Theory (Lectures, philosophy discussions)

Expressions researched:
"theories" |"theorists" |"theory" |"theory's"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: theories or theorists or theory's or theory not "darwin's theory" not "theory of darwin" not "Darwinian theory"

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

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 Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: But one thing is that when rocks were thrown on the sea by Lord Rāmacandra's will, they began to float. Therefore the Supreme Will is the ultimate cause. Supreme Will wants that the rock may go down in the water, then it goes; if He does not wants, then the rock floats. Therefore rock is not independent. The Supreme Will of God is independent. There are so many other examples. The same example as I cited the other day, that the cow eats the dry grass and it gives so nutritious, full of vitamins milk. But the same dry grass, if a woman eats, she will die. Therefore the plan of the Supreme that the cow, by eating dry grass, she can deliver nicely. It is not on the dry grass she is producing milk; it is the will of God that is producing it. Similarly the stone falling. Because the will of God is there, therefore "You stone, go down in the water!" But when God wills that it floats, it will float. So that in that case the monad theory did not act.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: Because He is the central monad which controls all monads...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Everything. So taking the theory, the central monad and the other monad, the central monad is the cause of it. But he does not believe in the cause.

Śyāmasundara: No. He believes that God is the cause, the designer of everything.

Prabhupāda: Then why does he say there is no cause?

Śyāmasundara: He says that there is no cause and effect relationship between monads.

Prabhupāda: That is not clear. Once he says there is no cause. There is cause. There is no other cause than God. That is definite. The real cause is God.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: That was their process.

Prabhupāda: (indistinct). The absolute cannot be divided into parts. Nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi, in the Bhagavad-gītā. In the material thing, if you want to cut into pieces, that is (indistinct), but a spiritual being, avyaya, inexhaustible, there is no possibility of dividing the spirit into pieces. The Māyāvāda theory is that the absolute is all-pervading. Then when the question of His form, that is their poor fund of knowledge. The absolute, keeping His form as He is, He can expand Himself. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad-avyakta mūrtinā (BG 9.4), "I am spread all over the creation, avyakta, My impersonal form." So God, or Kṛṣṇa, has two features, rather three features, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11), impersonal feature, localized feature and personal feature. So unless we come to understand this science, tattva, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion what is the right form of the absolute truth. So one who cannot go, one who is not so competent, with poor fund of knowledge, they come to the conclusion, nira, void, but actually it is not so.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Devotee: There's one verse in the First Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that explains that Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira and Arjuna after Kṛṣṇa left the earth, returned to the spiritual sky in this same body. Does that indicate that their bodies were so spiritual from spiritual activities that they no longer were material bodies?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes, that is possible. Now, let us talk of this philosopher. If you bring so many questions then we cannot do it.

Śyāmasundara: His idea was that the truth is in the sum of all moments, he called the organic theory of truth. The truth is not static or composed of isolated segments or parts, but it is the sum total of everything and it is constantly changing. So he says that these phenomena or facts of nature or these moments, they are progressing in an evolutionary process according to a course which is prescribed by a universal reason or the world spirit, weltgeist. That the world spirit is unfolding itself through phenomenal events.

Prabhupāda: That means... This is another nonsense proposition. According to the universal reason. So wherefrom the reason comes unless there is a person? That he does not know.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: And these three things may also be called...

Prabhupāda: That means he is creating God. Is it not? God is an idea. So his philosophy is that you create by imagination something as God. Actually there is no God. Just like Māyāvādīs, they say, "God is imperson. God is dead." Like that. And you can create a God. Just like Vivekananda, that is their theory. Therefore they create Ramakrishna as God.

Śyāmasundara: He said that God is the idea behind all concrete objects. Whatever is concrete there is a superior idea.

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) Idea can be changed so God becomes a thing which is subjected to the whimsical change of rascals. That is his idea.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: For instance the ideal table, the ideal table. I don't see any table that's ideal but I can imagine there's one ideal table...

Prabhupāda: No, no, if you do not know what is table, you cannot manufacture table. You have to ask what is table. You have to ask somebody that... You have got... Practically unless you see or know from some way or other how can you manufacture a table?

Śyāmasundara: Just like Albert Einstein, he thought about this theory...

Prabhupāda: Because he's Albert Einstein, he's not perfect.

Śyāmasundara: No, but he was able to conceptualize that the speed of light squared times the mass equals the energy of an object. And then he was able to experiment in the laboratory and actually find out that it was true. But no one told him that formula. He found it out through process of idealizing, ideas.

Prabhupāda: That is another thing. That is, he is studying science. He is a scientist. You cannot say but he's scientist. He, just like the same you are seeing the mountain from a distance, you are seer. Now the more you make progress you see it is green, then more progress, "Oh, it is (indistinct)." The seer, because he is scientist, he is searching so he is making progress but all of a sudden a layman cannot see like that.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: Well, nature is a... All phenomenon can be explained by means of physical laws.

Prabhupāda: Who made these physical laws?

Śyāmasundara: He is not so much concerned with...

Prabhupāda: Why is he not concerned? If he is putting some theory for understanding, why he is not concerned with some primary principles?

Śyāmasundara: He says that we cannot be certain how everything began.

Prabhupāda: Then how he is certain that this natural circumstance is favorable? How he is making certain?

Śyāmasundara: He made many, many tests; he has much evidence...

Prabhupāda: What is that evidence?

Śyāmasundara: ...to show that animals adapt to their environments, just like if you...

Prabhupāda: Why he takes animals first? Why not others?

Śyāmasundara: Animals, trees, plants, insects, men, he examines all the different varieties. For instance if you put a certain animal in a cold climate, he will develop hair to protect his body against the cold, and he will pass on this characteristic to his sons.

Prabhupāda: So why...? The people in Greenland, do they develop hair?

Śyāmasundara: They don't have so much hair, but they develop very fatty tissues. Their eyes are slitted so there is not so much snow and bright light...

Prabhupāda: Then development of hair is not only the existent; there are other many conditions. You cannot say that development of hair is due to the condition as he says, natural condition.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: Well, just like the frog may lay millions of eggs. Out of all those millions of eggs, a few—three, four—may survive. That means those who were the fittest, by chance they happened to be best fitted to survive. Otherwise too many frogs...

Prabhupāda: If I say that frogs or many others animals lay eggs, millions... Just like the snake. They give birth to so many hundreds and thousands of snakes at a time. So, if so many snakes are allowed to exist, then there will be disturbance. Therefore the nature's law is that the big snake eats up the small, small snakes. That is nature's law. But behind this nature's law there is brain. That is our proposition: that nature's law is not blind. There is brain, and that brain is God. We get it from Bhagavad-gītā: mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). So whatever things are happening in the material nature, it is being done by the indication of the Supreme Lord in order to maintain everything in order. Just like the snake is laying eggs, thousands. If they are not killed, then the whole world will be full of snakes only. So there is a plan that the snakes will eat. Just like tiger. Tiger, they also have their cubs, but the male tiger kills them and the female tiger hides them. So many tigers are coming out. So that is another economic Malthus theory that whenever there is large number of population there must be some war, some epidemic, some earthquake, like that. They should die. So these natural activities are planned; they are not chance. As he is saying, "chance," that means he has no sufficient knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: But my point is they excavated down into the ground and they found that gradually, through the years, animals are evolving towards more and more complex forms, from very simple forms in the water to land animals, plants, and these big dinosaurs, then they died out.

Prabhupāda: If they died out, that means there is no more existence of that animal. But how can you say that the animal is existing somewhere else? Now, according to his statement that from a certain basic principle, by gradual evolution, the human body is coming. Now his theory is that the human body is coming from the monkey.

Śyāmasundara: They are related; they come from the same...

Prabhupāda: Related? Everything is related. That is another thing. But if the monkey's body is developing into human body...

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Apelike man.

Prabhupāda: Then after development of human body, why is the monkey species does not cease? Why not it does not cease?

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: But he says they evolved. That's because they evolved.

Prabhupāda: Evolved, but they are still existing. Evolved, that is another thing. But all of them are existing still. So how you can say that millions of years they did not exist, all? His theory is that...

Śyāmasundara: Because there is not evidence that they exist.

Prabhupāda: Evidence, this is the evidence: if now all the species of life are existing, why not millions of years ago? What do you say?

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes. It was existing, but simply we did not know.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is one-sided test.

Śyāmasundara: You can say they existed, but show me. I don't see any proof.

Prabhupāda: You do not see the animals, the aquatics, the birds, bees, trees—everything—is existing?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But ten million years ago, according to my excavations, there were no beasts; there were all aquatics.

Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. That is nonsense. Ten millions of... You cannot give a history of ten millions. It is your imagination. Where is the history of ten millions of years? You are simply imagining, that is your word. But where is historical evidence? You cannot give history more than three thousand years, and you are speaking of ten millions of years. This is all nonsense. How you can go... There is no history in the human civ... There is no history, ten millions of years.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: They are a set of fools. And going on under the name of scientists. Set of fools.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: On the other hand, the so-called physicist... His name was Heisenberg. He produced the concept of the theory of uncertainty, and he found out that certain physical rules that govern certain parts of the so-called universal system of rules—why the planets are moving around the sun, and why they have a repeated course and so on. But he did not know what was the answer. So he named the title of the theory, the Theory of Uncertainty. Based on that, there are so many groups coming up, but they found uncertainty itself, that implies that there is some...

Prabhupāda: Basic principle is uncertainty, and they're building on big, big buildings.

Śyāmasundara: Darwin calls it the missing link.

Prabhupāda: That missing link, let them learn from us. We can give him the missing link.

Karandhara: But ultimately they'll say it'll come down to we propose that Kṛṣṇa is the creator or that God is the creator, then they'll say "That must be proved to me." In other words, they want to fit God within their own empiric gaze. That will be their only satisfaction when they actually become able to circumvent God's existence and create a power by their own intelligence.

Prabhupāda: He has to admit that the theory of uncertainty is bogus, but everything is there, and that masking behind all these things there must be big brain. That one has to accept. Simply uncertainty, that is not a science. The certainty is that behind all these things there is a big brain. I do not know Him—that is a different thing—but there is a big brain.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Śrīla Prabhupāda, they find that just like I said already, the basic elements of life—carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen...

Śyāmasundara: You know the theory, not theory but practical proof, that the genes can be mutated by bombarding with cosmic rays.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes. That they prove by so-called... That's why the cancer... The example of that mutation is the cancer cell. They try to find out how cancer is caused in the body. They say that somehow the cell has been changed, and they say that it has been done by mutation, so they try to prove it in the laboratory by changing the structure of the cell, and that is called mutation. So they say why the cancer is formed because cancer is an abnormal cell, this is a normal cell. In answering why these elements are formed from these basic four chemicals-carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen—they try, they say that somehow this nitrogen and hydrogen, they combine forming ammonia. That is called ammonia, from nitrogen and hydrogen. They say somehow this has formed, and somehow, by combination of hydrogen and oxygen, water is formed. And somehow by combination of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, these so-called carbohydrates, or these are formed. But they say somehow these are formed, but they do not know how it is formed.

Śyāmasundara: But all that Darwin is interested in is in the evolution of species: how one type of body evolves to the other type due to the changing conditions, and that because he has evolved a certain body he is best adapted to survive in that condition so that his species survives. So the scientists have shown that by bombarding the cosmic radiation or radioactive elements, that a gene or cell can change, mutate, so a different kind of animal comes out. From one kind of mother a different kind of animal comes out.

Prabhupāda: But we say that different kind of animal is not beyond these 8,400,000 species.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: Natural selection is there, but how the natural selection is working, he does not know that.

Karandhara: In a sense we know from Vedic information that the species from one end from the smallest germ up to the highest demigod, they are progressively more advanced. So anyone can come along and take out a small eclipsed portion of that sequence and propose the theory that the species is advancing, but that gamut, that range, perspective of higher and lower is existing, but not that it's evolving...

Prabhupāda: It is already there. I am simply changing place, transmigration. That is our theory-transmigration.

Śyāmasundara: But you still haven't answered satisfactorily...

Prabhupāda: Just like you are traveling in a train. There is first class, second class—that is already existing. But if you pay more, you come to the first class. You cannot say, "Now the first class is now created." It was already existing. So their defect is that they have no information of the soul. The soul is transmigrating. The forms are already there. The soul is transmigrating from one apartment to another apartment. That they do not know.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: I just want to find out for the time being about...

Prabhupāda: Why time being? If you are not perfect in your knowledge, then why should I accept your theory? That is my point.

Śyāmasundara: Well, if you make claims that millions of years ago there were complex forms of life on this planet...

Prabhupāda: Why you are... I never said on this planet. By nature's way everything is existing.

Śyāmasundara: So on this planet there were not complex forms of life millions of years ago...

Prabhupāda: So maybe; may not be. That is not of the point. The point is that everything is existing in the nature's way. The species, as we say from Vedic language, 8,400,000, fixed-up. So maybe in your neighborhood, in my neighborhood, it is, they have got..., they are fixed up. But you simply, if you study your neighborhood, that is not perfect knowledge.

Śyāmasundara: I accept that. But I want to understand that the theory of evolution is that...

Prabhupāda: Theory of evolution we accept.

Śyāmasundara: ...from simple forms of life, more complex forms evolve.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's all right. But they are all existing still. They are not extinct. That is the point.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: That admitted, but...

Prabhupāda: If you admit that you are imperfect in knowledge, then it is no use citing scripture. There will...

Śyāmasundara: But what I want to know is that...

Prabhupāda: ...evolution we admit. But your evolution theory is not perfect. Our evolutionary theory is perfect.

