Prove (Lectures, Other)

Expressions researched:
"prove" |"proved" |"proven" |"prover" |"proving"

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 16, 1972:

Prabhupāda: So, so far I am concerned I know by getting them married I am benefited. They have done so much... He's also married, this boy. He's always... He has got his wife, he has got children, but he doesn't care for his wife and children. He remains with me and he helps me in editing the Sanskrit portion of my books. He has studied Sanskrit. He was not a Sanskrit scholar, but by his endeavor he has studied Sanskrit. So all my books, Sanskrit editing work, is done by...

Guest: I see.

Prabhupāda: Yes. He worked very hard. Now he understands Sanskrit. He can read Sanskrit. So if I get facility for pushing on my missionary work, there is no harm in getting married. Because in Europe, America these boys and girls, they live like friends. So I said that "You cannot live as friends. You must get yourself married" and that is, that has proved... Here is a girl. Where is that Śāradīyā, Śāradīyā there?

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 16, 1972:

Prabhupāda: Yes. He worked very hard. Now he understands Sanskrit. He can read Sanskrit. So if I get facility for pushing on my missionary work, there is no harm in getting married. Because in Europe, America these boys and girls, they live like friends. So I said that "You cannot live as friends. You must get yourself married" and that is, that has proved... Here is a girl. Where is that Śāradīyā, Śāradīyā there?

Devotee: Here she comes.

Prabhupāda: Eh. When she was young, fifteen years, she very frankly told me that "I want this boy to marry, Vaikuṇṭha." (laughter) So I told Vaikuṇṭha that "You, you are reserved for her. As soon as she's over sixteen years, you have to marry her." Another girl, she is now at Manila. She's Australian. She was a famous actress. So she came to Los Angeles and surrendered to me. And I asked her that "You go to Tokyo. I have got a disciple. And get yourself married with him."

Guest: Oh, wonderful!

Prabhupāda: Yes. She never saw him. So in European countries...

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 17, 1972:

That was the, my first visit and all young men... In the hotel we held one meeting. The hotel capacity was about eight hundred men. Still, it was overflooded. And they liked this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, chanting, dancing. So nice. So it has been proven that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement will be accepted in any part of the world. This is India's culture. Why not distribute? Why the government is not interested? That is my presentation. If you, India wants to be glorified, then she must give something. Not simply begging. "Give me grains, give me money, give me weapons. Give me engineer." Give something. That is my proposal. Then India will be glorified. "Oh, India has got something to give, not to take only, like beggars." I was questioned in Berkeley University by some Indian students, "Swamijī, what this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement will benefit? What this saṅkīrtana? We want technology." So I replied, "Yes, you have come to learn here technology, but I have come here to teach you. Not to learn. But to teach. And they are learning." So according to Caitanya Mahāprabhu's mission, every Indian can become a teacher provided he accepts the teachings of their predecessor ācāryas? Otherwise they'll remain beggars. That is my proposal. Thank you very much. (end)

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 19, 1972:

Similarly, if we act sinfully in this life, then we'll have to remain within this material world, one body after another. So we, we have to give up sinful activities. Therefore we forbid our students, no illicit sex, no meat-eating, no gambling, no intoxication. Because these are the pillars of sinful life. So we have to give up these things to accelerate our promotion to devotional service. We cannot go on doing this and that at the same time. It is something like that, you ignite fire and pour water. It will be useless attempt. If you want to burn the fire blazing, don't put water on it. Keep it dry. Similarly, if you want to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then you cannot indulge in sinful activities. And when you are proved that you are no more sinful, yeṣām anta-gataṁ pāpam, one who has become freed from the reaction of sinful life, yeṣām anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ janānāṁ puṇya-karmāṇi...

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 28, 1972:

It is some fictitious. It is some story, mental speculation. This is their business. Demonic. So the condition is very, I mean to say, dangerous. People are being misled.

We are only... It is not our pride. It is a fact. We are the only institution. We are trying to give the greatest benefit to the human society, the Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti kaunteya (BG 4.9). Anyone who understands, if he understands... It is not possible to understand fully Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is unlimited. But as, as He represents Himself, Kṛṣṇa, as He says Himself, if you understand... Kṛṣṇa says: "I am the origin of everything." You take it. Kṛṣṇa is the origin of everything. He has proved. Kṛṣṇa is origin of everything. All the ācāryas, big, big ācārya accepted Him, Kṛṣṇa is the origin of everything. Arjuna, who heard Bhagavad-gītā, he accepted Him, Kṛṣṇa is origin. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramam (BG 10.12). Why we should try to understand Kṛṣṇa otherwise? What is this foolishness? But that is their scholarship. That is their knowledge. If somebody can most rascal explain Bhagavad-gītā, oh, he's a great scholar. Just see the fun.(?) He's the rascal number one and misleading people, he's great scholar. And we are simply presenting Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa says, Kṛṣṇa says: "Surrender unto Me." We say surrender to Kṛṣṇa.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 7, 1973:

Now somebody, some big sannyāsī, very famous in your country, he's explaining Kṛṣṇa, "Something dark within us which we do not know, that is Kṛṣṇa." That is explanation of Kṛṣṇa. "Kṛṣṇa is not dvi-bhuja-muralīdhara-śyāmasundara; He's something dark which you do not know." This is the explanation of big scholar, big swami. So in this way, we are being misled. Take it, Kṛṣṇa, as He is. Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the Supreme." Accept it, supreme. Actually He's supreme. Who can be bet..., more supreme than Kṛṣṇa? Prove it by śāstra, by history, by incidences, by action—everything. By votes also. If there are so many rascal Gods, but if you take vote, still in this age, the vote for Kṛṣṇa will be greater. Still. Although we are so fallen. So how we can escape Kṛṣṇa? And śāstra says, confirm, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). If you want the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that is Kṛṣṇa. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Īśvara means controller. So everyone is controller, but nobody's supreme controller. That is not possible. Even the so-called Gods, they also, when there is some toothache, they go to the doctor. They cannot control even toothache. So these kind of Gods will not help you. Take to Kṛṣṇa. Take to Kṛṣṇa as Kṛṣṇa says, the method: man-manā bhava mad-bhakto, mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). Mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te (BG 7.14). Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8). These things are there in the Bhagavad-gītā. You take it, practice it, and see how your life becomes successful and how you become happy. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 9, 1973:

