750510 - Conversation - Perth
(Conversation with Carol Cameron)
Jayadharma: They look at India they see that the caste system apparently is not working.
Amogha: Shall I answer?
Amogha: Well at present, the caste system in India isn't actually representative of the original varṇāśrama dharma system. The original system was a cooperation, organized cooperation between four kinds of men which are naturally there in society. Just like now we can see there are some people working as laborers, some people working as merchants, and some people politicians and lawyers, some are teachers. Originally they were organized so that the higher, the priests, or priestly order, were benefiting everyone by their teaching. And so that they could fully concentrate on that, they were not engaged in working for food and money. But what happened in this age was that the higher caste became fallen, and they misused their high position, and instead of helping everyone by their teaching, they misused the position, or exploited the position, simply for selfish ends, and there became a conflict which was called the caste . . .
Prabhupāda: Vested interest, they became.
Amogha: They became?
Prabhupāda: Vested interest.
Amogha: Vested interest. Yes. So then there was conflict between the lower and the higher, and it broke down. So what we're teaching is not actually the caste system as it is now or it was recently, but . . .
Prabhupāda: You have also caste system in the Western countries. You are not without caste system. There is a priestly class. So there are politicians, there are industrialists, merchants, and ordinary laborer. Where is . . .? How you can say there is no caste system in the Western countries?
Jayadharma: But there may be the clergymen and the mercantile class and the soldiers and the laborers in this particular society, but this society is breaking away from that, because they are not recognizing the clergy class of men because nobody is going to church, nor is anybody giving any money to the church these days. This is why many churches . . .
Prabhupāda: No, no. First of all think that you say that your charge is "You are introducing caste system." But the Hindu caste system is already there. How do you say that I am introducing? That is my point.
Jayadharma: That is my foolishness.
Prabhupāda: (laughing lightly) You cannot say that I have introduced it. It is already there. As it is there in India, it is also everywhere. It may be under different names. The four classes are already there, everywhere. The . . . even in Muslim, they have also got the priests, what is called, maulānas (Urdu muslim priest), maulāna, priestly class. They have got. We are introducing the systematic caste system, but caste system is already there, everywhere. Maybe under different names. And it is necessary. The caste system is there as a matter of necessity. You cannot abolish it. But it is now existing in a deformed manner. People should be systematic and organized. That we are trying to do. Not that a new thing we are trying to introduce. It is already there. Our proposition is that, "You priestly class, you must act exactly a priest, ideal priest. You are a drunkard, you are woman-hunter, you are doing everything nonsense, and at the same time you are passing on as priest. This should be stopped." This should be stopped. The priestly class, or the brāhmaṇas, they should be trained up to become truthful, how to control mind, how to control senses, tolerant, and very learned, knowing God also—these things are required. They should be the first-class, ideal men.
Similarly, the kṣatriyas, they must be fearless; they must be very boldly, face . . . fighting the enemies; they must have the capacity to govern nicely so that people will not have any complaint against the government. In this way they should be trained up. And the mercantile class of man, they should produce enough food grains, not motor tires. That is śūdra's business, artisans. That is śūdra. The vaiśyas business is first to see that in the country there is enough food for eating—both for the human being and the animals. The human being should not complain that there is no sufficient food grains, therefore they're eating flesh. No. Flesh is not for human being. They should live on food grains. Just like ḍāl. Dāl is as good as meat, from food grain. And there is sufficient varieties of ḍāl they can eat. They can make so many preparations, palatable preparations. Why are the prices of food grains are increasing? Because there is shortage. If there is enough food, the price will automatically decrease, because everyone want to sell. So the price will decrease, naturally. It will be so lavishly available that you can give food grains even to the animals like cows and goats and other so many animals. Let them eat. That is the business of the mercantile.
And go-rakṣya. Their another business is to protect the cows, and to give them food nicely so the cows will give enough milk. And from milk, you know, so many nice preparations, all full of vitamins. So why they should be killed? Hmm? You are killing. The blood is not utilized, you are taking the flesh. But flesh is transformation of the blood. And milk is also transformation of the blood. So if you take . . . just like chānā, it is as good as flesh. By taste, by benefit, as good as. So why, if you can take the flesh and blood in a human way—blood is transformed into milk, and from milk you can . . . (indistinct) . . . so many good preparations: ghee, yogurt, burfī, pera, so many preparations are available, this panīr, chānā—and let the animal live peacefully. Why you are cutting the throat? You require some benefit out of them. Take this benefit. Why you should kill? If you live . . . if you can better . . . give better service, then why shall I try to kill? What is this human civilization? Is that human civilization, that I am getting service from you, and I am cutting your throat? Is that humanity? Hmm? What is the answer?
Jayadharma: No, it's animal civilization.
Prabhupāda: Anyone who takes milk . . . everyone takes milk. The cow is the mother. Mother gives milk. And mother, when she cannot supply milk, mother should be cut up. Is that a very good philosophy? Is human philosophy? Huh? What is the answer?