Śyāmasundara: But it appears that the evolution is from simple to complex.

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

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

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

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Karandhara: There's a range. To go back to the...

Prabhupāda: It is, apartment is not evolving. I am evolving in this sense that I am changing one apartment to a better apartment. The better apartment is already there.

Śyāmasundara: To go back to this survival of the fittest theory, supposing we are all here and the water comes, like you said. Supposing one of these persons in Los Angeles has the ability to breathe in water, somehow or other he can breathe under water...

Prabhupāda: So we have no objection.

Śyāmasundara: So he survives; everyone else...

Prabhupāda: He survives means... He survives means that even if he's dead, that does not mean that the species is dead. There is another human being in another part of the world.

Śyāmasundara: I accept that, but I mean I want to...

Prabhupāda: So you say that because he does not survive, the whole species is extinct.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: But at least in thousands of places they have bored into the earth or dug into the earth, and they've found...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Thousands of places is not this finishing, the whole planet.

Karandhara: They're always coming up with something new. They're having to revise their theory. Just like that pamphlet. They had to revise the whole theory about Carbon 14 because they found a new factor in the deterioration in the element which they never before considered...

Prabhupāda: This experimental knowledge is always imperfect. Because they are experimenting with imperfect senses, therefore they must be imperfect. Our source of knowledge is different. We do not depend on experimental knowledge.

Śyāmasundara: Let us say that the remains of every animal, every living entity that has ever been found in the ground...

Prabhupāda: That is also a limited space. You cannot say you have excavated a portion of the earth and that is all. You cannot say.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: And your knowledge says that millions of years ago there were higher forms of living entities on this planet.

Prabhupāda: Oh, yes. Because our Vedic information is that the first creation is the most intellect, that is the most intellectual personality within this universe, Brahmā. So how we can say..., how we can accept your theory that intellect develops? We are receiving Vedic knowledge from Brahmā, so perfect. So that is the evidence. The first creature was so perfect.

Karandhara: You are accepting authority anyway. We are accepting Darwin's authority that he went to these islands and found these animals. How do we know he went to the islands and found the animals?

Śyāmasundara: Because you can go there now and find them; they are still there.

Karandhara: But you have to go there to make, to make your point and deduct it. (break)

Svarūpa Dāmodara: ...when it will be cause of all his existence, survival for the fittest, but he is not going into the, who posed this, how it has been done, how it is going to that theory, so his theories are not complete.

Prabhupāda: His theory, it is not science. It is suggestion, guess.

Śyāmasundara: They call it "doctrine of natural selection," not theory.

Prabhupāda: Doctrine. So doctrine, doctrine should be fact, but Darwin's theory, so far... It is called Darwin's theory...

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: It's not called theory, it's doctrine. It should be doctrine.

Karandhara: What they mean by doctrine is that they can't agree on it and say it's fact. That there's so many short-comings that they will call it a doctrine but they won't call it fact. That's practically the whole story in scientific research: the real scientists, they never call anything a solid fact; it's always a theory or a doctrine because they never find a perfect enough conclusion which takes into account everything and perfectly reconciles...

Prabhupāda: What is that uncertainty? What do you call that?

Śyāmasundara: It's called Theory of Uncertainty. Heisenberg's Theory of Uncertainty.

Prabhupāda: That is also theory.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. That has to do with atomic particles.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Accepting the (indistinct), early in 1900 when they find out the smallest particle in the atom, it was a theory; it was accepted for about ten, twenty years.

Śyāmasundara: That was long before, in Greek times, Democritus.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: But the real theory started by Darwin, that was accepted for several years, but later on, with new advancement, his theory changed. His theory became disproved, that "What you are saying, it is not right, it is not final." So theories can change. So same thing, Darwin's theory is also changing.

Śyāmasundara: But his impact upon the thinking of the world so completely changed the whole conception of...

Prabhupāda: That is now changing again. So what is the use of that, such change?

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: Well, you have to investigate, because he is important for our...

Prabhupāda: No. That's all right. We will investigate; and a theory which changes, it will change, that's all. It is not a fact. The sun rising is a fact. It cannot change.

Śyāmasundara: Still, you say if there were high forms of, say Brahmā, in Brahmā's time or millions of years ago, there were also other high animals besides men?

Prabhupāda: All I say is that all kinds of different classes of forms were existing, since the creation.

Śyāmasundara: On this planet there were higher forms?

Prabhupāda: Why are you taking this planet? We are talking of the whole creation. In the creation everything is there.

Śyāmasundara: If you expect me to understand this, I have to see it on this planet.

Prabhupāda: That is not knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Karandhara: Even if they discount...

Prabhupāda: That you do not know. That you do not know. Not that he knows. Because we cannot accept that. Nobody has said that they have excavated down the bottom of the sea. But you also said that bottom may be opened at one, some time. So unless it is opened, your experiment is insufficient.

Karandhara: Even if you were to grant that the first life forms on this planet were simple one-celled life, that does not mean that more complex life did not begin earlier on other planets. The theory is not aborted. It may be you can discount the possibility of...

Prabhupāda: The whole thing is that Dr. Frog, famous story. He comes to this country, Dr. Frog's understanding. He has studied the three-feet-wide well, and he says he is satisfied with that. He has nothing to do with the Atlantic Ocean. But Atlantic Ocean is also a reservoir of water, and that well is also a reservoir of water. But (there is a) vast difference. So we take knowledge of who has created Atlantic Ocean. Therefore our knowledge is perfect. What do you say?

Śyāmasundara: I just want to try to cover this from every angle so that Darwinists will not be able to argue. Today I'd like to find out how they date earth layers, how geologists find...

Prabhupāda: No. Your geologists have given, "It may be millions of years ago." They say like that.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: It also helps the fittest to survive.

Prabhupāda: You may not be fit, but we can make you fit.

Śyāmasundara: That's what I mean. If you become moral you become fittest to survive. That is also his theory, doctrine.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So that we can do within six months.

Śyāmasundara: He says that at some point a man who had developed sympathy for others, he was able to survive because he would cooperate with them to survive when others were killing each other, like that. So gradually morality also evolved. Tomorrow maybe we should finish Darwin. (break)

Prabhupāda: An animal is put in some certain atmosphere, he adjusts. But there are different types animals. Just like we see while walking (in) severe cold, we try to adjust by covering. Others, the birds, the skylark, the so on, they do not adjust.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: His finding is that new types of species will come out, which will be better adapted. The swans, if it becomes too cold, they will die.

Prabhupāda: They are better than us, than human being?

Atreya Ṛṣi: What the theory is Prabhupāda is that, for example, if there are many, many swans living in one place, those who cannot adjust will be extinct after many, many years, and those who can adjust will live. In effect, what he tried to prove was that Kṛṣṇa's law, nature's law, is perfect. But he was missing Kṛṣṇa. In other words, what the proof is very scientific, but it is lacking.

Prabhupāda: Yes. He is adding zero, without one.

Atreya Ṛṣi: That's right, Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: Therefore the value remains zero. He couldn't find the one, so that the value of the zeroes at once increases.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Atreya Ṛṣi: But there are some great scientists like Newton who studied many, many, many years and made many, many theories and then they gave it up when they realized that they couldn't go further. Newton, at a very early age, like forty-three I think, went to a monastery.

Śyāmasundara: We discussed Newton's philosophy.

Prabhupāda: Sir Isaac Newton?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Long ago, in Africa.

Prabhupāda: No, he was Englishman.

Śyāmasundara: No, but in Africa we discussed his philosophy.

Prabhupāda: He died at the age of twenty-three. His picture is there in Westminster Abbey.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: By survival he means species. The species will survive.

Prabhupāda: Any species. Nobody will survive. That is also false theory. Nobody will survive. Where is the species that is surviving?

Śyāmasundara: Just like horses. Horses, they have found in the fossils and millions of years ago, they say millions of years ago horses were there. Slightly different forms, but still they were horses.

Prabhupāda: So different forms, just like human beings, formerly they were very tall, and they are reducing their stature, and at the end of Kali-yuga they will be stature like this. So this is not change of the species. This is changing, just like your father is taller than you, is he not? Is he not taller?

Śyāmasundara: No. I'm taller than he is. But they say because our generation got better foodstuffs than our parents.

Prabhupāda: So therefore, according to circumstances, the stature is changing. It is not the species. It is the same human, but formerly the human being was taller, stouter; now they are reducing in strength, in stature, in memory, in duration of life, span of life, in mercy. That is stated in Bhāgavatam. They do not change every species.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Svarūpa Dāmodara: If you are not going right in the angle, say for example he has to go..., he's coming down so he has to go at 45-degree angles, slanting; he has to go 45-degree angle, but it changed by mistake, say 47 degree angles, then it will never come down. He'll be just circulating around, floating.

Prabhupāda: So, in the (indistinct) stage, we are dependent on the laws of nature, and we still, we are declaring we are free from any control. We are making our own proposition and theories.

Karandhara: They're always saying their conquest over nature.

Prabhupāda: But where is the conquest of nature? Now if there is a mistake of two degrees, you have to go round forever. What is the independence? Vikathante. The exact word used in this connection in the Bhāgavata, that these people talks all nonsense, vikatha. Under the influence of illusory energy they have become mad, and they are talking all nonsense.

Śyāmasundara: I didn't know we were going to have a class today, but for the next class I wanted to read that article about heredity, genetics, how they think that they might be able to reproduce life in the future.

Prabhupāda: Again "in future."

Śyāmasundara: I have that article, I want to read it and study it first. I wasn't prepared for today.

Prabhupāda: The future... Any fool can say "In future I shall prove." Then what is the difference between scientists and the fool? "Trust no future, however pleasant."

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: He had a vague idea that societies or species would evolve toward something better, so he wanted to help that evolution.

Prabhupāda: That is a fact, but not that Mr. Darwin's foolish theory that he is going to be matter. He'll remain spirit but another species of life, another form of life. That another form of life will decide whether you are degraded or elevated.

Śyāmasundara: Darwin passed on his traits to his son, Charles Darwin, and his son's great contribution to the world was that the moon was moving away from the earth at the rate of five inches per year. So what good is that knowledge?

Prabhupāda: What kind..., in what way you give such an evolution? It may be ten inches or five inches or (indistinct). That conclusion anyone can give. Any rascal can say anything, and what is the contribution? Just like modern day art. You just make your brush like this and it becomes art. You see?

Śyāmasundara: Relative values.

Prabhupāda: Relative values. Now you imagine what is there. This is the mentality.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: There's a corollary to his theory of evolution that our standards of morality have also evolved from primitive stages. For instance, in a group, within a group of apelike creatures who were normally fighting with each other for dominance, one may develop the quality of sympathy for someone else. So by that sympathy he cooperates with the other person and together they survive when the others die. So that evolution of sympathy, morality, love, compassion—the good qualities of the human being—have evolved due to necessity, evolution, survival of the fittest.

Karandhara: The thing is this whole perspective of evolution... There doesn't have to be a sequence, that one came before the other. They all were there.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Karandhara: Just like you take a ray of the sunshine that's in this room. It's come from the sun, but simultaneously it's occurring with the sun. It's not there as a sequential evolution of that particle...

Prabhupāda: The sunshine, sunshine... Just like sunshine. You can collect time according to the sunshine. The morning sun shining is called 6 a.m., and then 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 9 a.m., like that. The shine. But this 6 a.m. shining will be somewhere else also, although here it is 8 a.m.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: If the worms can do it, why we can't?

Prabhupāda: Rats can do it. Snake can do it. Not snake. Snakes cannot. Rats can do. (break)

Svarūpa Dāmodara: ...the knowledge that we get from the so-called scientific theories of...

Prabhupāda: Poor fund of knowledge.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: ...consciousness, and the theory of...

Śyāmasundara: Are scientists beginning to understand that fact, or are they still...?

Svarūpa Dāmodara: They never think about that. That's why they are trying to find out so many things, because they think that when somebody tries to make something medicine or some compound, they try so many ways and means, and sometimes, when they are at a loss, they say, "O God, please give me (indistinct)." They do not know where it comes from, how this can be made. They try so many ways in making a compound. Sometimes they have to take a hundred or two hundred mistakes, and sometimes they will never get the compound. Ultimately when they are all disappointed, they say, "O God, please help me." So ordinarily the final conclusion is everybody (indistinct) supreme being.

Prabhupāda: And that is natural because, after all, God gives him his intelligence. It is stated in Bhagavad-gītā: mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca: (BG 15.15) "It is from Me." Apohanaṁ ca. He was forgetting. That was also..., God was not giving the chance, and he prays to God, then God is kind: "All right, do it like that." That is the statement in Bhagavad-gītā.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: There are several theories in that book of yours. Where is that book about the origin of life? There are several theories how everything began. They are quite interesting.

Prabhupāda: That is theory, but we see practically that material things, material elements, ingredients, they cannot be combined automatically. There must be a living entity who will combine them.

Śyāmasundara: One of the theories is that everything comes out of energy.

Prabhupāda: Energy means somebody's energy. I am sitting here, I am pushing one button, the energy is immediately created, and it goes. Just like this telex machine. So somebody is pushing the button.

Karandhara: The energetic.

Prabhupāda: And then energy, immediately produced. Computer machine, the machine is doing nothing out of his own accord. Somebody is going and pushing the button. Then it will..., the energy is created. Similarly, according to our Vedic knowledge, as soon as God wishes, immediately the energy is set off, set into action, and then other things come automatically.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: Oh, no.

Prabhupāda: So there was a chunk.

