View source for Argument (Conversations 1973 - 1974)

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Argumentum baculam"|"Argumentum baculum"|"Argumentum vaculam"|"Argumentum vaculum"|"argument"|"argument's"|"argumentative"|"argumentativeness"|"arguments"|"argumentum ad baculum"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Visnu Murti|Mayapur}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|10Feb12}}
{{last|13Feb12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=118|Let=0}}
{{total|118}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:argument|1]]
[[Category:Compilations from Conversations]]
</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="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="6" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1973 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1973 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationMarch171973Mayapur_0" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="10" link="Room Conversation -- March 17, 1973, Mayapur" link_text="Room Conversation -- March 17, 1973, Mayapur">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- March 17, 1973, Mayapur|Room Conversation -- March 17, 1973, Mayapur]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes, 17, when Anivesan (?) became the Congress president, yes. Then I became serious in 1920, and I gave up my education. So one of my friends, that friend he is also now, perhaps you know Mahārāja, that Naren Mullik?</p>
<p>Śrīdhara Mahārāja: Yes, yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. He was my intimate friend. So in their house, old Tīrtha Mahārāja went to beg some alms—they are very rich man. So, he informed me that "One nice sannyāsī came to our house," and he was invited, "in Ultadanga there is Gauḍīya Maṭha, so he has invited me. I wish to go there. Why don't you come? Let us go together." He was my very intimate friend. So at that time I was a little pessimistic (?), "I know all these sādhus there, I am not going." So he forced me, "Oh, why not come? Let us go." "All right, let us go." So I went to see His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura in 1922 in that Ultadanga building, and that time Prabhupāda was sitting on the roof. There was small house (indistinct) room, and we were welcome, because they thought Naren Mullik was very rich man and he has contributed some money. So, we went to see Prabhupāda, offered our obeisances. So immediately he said that "You are all educated young men, why don't you preach Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu's message throughout the whole world?" So I replied him, "Sir, we are dependent nation, who will hear our message? We can talk all these things after we get independence," because I was politically-minded at that time. So he refuted my argument. Certainly I was defeated, and I took his words very seriously, I appreciated. Then we were offered some prasādam, we came down, and my friend Naren Mullik asked me, "How did you like this sādhu?" "Yes, here is a sādhu in whose hands Caitanya Mahāprabhu's message is there, and it will be done. I think this is very nice." That was my appreciation. Then 1923, I resigned my post as manager in Bose's laboratory, and I accepted the agency of whole U.P., beginning from Mughalsarai (?) up to Delhi, and I made my head office in Allahabad. So I was always thinking, "Oh yes, I met a very nice sādhu." From the very beginning, that was my impression, that "I have met a real sādhu." So, actually the words, lava mātra sādhu saṅge sarva siddhi haya ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 22.54|CC Madhya 22.54]]), was actually... I perceived a kind (?) for a moment, and he impressed so much, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, that it was, it continued. Then in 1928, when there was Kumbha-melā... Mahārāja, when you joined Gauḍīya Maṭha?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril251973LosAngeles_1" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="14" link="Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Svarūpa Dāmodara: They just argue without any background.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: Just for argument...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That means the so-called education making them all rascals and fools. That's all. The education has no value. We therefore say that you close all these universities. You are simply producing rascals and fools. That's all.</p>
<p>Brahmānanda: Asses.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Asses, mūḍhāḥ. Unless one comes to the point of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we don't give any value to so-called education, advancement of knowledge. We don't give any value. Our only formula is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. If one is not Kṛṣṇa conscious, he has no value. Immediately reject him. He has no value of his life. We are advocating Kṛṣṇa consciousness not on sentiment, on the value of life. That these men are being carried away by whims without any value of life. Let us save them. That is our mission. Just like a, a foolish person is going in, on the ocean. So it is: "Oh, why you are going that way? Where you are going? You are a madman." This is the duty.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril251973LosAngeles_2" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="14" link="Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- April 25, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That is not possible. Neither you can say the magistrate partial, the judge. Somebody, he gives, "Give him degree for one million dollars." Another: "Hang him." So the judge is not partial. He is getting his money. He's getting his punishment. He's simply making judgement. He's not impartial. He's not enemy to anyone or friend to anyone. Similarly according to your work, you'll get punishment or reward by God. God is not partial.</p>
<p>Brahmānanda: That's another argument they give that when there's some calamity, then they say: "Oh,..." Then they blame the Supreme...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: God.</p>
<p>Brahmānanda: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And when there's profit, that is His credit. Then he'll say: "Oh, I have worked so hard. Now I have got this profit." And when there is calamity, "Oh, what can I do, it is God's desire."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMay21973LosAngeles_3" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="21" link="Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So you did not ask?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: No, I asked later on. I asked, that "Your topic is about origin of life, but you are not talking about the origin of life. So there is no basis of your argument."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Very good.</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: Then I asked, "Supposing I give you the chemical materials, say, the molecules likes amino acids and the big molecules like DNA and RNA..." These are the molecules, which they think necessary for the maintenance of life. "Supposing I give you all these chemical compounds, then do you think that you will be able to put life into it. If you get all the chemical materials necessary, but will you be able to put life into it?" Then he said, "I do not know."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why you are talking nonsense? (laughter) Then? People did not laugh?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes. No, everybody was silent. Everybody was silent because everybody believes that life started from matter, all the, in the audience. So I said that "Your basis means life started from matter. That means..." He was saying that when the earth, before the life started, there was no living entities on earth. Then I said, "How do you know there is no living entities on earth?" Then he could not answer.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just see. Very good. Yes. You have to go and lecture all the universities, calling these rascals fools. That will be our mission. They do not know anything and talking all nonsense. That's it. There was nobody to challenge till now. Now we are creating persons to challenge these rascals. That is our credit. Till now whatever nonsense they are talking, people thought, "Oh he is a big scientist." Now our scientist will protest against them, stop them talking all nonsense. That is what we want. If a lay man like me goes and protesting, he may say that "First of all you come to my level, then I shall talk with you." Now, he cannot talk with you like that. Because you are on the level. So challenge all this nonsense. Why they talk nonsense? So later on, other persons, they did not talk with you?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMay21973LosAngeles_4" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="21" link="Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Svarūpa Dāmodara: Logic and argument?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Nyāya-pra... Just like Vedānta-sūtra, it is logic and argument to approach the Absolute Truth. Athāto brahma jijñāsā: "Now it is the time for inquiring about Brahman." This is logic. Because other animals, they cannot inquire about the Absolute Truth, but human being can, therefore the first proposition is, atha ataḥ, "Now because you have got human form of life, therefore you should now inquire about the Absolute Truth." This is the beginning. It is logic. And actually we feel, "Who has created the ocean? Who has created the stars? How it is floating? Whether there are human beings?" So many questions. That should be solved now. And actually they are doing, the scientists. Scientists means they are also trying to solve so many problems. So that is, human being can be scientist. Not a dog can be scientist. So why not become the supreme scientist to know the Absolute Truth. That is Vedānta-sūtra. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. Now you propose that "Why don't you accept that life begins from life?" What is their objection? This is also theory, and why not accept this theory? And now let us compare, which theory is feasible. Why you are afraid?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: They are silent.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMay21973LosAngeles_5" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="21" link="Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- May 2, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Brahmānanda.: Blind leading the blind.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all. Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.31|SB 7.5.31]]). Anyway he has admitted, "I do not know." That is sufficient defeat for him. But they are shameless. In spite of being defeated, they won't admit that "I am defeated." Not gentlemen. Formerly between two learned scholars there will be argument. If one is defeated... Just like Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. As soon as he became defeated, he became His disciple. That's all. That was the system. Not that we go on arguing for hours, and one is defeated; still, he remains the same. No. If you are defeated, then you must accept the other party as your master. That was the system. As soon as he said that I do not know, he should have become your disciple. That is the system. "If you do not know why you have come to teach me."</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: He should come and become a disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, Prabhupāda... No. We want everyone to become Kṛṣṇa's disciple. That is our mission. We are disciplic succession. The original master is Kṛṣṇa. (end)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMay41973LosAngeles_6" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="23" link="Morning Walk -- May 4, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- May 4, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- May 4, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- May 4, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Devotee: The brick-layers get a hundred dollars a day.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just see. So why don't you become a brick layer instead of scientist? (laughter) You get more money. Dr. Bose, he called me... I told you. He asked me, "What you are doing?" "Now, I am going to the share market." So he immediately said, "Then what is the value of your education if you are going to the share market like the Marwaris who are illiterate?" Share market means to have some tricks how to sell and purchase shares. That by practicing anyone can do. It is not very difficult. (break) ... life from life. Make vigorous propaganda. Let them come to argument, scientific discussion. (pause) The man and woman in your country, they have got equal rights. Why not here? (laughter) In the lavatory? Why this discrimination, "woman," "man," why? Equal rights, must be equal rights. (pause) What is the basic philosophy for contraceptive action? Why do they prefer contraceptive method?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: Their point being to reduce the population, not to increase.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But population is reducing, it is increasing. You take the statistics, the world population is increasing, it is not decreasing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMay121973LosAngeles_7" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="26" link="Morning Walk -- May 12, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- May 12, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- May 12, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- May 12, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Svarūpa Dāmodara: That is completely in contradiction with Darwin's theory.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick on your face. That's all. That is our philosophy. The more we kick on Darwin's face, the more advanced in spiritual consciousness. He has killed the whole civilization, rascal.</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: Even all the scientists now, the present scientists, their arguments are based on Darwin's early theories.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What they are...?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: That life started from matter and is evolving from the uni-cellular organisms to the multi-cellular organisms. So that means they are saying that there was no higher species at the beginning of creation.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nonsense. So why there is now higher species? And the lower species also. As we see at the present moment, there is the most intellectual person and the most foolish ass also... So why do we see all the things simultaneously? Why ass is not abolished? What is their answer? So similarly, formerly also there was.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkAtCheviotHillsGolfCourseMay131973LosAngeles_8" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="27" link="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 13, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 13, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 13, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 13, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Paramahaṁsa: They don't preach.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is, killing is also preaching. If I kill your ignorance, that is also killing. That is also killing. Not... Killing does not mean that everyone has to take the sword.</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: A new method of warfare.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, it is always there. By argument, by knowledge.</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: It's a little wet.</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, when you are not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions, for example, on questions that may arise?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well, the questions... Answers are there in my books.</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: Other than that, for example, that we would ask you in...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: Do you direct us also through the heart? Besides the Paramātmā?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If your heart is pure. Everything depends on purity. Whether there. What is this? Sacrificial arena? (laughter)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkAtCheviotHillsGolfCourseMay151973LosAngeles_9" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="29" link="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 15, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 15, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 15, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 15, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Paramahaṁsa:. At the present they know how to kill very good.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Nonsense. "We are trying." That any nonsense will say, "I am trying." What is this? That is not a scientific proposition.</p>
<p>Umāpati: Well, the argument that has been presented is that "Well we don't have it now, but soon we're to have it. So..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That any rascal will say. What is the difference between you and the rascal? Any rascal will say, that "I am trying to..." What is the use of these scientists? Any rascal will say. Trust no future, however pleasant. You can talk of all pleasant things in future, but you don't trust it. You as you don't trust, because you do not see soul, you don't trust. Why shall I trust you, you rascal, that in future you shall be very great scientist? You do not trust because you do not see. There is no soul. You cannot see. So why shall I trust you? What is the answer? That in future you will be able to do something extraordinary. Why shall I trust you?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkAtCheviotHillsGolfCourseMay171973LosAngeles_10" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="30" link="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Svarūpa Dāmodara: Hm. Chouri.(?)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Chouri. (laughing) So I told him that "You are a demon." But he was not angry. He admitted. And all his argument was refuted. Perhaps you remember.</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes, in fact, he was telling that "Kṛṣṇa didn't give me all the procedures, steps, how to do the experiment." He was saying like that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Why shall I give you? You are a rascal, you are against Kṛṣṇa, why Kṛṣṇa will give you facility? If you are against Kṛṣṇa and you want the credit without Kṛṣṇa, that's not possible. You must be submissive first of all. Then Kṛṣṇa will give you all facilities. Just like we dare to face any chemist, any scientist, any philosopher. Why? On the strength of Kṛṣṇa, we believe that "There is Kṛṣṇa. When I shall talk with him, Kṛṣṇa will give give me intelligence." This is the basics. Otherwise, from qualification, standard, they are very much qualified. We are common laymen before them. But how do we challenge them? Because we know. Just like a small child He can challenge a very big man because he knows, "My father is there." He is catching the hand of the father, and he's sure that "Nobody can do anything to me."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkAtCheviotHillsGolfCourseMay171973LosAngeles_11" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="30" link="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk At Cheviot Hills Golf Course -- May 17, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Svarūpa Dāmodara: The scientists, when we say that "The attempts that you are doing are no good." Then they want to make sure that what I am saying is right.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, because I see that you are rascal, therefore I am right. You are rascal. You don't admit, but I see that you are rascal. You don't admit, but I see that you are a rascal. Therefore I am right. This is the argument. You are so rascal that you cannot admit your rascaldom. Just like this moon planet expedition. But I, sixteen years before, I told that these are rascals. Therefore I am right.</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: They claim that "We have done so much."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What have you done? You have simply spoiled money. That's all. In that sense I have done so much. Simply by teaching people, "Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa," they are coming to such light. What do you think? I have done most wonderful thing than them.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithKrishnaTiwariMay221973NewYork_12" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="31" link="Room Conversation with Krishna Tiwari -- May 22, 1973, New York" link_text="Room Conversation with Krishna Tiwari -- May 22, 1973, New York">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Krishna Tiwari -- May 22, 1973, New York|Room Conversation with Krishna Tiwari -- May 22, 1973, New York]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Ātreya Ṛṣi: That's the limit.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why don't you cannot bring the dead body into life?</p>
<p>Krishna Tiwari: I don't think this is the point of argument, because I have, I have already, I have already agreed that the body...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, this is, this is the point, this is...</p>
<p>Krishna Tiwari: No, no, wait, listen, because the point is this. I agree that the living gets dead and no science can revive it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore, what is your science?</p>
<p>Krishna Tiwari: Fine. But what I'm saying is that when the question of soul is something which is not at the moment visible to us or anybody. There is no indication that there is soul, because if there is soul in everything, I would imagine that that will not be controllable under laboratory conditions. If soul made us, then we should not be able to make differences amongst us. If, if the soul was the prime force, and was important force, then such differences of very magnified nature as exists between one species, between the same species, for example human beings, or between the rats. They will not be under the control of the human beings. One could make rats with white eyes, same rat can be bred and made with blue eyes. Or rat can be made white to black. Now these knowledge, this knowledge which man has achieved by studying the law of nature would never have arrived if we just believed in total something which has been said.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationJuly91973London_13" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="33" link="Room Conversation -- July 9, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation -- July 9, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- July 9, 1973, London|Room Conversation -- July 9, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yogeśvara: They just accumulate knowledge just for knowledge sake.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not just for knowledge because they do not get any knowledge. They have no knowledge. What is the knowledge? They talk all nonsense. What is the knowledge?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: His argument was "Well there's no point in talking about this matter. All of us accept this." He's saying: all big authorities, they accept this point of view, that this was recently written literature.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, they don't know who are authorities.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: That's right.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You manufacture your own authorities. You do not know. That is your misfortune. You do not know who is authority.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithIndianGuestsJuly111973London_14" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="37" link="Room Conversation with Indian Guests -- July 11, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Indian Guests -- July 11, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Indian Guests -- July 11, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Indian Guests -- July 11, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Revatīnandana: He would take it as prasāda? (laughter)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So this is going on. What can be done? And here, in the western countries, they are innocent. I have told them that "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, Supreme God." They have accepted it. Just like child. So they are making progress. And people are astonished, "How these westerners, they have become so nice devotee?" But they have accepted it without any argument.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: I used to argue all the time. (laughter) You used to win every time.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Otherwise, what is the miracle. I simply present that "Here is God, Kṛṣṇa. And just chant His name, holy name." And they're doing that. But Indians will not do that. They'll say, "Oh, this Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, we have seen." And one, one student in Berkeley University, Indian: "Swamiji, what this Hare Kṛṣṇa movement will do? We want now technology." That's all. They take it as very trifle thing. Not seriously.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationWithThreeCollegeStudentsJuly111973London_15" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="38" link="Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London|Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Therefore you are taking the shelter of logic. You are taking the shelter.</p>
