāṇa, devoid of all material desires, that much. He does not give any more. Śaṅkarācārya gives further, more, that brahma-nirvāṇa, that "You become desireless of this material world, but you enter, merge into Brahman." That is called brahma-nirvāṇa. And the Vaiṣṇava philosopher says that "You make null and void all your material desires, enter into Brahman and be engaged in the service of the Lord." This is called bhakti. So brahma-nirvāṇa is also siddhi, but more than that siddhi is to be engaged in the service, Brahman service.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB613940SuratDecember211970_6" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="664" link="Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970" link_text="Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970">
<div class="heading">So far we are concerned, we Indians, Hindus, we are very controlled by the ācāryas, recent ācāryas—Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī. They have accepted Vedas as supreme. And Lord Buddha, although he is accepted as incarnation of God, still, because he did not accept Vedas, his philosophy was not accepted in India.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970|Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Why Vedas should be taken so seriously? People question that "Vedas are written by some man." That's wrong. Vedas are not written by any man. Otherwise, why Vedas should be taken so seriously? Not... Not present moment. It is coming. All the ācāryas. All the ācāryas. So far we are concerned, we Indians, Hindus, we are very controlled by the ācāryas, recent ācāryas—Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī. They have accepted Vedas as supreme. Lord Caitanya accepted Vedas as the supreme. And Lord Buddha, although he is accepted as incarnation of God, still, because he did not accept Vedas, his philosophy was not accepted in India. Veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika. Our principle, the Vedic principle, is that anyone who does not obey the injunctions of the Vedas, he is called nāstika, atheist. He does not believe. Veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika. Caitanya Mahāprabhu's saying that "We consider the Buddhists as atheists because they do not accept the Vedic principles." But Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, vedāśraya-nāstikya-vada bauddhake adhika: "But persons who superficially says that 'We are being controlled by the Vedas,' but actually they are atheists—they do not believe in God—they are more dangerous than these Buddhists." That is the version of Caitanya Mahāprabhu.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB6140SuratDecember221970_7" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="665" link="Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970" link_text="Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970">
<div class="heading">After Buddha, His Holiness Śaṅkarācārya appeared to drive away Buddhism, and he established again Vedic religion. But that Vedic religion, being impersonal, that is also not Vedic religion.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970|Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">God became very much compassionate. When people were too much addicted in killing animals unnecessarily, He appeared as Lord Buddha. Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. Paśu-ghātam. The paśu-ghātam means they were being implicated in innumerable sinful activities by this process. Therefore God wanted to... Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati ([[Vanisource:BG 4.7 (1972)|BG 4.7]]). In the name of religion, they were killing so many animals. Therefore to stop this nonsense, he appeared. And he declined to accept the Vedic principles because there was no other way to stop. If he would have accepted Vedic principles, then these animal-killers would have shown him evidences that in the Vedas there is mention of animal-killing in the sacrifice. But he wanted to stop completely animal-killing; so therefore he adopted a new type of religion. But those who were followers of Vedic religion, they did not accept because that is not religion because it is against the Vedas. These are the principles.</p>
<p>Śaṅkarācārya... Śaṅkarācārya, after Buddha, His Holiness Śaṅkarācārya appeared to drive away Buddhism, and he established again Vedic religion. But that Vedic religion, being impersonal, that is also not Vedic religion. That is also another thing, that God is person. Nityo nityānām. Nityānām, the so many living entities—every one is person. How God can be imperson? If God is the supreme father... If you are a person, then how your father can be imperson? So that is imperfect knowledge. When we speak of God as imperson, that is imperfect knowledge.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB6216VrndavanaSeptember191975_8" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="717" link="Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975" link_text="Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975">
