View source for Gita-bhasya, Sankaracarya's commentary on Bhagavad-gita

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Bhagavad-gita"|"Gita-bhasya"|"Sankaracarya"|"commentary"}}
{{notes|VedaBase query: "gita-bhasya" or "sankara* comment* bhagavad-gita"@10}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|02Apr11}}
{{last|04Apr11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=3|CC=2|OB=0|Lec=8|Con=7|Let=0}}
{{total|20}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Sankaracarya]]
[[Category:Commentaries on the Bhagavad-gita]]
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" class="section" sec_index="1" parent="compilation" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2>
</div>
<div id="SB_Canto_2" class="sub_section" sec_index="2" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam" text="SB Canto 2"><h3>SB Canto 2</h3>
</div>
<div id="SB2827_0" class="quote" parent="SB_Canto_2" book="SB" index="276" link="SB 2.8.27" link_text="SB 2.8.27">
<div class="heading">In his commentation on the Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but later on he commented from the impersonalist's view. But, being conscious of his position, he did not comment on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:SB 2.8.27|SB 2.8.27, Purport]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="purport text"><p style="display: inline;">Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam can be legitimately discussed only among the devotees of the Lord. As the Bhagavad-gītā was authoritatively discussed between Lord Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna (the Lord and the devotee respectively), similarly Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the postgraduate study of the Bhagavad-gītā, can also be discussed between the scholars and devotees like Śukadeva Gosvāmī and Mahārāja Parīkṣit. Otherwise the real taste of the nectar cannot be relished. Śukadeva Gosvāmī was pleased with Mahārāja Parīkṣit because he was not at all tired of hearing the topics of the Lord and was more and more anxious to hear them on and on with interest. Foolish interpreters unnecessarily tackle the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam when they have no access to the subject matter. There is no use in nondevotees' meddling with the two topmost Vedic literatures, and therefore Śaṅkarācārya did not touch Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam for commentation. In his commentation on the Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but later on he commented from the impersonalist's view. But, being conscious of his position, he did not comment on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="SB2933_1" class="quote" parent="SB_Canto_2" book="SB" index="311" link="SB 2.9.33" link_text="SB 2.9.33">
<div class="heading">Before the creation there was none except Vāsudeva. There was neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara. Only Nārāyaṇa was there and no one else, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya also confirms in his comments on the Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, or the Personality of Godhead, is transcendental to all creation, but that the whole creation is the product of avyakta.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:SB 2.9.33|SB 2.9.33, Purport]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="purport text"><p style="display: inline;">In another feature of this verse, no one can deny the personalities of both the Lord and Brahmā. Therefore in the ultimate issue both the predominator and predominated are persons. This conclusion refutes the conclusion of the impersonalist that in the ultimate issue everything is impersonal. This impersonal feature stressed by the less intelligent impersonalist school is refuted by pointing out that the predominator "I" is the Absolute Truth and that He is a person. The predominated "I," Brahmā, is also a person, but he is not the Absolute. For realization of one's self in spiritual psychology it may be convenient to assume oneself to be the same principle as the Absolute Truth, but there is always the difference of the predominated and the predominator, as clearly pointed out here in this verse, which is grossly misused by the impersonalists. Brahmā is factually seeing face to face his predominator Lord, who exists in His transcendental eternal form, even after the annihilation of the material creation. The form of the Lord, as seen by Brahmā, existed before the creation of Brahmā, and the material manifestation with all the ingredients and agents of material creation are also energetic expansions of the Lord, and after the exhibition of the Lord's energy comes to a close, what remains is the same Personality of Godhead. Therefore the form of the Lord exists in all circumstances of creation, maintenance and annihilation. The Vedic hymns confirm this fact in the statement vāsudevo vā idam agra āsīn na brahmā na ca śaṅkara eko nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā neśāna, etc. Before the creation there was none except Vāsudeva. There was neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara. Only Nārāyaṇa was there and no one else, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya also confirms in his comments on the Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, or the Personality of Godhead, is transcendental to all creation, but that the whole creation is the product of avyakta. Therefore the difference between the created and the creator is always there, although both the creator and created are of the same quality.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="SB_Canto_4" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam" text="SB Canto 4"><h3>SB Canto 4</h3>
</div>
<div id="SB42463_0" class="quote" parent="SB_Canto_4" book="SB" index="1041" link="SB 4.24.63" link_text="SB 4.24.63">
