Inductive process

Expressions researched:
"ascending process of enquiry, the inductive method" |"ascending process, or inductive logic" |"inductive process" |"inductive, ascending process" |"nductive and deductive process" |"process is deductive, not inductive" |"process is inductive" |"process, inductive" |"process. Inductive"

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Jñāna-yoga should never be interpreted to mean the ascending process of enquiry, the inductive method, through which one aims only at separating reality from illusion by gradually rejecting the unreal.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.1:

Real knowledge means to discriminate between truth and illusion. Jñāna-yoga is the process by which one becomes eternally fixed on the path of transcendental devotional service to the Supreme Lord, who is the source of the Supersoul and Brahman. Jñāna-yoga should never be interpreted to mean the ascending process of enquiry, the inductive method, through which one aims only at separating reality from illusion by gradually rejecting the unreal. It is impossible to attain perfect knowledge without serving the Supreme Lord, who is full with all opulences and potencies, whose bodily luster is the Brahman effulgence, and whose partial expansion is the Supersoul. The brāhmaṇa Gopāla Cakravartī believed that jñāna, perfect knowledge, is far superior to devotional service of the Lord. But as recorded in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (CC Antya 3.201):

balāi-purohita tāre karilā bhartsana

"ghaṭa-paṭiyā mūrkha tumi bhakti kāṅhā jāna?"

The priest named Balarāma Ācārya chastised Gopāla Cakravartī. "You are a foolish logician," he said. "What do you know about the devotional service of the Lord?"

The mental speculators and logicians, as well as the Māyāvādīs—who are neophytes depending on the empirical, inductive process—should properly understand the position of the pure devotees of the Lord, who have realized the Absolute truth.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.3:

The mental speculators and logicians, as well as the Māyāvādīs—who are neophytes depending on the empirical, inductive process—should properly understand the position of the pure devotees of the Lord, who have realized the Absolute truth.

Message of Godhead

A mahātmā never tries to approach Godhead by any invented method, any inductive, ascending process. Rather, he accepts the standard, deductive, descending process—that is, the method that comes down directly from the Supreme Lord or through His bona fide representatives.

Message of Godhead 2:

The purport is that mahātmās are everywhere, but the mahātmā who knows the real relationship between Godhead and the manifested world is very rare. Such a mahātmā never tries to approach Godhead by any invented method, any inductive, ascending process. Rather, he accepts the standard, deductive, descending process—that is, the method that comes down directly from the Supreme Lord or through His bona fide representatives. By the ascending process, no one can reach the Lord, even by a long-term endeavor of many, many years. What is obtained by this ascending process, however, is imperfect, partial, impersonal knowledge, liable to be deviant from the Absolute Truth.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

This knowledge, what we are distributing, it is not that we have created this knowledge by research work or by so many other ways, by inductive process. No. Our knowledge is from the deductive process.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

We are imperfect. We accept we are imperfect. But we are distributing the perfect knowledge. Kindly try to understand. We may be imperfect, but perfection means one who assimilates the perfect knowledge, he is perfect. I shall give you one example. Just like a post peon delivers you one hundred dollars. The post peon is not rich man. He cannot deliver you the hundred dollars. But he... The money is sent by some, your friend. He is honestly carrying that money and delivering you. That is the post peon's business. Similarly, our duty to receive perfect knowledge from Kṛṣṇa and distribute it. Then it is perfect. This knowledge, what we are distributing, it is not that we have created this knowledge by research work or by so many other ways, by inductive process. No. Our knowledge is from the deductive process. Kṛṣṇa said, "This is this." We accept. That is our movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We may be imperfect, but Kṛṣṇa is perfect. Therefore, whatever Kṛṣṇa says, if we accept it and if we.... Not accept blindly, but you can employ your logic and argument and try to understand, then your knowledge is perfect.

We are imperfect. Suppose a big professor, just like that Russian Professor Kotovsky, they are trying to understand things by so-called inductive process, or āroha-panthā, going up by one's speculation, by speculative method.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 19, 1972:

Knowledge coming from the authorities, that is perfect knowledge. And knowledge acquired by experimental knowledge, that is not perfect. Because we are imperfect. Suppose a big professor, just like that Russian Professor Kotovsky, they are trying to understand things by so-called inductive process, or āroha-panthā, going up by one's speculation, by speculative method. But our process of knowledge, Vedic process of knowledge: tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). Their knowledge should be taken from the authority. Do not manufacture knowledge. Because how you can manufacture perfect knowledge? You are imperfect. Your senses are imperfect. You are defective in four ways. You are... To err is human. You must commit mistake. You must be illusioned. Your senses are imperfect, and you have got a cheating propensity. These four defects are there. Those who are not liberated, mukta-puruṣa, they have got four defects.