Śyāmasundara: "The hierarchy of condensations." There are two theories: one is that everything was originally gas, and the other is that everything was originally turbulence or energy.

Prabhupāda: Originally gas. Now, so far we have got our experience, gas is produced from some liquid, is it not?

Śyāmasundara: They say that the liquid is produced from the gas.

Prabhupāda: That is also taught by us.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes. Anything, what was there in the beginning, that was matter.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Karandhara: Someone will come along in a year or a few years and refute everything that this scientist says.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. That we say.

Śyāmasundara: There are three different theories, each one different. They all start with an original situation of like a chunk, a hot gas measured in billions of degrees of temperature, and out of that hot gas things condense.

Karandhara: That's not starting from the beginning...

Śyāmasundara: It was called a frozen equilibrium.

Karandhara: If there's an equilibrium, there has to be some principle, or energetic.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: I think the book is written just so that the (indistinct) looks like, funny things broken down. He himself says whether the universe is finite or infinite (indistinct) modern telescopic experiments can (indistinct) but beyond that he said maybe the universe is finite (indistinct) that is beyond our knowledge, beyond our capacity.

Śyāmasundara: This is a diagram of four different possibilities of what the universe looks like.

Prabhupāda: This is very nice-horse saddle.

Śyāmasundara:The round one?

Prabhupāda: No, no the next.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: "Bhagavad-gītā is the crowning achievement of speculative thought," as if some sages thought it up.

Prabhupāda: Now what is there? Finished. (break) ...fact. It is known to the Vedic culture millions of years ago. (indistinct) I was reading, aśitiṁ caturaś caiva, this is Brahmā-vaivarta Purāṇa and this Brahmā-vaivarta Purāṇa was written by Vyāsadeva five thousand years ago. And it was known long, long years ago. It was written in the Purāṇas, but it was coming by tradition long, long ago. So (indistinct). He has stolen this theory, this idea, from Brahmā-vaivarta Purāṇa, and he has tried to prove it in a different way. Otherwise this evolutionary theory is already there.

aśitiṁ caturaś caiva

lakṣāṁs tāñ jīva-jātiṣu

bhramadbhiḥ (puruṣaiḥ prāpyaṁ

mānuṣyaṁ janma-paryayāt)

Śyāmasundara: But Darwin doesn't have any conception of the jīva.

Prabhupāda: He's a nonsense. That's all.

Śyāmasundara: He sees only the bodies are changing.

Prabhupāda: Yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke, sa eva go-kharaḥ (SB 10.84.13). Anyone, that is also mentioned there. Teṣām ātma vimanuna (indistinct). Foolish. Child. Child thinks "I am this body." (indistinct) means fools. Ātma vimanu: "I am this body." Animal thinks that "I am this body." Virakara (indistinct) ātmā vinanena anāśrita. They do not know what is my position. Misleading.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: There is a scientific subject which has become very popular now, called genetics, which has to do with the origins of life.

Prabhupāda: Well these so-called scientific theories are popular now and unpopular after few years. That's all. Again something popular. They are not science. Science cannot be popular now and unpopular after some days.

Śyāmasundara: But it's only because they have just discovered it.

Prabhupāda: Discovering, partial, that's like... They cannot discover. The things are there passing on, so many things, passing on.

Śyāmasundara: What it means in essence is that they have analyzed the individual cell of the living entity and they have found in each cell a set of genes, forty-six in each cell. These genes contain the blueprint for the whole body, like the seed of a tree contains the whole tree. So it is possible, they say, by rearranging these genes or changing them slightly that a new type of person can come out, or a new type of living entity, from the original.

Prabhupāda: Definitely. What we call the jīva, they might be talking of the jīva or genes. The genes, the jīva, they can have any nice type of body.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Atreya Ṛṣi: Can the scientists control that, the type of genes, the kinds of body, the child will get? The theory is...

Prabhupāda: Not theory... Just like we give dimension of the soul, so that statement is given by some man. Just like one ten-thousandth part of the tip of the hair, we get information from the Purāṇas. So this statement is also given by a man, but he is not ordinary. He is not ordinary. So any extraordinary man can give it.

Śyāmasundara: These genes are visible through a microscope, so they are not...

Prabhupāda: This is also visible. When I say that one ten-thousandth part of the hair, it is visible. Otherwise how I say? But it may not be visible to you. (indistinct)

Śyāmasundara: I mean these genes are not the same as the jīva in this case.

Prabhupāda: That is different thing. But jīva can be given any type of body. That is not difficult.

Śyāmasundara: So they say that each person is different from every other person because the arrangement of the genes in his cell is uniquely his, but the same genes will be passed on...

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) That depends on the father and the mother.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: If by our karma we desire a certain type of body but they create all the bodies to be the same, how is that? But men are tampering with the bodies.

Prabhupāda: Let them create first, then say. Where is the man they are creating? It is simply theory.

Līlāvatī: That living entity would still have the same desire, that previous desire for that previous body, won't he? If some scientist can change the genes so that the jīva can have a different kind of body, he still would have the previous desires?

Prabhupāda: No, no. That is not possible. If his body... The word is daiva netreṇa: by superior arrangement. So how these rascals can be superior? They are not.

Atreya Ṛṣi: And also, Prabhupāda, in case, for example some scientist makes a change, like if the scientist comes and cuts off my hand, that's also my karma. In that way he's not making a change. Everything that is happening is God's plan.

Prabhupāda: No, no, no, no, no. Everything, even if it is not in my karma, I can cut, I become responsible for cutting.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

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.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Hayagrīva: The government, the American government, arrested, yes. The Tennessee legislature arrested him. He was arrested and defended by Clarence Darrow, famous trial lawyer, and the prosecutor was William Jennings Bryan, who was a thrice defeated Presidential candidate. So they discussed evolution and religion and how they could co-exist, and Scopes, who was teaching Darwinian evolution, claimed, "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No human authority can in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and that no preference should ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship."

Prabhupāda: This is, this worship and the concept of worship, if actually one believes or knows, so the real worship is that which pleases God. If you manufacture... Just like I want a glass of water, and if my servant gives me a glass of hot milk, is that worship? Worship means what I want, if you give me, then I am satisfied. But if I want a cold glass of water, you give me..., if you think, "No. Milk is better than water," so that, will that satisfy me? So these concocted ideas of worshiping will actually satisfy God, that is wrong theory, that one can worship God according to his own dictation. That means his God is fictitious. He has no idea of God. And he can concoct ideas. But actually if there is God, one should worship according to the dictation of God. But if he does not know what is God, what is the dictation of God, then he is a rascal. What is the use of his so-called worship? It may be to some extent a sentiment, but that is not worship. If you want to worship God, you must worship God according to His dictation. That is real worship. How he can manufacture the way of worship?

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Hayagrīva: The beginning of the creation was when? No...

Prabhupāda: No. There is no question of when. It may be seven thousand years or seven millions of years, but the beginning should be taken like this, that God created this cosmic manifestation. And wherefrom the living entities came? That also came from God. That is explained clearly in the Bhagavad-gītā, that this material creation is composition of earth, water, air, fire..., like that, that this is also God's energy. The ingredients of this material world coming from God, that is called prakṛti and pradhāna. He is the creator. And then the living entities, they are also coming from God. So this material energy is explained as inferior energy, and the living entity is explained as superior energy, both of them coming from God. So the beginning of life simultaneously. It is not that matter later on developed to become life. That is a wrong theory.

Hayagrīva: So, so much... It's the end of Darwin. (break) ...Thomas, Thomas Henry...

Prabhupāda: In that case, all defect is that nobody could ascertain the beginning of life, but here is the solution. The beginning of life is from the very beginning of creation.

Hayagrīva: Simultaneous creation.

Prabhupāda: Simultaneously. That we see practically. That pregnancy, in the beginning of the body that is the beginning of life also. No that first of all one becomes pregnant and then the life comes. You have got a daily experience. Rather, the life is there, therefore the pregnancy is there. Is it not? But they say, modern rascals, that the, the body develops to a certain extent and then the life comes. So before the life coming, if the body is destroyed there is no killing. Is not that the theory at the present moment, they are killing child?

Devotee: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Hayagrīva: Bergson's theory seems to be that there's greater harmony being realized the further life advances or the further the universe goes on.

Prabhupāda: Harmony is there, certainly. That harmony, just like the child's body is harmonically changing into boy's body, harmonical changes, there is harmony. But the change is there.

Hayagrīva: So there's harmony at the beginning and harmony at the end?

Prabhupāda: Everything is in harmony. That is God's law. Everything is in harmony. Material or spiritual, everything is in harmony.

Hayagrīva: So if everything is in harmony, then evolution has an incidental meaning. The meaning is just...

Prabhupāda: The evolution is all harmony. Just like from aquatics one has to become insect. From aquatic one has to accept the body of plants and trees, then he has to accept the bodies of insects. This is harmony. Changing is there, but it is in harmony. Now, when one comes to accept the body of human being, then his consciousness is developed. Now he can accept, because he has got greater freedom than the animal, so he has to make his choice whether he is going to stop this evolutionary process or he wants to remain in this evolutionary process. So if he takes instruction of Kṛṣṇa, then he can stop this botheration of evolution, and if he does not take, then he remains. (aside:) Find out this verse, aśraddadhānāḥ puruṣā dharmasyāsya parantapa. What is it?

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Hayagrīva: But new worlds are being added, but not indefinitely.

Prabhupāda: No, new worlds added and old worlds subtracted. That is going on, bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate (BG 8.19).

Hayagrīva: The present-day material scientists, astronomers, state..., one of the theories is that the universe is expanding, that the systems are going outward into space and are moving proportionately further and further from one another, just like raisins rising in dough. When raisin bread is in the oven, the raisins, they go further and further and further apart as the dough expands. So is this...?

Prabhupāda: That expansion goes to a certain extent. Then the expansion stops, then it becomes dwindling and then finished.

Hayagrīva: Well then Bergson is actually incorrect in saying that the universe is evolving toward some grand harmony.

Prabhupāda: That is his imagination. What does he mean by this harmony? Just like I am increasing, your body is increasing, your child's body is increasing. So everybody's body is increasing, so where is the, what does he mean by harmony? It is increasing and it will dwindle and it will finish. That is material nature. If you say this process of increasing and dwindling is going on, that is harmony, then there is no harm, but the, individually everything is going under this process of increasing and decreasing and at the end finished.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Hayagrīva: So there's no question of the making of gods?

Prabhupāda: No, no. That is a wrong theory.

Hayagrīva: But when a man becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, could you say that he has become like a god or godlike?

Prabhupāda: He, that godlessness is diseased condition. So when he becomes in normal condition, that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. His normal life is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is mukti. Mukti means liberation. What is that liberation? A man is suffering from fever. So if the fever is stopped by medicine and treatment, then he becomes in normal health. It does not mean that he, he changes his constitution. He is the same man, but on account of fever he was talking nonsense, in convul..., what is called, convulsion?

Hayagrīva: Convulsions.

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Hayagrīva: Delirium.

Prabhupāda: Delirium, yes. He is talking all nonsense, this diseased condition. So he has to cured from the diseased condition, then he will understand, "Oh, this is my position," brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā (BG 18.54), he becomes immediately joyful, "Oh, I am talking in delirium, nonsense."

Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham:

Śyāmasundara: He says we can determine what is happiness for the whole by examining what is happy for the individual.

Prabhupāda: Happiness, happiness is... What is happiness, that is described in the Bhagavad-gītā. Happiness means absence of distress. That is happiness. So Bhagavad-gītā recommends that janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi-duḥkha-doṣānudarśanam (BG 13.9). You may think that you are very happy but this is not happiness. You have to see to your distressed condition because you have to take birth, you have to die, you have to suffer diseases and you have to suffer, janma-mṛtyu-jarā, old age. So where is your happiness. If the distresses are present, then where is your happiness? This is another ignorance. This is a... Nobody wants to die but death is there. Then where is your happiness? Nobody wants to become old but the old age is there. You must become old. Then where is your happiness? Nobody wants diseases but disease is there. You cannot avoid it. Then where is your happiness? This is less intelligence. That actually you are not in happiness but by your so-called philosophizing theories, you are trying to be happy, means another illusion and we take it as happiness. Actually it is not happiness. Where is your happiness?

Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham:

Śyāmasundara: So he says that everything should be utilized to extract the most pleasure from life.

Prabhupāda: That is our theory, to make the best use of a bad bargain. We are already cheated, "Now all right, let me utilize it." That's all. You don't admit that "I have been cheated, now I am utilizing it."

Śyāmasundara: He says that utility is that property in any object whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness.

Prabhupāda: That is nice, this definition also, but if we put to test all our so-called happiness, it will not be possible to come out successful.

Śyāmasundara: He realizes that this view could give rise to egoistic over-indulgence, that someone could think, "Well, if pleasure is my only goal, let me do anything, never mind others."

Prabhupāda: But then how long it will stay? To come to the test, that it will not stay. Suppose one has decided that I have learned how to cheat others so you can cheat for some time to all men or all men or some men for some time but you cannot... You'll be caught, you'll be captured as a cheater. Then you will be punished. So the duration is not permanent. The test is duration.

Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham:

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that the standard is decided by the majority of the people.

Prabhupāda: Majority of people, they are asses. Then what is the help of that votes of the asses. Why don't you take votes from so many animals? Why you take votes from the human beings? In the country, the animals are also there. Therefore a standard of happiness, he must know and if we take that type of happiness, that is Kṛṣṇa conscious.

Śyāmasundara: We derive our standard from authority.

