Socrates, or what Prabhupada said about Socrates

Socrates, or what Prabhupada said about Socrates

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

You have heard the name of Socrates, a great philosopher, Greek philosopher. He believed in the immortality of soul. So he was punished in the court. Hemlock. Hemlock was offered to him, that “All right, if you believe the immortality of soul, then you drink this hemlock poison.” So he drunk because he was firmly convinced that “Even if I drink this poison… My body will be destroyed, but by destruction of my body, I am not going to be destroyed.”

Lecture on BG 2.7-11 — New York, March 2, 1966: So this sort of lamentation is never done by a learned man. A learned man never does it.” Gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ (BG 2.11). “Those who are learned, one who is learned, he does not lament over the body, either a living body or dead body. There is no question of…” Now, because one who knows the distinction between the body and the soul, firmly con… Just like you have heard the name of Socrates. Soc…, a great philosopher, Greek philosopher. He believed in the immortality of soul. So he was punished in the court. Hemlock. Hemlock was offered to him, that “All right, if you believe the immortality of soul, then you drink this hemlock poison.” So he drunk because he was firmly convinced that “Even if I drink this poison… My body will be destroyed, but by destruction of my body, I am not going to be destroyed.” He was convinced. So he did not lament. So a paṇḍita, learned man, must know that this body and soul, the distinction, the difference between body and soul… The body is not soul, and the soul is not body, and one who knows, he is learned man.

I gave you the other day the example of Socrates. He was convinced that “I am not this body.” So he was offered poison. He gladly took it, that “What is that? I shall take it!” Because he was mukta-puruṣa. He is liberated soul.
Lecture on BG 2.12 — New York, March 9, 1966: Similarly, as soon as we come to the spiritual understanding of our existence, then our life will be joyful. That is a sign. Whether a man is freed from this material existence, mukti… Mukti can be achieved even in this life. Mukti. Mukti. It is, it is, it is a question of conviction. Now we are convinced firmly that “I am this material body. And as soon as… I gave you the other day the example of Socrates. He was convinced that “I am not this body.” So he was offered poison. He gladly took it, that “What is that? I shall take it!” Because he was mukta-puruṣa. It is… He is liberated soul. “Never mind. You want to kill me. Kill me. I don’t mind. All right.” So this liberation. This is liberation.

Suppose somebody says: “Oh, I shall kill you! I shall kill you!” Somebody becomes very much afraid. But a person who is situated in pure consciousness, he’s not afraid. We have got very practical example in the life of a great philosopher, Greek philosopher, Socrates.
Lecture on BG 2.55-58 — New York, April 15, 1966: Bhaya means fear, being afraid of. Now suppose somebody says: “Oh, I shall kill you! I shall kill you!” Somebody becomes very much afraid. But a person who is situated in pure consciousness, he’s not afraid. We have got very practical example in the life of a great philosopher, Greek philosopher, Socrates. He believed in the immortality of the soul, and he was offered hemlock, poison, that “If you believe in immortality, immortality of the soul, then you drink this poison.” “Yes, I shall drink it.” So he drunk it, and he, his body, of course, stopped functioning because poison will act. But he was not afraid of drinking poison because he, he was completely situated in that platform. So there is no fear. So long bodily conception of life is there, oh, fearfulness will be always there in proportionately. As much I get rid of this bodily conception of life, then my fearfulness also decreases. And so long I am absorbed in bodily conception of life, my fearfulness is greater.

Socrates was condemned to death because he believed in the…, an immortality of the soul. So he was condemned to death, and he was asked to take hemlock or something like that, poison. And the judge wanted: “Well, Socrates, how do you want to be put into the grave?” He replied, “First of all, you catch me. Then you put me into the grave. (laughter).
Lecture on BG 7.15-18 — New York, October 9, 1966: A person who is in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he doesn’t care for all this material distress or insult or honor, because he is aloof from this. He doesn’t… He knows very well that “This designation, this honor, or this insult, they are pertaining to my body, but I am not this body.” Just like Socrates. Socrates was condemned to death because he believed in the…, an immortality of the soul. So he was condemned to death, and he was asked to take hemlock or something like that, poison. And the judge wanted: “Well, Socrates, how do you want to be put into the grave?” He replied, “First of all, you catch me. Then you put me into the grave. (laughter) You are dealing with my body, nonsense. I am out of this. So you kill me or you put me into the grave or whatever you like, I don’t mind. First of all, you catch me. Then you put me into the grave.”

The judges enquired, “Mr. Socrates, now you are going to die, so what kind of grave you want?” So Socrates replied, “First of all capture me. Then you put me into the grave.”
Lecture on BG 16.1-3 — Hawaii, January 29, 1975: In the Western countries there is only one philosopher, Socrates. He was condemned to death because he was speaking that “I am soul. I am eternal.” That was his fault. So the judges enquired, “Mr. Socrates, now you are going to die, so what kind of grave you want?” So Socrates replied, “First of all capture me. Then you put me into the grave.” That is the fact. “You rascal, you are talking of my this body. So body is already material. You put it in the grave or in the hell. It doesn’t matter. But I am eternal. You cannot capture me.” So this is knowledge.

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

We see that mostly your Western philosophers, they are stuck up on the platform of mind. That’s all. They’re thinking this is the final. So far I’ve studied only Socrates. He has reached up to the point of soul.
Lecture on SB 6.1.28-29 — Honolulu, May 28, 1976: Philosophy, poetry, imagination, the mind mental… As we see that mostly your Western philosophers, they are stuck up on the platform of mind. That’s all. They’re thinking this is the final. So far I’ve studied only Socrates. He has reached up to the point of soul. Otherwise, all Western philosophers, they’re on the mental platform.

 

General Lectures

Human being must try to understand, “What I am?” This is called knowledge. And when he comes to the understanding ahaṁ brahmāsmi, “I am spirit soul, oh, I am spirit soul…” Just like Socrates, he realized.
Lecture — Los Angeles, December 4, 1968: The dog thinks that “I am this body”; the cat thinks, “I am this body.” But if a human being thinks that “I am this body,” then what is the difference between cats and dogs? Human being must try to understand, “What I am?” This is called knowledge. And when he comes to the understanding ahaṁ brahmāsmi, “I am spirit soul, oh, I am spirit soul…” Just like Socrates, he realized. When he was asked by the judge, “Mr. Socrates, how you want to be entombed?” he answered, “First of all, capture me; then you entomb me. You are seeing my body. You have no vision that I am soul.” This is right vision.

