Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Analogy (Lectures)

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Analogy means points of similarity. That is the law of analogy.
Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

Now, the Māyāvādī says that this individuality is māyā. So their conception is that spirit, the whole spirit is a lump. Their theory is ghaṭākāśa poṭākāśa. Ghaṭākāśa poṭākāśa means... Just like sky. The sky is an expansion, impersonal expansion. So in a pot, in a waterpot, in a pitcher that is closed... Now, within the pitcher, there is also sky, a small sky. Now as soon as the pitcher is broken, the outside, the bigger sky, and the small sky within the pitcher mixes. That is Māyāvāda theory. But this analogy cannot be applied. Analogy means points of similarity. That is the law of analogy. The sky cannot be compared... The small sky within the pitcher cannot be compared with the living entity. It is material, matter. Sky is matter, and individual living entity is spirit. So how you can say? Just like a small ant, it is spirit soul. It has got its individuality. But a big dead stone, hill or mountain, it has no individuality. So matter has no individuality. Spirit has individuality. So if the points of similarity differ, then there is no analogy. That is the law of analogy. So you cannot analogize with matter and spirit. Therefore this analogy is fallacious. Ghaṭākāśa poṭākāśa. Then another evidence is in the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says that mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūta (BG 15.7). "This individual souls, they are My part and parcel." Jīva-loke sanātanaḥ. And they are eternal. That means eternally they are part and parcel. Then when... How this Māyāvāda theory can be supported, that due to māyā, being covered by māyā, they are now appearing individual, separate, but when the covering of māyā will be taken away, they will mix up just like the small sky within the pitcher and the big sky outside mixes? So this analogy is fallacious from logical point of view, as well as from authentic Vedic point of view. They are eternally fragments. There are many other evidences from Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā says that spirit cannot be fragmented. So if you say that by covering of māyā the spirit has become fragment, that is not possible. It cannot be cut. Just like if you cut one big piece of paper into small fragments, it is possible because it is matter, but spiritually it is not possible. Spiritually, eternally, the fragments are fragments, and the Supreme is Supreme. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme, and we are fragmental parts. We are fragments eternally. These things are explained in Bhagavad-gītā in different places very nicely. I request you all to keep one copy of this Bhagavad-gītā, every one of you, and read it carefully. And there will be examination in the coming September. So... Of course, that is voluntary. But I request you to prepare for the examination next September. And one who will pass the examination will get the title Bhakti-śāstrī.

Whenever we make some analogy, there must be points, greater number of points of similarity.
Lecture on BG 2.13 -- New York, March 11, 1966:

"Now, as soon as this body's destroyed, it is burned or it is, another way, destroyed, then this ether within my body becomes amalgamated with the greater ether." So this sort of assertion is not accepted in the Bhagavad-gītā because the first reason is that ether is a material thing. Ether is a material thing. And the soul is spirit. We'll have, in later ślokas, that soul cannot be cut. Soul cannot be cut into pieces. And the spirit cannot be... acchedyo 'yam adāhyo 'yam. We'll get those ślokas. Soul never can be cut into pieces. You see? Just like here is a paper. I can, I can tore this paper into pieces, but it is not possible for the soul. Then it, then it loses its eternity or its stability. You see? So we cannot compare ether with soul because they are two different subject matters. You see? Analogy... Now, those who, those who are present here, those who have knowledge of logic, analogy... Analogy is possible when the two things are... When there are greatest number of similarities of two things, then there can be analogy. Otherwise there is no question of ana..., analogy. Just like if I say, "Oh, this lady's face is just like moon," now there must be some similarity in this face and the moon. As the moon is bright and a very beautiful looker, therefore this face must be very beautiful and very bright. But if the face is ugly, how can I compare with this moon? So whenever we make some analogy, there must be points, greater number of points of similarity. Now, here ether is a material thing, and soul is spiritual thing, so there is no similarity at all. At all.

