Law of identity - Revision history

Visnu Murti at 13:08, 6 May 2022

2022-05-06T13:08:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:08, 6 May 2022
Line 4:		Line 4:
	{{notes\|}}		{{notes\|}}
	{{compiler\|Labangalatika}}		{{compiler\|Labangalatika}}
	{{complete\|}}		{{complete\|ALL}}
	~~{{goal\|9~~}}
	{{first\|06Jun11}}		{{first\|06Jun11}}
	{{last\|06Jun11}}		{{last\|06Jun11}}
Line 11:		Line 10:
	{{total\|9}}		{{total\|9}}
	{{toc right}}		{{toc right}}
	[[Category:Law]]		[[Category:Law of Identity\|1]]
	~~[[Category:~~Identity]]
	</div>		</div>
	<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>		<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
Line 21:		Line 19:
	<div class="heading">Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body.		<div class="heading">Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body.
	</div>		</div>
	<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973\|Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Why we have got different types of bodies? Why we haven't got, everyone, the same type of body? Somebody is fat, somebody is very thin, somebody white, somebody black, somebody very beautiful, somebody very ugly. There are so many varieties of bodies. Why? Saṅghāṭa. This is combination, color combination. There are three guṇas. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 3.27\|BG 3.27]]). As you are associating with the guṇas, you are getting different types of body.</p>		<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973\|Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Why we have got different types of bodies? Why we haven't got, everyone, the same type of body? Somebody is fat, somebody is very thin, somebody white, somebody black, somebody very beautiful, somebody very ugly. There are so many varieties of bodies. Why? Saṅghāṭa. This is combination, color combination. There are three guṇas. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 3.27 (1972)\|BG 3.27]]). As you are associating with the guṇas, you are getting different types of body.</p>
	<p>That is, Kṛṣṇa is explaining here, that mahā-bhūtāny ahaṅkāra. The ahaṅkāra is very important thing. False ahaṅkāra and real ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body, And... This is the subtle basis, ahaṅkāra. Mano buddhir ahaṅkāra. There are eight material elements: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khāṁ mano buddhir eva ca ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4\|BG 7.4]]). That is stated in the seventh chapter. This earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind, intelligence, and ahaṅkāra. This is creating my different types of body.</p>		<p>That is, Kṛṣṇa is explaining here, that mahā-bhūtāny ahaṅkāra. The ahaṅkāra is very important thing. False ahaṅkāra and real ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body, And... This is the subtle basis, ahaṅkāra. Mano buddhir ahaṅkāra. There are eight material elements: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khāṁ mano buddhir eva ca ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4 (1972)\|BG 7.4]]). That is stated in the seventh chapter. This earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind, intelligence, and ahaṅkāra. This is creating my different types of body.</p>
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>
Line 28:		Line 26:
	<div class="heading">There are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead."		<div class="heading">There are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
	</div>		</div>
	<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971\|Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Duality. Our position in this dual world is we are always doubtful. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66\|BG 18.66]]), but we are doubtful. That is material influence. "How it is that simply by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa I become free from all material contamination or sinful activities results?" Doubt. But actually, you should not be doubtful. You should accept because Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You should accept His word as it is. And because we are doubtful, we are presenting Kṛṣṇa in a different way. And there are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7\|BG 7.7]]) "There is no more superior authority than Me." We accept that. Then we can understand Bhagavad-gītā and take advantage of it; otherwise (it is) not possible. And that requires daivī sampat, godly characteristics.</p>		<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971\|Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Duality. Our position in this dual world is we are always doubtful. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)\|BG 18.66]]), but we are doubtful. That is material influence. "How it is that simply by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa I become free from all material contamination or sinful activities results?" Doubt. But actually, you should not be doubtful. You should accept because Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You should accept His word as it is. And because we are doubtful, we are presenting Kṛṣṇa in a different way. And there are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)\|BG 7.7]]) "There is no more superior authority than Me." We accept that. Then we can understand Bhagavad-gītā and take advantage of it; otherwise (it is) not possible. And that requires daivī sampat, godly characteristics.</p>
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>
Line 42:		Line 40:
	<div class="heading">In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm.		<div class="heading">In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm.
	</div>		</div>
	<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968\|Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Generally, in the material sense, when I say, "This is my spectacle," it does not belong to you. Is it not? So this "my" is not that "my." When I say "my God," that does not mean He's not your God. That is the difference. In the material sense, when I say "It is my wife," then it is not any other's wife. But God is not like that. If I say "my God," so you can say "my God," he can say "my God," everyone can say "my God." This is spiritual "my," absolute "my." Try to understand this way, that in the material sense, when I saying something "my," that is different from when I say "my God." That is different. That is not exactly... As we think in the material way, "my thing," "my God," "my home," "my wife," "my wealth," "my bank," it is not like that. But the relationship... Just like I say "my hand." So how can I express? Just like Kṛṣṇa says mamaivāṁśo ([[Vanisource:BG 15.7\|BG 15.7]]). Mama means "Mine." "These, all these living creatures, they are My part and parcels." So why the living creatures shall not say "my God"? Do you follow? Kṛṣṇa says "You are Mine." Why shall you not say, "Kṛṣṇa, You are mine." Your husband says, "You are mine." Why shall you not say, "You are mine"? But don't take it in the material sense. In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm. Rather, if anyone wants to possess something as his, then that should be, that possession should be Kṛṣṇa. That is the ultimate conception of "mine." That is the perfection of the word "mine."</p>		<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968\|Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Generally, in the material sense, when I say, "This is my spectacle," it does not belong to you. Is it not? So this "my" is not that "my." When I say "my God," that does not mean He's not your God. That is the difference. In the material sense, when I say "It is my wife," then it is not any other's wife. But God is not like that. If I say "my God," so you can say "my God," he can say "my God," everyone can say "my God." This is spiritual "my," absolute "my." Try to understand this way, that in the material sense, when I saying something "my," that is different from when I say "my God." That is different. That is not exactly... As we think in the material way, "my thing," "my God," "my home," "my wife," "my wealth," "my bank," it is not like that. But the relationship... Just like I say "my hand." So how can I express? Just like Kṛṣṇa says mamaivāṁśo ([[Vanisource:BG 15.7 (1972)\|BG 15.7]]). Mama means "Mine." "These, all these living creatures, they are My part and parcels." So why the living creatures shall not say "my God"? Do you follow? Kṛṣṇa says "You are Mine." Why shall you not say, "Kṛṣṇa, You are mine." Your husband says, "You are mine." Why shall you not say, "You are mine"? But don't take it in the material sense. In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm. Rather, if anyone wants to possess something as his, then that should be, that possession should be Kṛṣṇa. That is the ultimate conception of "mine." That is the perfection of the word "mine."</p>
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Labangalatika: Created page with '

