View source for The anthropology, Darwin's theory. They do not believe in soul, transmigration of the soul. They have their own theories. But they are also not definite

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"The anthropology, Darwin's theory. They do not believe in soul, transmigration of the soul. They have their own theories. But they are also not definite"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MayapurUK}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|16May12}}
{{last|16May12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Darwin's Theory]]
[[Category:Do Not Believe]]
[[Category:Souls]]
[[Category:Transmigration Of The Soul]]
[[Category:They Have]]
[[Category:Their]]
[[Category:Theory]]
[[Category:They Are]]
[[Category:They Are Not]]
[[Category:Definitely]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG226LosAngelesDecember61968_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="91" link="Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Los Angeles, December 6, 1968" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Los Angeles, December 6, 1968">
<div class="heading">The anthropology, Darwin's theory. They do not believe in soul, transmigration of the soul. They have their own theories. But they are also not definite. Those who have read Darwin's theory of anthropology, in most places, that Mr. Darwin says, "Perhaps it was like this, perhaps it was like this." And according to his theory, there was no existence of human being ten thousand years ago.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Los Angeles, December 6, 1968|Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Los Angeles, December 6, 1968]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: ...these living symptoms develop. The anthropology, Darwin's theory. They do not believe in soul, transmigration of the soul. They have their own theories. But they are also not definite. Those who have read Darwin's theory of anthropology, in most places, that Mr. Darwin says, "Perhaps it was like this, perhaps it was like this." And according to his theory, there was no existence of human being ten thousand years ago. But we followers of Vedic (child making noises)... You have to stop. ...version, we don't believe to all this nonsense; neither there is any basic principle. Now take for example the atheistic theory, call it by any name, that combination of matter makes a living symptom possible.</p>
<p>So scientific, I mean to say, proposition is based on observation and experiment. So this is simply observation, that those who are atheistic person... Just like medical science. There are many doctors. They are observing when a man dies, observing, feeling the pulse, taking pulse beating, offering oxygen gas, trying to save him. All of a sudden the man dies, and he is sure to die, but they cannot simply observe the symptoms. They cannot observe what is that thing which is gone now. They cannot say that. Neither it is possible for them to say. But their theory that combination of matter makes symptoms of life possible, they should prove it by experiment. Then it is complete science. Observation and experiment. But there is no such experiment till now. You trace out the history of the human society. Of course, in the modern world they cannot trace out chronological history more than three thousand years. That's all. But we can give account for many millions and millions of years. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says, imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam ([[Vanisource:BG 4.1 (1972)|BG 4.1]]). "I spoke this philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god". Now just imagine how many years, millions of years. So the modern theory that ten thousand years ago there was no human civilization, how we can adjust things? The Battle of Kurukṣetra was fought five thousand years ago. Before that, hundreds of thousands year ago there was another battle which is called fight between Rāma and Rāvaṇa. And there are so many instances in the Vedic literature. We can offer history of the world, of the universe, from millions and millions of years ago. But these people with petty knowledge for three thousand years or four thousand years, they are thinking they have advanced.</p>
<p>So this theory was current in those days also; otherwise why Kṛṣṇa is making reference to this theory? So all kinds of theories are existent since the beginning of this creation. But sometimes some theory is very prominent, sometimes some theory is not prominent. That's all. So this atheistic theory, that combination of matter... Just like you combine some chemicals and you get some product, similarly the modern scientist says that carbon dioxide, soda bicarb—they name so many chemicals—is the combination of this body. That is chemical analysis of this body. But can you produce? You have got all the chemicals. Can you produce even the body of an ant by combination of carbon dioxide, soda bicarb and so many chemicals? Just produce, not human being, just produce even a small ant which is moving. Combine. That you cannot. So such theories, at least we cannot accept. But Kṛṣṇa is giving argument to Arjuna, "If you think that this is an accidental combination of several chemicals, then where there is cause of lamentation?" Suppose in a bottle you have got certain combination of chemicals. If that bottle is broken, is there any cause of lamentation? All right, we shall get another bottle of this chemical combination. So Kṛṣṇa is forwarding this argument, that if you think that this body, there is no soul, there is no transmigration of the soul, simply it has happened under certain accidental chemical combination and it will dis..., what is called, dislocated, or dismantle at a certain period, so where is the cause of lamentation? Why you are lamenting? This is His argument. Go on.</p>
<p>Devotee: "Even if Arjuna did not believe in the existence of the soul, as in the vaibhāṣika philosophy, there would still have been no cause for lamentation. Nobody would lament the loss of a certain bulk of chemicals and stop discharging his prescribed duties ([[Vanisource:BG 2.26 (1972)|BG 2.26]])."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Suppose some chemical combined bottle is there; by accident it is broken. Does it mean that I shall give up all my duties to be done? And lament for the bottle only? What is this? (laughs) "Arjuna, you are My friend," he was friend of Kṛṣṇa. "You have become so fool that you are lamenting for loss of a chemical bottle?" This is the argument. Yes.</p>
<p>Devotee: "On the other hand, in modern science and scientific warfare so many tons of chemicals are wasted in achieving victory over the enemy."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. They are manufacturing so many atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb, this bomb—huge expensive chemical. So that is lost, so who is crying for that? Go on.</p>
<p>Devotee: "According to the vaibhāṣika philosophy, the so-called soul or ātmā vanishes along with the deterioration of the body."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The modern theories, they are exactly like that. They want to... Yes, our Kārttikeya was telling that the boys, the young boys and girls, they put forward this theory that "Our parents have made the position of the world so unsafe. So we do not know when we shall, our this body will be finished. So better to enjoy this bodily sense gratification as far as possible quickly." Is not that theory you were telling me? Huh? Is it a fact they are thinking like that? Oh, now, see this nonsense. Now supposing there is soul... And why not suppose? Because experimentally you have not proved that by chemical combination you can produce such moving things.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>