Try to understand this analogy. So nothing can exist without God, nothing is except God, but still, everything is not God. That has to be understood. This is called acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different.
Lecture on BG 9.5 -- Melbourne, April 24, 1976:

So God is realized in three features by the transcendentalists. The first is impersonal Brahman, impersonal Brahman without any particular form. That is called Brahman realization. Above that, there is Paramātmā realization, localized. As Kṛṣṇa said in the previous verse, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam, everywhere there is God. In the heart of everyone, even within the atom, there is God. This is called Paramātmā feature. Localized everywhere, God is there. And then Bhagavān. Bhagavān, personal. The Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So in the Supreme Personality, Kṛṣṇa said in the previous verse, mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni na ca ahaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ (BG 9.4). That is explained in this verse that "Everything is resting upon Me. But at the same time," na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni, "they are not also in Me." This particular portion has to be understood. When Kṛṣṇa says, God says, that everything is resting upon Him, that means everything is resting upon His expanded energy, not personally on Him. Personally He is aloof. Therefore it is said, na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni.

The same example. Just like when we say everything is resting on the sunshine, that does not mean everything is in the sun but the sunshine is not different from the sun. Therefore you can say that, expanded form, everything is resting on the sun. Try to understand this analogy. So nothing can exist without God, nothing is except God, but still, everything is not God. That has to be understood. This is called acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, simultaneously one and different.

That is the motto of our... Kṛṣṇa sūrya-sama. Godhead is light, māyā is nescience.
Lecture on BG 9.34 -- August 3, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm):

Bhagavān: You have given the analogy that when a person turns his back to the sun he creates his shadow. And as he turns towards the sun the shadow disappears.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is the motto of our... Kṛṣṇa sūrya-sama. Godhead is light, māyā is nescience.

If you satisfy the senses of Kṛṣṇa, then through Kṛṣṇa you satisfy yourself. This is the technique. The same analogy. The fingers cannot directly enjoy the sweet ball, but when the sweet ball is put into the stomach, these five fingers enjoy.
Lecture on BG 15.15 -- August 5, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm):

Prabhupāda: So long you'll seek your own pleasure, you'll suffer. And when you'll seek Kṛṣṇa's pleasure, you'll enjoy. The example is given: Just like you catch up some sweetmeat, the fingers. If the fingers say, "We shall enjoy it," you spoil it. But if the fingers put it to Kṛṣṇa, then you'll enjoy it. Unless you know this art, that we cannot enjoy independently, that is not possible. If we enjoy through Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa's prasādam, then we'll be happy. This is the Kṛṣṇa consciousness art. Directly you cannot enjoy, that is not possible. They are making this mistake. They want to satisfy their senses directly. That is not possible. That is spoiling the life. And if you satisfy the senses of Kṛṣṇa, then through Kṛṣṇa you satisfy yourself. This is the technique. The same analogy. The fingers cannot directly enjoy the sweet ball, but when the sweet ball is put into the stomach, these five fingers enjoy, also these five fingers enjoy. These five fingers, whole body will enjoy.

Analogy means the points of similarity. Then you can conclude some idea.
Lecture on BG 16.8 -- Tokyo, January 28, 1975:

So this is called jagat. Everything is going on. But it is going in such a way... Just like these cars are moving with high speed, but they are very careful to pass within the lane. Otherwise there will be collision. Similarly, all these planets, they have got their own speed for rotating, and there are hundreds and thousands and millions. They are rotating, but there is no collision. Now, how it is made? Who has made this lane? A car is moving in sixty miles, seventy miles speed, but they are ordered just to remain within the lane, the marking line. Who has made it? The police department, the government. So how can you say there is no control? We have to... This is called upamā, analogy, the points of similarity. Analogy means the points of similarity. Then you can conclude some idea.

