My shirt has also two hands. So if this is dress, this body, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā—vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya (BG 2.22)—so if it is dress, then I must have a form. Otherwise how this dress is made? It is very logical conclusion and very easy to understand. Unless I have got my own form, how the dress has got form? What is the answer? Anyone can say? How the original living entity can be without hands and legs? If this body's my dress... Just like you go to a tailor. He takes measurement of your hand, of your leg, of your chest. Then your coat or shirt is made. Similarly, when you have got a particular type of dress, it is to be assumed that I have got my form, spiritual form. Nobody can refute this argument. And apart from our so-called argument, we have to accept the statement of Kṛṣṇa. The... Because He's authority.
Refute (Lectures)
Expressions researched:
" refutations"
|" refute"
|" refuted"
|" refutes"
|" refuting"
|"refutation"
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Radyumna: "The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind."
Prabhupāda:
- nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi
- nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ
- na cainaṁ kledayanty āpo
- na śoṣayati mārutaḥ
- (BG 2.23)
So here is another puzzle for the rascal scientists—because they are contemplating that except within this earth, in other planets, there is no life. Because the atmosphere is different, they cannot live there. Now, take for example the sun planet, fiery planet. So naturally, we shall imagine that no living entity can live there: it is fiery planet. But Kṛṣṇa says that nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ. The fire does not burn it. This is quite reasonable because the living entities are there, we can experience. Roughly we see that we are on the land and the aquatics, fishes, they are in the water. I cannot live within the water, neither the fish cannot live on the land, but from my experience, if we think that there is no living entities in water, is it not rascaldom? Similarly, these rascals are thinking from his own point of view. Because he cannot live within the fire or within the water, he's thinking there is no life within the fire. This is rascaldom. To refute these rascals, Kṛṣṇa says, nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ. Even within the fire there are living entities. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam (BG 4.1). "I spoke first of all this Bhagavad-gītā system to the sun-god."
Nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ. Another study from this verse is that the Māyāvāda philosophy, they say that spirit is one. The Supreme Spirit, impersonal. When the spirit is embodied, it becomes individual. This is their philosophy. Otherwise, they give the example... Just like there is water on the sea. It is also sustained on the earth. A big mass of water. And on that water, you can put one boat or ship full of water. And on that boat, you put another, a cup of water, and in the cup of water, you put another pot, a small cup or small utensil or even the skin of a grain, that will also contain. So their philosophy is that the water is one, but according to the pot or container, it becomes small and big. This is their philosophy. And when the container is broken, then the whole water becomes one. This is their philosophy. Now this nonsense philosophy is refuted in this verse. How? Now because spirit, either you take whole spirit or part spirit, nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi. You cannot divide it by cutting into pieces. That is not possible. So their philosophy is that the water has been put into different pots, therefore we see this small water, this smaller or bigger, this division. But they are all individual always. It is not that it has been divided. Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ jīva-loke sanātanaḥ (BG 15.7). Sanātana. Sanātana means eternally they are divided. It is not that it has been divided by some means. Just like we keep water in big pot or small pot. That is not possible. They are big or small eternally. Viṣṇu-tattva, jīva-tattva. The jīva-tattva, they are small fragments. They are eternal. Viṣṇu-tattva. Viṣṇu-tattva means the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Viṣṇu-tattva is unlimitedly great eternally, sanātana. And the jīva-tattva, they are infinitesimally smaller eternally. Not that it has been cut into small and big. No.
The Buddha philosophy, they do not recognize the soul. They, according to them, that the combination of matter at a certain stage produces consciousness. But that philosophy, that argument, can be refuted that with matter, you cannot produce consciousness. Because... Take the example of a dead man. The dead man is there. All the elements, material elements, are all there present. But you cannot revise, you cannot revoke that man to consciousness. The elements are there, the ingredients are there. Now, if you think this ingredient has been decomposed or deteriorated, then replace that ingredient. Just like in a machine. In a machine some part is wear and tear. It is not working, stopped. You can replace that part into new part, and the machine will work. But this is not like that. If you think that something has deteriorated in this body, therefore it has become dead. Say, for example, that they say generally, due to heart failure. Now, heart... Medical practitioners they know it that heart is always pumping like this, pumping like this. Now, can you produce heart action by artificial pumping? No. It is not possible. They give respiratory oxygen gas and so many things, but it cannot be revived.