"You talk like this." Mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca, Kṛṣṇa says. Sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca (BG 15.15). Kṛṣṇa can give you. If you actually want Kṛṣṇa, He'll give you intelligence. Dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ yena mām upayānti te. Kṛṣṇa is very cunning also. This man is trying to forget Me, to mislead others. He is misleading himself, others cannot be mislead, for the time being, but he is misled for good. Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram eva yoniṣu (BG 16.19). These asuras, on account of their enviousness upon Kṛṣṇa, to prove that there is no Kṛṣṇa, there is no God, so these people are put into andhā yoni. Andhā yoni means in such, just like animals. They cannot understand about Kṛṣṇa. Kṣipāmy andhā yoniṣu. So that is Kṛṣṇa's punishment, that "He wants to forget Me, he wants to kill Me. All right, he, let him be put into such birth that he may not know what is Kṛṣṇa for many, many births." Yes, go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 7, 1972:

Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī is giving evidences from different Vedic literatures to support his statement. Here is a statement from Padma Purāṇa. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, in his Tattva-sandarbha, has proved it, without any doubt, that the Purāṇas are supplementary to Vedas. They are... Just like Upaniṣads is part and parcel of the Vedas, similarly, Purāṇas are also part and parcel of the Vedic literature. There are philosophers, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they do not accept Purāṇas as Vedic literature, but Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has proved in his Tattva-sandarbha, in the beginning, that Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, itihāsa-purāṇa, they are part and parcel of the Vedic literature. Supplementary. Purāṇa means that which supplements. So evidences from Purāṇa is as good as the evidence from the Vedic quotation. That is the verdict of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī is not prepared to accept any statement which does not refer to the Vedic literatures: Vedas, Purāṇas, Upaniṣads, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, like that. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī also says in another place, śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-pāñcarātriki-vidhiṁ vinā (Brs. 1.2.101). So he has taken purāṇas also as evidences, Vedic evidences. So śruti, the Vedas, smṛti, the Purāṇas and other literatures, dharma-śāstra, smṛti-śāstra and Purāṇa, pañcarāti-vidhi—without reference to all these authentic literature, any kind of devotional activities are not accepted by the Gosvāmīs. They say, "Without any reference to these all Vedic literatures, any kind of devotional service is simply disturbance." Pañcarātri-vidhiṁ vinā aikāntikī harer bhaktir upātāyaiva kalpate. Utpāt, disturbance. Go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 14, 1972:

This has been practically proved in the Western countries. These boys and girls, European and Americans, they were not informed about the regulative principles in the beginning. We enforce the regulative principle when a student is serious to become initiated. Otherwise, ordinarily, in all our centers, everyone is welcome and join the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. Gradually, by mixing with the devotees, by being purified on the transcendental vibration of Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, they voluntarily offer to become serious student, initiated. In this way, we have expanded. Practically the basic principle is chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra and giving them some chance to hear about Kṛṣṇa from the Bhagavad-gītā as it is. This is our principle. Go on.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 14, 1972:

He must be Vaiṣṇava. It is the indication by Sanātana Gosvāmī, avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇaṁ pūtaṁ hari-kathāmṛtam, śravaṇaṁ na kartavyam. One who is professional, who is not Vaiṣṇava, from him, one should not hear about the holy names of God, Kṛṣṇa. That is prohibited. Because it will not be effective. Rather, it will be dangerous. So preaching work, this Kṛṣṇa conscious preaching work, we must be very cautious that those who are preachers, they must be pure Vaiṣṇava. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam (Brs. 1.1.11). Not for money's sake, not for reputation sake, lābha-pūjā-pratiṣṭhā. Only for serving Kṛṣṇa. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167). This is pure Vaiṣṇavism. One has to satisfy Kṛṣṇa. Not for any other purpose. So this preaching work should be taken up by pure Vaiṣṇava, anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ (Brs. 1.1.11). And if the śāstric injunctions and the direction given by the authorities, if they are presented as they are, surely there will be effect. It has been proved. And it is being proved. So this process we should adopt, and our success of Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is assured.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 29, 1973:

People are going on in the name of nationality, big leaders, but from our point of view, that neither as nation or community or person you are the proprietor of things. Kṛṣṇa is the proprietor of... So if you expand your selfishness in the name of nationality—"I possess this land"—we do not approve. We say, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). Everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa. Why you are claiming yourself, as nation or individual or community? That's not proper. Just like pickpocket and a gang, gangsters, organized rogues, thieves. It does not change the quality. There was some talk, you know, between Alexander the Great and the robber. The robber proved that "You are a greater robber. That's all. Why you are trying to punish me?" Alexander the Great arrested one robber, and he was going to punish him. So the robber explained that "Why you are punishing me? You are also a robber. You are going under the name of conqueror, and because I am not as great as you are, therefore you are trying to punish me. So why you are...?" So Alexander the Great, he was very, mean, highly advanced in... He immediately released him. "Yes. I am also a robber. Why shall I punish you?"

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.3 -- Mayapur, March 27, 1975:

We are concerned with the authorities. So authorities... Especially in India, the whole Vedic system is being followed by the people under the authorities of the ācārya. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. One who is following the path of the ācāryas, he knows. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. We cannot accept anyone as authority if he does not follow the paramparā, disciplic succession of ācārya. That is the Vedic system. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2). So Kṛṣṇa is para-tattva. Na caitanyāt kṛṣṇāt jagati para-tattvaṁ param iha. He is very emphatically asserting that "There is no more greater truth than Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa Caitanya." So according to the Vedic system, if you say something very emphatically, you must prove by Vedic evidences. Otherwise you can go on talking; nobody will hear. Sometimes people ask us about Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya Mahāprabhu, that "What is the Vedic evidences?" So that Vedic evidences will be given, later chapters of Caitanya-caritāmṛta. He is not falsely asserting. Kavirāja Gosvāmī is very, very advanced devotee and scholar. He is not ordinary human being. He was empowered by Madana-mohana.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.3 -- Mayapur, March 27, 1975:

"First of all try to understand what you are." That is the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā. It is no politics. It is knowledge, pure knowledge. Bhagavad-gītā is pure knowledge. The politicians take advantage of it. The sociologists, the so-called swamis, yogis, they take advantage of it and try to prove their all nonsensical theories. But it is not at all Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā as it is is pure knowledge, beginning with the first knowledge one has to understand, that he is not this body. Because this is the basic principle all ignorance: "I am this body." "I am American," "I am Indian," "I am brāhmaṇa," "I am this," "I am that"—this is the basic principle. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu also says the same thing in a different way. He says, "I am not a brāhmaṇa, I am not a kṣatriya, I am not a vaiśya, I am not a śūdra, I am not a brahmacārī, I am not a gṛhastha, I am not a vānaprastha, I am not a sannyāsī." These are negation. Then what is the positive? He says, gopī-bhartuḥ pada-kamalayor dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ: (CC Madhya 13.80) "I am the servant of the servant of the servant of the gopī-bhartuḥ, Kṛṣṇa, who maintains the gopīs."

