Go to Vaniquotes | Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanimedia

Vanisource - the complete essence of Vedic knowledge

751226 - Conversation - Sanand

His Divine Grace
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

751226RF-SANAND - December 26, 1975 - 57:25 Minutes

(Conversation on roof)

Harikeśa: Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Prabhupāda: What is the thesis of life?

Harikeśa: According to who?

Prabhupāda: Anyone.

Harikeśa: Anyone. Some people say that life is to be enjoyed; life is simply there for enjoyment.

Prabhupāda: So the answer is that whether you are actually enjoying life.

Harikeśa: Well, right now I'm not actually enjoying life, so . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Harikeśa: . . . I have to find out . . .

Prabhupāda: Then the aim is to enjoy life.

Harikeśa: Yes. So I have to find out the means to enjoy, and to negate the pain and to make the pleasure more.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's very nice proposal. But whether, at the present moment, or in the history, whether a man is enjoying life or suffering?

Harikeśa: Well, men . . . men have actually never really enjoyed, because they never understood enough about themselves. They were never able to overcome their difficulties due to ignorance.

Prabhupāda: So then the next question will be that how to become enjoyable, or how to enjoy? The next question is . . . there may be different theses. So our thesis is that we are trying to enjoy life by covering ourself. The crude example . . . just like sometimes before, the . . . it may be nowadays also current—the contraceptive method was by using one cover. Do you know that?

Harikeśa: Hmm.

Prabhupāda: What is called?

Harikeśa: Prophylactic.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Harikeśa: A prophylactic.

Prabhupāda: Not prophylactic. Technical name. So . . . but that was not enjoyable. So then they discovered pills. So covered enjoyment is not enjoyment. It is not complete enjoyment. The same . . . the real enjoyment in this material world is sex. Now if we want to enjoy sex covered with coats and pants, is that enjoyment is pleasing?

Harikeśa: No.

Prabhupāda: Therefore actually, when they want to enjoy sex in the private room, they become naked. So they are seeking enjoyment with this material body, but they are not able to enjoy on account of being covered. This is the thesis.

Harikeśa: Hmm. This is the Kṛṣṇa conscious thesis.

Prabhupāda: Well, why do you come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness immediately? From practical point of view. So why they want to enjoy sex life being naked? That means covered enjoyment is not enjoyment. It is hampered enjoyment. Therefore we living entities, or, say, human being, we want enjoyment. That's all right. But we are not able to enjoy fully because we are covered by something. This is the thesis. This is the thesis. But these rascals, or the ignorant person, they do not know that, "I am covered by something; therefore my enjoyment is not complete." This is the thesis. So you answer this. Our enjoyment is not being completed on account of being covered by this material body. This is the thesis.

Harikeśa: So the antithesis would be there is no . . .

Prabhupāda: The antithesis will be how to become uncovered. That is antithesis. And the synthesis will be that because we are unable to uncover immediately, therefore must be some synthesis.

Harikeśa: Oh, I never thought of it that way. That's . . .

Prabhupāda: This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The synthesis of the covering and the thesis of the soul should be synthesized by arrangement. And that we are teaching.

Harikeśa: Dialectical spiritualism.

Prabhupāda: Yes . . . not dia . . . dialectical means keep spiritualism or materialism. It is dialectic. Two sides there are: the material and the spiritual. These ignorant rascals, cats- and dogs-like men, they have no information of the thing which is covered. They're simply dealing with the covering. Therefore their knowledge is imperfect, and they're not successful by so many theses. They do not know the real problem. Who is enjoyer? That they do not know. That enjoyer is covered. And they are talking on the cover. That . . . in Bengal, it is a proverb, said that, sobraniye tanatan. In the . . . I think I was talking on this. In the coconut, the coconut sweet pulp and water is within. And they are struggling with the fibers above the coconut. Coconut . . . they have got some information coconut is enjoyable, but where is the enjoyable article is there, that they do not know.