Prabhupāda: Yes, and actually we feel it is so. Not only accept, in the preaching work, the theory is there; but when actually takes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he understands that here is the standard of happiness. I receive so many hundreds of letters daily how they are feeling happiness. (end)

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: Well, since knowledge is limited to our experience...

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's all right. If your knowledge is limited, then you cannot generalize. Therefore our conclusion is that we don't take knowledge from anyone whose power is limited. There are four defects of the ordinary man—he may be John Stuart Mill or something—because he's to commit mistakes, he's illusioned. Just like he's talking of that induction, studying all men. This is an illusion. He cannot study. Suppose you have hundreds and thousands of men you have studied. That does not mean the whole set of human being is finished. That is, therefore, this theory is illusion. And because he's an ordinary man, he's illusioned that it is possible. So these are the defects. One commits mistakes, one is illusioned, one cheats. This is cheating also. The theory which he is putting forward is never possible to be executed, and still he's posing himself that he is philosopher. That is cheating. His senses are imperfect. He cannot do that. And still he proposes the theory. That is cheating. So these four defects are there: committing mistake, to illusion, to cheat others, and studying everything with imperfect senses.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: Then using another example, that every apple on the tree will fall, but when it is ripe, it will fall to the ground. There is no man involved with that. What about that?

Prabhupāda: No. That is his imperfect vision. We say that God is everywhere. God is everywhere. Aṇḍāntara-sthaṁ paramāṇu cayāntara-stham. God is present everywhere, even within the atom. Now the modern atomic theory, they will explain from atomic theory about the falldown of the apples. But we say that within the atom there is God; therefore God is the ultimate cause.

Śyāmasundara: What kind of test do we apply to phenomena to see what is the cause?

Prabhupāda: For every phenomenon there is a cause.

Śyāmasundara: But how do we determine that God is the cause behind everything?

Prabhupāda: Because then we know that God is the ultimate pusher, the pushing begins from there. So it may come through various agents. Just like one railway wagon is pushed by the engines, and it strikes another wagon and that is also pushed; another wagon, and that is pushed, that is also pushed. Similarly, the original pusher is the engine. Our study is like that, that the original, sa aikṣata, sa aikṣata... These are the Vedic... He glanced over, He desired; immediately there was creation. Therefore the original pusher is God, Kṛṣṇa. Now, how it is happening, that we cannot see. Just like same example, the wagon is already pushed, it is coming automatically. A child sees, "Oh, this wagon is coming automatically, and it caught another wagon, and it is now moved." He sees the (effect). But he did not see that ultimately there was a big engine that has pushed it.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: Nothing can come out of nothing.

Prabhupāda: Nothing. If something has come out, then background must be something. Therefore our definition is janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), everything, the root cause, the original source, is the Brahman, Absolute Truth. So whatever we are exhibiting, just like the other day, whatever we are thinking, there is some existence. Otherwise it cannot come to our ideas and thinking. The same scientific theory: nothing can come out of nothing.

Śyāmasundara: So if you are thinking of something, then it is already there.

Kṛṣṇa Kanti: The scientists say they haven't created something. They have..., we've discovered something.

Prabhupāda: That's it. That I also said the other day. We can say we have discovered. We cannot invent. America was discovered, not invented. The land was already there.

Bhavānanda: We want to claim credit.

Prabhupāda: Anyone does something new, he takes credit. (break) ...so sun is taking away life. Why you were not present when we were discussing this verse?

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Hayagrīva: Mill envisions God at war with evil, and man's role is in aiding or helping God in this war. He writes, "If providence, or God, is omnipotent, providence intends whatever happens and the fact of its happening proves that providence intended it. If so, everything which a human being can do, is predestined by providence, and is a fulfillment of its designs. But if, as is the more religious theory, providence intends not all which happens, but only what is good, then indeed man has it in his power by his voluntary actions to aid the intentions of providence."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Providence desires only good. The man, the living being, is in this material world on account of his imperfect will. God is very kind that even though he is willing imperfectly to enjoy this material world God is giving him a directed facilities. Just like a child wants to play in certain way, still the child is guided by some nurse, or some servant by, engaged by the parent. So our position is like that. We have come to this material world to enjoy, giving up the company of God. So God has allowed him, "All right, you enjoy and experience. When you will experience that this material enjoyment is not good, then you will again come back." So He is guiding the enjoyment of the living being, especially of the human being so that he may again come back to home, back to Godhead. And nature is the via media agent, under the instruction of God. So if he (is) too much addicted to misuse the freedom, then he is punished, and that is also according to his desire. It is not God's desire that a human being become a pig, but he develops such mentality to eat everything. So God allows him to do everything, to eat everything up to stool in the body of a pig. That is God's concession. But he wanted to eat all this nonsense abominable thing so God gives him the chance that, you take this body of a pig, you can eat up to steel, up to stool.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Śyāmasundara: Which notion will have the better result in practice.

Prabhupāda: Which is factual, not theoretical—that will have good effect in practice. What is his example?

Śyāmasundara: There is no example given, but for instance, if there are two different theories involving a subject, then that theory which is more easily practiced is more true. It has become part of our experience; that is true. He says that anything that is meaningful or real must have some influence on practice on our experience, and vice verse. Anything that is practiced must be meaningful or real.

Prabhupāda: So that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We have invited our students, and when they actually practice Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the result is immediately there. Just like you all European and American boys, you were eating meat, and other things were practiced, but since you have taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you have left it. So by practicing, we see the practical result; therefore this is most practical.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Devotee: And no bills for psychoanalysis.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Everything is there, but still they do not work, and these rascals, they work the whole day and night, and still they are not happy. What more cash value we can expect than Kṛṣṇa consciousness? Śyāmasundara: He says theories must become instruments, and not just answers to questions which we rest upon. They must become instruments. Prabhupāda: Yes. Theory is instrument. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Śyāmasundara: He says that, about the nature of truth, that truth is more than just an agreement of idea with reality, but it also has a practical significance, that whatever is practical is true. Prabhupāda: Yes. Practical we can see from the verse of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, that anyone who has got a slight merciful glance of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he thinks that Brahman liberation is as good as hell. Kaivalyaṁ narakāyate. And the heavenly planets, they are phantasmagoria, and yoga-siddhi, that is not a very important thing. And people are suffering on this material condition. (But) for a devotee it is simply pleasing. Everywhere he goes he feels pleased, while others seeing full of anxiety. Devotees, they are seeing everything pleasing. So these things happen simply by a fragment of the merciful glance of Caitanya Mahāprabhu upon His devotees. Viśvaṁ pūrṇam, they do not care for any big scholar or many exalted personalities, just like we challenge anyone, even we don't care for Dr. Radhakrishnan, who is so much exalted. So this is practical. Because one has become Kṛṣṇa conscious, therefore these things happen.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: Today we are discussing the American philosopher John Dewey. Last time we were discussing William James, who is called a pragmatist. His philosophy deals..., believes that practice is better than theory. So this John Dewey is more or less a successor in this same line of philosophizing. He says that practical consequences are the only valid test of truth, and he says that the proof of an idea consists in its being subject to predictable results. The idea is not true unless the results of the idea are predictable.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: He is also...

Prabhupāda: That is practical. That is practical. No theoretical knowledge is necessary.

Śyāmasundara: But do the results of an idea have to be predictable?

Prabhupāda: Idea may..., if it is a concocted idea, the result cannot be ascertained. If it is fact, then the result can be predicted.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Prabhupāda: Like a big tree, the every leaf, every branch, every twig, every flower is a part and parcel of the whole tree. Similarly, virāṭ-rūpa. Apart from Kṛṣṇa's personal rūpa, the virāṭ-rūpa as it was manifested before Arjuna, if you take the virāṭ-rūpa, the whole universal form of the Lord, then anything within the universe is part and parcel of that virāṭ-rūpa, the resulting form.

Śyāmasundara: So the choice between a good and a bad action should be practiced to reduce evil, not just theoretical. That's his idea. That's his point.

Prabhupāda: Yes. No theory. This is practical. Now, as a big machine, the screw is a part, so if every part works nicely, the machine goes nicely. So if we understand... Just like I think last night I was explaining mukha baho rūpa divya: the gigantic body, the brāhmaṇa class, they are the mouth. So one must do the duty of the mouth. The mouth speaks, vibrates and eats. So our proposition is to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra and eat Kṛṣṇa prasādam. Then the mouth duty, the brāhmaṇa's duty, is performed. Similarly, the kṣatriya's duty—again we come to that varṇāśrama-dharma. So everyone is factually part and parcel of God and executes his prescribed duty, then it is perfect.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: The utilitarians might say that "People desire more brothels, so let us build more brothels.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Modern world, that is the highest desire. How can you refute that if there is no standard? Everyone says, "This is my law." Unless you go to the court, who will judge?

Revatīnandana: Now he wants to make his desire the highest desire. He's got a theory now that "This is the highest thing I can think of, so this is God." That means I have the highest.

Śyāmasundara: He says that...

Prabhupāda: Our formula is perfect.

Śyāmasundara: He says...

Prabhupāda: We say that if one is Kṛṣṇa conscious, then he is all right. Otherwise reject him. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ (SB 5.18.12). They are mano-ratha. They are mental speculators. They are hovering on the mental plane.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Śyāmasundara: The decision is...

Prabhupāda: There are two sides. There are two kinds of people are going. The same man, he is giving charity for feeding poor man or giving relief to the distressed man, but at the same time he's encouraging animal-killing. So what is the ethics? What is the ethical law in these two contradictory activities? One side... Just like our Vivekananda. He is advocating daridra-nārāyaṇa sevā, "Feed the poor," but feed the poor with mother Kālī's prasāda, where poor goats are killed. Just like, another, one side feeding the poor, another side killing the poor goat. So what is the ethic? What is the ethical law in this connection? Just like people open hospitals, and the doctor prescribes, "Give this man," what it is called," (Hindi), ox blood, or chicken juice." So what is this ethic? And they're supporting that "Here is chicken juice." Just because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics? If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing—there are so many medicines, but the killing is very prominent—then next point should be that if you say that the human life is important, so nonimportant animal-killing can be supported to save the important. Then the question will be, "Why it is important? Why consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important?" These are the questions of ethical law. Where are these discussions on the ethical laws?

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Śyāmasundara: He is a Christian religionist. He's a Christian religionist. They give importance to suffering. "Christ suffered for us, so we..." He says that to abstain from sin means suffering, we are suffering.

Prabhupāda: That is also wrong theory. If Christ is God, or God's son, then why he should suffer? God is subjected to suffering? Then what kind of God He is?

Devotee: They say that he did not suffer for God; he suffered for man.

Prabhupāda: Anyway, if there is no suffering, then where is the question of suffering for God or suffering for man?

Śyāmasundara: They say that it's a paradox, that... They say that it's a paradox or an apparent contradiction that the Transcendental came into the material world and appeared to suffer for men, but actually he does not suffer because He is God, that He only appeared to suffer to save us from our sins and remind us always not to sin.

Prabhupāda: But why the Christians are committing sins still? They have given contract to Jesus Christ that "You suffer for us and we go on committing sins." Very good philosophy.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Śyāmasundara: There are some philosophies such as the phenomenologists, they say that essence is prior to existence, but these existentialists say that existence is prior to essence; in other words, that by existing we come to our essence. We realize ourself by going through stages of different existence.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is our theory, that we are struggling or transmigrating from different species of life, and when we come to the perfectional stage of living condition, human form of life, so then we understand what is the aim of life. So as spirit soul I am existing, and then, at my perfectional stage, I learn what is the essence of life. Essence of life is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore existence is first, and then to understand the essence.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Devānanda: Because the elements are no longer in suitable arrangement for life to be...

Prabhupāda: If you know the elements, you say that "You add this element." Just like when the motorcar stops for want of gas, you take gasoline from the petroleum store and it starts again. Either you do it, otherwise you are rascal, you are putting some wrong theory. If you say that it is a combination of chemicals, and you know that addition, that these living symptoms are there, then bring that chemical and add to it and let the body go out again. If you cannot do that, then you are nonsense. There is no sense of your statement.

Devānanda: So in other words, if a body dies from heart failure, they should immediately be able to remove that heart and put in a fresh heart from somebody who has just died, and it will come back to life. But it doesn't do that.

Prabhupāda: No. There are so many other things, and not only one case of heart failure.

Devānanda: But there are many, for example...

Prabhupāda: Don't you...

Śyāmasundara: We want to stick to Wittgenstein.

Prabhupāda: The main principle is when the body is called dead, why don't you put some chemicals and make it alive again? You say something is wanted. What is that something? That you do not know. But we can say what is that something. We say that something is the soul. That is wanting.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Śyāmasundara: In order for that statement or that proposition to be true, there must be evidence.

Prabhupāda: This is evidence: that there is no soul. The self, the individual soul, is now departed; therefore this body is lump of matter. This is evidence. And because the soul is there, therefore the body changes or develops. Just like if a child is born dead, then the body does not develop or changes. It remains in the same condition. But so long the soul is there, the child grows or changes his body. That is evidence. Because the soul is there, therefore the child is growing or changing body from childhood to boyhood, boyhood to youth. Suppose a child is born, doctor says it is dead child. You say something is wanted, but what is that something? You do not know. Otherwise, if you know, you add it. What is that something? Suggest, what is that something? Simply vague idea something, that is nonsense idea. That is not science. You must give, "This is wanting." Suppose that you say that the blood, the redness, just like nowadays blood supply is the theory, so what is this blood? Blood is a liquid, red liquid, like chemical or something, with some salt. So you can add salt, just like in cholera cases, they add saline injection. So dead body, you give saline injection, make it red by some color, give him life. If you say that "Red blood is now white," so make it red. What is the difficulty? There is no difficulty. There are so many chemicals. If you say the redness is the life, then there are many natural products, just like jewels, by nature it is red. Why is it not alive? Why it is not alive? By natural redness of something, if you say that is the cause of life, then there are many jewels. What is called, jewels?

