Even we do not have any sufficient knowledge in either of these two theories, mixing up or keeping individual, but by our own small reasoning we can understand that in the future history we have information that there were individual persons. At the present moment also, we are seeing that there are individual persons. So why not in the future? How it is that in the future they'll mix up and become one, homogeneous thing? It is quite reasonable. And this conclusion is like this: just like in two hundred years before, in the month of March, the climatic position was like this. And in 1966 we find in March the climatic position is exactly the same. And in future... Naturally I conclude that in future in March the same climatic condition will be there. In astronomy also, if you find that in March, in such and such date, the sun rising is like this, and actually in the present March, month of March, 1966, we see the same exact time... And the whole calculation of astronomy is made like that. They prepare hundred years' astronomical charts. Hundred years'. How they do prepare? By this calculation, that in the past it was like this, at the present it is like this, so naturally, in future it will be like this. Just like you are speaking of the imminent springtime, that the nature, how will be decorate, how springtime, it will be nice, because you had past experience. So you are foretelling. It is not foretelling. From past experience, you are telling that this will take place. This will take place.
Reasonable (Lectures)
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
So here is another puzzle for the rascal scientists—because they are contemplating that except within this earth, in other planets, there is no life. Because the atmosphere is different, they cannot live there. Now, take for example the sun planet, fiery planet. So naturally, we shall imagine that no living entity can live there: it is fiery planet. But Kṛṣṇa says that nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ. The fire does not burn it. This is quite reasonable because the living entities are there, we can experience. Roughly we see that we are on the land and the aquatics, fishes, they are in the water. I cannot live within the water, neither the fish cannot live on the land, but from my experience, if we think that there is no living entities in water, is it not rascaldom? Similarly, these rascals are thinking from his own point of view. Because he cannot live within the fire or within the water, he's thinking there is no life within the fire. This is rascaldom. To refute these rascals, Kṛṣṇa says, nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ. Even within the fire there are living entities. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam (BG 4.1). "I spoke first of all this Bhagavad-gītā system to the sun-god."
Formerly, according to varṇāśrama-dharma, it is not that "Because I am a brāhmaṇa's son, therefore I am a brāhmaṇa," just as the practice is going on now in India, caste system. Oh, that was not the system. The system was different. So this Mahābhārata was written for such persons who are claiming to be a brāhmaṇa because he is born in the brāhmaṇa family. But according to śāstra, scripture, such persons are not called brāhmaṇas. They are called dvija-bandhu, "a friend of a brāhmaṇa." So just like "I am," "I am the son of a high-court judge." That does not mean I am also high-court judge. I must be qualified to become a high-court judge. But if I go on, that "Because my father is high-court judge, therefore I am also high-court judge..." So these things are going on now in India. Because his forefather was a brāhmaṇa, or his father was a brāhmaṇa—and although he has no qualification of a brāhmaṇa, he also claims to be a brāhmaṇa. But the scripture, the Vedic scripture, that does not allow. They will call, "No, you are not a brāhmaṇa. You are brāhmaṇa's son. That's all. We can admit so far. There is no harm admitting you, that you are the son of a brāhmaṇa, but we cannot admit you a brāhmaṇa." That is quite reasonable. So the Mahābhārata was written for such persons who are son of a brāhmaṇa, but actually, by qualification, he is less than śūdra. So Mahābhārata was written for them.
So Bhagavad-gītā is not a new thing, a new adventure. And the person who spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god, does it mean that He left something to be commented by some, these mundane men to understand the meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā? Such a great personality, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He told something which is to be understood by the interpretation of a mundane scholar? Do you think it is reasonable? No. Whatever he spoke, that is all right. And that is clear. There is no question of interpreting in a different way. Just like here, "The Blessed Lord said, 'I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god Vivasvān.' " What is difficulty there? Is there any word which you cannot understand? Is anyone here who cannot understand these lines? It is clear. "The Blessed Lord said, 'I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god whose name is Vivasvān.' " It is clear. How you can interpret?
Just like if you merge into the ocean... They give this example, generally. So they think that by merging, by dipping into the ocean, they become also ocean. That is not possible. You become controlled by the ocean. Suppose you dip, you dive into the ocean. Does it mean that you become ocean? You become controlled by the ocean. They are under the impression that "I am now a small drop. So if I merge into the ocean, the Brahman, then I'll become Brahman." Is that a very reasonable proposal? You are a drop of water. Scientifically, what is said? Suppose a drop of water is mixed in with the sea water, does it mean the drop becomes sea? What is your scientific explanation? It is also... Eh?
Svarūpa Dāmodara: It has become part of the sea.
So there is no bar for anyone, that one cannot become the spiritual master. Everyone can become spiritual master, provided he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa. That is the only qualification. And that is very reasonable. If you do not this, do not know the subject matter, how can you be a teacher? Eh? A teacher means he knows the thing. He knows the science. So only qualification of the spiritual master, as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, kibā śūdra, kibā vipra, nyāsī kene naya, yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā: "Anyone who knows the science of Kṛṣṇa..." This is the science of Kṛṣṇa, this Bhagavad-gītā. If anyone knows perfectly, then he becomes the spiritual master.
So human life is not to be carried away by the so-called natural instinct. Natural instinct, material life... There are two kinds of natural instinct. So long we are in the bodily concept of life, there are different natural instincts, and when we come to the platform of spiritual understanding, that natural instinct is different. That is real natural instinct. So that natural instinct, spiritual natural instinct, can be attained by tapasya. Tapo divyam (SB 5.5.1). That is the instruction of Ṛṣabhadeva. Now, people may say that "Why we should undergo this tapasya, austerities? If we want to enjoy life, why we shall voluntarily give up this and undergo austerities?" No, there is reason. Tapo divyaṁ yena śuddhyet sattvaṁ yasmād brahma-saukhyaṁ tv anantam (SB 5.5.1). It is very reasonable. You have to undergo tapasya, voluntarily restraint. That is called tapasya. So why? Yena śuddhyet sattvam. Your existence will be purified. "What is the wrong in my existence?" That we cannot understand; that is called illusion. There are so many wrong things. Always we are in miserable condition. The summary miserable condition is, as described in the Bhagavad-gītā, janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi-duḥkha-doṣānudarśanam (BG 13.9).