Our process is descending process. We are not trying to understand by the ascending process.

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Hyderabad, November 30, 1972:

Our process is descending process. We are not trying to understand by the ascending process. Inductive or deductive. We accept the statements of the Vedas. Therefore we haven't got to make much effort to understand a thing. Veda-vacana, śruti, śruti-pramāṇa. There are three kinds of evidences: direct perception, and evidence from the Vedas, and evidence from history. Aitihya. Pratyakṣa, aitihya, śruti. Three kinds of evidences. So pratyakṣa and aitihya is neglected. According to our Vedic system, śruti-pramāṇa, if it is statement, the statement is there in the śruti, in the Vedas, then we accept. We have got a society in India. They call veda-pramāṇa. "We cannot accept without it is not mentioned in the Vedas." That's a, that's nice. But there is another class who are described in the Bhagavad-gītā by Kṛṣṇa Himself: veda-vāda-ratāḥ. They are simply unnecessarily fight on the basis of so-called Vedic knowledge. Vedic knowledge must be understood from the guru. That is injunction. They defy that. They... The Vedic injunction is... Kaṭhopaniśad. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). You... To understand the Vedas, you must approach a guru. Otherwise, you cannot understand.

Those who are follower of inductive process, they want to see actually by experiment and observation how man is mortal. They want to study, "This man dies. That man dies. That man dies. That man dies." Therefore they make a general conclusion, "Well, all men are mortal."

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

There are two kinds of processes of acquiring knowledge. One process is deductive, and the other process is inductive. Those who are student of logic, you know that there are two processes: deductive knowledge and inductive knowledge. Deductive knowledge is considered to be more perfect. And what is that? Just like "Man is mortal." This is a truth, accepted. How man is mortal, nobody's going to enter into discussion. It is accepted that man is mortal. Now, Mr. Johnson is a man. So he is mortal. This is the deductive conclusion. Because man is mortal and Johnson is a man, therefore he's mortal. This is the process of deductive knowledge. Now, how this man is mortal, this truth established? The other party, those who are inductive, follower of inductive process, they want to see actually by experiment and observation how man is mortal. They want to study, "This man dies. That man dies. That man dies. That man dies." Therefore they make a general conclusion, "Well, all men are mortal."

There are so many defects in our conditioned stage. Therefore inductive process is not always perfect.

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

Now, in the inductive process you have got some defects. What is that? Now, your experience is limited. Suppose if you have not seen a man who is not mortal, who is not mortal. There may be. Because you are going on with your personal experience, but your personal experience is always imperfect. That I have already discussed. Because we have got our senses with limited power. And there are so many defects in our conditioned stage. Therefore inductive process is not always perfect. The deductive process, from the authority, the knowledge received, is always perfect. So Vedic process is deductive process. Vedic process is deductive process.

Ascending process—my endeavor, what is called inductive process. Inductive process. Just like my father says that man is mortal. I accept it. Now if you want to study whether man is mortal, you study, you see many thousands of men, whether he is immortal or mortal. That will take so much time.

Lecture on BG 6.13-15 -- Los Angeles, February 16, 1969:

One process is to understand by the ascending process. And another process is the descending process. Just like in darkness, if you try to understand what is sun by ascending process, by flying your very powerful airplane or sputniks, just go round over the sky, you cannot see. But the descending process, when the sun rises, you understand immediately. Ascending process—my endeavor, what is called inductive process. Inductive process. Just like my father says that man is mortal. I accept it. Now if you want to study whether man is mortal, you study, you see many thousands of men, whether he is immortal or mortal. That will take so much time. But if you take the knowledge from the superior authority, that man is mortal, your knowledge is complete.

If you want to approach the knowledge by inductive process, by studying each man, whether he is mortal or immortal, you may study thousand, two thousand, five thousand, but you cannot study all the men. Therefore your conclusion remains always defective.