The beginning of Bhagavad-gītā says, tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati. This is the first instruction. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). As in this life we have seen, I was a child, I was a baby, I was a boy, I was a young man, now I am old man, so I have changed so many bodies. And... But I know that I was a child, I was a boy. But where is that body? Where is that child's body? Where is that young man's body? Where is that boy's body? This is gone. Now I have got another body. Therefore, it is concluded, when this body is finished I'll get another body. How you can refute this logic? I have changed so many bodies within my experience. Therefore this is also within my experience. When this body, this old body will be finished, I 'll get another body. That is the first instruction of Kṛṣṇa. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). You'll get another body.
Guest: Swamiji, is there some way (indistinct) duty of the student to the knowledge (indistinct) guru shortcoming?
Prabhupāda: First of all, you have to know who is guru. If you accept one rascal as guru, how you can be helped? First thing is who is guru. That I have already explained. Guru is he who repeats the words of Kṛṣṇa. He is guru. Otherwise he's a rascal. This is the test. Kṛṣṇa says that
- tad viddhi praṇipātena
- paripraśnena sevayā
- upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ
- jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ
- (BG 4.34)
So tattva-darśī, one who has seen the truth, you have to accept him as guru. Tattva-darśī. Darśī means who has practical experience. Take, for example, just like Arjuna. Arjuna is directly receiving the knowledge from Kṛṣṇa. He's guru. What he said, we accept that. But if you accept somebody who wants to kill Kṛṣṇa and become himself Kṛṣṇa, he's a rascal. He's not guru. Because his policy is to accept the place of Kṛṣṇa, not to serve Him. That is māyā. And Kṛṣṇa has said very freely that
- na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ
- prapadyante narādhamāḥ
- māyayāpahṛta-jñānā
- āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ
- (BG 7.15)
A person who is imbibed with asuric tendency... Asuric tendency means to refute the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All the asuras... Just like Rāvaṇa. Rāvaṇa is described as rākṣasa, asura. What was his fault? His fault was that he did not care for Rāma. "What is this Rāma? Kidnap his wife, bring him(her), I shall enjoy." This is rākṣasa. So he could not enjoy Sītā, but the result was, with his whole family, state, and himself, everything, he was ruined. This is asura. So those who are āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ, followers of Rāvaṇa, Hiraṇyakaśipu, Kaṁsa, they do not surrender to Kṛṣṇa. So our simple method is to see whether somebody is speaking about Kṛṣṇa or what Kṛṣṇa has said. If he does not do so, then immediately accept him āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ, a rākṣasa. How you can accept him as guru? A rākṣasa? That is your mistake.
In the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find that the Lord advises people in general that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vra...: (BG 18.66) "Just try to surrender unto Me, and I shall give you all protection." Then Caitanya Mahāprabhu... He's also Kṛṣṇa Himself. As a devotee, He's explaining Kṛṣṇa further. Not only surrender, but after surrender, what are the activities, that is explained by Lord Caitanya. So for the general, people in general, the first requisition is that they must learn how to surrender unto God. Tattvena na te abhijānanti: "They do not know what is the," I mean to say, "accurate situation of the Supreme Lord." Now here it is stated,
- yānti deva-vratā devān
- pitṟn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ
- bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā
- yānti mad-yājino 'pi mām
- (BG 9.25)
Now, the argument that "In whatever form you worship the Supreme..." This is the Māyāvādī theory, that "God is impersonal. Now, because we cannot worship or meditate on something impersonal, therefore let us imagine something about Him and meditate upon that." Just like the impersonalist yogis. They put before them a lump of something and concentrate upon them. So here that theory is refuted by Kṛṣṇa. That impersonal conception of the Supreme and our imagination of God, that is not the way of approaching God. He says clearly herewith that yānti deva-vratā devān: "Those who are worshiping the demigods..."
