My proposition

Expressions researched:
"My proposition"

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

So this is Vṛndāvana, Goloka Vṛndāvana. Here, those who will manage this institution, they must be first-class gosvāmīs. This is my proposition. Not gṛhamedhi.

Lecture on SB 2.1.2 -- Vrndavana, March 17, 1974: So we should be distinct from the so-called gosvāmīs. Those who will remain in Vṛndāvana, esp... Everywhere. Everywhere is Vṛndāvana. Wherever there is Kṛṣṇa's temple, Kṛṣṇa's saṅkīrtana, that is Vṛndāvana. Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that "My mind is always Vṛndāvana." Because He's always thinking of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is there—He's Kṛṣṇa Himself—just to teach us. So similarly, anywhere you live, if you are actually follower of the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, as Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru [Bg. 18.65], then that is Vṛndāvana. Wherever you live. Do not think that "Because in Melbourne we have got a temple, the Melbourne Deities are here, so that is not Vṛndāvana." That is also Vṛndāvana. If you worship the Deity very rigidly, follow the rules and regulations, so wherever you do, that is Vṛndāvana. Especially this Vṛndāvana dhāma, where Kṛṣṇa actually appeared. So this is Vṛndāvana, Goloka Vṛndāvana. Here, those who will manage this institution, they must be first-class gosvāmīs. This is my proposition. Not gṛhamedhi.

Thank you very much. Any question? No question? Then I understand that you accept my proposition without any difference of opinion. That's nice. Unanimously accepted. That's nice. But if you have got any difficulty to understand, you can make questions. I shall try to convince you.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Boston, April 28, 1969: So this Kṛṣṇa conscious movement, this opening of different centers, is meant for giving association to the people in general for opening the door of liberation. That is a fact. You try to understand by all your arguments, reason and logic. And inquiry. That is a fact, because we are presenting authorized thing. So my request is that you take advantage. You have got good opportunity. You take this advantage of opening the door of liberation and don't misuse your life simply for sense gratification like cats and dogs. Then the people of your country, of your society or your family, they'll be all benefited, and because other nations, they are also imitating your procedures, they'll be benefited. And at least if one percent of the whole population becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, the whole world will be a different world. There will be..., uh... The world itself will become kingdom of God. Of course, we cannot expect that everyone will accept this philosophy, but we are trying. If some percentage of the population takes this movement seriously, the face of the world will be changed. Thank you very much. Any question? No question? Then I understand that you accept my proposition without any difference of opinion. (laughs) That's nice. Unanimously accepted. That's nice. But if you have got any difficulty to understand, you can make questions. I shall try to convince you.

You are simply thinking on the point that there is no life. Now, why don't you take my proposition, "If there is life"?

Lecture on SB 6.1.16 -- Denver, June 29, 1975: But our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is teaching people that "Don't live irresponsibly." Take, for example, that you may say, "There is no life." But if I put the argument, "Suppose there is life..." Now this is also supposition, because nobody, those who are in ignorance, they do not know whether there is life or whether there is no life. So you are arguing, "There is no life," but you do not know whether there is life. That is not in your knowledge. So supposing you have to take both the ways and think over it... You are simply thinking on the point that there is no life. Now, why don't you take my proposition, "If there is life"? Because you have not ascertained whether there is life. We say there is life. We take the example: just like this child has got his next life. The child may say, "There is no life next life." But actually that is not the fact. The fact is, there is life. The child will change this body and he will become a boy. And the boy will change this body; he will become young man. That is a fact. But by simply obstinacy if you say there is no life, that you can say. But take this argument: if there is life, then how much irresponsibly you are making your future life so dark? The same example: if a child does not go to school, does not take education, if he thinks, "There is no other life than this life, I shall play all day. Why shall I go to school?" he may say so, but there is life, and if he does not take education, in next life, when he is young man, if he is not posted in a good position then he suffers. This is irresponsible life. So before we get next life, we must be free from all sinful lifes. Otherwise we are not going to have better life. Especially going back to home, back to Godhead, one has to finish the resultant action of his sinful life in this life.