<div class="heading">The devotees know that Śaṅkarācārya was at heart a Vaiṣṇava, but he had to preach like avaiṣṇava because he had to drive away Buddhism from India. That was the mission. So therefore he made something, compromise, with the Buddhist philosophies.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975|Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa. This is the understanding of the devotees. They know everything perfectly well, what is what. They know Śaṅkarācārya, what he is. Śaṅkarācārya is the incarnation of Lord Śaṅkara, Lord Śiva. Lord Śiva. Vaiṣṇavānāṁ yathā śambhuḥ. He is the topmost Vaiṣṇava. So the devotees know that Śaṅkarācārya was at heart a Vaiṣṇava, but he had to preach like avaiṣṇava because he had to drive away Buddhism from India. That was the mission. So therefore he made something, compromise, with the Buddhist philosophies. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said He wanted to accept Vedas against Buddhism, who did not accept the Vedas, but He preached this atheism under the shadow of Vedas. He said therefore that veda nā māniyā buddha haila nāstika, vedāśraye vāda nāstika ke adhika. So these are the discussion. One has to learn very cautiously how, what is the purpose of, why Lord Buddha came, why Lord Śiva and Śaṅkarācārya came, why other ācāryas came, why Caitanya Mahāprabhu came. It requires thorough study under able guidance. Then one can understand.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="3" parent="Lectures" text="Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures"><h3>Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonCCAdilila73947SanFranciscoFebruary11967_0" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="27" link="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.39-47 -- San Francisco, February 1, 1967" link_text="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.39-47 -- San Francisco, February 1, 1967">
<div class="heading">The followers of Śaṅkara's school, they are generally called Māyāvādī. And another Māyāvādī are called the Buddhists. So in the Kāśī, in Benares, there were two kinds of Māyāvādīs.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.39-47 -- San Francisco, February 1, 1967|Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.39-47 -- San Francisco, February 1, 1967]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So,</p>
:vṛndāvana yāite prabhu rahilā kāśīte
:māyāvādī-gaṇa tāṅre lāgila nindite
:([[Vanisource:CC Adi 7.40|CC Adi 7.40]])
<p>Māyāvādī... The followers of Śaṅkara's school, they are generally called Māyāvādī. And another Māyāvādī are called the Buddhists. So in the Kāśī, in Benares, there were two kinds of Māyāvādīs. One kind of Māyāvādī, the Buddhists, they have got still Sarnath. Buddhists temples there are because Lord Buddha, he started his meditation near Gayā at about hundred miles off from Benares. Then his disciples established monasteries near Kāśī because Benares is well-known sacred place since a very long time, so they also established there. Formerly there was no such animosities between the Hindus and the Buddhists. They were practically on the same platform, but philosophically they were different. Just like the Māyāvādīs, the followers of Śaṅkarite, they are still Hindus. They are not out of it. Similarly, Buddhists also were considered as Hindu. But when Buddha religion was completely driven away from India's boundary, then now it is considered another sect. So the Kāśī Māyāvādī means both the Buddhists and the followers of Śaṅkarites.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonCCAdilila7109114SanFranciscoFebruary201967_1" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="36" link="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967" link_text="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967">
<div class="heading">Somebody accuses Śaṅkarācārya that he was covered Buddhist. But so far I am concerned, I say that Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He was devotee at heart, but because he was ordered to preach in that way... Otherwise, there was no alternative. That is stated in the Padma Purāṇa.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967|Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So Śaṅkarācārya was a covered devotee. He was devotee. Somebody accuses Śaṅkarācārya that he was covered Buddhist. But so far I am concerned, I say that Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He was devotee at heart, but because he was ordered to preach in that way... Otherwise, there was no alternative. That is stated in the Padma Purāṇa. When there is conversation between Lord Śiva and his wife Pārvatī, he disclosed that "In the age of Kali, as a Brāhmaṇa, I preach this Māyāvāda philosophy, which is covered Buddha philosophy." Buddha philosophy says that "This material life is all. After this material life, there is nothing, all void." And Śaṅkarācārya said that "It is impersonal. There is no variety." So in both the philosophies there is no acceptance of Lord, the Supreme Lord, Personality of Godhead. Therefore they are called nāstika-vāda. Nāstika-vāda means atheism, atheism. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described Buddha religion as atheism. "And Māyāvāda philosophy," He has said, "dangerous atheism." He has given little preference to Buddhism, but to Māyāvāda philosophy He has stated, "It is dangerous atheism." His exact version is like that, bheda namiya bauddha haila nāstika. Vedāśraye nāstika-vāda bauddha ke adika. He says that "We call the Buddhists as atheists because the simple reason is that they do not accept Vedas." Lord Buddha, he denied, that "I don't care for the Vedas. I have got my this own proposition, that ahiṁsā. Nonviolence is the religion. That's all." So he did not accept Vedas. Therefore, those who are Vedantists, those who are followers of Vedas, they called Buddhist religion atheism. Atheism means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is called atheism.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonCCAdilila7109114SanFranciscoFebruary201967_2" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="36" link="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967" link_text="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967">