<div class="heading">In the Vedas it is also said, eko nārāyaṇa āsīt: "Before the creation there was only Nārāyaṇa." This is also confirmed by Śaṅkarācārya. Nārāyaṇaḥ paro 'vyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa is transcendental to the creation." (Gīta-bhāṣya)
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:SB 4.24.63|SB 4.24.63, Purport]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="purport text"><p style="display: inline;">When Kṛṣṇa says that He is the origin of everything (ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 10.8 (1972)|BG 10.8]])), He means that He is even the source of Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva, the puruṣa-avatāras, the material manifestation and all the living entities within the material world. Actually the word prabhava ("creation") only refers to this material world, for since the spiritual world is eternally existing, there is no question of creation. In the Catuḥ-ślokī of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Lord says, aham evāsam evāgre: "I was existing in the beginning before the creation." ([[Vanisource:SB 2.9.33|SB 2.9.33]]) In the Vedas it is also said, eko nārāyaṇa āsīt: "Before the creation there was only Nārāyaṇa." This is also confirmed by Śaṅkarācārya. Nārāyaṇaḥ paro 'vyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa is transcendental to the creation." (Gīta-bhāṣya) Since all the activities of Nārāyaṇa are spiritual, when Nārāyaṇa said, "Let there be creation," that creation was all-spiritual. The "material" only exists for those who have forgotten that Nārāyaṇa is the original cause.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta" class="section" sec_index="2" parent="compilation" text="Sri Caitanya-caritamrta"><h2>Sri Caitanya-caritamrta</h2>
</div>
<div id="CC_Adi-lila" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta" text="CC Adi-lila"><h3>CC Adi-lila</h3>
</div>
<div id="CCAdi5132_0" class="quote" parent="CC_Adi-lila" book="CC" index="734" link="CC Adi 5.132" link_text="CC Adi 5.132">
<div class="heading">Some devotees think that Nārāyaṇa is the original Personality of Godhead and that Kṛṣṇa is an incarnation. Even Śaṅkarācārya, in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā, has accepted Nārāyaṇa as the transcendental Personality of Godhead who appeared as Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī and Vasudeva. Therefore this matter may be difficult to understand.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:CC Adi 5.132|CC Adi 5.132, Purport]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="purport text"><p style="display: inline;">In the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has explained Kṛṣṇa's being both Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and Nārāyaṇa in the spiritual sky and expanding in the quadruple forms known as Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. He has refuted the idea that Kṛṣṇa is an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa. Some devotees think that Nārāyaṇa is the original Personality of Godhead and that Kṛṣṇa is an incarnation. Even Śaṅkarācārya, in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā, has accepted Nārāyaṇa as the transcendental Personality of Godhead who appeared as Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī and Vasudeva. Therefore this matter may be difficult to understand. But the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya, headed by Rūpa Gosvāmī, has established the principle of the Bhagavad-gītā that everything emanates from Kṛṣṇa, who says in the Bhagavad-gītā, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: ([[Vanisource:BG 10.8 (1972)|BG 10.8]]) "I am the original source of everything." "Everything" includes Nārāyaṇa. Therefore Rūpa Gosvāmī, in his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, has established that Kṛṣṇa, not Nārāyaṇa, is the original Personality of Godhead.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="CC_Madhya-lila" class="sub_section" sec_index="2" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta" text="CC Madhya-lila"><h3>CC Madhya-lila</h3>
</div>
<div id="CCMadhya20311_0" class="quote" parent="CC_Madhya-lila" book="CC" index="4798" link="CC Madhya 20.311" link_text="CC Madhya 20.311">
<div class="heading">Viṣṇu is beyond the range of the material manifestation, and He is not within the control of the material energy. He is the supreme independent Personality of Godhead. This is admitted even by Śaṅkarācārya: nārāyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktāt (Gītā-bhāṣya).
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:CC Madhya 20.311|CC Madhya 20.311, Purport]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="purport text"><p style="display: inline;">Viṣṇu is beyond the range of the material manifestation, and He is not within the control of the material energy. He is the supreme independent Personality of Godhead. This is admitted even by Śaṅkarācārya: nārāyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktāt (Gītā-bhāṣya). In his constitutional form, Śiva is a mahā-bhāgavata, a supreme devotee of the Lord, but because he accepts māyā’s association—especially the quality of ignorance—he is not free from māyā’s influence. Such an intimate association is completely absent in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu. Lord Śiva accepts māyā, but in the presence of Lord Viṣṇu, māyā does not exist. Consequently Lord Śiva has to be considered a product of māyā. When Lord Śiva is free from māyā’s influence, he is in the position of a mahā-bhāgavata, a supreme devotee of Lord Viṣṇu. Vaiṣṇavānāṁ yathā śambhuḥ.</p>
</div>
</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_0" 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">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.