Just like in this life also, we get dehāntara, another body. From baby's body to child's body, child's body to boy's body, boy's body to youth's body, from youth's body to old man's body; then, after old man's body, why not another body? But the rascals, they do not believe transmigration of the soul. It is very quite reasonable. After changing so many bodies, I have come to this old body. So what after this old body? There must be some body; it is quite reasonable. But these rascals have no brain to understand that there is life after death. Big, big professors in European countries, they do not believe transmigration of the soul.
In this way God is situated. Antar bahiḥ. He is situated outside, He is situated inside also. Kṛṣṇa says... This is quite reasonable, otherwise how He is God? Just like I am here, you are here, but you are not in your apartment. You are absent from your apartment. But God, God means He is in his apartment and He is everywhere. That is God. The rascals, they claim that "I am God." What kind of God you are? Are you everywhere spread? So you should not accept such cheap God. God's description is there in the śāstra. Eko 'py asau racayituṁ jagad-aṇḍa-koṭim (Bs. 5.35). One part, one portion is Paramātmā, the Supersoul. In His Supersoul feature He is present in innumerable universes. Eko 'py asau racayituṁ jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi. Jagad-aṇḍa means the universe. It is just like an egg. They are aṇḍa. Aṇḍa means egg. The form is like egg. So there are millions. So to maintain the millions and millions of universes by His one portion, Paramātmā, He is spread. He is called Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. It is a great science. God expands Himself in so many ways, and for the material world He is expanded as puruṣāvatāra: Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. He's expanding like that. Causal Ocean.
We are struggling—nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. We are struggling against these nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi, voidists and impersonalists. So it is not now new. From time immemorial there are different views. But Kṛṣṇa refers herewith that brahma-sūtra-padaiḥ hetumadbhir viniścitaṁ. Others... There are many other books of knowledge. They are not very reasonable. That is dogmatic. But hetumadbhiḥ, if we accept with our logic and sense, that is first-class book which gives us information of the ātmā, Paramātmā.
These rākṣasas, they say there is no God, there is no controller, but where is the logic? How you can say so? What is your analogy? What is your logic, that you say there is no God? Let us discuss. Can anybody say here? What is the idea? If things are going on systematically, the planets are moving in the orbit systematically, everything is going on... Just like same example. Always remember. I may be foreigner, but because I see that on the street the cars are moving in order, the police is standing, there must be government. That is... I may know or not, but this is common sense affair. There must be government, and there is government. Similarly, when I see that the cosmic order is working so nicely, systematically and reasonably, then how I can say there is no controller? Where is my logic? Tell me, anyone. Can you say, anyone, why they say there is no controller? Jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). What is their logic? You tell. You are sometimes on their side.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
Now, what is that source of emanation? What is the nature? One has to accept the cause and effect. As we have got experience, in everything there is a cause and the effect. So the supreme cause, supreme cause means who has no more cause-sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1). I am caused by my father, my father is caused by his father. His father, his father..., go on making research, who is the ultimate father. When you come... There must be some ultimate father. Just like I have my father, my father has got father, his father... We can see up to two, three generation upwards, and beyond that, we cannot see. That does not mean that the great-grandfather had no father. There must have been some father. Is it very unreasonable? Anyone can understand. Although I cannot see with my limited potency, but with my knowledge, reasonable knowledge, I can understand that either he may be great-grandfather or above that, above that, he must have some father.
As dehāntaram, from childhood to boyhood, boyhood to youthhood, is dehāntaram, another body, similarly, old man, when the body is very old, it cannot be used anymore, or the supply ingredients is almost finished, then this body we give up; we accept another body. Now this body we are changing from multiforms of bodies, jalajā nava-lakṣāni sthāvarā lakṣa-viṁśati kṛmayo rudra-saṅkyakāḥ, in this way 8,400,000 species of body we are changing. And this human form is the greatest benediction for the soul to understand Kṛṣṇa.
He has got His form. God has got His form. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they think the Absolute Truth is impersonal. Śūnyavādi. No. Absolute cannot be zero or impersonal because controller, controller must have brain. Without brain, how he can control? And as soon as you have got brain, you have got other limbs of the body to carry out the order of the brain. So as soon as you have got senses, as soon as you have got sense organs, as soon as you have got brain, as soon as you have got activities, you are a person. This is the conclusion of the śāstra. Therefore the absolute controller cannot be impersonal. By our practical life we see, government. "Government" is an impersonal word, but at the end of the government, there is a governor or president, a person. A person is required, who will apply his brain. So how is that that without brain the whole cosmic manifestation it is controlled? That is not very reasonable. And that is not according to śāstra.
Hayagrīva: In either case, there was something originally there, which they don't explain.
Prabhupāda: But here we find it quite reasonable. Because everything is, is from the person. Jagṛhe pauruṣaṁ rūpam. Rūpam, form. It is not from imperson. Jagṛhe pauruṣaṁ rūpam. So we don't theorize. We accept the statement of the Vedas. That is our process of knowledge. Eh? Descending process. We take knowledge from the authority. Of course, the scientists also say they take from authority, but originally, as explained by our Hayagrīva Prabhu, it does not appear that the knowledge was taken from authority. It is theory. Theory, one can put theory of his own, and there are so many theories. But we don't accept theories. We want solid fact.
So it is clearly stated: guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). Without qualification... The brāhmaṇa means the qualification. It is not this body. There are so many arguments, but they won't hear. They are very much against, in my movement, because I am making brāhmaṇas from Europe and America. They are against me. But don't care, we don't care for them. Neither any reasonable man will care for them. But there is a propaganda against me. Even amongst my Godbrothers, they are making... Because they cannot do it, so find out some fault. You see. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says:
- pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma
- sarvatra pracāra haibe mora nāma
In every town, city, village of the world, His cult will be preached. What is His cult? Does it mean that the Europeans and Americans will not become brāhmaṇa? Because Vaiṣṇava cult means past brahmanism, past brahmanism.