Is not only lump of matter, but there is somebody, the government or the king or the president, who is maintaining the order. This is conclusion. This is analogy. Then how you say that there is no controller? Where is your logic?
Lecture on BG 16.8 -- Tokyo, January 28, 1975:

So when the question of order is there, then there must be one order-giver, and there must be one order-carrier. Otherwise, what is the meaning, order? Yasya ājñayā, by whose order. Whose means this whose, somebody bigger who is giving order, and the sun planet is carrying out the order. Yasyājñayā bhramati sambhṛta-kāla-cakraḥ. So there is order-giver. There is controller, the Supreme Lord, and there is order-carrier, the sun-god. Otherwise who is carrying the order? If it is only a lump of matter, then who will carry out the order? Now, this Tokyo city if it is a lump of matter only, then how the systematic order of traffic rules and regulation is... It is not only lump of matter, but there is somebody, the government or the king or the president, who is maintaining the order. This is conclusion. This is analogy. Then how you say that there is no controller? Where is your logic? Can anybody give any logic that there is no...

These rākṣasas, they say there is no God, there is no controller, but where is the logic? How you can say so? What is your analogy?
Lecture on BG 16.8 -- Tokyo, January 28, 1975:

These rākṣasas, they say there is no God, there is no controller, but where is the logic? How you can say so? What is your analogy? What is your logic, that you say there is no God? Let us discuss. Can anybody say here? What is the idea? If things are going on systematically, the planets are moving in the orbit systematically, everything is going on... Just like same example. Always remember. I may be foreigner, but because I see that on the street the cars are moving in order, the police is standing, there must be government. That is... I may know or not, but this is common sense affair. There must be government, and there is government. Similarly, when I see that the cosmic order is working so nicely, systematically and reasonably, then how I can say there is no controller? Where is my logic? Tell me, anyone. Can you say, anyone, why they say there is no controller? Jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). What is their logic? You tell.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

The sky within the pot, it cannot be made analogy with the sky in the pot and outside. Because they are individual souls.
Lecture on SB 1.2.21 -- Vrndavana, November 1, 1972:

Prabhupāda: This is also another doubt. Because the impersonalists, they think, ghaṭākāśa-poṭākāśa. Just like the sky. The sky is within the pot, and the sky is outside the pot. So when the pot is broken, the inside sky becomes one with the outside sky. That is their theory. So these doubts are also dissipated when one comes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That this poṭākāśa means the sky within the pot, no, ghaṭākāśa, the sky within the pot, it cannot be made analogy with the sky in the pot and outside. Because they are individual souls. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that they are part and parcel of God sanātana, eternally, not that they have been cut off. Just like the sky within the pot is walled by the wall of the pot, but actually we are not walled. We are individual. Every, every one of us are individual. We are not surrounded by some material wall. This material wall is supposed to be this body. Actually, we are individual, and therefore, because we are individual, according to our individual karma, we have got different types of body. So these are the doubts. When one become completely, I mean to say, cognizant with the Kṛṣṇa consciousness science, his all doubts are removed.

The exact analogy of phantasma..., equivalent word in Sanskrit of phantasmagoria, which has no actual existence, is called ākāśa-puṣpa, "flower of the sky."
Lecture on SB 1.5.8-9 -- New Vrindaban, May 24, 1969:

The exact analogy of phantasma..., equivalent word in Sanskrit of phantasmagoria, which has no actual existence, is called ākāśa-puṣpa, "flower of the sky." There is no flower in the sky, but you can say. Or in common Bengali words, "eggs of the horse." Now, horse never gives eggs, but there are words like that. (chuckles) Just like Vivekananda has manufactured: daridra-nārāyaṇa. How Nārāyaṇa can be daridra? So it is something like horse eggs. You see? So these words are very... Tri-daśa-pūrākāśa-puṣpāyate. By the grace of Lord Caitanya you'll find to merge into the effulgence, to become one with the Supreme will be considered as hell, actually. If you ask any pure devotee, "Do you want to merge into the existence, impersonal Brahman?" he'll deny. If he has got little Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he'll deny, that "What is this merging? This is hellish. We want to dance with Kṛṣṇa. Why shall I merge and lose my existence, individuality?" And karmīs, they are trying to be elevated in the higher planets. Just like they are trying to go to the higher planets by sputniks, similarly, there are ritualistic ceremonies. Yānti deva-vratā devān (BG 9.25). By performing all the ritualistic ceremonies, sacrifices, you can elevate yourself to the higher planets: yānti deva-vratā devān. That is another method. And this method also, another method, they want to go direct by machine. But that tendency is there everywhere, that "We may go to this sun planet, moon planet, this planet."

But Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, he says, (chuckling) "Oh, you are trying to go to other higher planets by your karma, by his work? Oh, this is just like horse egg. Huh? Why should you bother yourself?" Horse egg means it has no substance. As, like there is no existence of horse egg, similarly, even if you attain that higher planetary system, what do you gain by that? You don't gain anything, because the four principles of material existence will continue there also. Birth, death, old age, and disease, you cannot stop. You may live for a greater period—that is possible in higher planets. But if you are simply satisfied only by living a bigger span of life, is that very success? Just stop death. That is success. To become very strong in body, that is not success. But either you become strong and weak, you have to die. There is no, I mean to say, excuse, because you are a strong man you will not die. Or because you are rich man you will not die. Because you are... No. Therefore Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī says, it is just like ākāśa-puṣpa, phantasmagoria.

Śrīdhara Svāmī gives note that there may not be any poetic, metaphorical, or analogical, ornamental language, but even without such knowledge... Just like we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. So we are not training our students any way about musical science, that "We have to chant in this way or that way, we have to dance in this way or that way."
Lecture on SB 1.5.11 -- New Vrindaban, June 10, 1969:

Therefore those who are paramahaṁsas, those who have understood the essence of this cosmic manifestation, they are not interested in such literature. On the other hand it is said that tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavaḥ. (commentary) Vināpi pada-cāturyaṁ bhagavad-yaśaḥ-pradhānaṁ vacaḥ.(?) Śrīdhara Svāmī gives note that there may not be any poetic, metaphorical, or analogical, ornamental language, but vināpi pada-cāturyam. Pada-cāturyam. Pada means composition. In every language there are rules and regulations for composing poetry or prose, grammatical, rhetorical. So even such knowledge, even without such knowledge, pada-cāturyaṁ bhagavad-yaśaḥ-pradhānam. Just like we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. So we are not training our students any way about musical science, that "We have to chant in this way or that way, we have to dance in this way or that way." Without any musical knowledge, without any poetic understanding, even a child can take part in it, and he becomes immediately absorbed in ecstasy. Why? This is because we are chanting the glories of the Lord.

I'm not seeing the machine, what kind of machine is running, but I can think of, imagine that it may be some machine is running on.That is also another pramāṇa. Hypothesis, inductive, deductive. They are also... Analogy. There are so many processes.
Lecture on SB 1.7.45-46 -- Vrndavana, October 5, 1976:

So as the Deity of the Lord, vigraha, should not be considered as made of stone, wood, similarly, guru also should not be accepted as ordinary human being. He should be given all respect as we give to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is being explained by even one woman. That is Vedic culture. Draupadī is explaining the importance, and she has said, sa eṣa bhagavān droṇaḥ. She's quite right when she's accepting Droṇa as bhagavān. Sa eṣa bhagavān droṇaḥ prajā-rūpeṇa vartate. And he is present by his prajā. So these things should be taken very seriously instruction. Therefore śrīmad-bhāgavatam amalaṁ purāṇam. This is pramāṇa. Pramāṇi-grantha. Pramāṇi-grantha means śabda-pramāṇa. Śabda-pramāṇa, anumāna pramāṇa, and anumāna... Just like a sound is going on. One who knows, that's all right. But we can... Hypothesis. We can think that some machine is running on. We may not know what is that machine. So this is anumāna. I'm not seeing the machine, what kind of machine is running, but I can think of, imagine that it may be some machine is running on. That is also another pramāṇa. Hypothesis, inductive, deductive. They are also... Analogy. There are so many processes. So here, Kṛṣṇa and guru, they should be accepted on the same level. Therefore Draupadī has addressed Droṇācārya as bhagavān. Sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstrair uktas tathā bhāvyata eva sadbhiḥ **. It is accepted. We should also accept.