So this is our identification. But we have forgotten our identification.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

So Veda is full of contradiction," no, it is not contradiction. It is fact. One doctor, Mr., Dr. Goshal, he is a medical college chemist. He analyzed this cow dung and found all antiseptic properties in cow dung. So this is Vedic injunction. Whatever is there, it is already tested, it is already experimented. You have simply to accept. Don't try to argue. This is acceptance of Vedānta-sūtra. Not that "Oh, I have got to serve some purpose, political purpose. So I'll have to prove from Bhagavad-gītā there is nonviolence." In our country, Gandhi, he was supposed to be a great student of Bhagavad-gītā. He wanted to prove that there... (break) ...by violence. So he was killed. How you can prove Bhagavad-gītā nonviolence? There is tacit order, "You must fight. The other party is impious. So you must fight." These are the injunction. You cannot change. That is not Vedānta-sūtra.

Therefore Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "I accept the order of My spiritual master in toto, without any interpretation, without any argument, without any understanding. Whatever he has said, it is all right." This is acceptance of spiritual master. "Oh, I accept spiritual master, but I don't accept your order"—this is not acceptance of spiritual master. If you at all accept somebody as spiritual master, you must test him. You must test him for at least one year if you have got doubts. And when you are convinced that "Here is a person whom I can follow blindly," then you accept. You haven't got to follow blindly.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So when there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt—everyone can understand clearly the meaning—there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's stressing, that gauṇa-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya. Therefore each and every aphorism and verse of Vedānta-sūtra has been indirectly interpreted by the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. Such interpretation, if somebody hears, then his future is doomed. Just like our Gandhi, he wanted to prove, from Bhagavad-gītā, nonviolence. The Bhagavad-gītā is being preached in the battlefield, and it is completely violence. How he can prove? Therefore he is dragging the meaning out of his own con... It is very troublesome, and anyone who will read such interpretation, he is doomed. He is doomed because the Bhagavad-gītā is meant for awakening your Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If that is not awakened, then it is useless waste of time. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu embraced the brāhmaṇa who was illiterate, but he took the essence of Bhagavad-gītā, the relationship between the Lord and the devotee. Therefore, unless we take the real, I mean to say, essence of any literature, it is simply waste of time.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

Although He has got innumerable forms, they are advaita, they are one. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Ādyam, original; Purāṇa, the oldest; and puruṣam, the person. Nava-yauvanam. The oldest, but nava-yauvana, just beginning of youthful life. That is the description in the Brahma-saṁhitā. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms that brahma saviśeṣa. Saviśeṣa means person with varieties of energy. Not imperson. Ataeva śruti kahe. According to Vedic evidence from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, apāṇi pāda, He has proved that when the Upaniṣad says that "The Absolute Truth has no hands and legs, this means that He has no material hands and legs. But He has His hands and legs." (shouting in background) (aside:) Who is shouting? Why they do not come? Why they are shouting there? All right.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154 -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

This is a prayer from Brahmā, that Brahman is the prabhā, or the effulgence, of Kṛṣṇa. Yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi. First of all, the brahma-jyotir is coming. And Kṛṣṇa also says, brāhmaṇaḥ ahaṁ pratiṣṭhā. Brahman is not ultimate. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). First realization is Brahman, impersonal Brahman, then Paramātmā, and then Bhagavān. So Bhagavān is the ultimate. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat asti kiñcid dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). So brahma-tattva, impersonal brahma-tattva, is not ultimate. The ultimate is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is the Vedic verdict.

Caitanya Mahāprabhu is therefore quoting from different Vedic literatures to prove that the Absolute Truth is person, ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa, full with six opulences. As in the Parāśara-sūtra there is aiśvaryasya samāgrasya. When Kṛṣṇa was present He exhibited full strength of six kinds of opulences. So the... Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is the fact. That is the Vedic version. It is not that some of the Kṛṣṇa's devotees have taken Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme, or He is originally imperson and He takes a form, accepting a material body. These are not right conclusions. In the Kūrma Purāṇa it is said that there is no distinction between the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and soul. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they distinguish that "Kṛṣṇa's soul is different from His body." That is Māyāvāda philosophy. But that is not the fact. There is no such difference. (aside:) What is that sound? Who is making that?

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.101-104 -- Bombay, November 3, 1975:

So what is the difference between the plural number nityas and singular number? Now, eka. Eka-vacana, singular number leader, God... Eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. That is the difference, that we are living entity and Kṛṣṇa, or God, is living entity, but Kṛṣṇa maintains all other living entities; we cannot maintain even ourself. And we find difficulty especially nowadays to maintain even a family. That is the difference. And still, as a rascal, I claim that "I am God. I am God." Nobody can claim unnecessarily that one is God. First of all prove that you can maintain all the living entities. You cannot maintain yourself even. You beg from door to door, and how you become God? Very simple question. Because in the Vedas (it is) said that eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān: "That one, singular number leader, He maintains all other living entities." That we have got practical experience. He is maintaining within the sand so many crabs. He is maintaining so many ants in the hole of your room. He is maintaining millions of elephants in the African jungle. So out of 8,400,000's of forms of life, mostly 8,300,000 species of life are being maintained by that one maintainer. And some of us so-called civilized, we are trying to maintain ourself. Therefore nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He is also consciousness. He is conscious. He is not acetana. Acetana means there is no consciousness. He is conscious, and we are also conscious.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.113 -- London, July 23, 1976:

There are living entities in fire also, but because our knowledge is limited, we do not see. We cannot conceive that in the fire also there can be living entities. And why not? There are five elements, matter. So if earth is producing life, if water is producing life, if air is producing life, why not fire? What is the fault there? Everything is producing life. So the mother produces children. So many children are coming out of the... Tāsāṁ mahad yonir brahma. Yoni, yoni means mother. So the children are there, the mother is there, and where is the father? A commonsense. Is there any mother can produce children without father? Is there any science can prove that a mother without connection with the father has produced child? No. If you say, "I cannot see the father," you do not see your fathers. There are many children nowadays who do not know who is father. But that does not mean there is no father. Common sense. There is father. Similarly, we see so many living entities produced by the mother, material nature—there must be father. And the father personally says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4)—"I am the father." So why these rascals, they say that there is no God? There must be God, and He has got inconceivable potencies. Everything is being done by Him. If you say nature is doing, nature is a machine. Nature is not the doer. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10).