</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;">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>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG23335LondonSeptember31973_1" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="99" link="Lecture on BG 2.33-35 -- London, September 3, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.33-35 -- London, September 3, 1973">
<div class="heading">Many ācāryas have commented on Bhagavad-gītā. There is Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, even Śaṅkarācārya. But never said that Bhagavad-gītā is proof of nonviolence. Nonviolence is good but when there is dharma-yuddha, righteous fighting, there is no question of nonviolence.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.33-35 -- London, September 3, 1973|Lecture on BG 2.33-35 -- London, September 3, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So these things are going on, but that is not Bhagavad-gītā. That is nāmno balād yasya hi pāpa-buddhiḥ. Nāma-aparādha, ten kinds of offenses... This is offense. Just like nāmno balād yasya hi pāpa-buddhiḥ. We say, the śāstra says, that by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, you become cleansed of your sinful activities. That's a fact. But if somebody thinks that "I shall go on committing sinful activity and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra so it will be adjusted, neutralized, this is the most sinful activity, nāmno balāt, by the strength of chanting, committing sin. So similarly on the strength of Bhagavad-gītā, if one wants to prove his foolish philosophy, that is a great offense. That's a great offense. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā cannot be interpreted by foolish commentators. It must be studied through the paramparā system, ācārya upāsanam. One must worship the ācārya and learn from him what is Bhagavad-gītā. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. This is the Vedic injunction. Who knows things as they are. Ācāryaṁ māṁ puruṣa, one who is under the guidance of ācārya. So you won't find this foolish nonviolence theory from any ācārya. Many ācāryas have commented on Bhagavad-gītā. There is Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, even Śaṅkarācārya. But never said that Bhagavad-gītā is proof of nonviolence. Nonviolence is good but when there is dharma-yuddha, righteous fighting, there is no question of nonviolence. Violence is approved.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBGLectureAhmedabadDecember81972_2" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="407" link="Lecture on BG Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972" link_text="Lecture on BG Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya also admits in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. And he accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. So you cannot supersede Kṛṣṇa by accepting Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya admits, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. So Śaṅkarācārya admits Kṛṣṇa is the authority, but Kṛṣṇa says that this material body is prakṛti. How you can say it is puruṣa?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972|Lecture on BG Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Guest (1): is a part and parcel of God. That's what the Śaṅkara...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Part and parcel of God in this way: it is the energy of God.</p>
<p>Guest (1): It is not prakṛti. It is puruṣa. It is puruṣa inside.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Puruṣa inside? That is Paramātmā.</p>
<p>Guest (1): Śaṅkarācārya says, Śaṅkarācārya says that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we differ from Śaṅkarācārya. We follow Kṛṣṇa. We do not follow Śaṅkarācārya. So if you think Śaṅkarācārya is better than Kṛṣṇa, that is your opinion. We follow Kṛṣṇa. Śaṅkarācārya is not original person. Kṛṣṇa is original person. That is accepted by Vyāsadeva and all... Nārada, Devala. So our proposition is "Follow Kṛṣṇa." Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). The original person. Ādi-puruṣam. Govindam ādi-puruṣam. Śaṅkarācārya is, say, one thousand five hundred years, but Kṛṣṇa, He's the original puruṣa, before the creation. The creation was made... Śaṅkarācārya also admits in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. And he accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. So you cannot supersede Kṛṣṇa by accepting Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya admits, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. So Śaṅkarācārya admits Kṛṣṇa is the authority, but Kṛṣṇa says that this material body is prakṛti. How you can say it is puruṣa? Kṛṣṇa says that bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ, bhinnā me prakṛtir aṣṭadhā: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4 (1972)|BG 7.4]]) "These eight kinds of prakṛti, they are My separated energy." How you can say it is puruṣa?</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="LectureonSB1225VrndavanaNovember51972_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="94" link="Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972">
