View source for That's (actually we are trying to adjust. Only society. The thesis is the soul. The antithesis is the body. And synthesis is how to adjust the body and soul so that the soul be benefited from this entanglement) the varnasrama system?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Actually we are trying to adjust. Only society. The thesis is the soul. The antithesis is the body. And synthesis is how to adjust the body and soul so that the soul be benefited from this entanglement"|"That's the varnasrama system"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas|Rishab}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|22Jul11}}
{{last|30Jul12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1975]]
[[Category:Questions On... Varna, Asrama]]
</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="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="ConversationonRoofDecember261975Sanand_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="271" link="Conversation on Roof -- December 26, 1975, Sanand" link_text="Conversation on Roof -- December 26, 1975, Sanand">
<div class="heading">That is different thing only... First of all, this is the problem... Yes... Yes. That is dialectic. So you can write dialectic spiritualism.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Conversation on Roof -- December 26, 1975, Sanand|Conversation on Roof -- December 26, 1975, Sanand]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Harikeśa: So actually everything.... All the arguments they bring up is simply the material thesis. There is no antithesis 'cause.... Just like hot and cold. Hot is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. They're seeking—the same example—the enjoyable thing, on the platform of shell of the coconut, fibers of the coconut. They do not know that within the shell, within the fiber, there is coconut. That they do not know. You said two sides. But they do not know the other side. They only know the one side, the body. There will be synthesis when there are two. But they have no two. They simply one subject matter, the body, and that is useless struggle. It is just like Māyāvādīs. Neti neti: "Not this, not this. Not this, not this." Therefore they advocate revolution, that something is going on for some days; again revolution. That means "Not this." Neti neti. The experiment says.... Experiment. Everyone is doing that. They are trying to derive happiness through some system or idea of adjustment, but it becomes spoiled and useless after some time. Therefore they say another revolution required.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: In the dictionary, that, the definition of experiment was you try it and see if it works.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But if it is not perfect, how it will work?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Not possible.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And experiment means, those who are making experiment, they do not know where is the perfect thing. The same example, that if you make experiment about understanding who is your father, it will all fail. How long you'll go on inquiring, ask any old man, "Sir, are you my father?" Or will this process be successful at any time? Without consulting your mother, if you simply go on asking all old men, "Sir, are you my father?" And if somebody falsely says, "Yes, I am your father," is that successful inquiry? This is going on.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Well, it gives mental satisfaction, and that, that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is rascaldom. Mental satisfaction. Just like a child. You can cheat him by mental satisfaction, giving him one lozenges and take from him hundred rupees note.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: But he's satis...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is also mental satisfaction.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: But happiness is a state of mind. So the child is happy...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Such mind is imperfect. What is this satisfaction? If mind is imperfect, so mental satisfaction is never complete satisfaction. That is also another illusion. It will be changed again. Again revolution. This is going on. So in the dialectic process, try to bring this thesis, that within this body there is the real enjoyer, and try to convince them in that way. That will be great service.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: You've already done it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I've done with a few selected men. Now it has to be spread. We have to face bigger field. Then it will be nice. Hm? Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This is good. This is scientific method. So, so what is that thesis? That thesis is given by Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa gave the thesis: asmin dehe, the proprietor of the body is there. Within this body.... This is thesis.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Actually though, the, the thesis in Engel's philosophy would start off with the present existence, the present reality.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: It starts with the present, what is now presently existing, and then the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well, presently or.... That is another foolishness. The, the body and the moving active principle is eternally existing. It is not that formerly the body did not stop acting. It is dead. Study the whole history of human beings, any being—the death is always there. Then what is modern effort? Birth, death, old age, disease. They're always existing. Why do they say "modern"? This is eternal fact. Why they should say it is modern?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Well, it's the present culmination of synthesis and antithesis.