740122 - Morning Walk - Honolulu
Prabhupāda: . . . that, "Unless we see." But you see, but you cannot go. Your argument is, "Unless we see." But you are seeing there is another planet, so many hundred and thousands, millions of planets, but you cannot go there. That is your inefficiency. How can you say? Because your theory is "I must see," but you cannot go there. First of all, admit your inefficiency. Why you conclude, what is called, abruptly, without seeing? Because seeing is your experience. But you cannot go and see. Why you are trying to go to the moon planet? Just to see. Similarly, there are so many other planets, but you are not efficient to go and see. How can you conclude?
Nitāi: Well, they don't conclude. They say there may be possibility of higher life.
Prabhupāda: So that's all right. Maybe . . .
Satsvarūpa: Agnostic: "There may be; we don't know."
Satsvarūpa: "There may be God, but we don't know."
Prabhupāda: That you don't know, but if somebody knows . . . that is not a proof, that because you cannot see. That is not proof.
Nitāi: No. They just . . . they make this theory based on the fact that the most advanced that they've seen so far is man.
Prabhupāda: Who is advanced? Nobody is advanced unless one has seen or known God. That is actually advancement. They're putting so many theories . . . I have not seen. Why shall I believe you? You are talking so many nonsense which is not in my experience. Why shall I believe you? Hmm?
Nitāi: Well, then they . . . then they'll tell you that "Well, come and we'll show you this experiment."
Nitāi: "We show you these experiments, and then you can see too."
Prabhupāda: What is that experience? You show, make experiment, that from the monkey's body a man is coming. Show me the experiment. Nobody has seen the experiment.
Nitāi: Well, in that case they say that the monkey looks so much like man, everything is practically there.
Prabhupāda: Well, that doesn't mean . . . every man is looks like another man; that does not mean he has come from him. He has got a different father.
Nitāi: One experiment that they've come up with is that they study the embryo within the womb.
Nitāi: They study the embryo within the womb.
Prabhupāda: That is your experience, but I have not seen. Why shall I believe you? I have not seen. Why will I believe you? What is the answer? You say so many rascaldom, but I have not seen. Why shall I believe you?
Satsvarūpa: Well, like Professor Kotovsky said to you, "We accept it because a scientific body has presented it. We can't experiment."
Prabhupāda: Ah, so therefore we accept another scientific man. We accept Vyāsadeva, but you don't accept. You say: "Unless we see." So why shall I accept you unless I see?
Satsvarūpa: They would say for you to see everything yourself you'd have to become a trained-up scientist.
Prabhupāda: Similarly, similarly, you have to become like me also to see God. You cannot say that in my case you are authority, and your case I am not authority. How can you say? If you oblige me to accept you as authority, you must accept me also authority. Otherwise, why shall I accept you? Why you are obliging me which I do not see? So many rascal says that he has gone to moon planet, but I have not gone with you. Why shall I believe you?
Satsvarūpa: They think that their documentation is something that's more acceptable for . . .
Prabhupāda: So acceptable to someone. My documentation is acceptable to so many. Why not my many? We have got many followers of the documentation of Vedic literature. As you have got your own ways of documentation, I have got my own ways of documentation. If you do not believe my documentation, why shall I believe without seeing your documentation? And if you set aside your documentation, my documentation, then come to reason. Eh?
Nitāi: If . . . if what?
Prabhupāda: I don't believe your documentation; you do not believe my documentation. Then let us come to reason. The reason is, as we see varieties—one is better than the other—there must be the best. And that is God. So far documentation is concerned, you do not believe my documentation, I do not believe your documentation. Then? How the conclusion will come? As far as possible, by reasoning. Reasoning is that we find one is better than the other. So go on finding; if you have got power, you will see that the best. (aside) Give me that. This is reasoning. As the child has a father, the father has his father, the grandfather has his father, then there must be some ultimate father. How can you deny this? By experience you see. Suppose a great-grandchild does not see the great-grandfather. Does it mean that he was not there? The reason is as everyone has got father, father's father, his father, his father, his, so go on, find out the ultimate father.
Satsvarūpa: They've just concocted that . . . that long ago there was no intelligent human life, and then that . . .
Prabhupāda: That is your concoction. We get so many literatures. Huh? The Bhāgavata literature, five thousand years old. You have no history beyond three thousand years. Neither even at the present moment you have got such nice literature. When you say that people are very much advanced, who has produced such literature? Where is a book like Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or Bhagavad-gītā, whole world? If you say that this book was written, say 1,500 years ago, but where is a similar literature in any other part of the world? Eh? Is there a similar literature? (japa)
Satsvarūpa: When Darwin's theory was first being taught in America, there was opposition from the Christians, and there was a famous court trial called the Scopes case, and the Bible was used to . . . against this scientific, so-called scientific theory. But the Bible is so inadequate that they lost.
Prabhupāda: Yes, Bible cannot be, because it is itself unscientific.