Just like this morning we were talking, that dead body in Egypt and some other places. They keep the body so their body will go to the heavenly planet and he will enjoy. But clearly it is the bodily concept of life. The sane man will see that "The body is lying there. When he has gone to the heavenly planet?" If he accepts that the body is there, then something has gone to the heavenly planet. Then you will have to accept soul. Otherwise, how you can say that he has gone to heaven or some...? No. If you mean "he" means this body, the body is in the coffin, so how it has gone to heaven? Then you have to accept that the living entity who was within the body, he has gone to heaven. That is reasonable. So that means you have to accept next birth. So if you think that he has gone to heaven, then he may go to hell also. Because if the soul is departed from the body, now according to his karma... That is right philosophy. That is Vedic philosophy. Kṛṣṇa says, dehāntara-prāptiḥ. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). You have to change this body. As you have changed already several times, similarly, after death you will also get another body. So this is a fact, that soul is there, and soul is changing the body, and therefore the question of hell and heaven or something else may come. This is sane. Not that the body is going to the heaven. No, no. This is foolishness. Anyone can, any man with common sense can understand, "Where the body has gone? It is rotting here."
This question is almost inquired by intelligent persons, that "We have come to this material world and suffering, but the living entity is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, or God. How he has come to this material world?" That is very intelligent question. Therefore it is said here, yadṛcchayā: "It is automatically, by nature's law," or hetunā, "or there is some cause? Whether there is any cause about the living entities coming down in this material world? Which one is correct?" So without any cause, there cannot be anything. That is logic. And the rascal philosopher's statement, "It happened automatically. There was a chunk, and the creation came...," this is rascal's philosophy. Jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). The rascals, they do not accept that there is a cause of this creation. That they do not understand. They do not know, and they theorize. You'll find mostly in the Western countries all these philosophers... The Darwin's theory... He cannot give any reasonable cause. Some theory: "It may be, perhaps, for millions of years there was no..." Speculate. And he admits that "Whatever I am presenting, it is all my speculation." We have seen his letter, some, from 150 years ago. He wrote a letter to a friend. He admitted that "Whatever I am presenting, that is speculation." But science is not speculation. Science cannot be speculation. That is not science. "Two plus two equal to four"—this is science. And if you speculate—"Two plus two equal to five" or "Two plus two equal to three"—that is not science.
Thank you very much. Any questions? Any question? Try to understand this philosophy scrutinizingly. You have got intelligence, you have got brain. So if there is any doubt, whatever is spoken... It is not dogmatic, pushing, or thrashing something. No. It is scientific and reasonable, whatever is said in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Amalaṁ purāṇam. It is spotless. Nobody can find any fault. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam amalaṁ purāṇam. Amalam means spotless. Yes.
So the atheist class man will always think that Deity is a doll: "These people, crazy fellow, they are worshiping doll." But not for a devotee. For a devotee, the Deity is prepared to talk, and offer His blessings. So therefore, we should consider either the picture or the Deity not as such, but... This is very reasonable, because in the Bhagavad-gītā we see Kṛṣṇa says that,
- bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ
- khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca
- ahaṅkāra itīyaṁ me
- bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā
- (BG 7.4)
"It is My energy, it is My energy. The earth, water, air, fire, sky, mind, intelligence, they are My separated energy." So it is emanation from Kṛṣṇa. Either you take the earth, water, fire, air, anything. It has come from Kṛṣṇa. So they are not different. The energy and energetic are not different: identical. And Kṛṣṇa, being omnipotent, He can do anything by His energy. That is the meaning of omnipotent. Even in ordinary things also. Just like a man has got enough money. That money is energy of the man, we can understand. So with that money he can do so many things. Although the money is in the bank and he's at home, by his order, so many things can be done. He can start a big factory, business, everything, although he's in the home. It is very easy to understand—because the energy is there. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa may be far away from us, even we think... Kṛṣṇa is not far away. Kṛṣṇa is within our heart.
Now, in the last meeting we have discussed that this life is meant for self-realization. This human form of life especially... We must always remember that many, many years ago, not thousands—millions of years ago... In the modern civilization they have no history more than three thousand years. Some of the rascals, they say that ten thousand years before there was no human being. So this is going on, mental speculation. But we have got Vedic history, millions and millions of years. There are different species of life always. It is not that..., that only one species of life was existent and then gradually they have come to... This theory is not reasonable, neither acceptable. That is a long story.
Now, this is a machine, photography, a wonderful machine. It is taking the picture, and it will move. But there is an operator. Where is the machine which is working without operator? Can you give any example, "Here is a machine which is working without operator"? So how do you think that the nature machine is working without the supreme operator, God's instruction. How do you think it? This is not very reasonable. We have to judge. There are different evidences. One of the evidence is hypothesis. That hypothesis is that "Because we see that no machine works without operator, therefore we should conclude it, even though we do not know what is God, what is the nature, we must conclude it that the nature is working under some supreme operator. That is God." It is not necessary to see the operator, but we can guess that there must be operator. So human life is meant for finding out who is there to operate. That is human life. Otherwise it cats' and dogs' life.
He's prescribing first thing. Just like if you live regularly, if you take foodstuff not more than what you require, if take nice foodstuff, healthy foodstuff, if you follow the hygienic principles, then you will never be attacked with disease. Very reasonable (indistinct). Similarly, we have to live very regulated life; then we shall not be affected or infected by sinful activities. That is the prescription. This is required. If we do not live regulated life, if we do not follow the regulative principles as they are given in the śāstra, then in spite of being put into jail, in spite of my suffering, as soon as I come back, I again commit the same thing and again go to jail. This is... The example is given very nicely here that if anyone does not know how to live hygienically, healthfully, he must fall diseased. That's a fact. Similarly, one must have knowledge what is the value of this life, how I shall live, then he will be not subjected to the sinful activities. This is the conclusion. And if he lives like ass and cow, without any knowledge, without knowing the values of human life, then he must be subjected to sinful activities and will be punished one after another, accepting different types of bodies.