<div class="heading">Even Śaṅkarācārya, he says, in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. Vyaktāvyakta. There are two material features: manifested and nonmanifested. Śaṅkarācārya agrees that Nārāyaṇa... As soon as he says "Nārāyaṇa," he means the person, person, the Supreme Person. Paraḥ avyaktāt. He's transcendental. His person is not the same person, personality as we have got.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972|Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So simply thinking, concocting, is one thing. And fact is another. Fact is that we are teeny, part and parcel of the Absolute Truth. But we are not actually absolute. We are relative. Relative truth. On the existence of the Absolute Truth, we are existing, but we have no independent existence, neither we have got independent knowledge. We are all dependent. The independent knowledge, Absolute Truth, is Kṛṣṇa. Oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya. That is the beginning of Vedānta-sūtra. Therefore, bhejire munayo 'thāgre bhagavantam adhokṣajam. Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, beyond the sense perception. This impersonal concept of the Absolute Truth is in negation of the material duality. But that is not absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is that when we reach bhagavantam adhokṣajam. Sattvaṁ viśuddham. His existence is viśuddha, not contaminated. Our existence in this material existence, this is not viśuddha. This is contaminated by the modes of material nature. But His existence is viśuddha. Even Śaṅkarācārya, he says, in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. Vyaktāvyakta. There are two material features: manifested and nonmanifested. Śaṅkarācārya agrees that Nārāyaṇa... As soon as he says "Nārāyaṇa," he means the person, person, the Supreme Person. Paraḥ avyaktāt. He's transcendental. His person is not the same person, personality as we have got. There, that is... Para means that is adhokṣajam, beyond our sense perception. So... And there are so many other evidences.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB178VrndavanaSeptember71976_1" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="166" link="Lecture on SB 1.7.8 -- Vrndavana, September 7, 1976" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.7.8 -- Vrndavana, September 7, 1976">
<div class="heading">Because although Nirīśvaravādī, or Māyāvādī leader Śaṅkarācārya, he wrote comments on Bhagavad-gītā, but he could not touch Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, because in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the things are so nicely set up, kṛtvānukramya, that it is not possible by the Māyāvādīs to prove that God is impersonal.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.7.8 -- Vrndavana, September 7, 1976|Lecture on SB 1.7.8 -- Vrndavana, September 7, 1976]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Saṁhitā means Vedic literature. There are many rascals, they say that "Bhāgavata was not written by Vyāsadeva, it was written by some Bopadeva." They say like that. Māyāvādīs, the Nirīśvaravādī. Because although Nirīśvaravādī, or Māyāvādī leader Śaṅkarācārya, he wrote comments on Bhagavad-gītā, but he could not touch Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, because in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the things are so nicely set up, kṛtvānukramya, that it is not possible by the Māyāvādīs to prove that God is impersonal. They cannot do it. Nowadays they are doing, reading Bhāgavatam in their own way, but that does not appeal to any sane man. Sometimes I have seen a big Māyāvādī is explaining one verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that "Because you are God, therefore if you are pleased, then God is pleased." This is their philosophy. "You do not require to please God separately. So if you are pleased by drinking wine, then God is pleased." This is their explanation. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has condemned this Māyāvādī commentary. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 6.169|CC Madhya 6.169]]). Māyāvādī kṛṣṇe aparādhī. He has plainly said. No compromise. The Māyāvādīs, they're great offender to Kṛṣṇa. Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān ([[Vanisource:BG 16.19 (1972)|BG 16.19]]), Kṛṣṇa also says. They're very, very envious to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is dvi-bhuja-muralīdhara, śyāmasundara, and the Māyāvādī explains that "Kṛṣṇa has no hand, no leg. This is all imagination." How much offensive it is they do not know. But to warn people like us, Caitanya Mahāprabhu has plainly warned that "Don't go to Māyāvādīs."</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="LectureonCCMadhyalila20298NewYorkDecember201966_0" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="90" link="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.298 -- New York, December 20, 1966" link_text="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.298 -- New York, December 20, 1966">
<div class="heading">Although Śaṅkarācārya is impersonalist, but he has accepted Nārāyaṇa, Hari, the Supreme Lord, as beyond this material infection. Nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. And he has also agreed to accept Kṛṣṇa. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. It is accepted by Śaṅkarācārya.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.298 -- New York, December 20, 1966|Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.298 -- New York, December 20, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Now, Hari, Viṣṇu is beyond this material world. That is accepted by Śaṅkarācārya. Nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. Nārāyaṇa, Hari... Although Śaṅkarācārya is impersonalist, but he has accepted Nārāyaṇa, Hari, the Supreme Lord, as beyond this material infection. Nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt. And he has also agreed to accept Kṛṣṇa. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. It is accepted by Śaṅkarācārya. Those who are reading the commentary by Śaṅkarācārya on the Bhagavad-gītā, he will find in the beginning of that nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ. So it is also confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that harir hi nirguṇaḥ sākṣāt: "Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is beyond the touch of this material qualities." Therefore His body is sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His body is not made of this tri-guṇa. Our, this material body is made of these three guṇas: sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. Those who have got this body from the modes of goodness, they are called brāhmaṇas, or the most intelligent persons. And those who have got their body from the modes of passion, they are called kṣatriyas. They have got creative initiation. And those who are mixed, they are called vaiśyas, or the mercantile community. And those who have got purely body from modes of ignorance, they are called śūdras. So harir hi... But Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this. He is transcendental. Harir hi nirguṇaḥ sākṣāt puruṣaḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ.</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="LectureVisakhapatnamFebruary181972_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="100" link="Lecture -- Visakhapatnam, February 18, 1972" link_text="Lecture -- Visakhapatnam, February 18, 1972">
