View source for They do not know how to act. Just like if you pour water on the tree, then it is accepted that you are pouring water on the tree but that is not the process. The process is to pour water on the root of the tree

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"They do not know how to act. Just like if you pour water on the tree, then it is accepted that you are pouring water on the tree but that is not the process. The process is to pour water on the root of the tree"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Narottama}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|13Jun12}}
{{last|13Jun12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:They]]
[[Category:Do Not Know]]
[[Category:How To]]
[[Category:Act]]
[[Category:Just Like]]
[[Category:If You]]
[[Category:Pour]]
[[Category:Water]]
[[Category:Root]]
[[Category:Tree]]
[[Category:Then]]
[[Category:It Is]]
[[Category:Accept]]
[[Category:That]]
[[Category:But]]
[[Category:This is not the Process]]
[[Category:Process]]
[[Category:Prabhupada's Analogies]]
</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="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="9" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1976 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1976 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember51976Hyderabad_0" class="quote" parent="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="341" link="Morning Walk -- December 5, 1976, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 5, 1976, Hyderabad">
<div class="heading">They do not know how to act. Just like if you pour water on the tree, then it is accepted that you are pouring water on the tree but that is not the process. The process is to pour water on the root of the tree. Practically we... You can make an experiment. Just like here is a tree. You don't pour water on the root but pour water on the leaves. Then it will dry in due course of time. It will not be effective.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 5, 1976, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- December 5, 1976, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Guest (1): Bhagavad-gītā gives the way to go back to Godhead. Otherwise one has to suffer continuously.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, this material world, birth after birth. One birth, suffering, then again die, again another birth, again suffering. But the people are kept in ignorance. They do not know how the soul is transmigrating. (aside:) Ayi. Betiye.(?) From... Ask them to sit down properly. Why don't you... Is there any seat, proper? So you... (Hindi) What was the topic? What was going on, the topic?</p>
<p>Devotee (2): Śrīla Prabhupāda, this morning we went to this engagement. There was the inauguration of the Vivekananda Society Home, so we went there on saṅkīrtana because we were invited by them. And one swami spoke and he said service to mankind was also service to God. And at the end he also said that Vivekananda used to say that for the housewife, that the cooking pot was becoming God, had become God, had become a God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: People applauded. This is foolishness. They do not know how to act. Just like if you pour water on the tree, then it is accepted that you are pouring water on the tree but that is not the process. The process is to pour water on the root of the tree. Practically we... You can make an experiment. Just like here is a tree. You don't pour water on the root but pour water on the leaves. Then it will dry in due course of time. It will not be effective. But if you pour water on the root, the water will go everywhere. So the whole thing is just like a tree. God is the origin of everything. He is the root. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 10.8|BG 10.8]]). Therefore He is the root. So if you pour water in the root, then the water is distributed everywhere. But if you pour water on the leaves, on the twigs, on the fruits, it will take time and it will not be successful. So one who is not in awareness of the laws of nature, they commit this mistake. We can say that pouring water on the leaves is also pouring water on the tree. By serving human being you can serve the Supreme Lord, but that is not the way. Another example is that if you supply food to the stomach, then the share is partaken by all the parts of the body. But if you supply food to the part of the body, it is not shared by other part of the body. They are opening hospital for men, human being, but what about the animals? They are also part and parcel of God. They are killing them. So they have no realization of God. God says, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayaḥ, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā ([[Vanisource:BG 14.4|BG 14.4]]). Suppose I have got several sons. If you take care of my one son and you neglect others I will not be happy, naturally. But if you take care of all my sons, then I'll be happy. For a father there is no such distinction that "My particular son should be taken care of and other should be neglected or they should be killed." That is not father's view. So if God is the father of all living entities, if you take simply care of the human being, then what of the others? There are so many fallacies in this argument, by taking care of the human being you worship God. There are so many fallacies. Hm? Is it not? So you have to put this argument, that "By serving human society is to serve God"—that is not fact. That may be partially; it is not complete.</p>
<p>Devotee (2): Yes, Śrīla Prabhupāda, so he talked (indistinct).</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I cannot hear.</p>
<p>Devotee (2): He didn't talk once about Kṛṣṇa. He didn't mention once the name of Kṛṣṇa, and he didn't say anything about...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is the root of everything. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate ([[Vanisource:BG 10.8|BG 10.8]]). So He is the root. So you pour water in the root. Just like we are Kṛṣṇa conscious. So because we are Kṛṣṇa conscious, does it mean that we are not taking care of the human being? That is automatically coming. But those who are taking care of the human society only, social work, political work, they do not know even what Kṛṣṇa. Missing. That is the difference. Because we are taking of Kṛṣṇa, we have come to the human society. We are teaching them Kṛṣṇa consciousness, spiritual knowledge. That is automatically. We are feeding them, giving them prasādam. That is included. But those who are opening hospitals for human being, they are taking the poor animals to the slaughterhouse, maintaining big, big slaughterhouse. That means foolishness. Kṛṣṇa will not be happy that one son you take care by opening hospital and another son you go, you send him to the slaughterhouse. This is foolishness. Never. God will never be happy. The same example. If the father has got both children—you take care one of them and others you kill them—will the father be happy? So that is not the way of making the supreme father, God, happy. That is not the way. That is foolish way. Rather, displeasing the father. That is not a very good philosophy. Why you should make distinction? He claims,</p>
:sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
:mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ
:tāsāṁ brahma mahad yonir
:ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
:([[Vanisource:BG 14.4|BG 14.4]])
<p>Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ: ([[Vanisource:BG 15.7|BG 15.7]]) "Every living entity is My part and parcel. Every living entity is begotten by Me. I am the father." So how you can make discrimination from one son to another? That is foolishness. You cannot expect by pleasing one son the father will be happy. But if you bring something to the father and pay him, or some food, "Sir, it is for your sons," then he'll be pleased. He'll distribute the foodstuff to his sons. But if you take care one of the sons and don't take care of the other son, the father will never please. Very... That is not the way of pleasing the father. That is foolishness. You may say that "I am taking care of the best son," but to a father, either the best son or the lowest son, the same. Father does not make any..., "Because this is best son, he should be satisfied and the worst sons should be neglect." Father does not make. Father will like better that "You take care of my worst son first." And besides that, to take care of the human society, it is also bogus. Nobody can take care. There are so many problems in the human society how you can take care? But the real problem is—that is for everyone—janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi. Either he is animal or human being or demigod or big man or small man or rich man or poor man, a learned man, foolish man, these problems are there, janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi. So if you take care of these problems, how to save them, all of them, from these four problems, that is real service. Janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi-duḥkha-doṣānudarśanam ([[Vanisource:BG 13.9|BG 13.9]]). Otherwise temporary—"I am hungry. You give me some relief"—but that relief is temporary. I'll become again hungry. And if I come to you twice, thrice, you'll be disgusted. Neither you can. There are so many hungry men. But if with a view to solve his all problems of life, janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi, if you take care of him, that is the best service.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>