Relative understanding - Revision history

Vanibot: Vanibot #0019: LinkReviser - Revised links and redirected them to the de facto address when redirect exists

2018-05-19T11:13:14Z

Vanibot #0019: LinkReviser - Revised links and redirected them to the de facto address when redirect exists

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:13, 19 May 2018
Line 10:		Line 10:
	{{toc right}}		{{toc right}}
	[[Category:Relative]]		[[Category:Relative]]
	[[Category:Understand]]</div>		[[Category:Understand]]
			[[Category:Absolute and Relative]]</div>
	<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2></div>		<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2></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="Nectar_of_Devotion_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="2" parent="Lectures" text="Nectar of Devotion Lectures"><h3>Nectar of Devotion Lectures</h3></div>
Line 16:		Line 17:
	<div class="heading">In whichever way He acts, it is the same thing. God is good. It does not mean when He fights in the Battlefield of Kurkṣetra He becomes bad. There is no relative understanding, "This is good for God, this is bad for God," as (if) God has come before me to be judged by me. You cannot judge God, Kṛṣṇa.</div>		<div class="heading">In whichever way He acts, it is the same thing. God is good. It does not mean when He fights in the Battlefield of Kurkṣetra He becomes bad. There is no relative understanding, "This is good for God, this is bad for God," as (if) God has come before me to be judged by me. You cannot judge God, Kṛṣṇa.</div>
	<span class="link">[[Vanisource:The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972\|The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pradyumna: "This is the summary understanding of what Kṛṣṇa consciousness is. Without this understanding one is sure to misunderstand why the devotees are interested in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra."</p>		<span class="link">[[Vanisource:The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972\|The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pradyumna: "This is the summary understanding of what Kṛṣṇa consciousness is. Without this understanding one is sure to misunderstand why the devotees are interested in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra."</p>
	<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Sometimes we are asked that "Why Kṛṣṇa induced Arjuna to become violent?" So then so many so-called scholars, they criticize Kṛṣṇa, but they do not know what is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is absolute. In whichever way He acts, it is the same thing. God is good. It does not mean when He fights in the Battlefield of Kurkṣetra He becomes bad. No. He's still good. That is the conception of God: absolute. He can do anything and anything. Still, He continues to be the Absolute Truth. That is Absolute Truth. There is no relative understanding, "This is good for God, this is bad for God," as (if) God has come before me to be judged by me. You cannot judge God, Kṛṣṇa. What He does... Just like Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa: sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi keśava ([[Vanisource:BG 10.14\|BG 10.14]]). "I accept whatever You say in toto, without any distinction." That is acceptance of Bhagavad-gītā and Kṛṣṇa. That is the way of understanding Vedas. You cannot judge the conclusion of the Vedas. You have to accept as it is. Because we are conditioned. We have got so many defects—we are illusioned, we commit mistake, our senses are imperfect... So many defects. Bhrama-pramāda-vipralipsā-kara-ṇāpāṭava, we want to