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.137-146 -- Bombay, February 24, 1971:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, "Directly or indirectly, whichever Vedic literature you study, you'll find that the aim is to understand Kṛṣṇa." When Caitanya Mahāprabhu was speaking, He proved that in the Koran there is kṛṣṇa-bhakti. When He was coming back from Vṛndāvana, at a place... It is known as Soro. Perhaps you know, Soro. That is a holy place, Soro. Still, people go there. There is a nice place, Soro. So there Caitanya Mahāprabhu, when He was chanting and dancing, He sometimes fainted. So in the course of His chanting and dancing, when He fainted, then His personal assistants, they were treating Him. So one batch of soldiers, Moghul, Pathan soldiers, were passing that way. So the chief of the soldiers, of the army, they were surprised that "How is that? One man is lying unconscious, and others are treating him. This must have been, this man must have been poisoned by these men." So they came down, because they were government men, they came down and challenged all these men that "You have given this man some drug so that he's fainted, and you wanted to plunder him. So we arrest you." Then they said, "No, sir. We have not done anything such. He faints like that while chanting. Now He'll be... Very soon He'll get up, because we are also chanting. Hearing, hearing, He will get up." So in this way, when He came to His consciousness, the Muslims, these Pathan soldiers, they were very happy to see Him. So there was a Mullah. So he talked with Him. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu... I am summarizing the story; this story is very big. He talked with that Mullah, and He proved from the Koran that there is kṛṣṇa-bhakti. He proved from the Koran that there is kṛṣṇa-bhakti, there is hint of kṛṣṇa-bhakti. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says here also that indirectly.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.164-173 -- New York, December 13, 1966:

Now, the feature, the body, is the same, but in different house with different devotees, the exchange of feelings is different. That is called vaibhava-prakāśa. So it is a very complicated idea, which of them is vaibhava, which of them is prābhava, which of them is vilāsa, which of them is tad-ekātmā, āveśa... There are different divisions of Kṛṣṇa's expansions. But we can note down if we like from original Kṛṣṇa how many, I mean to say, expansions, innumerable expansions Kṛṣṇa has got. But some of them were shown when He was present before us just to prove that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because in future so many fools will imitate to become Kṛṣṇa as the incarnation of God or God, but Kṛṣṇa has in His life so many uncommon features, nobody can show that. Just like Govardhana. You have seen that picture. At seven years old, He lifted the hill. And when He was young He married sixteen thousand wives, and sixteen thousand features... So... And when He was in Battle of Kurukṣetra, He showed the universal form. So before claiming oneself as "I am God," they should be prepared to show these uncommon features. Otherwise, no sane man will accept any fool as God.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.358-359 -- New York, December 29, 1966:

So we are also emanation from the Supreme Lord, the living entities. Some of the living entities are moving, some of the living entities, they do not move. Just like the trees, the hills, the mountains, they have got also their life. So they are not moving. We are moving. Man, human being, cats, dogs and ants, so many there are. So they are conscious. So, unless the Supreme Lord is conscious, the Supreme Source of all generation, wherefrom this consciousness can come? So the philosophy that the Supreme Source is void, how you can maintain? Wherefrom this consciousness comes? They say that consciousness is generated by the combination of matter. Up till now, no scientist has proved that, by combination of chemicals and matter, physical things, one can produce consciousness. So the Bhāgavata very nicely describes that the Supreme Source of everything, He is conscious. Conscious. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayāt itarataś ca (SB 1.1.1).

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 21.13-49 -- New York, January 4, 1967:

One of them is Brahma-saṁhitā. Then He's giving another evidence from Padma Purāṇa, the existence of spiritual planets. In Indian spiritual society the evidences are given from Vedic literature. Then it is accepted, not that mental speculationist's theory, "I think this. I think that..." No. Just the same example I have several times cited before you, that the law court, they give evidences from the lawbook, sections from the lawbook. Similarly, the process is whenever we speak something transcendental subject, if we can pick up evidences from Vedic literatures... There are many authentic Vedic literatures. They are accepted by the spiritual societies. And one's learning is proved if he can give evidences from these Vedic literatures. Similarly Lord Caitanya, whatever He is speaking, He's giving immediately references from Vedic literature. So, so far the existence of the spiritual world and different planets, spiritual planets, Vaikuṇṭha and Kṛṣṇaloka, one may think... Of course, those who have no knowledge, they may think that these are all stories. No, they are not stories. They are actual facts, and Lord Caitanya is giving evidences from Brahma-saṁhitā, from Padma Purāṇa, and similar other Vedic literatures.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.21-28 -- New York, January 11, 1967:

So they, of course, indulge in that process of knowledge. But simply by that speculation the result is that teṣām asau kleśala eva śiṣyate. The trouble which they accept for discriminating matter from spirit... There is trouble. You have to see so many Vedic literatures, and you have to understand the instruction of Upaniṣads and logic, and so many things there are to, I mean to say, back your understanding. So teṣām kleśala eva... Their, their profit is that the trouble which they accept for studying so many Vedic literatures to prove that the Absolute Truth is not person, that trouble is their profit and nothing more. Kleśala eva, teṣām asau kleśala eva śiṣyate: "They do not get any other profit except that troublesome business." That's all. Teṣāṁ kleśala eva śiṣyate. How it is? The example is, nānyad yathā sthūla-tuṣāvaghātinām: "Just like husking the grain to take out the skin." Now, there are many grains which are skin over. So there is process of taking out the skin out of the grain. So if the grain is already taken out, only the skins are left. Then, if you husk on it and beat to get out the grains, so there is no possibility to get any grains from them because the grain is already taken out. So that is the trouble. Simply, I mean, beating the skin is no good. We must have some concrete result. That concrete result is one who is directly engaged in the transcendental service, loving service of the Supreme Lord. That is recommended.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967:

