View source for Because you cannot live in the water, that does not mean there is no living entity in the water. This is nonsense. So if we similarly conclude, "Because we cannot live in the fire, therefore there is no living entity in the fire," that is nonsense

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Because you cannot live in the water, that does not mean there is no living entity in the water. This is nonsense"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Mayapur}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|01Jun12}}
{{last|01Jun12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Because]]
[[Category:You Cannot]]
[[Category:Live In]]
[[Category:Water]]
[[Category:Does Not Mean]]
[[Category:There Is No]]
[[Category:Living Entities]]
[[Category:That Is Nonsense]]
[[Category:If We]]
[[Category:Similarly]]
[[Category:Conclude]]
[[Category:Cannot]]
[[Category:Fire]]
[[Category:Therefore]]
[[Category:There Is No]]

</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="LectureonBG71LosAngelesMarch121970_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="230" link="Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Los Angeles, March 12, 1970" link_text="Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Los Angeles, March 12, 1970">
<div class="heading">Because you cannot live in the water, that does not mean there is no living entity in the water. This is nonsense. So if we similarly conclude, "Because we cannot live in the fire, therefore there is no living entity in the fire," that is nonsense. The exact knowledge is at least to accept this reasoning, that I cannot live in the water, but if you count the number of living entities within the water, oh, it is far more than living entities on the land, because the water is three-fourths of the globe. So how many living entities can live on the one-fourth? Naturally the number of living entities is far greater. But if you conclude, "Oh, I cannot... If I put into the water I shall die, so there is no living entity within the water," this is nonsense. You don't compare with your situation with others.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Los Angeles, March 12, 1970|Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Los Angeles, March 12, 1970]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Knowledge of sunshine is not perfect knowledge of sun. That you can understand very easily. Suppose daily you are having sunshine within your room. Does it mean you know what is sun disc or what is the inhabitants of the sun globe? No. Nobody knows. Similarly, impersonal knowledge of the Absolute Truth is like that. That is not complete knowledge. Although it is light, sunshine is also light, sun disc is also light and the inhabitants there, they also must be light. Otherwise, how can they live? They also must be fiery. Because the inhabitants there, they are also fiery, without being fire how you can live in fire? Sun is fire; everyone knows it. The temperature is very high. So one, without having a body suitable to that temperature, how they can live there? But there are living entities. That we have got. Because you cannot live in the water, that does not mean there is no living entity in the water. This is nonsense. So if we similarly conclude, "Because we cannot live in the fire, therefore there is no living entity in the fire," that is nonsense. The exact knowledge is at least to accept this reasoning, that I cannot live in the water, but if you count the number of living entities within the water, oh, it is far more than living entities on the land, because the water is three-fourths of the globe. So how many living entities can live on the one-fourth? Naturally the number of living entities is far greater. But if you conclude, "Oh, I cannot... If I put into the water I shall die, so there is no living entity within the water," this is nonsense. You don't compare with your situation with others.</p>
<p>That is the mistake of civilization. We think everything in our own standard. Ātmavat manyate jagat. That is the nature, that ātmavat, what he is thinking of himself, therefore, others must be like that. No. Others may be different from you. So, similarly, you will find so many differences in so many planets. Their habits, their mode of living, civilization, standard of living is completely different. Even in this planet, if we find, the standard of living in America is different from the standard of living in South America or Africa or India, so why not in other planets?</p>
<p>So everything... In the Brahma-saṁhitā, we understand, every planet has a different situation, not that everything of this nature. So it is... It is not complete idea. "Because you can know what is sunshine, therefore you can know what is sun-god or sun disc"—no, that can (not) be done. Similarly, because you have some spiritual light, impersonal light... What is that impersonal light? The whole Buddha philosophy, impersonal philosophy, is looking to that impersonal. What is that? That "Because here in this material world I have got bad experience of this personal existence, therefore I conclude that there must be something impersonal. That is nice." That is thinking in the opposite way. But that is not actual fact. Just like a diseased person. Lying in one side, he is getting pain. He thinks, "If I lie down on the other side I will be relieved." That he is thinking, but so long he is diseased, there is no question of relief. He is thinking like that, this way or that way. Just like in the materialistic way they are... Their last point of happiness is sex life. That's all. So they have enjoyed sex life in this way; now they are trying to enjoy sex life in that way. But the enjoyment is the same. There is no more enjoyment. That is finished. You can eschew in so many ways, but the result is the same. Similarly, unless you have got perfect knowledge of the Absolute Truth, if you think of the Absolute Truth as something opposite of your present status, that is not perfect knowledge. The impersonal knowledge is like that, something opposite of this material world.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>