cheat others. So therefore we cannot give perfect knowledge. We have to receive knowledge from the perfect. And who is better perfect than Kṛṣṇa? Therefore whatever Kṛṣṇa says, whatever Kṛṣṇa does, that is all good. There is nothing criticizing. You cannot criticize Kṛṣṇa. That is not possible. You cannot say, "Why Kṛṣṇa took part in the Battlefield of Kuruksetra?" Yes, He had business to do it. Because He appeared, paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām ([[Vanisource:BG 4.8\|BG 4.8]]). He had to kill all the demons. That was His another business. Not only to dance with the gopīs in Vṛndāvana, but He had other business to kill the demons. In Vṛndāvana also, so many demons were appearing daily, and Kṛṣṇa was killing them. So that is another side of Kṛṣṇa's business. But if you study Kṛṣṇa from your materialistic angle of vision, you'll misunderstand. You should know Kṛṣṇa's dancing with the gopīs and Kṛṣṇa's fighting in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra is the one and the same. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.</p></div>		<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Sometimes we are asked that "Why Kṛṣṇa induced Arjuna to become violent?" So then so many so-called scholars, they criticize Kṛṣṇa, but they do not know what is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is absolute. In whichever way He acts, it is the same thing. God is good. It does not mean when He fights in the Battlefield of Kurkṣetra He becomes bad. No. He's still good. That is the conception of God: absolute. He can do anything and anything. Still, He continues to be the Absolute Truth. That is Absolute Truth. There is no relative understanding, "This is good for God, this is bad for God," as (if) God has come before me to be judged by me. You cannot judge God, Kṛṣṇa. What He does... Just like Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa: sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi keśava ([[Vanisource:BG 10.14 (1972)\|BG 10.14]]). "I accept whatever You say in toto, without any distinction." That is acceptance of Bhagavad-gītā and Kṛṣṇa. That is the way of understanding Vedas. You cannot judge the conclusion of the Vedas. You have to accept as it is. Because we are conditioned. We have got so many defects—we are illusioned, we commit mistake, our senses are imperfect... So many defects. Bhrama-pramāda-vipralipsā-kara-ṇāpāṭava, we want to cheat others. So therefore we cannot give perfect knowledge. We have to receive knowledge from the perfect. And who is better perfect than Kṛṣṇa? Therefore whatever Kṛṣṇa says, whatever Kṛṣṇa does, that is all good. There is nothing criticizing. You cannot criticize Kṛṣṇa. That is not possible. You cannot say, "Why Kṛṣṇa took part in the Battlefield of Kuruksetra?" Yes, He had business to do it. Because He appeared, paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām ([[Vanisource:BG 4.8 (1972)\|BG 4.8]]). He had to kill all the demons. That was His another business. Not only to dance with the gopīs in Vṛndāvana, but He had other business to kill the demons. In Vṛndāvana also, so many demons were appearing daily, and Kṛṣṇa was killing them. So that is another side of Kṛṣṇa's business. But if you study Kṛṣṇa from your materialistic angle of vision, you'll misunderstand. You should know Kṛṣṇa's dancing with the gopīs and Kṛṣṇa's fighting in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra is the one and the same. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.</p></div>
	</div>		</div>
	<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3></div>		<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3></div>