Philosophy Discussions

My proposition is that "I am" means I am the soul, spirit soul, not this body.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Prabhupāda: If you know the elements, you say that "You add this element." Just like when the motorcar stops for want of gas, you take gasoline from the petroleum store and it starts again. Either you do it, otherwise you are rascal, you are putting some wrong theory. If you say that it is a combination of chemicals, and you know that addition, that these living symptoms are there, then bring that chemical and add to it and let the body go out again. If you cannot do that, then you are nonsense. There is no sense of your statement.

Devānanda: So in other words, if a body dies from heart failure, they should immediately be able to remove that heart and put in a fresh heart from somebody who has just died, and it will come back to life. But it doesn't do that.

Prabhupāda: No. There are so many other things, and not only one case of heart failure.

Devānanda: But there are many, for example...

Prabhupāda: Don't you...

Śyāmasundara: We want to stick to Wittgenstein.

Prabhupāda: The main principle is when the body is called dead, why don't you put some chemicals and make it alive again? You say something is wanted. What is that something? That you do not know. But we can say what is that something. We say that something is the soul. That is wanting.

Śyāmasundara: So far that proposition, you said "I am" means that the soul exists. That is your proposition.

Prabhupāda: My proposition is that "I am" means I am the soul, spirit soul, not this body.

Śyāmasundara: So they say that if we are to verify this proposition, to prove that it is true, then we have to know what conditions under which it is true. What are those conditions under which it is true?

Prabhupāda: It is very simple. So long the soul is there, it is moving, and as soon as the soul is out, it is not moving. Anyone can understand. You say something is wanting. I say it is soul, definitely. But you do not know what is that something. Therefore your knowledge is imperfect, my knowledge is perfect. My knowledge is supported by Bhagavad-gītā, but your knowledge has no support; therefore your knowledge is nonsense.

God Himself, He says that as the body's changing in different phases of my life, ultimately, at the end, this body is left and another body is accepted. That is scientific. It is not our bogus proposition. It is supported by the whole Vedic knowledge and especially by Kṛṣṇa. My proposition is accepted by the greatest scientist. He has created this whole world.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Prabhupāda: This is philosophy: to study what is this body and how it is moving. This is analytical study. And you come to the understanding that the body is a dead lump of matter, there is something which is called the soul. Because the soul is there. This is scientific truth. One who has not this knowledge, he is not scientific; he is foolish.

Śyāmasundara: In other words, if you make a scientific proposition that "Because I am, the body moves," that is your scientific proposition?

Prabhupāda: Yes, this is scientific proposition.

Śyāmasundara: Then philosophy is a clarification of that proposition.

Prabhupāda: Clarification... It is supported by the greatest authority, Kṛṣṇa. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ [Bg. 2.13]. He says that, the greatest authority, God Himself, He says that as the body's changing in different phases of my life, similarly, ultimately, at the end, this body is left and another body is accepted. That is scientific. It is not our bogus proposition. It is supported by the whole Vedic knowledge and especially by Kṛṣṇa, and who can be greater authority than Kṛṣṇa? That will be scientific. Just like modern science: if somebody proves some theory and it is accepted by the scientific world, then it is accepted as scientific; similarly, our proposition is accepted by Kṛṣṇa, the greatest scientist; therefore it is fact. But you have no support by the scientists, what you say; therefore your proposition is nonsense. My proposition is accepted by the greatest scientist. He has created this whole world.

Śyāmasundara: He says that philosophers present old facts in new light, but philosophers do not discover any new facts.

Prabhupāda: Because they're all rascals and fools, what they can discover? (laughter) They simply theorize on their rascaldom, that's all. That is their business. (indistinct) There is no fact. And those who are rascals, they believe them. That's all. So we are not such rascals, because our knowledge is received from the greatest scientist, Kṛṣṇa. I personally may be rascal, but because I follow the greatest scientist, therefore my proposition is scientific. I do not know how this dictaphone is working, but somebody has said "This is dictaphone," I accept. And it is working. That is my scientific knowledge. I may not be the mechanic, but I am working.