<div class="heading">Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that Buddha philosophy is atheism undoubtedly, but Śaṅkara philosophy is dangerous atheism because he is accepting Vedānta, but he is preaching atheism.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967|Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that Buddha philosophy is atheism undoubtedly, but Śaṅkara philosophy is dangerous atheism because he is accepting Vedānta, but he is preaching atheism. He's accepting... Under the shelter of Vedānta, he's preaching atheism. So therefore they are more dangerous. Just like you are fighting with your enemies, that is very clear. "The other party is my enemy." But if somebody's treating as your friend and within he's trying to kill you, enemy, oh, that is very dangerous enemy. So similarly, Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that Buddhism is atheism. That's all right. But this Śaṅkara's philosophy is more dangerous than atheism. And actually, so-called, so many swamis and sannyāsīs, they came. They come from India. They are this same, dangerous atheists. Nobody has preached in your country this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness or... Bhagavad-gītā is widely read, but differently interpreted. So therefore they are dangerous atheists. They are... Under the garb of Bhagavad-gītā, they are preaching atheism. So they are very dangerous. But still, because he was Lord Śiva, incarnation of Lord Śiva, and he had a particular duty, therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu supports now that tāṅhāra nāhika doṣa: "He's not faulty. He's not faulty because the time required to propagate such philosophy, and he had done that under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He wanted."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonCCAdilila7118121SanFranciscoFebruary241967_3" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="38" link="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967" link_text="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya took a special measure to convert the Buddhists to come to Vedic process because at that time everyone became atheist, following the Buddha philosophy, void.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967|Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śaṅkarācārya took a special measure to convert the Buddhists to come to Vedic process because at that time everyone became atheist, following the Buddha philosophy, void. Therefore he had to preach that "Yes. It is void, but that is truth. That void is truth, and this material manifestation, nirvāṇa, that is false. Therefore Lord Buddha taught you that 'Finish this, these material activities, and your miseries will be solved.' " Śaṅkarācārya said, "Yes, this is all right, but there is Brahman." But he did not describe the Brahman, whether He has, He is person or He has got pastimes, He has got many planets and there are many devotees, because those fools were not able to understand. Therefore he took for the time being. Caitanya Mahāprabhu, while criticizing, I mean to say, Śaṅkarācārya, He is always taking care that "It was not the fault of Ācārya Śaṅkara, because he's Lord Śiva, and he cannot make any mistake, but he was ordered to do so for the time being.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonCCMadhyalila20353354NewYorkDecember261966_4" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="96" link="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966" link_text="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish the difference of Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhism, Lord Buddha did not accept Vedic authority.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966|Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So accept or no accept, His work, His activities, His characterize, characteristics will be known because God will be known. Just like Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha is accepted as incarnation in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And during the time of Emperor Aśoka, he was patronized, Lord Buddha was patronized, not Buddha, or Buddhism was patronized by Aśoka. So practically the whole of Far East, including India, all over, the Buddhism was broadcast and everyone become Buddhist. Whole of India, practically, became Buddhist during his time. But later on, after Śaṅkarācārya's drive against Buddhism, Buddha-ism... Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish the difference of Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhism, Lord Buddha did not accept Vedic authority. He did not accept Vedic authority. But according to Hindu culture, if somebody does not accept the Vedic authority, then he's not a authority. Vedānta philosophy, there are different parties in India. The Māyā... Generally, two parties: the Māyāvāda philosophers and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, or the impersonalists and the personalists. Otherwise, there is no difference. Ultimately, the Māyāvādī philosophers they say that God, the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal, and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, they say in the ultimate end, the Absolute Truth is Person and He is, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.28|SB 1.3.28]]). This is little difference, and they stick to their position and they fight. Fight means by philosophical arguments. That is going on since a very long time. But both of them belong to the sanātana Hindu dharma because both of them will talk on the Vedānta philosophy. They'll simply, they can give different interpretation, but they cannot say that "We don't accept Vedānta."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonCCMadhyalila254050SanFranciscoJanuary241967_5" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="118" link="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967" link_text="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya's real purpose was no existence of God, because he had a very thankless task. He was dealing with the persons who are Buddhists. They did not believe anything except matter.