Labangalatika: Created page with '
{{terms|"relative understanding"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|ALL}} {{first|20Aug09}} {{last|20Aug09}} {{totals_by_se...'

2009-08-20T16:26:20Z

Created page with '<div id="compilation"><div id="facts"> {{terms|"relative understanding"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|ALL}} {{first|20Aug09}} {{last|20Aug09}} {{totals_by_se...'

New page

<div id="compilation"><div id="facts">
{{terms|"relative understanding"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|20Aug09}}
{{last|20Aug09}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=2|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|2}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Relative]]
[[Category:Understand]]</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2></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="TheNectarofDevotionVrndavanaOctober301972_0" class="quote" parent="Nectar_of_Devotion_Lectures" book="Lec" index="27" link="The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972" link_text="The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972">
<div class="heading">In whichever way He acts, it is the same thing. God is good. It does not mean when He fights in the Battlefield of Kurkṣetra He becomes bad. There is no relative understanding, "This is good for God, this is bad for God," as (if) God has come before me to be judged by me. You cannot judge God, Kṛṣṇa.</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972|The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pradyumna: "This is the summary understanding of what Kṛṣṇa consciousness is. Without this understanding one is sure to misunderstand why the devotees are interested in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Sometimes we are asked that "Why Kṛṣṇa induced Arjuna to become violent?" So then so many so-called scholars, they criticize Kṛṣṇa, but they do not know what is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is absolute. In whichever way He acts, it is the same thing. God is good. It does not mean when He fights in the Battlefield of Kurkṣetra He becomes bad. No. He's still good. That is the conception of God: absolute. He can do anything and anything. Still, He continues to be the Absolute Truth. That is Absolute Truth. There is no relative understanding, "This is good for God, this is bad for God," as (if) God has come before me to be judged by me. You cannot judge God, Kṛṣṇa. What He does... Just like Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa: sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi keśava ([[Vanisource:BG 10.14|BG 10.14]]). "I accept whatever You say in toto, without any distinction." That is acceptance of Bhagavad-gītā and Kṛṣṇa. That is the way of understanding Vedas. You cannot judge the conclusion of the Vedas. You have to accept as it is. Because we are conditioned. We have got so many defects—we are illusioned, we commit mistake, our senses are imperfect... So many defects. Bhrama-pramāda-vipralipsā-kara-ṇāpāṭava, we want to cheat others. So therefore we cannot give perfect knowledge. We have to receive knowledge from the perfect. And who is better perfect than Kṛṣṇa? Therefore whatever Kṛṣṇa says, whatever Kṛṣṇa does, that is all good. There is nothing criticizing. You cannot criticize Kṛṣṇa. That is not possible. You cannot say, "Why Kṛṣṇa took part in the Battlefield of Kuruksetra?" Yes, He had business to do it. Because He appeared, paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām ([[Vanisource:BG 4.8|BG 4.8]]). He had to kill all the demons. That was His another business. Not only to dance with the gopīs in Vṛndāvana, but He had other business to kill the demons. In Vṛndāvana also, so many demons were appearing daily, and Kṛṣṇa was killing them. So that is another side of Kṛṣṇa's business. But if you study Kṛṣṇa from your materialistic angle of vision, you'll misunderstand. You should know Kṛṣṇa's dancing with the gopīs and Kṛṣṇa's fighting in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra is the one and the same. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.</p></div>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3></div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohannGottliebFichte_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="25" link="Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte">
<div class="heading">Ust like the same example I gave the other day, that from a distant place you are seeing this mountain, something cloudy. You come a little forward, you will see it is green, and if you enter the mountain you will see so many varieties. The one is there, but it is due to my relative understanding by distant or nearer the Absolute is appearing in different way.</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Well for, for him, God is simply the universal ego, nothing more, and that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. You say Absolute. As soon as say Absolute there is relative also. Otherwise what is the meaning Absolute?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Yes. He would say that. He would say that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: ...there is the ego and the universal ego.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So then why he is distinguishing, discriminating between personal and impersonal? In the Absolute there is no such difference. That is defined in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, advaya. That is Absolute. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate. Vadanti tat tattva vidas tattvam yaj jñānam advayam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.11|SB 1.2.11]]). That is Absolute. Dvayam, dvayam means relative. That is not relative. So actually we are searching after the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is realized in different ways. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate. The, just like the same example I gave the other day, that from a distant place you are seeing this mountain, something cloudy. You come a little forward, you will see it is green, and if you enter the mountain you will see so many varieties. The one is there, but it is due to my relative understanding by distant or nearer the Absolute is appearing in different way. Absolute is one. That is Absolute. But it is due to my position, qualitative position, we see imperson or all-pervading or Bhagavān. So actually He is Bhagavān. Brahmaṇo ahaṁ pratiṣṭhā. The impersonal feature is standing on Him. Yes. That just like this, this mountain, you see from distance impersonal, but you go to the mountain you will see so many houses, so many persons, so many animals, so many. So because I am looking the Absolute from very distant place, it looks impersonal. Actually it is not. It is my position to see. Although this impersonal is also the Absolute. What you are seeing like vague cloud, this same mountain or the same hill, but...</p></div>
</div></div>

Relative understanding - Revision history

Vanibot: Vanibot #0019: LinkReviser - Revised links and redirected them to the de facto address when redirect exists

Labangalatika: Created page with ' {{terms|"relative understanding"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|ALL}} {{first|20Aug09}} {{last|20Aug09}} {{totals_by_se...'

Labangalatika: Created page with '
{{terms|"relative understanding"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|ALL}} {{first|20Aug09}} {{last|20Aug09}} {{totals_by_se...'