<p>Student (1): Logic... Logic is arguing, isn't it?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, logic means argument, reasoning. Our logic is because Kṛṣṇa is accepted by all great persons, authorities, we accept. Our logic is simple.</p>
<p>Student (1): But Christians might say the same thing. They might say, "Look at the Bible, This is our logic."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that's all right. They accept God; we accept God. The only difference is they do not know who is God, but we know who is God.</p>
<p>Student (1): No, they know who is God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: You won't get any good information about God. "God is great. God created"—finished. That's not very much information. God's son? A little more information about God's son.</p>
<p>Student (1): But you've got no more right to say you know who is God than they have.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Oh, well, we have a lot more information about God, you see.</p>
<p>Student: In which way?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: In these Vedas. There's a difference between the arithmetic book you get in the first grade of school and the calculus book in terms of the amount of information. We can tell you more about God because the Vedas give more information than the Bible. But the basic principle—"God is there. God is a person"—is in both places.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Jesus Christ is son of God. Therefore God must be person. A person can beget a son.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationWithThreeCollegeStudentsJuly111973London_16" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="38" link="Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London|Room Conversation With Three College Students -- July 11, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Student (2): No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, then what can I talk with you?</p>
<p>Student (2): All I was saying was is it, when someone comes...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Your the photograph of your, seeing the photograph of your father, is it not seeing your father? That's your argument?</p>
<p>Student (1): No, it's seeing a photograph of your father.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: False?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: It's seeing a photograph of your father.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Now, but God is Absolute. God and God's photograph, there is no difference. God and God's name, there is no difference. Therefore God is Absolute. He is not relative. You can say, "The photograph is not my father," that because it is relative. But God is Absolute. God's name, God's form, God's pastimes—everything is God. That you have to understand, Absolute nature. Otherwise are these boys and so many thousands and thousands of devotees... They are chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa. If Kṛṣṇa, this name, is different from Kṛṣṇa, are they foolishly simply chanting Kṛṣṇa?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithGuestJuly111973London_17" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="39" link="Room Conversation with Guest -- July 11, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Guest -- July 11, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Guest -- July 11, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Guest -- July 11, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So I do not know why these people protest against me. Kṛṣṇa says, Śukadeva Gosvāmī says, Caitanya Mahāprabhu says. I do not know what Śaṅkarācārya says, but...</p>
<p>Guest: When, when advaita-darśana was the main doctrine of ādi-śaṅkarācārya. So there should not be any dvaita between brāhmaṇa and śūdra.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (laughs) That is, from argument, it is all right. Yes. Why one should see Brahman and not-Brahman? Yes.</p>
<p>Guest: There is only one God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There is only one God.</p>
<p>Guest: Eko brahma dvitīyo nāsti.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nāsti. So...</p>
<p>Guest: Only one God dwells everywhere.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And Kṛṣṇa says that sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya mūrtayaḥ sambha...ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā ([[Vanisource:BG 14.4 (1972)|BG 14.4]]). He's the original seed-giving father of all living entities, in any form. So not only human beings, but also animals, birds, beasts. Kṛṣṇa is the original father. Jīvera... Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya-kṛṣṇa-dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). And Kṛṣṇa also: mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 15.7 (1972)|BG 15.7]]).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithFatherTannerandotherguestsJuly111973London_18" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="42" link="Room Conversation with Father Tanner and other guests -- July 11, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Father Tanner and other guests -- July 11, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Father Tanner and other guests -- July 11, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Father Tanner and other guests -- July 11, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Father Tanner: Hm. But, you see, knowledge and attainment aren't the same thing. You know, I may know that it is wrong to be an alcoholic, and maybe I am not actually, physically an alcoholic, but it doesn't mean to say that interiorally I have cleansed myself of all addiction. The fact that you are not drinking for a year doesn't mean to say that you have overcome the intoxicant urge if that is in you, although you know it is wrong.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, this argument is not very strong. Just like one foodstuff, freshly made, it is fresh. But if somebody argues that if it remains four days more, it will become bad, that is surmisation. Now it is fresh. We take it fresh. What will happen in future, that is no consideration. In future, everyone may fall and everyone may become elevated. But we have to take his present situation, what he is at present.</p>
<p>Father Tanner: But couldn't it be the difference between appearance and reality?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is reality. If at the present moment he is free from all sinful activities, that is reality. In future, everyone is susceptible to fall down. If he does not carry the principles strictly that proneness is there. But that is not consideration. What he is at present, that is consideration.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithTwoBuddhistMonksJuly121973London_19" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Very, very good. Yes.</p>
<p>Buddhist Monk (1): Yeah. So they have gone, according to me, lower than our animal brothers.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Certainly, certainly. Your argument is very good.</p>
<p>Buddhist Monk (1): Of course, it's very very...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: In the forest, there is no slaughterhouse, although they are carnivorous animals.</p>
<p>Buddhist Monk (1): Is the only way.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So actually in India the meat-eaters were always, but there was no slaughterhouse. The meat-eaters, they were allowed that "You can sacrifice one goat before the goddess Kālī and eat it." That means once in a month, restriction. And individual person... But no slaughterhouse. What is this nonsense, slaughterhouse? Big, big slaughterhouse. Trade with slaughterhouse. This is the... Even, even in India during Mohammedan period, there was no slaughterhouse. Individual, if he liked, he can kill one animal and eat. No slaughterhouse.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithTwoBuddhistMonksJuly121973London_20" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Buddhist Monk (1): No mass slaughters, no mass slaughters.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. This is from the western world. This is very nice argument, that in the jungle there are carnivorous animals, but they don't maintain slaughterhouse. Neither they attack unless they are hungry. Otherwise, in Africa, there is national...</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: Park.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: All the animals are freely rotating.</p>
<p>Buddhist Monk (1): Or they think their life is in danger.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Buddhist Monk (1): If one radiates love and kindness...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is another thing. Defense is allowed to everyone. You must defend. That is another thing. But ordinarily, not that because a lion has got jaws and teeth, therefore he's simply jumping over. Not like that. Even people have experienced that when the, these ferocious animals, they are not hungry, they don't attack. They don't attack.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationWithDavidLawrenceJuly121973London_21" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="44" link="Room Conversation With David Lawrence -- July 12, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation With David Lawrence -- July 12, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation With David Lawrence -- July 12, 1973, London|Room Conversation With David Lawrence -- July 12, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Just like so much field is there. You, if you take the all village people, you can produce enough food for them in this village. So much land is lying there. Simply you keep cows and till ground, get your food grains. Enough. And if you take the whole planet as it is, you can feed ten times population. There is so much prospect. Australia, Africa. So much vacant land. You can produce enough quantity of milk and food grains.</p>
<p>David Lawrence: Yes, I think this was the clinching argument in this program...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But they are doing... What they are doing? They're taking the milk and slaughtering the animals and sending to foreign countries for trade. New Zealand, Australia, they are doing like that. Just see.</p>
<p>David Lawrence: Or they're throwing down the surplus milk down coal mines.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>David Lawrence: They throw surplus milk down coal mines.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's it.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithMalcolmJuly181973London_22" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="46" link="Room Conversation with Malcolm -- July 18, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Malcolm -- July 18, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Malcolm -- July 18, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Malcolm -- July 18, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: His argument in the newspaper by other people complaining against Zaner's argument. Not members of our movement, but other people, Englishmen. "Zaner is a fool," this and that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh yes, they have called. He is a fool.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: We'll bring them up. They're in the Times, letters to the editor.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And we have directly called him fool, rascal.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Other people are also criticizing. They find other things in his argument that are not... They say he has to realize Bhagavad-gītā before he can criticize anything.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. He does not realize. He does not know anything. You can read this letter. It is very interesting.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: To Zaner this one? Or to...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: General, general. Reply.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithLordBrockwayJuly231973London_23" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="50" link="Room Conversation with Lord Brockway -- July 23, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Lord Brockway -- July 23, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Lord Brockway -- July 23, 1973, London|Room Conversation with Lord Brockway -- July 23, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: He said only grass. It doesn't cost anything.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Grass is grown by God, and she is eating. What is your problem?</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: Their argument is that there'll be over-population.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Now, you kick them on their face. Oh, what is this? This is not sweet-rice. It is some...?</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: Cuddy.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Cuddy, cuddy.</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: They always argue that "In India they should kill the cows and eat them, and then they would not starve" because they're so foolish.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You have got your natural teeth? Your teeth?</p>
<p>Lord Brockway: No, not natural.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not natural.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="GardenConversationwithMahadevasMotherandJesuitPriestJuly251973London_24" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="52" link="Garden Conversation with Mahadeva's Mother and Jesuit Priest -- July 25, 1973, London" link_text="Garden Conversation with Mahadeva's Mother and Jesuit Priest -- July 25, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Garden Conversation with Mahadeva's Mother and Jesuit Priest -- July 25, 1973, London|Garden Conversation with Mahadeva's Mother and Jesuit Priest -- July 25, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Well, yes...</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: And he's a very intelligent man. He's in the Mensa Society.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: In the Vedic literature it is said the animal killers cannot understand God.</p>
<p>Mother: Well, this is very good, sir, that you find this, and I say, this is not my argument... Yes. Hmmm.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Not practical also. I have seen the animal killers. They do not understand what is God. That is a fact. Neither they have got brain to understand it.</p>
<p>Mother: But you don't need brain if you're not going to study or to do anything further. If you just sit and sleep like...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we are studying. Because we are preaching, we are studying that. The animal eaters, they cannot have any conception of God. The brain is so dull.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithAnnaConanDoyledaughterinlawoffamousauthorSirArthurConanDoyleAugust101973Paris_25" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="59" link="Room Conversation with Anna Conan Doyle, daughter-in-law of famous author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -- August 10, 1973, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with Anna Conan Doyle, daughter-in-law of famous author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -- August 10, 1973, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Anna Conan Doyle, daughter-in-law of famous author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -- August 10, 1973, Paris|Room Conversation with Anna Conan Doyle, daughter-in-law of famous author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -- August 10, 1973, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Guru-gaurāṅga: So when this body is finished, why shall the soul be gone?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Even the father, mother is not crying. The mother's baby dies. She cries, she becomes mad. But when the child gives up that childhood body, accept another body, she's happy because she knows: "My son is there. He has only changed the body." The mother knows. Mother is not crying: "Oh, where is my child gone, sir?" He knows that "My child is here. He has changed his body." These are the arguments. If the foolish rascal will not accept genuine arguments, logic, then how he can be convinced? He's a animal. The animals cannot be convinced. Any man with little brain substance, he'll understand this. Where is the difficulty? But it is useless to talk with animals. You cannot argue with dogs and hogs. That is not possible. So if their brain is doggish and hoggish, how you can convince them? But the logic is there, the argument is there.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationAugust111973Paris_26" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="60" link="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris|Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So when Kṛṣṇa is directing, is it aimless? The whole cosmic manifestation, is it aimless? There is some purpose. Otherwise, why God has created, and He's directing? These people, they cannot understand it.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: They'll challenge. They have arguments.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: They will say that: "If you..." Just like... Actually things... There is no order behind things. If you throw a ball against a wall...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Who is rascal throwing that ball? Who is that rascal? Throwing that ball? If you are giving that example, somebody's throwing ball, who is that rascal, throwing that ball?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Let's say someone who wants to prove there's no direction to the way..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Rascal, if you, as soon as you say: "Throwing ball," somebody's throwing. How can you deny it? You give the example, "throwing ball," but throwing ball means somebody's throwing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationAugust111973Paris_27" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="60" link="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris|Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yogeśvara: Then God's creations are not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. That, that... Suppose I have got ten sons or so many disciples. I say that: "You do this." Somebody may not do it. That independence everyone has got. So after being so-called independent, when he does not do, according to the instruction of God, he becomes different. God has created everyone equally, but when he disobeys the order of God, then he becomes different. Where is the flaw in this statement? I say everyone of my students that: "Don't do this." But if somebody does it, then he becomes different.</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: Yes. Their argument is... They will say that just the fact that the living entity has the independence and, and the possibility is there for him to make a mistake, they consider it to be a flaw.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: If it's better to be...</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: But they consider it to be God's flaw.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, why God's flaw.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Because He has given us the chance to fall down.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Independence means that you may obey me or not obey me. It is not my flaw. Otherwise, independence has no meaning. Independence has no meaning. If I give you independence... Just like Kṛṣṇa is giving independence to Arjuna: "Now I have explained to you everything. Now I give you independence. Either you accept or not accept, that is your position." So if this independence has no such quality, acceptance... That is not independence. If one has to be forced by the law of God, that is not independence. Then one does not know what is the meaning of independence.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationAugust111973Paris_28" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="60" link="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris|Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Bhagavān: The problem with these different discussions is these philosophers are simply stubborn. When they hear a better philosophy, they still will not change.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That, that is independence. That is also independence. You accept: "Yes, what you say, it is right. But I'll not accept." That is also independence, misuse of independence.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Like Dhṛtarāṣṭra, when he heard the arguments from Vidura.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So God's creation is perfect. There is no imperfect.</p>
<p>Guru-gaurāṅga: Does there come a time Śrīla Prabhupāda, when one misuses his independence, the independence is taken away? For example, if...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Now why shall He take away. What He has given to you, why He shall take?</p>
<p>Guru-gaurāṅga: In animal life?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Guru-gaurāṅga: Animal life?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Animal life, what is that?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationAugust111973Paris_29" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="60" link="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris|Room Conversation -- August 11, 1973, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Haṁsadūta: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: In the First Part, there is. Śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.17|SB 1.2.17]]). Kīrtana. Puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ. If one hears from you, he doesn't do. If he simply hears Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, then he'll be purified. Simply by hearing.</p>
<p>Bhagavān: But we can understand that even though we present so many good arguments, philosophically, if a person still does not accept it is simply because he is addicted to sinful activity. So therefore there's nothing other to do than chant.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hearing is the first. Saṅkīrtana. Let him..., give, give him chance for hearing Hare Kṛṣṇa.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkAugust301973London_30" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="66" link="Morning Walk -- August 30, 1973, London" link_text="Morning Walk -- August 30, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- August 30, 1973, London|Morning Walk -- August 30, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">David Lawrence: I must admit, yes, I've read far enough on to see that and I think this is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: When we make analogy, the points of similarity must be there. But these rascals are so dull-headed that they have not even logical arguments. Where are the points of similarity? That we are comparing these lusty affairs of this material world with the affairs of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs? Where is the similarity?</p>