Lecture on BG 7.9-10 -- Bombay, February 24, 1974:

So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, we claim that we have got perfect knowledge of everything because we are taking knowledge from the perfect person—Kṛṣṇa. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2). And that is the real process. If you simply speculate to arrive at the conclusion, inductive process... Just like if you want to study whether man is mortal or immortal, there are two processes. Deductive process, you take the idea from superior person that man is mortal. If you accept, then your knowledge is perfect. But if you want to approach the knowledge by inductive process, by studying each man, whether he is mortal or immortal, you may study thousand, two thousand, five thousand, but you cannot study all the men. Therefore your conclusion remains always defective. You cannot do that. Therefore the best process is knowledge is to receive from the person who is authorized. Actually, you do that. We go to a school, we go to college, to receive knowledge from the superior person. That is our process. That is perfect knowledge. You cannot manufacture knowledge.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Our process is avaroha panthā, descending process, and the Māyāvādī philosopher's policy or system is ascending policy. I want to understand the Absolute Truth by exercising my mental power—that is called ascending process or inductive process.

Lecture on SB 1.2.10 -- Bombay, December 28, 1972:

Our process is avaroha panthā, descending process, and the Māyāvādī philosopher's policy or system is ascending policy. I want to understand the Absolute Truth by exercising my mental power—that is called ascending process or inductive process. But our process is deductive process. We, Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). We take it, we immediately take it, that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We are not going to search out who is the Supreme. Because we are hearing from the Supreme, Kṛṣṇa, then our business is finished: "Here is the Supreme." So this is very natural. You are searching after the Supreme. This is one process, by your own dint of knowledge, and another person is getting the knowledge directly from the Supreme—he is perfect. This is perfect process. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2), Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā. The perfect knowledge received from Kṛṣṇa. From Kṛṣṇa the knowledge was received by Brahma. From Brahmā the knowledge was received by Nārada. From Nārada the knowledge was received by Vyāsadeva. From Vyāsadeva the knowledge was received by Madhva Muni. In this way, paramparā-sūtra, the same knowledge was received by Mādhavendra Purī. From Mādhavendra Purī, Īśvara Purī received the knowledge. From Īśvara Purī, Lord Caitanya received the knowledge. From Lord Caitanya, the six Gosvāmīs. In this way there is a paramparā system, handing down the knowledge from disciplic, from disciple to disciple, evaṁ paramparā. That is perfect knowledge.

Āroha-panthā means inductive process. To know from here, from the lower status to the higher status, speculative method, or ascending process.

Lecture on SB 1.5.14 -- New Vrindaban, June 18, 1969:

Now we are discussing instruction of Nārada to his disciple, Vyāsadeva. Such a learned scholar, Vyāsadeva. He's known as Vedavyāsa, the authority on all Vedic literature. And he's supposed to be incarnation of Nārāyaṇa, exalted position. Still, he requires the instruction of a spiritual master. That is the way of Vedic way. Avaroha-panthā, āroha-panthā. Āroha-panthā means inductive process. To know from here, from the lower status to the higher status, speculative method, or ascending process. And avaroha-panthā is deductive process, getting knowledge from higher authorities. So our Vedic understanding is to receive knowledge from the authorities. That is perfect knowledge.

The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given.

Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974:

We have to simply take the knowledge. The modern method is ascending process. The knowledge is there, but still, they are trying to understand it by āroha-panthā, ascending process. It is called inductive knowledge. Inductive knowledge means that... Suppose a man is mortal. So the so-called scientists, they are trying to discover the law, why man is mortal. They are studying, "This man is mortal, this man is mortal, this man is mortal. Therefore it is concluded that all men are mortal. Nobody is immortal." But another man will argue that "You have not studied all the human society. How you can conclude? Therefore we must study." So this study will go on for life after life. They will never come to a person who is immortal. But they will protest that "We cannot accept." But our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given.

For forever, millions of years, if you speculate, to understand what is God, it is not possible. It is not a subject matter of speculative knowledge. No. It is to be received through the right source, deductive process, not inductive process.

Lecture on SB 2.1.1 -- Paris, June 9, 1974:

For forever, millions of years, if you speculate, to understand what is God, it is not possible. It is not a subject matter of speculative knowledge. No. It is to be received through the right source, deductive process, not inductive process. Because our senses are limited. We cannot have any perfect idea on account of our senses being limited. We cannot see.

