Mere (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"Mere"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 5.3-7 -- New York, August 26, 1966:

Guest (1): I have no answer to that question. What does it matter? Rather, but every attempt that I can hear. I live, I breathe. (sounds intoxicated)

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (1): But who has been able to tell me yet why I feel. Has nothing to do with. The mere fact of my existence is true.

Prabhupāda: That's all right?

Guest (1): I have difficulty in your... I have difficulty in saying, in expressing...

Prabhupāda: Now, so long you are in this material world, there are many problems.

Guest (1): Not many problems. It is a... Not many problems. This is the greatest fact. I have... I know the sort of world in which I live.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (1): I also know that attempts to explain the whys and wherefors of my particular...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Guest (1): I didn't come here personally... Let me explain my position. This isn't necessary. I feel I must... I think the difference is to learn. You'll find at numerable times. By the same token maybe are able to reconcile the fact of individual being for along time to find out why.

Prabhupāda: Raymond, you can, you can answer his question. It is general question. You can answer. Yes.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.2.21 -- Los Angeles, August 24, 1972:

We are being harassed by getting these different types of body and engagement according to the body. That we can understand. We are not happy. One after another. Because our main business is sense gratification. So we cannot enjoy all these senses fully in one kind of body. There is some defect. Just like we are trying to gratify our senses by flying to another planet, moon planet. This is another sense gratification. We are meant for this planet. We are bound up by conditions. Artificially we are trying to go there. And making plans, so many plans: "There will be intermediate station, and the petrol will be carried from here," and this and that. So many things. Simply spending money. Just like childish. The child, they spoil their time and energy in certain playing. Similarly, this is going on. Because it is a sense gratification. That's all. Simply mere sense gratification: "Let us go, how it is, moon planet." You have no business there. You cannot do there anything. You cannot live there, but still, "Let us go, let us go. And spend all the money, taxpayers' money, spend like water." This is going on.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Johannesburg, October 22, 1975:

Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Do we believe that Jesus and Buddha and Kṛṣṇa are all manifestations of the same God, or do we believe that Kṛṣṇa is the only one?

Prabhupāda: No. They are manifestation of God. That is all right. We say, keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare: "O my Lord Buddha, now you have come as Buddha, but you are the same Kṛṣṇa." We pray like that.

Guest (5): I would like to ask this question. You said that Hare Kṛṣṇa helps us along with the path of God realization. Take a simple thing like assuming I was hungry and I said, "food, food, food." That will not necessarily fill me. I'll still be hungry. How could the mere repetition of words bring about God realization?

Prabhupāda: "Food, food, food." (laughter) That is the difference between God's name and material name. In the material name the food, the name of food and actually food—rice, dahl, capati, food—they are different. They are different. But in the spiritual world, God and His name is the same.

General Lectures

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

Prabhupāda: If you have got the knowledge, then why you are asking?

Indian man: (indistinct)

Indian man (4): I think I'm not in the least. I do believe. Many of the physical and chemical phenomenas are being displayed by science these days. Even mere, mere existence of life can be reproduced in a test tube. The cells multiply...

Prabhupāda: What is that? What is that?

Indian man (4): The cells... The mere...

Prabhupāda: So have you produced any life?

Indian man (4): Pardon?

Prabhupāda: Have you produced any life?

Indian man (4): A protein can be made...

Prabhupāda: No, no. First of all say...

Indian man (4): Yes.

Prabhupāda: ...have you produced any life?

Indian man (4): They claim that a protein...

Prabhupāda: They claim. They claim.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: He says that space and time are mere appearances, but the ultimate or genuine reality is different.

Prabhupāda: That is Kṛṣṇa, sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1), cause of all causes.

Śyāmasundara: He calls these ultimate entities monads. Monad means unity, or oneness. He says that the ultimate stuff out of which even the atoms are made are called monads, small particles.

Prabhupāda: And within those small particles there is Kṛṣṇa. That small particle is not final. Aṇḍāntara-stha paramāṇu... That is also superficial.

Śyāmasundara: He says that these monads are individual, conscious, alive and active, and they range in quality from the lowest type, or matter, through the higher of types, such as soul, to the highest, which is God.

Prabhupāda: So whether within the atom there is soul or not?