The demigods have their different places in this material world. All the planets, heavenly planets... There are seven planetary systems up and seven planetary systems down. So this is called bhūrloka, earthly planet, and there are many planets on this system. So bhūrloka, bhuvarloka, janaloka, tapoloka, then brahmaloka, satyaloka, like that—so many planets there are. So there are different kinds of living entities and different kinds of comforts. They are highly intelligent, more intelligent than the human being. Therefore they are called demigods, almost God. So here Kṛṣṇa says, "Those who are trying to worship the demigods, they'll go to the planets of the demigods." Yānti deva-vratā devān pitṟn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ (BG 9.25). Pitṛ-vratāḥ. There is a form of worship of the forefathers. So there is a particular planet. The worshiper of the forefathers, they go there. Pitṟn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ. And bhūtejyā yānti. Bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā. And those who are materialistic, those who want to worship these earthly things in this material..., not material world, everywhere, but bhūtejyā, especially material worship, so bhūtejyā, those who are worshiper of material elements, they go to... They remain in the material platform. Yānti mad-yājino 'pi mām: (BG 9.25) "And those who are worshiping Me, Lord, they will come to Me."
People are searching after Īśvara, "Can you show me God?" "There is no God." "God is dead." So many philosophers and theories are there, but actually there is God. Here is God, Kṛṣṇa. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānandaḥ vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Ekale īśvara kṛṣṇa. In Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said that "Only īśvara is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme." Ekala īśvara kṛṣṇa, āra saba bhṛtya (CC Adi 5.142). "All others, they are servants." Nobody is actually īśvara. And we find it practically. Everyone in this material world, he may become an īśvara is his group, but he is also controlled by somebody superior. That is the position of this relative īśvara. But Kṛṣṇa is absolute īśvara. Nobody is īśvara above Him. That is Kṛṣṇa. So, everyone is trying to be īśvara. This is the material world. Everyone is trying to be īśvara.
So Kṛṣṇa says that, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. Because everyone is trying to be superior. Nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, that every philosopher must give his own opinion and it must be refuted by another. Therefore śāstra says that in this way you cannot ascertain what is the reality. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me. And that is going on.
Therefore simply by arguments, you cannot reach the Absolute Truth. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. And if you simply depend on the śruti, śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. The Vedic literatures are different: Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Artharva. And not only that, other scriptures there are. So Śrutayor vibhinnāḥ nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihito guhāyām. To understand religious principle, it is very difficult.
One who has understood Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, the supreme maintainer, the Supreme Person, everything, only one, vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19)—that is guru. But otherwise, he is not guru, one who has not understood Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms, yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā sei guru haya (CC Madhya 8.128). One who has understood Kṛṣṇa as the supreme controller, the Supreme Person, the supreme maintainer, and everything, the supreme, ultimate, then he can become guru.
Otherwise don't try to become guru. Impersonalists, half-understood, partially understood, he cannot become guru. This is the Caitanya Mahāprabhu's formula. Therefore first of all try to understand Kṛṣṇa. You will understand in such a way that you can refute all others' argument, all others' opposition. There are so many opposing elements. Then you are guru. Otherwise you cannot become a guru. Guru is not so teeny thing or trifle thing that everyone becomes Guru Mahārāja, no. That is not guru. Sa mahātmā... Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ (BG 7.19).
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
The materialistic person, they read the newspaper, but we read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. That is the difference. We are also reading. They are also reading. So nṛṇāṁ santi sahasraśaḥ, śrotavyādīni rājendra nṛṇāṁ santi sahasraśaḥ (SB 2.1.2). Śukadeva Gosvāmī said to Parīkṣit Mahārāja, "My dear king, there are many hundreds and thousands of topics for the materialistic person." Sahasraśaḥ. Sahasraśaḥ means thousands, and that is a fact. So many novels, so many fiction, so many so-called philosophy, newspaper, cinema paper, this paper, that paper, so many. Sahasraśaḥ.