They have simply information this body, and the coconut's body is covered with fibers. And they are fighting with the fibers. None of these so-called capitalists or, what is called, Communists, they do not know where is the real substance is. Superficially they are fighting on the platform of fiber covering. That's all. Sobraniye tanatan, this Bengali word exactly. They're fighting just like dogs. Actually they do not know how to become happy, but one dog is barking upon another dog, and they're fighting, attacking, barking—useless. The dogs and cats, they do not know what is the value of life, and they fight on the covering, same fiber, fight. But here is a chance, human being. Therefore dialectic, dialectic materialism. You should be materialist; you should not condemn anything, both the inside and outside. The inside pulp of coconut requires the covering outside; otherwise, it will be spoiled. Crude example. But the real substance is inside, not outside. But these rascals, they have no information of the inside substance. They think that "Here is coconut. Let us try to find out happiness," and they are simply struggling to adjust the fibers. Therefore they have been described as mūḍhaḥ, rascals. Hmm? What do you think, Haṁsadūta?

Haṁsadūta: Very perfect.

Harikeśa: Completely smashed all the opposition. No more arguments.

Prabhupāda: So you have to do this, to fight all these rascals.

Harikeśa: 'Cause all philosophy is based on the proposition that, "I am this body."

Prabhupāda: That's all.

Harikeśa: Or "I am this . . ."

Prabhupāda: Then he remains the same animal, cats and dogs. There is no advancement. Therefore you see, despite so many rascal philosophers in the Western countries, they simply fight and bomb and cheat and politics, diplomacy. The same—on the surface of the coconut, not inside. So you have to prove that, "All of you are rascals. You do not know where to get pleasure." They're missing that point. All rascals, they're putting new philosophy, thesis. So what is the value of that thesis? He does not know. It requires expert. Just like somebody has told, "In this land, there is gold." So somebody's digging here, somebody's digging there, somebody's digging there. And they are . . . do not find gold, and struggling. But one expert, what is called, soil expert.

Harikeśa: Geologist.

Prabhupāda: Geologist. No, geologist and soil ex . . . soil expert.

Harikeśa: Minerologist.

Haṁsadūta: Mineralogist.

Prabhupāda: He can say: "Here is gold. You dig here. Here is the gold mine." Then you get gold mine. And one who is not expert, simply he has understood that, "In this area there is gold mine," and they are simply fighting; everyone has come to dig the gold. But without expert knowledge, they're simply fighting. They do not find gold. That is the position. So expert knowledge is Kṛṣṇa. He therefore begins: dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā (BG 2.13). Within this body, the living force, that is the soul. Because that soul is there, it is changing body, different. So try to understand that active principle. And where is that understanding? They simply putting different theses. They do not . . . neither do they know antithesis or synthesis.

So our . . . we know the thesis, antithesis and synthesis, that this soul, living entity, is within this body. Now the body is important so long the soul is there. Otherwise, body is a lump of matter. So the soul is suffering. He's seeking after enjoyment, but he's suffering. So therefore . . . the most prominent suffering is death. That he cannot avoid. Or he's not . . . the so-called materialistic scientists, they have not been able, neither they do know, who is the sufferer or enjoyer. They take this body, the same fiber platform. So actually they are rascals. What is the value of their thesis, antithesis?

Harikeśa: So actually everything . . . all the arguments they bring up is simply the material thesis. There is no antithesis 'cause . . . just like hot and cold. Hot is . . .

Prabhupāda: No. They're seeking—the same example—the enjoyable thing, on the platform of shell of the coconut, fibers of the coconut. They do not know that within the shell, within the fiber, there is coconut. That they do not know. You said two sides. But they do not know the other side. They only know the one side, the body. There will be synthesis when there are two. But they have no two. They simply one subject matter, the body, and that is useless struggle. It is just like Māyāvādīs, neti neti: "Not this, not this. Not this, not this." Therefore they advocate revolution, that something is going on for some days; again revolution. That means "Not this," neti neti. The experiment says . . . experiment. Everyone is doing that. They are trying to derive happiness through some system or idea of adjustment, but it becomes spoiled and useless after some time. Therefore they say another revolution required.