There are two processes of understanding the Absolute Truth. One is called ascending process, or inductive logic, and another process is descending process, or deductive logic.

Lecture on SB 3.25.31 -- Bombay, December 1, 1974:

We cannot manufacture tattva. That is improper way of understanding the truth. Generally, the Western philosophers, they try to understand the Absolute Truth by the ascending process. There are two processes of understanding the Absolute Truth. One is called ascending process, or inductive logic, and another process is descending process, or deductive logic. So ascending process is based on speculation, and descending process is based on fact.

This evening we were talking about Bhagavad-gītā, that Bhagavad-gītā is understood by the descending process, as Kṛṣṇa said.

A. Our process is deductive, not inductive. We take knowledge, just like this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam written by Vyāsadeva under the instruction of his guru, spiritual master, Nārada.

Lecture on SB 6.1.33 -- Honolulu, June 1, 1976:

You'll read in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, moon is the cause of vegetation, and there is no vegetation, that's all. Moon is the cause of vegetation in all planets, and they say there is no vegetation, it is simply dust. So we have to believe it? And when you present actual fact, it is mysticism or mythology. Anyway, we are not concerned with their statement. Our process is to know things from the śāstra. Sādhu-śāstra-guru-vākya tinete kariya aikya. Our process is deductive, not inductive. We take knowledge, just like this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam written by Vyāsadeva under the instruction of his guru, spiritual master, Nārada.

General Lectures

One group is called āroha-panthā, or research, inductive process. And another method is called deductive process, or avaroha-panthā.

Lecture -- Montreal, June 26, 1968:

So either you call perfect knowledge or you call happiness, anything, what you call, if you want to know the ultimate goal of your life perfectly, you have to follow a different method. A different method. That method is called avaroha-panthā. There are... All methods of acquiring knowledge can be divided into two groups. One group is called āroha-panthā, or research, inductive process. And another method is called deductive process, or avaroha-panthā. The knowledge coming from the supreme source, that is called avaroha-panthā, and the knowledge which is being sought after by using our imperfect senses, that is called āroha-panthā. Ascending process and descending process. So by ascending process, we can never come to the real knowledge. That is not possible, because our senses are imperfect.

If we get right information from the right person, that is perfect knowledge. If you want to reach to the conclusion by speculation, that is imperfect, inductive process.

Lecture -- Los Angeles, July 20, 1971:

We have to accept things which is accepted by authorities. That is our education. We go to teacher. We go to school. We learn from father, mother. They're all authorities. And our nature is to learn... "Father, what is this?" in childhood. Father says, "This is this, pen. This is spectacle. This is table." So he learns from father, mother, "This is table. This is spectacle. This is pen. This is this. She is my sister. She (He) is my brother." So similarly, if we get information from the authority, and if the authority is not a cheater, then our knowledge is perfect, and very easy. Just like father, mother, never cheats. When the son inquires from the parent, the parent gives exact information, right information. Similarly, if we get right information from the right person, that is perfect knowledge. If you want to reach to the conclusion by speculation, that is imperfect, inductive process. That will never become perfect. It will remain imperfect for all the time. So we get information from the perfect person, Kṛṣṇa. Therefore whatever we speak, that is perfect because we don't speak anything which is not spoken by Kṛṣṇa or authorities who have accepted Kṛṣṇa. That is called disciplic succession. So our process is, process of acquiring knowledge, is very easy and perfect. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We cannot say anything which is not accepted by the authorities coming from Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussions

There is another process, inductive. Now let us see whether man is mortal or immortal. So go and study. So there are two processes. We say in our Sanskrit language, avaroha panthā, āroha panthā, knowledge coming from up, and knowledge for trying to go up.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: His process would be more like: man is immortal. The antithesis is that man is not immortal. So then the synthesis would be the combination, the resolution of those two.

Prabhupāda: What is that synthesis?

Śyāmasundara: The synthesis would be perhaps that man's body is mortal and he's immortal.

Prabhupāda: Perhaps. There is no certainty.

Śyāmasundara: Man's body is mortal and he's immortal.

Prabhupāda: What is this conclusion?