 

Philosophy Discussions
How many Socrates will you find? Then again he comes to the minimum. You cannot find Socrates on the street, loitering.
Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:
Śyāmasundara: But his idea is to find or to utilize those principles of life which give qualitatively and quantitatively the most pleasure to the most people. That means, he says, by quality he means… Like, for instance, he makes the statement, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Prabhupāda: But how many Socrates will you find? Then again he comes to the minimum. You cannot find Socrates on the street, loitering.

Śyāmasundara: But he says that that standard of pleasure…

Prabhupāda: Then where is the question of maximum men? A Socrates you will find in millions, one.

Śyāmasundara: But he says that that standard of pleasure that Socrates…

Prabhupāda: Then there is no question of maximum people. The number of Socrates is not maximum. That is minimum. That is minimum. If you come to the question of quality, the quality philosophy, quality understanding, that is for the minimum. Just like Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye: (BG 7.3) “Out of millions and millions of persons, one person is trying to become perfect.” And yatatām api siddhānāṁ kaścid vetthi māṁ tattvataḥ: (BG 7.3) “Out of millions of such perfect men, one may understand Me, Kṛṣṇa.” That is not quantity, that is quality. That is quality.

If I am dissatisfied spiritually or I am not making advance, I am still on the material platform. That is good. That dissatisfaction is… Socrates also. Yes. And ass, cats, dogs, they are satisfied with a morsel of grass, that’s all. You see? A little stool, what is the value of that satisfaction? What is the value of that? That is our philosophy.
Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:
Prabhupāda: Dissatisfaction is a good thing if it is for better advancement. That is wanted. Dissatisfaction. Just like the karmīs, they are also dissatisfied with 100,000 of dollars. That means they want to make one million thousands of dollars. So that kind of dissatisfaction for the karmī is good, because he can increase further assets. Similarly, if I am dissatisfied spiritually or I am not making advance, I am still on the material platform. That is good. That dissatisfaction is… Socrates also. Yes. And ass, cats, dogs, they are satisfied with a morsel of grass, that’s all. You see? A little stool, what is the value of that satisfaction? What is the value of that? That is our philosophy.

Socrates or any other philosopher, they cannot understand the potency of God, how He can remain in His own place, simultaneously in every atom. That is the conception of God.
Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:
Hayagrīva: According to Socrates, the pursuit of man is the seeking of this absolute good. Basically Socrates is an impersonalist because he does not ultimately define this absolute good as a person, nor does he give the absolute good a personal name. He just calls it “the good.”
Prabhupāda: That is preliminary stage of understanding the Absolute. Because the…, the beginning, Brahman realization, impersonal, and then further advanced Paramātmā realization, localized, God is everywhere. And God is everywhere, that’s a fact. That is God. But He has got His place, abode. That is God, that goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhuto (Bs. 5.37), that God is Person, He has His own abode, He has his own associates and everything. Difference is that although He is in His abode, He is present everywhere, even within the atom. Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham (Bs. 5.35). So Socrates or any other philosopher, they cannot understand the potency of God, how He can remain in His own place, simultaneously in every atom. That is the conception of God. So everywhere He is staying. Everything is His expansion, His energy, the bhūmir āpo ‘nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca (BG 7.4). The material world is bhūmir āpo ‘nalo vāyuḥ-land, water, earth, air. So these are different expansion of God’s energy. So He can be present everywhere because His energy is expanded everywhere. So energy and the energetic, they are not different, but at the same time energy is not the energetic. This simultaneously one and different, acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, this is perfect philosophy.

The perfection of yoga means to see God within himself. That is perfection of yoga. So this process, as Socrates used to give chance to his disciple, that is good process, to give him chance to develop his understanding.
Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:
Prabhupāda: The perfection of yoga means to see God within himself. That is perfection of yoga. So this process, as Socrates used to give chance to his disciple, that is good process, to give him chance to develop his understanding. The teacher helps. Just like the father and mother give the child. First of all he helps, taking his hand, “Now walk, walk,” and sometimes he gives him pleasure: “Now you walk. Let me see how you walk. Now you walk.” Although he sometimes falls down, but a father will encourage, “Oh, you are very nice. Stand up, stand up again. Walk.” So give chance to the disciple how they can think properly to go back to home, back to Godhead, teacher is giving instruction and tries to see how he has developed. So that process is natural. And another process is that suppose a man comes to argue, so you should give him first chance, “All right, you say what is the import of these verses.” Then he can understand his position, where he is. Then he captures him. Because an expert, he knows how to capture the fool. So let the fool first of all go on, talk all nonsense, then he’ll understand where he is and he will capture. That is also a process.