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. That is their imperfect knowledge. They do not know. What is thesis, what is antithesis, and the synthesis, they do not know. As philosophers, they have found out the three things. But so far the solution of the problem of human society.... You cannot solve the problems of animals' society. That is not possible. So this thesis can be understood by human beings. The animals cannot understand it, that within this body the soul is there. On account of presence of the soul, everything is going on, bodily affair. This thesis cannot be understood by the animals. So if you cannot understand, then you are also animal, although you are two-legged. So what is the value of your thesis, antithesis? You are animal.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: I think a thesis, it would be described in the dictionary as a proposition.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Who can give proposition unless one is human being? The dog cannot give proposition. The animal cannot give proposition. So who is giving this proposition throughout the Western world, that within this body there is the real person? Who understands this? Therefore they're all animals. What is the value of their so-called philosophy? What do you think? Yasyātmā buddhiḥ kunāpe tri-dhātuke ([[Vanisource:SB 10.84.13|SB 10.84.13]]). If he's in the bodily concept of life, then he remains animal. What is the value of his thesis? Now here is the thesis. Now antithesis is also there. Actually we are trying to adjust. Only society. The thesis is the soul. The antithesis is the body. And synthesis is how to adjust the body and soul so that the soul be benefited from this entanglement.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: That's the varṇāśrama system?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is different thing only.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: O.K.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Lat.... First of all, this is the problem.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: First to find out the problem...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: ...and discuss the problem.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is dialectic. So you can write dialectic spiritualism.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Dialectic spiritualism. I think they should print this also in Back to Godhead.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, yes.</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: It'd make a good article.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: It would make a good article, what you've just spoken.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So write.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: You so completely destroy the opposition, it's very hard to say anything more.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That you have to prove. You can eulogize your Guru Mahārāja, but you have to learn it and face the public and be strong to defend yourself. That is success. Not by praising your Guru Mahārāja. You'll praise your Guru Mahārāja. That is not very difficult. But be victorious to the opposing elements. Then you will praise your Guru Mahārāja nicely. At home, you can praise your Guru Mahārāja, and Guru Mahārāja be satisfied, "Oh, my disciples are praising me." That is not very.... That is good. Respectful. That is the qualification. But you have to fight. Then your Guru Mahārāja will be glorified.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: The problem nowadays though is that I met some of these Socialists on the train, and I would ask them, "What is your philosophy?" and they would just smile and...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There is no philosophy. They're cats and dogs. What philosophy they have?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: They don't know their philosophy. So how can we defeat them?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The philosophy classes are being closed now in the universities.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: It is useless.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. They're thinking it is useless, simply mental speculation. And Bhagavad-gītā says, tattva jñānārthaṁ darśanam. Philosophy means to find out the ultimate truth. That is philosophy.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: But actually this is the proof of Marx's philosophy...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Therefore I say the dialectic. The dialectics should proceed further. They have ended this, that the workers should be the proprietor.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: So now the, the, the, there's no philosophy. So the workers, they are simply frustrated. Now they're going to rebel and revolt without any philosophy.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That will be natural. Because if you cannot live perfect philosophy, then they will revolt. Andhā yathāndhaiḥ... You are a rascal, and you're trying to lead other rascals with some rascal philosophy. How long this rascaldom will go on?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: So there's no need for any movement...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: ...Communist movement.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There is need of movement.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: No, no. I mean there's no need for any organized Communist movement, because according to their philosophy...