Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Logical (Lectures)

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

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. Have you distributed that... Yes. Go on.

Lecture on BG 2.20 -- Hyderabad, November 25, 1972:

Dehī, the living entity, simply changing the dress. It is the dress. This body is dress. Now the question is... Just like there was some discussion that the spirit has no form. How it can be? If this is, this body is my dress, how I have no form? How the dress has got form? My coat or shirt has got a form because my body has got a form. I have got two hands. Therefore my dress, my coat, has also two hands. My shirt has also two hands. So if this is dress, this body, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā—vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya (BG 2.22)—so if it is dress, then I must have a form. Otherwise how this dress is made? It is very logical conclusion and very easy to understand. Unless I have got my own form, how the dress has got form? What is the answer? Anyone can say? How the original living entity can be without hands and legs? If this body's my dress... Just like you go to a tailor. He takes measurement of your hand, of your leg, of your chest. Then your coat or shirt is made. Similarly, when you have got a particular type of dress, it is to be assumed that I have got my form, spiritual form. Nobody can refute this argument. And apart from our so-called argument, we have to accept the statement of Kṛṣṇa. The... Because He's authority.

Lecture on BG 3.21-25 -- New York, May 30, 1966:

It has been described in the Bhāgavata that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man, but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me. He can make my all conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by argument or logical conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the religious truth. It is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Śrutayaḥ means revealed scriptures. Revealed scriptures. Just like in the world there are many revealed scriptures. There are Vedas, Purāṇas, the Bible, the Koran, and there are so many religious scriptures also. And if you go on reading them, although the aim is one, still, you will find some discrepancy from one to another. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Vibhinnāḥ means they are diverse. They are diverse. Śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And so far philosophers are concerned, one philosopher tries to defeat another philosopher. That is the philosophical way. So nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. Therefore this truth of religion is very confidential. Nihitaṁ guhāyām. Guhāyām means it is very confidential.

Lecture on BG 4.1 and Review -- New York, July 13, 1966:

And there are, so far scriptures are concerned, you'll find different scriptures describing in a different way. So that also, you'll be bewildered. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And there are different philosophers who are always contradictory. One philosopher is deviating. He's not in agreement with another philosopher. He has got a different theory. Another has got different theory. So philosophers also cannot give you the real truth. So neither you can understand the real truth simply by going through different scriptures, nor you can understand the real truth simply by your logical force or argument. So dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The, the, I mean to say, the mystery of Absolute Truth is very confidential, very confidential. Then how I can understand? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "If you follow the mahājana, the authorities, then you can understand." Therefore, this authority, this disciplic succession...

In India there are disciplic successions. Now, so far we are concerned, we are following the disciplic succession. Just like Rāmānujācārya and the Madhvācārya and Nimbārka, Viṣṇu Svāmī. So we try to understand the Vedic literatures from our superior spiritual master. That is the process. Just like Arjuna is trying to understand from Bhagavad-gītā, or from Kṛṣṇa, similarly, if we want to understand Bhagavad-gītā, then we have to understand it from Arjuna, not from any other person.

Lecture on BG 4.1 -- Delhi, November 10, 1971:

In Sanskrit there is a logical conclusion, Dr. Frog. A frog within the well. You know, well, a three-feet circumference, and there is a frog. Another frog friend comes and informs the frog in the well, "My dear friend, today I have seen a very big span of water, Pacific Ocean." So the frog in the well, he considers that Pacific Ocean may be four feet. "My water is three feet, so Pacific Ocean may be four feet." So, he replied to his friend, "Is that Pacific Ocean four feet?" "No, no it is very big." "All right, five feet?" "No, no, it is very big." "All right, six feet!" (laughter) So in this way, if we speculate about God—one feet more—God may be little stronger than me, or richer than me, little. Or more rich, more rich. In this way you cannot speculate. What will he know, the frog, about the Pacific Ocean. Similarly, all our philosophical speculation about God, is the speculation of the frog within the well. Because our brain cannot accommodate what is greatness. So, in that way we cannot understand what is God. The process should be attempted.

Lecture on BG 4.4 -- Bombay, March 24, 1974:

Now we can derive conclusion that how is that? Kṛṣṇa appears like human being and we are also human being, the same two hands, two legs, one head. How is that He knows everything and I do not know? The conclusion should be derived like this, that we forget because we change our body. Just like I was a child, you were a child. Everyone of us. We did so many things in our childhood, but we have forgotten. With the change of the body, the activities of my past body is forgotten. This is a fact. Similarly when we change this body we get another body. We forget. But why Kṛṣṇa has not forgotten? That means He does not change His body. This should be the conclusion. This should be the conclusion from right, logical point of view. I forget because I change my body. Kṛṣṇa does not forget. He does not change His body. This should be the conclusion.

Lecture on BG 4.11-18 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1969:

Action, just like you are active. You are working, you all Kṛṣṇa conscious devotees, you are also working. You are not sitting idly, but it is inaction. Inaction in this sense that it is not producing any reaction. It has no reaction. But others, those who are not acting in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they are also busy but they are producing their reaction. So things which are not producing reaction, that is inaction. One who can see that "I am acting in this way, there is no reaction," that is inaction. And one who sees that "I am doing this but there is reaction," that is action. So it requires little intelligence to see how it is action or inaction. Therefore it is said that one who can see action in inaction and inaction in action, he is intelligent.

Yes. Any other question? From the audience? Yes, you try to understand. Try to understand the science of God philosophically, intelligently, logically. There is no question of dogma. Everything is nicely explained in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is so you can try to understand. Yes?

Lecture on BG 4.24-34 -- New York, August 12, 1966:

And dravyamaya-yajña means, just like yesterday, day before yesterdays, discussed that in the altar of fire we have to sacrifice clarified butter, grains, or sometimes animal sacrifice. They are called dravyamaya-yajña. So Kṛṣṇa says, śreyān dravyamayād yajñāt. That dravyamaya, that sacrificing goods or other things in the yajña, from that type of yajña, śreyān dravyamayād yajñāj jñāna-yajñaḥ parantapa. Jñāna-yajña, this philosophical discussion, logical discussion of the aim of life from authorized books like Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, if we have discussion, this is called jñānamaya-yajña, with knowledge, jñānamaya-yajña.

So why jñānamaya-yajña is preferred? Sarvaṁ karmākhilaṁ pārtha jñāne parisamāpyate. Because after all, we have to acquire that knowledge which will make me a surrendered soul to the Supreme. That's it. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). So jñāna also means that to understand our position, to understand what is God, to understand what is our relationship with God, to understand why we are in this material world and what is our next life, wherefrom we have come, where we have the right knowledge, you can understand all these things. And when you understand everything, the path is clear, you can clearly understand that "I am the part and parcel of the Supreme; therefore my duty is to render transcendental service to the Supreme." That is the highest yajña, highest jñāna, knowledge, knowledge, yajña. So Kṛṣṇa advises that jñānamaya-yajña, sacrifice... Sacrifice.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Sydney, February 16, 1973:

Unfortunately, the impersonalists, they have no idea of the form, form of the Lord. Because they're impersonalist, they do not accept any form of the Lord. But there is the form of the Lord. Form of the Lord, there must be. God is accepted as the supreme father. In Christianity also it is accepted, the supreme father. In every religion He's accepted the supreme person, supreme father, supreme master. So how He can be accepted as imperson? From logical point of view... Just like you are a person, your father is a person, his father is also a person, his father is also a person. Go on, even you do not know your topmost forefather, you know it that he was a person. Similarly, the supreme father, the father of all fathers, how He can be imperson? Logically you cannot conclude. He must be a person. And that is the Vedic version also. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Durban, October 9, 1975:

So similarly, the conclusion is that when this body will be vanquished, I shall accept another body. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). This is simple method of understanding the transmigration of the soul. So real problem is that I am eternal, but I am put into such condition that I have to take birth and die, I have to become old and I have to disease. This is the real problem. The modern civilization, they are supposed to be very much advanced. What is the advancement? The real problem is there. You have to accept death. Nobody wants to die, but why death is there? But they are callous. They think, "We have to accept this death" or "This is finished," all vague idea, no real idea.

So if we want to be really learned, if we want to know what is our constitutional position, what is the aim of life, what is God, how we can reestablish our relationship with God, these things are explained in the Bhagavad-gītā very clearly. And if we are intelligent enough, we should take this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement very seriously. And if you want to understand this movement scientifically, philosophically, we have got hundreds of books, all being accepted by educated circle, very logically and very philosophically written. You read them, chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, take advantage of this movement and be successful in your life.

Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- Paris, June 13, 1974:

Translator: She would like to know if our religion can bring something more than the other religions.

Prabhupāda: There is one religion. One who knows God, he is religious. One who does not know God, that religion has no meaning. Religion means to understand the order of God. That is religion. But if you do not know what is God, and how you can hear His order? So religion without understanding God philosophically and logically is sentiment. And philosophy without understanding of God is mental speculation. So when philosophy and religious sentiments combine, that is called religion. Otherwise, it is not religion.

Bhagavān: Have kīrtana?

Prabhupāda: Yes. (end)

Lecture on BG 9.4 -- Melbourne, April 22, 1976:

Guest (2): What can you do to still two voices inside yourself? One voice tells me that the mystics' view on the world is correct and it has its own logic and it's consistent. And this, when I'm in a meditative mood I can comprehend. But when I walk in the daylight and the illusions are around one, then the other voice talks and says, my so-called logical voice, my daily, logical voice, says, "That a fantasy, a dream you're chasing. You're only putting your logic to it. Maybe it doesn't exist." How can one get over this doubt?

Prabhupāda: That means you are surrendering to different people. That is your position.

Guest (2): Sorry, I didn't hear you. Sorry.

Prabhupāda: You are surrendering to this boy or that boy, hearing. This is correct or that is correct. But you do not know what is correct. So under the circumstances, you surrender to Kṛṣṇa; you'll get the correct answer.

Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966:

So the Vedic literature teaches us that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: "In the spiritual matter, you cannot argue." Your argument will be failure because you may be very good arguer, but I may come. I can cut all your arguments. And somebody else comes—he cuts all my arguments. It is a question of logic. So there are many logical experts. So by arguments we cannot reach the Supreme Truth. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Not by purchasing books from the market and reading it. No. That also will not help you. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you purchase Bhagavad-gītā, you purchase Bible, you purchase Koran, or... So many, there are, literatures. They are also authorized. That's all right. But you cannot learn them by your own study. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). One must go and learn it from the spiritual master, exactly you purchase some scientific book, medical science, or engineering and study at home. Oh, you will never be acknowledged as a medical practitioner. You have to admit yourself into the, that disciplic succession, medical college. You have to attend lectures. Then, when you pass degree, then you will be admitted.

Lecture on BG 16.9 -- Hawaii, February 5, 1975:

Just like in business circle there is Bentley's code. So for business facility, for saving expenditure, the telegraphic codes are there. So one who does not know what is this code, but he can refer to the book. The explanation is there: "This code means this wording." Similarly, Brahma-sūtra means the whole Vedic knowledge is given in codes. Brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhiḥ. It is called nyāya-prasthāna. Nyāya means logic. Nyāya means... There are three kinds of authorities: śruti-prasthāna, smṛti-prasthāna, and nyāya-prasthāna. So the Brahma-sūtra is nyāya-prasthāna, very logically, very logically given.

Just like in the first code in the Brahma-sūtra is athāto brahma jijñāsā. Brahma-jijñāsā, to inquire about the Absolute... The jijñāsā means inquiry. In the cats' and dogs' life the inquiry is "Where is food? Where is shelter? Where is sex?" and "Where is defense?" only these four inquiries. The cats and dogs, they are busy, "Where is food? Find out some food." The pig is finding out: "Where is stool? Where is stool?" Here I do not know whether you have got experience. In our country, in the villages, there are so many pigs loitering. They are simply finding out where is stool. In the village the children, they pass stool here and there, and the men, they go to the field and pass, evacuate. So all these pigs are always loitering there. So they're seeking. The inquiry is for stool. They may take it as food, but after all, it is stool. So according to the body, the different foods are there. That is also described. Sāttvika-āhāra, rājasika-āhāra, tāmasika-āhāra. Everything is there in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.2.1 -- New Vrindaban, September 1, 1972:

Therefore in every religion, God is accepted as the supreme father. The Christian religion also, they say, "O father, give us our daily bread." So God is accepted, actually He is the father. Must have. We must have original father. You cannot say there is no God. If you are existing, you are existing because of your father. Your father is existing because of his father, his father, his father. There must be somebody original father. That is logical conclusion, not that "I am born out of air" or "My father is born out of air, my grandfather is born..." No. There must be somebody—father. That is given to understand in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that He is the origin of everything. Origin must be there. Anything you take, there must be origin. The modern scientists, they cannot find out the origin. They simply say, "It existed like this." Wherefrom this existence came? "There was chemicals, hydrogen, oxygen, and mixed up, there was water." Who put the hydrogen, oxygen? So these answers they cannot give because they have no perfect knowledge. So logical conclusion is there must be somebody, origin. That is God, from whom everything emanates, everything takes birth.

Lecture on SB 1.8.32 -- Los Angeles, April 24, 1973:

This is very logical and supported by the śāstra and spoken by the greatest authority, by Kṛṣṇa. And why should you not accept it? If you don't accept, that is foolishness. If you don't think that there is no life after death, that is foolishness. There is life after death. So because we are accepting one body after another since time immemorial, we cannot think of that there is life eternal. It is difficult for us.

Just like a diseased man. He's lying down on the bed and eating there, passing stool there, passing urine there, and he cannot move and very bitter medicine. So many inconvenience. He's lying down. So he's thinking of committing suicide. "Oh, this life is very intolerable. Let me commit suicide." So in desperate condition sometimes the philosophy of voidism, impersonalism is followed. To make the things zero. Because this life is so much troublesome, sometimes even one commits suicide to get out of this, I mean to say, troublesome life of material existence. So the philosophy of voidism, impersonalism is like that. Mean they cannot, shudder, to think of another life, again eating, again sleeping, again working. Because he thinks eating, sleeping, means on the bed. That's all. And suffering. He cannot think otherwise. So the negative way, to make it zero. That is void philosophy.

Lecture on SB 1.8.38 -- Los Angeles, April 30, 1973:

So if you make research, that is intelligent research. Then you'll find, "Here is the electric powerhouse." Similarly, if you further study, that who is running on this powerhouse, you'll find a human being. He's not impersonal; he's person. The electricity is impersonal. Even the powerhouse is also imperson. But the man behind the everything, that is a person. Therefore God is person. Logical conclusion. How He can be imperson? Imperson has no brain. The... Just like so many machines now we have invented, very wonderful machines. But the machine is not the brain. The operator is the brain. Why do they not understand? Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram: (BG 9.10) "You are seeing the energy or the wonderful action and reaction of this material cosmic manifestation. But don't think that they are working independently. No. I am behind there." So what is the difficulty to understand? Or from example you can understand how things can go on nicely without a nice brain behind these things? It is conclusion. Mayādhyakṣeṇa. And Kṛṣṇa says further, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam avyakta-mūrtinā (BG 9.4). Avyakta, avyakta is also mūrti, a form. Just like the sky. The sky is avyakta, not manifest, but it has also a form, a round form, the universe. Without form there is nothing. Everything has form. The so-called impersonal, that is also form. Just like you go to the ocean, you will find a form, a big circle. That is also form. How you can say there is no form?

Lecture on SB 1.8.48 -- Mayapura, October 28, 1974:

So actually, a sane man is thinking that "After all, the idea was that I should be enthroned on this chair, on this throne of the kingdom, and for me so many animals and men were killed." Here it is mentioned, yes (reading), "A solid phalanx of 21,870 chariots, 21,870 elephants, 109,650 infantry and 65,600 calvary is called an akṣauhiṇī." Such eighteen divisions of soldiers were there on one side. "And many akṣauhiṇīs were killed on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra. Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, as the most pious king of the world, takes for himself the responsibility of killing such a huge number of living beings because the battle was fought to reinstate him on the throne. This body is, after all, meant for others. While there is life in the body, it is meant for the service of the others, and (when) it is dead it is meant to be eaten up by the dogs and jackals." Even it is dead body, that is also meant for others. If you throw it on the street, then it will be eaten by the animals and the vultures. So body is meant for others. Or if you don't throw, if you burn it, then—it is right of the sons to burn it—then it belongs to them. So either living or dead, logically the body belongs to others. And another logic is: Who is interested to maintain a body which belongs to others? This is logic. And other point is that everyone is maintaining this body with so many sinful activities, although the body does not belong to him.