Like Socrates said that goodness is not all, that still you have to…, and that is bhakti. Then his realization is perfect. He becomes liberated, and then gradually he develops love of God, then he is in the original state.
Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:
Prabhupāda: If we hear Bhāgavatam, Bhagavad-gītā regularly, then we become free from the effects of the modes of ignorance and passion, gradually, although it takes… But it is sure. The more you hear about Kṛṣṇa, or—Kṛṣṇa means His instruction or about Him, what He is—the more you become purified. So that is the test, that how one has become purified means one is purified from the base quality of passion and ignorance, means that he is no more attacked by greediness and passion. That is the test. That means he is free from the base qualities, and he is situated, ceta etair anāviddhaṁ sthitaṁ sattve prasīdati. When he is no more disturbed by these base qualities of passion and greediness, then he is happy. Then he becomes happy. Ceta etair anāvi…, sthitasya, that is goodness. That is goodness. Then he is happy, happiness, that the ultimate stage of goodness is brahma-bhūtaḥ, to realize himself, realize God. So goodness, one must come to the platform of goodness. So we are therefore asking people to give up these base qualitative activities—illicit sex and meat-eating and drinking or intoxication and gambling. These are base qualities. So anyone gives up these qualities, he remains in the sattva-guṇa. And then if he is promoted farther, just like Socrates said that goodness is not all, that still you have to…, and that is bhakti. Then his realization is perfect. He becomes liberated, and then gradually he develops love of God, then he is in the original state. Bhaktir hitvā anyathā. As mukti, liberation, means that to be free from this all nonsense engagements. Nitya-baddha, they are engaged, all these karmīs, jñānīs, yogis, they are simply engaged in some false engagements to become happy. So when one is free from these false engagements, then he is in the liberated state. Mukti means muktir hitvā anyathā rūpam. Anyathā rūpam means he is acting otherwise. So one has to come to the real position, not work, act otherwise. So he is eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. When he fully engage himself in the service of Kṛṣṇa, then he is liberated, and if he keeps himself, then nobody can touch, the māyā cannot touch. Daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā (BG 7.14). Māyā is very strong, but if one keeps in touch with Kṛṣṇa constantly, māyā has no jurisdiction. Māyām etāṁ taranti te. This is perfection of life.

Actually the main philosophy is Socrates.
Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:
Hayagrīva: So that’s the conclusion of the additional notes on Socrates, Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda: Yes, it was very, very nice.

Hayagrīva: And if new philosophers that we will present eventually, oh, um, I don’t know if these were ever…

Prabhupāda: Actually the main philosophy is Socrates. He is (indistinct).

Hayagrīva: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, these have been done. Just a little, a few additions. But then there’s Plotinus, Origen, and Augustine, and these were the three philosophers who shaped Christian thought or Catholic, the Church thought, Church fathers, and St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus and Eckhart, these are Christian…

Prabhupāda: So they are not philosopher; they are Christian with different point of views. So we are not going to discuss with a person he is from the stand…, deviating from the standard way and thinking in their mental speculation.

 

Conversations and Morning Walks

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

A God’s servant must speak the truth. Just like Jesus Christ. He was crucified. Nobody took his words. But he did it. If people would have accepted his philosophy, then why he was crucified by the judges? It was done by the judges, Roman judges. So this is the position of the world. Socrates was killed because he said that there is soul. This is the defect of Western civilization.
Morning Walk — May 16, 1975, Perth:
Prabhupāda: People may take or not take, but a God’s servant must speak the truth. Just like Jesus Christ. He was crucified. Nobody took his words. But he did it. If people would have accepted his philosophy, then why he was crucified by the judges? It was done by the judges, Roman judges. So this is the position of the world. Socrates was killed because he said that there is soul. This is the defect of Western civilization.

Socrates said there is soul, and he was killed because vox populi was against. Christ was killed because vox populi was against. This is the defect of the Western civilization.
Morning Walk — May 16, 1975, Perth:
Prabhupāda: The people may be asses, but still, their votes will be taken, the vox populi. The fourth-class, fifth-class men, and they are giving vote. And the mistake is detected. Just like this Nixon was voted and the mistake was detected. But still, they follow the same process, vox populi. What is the value of the votes of the fourth-class, fifth-class men? Better one intelligent man, if he knows things, if he is liberated, if he says, “This is right,” that should be taken. That is Vedic civilization. We are accepting Kṛṣṇa. We are not accepting the vox populi. One person, the Supreme, that’s all. This is our process. We don’t accept vox populi. All these Vedic literature are accepted not on the people’s vote, but who is presenting? Vyāsadeva is presenting, Kṛṣṇa is presenting. Parāśara Muni is presenting. Therefore they are accepted. You cannot expect the mass of people very intelligent. That is not possible. So what is the value of their votes if they are not intelligent?
But in the Western countries this is the disease, vox populi. Socrates said there is soul, and he was killed because vox populi was against. Christ was killed because vox populi was against. This is the defect of the Western civilization.

Socrates. He was condemned to death. So the judges inquired, “Mr. Socrates, what kind of grave you will like?” So he answered, “First of all, catch me. Then talk of grave.” (laughter).

Morning Walk — June 10, 1975, Honolulu:
Harikeśa: So someone who’s actually following the scientific method, when he comes up to these bewildering conclusions about a devotee, he will be forced to inquire into the spiritual consciousness? Therefore we might be able to say this is a bona fide thing.
Prabhupāda: Huh?

Harikeśa: Because they are bewildered—they will see the conclusions, they are bewildered—they will then have to inquire further, “Well, why is this? Why is this?” They will have to come to the spiritual platform to understand.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.

Harikeśa: Therefore we can make the devotees through this…?

Siddha-svarūpa: But they’re bewildered already. They don’t need to look at their graphs to become bewildered. (laughs)

Harikeśa: But they don’t think they’re bewildered, so that’s the difference.

Siddha-svarūpa: Well, when they see their graphs, they still may not think they’re bewildered. They may make the conclusion…

Harikeśa: No, they even admit they’re bewildered.

Prabhupāda: The reply was given by Socrates. He was condemned to death. So the judges inquired, “Mr. Socrates, what kind of grave you will like?” So he answered, “First of all, catch me. Then talk of grave.” (laughter)

 

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
Socrates did not believe like that.
‘Life Comes From Life’ Slideshow Discussions — July 3, 1976, Washington, D.C.:
Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes, it is in his name, Pasteur. He is a famous scientist. He was a chemist and biochemist, and he did this experiment in the 1860s. Now the flask… This experiment is called a “swan-neck” experiment because the shape of the neck of the flask looks like the neck of a swan. So it is the famous “swan-neck experiment.” Now, at that time, it was quite amazing that even the so-called famous Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and all these philosophers, even they believed that life actually comes from matter. They had all complete materialistic view of life, completely on the bodily concept. Now, at that time…
Prabhupāda: But Socrates did not believe like that.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Socrates also believed in material concept.

Rūpānuga: No, Socrates did not think he was the body.

Prabhupāda: He separated body from the soul.