Prabhupāda: And, so if you say that somebody wants to . . . say in your country, majority they want to eat meat. So if you put that argument, then you can eat some lower animals. You can eat the pigs. You are eating also, pigs. Not in a massive scale. Massive scale. . . if you are Christian you should follow your religious principle, "Thou shall not kill." This should be the principle. But if you are a rākṣasa, if you want to eat meat, then at least don't kill the cows. You can eat other, insignificant animals. You are eating also. You are eating everything. Except the moving cart, you are eating all the moving animals. The car also moves, but you cannot eat. Otherwise you are killing everything. You have become so civilized rascal that your business is to kill other animals and eat. You are so civilized. You are still in the crude form of human being. Just like in the jungles, the Aborigines, the Africans, they do not know how to develop civilization—crude method, eat the animals. That also, they are not so uncivilized that they keep slaughterhouse. You are so uncivilized that you are keeping slaughterhouse, regularly. These Africans and other jungle people, they eat meat, but they directly kill. They have no such civilization as to maintain a slaughterhouse. The tiger, they eat meat, but they do not keep a slaughterhouse. And you are civilized—you are keeping slaughterhouse. Why should you keep? The government shouldn't allow you to keep the slaughterhouses. If anyone wants to eat meat, let them eat like tigers and others. Individually kill one animal, another animal—lower, not cows. That should be the government law. You can kill one insignificant animal, like pigs or goats. It has not very much use. You kill it in your home, before your children and your family, and eat. The government may not have any objection. Eh? (someone arriving)
Amogha: The . . . I think it's the anthropology teacher.
Prabhupāda: But why should you maintain slaughterhouse? So the agriculturist and the mercantile men, they should produce enough food, give protection to the cows, and if there is excess, sell it. Where there is no enough food grain produced you can make business. That is the instruction given in Bhagavad-gītā: kṛṣi-go-rakṣya vāṇijyam (BG 18.44). That is really needed. Nobody is interested. Everyone comes to the city, the mercantile class. They are doing business, big, big skyscraper building, and they earn artificial money, paper. And they are, instead of eating food grains, they are maintaining slaughterhouse. This is not good civilization. (to guest) Come on. Hare Kṛṣṇa.
Amogha: Śrīla Prabhupāda, this is Carol Cameron from the University of West Australia. And she has a degree in Social Work, in Arts, and she's working on a Master's degree in Anthropology. And in this degree her paper is on the subject of the influence of Hindu and Buddhist mysticism on the West. So she would like to ask you some questions. This is our spiritual master, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda.
Carol Cameron: I would like to know in the beginning why you felt the need to come to the West. I know a little bit about your background, but not very much. Why you so felt the need to come?
Prabhupāda: That I was speaking—of course, it is very strong word—that Western people, they are claiming very civilized, but I have got objection. Therefore I have come to the West. Because, for example, the animal-killing. The Western people are mostly Christians. Now Lord Jesus Christ said that, "Thou shall not kill." But the result was that two thousand years passed, but the people of the Western country, they are still killing. So when they have accepted Christianity? What is your answer?
Carol Cameron: But the actual original scriptures aren't enacted in Western life.
Prabhupāda: I mean to say that Lord Jesus Christ said: "Thou shall not kill." So what kind of men were there that Lord Christ had to request them not to kill? That means they were killers. Suppose if somebody is thief, and if I give him some good instruction, I say: "You should not commit theft." That means you are thief. You are already. Otherwise, why I say that, "Thou shall not commit theft"? A naughty child is disturbing. I say: "My dear child, don't do this." Similarly, when Christ said: "Thou shall not kill," that means he said amongst people who were in habit of killing. Is it not?
Carol Cameron: Hmm.
Prabhupāda: Now, after taking instruction from Christ, first of all they killed Christ. That means they could not understand the instruction. Therefore their first business was to kill the instructor. And after that, two thousand years passed, still they are killing. So when they have accepted the teachings of Lord Christ? Can you answer this?
Carol Cameron: So you think the Christian faith hasn't been reflected in the behavior of Western people.
Prabhupāda: This is practical. You are maintaining huge slaughterhouses, regular killing. So you took instruction from Christ, "Thou shall not kill." You first of all killed him, and then the killing process is going on among the animals, and declaring wars every now and then. So the killing business is going on regularly. In your regular life also. You are maintaining big, big slaughterhouses. Then when you accepted the instruction of Christ? That I want to know. What is that date?
Carol Cameron: Do you see any hope for the world? We seem to be moving towards destruction, the whole . . .
Prabhupāda: No, my . . . you just explain.
Amogha: He's asking you when did this civilization actually accept the teachings of Christ?
Carol Cameron: When have they? Not overall at all; only in small pockets. Never overall.
Prabhupāda: Then why you are claiming that you are Christian? Just like you are having cross. That is the sign that you killed Christ. The cross is the killing symbol of Christ.