Lecture on SB 1.8.48 -- Mayapura, October 28, 1974:

So actually our body belongs to Kṛṣṇa, and I also belong to Kṛṣṇa. Pārakya. In both senses it belongs to other. Other means Kṛṣṇa. So, logically both the body, mind, intelligence, and myself—everything should be engaged for Kṛṣṇa's interest. That is real knowledge. That is real knowledge. Kṛṣṇa says that kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata (BG 13.3). He is also kṣetra-jña. I am kṣetra-jña because I possess this body, and the body is kṣetra, the field of activities. Just like here the cultivators, they have got... Each one of them have got some land, and they are producing food grains or any other products according to his ability and capacity, and he's enjoying this property. Therefore he's called kṣetra-jña or kṣetrī. The field is called kṣetra and the owner is called kṣetrī, or kṣetra-jña. Kṣetra-jña means that cultivator knows that "This earmarked land is mine." Kṣetra-jña. "It belongs to me." So actually this field does not belong to him; it belongs to the government, because he has to pay, collect, tax to the collector. So actually land does not belong to him; it belongs to the government. Similarly, where is the difficulty to understand that although I am cultivating this body, karma...? Taking this body as my field of activities, we are doing work. Everyone can understand it. But finally this body belongs to Kṛṣṇa, as this land belongs to the government.

Lecture on SB 1.15.33 -- Los Angeles, December 11, 1973:

Sometimes they come to your country also. They say that "This world is false," jagan mithyā, mithyā. But we don't say that it is false. We say it is reality, but temporary. That is right philosophy. How it can be false? Because everything is produced by the truth, by the Absolute Truth. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Nothing can come out except from the Absolute Truth. Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: (BG 10.8) "I am the origin of everything." If Kṛṣṇa is truth, He is the origin of everything, so how everything can be false? Is that very logical? No. If something has come from gold... Just like we have got so many preparations of gold: gold bangles, gold earring, gold necklace. But it has come from the gold; therefore it is gold. How it can be false? Gold is never false. Gold is gold. So this philosophy that brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, that "Gold mine is right, but the gold earring is wrong..." No. That you cannot say. If gold mine is right, then gold earring is also right because it has come from the gold mine. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says that ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: (BG 10.8) "I am the origin of everything." And the Vedānta-sūtra also says, janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) "Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates." So everything has emanated from Kṛṣṇa. So how this material world can be false? It is true.

Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the source of both animate and inanimate." So Kṛṣṇa. What is Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa is life, supreme life. Kṛṣṇa is not dead. We are getting Kṛṣṇa's description. He is not a dead body. These are things very, I mean to say, elaborately described in the Vedic literature. Just like in Vedānta it is said, "The origin of everything is Brahman." Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), athāto brahma jijñāsā. Now this origin of everything, what is the formation, animate or inanimate? This is accepted, that Brahman means, the Absolute Truth means, the origin of everything. Now the next question would be that "What is that origin?" The modern scientists, they think the origin is chemicals. But we say, "No. It cannot be chemicals." Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ (SB 1.1.1). The origin of everything must be cognizant. He knows everything. Otherwise how He can be origin? It is very logical. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayāt (SB 1.1.1), origin. Just like I have established this institution. I know how it was established perfectly, and how it is going on. And somebody may not know how it was established in New York with so great difficulty. But because I am the origin founder, I know. So similarly, so many things are going on in the nature's way. So the origin, He must know everything. And if He knows, then He cannot be inanimate. Where is the possibility of the origin becoming inanimate? No. Because the argument is, if one is origin of everything, or something he is origin of, he must have sense how things are going on.

Lecture on SB 2.1.2 -- Mombassa, September 13, 1971:

Actually it is dark. Simply by sunshine, moonshine, electricity, fire, in this way we keep it glittering. Otherwise, it is dark. This whole universe is dark. By God's arrangement, there is sun, moon, like that, illumining. But there is another world where there is no need of sun and moon, and that is spiritual world. That is spiritual world, this information is there. So, therefore, uttamam, one who is inquisitive to learn about that spiritual world, not of this dark world... The world is dark, I have already explained. Against this there is another world who is full of light. Because unless there is light, there cannot be darkness. We cannot understand what is darkness unless there is light. Or we cannot understand light unless there is darkness. So because this world is dark, therefore, you can conclude by logical argument there must be another world which is full of light. That is not very difficult to understand. Just like here is light, the other wall is darkness. So because this world is dark, tama, there must be another world which is full of light. Not only your logical conclusion, but it is confirmed by the Vedic literature.

Lecture on SB 2.3.20 -- Bombay, March 24, 1977, At Cross Maidan Pandal:

One can engage in devotional service when the senses of the body are purified in relation with the Lord, and one can render service to the Lord with the help of all the senses. As such, the senses and the action of the senses are to be considered impure or materialistic as long as they are employed only in sense gratification. The purified senses are engaged not in sense gratification but in the service of the Lord in toto. The Lord is the Supreme with all senses, and the servitor, who is part and parcel of the Lord, also has the same senses. Service to the Lord is the completely purified use of the senses, as described in the Bhagavad-gītā. The Lord imparted instructions with full senses, and Arjuna received them with full senses, and thus there was a perfect exchange of sensible and logical understanding between the master and the disciple. Spiritual understanding is nothing like an electrical charge from the master to the disciple, as foolishly claimed by some propaganda-mongers. Everything is full of sense and logic, and the exchange of views between the master and disciple is possible only when the reception is submissive and real. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said that one should receive the teaching of Lord Caitanya with intellect and full senses so that one can logically understand the great mission.

Lecture on SB 2.3.20-21 -- Los Angeles, June 17, 1972:

Pradyumna: Purport: "Devotional service of the Lord is rendered by all limbs or parts of the body. It is the transcendental dynamic force of the spirit soul; therefore a devotee is engaged one hundred percent in the service of the Lord. One can engage in devotional service when the senses of the body are purified in relation with the Lord, and one can render service to the Lord with the help of all senses. As such, the senses and the action of the senses are to be considered as impure or materialistic as long as they are employed in sense gratification only. The purified senses are engaged not in sense gratification, but in the service of the Lord in toto. The Lord is the Supreme with all senses, and the servitor, who is part and parcel of the Lord, also has the same senses. Service of the Lord is the completely purified use of the senses, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā. The Lord imparted instructions with full senses, and Arjuna received them with full senses, and thus there was a perfect exchange of sensible and logical understanding between the master and the disciple.

Spiritual understanding is nothing like an electrical charge from the master to the disciple as it is foolishly claimed by some propaganda-mongers. Everything is full of sense and logic, and the exchange of views between the master and the disciple is possible when the reception is submissive and real only. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said that one should receive the teaching of Lord Caitanya with intellect and full senses so that one can logically understand the great mission."

Prabhupāda: Caitanya dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. The exact language is there. That Caitanya-caritāmṛta writer, Kavirāja Gosvāmī, says that "You put your logic about the mercy of Lord Caitanya. I request you, you consider. Don't accept it blindly." Śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-dayā karaha vicāra. "But if you intelligently deliberate on the mercy of Caitanya Mahāprabhu,"

śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-dayā karaha vicāra
vicāra karile citte pābe camatkāra
(CC Adi 8.15)

"you'll feel wonderful. If you accept it by systematic deliberation about the mercy of Lord Caitanya, then you'll feel that it is wonderful." So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not a, I mean to say, force, that we are pushing something forcibly to anyone. There is complete judgement. But unfortunately, if one cannot understand, that is not our fault. One must have the intelligence to understand. Otherwise, logically, philosophically, it is perfect.

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.

Lecture on SB 3.25.4 -- Bombay, November 4, 1974:

So actually, the Absolute Truth is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, or the Vedānta-sūtra's explanation, natural explanation,... Actually, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was written by Vyāsadeva. Here it is said, dvaipāyana-sakha. Dvaipāyana means Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva compiled this Brahma-sūtra, and he explained it, bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **, this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. If we read some artificial comments on Brahma-sūtra, we'll misunderstand. Generally, these Māyāvādīs give prominence of the comment given by Śaṅkarācārya about Brahma-sūtra, Śārīraka-bhāṣya. But that is unnatural. The natural commentation is given by the author himself, Vyāsadeva. So we have to understand... Vyāsadeva has written Brahma-sūtra, and we have to understand the meaning of Brahma... Brahma-sūtra means codes only. So codes can be explained by the author himself. So our process is to accept the Brahma-sūtra. Brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ (BG 13.5). Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā. So Brahma-sūtra is nyāya-prasthāna. Nyāya-prasthāna: very logically, transcendental knowledge. So brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ (BG 13.5). So we must... Therefore, according to our Vedic system, the ācārya must understand Brahma-sūtra and explain. Then he'll be accepted as ācārya.

Lecture on SB 3.25.31 -- Bombay, December 1, 1974:

So we have to accept one of these mahājana. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Then you will be successful. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: If you want to learn the Absolute Truth by logic and argument, it will never be possible. Logician... You may be one logician, better logician than me, and another logician may be better than you. But the Absolute Truth is avan manasa-gocara. By logical arguments how you can reach? That is not possible. Tarko 'prati... Therefore it is useless waste of time. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures, even you take the Vedic scriptures, there are so many: four Vedas... Some of them are following the Yajur-veda, some of them following Ṛg-veda, some of them Sāma-veda, Atharva-veda. Then there are Upaniṣads. Then there are Purāṇas, then Brahma-sūtra, the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata. They are all right. But because I am ill-advised, I take conclusion differently. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Or you take Bible or Koran. So by simply reading all the scriptures, it is very difficult also.

Lecture on SB 3.26.15 -- Bombay, December 24, 1974:

So if a devotee becomes nirguṇa immediately, as soon as he is engaged in devotional service of the Lord, how the Supreme Lord can become saguṇa? Just try to understand. Use your logic. If one becomes a devotee of the nirguṇa, he becomes nirguṇa, so why the nirguṇa God can be saguṇa? This Māyāvādī theory is not very logical, that when God comes He is saguṇa, He accepts this material body. No. That is not possible. Why He should accept body? He is all-powerful. He cannot be affected by the material laws. A man is suffering from some disease, infected. That does not mean when the physician comes to treat him he is also infected. He knows how to protect himself, disinfectant.

Lecture on SB 3.26.30 -- Bombay, January 7, 1975:

So why if they have gone to the spiritual world and stays in the Brahman effulgence and still they are māninaḥ, not certain? Yes. Why? Because they cannot stay there. This is very logical argument and statement of the Vedic literature. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32). They fall down because they do not get ānanda. Spiritual effulgence is simply eternity. So suppose if you live eternally without any ānanda, how long you will like to live like that? Is it possible? That you cannot do. Suppose somebody lives eternally in the sky without any death. Rather, he will try to commit suicide. It is not possible. It is not possible. Just like we have got experience. If you remain for very long time—I have got experience—in the sea or in the air, you feel very uncomfortable. You want to land down, land down, another air station, another port, and feel very uncomfortable.

Lecture on SB 3.26.34 -- Bombay, January 11, 1975:

Mahato bhayāt. Bhaya, or fearfulness, is of our next life. That is bhaya. Everyone is afraid of dying. Why? There is fearfulness that after this body, after death, nobody knows where he is going. That is bhaya. Everyone should be afraid of that. Suppose you are pushed somewhere. You do not know whether..., where you are going. So that is very dangerous. One must know "Where I am going." But they do not believe in the next life. Due to lack of knowledge, poor fund of knowledge, they... There is no question of disbelieving. It is quite logical, as Kṛṣṇa says, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā (BG 2.13). As you are changing body... Everyone is changing. Everyone knows, "I was a child. Then I became a baby, I became a boy, I became a young man. Now I am old man." So these, one after an..., change, one body after another, that is going on simply... Similarly, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ, after this body is finished, I must get another body.

Lecture on SB 5.5.1-2 -- Bombay, March 25, 1977:

Prabhupāda: Mokṣa means that when you are eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. When you desire to become master of the world, then you become bound up. And when you give up this artificial desire, that is mokṣa.

Guest (3): Thank you.

Guest (4): Would you agree that God is just a concept? If you do not, please give a logical reason for that.

Prabhupāda: What is that?

Guest (4): Would you agree that God is just a concept? If you do not agree to that, please explain it logically.

Prabhupāda: Why shall I agree, God is only concept?

Guest (4): Because I want it logically.

Prabhupāda: You do not know logic. You have to learn logic.

Guest (4): But I still would like you to explain it logically.

Prabhupāda: Yes, but you have to learn how to know it. There is master. There is master. Just like you cannot prove logically that without father there is a child. This is no logic.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 12, 1975:

Who says God has no form? God is the supreme father. You know your father has form. What the supreme father has done that He'll not have form? Your father has got form. You're born of him. Then why the supreme father will not have form? What fault He has done? What is this logic? God is supposed to..., the supreme father. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). That is the Vedic information. The Supreme is that which is the source of everything. So we have got varieties of forms, and why the source should be formless? Why? What is the logic? We have got so many forms—8,400,000—and Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā: (BG 14.4) "Of all these forms of life, I am the seed-giving father." The seed-giving father, Kṛṣṇa, has form, and His sons have got form. Why the father should be formless? What is this logic? Eh? What is this logic—can anyone say?—that because He's father, therefore He should be formless. What is this logic? The father must have form. Otherwise how many form... All these forms, wherefrom it is coming? Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja pradaḥ pitā. He is the father. If the sons have form, why the father will not have form? What is this logic? This is not logical conclusion. The real idea is... Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "My dear Arjuna, you, Me, and all these kings and soldiers who have assembled here, they were in the past like this," that means they have forms, "and they're existing like this.

Lecture on SB 6.1.6 -- Honolulu, May 7, 1976:

Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). But if one has got little favor of Kṛṣṇa, he is called bhāgyavān, not Bhagavān; bhāgyavān, fortunate. The word is coming from the same bhaga. I have several times explained. Bhaga means richness, bhaga means influence, bhaga means bodily strength, bhaga means knowledge, bhaga means beauty, and bhaga means renunciation. Aiśvaryasya samāgrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47). And bhaga means reputation, fame. So these are the symptoms of bhaga. So Parīkṣit Mahārāja, although nobody can be equal to Kṛṣṇa... Bhagavān means asamaurdha. Nobody is equal to Him; nobody is greater than Him. That is Bhagavān. I am fortunate, you are fortunate, but we have got many equals and many greater than. But when you reach somebody where you find nobody is equal to Him and nobody is greater than Him, that is real Bhagavān. This is a logical conclusion, who is Bhagavān. Nowadays so many rascals they write, "Bhagavān." Bhagavān. That is blasphemy. If Bhagavān likes, such persons should be punished. But Bhagavān excuses. That is another thing. So Bhagavān is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Nobody should try to become equal to Him. That is not possible.

Lecture on SB 6.1.7 -- San Francisco, March 1, 1967:

Therefore simply by argument and logical conclusion, you cannot approach to the Absolute Truth or real truth. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. And if you consult yourself scriptures... Just like Bhagavad-gītā, if you read yourself, you get one kind of impression, and if you hear explanation from an authorized person, you get another impression. The book is the same, but by hearing from the authorities, you get a better impression, better understanding. There are so many examples like this. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Now there are many scriptures in the world. The Hindus have got the Vedas; the Christians have got the Bible; the Muslims, they have got Koran. Now, if you read all these scriptures, you will find something contradictory. Just like animal killing. Animal killing, more or less, there are in every scripture, restricted or nonrestricted. There is none nonrestricted. Restricted. Even in the Koran, the animal killing is restricted. Animal is to be killed in the, in certain Bakri Eid ceremony and in the Masjid. Similarly, animal killing amongst the Hindus, they are to be done in the temple of Goddess Kālī. But no slaughterhouse is recommended.

Lecture on SB 6.2.1-5 -- Calcutta, January 6, 1971:

Just like in every religion there is a dogma. But in bhāgavata religion, bhāgavata-dharma, there is no dogma. Caitanya Mahāprabhu's bhāgavata-dharma, the Caitanya-caritāmṛta's author, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, says, therefore, that caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. Vicāra means you just try to understand the gift of Lord Caitanya by logic, vicāra. Don't follow blindly. Following blindly something, that is not good. That will not stay. But one should take everything with logic. But the servants of God, they put everything in logic. Caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. If you study the Caitanya's philosophy with logic and argument... Don't go by sentiment. The so-called missionary, they're simply bogus propaganda without any logic. Without any logic. Just like some missionary people are propagating a man to become God. How a man can become God? There must be evidences how God incarnates. Not that somebody by worshiping a demigod becomes God. So many false propaganda is going on. That is not logical at all. So one should be intelligent to understand the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa or philosophy of Lord Caitanya with logic and argument. Don't follow blindly. But once you accept, you cannot argue. You have to accept blindly. But before accepting, you take to logic.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.5 -- Mayapur, March 29, 1975:

