Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


That is to say (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"that is to say" |"this is to say"

Lectures

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: What is that, emancipation?

Hayagrīva: That is to say he simply presented what material he found—that is the fossils. He investigated certain life forms on these island during this trip and theorized about evolution.

Prabhupāda: That is philosophic; that is not scientific. He found something and he based his thesis on that. He cannot find out all the bodies, because there are, at the end, some section, some sect they burn the body. So how he can get information of their body, burned? So his theory is not at all scientific. It is always defective.

Hayagrīva: He spent the rest of his life writing about the material he gathered during this five-year voyage, which is a very short time. And according to his theory of natural selection, the best and the fittest survived. If this is the case, the race will necessarily steadily improve.

Prabhupāda: What does he mean by survive? What is the meaning of his dictionary, "survive"? Nobody survives.

Hayagrīva: Well, by that he means that the strong pass on their hereditary characteristics to their offspring, and that the race..., no individual survives, but that the race improves. But isn't this contradicted by the Vedas? In the present Kali... For instance, Arjuna's physical powers, prowess, was much greater, and that was, what, five thousand years ago. So isn't, instead of improving, instead of the race improving in strength and other qualities, isn't it actually...

Prabhupāda: They are degrading.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: Yes. The culture is important. If he gets the chance of cultured association, then he elevates. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: yānti deva-vratā devān (BG 9.25). If he, according to his cultural life, he can go to the higher planetary system, he can remain where he is, he can degrade, and he can go back to home, back to Godhead. Therefore culture is very important in human form of life.

Hayagrīva: He further writes, "He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organized form will naturally ask, 'How does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul?' " He says, "At what precise period does a man become an immortal being?" That is to say, he doesn't know at what stage the immortal soul inhabits the species.

Prabhupāda: Yes, soul is always important. He is put into different bodies. That is the defect of Darwin's knowledge. He does not know about the soul. So the existence of soul, to understand this is the first education. One who does not know this, he remains animal, sa eva go-kharaḥ (SB 10.84.13), if one continues the bodily concept of life without any understanding of the soul. And it is very easy to understand that the child is becoming boy, a boy is becoming young man. So the soul is there, and we remember that "I was a child, I was a boy, I was a young man." So I continue to exist, the bodily changes, and this is confirmed in every Vedic scripture, and that is the beginning of knowledge. If one does not understand how the soul is changing body, he remains on the level of cats and dogs.

Hayagrīva: He does..., he says he doesn't know at what point the soul enters, but the soul is in anything that moves. Is that correct?

Prabhupāda: Hm?

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: ...if it shoots, grows and ripens without ceasing, then why or how could the personality or the individual jīva soul return to a lower life-form? That is to say, how could a greater experience regress to a lesser experience?

Prabhupāda: The..., everything is calculated at the time of death. That is nature's process. That I was talking in the morning, that these boys, they are too much addicted to these water sports. Twenty-four hours they are indulging in this water sport. They are creating a mentality to become aquatic animal. So naturally, at the time of death, he will think of all these things and nature will give him a body. Yes. That you cannot check. After death you are completely under nature's control. You cannot dictate. That these rascal do not understand. Therefore they, "Finish this business. There is no life after death. That's all."

Hayagrīva: Now how was it that a great personality like Indra, with his mind, intelligence, and ego all intact, how is it he could become a toad?

Prabhupāda: Yes, you can become. So long you are materially existing, your thoughts are under the modes of material mature. So sometimes the thoughts are in the modes of goodness, sometimes the thoughts are in the modes of passion, and sometimes they are in the modes of ignorance and act accordingly. So up and down it is going on. So in order to keep yourself on the standard platform, one should engage himself in devotional service. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā:

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Hayagrīva: Four, he sees, "a shifting of the emotional center toward loving and harmonious affection, toward yes and away from no, where the clangs of the non-ego are concerned." That is to say, agreeing with God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. God is asking always that "You agree to obey My orders," and as soon as we accept this principle, we immediately becomes liberated: "Yes, from this point I shall now fully agree to the the orders of Kṛṣṇa, or God." That is liberation. The liberation is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: to give up a mode of life other than devotional life. Muktiḥ hitvā anyathā rūpam. Our life is meant for rendering devotional service to the Lord. As soon as we give up this principle of life, devotional service to the Lord, that is our anyathā rūpam, means our living condition otherwise, except devotional service. That living condition otherwise than the devotional service is called conditioned life. And as soon as we come to this platform of devotional service, that is mukti, liberated life. Muktiḥ hitvā anyathā rūpaṁ sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ. To remain in one's own constitutional position is called mukti, or liberation. (break)