Śyāmasundara: I'm only using it as an example. You said that... You gave a proposal that man is immortal, that John is a man, therefore John is immortal. That's Aristotelian logic, Aristotle's logic.

Prabhupāda: That means his business is to defeat Aristotle's philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says that that kind of reasoning is static, that it...

Prabhupāda: That means he... All right, there are two processes. One is inductive and one is deductive. This is deductive process.

Śyāmasundara: It's a syllogism.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: It deals with the "isness" of something.

Prabhupāda: Yes. And there is another process, inductive. Now let us see whether man is mortal or immortal. So go and study. So there are two processes. We say in our Sanskrit language, avaroha panthā, āroha panthā, knowledge coming from up, and knowledge for trying to go up. Ascending process and descending process. So we say that descending process is perfect.

1973 Conversations and Morning Walks

Vedic process is not to acquire knowledge by ascending process, inductive process. Vedic knowledge is to receive knowledge by descending process, knowledge coming from authority.

Room Conversation with Latin Professor -- December 9, 1973, Los Angeles:

Prabhupāda: We must receive knowledge from superior source, perfect source. That knowledge is perfect. Just like we give, generally this example, that to find out who is my father, my search out, research, will not help me, but if my mother says, "Here is your father," that is perfect knowledge because she's authority. Therefore, for perfect knowledge, we have to take it from the perfect authority, not by our speculative intellectual gymnasium. No, that will not help. Because our intellectual jurisdiction is very limited. That is Vedic process. Vedic process is not to acquire knowledge by ascending process, inductive process. Vedic knowledge is to receive knowledge by descending process, knowledge coming from authority.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

So inductive process is that you examine every man whether he's mortal or immortal.

Room Conversation -- July 7, 1976, Baltimore:

Prabhupāda: We have got our authority, I have got my authority, Bhāgavatam, Vedic literatures. Why shall I give you better preference, your authority? I have got my authority.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: So we'll explain there are two types of acquiring knowledge. Two different techniques. Now the scientists are believing their own...

Prabhupāda: That is imperfect. Inductive knowledge is always imperfect. Deductive knowledge is perfect if it is taken from the authority. Suppose man is mortal. So inductive process is that you examine every man whether he's mortal or immortal. So suppose you have seen millions of men, and they are all mortal, they die. Then your conclusion is man is mortal. But I can say you have not seen a man who does not die. I can say that. So this inductive knowledge will remain always imperfect. It will never be perfect, because your examination is limited. So I can that say you have not seen the person, man... Suppose if I say you have not seen Vyāsadeva, he's immortal. You have not seen Aśvatthāmā, he's immortal. So how this scientific research can be perfect, inductive? It is never perfect. Because you may be missing somebody who is immortal. Then your conclusion is wrong. There is no scope of studying all the living beings. There is no such scope. You have limited scope. So your seeing power is limited. How you can decide from the limited seeing power?

I may not show, but as I give you example, that you have manufactured 747 and God has manufactured mosquito. You do that. I am layman, but I see there is another, better manufacturer than you.

Room Conversation -- July 7, 1976, Baltimore:

Prabhupāda: You cannot do anything which is beyond your power. But you are limited, your power is limited, that you must agree. Your power is not unlimited. You are finite. That you must admit.

Ravīndra-svarūpa: Then they say "Yes, we may be limited and our inductive process may be imperfect, but, you may criticize, but you have to show us something better."

Prabhupāda: I may not show, but as I give you example, that you have manufactured 747 and God has manufactured mosquito. You do that. We are... I am layman, but I see there is another, better manufacturer than you. I may be layman, but I can see that you cannot do it. If you say you can do it, then you are rascal. I must say that you are rascal. First of all do, then speak. You take your credit, as much as you have done. But if you want to take the place of God, then we must slap you right and left.

1947 to 1965 Correspondence

In the Deductive Process we deduce the conclusion from the statement of higher authorities whereas by the Inductive Process we make a research in the truth by our own imperfect knowledge and induce a conclusion.