So we should not take in that way. We should follow the footsteps of Caitanya-caritāmṛta kar, that we should understand that this praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ, this transformation of loving affairs between Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, this is not like this, the ordinary boy and girl. It is ahlādinī śakti. If we take that, then we are misled. How He can take? Because for understand brahma-sukha we are giving up everything—I mean from the Māyāvādī point of view—and again, Kṛṣṇa being Paraṁ Brahman, how He can indulge in material happiness? This is the argument. Brahma-sukha, to understand brahma-sukha, to release brahma-sukha, if one is giving up everything material... There are three kinds of sukha: material sukha, brahma-sukha, and spiritual sukha. Brahma-sukha is on the margin. Sukha means happiness. Therefore, from logical point of view, we should conclude it that "Kṛṣṇa, being Para-brahman, how He can indulge in material happiness?" This is very important point. If for understanding little bit of brahma-sukha we are giving up all material enjoyment, how Kṛṣṇa can enjoy materially? He is Paraṁ Brahman. Therefore those sahajiyās, those who are taking that Kṛṣṇa is enjoying with ordinary girls, they are very, very, much misled. That is not the fact. Therefore it is said, hlādinī śakti. This is different. This is in the spiritual world the topmost mellow, hlādinī śakti.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, March 7, 1974:

So here it is said, eka-vastu. So far the substance is concerned, that is eka-vastu. Just like in logical categories the substance is there, and there are many categories. Take for example that the Absolute Truth is one, but there are categories: "This is śakti-tattva; this is prakāśa-tattva; this is incarnation tattva; this is marginal potency; this is external potency." Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). There are many multipotencies. Because the original is Absolute Truth, in one sense everyone is in the same absolute platform. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is a verse, idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaraḥ: "This viśva, the whole cosmic manifestation, is Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Just like Kṛṣṇa manifested His universal form. So every part and parcel is Bhagavān, but still, it is different. This is the philosophy of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's acintya-bhedābheda: simultaneously one and different, inconceivable. We cannot conceive at the present moment how one thing can be the same, at the same time different; therefore it is called acintya, inconceivable.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says mukhya-vṛttye, direct meaning, as it is said. That is beauty of understanding. Janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) "The supreme source from which everything emanating, that is Brahman." What is the interpretation? There is no interpretation. Supreme... There must be some supreme source. That is quite philosophical and logical, that I have my... This bodily existence has a source, my father. My father has a source, his father. His father... Go on. There must be one supreme source. That is God. Simple to understand. Is it very difficult to understand? The supreme cause, He is God. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is described in Brahma-saṁhitā, sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1). Kāraṇa means "cause," and sarva means "all." There are cause, cause, cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and eff... When you reach to the supreme cause, He's Kṛṣṇa. He is Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "Because Brahman, or the Supreme Lord, is the greatest, therefore His body cannot be made of this material nature." Because material nature is created at a certain interval, and who creates? Creates, the Supreme Lord. The creator, therefore, cannot be under the material nature. If I am creator of something, so I cannot be under the, that particular thing which is created. It is logical. So therefore, because the Supreme Brahman, or Bhagavān, is the creator of this material nature, He cannot be under the control of māyā. He is... And that is also stated in Bhagavad-gītā, many places. Sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). Ātma-māyayā. Not this māyā. Māyā means potency. So we have got the experience of this potency, material potency, but there is another potency which is called spiritual potency. So spiritual potency is the internal energy of Kṛṣṇa, and material potency is the external energy. So Kṛṣṇa says that "Whenever I come," yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata (BG 4.7), "whenever there is discrepancies in the discharging of religious principles," adharmasya abhyutthānam abhyutthānam adharmasya, "and there is great predominance of irreligiosity," tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham, "I, at that time, I come." Paritra... Why? Paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām: (BG 4.8) "Just to save the pious and the righteous and to vanquish the impious."

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.98-102 -- April 27, 1976, Auckland, New Zealand:

Ask any learned scholar in these days that "What is the ultimate goal of life?" They will say, "Oh, there is no particular end (?). Let us live very happily, and after death everything is finished." I have consulted many men, big, big professors, Indian and foreign. They have no idea of the first education in the Bhagavad-gītā: tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati (BG 2.13). There is change of body. There is already change of body. I was a child, I was a boy, I was a young man. Now the body is changed—I have got this wretched body, old man's body. So all these bodies... That is simple, logical. Kṛṣṇa says in the beginning—that is the first lesson of Bhagavad-gītā-that,

dehino 'smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir
dhīras tatra na muhyati
(BG 2.13)

Dehinaḥ means the proprietor of the body. But every one of us, thinking "I am this body." They have no first lesson of Bhagavad-gītā. First lesson only, ABCD, that "You are not this body." This is the first lesson. When Arjuna was talking in bodily relationship, so, and he accepted Kṛṣṇa as guru... Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). "There is perplexity. I cannot understand, Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa was his friend, but he accepted Him guru. Accepting guru means if you accept somebody guru, then whatever he will say, you have to accept. Śiṣya. Śiṣya means one who is ruled. So if you voluntarily accept somebody, that "I shall be ruled by you," that is guru. Not that "I shall rule over you by giving some money." Then it is not accepting guru.

Festival Lectures

Ratha-yatra -- Los Angeles, July 1, 1971:

Just like in Christian church they confess. Of course, that is the injunction. That's all right. After confessing, the sins are excused. That's a fact. But if he comes back, again commits the same, then where is the effect? But they are happy in that way. They are... "After one week, I shall go to the church and confess my sins. Then everything will be neutralized." This is all right. Suppose on Sunday you become free from all contamination of your sinful activities. And Monday you again do the same thing. So you become again contaminated. And, say, on Tuesday if you die, then you are dying with sins. Is it not? Then what is your condition? If the God or Christ excused you of your sinful life, that's all right. But when you come back, you don't commit again sin. Then you are all right. But we have taken it as a business that we go to Sunday, neutralize our sins, and come back again and do the same thing. So from logical point of view, suppose you do the same sinful activities, and if you die immediately, then you die with sinful activities, go to hell. What benefit you derive by confessing in the church? This business is going on. "Now I have seen Jagannātha. My liberation is guaranteed. Now I can do anything." That's all. This mentality. This mentality will not give you liberation. You have seen Jagannātha, your sinful activities are now neutralized, but don't commit again. Now make progress. Then your liberation is guaranteed. Is it clear?

Sri Sri Radha Gokulananda Deity Installation -- London, August 21, 1973:

So this Deity worship in the temple means worshiping Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He's akhilātmā-bhūtaḥ (Bs. 5.37). Where you shall find Him? He's everywhere. Therefore, He has very kindly accepted to assume a form which you can handle. This form of Kṛṣṇa, the atheist will say that "Here is a form made of marble. How is that they are worshiping God, Kṛṣṇa?" That is atheist view. But from the śāstra, we understand Kṛṣṇa, if He is within the atom, why not within the marble? It is simply understanding. Not only within, the marble itself is also Kṛṣṇa. Because in the Bhagavad-gītā we understand: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca (BG 7.4). These material elements, earth, earth, water, fire, air, they are Kṛṣṇa's energy. Kṛṣṇa says bhinnā me prakṛtir aṣṭadhā. They are My energies, separated energy. So even if you consider that here is not Kṛṣṇa but a marble. No, that marble is also Kṛṣṇa. Marble is also... And Kṛṣṇa is, being omnipotent, even for your logical argument... Even if you say that this is a marble statue, still Kṛṣṇa is so powerful, omnipotent, that He can accept your service even through this marble. Actually, it is not marble. Or from spiritual vision, everything being Kṛṣṇa, so Kṛṣṇa can accept your service even through the marble, even through the water, even through the fire.

Six Gosvamis Lecture, Sri Sri Sad-govamy-astaka -- Los Angeles, November 18, 1968:

So He is within you. If you are sincere to Him and to the instruction, following, then everything will come out automatically even if you don't read. This is the special significance of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that we want simply sincere soul; then everything is there. You study or no study. But for preaching work, studying required. If you are..., because you have to meet so many opposing elements, so if you can give some reference from books of authority. But even if you don't give references, you can speak logically, you can place arguments logically. So Kṛṣṇa will help, Kṛṣṇa is within you. Don't think that Kṛṣṇa is without. He's without and within, both. That is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. When Kṛṣṇa was standing before Kuntī and He also entered within the womb of Uttarā to save Parīkṣit Mahārāja, so Kuntī said that "I see that You are within and without. Still, You are unseen." God is within and without, but the rascals cannot see. They say, "Where is God? Can you show me?" But He is always everywhere, within and without. So one has to train himself how to see. That is described in the Brahma-saṁhitā, premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena (Bs. 5.38). One has to anoint the eyes with love of God. Then he can see. Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti. Santaḥ, saintly person. Sant. Just like your San Francisco, the Sant (Saint) is Sanskrit word, santaḥ. The saint word is Sanskrit word. Santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti. Those who are saints, sants, they always see God within and without. They have got eyes to see. What is that special eyes? That is love of God, that's all.