 

1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
When Socrates was condemned to death, the judges inquired that “How Mr. Socrates wants to be entombed?” When the judges inquired Socrates, “How you want to be entombed?” Socrates: “First of all capture me. Then to the question of entomb me.”
Room Conversation With Svarupa Damodara — October 15, 1977, Vrndavana:
Prabhupāda: Let them make advance in scientific research, but still they cannot capture the real thing.
Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: Just like I have heard it, when Socrates was condemned to death, the judges inquired that “How Mr. Socrates wants to be entombed?” When the judges inquired Socrates, “How you want to be entombed?” Socrates: “First of all capture me. Then to the question of entomb me.” What he said?

Abhirāma: That is a historical fact.

Prabhupāda: No. What is the wording?

Abhirāma: He said, “First you’ll have to catch me.”

Bhāgavata: Until you have spoken about this, though, Śrīla Prabhupāda, no one really understood the deep meaning of what Socrates had said. It is by your grace that the light has been put on that, as to what is the deep meaning of what Socrates meant, that he was talking about the soul. Generally people cannot understand these things.

 

Correspondence
1947 to 1965 Correspondence
You have rightly said the following words in this connection viz.
“So we search for new ways, new aspects of the truth more in harmony with our environment. And we question each other and debate and quarrel and evolve any number of ‘isms’ and philosophies. As in the days of Socrates, we live in an age of questioning, but the questioning is not confined to a city like Athens: it is worldwide”.

Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru — Allahabad 20 January, 1952: Your article heading as “Let us be True to one another” published in the A.B. Patrika (Allahabad Edition) D/30.12.51 attracted my attention and I read it over and over again. This article contains the nucleus of future activities of the human society in the spiritual realm and I have read in your statement about your deep thought on the onward march of human civilization. You have rightly said the following words in this connection viz.
“So we search for new ways, new aspects of the truth more in harmony with our environment. And we question each other and debate and quarrel and evolve any number of ‘isms’ and philosophies. As in the days of Socrates, we live in an age of questioning, but the questioning is not confined to a city like Athens: it is worldwide”.

There are two ways of answering such questions, I mean the deductive way and inductive way.

As the Socratesian ways of reasoning is not bound up within the walls of Athens so also the Brahminical culture is not bound up within the walls of India.
Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru — Allahabad 20 January, 1952: The Vedas, the Bible or the Koran would ask the human being to make proper use of his conserved energy in the transcendental service of God and unsophisticated men in the old days would follow such instruction unhesitatingly for realizing the Absolute Truth. Such temples, mosques were therefore centres of high culture to provide real food to human consciousness.
But in the present age in the absence of such high culture there is hardly any difference between the temples, mosques and cathedrals and the high commercial buildings in a busy city. If the culture is to be revived it is quite possible to do it even in your parliamentary buildings in New Delhi or in the commercial buildings of New York. As the Socratesian ways of reasoning is not bound up within the walls of Athens so also the Brahminical culture is not bound up within the walls of India.

The Socratesian way of reasoning should be fully utilized because that makes the only difference between a human being and a beast.
Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru — Allahabad 20 January, 1952: One Brahmin-Gandhi Congressman is quite competent to guide its principle whereas thousand other sudra congressmen can only help it to break it up into pieces.
Thus if we want to approach the Absolute Truth by new ways in harmony with present environment we should try to be true to one another in the qualified way of Brahminical culture. Only a dozen of real qualified Brahmins from all parts of the world should combine to guide the principles of the Ksatriyas, the Vaisya and the Sudras all over the world. The Socratesian way of reasoning should be fully utilized because that makes the only difference between a human being and a beast. There is ample scope for this new way of approaching the Absolute Truth and that will only solve the acute distressing world problem. If there is scarcity of such qualified Brahmins which I honestly think there is, we should combine to evolve such Brahminical culture not by blind faith but by sound reasoning and questioning.

 

1971 Correspondence
I am preparing one book answering all types of philosophical arguments. Syamasundara. every morning is putting questions from different angles of vision beginning from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. and we are trying to answer.
Letter to Madhudvisa — Kenya 15 September, 1971: Yes, this program is very nice to try to attract the attention of the students seriously. That will be a great success. They should put intelligent questions and they should be answered properly with reference to modern science and philosophy. That will be very much convincing. I think if you read our books thoroughly you will get a supply of material to answer all the questions. Now I am preparing one book answering all types of philosophical arguments. Syamasundara. every morning is putting questions from different angles of vision beginning from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. and we are trying to answer. We shall discuss also Marx philosophy of communism. It will require some time but I wish that all our preachers should be well versed with all philosophical ideas and after studying all philosophical points of view we will put Krishna Conscious philosophy on the top.

We can challenge any nonsense philosophy. Socrates, Plato, Kant, Darwin—all of them—so many mental speculators and word jugglers who have misled so many people. Now it is your task to find them out and expose them, so that the people may appreciate the real philosophy.
Letter to Locana — Delhi 24 November, 1971: I am very pleased that you have accepted the responsibility of managing such an important center as Berkeley. I know that there are many students in that city, so just attract them to our Krishna Consciousness Movement by giving them prasadam and our Krishna philosophy. We can challenge any nonsense philosophy. Socrates, Plato, Kant, Darwin—all of them—so many mental speculators and word jugglers who have misled so many people. Now it is your task to find them out and expose them, so that the people may appreciate the real philosophy.