Just like we say, "Your face is just like moon." So if the face is actually similar to the moon, then we can say. Points of similarity. Analogy means there must be points of similarity.
Lecture on SB 3.1.10 -- Dallas, May 21, 1973:

So Vidura was so expert advisor, counselor, that there was a statement, vaidurikam. Just like the cāṇakya-śloka. On ordinary things, cāṇakya-śloka is evidence. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita said... I think you can introduce cāṇakya-śloka amongst the students. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita said that vidvatvaṁ ca nṛpatvaṁ ca naiva tulyaṁ kadācana. A man who is learned, and man who is very rich, so how they should be compared? The Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, "There is no comparison." Comparison must be there when there is points of similarity. Just like we say, "Your face is just like moon." So if the face is actually similar to the moon, then we can say. Points of similarity. Analogy means there must be points of similarity. The largest number of similarity makes the analogy perfect. This is logical rules. So Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says that to a rich man and a learned man, there is no comparison. They are different categories. Why? Sva-deśe pūjyate rājā vidvān sarvatra pūjyate. A rich man, a king, may be very respectful, respectable, in his own country amongst his own men, but a vidvat, a learned scholar, he is respected all over the world. Tri-bhuvane mānyau. So if one is respected all over the world and if one is respected in his own village, so how there can be any comparison? These are the Cāṇakya Paṇḍita's instructions, very valuable. There are many.

In the Christian religion they do not believe karma, that I did something in my past life. "Where is the evidence that I did something; therefore I am suffering?" They take the analogy: just like a criminal in the court is convinced when there is sufficient witness, not that I have complained against you, and you go to the court, you are punished.
Lecture on SB 6.1.42 -- Los Angeles, June 8, 1976:

In the Christian religion they do not believe karma, that I did something in my past life. "Where is the evidence that I did something; therefore I am suffering?" They take the analogy: just like a criminal in the court is convinced when there is sufficient witness, not that I have complained against you, and you go to the court, you are punished. No. My charges against you should be corroborated by sufficient witness. So the Christian religionists, they do not believe in the next birth, transmigration of the soul, something like that. So they do not believe also in the fruitive activities' resultant action of our past life. This very word "witness"... It is my personal experience. I was student in the Scottish Churches College, and we had to attend half an hour Bible class. So Dr. W.S. Urquhart, he was teaching, Reverend W.S. Urquhart. He said, I remember, that "Where is the evidence? The Hindus believe in the karma, but where is the evidence that I did it?"

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

If you give some analogy, you must consider all the similar points. That is the way of analogy.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 27, 1972:

Pradyumna: "He further prays that by residing in that ocean of nectar he may always feel transcendental pleasure in the service of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa."

Prabhupāda: Yes. "Ocean of nectar." The Māyāvādī philosophers, generally they give this example that the, all the rivers, they flow down to the ocean. This example is generally given that when the river mixes with the ocean, it doesn't matter which course it is following. After all, it is coming to the ocean, merging into the ocean. So that is ultimate liberation. But this analogy... Analogy, if you give some analogy, you must consider all the similar points. That is the way of analogy. The more you have got similar points, then the analogy is perfect. So the rivers merging into the ocean. Then you must take further consideration that the superficial water mixing with the ocean is again evaporated. The water is evaporated by scorching heat of the sun. Just like now we see cloud in the sky. This is nothing but evaporated water from the sea. So the water which merged into the water and into the ocean of the, water of the ocean, now it is evaporated in the sky. And again it will fall down. And then again glide to the ocean. So this is called avagamana, coming and going, coming and going. But our Vaiṣṇava philosophy is not to merge into the water, but keep your identity and go deep into the water. So that you may not be evaporated. The fish and the aquatic animals within the water, they are not evaporated. They are not going to become cloud and again fall down. Therefore Sanātana, Rūpa Gosvāmī says, "He further prays that by residing in the ocean of nectar he may always feel transcendental pleasure..."