Harikeśa: In the dictionary, that, the definition of experiment was you try it and see if it works.

Prabhupāda: But if it is not perfect, how it will work?

Harikeśa: Not possible.

Prabhupāda: An experiment means, those who are making experiment, they do not know where is the perfect thing. The same example, that if you make experiment about understanding who is your father, it will all fail. How long you'll go on inquiring, ask any old man, "Sir, are you my father?" Or will this process be successful at any time? Without consulting your mother, if you simply go on asking all old men, "Sir, are you my father?" And if somebody falsely says, "Yes, I am your father," is that successful inquiry? This is going on.

Harikeśa: Well, it gives mental satisfaction, and that, that satisfaction . . .

Prabhupāda: That is rascaldom, mental satisfaction. Just like a child, you can cheat him by mental satisfaction, giving him one lozenges and take from him hundred rupees note.

Harikeśa: But he's satis . . .

Prabhupāda: That is also mental satisfaction.

Harikeśa: But happiness is a state of mind. So the child is happy . . .

Prabhupāda: Such mind is imperfect. What is this satisfaction? If mind is imperfect, so mental satisfaction is never complete satisfaction. That is also another illusion. It will be changed again. Again revolution. This is going on. So in the dialectic process, try to bring this thesis, that within this body there is the real enjoyer, and try to convince them in that way. That will be great service.

Harikeśa: You've already done it. (laughs)

Prabhupāda: I've done with a few selected men. Now it has to be spread. We have to face bigger field. Then it will be nice. Hmm? Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This is good. This is scientific method. So, so what is that thesis? That thesis is given by Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa gave the thesis: asmin dehe, the proprietor of the body is there. Within this body . . . this is thesis.

Harikeśa: Actually, though, the . . . the thesis in Engel's philosophy would start off with the present existence, the present reality.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Harikeśa: It starts with the present, what is now presently existing, and then the . . .

Prabhupāda: Well, presently or . . . that is another foolishness. The . . . the body and the moving active principle is eternally existing. It is not that formerly the body did not stop acting. It is dead. Study the whole history of human beings, any being—the death is always there. Then what is modern effort? Birth, death, old age, disease, they're always existing. Why do they say "modern"? This is eternal fact. Why they should say it is modern?

Harikeśa: Well, it's the present culmination of synthesis and antithesis.

Prabhupāda: No, no, no. That is their imperfect knowledge. They do not know. What is thesis, what is antithesis and the synthesis, they do not know. As philosopher, they have found out the three things. But so far the solution of the problem of human society . . . you cannot solve the problems of animals' society, that is not possible. So this thesis can be understood by human being. The animals cannot understand it, that within this body the soul is there. On account of presence of the soul, everything is going on, bodily affair. This thesis cannot be understood by the animals. So if you cannot understand, then you are also animal, although you are two-legged. So what is the value of your thesis, antithesis? You are animal.

Harikeśa: I think a thesis, it would be described in the dictionary as a proposition.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Who can give proposition unless one is human being? The dog cannot give proposition. The animal cannot give proposition. So who is giving this proposition throughout the Western world, that within this body there is the real person? Who understands this? Therefore they're all animals. What is the value of their so-called philosophy? Hmm? What do you think? Yasyātmā buddhiḥ kunāpe tri-dhātuke (SB 10.84.13). If he's in the bodily concept of life, then he remains animal. What is the value of his thesis? Now here is the thesis. Now antithesis is also there. Actually we are trying to adjust. Only Society. The thesis is the soul, the antithesis is the body, and synthesis is how to adjust the body and soul so that the soul be benefited from this entanglement.

Harikeśa: That's the varṇāśrama system?

Prabhupāda: That is different thing only.

Harikeśa: Okay.

Prabhupāda: Lat . . . first of all, this is the problem.