Russia is supposed to be leader of the Communistic idea. And in Russia they don't accept anymore. Similarly, sometimes after, Mao will not be accepted. That is my proposition. As Russia is not accepted now, some days after, he will not be accepted. Similarly, your theory will fail. That is my proposition. Because I challenge that your theory is not perfect. Because Russia's theory was not perfect, it has failed. Similarly, I say your theory is also imperfect, therefore it will fail. Anything imperfect will fail. That is my proposition.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Prabhupāda: Why not difference? My point is if your basic principle is wrong, then how you can make a perfect proposal?

Śyāmasundara: Well, I'm not concerned with questions about my origin or about the nature of matter except that...

Prabhupāda: Then you are interested in the superficial things.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Only as it applies to society.

Prabhupāda: That superficial means it is changing. It will never be perfect. If you take superficial thing, then it is changing always. That is nature's law.

Śyāmasundara: My only interest is in the dictatorship of the proletariat, that everyone should have an equal opportunity, equal pay, equal property, everything.

Prabhupāda: That is theory, but it will never be successful. Why in Russia there is manager's pay and the worker's pay? Why not equal pay?

Revatīnandana: He says, "Abolish that." Mao says, "Abolish that system."

Devotee: No, Russia is not a Communist state.

Revatīnandana: The Chinese scoff at the Russians, that they are not Communist. They say we will not abide by this different manager... Only one pay scale for everybody.

Prabhupāda: First of all, this Communistic idea came from Russia and China imitated.

Devotee: Well, it came out of the proponent philosophers.

Prabhupāda: Anyway, the Russia is supposed to be leader of the Communistic idea.

Revatīnandana: They don't accept anymore. There is Mao...

Prabhupāda: Similarly, sometimes after, he will not be accepted. That is my proposition. As Russia is not accepted now, some days after, he will not be accepted. Similarly, your also theory will fail. That is my proposition. Because I challenge that your theory is not perfect. Because Russia's theory was not perfect, it has failed. Similarly, I say your theory is also imperfect, therefore it will fail. Anything imperfect will fail. That is my proposition.

Revatīnandana: His propaganda is that it is perfect because it has made the Chinese people...

Prabhupāda: Propaganda, by propaganda you can do anything. That is different thing. But fact is fact. If you theory is not perfect, you make however propaganda, it will fail.

1971 Conversations and Morning Walks

Why there is no department of knowledge in university to study this fact scientifically; that the owner of the body is permanent in spite of different changes of the body? That is my proposition.

Conversation with Prof. Kotovsky -- June 22, 1971, Moscow:

Prabhupāda: One religion may accept. One may... That is not our purpose. We are talking on the point of that if the owner of the body is permanent in spite of different change of the body, then what is the difficulty to understand that when this body will be changed, the owner of the body will have another body?

Prof. Kotovsky: But another approach is that there is no separate own..., there is no separate..., no two phenomena, owner of the body and body.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Prof. Kotovsky: The body and owner of the body is the same.

Prabhupāda: No.

Prof. Kotovsky: When body dies, the owner also dies.

Prabhupāda: No.

Prof. Kotovsky: There is no separate...

Prabhupāda: That... Why? Why there is no department of knowledge in university to study this fact scientifically? That is my proposition.

Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.

Prabhupāda: So that means they are lacking. It may be as you say, or it may be as I say, but there must be a department of knowledge, what is the... Now, recently one cardiologist, a doctor, he has accepted that there is soul, in Montreal and Toronto. I had some correspondence with him. So he is strongly in belief that there is soul. So that is another point of view, but we accept knowledge from authority. Authority. Just like this statement is given by Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the authority by all the ācāryas, in Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā is studied amongst the scholarly circle and philosophical circle still, all over the world. And this statement is given by Kṛṣṇa:

dehino 'smin yathā dehe

kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā

tathā dehāntara-prāptir

dhīras tatra na muhyati

[Bg. 2.13]

So dehāntaram prāpti... Just like the childhood, now, giving up the childhood body, the soul is coming to the boyhood body, from boyhood, youth..., similarly, the soul, giving up this body, he accepts another body. This statement is given by Kṛṣṇa, the greatest authority according to our tradition of knowledge.

Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, I know.

Prabhupāda: So suppose we accept such statement without any argument. That is the way of Vedic understanding. Vedic understanding means you have to accept whatever is stated in the Vedas without any argument.