Ninety-nine point nine percent, they do not understand this philosophy, especially in the modern age. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayo (SB 1.1.10). They are very, very dull rascals. This is the challenge. Mandāḥ. Mandāḥ means dull, no intelligence. A simple truth, Kṛṣṇa is explaining to Arjuna. It is authoritative statement because Kṛṣṇa says, and Kṛṣṇa says not unreasonably, very reasonably, "I am giving very common example that smin dehe, within this body, the proprietor of the body or the spirit soul is there. And on account of this," dehino 'smin yathā dehe (BG 2.13), "because the living entity is within this body, therefore the bodily changes are taking place." What is that changing? Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā. "The body is sometimes child, and sometimes boy, sometimes young man, sometimes old man. So the body is changing." Who cannot understand this? The child, the small child, is dancing. Now, that child will get the body of a young man like you. Everyone knows it. This body will change. Where is the difficulty? And Kṛṣṇa is giving this common example, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). As you are experiencing this change of body, similarly, you take it that this body also will change. An old man like me, the next body is there. Either farther old man or, after death, another body. This is to be understood. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ. Dehāntara-prāptiḥ means to get another body.
This human form of life is made according to the form of Lord. It is imitation; that is real. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). But we are thinking that God has no form. Why? Wherefrom you got your form? You are daily praying, "O God, O Father, give us our daily bread," and we accept God as the supreme father. So if I have got form, the father must have got form. It is reasonable. How you say, "There is no form"? This is all not very reasonable argument. God is also a living entity, but what is the difference between God and all these living entities? They are all dependent on God. That's all. God is great; we are small. Just like father maintains all the children, so we are all children, and the supreme father maintains. So if the children have got forms, so it is naturally concluded the father has got, even though you have not seen the father. Suppose a posthumous child, a child is born after the death or disappearance of the father. So that does not mean because he has not seen the father, he will conclude that "My father had no form." This is not conclusion. He should know from the mother that "Yes, my child, your father had form." So this is intelligence.
So aṁśa, particle, that is also sanātana. Not that, as the Māyāvādī philosophers say, that because we are now under the illusion, therefore we are thinking as different; otherwise, God and we are the same. This Vaiṣṇava philosophy, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy, acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. There are other Vaiṣṇava philosophers also—viśuddha-dvaita, dvaitādvaita, advaita, like that. So many philosophies are there. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the latest ācārya who appeared five thousand years ago, er, five hundred years ago, I'm sorry, He preached this acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Means that jīva, simultaneously one and different, one in quality and different in quantity. This is very reasonable. And it is confirmed in the Vedas, Upaniṣad.
So much facility is offered. And the Bhagavad-gītā is there. You can understand with all your reason, with all your argument, with all your senses what is God. It is nothing dogmatic. It is all reasonable, philosophical. Unfortunately they have decided that God is dead. How God can be dead? This is another rascaldom. You are not dead; how God can be dead? So there is no question of God's being dead. He is always present, just like sun is always present. Only the rascals, they say there is no sun. There is sun. It is out of your sight, that's all. Similarly, "Because we cannot see God, therefore God is dead," these are rascaldom. It is not very good conclusion. So one has to understand what is God, divyam. So Kṛṣṇa says anyone who understands this philosophy or science of God, philosophy... (break) ...called the science of sciences. So therefore I use this word "science." So science of God. Then, after leaving this body, tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma na eti (BG 4.9). He does not come back again to take this conditional material body. Then, he's finished? No. He says, mām eti so 'rjuna. "My dear Arjuna, that person comes to Me." That means you are transferred to the spiritual kingdom or God's kingdom.
Sense gratification. Sense gratification is there in the animals. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Nāyaṁ deho deha-bhājāṁ nṛloke kaṣṭān kāmān arhate viḍ-bhujāṁ ye (SB 5.5.1). The human form of life is not meant for to live like the dogs and the hogs. They are busy always for maintaining the body. They are busy. They have no other business. They cannot understand. If I bring some dog in this meeting and try to make him understand, "Please note that you are not this body." It is not possible for them to understand. But a human being, he may be educated like dogs and hog, but if he's given reasonably the, as Kṛṣṇa is giving that the soul is the proprietor of this body and he is as he's changing in this body He's a child-child means he has got a child's body. Baby means he has got a baby's body. Young man means he has a youth's body. So this body has been changed. Similarly when this body is useless, no more can be used, then he transmigrates to another body. Tathā dehāntara-prāptir.
So the father's property everyone can enjoy, tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā (ISO 1). Just like these children, father, mother, whatever gives, "My dear child, you eat it." Similarly if we think in that philosophy, our process, this Deity worship, the father or the supreme maintainer gives us prasādam, we take it. Actually fruits, flowers or grains, it is given by Kṛṣṇa. We cannot produce it. So how nice system it is, that "Kṛṣṇa, it is Yours, You have given us. So first of all You eat." This is love. Kṛṣṇa is not hungry. Kṛṣṇa can have sumptuous food. He is the maintainer of everyone. So this is how good feeling, very reasonable. Any man with some sense, he'll take it very seriously, "Yes, everything given by God, Kṛṣṇa. So let us offer it first of all to Kṛṣṇa." And there is no fear that Kṛṣṇa will eat everything and then we shall have nothing to eat. It is not like that. Kṛṣṇa's eating is a different way. Aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti.
Sudāmā: I have spoken with men on the street and they have said, "Well, if God is the creator of everything and is so dear to everyone, why then has He caused so much suffering?" And I have told them that it is because it was our choice. This was our individual choice. But they don't accept that.
Prabhupāda: That means he is not reasonable. Every... Now, when a man is diseased, that does not mean everyone is diseased. That disease is his choice. Just like Kārttikeya is now sick. I am telling that "You should not... Why you have taken this? Why you have taken this?" So he has caused the disease. Similarly, suffering we cause. If that suffering is for all, why the other man is not suffering? Why you are suffering? That means you are cause for the suffering. The same reasoning, that if somebody says, "Oh, the high-court judge is so unkind to me. He has ordered for me hanging," is that correct? You have caused your hanging. The high-court judge has simply given the judgment that "He should be hanged. He has committed murder. He should be hanged." Therefore your commitment, you committed murder, that you caused your hanging, not that high-court judge is your enemy, and he is giving you order to be hanged. You are the cause of your hanging. Similarly, God is impartial. He can give the judgment that "This man has committed this offense. He should be punished like this." These are common reasons. God is all kind. God is all-great. So how He should be so mean-minded that He should give somebody suffering and somebody enjoyment? Is that not meanmindedness if I treat differently? I have got so many disciples. If I treat some of my disciples very nicely and some of my disciples badly, is that very good for me? So how... God is all-kind. How He can be like that? It is my karma. This is law of karma, fruitive activities.