Harikeśa: First to find out the problem . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Harikeśa: . . . and discuss the problem.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is dialectic. So you can write "dialectic spiritualism."

Harikeśa: Dialectic spiritualism. I think they should print this also in Back to Godhead.

Prabhupāda: Oh, yes.

Haṁsadūta: It'd make a good article.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Haṁsadūta: It would make a good article, what you've just spoken.

Prabhupāda: So write.

Harikeśa: You so completely destroy the opposition, it's very hard to say anything more.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That you have to prove. You can eulogize your Guru Mahārāja, but you have to learn it and face the public and be strong to defend yourself. That is success. Not by praising your Guru Mahārāja. You'll praise your Guru Mahārāja. That is not very difficult. But be victorious to the opposing elements. Then you will praise your Guru Mahārāja nicely. At home, you can praise your Guru Mahārāja, and Guru Mahārāja be satisfied, "Oh, my disciples are praising me." That is not very . . . that is good, respectful. That is the qualification. But you have to fight. Then your Guru Mahārāja will be glorified.

Harikeśa: The problem nowadays though is that I met some of these Socialists on the train, and I would ask them, "What is your philosophy?" and they would just smile and . . .

Prabhupāda: There is no philosophy. They're cats and dogs. What philosophy they have?

Harikeśa: They don't know their philosophy. So how can you defeat them?

Prabhupāda: The philosophy classes are being closed now in the universities.

Harikeśa: It is useless.

Prabhupāda: Yes. They're thinking it is useless, simply mental speculation. And Bhagavad-gītā says, tattva jñānārthaṁ darśanam. Philosophy means to find out the ultimate truth. That is philosophy.

Harikeśa: But actually this is the proof of Marx's philosophy . . .

Prabhupāda: No. Therefore I say the dialectic. The dialectics should proceed further. They have ended this, that the workers should be the proprietor.

Harikeśa: So now the . . . the . . . there's no philosophy. So the worker, they are simply frustrated. Now they're going to rebel and revolt without any philosophy.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That will be natural. Because if you cannot give perfect philosophy, then they will revolt. Andhā yathāndhaiḥ . . . you are a rascal, and you're trying to lead other rascals with some rascal philosophy. How long this rascaldom will go on?

Harikeśa: So there's no need for any movement . . .

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Harikeśa: . . . Communist movement.

Prabhupāda: There is need of movement.

Harikeśa: No, no. I mean there's no need for any organized Communist movement, because according to their philosophy. . .

Prabhupāda: Yes, because they're fools. They're as fools. They are simply criticizing the capitalists, that much. That much, there is something ideal that the state property should be equally divided. That's a good thesis. But they do not know that it is not the ultimate solution. You do not know who is the proprietor. You do not know the proprietor. These things belongs to Him. You are using it. I am thinking that, "You are proprietor." But actually you are not proprietor, He is proprietor. If that is the position, then I take it from you that, "You cannot possess. I shall possess." Then what is my possess? The same thing. As you took it, took it out from this man, so I took it . . . take it from you. So my position is the same. If you cannot find out who is the actual proprietor, then you may change hands; the problem remains there, that it, it does not belong to you. You are forcibly snatching from the proprietor, or without knowing the proprietor, you are making arrangement. What is the value of this arrangement?

Harikeśa: So it's just the animal philosophy of the strong dominating the weak . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's it.

Harikeśa: . . . in, in a new package.

Prabhupāda: "Might is right." That's all. This is going on.

Harikeśa: So this was the philosophy of Machiavelli that, "Might makes right."

Prabhupāda: But Machiavelli also does not know who is the proprietor. That is the defect. Machiavelli also does not know. He's also another fool. So long you do not know who is the proprietor, then . . .

