View source for So our point is, we are not going to bring back the old type of Hindu society. It is impossible. Our idea is that best ideas from the original idea

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"So our point is, we are not going to bring back the old type of Hindu society."|"it is impossible"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|09Jul10}}
{{last|09Jul10}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:My Point Is (Prabhupada)]]
[[Category:Not Going To]]
[[Category:Bring]]
[[Category:Back]]
[[Category:Old]]
[[Category:Type Of]]
[[Category:Hindu]]
[[Category:Society]]
[[Category:Impossible]]
[[Category:My Idea (Prabhupada)]]
[[Category:Best]]
[[Category:Idea]]
[[Category:Original]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1971 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1971 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="ConversationwithProfKotovskyJune221971Moscow_0" class="quote" parent="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="8" link="Conversation with Prof. Kotovsky -- June 22, 1971, Moscow" link_text="Conversation with Prof. Kotovsky -- June 22, 1971, Moscow">
<div class="heading">Our point is, we are not going to bring back the old type of Hindu society. It is impossible. Our idea is that best ideas from the original idea.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Conversation with Prof. Kotovsky -- June 22, 1971, Moscow|Conversation with Prof. Kotovsky -- June 22, 1971, Moscow]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So this Canakya Paṇḍita was a great politician and brāhmaṇa. And as brāhmaṇa, he was vastly learned. He has got some moral instruction. They're very valuable, still going on. In India school children are taught. So this Canakya Paṇḍita, although he was prime minister, he maintained his brahminical spirit. He was not accepting any salary, yes, because for brāhmaṇas to accept salary, it is understood that he becomes a dog. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata. He can advise, but he cannot accept. So he was living in a cottage, but he was prime minister. So this brahminical culture, the brahminical brain, is the standard of Vedic civilization. Just like Manu-smṛti. Manu-smṛti... You do not know. You cannot trace out the history, when Manu-smṛti was written. But Manu-smṛti is considered so perfect that it is the Hindu law. The Hindus are governed by Manu-smṛti. There was no need of passing daily a new law by the legislative assembly to adjust this social order. You see? The law given by Manu was so perfect that it can be applicable for all the time. This is perfect. Tri-kāla-jñāḥ. The word is there, tri-kāla-jñāḥ, past, present, future.</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: But... I am sorry to interrupt you, but originally, to my knowledge, original Indian society, when, in the second half of Indian society, when in Calcutta by order of British administration was codified, so-called, you know, remember, "Jantu Law," they called, a big digest of Hindu law, there was a lot of change...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: ...called in.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, they manufactured another...</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: And this, the actual Hindu law which was used by Hindus, they're quite different from original Manu-smṛti.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, they have now made changes. Just like our late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. He made some Hindu code. He introduced in that Hindu code the right of divorcing husband and wife. But these were not in Manu-saṁhitā. And, of course, they are changing. If you like, you can change. But the social order also not exactly the same as it was before.</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: Oh, yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And so many things. So they're changing. But before this modern age the whole Hindu society was being governed by Manu-smṛti. Manu-smṛti, yeah.</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: In all periods in India...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Manu-smṛti. Now they are changing so many. They... Strictly speaking, the modern Hindus, they are not strictly according to the Hindu scripture.</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: Oh, yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. They are not... So our point is, we are not going to bring back the old type of Hindu society. It is not that. Our...</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: It is impossible.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is impossible. Our idea is that best ideas from the original idea. Just like in the Bhāgavata there is a description of communistic idea, and it is being described to Mahārāja Yudhisthira. So if there is something good, good experience, why it should not be adopted? That is our point of view. And besides that, in the modern civilization they are missing one point: the aim of human life, scientifically. The aim of human life is self-realization, ātmā-tattvam. It is said, parābhavas tāvad abodha-jātaḥ yāvan na jijñāsa ātmā-tattvam. Unless the human society comes to the point of self-realization, whatever they are doing, they are being defeated, parābhava. I think you know this word, parābhava. Parābhava. Parābhavas tāvad abodha-jātaḥ. So actually it is happening so. The modern society, human society, there is advancement, economic advancement, so many things, advancement. Still, in the matter of keeping peace and tranquility there is fight, individually, socially, politically, nationally. So if we think very cool-headed, then in spite of so much improvement in so many branches of knowledge, we are keeping the same mentality of quarreling. That is also visible in lower animal society. So our conclusion, according to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that this body, human body, it is not meant for working very hard for sense gratification. In the modern civilization the ultimate goal, aim, is sense gratification. That's all. Beyond that, they do not know anything more. They do not know what is next life. There is no department of knowledge or science, scientific department, to study what is there after life, after finishing this body. That is a great, I mean to say, department of knowledge. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that dehino 'smin yathā dehe ([[Vanisource:BG 2.13|BG 2.13]]). Dehe. Deha means this body. So there is a dehinaḥ who owns the body, dehi. So dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā. The dehi, the owner of the body, is within, and the body's changing from one form to another. The body of a child, baby, a certain type of form, it changes into another type of form when he's child, another type when boy, another type when he's young, another type, he's old. This is going on, but the owner of the body existing. Similarly, when this body will be completely changed, another body he will accept. So people do not understand this. As we are accepting different body even in this present life from babyhood to childhood, from childhood to boyhood, from boyhood to youthhood... That's a fact. Everyone knows it. I was a child, but that childhood body is no more. I have got a different body. Similarly, what is the difficulty to understand: when this body will be no more, I'll have to accept another body? It is great science.</p>
<p>Prof. Kotovsky: As you know, there is two ultimate, two quite, I may say, opposite approaches to this problem. One approach is slightly different by different religions but in the same time, any religion recognizes in such or such form the change...</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>