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Prabhupāda: Yes, this is scientific proposition.

Śyāmasundara: Then philosophy is a clarification of that proposition.

Prabhupāda: Clarification... It is supported by the greatest authority, Kṛṣṇa. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). He says that, the greatest authority, God Himself, He says that as the body's changing in different phases of my life, similarly, ultimately, at the end, this body is left and another body is accepted. That is scientific. It is not our bogus proposition. It is supported by the whole Vedic knowledge and especially by Kṛṣṇa, and who can be greater authority than Kṛṣṇa? That will be scientific. Just like modern science: if somebody proves some theory and it is accepted by the scientific world, then it is accepted as scientific; similarly, our proposition is accepted by Kṛṣṇa, the greatest scientist; therefore it is fact. But you have no support by the scientists, what you say; therefore your proposition is nonsense. My proposition is accepted by the greatest scientist. He has created this whole world.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Śyāmasundara: Actually, he came to recognize that.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Then that's all right. Then why he is bothering about something false? That is another foolishness.

Devānanda: I thought that that was a Māyāvādī theory, that everything is false.

Prabhupāda: Yes. He wants to accept false, again make botheration.

Śyāmasundara: No. He does not say false, he says that the sum of the...

Prabhupāda: Better thing is that as we say, it is not false, but it is temporary.

Śyāmasundara: He doesn't say true or false, he says that the sum of the angles...

Prabhupāda: Just now you said that it cannot be verified. That means false.

Śyāmasundara: It cannot be verified if it is true or false. But it can...

Prabhupāda: That means doubt. It is doubtful.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the proposition, "The sum of the angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees."

Prabhupāda: That is accepted by the scientists and mathematicians.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Śyāmasundara: Well, we can satisfy his conditions and then determine if it is true that this ring is gold.

Prabhupāda: Yes. There are so many conditions. After, at the end, the conditions come to atom, atomic theory. But the atom is also conditioned, aṇḍāntara-sthaṁ paramāṇu cayāntara-stham. Kṛṣṇa is within the atom also; therefore the atom is not absolute or independent. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate fact.

īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ

sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ

anādir ādir govindaḥ

sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam

(Bs. 5.1)

That we have know, that He is the cause of all causes.

Śyāmasundara: So, for instance, the ring may be gold under one set of conditions...

Prabhupāda: Yes. It is gold under certain conditions, but the original cause is Kṛṣṇa. Everything. Under certain conditions something is wood, something is gold, something is metal, something is this, something is... These are different conditions. I am also conditioned. Under certain conditions I am talking that "I am human being." Otherwise animal, he is under certain conditions, he is an animal. So everyone is under conditions. Who is not under conditions? Everything is under conditions. Therefore this world is called conditioned world or relative world. Nothing is absolute.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Śyāmasundara: He says that this is..., because of this spiritual personality that he can know and love God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Without person how there can be love? There is no question of love. You cannot love air or sky; you must find out a man or woman in the, under the sky. So therefore if you want to love God then you must accept God is a person; otherwise there is no question of love. Therefore for the Māyāvādī philosopher there is no question of love. They merge. They want sāyujya-mukti, to become one. They have no other conception, because they cannot conceive personal God. So there is no love. Therefore they manufacture an idea that in the material condition of life, you just imagine any form of God and love Him, and ultimately you become one. That is their philosophy. Ultimately you throw away this... The example is given that you want to rise on some top floor you take a ladder and go to the top and throw away the ladder: there is no need of this ladder, now you have come to the position. So their theory is that because you cannot love or worship something impersonal, because it is difficult, it is troublesome... It is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśa adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: those who are attached to impersonal deities, their progress in spiritual life is very troublesome because they never fix up. So in order to give them some facility, they say that "You imagine some form of the Absolute Truth, and when you are perfect, then throw away that form. You become one." This is their philosophy. But if God is God, then how I can throw Him? That means while they are thinking of God, that is not God. And they say it is imagination. Then what is the value of imagination if it is not reality? So how by imagination, by kalpana, by taking something false, you can reach the reality? That is the defect of their philosophy. If you take it something wrong, how you can reach the reality? Your process is wrong, because you are accepting something wrong: imagination, imagination.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: Today we are discussing one German philosopher named Edmund Husserl, and he started a school of philosophy known as phenomenology. The definition of phenomenology is "a descriptive analysis of inner experience or subjective processes, or the intuitive study of essences." So the idea behind this philosophy is that to find out the essences of things, to describe the data of our consciousness without any bias or prejudice or..., ignoring all theories and scientific facts, everything, but simply looking at a thing or a phenomenon and trying to understand what it is by analyzing our inward or intuitive knowledge of things.

Prabhupāda: That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness-real consciousness. Just like at the present moment I am thinking "Indian"; you are thinking "American." But if you introspect, you are American or I am Indian, so if you go on researching, you'll come to conclusion that "I am Kṛṣṇa's." That is real platform, when one understands that "I am part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa."

Śyāmasundara: Their method begins with the things themselves, they say "to the things themselves," or in other words, they begin from phenomenon.

Prabhupāda: Yes (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: To reject all theories, scientific experiments, all these things.

Prabhupāda: When you study the phenomenon—the body—this is phenomenon, that "I am this body or not?" Then you come to the conclusion that "I am not body. I am the soul. Then what for I am soul, I (indistinct)?" Then you will get from Krsna, "I am part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa."

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Śyāmasundara: That phenomenon. Yes. But if... It's a permanent type of changeless idea, picture. Even it may have many appearances which come and go, but the idea of "picture" is permanent, or changeless. Is it not?

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is confirming our theory of spiritual world as permanent. Just like here, the picture of a tree, that is phenomenon. But the picture, is that now original? Just like sometimes there are dolls, show dolls; that is phenomena. But the idea behind the dolls, that is permanent. Beautiful girl standing on the showcase, that is a doll. That is phenomenon. But a beautiful girl is not phenomenon; that is fact. This is a crude example. Similarly, this material world is phenomenon. That is explained by Śrīdhara Swami, that because the spiritual is true, fact, therefore the phenomenal expression of the spiritual world amidst matter appears to be true. This material world, phenomenal world, is not fact, but because it is representation of a fact, therefore it appears as fact. That is phenomenology.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

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

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

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

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

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Śyāmasundara: No. He wasn't a therapeutical psychologist.

Devotee: No, but as a result of his...

Śyāmasundara: Later on they devised that theory of therapy.

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) in support of our movement.

Devotee: According to our philosophy, everyone in this material world is under the spell of the material nature, māyā, "that which is not." So Freud observed that not only in crazy people, but in so-called normal people, everybody's lives are based on some types of illusion. So his psychoanalytic therapy is to trace out how I have come to this illusion or that illusion, that due to some childhood experience with my mother and father or my mouth or my genitals, something like that, all of these experiences are contributing to my unreal perception of the world. But the point which you made is that although he may have worked out what is one particular illusion, who is to prevent that there will not be another illusion? So our process is not to bother tracing out each and every illusion that we have, but to become free from the whole process of being controlled by illusory energy.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is our position: not to be affected by any more illusion.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Devotee (2): (indistinct) the fire is extinguished.

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) taken him out of the fire, then he is ...

Devotee: But his one point is that Freud's theory underwent many changes. In the beginning...

Prabhupāda: Then (indistinct) because that is imperfect.

Devotee: His first doctrine was that we should indulge the senses, that this would help, but later he reformed that idea, that instead of indulging the gross senses we should sublimate our natural instincts to some higher cause. So his idea was that instead of actually indulging in gross sex life, we should channel this sexual impulse to some higher cause, such as for developing the culture.

Prabhupāda: That we have explained by quoting Śrī Yamunācārya's verse, that "Since I have taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, whenever I think of sexual intercourse, my mouth becomes deformed and I want to spit."

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Devotee: But we have the higher...

Prabhupāda: To some extent that is all right, because therefore the kṣatriya race is there, the fighting spirit.

Śyāmasundara: Another part of Freud's theory is that there is a life instinct and a death instinct, that we all have these two instincts, and that the death instinct is the impulse toward aggression and destruction, whereas the life instinct is the impulse towards self-preservation and sex and procreation. He said that people have these two impulses, and those who have the death impulse to extreme often direct it against the self, so that you have people who have accidents and diseases, that is all self-inflicted; that because I get some disease or have some accident, that is my death instinct directed against myself. So he saw that...

Prabhupāda: That is suicidal policy.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Śyāmasundara: If someone gets sick, it's because they want to get sick. Or if there is some accident, it is due to my own desire that that accident takes place. This is his theory.

Prabhupāda: How is this theory?

Devotee: We see practically. I think most of us have experienced this, and you have told us that if we overeat we will get sick, and we have all experienced that if we overeat we get sick.

Devotee: But my reason for eating more is not my tendency to get sick. (indistinct) is different. He says that this is the (indistinct).

Devotee: Yes. So therefore one should not overeat, but still even though we have all gotten sick, we will still go ahead and overeat and get sick.

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

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

Prabhupāda: Neither death nor life...

Devotee: They haven't touch...

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

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

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: ...of suffering.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. That means you, why you are afraid of death? Why go to the medical man? Huh? When you are diseased you are afraid of dying. Why go to the medical man? If death is ultimate happiness, then why you are trying to avoid death? What is the psychoanalysis? (break)

Hayagrīva: Now this theory... Freud's principal disciple was the famous psychologist Carl Jung. They had an argument, and Freud once fainted, and when he came to, his words were, Freud's words were, "How sweet it must be to die." And in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, he writes, "The most universal endeavor of all living substance, namely, to return to the quiescence of the inorganic world. We have all experienced how the greatest pleasure attainable by us, that of the sexual act, is associated with the momentary extinction of a highly intensified excitation. Thus the pleasure principle, the sex act itself, is preliminary to the most highly desired nirvāṇa, the extinction of desires, and ultimately the extinction of the life functions themselves. Thus the pleasure principle seems actually to serve the death instincts."

Prabhupāda: So where is the pleasure when he is dead? What is that pleasure?

Hayagrīva: Well there is pleasure, and then when pleasure is cultivated, culminated...

Prabhupāda: That pleasure is in the stone. So why you are...

Hayagrīva: That's inorganic. He spoke of the return, the quiescence of the inorganic world.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: And in his book, his autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, we find most of his thoughts about the, about theology and psychoanalysis. In that book he writes, "I find that all my thoughts circle around God like the planets around the sun and are as irresistibly attracted by Him. I would feel it to be the grossest sin if I were to oppose any resistance to this force." He sees all creatures as parts of God. He says, "Man cannot compare himself with any other creature. He is not a monkey, not a cow, not a tree. I am a man. But what is it to be that? Like every other being, I am a splinter of the infinite Deity."

Prabhupāda: Part and parcel. That is our theory. We are part and parcel of God. Like fire and the sparks.

Hayagrīva: He writes, "It was obedience which brought me grace. One must be utterly abandoned to God. Nothing matters but fulfilling His will. Otherwise all is folly and meaninglessness."

Prabhupāda: Very good. Surrender. Sarva-dharmān parityajya (BG 18.66). That is real life. Śaraṇāgati, to surrender to God, to accept things which is favorable to God, to reject things which are unfavorable to God, always maintaining conviction that "God will give me all protection," and remain humble and meek, and think oneself as one of the members of God's family—that is spiritual communism. As the Communist they think a member of a certain community, similarly a man's duty is to think always as member of God's family. The same idea I was speaking, that God is the supreme father, material nature is the mother, and anything, any living entity coming out of material nature, they are all sons of God. So practically we see that all living entities coming out, either from land or from water or from the air—everywhere there is living entity—so the material nature is the mother. There is no doubt about it. And we have got experience that mother cannot produce child without connection with the father. So this is absurd to think that without father a child can be born. That is foolishness. Father must be there, and that supreme father is God. This conception of a spiritual family is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, God consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Hayagrīva: Personality is there certainly, but is it continued? Is there a continuity of personality from the dead body to the new body?

Prabhupāda: Yes, certainly.

Hayagrīva: Well, according to the first theory of rebirth, that's not guaranteed. Now the second theory of rebirth...

Prabhupāda: No. That they do not know. The same soul is, is passing through another gross body with his mental, intellectual identification. He is..., that is nature's gift. That is said in the Bhagavad-gītā: kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo 'sya (BG 13.22). As we have infected a certain type of modes of nature, he is getting a similar body, but the person is the same.

Hayagrīva: Now the, this would be the view, the second view, that is reincarnation. "This concept of rebirth necessarily implies the continuity of personality. Here the human personality is regarded as continuous and accessible to memory, so that when one is incarnated or born one is able, at least potentially, to remember that one has lived through previous existences, and that these existences were one's own, namely that he had the same ego form as the present life. As a rule, reincarnation means rebirth in a human body."