Hayagrīva: James believes that the existence of many religions in the world is not regrettable but is necessary to the existence of different types of men. He says, "All men have, should have... Should all men have the same religion? Ought they to approve the same fruits and follow the same leadings? Are they so like in their inner needs that exactly the same religious incentives are required? Or are different functions allotted to different types of men, so that some may really be the better for a religion of consolation and reassurance whilst others are better for one of terror and reproof?" And he goes on to conclude that he thinks that difference...

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: Old fool, yes.

Hayagrīva: An old goat.

Prabhupāda: Yes. If he is not educated properly, he remains a old fool. Yes.

Hayagrīva: He says, "In one of the Vedic Upaniṣads, the natural length of human life is put down at one hundred years, and I believe this to be right. I have observed, as a matter of fact, that it is only people who exceed the age of ninety who attain euthanasia, who die, that is to say, of no disease, apoplexy, or convulsion, and pass away without agony of any sort. To come to one's end before the age of ninety means to die of disease, in other words, prematurely."

Prabhupāda: Yes, the maximum age in this millennium is hundred years, but formerly they used to live for thousand years. Before that they used to live for ten thousand years, and before that they used to live for one hundred thousands of years. So nowadays we don't think even they are going up to hundred years, even not ninety years.

Hayagrīva: Sixty, sixty-seven.

Prabhupāda: Sixty-seven is the average. The more one becomes sensuous, the duration of life is lessened. That is the law of nature.

Hayagriva: So that's all on Schopenhauer. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: Continuing on this, God's personality, these are his recollections of his spiritual encounters. He says, "But here I encountered a formidable obstacle. Personality, after all, surely signifies character. Now character is one thing and not another, that is to say, it involves certain specific attributes. But if God is everything, how could He still possess a distinguishable character? On the other hand, if He does have a character He can only be the ego of a subjective, limited world. Moreover, what kind of character or what kind of personality does He have? Everything depends on that, for unless one knows the answer, one cannot establish a relationship to Him."

Prabhupāda: His character is transcendental character, not like the material character. Āprakṛta. It is said, just like bhakta-vatsala, He is very kind to His devotee. This kindness is, is one of His characteristic. Similarly, He has got unlimited qualities, and according to that transcendental quality He is sometimes described, but all those qualities are permanent. Whatever qualities and character we have got, they are minute manifestation of God's character, because we have got character also. That is only a minute manifestation of God's character. He is the origin of all character. That is described in the śāstras. He has got also mind, He has got also feelings, He has got also sensation, He has got senses, sense perception, sense gratification. Everything is there. That is unlimitedly, and we, being part and parcel of God, we possess in minute quantities all the God's quality. Actually our characteristics, qualities are simply atomic manifestation of God's quality. The original qualities are in God.

Hayagrīva: Jung complained that at least the philosophies and theologies of the West...

Philosophy Discussion on Aristotle:

Prabhupāda: Beauty of the soul is real beauty, and beauty of the body is superficial. Not every body is beautiful. There are so many bodies very ugly, and there are so many bodies very beautiful. So the material sense, this ugliness and beautifulness, they are all artificial. But the beauty of the soul is real; that is not artificial. So unless we see the beauty of the Supersoul, Kṛṣṇa, we have no idea what is actually beauty. Therefore devotees, they want to see the beauty of Kṛṣṇa, not any artificial beauty of this material world.

Hayagrīva: There's no correspondence there. That is to say, a beautiful body does not necessarily house a beautiful soul. There's no correspondence.

Prabhupāda: No, there is correspondence, because we say this material world is perverted reflection. So originally the soul is beauty, but here the beauty is covered. But we can simply have a glimpse of the real beauty from the material covering, but we have to wait to see the beauty of the soul. That is real point.

Hayagrīva: I read that Socrates was a very ugly man but that he had a very beautiful soul, and people were attracted to his soul. That was the, supposedly...