This is the secret of modern fashionable interpretation. If you want to establish... Suppose you have got some conviction, and if you want to establish it by evidence of an approved literature... An approved literature. Just like Gandhi. Gandhi wanted to establish nonviolence from Bhagavad-gītā. He was a... He is known to be a great student of Bhagavad-gītā, but he was not at all. His political theory was that he wanted to conquer over the enemies by nonviolence method. Nonviolent noncooperation, that was his, I mean to say, theory. He wanted to get away all kinds of nonviolence from the world, all kinds of violence from the world. So he wanted to prove from Bhagavad-gītā nonviolence. But how you can prove nonviolence from Bhagavad-gītā? Because Bhagavad-gītā is being spoken in the violent battlefield. But because he wanted to prove nonviolence, therefore he says, "Oh, these Pāṇḍavas means this. This Kṛṣṇa means this. This chariot means this. These Kurus means this. Dharmakṣetra means this. Kurukṣetra means this." He has invented and manufactured so many rascal meaning that it is very difficult... He said that dharmakṣetre... In the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā there is the verse, dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Now the very word yuyutsavaḥ means persons who are desiring to fight with one another. Now, how you can prove nonviolence? But he extracts some meaning: "These Pāṇḍava means five senses and the Kurukṣetra means this body." In this way, his interpretation.

Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures

Lecture on Brahma-samhita, Lecture -- Bombay, January 3, 1973:

Yes. Simply talking will not do. That, that... Just, these boys, they did not practice prāṇāyāma system, but bring anyone who knows about God better than him. Bring anyone. Any yogis, bring, and talk with them. They are neophytes. They are simply practicing three or four years. And talk with them. And what he knows about, he knows it will be proved. That is not rocket system. This is rocket system: Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. (laughter) That is not possible. That he cannot find out a secluded place to practice yoga. Where is secluded place in the city? Whole day and night, these cars are going and there is huge sound. Where is secluded place? And, and it is recommended in Bhagavad-gītā, secluded place and sacred place. And he should remain alone. Where is such yogi? Find out. Where is such yogi? He should remain alone, and in a secluded place and a sacred place. And he should not change his āsana. Then he becomes a yogi. These are the preliminary things. But who is practicing these preliminary even? They cannot. Especially in the cities, there are so many yoga societies, but in the, it is stated that it should be practiced in a secluded place. So how it is possible in the city? So if you follow the instruction, it will be very difficult. It is very difficult.

Festival Lectures

Sri Rama-Navami, Lord Ramacandra's Appearance Day -- Hawaii, March 27, 1969:

How one becomes God? God is not manufactured by vote. There are definition who is God. God must be the proprietor of all the riches. Aiśvaryasya samāgrasya. Samāgra means all. Nobody can compete with Him. Here, in this world, material world, I am rich man, and there is another rich man who can compete with me. There is another rich man who can compete with him. But nobody can compete with God in richness. That is one qualification of God. Nobody can say that "I am richer than God." You can say "I am richer than Ford or Rockefeller" or this or that. You can say. But nobody can say that "I am richer than God." Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat asti kiñcid dhanañjaya. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). Dhanañjaya is a name of Arjuna, and Kṛṣṇa said that, "My dear Arjuna, there is nobody greater than Me." So if anyone claims that he is God, he must prove by practical example that nobody is richer than him. That is the first. But unfortunately, we are accepting so many Gods. A rascal in the street, he also claims that "I am God."

Nrsimha-caturdasi Lord Nrsimhadeva's Appearance Day -- Bombay, May 5, 1974:

Three times. Three times means yajña-dāna-tapaḥ-kriyā. There are many other things: meditation, sacrifices, worship in the temple. So in this age all these things are impossible to be performed, but even a child can chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. That is proved here. Whenever there is Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, even the child can take part, old man can take part. So this is the only method for God realization. There is no expenditure, but the gain is very, very great. That was the teaching of Śrī Prahlāda Mahārāja, and we are following his footsteps. Let us stick to his principle, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186), and thus become more and more advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Gundica Marjanam Cleansing of the Gundica Temple, Lecture (the day before Ratha-yatra) -- San Francisco, July 4, 1970:

"The child will suck my breast and immediately die." The child sucked the breast as well as her life. But Kṛṣṇa thought that "This demon, although came to Me with a purpose to kill Me, but I have been used as her child, and she has become My mother, so she must get the position of My mother." This is Kṛṣṇa's kindness.

So try to understand Kṛṣṇa philosophy very nicely, what is God. There are so many fictitious rogues, rascals, they are presenting themselves God. Try to understand what is God. Don't be misled. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). There is no other God except Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, mām ekam, "Only unto Me surrender." And He has proved Himself that He is God. There are many so-called Gods, but they have not proved that they are God. No. God is one, and that is Kṛṣṇa. So this Kṛṣṇa, Lord Kṛṣṇa, when He was called by His father... People generally did not know that Kṛṣṇa is Vasudeva's son, but later on it was disclosed by talkings one after another. Then, when the fact was disclosed, then Kamsa arranged for a wrestling match, and Kṛṣṇa was called to fight. That you will read in our Kṛṣṇa book. It's a long story.

Janmastami Lord Sri Krsna's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 16, 1968:

Therefore no external agent can prevent Kṛṣṇa's existence. And it is again self-contradictory to attribute any imperfection to the perfect being. Therefore the conclusion is that Kṛṣṇa necessarily exists because no one can prevent His existence.

By definition, God is the perfect entity. So just as we've seen that existence of Kṛṣṇa cannot be checked... And actually nobody can prove that Kṛṣṇa does not exist, neither can they prevent Him from existing. This is sort of an indirect way to prod you to think about the position that you're in now. People become very proud because they have some material opulence or material knowledge, and they tend to think that they are self-sufficient. But actually, we're dependent on so many things. For example, we are just taking it for granted that our bodies will remain unmutilated by various forces in nature, when actually at any moment the bodies could be totally destroyed. And, even granted that our bodies will be with us for some time in operable condition, this field of our activities has many laws which we're dependent upon. Just as the other day we were discussing the law of gravity. This idea of laws in nature necessarily implies the existence of the lawmaker.

Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 30, 1968:

"It is very difficult to understand Your personality."