{{terms|"law of identification"|"law of identity"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|}} {{goal|9}} {{first|06Jun11}} {{las…'

2011-06-06T23:57:41Z

Created page with '<div id="compilation"> <div id="facts"> {{terms|"law of identification"|"law of identity"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|}} {{goal|9}} {{first|06Jun11}} {{las…'

New page

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"law of identification"|"law of identity"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|}}
{{goal|9}}
{{first|06Jun11}}
{{last|06Jun11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=8|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|9}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Identity]]
</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="LectureonBG1367BombaySeptember291973_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="356" link="Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973">
<div class="heading">Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973|Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Why we have got different types of bodies? Why we haven't got, everyone, the same type of body? Somebody is fat, somebody is very thin, somebody white, somebody black, somebody very beautiful, somebody very ugly. There are so many varieties of bodies. Why? Saṅghāṭa. This is combination, color combination. There are three guṇas. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 3.27|BG 3.27]]). As you are associating with the guṇas, you are getting different types of body.</p>
<p>That is, Kṛṣṇa is explaining here, that mahā-bhūtāny ahaṅkāra. The ahaṅkāra is very important thing. False ahaṅkāra and real ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body, And... This is the subtle basis, ahaṅkāra. Mano buddhir ahaṅkāra. There are eight material elements: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khāṁ mano buddhir eva ca ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4|BG 7.4]]). That is stated in the seventh chapter. This earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind, intelligence, and ahaṅkāra. This is creating my different types of body.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG1627BombayApril81971_1" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="382" link="Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971" link_text="Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971">
<div class="heading">There are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971|Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Duality. Our position in this dual world is we are always doubtful. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66|BG 18.66]]), but we are doubtful. That is material influence. "How it is that simply by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa I become free from all material contamination or sinful activities results?" Doubt. But actually, you should not be doubtful. You should accept because Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You should accept His word as it is. And because we are doubtful, we are presenting Kṛṣṇa in a different way. And there are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7|BG 7.7]]) "There is no more superior authority than Me." We accept that. Then we can understand Bhagavad-gītā and take advantage of it; otherwise (it is) not possible. And that requires daivī sampat, godly characteristics.</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="LectureonSB1234VrndavanaNovember131972_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="102" link="Lecture on SB 1.2.34 -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.2.34 -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972">
<div class="heading">Nobody can become God. God is God; dog is dog. This is the law of identity.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.2.34 -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972|Lecture on SB 1.2.34 -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">The modern fashion is that they want to become God by meditation, by advancement of mystic power. But that kind of God is not Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa does not become God; He's God always. Others, they try to become God by mystic power. We have heard so many so-called Gods, that "He attained such perfection of mystic power. Now he has become God." That is also another māyā. Nobody can become God. God is God; dog is dog. This is the law of identity. A dog cannot become God, neither God becomes dog. This is Māyāvāda theory that at the end the Absolute Truth is void, or impersonal. The Buddhist theory is void and the Māyāvādī theory is impersonal. But our philosophy is that God is originally the Supreme Person. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.11|SB 1.2.11]]). We have discussed this point many times.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB7912MontrealAugust181968_1" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="814" link="Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968" link_text="Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968">