- śrotavyādīni rājendra
- nṛṇāṁ santi sahasraśaḥ
- apaśyatām ātma-tattvaṁ
- gṛheṣu gṛha-medhinām
- (SB 2.1.2)
Apaśyatām ātma-tattvam. Because they do not know, they have no information of the soul, they are talking about this body. Or sometimes about this mind. Philosophical speculation, concoction. One philosophy is theorizing something, another philosopher is theorizing something. Lots of literature. All nonsense, because it is mental speculation. I speculate in one way, you speculate in another way. You refute me, I refute you. So therefore, these talks of the body and talks of the mind, there are varieties. Nṛṇāṁ santi sahasraśaḥ apaśyatām ātma-tattvam (SB 2.1.2). Why they are engaged in so many talks? Because they do not know, apaśyatām. They have no vision of the soul, ātma-tattva. Gṛheṣu gṛha-medhinām. Gṛhamedhī, those interested simply to maintain this body, they are called gṛhamedhī.
The general mass of people is no better than these animals, and they are voting to select their leader. So whom they will vote? Another paśu, another animal. Because they have no choice. They are animals and how they can select a man? A man means karṇa-pathopetaḥ, one who is hearing about Kṛṣṇa. He is man. Otherwise all animals. Now, you say, how this charge can be refuted by you. Bhāgavata says, "He is not man." Na yat-karṇa-pathopeto jātu nāma gadāgrajaḥ. He may be in the if form of a man, but if he has not heard about Kṛṣṇa, if he has not given aural reception to kṛṣṇa-kathā, then he is paśu, animal. And what kind of animal? Dogs, hogs, camels, asses. Why these nice animals have been selected? That is described. Now you can read the purport.
Pradyumna: "The general mass of people, unless they are trained systematically for a higher standard of life in spiritual values, are no better than the animals, and in this verse they have particularly been put on the level of dogs, hogs, camels and asses. Modern university education practically prepares one to acquire a doggish mentality to accept the service of a greater master.
So śāstra, intelligence, knowledge, means one should study everything very critically, "What is my position? What is my duty?" We should not be like the animals. Śva-viḍ-varāhoṣṭra-khara. Now we have got our great personalities, leaders. They are praised, eulogized, our, these political leaders. "Our Hitler," "Our Gandhi," "Our Churchill," "Our Nixon." But śāstra says these leaders, those who are not spiritual leaders, those who cannot give our life, they are worshiped by these classes of animals, animals. These so-called leaders, politicians, they are eulogized very much by whom? By these class of men: dogs, camels, asses and...
What is the other one?
Devotees: Hogs.
Prabhupāda: Hog. So this is the verdict of... That means one who does not know whom to eulogize, whom to give honor, they give votes to these classes of men, without any knowledge of Kṛṣṇa. They are becoming the great philosophers, leaders, scientists. They have no knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, no knowledge of God. Still, they are leading the society. And who praise them? This class of men-dogs, hogs, camels, and asses. This is the verdict. Now you can challenge. You can talk, if it is right or wrong. This is the challenge given by Bhāgavatam, that "Persons who have no knowledge of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they are praised by these dogs, hogs, camels, and asses." This is the challenge. Now how can you refute it? Can you refute it? This is a great challenge. We are not only... We are accepting some rascal as God, as incarnation of God. So who accept this so-called God? These classes of men. These classes of men: camel, hogs, dogs. So by the vote of camels, dogs, hogs, one cannot become God.
That is not possible. God is a different thing. So we should not be misled. If some incarnation come, "God," who is accepting? These camels, dogs, and hogs and asses. So what is the value? What is the value of their vote? No. Formerly, the votes were taken by highly saintly persons, brāhmaṇas. Just like Pṛthu Mahārāja's father Veṇa Mahārāja. He was disapproved by the brāhmaṇas and the saintly persons, and immediately he was dethroned and killed. Not the public vote. Not vox populi. Vote should be taken from the highly elevated persons, not from the lower-class dogs and asses. What is the value of their vote? What they can select? Vote should be taken... Just like Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa wanted that Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira should be on the throne. That is vote. So nowadays, a vote is franchised. Any common man, any rascal can vote. So how he can elect nice man? That is not possible. Therefore, if you want real government who can lead you back to home, back to Godhead...
Āstikyam means faith in God, faith in scripture. That is called āstikyam. According to Vedic version, āstikyam means faith in the Vedas. Nobody can refute the Vedas. That is called faith, no argument.