1973 Conversations and Morning Walks

My proposition is that either the king or the elected person, should not commit mistake. But if you try to educate the mass of people to become educated to elect the right person, that is very difficult. But if a king, a person, is educated nicely, that is easier. That is my point of view.

Room Conversation with Lord Brockway -- July 23, 1973, London:

Prabhupāda: No, democracy we don't approve.

Lord Brockway: We don't...?

Śyāmasundara: Approve.

Lord Brockway: Hm?

Śyāmasundara: Approve.

Lord Brockway: Of what?

Śyāmasundara: Democracy we don't approve.

Lord Brockway: Oh, I approve of it very, very strongly. Very strongly. It must be... It must be the basis of all, of all good.

Prabhupāda: No, basis... Now, suppose if a people in general, they are not advanced, by their votes, somebody is elected, he may not be also advanced. That is the defect of democracy. Mass of people, they are not advanced. So simply by their vote, if somebody is elected, then they will have to repent. Just like Nixon. He's elected, but these people are again decrying him, that "No, you are not good." So why do you, did you elect him? You elect, and again you reject. That is the defect of democracy. that people are not advanced. They can commit mistake, elect somebody wrong. And then they will lament. This is the defect. But monarchy, as it was approved by the Vedic culture, the monarchy, if the king is first-class, God conscious... A king should be like that. That is the ideal king. They are described in the Bhagavad-gītā: rājarṣi. The king should be just like saintly person, although he's king. Rājarṣi. Imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ [Bg. 4.2]. And just like Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira. He was rājarṣi. All the kings in those days, they were trained up in such a way that they were saintly persons, although they were the king. Not debauch. So one person, if he's authorized... Just like the communists, they are thinking of dictatorship. This is also another kind of dictatorship. But if the dictator, or the king, is a perfect man, then his dictatorship or royal power is quite... But that, that is not possible at the present moment. But at the present moment, the democracy is also not perfect. Because the mass of people, they have no perfect knowledge. By sentiment. So it may be they're electing a wrong person. That is the defect of democracy.

Lord Brockway: No, I'm not saying that democracy as we have it is perfect. I am saying that a people will advance only as it is a reflection of the progress of the people themselves, and that they, and that they cannot be changed by an external pressure...

Prabhupāda: That is not possible.

Lord Brockway: ...which is dictatorship. And even...

Prabhupāda: No, dictatorship, I told you...

Lord Brockway: And even a, a good dictatorship is a bad thing. I would rather have...

Prabhupāda: No, how good dictatorship can be a bad thing?

Lord Brockway: I would rather have people make mistakes when they had self-government than if you had a dictatorship which didn't make mistakes and imposed it's own...

Prabhupāda: No, but my proposition is that they should not commit, either the king or the elected person should not commit mistake. But if you try to educate the mass of people to become educated to elect the right person, that is very difficult. But if a king, a person, is educated nicely, that is easier. That is my point of view.

Lord Brockway: Yes. Yes, but the mass of people in poverty, the...

Prabhupāda: No, everything will be all right. Because the man on the head is perfectly, he'll manage, he'll manage. But if he's not perfect, then it is not possible. Therefore the endeavor should be made... Either call it dictator or president or king, it doesn't matter. The man on the top of the executive must be a perfect man.

So you must take this clue, that we Americans, we say "In God we trust." Now, every American should know what is God, what is trust. This is propaganda, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The government must come forward to patronize this. This is my proposition. So you write articles, you are theologicians. The America must rise up to the occasion.

Morning Walk -- December 11, 1973, Los Angeles:

Hṛdayānanda: You're saying that America is the most important?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hṛdayānanda: You think...

Prabhupāda: Therefore I come to your country...

Hṛdayānanda: So perhaps...

Prabhupāda: ...because you're most important. Now you must... Under my guidance you must be real important, not false important.

Hṛdayānanda: So perhaps I should stay here then and preach.

Prabhupāda: Ah?