<div class="heading">In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968|Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Generally, in the material sense, when I say, "This is my spectacle," it does not belong to you. Is it not? So this "my" is not that "my." When I say "my God," that does not mean He's not your God. That is the difference. In the material sense, when I say "It is my wife," then it is not any other's wife. But God is not like that. If I say "my God," so you can say "my God," he can say "my God," everyone can say "my God." This is spiritual "my," absolute "my." Try to understand this way, that in the material sense, when I saying something "my," that is different from when I say "my God." That is different. That is not exactly... As we think in the material way, "my thing," "my God," "my home," "my wife," "my wealth," "my bank," it is not like that. But the relationship... Just like I say "my hand." So how can I express? Just like Kṛṣṇa says mamaivāṁśo ([[Vanisource:BG 15.7|BG 15.7]]). Mama means "Mine." "These, all these living creatures, they are My part and parcels." So why the living creatures shall not say "my God"? Do you follow? Kṛṣṇa says "You are Mine." Why shall you not say, "Kṛṣṇa, You are mine." Your husband says, "You are mine." Why shall you not say, "You are mine"? But don't take it in the material sense. In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm. Rather, if anyone wants to possess something as his, then that should be, that possession should be Kṛṣṇa. That is the ultimate conception of "mine." That is the perfection of the word "mine."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Nectar_of_Devotion_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="2" parent="Lectures" text="Nectar of Devotion Lectures"><h3>Nectar of Devotion Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="TheNectarofDevotionBombayJanuary111973_0" class="quote" parent="Nectar_of_Devotion_Lectures" book="Lec" index="25" link="The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 11, 1973" link_text="The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 11, 1973">
<div class="heading">One should be forward to understand what he actually is. The same, same story, that I am simply seeing dreams, day and night. I am seeing, that's a fact. Law of identity, I am. Then what I am? I'm simply seeing these dreams? What is my actual life? That is tattva-jijñāsā.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 11, 1973|The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 11, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Why I am put into this miserable condition of life—birth, death and disease and old age? And threefold miseries—ādhyātmika, ādhibhautika, ādhidaivika? And the whole struggle is to minimize our miserable condition of life. The struggle is going on, whole day: work, day and night. What is the purpose? Ātyantika duḥkha nivṛtti. To minimize our miserable condition of life. So why I am put into this miserable condition of life although I do not know, I do not want it? So what I am? What is my position? That is Bhāgavata decision. The, you don't forget yourself by simply satisfying your senses. Kāmasya nendriya-prītir ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.10|SB 1.2.10]]). Don't be satisfied simply when you see that your senses are satisfied. No. Jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā. One should be forward to understand what he actually is. The same, same story, that I am simply seeing dreams, day and night. I am seeing, that's a fact. Law of identity, I am. Then what I am? I'm simply seeing these dreams? What is my actual life? That is tattva-jijñāsā.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Sri_Isopanisad_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Lectures" text="Sri Isopanisad Lectures"><h3>Sri Isopanisad Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="SriIsopanisadMantra9LosAngelesMay131970_0" class="quote" parent="Sri_Isopanisad_Lectures" book="Lec" index="17" link="Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 9 -- Los Angeles, May 13, 1970" link_text="Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 9 -- Los Angeles, May 13, 1970">
<div class="heading">Kṛṣṇa had no chance to meditate to become God. He is God from the very beginning. That is God. God is God and dog is dog. That is the law of identity.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 9 -- Los Angeles, May 13, 1970|Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 9 -- Los Angeles, May 13, 1970]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So these materialists, they are certainly being pushed in the darkness, but there is another class, who are so-called philosopher, mental speculators, religionists, yogis. They are going still more in the darkness, because they are defying Kṛṣṇa. They are posed as if culturing spiritual knowledge, but because they have no information of Kṛṣṇa, or God, their advancement of education is also more dangerous. More dangerous. Because they are misleading people. The yoga system, the so-called yoga, not the real yoga system... The so-called yoga system, they are preaching, misleading people that "You meditate and you'll understand that you are God." By meditation, one becomes God. (chuckles) You see. So Kṛṣṇa never meditated. Neither He had any chance of meditation, because from the very beginning of His appearance, Kaṁsa was prepared to kill Him. Then He was transferred by His father to the house of Nanda-Yaśodā. There also, when He was sleeping, a baby, three-months-old baby, the Pūtanā demon attacked. So Kṛṣṇa had no chance to meditate to become God. He is God from the very beginning. That is God. God is God and dog is dog. That is the law of identity.</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="LectureExcerptNewYorkApril121969_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="44" link="Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 12, 1969" link_text="Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 12, 1969">
