Richard Webster: Well, may I ask a question? I find in medieval European philosophy two different attitudes and..., which I find difficult to reconcile perfectly. That is to say the earlier Christians, up to the thirteenth Century, I suppose, were practically only thinking about God, nothing else but God so that nature or the human being, or any... everything else, tended to disappear altogether as also in some Indian philosophy, I think. And then, later on, with more modern science and so on you've got a different attitude in the Christians themselves, that is to say an attitude of acceptance towards subordinate things so that they became independent and finally, of course, broke away altogether so that nowadays we have science without God at all. But there was a sort of period in the late middle ages when St. Thomas Aquinas, who stopped thinking about God, only about God, and gave his attention to science, so they say. Well, there was a sort of conflict there. I don't quite know what to say about it whether I'm on one side or the other. That is to say if I were to (indistinct) the earlier Christian or (indistinct) There was Aquinas, for instance, who was a saint, but he would pray into the world, if you like. I wondered whether you would disapprove of that or...
Prabhupāda: Yes, these different types of philosophers are always there, not only in the medieval age, in the previously also. It is said, na cāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. "A philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not present a different view." (laughter) This is stated in the Bhāgavata. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnaḥ (?). Tarka, by argument, logic, you cannot come to the right conclusion because you may be a good logician and then you meet another logician who is better than you. So his arguments may be stronger than your argument. Therefore, simply by arguments or logical premises, you cannot approach the Absolute Truth.
