My objection

Expressions researched:
"my first objection" |"my objection" |"my only objection" |"our objection" |"our only objection"

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

First of all let us admit that they are going to the moon planet. That is my first objection, whether they are actually going or giving bluff.

Lecture on SB 2.9.4-8 -- Tokyo, April 23, 1972:

Sudāmā: Śrīla Prabhupāda? If they are really going there in the moon planet, then the bodies of the living entities are different than our bodies because the...

Prabhupāda: No, you cannot go and live there.

Sudāmā: Right. So perhaps if they are really going there, then if they cannot..., and the living entities are living there as it is stated in the scripture, then perhaps they are doing very much damage or intruding, going against the laws of nature.

Prabhupāda: First of all let us admit that they are going. That is my first objection, whether they are actually going or giving bluff.

Pradyumna: And you suggested before that if on the moon planet there was such intelligent beings, that if someone was aiming to go to the moon, they could just by mystic powers...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Divert them.

Pradyumna: Divert them.

Prabhupāda: To some hellish place. (laughter) Nowadays they are going airplane, sometimes diverted. Yes. So if they are demigods, they have got better brain and... There are so many questionable things, contradictions of the... We cannot take, accept it, that the statement in the Vedic literature, they are not right, but they are right. No, we cannot.

Philosophy Discussions

He is giving stress that nature has made man. That is our objection, that nature cannot do anything.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: So it is accepted that nature creates man, and that is not very good philosophy. Nature creates man, then nature is supreme. There is no such thing. And nature is ultimate. Nature is dull matter. What do you call nature? Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ: (BG 7.4) earth, water, fire. They cannot create. Nature cannot create. Otherwise the materialist scientist, they could do it by combining, combining this earth, water, air, fire. So nature is dull, lifeless. How nature can create life? What is the logic? What is the philosophy?

Hayagrīva: He wouldn't say that. He would say that man is nature's final end...

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: ...because man's moral nature alone is worthwhile.

Prabhupāda: No, no. He is giving stress that nature has made man. That is our objection, that nature cannot do anything. Nature has given a body that..., just like a tailor can give me a set of dress, but the dress, when I put on, the dress looks like a man, with hands and legs. But dress is nothing; it is simply outward covering of a man, a living entity. Similarly, nature gives us this material body, outward coating. The inside is living entity, that..., not the creation of this material nature. That is creation of part and parcel of God. This (indistinct) knowledge is imperfect, that nature has created man. That is imperfect knowledge.

1969 Conversations and Morning Walks

Everyone thinks that "I can interpret in my own way." Why? Why this should be? We say, "No. You cannot interpret." Then what is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? The author of Bhagavad-gītā did not leave it for being interpreted by a third-class man. He is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord. He said everything clearly. Why an ordinary man should interpret His word? That is our objection. Therefore we present Bhagavad-gītā As It Is.

Room Conversation With John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison -- September 11, 1969, London, At Tittenhurst:

Prabhupāda: Hrishikesh is also one of the pilgrimage. And there is similarly Kurukṣetra near Delhi. Still that place is there. And that is a place of pilgrimage from the Vedic times. In the Vedas also it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam yajayet. If you want to function in a religious ceremony, just go to Kurukṣetra. So it is a place of pilgrimage. Now the name is there. The adjective dharma-kṣetra, it is from Vedic age. Then the Pāṇḍavas and the Kauravas, they are historical persons. The history is there, Mahābhārata. Then where is the question of interpreting Kurukṣetra as "this body," and the Pāṇḍavas as "the senses"? Where do you get this opportunity to interpret? So these things are going on. But we object, "Why should you interpret in that way when the facts are there?" That means Bhagavad-gītā is very popular book. One has got his own philosophy. He wants to prove it through Bhagavad-gītā. This is going on. There are so many interpretations, 664. Everyone thinks that "I can interpret in my own way." Why? Why this should be? We say, "No. You cannot interpret." Then what is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? The author of Bhagavad-gītā did not leave it for being interpreted by a third-class man. He is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord. He said everything clearly. Why an ordinary man should interpret His word? That is our objection. Therefore we present Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. The MacMillan Company wanted to shorten. (Chuckling) Because they are merchants. They wanted to minimize. Otherwise the book was very big. They wanted to make it only four hundred. Therefore half of the ślokas was not nicely explained. But next time we are going to publish in large and revised edition of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. We must explain everything. So the Bhagavad-gītā is very, very high-class philosophy and theology. Social, political, science—everything is there. It is very nice. And everything is clear. It is explained by Kṛṣṇa. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means to present Bhagavad-gītā as it is. That's all. We have not manufactured anything.

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

If they say, if the preacher say that Swami Narayan name should be chanted... That is my objection. Guru is respected as good as Kṛṣṇa, but that does not mean I shall teach them to go and chant my name, "Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhaktivedanta Swami."

Morning Walk -- March 29, 1974, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: ...nonsense this (Bengali). The people will go to the temple. If they say, if the preacher say that Swami Narayan name should be chanted...

Indian man (4): This is directly (indistinct) Swami Narayan.

Prabhupāda: "Swami Narayan is better than Kṛṣṇa," then what they learn?