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Person who is situated in pure consciousness, he’s not afraid. We have got very practical example in the life of a great philosopher, Greek philosopher, Socrates. He believed in the immortality of the soul, and he was offered hemlock, poison, that “If you believe in immortality, immortality of the soul, then you drink this poison.” “Yes, I shall drink it.” So he drunk it, and he, his body, of course, stopped functioning because poison will act. But he was not afraid of drinking poison because he, he was completely situated in that platform.
Lecture on BG 2.55-58 — New York, April 15, 1966: So in spite of all this, he’s aloof from all these things. That will make him completely happy. Vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ sthita-dhīr munir ucyate (BG 2.56). And because such consciousness prevails, so he has neither attachment, rāga-rāga means attachment—and bhaya. Bhaya means fear, being afraid of. Now suppose somebody says: “Oh, I shall kill you! I shall kill you!” Somebody becomes very much afraid. But a person who is situated in pure consciousness, he’s not afraid. We have got very practical example in the life of a great philosopher, Greek philosopher, Socrates. He believed in the immortality of the soul, and he was offered hemlock, poison, that “If you believe in immortality, immortality of the soul, then you drink this poison.” “Yes, I shall drink it.” So he drunk it, and he, his body, of course, stopped functioning because poison will act. But he was not afraid of drinking poison because he, he was completely situated in that platform. So there is no fear. So long bodily conception of life is there, oh, fearfulness will be always there in proportionately. As much I get rid of this bodily conception of life, then my fearfulness also decreases. And so long I am absorbed in bodily conception of life, my fearfulness is greater.
So vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ (BG 2.56). Because the function of the body… So far we have body, our body’s concerned, there are four things, demands of the body… Āhāra, āhāra, nidrā, bhaya, maithuna. Āhāra means eating, and nidrā means sleeping, and bhaya means fearing, and maithuna means mating. So these are the demands of the body. So one who is free from the conception of body, his demands, his āhāra, his nidrā, or his eating, his sleeping, his fear, and his sex desire, will automatically decrease. That is the situation. That is the situation of, of pure consciousness. Vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ sthita-dhīr munir ucyate (BG 2.56). Sthita dhīr munir ucyate. Even he is not affected by the greatest allurement. Greatest allurement.

 

1947 to 1965 Correspondence
As the Socratesian ways of reasoning is not bound up within the walls of Athens so also the Brahminical culture is not bound up within the walls of India. You can find out the nine prescribed qualifications of a Brahmin, the seven qualifications of Ksatriyas, the three qualifications of Vaisya and the one qualification of a sudra, world wide. You can therefore pick up Brahmins and other orders of society all the world over.
Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru — Allahabad 20 January, 1952: Dear Panditji,
Your article heading as “Let us be True to one another” published in the A.B. Patrika (Allahabad Edition) D/30.12.51 attracted my attention and I read it over and over again. This article contains the nucleus of future activities of the human society in the spiritual realm and I have read in your statement about your deep thought on the onward march of human civilization. You have rightly said the following words in this connection viz.

“So we search for new ways, new aspects of the truth more in harmony with our environment. And we question each other and debate and quarrel and evolve any number of ‘isms’ and philosophies. As in the days of Socrates, we live in an age of questioning, but the questioning is not confined to a city like Athens: it is worldwide”.

There are two ways of answering such questions, I mean the deductive way and inductive way. Mortality of man is established by either of the above ways. In deductive way we take it for granted from reliable source, “Man is Mortal.” But in the inductive way we approach the same truth by our poor reasoning of “observation and experiment.” By observation we can see that Gandhi dies, Fotilal dies, C.R. Das dies, Patel dies and therefore we conclude that man dies or, “Man is Mortal”. Then again in the same deductive way when we reason that man is mortal, and find that Jawaharlal is a man and thus conclude that Jawaharlal is mortal.

Truth means Absolute Truth. Relative truth is conditional and when the conditions fail, the relative truth disappears. But Absolute Truth does not exist on conditions it is above all conditions. So when we speak of truth, we may take it for the Absolute Truth. And when we speak of approaching the Truth by new ways, we may take it for granted what we want to approach the Truth by the inductive way.

Absolute Truth is described in the Vedas as Satyam Param Dhimahi—the summum bonum. And from this Absolute Truth everything emanates. “Janmadyasya yatah”. This Absolute Truth is described in the Vedic literatures as Sanatana or Eternal. And the philosophy or science which deals in such eternal subjects is described as Sanatana Dharma.

Therefore, we have first to find out the Eternal Absolute Truth by some new ways(?) and then we have to find out the new aspects of Absolute Truth in harmony with our present environment.

The present environment is undoubtedly different from the old. And if we compare the present with the old—we can very easily discover that

1. People in the present age are generally shortliving. The average duration of life being 30 years or so.

2. They are generally not very simple. Almost everyman is designing and crooked.

3. They have no scope for high thinking because they are perplexed with different relative truths.

4. Unfortunate as they are in this age their problems remain unsolved for the whole life even though they are tackled by their leaders. They make the best effort to solve a problem but unfortunately the same becomes more acute and stringent.

5. And above all, people in this age are always distressed by famine, scarcity, grieves and diseases in an increasing ratio.

In the old days life was not so much conditional and encumbered. The simple problems were then the problems of bread, clothing and shelter which were solved by the simplest process. By agriculture they used to solve the bread, clothing and shelter problems and industrialization was unknown to them. Thus they had no idea of living in big palatial buildings at the cost of sacrificing the boon of humanity. They were satisfied to live in the cottages and yet they were perfectly intelligent. Even the famous Canakya Pandit who was the Prime Minister of India during the reign of Candragupta, used to live in a cottage and draw no salary from the State. Such simple habits did not deteriorate his high intelligence and dignity and as such he had compiled many useful literatures which are still read by millions for social and political guidance. Thus the simplicity of Brahmanical culture was an ideal to the subordinate others of the society and in the Deductive way the subordinate orders, namely the the Ksatriyas, the Vaisyas and the Sudras would follow the instruction of the cultured Brahmin. Such ways of approaching the Truth is always simple, plain and perhaps the most perfect.

The cultured Brahmin-order of the society would declare that there is God or Brahman and the Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and the Sudras who were less cultured than the Brahmins—would follow the later faithfully call it blindly or otherwise. By such faithfully following the subordinate classes would be able to save much time in the matter of arguing or reasoning for the existence of God at all, and still they would not be faithless.

In the old days even a politician Brahmin like Canakya would say that

Vidwatamcha Nrpatamcha

Naiva Tulaya Kadacana

Swadesa Pujyate Raja

Vidvar Sarbatra Pujyato.