<div class="heading">Devakīnandana: Śaṅkarācārya has specifically mentioned Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī and Vasudeva, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nārāyaṇa paraḥ avyaktāt. I think those who have read Śaṅkara's comment on Bhagavad-gītā, they know all these things.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture -- Visakhapatnam, February 18, 1972|Lecture -- Visakhapatnam, February 18, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness is not a concocted thing. It is... We have got authority from the Vedas. We have authority from Kṛṣṇa. We have got authority from Bhagavad-gītā. We have got authority by the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, all of them, even Śaṅkarācārya, although we differ in some points with Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya has admitted Kṛṣṇa, bhagavān sa svayam kṛṣṇa, he has stated. Devakīnandana, he has specifically mentioned Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī and Vasudeva, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nārāyaṇa paraḥ avyaktāt. I think those who have read Śaṅkara's comment on Bhagavad-gītā, they know all these things. So Kṛṣṇa is admitted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all the bona fide ācāryas. And all scholars up to date, everyone, and confirmed by Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.28|SB 1.3.28]]).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="GeneralLecturelocationdateunknown_1" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="185" link="General Lecture -- (location &amp; date unknown)" link_text="General Lecture -- (location &amp; date unknown)">
<div class="heading">Those who have read Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā, they must have seen it in the very beginning: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. He begins his commentary, nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktat: "Nārāyaṇa is beyond this material creation." And then he says, "That Nārāyaṇa is svayaṁ bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa. And he has specifically mentioned that "He has appeared as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:General Lecture -- (location &amp; date unknown)|General Lecture -- (location &amp; date unknown)]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So naturally we accept Kṛṣṇa on the basis of Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is natural. But, everyone, of course, has to accept Bhagavad-gītā and Vedānta-sūtra if he, I mean to say, presents himself as Vedic or Hindu. Hindu is the name, the modern name. Actually the Vedic name is the original name, or varṇāśrama-dharma. That is the original name. So, apart from Vaiṣṇavas, even Śaṅkarācārya, who is impersonalist, who is Brahmavadi, he also accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Those who have read Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā, they must have seen it in the very beginning: sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. He begins his commentary, nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktat: "Nārāyaṇa is beyond this material creation." And then he says, "That Nārāyaṇa is svayaṁ bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. And he has specifically mentioned that "He has appeared as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva." Beside that, he has written many songs and prayers about Kṛṣṇa. And at the last stage of his life he has written a very nice poem,</p>
:bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mūḍha mate
:prāpte sannihite khalu marane na hi na hi rakṣati dukṛn-karaṇe
<p>Because the Māyāvādī philosophers, they interpret Vedic mantras by grammatical jugglery, therefore Śaṅkarācārya has warned that "Your grammatical jugglery, this dukṛn-pratyaya, karaṇe, will not save you." Mūḍha-mate: "You foolish person, you kindly take shelter of Govinda." Bhaja govinda. So this is the verdict of all ācāryas. So our point is that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is nothing like manufactured religious principle. No. It is authorized. There is great background, all these, supported by all the ācāryas and summarized by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.</p>
</div>
</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="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="6" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1973 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1973 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithReporterfromResearchersMagazineJuly241973London_0" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="51" link="Room Conversation with Reporter from Researchers Magazine -- July 24, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Reporter from Researchers Magazine -- July 24, 1973, London">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya, although he is impersonalist, he says nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt: Nārāyaṇa is beyond this cosmic manifestation; He's transcendental. That means he says He's person. Nārāyaṇa, as soon as Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Reporter from Researchers Magazine -- July 24, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Reporter from Researchers Magazine -- July 24, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Now Kṛṣṇa is accepted the supreme authority by all the ācāryas. The molder of destiny of India's culture, all the ācāryas. Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka, Lord Caitanya...</p>