<p>David Lawrence: There's never mention of lust or of any animal desire at all is there?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no.</p>
<p>David Lawrence: It's just reverence and love.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just like Kṛṣṇa used to dance with so many gopīs, everything is described there, that they embraced, they kissed, but there is no such thing abortion or contraceptive. (laughter) So these things have to be studied. How we can compare gopīs' love with Kṛṣṇa with these lusty affairs of this material world?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationSeptember11973London_31" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="69" link="Room Conversation -- September 1, 1973, London" link_text="Room Conversation -- September 1, 1973, London">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- September 1, 1973, London|Room Conversation -- September 1, 1973, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Oh.</p>
:mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
:sūyate sa-carācaram
:hetunānena kaunteya
:jagad viparivartate
:([[Vanisource:BG 9.10 (1972)|BG 9.10]])
<p>The Bhagavad-gītā is the perfect information of everything. One has to study carefully, that's all. It is perfect information. And you can accept it with your good logic. Not that blindly you accept. Now just like Kṛṣṇa says: "The material elements are My energy." Now you can consider, you can argue, you can make argument, you'll come to the conclusion. Just like material elements, water, the vast water. The ocean, Atlantic Ocean, vast water. So it is created by God's energy. How can you explain with your argument? Because it is said there, Kṛṣṇa says, that "This is My energy." Now, if you accept it, it is all right. But if you have got hesitation, what is your reason?</p>
<p>Guest: Because one man says one thing and one man says another thing. So many people have different things to say.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, personally. Suppose I ask you. What is your, you want to ask me?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationOctober311973Vrndavana_32" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="81" link="Room Conversation -- October 31, 1973, Vrndavana" link_text="Room Conversation -- October 31, 1973, Vrndavana">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- October 31, 1973, Vrndavana|Room Conversation -- October 31, 1973, Vrndavana]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Guest (1): Then they are useless.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Useless. Avicyuto 'rthaḥ kavibhir nirūpitaḥ. It is already taken. Nirūpita means there is no argument. It is already concluded.</p>
<p>Guest (1): Your business is not to prove or disprove, but to glorify Him.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. By your knowledge. If you are scientist, you are chemist, through chemical challenge you try to glorify the Supreme Lord. If you are physicist, from physical point of view, try to explain. If you are scientist... Anyway, because ultimate... Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam ([[Vanisource:BG 15.15 (1972)|BG 15.15]]). Any knowledge, that is... You have to approve the Supreme. That is real perfect knowledge. And at the present moment men of knowledge they are rejecting. Because they cannot explain, they are rejecting. They do not bother.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationNovember31973NewDelhi_33" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="84" link="Room Conversation -- November 3, 1973, New Delhi" link_text="Room Conversation -- November 3, 1973, New Delhi">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- November 3, 1973, New Delhi|Room Conversation -- November 3, 1973, New Delhi]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: I was simply planning in different way. Therefore Kṛṣṇa's favor. I never deviated from this plan. Since I heard it from my Guru Mahārāja, I've simply planning how to do it successfully. But I thought at that time, that "I'll be able to do it if I get some money. Let me do some business for the time." That I was thinking. But Kṛṣṇa said, "Even if you are pauper, you try; you'll get everything." But I thought, "Without money, how this can be done?" That was difference of opinion with Kṛṣṇa, argument. And I was dreaming also, Guru Mahārāja, asking me, "Come on." So I was going. So I was, "Oh, I have to go? I have to take sannyāsa?"</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: You, you dreaming?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Guru Mahārāja said, "Come, come with me." I was going. But that... Many things happened before this. Yes. And at last it became, in America.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember21973LosAngeles_34" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="87" link="Morning Walk -- December 2, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 2, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 2, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 2, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: You, you were atheist?</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So what is your view of atheist? What is your argument?</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: I don't know. I couldn't think of any good argument. They say that... No, it's not a good argument, though.</p>
<p>Bali Mardana: It's all one, isn't it.</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: Kīrtanānanda, his argument was, when he was an atheist, he said that actually the void is truth, and all categories or all varieties are illusion. So he said that we may think that actually spiritual variegatedness is transcendental, but that's actually also our illusion. That was his argument.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So what did you reply?</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: I replied that if categories are illusion, then his talking is also illusion.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that's nice.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember41973LosAngeles_35" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="89" link="Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Karandhara: They say, "But why should we accept any one of your authorities?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, then you come to argument, reason, then whether Darwin is authority or Kṛṣṇa is authority, we have to decide.</p>
<p>Devotee: Jaya!</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Yaśomatīnandana: They accept like, "I have not seen President Nixon, but I accept because I read in the newspaper." So somebody says that, well, by following this bhakti you can see Kṛṣṇa, but they will not accept that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember41973LosAngeles_36" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="89" link="Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 4, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Ah?</p>
<p>Devotee (2): Before we were saying that we were both fools. Is that the way to attract the scientists?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. That was argument. We are not fools; the scientist is fool. (devotees laugh) We are educated.</p>
<p>Devotee (2): But how we can get them to come, to take prasādam?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That... Yes, give them nice prasādam, they'll come. If one scientist can be captured, many others can be captured. (laughter)</p>
<p>Yaśomatīnandana: By saying that "We have got free food, come and dine with us."</p>
<p>Devotee (2): But first we give them prasādam and then they come, or first they come and then we give them prasādam?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, just like that Dr. Wolfe came also. So gradually they'll come, because they're...</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: But they're more interested in seeing the molecules than in taking prasādam.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember51973LosAngeles_37" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="90" link="Morning Walk -- December 5, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 5, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 5, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 5, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: This is dishonesty.</p>
<p>Umāpati: But there's a quality in this age that one does not accept defeat philosophically, philosophical defeat. If one is presented with philosophically sound arguments, it is a tendency today to refuse to accept the superiority of Kṛṣṇa consciousness philosophy over any other philosophy.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Umāpati: It's very popular to put all philosophies in the same... "Well, that's philosophy," they say. They say that "Everybody has his opinion. That's your opinion," they say.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Umāpati: So no one will accept any kind of superior philosophy. It's very difficult to discuss these things among them.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, then everyone, if becomes superior, then where is the question of philosophy? If everyone is superior himself, then there is no question of philosophy. Is there any necessity? You are superior, I am superior; then where is the question of discussing philosophy?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember61973LosAngeles_38" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="91" link="Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hṛdayānanda: Well, then they will say that everyone... The Christians would say that they're on the top step, and the Buddhists say they're on the top step.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, they may say, but if Kṛṣṇa is God, what He says, that we'll have to accept, what Kṛṣṇa says. Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]) "There is no more superior than Me." That you have to accept. Everyone will say, "I am very good." But is that the fact, that everyone is very good? There is comparative, superlative degrees. Just like shopkeepers, they say, "All my goods are good." They are competition. One has to judge. That comparative study... What the highest Buddha philosophy? Ahiṁsā. Ahiṁsā, nonviolence. That is our preliminary study. Amānitvam adambhitvam ahiṁsā kṣāntir ārjavam ([[Vanisource:BG 13.8-12 (1972)|BG 13.8]]). There are many other things after ahiṁsā. They do not know this.</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: There's another argument.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: Another argument.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember61973LosAngeles_39" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="91" link="Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Karandhara: Just like the criminals blame the government for being in the prison house.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes, that is natural. Yes. Surāśū-sākṣimat. Surāśū-sākṣimat. In the liquor shop so there was some trouble. So he went to court. He went to court. So the court asked him, "Where is your witness?" So he brought one witness, drunkard. You see? Surāśū-sākṣimat. So that is māyā, ahaṁ mameti ([[Vanisource:SB 5.5.8|SB 5.5.8]]), misusing power and blaming God, "Why God...?" God has made everything. Just like here. It is made not to move. Stay. But we are better than this. Is it not? It cannot move. So God has made this also. But because we can move, we are better than this. And if, if, if they say that "God, why he has made me to commit mistake?" This rascal does not understand that that is freedom. You, why don't you take the right one? God says, "This is right." Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]). Why don't you take it? And still, how you can say God is bad? What is the argument?</p>
<p>Umāpati: Well, the argument is that if God is so all-powerful, why does He even let me fall?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Umāpati: If God is so powerful, why does He let me fall. Why doesn't He save me, save me from my own foolishness. Why doesn't He...?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, He's saving you, but you don't carry His order.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember61973LosAngeles_40" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="91" link="Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 6, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So these rascals, how do they claim Christian? Eh? What do you think? They're not even category, in the category of dogs, cats, and they're claiming that "We are follower of Lord Jesus Christ."</p>
<p>Sudāmā: But they also argue, Prabhupāda, that that law, "Thou shalt not kill," "I am not killing. The others are killing. But I am not."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just see. Is that very good argument? "I am not killing."</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: But he's eating.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: "I am not killing the snake. My stick is killing." Is that very good argument? (laughter) These rascals, all these rascals, they avoid. "I am not killing. I am not responsible. My, my, this stick has killed." Just see. If you go to the court: "Sir, I have not killed, my stick has killed." Just see how rascal they are.</p>
<p>Prof. Wolfe: It is a question whether this "Thou shalt not kill" does not also include all our animal brothers and sisters.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Prof. Wolfe: I think it should also include that. Because "Thou shalt not kill" is just not kill creatures, not only men. But apart from that, they do not even follow it where men come in. They kill. They do.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I do not follow.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember81973LosAngeles_41" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="93" link="Morning Walk -- December 8, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 8, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 8, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 8, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: But your revelation and my revelation different. Why?</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: "Because God has so many different aspects that He reveals a different aspect to everyone."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is their argument. Then what is the standard of that aspect? Just like in the material world we see, somebody richer than others. This is also aspect of material situation. So if one is millionaire, he is better than a person who has got a few coins. So similarly, your realization of God and my realization of God, different. So I may be greater realized than you. What do you say, theologian?</p>
<p>Prajāpati: Well, today, Prabhupāda most of the literature is written on subjects of death of God, an eclipse of God, the fact that the people in general, it's a secular society and no one is even discussing God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That means they have failed. After discussing when they could not find out actually what is God, they have given up the idea. Failure.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithLatinProfessorDecember91973LosAngeles_42" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="95" link="Room Conversation with Latin Professor -- December 9, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Room Conversation with Latin Professor -- December 9, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Latin Professor -- December 9, 1973, Los Angeles|Room Conversation with Latin Professor -- December 9, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Professor: I have no answer.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore, our speculative knowledge, intellectual platform, is not helpful. We must receive knowledge from superior source, perfect source. That knowledge is perfect. Just like we give, generally this example, that to find out who is my father, my search out, research, will not help me, but if my mother says, "Here is your father," that is perfect knowledge because she's authority. Therefore, for perfect knowledge, we have to take it from the perfect authority, not by our speculative intellectual gymnasium. No, that will not help. Because our intellectual jurisdiction is very limited. That is Vedic process. Vedic process is not to acquire knowledge by ascending process, inductive process. Vedic knowledge is to receive knowledge by descending process, knowledge coming from authority. That, that you will find in the Bhagavad-gītā, Fourth Chapter: evaṁ paramparā prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 4.2 (1972)|BG 4.2]]). Knowledge has to be received... Just like a child receives knowledge... He is inquisitive: "Mother, what is this? Father, what is this?" And mother informs him, "My dear child, this is is. This is this." So he is acquiring knowledge by descending process. And if the child wants to get knowledge independently, that is not knowledge. He'll touch the fire. Mother: "Don't touch, don't touch, my dear child!" But he does not know. He's thinking the fire as something eatable. So by the Vedic process, this experimental knowledge is no useful. Yes. The Vedic injunction is tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet: (MU 1.2.12) "In order to receive perfect knowledge, you must have approach the guru." Guru means who has the perfect knowledge. So you cannot independently get perfect knowledge, intellectual. That will remain always imperfect. So intellectually, how you can conceive about God, who is unlimited, beyond your sense perception? We cannot know even ordinary material things, how great the sun is, how this universe is. We have imperfect knowledge. So our process is to receive knowledge from the perfect. Therefore, we are receiving knowledge from Kṛṣṇa, the supreme perfect. I am not perfect, but because I am receiving knowledge from the supreme perfect, therefore whatever I say, it is perfect. And that is guru. Guru does not say anything of his own manufacture or research. He says only what he has heard from the Supreme. That's all. So it is easier. It is easier. If the child says, "A watch, a watch," the child may be imperfect, but he has heard from his father, Here is a watch." That knowledge is perfect. This is our process. And Veda, Veda means knowledge, perfect knowledge. Veda, this word, Sanskrit word, it means perfect knowledge. Otherwise, there is no way to have perfect knowledge. There must be some source of perfect knowledge. That is Veda. For example, we... Just like cow dung. Cow dung is the stool of an animal. So in the Vedic principle, if you touch the stool of an animal, even your own stool, you become impure, you have to take bath. But the Vedas says, "The stool of cow is pure." And we accept that because Vedic injunction. And if you analyze, it is full of antiseptic properties, although it is stool. So by argument, one will say, "How is that? Sometimes you say that stool is impure, and again you say this stool is pure." But that is fact. Similarly, if we accept Vedic injunction, we save so much time for so-called research work. That is the standard knowledge. So every knowledge is there in the Vedas. There are so many Vedas. Even for our ordinary dealings, just like Āyur-veda. Āyur-veda means medical science.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember101973LosAngeles_43" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="96" link="Morning Walk -- December 10, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 10, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 10, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 10, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: They have already surrendered. They have already surrendered. When they have come to hear you, that is a symptom of surrender. Otherwise, why does he waste his time? There is, little bit, surrender. Full surrender and partial surrender. When one agrees to hear you, that is partial surrender.</p>
<p>Sudāmā: Even there may be some argument, but we must be fixed up enough to convince him to surrender more.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Actually, at the present age, nobody is interested in spiritual subject matter. Nobody is interested. So nobody is coming to surrender to you. Therefore you have to canvass, "Please surrender. Please surrender." This is our position. Otherwise, the... Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). One should come to the guru. But nobody comes to the guru, therefore guru has to come to U.S.A. to canvass. This is the position. Nobody went to me in India, but I had to come here to canvass you. Because it is Kali-yuga. Real process is one should go to the guru. But intelligent man goes: "My life is meant for spiritual realization. So I must find out a guru." That is his business, but people are so fallen in this age that nobody's interested in that subject matter, that he has got a spiritual value and he has to achieve this knowledge and make his life perfect. Nobody knows it. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu taught preaching. These rascals, they are so fallen, they'll never search out guru. So guru should go and canvass.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember111973LosAngeles_44" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="97" link="Morning Walk -- December 11, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 11, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 11, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 11, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prajāpati: That that's right, Śrīla Prabhupāda.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So you must take this clue, that we Americans, we say "In God we trust." Now, every American should know what is God, what is trust. This is propaganda, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The government must come forward to patronize this. This is my proposition. So you write articles, you are theologicians. The America must rise up to the occasion. They have pledged themselves, "In God we trust." Every human nation or every human being should be like that. In God they must trust. So America, especially taken up the slogan as part of Constitution. Now there should be regular educational program, that every child, every man, every woman will trust in God. And this is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So? Am I wrong in my arguments?</p>
<p>Devotee: No, correct.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So why don't you take it seriously, you American boys?</p>
<p>Prajāpati: Also in the Constitution, Śrīla Prabhupāda, there is a thing called separation of church and state, that they would have...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is all right. We want to educate, we don't want to take part in administration. But the administration should be under our guidance; they should take advice from us, how to do it. That is required. We are not going to be president. We are satisfied in our humble temple.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember121973LosAngeles_45" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="99" link="Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Umāpati: So the problem is trying to get into office under those circumstances, to make that known that "We stand for this," and to have anybody vote for you.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (laughs) Nobody may vote but we must go on preaching. That I have already explained, some of the university. The whole country is illiterate. Does it mean university should be stopped? University must be there. One who is fortunate will come and take education. It is not an argument that "People are illiterate. They don't care for it. Therefore let the university be closed." This is no argument.</p>
<p>Yaśomatīnandana: Gradually they will develop attraction.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, we have to work. That is preaching. You don't think preaching is so easy going. Eating, sleeping, and sometimes chanting, "Haribol," that's all. That is not preaching. We must be ready to implant Kṛṣṇa consciousness ideas, throughout the whole world.</p>