Letter to Sri Padampat Singhania -- Kanpur 7 May, 1957:

There are two different processes for acquiring knowledge. The one is Deductive Process and the other is Inductive Process. In the Deductive Process we deduce the conclusion from the statement of higher authorities whereas by the Inductive Process we make a research in the truth by our own imperfect knowledge and induce a conclusion. Say for example if we want to know how man is mortal then we have to make a research in statistics of daily death occurrences. Rama dies, Syama dies, father dies, mother dies, he dies, she dies, etc. all these experiences may help us in the conclusion that after all man dies and therefore the conclusion man is mortal made. But the defect of this process of knowledge is that it may be that we have not seen a person who is still living even after some thousands of years. As soon as we get this information the whole conclusion that a man is mortal—is at once changed and we have to say that some men are mortal. In this way the research work of scientific thought are constantly changing because the very research work is done by person who is himself a condition by the four principles of mistake, illusion, cheating and imperfection. Therefore, the Deductive Process is more effective. Man is mortal we have heard it from very authoritative sources like the Vedas and we have accepted it. The Vedas say that stool is impure but the stool of the cow is pure. The Vedas say that bone is untouchable but the conchshell which is also a bone is perfectly pure. For the common man the statements of the Vedas appear to be contradictory. But in spite of such contradiction, because we Hindus accept the Vedas as authority we accept cow dung as pure and allow it to be used even in the kitchen. So also we accept the conchshell. The conchshell is after all a bone of an animal but because it is accepted by the Vedas we allow conchshell to be used in the sanctified room of our family deity. If we examine in the physical laboratory or analyse it by chemical test we won't find any difference between the stool of a man and that of a cow or the bone of an ox and that of a conch.

In the present age respect for Deductive Process is dwindling whereas respect for Inductive Process is increasing although we know so far the Inductive research is concerned the process has not been successful.

Letter to Sri Padampat Singhania -- Kanpur 7 May, 1957:

In the Hindu temple the bone conchshell is already there but as soon as a Muhammadan throws a piece of bone of the ox in the temple—the whole trouble began, resulting in the partition of India and Pakistan. So an impartial mundane student who will enter into the research work of such bone affairs in the annals of Indian History—surely he will come to the conclusion of unrestricted obedience to the words of the Vedas or that of the Koran or that of the Bible that lead to all sorts of Jehad and crusade. As a matter of fact the so called intelligent persons of the modern age have taken the shelter of secularism on the strength of past unfortunate religious feuds. This is another type of nonsense.

Therefore in the present age respect for Deductive Process is dwindling whereas respect for Inductive Process is increasing although we know so far the Inductive research is concerned the process has not been successful. The conclusion is that we have lost our faith in the traditional Vedic knowledge handed down from the Guru to Chela or from the father to the son, although such system of Deductive Knowledge from the authority is the most perfect form of knowledge. The ultimate truth which is far beyond the reach of our imperfect senses can never be known by such inductive research work. The imperfect senses could not even measure the distance of the physical product The Sun or the Innumerable stars in front of us—and what such imperfect senses can make a research in the Mantras which are purely spiritual affairs. We have to accept the Mantra and its potency from the Vedic source and follow the practice and principles only to arrive at reality of truth. Research work by imperfect senses is practically a revolt against the established truth. Let us therefore accept the Vedic injunction of Brihannaradiya Puranam

1977 Correspondence

It is difficult to understand why this inductive process is being credited as the highest form of knowledge, since the material scientists who follow this method are not able to do anything towards solving the basic problems of humanity.

Letter to Charles Gold -- Bhuvanesvara 29 January, 1977:

Krsna Consciousness is based on perfect information received from Krsna in Vedic literatures like Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. Our method is not the so-called research conducted by imperfect beings by their imperfect senses and mental speculation. It is difficult to understand why this inductive process is being credited as the highest form of knowledge, since the material scientists who follow this method are not able to do anything towards solving the basic problems of humanity. Although they spend billions of dollars of the public's money for ventures like going to the moon and collecting dust there, they cannot solve the basic miserable conditions of birth, death, old age and disease. Neither do they give us definite information of the cause of the universal manifestation, nor—despite their wild claims—can they produce even the smallest form of life. As stated in the Bhagavad-gita, everything in the universe is actually under the control of the Supreme Being, the Cause of all Causes, and He is Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Hearing from the perfect source of the Supreme Being, one can get answers to solve the miseries of life, which begins with self-realization, knowledge of the self as the soul, beyond the body. Knowledge of the cause and origin of life are also given perfectly. I request you to first make a thorough study of these Vedic books as I have translated, and make inquiries of the devotees in the New York temple. Gradually all these things will be known to you.