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, because they're fools. They're as fools. They are simply criticizing the capitalists, that much. That much, there is something ideal that the state property should be equally divided. That's a good thesis. But they do not know that it is not the ultimate solution. You do not know who is the proprietor. You do not know the proprietor. These things belong to Him. You are using it. I am thinking that "You are proprietor." But actually you are not proprietor. He is proprietor. If that is the position, then I take it from you that: "You cannot possess. I shall possess." Then what is my possess? The same thing. As you took it, took it out from this man, so I took it, take it from you. So my position is the same. If you cannot find out who is the actual proprietor, then you may change hands. The problem remains there, that it, it does not belong to you. You are forcibly snatching from the proprietor, or without knowing the proprietor, you are making arrangement. What is the value of this arrangement?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: So it's just the animal philosophy of the strong dominating the weak...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That's it.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: ...in, in a new package.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: "Might is right." That's all. This is going on.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: So this was the philosophy of Machiavelli, that "Might makes right."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But Machiavelli also does not know who is the proprietor. That is the defect. Machiavelli also does not know. He's also another fool. So long you do not know who is the proprietor, then...</p>
<p>Harikeśa: But it's true. Might does make right.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Kṛṣṇa is the strongest.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Kṛṣṇa says, "I am the proprietor." But they'll not accept it. Kṛṣṇa says, the real proprietor says, that "I am the bhokta. Sarva-loka-maheśvaram ([[Vanisource:BG 5.29 (1972)|BG 5.29]])." But they are so rascal that they will deny the existence of Kṛṣṇa or God, or the real proprietor. They claim to be proprietor for a few days, and they, by one slap of Kṛṣṇa's hand, they finished all proprietorship, and they are going, struggling. This ignorance is prevailing all over the world. Does not know who is the proprietor, how I became proprietor, how I shall be enjoying. Nothing. The same thing, the dog philosophy: if the dog secures a morsel of bread, he's thinking, "I am proprietor." Another one snatches: "I am proprietor." This is going on. But the dog has no sense that none of us will be proprietor. So when you know who is the proprietor, then this Īśopaniṣad.... Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam ([[Vanisource:ISO 1|ISO 1]]). Everything, God's property. You enjoy for livelihood what is given to you. That's all. That is perfect philosophy. "I am the proprietor." That was the system in Vedic civilization. God is proprietor. King is the representative of God. He knows.... He gives you some land, that "You take this land, produce your livelihood, utilizing this land, and whatever you produce, one fourth give me." Not a fixed tax. "If you produce, one fourth is mine. If you don't produce, there is no tax." This was the system. And that includes all tax. No botheration. So people were God-fearing, honest, simple-dealing. So "I have produced a hundred mounds of rice. The king, you can take twenty-five mounds. That is my obligation." And king is also satisfied. By distributing that grain, he maintains the whole government. The real difficulty is all these rascals, they are not sufficiently educated. They are mūḍhas. And they are trying to solve the problems. That is not possible. That is andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.31|SB 7.5.31]]). They are bound up. They're making adjustment, but.... Just like Gandhi. For making adjustment, all of a sudden a man came, (makes sound like gun) khat. Finished. Kennedy was making some adjustment. Somebody came and killed him. It is like that. What is the value of your adjustments? It will be finished after some days. Therefore the Russians, they support revolution. They said, "It is necessary." They admit the imperfectness. And occasional revolution makes it perfect. This is their idea of perfection. But they do not inquire that "What is that supreme power which makes our ideas of perfection imperfect?" These rascals, they do not never, do not ever inquire, "What is that power which forces to make our attempt frustrated, spoil, and make it imperfect?" What do they say about this?</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: They never come to this point.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: They never come to this point.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just see how rascal they are. This is the fact. We make some arrangement, and after few years it becomes imperfect. They say the revolution required. Why? That is natural. And natural means a power which makes your arrangement spoiled. Then what is your brain? You have got some superior brain which nullifies your plan. Why don't you accept this?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Like breaking the law and being thrown in jail...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: ...after you are caught...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: ...and then wondering why.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. He does not know that "I was imperfect, thief. Therefore I have put into jail." So we can face any philosopher. But I can give you ideas. You can write some small articles. Let them solve these thesis, antithesis and synthesis. They, they accept this thesis, antithesis?</p>
<p>Harikeśa: Oh, yeah.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Put them.</p>
<p>Harikeśa: And actually it's, it works very nicely because the thesis doesn't have to be accepted as a fact in the beginning.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right. But discuss on.... That is dialectic. Complete discussion. That is wanted. That we want.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>