If you make analogy that as the different rivers are, the water is coming down and mixing with the sea, then it becomes one, but there are other points. This is superficial vision. There is other points.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 9, 1973:

Prabhupāda: This comparison that the rivers, it does matter from which way it is coming down to the sea, when they mix together, they become one. But if this comparison is taken, that the rivers merging into the sea, and when it mixes there is no separate existence of the river, but they do not see analogy. Analogy, according to law of analogy, the points of similarities must be one. Analogy is perfect when the points of similarities are there. Just like we say, "Your face is as beautiful as moon." That means the face, beauty of the face is as attractive as the moon is attractive. The points of similarity is there. We cannot say an ugly face, your face is like moon. That cannot be. That is not analogy because there is no points of similarity. That is the law of analogy. So similarly, if you make analogy that as the different rivers are, the water is coming down and mixing with the sea, then it becomes one, but there are other points. This is superficial vision. There is other points. The same water again becomes evaporated, and again thrown on the ground, and they again glide down as rivers. That is, this is a fact. But if you go deep into the water, just like the shark fish—the comparison is given there—the shark fish is never evaporated. The shark fish is within the water of the sea, and there is no question of evaporation. The water may be evaporated. So our point is, from śāstra we can understand,

ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas
tvayy asta-bhāvād aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ
āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ
patanty adho 'nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ
(SB 10.2.32)

The point is that simply mixing with the sea water is not final salvation. Because the same example. The water is evaporated, again turns into cloud, then again falls, the same water again falls on the ground, then again glides down. So that is not very safe position. But if you take shelter of the ocean as a fish, then there is no question of evaporation. Just try to understand this analogy.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

So if you take this analogy, then this planet is floating, there must be somebody entering here. Somebody must have entered. So Kṛṣṇa says, "I have entered."
Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 1 -- Los Angeles, April 29, 1970:

We can see the sun is floating in one corner of this big space. So how you can say that it is not controlled, it is floating out of its own self? No. The answer is there in the Bhagavad-gītā, that "I enter into this material planets, and then I keep it floating." Gām āviśya aham (BG 15.13), dhārayāmy aham ojasā. Dhārayāmy aham ojasā. Something mak... Just like you float this airplane; so somebody has entered within it, that driver or pilot. So actually, he is keeping this airplane floating, not the machine. This is simple truth. So if you take this analogy, then this planet is floating, there must be somebody entering here. Somebody must have entered. So Kṛṣṇa says, "I have entered." So what is the difficulty to understand how it is keeping floating? The analogy is there. Everyone can understand that this big airplane is floating in the sky because the pilot has entered within it. Similarly, if this planet is floating, then somebody, either you or somebody, God, has entered it. And that answer is there in the Bhagavad-gītā, that "I enter into these planets and therefore I keep them floating." That is our answer. And the scientists, they say the law of gravitation... How far it is true...

Festival Lectures

Although you cannot see God, we can understand from the version of the Vedas and authoritative scriptures if God is father, then He must be a person. He must be a person because I am person. We have to study by analogy, by our reason, our intelligence.
Ratha-yatra Lecture at The Family Dog Auditorium -- San Francisco, July 27, 1969:

The Supreme Absolute, He is also a living entity like us, just like your father, this material father from whom you have got this body, he is also a person, and you are also a person. You are son of your father. Similarly, although you cannot see God, we can understand from the version of the Vedas and authoritative scriptures if God is father, then He must be a person. He must be a person because I am person. We have to study by analogy, by our reason, our intelligence. Just like you have got experience in this life that "My father is a person. I am also a person." Although the relation is "I am his son; he is my father," but both of us are persons. None of us is imperson. That is nonsense. How my father can become imperson if I am person? This is nonsense.

General Lectures

If you want to know your father, you have to know it from your mother.
Lecture 'Nobody Wants to Die' -- Boston, May 7, 1968:

Young woman: I understand the first example, but not the analogy.

Prabhupāda: Why? If you want to know your father, you have to know it from your mother.

Young woman: I understand.

Prabhupāda: That's all right.

Young woman: But...

Prabhupāda: But, if you don't believe your mother, then there is no other way to know your father.

Young woman: I understand that.

Prabhupāda: That's all. Similarly, here are scriptures who are telling, speaking about God. If you have no faith in scripture, there is no other process to know God.