<p>Umāpati: That probably won't happen overnight, though.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The Deity worship program is meant for us to keep us safe. If we neglect Deity worship, we shall also fall. But that is not the all duty finished. Arcāyām eva haraye pūjāṁ yaḥ śraddhayehate. Arcā means Deity. If anyone is worshiping the Deity very nicely, but na tad-bhakteṣu cānyeṣu, but he does not know anything more, who is devotee, who is nondevotee, what is the duty to the world, sa bhaktaḥ prākṛtaḥ smṛtaḥ, he is material devotee. He is material devotee. So we have to take the responsibility to understand who is actually a pure devotee and what is our duty to the people in general, and then you make advancement. Then you become madhyama-adhikārī. Madhyama-adhikārī, advanced devotee. Just like these people, either in India or here, they remain simply churchianity, going to the church without any understanding. Therefore it is failing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember121973LosAngeles_46" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="99" link="Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Karandhara: Not the churches.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, not the churches. Our gṛhasthas will take part. The sannyāsīs will give advice. Directly the gṛhasthas will fight. Gṛhastha, not gṛhastha. There should be an administrative class. That is... Now it is prescribed in the Bhagavad-gītā. There should be four classes: brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra. Now, it is spoken by God. Therefore it should be rejected? Does it mean? God is for everything. What is this nonsense? And Kṛṣṇa acted as kṣatriya. Therefore He should not be God? Is that very good argument? God is all-inclusive. And religion means God's word, carrying out God's word. That is religion. So how you can make separate?</p>
<p>Karandhara: Well, you can't, but they do.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They do everything, but they are demons. They do mental concoction.</p>
<p>Karandhara: Basically, they want (indistinct).</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why these politician says, "In God we believe, we trust"? Why this nonsense?</p>
<p>Umāpati: They fear theocracy. They fear being ruled by a priestly class. That is a very old fear in the west.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, that's all right. But if the politicians, administration, trust in God, that becomes religious. How they separate? Currency note is economic problem. So how they are mixing with God? They are contradictory. You cannot separate God from any field of activities. And religion, they do not know what is the meaning of religion. Our definition of religion is to abide by the order of God. So does it mean, the politicians they do not abide by the orders of God? Then why do they write, "In god we trust"?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember121973LosAngeles_47" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="99" link="Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 12, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yaśomatīnandana: Avināśi tu tad viddhi.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Ah, avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam. (break) ...is correct. We can face any so-called philosopher, any. Any so-called scientist. Any so-called politicians. You must be strong enough to have your firm conviction, that "We can face anyone rascal and defeat him." (break) ...and logic, argumentum vaculum. You know that? In logic there is a thesis or argumentum vaculum. Means no argument, but with stick and gun, you see. "If you don't believe, then here is stick and gun." That is called argumentum vaculum. So we have to make our position so strong that anyone who does not believe in God, he should be finished.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember151973LosAngeles_48" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="101" link="Morning Walk -- December 15, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 15, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 15, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 15, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: But they worry. I have practically seen. They cry.</p>
<p>Karandhara: Well, they just fall short of their philosophy, the philosophy they hold as ideal.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So, these are all no argument. No sane man will accept this argu...</p>
<p>Karandhara: Most western people are so frustrated, they accept these philosophies wholeheartedly.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is frustration. That is not real life. That is another thing.</p>
<p>Karandhara: But like you say in Bhagavad-gītā, they are so angry with all types of speculation that they become frustrated and disgusted.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Frustration is not life. Frustration is frustration, disappointment. That is not life.</p>
<p>Karandhara: They say that frustration is the only reality.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. That's for you.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember181973LosAngeles_49" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="104" link="Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Then? The president is one. Either you don't know or I don't know. So we must know what is that president. This is first point, what is God.</p>
<p>Devotee: By argument you can convince a skeptic of the possibility of the existence of God, but the reality of Godhead can only be really realized... I mean has to be experienced or realized, does it not?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is a point of realization. But the first preamble is that there must be God, the Supreme Being. In the dictionary it is stated, Supreme Being. So as in every department, everywhere, there is a supreme controller. Same example. The president is the supreme controller of this state. United States. In another state, in India also, the president is the supreme controller. Similarly, taking the whole universe or many such millions of universes taken together, there must be a Supreme Being. Otherwise how things are going on, nicely? (break) This is our first point.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember181973LosAngeles_50" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="104" link="Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Devotee: Something can't come from nothing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. We have no such experience. How we accept this nonsense statement? We have no such experience. I can accept something that is going on. Can you show me? So we show. You study with your experience. Where is your experience that something comes all of a sudden? There is no such thing. So how can I accept your statement? Because you say, "There was explosion," that means there is God. That means there is God. So what is your argument? You say that "Why you bring God?" I bring God because you say, "There was explosion."</p>
<p>Girirāja: No, you're saying that "Something cannot come from nothing."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember181973LosAngeles_51" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="104" link="Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 18, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">evotee: The scientists would use the same argument. The scientists would say, "Well, since I have not experienced that I am eternal, therefore how can I accept that I am eternal?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, you are eternal. Because you were a child and now you are grown up, but you know that you were a child. Therefore you are eternal. You were a child, but you have no that child's body. Now you have got a different body. So although you have got different body, you know that you had a body like a child. Therefore body has changed. You have not changed. That is eternity.</p>
<p>Girirāja: And nobody wants to die.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nobody wants to die.</p>
<p>Girirāja: If the soul is not eternal, where has that desire...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. This is eternity. This is practical eternity. You have changed so many times your body, but you are the same person. Therefore you are eternal, in spite of changing body. This is simple argument.</p>
<p>Prajāpati: I used that argument once, Śrīla Prabhupāda, and the scientists said to me, "It is the chromosomes, the tiny chromosomes that do that change."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is their jugglery of words, these rascals. (laughter) "Chromosome, promosome." He will manufacture some word. But where is your chromosome of child body? What is that child body? Where it has gone? If you know, "chromosome, promosome," where has your child's body gone? That is the difficulty. These rascals, they do not know anything. Still, they are teachers and manufacture some jugglery of words. That's all. That is the difficulty. "Chromosome." What is that chromosome? What does it mean, chromosome?</p>
<p>Prajāpati: It is a tiny structure of organic matter that can constantly reproduce...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. When reproduce, the last body is gone.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember191973LosAngeles_52" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="105" link="Morning Walk -- December 19, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 19, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 19, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 19, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hṛdayānanda: Kṛṣṇa illuminated the house of the gopīs.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa, he does not accept Kṛṣṇa. That is rejected. Now we are talking about him. If he is light, why does he use electric light? If he says, "The inner light," then you are relative. You see only inner side, not outside. Therefore you are relative. Therefore you are not God. God is absolute. Antar-bahiḥ. One has to see light inside and outside. That is real light. If the light is checked by some material condition, that is not absolute light. That is electric light. As soon as you come to the condition, then it is relative. It is not absolute. (break) A man can be changed from barking to chanting, but dog cannot be. (break) ...is so powerful that as soon as there is sunrise, immediately darkness gone. Similarly, if the absolute light is there, if there is need of electricity, what kind of light it is? Even the relative light is so powerful that immediately darkness gone. So you are not as powerful as the relative light. So what kind of light you are? This should be the argument. You are cheating. You are not light. You are darkness. Our, that slogan is "Where there is God, there is no darkness." "Kṛṣṇa is like the sun, and nescience is like darkness. Where there is Kṛṣṇa, there is no darkness." Don't waste time with these rascals. Go on with your own business. You sold Bhagavad-gītā. (laughs) That is our profit. That's all.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember201973LosAngeles_53" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- December 20, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 20, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 20, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 20, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes. (break)</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: Shivananda, I gave a lecture at an āśrama where his disciple was teaching, Vishnu Devananda. So he told a story how Shivananda, he would find out the lowest class of people, and he would go and garland them and worship them just like the Deity. And so his argument was that in Bhagavad-gītā it says, paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 5.18 (1972)|BG 5.18]]).</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why he is to the lower class? Sama-darśinaḥ means he is equal to higher or lower. Why he is going to the lower? He could not answer this? Sama-darśinaḥ, equal. Then he must be equal to the lower and the higher. So why he is particularly to the lower class? Then he is not sama-darśinaḥ.</p>
<p>Hṛdayānanda: Then his argument would be that he is trying to teach a lesson that the higher...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. He may say nonsense. The fact is this. That if he is sama-darśinaḥ, equal, then why he is particularly aiming to the lower class? That means he is not sama-darśinaḥ. He has not come to the stage. He is simply talking nonsense. Sama-darśinaḥ means he is equal to everyone. That is sama-darśinaḥ. Sama-darśinaḥ does not mean to get a cheap adoration, popularity, I go to the poor. That is their Ramakrishna Mission. They also are doing that same thing. Daridra-nārāyaṇa-sevā, like that. Why daridra? Why not real Nārāyaṇa? Just like this morning we read nārāyaṇa-pade. Never said daridra-nārāyaṇa-pade. To the great. Surrender does not mean to the lower. Does it mean surrender? Surrender, this relationship means that to whom I surrender, he is greater than me. And to the lower, mercy. These two words. One who is lower than me, I may show my mercy, but one who is greater than me, there is the question of surr... (break) (end)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkDecember301973LosAngeles_54" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="109" link="Morning Walk -- December 30, 1973, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- December 30, 1973, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- December 30, 1973, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- December 30, 1973, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: This Subhash Chandra Bose. And he organized the INA, Indian National Army. So when this Indian National Army was organized and the Britishers... They were great politicians. They saw, "Now the army is going to national movement. We cannot be." Then they left. Because it was not possible. They were maintaining British Empire with Indian money, Indian men. You see? They did not conquer by their British soldiers all round the Far East, Burma and the Mesopotamia, and the Egypt. That was Indian army, the Sikh soldiers and the Gurkha soldiers, and Indian money. On the pretext that "For Indian protection, we are maintaining this army." Actually, they were expanding their empire. Africa, Burma. And when they saw that "India is lost," voluntarily they liquidated all others. Went back... Back to home, back to Godhead. (devotees laugh) So in politics this is nonsense, non-violence. It is nonsense, cowardism. In politics in sweet words you cannot get. There must be fight, arms. That is army. "If you don't agree, then fist." That is politics. There must be violence. Otherwise you cannot control. When there is educated good men, then you can argue. But when people are ruffians, there is no question of good... Argumentum vaculum, I told you the other day... (break) ...in the beginning of creation, the fight between the demons and the demigods, devāsura-yuddha. That is always there. In the European history, without revolution, no order changes. Even the Russian Revolution was there. French revolution was there. In England, Cromwell? Cromwell? Cromwell Revolution?</p>
<p>Nara-nārāyaṇa: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJanuary31974LosAngeles_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="1" link="Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">New Devotee: I live in Long Beach and I will be going to school soon, but I'm...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hm. We don't accept any speculative knowledge. We want final conclusion of the experienced person. Nṛpa-nirṇītaḥ, this word is used. Nṛpa-nirṇītaḥ, it is concluded. Kavibhir nirūpitaḥ. Idaṁ hi puṁsas śrutas..., tapasaḥ śrutasya vā. Avicyuto 'rthaḥ kavibhir nirūpitaḥ. Nirṇītaḥ... These words are... It is already concluded. There is no question of argument. In the Vedic literature, these words are used, nṛpa-nirṇītaḥ, nirūpitaḥ.</p>
<p>New Devotee: I should abandon...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nāsato vidyate bhāvo nā..., asataḥ vidyate bhāvaḥ. What is the next line? So, we take things which is conclusive. The scientists, they are making experiment, where is the beginning of life. Misled. They are thinking life is from matter. They have no experience. Still, the rascal Darwin gave a theory. They are persisting on it. They have no practical experience that life is coming from matter. That is called vṛścika-taṇḍula-nyāya. You have no experience in your country. We have got. Sometimes you'll find, scorpion is coming out from the stack of rice. You have seen it?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJanuary31974LosAngeles_1" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="1" link="Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prajāpati: They glorify such imperfections, Śrīla Prabhupāda, by saying...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Unless they glorify their imperfection, how they can stand? (laughter) They have no standing. If they do not glorify, then they are proved rascals. There will be no argument. They'll have to accept that "we are rascals." Therefore they have to glorify. The glorifying society... That is mentioned in the Bhāgavata. The glorifying society is consisting of ass, camel, hog, and what is the other?</p>
<p>Devotees: Dog.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Dog. So we... śva-viḍ-varāhoṣṭra-kharaiḥ saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 2.3.19|SB 2.3.19]]). They are all ass, camels, dogs, like that and they are praising each other. "Oh, you have discovered this. Oh, how nice you are. (laughter) How nice you are." But we understand the praiser and the praised, both are dogs and cats. That's all. So we don't give any benefit. It is a mutual praising society of cats and dogs, so we don't give any benefit. Now, they can also accuse us in the same way, that "You are also the society of cats and dog, mutual praising society." So... Now, who will judge whether they are right or we are right? Who will judge? Eh? There must be some judgement. Everyone will say that "I am right." But who judges? There must be a judge, that through both side the lawyers is fighting, that "My case is right." Then who will give judgement? There must be one judge. So who is that judge?</p>
<p>Prajāpati: śāstra, guru, sādhu.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJanuary31974LosAngeles_2" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="1" link="Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- January 3, 1974, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Karandhara: There are so many misrepresentations.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Because their folly is... They therefore do not take authority. Otherwise they'll be exposed. Yes. śāstra-cakṣusā. Yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 16.23 (1972)|BG 16.23]]). These are the injunctions. (dog barks) Yes, come on. We have got your punishment. So there is an argument: pala bonatu hoya (?). "I'm not afraid of you. Although I'm, I'm going away, I'm not afraid of you. (laughter) Don't think that I am afraid of you." This is dog business. They'll go, "gow!" and go away, go away. They'll not come forward. Come on. (laughter) (break) Well, our every day is a New Year. Nava-navayauvana. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness is so nice, the more you advance, you see new year, new year. That's all. Nothing is old. People are seeing that they are simply chanting the old slogan, Hare Kṛṣṇa.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJanuary221974Hawaii_3" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="16" link="Morning Walk -- January 22, 1974, Hawaii" link_text="Morning Walk -- January 22, 1974, Hawaii">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- January 22, 1974, Hawaii|Morning Walk -- January 22, 1974, Hawaii]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: ..."Unless we see." But you see, but you cannot go. Your argument is, "Unless we see," but you are seeing there is another planet, so many hundred and thousands, millions of planets. But you cannot go there. That is your inefficiency. How can you say? Because your theory is "I must see," but you cannot go there. First of all, admit your inefficiency. Why you conclude, what is it called, abruptly, without seeing. Because seeing is your experience. But you cannot go and see. Why you are trying to go to the moon planet? Just to see. Similarly, there are so many other planets, but you are not efficient to go and see. How can you conclude?</p>
<p>Nitāi: Well, they don't conclude. They say, there may be possibility of higher life.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So that's all right. Maybe...</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Agnostic, "There may be; we don't know."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: "There may be God, but we don't know."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That you don't know, but if somebody knows... That is not a proof, that because you cannot see. That is not proof.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkFebruary171974Bombay_4" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="21" link="Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dr. Patel: We call, "Kreshna." We call "Kreshna," you call, "Kṛṣṇa," they call, "Krushna." These are different... We call, "rushi."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Bhāva-grāhi janārdana. But Kṛṣṇa can understand who is asking for Him. (laughter)</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: All languages He understands. All languages are from oṁ, and oṁ is God. So all languages are God. Look at my arguments. Am I right or wrong.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why you are wrong? Kṛṣṇa says, oṁkāra sarva-vedeṣu:" I am oṁkāra sarva-vedeṣu." (break) ...mental concoction.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Is a body.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Anyone who has got this material body, he is not well. He may be possessing very stout and strong body, but he's not well. Because death is there. So well or no well, you have to meet death. So where is, where is the use of your...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: What is this death? If you say, "You meet death," then you are a Māyāvādī.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh? No, no, no. I am speaking... I am answering your "well" and "not well." That's it. When there is death, then what is the use of calling "well" and "not well"?</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: "Well" and "not well," that's right.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkFebruary171974Bombay_5" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="21" link="Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- February 17, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: The animals, they have got less intelligence. They never bother themselves, "The population is increasing." And you are advanced animal. Why you are so much bothered?</p>
<p>Guest (1): But that is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then you are less intelligent than the animals. That is my argument. They are lower animals. They are begetting at one time one dozen children. They are not bothering. Why you are bothering? That means that you are less than the animals. Because you have got so much anxiety, "Why population increasing?" But they are not bothering. So you are less than animals.</p>
<p>Guest (1): No, no, my question is different.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is my answer. Why you are bothering the population increasing? Why you are bothering?</p>