A practical example, this practical example is given by Lord Caitanya. It is very nice. In India the cow dung is accepted as pure, although the Vedic injunction is that if you touch stool of an animal, you have to take bath to purify yourself, cleanse yourself. Of course, we see in New York City that the stool of dog is thrown all over the street, and we are touching, but we have no opportunity to take bath. But it is according to Vedic injunction, if you touch stool of an animal, then you have to take bath immediately. Therefore this is a system. When you go to the Deity room, you should change your cloth, because I do not know what things I have touched in the street, so better to change the cloth. And better still to cleanse, to take bath. That is the system. Anyway, to touch the stool of an animal makes one unclean; therefore one has to take bath or purify himself. That is the system. But the Veda says the stool of cow is purified. The stool of cow is purified. Now, practically, in India they accept it, and it has been found by chemical examination that the cow dung contains all antiseptic properties. That is a fact. One Dr. Goshal, he analyzed in his laboratory, "Why this Vedic injunction is the stool of cow or cow dung is pure?" So he analyzed, and he found it that the stool of cow, cow dung, is full of antiseptic properties. So this is called faith or theistic, to take the injunction of the scripture as it is, without any information. That is called āstikyam.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
One who is in the second stage of development, he knows God, he loves God, and in relationship with God, he loves the devotees of the..., he makes friendship with the devotees of the God. Īśvare tad-adhīneṣu bāliśeṣu. And so far the innocents are concerned... Innocent means they are not offender, but they do not know what is God, what is his relation, ordinary man. For them, the person who in the second stage of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, his duty is to enlighten them. And those who are atheists, purposely against God, they should be avoided. Therefore there are four kinds of dealings for the person who is in the intermediate position. And those who are in the higher status of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they do not see anyone as against God. Their vision is that everyone is engaged in God's service. So there, there is only one vision, that everyone is engaged in God's service. They have no distinction. That is very higher stage. One should not imitate that stage.
So in the lower stage, these two gentlemen, Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara, they are hearing the criticism against Lord Caitanya, but they are, I mean to say, placing themselves in the lower status, and they say that "We cannot bear this." Because they haven't got sufficient power to refute the arguments of the other party, therefore they are feeling sorry.
- tomāre nindaye yata sannyāsīra gaṇa
- śunite nā pāri, phāṭe hṛdaya-śravaṇa
Because, unless one is conversant with logic, arguments and Vedic literature, it is very difficult to defend. The more you can defend from the attacks of atheist, the more you should understand you have advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The atheists, generally, they will attack you, undoubtedly. But you have to defend yourself. So that is the business of the persons who are in the intermediate position.
The Absolute Truth, when He is realized as the Supreme Person, as Brahmā is realizing, yan-mitram... He is realizing that Kṛṣṇa, who is playing as a cowherd boy in Vṛndāvana, and He has become the most intimate friend of the residents of Vṛndāvana, headed by Nanda Mahārāja... Nanda Mahārāja was the zamindar rāja. He was vaiśya. He had 900,000's of cows, and he was the head of Vṛndāvana. All other cowherds men were his tenants or friends or family members. So Kṛṣṇa automatically became their very, very dear friend. That is the significance of the residents of Vṛndāvana. They... Their love for Kṛṣṇa was so ecstatic that they did not know anything except Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Brahmā says, aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyam: "How fortunate these residents of Vṛndāvana are that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has become their friend." And Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam, not that He has assumed a body like a human being and He is imperson. No. Just like Māyāvādī philosophers, they take it, they concoct like that, that "Ultimately the Absolute Truth is impersonal, but when He descends..." I do not know how the impersonal can be "He." So that theory is refuted hereby because it is the statement of Brahmā, and he says that Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam.
There is the important point of Māyāvādī philosophers. Every one of them, they say that "I am God," but actually he thinks within himself that "What kind of God I am?" That is the position. But for argument's sake they will play so many things in support of their views, but actually, any sane man will think that "What kind of God I am? I cannot defend myself from the slightest attack of this material nature, and still I claim..." But they cannot admit frankly. They think like that. That is being admitted here by the chief disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, that "Although we say, 'Yes, this is...,' but it does not appeal to our mind." He is frankly saying.
- śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-vākya dṛḍha satya māni
- kali-kāle sannyāse 'saṁsāra' nāhi jini
Now he says that "What Lord Caitanya, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, has said, that is very nice. And we simply accept this sannyāsa order. Oh, that will not help us. Simply by accepting, changing the garment, colored garment, and without understanding anything properly or dealing properly, that is not the way for salvation." Because according to Śaṅkarācārya, anyone who accepts sannyāsa, he becomes immediately Nārāyaṇa, God. He immediately becomes God. So that is being refuted by one of the disciples, that "This is nonsense, that simply by accepting and changing the garment I become God. This is not..." Actually, one has to understand things as they are.
Festival Lectures
So perhaps my Guru Mahārāja, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, attempted to fulfill the desire of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And sometimes in the year 1918, he was brahmacārī, and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, his material father, he wanted... Actually, he wanted, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura... Of course, everyone wanted. But he wrote one small book, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Teachings and Precepts of Lord Caitanya, in 1896. And he presented that book to the McGill University in Canada. And he very much desired that the foreigners, especially Americans, would join this movement. That was his desire in 1896. And then, in 1918, my Guru Mahārāja started with this mission one institution known as Gauḍīya Math. Perhaps some of you know the name, Gauḍīya Math. And he was trying to spread this message of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and by chance or by prediction, as you think, I was taken to Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura by one of my friends. I did not want to go there, but he forcibly took me there. Yes. And he ordered me that "You preach the cult of Caitanya Mahāprabhu in English language. This is very much essential." So on the first meeting he told me like that. That was my first meeting with him. So at that time I was in favor of Gandhi's movement. So I said that "We are not independent—subjugated. Who will hear about our message?" So Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura refuted my argument. I was very much pleased. I had so many talks. But I was very much pleased to be defeated, that "This so-called nationalism or any ism, they are all temporary. Real need is the self-realization."
Philosophy Discussions
Śyāmasundara: He maintains that God is an absolute idea, that he is pure conception.
Kīrtanānanda: Impersonal.
Prabhupāda: That means he has no clear idea of God. If God has got a son, then the father must be a person. Where is a son who is born out of imperson father? Where is the evidence?
Śyāmasundara: An idea, born out of an idea.
Prabhupāda: Idea. This is nonsense. If son is a person, his father must be a person.
Śyāmasundara: He says that in philosophy we approach closest to the absolute or God, whereas art is the form of the absolute.
Prabhupāda: Then his statement that Christianity is perfect, that is refuted.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. That stands refuted.
Devotee: As Hegel presents Christianity.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is just like his philosophy of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. So he says, "Therefore it is perfect."
Prabhupāda: He may think it. Everyone thinks that way, (that) his philosophy is perfect.
Śyāmasundara: He says that even higher than religion is philosophy because you can approach God through pure concept or thought, pure thought, and reach God.
Prabhupāda: Therefore Bhāgavata, Bhagavad-gītā is combination of religion and philosophical thought.
Śyāmasundara: He says that philosophy, knowledge of the absolute idea is unique because it is in and for itself, or is pure idea, that philosophy is pure idea.
Prabhupāda: That we say, that religion without philosophy is sentiment and philosophy without religion is mental speculation.
Karandhara: For most people it is just his word. Whatever his contemporary scientists conclude, he offers some insignificant evidence.
Prabhupāda: If words are to be accepted as true, why not accept the words of Kṛṣṇa? Who can be greater authority than Kṛṣṇa? If your word does not require any evidence, you are a renowned scientist, your words are sufficient, then greater scientist, greater personality is Kṛṣṇa. Then why should we not accept His words? We do not know what it is, but you are presenting there in bombastic words and we have to accept your word. Is it not? So I will say that instead of accepting your words, why not accept Kṛṣṇa's word? He's greater personality.
Karandhara: Someone will come along in a year or a few years and refute everything that this scientist says.
Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. That we say.
Prabhupāda: Who can say against this statement of Vedas? This is the beginning of life. But none of them, both the contending parties, had clear idea what is the beginning. This is the beginning.
Hayagrīva: Yes. Bryan had difficulty in attacking Darwinism because he based his arguments...
Prabhupāda: Darwin says he does not know the beginning.