Actually we are experiencing, if we speak something impersonal, they think it is very learned speech, and when we speak of something personal they think it is old, old style. This is nonsense. Practically, the Personality of God is the ultimate knowledge, but men with poor fund of knowledge, a little stock of knowledge, they cannot understand. If He is impersonal, how Brahmā and Śambhu are engaged in His service? He is person. Brahmā-śambhu-phanīndras tebhyo 'nīśam vedānta-vedyam. Vedānta-vedyam. These Māyāvādīs, they have Śaṅkarācārya, they have their Śārīraka-bhāṣya. They have tried to prove the Supreme Lord as imperson. This is not actually fact. Vedānta-vedyam. It is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam, vedānta-kṛt veda-vid eva cāham (BG 15.15). Kṛṣṇa says that all the Vedas, including Vedānta... If somebody says the Vedānta is describing impersonal Brahman, but Kṛṣṇa says that "How it can do?" Vedānta-vid, "I am the actual knower of Vedānta, I am actual composer of Vedānta. So I am the Supreme." So these Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand. They think that Vedānta...

Varaha-dvadasi, Lord Varaha's Appearance Day Lecture Dasavatara-stotra Purport -- Los Angeles, February 18, 1970:

So he was killed on His lap. He took the benediction that "I shall not be killed by any man-made or any God-made weapons." That was given, "All right." So he was killed by the nails. In this way, all the benedictions were kept intact, still he was killed. Similarly, we may make plan, we may make very advancement in scientific knowledge, but the killing process of nature will be there. Nobody can escape. By our intelligence we cannot escape. The four principles of material existence means birth, death, old age and disease. We can manufacture many medicines, many weapons, many means, many methods, but you cannot escape these four principles of material existence, however great you may be. That was proved by Hiraṇyakaśipu. Hiraṇyakaśipu was one of the stalwart materialistic and he wanted to live forever, enjoy, but he also could not live. Everything was finished.

Then next incarnation is Vāmana, the dwarf. Lord Vāmana appeared before Bali Mahārāja. That was also another cheating. Bali Mahārāja conquered all the universal planets and the demigods were too much disturbed. So Vāmana Mahārāja... Vāmanadeva went to Bali Mahārāja that "You give me some alms. I am brāhmaṇa. I have come to beg from you." So Bali Mahārāja said, "Yes. I'll give You." So He wanted three feet land only. So by one feet the whole universe was covered, upside, and another feet the other half was covered. Then the third feet Bali Mahārāja said, "Yes, now there is no place. Please keep Your feet on my head. Still my head is there." So Vāmanadeva was very much pleased by the sacrifice of Bali Mahārāja. He gave up everything for the Lord. So he is one of the great authorities. Out of the twelve authorities, Bali Mahārāja is one of the authorities because he sacrificed everything to satisfy the Lord.

Lord Nityananda Prabhu's Appearance Day Nitai-Pada-Kamala Purport -- Los Angeles, January 31, 1969:

"Please catch up the lotus feet of Nityānanda." Then he says, nitāiyer caraṇa satya. One may think that as we catch hold of so many shelter, but in this material world later on they prove false, similarly, suppose we catch hold of the lotus feet of Nityānanda; it may also prove false. But Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura assures that nitāiyer caraṇa satya: "It is not false. Because Nityānanda is eternal, His lotus feet is also eternal." Tāṅhāra sevaka nitya. And anyone who takes to the service of Nityānanda, they also become eternal. Without being eternal, nobody can serve the eternal. That is the Vedic injunction. Without becoming Brahman, one cannot approach the Supreme Brahman. Just like without being fire, nobody can enter into the fire. Without being water, nobody can enter into the water. Similarly, without being fully spiritualized, nobody can enter into the spiritual kingdom. So nitāiyer caraṇa satya. If you catch nitāiyer, the lotus feet of Nityānanda, then you become immediately spiritualized. Just like if you touch electricity, immediately you become electrified. That is natural. Similarly, Nityānanda is eternal happiness, if you touch Nityānanda some way or other, then you become also eternally happy. Tāṅhāra sevaka nitya. Therefore one who has in contact with Nityānanda, they have become eternal.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, SB 6.3.24 -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

That is also condemned in Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ (BG 7.15). You'll find amongst them very, very learned men, very, very good scholar. They can quote... Intelligent men. Because their Māyāvādī commentary, they can utilize, and Kṛṣṇa gives them intelligence also, that "You misuse this verse in this way because you want..." Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān (BG 16.19). Kṛṣṇa is sitting within the heart of everyone. So Māyāvādī philosopher wants to kill God, or Kṛṣṇa. Or nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi, they want to make Kṛṣṇa as zero or Kṛṣṇa as nirākāra. So Kṛṣṇa also gives them intelligence, "Yes, you just put forward this logic, that logic, that logic, and you prove." That is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ: "I am sitting in everyone's heart." Mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca (BG 15.15). Mattaḥ, "Through Me, from Me, all remembrance or memorization takes place."

So Māyāvādī wants to prove that the ultimate truth is nirākāra, or impersonal. So Kṛṣṇa gives you intelligence: "Yes, you put this forward. Put forward this logic, this logic, that logic." Similarly, Kṛṣṇa gives... There is a Bengali proverb that how God works, that one man, a householder is praying to God, "My dear Lord, there may not be any theft case, burglary, in my home this night. Please save me."

Six Gosvamis Lecture, Sri Sri Sad-govamy-astaka -- Los Angeles, November 18, 1968:

So in every human society there is such inquiry and there is some answer also. So cultivating this knowledge, Kṛṣṇa consciousness or God consciousness, is essential. If we do not take to these inquiries, simply if we engage ourself in the animal propensities... Because this material body is animal body, but the consciousness is developed. In the animal body or in the lower than animal body—just like trees and plants, they are also living entities—the consciousness is not developed. If you cut a tree, because the consciousness is not developed, it does not protest. But it feels the pain. That is scientifically proved by Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose. It feels. But the feeling is not so strong. But if you kill one animal, it protests because the consciousness is developed. Similarly if you kill a man, that protest is still vehement because the consciousness is still more advanced. So in this way, in different forms of life, we are developing different types of consciousness. Just like this child, because it has got a certain type of body, its consciousness is not so developed. But when this body will be grown up, when this girl will be young, then her consciousness also will be different. Not will be, it will develop. Similarly, our consciousness should develop. The perfection, the ultimate goal, the limit of development is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Address -- London, September 11, 1969:

Prabhupāda: That is God. Some of you are saying there is no God, some of you are saying God is dead, and some of you are saying God is impersonal or void. These are all nonsense. I want to teach all these nonsense that there is God. That is my mission. Any nonsense can come to me, I shall prove that there is God. That is my Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. It is a challenge to the atheistic people. There is God. As we are sitting here face to face, you can see God face to face. If you are sincere and if you are serious, that is possible. Unfortunately, we are trying to forget God; therefore we are embracing so many miseries of life. So I am simply preaching that you have Kṛṣṇa consciousness and be happy. Don't be swayed away by these nonsense waves of māyā, or illusion. That is my request.