Philosophy Discussions

The body and the soul, they are practically combined. That example is not complete. They are two individual clocks. They are not combined. So therefore there is fallacy of analogy. If there is no common point, you cannot have analogy.
Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: He says that God creates the principle of pre-established harmony. Just like He sets two clocks in motion, both synchronized. One is the body and one is the soul. Even though they are going together...

Prabhupāda: The body is separate, body separate from the soul. We say that.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the body is acting, but the soul is independent. It's not really affected by the body.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's all right. We agree.

Śyāmasundara: So they are like two clocks going at the same synchronization, but not together. They are separate.

Prabhupāda: But why two clocks? What is the relationship between the body and the soul? You cannot analyze separately. The body and the soul, they are practically combined. That example is not complete. They are two individual clocks. They are not combined. So therefore there is fallacy of analogy. If there is no common point, you cannot have analogy.

Śyāmasundara: The common point is that they say the same time. They have the same time.

Prabhupāda: But the same time, gradually one clock goes slow and the other clock goes fast. This analogy is not perfect. Similar point. Analogy means there must be a majority of similar points. Similar point is lacking because the one clock is moving, you'll start the other one moving, and one may go slow or one may go at higher speed.

So the points of similarity, while killing either a man or animal, are all the same, then how are you bringing this analogy that he has got soul, he hasn't got soul? Where is his logic?
Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: ...as soon as I cut with knife, the same blood is coming. Here also the same blood is coming. He is also crying, he is also crying. All these things are (indistinct). Then how do you say that this man has got soul and this animal has not got soul? Where is analogy? And points of similarities are there. Analogy means points of similarity. So the points of similarity, while killing either a man or animal, are all the same, then how are you bringing this analogy that he has got soul, he hasn't got soul? Where is his logic?

The analogy is mistaken. The season is matter, material changes. But the evolution is not matter. There is spirit soul. He is making his evolution. So he has got independence. He can reject and accept.
Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: Whereas this philosopher thinks that we should just..., that the vital force is guiding everyone and creating its own evolution, that we should just drift in the course of things and the vital force will determine history or will determine our future.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Vital force will determine. That is somewhat...

Śyāmasundara: Without our doing, without anything of our doing.

Prabhupāda: No. Vital force must know how to make progress how to do it. Then he'll be... If he does not know how to do it, how it will be possible? Can you do anything? Suppose you are learning some mechanical business, can you do it without direction? You have to learn. You must get a teacher. So without teacher, that is not possible.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the seasons. If we just place ourselves in the seasons, they take us toward something, towards springtime.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. But you cannot compare. The analogy is mistaken. The season is matter, material changes. But the evolution is not matter. There is spirit soul. He is making his evolution. So he has got independence. He can reject and accept.

Yes. There is good sense, that God is individual and the soul is individual. As he has given the metaphor or analogy.
Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus:

Hayagrīva: He uses this following metaphor. He says, "We are like a chorus grouped about a conductor who allow their attention to be distracted by the audience. If, however, they"—that is we, the individual souls—"were to turn toward their conductor, they would sing as they should and would really be with him. We are always around the One. If we were not, we would dissolve and cease to exist. Yet our gaze does not remain fixed upon the One. When we look at it, we then attain the end of our desires and find rest. Then it is that all discord passes. We dance an inspired dance around it. In this dance the soul looks upon the source of life, the source of the intelligence, the root of being, the cause of the good, the root of the soul. All these entities emanate from the One without any lessening, for it is not a material mass."

Prabhupāda: Yes. There is good sense, that God is individual and the soul is individual. As he has given the metaphor or analogy that the con..., parties of a concert party...

Devotee: Conductor and a chorus.

Prabhupāda: ...they are singing in the tune, sometimes attention diverted by the audience, it becomes out of the tune. Similarly we, when we divert our attention to the illusory energy, then we fall down, and although we remain the same part and parcel of the Lord, but the influence of the material energy covers us, and we identify with the covering elements, and life after life bodies changing, and we are identify with the covering, and this is our miserable condition of material existence. And therefore first education is that "I am not this covering." That is spiritual education.

Page Title:Analogy (Lectures)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Madhavi
Created:29 of Dec, 2008
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=23, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:23