Harikeśa: But it's true. Might does make right.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Harikeśa: Kṛṣṇa is the strongest.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Kṛṣṇa says: "I am the proprietor." But they'll not accept it. Kṛṣṇa says, the real proprietor says that, "I am the bhokta. Sarva-loka-maheśvaram (BG 5.29)." But they are so rascal that they will deny the existence of Kṛṣṇa, or God, or the real proprietor. They claim to be proprietor for a few days, and they, by one slap of Kṛṣṇa's hand, they finished all proprietorship, and they are going, struggling. This ignorance is prevailing all over the world: does not know who is the proprietor, how I became proprietor, how I shall be enjoying. Nothing. The same thing, the dog philosophy: if the dog secures a morsel of bread, he's thinking, "I am proprietor." Another one snatches: "I am proprietor." This is going on. But the dog has no sense that none of us will be proprietor.

So when we know who is the proprietor, then this Īśopaniṣad . . . tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). Everything, God's property. You enjoy for livelihood what is given to you. That's all. That is perfect philosophy. "I am the proprietor." That was the system in Vedic civilization. God is proprietor. King is the representative of God. He knows. He gives you some land that, "You take this land, produce your livelihood, utilizing this land, and whatever you produce, one fourth give me." Not a fixed tax. "If you produce, one fourth is mine. If you don't produce, there is no tax." This was the system. And that includes all tax. No botheration. So people were God-fearing, honest, simple-dealing. So "I have produced a hundred maunds of rice. The king, you can take twenty-five maunds. That is my obligation." And king is also satisfied. By distributing that grain, he maintains the whole government.

The real difficulty is all these rascals, they are not sufficiently educated. They are mūḍhas. And they are trying to solve the problems. That is not possible. That is andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ (SB 7.5.31). They are bound up. They're making adjustment, but . . . just like Gandhi was making adjustment; all of a sudden a man came, (makes sound like gun) phat. Finished. Kennedy was making some adjustment. Somebody came and killed him. It is like that. What is the value of your adjustments? It will be finished after some days. Therefore the Russians, they support revolution. They said: "It is necessary." They admit the imperfectness. And occasional revolution makes it perfect. This is their idea of perfection. But they do not enquire that, "What is that supreme power which makes our ideas of perfection imperfect?" These rascals, they do not never, do not ever enquire, "What is that power which forces to make our attempt frustrated, spoiled, and make it imperfect?" What do they say about this?

Haṁsadūta: They never come to this point.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Haṁsadūta: They never come to this point.

Prabhupāda: Just see how rascal they are. This is the fact. We make some arrangement, and after few years it becomes imperfect. They say the revolution required. Why? That is natural. And natural means a power which makes your arrangement spoiled. Then what is your brain? You have got some superior brain which nullifies your plan. Why don't you accept this?

Harikeśa: Like breaking the law and being thrown in jail . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Harikeśa: . . . after you are caught . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Harikeśa: . . . and then wondering why.

Prabhupāda: Yes. He does not know that, "I was imperfect, thief. Therefore I have put into jail." So we can face any philosopher. But I can give you ideas. You can write some small articles. Let them solve these thesis, antithesis and synthesis. They, they accept this thesis, antithesis?

Harikeśa: Oh, yeah.

Prabhupāda: Put them.

Harikeśa: And actually it's . . . it works very nicely, because the thesis doesn't have to be accepted as a fact in the beginning.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. But discuss on. That is dialectic. Complete discussion. That is wanted. That we want.

Harikeśa: So now if they're actually interested in the scientific method, they must accept our thesis for discussion.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Dialectic.

Harikeśa: And then they can put . . .

Prabhupāda: They have accepted dialectic. They . . . Marx says that this should be the conclusion of materialism: ultimately the worker shall enjoy.

Harikeśa: Fruitive. It's very fruitive.

Prabhupāda: Hah. That is good idea. But who is the worker, he does not know. Write small pamphlet, just like our Svarūpa Dāmodara has written small pamphlet. People, general people, they're also rascals, andhā. They can accept these rascals. But why we shall accept?

Harikeśa: This is experimental philosophy.