So long, long ago, sometimes in the year 1933 in this Caitanya Math, there was a big snake came out in my front. I was taking bath. So everyone was looking what to do. So Guru Mahārāja was on the upstair. He immediately ordered, "Kill him." So it was killed. So at that time, 1933, I was newcomer. So I thought, "How that? Guru Mahārāja ordered this snake to be killed?" I was little surprised. But later on, when I saw this verse, I was very glad. Modeta sādhur api vṛścika-sarpa-hatyā (SB 7.9.14). It remained a doubt, "How Guru Mahārāja ordered a snake to be killed?" But when I read this verse I was very much pleased, that these creatures, or creatures like the snake, they should not be shown any mercy. No. And Cāṇakya Paṇḍita said there are two kinds of cruel creatures. One kind is a sarpaḥ krūraḥ. The snake is very cruel. Sarpaḥ krūraḥ, khalaḥ krūraḥ. And khala, a person who has awakened the quality like snake... Then there is no fault. Why a snake is called so cruel? Because unnecessarily they bite. If somebody commits some offense unto you, if you bite me, that is reasonable. But I have no fault, but you are biting me. The vṛścika, scorpion, and snake, they do that, without any offense. A man is passing, an animal is passing—unnecessarily it bites, without offense. A man is sleeping—it bites. Therefore they are very dangerous. Similarly, there are men also like the snake—without any fault, they bite, without any fault. If I do something faulty, you can punish me, bite. But without any fault, if you bite me... So therefore Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, sarpaḥ krūraḥ-khalaḥ krūraḥ sarpāt krūrataraḥ khalaḥ. Such person is called khala, envious, jealous.
So Parīkṣit Mahārāja was very pious. That was the system. A king, monarch is supposed to give protection everyone within the kingdom. It doesn't matter whether he is man or animal. Even trees. There was no law, unnecessarily cutting or killing, no. Actually, if you are reasonable, national... National means anyone who is born in that land. At the present moment the governments take care of the man only, not of the animals. What is this nationalism? What the animal has done that they should not be protected? So this is called Kali-yuga, the sinful age. Sinful age. That is increasing. That is increasing. But during Mahārāja Parīkṣit's time, nobody could do anything injustice. Therefore it is said in the śāstra that kāmaṁ vavarṣa parjanyaḥ (SB 1.10.4). Because everything was right, the nature's way of giving us all comforts, all necessaries of life, that was also complete. As soon as you become injurious or harmful or disobedient to the laws of the king or God... King is supposed to be representative of God. Therefore, in India the king is accepted as the representative of God.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
Just like, this is the philosophy. Now, we offer something to Kṛṣṇa. That Kṛṣṇa, I mean to say, Deity is not different from original Kṛṣṇa because absolute. Everything is Kṛṣṇa. Why this Deity should not be Kṛṣṇa? This is quite reasonable. If Kṛṣṇa is everything, why not this Deity Kṛṣṇa? This is also Kṛṣṇa. He can do. He has, His power is just like... If you take my photograph and if you put it in my seat, and I am not here, that photograph cannot act because it is material. But for Kṛṣṇa, His photograph, His statue, His everything can act because He is spiritual. So we should always know that as soon as we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is immediately there. Immediately. Kṛṣṇa is already there. But we should know that He has, by sound vibration, Kṛṣṇa is there. So aṅgāni yasya. Sa īkṣāñcakre.
In the beginning, the Veda says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has no..., not personality. Brahma. He is person, of course. We say personality, but this personality is not material personality. Sighram cale evam sakala-vasta grahana kare: "He walks very quickly and He can accept whatever is offered to Him." So these very statements in the Vedas confirm that He has hands and legs, but not hands and legs like us. Apakrta. That we cannot understand. Aprakṛta. Prakṛta and aprakṛta. Prakṛta means things which are created, and aprakṛta means which are never created, sanātana. That we cannot understand. As soon as there is statement of the Absolute Truth's form, transcendental form, we think that He has a form like us. How it can be? That is quite reasonable. God cannot be possessing a form which is like us. No. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā says, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). He descends, He comes down, as He is, ātma-māyayā. He descends, He comes down, as He is, ātma-māyayā. We accept this form given to us by the material energy. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). According to the association of particular type of guṇa, quality, we get a form. But Kṛṣṇa is not within the influence of the material qualities. His form is different.
When in the lower stage of devotional service, he cannot become preacher. When he's in a little upper, second stage, he can become preacher. So preacher has to see four things. First of all God, īśvara, and tad-adhīneṣu, and those who are devotees. God, His devotees, and bāliśa, innocent. He does not know anything about... So three: God, devotee, and the innocent. And dviṣat, envious, atheist class. He has to see four things, and he has to deal with four persons differently. With God, īśvare prema: how to advance my love for God, these dealings. Prema-maitrī, and to the devotees, we have to make friendship with them. Prema-maitrī. And to the innocent, we have to preach, kṛpā: "Oh, here is an innocent person. He does not know; he's eager to learn." There teaching is required. Teaching, you cannot teach God or you cannot teach God's devotees. But you can teach the innocent. And those who are dviṣat, atheist, upekṣā, don't go there, save yourself. These are the four things. So when one is not open to hear, then don't bother yourself. That requires very strong preacher to convince the atheist class, provided he is reasonable also. If he's stubborn, obstinate, then it is also very difficult. But preaching is meant, innocent, that one who is actually sincere but he does not know what is God, what is my relationship with God, there is necessity of preaching. Not to the envious or those who are already advanced, or to God.