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967|Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Tāte sūtrārtha vyākhyā kare anya rīte jani. Anya rīte, in a different interpretation. He was a very learned scholar. If a scholar likes to present something in a different way... Just like an expert lawyer, he can get out of the entanglement of law by jugglery of words and interpretation, he is called a big lawyer, similarly, there are philosophers who can put different theories and not admit the existence of God. So Śaṅkarācārya's real purpose was no existence of God, because he had a very thankless task. He was dealing with the persons who are Buddhists. They did not believe anything except matter. So for them, to establish that there is God, it is very difficult. Therefore he adopted this means that "There is no separate God. We are all God. You are God, I am God." And a demonic person, if he is addressed, "Oh, you are God," oh, he becomes very happy because he does not become responsible to any higher authority. He becomes God. He can do anything. He can perform any nonsense. Nobody is going to punish him. It is very nice theory, that "I have become God. Because I have no more..."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="General_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="11" parent="Lectures" text="General Lectures"><h3>General Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonTeachingsofLordCaitanyaSeattleSeptember251968_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="17" link="Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968" link_text="Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968">
<div class="heading">Take it, Lord Jesus Christ or Buddha or Śaṅkara or Rāmānujācārya or Caitanya—nobody will say that you make adjustment here and live peacefully. Everyone will say that you have to extinguish this material existence.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968|Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">If you want to advance yourself in spiritual science, then you have to test these three things. What is that? Sādhu, saintly person. Sādhu, śāstra, scriptures, and spiritual master. Now suppose you want to know who is a spiritual master. Then you have to test whether he's speaking just like other saintly persons and whether he's following scriptures. Sādhu śāstra. So you have to test a spiritual master by corroborating whether he is speaking according to the scriptural injunction, whether he's speaking to other saintly persons. So in the world, anywhere you go, the standard spiritual master... Take it, Lord Jesus Christ or Buddha or Śaṅkara or Rāmānujācārya or Caitanya—nobody will say that you make adjustment here and live peacefully. Everyone will say that you have to extinguish this material existence. Lord Buddha says nirvāṇa, and Śaṅkara says brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, and Kṛṣṇa says sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]). Lord Jesus Christ says that "You have to go the kingdom of God. Just come with me." So nobody says that "Let us make United Nation organization and stick up to thousands of flags, and let there be peace and prosperity, and let the war go on in any part of the world." That is not spiritual master. Spiritual master means that he is interested with the other world beyond this material world. That is spiritual master.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureExcerptNewYorkApril111969_1" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="43" link="Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 11, 1969" link_text="Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 11, 1969">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya's time is just after Buddha's age. Buddha, 2,500. Śaṅkarācārya, about 1,500 years ago. He also accepted. Although he was impersonalist, he accepted, sa bhagavān svayam kṛṣṇa. "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has come, has descended as the son of Vasudeva and Devakī."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 11, 1969|Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 11, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So Kṛṣṇa is accepted by all Vedic scholars. Not only in the bygone ages, just like Nārada, Vyāsa, but in the recent ages, within, say, one thousand years. Within one thousand years, there happened to be many great scholars, just like Madhvācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya. They were very, very learned scholars. They have accepted Kṛṣṇa the Supreme Person... Even Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya is more than one thousand years ago. Śaṅkarācārya's time is just after Buddha's age. Buddha, 2,500. Śaṅkarācārya, about 1,500 years ago. He also accepted. Although he was impersonalist, he accepted, sa bhagavān svayam kṛṣṇa. "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has come, has descended as the son of Vasudeva and Devakī." He has clearly mentioned. Because one may not misunderstand, "This Kṛṣṇa may be different." But he has specif... Just like identification. If you go to the court, you give your identification by your father's name. So Śaṅkarācārya has given identification of Kṛṣṇa by His father's name, by His mother's name. Devakī vasudevāsya. We also say Devakī-nandana, Vasudeva. So ātmavit-sammataḥ. It must be approved by great ācāryas. We are pushing on this Kṛṣṇa consciousness not by whims. It is approved by great ācāryas. We are following their footsteps. That's all.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureatEngagementColumbusmay191969_2" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="55" link="Lecture at Engagement -- Columbus, may 19, 1969" link_text="Lecture at Engagement -- Columbus, may 19, 1969">
<div class="heading">It is accepted by great stalwart scholars and ācāryas like Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, those who practically guided the whole destiny of Indian civilization—even Lord Buddha, he was Indian—but all of them accepted these authorized scriptural...