Śyāmasundara: His theory is that even the atoms are made out of these monads.

Prabhupāda: What is a monad?

Śyāmasundara: It's difficult to understand, but a monad means a tiny particle of force which is...

Prabhupāda: And we say that is Kṛṣṇa

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: Today we are discussing philosopher David Hume. He is probably the most famous of the British philosophers. He was very skeptical about achieving certain knowledge, so he came to the conclusion that the only knowledge we can possess is a mere sequence of ideas, none of which can be proved to be true. In other words, we can only derive any knowledge from our senses, but even that knowledge is mere assumption.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We say also, because our senses are imperfect, so there is no possibility of achieving perfect knowledge by sense exercise. It is not possible. That is our philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: He says there is no other source of knowledge except the senses.

Prabhupāda: No. We don't agree. Therefore it is called avāṅ-manasā gocaraḥ, adhokṣaja—there are so many names. The senses are imperfect. They cannot reach. Just like we cannot know what is there in the sun, but a geologist or astronomer, he can say, one who has studied. Therefore our process of knowledge is to take from the authorities. That is perfect. Our senses cannot read, that is a fact. But it is not that without senses, no knowledge can be... No. We receive by senses, but from superior authority, one who knows. That is perfect knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: He says that there is no such thing as a cause-and-effect relationship. Just like, for example, we associate friction with heat, but he says that it's a mistake to assume that friction causes heat or possesses any power which must inevitably produce heat. He says that it is a mere repetition of two incidents, so that the effect habitually attends the cause, but it is not necessarily a consequence of it. So the fact that I rub my hands together and there is heat produced, I am used to assuming that the friction causes heat, but he says that it is not necessarily so. Whenever there is friction, there is heat, but that is only because they are associated with each other, not that one causes the other.

Prabhupāda: Then how are they associated?

Śyāmasundara: That one habitually attends the other, but not necessarily as a consequence of it.

Prabhupāda: But who made this law? As soon as they associate, immediately after friction there is heat. So there is a systematic law. The association may be accidental, but as soon as there is friction between the two associates, the law is there must be heat. So there is systematic law. Either you rub the hands, or I rub the hands, the law is that heat must be there, either in your hands or in my hands. That is law.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that this law is not ultimate reality, that it is a mere probability.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: As far as we can ascertain, Hume personally had no religion, no faith in the Christian or any other God. He also rejected that argument or reason could justify a faith. Thus Hume is a complete skeptic who denies the possibility of ascertaining certainty outside of a mere sequence of perceptions or ideas.

Prabhupāda: This, then the argument comes. If he does not believe in anyone's statement, why he is thinking his statement will be accepted? Then he is foolish. He is a child. Instead of becoming a philosopher, he is a child, talking all nonsense.

Hayagrīva: He maintains that man cannot know ultimate reality or possess knowledge of anything beyond a mere awareness of phenomenal sensory images.

Prabhupāda: That is sufficient. But if man cannot have any knowledge, so who is going to take your knowledge? Better you stop, don't talk. Is it not?

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: He comes to that point in a way by saying that he has limited all that we can know to mere phenomena, and he has therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge of God, freedom and immortality in order to find a place for faith. In other words, he says that through the reason and the senses we cannot know anything about God, soul, immortality or freedom, so the rest has to be done by faith.

Prabhupāda: No. Faith, that is a compromise, you see. That is not fact. But this is good that he admits that we cannot approach the final God by our senses or reason. To have faith, that is also not perfect. Therefore the Western philosophers, they have created different faiths, and religion means faith. Somebody may believe in some faith, others may believe in another faith. But that is not factual. The factual is this: if we are actually convinced that there is God, and God is omnipotent, so by His omnipotency He descends. As it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata (BG 4.7). "Whenever there is discrepancies in the process of religious principles," abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham, "when people become irreligious, at that time I descend." He descends for two reasons: paritrāṇāya sādhūnām (BG 4.8), for relief of the devotees. Devotees are always anxious to see God, but somehow or other they are unable to see. Of course, they are seeing God, but at the same time face to face(?). So in order to give them relief God descends to be seen face to face. The other reason is that vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām: rascals, miscreants, to kill them. Just like Hiraṇyakaśipu, Kaṁsa, Rāvaṇa, they are the symbolic representations of miscreants.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: He says that a man should never become a mere object of utility. In other words, he should not lower his standard just because it is practical at the time.