Prabhupāda: Not human body. Just, we have got historical references in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. A king, Bhārata Mahārāja, he was king, and in next life he became a deer, and the next life he became a brāhmaṇa. So the soul is continuing, changing. The example is given, just like a man changes his dress. The man is the same; the dress may be different. That is going on. Vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya (BG 2.22). This very word is there. Just when the dress is old it cannot be used any more, he has to change another, to another dress. It is very common sense. So now that next dress you have to purchase or you have to prepare according to your money. Your dress is something now; the next dress you will purchase according to your money. So the exact example is very nice—to change the dress. The man is the same, but he exchanges dress, and the dress is supplied according to the price he can pay. This is common sense. So the price means karma. According to karma he has done, he gets a particular type of body.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: This kind of philosophy is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā as asuric philosophy, demonic philosophy, because the demons, they do not believe in any superior cause. They everything take as accidental. Just like a man and woman unite accidentally and a child is born. It is like that. There is no actually purpose. The Śaṅkara philosophy, atheistic Śaṅkara philosophy is also like that. Prakṛti and puruṣa meets. All of a sudden there is lust and they meet, and there is some product; otherwise there is no other cause. This sort of theory is called asuric.

Śyāmasundara: He says that these things have no reason for existing. There is no purpose.

Prabhupāda: No. That is nonsense. Everything has its purpose. Without purpose, nothing is created. And there is a supreme cause. So they have no brain to go farther. That is their defect. So what they superficially see, they take it. They do not find out the farther cause. That is less intelligent. Many modern scientists also say that simply explain "It is nature, nature." But we do not believe in such theory. We understand that the background of nature is God. Nature is not independent. Nature is phenomena; but the noumena is God, Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the phenomena and the noumena are the same. Phenomena are noumena. There is no separation.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Same in this sense: just like the sun and the sunshine is the same. The sunshine is light and the sun is also light. The sun is hot and sunshine is also hot. But still, you cannot say that the sunshine and the sun are the same. Therefore Lord Caitanya's philosophy, simultaneously one and different, that is perfect. He is taking only the oneness, but there is still difference. Just like the fire and the heat. You cannot separate heat from fire, but still heat is not fire. That is perfect knowledge. So therefore heat is simultaneously one and different from fire. That is perfect. You are getting heat, but that does not mean that you are touching the fire. So this is perfect theory. One and different, both.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Dr. Rao: God is greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest. So for the scientist it is very difficult to find an end, which is the smallest particle. That is what it is coming out every day.

Prabhupāda: Well, that means they could not reach to the ultimate goal of knowledge.

Dr. Rao: Not only that, but the scientists, really, they are changing like anything. Einstein developed the theory, and that theory was thought to be superior to that developed by Newton. Now another theory has been developed which is being thought to be superior than that of Einstein. So these things are only relative. The real scientist can see that all these things are relative. Everything is changing. Our conception of life—somebody says that sun is moving; somebody says earth is moving. But (indistinct) calculation you find that eclipse, lunar or..., (indistinct), it does not not matter which thing is moving and which thing is not moving. It is so complicated.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Śyāmasundara: What is that?

Prabhupāda: That is atomistic. Atom, paramāṇu. And in the Brahmā-saṁhitā the paramāṇu logic is there, atomic theory. Aṇḍāntara-sthaṁ paramāṇu-cayāntara-sthaṁ govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam aham. So it is not a new discovery. The paramāṇuvāda, atomic theory, is there already.

Śyāmasundara: Well, he seeks to reduce philosophy to the smallest particle, where each individual fact is to be examined.

Prabhupāda: That is not possible. Here is a scientist. He says that atom is divided into protons, (indistinct). That bigger, they do not know how (indistinct) and where it is ended.

Dr. Rao: Not only that, but they have developed their idea of anti-matter, that there is anti-matter, you know, something against matter. So for every particle there is something relative. So his idea is very complicated.

Śyāmasundara: So for each fact there is..., it's also composed of several other facts...

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

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Śyāmasundara: His belief for..., the criterion for truth is called the correspondence theory, that a belief is true if it agrees with the facts with which it is supposed to correspond.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like this example, we see the snow as white, but it is..., does not correspond with the fact. Therefore it is not knowledge.

Dr. Rao: There is another example. They see water can (indistinct) in several (indistinct). One is the seawater, one is the (indistinct rest of comment)

Śyāmasundara: He also says that besides the correspondence, that fact must correspond with..., that a belief must correspond with the fact if it is to be true. Also he says...

Prabhupāda: So that fact does not correspond by direct perception, (indistinct) that we are seeing the snowball white, but scientifically it is not white; it is a combination of seven colors.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Śyāmasundara: He says that matter is simply a series of events in which energy and not force as the real motive power, that what we call the material world, rather than being described as solid and understood in terms of force, that actually it is energy performing different events.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. It is forced by the energy. Matter has no form, but by the superior energy, the living entity (indistinct) mixed up (indistinct) matter and make the form. Just like a (indistinct) plate, clay, water, and fire. So the potter makes a form from the clay. Clay means earth and water, mixed up, and it makes a pot and then puts it with fire and it becomes a glass and so on. So tejo-vāri-mṛdāṁ vinimayam. It is simply exchange of earth, water, and fire. But this mixture is being made by the potter. And the instrument is the potter's wheel. So similarly, God is the potter, and the material nature is the wheel, and so many things are coming out. But if there is no potter to turn the wheel or make the clay into pots, this is not (indistinct). There is already water, there is already earth, there is already fire, but unless a spirit, a being, a living being, comes into it, there is no question of (indistinct). Therefore in Bhagavad-gītā it is said, (indistinct). Because the living entities are there, the formation is taking place. A (indistinct), it is a combination of matter. But because we see that the living entity is there, it is taking a certain type of shape. Matter does not out of itself take the shape. That is wrong theory. We have no such experience where matter is taking automatically shape. (indistinct). Is there any exception?

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Śyāmasundara: That is his picture. (shows book to Prabhupāda) That is Skinner playing the organ, and it quotes him, saying...

Prabhupāda: So inform him that "Your theory is that God's representative..." He is expecting God's representative?

Devotee: No, no. I'll tell you what he says about God. He says that the belief in God arose due to man's inability to understand his world, but that man no longer needs such a fiction.

Prabhupāda: Then one has to believe him?

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Devotee: He also says that we have the capacity to take matters into our own hands. We don't have to ruin it by some controller far away who we have no control over.

Prabhupāda: But that you cannot do. You cannot take the question of birth, death, old age in your hands. How he says that you shall be able to take matters into your own hands?

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the best way to release the beneficial energy in the people is to build a world in which people are naturally good and in which they are rewarded for wanting what is good for their culture.

Prabhupāda: Yes. This is Kṛṣṇa society. The atheists, let him study, let him come, let him understand.

Devotee: His critics... The critics of this theory that we can condition everyone to a certain program are very fearful that someone unscrupulous will be driving us on.

Prabhupāda: No. That we cannot take, I mean, to accept guru as unscrupulous. Therefore we take paramparā. He is coming directly from God. He is perfect. Therefore this paramparā system is bona fide. We cannot accept any rascal to become guru. Guru must be in the paramparā system. He is receiving the knowledge directly from God, Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes. They get credit. I recall one book, in Mathura one Mr. (indistinct), he was begging his brother, he became a very businessman, so he wrote his history, that I was begging now I am sitting (break) like that. That's all. So, the theory(?) that my propensity is there, that as soon as I get the opportunity I suck the blood of others and become fat. So unless he changes mentality, there is no question of changing capitalist or communist or this or that. It is all useless.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: Suppose there is a social system where everyone gets the same amount, no one gets excess.

Prabhupāda: That is simply theory, that is not possible.

Śyāmasundara: But that's what happens in Russia. The managers, they don't get much more than the workers, so that everyone only can have a certain income. Just like Himavati's relatives,they sent their relatives in Russia some gifts for Christmas. The relatives sold the gifts and used the money to buy wood to add a room to their house, and because of that they were greatly punished, severely punished, by the state. But they should have given that money to others, they should have distributed it equally, that was the state's theory because anything that I use for my own benefit is wrong.

Prabhupāda: So my tendency is to (consider) everything as my own, but by the taking of the state I am forced to avoid(?). So how long will this work? By force how you can change one's mind? It is not possible. Therefore we say these things are only nonsense proposition. It will never happen because anyone who is in this material world, he has the prime tendency that I shall become the Lord. (indistinct) pratiṣṭhā. The material world means everyone is seeking after some profit, everyone is seeking after some adoration, and everyone is seeking, I mean to say, some position. This is the material world. So, if everyone, seeks profit, adoration and position, so how you can make equal by force?

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: Anyway, all property, all money, capital, communications, transport everything should be brought into central, centralize, centralized in the hands of the state.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So, what profit will be (indistinct), the member in the central, they will exploit, just like Krushchev was doing, and he was (indistinct). So, our diagnosis is that tendency is there. Unless you reform that tendency, these things will be bogus. Now Russia, just according to Marx theory, they are doing that, but (indistinct) utilize it. How you shall stop this mentality? What is that program?

Śyāmasundara: Their program is first you change the social conditions then the mentality will change.

Prabhupāda:Impossible. It will simply react and there will be another revolution.

Śyāmasundara: So first you have to change the mentality and then the social structure will change.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Unless I am trained up to think that I do not possess anything, everything belongs to the State... But it is very difficult to change. Simply nonsense.

Śyāmasundara: But they think like that.

Prabhupāda: They think but (indistinct) utopian, that is another thing.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: Slogans. They simply speak slogans. Propaganda.

Prabhupāda: There is no cooperation. In this way, finally the people will non-cooperate and there will be revolution. Just like Gandhi's noncooperation. That stage will come. Nobody will cooperate with them. So these are foolish theories. It has no practical value.

Śyāmasundara: So their idea about... It says that all events are seen as physical reactions aimed at satisfying economic and material needs of mankind. In other words everything that happens historically is seen as a result of economic and material needs required.

Prabhupāda: That is a fact. I have already explained. Because I want to make profit, you want to make profit, so as soon as there will be check in my profit-making or your profit-making, then we shall fight. The reason is that I want to make profit, you want to make profit, nobody is prepared to sacrifice profit. So as soon as our interests clash there is fight.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that if you mold...

Prabhupāda: Jagat. Jagat means change. Jagat. (indistinct) jagat, everything is changing. Just like wind(?), time and tide. So that is not a very unique proposal. It is the nature's way, it is going on. And therefore I say this theory, this Marx theory, it is all changeable(?). It will not stay.

Śyāmasundara: Does this mean that man's nature, there is no fundamental nature that a man's reality is...

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is spiritual nature. That is spiritual nature. We are teaching people to come to that standard, spiritual nature which will never change. Just like we are trying to serve Kṛṣṇa. This is not (indistinct). We are serving Kṛṣṇa and when we go to Vaikuntha, we serve Kṛṣṇa. That which is called nitya. Nitya means eternal. Nitya-yukta upāsate. Bhagavad-gītā, eternally engaged in the service of the Lord. Not like Māyāvādī. Māyāvādī philosophers, they will say that "Let me serve Kṛṣṇa now. As soon as I become liberated, I become God. I become God." This is another bluff. Just like I am serving you to take your favor and as soon as I get opportunity I ride upon you. You see? Now,

Śyāmasundara, (indistinct). This is Māyāvāda theory.

Śyāmasundara: They want to become...

Prabhupāda: One. One with God. That means (indistinct). Here, he could not enjoy. There are so many impediments. Therefore brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. This is all mithyā. So I become one with Brahman. This is jñānī. And karma means that I work hard, I get some result, and I enjoy. Karma-phala. But bhakti means that one should be completely free from all these desires. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy anāvṛtam (Brs. 1.1.11). One should not be covered with the results of jñāna and karma. Then what is bhakti? Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuṣīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167). Simply to cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness if favor of Kṛṣṇa. Not in my favor. So long you think anything in your favor, that is not bhakti.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: Your home may be in danger, your family may be lost if you don't work.

Prabhupāda: But if I work, what do I get. I work or not work, I get the same thing. Where is my incentive? Marshall's theory is that economic development is based on family affection.

Śyāmasundara: Is it?

Prabhupāda: Yes. So if I cannot give good food, good dress to my family... The same thing, I am working so hard, another man is working as laborer, I am scientist so my wife and children with the same dress and he is this, so I am losing my interest. And that is the position (indistinct). They are all impractical.

Śyāmasundara: He says that industrial and scientific work is the highest point of activity.

Prabhupāda: That's all right, but the... Unless the scientist and the industrialist get sufficient profit for himself, he will be reluctant to work for the state.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: Their idea is that religion is an illusion and it must be condemned.

Prabhupāda: That's right, but his theory, he is become a nuisance now. (indistinct) but his philosophy is becoming illusion. That's a fact.

Śyāmasundara: In other words its not being practiced.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's a fact. Within how many years? The revolution was in 1917.

Śyāmasundara: About a hundred years.

Prabhupāda: No hundred.

Śyāmasundara: Fifty.

Prabhupāda: Fifty. So within fifty years his philosophy is (indistinct). And in India, we do not know when religion began. You say Brahmā. So Brahmā's twelve hours... Twelve hours (indistinct) cannot calculate. So religion, our this Vedic religion is there since so many long years and instead of being devastated by the foreigner for the last two thousand years, still the religion, the system of religion, is running. It is not illusion, at least for India.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: But he protects what I produce.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. That means brain is required how to give protection. So that is also service. But his theory is unless you give your manual labor in the factory or in the field, you are not doing service. He would simply give credit to the coolies and workers, that's all. But because his basic principle is coolie, coolie philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: Peasants, they're called.

Prabhupāda: That's it.

Indian man: Some time one thing happened...

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Indian man: One Marwari first of all thought that his manager was getting two thousand rupees and doing nothing so he said, "I will do all the manager's work," and he (indistinct) scientist, engineer like. So he saved the two thousand rupees a month. After a couple of months that (indistinct) and that nobody could get right. And that man was (indistinct). Then he told that Marwari that you were giving me three thousand(indistinct).