General Lectures

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

Just like see Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He is chanting and dancing, chanting and dancing, you see, the same thing. This picture is before you so that gradually, when you feel ecstasy, you will also dance like Him. And when you automatically dance, then you will know that the thing is already realized. Not artificially, but when you feel, "Oh, let me dance. It is so much ecstatic. Let me dance." Nothing should be done artificially. Let everything come automatically. And only we have to follow. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. This is a verse from scripture, that tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ, if you simply go on arguing about spiritual matters—"This is not, this is not, this is not, yes, this is not..." I say something; you say something. No, no, no. You cannot realize spiritual objects simply by this speculation, argument. Our argument or logical, I mean to say, strength has no access in the spiritual world. The Vedic mantra says, nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena: "Atma, the supreme self, cannot be realized pravacanena." Suppose I am very expert speaker, I can present things very nicely—but without any substance. Oh, that won't help you. Simply by jugglery of words, if I can captivate you, oh, that won't help you. Nāyam ātmā pravacanena. This is pravacana.

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

So that policy was followed for two hundred years, so India has lost its original culture. So therefore the original point is that tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. We cannot realize the Supreme Truth simply by argument or logical presentation or philosophical speculation. No. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā (CC Madhya 17.186). Śrutayo means scriptures. Now say, for example, Bhagavad-gītā and your Bible and the Muhammadans, they'll present Koran. So of course, this Bhagavad-gītā is little different from Vedic scripture. That we have already explained. It is an independent something, universal. So Vedic scripture, Koran, Bible, or Zoroastrian... There are so many religions, Buddhist religion, so many. So there may be some difference of opinion. Śrutayor vibhinnā. Vibhinnā means different. Now, you cannot realize the Absolute Truth simply by your mundane arguments and by your logical strength, neither you can catch up the right thing by reading different scriptures. Śrutayor vibhinnā. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you follow great philosophers, great thinkers, then also you will find one thinker is different from another thinker, one philosopher is differing from another philosopher. So whom to follow? This philosopher says that God is a person; another philosopher says God is imperson; another philosopher says that God is everywhere and there is no separate existence of God.

Lecture Excerpt -- Montreal, July 20, 1968:

So here is an opportunity to get directly that post of great soul by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa. So it is very scientific. We can present this formula to any person who wants to understand this movement scientifically, philosophically, logically. There is no dearth of all these things in this movement. We are not sentimental at all. Of course, there must be sentiment. Without sentiment, nobody can come to the stage of ecstasy. But that sentiment is transcendental sentiment. This is not ordinary sentiment. Sentiment, when religion or any faith is devoid of philosophy and logic, then it is material sentiment. And philosophy and logic without understanding of God is simply waste of time, mental... (break) So both should be combined, religion plus philosophy. One should understand the principles of religion with philosophy and logic. We are claiming college students, university students, because we are presenting religion on the basis of philosophy and logic. We are not blindly following. We have not dogmatism. We have got reason, philosophy, and everything, science. If you want to understand this Kṛṣṇa consciousness on the basis of philosophy, logic and science, we are prepared to present to you. But the ultimate goal is to surrender unto the Supreme.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 7, 1968:

Jaya-gopāla: But how does one show such an impersonalist with absolute proof logically? I was told Śrīla Bhaktivinoda has such a proof.

Prabhupāda: Apart from Bhaktivinoda, try to understand in your common sense.

Jaya-gopāla: Yes, I can see this.

Prabhupāda: Just like sun planet, there is sunshine. The sunshine is impersonal, but if you have got power to enter into the sun globe, then you will find there, there are so many persons, they have got fiery body. It is not a fact in other planets there is no life. That is a nonsense. Every planet there is life, but they have got different situation, different atmosphere. The moon planet is very cold. Even the modern scientists, they agree that the temperature in the moon planet is below two hundred degree zero. So it is very cold. Similarly, sun planet is very hot. Similarly, there are other planets which is made of air, some planets made of water. These five elements, earth, water, air, ether, this is the, these are the ingredients of material world. So some planet is made of something, some planet is made of something. But this earth is made of earth only, and water. So in the sunshine you see, you go by airplane, go in the "friendly sky" above the... You see everything impersonal. Simply glaring sunshine, that's all. But that does not mean it is impersonal. There are many planets within the sunshine, millions of planets, but you cannot see. Similarly, persons who cannot see beyond the brahma-jyotir, the transcendental rays of the spiritual sky, they are impersonalists. They are impersonalists. But one who goes to the transcendental planets, Vaikuṇṭhas, Goloka Vṛndāvana, they see God is there person. As you are person, I am person, you'll find person.

Rotary Club Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 5, 1972:

We are all souls, living entities; similarly, God is also a living entity. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He's the supreme living entity. Just like we have got leader—in every society, in every country. Just like in our country we have got the president, the chief Indian. Or in America, Mr. Nixon, the chief Indian, uh, chief American. Similarly, there must be one chief, leader of the whole creation, and that is Kṛṣṇa. There must be. By logical conclusion, there must be a leader. That is... That indication we get from Bhagavad, yes, Vedas, Kaṭhopaniṣad: nityo nityānām. Who is God? God means the chief of all living entities. It is not very difficult to understand. Just like in order to manage the whole government, we require a chief man. In order to manage a big establishment, we require a chief man. So why not this cosmic manifestation, the whole cosmic, cosmology. Why not a chief person? That we do not know. Still, we are passing on as advancement of education. That we do not know, who is the chief.

Lecture at Bharata Chamber of Commerce 'Culture and Business' -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973:

Unfortunately at the present moment, people do not know that there is soul and the soul transmigrates from one body to another. As it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, tathā dehāntaraṁ prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati (BG 2.13). Big, big professors... I've talked with big, big scientists, professors, but they do not know that there is life after death. They do not know. But according to our Vedic information, we know. And we can ex..., experience in this present life. It is very common thing. Just like a baby has got a body of a boy. The boy has got a body again of a youth, young man. The young man has got a body again of a old man. So similarly, old man, after annihilation of this body, he'll get another body. It is very, quite natural, logical. And we change our body. Although this gross body's destroyed, we change our body by the subtle body. The subtle body is made of mind, intelligence and ego. Just like we forget about this body at night, and the subtle body works. We dream. We are taken away from our home, from our bed, to some other place, and completely forget this body. And when the sleep is over, we forget about the dream and we become attached to this gross body. This is going on—in our daily experience. So I am the observer. I am sometimes in this gross body and sometimes in the subtle body. But it is changing. But I am the observer. Therefore the inquiry should be that "What is my position? At night I forget my gross body, and during daytime I forget my subtle body. Then what is my real body?" These are the questions.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: Leibnitz says that there are two classes of truth.

Prabhupāda: What are the symptoms of truth? That he has not explained.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He divides it into two classes. One is there are logically necessary principles, the truths of reason as innate knowledge, just like the three sides of a triangle equal 180 degrees. That is innate knowledge, or logically necessary truth. This is also called a priori knowledge, or knowledge that exists independently. Then he says that there is knowledge acquired by experience, or a posteriori, accidental knowledge—just like snow is white, but it could be red; it's possible that it could be red—this type of truth which comes from our experience but it's accidental and it is not necessary.

Prabhupāda: So real truth is that God has got a plan, and one who knows it, that is real truth. One who hasn't got to be taught by another man but by nature, he knows it; that by nature he knows it, that is a symptom of his life, true life. And one who does not know it, that is not. That is explained in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, nitya siddha kṛṣṇa bhakta. That truth is there already, but he has forgotten it. Therefore by this propaganda of devotional service, chanting and hearing, he simply revives the truth. The truth is there, that I am eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore the conclusion should be anyone who is cognizant of this truth that I am eternal servant, that is symptom of this truth. There is no other symptom.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: He says that these two types of truth are governed by two different principles: the truth of reason or the logically necessary proof, like the triangle...

Prabhupāda: This is reason, that truth is one. When we find another competitor truth, that is māyā. Truth cannot be two.

Śyāmasundara: This is what he says, that these innate truths are governed by the principle of contradiction. That is, the opposite of the truth is impossible to conceive. If something is true, the opposite of that truth is impossible to conceive.

Prabhupāda: The opposite is māyā. Opposite to truth is māyā.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the sum of the angles of a triangle must equal 180 degrees. It is impossible to conceive of the opposite.