Prabhupāda: But that . . . experimental philosophy means rascaldom. If you do not know actually what is the fact, then you make experiment. That means you are rascal.

Harikeśa: I meant that this thesis, antithesis . . .

Prabhupāda: Just like Kṛṣṇa does not say: "Make an experiment." He says the fact, asmin dehe dehinaḥ: "The proprietor of the body is within this body." There is no question of experimenting.

Harikeśa: But that's our thesis.

Prabhupāda: Not . . . I say "thesis." Kṛṣṇa do . . . Kṛṣṇa says the fact.

Harikeśa: But I mean in order to . . .

Prabhupāda: But if you don't accept Kṛṣṇa's . . .

Harikeśa: Yeah, they don't accept. So that, that's our thesis.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Then, then take it as thesis.

Harikeśa: Thesis. So therefore it's an experiment.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Not experiment. It is to be subjected to discussion. That is not experiment, because the fact is there. Now whether it is fact, that you have to discuss.

Harikeśa: So this experimental knowledge should be strictly kept in the scientific realm? You know, discussion . . .? Because you asked me before to write on . . .

Prabhupāda: The scientific knowledge is already there, but as you do not accept it, then the question of discussion, or, you say, experiment, can come. The truth is already there. Just like the sun is the truth is there. Everyone knows. Now somebody says: "There is no light," and somebody says: "There is light." Now it has to be discussed.

Harikeśa: In his book, Lenin has a dialogue. He makes these dialogues. At his . . . I was just looking quickly. There's some dialogue here.

Prabhupāda: What is that dialogue?

Harikeśa: I haven't looked into it exactly, but I've seen . . . (looks through book) This is too . . .

Prabhupāda: Hmm?

Harikeśa: He's too insane to read quickly.

Prabhupāda: No, read it. Let us see.

Harikeśa: Okay. "The fundamental premises of the theory of knowledge of Mach and Averniu . . . Avenarius are frankly, simply and clearly expounded by them in their early philosophical works. To these works we shall now turn, postponing for later treatment an examination of the corrections and emendations subsequently made by these writers. 'The task of science,' Mach wrote in 1872, 'can only be: 1. to determine the laws of connection of ideas, psychology; 2. to discover . . .' "

Prabhupāda: That is not science, ideas.

Harikeśa: He's saying to determine the laws of connection of ideas.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Harikeśa: He says he wants to determine the laws of connection of ideas.

Prabhupāda: But idea is also not fact. And what is other word?

Harikeśa: "The laws of connection of ideas."

Prabhupāda: If the idea is imperfect, then where is the . . . what is the meaning of this law? That is also imperfect.

Harikeśa: Well, actually there's three things here, and they work together. 'Cause he calls this psychology. And the second one . . .

Prabhupāda: But psychology is also imperfect.

Harikeśa: So, yes, he's going to now connect that with physics. He says, "To discover the laws of connections of sensations . . ."

Prabhupāda: But physics, physical law, also, you are studying with your imperfect senses. So how far it is perfect? Just like the physical laws. There is heat in the sun, temperature. So you are seeing from long distance, and you are suggesting, "There cannot be any light." So this is imperfect.

Harikeśa: Well, what about the law of physics . . .? Oh, it's going to run out of tape. (break)

Prabhupāda: . . . no practical experience, actually, what is the position of the sun, because you cannot go there. So I may theori . . . here, here. (referring to massage)

Hari-śauri: Do this side first and then that side.

Harikeśa: Well, he's actually saying that this is the task of science. He's not speaking about the idea of there's life or not in the sun. What he's thinking of here is, for example, a sensation. A sensation is an actual fact. Just like if . . . there's a law that says equal and opposite reaction to actions. If I push some thing, some object, that as this object is being pushed this way, there is simultaneously an equal and opposite reaction, which is the force between the object and the floor, and the reaction comes in heat or friction. . .

Prabhupāda: Well, who made this arrangement?

Harikeśa: So that arrangement is a law.

Prabhupāda: Well, that law. Who made this law?