Hayagrīva: He based his arguments strictly on the Bible, Bryan. This is not Darwin, but the prosecutory.
Prabhupāda: What they... What is the beginning of Bible?
Hayagrīva: And he, he was ridiculed, Bryan, for his fundamental..., for his fundamentalism. The Bible says, "And God said let us make man in our image," etc. "God created man in His own image, and the image of God created He him," etc., and the Bible fixes the creation at about six thousand years ago, but science fixes, oh, ancient civilizations of China and India, oh, six thousand, seven thousand years ago, much... And the Vedas deal with a much, much broader time span.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: So...
Prabhupāda: So it is not the question of...
Hayagrīva: ...it was extremely difficult for Bryan to maintain any kind of prosecution with these...
Prabhupāda: But because both, we say that both of them are ignorant about the beginning. So if both of them are ignorant, so either you say six thousand, seven thousand, or six million, this is all imagination. It is not fact. But the six thousand or seven thousand, that is not the fact-millions and millions of years. But the fact is this, that God created this cosmic manifestation, and He impregnated the living entities to appear in different types of body according to the soul's desire. That I have already explained. The soul... "Man proposes; God disposes." Not only human form of life but all the animal forms of life, they are also from the very beginning. Not like Darwin's theory that there was no human form of life in the beginning. That is a wrong theory. All the forms of life were there, and the, actually the body is external; within the body there is the soul. So the body is created by material nature and the soul is part and parcel of God. This is the real idea. So how they can refute this idea if they have no idea about the beginning of life?
Śyāmasundara: He differs from the utilitarians, because they say that we should not...
Prabhupāda: They say if some idea can be utilized for some better position of society. That is utilitarian.
Śyāmasundara: But the utilitarians say that everything should be utilized to serve man's desires. But he says everything should be used to serve man's worthiest desires, man's highest desires, worthy desires.
Prabhupāda: What is the difference between desire and highest desire?
Śyāmasundara: Well, someone may desire more broadness.
Prabhupāda: Who will judge who is highest? Everyone will say, "My desire is the highest."
Śyāmasundara: The utilitarians might say that "People desire more brothels, so let us build more brothels.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Modern world, that is the highest desire. How can you refute that if there is no standard? Everyone says, "This is my law." Unless you go to the court, who will judge?
Revatīnandana: Now he wants to make his desire the highest desire. He's got a theory now that "This is the highest thing I can think of, so this is God." That means I have the highest.
Śyāmasundara: He says that...
Prabhupāda: Our formula is perfect.
Śyāmasundara: He says...
Prabhupāda: We say that if one is Kṛṣṇa conscious, then he is all right. Otherwise reject him. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ (SB 5.18.12). They are mano-ratha. They are mental speculators. They are hovering on the mental plane.
Śyāmasundara: He says that we must continually make satisfactory adjustment; that things change...
Prabhupāda: That you cannot do, because you are hovering on the mental plane. And the mind is always imperfect, rejecting and accepting. So nothing will be standard. Your mind is accepting something, I am rejecting it. So on the mental plane you cannot come to the standard. It is not possible.
Hayagrīva: Freud wrote two basic books on religion, Future of an Illusion, and there was a great deal in Leonardo da Vinci, A Study in Psycho-sexuality. He writes, "Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the intimate connection between the father complex and belief in God, has shown us that the personal God is psychologically nothing but an exalted father. Youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down." So he sees God as basically a father complex arising out of the need of help of the little child.
Prabhupāda: That little child, how he can give up the idea of father? And how Mr. Freud can give up the idea? Was he not born by a father?
Hayagrīva: He feels that...
Prabhupāda: He dropped from the sky? Huh? Did, did he?
Hayagrīva: He feels that this is childish.
Prabhupāda: That childish, what is that childish? He had no father?
Hayagrīva: He had a father, but he believed in ultimate emancipation.
Prabhupāda: No, no, ultimate we shall go later on. First of all, he has to think whether he had his father or not. Or his father's father was not there, and go on searching out. So without father, how can one exist or one can come into being? So that if he cannot understand this simple philosophy, what kind of philosopher he is? He had his father. His father had his father. So this is fact. Even though he might not have seen his dead grandfather, but he was there. That is a fact. So if you go on searching, father's father's father, where you will come there is no father? Which..., which is that point when you can say, "Now here there is no father"? And if you actually come to that point that "Here is a person of whom there is no father," that is God.