<p>Reporter: Śaṅkarācārya.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Śaṅkarācārya. They all accept Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.28|SB 1.3.28]]). They accept it. So how can you defy all these ācāryas and you become better than them? That is nonsense.</p>
<p>Reporter: But all these ācāryas interpret in different, different ways.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. No.</p>
<p>Reporter: No?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: On the principle, they never... Just like Śaṅkarācārya and Rāmānujācārya. He's impersonalist, personalist, but both of them accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You'll find from their notes, comments on Bhagavad-gītā. Śaṅkarācārya, although he is impersonalist, he says nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt: Nārāyaṇa is beyond this cosmic manifestation; He's transcendental. That means he says He's person. Nārāyaṇa, as soon as Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead. So we have nothing to touch in the spiritual understanding. He's talking of the material understanding. His philosophy, he started the philosophy, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithSanskritProfessorDrSunesonSeptember51973Stockholm_1" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="71" link="Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson -- September 5, 1973, Stockholm" link_text="Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson -- September 5, 1973, Stockholm">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkara accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson -- September 5, 1973, Stockholm|Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson -- September 5, 1973, Stockholm]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: The Māyāvādīs, who are not in agreement with the existence of the Lord, can be classed in two groups, exemplified by the impersonalists Śaṅkarites of Vārāṇasī and the Buddhists of Saranātha. Both of them are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither of them agree to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny, clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless. Thus both of them are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 10.2.32|SB 10.2.32]]), or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What do you think?</p>
<p>Professor: That's... Of course, in the introduction to Śaṅkara's commentary to Bhagavad-gītā, he does, it seems, if it is for him, which is that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He accepts Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.</p>
<p>Professor: Yes, Kṛṣṇa, yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Professor: So Śaṅkara is a bit difficult because his followers, even he's Māyāvādī, the followers, even the followers, they clearly believe in it. But whether, what Śaṅkara himself meant by it...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that is explained. Śaṅkara is the incarnation of Lord Śiva. He has no fault. He has simply executed the order of the Supreme Lord. But the way in which he has presented the commentary, one should not hear it. That is his warning.</p>
</div>
</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">Śaṅkarācārya accepted Bhagavad-gītā. He commented, and he accepted Kṛṣṇa. He has accepted Kṛṣṇa, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ.
</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: 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>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithYogaStudentMarch141975Iran_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="31" link="Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran" link_text="Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran">
<div class="heading">Just like Gandhi says that "I do not believe that Kṛṣṇa ever lived." Just see. He does not believe in the ācāryas. All the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, they have written big, big comment on Bhagavad-gītā, even Śaṅkarācārya. He does not believe anyone. He believes himself. And that kind of belief is not help.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran|Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Sarvam etaṁ ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi keśava: "My dear Keśava..." Keśava, the another name of Kṛṣṇa... "Whatever You have said I accept them cent percent." Sarvam etaṁ ṛtam. Ṛtam means fact, truth. This is understanding. So if we accept in that way, then our knowledge is perfect. And if we accept in a different way... Just like Gandhi says that "I do not believe that Kṛṣṇa ever lived." Just see. He does not believe in the ācāryas. All the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, they have written big, big comment on Bhagavad-gītā, even Śaṅkarācārya. He does not believe anyone. He believes himself. And that kind of belief is not help. And our process is: because Kṛṣṇa has been accepted by all the ācāryas, all the great sages, Arjuna has accepted—we accept, that's all. We have no difficulty. If I am child, I ask my father, "What is this, my father?" The father says, "My dear child, it is called coconut." Then, if I distribute this knowledge, "This is coconut," then my knowledge is perfect. I may not be perfect, but because I have heard it from my father, who is perfect about the knowledge of this fruit, so I have taken that word from my father, and I am preaching, "This is coconut," and this is perfect. So our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is like that. We are simply repeating the perfect statement of our predecessor. That's all.