Harikeśa: Well, it's just a physical combination of matter.

Prabhupāda: Physical combination, then these physical activities are more powerful than your ideas.

Harikeśa: Yes. Therefore the third thing . . .

Prabhupāda: Then you have no control over the physical activities.

Harikeśa: No, we have control, because I have to push this.

Prabhupāda: No, you have no control.

Harikeśa: But I am pushing this. It is my will.

Prabhupāda: No, no. If you will that, "Let the sun be cool," will it be cool? You have no control over the physical elements. You have no control. So what is the use of your theorizing? That is foolish.

Harikeśa: Well, he's giving here the idea of science, that . . .

Prabhupāda: Science . . .

Harikeśa: There's a connection . . .

Prabhupāda: You have no complete science. You see some sporadic action of the scientific method. Just like we are in the sunshine. This is scientific. But you do not know how the sunshine is coming, and who is there who is supplying the heat and light and so on. So many things are there. You do not know.

Harikeśa: So your idea is that there's a limit to all this.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Because . . .

Harikeśa: It's not possible.

Prabhupāda: . . . anything, any ideas made by imperfect man is useless. That is our . . . our proposition. You are imperfect, and the sun is so perfect, physically, that how you can theorize unless you know the whole expert. If you say: "I know everything," then the question will be: "Who made this sun, so powerful, so extraordinarily heated, and light? Who made it?" You did . . . you have not made it. Where is your, that knowledge?

Harikeśa: As I read on, I find out that it . . .

Prabhupāda: These are all speculation. That's all.

Harikeśa: Definitely. Useless book.

Prabhupāda: Useless speculation.

Harikeśa: But this, this argument that's being brought up here, actually people are thinking about a lot, that there's an idea and there's, there's a fact . . .

Prabhupāda: That argument is . . . just like I told you, in my childhood I was thinking in the gramophone box there is a man. I could not think at that time without a man how this gramophone can sing so nicely. So "There is a man, and as soon as the record is . . . he gives, he sings." That . . . I was thinking like that.

Harikeśa: So he would say that you thought there was a man there, but actually there wasn't.

Prabhupāda: And somebody say one ghost. Or somebody may say something.

Harikeśa: But there wasn't.

Prabhupāda: But they're all imperfect knowledge. I may say man, you may say ghost, others may say something, but all of them are rascaldom. It has no value.

Harikeśa: So the third step in science means to see the fact and make the idea according to the fact.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is real science.

Harikeśa: So his method is the method of speculation.

Prabhupāda: That's all.

Harikeśa: First, there's the idea; the second, there's the real fact; and the third, there's the synthesis between the two.

Prabhupāda: They're all theories. The same experiment—to find out who is my father.

Harikeśa: All these guys are very dry.

Prabhupāda: It has no meaning.

Harikeśa: There's just talking. No value whatsoever. You can't even argue nicely with these men. They're just . . .

Prabhupāda: Yes, you cannot argue with dogs.

Harikeśa: Waste of time. They'll simply keep on barking.

Prabhupāda: But we can place our, what is called, facts, as we learn from Kṛṣṇa, and try to defend it. That is argument.

Harikeśa: Then if somebody has any intelligence left, he'll take it.

Prabhupāda: So you cannot begin with this sun. The beginning of educating is that put this thesis, as Kṛṣṇa is putting, that, that this body is not all in all—within the body there is soul.

Harikeśa: Unless that's understood, there's no question of knowledge.

Prabhupāda: If, in the beginning, or on the basic principles, he remains a rascal, then there is no knowledge. If he does not understand that there is soul within this body, then he remains animal. What is the value of animal's speculation? Sa eva go-kharaḥ (SB 10.84.13). So we shall treat them as animals. So what . . . what we have got to learn from the animals? They're not interested. Now let . . . you can accuse, "Why you should say animals?" I may say: "You are animals." That's all right. Just come to discussion, whether you are animal or I am animal.