Prabhupāda: There is a story that one king, he had ministers, a prime minister, so other salaried workers complained, "Sir, we are actually working. This minister is giving nothing, you are giving him so much salary. We are so (indistinct). So, "Oh, all right." So he called the minister, and brought one elephant. (indistinct), "Please immediately take this elephant and let me know what is the weight. Take this elephant. Weigh him." So they went to... All market, they went to find out a scale, how to weigh this. Where is the scale for weighing an elephant? So they could not do anything. They came back. "What happened?" "Sir, we could not get such a scale." "Oh, you could not weigh? All right.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Hayagrīva: He felt, like Comte, that the proletariat, the worker, would eventually eliminate religion, and he wrote, "The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, the religious man in general is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, and from religion generally." So that the worker would become the savior of mankind in emancipating or freeing man from a religion that worshiped a supernatural being.

Prabhupāda: So that has not actually happened. Marx is dead and gone. The Communist theory is already there, but they are not in agreement. The Russians are not in agreement with the Chinese men. Why it has happened? The God is not there; the working class is there. Then why there is dissension and disagreement?

Hayagrīva: Marx felt that religion stood between man and happiness. He said, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to abandon the illusions about their condition is the demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. Hence criticism of religion is an embryo, or a beginning of a criticism of this vale of tears whose halo is religion." So religion was like a millstone around the neck of man, and that man must free himself of this illusion.

Prabhupāda: Religious system deteriorates, and without any understanding on philosophical basis. Then, if he is apt to, rejects that religion. But we understand that is fact that there is God on the top of all cosmic manifestation activities, and the law given by the supreme head of the cosmic manifestation, that is religion. And if we create our religious system on sentiments only, that will create troubles only and there will be misunderstandings. But actually it is a fact that there is some brain behind all this cosmic manifestation, and if we know what is that brain, how it is working, that is scientific understanding, and the law given by God is religion. That is our simple definition. Religion cannot be manufactured as law cannot be manufactured. So if we do not know what is God, how He is acting, what..., what are His words, how we have to follow that, that kind of religion will be failure.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: ...that the man takes birth and he dies. So what the science has revolutionized in this matter? Has the science stopped birth and death and old age and disease? Then what improvement has done? The work is going on. In spite of talking all theories by Marx or anybody, nature's law is still superseding them. So how the science and others, they have surpassed the laws of nature?

Hayagrīva: Well, he felt that modern industry had made men...

Prabhupāda: Industry, whatever you take, industry. Does it means when a man takes to industry he does not die? How he has conquered over the laws of nature?

Hayagrīva: He couldn't say. How can he say?

Prabhupāda: Yes, go on.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Hayagrīva: He felt... Well this... Of course Marx wrote before Communism came into actual existence as a, as a political institution, so he's simply theorizing.

Prabhupāda: Still, his theory, he...

Hayagrīva: He's never, he's never, he never saw Communist Russia for instance, or any Communist state. He, he felt that religion has..., was the cause of antagonism between men. He says, "The most persistent form of antagonism between the Jew and the Christian is religious antagonism." How has one solved an antagonism by...

Prabhupāda: No.

Hayagrīva: ...by making it impossible?

Prabhupāda: There is not the question of antagonism. If we actually know who is God and what He desires... I give always this example: if we know the government and the government laws, then there is no antagonism. The government says that "Keep to the right," so there is no question of antagonism; anyone must keep to the right. So there is no question of antagonism. But the antagonism is there when the so-called religious system does not know what is God and what is actually the desire of God. Then there cannot be any antagonism. That perfectness of understanding God and God's regulation or order is clearly described in the Bhagavad-gītā. We are therefore advocating Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that "Here is God and here is God's instructions." So if we deliver it, and the proposal in the Bhagavad-gītā, they are all practical. Just like God says that you divide the society in four division—not only worker, but also the good brain, good administrator, and good producer of food.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: He stresses two aspects (in the) theory of dialectical materialism. The one on which he placed the most emphasis is the aspect of the pragmatic element of philosophy, that philosophy must have practical effect. And the other aspect is the contradiction between capitalism and communism, and this contradiction involves conflicts and eventual revolution. He agrees with Hegel that without conflict, there can be no progress. Do we accept this? Without conflict, there is no progress?

Prabhupāda: Our Kurukṣetra battle is a conflict between Kurus and Pāṇḍavas. So after the conflict, the Pāṇḍavas became the kings. So that is admitted; without conflict, you cannot make progress.

Śyāmasundara: Is that true on every level of...?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: ...chemical law? (?)

Prabhupāda: Oh yes. Mind is saṅkalpa and vikalpa. Mind's business is to accept something and reject something. So in this way, accepting and rejecting, if the mind is sound, then we come to some conclusion by intelligence. Accepting and rejecting, this is conflict. Then by intelligence we take something out of this conflict.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: They think whoever wins in a battle of ideas must have the right idea.

Prabhupāda: No. That is based on "might is right," but we do not accept this theory. We say, "right is might," not "might is right." Yes. If you are right, then you have got might. Otherwise, simply if you have got might, that is not right.

Śyāmasundara: You were speaking earlier about the conflict of the mind, mental conflict, judging...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Judgement is by the intelligence.

Śyāmasundara: So whenever there is perception coming into the mind, there is a conflict?

Prabhupāda: Yes. And the intelligence. Just like in the same example. Whether it is to be done, it is not to be done, then your intelligence gives you advice that "In the Vedas this is the right point." So you accept it. Intelligence gives you advice that "In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said like this." Then we accept it. Then that conflict is nice.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: So on this level progress is made through conflict.

Prabhupāda: Conflict with intelligence. That means conflict is in the lower stage. So to mitigate this conflict you have to take consultation from the higher stage. That is intelligence. That Mao's theory is simply by conflict of the mental concoctioners. That will not come to a conclusion. That will never be right conclusion.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Comes from the barrel of a gun.

Prabhupāda: Because he is rude. He cannot have that there may be, amongst the sober gentlemen, the gun is reasoning. And for the crude rascals argumentum vaculam. Of course, the gun reason is sometimes needed when the other party is completely animal. But if both of them are animals, then what further decision can come? You see? Therefore our conclusion is taken from śāstra. The gun is used also in terms of śāstra. Just like Kṛṣṇa first of all wanted to settle up the fight, the opposing elements, the Kurus and Pāṇḍavas. He personally became a messenger and personally requested Duryodhana that "All right. Settle up things. They are kṣatriyas. They cannot take up the business of a brāhmaṇa or a vaiśya. Give them five villages, let them rule, and they will be satisfied." But he said, "Oh, what to speak of five villages, I cannot spare the, that small portion of land which can hold the tip of a needle." Then Kṛṣṇa said, "Yes. Then you do not come to reason? Then let us turn to weapon." So this śāstra and śastra. When śāstra fails, then according to śāstra, there is śastra. Śastra means weapon. Both of them come from the śas-dhātu. Śas-dhātu, from śas-dhātu we take śāstra, śastra, śāsana, śiṣya, like that. It is coming from the same root.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: He says that all ideas or theories find their verification or their fulfillment through social practice. In other words, if something is a theory, if it's practiced and found to be true, then it is true.

Prabhupāda: Here it is true. In India still, those who are spiritualists. We have seen. Now, they are tolerating severe cold without any difficulty. For a materialist it is very difficult. From practical also, those who are advanced in spiritual life, they have no disease practically. They don't go to doctor. So these are practical. How can you deny these are not practical? They can live any condition, without any food, without any vitamin. Are these not practical? So we take that advancement of spiritual life makes our life more comfortable. That is practical. Without being dependent on doctors and this vitamin and that, so many, so many things. That is practical. If I have to depend on so many things, then where is the practical? Śukadeva Gosvāmī recommends that if you can... (break)

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: Certain knowledge is gathered from these three sources: class struggle, material production, and scientific experiment.

Prabhupāda: Yes. But so-called scientists, they sometimes put forward wrong theories.

Śyāmasundara: Well, he says that the proof is if it works socially, if it has a social effect.

Prabhupāda: That I am coming to. Suppose... Just like a living man and a dead man. So what is the scientific statement about this dead man? What do they say?

Śyāmasundara: Well, that he's just a lump of chemicals.

Prabhupāda: All right. Then if you are scientist, then bring that chemical and fulfill it. That is experiment. If that experiment is not possible, then what is the use of your scientific statement, "It is loss of chemicals"?

Śyāmasundara: The idea is that the theories are not practical unless they are tested socially, unless there is social benefit.

Prabhupāda: It is not the question of social. You say that this body is dead because some chemicals are wanting. So you should make experiment that such chemicals be replaced and the body may come out again in life. Then your scientific statement is... Otherwise, it is most unscientific. So how to test the scientist? His theory is not practical. You say that the dead man means some chemical wanting. So you put that chemical. Just like when a motorcar is stopped, so the engineer comes, a mechanic comes, he says, "This part is broken. It should be replaced." All right, replace it and car moves. But you say that "This part is wanting; therefore this man is dead." Now you replace that part. Then it will be scientific because it will be proved by experiment.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: Well, speaking more of, for instance, Marx's theory, that...

Prabhupāda: Now, first of all... He said scientific. So I mean to say that so-called scientists are imperfect. So what is the value of such scientific statement? There are so many scientists. Their statements are imperfect. Or other scientists differ. Then what is real scientific? You are scientist and he is scientist. I am talking on the scientific... Experiment. He says experiment. So when a scientist says that "This is wanting," then by experiment let him prove it that actually this is wanting.

Śyāmasundara: Well, still, his basic idea is that all theories, all natural laws are proven in practice, social practice, that... For instance, Marx's idea that capital is not necessary for production, that profit is not necessary for production. It's proven by the communist state where there is no profit-taking, there is no capital making, and still the wheels(?) of production go on.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So that sense is by nature's law. But artificially we have adopted so many things. That means, nature's law means God's law. So God's law is that you have got land. You till and you get production. But if you cannot till personally, then you have to employ somebody else. So you have to pay him. Therefore you must require profit.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Devotee: "Lest ye be judged and found wanting."

Prabhupāda: Yes. So this is going on. That is not Mao is a very perfect man, his theory is perfect, he is better than... It is simply mental speculation.

Śyāmasundara: But he examines his theory, and he sees that the nature of his theory or the nature of things is this conflict. This is the nature of things.

Prabhupāda: That we have already talked; there is conflict. Conflict is going on.

Śyāmasundara: So he says that there are two types of conflict in social structure. One is between communists and their enemies, such as the U.S. imperialists; and those within the Communist party itself.

Prabhupāda: So... There... In communism... That means there are enemies. However perfect you may be, you have got enemies. Outside, inside both. Then what is your perfection?

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: My only interest is in the dictatorship of the proletariat, that everyone should have an equal opportunity, equal pay, equal property, everything.

Prabhupāda: That is theory, but it will never be successful. Why in Russia there is manager's pay and the worker's pay? Why not equal pay?

Revatīnandana: He says, "Abolish that." Mao says, "Abolish that system."

Devotee: No, Russia is not a Communist state.

Revatīnandana: The Chinese scoff at the Russians, that they are not Communist. They say we will not abide by this different manager... Only one pay scale for everybody.

Prabhupāda: First of all, this Communistic idea came from Russia and China imitated.

Devotee: Well, it came out of the proponent philosophers.

Prabhupāda: Anyway, the Russia is supposed to be leader of the Communistic idea.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Revatīnandana: They don't accept anymore. There is Mao...

Prabhupāda: Similarly, sometimes after, he will not be accepted. That is my proposition. As Russia is not accepted now, some days after, he will not be accepted. Similarly, your also theory will fail. That is my proposition. Because I challenge that your theory is not perfect. Because Russia's theory was not perfect, it has failed. Similarly, I say your theory is also imperfect, therefore it will fail. Anything imperfect will fail. That is my proposition.

Revatīnandana: His propaganda is that it is perfect because it has made the Chinese people...

Prabhupāda: Propaganda, by propaganda you can do anything. That is different thing. But fact is fact. If you theory is not perfect, you make however propaganda, it will fail.

Śyāmasundara: But our people are all employed, they are all clothed nicely...

Prabhupāda: Temporarily it may be very glittering. Just like a polished thing, temporarily it looks very brilliant, shine. But in course of time it will become black. That's all. Because it is not actually shining. Gold shining and artificial shining, there is difference.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: He says we also have to prevent foreign intervention.

Prabhupāda: If your theory is perfect, why there should be foreign intervention?

Revatīnandana: How foreign intervention will be dangerous to you if you are perfect?

Śyāmasundara: Well, because the capitalists are...

Prabhupāda: That is bias. Your people also become capitalist. Why Kruschev was driven away? Because he was becoming... So because you are all imperfect, you think in a different way, but ultimately you will find that it is useless. Childish. That's all.

Śyāmasundara: Now they are making friends with the capitalist materialists. The capitalist materialists were flown to Peking recently to save Mao Tse Tung's life because he was dying of a major heart attack. So they called a major scientist from America to help save his life. (laughter)

Prabhupāda: Just see.

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

Prabhupāda: Now let us stop. We shall discuss tomorrow. (break)

Śyāmasundara: Yesterday we were discussing this philosophy of emergent evolution. The theory behind it is in the beginning there was merely space and time and categories and then this developed to a level of primary sense perception, then to a level of secondary sense perception, then to a level of organic life, and then to a level of mind, mental life. And now, his theory is that the next level will be called deity, or a sort of demigod level of consciousness, in which men will be able to not only enjoy the objects of contemplation but be able to contemplate them, really, (?) in reality.