<div class="heading">God is not created by such artificial meditation. God is God. Just like chemically you cannot produce gold. Gold is gold. Iron is iron. Law of identification.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 12, 1969|Lecture Excerpt -- New York, April 12, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So God is not created by such artificial meditation. God is God. Just like chemically you cannot produce gold. Gold is gold. Iron is iron. Law of identification. So His opulence, His strength, His reputation... His reputation, taking Kṛṣṇa as a great personality, I don't think any personality in this world is existing who is so reputed as Kṛṣṇa from historical point of view, five thousand years past. You may... "Kṛṣṇa was Indian. He is famous in India." No. Kṛṣṇa is famous in every country all over the world for His Bhagavad-gītā. You'll find Kṛṣṇa's name in the dictionary also. So in reputation nobody can compete, in wealth nobody can compete, in strength nobody can compete, in wisdom...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureatBharataChamberofCommerceCultureandBusinessCalcuttaJanuary301973_1" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="127" link="Lecture at Bharata Chamber of Commerce 'Culture and Business' -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973" link_text="Lecture at Bharata Chamber of Commerce 'Culture and Business' -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973">
<div class="heading">As living entity, I must be egoistic. Law of identity. How can I say that "I am not"? I am. I am existing. But now I am existing with designations. If I give up my designations, if I become purified, that is my real ego.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture at Bharata Chamber of Commerce 'Culture and Business' -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973|Lecture at Bharata Chamber of Commerce 'Culture and Business' -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">When you come to your real ego, then you become happy. And because you are in false ego, you are unhappy. So ego cannot be changed. Because you are eternal, how you can be, ego can be changed? Just like people say, "Give up desires." How can you desire..., give up desires of a living entity? That is not possible. But I have to purify my desires. That is wanted. Just like if you have got some disease. So if you, some, the physician, they say "Pluck out your eyes," that is not good treatment. But you treat the eyes nicely and the sight may be good. That is wanted. So this bhakti-mārga means sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam. That is bhakti-mārga. You have to give up your false ego. Sarva upādhi. This is upādhi: "I am this, I am that, and..." This upādhi has created trouble in the world. So we have to come to the real ego. Jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). That is mukti. Mukti hitvā anyathā rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ. Now hitvā anyathā rūpam. My ego is going on in a different way. Unnecessarily I am spoiling my life with these designations. But we have to come to the point of our real identity. So nothing can be given up. As living entity, I must be egoistic. Law of identity. How can I say that "I am not"? I am. I am existing. But now I am existing with designations. If I give up my designations, if I become purified, that is my real ego.</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="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1971 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1971 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="InterviewwithReportersNovember101971NewDelhi_0" class="quote" parent="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="27" link="Interview with Reporters -- November 10, 1971, New Delhi" link_text="Interview with Reporters -- November 10, 1971, New Delhi">
<div class="heading">When I will say, "This is a fan," everyone understands it. Law of identification. Kṛṣṇa is identifying Himself, that "This is my energy."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Interview with Reporters -- November 10, 1971, New Delhi|Interview with Reporters -- November 10, 1971, New Delhi]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa says that "I am this," and if you say, "No, Kṛṣṇa is not like this," so that is your nonsense. Kṛṣṇa says, "I am this." If you want to understand, just like if you want to understand me, I say that "I am a sannyāsī, I am a preacher," and if you say, "No, you are not a preacher," then how you can understand? I am giving my identification that "I am this." So you have to understand. You are writing also, understanding like that. So why do you deny it when Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the origin. This is My energy"? What is the reason you deny it? What is the reason?</p>
<p>Reporter: Sir, nobody is denying. Only we are trying to comprehend, understand.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So there is no question of comprehension. When you see a snake, call it a snake. There is no question of comprehension. This is a fan, everyone knows. When I will say, "This is a fan," everyone understands it. Law of identification. Kṛṣṇa is identifying Himself, that "This is my energy."</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Law of identity - Revision history

Visnu Murti at 13:08, 6 May 2022

Labangalatika: Created page with ' {{terms|"law of identification"|"law of identity"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|}} {{goal|9}} {{first|06Jun11}} {{las…'

Labangalatika: Created page with '

{{terms|"law of identification"|"law of identity"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|}} {{goal|9}} {{first|06Jun11}} {{las…'