View source for Well, what about before they had botanists? They didn't know anything about leaves before?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Well, what about before they had botanists? They didn't know anything about leaves before"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas|Rishab}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|31Jul11}}
{{last|15Aug12}}
{{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... Modern Science and Scientists]]
[[Category:Questions On... Human Beings, Other Species or Types of Living Entities]]
</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="PhilosophyDiscussiononEdmundHusserl_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="16" link="Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl">
<div class="heading">No. Botanistism may not be there, but the knowledge was there.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl|Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: Well, their idea is to reduce everything to the level of pure consciousness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is pure consciousness.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But by examining a phenomenon purely, without any other consideration, he says that each thing has its given content or its principle of principles, as an object of intuition. Or he calls it also a thing of authentic reality. Just like a leaf. If you look at a leaf, and you have no consideration of previous knowledge where do these things come, what is a leaf, anything, then the authentic reality of that leaf will present itself to my consciousness. It will be self-evident what is that leaf.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You don't take... That means that analytical study of the leaf.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Yes. But without any previous knowledge—as if I knew nothing about leaves before, but I begin to look at the leaf and it will be self-evident what that leaf is.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So you can talk any nonsense. (laughter) Then what is the use of going to school? There is no need of opening so many schools and colleges. You go on studying, you can know all knowledge and talk all kinds of nonsense. Is that perfect?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: No. He says that if a man has a clear intelligence that he will be able to understand the essence of that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But why these schools are there? Every day we see, actually, from the most intelligent persons, scientist, he has to go to a school. Not that at home, by speculating and talking nonsense, they have become a scientist. They will never become.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But if evidence from that leaf—that it is the color green, for instance...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Still, you have to learn how the color green comes in.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, he calls that kind of knowledge—how the color green comes in—you must exclude that kind of consideration; only...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That I am saying. Then he doesn't require to ask anybody. He has to speculate himself and think any kind of way he likes. He wants (indistinct).</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: No. He wants to understand the object in its self-evidence...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that self-evidence?</p>
<p>Syamasundara: ...not that it's the color green, that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then what is his study? Color green everyone is seeing. So what is his specific purpose of studying?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: By studying the appearance of the leaf, the phenomenon, its nature or its essence will become self-evident—why the leaf is structured in a certain way, what is the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (indistinct) How you can know the structure of this leaf, why it is green some portion, why it is yellow, why there are stem, how it comes...? Do you mean to say that these things should automatically come if I speculate on this?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: That is his contention.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then it is nonsense. It will not come. We have to go to a botanist to study.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, what about before they had botanists? They didn't know anything about leaves before?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Botanistism may not be there, but the knowledge was there.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But they... Five hundred years ago there were no...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Five hundred years... Since the beginning of the creation. Why do you say five hundred years? You cannot... Five millions of years ago...</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: That's using an example that five hundred years ago, when we had no microscopes, we had no idea...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But the knowledge was there. That is Vedic knowledge. Knowledge was there. Just like five millions of years ago there was no scientist (indistinct), analytical laboratory. But the Vedic knowledge is that cow dung is pure. Now you analyze at the present moment scientifically you'll find yes, it is pure. So wherefrom this knowledge came? There is no need of scientist if this knowledge was there. That is Vedic knowledge.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, what about someone who has no recourse to Vedic knowledge or any authority...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then he is a fool. However you may speculate, he is a fool.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But for thousands of years man has been in contact with leaves, and they have not had Vedic scriptures to read...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Vedic scripture was there. They did not read. That's all.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So does that mean they have no knowledge about leaves?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. They may have partial knowledge, I mean to say, perfect knowledge. Just like the same example: cow dung is the stool of an animal, but it is stated in the Vedic language, Vedic literature, that it is pure. Now if you analyze it, as modern scientifically in the laboratory, you will find it is pure. Therefore all perfect knowledge was there in the Vedas. So whatever is stated there in the Vedas, that is perfect knowledge. There may be botanists or no botanists; the knowledge is there.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So in order to understand anything, I have to consult Vedic scriptures.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the process: tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). So to understand anything, that is the Vedic process: either material science or spiritual science, you must approach the guru. And that is being followed everywhere. You cannot become botanist by speculating at home. You have to go...</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: No. He doesn't say you have to become a botanist.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So any, anything, whatever you may be, you cannot become perfect without hearing from another perfect. This is nonsense, that you go on speculating and the proof will come. This is nonsense.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, I know. That is nonsense. That isn't what he's saying. He's saying that if you look at an object, the nature of that object will be self-evident; that it isn't that we have to know everything about the object, but the nature of it, the essence of it will be self-evident.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. The nature is... Sometimes a child takes this, asks his father: "What is this, Father? What is this?" "The case of a spectacle." Therefore he gets the knowledge. That is nature.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But if there was no-one...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But if the child will speculate, well then (indistinct) speculate?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well this isn't a philosophy for children exactly. It's supposedly for very intelligent men.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Anyone who is following the principle, he's no better than a children. He's a child. This man is no better than a child, because he is speculating something important. He wants to study this leaf without any other sense. Then he is a child.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But the nature of that leaf...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Whatever nature is already there. Nature of the leaf is already there, but you cannot understand it by speculating.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: We can't understand that it's green and that it grows?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well, simply understanding green is not complete study of the leaf. The main questions are why it is green? Why the other leaf is yellow? That is real enquiry. Why this flower is red and that flower is white? And why the leaf is green? This is the real enquiry, "Why?"</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: That isn't possible to understand...?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: How it is possible? You explain how is it possible. </p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, you were just saying before that if someone analyzes everything scrutinizingly, they will find out that it is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. But unless they are able to make that analysis, then what is the point of analyzing? Shouldn't we have the freedom to analyze something?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Suppose that when he says to analyze, analyze. When he will not take help? (indistinct) analyze.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: This is just the first step of his process. There are three steps. The first step is simply to reduce the phenomenon to their self-evident (indistinct)...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that self-evidence?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: ...that it is green, that it grows on trees—those simple things that anyone can see, they're self-evident.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: That we don't have to consult any authority about or have any knowledge about previously. We can see those things. </p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>