Prabhupāda: So that is Vedic process.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that all of evolution is going that way, nature is tending that way. And nature has progressed in different steps from inorganic life to organic life, to mental life, and now to demigod life.

Prabhupāda: From organic... Inorganic life? What is that inorganic life?

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

Śyāmasundara: Space and time and the categories of...

Prabhupāda: Where is the life there?

Śyāmasundara: Life develops from inorganic matter is his theory. It is merely a higher level of organization, inorganic life.

Prabhupāda: That means life developed from matter?

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. How life develops from matter? Where is the, evidence? Why do they not manufacture life from matter in the laboratory? It is simply a statement. It has no value. Because you cannot produce living force from matter. Matter is different and living force, soul, is different. (In) one sense, of course, they are the energy of God, but still, categorically, they are different. So far these materialists are concerned, where is the proof that from matter, life has developed? So why they do not manufacture life in the laboratory? Even an ant you cannot manufacture. You have got all the chemicals. Why don't you manufacture life? So this theory cannot be accepted.

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

Śyāmasundara: So even before inorganic life there was...

Prabhupāda: There is no such thing, from inorganic life. Inorganic life... Suppose just like Brahmā is coming from the navel of Viṣṇu. So where is the... We don't get any information. Viṣṇu is origin, and from Viṣṇu, Brahmā came. From Brahmā, other demigods came, other animals came. They create animals and others. The first created being is Brahmā, the most intelligent. He's not animal. Their proposal is from lower to the higher, but our theory is from the higher, from Viṣṇu. Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8). "I am the origin of everything." Now, how you can say there is development from the lower creatures? He is the origin. And Vedānta says, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). The origin, Absolute Truth, is that from whom everything is generating. So Absolute Truth means He is the supreme life. From life, life is coming. Where is the evidence that dead stone giving birth to a man or animal? Where is the evidence?

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that in future everyone will be a demigod, that the race of man, because of mental life, will be replaced by a race of superconscious beings.

Prabhupāda: Superconscious beings, there are already existing, just like in Siddhaloka and Gandharvaloka. There are many planets.

Philosophy Discussion on Plato:

Hayagrīva: In his Politics, Plato changes his mind later in life. In the beginning he believed that in an ideal state the leaders should possess nothing of their own, neither property nor family. He felt that they must live together in a community where wives and children are held in common to guard against corruption, bribery and nepotism in government. He felt that the elite philosophers should mate with women of high qualities in order to produce the best children for positions of responsibility. Now, how does this view of common wives and children correspond to the Vedic version?

Prabhupāda: Yes, Vedic civilization is that, that putrārthe kriyate bhāryā. A man should accept a wife for putra, for son. Why son? Putra-piṇḍa-prayojanam: a putra should be responsible for offering piṇḍa, so that after death, even by mistake or somehow or other I am in a wrong position, by the piṇḍa I am elevated. This is idea. So marriage is for having good son, that's a fact, who will deliver me even if I am in the hell. Therefore the śraddhā ceremony in there. So even the father is in hell, by this śraddhā ceremony he will be delivered. This is the idea. So unless one has got son, nobody is going to offer him śraddhā oblation, and even one may be very benevolent, but it is not expected. But it is the duty of the son, as it is said, putra. Pu means there is a hell pundama (?). The hell's name is pundama, pun. So I mean, pu and tra, tra means one who delivers. If by chance I am put into pundama naraka trayate, one who delivers me from that hellish condition of life, he is putra, and for this kind of putra I accept a wife, not for my sex enjoyment. And it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, one who uses his sex for these religious activities, that "I shall get good father, a good son who can deliver me," then marriage is required. Otherwise it is useless. Dharmāviruddho kāmo 'smi. Kṛṣṇa says, "Sex life which is not against religious principle, that is I am." And sex life which is, which has no religious principle, that is sense gratification leading one to hell. So this theory: that we should marry, we should have sex life for creating good progeny.

Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus:

Hayagrīva: This is Plotinus. Plotinus lived from 204-269 A.D. He was not Christian. He took... He's what's called a neo-Platonist, a new Platonist. Much of his philosophy comes from Plato. But he believed in the theory of emanation, that the soul emanates from the intelligence, what Aristotle called the nous, or the intelligence, and the intelligence emanates from the One, what he calls the One, who is omnipresent, transcendental, the cause of all multiplicities, the Lord of all. So there's a hierarchy in Plotinus of the One, the intelligence, and the individual souls.

Prabhupāda: The One is Vedic conception, ekaṁ brahma dvitīyaṁ nāsti, Supreme Truth, Absolute Truth, advaya-jñāna. So this is our philosophy, that these living entities, soul, they are of the same quality as the one Supreme, but they are fragmental parts, emanation from Him. He has got the same intelligence, same mind, but limited jurisdiction. God is... That One is omnipresent, but we are not omnipresent, but we are present. Omniscient; but we are not omniscient, but we are (sic:) sentient, not that dull matter. In this way, that One has got all spiritual qualities in fullness; we have got spiritual qualities in minute quantity. That is our constitutional position. But we are like sparks, and the Supreme One is like big fire. When we leave the association of the big fire, as sparks we become extinguished, means our illumination stops. That is called māyā, māyā andhakāra, darkness. That we can revive also, again be put with the One and revive our illuminating power, spiritual power, and live with the Supreme One peacefully, eternal life of bliss.

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Prabhupāda: So the philosophy, first of all find out what is that external thing which is the living force. By analyzing this material body we don't find any symptom of life either from breathing or from blood or from (indistinct). Therefore something extra. Now you find out what is that extra. That extra you will find out if you come to the right platform—that it is soul, jīvātmā. And on the basis of jīvātmā, that is very minute. If you take authority of the Vedic śās..., very, very minute, one ten-thousandth part of the top of the hair, a very small particle that we cannot find it where it is in the body. It is very small. So with your material eyes and material instruments it can not be found. We are missing. But this thing is there, we get information from the śāstra. Therefore the life is going on, it is so powerful. Just like the sun is ninety-three million miles away, but it is keeping the whole universe illuminated. Similarly, although the soul is very, very small particle, it is keeping this body alive, fresh. So by material analysis you cannot find out, because it is so small you cannot see that. But it is to be accepted that because that small particle is there, this body has developed. So the conclusion is that matter comes on account of soul, not that combination of matter produces soul. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. First of all the inquiry, "What is that living force?" Then the conclusion is next, that on account of this living force this material body has come. Therefore the conclusion should be that God is the supreme living force on which the cosmic manifestation has developed. That is our theory, that Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu is there, then the universe comes into existence, and Brahmā is born and he creates so many.

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Hayagrīva: Concerning the soul, Descartes concludes that...

Prabhupāda: Now in this connection, regarding the soul, if he has received the knowledge of soul from God, therefore at that time there is no chance of he is thinking. If, as soon as he thinks in his own way, then there may be mistakes, because he is imperfect, finite. But when Kṛṣṇa says directly that "Within this body the soul is there," so if we accept God's instruction, then immediately we understand that the soul is different from this body. Exactly just like if somebody inquires, "Where is Prabhupāda?" If somebody says that "He is in this room," it does not mean this room is Prabhupāda; Prabhupāda is within this room. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says that this, the owner of the body, the soul, is within this body. So immediately the false impression that "I am this body," the fool's conclusion, immediately it is eradicated. The light is there, but he will not accept. He wants to continue to live as a fool and speculate and waste time and con..., give conclusion in so many ways, so many rascal jugglery, "The living force is like this, like that, like that." But Kṛṣṇa gives instruction immediately that the living force, soul, is within this body; he is not this body. And He gives complete instruction on this at... He says, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre: (BG 2.20) "This soul is never killed even the body is killed." This is knowledge. In spite of this knowledge, if somebody sticks to his foolish theories, then he remains animal.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Hayagrīva: It is the oldest.

Prabhupāda: ...mother of all language, and one who speaks in Sanskrit, he is only perfect, all other animals, according to his theory. But Mr. Huxley does not speak in Sanskrit.

Hayagrīva: Well, we'll see. He read quite a bit. I don't know if he read in Sanskrit or English, but he read quite a bit of the Vedas.

Prabhupāda: No, why does he say that the language, he gives that...

Hayagrīva: Probably not.

Prabhupāda: ...everyone has his language. It does not mean that the animals have no language. They have got their own language. The birds have their own language, the Englishmen have their own language, the Indians have their own language. So there are different varieties of life, and each one has his own language.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Hayagrīva: Huxley, although an evolutionist, and although he was called Darwin's bulldog, he differed with Darwin, especially on the theory of the survival of the fittest. He believed in the survival of those who are ethically the best.

Prabhupāda: That is..., that can be said fittest. "Best" and "fittest," where is the difference?

Hayagrīva: He says the strongest, the most self-assertive, tend to tread down the weaker.

Prabhupāda: First thing is what do they mean by survival?

Hayagrīva: Well, the continuance of a culture.

Prabhupāda: That is going on. Every culture is continued. The Vedic culture is there and other cultures are also there. It is continuing.

Hayagrīva: He says the influence of the cosmic process on the evolution of society is greater the more rudimentary its civilization. Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step, and the substitution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process.

Prabhupāda: So the difference...

Hayagrīva: The cosmic process is the process of creation, maintenance and ultimate annihilation. He says this can be checked by a..., an ethical culture.

Prabhupāda: The cosmic process cannot be checked, but the cosmic process is continuing in different modes. That is called tri-guṇa. One process is the process of goodness, another process is the process of passion, another process is process of ignorance. So in the process of goodness, real advancement goes on, and ultimately one has to transcend the process of goodness also and come to the platform which is all-good. In the material world, whichever process you accept, it is mixed, both goodness, passion and ignorance. It is very difficult in the material way of life to keep the process pure.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Hayagrīva: His understanding was the understanding of the Sankarites, that the ātmā is imprisoned in the body. When the man is enlightened and sees apparent reality as mere illusion, the bubble of illusion will burst, and the freed individual ātmān will lose itself in the universal brahman.

Prabhupāda: Then that does not mean that the ātmā becomes the paramātmā. Just like a drop of water, you put into the sea, it mixes with the sea. It is not mixing. Now suppose it is mixing, but that does not mean that the drop of water has become the sea. He is mixed with the seawater, but that, that does not mean he is the sea. He was not sea before, and after dropping him in the sea, he remains as what he was, but he is mixed up in the sea. Just like an airplane is flying, you see, and going higher and higher, and going very high you do not see. That doesn't mean the airplane is lost. You do not see. So these Sankarites' proposal is defective. Just like a green bird enters a tree but you do not see the bird anymore. You simply foolishly think that he has become one with the tree. But that is foolishness. He keeps his individuality, but your defective eyes cannot see him anymore. The Sankarite theory is like that, a defective understanding, that the individual soul merges into the Supreme. He keeps always his individuality. The foolish man cannot see how he has merged or existing.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Hayagrīva: Now there is one interesting point that Huxley makes in Evolution and Ethics. He tries to tie in the theory of karma with the theory of evolution.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: He writes in this way: "In the theory of evolution the tendency of a germ to develop according to a certain specific type, for instance of a kidney bean seed to grow into a plant having all the characters of Phaseolus vulgaris," that is a kidney bean, "that is its karma. The snowdrop is a snowdrop and not an oak tree—and just that kind of snowdrop—because it is the outcome of the karma of an endless series of past existences."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Karma... That is called karma-bandhanaḥ: one after another, one after another, one after another, it is going on. So if this evolutionary process one comes to the form of human being, then he is allowed the discrimination to decide whether he shall continue in this karma-bandhanaḥ process or he should stop his karma-bandhanaḥ process and surrender to Kṛṣṇa. If he surrenders to Kṛṣṇa then his karma-bandhanaḥ process stopped, and if he does not, then he is again put into the karma-bandhanaḥ process by the laws of nature.

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner and Henry David Thoreau:

Prabhupāda: Oh, yes, yes. In the beginning.

Hayagrīva: In the very beginning.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes, I met him. He came with another gentleman.

Hayagrīva: That's right. His, his theory of, of death, he says, "When I die I shall cease to exist in every sense of the word. As a personal figure I shall be as unidentifiable as my ashes." No belief in immortality at all.

Prabhupāda: So why he is anxious to philosophize? If everyone is going to be finished, then why he is philosophizing? What did he..., why he is taking so much trouble? That is the difficulty—this class of men accepted as philosopher.

Hayagrīva: Oh, he became very popular through this book. I don't know how.

Prabhupāda: Oh, if you prescribe such nonsense book, everyone will like it. (laughs)

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner and Henry David Thoreau:

Hayagrīva: First control the world...

Prabhupāda: Hm.

Hayagrīva: ...and then you can control yourself. That's his theory.

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?

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner and Henry David Thoreau:

Prabhupāda: Then who will control? Society controlled without any controller? What is the meaning?

Rāmeśvara: It's a type of communism, where the people work together in a communal way.

Prabhupāda: How they will work together? They require Lenin, Stalin, or something like that, to force them to work. Still, in Communist country there are manager class. Not only worker class, the manager class. So this is all utopian theory. It has no practical value.

Hayagrīva: In the United States all of the successful utopian communities have had a strong religious leader.

Prabhupāda: Leader must be there, religious or not religious. Everyone has leader. The Communist has got leader, and the spiritualists, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we have also leader. So without leader nothing can be done. They may defy leadership, they may defy authority, but one who defies authority, he wants to become authority. So this is natural. Without leader nothing can be done.

Hayagrīva: That's the end of B. F. Skinner. (end)