Hṛdayānanda: If it is so important, I think perhaps I should stay here and help Rūpānuga.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Turn your whole nation, turn into God consciousness, because they've declared in the Constitution, "In God we trust." Now they must take it very seriously. What does it mean by "God"? What does it mean by "trust"? You take this propaganda. We are doing, actually. We trust in God; therefore we have sacrificed our whole life for God. This is trust in God. Not that smoking in the parlor, and you trust in God. Not that kind of trust. Real trust. Trust means first of all you know what is God. Suppose that if you say "Trust this man." But I must know what is this man. Then my trust will be convinced, that "He is very respectful man, he's rich man, he's able man..." Yes, I can trust. But simply trust in God, you do not know what is God, what is trust, and it is going on. Why this bluff? Ah? What you say?

Prajāpati: That that's right, Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So you must take this clue, that we Americans, we say "In God we trust." Now, every American should know what is God, what is trust. This is propaganda, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The government must come forward to patronize this. This is my proposition. So you write articles, you are theologicians. The America must rise up to the occasion. They have pledged themselves, "In God we trust." Every human nation or every human being should be like that. In God they must trust. So America, especially taken up the slogan as part of Constitution. Now there should be regular educational program, that every child, every man, every woman will trust in God. And this is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So? Am I wrong in my arguments?

Devotee: No, correct.

Prabhupāda: So why don't you take it seriously, you American boys?

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

I say you cannot heal. If you want to go on, in spite of your inability to heal, that is your business, but I say I challenge that you cannot heal. That is my proposition.

Room Conversation with Robert Gouiran, Nuclear Physicist from European Center for Nuclear Research -- June 5, 1974, Geneva:

Prabhupāda: Yes, you cannot heal. How you can say that you can stop old age, you can heal disease? How you can say? You cannot... You can't stop death, you can't stop birth. You cannot do this.

Robert Gouiran: But when somebody has fall down, you can help him to stand.

Prabhupāda: That is another thing. Fall down, that does not mean you can..., you stop his death or you stop his birth, stop his disease. So point is when I say you cannot heal, that's a fact. That's a fact. You can heal one disease, another disease will appear. Therefore you cannot heal.

Robert Gouiran: What do you mean by "you"? What is this "you", who can't heal? I don't...

Yogeśvara: Anyone. "You" collectively. Anyone. We're making the distinction between patchwork, covering over of some mis..., some malady, and making a permanent solution.

Guru-gaurāṅga: You, anyone.

Prabhupāda: You means anyone.

Robert Gouiran: As a person.

Prabhupāda: You are also one of them. Either you or your friend, they cannot. It is impossible.

Robert Gouiran: So you mean that nobody should...

Prabhupāda: I don't say that. Why do you take in a different way? I say you cannot heal.

Robert Gouiran: Cannot heal.

Prabhupāda: Now in spite of this fact, if you try to do it, (it's) your business. But I say you cannot heal. If you want to go on, in spite of your inability to heal, that is your business, but I say I challenge that you cannot heal. That is my proposition. Now you go on with your business, that in spite of being unable to heal, if you go on healing activities, you go on. Who takes you? But I say you cannot heal. You are other (indistinct). Nobody can heal. What is that? Is that all right?

Yogeśvara: It's very strong.

Prabhupāda: Yes, it is a fact.

Robert Gouiran: Do you mean that nobody could be cured?

Prabhupāda: Where is the cure? Show me that this man is cured from disease.

A watchmaker is making, screw-driving, and doing so many things. All of a sudden his heart fails. No more watch. What is that active principle? Where is that science? That is my proposition.

Room Conversation with Scientists -- July 2, 1974, Melbourne:

Dr. Harrap: I'm a little uncertain from reading some of your comments about the primary aim that you would set for science. I would place a great deal of emphasis on the contribution that science can make to the community.

Prabhupāda: That I admit. That I admit. Yes.

Dr. Muncing: With respect, sir, I notice you wear a watch. This must be obviously a product of science, and this is what it's about. But you are stressing time and again in your writings the need to concentrate on the laws that you set out in order to achieve some standing in the future, in the life hereafter. Isn't this at the risk of neglecting the people who are sharing this life with us here and now?

Prabhupāda: No, it is not the question of neglecting. Just like formerly there was no watch, but still they used to keep time by the movement of the sun on a dial, just making some marks on the stone. Do you know this?

Guests: Yes, yes, I know.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So their work was going on. Their work was not suffering for want of this watch.