Carol Cameron: This is the resurrection symbol.
Prabhupāda: Maybe. (laughter)
Carol Cameron: But it's not only a Christian symbol . . .
Prabhupāda: But many, many priestly order, they carry the cross. Cross is the sign where Lord Jesus Christ was killed. Is it not?
Carol Cameron: It is, but that symbol is used in a lot of ways.
Prabhupāda: That means how you killed Lord Jesus Christ. That is the sign. That reminds you that you killed. You accuse the Jewish people, "They killed," but you are also killing, although you are claiming Christian. Therefore I want to know—you are a learned scholar—when you abided by the order of Lord Jesus Christ? That is my question. When?
Amogha: When did you abide by the orders of Jesus Christ?
Carol Cameron: When did I?
Prabhupāda: Every one of you, Western countries. And if you have abided by the order of Jesus Christ, then why you are systematically killing? The order is, "Thou shall not kill."
Carol Cameron: It reminds me of the Gītā, you know? Where Arjuna is on the battlefield, about to commit an organized sort of killing against his relatives.
Prabhupāda: No, two thousand years passed, but you could not accept the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. And you are all claiming that you are Christian. When did you accept Christianity? That is my question. Because you have disobeyed the order of Christ. So when did you accept? Two thousand years passed. Hmm? Who will answer this?
Jayadharma: They never accepted.
Carol Cameron: Hmm. What is the main part of your philosophy? Is it based on the Vedāntist school?
Prabhupāda: No. This is no question of philosophy. You could not accept the simple instruction. Then where is the question of philosophy?
Carol Cameron: The question of love.
Prabhupāda: Yes. You cannot understand the principles of life and morality, Jesus Christ's instruction that, "Thou shall not kill." So how you become philosopher?
Carol Cameron: How is this love to be understood? Between people, or through inner sort of communication with a higher self?
Gaṇeśa: Śrīla Prabhupāda said that you could not understand the simple instruction, so where is the question of understanding philosophy? Not love. Philosophy.
Prabhupāda: You have no love, because you are accustomed to kill. Philosophy begins when you know that everyone is part and parcel of God, and everyone should be given the full facilities to live without injuring anyone for one's personal benefit. Paṇḍitaḥ sama-darśinaḥ (BG 5.18). A paṇḍita, philosopher, means learned scholar. Not fools and rascals can become philosopher. Those who are learned scholar, thoughtful, they can become philosopher. But if one has no knowledge how to behave with other living entities, what is the meaning of becoming a philosopher?
Carol Cameron: How would you go about teaching this idea of love? How does one . . .
Prabhupāda: Love means that I want to eat something, and if I love somebody, then I will see that my beloved also eats. If you take something from your beloved . . . naturally the lovers present things. Just a boy loves a girl, he presents something to the girl. So if you accept presentation by others, we should give him also something. And if I have got some confidential things, I must disclose it to the lover, and the lover is also expected he should not keep anything confidential. He should disclose it. These are the six reciprocal exchange between the lover and the beloved. If I love you, because you are beautiful, for my sense gratification, but I keep everything secret, that is not love. That is sense gratification, lust. These are the signs of love.
- dadāti pratigṛhṇāti
- bhuṅkte bhojayate caiva
- guhyam ākhyāti pṛcchati
- ca ṣaḍ-vidhaṁ prīti-lakṣaṇam
- (Upadeśāmṛta 4)
Prīti means love. These are the symptoms. Give and take; eat and give to eat; open you mind, and know the other party's mind also. This is love. The more you increase the six kinds of exchange, there is increase in the love, yes.
Carol Cameron: Do you think a man who says he loves God should withdraw from the world, say into a community or something like that?
Prabhupāda: First of all between two. Then you can expand it. First the love between . . . love means there are two, the lover and the beloved. So the transaction begins between the two, then it expands.
Carol Cameron: How do you go . . . if you look at the two as say the creator and the person? Would that be the two that you have in mind? How would you go about fostering that relationship?
Amogha: She says if you mean by the two the creator and us, how would you go about fostering or increasing that relationship between us and . . .
Prabhupāda: Creator, creator. Do you believe in creator?
Carol Cameron: Impersonal creator, yes.
Amogha: She says impersonal creator.
Prabhupāda: Oh, what is that philosophy, impersonal creator?
Carol Cameron: Without any attributes that we can . . .
Prabhupāda: Creator is an attribute. To become creator, that is attribute. If I create this bell, I know the art how to create a bell.
Carol Cameron: Hmm.
Prabhupāda: So this is my attribute. How you can say the creator is without attribute? This is false philosophy. I know how to create this bell. That is my artistic sense. That is my qualification. And how do you say I am without qualification? As soon as you say "creator," then He has got many qualification.
Carol Cameron: How can ignorance be removed?