<p>Guest (1): Because they think that the resources...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. Some, there is some... There is some reason. But they have no such thing. So therefore they are advanced. They have no such anxiety. You are less than animal.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkFebruary251974Bombay_6" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="26" link="Morning Walk -- February 25, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- February 25, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- February 25, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- February 25, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: ...temple.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: No, but I mean to say because the temple is open you hear the noise. When the temple is closed, you won't hear the noise. That is, that should be all right. Because there is a next-door temple also. It also makes noise. But your noise is now louder, I mean, far away because of the open space. That should be the argument: "Let us construct a regular temple. You won't..." (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: ...so much proud of the Hindus.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: I'm also proud of the Hindu. Always proud.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But why they disturb maṅgala ārati?</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But they may be degenerated Hindu, people may be Hindus, real Hindus, false Hindus and fictitious Hindus and non-Hindus calling themselves as Hindus. So which type of Hindus do you mean?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. I mean Hindu Hindu.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch61974Mayapura_7" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="31" link="Morning Walk -- March 6, 1974, Mayapura" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 6, 1974, Mayapura">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 6, 1974, Mayapura|Morning Walk -- March 6, 1974, Mayapura]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: He cannot save himself. He can make a machine which will not die, but he will die. Is that all right?</p>
<p>Devotee: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: How much perfect he is, that you can consider, that he's making something perfect which will not die, but he will die. So he's imperfect. So how his machine is perfect? This is common argument. He's imperfect. But he cannot make such machine that he will not die.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: They say in the future they will...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, that is, that is a... Kicking, they on their face. That is the only loophole on which we can kick on their face. You see? They are making machine perfect, but they cannot make themselves perfect. Why don't you ask that "Why don't you make a machine that you'll not die? Your machine will not die, I accept. You're so perfect. But why you will die? Why you will die?" What is their answer?</p>
<p>Siddha-svarūpānanda: They say that they will get to a point where, when each cause of their death, maybe, say, a bad heart, then they can get an artificial heart.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch171974Vrndavana_8" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="40" link="Morning Walk -- March 17, 1974, Vrndavana" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 17, 1974, Vrndavana">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 17, 1974, Vrndavana|Morning Walk -- March 17, 1974, Vrndavana]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: ...money, but not your prasāda.</p>
<p>Guru dāsa: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Money's pure. (laughter) And prasāda, because it is offered to Kṛṣṇa, it is impure. Just see their argument. Money is pure. Even you can give me with your hand as much as you like. Because it is pure, I'll take it. And so far prasāda is concerned, because it is offered to Kṛṣṇa, therefore I cannot take it. (break) Oh yes. She has got the power. Śakti-mati Sar. Some... The police commissioner has remarked, "This bhajana is nuisance." So we have to agitate. There are so many Vaiṣṇavas. Bhajana is nuisance? Eh?</p>
<p>Guest: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So there must be some big agitation to drive away this man. The demand should be that "This man should be immediately removed. He has focused a sarcastic remark on a very pure religious system." This movement should be started. He must be removed immediately.</p>
<p>Balavanta: We can hold protest marches downtown.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationMarch201974Bombay_9" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="42" link="Room Conversation -- March 20, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Room Conversation -- March 20, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- March 20, 1974, Bombay|Room Conversation -- March 20, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: No, they are against this movement, that I have got many proofs.</p>
<p>Guest: But if they will logically...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Logic, there is no logic.</p>
<p>Guest: No, but what I say. If they are appeased...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Argumentum baculam. Their logic is sword.</p>
<p>Guest: No, but what I say... The basic problem is that if the center is against, if the (indistinct) man, is against...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That I know that they are against.</p>
<p>Guest: If the (indistinct) men is against, therefore they are disclosing their weakness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And indirectly, Indira Gandhi sometimes said that... Many politicians have said. In London, the high commissioner, he said, "Swamiji, your movement is so nice." He's a Maharastrian Pant. Pant. So... But we cannot do anything of this way.</p>
<p>Guest: No, but if the center is against, then my logic says...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Center is against.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch231974Bombay_10" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: The point is that these daityas are elected by the daityas.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Now, sometimes even they were liked, the daityas. When they have the samudra-mathana, even the devas went to the daityas to help them. So it is... I mean, that is not so. We have to take the help of daityas for a good work. But they are frustrating us. How is the argument? All right?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Because there are no more available devas, therefore daityas are the only...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: We are like that. These rascals, you see, they have got no sense of proportion. There are two dozen mosques come up in this area without any reason in any way. And they are upset when there is construction of a Hindu temple. They are majority. So they are daityas. (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: ...required... They, they, they required. We are...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: They are thinking themselves to be qualified.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We are... We are...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: What do... They are getting qualified every day by madeira (?). And what other things which I don't want to talk to you. (laughs)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So when it is mixed, it is called varṇa-saṅkara. (laughter)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch231974Bombay_11" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dr. Patel: But they are doing it now. We are giving enema. We treat with enema in America. (laughs) He said, he said that don't give these things to him because...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. That is, this is the reason: To give one food, there is the only one mouth. You cannot say, "Because there are so many holes, any hole."</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But that is not the real..., I mean, real argument that you give...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, that's right.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But my question is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Avidhi-pūrvakam.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: No, but they're...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is avidhi-pūrvakam.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Avidhi-pūrvakam. But also, still, they are worshiping God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Everyone is part and parcel of God, but everyone is not God. That is the way. That any hole of my body, that is my body. But when food is to be taken, it is only this, not another, other hole. That is the way. (break) ...and if you are saying like that... Just like... Here... When you...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But it is of the... is doing that to you also. Why do you worry about it?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. When the...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: We can give it in the vein also.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. (laughter.) That is not the way. That is avidhi-pūrvakam.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch231974Bombay_12" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dr. Patel: But here is the question of devotee: ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktāḥ bhajante mām avidhi-pūrvakam. Bhakta. They are bhaktas, not enemies.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Bhakta. One who worships God, he's a bhakta. Just like sometimes you have to go to the chief minister through his cāparāsī. But the cāparāsī is not the chief minister.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: That's right. But a chief minister gets pleased through the cāparāsī. All right. (laughs)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But if you, if you say...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Not my argument it is, eh? This is the argument.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. This is wrong argument. You see... Just like our Hadaji Batlar (?), he was...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Now, how would it be wrong argument, sir? We are following the same process. We collected those foodstuffs... (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: ...commissioner is not the politician. Why do you mix them?</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But Kṛṣṇa was never a politician. He was a...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. That is a wrong theory. This is a wrong theory. You can approach somebody through somebody, but they are two, individual persons. (break) ...He is bhakta, yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch231974Bombay_13" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That is nonsense.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: It is not nonsense, and I'll...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, it is nonsense.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: I am giving you the argument.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. It is nonsense.</p>
<p>Bhāgavata: Stool and sweet rice is the same.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: As you are scientist, I'll tell you.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Scientist...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Please...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. I cannot hear this nonsense.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: If you don't hear, then there will be no...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no! No, no! There cannot be. If you say the sea and the land is the same, this is completely nonsense.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch231974Bombay_14" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dr. Patel: Ah, but then you take out the furniture, hotel will not be there.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right, but you cannot say the furniture is the hotel.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: I am arguing like a Buddha.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You cannot say that.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But then, that is also an argument.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is nonsense argument. "Hotel is furniture."</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Yes, it is.</p>
<p>Devotee: Buddha purposely made those... (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You cannot say "Everything is hotel." "The furniture is hotel, the man is hotel, the food is hotel." What is this? There must be varieties.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: So you have gone on the top of the tree. We are trying to give him the root.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (chuckles) But you do not know how the root is manifested. Therefore you are less intelligent.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch231974Bombay_15" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="43" link="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- March 23, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Then you'll never understand. Yes, you'll never understand.</p>
<p>Bhāgavata: Like you were saying last night, Prabhupāda... (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Māyāvādam asac-chāstraṁ pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate, pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: You call pracchanna, but I am open Buddha now, today, for the sake of argument. Let me understand it. There are various ways you can argue about the thing. God cannot be approached by argument...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Your difficulty is you are not submissive. Therefore you do not understand.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: No, I am, I am actually submissive.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no, no, no.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But I want to... I cannot submit without understanding.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But you... Because you...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: That is what I want...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But you should not... Because you do not submit, therefore you do not understand.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMarch311974Bombay_16" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="50" link="Morning Walk -- March 31, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- March 31, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- March 31, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- March 31, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Mr. Sar: But the human beings they are more, you see, first...</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: That's right, but I think...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no... That's... It is argument. It is argument.</p>
<p>Mr. Sar: Let him explain it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Here see... If you have got so broad vision that Nārāyaṇa is everywhere present, why you particularize daridra-nārāyaṇa?</p>
<p>Mr. Sar: Well, human beings, we are the first of everywhere.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Everyone. "Dog-nārāyaṇa, cat-nārāyaṇa."</p>
<p>Guest (3): If you say that you are... (break) That's nonsense.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: These, these rascals, what are they? Now, they are worshiping daridra-nārāyaṇa and they are killing goat-nārāyaṇa.</p>
<p>Guest (3): That's right.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Goat-nārāyaṇa. Yes. And eating it away.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril21974Bombay_17" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="52" link="Morning Walk -- April 2, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 2, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 2, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- April 2, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dr. Patel:</p>
:na mat sthāni bhūtāni
:paśya me yogam aiśvaram
:bhūta-bhṛn na ca bhūta-stho
:mamātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So this is His inconceivable potency. Everything is resting on Him. Without Him, there is nothing. Nothing can exist. Still... The same argument comes again, that because the dog or the anything is resting on me, it does not mean I am dog. Daridra, he is resting on me, that does not mean I am daridra. Yes. This is the... This is wrong conception, misleading people. This kind of coined word, simply misleading people.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. I have nothing to do with daridra. He is suffering of his own karma.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: But here a little difficulty for me. Here on the first line He says, mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni ([[Vanisource:BG 9.4 (1972)|BG 9.4]]). Second line He says, na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni paśya me yogam aiśvaram.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Therefore, na ca mat-sthāni: "Although I am there, I am not there." That is inconceivable, simultaneously not also, just to warn these people that although Nārāyaṇa is within the daridra or the dog, that does not mean I am dog or I am daridra.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril31974Bombay_18" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="53" link="Morning Walk -- April 3, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 3, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 3, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- April 3, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Nītir, by argument, by logic, when one becomes victorious, that victory is Kṛṣṇa, nītī. Without Kṛṣṇa...</p>
<p>Chandobhai: It is God's victory, not his.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Dr. Patel: Yac cāpi sarva-bhūtānāṁ bījaṁ tad aham arjuna. "There is... Seed in everything is, I am."</p>
:yac cāpi sarva-bhūtānāṁ
:bījaṁ tad aham arjuna
:na tad asti vinā yat syān
:mayā bhūtaṁ carācaram
:Nothing that moves and not moves is without being.
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, because everything is His energy.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril61974Bombay_19" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="56" link="Morning Walk -- April 6, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 6, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 6, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- April 6, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Girirāja: "In these Western countries when someone sees the cover of a book like Kṛṣṇa, he immediately asks, 'Who is Kṛṣṇa? Who is the girl with Kṛṣṇa?' and so on." (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: ...Kṛṣṇa is all-attractive or God is all-attractive. This definition given by Parāśara Muni is a supreme perfect definition. Unless God is attractive, how He can be God? This argument, what do you think?</p>
<p>Devotee: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So Kṛṣṇa showed this attractiveness in full. (break) ...any question you can ask. (break)</p>
<p>Bhāgavata: ...expansion or incarnation has the six opulences in full except for Kṛṣṇa?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Kṛṣṇa is cent percent. Next to Kṛṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa. Next to Nārāyaṇa is Lord Śiva.</p>
<p>Acyutānanda: Lord Caitanya did not manifest so much opulence as Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, Lord Caitanya appeared as a devotee. How He can show the opulence of Kṛṣṇa? Sometimes He showed. But He was playing the part, bhaktākhyaṁ bhaktāvatāraṁ namāmi bhakta-śaktikam.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril71974Bombay_20" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="57" link="Morning Walk -- April 7, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 7, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 7, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- April 7, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes. Not liberal. He was truthful. He used to bring all the sons as soon as born to Kaṁsa, and he was killing.</p>
<p>Girirāja: "Kaṁsa knew the value of Vasudeva's word of honor and he was convinced by his arguments. For the time being he desisted from the heinous killing of his sister. Thus Vasudeva was pleased and praised the decision of Kaṁsa. In this way he returned to his home. After due course of time Vasudeva and Devakī gave birth to eight male children as well as..." (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Demons are known as sura-dviṣām, sura-dviṣām, those who are envious of the demigods, sura-dvisa. Sammohāya sura-dviṣām ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.24|SB 1.3.24]]). This word is used in the Bhāgavata: "just to cheat the demons," sammohāya sura-dviṣām. (break) That is the instruction of Nārada. You see? Then?</p>
<p>Girirāja: "Within the prison, shackled in iron chains, Vasudeva and Devakī gave birth to a male child year after year. Kaṁsa, thinking each of the babies to be the incarnation of Viṣṇu, killed them one after another."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. He killed his brother. He was merciful upon the father only, kept him in the prison. Otherwise he killed the whole family—brother, brother's son and everyone. (break) ...present kings, such incidences are very many in the history, killing everyone. There is another story that Pana, Pana?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril221974Hyderabad_21" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="70" link="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pañcadraviḍa: "But even if I become vegetarian, still, I will..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, that is not questioned. God says that you shall not kill. But you are killing. Where is your love? You cannot argue with God. Then you do not love. You cannot put your argument, logic, "What God has said I must do." That is not...</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: "But God did not mean us not to eat. We must eat."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: God did not... That means you have to eat only meat. You have nothing to eat?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But if I eat a plant, it is also killing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is your argument. But God says that "Thou shalt not kill." You cannot argue. This is the first theory... Suppose if I say something to you, order, you cannot argue. That is not obedience. Obedience means without argument accepted. That is obedience. That is love.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril221974Hyderabad_22" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="70" link="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pañcadraviḍa: How disobeying if the person says, "I am vegetarian. I do not kill. I am a Christian, but I am vegetarian, I do not kill animals?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then you are all right. But they... Who put forward the argument that "You are also killing vegetable?" Then how can kill vegetable?</p>
<p>Nitai: In Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa... Just as you quoted.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The thing is that we must eat something. And vegetables also have got life. The nature's way is that one living entity is eating another living entity. It may be animal or it may be vegetable. The question is the obedience to the order of God. So when Jesus Christ says that "Thou shalt not kill," it means bigger animals. Killing is applied, from dictionary, if I kill a man, if I kill an animal, then this word is used. So he meant like that. And that is very reasonable. Because I am eating another living entity, that does not I can eat another man. So therefore Kṛṣṇa has specifically mentioned, patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati ([[Vanisource:BG 9.26 (1972)|BG 9.26]]). After all, we have to eat. And if you take that all killing is the same, even by ordinary law, if I kill one tree, and if I kill one man, does it mean it is of the same degree? Even taking killing of plant, so there are comparative. But it is also necessity that we must eat something. So therefore here, perfect thing in the Bhagavad-gītā, that He says that "You offer Me." "Offer Me" means "After My eating, you shall eat." Yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ. Even by killing vegetable, you are also as sinful as killing animal, but because we offer to Kṛṣṇa, therefore we are not sinful. Kṛṣṇa wants it. Just like Kṛṣṇa wanted Arjuna to fight and kill the other party. Therefore Arjuna is not infected with the sin. So here Kṛṣṇa is asking, "Give me this foodstuff," and Kṛṣṇa knows that I will eat the remnants of the foodstuff. So I am not responsible. We have no very much study of the Muslim, but instead of criticizing others, better we shall preach our own cult. But if there is occasion when somebody attacks, then we should be prepared. But our positive business should be to inform people what is the nature of God, as they are stated in Bhagavad-gītā and in Bhāgavatam.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril221974Hyderabad_23" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="70" link="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pañcadraviḍa: When we run into those people... Sometimes we run into Muslims, Jains, Christians, and usually what we do is we approach them on the basis of our welfare work. Because we have got our work where we are feeding persons in Māyāpur, we are doing different..., opening schools. So we approach them that God is also one. There is one God and we are doing work for bringing all the people to God. In Māyāpur we are feeding so many Muslims every day.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is good preaching. But when there is argument, when somebody says, you should be prepared to argue with them. It stopped? We shall go another round?</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: I think it has stopped.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: No rain.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: (break) ...dressed in shiny saffron. He is dressed in black. He looked like nescience and you look like the sunshine, standing next to him. He is wearing all this black with a little bit of red trimming on it, looked like nightime. (break) ...I met a Christian, and he said "You have got your guru and you are following him. He teaches you by his example. We have got our pope. He is our example of what Christianity is. He is the head of Christian order, and he himself is eating meat. Now how you can say...?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then how he can be pope?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: "But how you can say he is not the best Christian? He is the head of all the Christians."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But that means you are foolish and pope is also foolish. If he does not follow the orders of Jesus Christ, then how he becomes a pope? Therefore you are foolish. You have elected some foolish, another foolish man as your pope. That should be the right answer, that "If he does not follow Christ, how he becomes pope?"</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: He is not killing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril221974Hyderabad_24" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="70" link="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pañcadraviḍa: ...argument being that Christ has said "Thou shalt not kill." That is one of ten commandments. Ten commandments are social codes for how the people are to live. Now, the people that are Christ's disciples, they are all fishermen. His whole community is fishermen and sheep herders. They are always... He is having fisherman community. So he did not mean for them to give up their engagement. They were all living as fishermen. He told them, "Thou shalt not kill." Therefore we can only conclude that Christ meant "Thou shalt not kill other human beings" because he was coming at a time, teaching principles how to live with each other...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we don't allow to comment or interpret on the words of... That we cannot allow. You cannot interpret in that way, in your own logical... That is not allowed.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: "But we say that when Christ said, Thou shalt not kill, and you say it refers all living beings, we say that is your interpretation because Christ is coming to teach fishermen. He never told them to give up their occupation. They continued to live as fishermen. Continued to live as sheep herders. He knew that killing was going on. Therefore his statement, 'Thou shalt not kill,' must refer to human beings because he was living in the community. He was teaching by his example."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But I can say, "Why not to the animals? You can eat fish only." Then I'll write book like that. Jesus Christ allowed the fishermen to fish, so then you can fish. Why you are killing cows? That will be my argument. If you are actually following Christ, all right, you can take fish, but why you are killing animals, and other animals? Why you are going that "Because Christ has allowed some fish killing, therefore everyone should be killed"? What is this nonsense? You follow strictly. All right, fish-killing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril221974Hyderabad_25" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="70" link="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Then everyone will say what is the difference between animal killing and and man killing?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: There is big difference between animal killing and...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why big difference?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: If a man goes into the road he runs over a dog, there will not be so much punishment. But if a man goes into the road, he runs over...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That you have made, your laws. You have made that, if you kill a man and if you kill an animal, that is not equal. That is your... But that does not mean when it is said, "Thou shalt not kill"... This is no argument.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: That law was made for some reason. Because human being and animal are not on equal levels. Human being has soul, but animal does not.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then you interpret in your own way. That is actually... (end)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithRichardWebsterchairmanSocietaFilosoficaItalianaMay241974Rome_26" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="83" link="Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome" link_text="Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome|Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes, these different types of philosophers are always there, not only in the medieval age, in the previously also. It is said, na cāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. "A philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not present a different view." (laughter) This is stated in the Bhāgavata. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnaḥ (?). Tarka, by argument, logic, you cannot come to the right conclusion because you may be a good logician and then you meet another logician who is better than you. So his arguments may be stronger than your argument. Therefore, simply by arguments or logical premises, you cannot approach the Absolute Truth.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Oh, yes. I agree.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithRichardWebsterchairmanSocietaFilosoficaItalianaMay241974Rome_27" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="83" link="Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome" link_text="Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome|Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Atreya Ṛṣi: Or tobacco or meat. So the rules are different.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then rules are not different, but we have to see. Just like your commandments. In the commandments there is "Thou shall not kill." Then how you can eat meat?</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Well, that is a possible argument, but I'm thinking about even lesser things such as wine or...</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Wine. Can...</p>
<p>Richard Webster: And no Roman Catholic will admit that it is wrong to drink wine.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Wine is sanctioned?</p>
<p>Richard Webster: I don't mean to get drunk. I mean to...</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Wine, for today's Roman Catholics, they think it is sanctioned.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They think so many other things also. Just like Roman Catholics, there is example: they have allowed marriage between man to man. Do you know that?</p>
<p>Richard Webster: No.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkatVillaBorgheseMay251974Rome_28" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="85" link="Morning Walk at Villa Borghese -- May 25, 1974, Rome" link_text="Morning Walk at Villa Borghese -- May 25, 1974, Rome">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk at Villa Borghese -- May 25, 1974, Rome|Morning Walk at Villa Borghese -- May 25, 1974, Rome]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Satsvarūpa: Prabhupāda, in the Kṛṣṇa Book, Kṛṣṇa Himself argues that you don't need... He argues at the time of the Indra sacrifice that you don't need yajña. The rain will come anyway. That's what they say nowadays.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That was to irritate Indra. (laughter)</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: But they take that argument of His. Where is the proof that the rains are controlled by God?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. Kṛṣṇa says the rain will come, but Kṛṣṇa never says that without rain you can cultivate. So Kṛṣṇa's purpose was because I am the Supreme Lord, Indra will supply, his father will supply." So that is another thing. Kṛṣṇa never said that "Without rain, you can cultivate." Never said.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Well, what if they argue that "Whether we perform yajña or not, these rains will go on. They are coming now and we are not performing yajña."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: "Because I will order. You are already performing yajña, worshiping Me, loving Me." That is Kṛṣṇa's purpose. Tasmiṁs tuṣṭe jagat tuṣṭa. If you satisfy Kṛṣṇa, Indra's father will be satisfied. Just like if you water on the root of the tree, all the Indras, as branches and leaves and foliage, they will be satisfied. That is the purpose. Kṛṣṇa wanted to impress this that "You simply love Me, and everything will be supplied."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMay291974Rome_29" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="89" link="Morning Walk -- May 29, 1974, Rome" link_text="Morning Walk -- May 29, 1974, Rome">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- May 29, 1974, Rome|Morning Walk -- May 29, 1974, Rome]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Actually, God is giving us bread, not this "Communist Party." That's a fact. But they have no intelligence to reply these rascals. That's all. Therefore these isms, so-called isms, is good for the rascals, not for the intelligent man. Intelligent man will immediately ask, "Where is your equality?" And they cannot reply. (break)</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: ...also based on karma, that one man is meant to have more than another of material things? Is that an argument against...?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Is there any difficulty to understand? As soon as you say you become manager, that means his karma is better. Where is the difficulty to understand it? Why you appoint one man manager and one man worker? His capacity of karma is better. So where is the difficulty to understand? Better karma, better reward. It is going on.</p>
<p>Haihaya: The communists asked to us what we do for the starving people.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Rascal, what you have done? You are simply talking. What you have done? There are so many starving people all over the world. What you have done? "Starving people." I have seen. They cannot give starving people. Just like we went to Russia. So we wanted rice. There is no rice. There was no good rice. We wanted fruit. There was no fruit. So what you have done? I am starving for fruit and rice. You cannot supply me. That is practical. I have seen it. They will offer, "Take this beef instead of fruit." Then I will starve. So what he has done for me? I am starving. I cannot take beef. I want rice, but you cannot supply me. That I have seen. One Madrasi gentleman was bringing rice for me. It could not be purchased in the market. There is no fruit. So if I want fruit and rice and if you give me beef, it is as good as if I want bread, if you give me stone. So where is the capacity to satisfy the starving? I am starving for rice. You cannot give me. Why do you propose like that, that you can satisfy the starving man. You cannot do that. You are talking nonsense. Can you satisfy everyone? Somebody is starving for knowledge.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune21974Geneva_30" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="94" link="Morning Walk -- June 2, 1974, Geneva" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 2, 1974, Geneva">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 2, 1974, Geneva|Morning Walk -- June 2, 1974, Geneva]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yogeśvara: There are a lot of people who don't accept it because they think, "Maybe it is another imitation jewel. Maybe I'll get cheated again."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So why don't you become once more cheated? You have been cheated so many times. Why not try this also? If that is his argument, that means you have been cheated so many times. So why not once more, and see whether it is cheating or reality? That sense will not come. "Oh, I have been cheated so many times. Therefore I shall not take." So why not become once more cheated and see the value? The example, as I say, sometimes. (Bengali) ...that he lost his utensils several times. The thief stole it. Therefore he promised, "Now I shall take my food on the ground. I shall not purchase any more utensils." What is...? This is bathing place or...?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: This is where they go water skiing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Water skiing?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Yes. They stand on two pieces of wood and they hold on to a rope, and a fast boat pulls them along the water, like that.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune51974Geneva_31" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="98" link="Morning Walk -- June 5, 1974, Geneva" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 5, 1974, Geneva">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 5, 1974, Geneva|Morning Walk -- June 5, 1974, Geneva]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Everyone who has read your Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīla Prabhupāda, after having read so many Bhagavad-gītās, everyone has understood that "At last Bhagavad-gītā is very clear and simple to me. I have not understood before."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Because all these so-called Bhagavad-gītā commentaries written by rascals, that's all. They are all rascals. They cannot understand what is Bhagavad-gītā. The MacMillan Company's trade manager has admitted that while others Bhagavad-gītā is selling less, this is increasing. (pause)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: So I prepared one argument this morning.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: There's a theory of the psychologists that—in some ways it's similar to our idea—that people are conditioned, that according to their environment, according to their upbringing, according to their parentage and so on, they have a kind of way of acting and thinking. So their argument is that Kṛṣṇa consciousness is just another kind of conditioning, that you leave one kind of conditioning, a material conditioning, but then you also enter into another kind of conditioning when you live in the temple.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is conditioning, certainly. The position is that you must be under certain condition. That is your position. So if you become conditioned by God, that is your perfection. And if you become conditioned by māyā, that is your trouble. You must be conditioned. That is your position. You cannot be independent. And therefore, if you become naturally conditioned, then that is your happy life. Just as child, he must be conditioned. But when he is conditioned by his parents, that is his perfection of life. Your position is that you must be conditioned. Why you are thinking to be independent? That is your rascaldom. You should always know that "I must be conditioned. That is my life." Mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 9.13 (1972)|BG 9.13]]). Condition. Still conditioned, but daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ, under the spiritual nature. That is Mahātmā. Mahātmā is not independent. He is also conditioned. So first of all, we must understand that our natural position is to be conditioned. Now, why, where I shall be conditioned? Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekam ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]). You condition here. "You become conditioned by Me. Then you will be happy." Those who are thinking that "We shall not be conditioned," they are still in māyā. You cannot be without condition.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationJune51974Geneva_32" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="99" link="Room Conversation -- June 5, 1974, Geneva" link_text="Room Conversation -- June 5, 1974, Geneva">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- June 5, 1974, Geneva|Room Conversation -- June 5, 1974, Geneva]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yogeśvara: Why do we make the distinction between not killing animals and plants? Why do we kill plants?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We do not kill plants also. We take... Of course, by nature's way some living entity is the food for another living entity. Jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. That is the nature's way. But if you give that argument, then I can say, "Why you are killing cows? Why don't you kill your own children?" If that is the way, that "Because I have to eat some animal," so why go outside? Just inside the family there are so many animals. You can kill them and eat. there must be discretion. Apart from this point of view, we Kṛṣṇa conscious people, we do not kill even a plant because, Kṛṣṇa says-find out this-patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati ([[Vanisource:BG 9.26 (1972)|BG 9.26]]).</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: (translating) ...jīvo jīvasya jīvanam (French)...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There is no jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. Here Kṛṣṇa says, "Give Me these things, patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyam." There is no question of jīvasya jīvanam.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune61974Geneva_33" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="101" link="Morning Walk -- June 6, 1974, Geneva" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 6, 1974, Geneva">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 6, 1974, Geneva|Morning Walk -- June 6, 1974, Geneva]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: The Khān Vaiṣṇavas.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So it requires the devotee who can explain from any godly literature about God. How rascal they are! "Jesus Christ ate fish. Therefore we shall maintain big, big slaughterhouse." Just see the argument. Then, in the Bengali, mosa makta kanan (?). There was a mosquito, and one is asking, "Bring a cannon." "Bring a cannon." Mosa makta kanan. Jesus Christ ate somewhere. There was no food available to eat, might have. Accepting he ate, but that, does it mean that you have to maintain slaughterhouse? Just see. And besides that, he might have done anything. He's powerful. He can eat. Therefore the other day I said, "He can eat the whole world." But you cannot imitate. You have to follow his instruction. That is Christianity.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Many of the young people now, they look to the Bible for instruction, but they don't like to go to church at all. They feel that the church is hypocritical.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hypocritical, simply hypocritical. All these priests and cardinals and popes, they're all hypocritical. Getting high, highly salaried, high salaries, and drinking wine. And in America there is a hospital, five thousand drunkard priests are admitted there to cure their drinking habit. That was published in a paper. And they're sanctioning man to man marriage. That was published in that, what is that? Watch?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Watchtower?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Watchtower. Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune81974Geneva_34" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="102" link="Morning Walk -- June 8, 1974, Geneva" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 8, 1974, Geneva">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 8, 1974, Geneva|Morning Walk -- June 8, 1974, Geneva]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So you cannot give up philosophy. Now it is misfortune that you met with the cheaters. So make your fortune now. Believe in Kṛṣṇa's philosophy. Then you'll be happy.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Jaya.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That argument that we don't believe... But you're believing in Lenin's philosophy, the communist. And what is this hippies, their philosophy, Allen Ginsberg's philosophy? Ha? Debauch number one. (laughter)</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Ultimately, they don't follow anyone, although they may like people, they...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, they follow.</p>
<p>Devotee: They say our only...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But they are manufacture their own philosophy. Philosophy there must be. They've become their own authority. That is a chaotic condition. Authority he has made himself. Yes. I am my authority. Authority has to accept. But he does not know that I am fool No. 1, what is the value of my authority? Authority he must accept. But he makes himself his authority. That is the tendency now. "In my opinion." All rascals say like that. "In my opinion." He does not... He's rascal No. 1, what is the value of his opinion? But he'll say, "In my opinion." That is the difficulty. And this is called creative philosophy. Is it not?</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithChristianPriestJune91974Paris_35" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="104" link="Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris|Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: We want to see the quality, not the quantity. So our process is paramparā. Just like in India—you have been in India—there are ācāryas: Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Caitanya. If the ācārya accept, then we accept. This is our process. We don't go the millions; we see the quality. Rāmānujācārya, high quality devotee; Madhvācārya, high quality devotee; Caitanya, high quality devotee. If they say he is God, then we accept. This is our process. We don't see how many millions of followers. No. We want to see the quality man. He says yes. So Śaṅkarācārya says "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead," Rāmānujācārya says "the Supreme Personality of Godhead," Madhvācārya says "Supreme," Caitanya says "Supreme," then we accept. That's all. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. Simply by argument we cannot understand the truth. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. And if you simply consult Vedic literature, that is also not possible. There are different statements. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā, nāsāv munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. A muni, a saintly person, a philosopher is not a philosopher or muni if he does not agree with others. He must disagree, then he becomes. So that is also not the way. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: it is very confidential. Then how to know? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). Big personalities, ācāryas—that is the process. Ācāryopāsanam. What is that, in the Thirteenth Chapter? Ācāryopāsanam, we have to understand through the ācāryas. That is our process. That is recommended in the Bhagavad-gītā, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 4.2 (1972)|BG 4.2]]). We accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead not by our experience but by the experience of the acaryas who are recognized, and then we follow. Just like Arjuna accepts Kṛṣṇa in the Tenth Chapter. Find out, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān ([[Vanisource:BG 10.12-13 (1972)|BG 10.12]]).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithChristianPriestJune91974Paris_36" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="104" link="Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris|Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Purport.</p>
<p>Pradyumna: "The path of spiritual realization is undoubtedly difficult. The Lord therefore advises us to approach a bona fide spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession from the Lord Himself. No one can be a bona fide spiritual master without following this principle of disciplic succession. The Lord is the original spiritual master, and a person in the disciplic succession can convey the message of the Lord as it is to his disciple. No one can be spiritually realized by manufacturing his own process, as is the fashion of the foolish pretenders. The Bhāgavatam says: dharmaṁ hi sākṣād-bhagavat-praṇītam—the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge. Such a spiritual master should be accepted in full surrender, and one should serve the spiritual master like a menial servant, without false prestige. Satisfaction of the self-realized spiritual master is the secret of advancement in spiritual life. Inquiries and submission constitute the proper combination for spiritual understanding. Unless there is submission and service, inquiries from the learned spiritual master will not be effective. One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding. In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. One should not only hear submissively from the spiritual master, but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries. A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind toward the disciple. Therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We have started a gurukula in Dallas. Small children are being trained up. Just like formerly there was brahmacārī āśrama. (aside:) Those ladies, they have come? No? If there are any inquiries. (break) ...record?</p>
<p>Devotee: Which record?</p>
<p>Bhagavān: From this afternoon, the recording.</p>
<p>Devotee: Oh, yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithChristianPriestJune91974Paris_37" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="104" link="Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris|Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Priest: I mean, what devotees? You have got bhakti also in the Śaivite , all the others.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: The argument, if you say that it is not special, then you will say that you can chant any name.</p>
<p>Priest: Yes.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: We say that God's name is special, whatever name it is. Not that we eliminate God, saying He's not special. He is special. Whether you call Him by this authorized name or that authorized name, His name is special because it's nondifferent from Him. So not that we should just overlook the name of God because we're overlooking God. We do that, so we have to...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Harer nāma ([[Vanisource:CC Adi 17.21|CC Adi 17.21]]). Harer nāma means God's name.</p>
<p>Priest: You see, for instance, in Christianity for a long time there was a bhakti, and this bhakti was devoted to the name of Jesus. So for a very long time you had that Jesus bhakti. And in your country, in America today, like you have got the Hare Kṛṣṇa, you have got also the Jesus devotees. Now, this is also present in many places. And the name does not matter. There is no name who has got the... Because then you find again what...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. If Jesus is the name of God, then you can chant. If Jesus is the name of God. But Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, says that he is son of God. Of course, there is no difference between son and the father. That is another thing. But still, if I want the father, how by calling the name of son I can get the father? That is also another thing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune111974Paris_38" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Hm?</p>
<p>Devotee: He's puffed-up.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, it is not puffed-up. It is simply foolishness, "Because I do not know, therefore all others..." Ātmavat manyate. Everyone thinks of others in his own standard. But that argument is not valid.</p>
<p>Bhagavān: Is that the same psychology that they, they only know of material body, so when they think of God, they think that God has material body also.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is still lower grade man. But so far experience that "I have not... God is beyond my experience." Another point that in the Bible, Christ, Lord Christ says that "My Lord, Thy be hallowed..." What is that?</p>
<p>Devotees: "Hallowed be Thy name."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So God has name.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh? So he admits God has His name. But it may be that he did not disclose or did not like to say, but there is already name. So it is up to the followers to know what is that name.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune111974Paris_39" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yogeśvara: They say that God's name cannot be...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, Guru Maharaji is a rascal. Don't, don't take his name. He's not even a human being. (laughter) But we cannot compare Christ with Guru Maharaji. He, he's...</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: No, but still, the argument...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The argument, nothing. He's to be simply kicked on his face. That's all.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Haribol.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He has no other qualification, this Guru Maharaja. People have become so lower in intelligence that they are dealing with him. You see? They are not even equal to our shoes. You should not utter his name. But Lord Jesus Christ's position is different. We cannot compare with this rascal. He's recognized God's man, Jesus Christ. And what is this rascal?</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: One of the Ten Commandments, Śrīla Prabhupāda, is that one should not take the name of God in vain. And they argue that when we chant the holy name, they say, "You are chanting, chanting, chanting all the time, but this is taking the name in vain."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why vain? Don't you find difference between you and me? Why it is vain? Don't you find what is the difference between you and me? So I... Do you think that I am a foolish man, that I am chanting, "Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa" without any profit? So you can think because you are a rascal, but I know my business.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune111974Paris_40" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: You learn from me. I am your spiritual master. You tell him. You are asking me. Why you are asking me? What is...? Why you are asking me?</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: Well, I was just giving an argument that people...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, argument, that's all right. Why you are asking me?</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: For knowledge.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: For knowledge. So take knowledge from me.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: That's what you tell them.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: "Otherwise, why you are asking, wasting your time and my time? If you are asking, you take knowledge from me." Is that all right?</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. If... The same example. Suppose I do not know which way to go. If I ask somebody, it is supposed that he knows. Is it not?</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Otherwise, why I shall ask somebody? It is supposed that he knows. Now, when you ask him, then you must take his word. He says, "You go this way." You shall go there. And again, you say, "Why shall I go this way?" And why, rascal, you come to ask me? Is it not? You asked me, "Which way I shall go to go to that place?" I say, "You go this way." And if you again say, "Why shall I go this way?" "Then why, rascal, you come to waste my time and your time?" This is the answer. If you ask me, then you take my word. Eh?</p>
<p>Devotees: Jaya.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune111974Paris_41" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Satsvarūpa: It's not that I am great, but it's the authority of my spiritual master and the śāstras.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Or Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is great. So I am talking of what Kṛṣṇa has said. Therefore I am great, I am knowing everything. It is not that I know everything. I do not know anything, but I, I am surrendered to a person who knows everything. Therefore I know everything. I take my knowledge from Him. So you should think how much knowledge you have assimilated. The knowledge is there, guru-kṛṣṇa. Guru is there. Kṛṣṇa is there. So we have to take advantage of guru and Kṛṣṇa, sad-dharma-pṛcchā, ask him, and become man of knowledge. Then you can say. If you simply think that "I have my guru, and there is Kṛṣṇa. Now I am perfect," no. You should ask and know. You must be man of knowledge. Then you can say, "Yes, I know everything." Dīkṣā. Dīkṣā, initiation, dīkṣā, this Sanskrit word, dīkṣā, means divya-jñānaṁ kṣipayati. To ask from spiritual master with service and surrender the transcendental knowledge. The more you ask, you become a man of knowledge. Then you can challenge, "Yes, I know everything." Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare... Actually, we know everything. Just like when I speak, I immediately ask reference from Bhagavad-gītā, and we stop the man's argument. So if you become well-conversed with the whole Bhagavad-gītā, then you have full knowledge. There is no need of saying that "I do not know." You'll become full knowledge, man of knowledge. But you must study. Who is this man?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune111974Paris_42" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Paramahaṁsa: Yesterday, in your lecture, you mentioned how in this age it's very difficult to remain chaste or free of...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, but one who is Kṛṣṇa conscious, he's all right. Teach him Sanskrit and English and let him read our books. Then perfect knowledge. He doesn't require to go to school. And so far mathematics and history concerned, everyone knows. Two plus two equal to four. It doesn't require much education. Even illiterate man who has never gone to school, he can also count. Eh? "How much money you are giving me?" He doesn't want to be cheated. Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Rāma... So the fact is God cannot be unknown. If you are actually serious to know God, God can be known. This is no argument, that "God cannot be known."</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: That is putting limitation on Kṛṣṇa, to say that you cannot see.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh? Eh?</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: That is putting a limitation on Kṛṣṇa if one says that He cannot be seen.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, Kṛṣṇa... Of course, you cannot challenge Kṛṣṇa. But Kṛṣṇa, if He likes, He can reveal Himself to you. Therefore, you can know God. Just like Kṛṣṇa reveals. He comes and He... (aside:) Don't... He reveals Himself. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata ([[Vanisource:BG 4.7 (1972)|BG 4.7]]). So when man forgets, so He comes, reveals Himself. And He leaves behind Him the Bhagavad-gītā, knowledge about Him. So where is the difficulty? He comes when you forget Him, and He leaves behind Him the knowledge by which you can understand. Where is the difficulty?</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: There's a verse in the Bhāgavatam that says that one moment's association with a pure devotee is greater than liberation from the material world or than innumerable...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: ...years of enjoyment on heavenly planets.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune111974Paris_43" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: He said that morning "What can we do, Prabhupāda?" He said, "What can we do? If we do not compromise, we will make enemies."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, you'll not compromise; at the same time, you'll not make enemies. That is tactics. If you make enemies, then what is your tactics? You must speak the truth; at the same time he'll not be displeased. That is tactics. If you can defeat him by your argument, then he'll not be displeased. After all, everyone is human being. If you can find out his defect, why he shall be enemy? Therefore, it is said, "You better make a reasonable man an enemy, but don't make a friend fool." You don't make friendship with a fool, but if a man is intelligent, better make him an enemy. Because, because he's intelligent, although he's an enemy, he'll not do any harm. Because intelligent. But a fool, he may pose himself as friend, and he can do anything which is very harmful.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune111974Paris_44" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="106" link="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 11, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Bhagavān: That's just on this planet. But on other planets there's human species.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh? What is that?</p>
<p>Bhagavān: No. His argument is that scientists say that at the beginning there may have been only lesser developed forms of life.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we don't say that.</p>
<p>Bhagavān: Was there always humans on this planet?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We say the highest developed, Brahmā. He's a sub-creator. He's not a lesser intelligent. He's as good as God.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: But on this planet, let us say, for example...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: On this planet, any planet. That is the system.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune121974Paris_45" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="110" link="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Bhagavān: He's not the real proprietor.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore... Yes. And not only kicked out. Who knows that he has been given a different body, maybe cats and dogs? So what is the value of this creation? Suppose I create this building, and on account of mentality, nature gives me next body a dog, and... Then what is my profit?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Yeah, there was that man who came to see you a couple of days ago. His argument was that we can't really say for sure because it's not perceivable that we will take a dog's body. But at least this is something we can understand. Here's something, a nice accomplishment.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But you understand, but you can understand also that you'll be kicked out. Don't you understand this?</p>
<p>Bhagavān: He doesn't know it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh? Therefore, he's a fool.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune121974Paris_46" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="110" link="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes. "Decoration of the dead body."</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: They might ask why we decorate the Deity if we say that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Why do we decorate the, a stone Deity?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Because it is not dead; it is living. They can put forward this argument. But that you do not know, that we are not decorating... We are, we are decorating the real body. Now what will be your question next?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: You say it's a real body, but it appears to be stone.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why stone? Stone is also God's body. You don't know that? Do you know it or not?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Yes, in the Universal Form.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Universal Form... Kṛṣṇa says, bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4 (1972)|BG 7.4]]). Bhūmi means the earth. "That is My body."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune121974Paris_47" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="110" link="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So therefore they have to become our student and become our disciple to understand this science. Otherwise, why there is propaganda if we remain the same fool and rascal? That, that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that the stone is also, that is virāḍ-rūpa. That is also Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: But by that argument, then, this body is also Kṛṣṇa, made of earth and water.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, it is Kṛṣṇa's. But you are thinking you are. That is Kṛṣṇa's. Therefore this body should be engaged for Kṛṣṇa's service. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. You, as soon as you accept this body is Kṛṣṇa's, then you cannot employ it for other purposes. But that realization you have no. Why do you say it is Kṛṣṇa's? You are thinking your body. Or you are body. Where is that consciousness?</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: The impersonalists argue when they read the verse, ahaṁ sarvasya bhūteṣu...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: They argue that Kṛṣṇa's in the heart of every living entity.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune121974Paris_48" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="110" link="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Paramahaṁsa: Therefore, every living entity is Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why? If I am in the room, I am room? Is that very good argument? Because I am in this room, I have become room? Is that argument very sound? Kṛṣṇa is within this body. I am also within this body. But does it mean I am body, or Kṛṣṇa is this body?</p>
<p>Devotees: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is everything; again Kṛṣṇa is... That is... What is the verse? mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: "I am spread all over the universe in My impersonal feature." Jagad avyakta-mūrti..., mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni ([[Vanisource:BG 9.4 (1972)|BG 9.4]]). "Everything is in Me." Nāhaṁ te..., "But I am not there." This is called simultaneously one and different. Acintya-bheda, that one has to understand. Where there is no Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that is different from Kṛṣṇa. Otherwise, everything is Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Bhagavān: The other religions do not give any...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We are not talking of religions. We are talking of science.</p>
<p>Bhagavān: Yeah.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune121974Paris_49" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="110" link="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Then? Their art is criminal.</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: But their argument is that when you glorify the body of man with...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We don't glorify the body of... Who glorifies the body of man? We say it is dead body. Dead body means that does not need glorification. It is condemned. We say dead body, decoration of the dead body. We don't say art.</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: Catholic Renaissance Art, they glorified the dead body. Leonardo da Vinci, they glorified the body of man.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is called bhūtejya. That is described in the Bhagavad-gītā as worshiping the material elements. That's all. Here in western countries, that is the prominent thing, bhūtejya. (pause) What is the other side? Lion? (pause, break) They cover with some cloth, some loose cloth. Is it not?</p>
<p>Bhagavān: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is French art, to make naked?</p>
<p>Devotee: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune121974Paris_50" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="110" link="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Is that like Prahlāda Mahārāja's prayer when he saw Lord Nṛsiṁha-deva and he said, "I am not afraid of Your ferocious form, but I am afraid of this material world of saṁsāra."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. He has given nice reference. A devotee, although sees God in His lion feature, and very ferocious, he knows He is God. "He's my Lord." But this so-called advancement of material civilization is the greatest enemy. That is not... Material civilization is very, very backward position. Māyā-mohita. He'll be captivated by the so-called stones and bricks, and he'll forget God. That is the disease of the western world. They are very much fond of these stones and bricks, and therefore they have no knowledge about God. This electricity, the electrons, the radio, this, everything machine and stones. They have got, forgotten God. Jaḍa-vidyā jato māyāra vaibhava. The more you materially advance, you forget God. So human life is meant for reviving our relationship with God, but if you forget God, then what kind of civilization it is? You are forgetting your real business.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Some people use the argument, Śrīla Prabhupāda, that by this advancement of technology, it will free us to think of philosophical.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They will free us. They will free us. Oh, that will never come. That will never come. Therefore they are called bahir-artha-māninaḥ. They are captivated by the external feature, and one who is leading them, he's also blind, and one who is following, he's also blind. Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās te 'pīśa-tantryām uru-dāmni baddhāḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.31|SB 7.5.31]]). They do not know that material laws are so strong that they are not free to do anything.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithRogerMarialeadingwriterofcommunistliteratureJune121974Paris_51" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="112" link="Room Conversation with Roger Maria leading writer of communist literature -- June 12, 1974, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with Roger Maria leading writer of communist literature -- June 12, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Roger Maria leading writer of communist literature -- June 12, 1974, Paris|Room Conversation with Roger Maria leading writer of communist literature -- June 12, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text">Karandhara: No, he's saying that Aurobindo and Ramakrishna expressed that same idea in contemporary language in their own time.
Prabhupāda: So that existed temporarily. Now it is gone. That will not appeal. (French)
Yogeśvara: In other words, what he's suggesting is that that's not actually an argument because the important thing is that there were times, at different times, different people have come and have attempted or have actually represented the public sentiment. They have become the epitome or resume' or synthesis of the public sentiment at a particular period. In other words, he's saying the great reform..., the great preachers, they've always been representatives of people; instead of being representatives of Kṛṣṇa, or God, they've been the representatives of the people.
Prabhupāda: The people's representative is different from God's representative. (French)
Yogeśvara: He says that "Well, that's a belief." You have to believe that. He said that's only a belief.
Prabhupāda: No, people change according to the time, circumstances, they change. Their opinion has no value. We don't give any value to the people's opinion. We give value to the Supreme Being's opinion.
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune131974Paris_52" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="113" link="Morning Walk -- June 13, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 13, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 13, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 13, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: We could call it Puruṣottama Park, or something like that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is nice. Therefore, we give name everyone: Kṛṣṇa dāsa, servant of Kṛṣṇa. Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa... (pause) (break)</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: ...and we give them the argument, could you eat if we brought you the cow and let you kill her yourself, and they say, "No, I could not do that." (Prabhupāda chuckles) But yet, when the cow's meat is killed and wrapped up in a nice wrapper, they eat, and they don't have any bad feeling about it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is called māyā. He cannot face the actual situation, but, covered by some māyā, he accepts. This is another example of māyā. Directly killing the animal he cannot tolerate, but when it is covered by māyā, the same danger, he accepts.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: It is like the people: they say that the air is very polluted. We cannot breathe it now. And they will smoke cigarettes also.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (Chuckles) Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithRussianOrthodoxChurchRepresentativeJune131974Paris_53" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="114" link="Room Conversation with Russian Orthodox Church Representative -- June 13, 1974, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with Russian Orthodox Church Representative -- June 13, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Russian Orthodox Church Representative -- June 13, 1974, Paris|Room Conversation with Russian Orthodox Church Representative -- June 13, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Hare Kṛṣṇa. (some people leave)</p>
<p>Karandhara: I'd just like to finish the one point I was making, that the reason we gather like this and we desire to discuss with other personalities, other people with different views of religion, is for the sake of the edification of everyone, so that the highest principles can be isolated and so we can advance the purpose of religiosity. It's not simply for the sake of argument that we pose questions. But it's for the sake of the edification or the crystallization of the highest principles of religion.</p>
<p>Church Representative: I absolutely agree on this point, certainly. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He says he's familiar with this principle. He says he knows of it, but he doesn't consider himself to be an expert.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: But because you are part of God, you have real interest in this. Everyone.</p>
<p>Church Representative: Certainly. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He says he's willing to admit this philosophy even though he doesn't belong to it himself. He sees this as being...</p>
<p>Paramahaṁsa: He appreciates the fact that it has a coherent aspect, that it holds together logically. And this is what he appreciates.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He respects the Vaiṣṇava philosophy because it is substantial. It doesn't contradict itself.</p>
<p>Karandhara: So then the... If the Vaiṣṇava philosophy has a systematic logic, then integrity would dictate that we have to surrender or accept that logic. If a logic is true, we can't stand apart from it and simply observe it. We have to accept it ourselves.</p>
<p>Church Representative: (French)</p>
<p>Bhagavān: You are right on the brink of Absolute Truth. Don't run away. (laughs)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He says that even though he has a great interest in this discussion, because he has prior commitments, he's unable to stay.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. That's all...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune141974Paris_54" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="116" link="Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Prabhupāda, sometimes these people, they use the argument in the Twelfth Chapter, I think it's the second or third verse, Kṛṣṇa says that those who worship the impersonal Brahman, they are taking trouble. Those who worship the impersonal Brahman, they are taking much trouble.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: "But they also come to Me." So what does this "come to Me" mean? They use this to mean that the same result is there, whether you worship...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They come to Me after much trouble. That's all. So a foolish man will take much trouble. And intelligent man will take the short-cut, harer nāma harer nāma harer nāma eva kevalam ([[Vanisource:CC Adi 17.21|CC Adi 17.21]]). Much trouble means he's a foolish man. And this is also stated, avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ manyante mām abuddhayaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 7.24 (1972)|BG 7.24]]). It's clearly stated there that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, but when He comes here, He appears as a person. So this conclusion is for the abuddhayaḥ, less intelligent class of men, poor fund of knowledge. Avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ manyante mām abuddhayaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 7.24 (1972)|BG 7.24]]).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune141974Paris_55" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="116" link="Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris|Morning Walk -- June 14, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Past, present and future? Therefore there should be no independence? Is that a very good argument?</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: That is their argument.</p>
<p>Bhagavān: They say if Kṛṣṇa knows already what you're going to do in the future, then what is the question of your independence?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, "Don't do it. Do it." Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekam... ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]). He was going to do sinful activities. Kṛṣṇa advises him, "Don't do it." Kṛṣṇa changes. Therefore He comes. Because Kṛṣṇa knows that in the future, you'll, you'll do all sinful activities, therefore Kṛṣṇa comes to check you, "Don't do it."</p>
<p>Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: All that karma is erased as soon as he surrenders to Kṛṣṇa?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Kṛṣṇa says, "Don't do it. Do this." Because He knows your future, therefore He comes to request you, "You rascal, don't do this. Do this." That is His knowing feature. "If you don't this, then I know you'll do simply sinful activities. So therefore I come to save you. Don't do this. Do this." What is the wrong there? Kṛṣṇa says, yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati, tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham: ([[Vanisource:BG 4.7 (1972)|BG 4.7]]) "When they misuse their independence, then I come to check them." Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa... (break)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithdevoteesaboutTwelfthCantoKaliyugaandConversationwithGuestJune151974Paris_56" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="119" link="Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris|Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Yogeśvara: He says that's very good that so many stayed to find out more information, to ask, to discuss.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, any reasonable man will find subject matter interesting. There is a statement of Caitanya-caritāmṛta, śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-dayā karaha vicāra: ([[Vanisource:CC Adi 8.15|CC Adi 8.15]]) "Just consider and then give your judgement after studying the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu." It is never recommended to take it blindly. Karaha vicāra: "Just judge with reason and argument." And vicāra karile citte pābe camatkāra: "If you consider it with logic and judgement, then you'll find it is sublime." (French)</p>
<p>Bhagavān: So an interpretation of a scripture, whether it be Bible or Bhagavad-gītā, cannot simply be an opinion, but it must be based on logic and reason.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like in the Bible it is said, "There was only word in the beginning." So in the beginning, there was word. That means that word is not the word of this material creation.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Just like these Guru Maharajis. They say you cannot chant the name Kṛṣṇa because it's simply a material sound. They say the name is material.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's it. The rascal does not understand what is this sound. He does not see that there was word before creation.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune201974Germany_57" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="124" link="Morning Walk -- June 20, 1974, Germany" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 20, 1974, Germany">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 20, 1974, Germany|Morning Walk -- June 20, 1974, Germany]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Satsvarūpa: I was just thinking of a different argument of theirs.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: That is that sometimes people say, "I don't mind this transmigration if I become a cat or a dog because if I forget so completely, it doesn't matter. I won't even suffer."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But it doesn't matter, but if I say that "I will turn you immediately into a dog," will you agree to become?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why? You'll forget.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Fearful.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If I say that "I can turn you immediately to become a dog..." That is possible, but will you agree to become a dog?</p>
<p>Mādhavānanda: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why? You will forget. That is foolishness. "Because I shall forget, therefore I don't care for it"—this is childish, foolish proposal. If I say, "I will turn you immediately to this grass, and you will stay here for one hundred years," will you agree to stand like that for hundred years? Hare Kṛṣṇa. In the western countries actually there is no philosophy.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJune211974Germany_58" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="126" link="Morning Walk -- June 21, 1974, Germany" link_text="Morning Walk -- June 21, 1974, Germany">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- June 21, 1974, Germany|Morning Walk -- June 21, 1974, Germany]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Professor Durckheim: Well, he explained from his theologian point of view, when Moses was asking God, "Who is Thy name?" God didn't give a name but said only, "I am who I am." And then He explained if in the prayer one says, "Blessed be thy name," they use this in order to avoid a direct name. So just only say, "The name." But I don't understand the whole thing because the word God already is... What do you want more? And I believe that in the Christian religion, everybody just says God. They think the word God is the name and nothing more needed.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. That is not very good sense, that president, president of America. People say " 'President' is sufficient." Then why "Mr. Nixon"? They are all fools? No, they say, "Mr. Nixon," sometimes they say, and sometimes, "the President." Rather, they say more "Mr. Nixon" than "the President." Why?</p>
<p>Professor Durckheim: Sure. But I only can say...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So this argument, this argument is not very sensible argument.</p>
<p>Professor Durckheim: No, but that is the answer they would give. I don't believe the special name of God is for me the name, the word God. We are praying to God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. No, no. Then name... When Christ says, "Hallowed by Thy name," there is name. The name is Kṛṣṇa, already there. Therefore he did not require to say again. But the name is there, Kṛṣṇa is there, Viṣṇu is there, Mādhava is there, Govinda is there. There are thousands and thousands of names. So you pick up any one of them. And chant it. Why do you say there is no name? Then we are chanting the name. Then what we are? We are all rascals and fools? If he says, "No, there is no name," Christ confirms there is name, and we are chanting the name. How you can say there is no name?</p>
<p>Professor Durckheim: Yes, quite. Well, I understand exactly what you mean very well.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ReportersInterviewJune291974Melbourne_59" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="132" link="Reporters Interview -- June 29, 1974, Melbourne" link_text="Reporters Interview -- June 29, 1974, Melbourne">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Reporters Interview -- June 29, 1974, Melbourne|Reporters Interview -- June 29, 1974, Melbourne]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Guest (2): ...in this material universe?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like when you say, "United States of America," that's actually a place. There are living entities. There are men and mountains, rivers. Everything is there. Similarly, all these planets, they are inhabited by living entities. There are similarly cities and towns and mountains and rivers and oceans. Everything is there—of different pattern. Just like the moon planet. It is... The temperature is 200 degree below zero. So you cannot go and live there. But there are living entities who can live there. Just like even on this planet, there are living entities in the Arctic region, but for us it is very difficult to live there. And there are different climatic influences. Even on this planet. One place is suitable for one kind of man, another place is suitable for another. Just like we are Indian. We cannot tolerate such, I mean, what is called, pinching, cool. So similarly, in India you cannot tolerate scorching heat. So for each and every planet there are different patterns of living entities. They can live. Just like you cannot live within water. For that reason you cannot say nobody can live in the water. That is foolishness. You cannot live. You say. So there are so many fishes, varieties of fishes. They are living. Don't carry your present experience to others. That is not very good argument. Now, here the so-called scientists, they are saying in other planets there is no living entity. Why? They are putting so many reasons, that "This is lacking. This is lacking." But what do you know, what is lacking and how...? These things are not accepted. You do not know anything about the other planets. How you say there is no living entity?</p>
<p>Guest (3): Your Divine Grace, is there a Hare Kṛṣṇa Movement in India?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithBhurijanadasaandDisciplesJuly11974Melbourne_60" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="135" link="Room Conversation with Bhurijana dasa and Disciples -- July 1, 1974, Melbourne" link_text="Room Conversation with Bhurijana dasa and Disciples -- July 1, 1974, Melbourne">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Bhurijana dasa and Disciples -- July 1, 1974, Melbourne|Room Conversation with Bhurijana dasa and Disciples -- July 1, 1974, Melbourne]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That's it. As soon as the discipline broken, then everything is lost. Now you can dance like a dog. That will not affect. Nobody can do that unless there is spiritual strength. Now, last night Madhudviṣa Mahārāja was singing, and so many men became enthused to dance. So unless there is spiritual strength, it cannot be done. Others cannot ask and dance. No, that is not possible. That is not possible. Unless there is spiritual strength, you cannot enthuse others. So we should have to acquire spiritual strength by following the regulative principle. Sanātana Gosvāmī has therefore forbidden. Avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇam pūta-hari-kathāmṛtam śravanām kartavyam: "Those who are not following Vaiṣṇava principles, one should not hear from him." Why? It is Kṛṣṇa-kathā, Kṛṣṇa's. Now sarpocchiṣṭa-payo yathā: "Milk is very good, but as soon as it is touched by a serpent, it is no more good. It is harmful." So one must be Vaiṣṇava. Unless one is Vaiṣṇava, there is injunction, "Don't hear from him. It will be poisonous." So one who is not following Vaiṣṇava principle, he cannot speak about Vaiṣṇava principle. It is harmful. That is forbidden by ācāryas, Sanātana Gosvāmī. If somebody says, "What is the harm? He is chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa..." He cannot chant. That is a show-bottle chant. That is not effective. But even taking that "Anyone who is chanting, let me hear," no, Sanātana Gosvāmī says, "No, don't hear." It will be harmful more than... In other words, if you are not following the Vaiṣṇava principle, you don't chant. It will not be effective. Did you not see the difference last night? There were many others. They could not join in the dancing. So far gathering men, if you do not gather intelligent men, then what is the use of gathering men? Ekaś candras tamo hanti na ca tārā sahasraśaḥ: "If there is one moon, that is sufficient. What is the use of millions of stars?" If one is perfect Vaiṣṇava, that is sufficient. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement is... There are so many... Such a big instruction book. It is not that, whimsical. But still, we recommend that "Go on chanting." This will help you anywhere. That is also good. It is exactly like that: if you ignite wood for fire, if the wood is dry, the fire takes place immediately, and if it is moist, then it takes time. Only smoke will come. So smoke is not required. The blazing fire required. Then if from the wood, if simply smoke comes you cannot (chuckles) take any work out of it. There is traces of fire. As soon as there is smoke, there is fire, but it is not useful. It is useful for troubling your eyes only. What is smoke? Smoke means also fire. But you require blazing fire, not smoke fire. So blazing fire takes place if the wood is dry, immediately takes place. Otherwise, you go on enjoying the smoke. Be satisfied. "When there is smoke, there is fire." But it will not be useful. (chuckling) It will be useful, gradually the wood will dry. It takes long time. Just try to understand this example. You require the flame, not the smoke. But if you are satisfied with the smoke, that is your business. If you simply be satisfied—"The smoke is also fire. Unless there is fire, why the smoke comes?"—that's a good argument, but smoke will not help you. You require the flame. That flame cannot be produced if the wood is wet. Wet means materially contaminated. Is that example all right?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Yes, that's true.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithScientistsJuly21974Melbourne_61" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="136" link="Room Conversation with Scientists -- July 2, 1974, Melbourne" link_text="Room Conversation with Scientists -- July 2, 1974, Melbourne">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Scientists -- July 2, 1974, Melbourne|Room Conversation with Scientists -- July 2, 1974, Melbourne]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dr. Muncing: I would agree with you that the body, when a person dies, it's material and dead in the terms we use and the spirit moves on. And I accept from that that at that stage one has nothing to..., one has no worry about the body. But in the stage that we are now, where our body and our soul are together, it seems to me that this is one unity and you can't use the argument that at that stage you should neglect the body.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we don't say neglect the body. But the important factor... Just like our, this Svarūpa Dāmodara has explained that behind this material combination, there is an active principle which is soul. That is the important thing. But in the modern age they are giving more stress on the unimportant thing, and they have no knowledge of the important thing. This is the defect.</p>
<p>Dr. Muncing: I think I disagree with that.</p>
<p>Dr. Harrap: I'm a little uncertain from reading some of your comments about the primary aim that you would set for science. I would place a great deal of emphasis on the contribution that science can make to the community.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That I admit. That I admit. Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkatMarinadelReyJuly121974LosAngeles_62" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="140" link="Morning Walk at Marina del Rey -- July 12, 1974, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk at Marina del Rey -- July 12, 1974, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk at Marina del Rey -- July 12, 1974, Los Angeles|Morning Walk at Marina del Rey -- July 12, 1974, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Svarūpa Dāmodara: Something which is beyond their experimental knowledge...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then where is the difference between the scientists and the devotees? The devotees, devotee accepts what Kṛṣṇa says. That's all. Granted. (japa) In the śāstra it is said that acintyā khalu ye bhāvā na tās tarkeṇa yojayet, yojayet. "Things which are beyond your conception or perception, don't bring it in arguments and logic."</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: This is from Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu? Acintyā khalu ye bhāvā...?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: If they think a little carefully. Then there is no reason why they can't accept Him.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That you have to do, to convince them that "You think little carefully. You are advertising yourself as scientist, but you are talking without any care."</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>