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithYogaStudentMarch141975Iran_1" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="31" link="Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran" link_text="Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya says sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. You refer to the commentary of Bhagavad-gītā of Śaṅkarācārya. So in the beginning he says, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran|Room Conversation with Yoga Student -- March 14, 1975, Iran]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Indian man: Śaṅkarācārya, when he writes on this Bhagavad-gītā, he gives...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Śaṅkarācārya says sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. You refer to the commentary of Bhagavad-gītā of Śaṅkarācārya. So in the beginning he says, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. Nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ avyaktāt avyaktād anya-sambhavaḥ. So he has explained. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. And what to speak of other ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya... They accept, all, Kṛṣṇa. Madhvācārya... They worship Kṛṣṇa. So Kṛṣṇa may have many forms, that is accepted. But that form, Kṛṣṇa, He is God. That you have to accept. You cannot deny that.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune251975LosAngeles_2" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="112" link="Morning Walk -- June 25, 1975, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 25, 1975, Los Angeles">
<div class="heading">You will find in his comment on the Bhagavad-gītā. First word he writes, nārāyaṇaḥ paro 'vyaktād: "Nārāyaṇa has nothing to do with this material world." And he accepts in his comment, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ: "That Nārāyaṇa has appeared as Kṛṣṇa." And he has given specific name of His father as "the son of Devakī and Vasudeva" so that nobody can misidentify.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 25, 1975, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- June 25, 1975, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So Śaṅkarācārya has tried to impress this fact, but the rascals followed in a different way. Just like a cloth, big cloth, that is impersonal. Now, you cut it into coat. It becomes like person. So similarly this whole material world is impersonal, but because we have taken a certain portion of it and make my body, it looks like person. And God is not like that. He is spiritual person. He has nothing to do with material. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). What Śaṅkarācārya impressed, that they are after demigods, so "The demigods, they are not actual person. Real person is Nārāyaṇa." That is Śaṅkarācārya's version. Nārāyaṇa... You will find in his comment on the Bhagavad-gītā. First word he writes, nārāyaṇaḥ paro 'vyaktād: "Nārāyaṇa has nothing to do with this material world." And he accepts in his comment, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ: "That Nārāyaṇa has appeared as Kṛṣṇa." And he has given specific name of His father as "the son of Devakī and Vasudeva" so that nobody can misidentify. If you have got Śaṅkara's bhāṣya, commentary on Bhagavad-gītā, you bring it I shall show you. (break) Kṛṣṇa also confirms. That verse, which we were reading last evening... Kṛṣṇa says, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: ([[Vanisource:BG 9.4 (1972)|BG 9.4]]) "This jagat, this material world, is impersonal. And that is My energy. Therefore the whole world is resting upon Me, but I am not there. As person, I am not there." This is the statement of Bhagavad-gītā. Just like the sunshine is spreading all over the universe, but the sun is aloof. Take this example. Not that because the sunshine is here, we are now getting, the sun has come here. The sun is shining from the distant place. He is aloof. Similarly, God is person and His shining is all this creation. That is impersonal.</p>
<p>Dr. Judah: Like the rays of the sun.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. And Śaṅkarācārya's... Not Śaṅkarācārya. His followers have interpreted, "Because God has become all-pervading, then where is God person? He is finished." But they do not see the sun, that although the sun is all-pervading, still, he is maintaining his identity.</p>
<p>Dr. Judah: Yes. That's the bhedābheda philosophy.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Bhedābheda philosophy, that is actual philosophy. Acintya-bhedābheda.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1977_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="10" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1977 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1977 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="ConversationwithYadubaraafterseeingfilmApril171977Bombay_0" class="quote" parent="1977_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="140" link="Conversation with Yadubara (after seeing film) -- April 17, 1977, Bombay" link_text="Conversation with Yadubara (after seeing film) -- April 17, 1977, Bombay">
<div class="heading">Where is that śloka, aham eva āsam agre? First part? Where is that Gītā-bhāṣya?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Conversation with Yadubara (after seeing film) -- April 17, 1977, Bombay|Conversation with Yadubara (after seeing film) -- April 17, 1977, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yadubara: I would like to show the origins of Kṛṣṇa consciousness in India in the next film.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Origin? There is no origin. It is always there. Origin is Kṛṣṇa. He has always been. Aham evāsam agre. The Bhāgavata śloka. Where is that śloka, aham eva āsam agre? First part? Where is that Gītā-bhāṣya.(?) You are doing nice. Go on doing like that. Try your best to convince.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>