Prabhupāda: The ignorant people can also learn from the learned. If you have got this idea that creator is impersonal, that means you are not a learned. You have no knowledge. And this is the simple answer. As soon as you say "creator," He has so many qualities. The bell . . . suppose I am ringing. Now, when the spring is loose (rings bell), it does not sound. So others may not know, but one who has created—"Oh, the spring is loose. Now we wind it again." That means I know, ins and outs and everything. That is creator. So if one is cognizant of everything, how He can be impersonal? What is this philosophy? Hmm? Answer. You are philosopher.
Amogha: He says if the creator is . . . if one is cognizant of everything, then how can He not be a person? The creator is cognizant of everything. So if He is cognizant, how can He not be a person?
Carol Cameron: Well, He would incorporate personal attributes . . .
Prabhupāda: Hmm? She says "He."
Carol Cameron: . . . not be governed by them.
Prabhupāda: She says "He," but He is impersonal. (laughter)
Carol Cameron: Yes. (laughs) It's the intellect and the emotion.
Prabhupāda: How vague ideas. And they are passing on philosophy. "He" contradicts. You say "He." And again He is impersonal.
Carol Cameron: At the emotional level it's a very personal . . .
Prabhupāda: Why should you emotional? You are a philosopher. You should talk very nicely.
Carol Cameron: Talk?
Amogha: He said, why be emotional? You are a philosopher, so talk very nicely.
Carol Cameron: Oh. (surprised) I don't philosophize.
Amogha: What she just said was that He is impersonal, but He incorporates personal features.
Carol Cameron: If God is in everything, then the personal attributes must be part of Him, it, whatever.
Amogha: She says personal attributes are part of God.
Carol Cameron: But God is not just limited to . . .
Prabhupāda: You have no idea of God.
Carol Cameron: No. I don't think . . .
Prabhupāda: He must be person. As soon as you say "He knows everything," "He creates," and so many other things, then these are all personal. You say "He." "He." These are all personal.
Carol Cameron: This is only our idea of God, though, not necessarily . . .
Prabhupāda: That means you have no clear idea of God. You have vague idea. So you have to learn what is God.
Carol Cameron: You think you can know the nature of God?
Amogha: She says do you think you can know the nature of God?
Prabhupāda: Yes. You can know also.
Carol Cameron: In an intellectual way?
Prabhupāda: You can know also.
Carol Cameron: You might know something in your heart, but not be able to express it.
Prabhupāda: Why not express it? You can express it. If whatever is within your heart, if you cannot express, then you are not perfect. You must express what is within your heart very clearly. Not that I have got something within my heart and I cannot express. That means my knowledge is imperfect.
Carol Cameron: So often our understanding moves sort of separately, the emotional, the heart.
Prabhupāda: Emotion is not required for scientific knowledge. Emotion is not . . . useless. It must be factual. Emotion is no use. Emotion is useful in high, ecstatic love. Not for scientific study of something you require emotion. No.
Carol Cameron: But in the bhakti way of doing things, this emotion and love are very closely entwined, aren't they?
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is higher stage. Not in the beginning. In the beginning devotion means I should be devoted to you. Why should I be devoted to you unless you are worthy? Just like Kṛṣṇa says: "You surrender unto Me." So unless I understand that Kṛṣṇa is worth for my surrendering, He is worthy, why shall I surrender to Kṛṣṇa? If I demand, immediately you have come, that you surrender, would you like to do that?
Carol Cameron: To surrender?
Prabhupāda: If I ask you that, "You surrender." I am meeting you for the first time. Would you like to surrender?
Carol Cameron: Yes.
Prabhupāda: I don't think. (laughter)
Carol Cameron: To want to and to do it is different.
Prabhupāda: No, unless you are fully aware of my abilities,
Prabhupāda: . . . qualities, why should you surrender? . . . (indistinct) . . . so before surrendering, one has to study the person where he is going to surrender. Then he surrenders. That is real surrender. And blindly surrender, that will not stay. So our first business is to surrender to God; therefore we must know what is God. Then you must surrender. And the emotion is good. That means you are advanced. If you understand that, "God is giving us everything," so that emotion is very good. If one from the very beginning becomes emotional, "Oh, God is so kind. God is so great that He is giving us everything, our necessities. I must serve Him," this emotion is very good. But for ordinary man, this emotion does not come. He wants to study what is God. Then when he fully understands, "Oh, God is so great," then that emotion is very nice. That is genuine emotion. Otherwise emotion is sentiment. That will not stay. That will not endure. It is temporary.
Carol Cameron: Would the intellect be helpful in knowing God?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Unless you have got the necessary intellect, then you are no better than the animals. The animals have no intellect to understand God, but the human being has got that intellect. That is the distinction between animal and human being. (break) . . . sleeping, the human being also sleeps—they also sleep. Then sex enjoyment: the human being also enjoy, and the animals also enjoy. And protection from fear or becoming fearful: the human being is also fearful and arranges for protection, and the animal also does. So far the primary necessities of life, that is equal in animal and human being. But the human being has a special intellect developed than the animals, that he can understand what he is, what is God, what is this cosmic manifestation, and what is the aim of life, how we should conduct. These things are prerogatives for the human being. The animals have no such prerogative. So if we do not utilize these special intellectual activities, then we remain animal. We do not make any development.