Harikeśa: Calmly come to discussion.

Prabhupāda: This the . . . this theory is going on perpetually, whether there is soul or not. But these people, these Russians, they are so ignorant, they will not allow anybody to believe that there is soul. Atheistic. Stubborn atheistic. Although they cannot answer this question that there must be something superior which is moving this body. And they cannot answer the . . . what is that superior element.

Harikeśa: The unknown chemical.

Prabhupāda: Not unknown. It is unknown to you, but known to us. If it is unknown to you, you take, you know it from me. That is the real knowledge. Why you persist that "It is unknown. It should remain ever unknown. Why shall I take from anyone else?" That's a fact. Either you answer what is that element which is missing so that the body is now dead . . . simply your denial is obstinacy. That is dog's obstinacy. Then you are like a dog. You answer that, "This is the reason." Make experiment; prove it. Then you are right. So long you cannot do it, simply denying, that is dog's obstinacy. If you, as you say, there is no soul, it is chemical combination, so bring the chemicals and put him into life. Then your statement is right. You cannot do it and simply persist, this is doggish. You are calling a lump of matter your father, your child, your relative, and when the soul is gone, you say: "Oh, my father is gone." Why your father is gone? He's lying there on the bed. The same coat, pant, face, ear, eyes. Why do you say: "My father has gone"? What is this nonsense? So that chemical combination is your father? Bring your father again, chemical combination. Hmm? What is the answer? Some foolish, rubbish thing, presentation, will it be accepted as knowledge?

Harikeśa: Another point I just thought of. They say it's some chemical which is missing that's making life, yet if the same chemical is there that's making life, what accounts for so many different varieties of life? If it's the same chemical, how is there so many different varieties from that same chemical?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Harikeśa: And if it's a different chemical, that means there's so many thousands and billions of chemicals. Yet they can't even find one of them.

Prabhupāda: They do not know even one of them.

Harikeśa: They don't even know one of them.

Prabhupāda: (laughs) And still you are proud. What is this nonsense? And supposing the chemical combination is there and is being administered in different way for different life, then who is making this arrangement? Somebody's there who is making arrangement. You cannot do that. Therefore we are inferior, He is superior. You have to accept. It is not that it is not existing. It is existing. So as you are trying to do something, somebody has already done it. Then where is your credit?

Haṁsadūta: On the one hand, they say that the creation was a chance, accident, and on the other hand, they're trying to find the law of nature. So this is a contradiction.

Prabhupāda: Just see. And the law. Just see. And law . . . nature is not giving him chance. And he's depending on chance theory. He's so unfortunate rascal that he does not get even the chance. So discuss these things in different ways and issue a small pamphlet in Russian language. Or any language. Doesn't matter.

Harikeśa: Oh, in Russian!

Prabhupāda: Hmm? They're the greatest atheists.

Harikeśa: Oh, that would be . . . a dialectic spiritualism pamphlet in Russian. That's big. Russian. (break)

Prabhupāda: The land is very nice. All flat, flat land. Hundreds of miles.

Indian man: It is all tobacco.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Indian man: All tobacco.

Prabhupāda: Just see. They're misusing.

Haṁsadūta: You can smell it.

Indian man: Smell tobacco.

Prabhupāda: Oh.

Harikeśa: Oh, that's why it is. Tobacco. I always thought someone was smoking bīḍīs right downstairs, or something.

Haṁsadūta: . . . smell tobacco.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Harikeśa: Virginia smells like this.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Harikeśa: Virginia, in America. There, all they do is grow tobacco now. (break)

Haṁsadūta: But on the other hand, they claim that there are certain laws which govern this material nature. This is a complete contradictory position.

Hari-śauri: A law means there has to be some compliance to a higher authority.

Prabhupāda: So discuss all these nonsense propositions.

Harikeśa: Somebody? (break)

Prabhupāda: He has clearly proved that Darwin is a fool. He's wrong. He has not written the word "fool," but he's wrong. (end)