A really cultured learned fellow is far above a politician. Because a politician is honoured by the votes of his countrymen while a cultured and learned fellow is honoured everywhere all over the world. So we say that Ravindra Natha and Gandhi were never dependant for the votes of their countrymen but they were honoured all over the world for their cultural contribution. The same Canakya Pandit defined the standard of learning. The standard of learning had had to be testified by its result and not by the manner of University degrees. He said that one, who looks upon all women, except one’s married wife as mothers—all other’s wealth as the pebbles on the street and all living being as one’s own self,—is really learned fellow. He never stressed on the point of standard of how many grammars, rhetorics or other books of knowledge one might have gone through, or how many Doctorates of different Universities one might have been decorated with.

At the present moment we know very well that a few men look upon other women, besides one’s married wife as mothers; very few men will look upon other’s wealth as pebbles on the street and very few men will try to behave with other living beings as one wants to be treated oneself.

The sages of old age discovered it by spiritual culture that man’s energy should be utilized only for spiritual realization. Not to speak of Lord Sri Krishna who spoke the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita near about 5000 years ago, we know that within 2000 years of human history no sages including Jesus Christ, prophet Mohammed, Lord Buddha, Acarya Sankara, Madhya, Ramanuja or even Lord Caitanya gave any importance to materialistic way of living. Material necessities were always subordinate to the spiritual realization. They saw it that the bread problem, clothing problem and shelter problem are never solved by material activities because in the law of nature the elephant is given the whole jungle to eat and the little ant is given a grain of sugar to solve their respective bread problems and yet the animals remain hungry. It is not the question of a jungle or a grain of sugar that can solve our bread problem but it is the question of real food that can quench the hunger of human being and revitalise him to proper life. Human being therefore should not be encouraged to satisfy his unsatiated hunger like the giant elephant or the little ant but he should be trained up otherwise which shall provide for his real food.

The wonderful temples, the mosques and the cathedrals of past centuries were built up to give them the real food and were not built up by blind or unquestioning faith. The were built up on full faith and reasoning which were based on the deductive process. The Vedas, the Bible or the Koran would ask the human being to make proper use of his conserved energy in the transcendental service of God and unsophisticated men in the old days would follow such instruction unhesitatingly for realizing the Absolute Truth. Such temples, mosques were therefore centres of high culture to provide real food to human consciousness.

But in the present age in the absence of such high culture there is hardly any difference between the temples, mosques and cathedrals and the high commercial buildings in a busy city. If the culture is to be revived it is quite possible to do it even in your parliamentary buildings in New Delhi or in the commercial buildings of New York. As the Socratesian ways of reasoning is not bound up within the walls of Athens so also the Brahminical culture is not bound up within the walls of India. You can find out the nine prescribed qualifications of a Brahmin, the seven qualifications of Ksatriyas, the three qualifications of Vaisya and the one qualification of a sudra, world wide. You can therefore pick up Brahmins and other orders of society all the world over. Gandhiji although born in a Vaisya family, possessed almost all the nine qualifications of a Brahmin and if possible we can find out such Brahmin in other parts of the World.

One Brahmin-Gandhi Congressman is quite competent to guide its principle whereas thousand other sudra congressmen can only help it to break it up into pieces.

Thus if we want to approach the Absolute Truth by new ways in harmony with present environment we should try to be true to one another in the qualified way of Brahminical culture. Only a dozen of real qualified Brahmins from all parts of the world should combine to guide the principles of the Ksatriyas, the Vaisya and the Sudras all over the world. The Socratesian way of reasoning should be fully utilized because that makes the only difference between a human being and a beast. There is ample scope for this new way of approaching the Absolute Truth and that will only solve the acute distressing world problem. If there is scarcity of such qualified Brahmins which I honestly think there is, we should combine to evolve such Brahminical culture not by blind faith but by sound reasoning and questioning. But all the same we must be sincere and thorough in our attempt.

As an humble disciple of Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami, I wish to remain always true to you and everyone. And if you sincerely be true to your forefather, I mean the Brahminical culture, you have the strength and capacity to save the world by presenting the Brahminical culture once again for consummation of the distressed world. In such acts of your broadness of mind, I am always at your service.

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
You have heard the name of Socrates. Soc…, a great philosopher, Greek philosopher. He believed in the immortality of soul. So he was punished in the court. Hemlock. Hemlock was offered to him, that “All right, if you believe the immortality of soul, then you drink this hemlock poison.” So he drunk because he was firmly convinced that “Even if I drink this poison… My body will be destroyed, but by destruction of my body, I am not going to be destroyed.”
Lecture on BG 2.7-11 — New York, March 2, 1966: So these are opulences: wealth, strength, fame, beauty, knowledge and renunciation—six things. Anyone who possess all these six opulences in full, He is God. That is the definition of God. So when Kṛṣṇa was present on this earth, He showed His opulence, opulences, in full. Opulences in full. Of course, we have got all these historical records about Him. Now, so far His wealth is concerned, He had 16,108 wives. And for each of them, for each of them, He built a palace. And all those palaces were so nicely built that there was no need of electricity or light. It was bedecked with jewels. So day and night, they were blazing. You see? So these description are there. But if we forget that, that He is God, then this will be something like story, that “How a man can marry sixteen thousand wives? How He…?” But we should always remember that He is God. He is all-powerful. And for no other person such historical records are there, only for Kṛṣṇa. So in strength also nobody could conquer Him. And beauty… So far beauty is concerned, when He was on the battlefield… Have you seen any picture of Kṛṣṇa? Have you seen? Oh, no. Any one of you have seen Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa, when He was present in the battle, Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, at that time He was about ninety years old. Ninety years old. He had His great-grandchildren. He married sixteen thousand wives, and each wife had ten children. And those ten children, they also got, each, ten, twelve children. And they had children also. Because He was at that time ninety years old, He got at that time great-grandchildren also. So His family was very great. Now, if you see the picture of Kṛṣṇa, you’ll see Him just like a boy of twenty-two, twenty-five years old. He was so beautiful. He was so beautiful. Then… That is the sign of God. It is stated in Brahma-saṁhitā, advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca (Bs. 5.33). He is the original person. Because from God everyone has born, therefore He is the original person, ādyam. Purāṇa-puruṣam. Purāṇa means the oldest person. Still, nava-yauvanaṁ ca. Whenever you will see God… That is the… This is the sign of God. You’ll find Him just like a youth, a new youth. Youthfulness means, say, sixteen to twenty-four years. So nava-yauvanaṁ ca. That is the sign of God. So He was so beautiful that when He was a boy of fifteen years old His, the whole, I mean, of His, of the same age girls, girls of His age, they were after Him. He was so beautiful. So in beauty He was superexcellent. In wealth He was superexcellent. In strength He was superexcellent. And in knowledge…
Now, here is a book, Bhagavad-gītā. Now, apart from other books, other knowledge which He imparted to other…, now, here is a book which was imparted to Arjuna. Now, it is so, the depth of knowledge…, that people are still considering, great, great scholars. We are not reading, but Dr. Radhakrishnan, one of the greatest scholars of the world—now he is the president of India—he is discussing. Professor Einstein, he was living here in America. He was a German Jew, and I think he was living in America. He was a great student of this Bhagavad-gītā. Hitler. Hitler was a great student of Bhagavad-gītā. And there were many scholars still reading Bhagavad-gītā, trying to understand. Just see what best depth of knowledge He has given. It is made by Kṛṣṇa. So in knowledge, in wealth, in strength, in beauty, and in everything He was opulent. Therefore He is Bhagavān. You cannot accept any ordinary man as Bhagavān. So therefore Bhagavān. Now, bhagavān uvāca. And because He has been accepted as the spiritual master… Just like a teacher has the right to sometimes rebuke the student, so in the first instance He is rebuking Arjuna in the following words that

aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ
prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase
gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca
nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ
(BG 2.11)
that “Arjuna, you are speaking just like a very great, learned man, but you are… You are… In other words, you are a fool. You do not know how things are going on because paṇḍitāḥ, those who are learned men, they would not have lamented just like you are doing.” That means indirectly He says… Paṇḍitāḥ means learned. Learned man does not lament over a dead body or a living body. Gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca. Asūn means life. One has lost his life. And one has got his life, a body, living body and a dead body, living body and a dead body. Just mark the point, that “A learned man… As you are lamenting over the subject of killing your friends and relatives, but a learned man would not have lamented like this. That means you are a fool.” When He says… Just like if I say, “Mr. Green, what you have done, any intelligent man should not have done this.” So this is indirectly saying that “You are not intelligent.” It is in a gentleman’s way, speaking that “Mr. Green, what you are doing, no intelligent man can do this.” That means “You are not intelligent.” So here He say that “You are lamenting over the bodies of your relatives because in the fight you are considering that ‘My friends and my relatives will be killed,’ so that means they are living bodies, and you are lamenting over the, over their killing. So this sort of lamentation is never done by a learned man. A learned man never does it.” Gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ (BG 2.11). “Those who are learned, one who is learned, he does not lament over the body, either a living body or dead body. There is no question of…” Now, because one who knows the distinction between the body and the soul, firmly con… Just like you have heard the name of Socrates. Soc…, a great philosopher, Greek philosopher. He believed in the immortality of soul. So he was punished in the court. Hemlock. Hemlock was offered to him, that “All right, if you believe the immortality of soul, then you drink this hemlock poison.” So he drunk because he was firmly convinced that “Even if I drink this poison… My body will be destroyed, but by destruction of my body, I am not going to be destroyed.” He was convinced. So he did not lament. So a paṇḍita, learned man, must know that this body and soul, the distinction, the difference between body and soul… The body is not soul, and the soul is not body, and one who knows, he is learned man. This instruction is given first. So for spiritual advancement this first knowledge, that the body and the soul is different… This body cannot be identified with the soul. You see? The soul is there, but body is not soul. Body is not soul. So every learned man knows it, and we should be…

 

1947 to 1965 Correspondence
Only a dozen of real qualified Brahmins from all parts of the world should combine to guide the principles of the Ksatriyas, the Vaisya and the Sudras all over the world. The Socratesian way of reasoning should be fully utilized because that makes the only difference between a human being and a beast. There is ample scope for this new way of approaching the Absolute Truth and that will only solve the acute distressing world problem.
Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru — Allahabad 20 January, 1952: Your article heading as “Let us be True to one another” published in the A.B. Patrika (Allahabad Edition) D/30.12.51 attracted my attention and I read it over and over again. This article contains the nucleus of future activities of the human society in the spiritual realm and I have read in your statement about your deep thought on the onward march of human civilization. You have rightly said the following words in this connection viz.
“So we search for new ways, new aspects of the truth more in harmony with our environment. And we question each other and debate and quarrel and evolve any number of ‘isms’ and philosophies. As in the days of Socrates, we live in an age of questioning, but the questioning is not confined to a city like Athens: it is worldwide”.

There are two ways of answering such questions, I mean the deductive way and inductive way. Mortality of man is established by either of the above ways. In deductive way we take it for granted from reliable source, “Man is Mortal.” But in the inductive way we approach the same truth by our poor reasoning of “observation and experiment.” By observation we can see that Gandhi dies, Fotilal dies, C.R. Das dies, Patel dies and therefore we conclude that man dies or, “Man is Mortal”. Then again in the same deductive way when we reason that man is mortal, and find that Jawaharlal is a man and thus conclude that Jawaharlal is mortal.

Truth means Absolute Truth. Relative truth is conditional and when the conditions fail, the relative truth disappears. But Absolute Truth does not exist on conditions it is above all conditions. So when we speak of truth, we may take it for the Absolute Truth. And when we speak of approaching the Truth by new ways, we may take it for granted what we want to approach the Truth by the inductive way.

Absolute Truth is described in the Vedas as Satyam Param Dhimahi—the summum bonum. And from this Absolute Truth everything emanates. “Janmadyasya yatah”. This Absolute Truth is described in the Vedic literatures as Sanatana or Eternal. And the philosophy or science which deals in such eternal subjects is described as Sanatana Dharma.

Therefore, we have first to find out the Eternal Absolute Truth by some new ways(?) and then we have to find out the new aspects of Absolute Truth in harmony with our present environment.