Prabhupāda: More or less, he is a strict moralist. But that is not the highest stage. One has to transcend even this moral principle. That is perfection. Because this moral value is within this material world, moral values, morality, immorality are of this material world. Just like there are three qualities. Morality is on the platform of the modes of goodness. So from higher standard, here in the modes of goodness, suppose one is brāhmaṇa, perfect brāhmaṇa, but he is in the material world. Even though he has got some moral principles, still he is existing in the material world. But according to transcendental spiritual vision, the whole material world is condemned. It is like that if one is a first-class prisoner. Just like if a politician is in prison, he is given first-class treatment, he is given special bungalow, servants, many facilities, does it mean that he is not a criminal? As soon as one comes to the prison, he's a criminal. He may be a great politician or an ordinary pickpocket. A pickpocket is given third-class prisoner's life, and a politician, Gandhi or Nehru or someone else, big politicians, when they are imprisoned, they are given special treatment. But on account of his being within prison walls, he is condemned. Similarly, anyone who is in this material world, either with the brahminical qualifications or śūdra qualifications, he is a conditioned soul. Of course, so far conditioned life is concerned, there is value of morality and immorality. But the morality may help him to transcend, to come to the transcendental platform, but to come to the transcendental platform is not dependent on morality. It is independent of anything. Just like under the order of Kṛṣṇa, fighting by Arjuna, killing his kinsmen, that is above morality.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Hayagrīva: He believed that the individual can intuit truths within, but could be helped from without by scripture.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That means he should not become independent, but he advocates in the beginning that everyone should be independent. So that is not right proposal. One should be dependent on authority, and that authority should be recognized or well established. Then knowledge is possible.

Hayagrīva: He writes, "Absolutely no human reason can hope to understand the production of even a blade of grass by mere mechanical causes."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore he has to know everything from the person or authority who knows that thing. That means this is perfect way of understanding, to take knowledge from the authority who is actually cognizant and knows things as they are.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Prabhupāda: No. Intangible it may be at the present moment, that is another thing. But religion means understanding of God. Otherwise there is no religion. What do you mean by religion? First of all, you must define.

Śyāmasundara: What he means by religion is that the objects of our religious consciousness are mere representations in your consciousness, nothing more, but they are not tangible, like...

Prabhupāda: So then he has got no clear definition of religion. We define religion, is to abide by the laws of God. That is religion. God says, "You do this." When you do it, that is religion.

Śyāmasundara: So you would say that the absolute expresses itself in the laws of God...

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is religion. And should the absolute gives you direction, and if you follow that direction, then you are religious. You cannot create religion.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

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

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

Hayagrīva: Yes. He sees the material worlds as being isolated. He says, "There is then a bond between the worlds, but this bond may be regarded as infinitely loose in comparison with the mutual dependence which unites the parts of the same world among ourselves," excuse me, "which unites the parts of the same world among themselves. So that it is not artificially for reasons of mere convenience that we isolate our solar system. Nature itself invites us to isolate it." So this, this calls to mind the image of a prison house. The isolation of the world, as far as man is concerned, is isolation imposed by material nature on the conditioned.

Prabhupāda: He is isolated. He is thinking in the wrong way. Just like in the prison house every prisoner, every, every criminal is different from other criminal. So everyone has to suffer the consequence of his criminal activities, so every individual person is suffering or enjoying according to his past deeds. So there cannot be any combination. Then we forget the individuality. That is not possible.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: Your reasoning may be full of flaws, that is the same thing. But why do you think others also reasoning will be with flaws?

Śyāmasundara: He was the first Western philosopher to read some of the Vedas. He read Bhagavad-gītā and other Vedic scriptures. So he concluded that all phenomenon are mere illusions, or māyā. He uses that word māyā. This world is simply illusory.

Prabhupāda: That also we say, but it is not irrational. There is rationality. There is regulation. The sun is moving, the moon is moving—not irrationally, quite in order. Everything is in order. We cannot say it is irrational.

Śyāmasundara: Just like all of our desires that we have are never fulfilled.