Dr. Muncing: I agree.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So we have got good brain. Instead of utilizing the brain to know what is the active principles of this whole universe, if we utilize that brain for manufacturing a watch, that is not very good proposal. You manufacture watch, but at the same time, you try to study the active principle, who is the watchmaker. I am seeing the watch with the eyes, but as soon as the active principle is gone, no more seeing. Where is that science? A watchmaker is making, screw-driving, and doing so many things. All of a sudden his heart fails. No more watch. What is that active principle? Where is that science? That is my proposition?

Dr. Muncing: It wasn't the manufacturing aspect. It was the creative aspect that I was concerned with, that there is a creative faculty in man that can be used to benefit the rest of mankind. Isn't there a tendency...

Prabhupāda: Creative faculty... Therefore we first of all give stress, the creative faculty, that the watchmaker is doing nice work, but who has made that watchmaker? Who is that creative faculty? You are a scientist, you have good brain, but you cannot manufacture the brain. But who has manufactured your brain?

Guest (2): But isn't it the use to which the brain is put that is the...

Prabhupāda: If you are scientist, you create a similar brain like you. That you cannot do. But somebody has created your brain. And who is that person? Professor Einstein, big scientist, but he could not create another Professor Einstein so that after his death the work would continue. Because the brain creator, the brain of scientist created by somebody, that is not in your hand. You cannot create another similar brain. That is not possible. But if you are surprised with the mechanical arrangement of the small watch, why you should not study the mechanical arrangement of a great scientist? But as the mechanical arrangement of the watch is made by some brain, similarly, your brain or Professor Einstein's brain, that is also made by another scientist. And who is that scientist? We are glorifying the brain of the scientist but we are not glorifying the scientist who has made the brain of the scientist.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Woman's dependence is described in Manu-saṁhitā. And there are many instances. Just like Kuntī, she was not ordinary woman. She was very learned, exalted woman. Still, she remained dependent on her sons. That is my proposition.

Room Conversation after Press Conference -- July 9, 1975, Chicago:

Prabhupāda: Very good. (pause) But I am not speaking of my experience. When we speak, we speak from the śāstra. So this woman's dependence is described in Manu-saṁhitā. And there are many instances. Just like Kuntī. Kuntī was not ordinary woman. She was very learned, exalted woman.

Brahmānanda: This is one point, that in our devotional line there are spiritual leaders who have been women such as Kuntī. She gave...

Prabhupāda: But still... Therefore I say. Still, she remained dependent on their son. That is is my proposition. Just like the sons, they lost the game and they were to be banished. Kuntī was not banished. So when the sons went to forest, Kuntī also followed because she thought that "I am widow. I am dependent on my sons. So wherever my sons will remain, I shall remain." She was not... She did not lose the game; neither she was ordered to go to the forest. Similarly, Sītā, Sītā, wife of Lord Rāmacandra. Lord Rāmacandra was requested by His father to go to the forest, not Sītā. Sītā was also a king's daughter. So she could go to her father that "My husband is going to the forest. Let me go to my father's house." She did not go. She preferred that "I shall go with my husband." So when husband said that "You are not banished. You stay at home," she said, "No. I am dependent on You. Wherever You shall go, I must go." This is Vedic culture.

Brahmānanda: Her chastity was her great virtue.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is the thing.

Brahmānanda: Nowadays that is no longer true.

Prabhupāda: Nowadays may be different, but I am speaking of the Vedic ideas, that woman in all circumstances, unless the husband is crazy or something like that, mad, or..., in every case the instance is that wife is faithful and subservient to the husband. That is the Vedic culture. Even the husband goes out of home, vānaprastha, the wife also goes with him. When he takes sannyāsa, at that time there is no accompaniment of wife. Otherwise in gṛhastha life and even vānaprastha life, the wife is constant companion and subservient. That is the history of Vedic culture. History, Gāndhārī, because her husband was blind, so when the marriage settlement was done, she was not blind, but she voluntarily became blind by wrapping cloth.

Devotee (2): She remained with the cloth wrapped for her whole life?

Prabhupāda: Whole life.

Devotee (2): Whole life.

