In general (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"in general"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: "in general" not "people in general"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 4.9-11 -- New York, July 25, 1966:

Prabhupāda: So one is accepted as atheist who does not believe in the tenets of the Vedas. That is the sum and substance of atheism. It may be a sound philosophy or whatever it may be, but atheism, one who does not believe in the authority of the Vedas, they are called atheist.

Guest: What would you say is the completion of all design for matter or for human being, and particularly for human being and matter in general, the completion of all design?

Prabhupāda: Matter?

Guest: I said, what is the completion of all becoming, final goal, for a human being and for matter in general?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 7, 1973:

Just like the same thing happened in general politics also. When Gandhi started the movement, noncooperation movement, so he selected some very big men of India, big, big lawyers like C. R. Das, Motilal Nehru. So C. R. Das, at that time, about fifty years ago, he was earning about fifty thousand rupees per month by his legal practice. He said that "Gandhiji, you take all my money, but let me practice. Don't ask me to boycott the British court." But that was on the, one of the programs. So Gandhiji said, "No, I don't want your money. I want you." And actually that was very effective. So similarly Arjuna also decided that "I don't want Your soldiers. I want You." So these are different rasas.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Prabhupāda: On this planet also there are different types of men. Not all men are the same position, same as there are intelligent person, there is a foolish person, there is a rich person, there is...

Hayagrīva: He is speaking of men in general, everybody, all mankind.

Prabhupāda: All mankind, what does he mean all? Everyone is individual. What does he mean? This is not very good, intelligent.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: No. But not... Behind sense perception he also proceeds to the other levels. For instance, there's a..., he has to distinguish between the phenomenon of a sound, of a sound, and the constituting or intelligible essence of sound. From one particular sound, try to understand the nature of sound in general—what is sound. He says the intelligence comes into play then.

Prabhupāda: Sound is a symptom of the sky. When there is sound, there is sky.

Śyāmasundara: So that would be the next logical understanding, intuitive understanding.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: Behind hearing one sound, the proof of that understanding of sound in general is the sky, like that. In an elective process, this is a process for understanding these things.

Prabhupāda: On the whole, his process is mental speculation.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: He says, "I disagree with you when you go on to argue that man cannot in general do without the consolation of the religious illusion, that without it he would not endure the troubles of life, the cruelty of reality."

Prabhupāda: Man cannot do without education. Without education a man remains an animal. Therefore in the human society there is a school, college, an institution, teacher—not in the animal society. So the principle is, the man is meant for being learned or being educated. That you cannot deny, that man life should not be like cats and dogs, simply eating, sleeping, mating, and dying. That is not man's life. Man's life is to become advanced in knowledge and education. And as I have already described, the ultimate knowledge: to understand God. If he is so-called educated, without any understanding of God, then his education is imperfect. You can deny the existence of God, but the God conception is there in the human society. Some may accept it, some may not accept it—that is another thing—but the conception of God, the whole civilized world, they have got some type of religion. Either you become Christian or Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim, religion means there is some cultivation of knowledge to understand God. And to understand God is the ultimate knowledge. That is called Vedānta. Veda means knowledge, and the ultimate knowledge: Vedānta. So ultimate knowledge, it, what is that? That is the beginning of Vedānta education.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Prabhupāda: ...to spiritual consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, it is very horrible for him. But in this life he became very proud, "I don't care for God, I am independent," and so on, so on, so on, talking like a crazy fellow. But after death he has to accept a body as dictated by nature: "My dear sir, you have worked like a dog, you become a dog. You liked this surfing in the sea, now you become a fish." That will be given by the superior order. Karmaṇā daiva-netreṇa (SB 3.31.1). You have worked in a certain way. Now, by superior, super, superior dictation you will accept a type of body naturally. If you have infected some disease, when you are attacked by the disease you cannot protest because you have got already infected. Similarly, we are creating our next body, kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo 'sya (BG 13.22). We are keeping ourself in touch with a certain type of modes of material nature. That means we are creating our next body. How we..., can you stop it? That is nature's way. The same, if you have infected some disease you must get that disease. Similarly, there are three modes of material nature, tamo-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, sattva-guṇa, and transcendental. As you have kept your association in this life you get the similar body, paurva-dehikam. So even if you fail to achieve the highest goal in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, still, because you have kept yourself in the association of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, so you are going to get the chance to take birth śucīnāṁ śrīmatāṁ gehe (BG 6.41), either in the family of pure, purity, brāhmaṇa, or in the aristocratic family. In both the families, you get the chance of reviving your spiritual consciousness. But we forget that, or we do not get superior guidance, then we again fall. But there is chance. One who is born in rich family, one who is born in high-grade family, he has got the chance, and (indistinct) to take lessons from Bhagavad-gītā that "I have become..., I am born in rich family or in a brāhmaṇa family, so I am well situated. Now I must take where I left my, developed my spiritual consciousness." So if he tries, he gets the chance. So human form in general is a chance for making progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, especially when one is born in aristocratic family or a brāhmaṇa family or a Vaisnava family.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Prabhupāda: But practically we see that the Communist are also equally failure, even without God. Now these Chinese and Russians, they are not in agreement. So same thing—that those who believed in God and those who did not believe in God the difference existed. And now amongst the Communist there are coming out so many section. So the difference of opinion is still there even denying God, without God. So that is not improvement. The real purpose is to understand what is really God is. That is required both by the Communist or the capitalist. Denying God and acting independently, that has not brought any peaceful condition of the human society.

Hayagrīva: He felt, like Comte, that the proletariat, the worker, would eventually eliminate religion, and he wrote, "The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, the religious man in general is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, and from religion generally." So that the worker would become the savior of mankind in emancipating or freeing man from a religion that worshiped a supernatural being.

Prabhupāda: So that has not actually happened. Marx is dead and gone. The Communist theory is already there, but they are not in agreement. The Russians are not in agreement with the Chinese men. Why it has happened? The God is not there; the working class is there. Then why there is dissension and disagreement?