Devotees: Haribol!

Reporter: Is this singing essential to the sustenance of your faith?

Arrival Address -- London, September 11, 1969:

That is the process. Ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam (CC Antya 20.12). The Sanskrit word is "cleansing the dirty heart." The dirty heart. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). Those who are miscreants, rascals, and lowest of the mankind, and taken all knowledge, and atheistic class of men, they do not know what is God. Others, those who are virtuous, those who are inquisitive, those who are wise, they will try and they will understand what is God. So my appeal to you is that you try to understand this movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. It is not a bogus movement. It is scientific, authorized. Any scientist, any philosopher and logician may come and we shall prove that there is God and we have got eternal relationship with God. So if you want to (be) happy, then you must take to this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Otherwise the human race is doomed. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā (SB 5.18.12). Anyone who has no God consciousness, he has no qualification. However academically he may be very rich, he has no qualification. Manorathena asato dhāvato bahiḥ. His only qualification is mental concoction. Mental concoction. That's all. He has no other qualification. So we reject all these nonsense. We simply accept a sincere soul who wants to dedicate his life for God's service. So it is not easy thing. These boys and girls who are following me, they are very elevated. They are not ordinary boys and girls. They have taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Their quality is greater than any mundane erudite scholar. It is a challenge. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ (SB 5.18.12).

Srila Prabhupada Welcomed by Governor at Hotel De Ville -- Geneva, May 30, 1974:

"That is first-class religious system which teaches the follower how to love God." It doesn't matter what is the type of religion, religious process. Phalena paricīyate. The thing is proved by the result, how one has learned to love God. Sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmaḥ. There are two kinds of religious engagements: one is called inferior and the other is called superior. The superior religious system is that which teaches the followers how to love God. Now, what kind of love? That is also expressed there: ahaitukī, without any motive, and apratihatā. Apratihatā means that religious system cannot be checked by any kind of material impediments. If we come to that platform, then ātmā-ātmā means the mind, the soul, also the body, intelligence—everything becomes fully satisfied.

So our this principle of teaching is based on Bhagavad-gītā. (aside:) Give him the book. Perhaps you have heard the name of Bhagavad-gītā, and some of you might have read it, Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā was spoken in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra to groups of cousin-brothers. They were fighting to occupy the kingdom, and in that place Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, happened to be present as the chariot driver of one group, Arjuna. So Arjuna was trying to avoid the fighting because the other side, there were relatives, brothers. At that time he was lamenting his bodily relationship:

Arrival Address -- Paris, June 8, 1974:

So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to give the greatest benefit to the human society to clear their brain, the rascal brain. We call, declare, they are all rascals. Let any scientist, philosopher come here, I shall prove that he is nothing but a rascal. I shall prove that. I challenge them. What they are doing? Nonsense. So you do not become rascals. By the grace of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, you are trying to understand this Kṛṣṇa consciousness philosophy, and there is no difficulty, everything is there in our Bhagavad-gītā. You simply try to understand, and make your life successful. That is our request. Don't be rascals, mūḍhas, narādhamas, māyayāpahṛta-jñānā. This education has no value, because the real knowledge, there is nothing. Real knowledge is to understand God. There is no education throughout the whole world, there is no university. So they are simply producing rascals. So my only request is that don't become rascals. You just worship here Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ, just try to understand Kṛṣṇa and then your life will be successful.

Initiation Lectures

Initiation Lecture -- San Francisco, March 10, 1968:

Kṛṣṇa is not like us. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. How He is Supreme Personality of Godhead? That He proved when, while He was present. The history is there. Kṛṣṇa's pastimes, Kṛṣṇa's activities, Kṛṣṇa's wisdom, lecture, Bhagavad-gītā—everything is there. They are the proofs. There is a very nice verse by Yamunācārya that there are authentic literatures, there are authentic personalities, and they accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Authentic literatures, they give proof that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And by His wonderful activities we can understand that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But still, the atheistic rascal will not accept. You see? There are sufficient proofs. Just like Arjuna says, "Kṛṣṇa, You are the paraṁ brahma. It is not because I am Your friend I am flattering You. You have been accepted by authorities like Vyāsadeva, Nārada, in all scriptures, and You are personally explaining Yourself." So there is no doubt about it, but the demons, in spite of all this—dog's obstinacy—they will not accept. So let them go to hell. So far we are concerned, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His body is eternal, full of bliss, and full of knowledge, end sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). If we simply remember that Kṛṣṇa is like that, and as soon as we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, we remember Kṛṣṇa, and we understand that He is the Supreme Personality.

Initiation of Rukmini Dasi -- Montreal, August 15, 1968:

In any condition of life, it doesn't matter. Pure or impure, there are two conditions. Someone is impure, someone is pure. So either way, namo apavitraḥ pavitro, sarvāvasthām, in any condition, yaḥ smaret puṇḍarīkākṣam. Anyone who remembers puṇḍarīkākṣam, means Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa... Yaḥ smaret puṇḍarīkākṣaṁ sa, that person, bahyābhyantaraṁ śuciḥ, he immediately becomes clean inside and outside. Śuciḥ, śuciḥ means clean or śuciḥ means brāhmaṇa. Brāhmaṇa means clean. You have got all threads, so you should always prove that you are always clean. Bahyābhyantaraṁ śuciḥ. Śrī viṣṇu śrī viṣṇu śrī viṣṇu. So this is remembering Viṣṇu. So simply by remembering Viṣṇu, if one becomes clean inside and outside, so by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, how much purified he is becoming in every moment or every second. It is so nice. There is no question if we always keep ourselves chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, so there is no chance of being contaminated by the influence of māyā. It is so nice.

Now you chant, I'll say, you repeat. (chants prayers for fire sacrifices, devotees respond) Thank you. Chant you Hare Kṛṣṇa. Right hand, not left hand. Keep forward your right hand. Yes.

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

Don't try to be puffed up artificially by your speculative knowledge that you are the same God. Don't try for it. If you actually want to be happy, and if you want, actually, you want to be God realized or Kṛṣṇa conscious person, then the first thing is that you give up this nonsense habit—by speculation, you want to be God. Puffed up: "I am God. I am God. I am God." But you are not God. You are God qualitatively, not quantitatively. Why don't you understand this?