Prabhupāda: Similarly, the other example that snow is white. To think of snow not white, that cannot be conceived.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: What about two plus two equals four?

Prabhupāda: That is true.

Śyāmasundara: It's impossible to conceive of the opposite of that truth. So that is what he would call logically necessary proof, proved by the law of contradiction.

Prabhupāda: My point is that he says that there are two types of truth. No. There cannot be two types of truth. That is my protest. I say there is only one truth. When you think two types of truth, then you are mistaken. Then same thing: when you think that two plus two equals five, then you are mistaken. Two plus two is always four. That is truth. Similarly, snow is white always. That is truth. When you think it is red, it is untruth. But you cannot say it is another type of truth. Mistake cannot be accepted as another type of truth. Mistake is mistake.

Śyāmasundara: I think he says the same things, but the language is different.

Prabhupāda: There are two types of truth—what is that language? One truth is real truth, another truth is shadow truth. It is not truth, it is shadow. That is the exact language. The same example we can give: you see your face in the mirror as exactly the same, but it is shadow; therefore it is untruth. You cannot say that this reflection of your face on the mirror is another type of truth. Can you say like that? You cannot say that.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: This is the conclusion of Hume. He felt that one must first be a philosophical skeptic before accepting the revealed truths of religion. Ultimately Hume maintains that these truths can only be accepted on faith, not experience or reason.

Prabhupāda: No, and why not reason? If we think that everything has some proprietor, owner, so it is quite reasonable to think that this vast land, vast sky, vast water, nature, they must have some proprietor. What is the fault in this logic? Why they conclude that there was a chunk, there was some gas, there was something like that? So why they think like that? Is that very reasonable? Wherefrom the chunk came? Wherefrom the gas came? Wherefrom the fire came? So this is reasonable. So there is a proprietor, as it is described in this Bhagavad-gītā, mayādhyakṣeṇa (BG 9.10), aham ādir hi sarveṣām. So there must be some proprietor. That is logical. That is, that is philosophy. How one can..., one thing can exist without the owner or proprietor? So this is not like, that there is no proprietor. This is illogical, or without any philosophy. But think that there is a proprietor, this is completely logical.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: In Sanskrit it is called bhiruda dharma-words that mean both "yes" and "no." He can adjust-yes and no, both.

Śyāmasundara: He says logically these are not fallacious; both sides are true. For instance, his first antimony is, "The world has a beginning in time and is enclosed in limits of space." This is the thesis. Then the antithesis is, "The world has no beginning in time and no limits in space, but is infinite with regard to both time and space." So he says reasonably both conclusions are true.

Prabhupāda: So how to adjust? How to adjust is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. It says this material phenomenal world is coming into existence and again annihilated. Again coming. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate (BG 8.19). So this material nature, coming in manifestation and again vanquished, this process, coming into existence and then vanquished, this is also true. Just like day and night, it is coming and going. This is true. But night is not day; day is not night.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: That we admit, simple. That we admit. There is no difference. But you cannot say what is the simple and what is the complex, and what are the... You say something missing. That is evasive. Why you should be missing if you are in knowledge? You must say this thing is missing, that you have no knowledge.

Karandhara: It's just an axiom, that if any part of the knowledge is perfect, then the whole knowledge is perfect. If you have any part of the truth, you have to have the whole truth in the highest sense. So if their theory is at all correct, and any of the premises are solid, then why it doesn't conclude itself by its own logical deduction? Why it would always have to allude to something missing, some missing factor?

Prabhupāda: Jīva jātiṣu. The Padma Purāṇa says jīva jātiṣu, so different species of life. And they give: from this, this; from this, this; from this, this. Then, just like it is said that from bird's life the beast's life comes. Now the beasts, this category is of three millions types of beasts.

Śyāmasundara: Just like they find evidence of large bird, pterodactyl, which has beastlike properties. It has legs also, and they say from that kind of bird evolved a more beastlike, like you say, beasts.

Prabhupāda: Just like we say that kṛmayo rudra-saṅkhyakāḥ pakṣiṇāṁ daśa-lakṣaṇam. From the insect life the bird's life developed. That we see practically. One have becomes flies, butterflies. In the grass, worm becomes a butterfly. That is, there is evidence.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: So I understand that, and I'll accept that, but the one thing I'm still puzzled on is that there's no geological evidence that in former times on this planet there were more complex forms...

Prabhupāda: Why you are taking geological evidence as final? Why you are taking that? That is final?

Śyāmasundara: But it's logical...

Prabhupāda: What logic? Science is progressing. You cannot say that this is final.

Karandhara: Scientists couldn't deny; they could just say that we haven't found any evidence.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: But until there's something that disproves it to me, then I must accept it, because it..., because it's logical.

Karandhara: But that's a false platform. I'll conclude on the basis of my limited knowledge because I don't have the perfect knowledge. That's an abortion of the whole scientific...

Śyāmasundara: Yes. All right. You can say that I've never seen a purple man, so there must be no such thing as a purple man. You can say that, but as far as I can operate within my practicality, there are no purple men. I've never seen one; no one has ever seen purple men. So isn't this logical?

Prabhupāda: Purple men?

Śyāmasundara: I'm just using it as an example.

Prabhupāda: What is that purple men? But you have not also seen, why you are speaking like that?

Śyāmasundara: I'm using it as an example of an exception.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Śyāmasundara: He says that since the reality is a living force, it is always becoming something else; therefore logical explanations or scientific explanations are ineffective because they deal with static problems.

Prabhupāda: Yes. The so-called scientists, they do not know the real, basic principle; therefore they are misled. Actually the soul, the living force, because they are getting independence and has to, wants to enjoy the material world, which he cannot do, but falsely, after life (indistinct), he is running after (indistinct) material nature, and he is becoming more and more (indistinct). That is his (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: When science tries to investigate something, they assume that what they are investigating is static, that it is a constant, that it is not changing, that it's static, mechanical. But the life force, he says, is dynamic; it's always changing, unpredictable.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Because it is living force, it must be dynamic. It is not a dead stone. Because it is living force, it must be dynamic. We are all living force, sitting here, we may sit down or we may go away. That nobody can check. Similarly, we are dynamic forces, and God does not interfere with our dynamic force. He allows us, "Do whatever you like." Because if He interferes with our independence, then we are no longer living entities; we become dead stones. So God does not interfere. He gives us full freedom. But at the same time He comes down and instructs us, "But why you are engaged in this foolish activity? Please come to Me, back to home, back to Godhead, (indistinct)."

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Hayagrīva: He writes, "According to the religious and philosophic tradition of Europe, the valid status of all the highest values, the good, true and beautiful, was bound up with their being properties of ultimate and supreme being, namely God. All went well as long as what passed for natural science gave no offense to this conception. Trouble began when science ceased to disclose in the objects of knowledge the possession of any such properties. Then some roundabout method had to be devised for substantiating them." In other words, science began to investigate the phenomenal universe without admitting the proprietorship of anyone, of God, and this brings a breakdown in morality and value. So Dewey attempts to reassemble these shattered values in a philosophical way, but he, like science, attempts to do so without recognizing the proprietorship of an ultimate and supreme being.

Prabhupāda: That is another lunacy, because everything has a proprietor. So why this big cosmic manifestation will not have a proprietor? To accept the proprietor is natural, and that is logical. And not to accept a proprietor, that is lunacy. How it can be possible? Just like we give this example: We are standing on the land. We know that there is government, there is proprietor. And a few yards after, when this ocean begins, how we can think of that the ocean has no proprietor, no government? How any philosopher and man having logic can believe it? What is the answer?

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: So these things are very nicely described in Vedānta-sūtra, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the right commentary on Vedānta-sūtra. Just like it is also philosophy, that what is the actual aim of life, or what is the Absolute Truth. So the Vedānta-sūtra is so nicely made, the answer is also there. The Absolute Truth must be that thing which is the origin of everything. Now Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam discusses what is the nature of that origin. This requires philosophical as well as authentic proof. Now, that origin, first of all the origin is conscious or not conscious. Origin, just like these some philosophers, they are tracing life from bones, tracing life. So now one should be intelligent enough to understand whether actually life can begin from bones and stones or life begins from life, actual life. So if the origin of everything, you can say the original source of creation or the creator, if you take it as creator, that we have to take. But creation does not take automatically. There is no proof. There is no proof. From matter, automatically creation takes place, that is not very perfect philosophy, neither one can support this view in the long run. Therefore Śrīmad-Bhāgavata says that the origin of everything must be conscious. And that consciousness, also, existence, existing eternally. Not that consciousness has developed under certain conditions. In this way Bhāgavata has explained, Vedānta-sūtra has explained the origin very logically and sensibly. So these answers are there in the Bhāgavata and Vedānta-sūtra.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Śyāmasundara: We're coming to that. He says that the propositions must describe the object completely by means of logical scaffolding, exhibiting logical form of reality, and whatever cannot be shown cannot be said, either. So he says that if we purport to show reality by our words...

