Just like the bird—whether the bird caused the fruit to fall, or whether the fruit happened to fall coincidentally. It doesn't matter. Is that the point?

Expressions researched:
"Just like the bird—whether the bird caused the fruit to fall, or whether the fruit happened to fall coincidentally. It doesn't matter. Is that the point"

Philosophy Discussions

Yes. It is simply useless talk. Because it is a fact that the fruit has fallen, and the crow has flown away. Now why should we bother? A waste of time. But both can be possible. These argument—one is saying that the bird sat down, which is the cause of falling of the fruit, and the other says the falling down is the cause of the bird's not being able to sit on it—both can be possible. But we say therefore the ultimate desire is of God. If God desired that the fruit would not fall, it would not have fallen. That is our proposition.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: He says that God is the supreme monad, or pure activity.

Prabhupāda: I was speaking like that. If God desires, then the other monads have no independence. The same example as I told you: the stone is falling down in the water, and the monads of the water giving way. It is falling down, but if God desires, the water will not give way, it will float. If God is the ultimate monad, that is possible. Therefore there is no reason for disbelieving that when Rāmacandra threw so many stones on the water of the sea, it began to float. You cannot disbelieve. If Rāmacandra is God and He is the ultimate cause, He can check. Whatever He wills will come into effect.

Śyāmasundara: But the point of whether the monad of the rock causes the monads of the water to part.

Prabhupāda: These causes can be changed—by God's will.

Śyāmasundara: Yes, I understand that, but if the monad of the rock causes the monads of the water to part, or whether the monads of the water part independently...?

Prabhupāda: That is all dependent on God's will.

Śyāmasundara: That's a moot question.

Prabhupāda: Therefore ultimate desire is God's.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the bird—whether the bird caused the fruit to fall, or whether the fruit happened to fall coincidentally. It doesn't matter. Is that the point?

Prabhupāda: Yes. It is simply useless talk. Because it is a fact that the fruit has fallen, and the crow has flown away. Now why should we bother? A waste of time. But both can be possible. These argument—one is saying that the bird sat down, which is the cause of falling of the fruit, and the other says the falling down is the cause of the bird's not being able to sit on it—both can be possible. But we say therefore the ultimate desire is of God. If God desired that the fruit would not fall, it would not have fallen. That is our proposition.

Śyāmasundara: I think you said once that the devotee picks up the fruit and offers it to Kṛṣṇa and eats it.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We don't see the cause and effect; we see that ultimate cause is Kṛṣṇa. "By Kṛṣṇa's desire we have got this nice thing. Offer it to Kṛṣṇa and eat it," that's all.

Śyāmasundara: So whether the water's parting allowed the rock to fall in, or whether the rock caused the water to part, it doesn't really matter.

Prabhupāda: It is ultimately depending on God's will. That is the explanation.

Śyāmasundara: He says that these monads are spiritual in nature; therefore they are immortal.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we admit, because Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's will, both of them are spiritual.