Satsvarūpa: The lawyer proved that the Bible could not disprove the Darwin's theory.
Prabhupāda: Then why do they not reject Bible altogether?
Prabhupāda: (laughs) Why do they not reject? Why still? Of course it is sentiment. They do not accept Bible. The so-called Christians, they do not accept Bible.
Bali-mardana: What they say, they say that everything has . . . it has a hidden meaning. So the literal meaning is not true literally; it has a hidden meaning which is true.
Prabhupāda: That's all right, but nobody has disclosed that hidden meaning.
Nitāi: Everyone discloses a different hidden meaning.
Prabhupāda: (laughs) Then what is the real hidden meaning?
Satsvarūpa: They say that about the Bhagavad-gītā, too, when we say that . . . we say: "Every verse in the Bhagavad-gītā shows that Kṛṣṇa is God." They say: "No, there are actually different meanings, not 'surrender to Kṛṣṇa.' It means something else, and this means something else."
Prabhupāda: Bhagavad-gītā says: "Surrender." If you take Bhagavad-gītā, then Bhagavad-gītā says . . . you cannot understand. If you want to understand Bhagavad-gītā, you must understand from Bhagavad-gītā. And apart from Bhagavad-gītā, you are already surrendered to God; you are not independent. Are you independent? Now, if, when there is rain, we could not come here to walk. So we are already surrendered. You cannot stop the rain and walk. You are already surrendered. So if Bhagavad-gītā says that, "You completely surrender," what is the wrong there? You are already surrendered. Just like you are already surrendered to the government laws. If you say: "I don't care for government laws," is that very nice proposal? You're already surrendered. So what is the wrong there? You are already surrendered to the laws of God, or nature, whatever you say. So if Bhagavad-gītā says: "Surrender fully unto Me," what is the wrong there?
Bali-mardana: They will say: "Well, how do we know that Kṛṣṇa is God?"
Bali-mardana: They will say, "How do we . . .?"
Prabhupāda: No, no, Kṛṣṇa is not God, but you have already surrendered to God. Kṛṣṇa may not be God, that is . . . you bring another God, then we shall reject Him, Kṛṣṇa . . . but that you cannot. You do not know who is God. At least we know what is God. But if you deny that Kṛṣṇa is not God, then bring another God at least equal to Kṛṣṇa.
Bali-mardana: They'll bring Guru Maharaj-ji. (laughter) Many people were disappointed in Houston because he did not display any miracles. They were expecting to see many things.
Bali-mardana: Many of his followers were disappointed 'cause they expected him to show some miracles.
Prabhupāda: Yes. He will be rejected after a few years. That's all. Just like Maharishi.
Satsvarūpa: I told one professor that . . . he was arguing in favor of Guru Maharaj-ji. I said: "He's not mentioned in the scriptures," and he says: "Yes, in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says whenever there's a time of irreligion then He comes. So this is a time certainly of irreligion," he said. So that's one evidence, he said, in his favor.
Prabhupāda: So what he has done about religion?
Satsvarūpa: He hasn't done anything.
Nitāi: Well, we can see that he hasn't done anything.
Nitāi: We can see that he hasn't done anything; others would say that "Oh, he's got a movement just like you."
Prabhupāda: No, it is not my movement; it is old. I don't say it is my movement. Neither I say that I am God. I am simply speaking of the established movement. Now, my movement is that Kṛṣṇa is God. So Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7), "There is no more superior authority than Me." But is it a fact that this rascal is the supreme authority?
Bali-mardana: No one has any idea what is God. So he . . . the people . . . they say: "Here is God", and no one can disprove it, 'cause they have no idea what is God.
Prabhupāda: No, no, here is the idea. God must be the supreme authority. So let him prove that he is the supreme authority. He's checked by the Custom authority and he's God? He goes to the hospital and he's God? Here is the definition of God that, "There is no more superior authority than Me." And Kṛṣṇa proved. History says that there was no more superior authority than Kṛṣṇa. Then let him prove that first.
Satsvarūpa: When the Customs authorities tried to stop Kṛṣṇa in Mathurā, He cut off their heads. They said: "Where are you going with that cloth?"
Prabhupāda: No, that is supreme authority. Supreme authority means nobody can check. That is supreme authority. But he is checked in so many ways.
Sudāmā: But the rascals, they say that, "This is his līlā."
Prabhupāda: Līlā? Then I kick on your face. That is also my līlā. (laughter)
Bali-mardana: What's that?
Prabhupāda: I kick on your face. (more laughter) That will be my līlā. Where is this rascal now, in the present moment?
Bali-mardana: Perhaps in Colorado. He has a big . . .
Sudāmā: Yes, in America, mainland.
Bali-mardana: He has a big following among the hippies of Colorado.
Prabhupāda: Somebody said that I am talked in their camp that I am priest.
Sudāmā: That "I am . . .?"
Prabhupāda: I am priest.
Bali-mardana: In their camp?
Bali-mardana: Someone said that?