The speciality of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was that He used to put very sound arguments, and He used to defeat His opponents in such a way that they were satisfied. They were not inimical. And with the evidence of śāstra. Not that argumentum vaculum. He was putting reasonable arguments and evidences from śāstra, scripture. Sarva-śāstra khaṇḍi' prabhu bhakti kare sāra. And the beauty was that He was defeating all other arguments against devotional service. He was establishing only that God is great, and we are meant for serving Him. On this basis He was arguing and He was defeating others.
Festival Lectures
So under the circumstances we propose that every one of you become God conscious. The paragraph which I was mentioning, that we see the mother, mother earth, and we see the children in different forms... Then we must accept that there is father. Because without father there is no possibility of mother begetting children. If you simply understand this philosophy of father, mother and children, then you can very easily understand that there is God, the supreme father. There is no difficulty. But if you do not become reasonable as human being, if you remain as animal like cats and dogs... The dogs cannot understand that there is the supreme father, God, but a human being can understand. He has got intelligence. So with this advanced intelligence, if we do not understand about the existence of God, our relationship with Him and what is our duty in that relationship, then our, this human form of life will be spoiled. Our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is checking the human society from spoiling the human form of life.
So actually if we are anxious for peace and tranquillity in society, then we must be very serious to understand Kṛṣṇa. That is our request. Don't take it neglectfully, the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. This movement can solve all the problems of life, all the problems in the world. Social, political, philosophical, religious, economical—everything can be solved by Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, we request those who are leaders—just like His Excellency is present here—you should try to understand this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. It is very scientific, authorized. It is not a mental concoction or sentimental movement. It is most scientific movement. So we are inviting all leaders from all countries: try to understand. If you are sober, if you are actually reasonable, you'll understand that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is the sublime movement for the welfare of the whole human society. That's a fact. Anyone may come. We are prepared to discuss this subject matter. Kṛṣṇa bhūliyā jīva bhoga vāñchā kare.
There are many hundreds of instances in Indian history that to realize the Brahman pleasure they gave up everything. They gave up everything. That is the way. Tapasya means voluntarily accepting something severe for realizing the supreme pleasure. That is called tapasya. So if, for tasting a little Brahman pleasure, all materialistic pleasures are to be given up, do you think that the Supreme Brahman, Lord Kṛṣṇa, is enjoying this material pleasure? Is it very reasonable? This Kṛṣṇa, He's enjoying lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānam (Bs. 5.29). Hundreds and thousands of goddess of fortune are engaged in His service. Do you think these lakṣmīs are material women? How Kṛṣṇa can take pleasure in the material women? No. This is mistake. Ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitābhis tābhir ya eva nija-rūpatayā kalābhiḥ (Bs. 5.37). In the Brahma-saṁhitā you'll find that He expands His ānanda-cinmaya-rasa, the mellow of transcendental pleasure potency. And these gopīs are expansion of His pleasure potency. And Rādhārāṇī is the center. Rādhārāṇī is the center. So Rādhārāṇī is not... Don't take that Rādhārāṇī is an ordinary woman like we have our wife or sister or mother. No. She is the pleasure potency. And the birth of Rādhārāṇī was not from the womb of any human being. She was found by her father in the field. While father was plowing, he saw one little nice child is lying there, and he had no children, so he caught it and presented to the queen, "Oh, here we have got a very nice child." "How you got?" "Oh, in the field." Just see. Rādhārāṇī's janma is like that. So this janma is today and Rādhā, this name is sometimes not found in Bhāgavata.
General Lectures
The Bhāgavata says, so long you do not come to the platform of understanding yourself, whatever you are doing, it is simply defeat. Zero. Zero has no value. If you go on adding zero, zero, zero, zero, million times, the value is zero. But, if there is zero and put on the left side one, it becomes immediately ten. Therefore, according to... Not according to. Everyone, everyone reasonable man can understand that "What I am doing? What I am gaining?" In your country especially, I see there is so much frustration among youngsters. They are finding that this is zero. Somehow or other they are trying to realize that this sort of life is zero. Actually. Human life, simply increasing the demands of our senses, these activities are zero activities. Parābhava, defeating. Yāvan na jijñāsata ātma-tattvam. When a human being, as long as a human being does not inquire "What I am? Why I am suffering? I do not wish to die. Why death is enforced upon me? I do not want to be diseased. Why disease is forced upon me? I do not want to become old. Why I become old? I do not wish to die. Why I..." These things are very important questions. That is called ātma-tattvam, self-realization. Human life is meant for this purpose, enquiring self-realization. And if we do not enquire, then we are no better than animals. Animals have no power to enquire about the self. They are simply busy with the problems of the body—eating, sleeping, mating and defending. Similarly, if human body is also engaged simply for eating, sleeping, mating and defending, that is not very good civilization. That is not at all human civilization.
Just like in the Bible it is said, "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was creation." Is it not? It is fact. It is fact. Now you find out who created this universe. If you deny this fact, "No. God does not create," then you explain how it was created. So there is no difference between Bible and Vedic literature. We accept also, "God created." But in the Vedic literature you will find how God created. That you'll find. So if you are actually serious to understand how God created, why don't you come to Vedic literature? That is the duty of every student. If you are after the knowledge, why should you stick to one particular place or...? If the knowledge is available in other places, you must have it. That is inquisitiveness, seriousness. But if you say, "No. We are Christian. We have studied Bible. That is all. We do not touch," I don't think that is very nice conclusion. You remain Christian, but what is the harm to study other literatures where more informations are there? That is quite reasonable. We are not asking you to become Hindus. We simply want to, everyone, that you become God conscious. That is our mission. Our mission is not that to convert.
So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is very scientific, authorized and understandable by reasonable man. So if you kindly take interest in this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, you'll be benefited. Your life will be successful. Your aim of life will be achieved. That is a fact. So you can try to read our literatures. We have got many books. You can come and see practically how our students are doing, advancing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. You can try to learn from them by association. Just like if one wants to become a mechanical man, he enters into a factory and associates with the worker, mechanics, and gradually he also becomes a mechanic, a technologist. Similarly, we are opening these centers just to give opportunity to everyone to learn how to go home, how to go home, back..., how to go home, back to Godhead. That is our mission. And it is very scientific and authorized, Vedic. We are receiving this knowledge direct from Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is Bhagavad-gītā. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without nonsensically comments. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We are placing the same proposal, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. We are not changing it.