Indian man: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: In London they have got a branch, and they're chanting....

Indian man: (Hindi)

Prabhupāda: (Hindi) Swami Narayan. That is my objection. Why they are putting...

Indian man (2): "Swami Narayan, Swami Narayan, Swami Narayan." (laughs)

Prabhupāda: What is this thing? "Swami Narayan." Nārāyaṇa is there.

Indian man (4): Nārāyaṇa is there.

Indian man (2): Swami is their guru and Nārāyaṇa is God, so both, Prabhupāda and Kṛṣṇa, Prabhupāda and Kṛṣṇa, Prabhupāda Kṛṣṇa...

Prabhupāda: But that does not mean they should chant. Just like, we are not instructing our disciples to chant my name, "Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhaktivedanta Swami..." No. They're chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa. Hari-tvena samasta-śāstrair uktaḥ. Guru is respected as good as Kṛṣṇa, but that does not mean I shall teach them to go and chant my name, "Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhaktivedanta Swami." What is this?

We are teaching, "Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa." Harer nāma, harer nāma... (CC Adi 17.21).

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Why should you touch Bhagavad-gītā? You speak, you preach, your own philosophy. There are so many philosophies. But our only objection is that "Why should you preach your nonsense philosophy through Bhagavad-gītā?"

Conversation with Indian Guests -- April 12, 1975, Hyderabad:

Guest (1): The Ramana Maharshi is actually a... Read Bhagavad-gītā. He requested you, "You should always read it."

Prabhupāda: "Always read it," but he never preached about Kṛṣṇa.

Guest (1): Eh?

Prabhupāda: But he never preached about Kṛṣṇa. He may be always reading, but he did not know what is Kṛṣṇa. He never spoke that "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord," never spoke. So what is the use of reading?

Guest (1): Ramana Maharshi?

Prabhupāda: Ramana Maharshi, yes, I am speaking of Ramana Maharshi. He never preached about Kṛṣṇa's superexcellent position, never preached. This is going on. Everyone is taking advantage of Bhagavad-gītā and he's preaching in his own way, foolish way. "Own way" means foolish way. This is going on. You cannot... Suppose you have got your philosophy, but you cannot take my book and preach your philosophy. If you have got philosophy, you write your philosophy. Why do you take advantage of my book and misinterpret? This is cheating. Because my book is very popular, you take advantage of my book and preach your own nonsense philosophy. This is going on. If you want to smoke ganja, you smoke in your own hand. Why you capture my hand and smoke? What is this? So the ganja-smelling will be in my hand, not in your hand. This is going on. Why do they take advantage of Bhagavad-gītā and preach their nonsense philosophy? That is our protest. You preach your nonsense philosophy. We have no objection. But don't touch Bhagavad-gītā. This is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. What is the... Do you think it is honesty that you want to preach something of your own philosophy and you take advantage of my book and mislead others? Is that very good, honest business? This is going on. This is going on, very dangerous position. In our country, and what to speak of other countries, all these swamis, yogis, and politicians, and scholars, they are doing like this. Very dangerous position. Why should you touch Bhagavad-gītā? You speak, you preach, your own philosophy. There are so many philosophies. But our only objection is that "Why should you preach your nonsense philosophy through Bhagavad-gītā?" Do you think it is right?

Guest (1): It's not right.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Guest (1): It's not right.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That you should understand.

1967 Correspondence

Do not misunderstand me that I have no interest in having a permanent building at New York. I want the house more than you; my only objection is that "This is not a regular business transaction" as admitted by you. Why not make it regular now as suggested by my letter to Mr Payne?

Letter to Brahmananda -- San Francisco 17 February, 1967:

In continuation of my yesterday's letter and in reply to your very long letter of the 13rd February 1967 I beg to inform you that I have received one letter from Mr. Payne and the copies of the schemes dated 19th January 1967 which did not fructify.

It appears that Mr. Payne has not been successful to secure any financial assistance till the 14th february 1967 and it is hinted therein that I may also try for the source of money. I have, therefore, replied him and the copy of the reply is enclosed herewith please find.

So my opinion on the house purchase is clearly defined there. We must have a sale contract and then let us try for the fund combinedly. That will be some practical proposition. So far things have been done in "entire negotiation is irregular" as stated in your letter. Now it appears that Mr. Payne is not very hopeful himself for raising the fund otherwise he would not have written me as "It had occurred to me, your Excellency, that there might be a possibility of money source in the area in which you are working. This I do know, money men and their operations there are not so sophisticated or unimaginative as they are here." I think if there is sale contract, it may be possible to raise the fund by combined effort both here and there. Without sale contract it will be not practical to raise fund.

So far records are concerned, the secretary here told me that they are prepared to pay enough for the records up to 1500 pieces.

Do not misunderstand me that I have no interest in having a permanent building at New York. I want the house more than you; my only objection is that "This is not a regular business transaction" as admitted by you. Why not make it regular now as suggested by my letter to Mr Payne? If you can have a sale contract then every thing will be regular and it will be easier to raise fund. What is the difficulty in getting the Sale contract as suggested by me.