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: Aquinas writes on beauty and contrasts the absolute beauty of God, which is beautiful in all times and all places, absolute beauty. He contrasts this with the relative beauty that we find in the world, and he says, "He is beautiful in Himself and not in relation to some limited terminus," that is God. "Hence, it is clear that the being of all things is derived from the Divine beauty. By God's own beauty He wishes to multiply it as far as possible; that is to say, by the communication of His likeness. Indeed, all things are made in order to imitate Divine beauty in some fashion."

Prabhupāda: Yes. God is the reservoir of all knowledge, all beauty, all strength, all renunciation, all riches. He is the reservoir of everything; therefore He is God. So beauty, whatever we see beautiful, that is emanation from, a very minute percentage of God's beauty. (aside:) Who paid this?

Hari-śauri: Someone gave it this morning.

Hayagrīva: Concerning theology and philosophy, Aquinas writes, "Just as sacred doctrine is based on the light of faith, so is philosophy founded on the natural light of reason. Hence it is impossible for items that belong to philosophy to be contrary to those that pertain to faith, but the former may be defective." That is, philosophy may be defective in comparison with, with the latter, theology, which is based on faith. "If any point among the statements of the philosophers is found contrary to faith, this is not philosophy but rather an abuse of philosophy resulting from a defect in reasoning."

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we say, that every man is defective on account of his material condition of life. So philosophy coming from such defect persons cannot be any good for the human society. Philosophy coming from a person who is in contact with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that is perfect. That will benefit human society. And the speculative philosopher, who has no definite idea, simply basing on his belief or imagination, by following such philosophy nobody will be benefited; rather, he will be deviated from the actual philosophy of life.

Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza:

Hayagrīva: Yes. Spinoza is impersonal. He asserts that God cannot be a remote cause of the creation. He says that the creation flows from God in the same way that conclusions flow from principles in mathematics. God is free to create, but He is the eminent cause. That is to say, the creation is an extension of Himself.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is, He creates by His energy. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is stated,

bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ
khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca
bhinnā me prakṛtiḥ aṣṭadhā
(BG 7.4)

These eight kinds of material elements—earth, water, air, fire, sky, mind, intelligence and ego—they are material energies, and this material world is made of these material elements. So because it is made of God's energy, therefore it is called created by God. But this is creation of His energy. Prakṛtiḥ pradhāna, upadhāna, pradhāna. The ingredients are coming from Him, and prakṛtiḥ, nature, creates. This is the idea of creation. So God is a remote cause and a eminent cause also, because these elements, they are God's energy. So the eminent cause is the energy. Therefore it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: "By Me, everything is expanding." So when He says "By Me," then He is the eminent cause. There are two causes: remote and eminent.

Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza:

Prabhupāda: So both, He is remote cause and eminent cause.

Hayagrīva: Both remote and eminent.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: He says that each soul coincides with its body. That is to say, the soul acquires a body befitting it...

Prabhupāda: Hm?

Hayagrīva: ...a soul acquires a body befitting it. A soul can progress beyond bodies to come to know spiritual truths by turning toward God rather than the material world.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: Or, as Spinoza would put it, by turning toward God's extensions. He calls them God's extensions.

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: Because he is pantheistic.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: And John Locke, Locke is the..., is most famous for his conception of tabula rasa, or blank slate, that a child is born with no innate ideas. He states that "If there are innate or inborn ideas, all men would have them." That is to say, there would be universal consent. He writes, "This argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such because there are none to which all mankind give a universal consent." So it cannot be argued that all people have an innate or inborn idea of God since there is no universal consent on this subject. Well, do innate ideas have to be universal? Might not some living entities have some innate ideas and other living entities have others? Why does an innate idea have to be universal and apply to everyone?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Innate idea is that there is somebody. That is developed consciousness. The animals, they cannot think, on account of nondeveloped consciousness, but even in human society, uncivilized society, they have got the innate idea of some superior form. When there is lightning, they offer obeisances. When they see big ocean, they offer obeisances, something big. So that innate idea is universal, to offer obeisances to something wonderful. But this innate idea of accepting something supreme and offering respect is not developed in the animal. So this innate idea is there. When it is not developed, it is animal, and when it is developed, then it is human being. And a perfect human being is he, when he has developed this innate idea to the fullest stage. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Prabhupāda: He has conception of God, practically, but because under the spell of māyā he has become foolish, he tries to cover that conception, that somebody is there. How any sane man can deny that some superior power is there who has created this vast ocean, vast land, vast sky? How one sane man can avoid this conception? Nobody can avoid, but artificially, foolishly, he tries to avoid. Atheism. But that will not endure, that will not stay. His foolishness will be exposed. So this is innate idea, but the atheist class, demon class, they want to cover this innate idea artificially.

