View source for Our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|19Sep12}}
{{last|19Sep12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Our Process]]
[[Category:deductive]]
[[Category:We Say (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:that]]
[[Category:man]]
[[Category:mortal]]
[[Category:First of All]]
[[Category:therefore]]
[[Category:man]]
[[Category:also]]
[[Category:this Is]]
[[Category:process]]
[[Category:inductive]]
[[Category:process]]
[[Category:is That]]
[[Category:why]]
[[Category:shall]]
[[Category:accept]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB11612LosAngelesJanuary91974_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="328" link="Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974">
<div class="heading">Our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974|Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So Vedic knowledge is so perfect that this Bhārata-varṣa, seven islands. Now the seven islands still there. You cannot make eight or nine, or six. The seven islands are still there. So seven islands means, within seven islands, the two Americas, North and South America, are there. So why it is called Columbus, Columbus discovered? No. It was already in the Vedic literature. You will find in Śaṅkarācārya's... When Columbus discovered America, how many years ago? Two hundred years?</p>
<p>Devotee: Five hundred.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Five hundred years. And Śaṅkarācārya has described about the seven islands 1,500 years ago. So why the credit should go to Columbus? (laughter) It should go to Śaṅkarācārya. But andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ. He says that "I have discovered." So he was talking, perhaps you know this story. He was talking among his friends. So the friends ridiculed another friend. So they were criticizing, "Oh, for nothing you got some credit, that you have discovered America. What you have done? It was already there." So he said, "Yes, that is knowledge. Things are already there, but one who puts it into the forefront of the public, that is credit."</p>
<p>So actually, everything is existing. We have to simply take the knowledge. The modern method is ascending process. The knowledge is there, but still, they are trying to understand it by āroha-panthā, ascending process. It is called inductive knowledge. Inductive knowledge means that... Suppose a man is mortal. So the so-called scientists, they are trying to discover the law, why man is mortal. They are studying, "This man is mortal, this man is mortal, this man is mortal. Therefore it is concluded that all men are mortal. Nobody is immortal." But another man will argue that "You have not studied all the human society. How you can conclude? Therefore we must study." So this study will go on for life after life. They will never come to a person who is immortal. But they will protest that "We cannot accept." But our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given.</p>
<p>But we accept this Vedic knowledge, the first premises, accept, accepted. Just like we accept that God is the source of everything. God says, Kṛṣṇa says, that,</p>
:ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
:mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
:iti matvā bhajante māṁ
:budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ
:([[Vanisource:BG 10.8|BG 10.8]])
<p>Kṛṣṇa says, "I am the origin of everything. Everything emanates from Me." Mattaḥ sarvaṁ prava... Sarvam means everything. There are two things: animate and..., what is opposite? Inanimate. There are two things. So Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the source of both animate and inanimate." So Kṛṣṇa. What is Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa is life, supreme life. Kṛṣṇa is not dead. We are getting Kṛṣṇa's description. He is not a dead body. These are things very, I mean to say, elaborately described in the Vedic literature. Just like in Vedānta it is said, "The origin of everything is Brahman." Janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]), athāto brahma jijñāsā. Now this origin of everything, what is the formation, animate or inanimate? This is accepted, that Brahman means, the Absolute Truth means, the origin of everything. Now the next question would be that "What is that origin?" The modern scientists, they think the origin is chemicals. But we say, "No. It cannot be chemicals." Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). The origin of everything must be cognizant. He knows everything. Otherwise how He can be origin? It is very logical. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayāt ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]), origin. Just like I have established this institution. I know how it was established perfectly, and how it is going on. And somebody may not know how it was established in New York with so great difficulty. But because I am the origin founder, I know. So similarly, so many things are going on in the nature's way. So the origin, He must know everything. And if He knows, then He cannot be inanimate. Where is the possibility of the origin becoming inanimate? No. Because the argument is, if one is origin of everything, or something he is origin of, he must have sense how things are going on.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>