So at the present moment they are improving the method of primary necessities of life—eating, sleeping, mating and defending. They are thinking, "The dog is eating on the floor; if we can eat on table, chair and nice dish, that is advancement of civilization." They are thinking like that. The dog is sleeping on the floor, and if we sleep in very nice apartment, very decorated—that is advancement of civilization. The dog is having sexual intercourse on the street without any shame, and we are also coming to that point already. And if we have sex intercourse in the name of love and so on, so on, that is advancement. And dog is defending with his jaws and nails and teeth, and you are defending with atomic bomb, therefore we are advanced in civilization. But they have forgotten that the human being has got this special intellect to understand God. That they are not doing. Just like you are going to be a doctor in anthropology. Is it not?
Carol Cameron: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Where is the sense of God there?
Carol Cameron: I only do it for a living. The other side of me is something . . .
Prabhupāda: No, I mean to say the anthropology, it is a big scientific department. Where is the understanding of God there?
Carol Cameron: I find it difficult to reconcile the love of God with actually doing something like this.
Prabhupāda: Then how you are going to speculate on anthropology?
Carol Cameron: Hmm.
Prabhupāda: If you cannot adjust, how you are wasting your time in this science, anthropology? It is a false science.
Carol Cameron: I'm waiting to be led into something which is good.
Prabhupāda: There is no meaning.
Carol Cameron: Yes. You can only decide in . . .
Prabhupāda: The whole theory, Darwin's theory, is a false theory. It has no sound background. He says it is theory. Theory is not science. I can propose some theory, "It is like that," but that is not science. Science means observation and experiment. That is science. You observe how the rules are working, and when you practically bring them into experiment, then it is science. If you simply theorize, that is not science. Mental speculation. It has no benefit. You can speculate, constructing a castle in the air. That is not a very good thing. You should present something which will benefit the people, and practical. That is science.
Carol Cameron: Do you think it is possible to live in, say, an education framework, or should it be something quite separate?
Prabhupāda: Education, if it is not for the benefit of the people, then what is the use of such education? That is not education. Education means something which will benefit the mass of people. That is education—to enlighten them to do something better. That is education. And this whole Darwin's theory is false. But people are giving too much stress. First of all, anyone, even Darwin, he's not independent. Just like Darwin has died. So he is under the control of something higher. Nobody wants to die, but he is forced to die. Is it not? Then where is his independence?
Carol Cameron: That is the illusion.
Amogha: She says that is the illusion of independence.
Prabhupāda:? Yes, so if you simply in illusion you live, then where is your education? If you remain in darkness, then where is your education? Illusion means darkness. So if you are in darkness, now what is your education? And where is your philosophy?
Carol Cameron: The only way to remove this darkness is through love. Is this what you are saying?
Prabhupāda: Love is far away. First of all you be educated.
Carol Cameron: How? In what way?
Prabhupāda: Education means right knowledge. Right knowledge. Just like everyone wants to live. Nobody wants to die. So the enquiry should be that, "I do not wish to die. Why death is forced upon me?" What is that force? What is the nature of that force? If I submit, "Yes, the force is there," then where is my knowledge? I do not wish to die. So why death is forced upon me? Nobody wants miserable condition of life, but miserable condition of life is enforced upon me. So this should be first of all enquired, that I do not want these things, and who is enforcing upon me these things? This is the first enquiry, philosophy.
Carol Cameron: I tend to approach from the other side and ask, "Who am I?" and "What is this thing that I call myself?"
Prabhupāda: It is everyone's problem. I don't want something, but something is enforced upon me. Just like you are now a young girl. You do not like to be old woman, but you will have to become old woman.
Carol Cameron: Become . . .?
Amogha: Old woman.
Carol Cameron: Oh, yes. Hmm.
Prabhupāda: Nature will force you that after such and such age, after forty years of age, you must become old, and you must not remain so beautiful. This is forced. But no one wants that. No woman wants that, "I shall look not beautiful, and my flesh should be flabby and no more luster." I don't want all these things. Why it is forced?
Carol Cameron: Suffering and pain leads people to God, doesn't it? This is a feature of . . . (indistinct)
Amogha: She says doesn't the suffering and pain lead people towards God?
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is the law, but we are so dull-headed that we do not enquire. That is my statement, that you should enquire, "Who is forcing these things?" Then there is enquiry of God. First of all we must be . . . just like a dog, he cannot understand. He's under chain. He's leading a life most dependent. And he is jolly. He is jumping here and there. That is dog's life that he's . . . if the master kills him, he cannot do anything. But he is very jolly. He is jumping. That is dog's life. That is not human life. Human life is that I am dependent in every step, still I am declaring independent. What is this nonsense? This enquiry should be there, like that. He is dependent in every step, exactly like the cats and dogs, but he is claiming, "I am independent."