Hayagrīva: And Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. That is to say a man may have a certain stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Īśopaniṣadic version?

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā: (ISO 1) everything belongs to God. Just like the father has got many sons and the father is the proprietor of the house. He gives one son, "This is your room," the other son, "This is your room." So the obedient son is satisfied what the father allows to him. Others, those who are not obedient, they want to disturb other brother that "This room also belongs to me." That creates chaos and confusion in the world. The United Nations, they have created a society for unity of the nations, but actually that is not unity. That is another way of encroaching upon others' property. Therefore there is no peace, unless they accept God is the Supreme proprietor. And we must be satisfied with the allotment God has given to us. Then there is no trouble. But the trouble is that we are not satisfied with the allotment given to us. That allotment can be understood by language or similar culture. So why one should encroach upon others' property which is allotted by God? That creates disturbance. So this so-called modern civilized man, first of all they create disturbances, and then they want to make some adjustment.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Hayagrīva: Alexander despairs of the speculative method as a means for connecting with God, and he also feels that proofs of God's existence in nature are nonexistence, are nonexistent. If such a God is to be identified with the object of worship, that is to say we shouldn't worship God in nature. But how can God be known? For him God can be known by experience. Nor can we prove the existence of God, whether worshipable or not, except on the basis of experience.

Prabhupāda: This is natural. This is just like the other day I was saying that on the Hawaii Island we are standing, we know that the proprietor, the government, is there. So just after few yards there is the sea. Then we can conjecture: if the land has the proprietor, the sea has also proprietor. We have not seen who is the proprietor of the land, or the governor of the land. Similarly, there is a governor, proprietor, of the sea and the sky, but we have not seen. That does not mean there is no proprietor.

Hayagrīva: Now...

Prabhupāda: By see, by exp..., by our present experience we can guess the experience which you have not actually experienced. As we see that everything has got I... I am the proprietor of this body, he is the proprietor of this house, he is the proprietor of that land, he is the proprietor..., that there must be a proprietor of the sea. This is common sense. And that is God. The proprietor of the sun, the proprietor of the moon, the sky, that is God. That is described in the Vedic literature. It is said that the moon is the mind of God, the sun is the eyes of God, the land is the foot of God, the water is the semina of God. Everything is described.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Hayagrīva: Alexander distinguishes between what he calls deity and God Himself. For him deity is how it feels to be divine. Now deity for him is a relative term. It is the next highest level of existence. For instance, for an ant, a dog may be a deity; for a dog, a man may be a deity; for a man, a demigod may be a deity. He says, "For any level of existence, deity is the next higher empirical quality."

Prabhupāda: Hmm.

Hayagrīva: "It is therefore a variable quality, and as the world grows in time, deity changes with it. On each level a new quality looms ahead, which plays to it the part of deity. However, God is the being which possesses Deity in full." That is to say God is always one step ahead of every creature.

Prabhupāda: They do not know the science of God, but as philosopher they are suggesting the method. That is nice. Just like for ant, a bird is deity; for a bird, a cat is deity; for a cat, a dog is deity. So in this way, according to the position one selects the deity. But if you go on searching out, when you find out somebody that he has no any, anyone to worship... The ant has to worship the bird, bird has to worship the cat, cat has to worship the so on, so on. In this way, when you come to a person who hasn't got to worship anybody, He is God. That is sense. In the lower stage there is another, higher living being than the lower living being, but in this way searching out, when you come to a point that there is this person who hasn't got to worship anybody ... That is explained in the Vedic literature:

Page Title:That is to say (Lectures)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, RupaManjari
Created:23 of Nov, 2012
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=14, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:14