View source for In the family, a small child and a dog, they're behaving similarly, and therefore dog is also considered as one of the family members, children, because his consciousness is not developed

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"In the family, a small child and a dog, they're behaving similarly, and therefore dog is also considered as one of the family members, children, because his consciousness is not developed"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|SharmisthaK}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2022-12-09T06:39:28Z}}
{{last|2022-12-09T06:39:28Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Family]]
[[Category:Small Children]]
[[Category:Dog]]
[[Category:They Are]]
[[Category:Behavior]]
[[Category:Similarly]]
[[Category:Therefore]]
[[Category:Is Also]]
[[Category:Consider]]
[[Category:One Of The]]
[[Category:Family Members]]
[[Category:Children]]
[[Category:Consciousness is Not]]
[[Category:Not Developed]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - SHARMISTHA]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
Evolution is there in the matter of consciousness. Just like a child: his consciousness is not developed. A child goes to capture a fire because his consciousness is not developed. But that does not mean the child has no consciousness or the child has no soul. Just like some rascal says: "The animals, they have no soul." So why the animals have no soul? Their consciousness is not developed, but soul is there. If the animal has no soul, then the child has also no soul, because the child behaves like an animal. In the family, a small child and a dog, they're behaving similarly, and therefore dog is also considered as one of the family members, children, because his consciousness is not developed.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:740118 - Lecture SB 01.16.22 - Honolulu|740118 - Lecture SB 01.16.22 - Honolulu]]
</div>
<div class="text">
It is said . . . Vyāsadeva, before writing . . . writing book is not a whimsical, whatever I like. No. You must be empowered by superior authority; then you can deliver the right things. So Vyāsadeva was empowered by his guru, Nārada. Vyāsadeva, after writing so many books, he could not find any peace of mind. So he was sitting, morose, and his spiritual master, Nārada, came there, asked him, "My dear Vyāsa, you have done so much in writing for the welfare of the society. Why you are not happy?" Vyāsadeva replied, "Yes, my lord, I think I have done so much things, but I am not happy." So he was instructed that, "You have written so many books, but not about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. I admit that you have written so many books. So because you have not described about the superiority or glories of the Lord, therefore you are unhappy." So after that instruction—that means after his writing of the Vedānta philosophy—he was also not happy. But when he wrote Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam under the instruction of Nārada, he became happy.

So the purpose of writing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is lokasyājānato vidvāṁś cakre sātvata-saṁhitām ([[Vanisource:SB 1.7.6|SB 1.7.6]]). All the people of the world, they're fools and rascals, lokasyājānataḥ. Why they are fools and rascals? Now, there are two things. Vyāsadeva, by his bhakti-yoga meditation, he found out that there is God and there is māyā. Two things are there. Bhakti-yogena manasi samyak praṇihite 'male, apaśyat puruṣaṁ pūrṇam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.7.4|SB 1.7.4]]). There is the Supreme Person, the supreme controller—apaśyat puruṣaṁ pūrṇaṁ māyāṁ ca tad-apāśrayam—and there is also māyā, which is on the back side. Just like if you stand before the sun or light, your shadow will be on the back side. You have got, all, experience. You stand up; you'll see a long shadow on your back side. So that is māyā. The māyā is the back side. That means if you stand before the sun in the front, you can see in the sunlight very nicely. But if somebody stands on your back side, he cannot see you. This is the position. Apaśyat puruṣaṁ pūrṇaṁ māyāṁ ca tad-apāśrayam.

What is this māyā? Why this māyā? That is also explained. What is that? Yayā sammohito jīva: "These conditioned souls, they're bewildered by māyā, illusion." That is māyā. Yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaṁ tri-guṇātmakam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.7.5|SB 1.7.5]]): "Being bewildered by this māyā, this soul, who is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, or God, he's thinking that 'I am a material product. I am made of these material things.' " Just like the so-called rascal scientists, they'll never accept that within this body there is the soul, because they're always thinking there is no such thing as soul; only the material, that's all. This is illusion. They cannot explain how this body is moving, why the dead body does not move, what is the difference, what is the thing that is missing. These rascals will not understand. Even there is instruction by higher authorities that within this body there is the soul . . . dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanam ([[Vanisource:BG 2.13 (1972)|BG 2.13]]). Dehino 'smin dehe, in this body, dehī. The dehī . . . dehī means the possessor, the owner of the body. It is said clearly, and we can understand, that when I meditate upon my body, actually what I am, so if one is deep thinker, he'll immediately understand that, "I am not this body." Take, for example, study on this finger, and if you think, "I am this finger"? no, you'll come to the conclusion, "It is my finger." Any part of your body you study; you'll never agree that, "I am this." It is "I am in possession of this." We say also "my body," "my finger," "my head," "my hand." And where is that "I"? You are simply thinking, "My, my, my, my," but where is that "I"? But they have no brain. And still, they're passing on as great philosopher, great scientist, and getting Nobel Prize. But they are illusioned.

Yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaṁ tri-guṇātmakam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.7.5|SB 1.7.5]]). Ātmānam means the soul. Soul, they're thinking that it is a product of this matter, by evolution or so on. So many nonsense theories they have got, all rascaldom. There is no evolution. Evolution is there in the matter of consciousness. Just like a child: his consciousness is not developed. A child goes to capture a fire because his consciousness is not developed. But that does not mean the child has no consciousness or the child has no soul. Just like some rascal says: "The animals, they have no soul." So why the animals have no soul? Their consciousness is not developed, but soul is there. If the animal has no soul, then the child has also no soul, because the child behaves like an animal. In the family, a small child and a dog, they're behaving similarly, and therefore dog is also considered as one of the family members, children, because his consciousness is not developed.

So the evolution means developed consciousness, and according to the developed consciousness, one gets a particular type of body. This is nature's law.
</div>
</div>
</div>