Carol Cameron: Is it possible to carry out that enquiry at the time you're engaged in activities?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. That is the real enquiry. Wherefrom my life has begun? What is the ultimate goal of my life? Why I am put into these conditions which I do not like? Who is enforcing? These things should be asked. That is the proper enquiries of the human being. And we cannot solve the question of birth, death, old age and disease, and you are theorizing something utopian. What is the use of such advancement of knowledge? I'll live for fifty years and sixty years, and the Darwin's theory, they are calculating gap of millions of years. There is a gap of millions of years, and we will live for fifty years. How we are taking calculation of millions of years? Speculation simply. And misleading people. A honest man should not mislead others. He should understand that his knowledge is limited. How can I say something theorizing? That is not very good business. And misleading people. I have no perfect knowledge. I am theorizing. What is the use? I have no actually accurate knowledge, and I am theorizing. I am misleading people. Big bluff. That is going on. An honest man should not take part in big bluffs. First of all you must have accurate knowledge, then you give knowledge to others. That is our proposition. First of all make your life perfect, then you try to give knowledge. If you have no knowledge, vague knowledge, not definite knowledge, then why should you try to give knowledge to others?
Carol Cameron: Can you have perfect knowledge?
Carol Cameron: Can you have perfect knowledge . . .
Carol Cameron: I mean ultimately you might say that I might be able to have some, but it's still a bit doubtful. In the near future how could you ever . . .
Prabhupāda: Perfect knowledge you can have immediately, provided you take knowledge from the perfect. If you receive knowledge from a bogus person, then how you can have perfect knowledge? Knowledge has to be received from a person. Why shall I go to a school, college, teachers, guru? To receive knowledge. So if your teacher, guru or parent, those who are superior, if they are perfect, then you get perfect knowledge. But if your teacher is a bogus, then you get bogus knowledge.
Carol Cameron: And this is immediate, is it?
Carol Cameron: This is immediate.
Amogha: She says is this immediate, the reception of perfect knowledge?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like we are giving knowledge from Bhagavad-gītā. This is perfect knowledge. You take it; you'll become perfect.
Carol Cameron: And your actions are perfect actions?
Prabhupāda: What is that?
Amogha: And your actions are perfect actions?
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find . . . you have read Bhagavad-gītā? No.
Carol Cameron: Mm.
Prabhupāda: It is said, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto (BG 18.65). "Think of God." So we are doing this. Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa—we are thinking of Kṛṣṇa. The direction is there, and we are doing that. Therefore my action is perfect. If the physician says that "You take this medicine in such and such dose. You don't do this, and do this," if I follow, then I'm cured, perfect.
Carol Cameron: Does a man then stop judging his actions?
Prabhupāda: No, if I know that the knowledge which I am receiving from the person is perfect, then there is no question of judging. You simply follow.
Carol Cameron: So it's a matter of complete faith.
Prabhupāda: Just like a child. Child assumes that, "My father is perfect." So actually a father should be perfect at least for the child. So whatever the father, mother gives him knowledge, that is perfect. Father says: "My dear child, this is called 'table.' " The child does not know what is table, but he understands from his father. He says: "This is table." So when the child says it is table, it is fact. This is perfect. He may be imperfect, he is child, but because he is repeating the perfect knowledge of his father, whatever he is speaking is perfect, because he has received the knowledge from the perfect father. That . . . in this way we can gather knowledge. Actually the child inquires from the father, "Father, what is this?" Father smiles at child, "This is called bell. If you push your hand in this . . ." then he gets the perfect knowledge. He tries it. "Oh, it is coming." The knowledge is there. He may be imperfect, but the instruction he has received, that is perfect. Similarly, if you get instruction from the perfect, then your knowledge is perfect, and if you receive knowledge—just like anthropology—from an imperfect person, Darwin, then whole thing is imperfect. So why should we waste our time in imperfect knowledge?
Carol Cameron: Because there are so few people around us who think they are perfect.
Prabhupāda: That is another thing, that people want to be cheated, so I shall be perfect cheater. (laughter) That is another thing. And take my doctorate title, being a perfect cheater.
Carol Cameron: If you look for those who are perfect, you don't find any.
Amogha: She says there are so few perfect people, if you look for a perfect person, you don't find any.
Prabhupāda: Therefore we are giving—"Here is Kṛṣṇa. Here is the perfect person. You take Him." But you don't follow Him. Just like I began with: Jesus Christ is perfect, but you don't follow him.
Carol Cameron: Mm.
Prabhupāda: You don't like to follow him. You follow Darwin. (laughter) So whose fault it is? The perfect person's fault, or your fault? You don't like to hear from the perfect person. You want to hear from a humbug, bogus person. That is the defect. (long silence)
Carol Cameron: Thank you. Thank you.
Prabhupāda: Hare Kṛṣṇa.
Gaṇeśa: All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda. (offers obeisances)
Prabhupāda: Give him some prasāda.