Prabhupāda: That will never take place. Just like in a prison house, if the prisoners desire something, no, it will never furnish it. It is meant for punishment. So he'll have to abide by the desires of the jail superintendent. He cannot. Similarly, here every living entity is a prisoner. The superintendent of prisons is Durgā Devī. Durgā means fort: you cannot go out, conditioned. So therefore frustration is the law here.

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Śyāmasundara: He says that this world is composed of two parts: idea and will. That the ideas are sense experiences that we perceive in the world, and they are mere representatives of the will, but the will is the ultimate reality.

Prabhupāda: That idea is illusion.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But he says that will is the ultimate reality. Something is...

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes, will is ultimate reality, we also admit. Because we desire, we will like this. We will that we shall be enjoyer of the material world. Idea was that "I shall become like Kṛṣṇa." This was the idea, and therefore I will. And Kṛṣṇa gave us chance, "All right, you come here and fulfill your desire." So they are implicated in so many karma, and becoming more and more involved. So according to karma he is getting different types of body, and there is no end. It is going on.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: It is not obscure. It is, everything is obscure to the foolish person. So he is a foolish person. He does not know what is God. How he will know what is religion? Our definition of religion is "the order given by God." But if I do not know what is God, then how can I take His order? That is the defect.

Hayagrīva: In the same letter he writes, "I am entirely incapable of considering the survival of the personality after death, even as a mere scientific possibility. I think therefore, it is better if I continue confining myself to psychoanalysis."

Prabhupāda: What is that psy...? He is deficient in psychoanalysis also, because he is practically seeing in his daily life that a child is growing to become a boy, a boy is growing to a young man, but the body is changing and the soul is there. So if he has no sense to understand this, what kind of psychoanalysis he is? The body of the child is finished, then he accepts another body, boy. So how you can deny it? You say it has grown. I say that it is finished. Then what is the difference? Actually the child's body is not there. So you can show..., speak in a different language, but the, when the child's body is finished, there is the boy's body. When the boy's body is finished, the young man's body. So body is changing, but still my child, my son, John, I still call him John, although he has changed his body, because I know my son, the soul John, whom I call John, he is there. So the soul is there; the body is changing, we are experiencing every day. So what kind of psychoanalyst he is, that he cannot understand this simple truth? And still he says, "I cannot believe in the eternity of the soul." That how poor thoughts he is maintaining, and he is proclaiming himself a philosopher. What kind of philosopher he is?

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Prabhupāda: That individual, I, I know that I am individual person, I have got my own ideas, my own activities. Where is the difficulty? Simply it has to be purified. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam (CC Madhya 19.170). I am identifying with America or India or Hindu or Muslim or this or that. This should be purified. I should identify with Kṛṣṇa, that "I am only servant of Kṛṣṇa and devotees." Then I am purified.

Hayagrīva: He did... He speaks of the soul in this way. He says, "If the human soul is anything, it must be of unimaginable complexity and diversity, so that it cannot possibly be approached through a mere psychology of instinct."

Prabhupāda: That he does not know. As soon as we train ourself, that just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, "I am not a brāhmaṇa, I am not a kṣatriya, I am not a śūdra, I am not a sannyāsī, I am not brahmacārī." By negation. "I am not, I am not, I am not." Then what is your actual? That gopī-bhartuḥ kamalayor dāsa-dāsānu: (CC Madhya 13.80) "I am the servant of the servant of the servant of the maintainer of gopīs." That means Kṛṣṇa. "That is my real identification." So I have, so long we do not identify as the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, there will be so many varieties of identification, and bhakti, devotional service, means to become purified from all this false identification.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: Many people ask, "Where do you come from?"

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: "Where is your origin?"

Prabhupāda: "What is your birthplace?"

Śyāmasundara: Yes. So this Samuel Alexander says that our consciousness of an object is a mere perspective on something, but it's a real portion of that object and not just a mental image. In other words, if I see a table, I am actually reacting with that table. It is a real perspective. It's not just a mental image, but I'm actually reacting to that table. My senses are reacting with the table. It's an objective reality.

Prabhupāda: Where is the table?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Some philosophers think that if I see the table, it's merely a mental idea in my mind, that table. He says that no, there is a real objective relationship between my senses and the table, reality of the table. Is that...

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is right.