Jump to content

       

Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanimedia

Vaniquotes - the complete essence of Vedic knowledge

Neglectful (Conv and Letters)

From Vaniquotes
Revision as of 10:51, 3 October 2009 by Labangalatika (talk | contribs) (Created page with '<div id="compilation"> <div id="facts"> {{terms|"neglectful"|"neglectfully"}} {{notes|}} {{compiler|Labangalatika}} {{complete|}} {{goal|9915}} {{first|03Oct09}} {{last|03Oct09}}...')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Expressions researched:
"neglectful" |"neglectfully"

Conversations and Morning Walks

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

The real thing is wanting that the human life is meant for understanding God, there is no such organization. This is the only organization, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. ...neglectful I do not know.
Morning Walk -- June 25, 1975, Los Angeles:

Bahulāśva: You'll not find statements like that in the Bible, that "There is no one superior to Me." You don't find those things in the Bible.

Prabhupāda: No.

Bahulāśva: A little indication that there's God, but no real philosophy. (break)

Prabhupāda: ...manufacturing so many things, United Nations, World Health Organization, and this philanthropism, but the real thing is wanting that the human life is meant for understanding God, there is no such organization. This is the only organization, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. (break) ...neglectful I do not know.

We are not neglectful. "Because he is dog, therefore he should be neglected." No. He should be given.
Morning Walk -- November 3, 1975, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore we like everyone. We do not reject anyone. Dog cannot understand the philosophy. Therefore we call him and give some prasādam. (laughter)

Dr. Patel: So if we take also prasādam, don't... (laughing)

Prabhupāda: Therefore prasāda distribution is one of our program.

Dr. Patel: For?

Prabhupāda: For everyone.

Dr. Patel: (laughs) Sama-darśinaḥ.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We are not neglectful. "Because he is dog, therefore he should be neglected." No. He should be given.