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, jñāne prayāsam. Jñānīs, the empiric philosophers, they simply speculate and try to prove that "I am God." That means āsuriṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ. The atheist says that "There is no God," and here the Māyāvādī philosophy says, "Yes, there is God, but God I am." That's all. It is the same philosophy, atheism. He is also denying that "There is no separate God. I am God." That atheistic philosophy, like Buddha philosophy, "There is no God..." But Buddha himself is God. That is... Another Bhāgavata interpretation is that he is cheating the atheist person. The atheists, they say, "There is no God," and Lord Buddha said, "Yes, there is no God, but you follow me." But He is God. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. So Bhāgavata therefore says, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). It is something like that. A naughty boy does not want to go to school. So somebody, some friend, says, "Yes, you don't go to school. All right, you sit down. Now, what is this?" "Oh, this is cow." "What is this?" "This is leg." "Can you count how many legs are there?" "Yes. One, two, three, four." So... (aside:) What is that?

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

And here is the direct answer by Kṛṣṇa, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the source of everything." So we follow this philosophy. Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means we directly take Bhagavad-gītā as the evidence of existence of God. And if you want to know God, you cannot know God by speculation. He is so great, He is so unlimited, and we have got limited senses, limited capacity. It is not possible. Simply we can understand God by the mercy of God. So here is the mercy of God, Kṛṣṇa, He Himself speaking about Himself. You learn God. God is speaking about Himself. You haven't got to speculate. And He, by His pastimes, by His activities, He... (aside:) What is that sound coming? That is car? Oh. By His activities, He proved Himself that He is complete God. From His childhood.

So Bhāgavata says... Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "Don't be situated in the speculative method, that you are God, you are something—'There is no God,' or 'I am God, this God, that God.' Give up this habit kindly. Give up this nonsense habit." There is God, and you are not God. You are God partially, part and parcel, just like I have explained. So we have to give up this nonsense habit. Jñāne prayāsam udapāsya. Udapāsya means give up. Then what is next? Namanta eva. Just be submissive. Don't be puffed up artificially. You are being slapped always by the laws of material nature. Don't think that you are independent. It is foolishness to say that "I am independent. I don't care for anything of..." No. You have to care. You are being kicked every moment by the laws of nature.

Wedding Ceremonies

Wedding of Syama dasi and Hayagriva -- Los Angeles, December 25, 1968:

Some of my students, they are married couples, young men. Six of them have gone to England. They are preaching very nicely. Very nicely. They have attracted the attention of respectable gentlemen like Lord Mountbatten, Lord Sorenson, and the High Commissioner of India, Mr. Dhavan. So they're doing very nicely. So our principle is to make people God conscious; thereby they will be happy. And the method is very simple. Just like we do not deny anything. We give nice wife, we give nice husband, we give nice foodstuff, we give nice philosophy, and at last, we give the nicest thing, Kṛṣṇa. So our program is very nice. Any gentleman come and discuss with us. We shall prove this is the nicest program at the present moment.

So I am very happy that Professor Howard Wheeler, he is very obedient student. And by God's grace, Kṛṣṇa's grace, we practically met on the street. You see. When I first started my class in New York, 26 Second Avenue, I was just going out after entering the storefront and this boy met me. He asked me, "Swamijī, you are coming from India?" And I told him, "Yes, my dear boy." So that was our first acquaintance, and I think that is eternal.

General Lectures

Lecture at a School -- Montreal, June 11, 1968:

So you say or I say that "Body is growing," but in the Vedic language it is said that "Body is changing." Just like a child is born so small from the mother's womb, and it changes body every second. Then he becomes a young child or a boy, then young man, then old man like me, and so on. In this way this changing, body changing, is going on. And the final change is called death. Death means... Just like the too much old garments cannot be used, similarly, this body is the garment of the soul. When it is..., no longer can be used, we have to accept another body. This is called transmigration of the soul.

Now, consciousness, the symptom... The presentation of the soul within this body is proved by consciousness. So from Bhagavad-gītā we can understand there are two different qualities of consciousness. One consciousness is that I know about the pain and pleasure of my body, you know about the pains and pleasures of your body, but I do not know the pains and pleasure of your body; neither you know the pains and pleasure of my body. Therefore each and every one of us is individual soul, and our consciousness is limited within the body. Similarly, there is another consciousness and another body. That body is universal body, and that consciousness is universal. That universal consciousness knows your pains and pleasure, my pains and pleasure, and millions and trillions of living entities and bodies. He knows the pains and pleasures of everyone. These are the statements in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968:

Prabhupāda: Here is another point, that one should not accept somebody as spiritual master all of a sudden. At the same time, the spiritual master also should not accept anybody as his disciple immediately. Now Sanātana Gosvāmī is proving himself that he's qualified disciple, and Lord Caitanya is accepting him, that "You are just the suitable person; therefore I shall accept you as My disciple and teach you the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness." Yes.

Girl: " 'And I will explain to you everything, step by step.' It is the duty of the disciple approaching the spiritual master to inquire about his constitutional position. In conformity to that spiritual process, Sanātana has already asked, 'What am I and why am I suffering from the threefold miseries?' The threefold miseries are called ādhyātmika, ādhibhautika, and ādhidaivika. Ādhyātmika means caused by the body and mind. Sometimes the living entity suffers bodily and sometimes he is distressed mentality. Both are ādhyātmika miseries. We experience these miseries even in the womb of our mother. There are many forms of miseries that take advantage of our delicate body and give us pain. Miseries inflicted by other living entities are called ādhibhautika.

Lecture -- Seattle, September 27, 1968:

Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. (response) Thank you. So our program is to worship the original Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi. In this material world everyone is trying to get happiness and to get relief from distress. Two things are going on, attempt. There are different processes. Material process is completely absurd. That is already proved. No amount of material comforts or happiness, so-called happiness, can give us the actual happiness that we are hankering. That is not possible. Then there are different other processes also. There are three kinds of miseries due to our material conditional life: ādhyātmic, ādhibhautic, ādhidaivic. Ādhyātmic means pertaining to the body and to the mind. Just like when there is some disarrangement of the different functions of metabolism within this body, we get fever, we get some pain, headache—so many things—so these miseries are called ādhyātmic, pertaining to the body. And another part of this ādhyātmic misery is due to the mind. Suppose I have suffered a great loss. So the mind is not in good condition. So this is also suffering. So for diseased condition of the body or some mental dissatisfaction there are miseries. