View source for Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. That is to say a man may have a certain stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Isopanisadic version?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. That is to say a man may have a certain stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Isopanisadic version"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas|Rishab}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|02Aug11}}
{{last|14Jul12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1971]]
[[Category:Questions On... Other Philosophies, Philosophy in General]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnLocke_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="38" link="Philosophy Discussion on John Locke" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on John Locke">
<div class="heading">Yes, yes. Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā: everything belongs to God. Just like the father has got many sons and the father is the proprietor of the house. He gives one son, "This is your room," the other son, "This is your room." So the obedient son is satisfied what the father allows to him. Others, those who are not obedient, they want to disturb other brother that "This room also belongs to me." That creates chaos and confusion in the world.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on John Locke|Philosophy Discussion on John Locke]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: This is the continuation of John Locke. Now you said that from your very birth you knew that Kṛṣṇa was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now does this mean that from your very birth you were acquainted with the name Kṛṣṇa, or didn't your father have to at least say the word once? Now Locke would argue that the idea of Kṛṣṇa is not an innate idea because it is not universally assented to.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Universally...?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Universally, not everyone acknowledges that Kṛṣṇa  is God, so he would say that idea is not inborn in the mind.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. In the material world they have got different ideas. That undeveloped mind has got different ideas, but developed, what is called, idea or conception, perfect conception is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So if one remembers Kṛṣṇa consciousness after his birth, that means he had previously cultivated. There is a verse, you can find out: ataḥ. Find that.</p>
<p>Devotee: Gītā?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. The word begins ataḥ paurva-dehikam. You can stop the machine and find it. (break) You can record it. Tatra taṁ paurva-dehikam buddhi-saṁyogam. Yes, that is. Therefore Kṛṣṇa consciousness, culture of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, is never lost. It goes on, unless it is perfect. Therefore it is stated, sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt. Even little acting on Kṛṣṇa consciousness can save one from the greatest danger—as it was done by Ajamila. He cultivated Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the beginning of his life, then he fell down, he became the greatest debauch. But at the end of life again he remembered Nārāyaṇa and he got salvation. Tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogam ([[Vanisource:BG 6.43 (1972)|BG 6.43]]). Read Bhagavad-gītā carefully. All answers are there. This philosopher cannot go beyond Bhagavad-gītā.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Some people have been said to have remembered events in their previous lives. How are these reminiscences or ideas different from innate ideas? How is it possible for one to recall events?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Innate idea is in everyone, that is, "God is great, and I am," what is called, "controlled." That innate idea is everywhere. But sometimes, out of ignorance one tries to become God. That is not possible. That is māyā, and he suffers from this. Artificially trying to become God, that is simply waste of time. It will never become possible. That is called māyā. Otherwise, innate idea is that he is servant and God is great. That is innate idea.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He writes, "The knowledge of our own being we have by intuition. The existence of a God, reason dearly makes known to us. We have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God than of anything our senses can discover." Now how is this? If this is the case, how is it that some men have no conception of God?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He has conception of God, practically, but because under the spell of māyā he has become foolish, he tries to cover that conception, that somebody is there. How any sane man can deny that some superior power is there who has created this vast ocean, vast land, vast sky? How one sane man can avoid this conception? Nobody can avoid, but artificially, foolishly, he tries to avoid. Atheism. But that will not endure, that will not stay. His foolishness will be exposed. So this is innate idea, but the atheist class, demon class, they want to cover this innate idea artificially.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: And Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. That is to say a man may have a certain stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Īśopaniṣadic version?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā: ([[Vanisource:ISO 1|ISO 1]]) everything belongs to God. Just like the father has got many sons and the father is the proprietor of the house. He gives one son, "This is your room," the other son, "This is your room." So the obedient son is satisfied what the father allows to him. Others, those who are not obedient, they want to disturb other brother  that "This room also belongs to me." That creates chaos and confusion in the world. The United Nations, they have created a society for unity of the nations, but actually that is not unity. That is another way of encroaching upon others' property. Therefore there is no peace, unless they accept God is the Supreme proprietor. And we must be satisfied with the allotment God has given to us. Then there is no trouble. But the trouble is that we are not satisfied with the allotment given to us. That allotment can be understood by language or similar culture. So why one should encroach upon others' property which is allotted by God? That creates disturbance. So this so-called modern civilized man, first of all they create disturbances, and then they want to make some adjustment. Of course, for the good of a certain people, if somebody encroaches... But they do not know what is good. They encroach upon others' property for their personal sense gratification. Otherwise, if for the good of the local people somebody, some (indistinct), just like the Aryans, they conquered over many islands or places, but that was for the good of them. Just like the Pāṇḍavas, they also ruled over, but the Pāṇḍavas were God conscious devotees and they made everyone enlightened in God consciousness. That kind of encroachment. Just like Lord Rāmacandra went to Ceylon, or Lanka, and conquered over it, because Rāvaṇa was a demon. So He conquered, Lord Rāmacandra conquered over the property of Rāvaṇa, and gave it to Vibhīṣaṇa, but He did not take anything. Just like Kṛṣṇa conducted, managed this Kurukṣetra war personally, but the kingdom was given to Yudhiṣṭhira. He did not encroach. So this kind of encroachment is all right, that everyone should be Kṛṣṇa conscious, everyone should be highly elevated in spiritual life. For spreading this civilization, encroaching on others' property is quite fit. But if one encroaches upon others' property for self-aggrandizement, for stealing for his own sense gratification, that is sinful.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: So much for Locke.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hm. That's all. (end)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>