Prabhupāda: What is the process of showing?

Śyāmasundara: By language, that our structure of language must be logically complete and that it must also be able to be seen or it cannot be said. Whatever cannot be shown cannot be said either.

Prabhupāda: Then logically complete... Suppose I have my father, I've seen my father, or I've seen my grandfather, or I've seen my great-grandfather, but because I cannot see the father of great-grandfather does not mean that there was no great-grandfather. Logically it is real, that the father of my great-grandfather was also a human being, he had two hands, two legs, and one head. That is logical, even though I have not seen. What is illogical? So it does not mean that things which we sometimes do not see, it is not logical. You cannot say like that. Because they are not seen, that is also logical.

Śyāmasundara: But that statement, "It can be seen that my father had a father had a father," that can be seen.

Prabhupāda: No. That is not seen; that is perceived. Perceived. (Sanskrit) It is called (Sanskrit). I can think of like that, yes. That is perception.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: He outlines three techniques for finding the essences of things. The first step is called the phenomenon of phenomenal logical reduction, which begins by excluding consideration of everything transcendent, including all theories or scientific knowledge—everything—only presenting to our immediate senses the objects to be considered, without any preconceived idea of what is that object. So he calls this the suspension of judgment. Suspend all judgment about an object—just look at it, and the object itself will be intuitively understood. This is his idea.

Prabhupāda: Yes. If you study the object scrutinizingly, then you will come to the conclusion, the source of that objective idea.

Śyāmasundara: He says that only this knowledge is absolutely certain.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is called brahma-jijñāsā. In the Vedānta-sūtra it is called brahma-jijñāsā, inquiring about brahma. That is the prerogative of human life. In the human life one can make inquiries what is the ultimate source, cause. And in animal life it is not sought. So if such inquisitive is not there, then it is animal. Just like at the present moment the newspaper is full of fighting news. But these things are animal news. Such kind of fighting was there also in the animal life—dogs and dogs fighting. They are not very important. Real important thing is what I am. That is real important.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

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.

Śyāmasundara: So he says that in things there is a self-evident truth. In everything there is something self-evident that makes it true. Is that not possible?

Prabhupāda: That self-evidence is certain (indistinct). Just like this leaf, that you see the greenness of the leaf, but that is not all. If you actually want to study that leaf, simply the superficial vision of the leaf as green is not all.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Prabhupāda: That is already described: then he must be very pure.

Devotee: (indistinct) for anyone though or just for himself?

Śyāmasundara: Any human living entity, human entity, can follow the same process if he's intelligent. Anyways, to proceed: it says that after this phenomenal, logical reduction, the residue or the essence of the thing which remains is characterized in a threefold structure. In other words, after you analyze one phenomenon, you could use certain essences of that phenomenon. Those essences are composed of three things.

Prabhupāda: Three dimensions.

Śyāmasundara: In a way three dimensions. The first one is the phenomenological ego. He says first of all that there are two egos—there is the phenomenological ego and the transcendental ego—what we would call the jīvātmā and the Supersoul. The phenomenological ego is the psychological or empirical ego, which is found in the passing stream of consciousness, or the false ego: the ego that identifies with the events and the stream of events of day-to-day life in this world—what I think I am. And the transcendental ego is the observer behind that stream of consciousness. But his idea is that, still down on this phenomenological level, the phenomenological ego deals with appearances as an activity—that is, cogitates upon appearances which we've passed through by perception. These objects pass through my perception. My phenomenological ego cogitates on those objects and gives what I call the world a structure.

Prabhupāda: That means he knows that he has got another vision.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Śyāmasundara: Sometimes he analyzes that if there is a problem facing someone, that he will get sick, and that will resolve the problem. Psychosomatic sickness. And he saw that accidents happen in the same way.

Devotee: It sounds like to me that what he calls life instinct is what we call logical, and what he calls death instinct is what we call tamoguṇa. If some people... Let's say Freud never came across people who have the urge for mukti. People have the urge to go...

Prabhupāda: Neither death nor life...

Devotee: They haven't touch...

Śyāmasundara: That would be part of the life instinct, self-preservation—if you want to live forever.

Prabhupāda: There are others also: to want to die forever.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Death instinct.

Devotee: Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura writes that "Vaiṣṇavas die to live," so when we die to live, that is another instinct.

Prabhupāda: The Bhagavad-gītā says, (indistinct), by giving up this body, that is death, (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: Do you attribute accidents and disease to a desire for self-destruction?

Prabhupāda: No. Ultimately we say there is no such thing as accident. Nothing can take place without God's sanction. So there is no question of accidents.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Prabhupāda: Actually, as we say, that anti-matter are fixed up in (indistinct). I say anti-matter is spirit. That spirit soul is very small, keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya: (CC Madhya 19.140) the tip of the hair divided into ten thousand parts. So it is unimaginable by the modern scientist. Therefore the ultimate smallest part is the spirit soul, spark, part and parcel of the Supreme Spirit. Therefore we have to take the knowledge from Vedas. That is the perfect (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: He says there are two types of logical atoms—the sense data and universals. And this problem, he saw, of the difference between the crude data of the senses and the things as understood by physical sciences. So he divided these into two types of knowledge. The knowledge of sense data is the immediate knowledge by acquaintance with something, and the knowledge of physical science is that knowledge derived from things, or inferred, by description from things. And he says the example of the first type of knowledge...

Prabhupāda: This knowledge, what is that?

Devotee: Inference.

Philosophy Discussion on St. Augustine:

Prabhupāda: That is Vedic conception. The soul, he, as he is, he is part and parcel of God, but he is imprisoned in different types of body. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "I am the seed-giving father of all different forms of life, and the mother, material nature is the mother." That is actually very logical. Through the matter different varieties of living entities are coming out. From water, from earth, from air, even from fire, ether, everywhere, sarva-gataḥ, life, living entities are visible. Therefore the combination of five elements—earth, water, fire, air—that is the body of the living entities. And the soul is the part and parcel of the Supreme, and the souls are impregnated within this material world by God, and they come out through the womb of the mother, nature or individual mother, whatever you say. The soul is coming out of matter but it is not matter. The living entities, part and parcel of God, assuming different types of body, either you say according to pious or impious activities, or according to his pious and impious desires. Vāsanāḥ. So the desire actually is the cause of higher and lower grades of body, but the soul is the same. Therefore those who are advanced in spiritual consciousness, they see the same soul in, in each and every body. Either in the body of a dog or in the body of a brāhmaṇa, the same soul is existing, but according to different desires and karma one gets a different types of body.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Prabhupāda: Against, against.

Hayagrīva: As theism and atheism.

Prabhupāda: That means against; ag means against.

Hayagrīva: Yeah, against. But according to him, agnosticism holds that man shouldn't assert what he calls a truth without logically satisfactory evidence.

Prabhupāda: We say "without any authority."

Hayagrīva: When Huxley became a Darwinist he rejected a supernatural God and the Bible. In For Argument from Design... He believed in, previously he believed in a Christian God as the designer, but he believed that Darwin's theory gave this Christian conception its death blow. He did not accept a pantheistic God, like Spinoza did, as being identical... Excuse me. He did accept a pantheistic God, like Spinoza did, as being identical with nature. That is, he saw God as nature, and he believed in the divine government of the universe. He believed that the cosmic process is rational, not random...

Prabhupāda: How it becomes rational?

Hayagrīva: ...but he rejected a personal God concerned with morality.

Prabhupāda: That is his defect. The nature is dead body, matter. So how it can be rational? Just like this table is a dead wood. How it can be rational? That is nonsense. The carpenter is rational, who has made the wood in the shape. So he says the nature is rational. Nature is dead matter. How it can be rational? Therefore there is a rational being behind the nature. That is God. This, the wood, is dead. The wood, out of its own accord, cannot become a table. The carpenter is shaping the wood into table. That is rational. Therefore behind the dead nature, the rational being is God. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. I think Mr. Huxley is supposed to have read..., understand he has given some comment on the Ramakrishna Mission Bhagavad-gītā, but he has not studied Bhagavad-gītā thoroughly.

Page Title:Logical (Lectures)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Mayapur
Created:08 of Mar, 2012
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=67, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:67