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture at Engagement -- Columbus, may 19, 1969|Lecture at Engagement -- Columbus, may 19, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So our proposal is that in this life you have got this opportunity, the informations are there, the scientific methods are there—take advantage. Fully utilize your, this valuable life by changing simply your ordinary consciousness to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the greatest boon offered to the human society by Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. If you take advantage of it, then sarve sukhino bhavantu—then you'll become happy. It is not a mental concoction; it is very authorized. It is accepted by great stalwart scholars and ācāryas like Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, those who practically guided the whole destiny of Indian civilization—even Lord Buddha, he was Indian—but all of them accepted these authorized scriptural... Don't try to manufacture. There are so many things in store, in Vedic knowledge, and they're all summarized in the Bhagavad-gītā. Try to understand. It is not very expensive or very difficult, but you have to understand it with full brain, then your life will be successful.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureDayafterLordRamasAppearanceDayLosAngelesApril161970_3" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="68" link="Lecture (Day after Lord Rama's Appearance Day) -- Los Angeles, April 16, 1970" link_text="Lecture (Day after Lord Rama's Appearance Day) -- Los Angeles, April 16, 1970">
<div class="heading">That is the philosophy not only of Lord Buddha, but Lord Caitanya, Śaṅkarācārya, or Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone you take, nobody will recommend that you make your plan and live in this material world very happily.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture (Day after Lord Rama's Appearance Day) -- Los Angeles, April 16, 1970|Lecture (Day after Lord Rama's Appearance Day) -- Los Angeles, April 16, 1970]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So we have to prepare for eternal life, blissful life, and life full of knowledge. If we do not do that, then our this human form of life is missing, is misused. That is the philosophy not only of Lord Buddha, but Lord Caitanya, Śaṅkarācārya, or Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone you take, nobody will recommend that you make your plan and live in this material world very happily. Nobody has recommended. Everyone has said that this life is the preparation stage of your next best life. If you do not believe in that, if you think that this life you can make this world happy by arrangement, by scientific advancement, that is not possible. That is not possible.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureBombayNovember21970_4" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="69" link="Lecture -- Bombay, November 2, 1970" link_text="Lecture -- Bombay, November 2, 1970">
<div class="heading">The incarnation of God, Lord Rāmacandra, Lord Kṛṣṇa, Lord Buddhadeva, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and all the big, big ācāryas—Śaṅkarācārya, Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī. So... Vyāsadeva. All of them appeared on the sacred land of Bhārata-varṣa.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture -- Bombay, November 2, 1970|Lecture -- Bombay, November 2, 1970]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">This Bhārata-varṣa is called puṇya-bhūmi. Actually, it is so, because on this land, all the great saintly persons appeared. The incarnation of God, Lord Rāmacandra, Lord Kṛṣṇa, Lord Buddhadeva, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and all the big, big ācāryas—Śaṅkarācārya, Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī. So... Vyāsadeva. All of them appeared on the sacred land of Bhārata-varṣa. But the present Bhārata-varṣa has degraded so much that we have lost our Vedic culture. We are eating meat, we are eating..., drinking wine, and we are having illicit sex life, and indulging in gambling. This is India's position. It is due to this Kali-yuga. Otherwise the land is puṇya-bhūmi. Because the land is puṇya-bhūmi, therefore in spite of so much fallen conditions, still, you are anxious to hear about Kṛṣṇa. You ladies and gentlemen who have come here, sacrificing your time... Why? Because still the Vedic culture is twinkling within your heart.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PandalLectureBombayJanuary141973_5" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="126" link="Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, January 14, 1973" link_text="Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, January 14, 1973">
<div class="heading">The incarnation of God, Lord Rāmacandra, Lord Kṛṣṇa, Lord Buddhadeva, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and all the big, big ācāryas—Śaṅkarācārya, Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī...All of them appeared on this sacred land of Bhāratavarṣa.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, January 14, 1973|Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, January 14, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">At the present moment in our country, this Bhāratavarṣa is called puṇya-bhūmi. Actually it is so, because on this land all the great saintly persons appeared. The incarnation of God, Lord Rāmacandra, Lord Kṛṣṇa, Lord Buddhadeva, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and all the big, big ācāryas—Śaṅkarācārya, Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī... So... Vyāsadeva... All of them appeared on this sacred land of Bhāratavarṣa. But the present Bhāratavarṣa has degraded so much that we have lost our Vedic culture. We are now eating meat. We are eating, drinking wine, and we are having illicit sex life and indulging in gambling. This is India's position. It is due to this Kali-yuga. Otherwise the land is puṇya-bhūmi. Because the land is puṇya-bhūmi, therefore in spite of so much fallen condition, still, you are anxious to hear about Kṛṣṇa. You ladies and gentlemen who have come here, sacrificing your time, why? Because still the Vedic culture is twinkling within your heart and you are anxious to hear about Kṛṣṇa, to hear about Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Even somebody wants to cheat you, but because it is advertised in the name of Bhagavad-gītā, many people flock there.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>