Hayagrīva: He says, "After all, is not the destiny of childishness to be overcome? Man cannot remain a child forever."
Prabhupāda: No. What is his definition of childish? Whether he is childish, or he is condemning others?
Hayagrīva: One who needs...
Prabhupāda: Unless you can deny that you have born, you are born without father, then you are a child. You do not have conception how you are in existence without father. What is this argument? That everything must be argued, a sane man. So this is simple logic I am putting forward. Who can refute it, that you have father, your father had father, his father had father, father's father's, all? This is a disciplic succession of fathers. How can you deny the father? Therefore the ultimate father, the supreme father, He is also father but He is supreme father. That is the difference. So father conception of God is very practical, and it is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4). So how he can defy it if he is a sane man? Who can defy it? Is there any person to defy it?
Hayagrīva: Concerning religion, he said, "Of the reality value of most of them, of most religions, we cannot judge. Just as they cannot be proved, neither can they be refuted."
Prabhupāda: First of all, he does not know what is religion. That is the defect in him. We say religion means the order given by God. Simple thing. But he has no conception of God. How he can get orders from God? Therefore how he can understand what is religion? He has got some ideas of fictitious religion, which is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, kaitava, cheating. Cheating religion. That is not religion. Religion means, just like law. Law means the order given by the government. You cannot manufacture law at your home. That is not... Similarly, if somebody manufactures law at home and says that "I have manufactured one law. You take it," so who, what sane man will accept that law? "Sir, you keep your law in your pocket." Similarly, this so-called religious system, which is not given by God, that is just like outlaws. They are not religion. He has simply studied which is not religion. That is his defect. Real religion is the law given by God. So he has no conception of God, how he can understand what is religion? He has studied only pseudoreligion, cheating religion; therefore he is dissatisfied.
Śyāmasundara: Much before him, about 150 years ago. He takes as the absolute first principle the self-consciousness or the evil(?), "I am", the awareness that I exist as an absolute a priori first principle.
Prabhupāda: That is Vedānta. We are studying what I am. That is Vedānta philosophy, to study what I am. And the answer is given by us, Vaiṣṇava philosophers, that you are eternal servant of God. This is Vedānta. Everyone is searching what I am, we are giving the answer: "You are eternal servant of God." Now let them refute this that he's not servant, he's absolute(?). Our answer is there. Athāto brahma jijñāsā, to inquire about Brahman, the spirit soul. What is this spirit soul, what I am. What is the supreme. So, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's answer is already there, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). The real identity of the living entity is that he's eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa.
Hayagrīva: Once a student of Socrates—this is a section on Socrates-said, "I cannot refute you, Socrates." To this Socrates replied, "Say rather that you cannot refute the truth, for Socrates is easily refuted." This is by way of saying that the Absolute Truth is not a subject of mental speculation or personal opinion. The Truth, or the good, for Socrates stands separate from mundane relativities or personal opinion.
Prabhupāda: That is our opinion. We accept Kṛṣṇa as the supreme authority, and therefore we cannot refute what Kṛṣṇa says. And our philosophy is perfect because we follow Kṛṣṇa. He is the Supreme Perfect. This is our position. In other religious system, taking it our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement religious... It is religious, because our religion means the..., to carry out the order of God. That is the sum and substance of religion. We don't manufacture religion, and neither religion can be manufactured. Manufactured religion is useless. That has been described in the Bhagavad-gītā, er, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as dharma kaitava. Means cheating. So this is not cheating religion. Our basic principle is dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). Dharma means the order which is given by God, and if you execute that, that is dharma. Just like law. Law is given by the government. You cannot manufacture law. That is not law. So our perfection is there, how we are executing the order of God cent percent. One who has no conception of God, neither the order of God, they can manufacture religious system. But our system is different.
| Page Title: | Refute (Lectures) |
| Compiler: | Vrindi, Madhavi |
| Created: | 28 of Dec, 2008 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=25, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 25 |