Prabhupāda: She voluntarily became blind. And up to the last point of her husband's precarious condition, she remained with him. These are the examples. There are other examples. Damayanti. They became so poor that they had no clothing. So the one cloth divided into two, husband and wife. So these instances are in the Vedic literature, that wife remains always faithful and subservient to the husband. That is their perfection. Now the Americans may not like this idea. That is different thing. But we are speaking of the Vedic culture. And these are the instances, vivid instances. Why Sītā accompanied her husband? And because she accompanied her husband in the jungle, the war between Rāma Rāvaṇa became possible. And it is the advice that "When you go to other countries you should not take your wife." Pathe narī-vinārjitaḥ. Because it may create some trouble. But still, the faithful wife goes with the husband.

My proposition is that one who does not know, for him experiment. One who knows, there is no experiment. You are requesting to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, but this is not experiment for me, it is experiment for him. He does not know; therefore you are suggesting, "You do like this, and you will understand."

Morning Walk -- December 24, 1975, Bombay:

Lokanātha: So sometimes we say to karmīs that "Why don't you make an experiment, just try to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, make an experiment, and you will realize it."

Prabhupāda: Because he does not know; therefore we suggest experiment. He does not know.

Lokanātha: So we ask him to perform the...

Prabhupāda: Ah, that means, my proposition is that one who does not know, for him experiment. One who knows, there is no experiment.

Lokanātha: But there is...

Prabhupāda: You are asking, requesting to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, but this is not experiment for me, it is experiment for him. He does not know; therefore you are suggesting, "You do like this, and you will understand."

Jagat-puruṣa: They are conditioned to make experiments.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Jagat-puruṣa: So they can dovetail that conditioning.

Prabhupāda: There is no question of experimenting, but he does not know, he is given chance, "All right, try like this." But truth is there.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

There is God, rascal. First of all, you accept there is God. They are analyzing the semina, they find DNA molecules, but they cannot find the essence. They cannot understand the essence of it. That is my proposition. That is poor fund of knowledge. Still, they are trying to establish "This is the cause."

Morning Walk -- August 12, 1976, Tehran:

Prabhupāda: Lusty desire, that is their theory, that's all. But the lusty desire is not the cause. The cause is the semina.

Harikeśa: But the lusty desire is the cause of the semina.

Prabhupāda: That is one of the cause, there are many causes. Remote causes, immediate causes, there are many causes.

Harikeśa: But that's the original cause.

Prabhupāda: What is that original cause?

Harikeśa: That lust.

Prabhupāda: Original for you because you are rascal. But there is another cause before that.

Harikeśa: But we don't see that cause.

Prabhupāda: That is your poor fund of knowledge. You are seeing simply some immediate cause. That is your poor fund of knowledge. Cause after cause, cause after cause, that is a study, a real study. If that is the cause, then you prepare that semina.

Harikeśa: But we see that lust is the whole basis of this world, there's nothing beyond it.

Prabhupāda: That you see because you are rascal. That is our charges against you. You see because you are rascal. You do not know, you have no sufficient knowledge. But our charge is that the lust is the..., Yes, all right, the lust is the cause and the discharge is there, so why you are waiting the discharge of a human being? Why not prepare that chemical? Where is that advancement? Why you take from a man the discharge and put into the woman, either man or animal? You prepare.

Ātreya Ṛṣi: If you take the scientist's thinking like this one step further, we see that because of this thinking they do not see, they become very confused, and then they say God is..., if there is God, He's unjust. He's not just because...

Prabhupāda: That's all right. There is God, rascal. First of all, our point is this. Unjust or just, we shall see later on. First of all, you accept there is God.

Jñānagamya: They are analyzing the semina, they find DNA molecules, like this, but they cannot find the essence. They cannot understand the essence of it.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is my proposition. That is poor fund of knowledge. Still, they are trying to establish "This is the cause."

Harikeśa: No, we can find, the essence is lust, because as soon as there is lust, automatically there's all these other things. So you don't have to make all these other things because automatically lust creates everything. There is no need...

Jñānagamya: But there's also lust, the scientists are lusty to create and experiment.

Prabhupāda: But you cannot create such lust.

Harikeśa: Oh, yes, I create it all the time.

Prabhupāda: Then why there is no life?