Because the Māyāvādī philosophers, they interpret Vedic mantras by grammatical jugglery, therefore Śaṅkarācārya has warned that "Your grammatical jugglery, this dukṛn-pratyaya, karaṇe, will not save you." Mūḍha-mate: "You foolish person, you kindly take shelter of Govinda." Bhaja govinda. So this is the verdict of all ācāryas. So our point is that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is nothing like manufactured religious principle. No. It is authorized. There is great background, all these, supported by all the ācāryas and summarized by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And we have got immense literature to support this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. But anyone who is reasonable, they will accept this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness as very simple. And it is actually very simple, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), to surrender unto Kṛṣṇa. And if you cannot surrender immediately, then... These things are explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has given you the easiest process, that you simply chant Kṛṣṇa's name, Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare. Then everything automatically will develop.
Philosophy Discussions
Prabhupāda: Absolute truth is one. Then he can say that absolute truth and relative truth, not that two types of truth.
Śyāmasundara: That's what he says: there are relative truths and absolute truths.
Prabhupāda: That we accept. There are truths, relative and absolute.
Śyāmasundara: And he says that the test for both types—of absolute truth and relative truth—is that for absolute truth, it is impossible to conceive of the opposite.
Prabhupāda: Opposite is māyā. Māyā is not truth. Māyā is illusion.
Śyāmasundara: Relative truths are governed by the law of sufficient reason. In other words, they can be most reasonably explained by reference to all of the conditions in which they are found.
Prabhupāda: Just like you can explain how the snow is formed-the molecular structure of the water, and how they become compact by temperature...
Hayagrīva: "Each disputant triumphs in his turn while he carries on an offensive war and exposes the absurdities, barbarities and pernicious tenets of his antagonists. But all of them," that is, all of the religions, "on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the skeptic who tells them that no system ought ever to be embraced. A total suspense of judgment is here our only reasonable recourse."
Prabhupāda: No. Our principle is to know God from God, and religion means the principles given by God. Just like the law means the principle given by the state, similarly the principles given by God, that is religion. Otherwise it is pseudoreligion. If there is no conception of God, there is no direction of God, that is not religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith. Religion is factual. That factual religion can be given by God Himself, and if we know God and what is His instruction, then we are religious.
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.
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.
Hayagrīva: He believes that behind nature or mechanical laws, he says that crude matter, or prakṛti, should have originally formed itself according to mechanical laws or automatically; that life should have sprung from the nature of what is lifeless. That matter should have been able to dispose itself into the form of a self-maintaining purpose is contradictory to reason. Simply by using our reason we can intuit the creator behind the creation.
Prabhupāda: No. Unless there is a brain... Matter has no brain. Matter cannot combine together without a brain behind. That brain is the Supreme Lord, God. That is quite reasonable. And if somebody thinks matter automatically combines together and becomes the sun, becomes the moon, so bright, without any brain behind it—that is ludicrous.
Hayagrīva: Well, he sees the design in nature, but he says the design only suggests a designer; it doesn't prove the existence of the...
Prabhupāda: No. As soon as there is earthen pot, immediately the potter is understood, and that is a fact. We cannot say that it is simply understanding that there is potter, but there is no potter. That is foolishness. Without potter, the pot is never manufactured, so as soon as you see the pot, you can immediately understand that some potter has made it. That is logic. That is philosophy.
Devotee: Cannot be perceived. The truth cannot be perceived. If the truth cannot be perceived, then what good is the philosophy?
Prabhupāda: Truth can be perceived.
Devānanda: We can show; therefore our philosophy is good. He would agree, this philosophy is good because we cannot only state with authority what is the truth, we can reasonably establish it and we can demonstrate it also.
Prabhupāda: And perceive also.
Devānanda: Yes. We can demonstrate it.
Prabhupāda: Why? If you exist, if others exist, why God will not exist?
Hayagrīva: That is his position as an atheist.
Prabhupāda: No, atheist, that is there should be reasonable proposal. If you speak something nonsense, that "I exist," why he, does he bring the word God, if God does not exist? God is there, but He denies the existence. That is atheism. Otherwise, why bringing the word God? If God does not exist, why he is bringing the word God?
Hayagrīva: He wants, he's trying to...
Prabhupāda: That means God is there. He wants his existence; he does not want God to exist. That is his proposal.
Hayagrīva: Well he feels that if you attribute personality to God, you are simply projecting yourself onto God.
Prabhupāda: No.
Hayagrīva: This is what he is saying.
Prabhupāda: He is saying, but it is not... Even if you attribute, it must be sensual. Just like, full of sense, just like we say "God is great." So at least we have got conception of greatness, so that must be in God. So we suppose a person very big, at least at the present moment if one is very rich. So then my attribution to God that He is the supreme richest person. That is quite reasonable. If we say God is the supreme wise, that is quite reasonable. So this definition given by Parāśara Muni, that aiśvaryasya samagrasya, that is perfect. Unless one is the richest of all, how can be the great? We have got some conception of greatness, so even if we attribute all the conception of great, that must be God. That is a reasonable definition. Everyone goes to pray to God, "Give us our daily bread." But if He is a poor man, then how can He supply bread? And everyone is praying, "God has to be kind to everyone to supply bread," so He must be very rich. Otherwise how He can supply bread? This is quite reasonable. If everyone comes to me to ask something, so I must be able to supply that thing. Otherwise how can I be God?
Hayagrīva: But again he feels, like the others, that if you apply personality to God or if you look on God as a person you necessarily refer to someone who is limited and finite.
Prabhupāda: No. That is his mistake. He, he is thinking God is like himself, as he is finite. That is Dr. Frog.
Prabhupāda: Why, why he will not agree? If a body is a gift by God, then body can be a punishment also by God.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: This is reasonable. When he is punished, he gets the body of a pig. When he is rewarded, he gets the body of King Indra. So that is punishment and reward.
