Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


We have got good brain. Instead of utilizing the brain to know what is the active principles of this whole universe, if we utilize that brain for manufacturing a watch, that is not very good proposal

From Vaniquotes

Expressions researched:
"we have got good brain. Instead of utilizing the brain to know what is the active principles of this whole universe, if we utilize that brain for manufacturing a watch, that is not very good proposal"

Conversations and Morning Walks

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

We have got good brain. Instead of utilizing the brain to know what is the active principles of this whole universe, if we utilize that brain for manufacturing a watch, that is not very good proposal. You manufacture watch, but at the same time, you try to study the active principle, who is the watchmaker. I am seeing the watch with the eyes, but as soon as the active principle is gone, no more seeing. Where is that science? A watchmaker is making, screwdriving, and doing so many things. All of a sudden his heart fails. No more watch.

Dr. Harrap: With respect, sir, I notice you wear a watch. This must be obviously a product of science, and this is what it's about. But you are stressing time and again in your writings the need to concentrate on the laws that you set out in order to achieve some standing in the future, in the life hereafter.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.

Dr. Harrap: Isn't this at the risk of neglecting the people who are sharing this life with us here and now?

Prabhupāda: No, it is not the question neglecting. Just like formerly there was no watch, but you still they used to keep time by the movement of the sun on a dial, just making some marks on the stone. Do you know this?

Dr. Harrap: They used to use sundial. Yes, yes, I know.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So their work was going on. Their work was not suffering for want of this watch.

Dr. Harrap: I agree.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So we have got good brain. Instead of utilizing the brain to know what is the active principles of this whole universe, if we utilize that brain for manufacturing a watch, that is not very good proposal. You manufacture watch, but at the same time, you try to study the active principle, who is the watchmaker. I am seeing the watch with the eyes, but as soon as the active principle is gone, no more seeing. Where is that science? A watchmaker is making, screwdriving, and doing so many things. All of a sudden his heart fails. No more watch. What is that active principle?

Dr. Harrap: It, it . . .

Prabhupāda: Where is that science? That is my proposition.

Dr. Harrap: It, it wasn't the manufacturing aspect. It was the creative aspect that I was concerned with, that there is a creative faculty in man.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Dr. Harrap: that can be used to benefit the rest of mankind. Isn't there a tendency . . .

Prabhupāda: Creative faculty . . . therefore we first of all give stress, the creative faculty, that the watchmaker is doing nice work, but who has made that watchmaker? Who is that creative faculty? You are a scientist, you have good brain, but you cannot manufacture the brain. But who has manufactured your brain?

Guest (2): But isn't it the use to which the brain is put that is the . . . that I think that I . . .

Prabhupāda: If you are scientist, you create a similar brain like you. That you cannot do. But somebody has created your brain. And who is that person? Professor Einstein, big scientist, but he could not create another Professor Einstein so that after his death the work would continue. Because the brain creator, the brain of scientist created by somebody, that is not in your hand. You cannot create another similar brain. That is not possible. But if you are surprised with the mechanical arrangement of the small watch, why you should not study the mechanical arrangement of a great scientist? This is the must . . . as the mechanical arrangement of the watch is made by some brain, similarly, your brain or Professor Einstein's brain, that is also made by another scientist. And who is that scientist? We are glorifying the brain of the scientist, but we are not glorifying the scientist who has made the brain of the scientist.