Amogha: He's bringing something for you.
Carol Cameron: We use your record, the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Temple album. It's beautiful. We sing the chants every night now. They're rather lovely.
Amogha: She says they have the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Temple album, and every night they sing the chants.
Amogha: At home. They have the record from London.
Carol Cameron: They're pretty hard to get hold of. I wish there were more around.
Prabhupāda: Yes, that will benefit. That will benefit.
Amogha: They are available by mail from America.
Carol Cameron: I think a lot of people don't know it exists, that's the problem.
Prabhupāda: That record which was done by George Harrison?
Carol Cameron: Yes. It's very rare to find music like that here.
Prabhupāda: George Harrison has contributed many. He gave me first of all $19,000 for printing Kṛṣṇa book. Now he has purchased one house in London, and we are using that. It is £200,000. Yes, he is a good boy, good soul.
Carol Cameron: You don't have a group in Perth, do you?
Prabhupāda: He is also chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa. Yes. He chants always Hare Kṛṣṇa. He has made some record, "Kṛṣṇa."
Amogha: "My dear Lord, I really want to see You." Something like that.
Prabhupāda: Like that, yes. "Kṛṣṇa," he has said.
Śrutakīrti: Yes. His latest album, "Kṛṣṇa, Where Are You?"
Amogha: Oh, I haven't seen it.
Prabhupāda: And in the record album he has given this picture.
Amogha: This one. (shows picture) I'll go check.
Prabhupāda: So you are intelligent girl, you study about this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That will benefit you. The anthropology, you may get some degree, adoration. What is the benefit?
Amogha: He's bringing it. You can keep this.
Carol Cameron: Thank you.
Amogha: Take it with you, the whole . . .
Carol Cameron: Ah, thank you.
Prabhupāda: Jaya. (Carol Cameron leaves) They enquire why I have come to the West. If I enquire that two thousand years ago you have taught that, "Thou shall not kill," and your business is only to kill; I have come to enquire from you, "What is your answer? How you have become civilized, that you cannot accept one instruction of Jesus Christ. And you are declaring yourself as Christian and civilized." This is my question. Answer it. In two thousand years, first of all you began killing Christ. Never mind; still, two thousand years passed, you could not stop killing? You could not accept the first instruction. What kind of civilized man?
Jayadharma: Sometimes they say, Prabhupāda, that Jesus meant just . . .
Jayadharma: . . . just human beings.
Prabhupāda: All right. That means you are killer of human beings. That means, in the beginning, you are all killers of human beings. And therefore you killed Jesus Christ. That is not very good qualification. Killer of human being . . . he said: "Thou shall not kill." Where he says that, "Thou shall not kill human being"? That is your interpretation.
Śrutakīrti: That's obvious he meant only human beings, because he himself was killing animals.
Prabhupāda: Christ was killing animals?
Śrutakīrti: Well, he instructed his own disciples to distribute the fish. So he was also involved in killing of animals.
Prabhupāda: Yes, but he said that, "The fruits and vegetable should be your flesh." What is that?
Śrutakīrti: Well, that was before Christ. He never said that.
Paramahaṁsa: He also said that.
Śrutakīrti: Where does he say that?
Paramahaṁsa: He said that in the . . . (indistinct) . . . yes. The Bible says that, and Christ also spoke that, that "The grasses of the fields and the fruits of the trees shall be your meat."
Prabhupāda: Then there is contradiction?
Śrutakīrti: Served them wine.
Paramahaṁsa: Yes. The Christians, they always say that "Christ was eating fish and drinking wine, so what harm are we doing. Drinking a little alcohol, eating a little meat?"
Prabhupāda: When how did he say that, "Thou shall not kill"?
Śrutakīrti: That was also . . . that was actually the Ten Commandments. That was given by God.
Gaṇeśa: Given to Moses.
Śrutakīrti: That was given to Moses by God. The Ten Commandments.
Prabhupāda: That is not Christ has said?
Śrutakīrti: Well, Christ enforced it.
Paramahaṁsa: It was accepted by him as one of the rules.
Śrutakīrti: Christ's greatest commandment was to love God above all things. So if one is to love God, he must follow His instruction.
Prabhupāda: Then, who is following the instruction?
Śrutakīrti: We are.
Prabhupāda: But supposing Christ distributed fish, but did he say that we shall maintain regular slaughterhouse for killing animals?
Śrutakīrti: He was against that. He threw the men out of the temple because they were selling lambs in the temple to be offered to the . . . at the altar. So he kicked them out, saying: "This temple is not a place for selling animals for slaughter."
Paramahaṁsa: But in one place they say that Christ encouraged fishermen. Because he came, and the fishermen were fishing on one side of the boat, and Christ came along and said: "You are fishing on the wrong side of the boat." He said: "Put your nets on the other side, and you will get more fish." And they did that, and they got huge amounts of fish. And so they were encouraged in their fish-eating this way.