The present environment is undoubtedly different from the old. And if we compare the present with the old—we can very easily discover that

1. People in the present age are generally shortliving. The average duration of life being 30 years or so.

2. They are generally not very simple. Almost everyman is designing and crooked.

3. They have no scope for high thinking because they are perplexed with different relative truths.

4. Unfortunate as they are in this age their problems remain unsolved for the whole life even though they are tackled by their leaders. They make the best effort to solve a problem but unfortunately the same becomes more acute and stringent.

5. And above all, people in this age are always distressed by famine, scarcity, grieves and diseases in an increasing ratio.

In the old days life was not so much conditional and encumbered. The simple problems were then the problems of bread, clothing and shelter which were solved by the simplest process. By agriculture they used to solve the bread, clothing and shelter problems and industrialization was unknown to them. Thus they had no idea of living in big palatial buildings at the cost of sacrificing the boon of humanity. They were satisfied to live in the cottages and yet they were perfectly intelligent. Even the famous Canakya Pandit who was the Prime Minister of India during the reign of Candragupta, used to live in a cottage and draw no salary from the State. Such simple habits did not deteriorate his high intelligence and dignity and as such he had compiled many useful literatures which are still read by millions for social and political guidance. Thus the simplicity of Brahmanical culture was an ideal to the subordinate others of the society and in the Deductive way the subordinate orders, namely the the Ksatriyas, the Vaisyas and the Sudras would follow the instruction of the cultured Brahmin. Such ways of approaching the Truth is always simple, plain and perhaps the most perfect.

The cultured Brahmin-order of the society would declare that there is God or Brahman and the Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and the Sudras who were less cultured than the Brahmins—would follow the later faithfully call it blindly or otherwise. By such faithfully following the subordinate classes would be able to save much time in the matter of arguing or reasoning for the existence of God at all, and still they would not be faithless.

In the old days even a politician Brahmin like Canakya would say that

Vidwatamcha Nrpatamcha
Naiva Tulaya Kadacana
Swadesa Pujyate Raja
Vidvar Sarbatra Pujyato.
A really cultured learned fellow is far above a politician. Because a politician is honoured by the votes of his countrymen while a cultured and learned fellow is honoured everywhere all over the world. So we say that Ravindra Natha and Gandhi were never dependant for the votes of their countrymen but they were honoured all over the world for their cultural contribution. The same Canakya Pandit defined the standard of learning. The standard of learning had had to be testified by its result and not by the manner of University degrees. He said that one, who looks upon all women, except one’s married wife as mothers—all other’s wealth as the pebbles on the street and all living being as one’s own self,—is really learned fellow. He never stressed on the point of standard of how many grammars, rhetorics or other books of knowledge one might have gone through, or how many Doctorates of different Universities one might have been decorated with.

At the present moment we know very well that a few men look upon other women, besides one’s married wife as mothers; very few men will look upon other’s wealth as pebbles on the street and very few men will try to behave with other living beings as one wants to be treated oneself.

The sages of old age discovered it by spiritual culture that man’s energy should be utilized only for spiritual realization. Not to speak of Lord Sri Krishna who spoke the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita near about 5000 years ago, we know that within 2000 years of human history no sages including Jesus Christ, prophet Mohammed, Lord Buddha, Acarya Sankara, Madhya, Ramanuja or even Lord Caitanya gave any importance to materialistic way of living. Material necessities were always subordinate to the spiritual realization. They saw it that the bread problem, clothing problem and shelter problem are never solved by material activities because in the law of nature the elephant is given the whole jungle to eat and the little ant is given a grain of sugar to solve their respective bread problems and yet the animals remain hungry. It is not the question of a jungle or a grain of sugar that can solve our bread problem but it is the question of real food that can quench the hunger of human being and revitalise him to proper life. Human being therefore should not be encouraged to satisfy his unsatiated hunger like the giant elephant or the little ant but he should be trained up otherwise which shall provide for his real food.

The wonderful temples, the mosques and the cathedrals of past centuries were built up to give them the real food and were not built up by blind or unquestioning faith. The were built up on full faith and reasoning which were based on the deductive process. The Vedas, the Bible or the Koran would ask the human being to make proper use of his conserved energy in the transcendental service of God and unsophisticated men in the old days would follow such instruction unhesitatingly for realizing the Absolute Truth. Such temples, mosques were therefore centres of high culture to provide real food to human consciousness.

But in the present age in the absence of such high culture there is hardly any difference between the temples, mosques and cathedrals and the high commercial buildings in a busy city. If the culture is to be revived it is quite possible to do it even in your parliamentary buildings in New Delhi or in the commercial buildings of New York. As the Socratesian ways of reasoning is not bound up within the walls of Athens so also the Brahminical culture is not bound up within the walls of India. You can find out the nine prescribed qualifications of a Brahmin, the seven qualifications of Ksatriyas, the three qualifications of Vaisya and the one qualification of a sudra, world wide. You can therefore pick up Brahmins and other orders of society all the world over. Gandhiji although born in a Vaisya family, possessed almost all the nine qualifications of a Brahmin and if possible we can find out such Brahmin in other parts of the World.

One Brahmin-Gandhi Congressman is quite competent to guide its principle whereas thousand other sudra congressmen can only help it to break it up into pieces.

Thus if we want to approach the Absolute Truth by new ways in harmony with present environment we should try to be true to one another in the qualified way of Brahminical culture. Only a dozen of real qualified Brahmins from all parts of the world should combine to guide the principles of the Ksatriyas, the Vaisya and the Sudras all over the world. The Socratesian way of reasoning should be fully utilized because that makes the only difference between a human being and a beast. There is ample scope for this new way of approaching the Absolute Truth and that will only solve the acute distressing world problem. If there is scarcity of such qualified Brahmins which I honestly think there is, we should combine to evolve such Brahminical culture not by blind faith but by sound reasoning and questioning. But all the same we must be sincere and thorough in our attempt.

As an humble disciple of Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami, I wish to remain always true to you and everyone. And if you sincerely be true to your forefather, I mean the Brahminical culture, you have the strength and capacity to save the world by presenting the Brahminical culture once again for consummation of the distressed world. In such acts of your broadness of mind, I am always at your service.

Awaiting your reply with interest,

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

 

#socrates, #prabhupada

Post view 742 times