Hayagrīva: What about the body of a man? Is that punishment or gift?
Prabhupāda: Man, man, there are many men who are very well situated and there are many men who are suffering. So two things are there according, suffering and enjoyment, according to the body. So this has been explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, mātrā-sparśās tu kaunteya śītoṣṇa-sukha-duḥkha-dāḥ (BG 2.14). According to the body the heat and, what is called, cold? Heat or cold?
Hayagrīva: Augustine believes that the physical body comes first, and then the spiritual. "What is so in a natural body arises a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. But it is not the spiritual which comes first, but the physical and then the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, earthy. The second man is from heaven, heavenly. But the body which, by the life-giving spirit will become spiritual and immortal, will under no conditions be able to die." So that man must first come as a, as man, as a mortal, physical being first, in order to attain immortality.
Prabhupāda: Why man? Every living entity has a mortal body. So to enter into the mortal body, that is a kind of punishment. And then there is evolutionary process from lower grade of body to higher grade of body. That is quite reasonable, that every living entity or soul is part and parcel of God, but on account of some sinful activities or disobedience to God, as they believe Adam on account of disobedience to God they lost Paradise and came to this material world, similarly, the soul belongs to the Paradise, or heaven, or Kṛṣṇa, but somehow or other he falls down within this material world, and he gets first a body like Adam. But again, on account of his further, low-grade activities, he goes down, sometimes as human being or sometimes as more than human being—the demigod—and sometimes as animal, trees, plants. In this way he goes down, degradation, or goes up by elevation. But he is always aloof from the material body, but according to his desires and activity he gets different body. This is quite reasonable and confirmed by the Vedic literature. But his actual life is when he is freed from this material contamination, getting different bodies life after life.
Hayagrīva: He conceived of the spiritual world as a place where the bodies are very beautiful, are very happy, they move with, with grace. The... God is the source of every satisfaction and is the consummation of all desires. The people in the spiritual sky never cease praising God, never tire of praising Him. There is no envy, and bliss is all-pervasive. Sin has no power of temptation.
Prabhupāda: Yes. When he, we remain in contact with God, the sin cannot touch. That is the explanation given in the Bhagavad-gītā: daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī mama māyā duratyayā (BG 7.14). According to our desires we are associating with the different qualities of material nature, and we are getting different types of body. Kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgaḥ asya. Nature is the agent of Kṛṣṇa, God, so as we desire, Kṛṣṇa gives us the facility by giving us a body which is a machine. Just like father and the son. The son insists, "Father, give me a cycle." So the affectionate father gives him a cycle. And he says, "Father, give me a motorcar." So affectionate father gives him a motorcar. So this is the relationship between the father and the son. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, that,
- īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ
- hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati
- bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni
- yantrārūḍhāni māyayā
- (BG 18.61)
The father, or Kṛṣṇa, is there within the core of heart of every living entity, and as he desires, the father supplies him a type of vehicle manufactured by the material nature. So this body is given by God because we desire it, but the body is manufactured by the material nature. This is very reasonable. So we are in different types of body means in different types of vehicle, sometimes as acting on the vehicle of a pig, and sometimes we are acting on the vehicle of a very important person or demigod. But we desire such thing, and God gives us such vehicle manufactured by the material nature.
Prabhupāda: He has no study of the Vedic literature; still he poses himself to remark on the Vedic literature. That is his ignorance.
Hayagrīva: He considers the goal of Indian philosophy to be spiritual as well as physical extinction. Nirvāṇa.
Prabhupāda: Physical extinction, everyone says that—even Christian religion says—you go to hell, go to heaven. So who goes to heaven? Who goes to heaven? What is the qualification? Reasonably, one who has given up this physical.
Hayagrīva: He says spiritual extinction as well as physical, nirvāṇa.
Prabhupāda: But then he has no idea what is spiritual. Spiritual is eternal, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). How does it, spiritually... Spirit is also annihilated, then where is the difference between matter and spirit? Imperfect knowledge. And still they are big philosopher. Scanty knowledge.
Hayagrīva: Because I will it to be mine... He says because I come first and will it to be mine, it is mine.
Prabhupāda: That's all right. By force you can do that, you are doing that.
Hayagrīva: And I can relinquish it because I can will to relinquish it.
Prabhupāda: But first thing is that if you have got will, but reasonable will, first of all you have to think, "Who has kept this gold here? I am claiming proprietorship simply by coming here, but who has kept this gold here?" Why don't you think like that? What kind of human being you are?
Hayagrīva: A final point: he believed that man should have the freedom to choose his occupation. He writes, "In the Platonic state, subjective freedom was of no account. Since the..."
Hayagrīva: Everybody wants to speculate.
Prabhupāda: That's all. We are, I have stopped it. They cannot speculate on the words of Bhagavad-gītā. That is our mission. Won't allow you to speculate. You are finite, imperfect. How you can by speculation give the unlimited, infinite? How it is possible? That is reasonable. Waste of time, misleading others. Aṇḍhā yathāndair upanīyamānāḥ. You are blind; how you can show others, blind men? They are already blind. You open your eyes, then take the leadership of the blind. Ajñāna-timirāndhasya jñānāñjana-śalākayā. That is our process. That's all right.
Prabhupāda: If he..., if one cannot control himself, how he will control the world? How it is possible?
Devotee: Backwards.
Hayagrīva: Ultimately he feels that man has no duty. "It is reasonable to look forward to a time when man will seldom have anything to do, although he may show interest, imagination and productivity."
Prabhupāda: Imagination, if he thinks like that, that our society will be perfect on imagination, then what he can say? This is childish. That is going on practically. Everyone is coming, a leader like him, and he is trying to make some followers of his own imagination. That is going on.
Hayagrīva: He, he believed...
Prabhupāda: He has got imagination. He believes in his own imagination. So others can believe in his own imagination. So who is going to follow him? He, he has to remain satisfied with his imagination. I mean, everyone has got imagination. Why he should, one should follow him?
| Page Title: | Reasonable (Lectures) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Serene |
| Created: | 26 of Feb, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=61, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 61 |