View source for Nature has given a body that..., just like a tailor can give me a set of dress, but the dress, when I put on, the dress looks like a man, with hands and legs. But dress is nothing; it is simply outward covering of a man, a living entity

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Nature has given a body that..., just like a tailor can give me a set of dress, but the dress, when I put on, the dress looks like a man, with hands and legs. But dress is nothing; it is simply outward covering of a man, a living entity"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|25Aug12}}
{{last|25Aug12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:nature]]
[[Category:has]]
[[Category:give]]
[[Category:body]]
[[Category:that]]
[[Category:just Like]]
[[Category:like A]]
[[Category:can]]
[[Category:Give Me (Prabhupada)]]
[[Category:set]]
[[Category:dress]]
[[Category:but]]
[[Category:when]]
[[Category:put]]
[[Category:dress]]
[[Category:Look]]
[[Category:like A]]
[[Category:man]]
[[Category:with]]
[[Category:hand]]
[[Category:leg]]
[[Category:but]]
[[Category:dress]]
[[Category:nothing]]
[[Category:it Is]]
[[Category:simply]]
[[Category:Outward]]
[[Category:Covering]]
[[Category:living Entities]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononImmanuelKant_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="3" link="Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant">
<div class="heading">Nature cannot do anything. Nature has given a body that..., just like a tailor can give me a set of dress, but the dress, when I put on, the dress looks like a man, with hands and legs. But dress is nothing; it is simply outward covering of a man, a living entity. Similarly, nature gives us this material body, outward coating. The inside is living entity, that..., not the creation of this material nature.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant|Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: According to the Christian religion, at the end of the world there is a resurrection of the body, that is the gross  material body. Kant does not think very much about this. He writes, "For who is so fond of his body that he would wish to drag it about with him through all eternity if he could get on without it?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is the nature. Even a hog, pig, he is living so abominable. Still, when he is captured for being killed, he cries. He does not think that "My body is so low-grade that I have to eat stool, I live in filthy place, in a very bad smell, and I am trying to save my, this body?" But he cries. So this is called māyā. Although his body is so abominable, he wants to protect it perpetually. This tendency is there because the living entity has actually..., he is perpetual living condition. He wants that, but he wants that in this material body. That is his mistake.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He writes that "Man alone can be regarded as nature's own end or highest product, because on earth only man is capable of complying with the categorical imperative, the moral law."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So it is accepted that nature creates man, and that is not very good philosophy. Nature creates man, then nature is supreme. There is no such thing. And nature is ultimate. Nature is dull matter. What do you call nature? Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4|BG 7.4]]) earth, water, fire. They cannot create. Nature cannot create. Otherwise the materialist scientist, they could do it by combining, combining this earth, water, air, fire. So nature is dull, lifeless. How nature can create life? What is the logic? What is the philosophy?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He wouldn't say that. He would say that man is nature's final end...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: ...because man's moral nature alone is worthwhile.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. He is giving stress that nature has made man. That is our objection, that nature cannot do anything. Nature has given a body that..., just like a tailor can give me a set of dress, but the dress, when I put on, the dress looks like a man, with hands and legs. But dress is nothing; it is simply outward covering of a man, a living entity. Similarly, nature gives us this material body, outward coating. The inside is living entity, that..., not the creation of this material nature. That is creation of part and parcel of God. This (indistinct) knowledge is imperfect, that nature has created man. That is imperfect knowledge.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He maintains that certain knowledge of God's existence would destroy a man's freedom and reduce human experience to a show of puppets frantically currying the favor of the Almighty.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is favor. Just like nobody wants to die, but the superior power obliges everyone to die. So he is dependent. Why should you think that he is independent? That is foolishness.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He sees uncertainty as a necessary ingredient for faith.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Uncertainty is a necessary ingredient for faith.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Faith, faith should not be blind. That is useless. Faith... Just like I believe in the government. This is not faith, this is fact. There is government, and I am under government's law, so I have to obey the orders of government. This is not faith; this is fact. Similarly, to one who knows God and becomes dependent on Him, that is not faith; that is fact. He is happy by his  depending on God. Just like a child, he knows that "Here is my father and mother." He voluntarily depends on the parents and he is happy.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: In his last work Kant seems to shift his position. He says, "Morality thus leads ineluctably to religion, through which it extends itself to the idea of a powerful moral law-giver outside of mankind for whose will that is the final end of creation, which at the same time can and ought to be man's final end. Make the highest good possible in the world your own final end." So he seems to point to an absolute law-giver or an absolute morality, which is God, but he believes that this knowledge of God is ultimately uncertain.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Uncertain—for the man who does not possess the perfect knowledge. But if we believe in God, if we know God, we can get perfect knowledge from Him. Then we become perfect.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He says, "An ethical commonwealth can be followed only as a people under divine commands, that is, as a people of God, and indeed under laws of virtue. We might indeed conceive of a people of God under statutory laws. Under such laws, that obedience to them would concern not the morality but merely the legality of acts."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: "This would be a commonwealth of which indeed God would be the law-giver."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the best quality of state. If we abide by the orders of God, or the king or the government abides by the order of God, that is ideal state.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He says, "Thus the constitution of the state would be theocratic, but man as priest receiving his bequests directly would build up an aristocratic government," like the brāhmaṇas would receive the knowledge from God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That theocratic government is Manu-saṁhitā. That is Vedic literature given by Manu for the benefit of the human society.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He writes, "It does not enter men's heads that when they fulfill their duties to men they are performing God's commands and are therefore, in all their actions, so far as they concern morality, perpetually in the service of God, and that it is absolutely impossible to serve God directly in any other way, since they can effect and have an influence upon earthly beings alone and not upon God." He said we can only relate to man. We can only serve man and not serve God directly, but only serve god through man, like a humanitarianism.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So if he does not serve God, then how he will get direction how to serve the humanity? If he does not know how to serve humanity from God, then what is the value of his service to humanity? (break) ...giving direction that "You serve humanity in this way, by preaching His message, Bhagavad-gītā, to all humanity." Then he becomes very faithful servant of God. So to give service to the humanity means when one is a faithful servant of God, he can service to the humanity or to all other living entities, and if he manufactures his service, that is useless.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>