Prabhupāda: Yes. They said that my movement is . . . I am priest. Because I worship Kṛṣṇa in the temple. In other words, I am not a philosopher; I am a priest. (looking at surfboard) What it is made of, this surfer?
Sudāmā: It's made of Styrofoam. It's a plastic material that's very light and floats on the water. And then different polishing plastics.
Prabhupāda: So it is a costly thing.
Sudāmā: They cost about close to a hundred dollars.
Bali-mardana: Gaurasundara and Siddha-svarūpa, they were encouraging the devotees to go and fly on them.
Sudāmā: Many of them have them, have these boards.
Sudāmā: Many of them have such boards.
Bali-mardana: Instead of book distribution, they go in the ocean. (break) Is it a good idea for them to go to Māyāpur and chant?
Prabhupāda: Where is that difficulty?
Bali-mardana: Well, like, someone like Karandhara. He suggested for him to go there.
Prabhupāda: Yes. But if he does not chant, that will be bad example. If he does not agree, then it is fallen down. Now he's denying to chant. He's denying to chant; he's indulging in sex. What does it mean? He'll be a bad example wherever he goes.
Bali-mardana: Is that an example of free will, that someone can choose Kṛṣṇa and then turn away? That example of free will?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. Because if you accept Kṛṣṇa, then you must follow what Kṛṣṇa says. If you don't follow Kṛṣṇa, then what is the use of talking of Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa says, satataṁ kīrtayanto mām: "Always chanting about Me." That is mahātmā. Satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ yatantaś ca dṛḍha-vratāḥ (BG 9.14). Mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ (BG 9.13): "Mahātmā, those who are devotee, they are not under this material influence." Daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ: "the spiritual influence." So how he's accepted Kṛṣṇa? By his own concoction? He . . . if he accepts Kṛṣṇa, he must abide by the injunction of the Kṛṣṇa. (break)
Bali-mardana: . . . that the disciple should not let outsiders touch the feet of his spiritual master.
Bali-mardana: In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, in the purport. But in India so many people try to touch. Should they be restrained?
Prabhupāda: No, that is . . . spiritual master should be respected. Where it is said that the spiritual . . .?
Nitāi: The Seventeenth Chapter, one purport where it talks about a brahmin woman who came to touch the feet of Lord Caitanya; immediately He went and jumped in the Ganges. You remember that section?
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes. That is . . . he's not a devotee. He's not a . . . he was not a disciple.
Bali-mardana: But in India there are so many people, they're not disciples; they're not initiated by you. So they are in the same category?
Prabhupāda: That case was different.
Bali-mardana: Achya. So it is all right.
Prabhupāda: Then the spiritual master has to go every time, to fall down? Because people will touch. That is natural. And he has to jump over the water every time? (laughs)
Nitāi: In the purport you gave recommendation that generally it is not a good practice to let them, unless they are at least your devotees.
Prabhupāda: Generally, it is not practiced, but if people come, how can you check them? (pause) So we were talking about Darwin's theory, eh? What is that?
Nitāi: It is survival of the fittest, his evolutionary theory?
Prabhupāda: Now, we talked about that if you do not take my documentary, what is called, evidence, why shall I take your documentary?
Bali-mardana: I think the only reason it is accepted is because it was very popular among the atheists. They said: "Oh, yes, let us support this idea."
Prabhupāda: Yes, but there is theist class also.
Bali-mardana: So whatever we put forward is at least if . . . is more authoritative than what they can propose 'cause ours is based on śāstra.
Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.
Satsvarūpa: They base many of their conclusions on finding of fossils, old remains.
Satsvarūpa: Fossils, impressions of animals' bodies in the stone that are left there thousands of years. They gather all these . . . that's what Darwin's work mostly was. He would sail around the world and collect all these fossils, and make conclusions and write books.
Prabhupāda: But where they will get fossils of old intelligent men?
Satsvarūpa: Well, they say that they've found just skulls of very primitive men . . .
Prabhupāda: No, no, you cannot find, because according to Vedic culture, the body's burned into ashes. Where you'll get the bones and fossils?
Bali-mardana: You only come up with the primitive ones who are not civilized.
Prabhupāda: We understand from the writings, not from the fossils and bones. The bones and fossils are already finished, but they kept their writing.
Bali-mardana: Only the uncivilized people were buried.
Prabhupāda: Suppose I am writing books. In future if you could not find my bones and fossils, but the books will prove what I was. So we have got the books. That is the real bones and fossils.
Bali-mardana: They try to disprove . . .
Prabhupāda: They cannot find out bones and fossils of Kṛṣṇa. But, why they accept?
Satsvarūpa: Nobody agreed . . .
Prabhupāda: You have to accept authority . . . (break) . . . authority of yourself, we have got authority also. We have got authority. We have got our books . . . (break) . . . that Kali-yuga has begun five thousand years . . . battlefield . . . they do not believe in . . . the battle (break) . . . these rascals. Although it is history . . . (end)