Gaṇeśa: Jesus also said to the fisherman, he said: "Give up you fishing, and I will make you fishers of men." He said this to his disciples. (laughter)
Prabhupāda: Then on the whole it comes that these instructions are sometimes contradictory.
Paramahaṁsa: Not only that, but they say that . . . usually when it comes right down to it, the Bible has gone through so many interpretations and so many changes in the last two thousand years that. . .
Prabhupāda: Yes. It is very difficult.
Paramahaṁsa: People . . . I've talked to professors who know the original Hebrew and the original tongues that the Bible was written in. And they say that is has changed so much that you can hardly . . .
Prabhupāda: Yes, they are changing. Just like he said: "Thou shall not kill." They are now changing, "Thou shall not commit murder." They are doing that.
Paramahaṁsa: Yes. They have a modern Bible, using all modern terminology.
Prabhupāda: So when you change, then the authority is lost. Just like in our Society, sometimes they do something nonsense and they, "Prabhupāda said." (laughter) They are doing that. We know that. Things deteriorated like that. Therefore Kṛṣṇa said, sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ kaunteya (BG 4.2): "And in due course of time, this yoga was lost. Therefore I am repeating the same thing, old philosophy, to you." So it requires like that.
Paramahaṁsa: The one thing about the Christian religion is that through the last two thousand years, Christ's original teachings may have been good teachings, may have been potent preaching, but because there were no potent preachers to carry on the preaching, therefore the whole thing has been lost. But if there are potent preachers to continue reestablishing and establishing the principles again . . .
Prabhupāda: So how you'll find, if everything is now changed? Where you will get the right information?
Paramahaṁsa: That's the problem. That's why there are so many hundreds of branches of Christianity, literally hundreds. So many divisions of Christianity. Some people accept this, some people accept this.
Prabhupāda: Therefore we should advocate that Bhagavad-gītā is not like that. It is coming in the same form as it was taught to Arjuna. If you challenge that, "How you know that it has not been changed?" the ācāryas are there. The ācāryas are there, and they are accepting; therefore it is correct. We have to follow the ācārya. So when we see the ācāryas have accepted, then we accept. All the ācāryas—Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, before that, other ācāryas also—they accept. They never say that, "This was not in the original scripture. It has been changed." You don't find any such statement of the ācāryas. The best thing, therefore, if you want a religious system, Bhagavad-gītā is coming without any contradiction, change, for the last five thousand years. You accept it. Other scriptures are newly introduced, and there are so many doubts, so many interpretations. So if you want real religious system, this is the scripture spoken directly by God and accepted by all the ācāryas, so take it. If you are really after God, so you take enlightenment from this perfect scripture. If you want truth, it doesn't matter wherefrom it is coming; I must accept the truth.
Paramahaṁsa: The Christians openly admit that the Bible has been changed, but they also have a lot of doubt about our scripture.
Prabhupāda: No, even they doubt, the Christian religion is now dead. That we see practically. So many churches are not working. Nobody comes there. Nobody comes.
Paramahaṁsa: As they have seen that their scripture has been changed, they also have a very strong doubt about our scripture. They say: "Well, yours in even older than ours, so somewhere along the line," they say: "it must have been changed."
Prabhupāda: You say, but those who are followers of the authorities, they do not say. You are outsider. You say it may be. It may not be, but you have no authority. You are simply taking a hypothesis, "It may be." But those who actually are following, they do not say. What about this? Whose version is more important? Your or their? You are outsider. You are simply suggesting because you had a bad experience. But one who has no such experience, why he should follow your advice?
Paramahaṁsa: Actually, if anyone looks at Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, presented by yourself, then they can logically see that it is perfect.
Prabhupāda: Yes, we have got our argument and logic, everything. Why should we blindly follow?
Gaṇeśa: The results can be seen practically that those who are following the Bhagavad-gītā written by you, Śrīla Prabhupāda, are giving up these nonsense activities.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Letters are posted?
Paramahaṁsa: No, not yet.
Prabhupāda: How they can deliver if you don't post?
Paramahaṁsa: Well, the next time someone goes in. This evening someone can post.
Prabhupāda: There is no letterbox?
Gaṇeśa: There's not one close. I can post them tonight.
Prabhupāda: No, night is useless. Nobody is coming to clear.
Gaṇeśa: Yes, there's one collection at eight o'clock in the nighttime.
Prabhupāda: Oh, then why not post there? It is six.
Gaṇeśa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, if the knowledge was handed down by the saintly kings, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2), how is it that the knowledge was lost?
Prabhupāda: When it was not handed down; simply understood by speculation. Or if it is not handed down as it is. They might have made some changes. Or they did not hand down. Suppose I handed it down to you, but if you do not do that, then it is lost. Now the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is going on in my presence. Now after my departure, if you do not do this, then it is lost. If you go on as you are doing now, then it will go on. But if you stop . . .
Prabhupāda: Hare Kṛṣṇa. (devotees offer obeisances) (end)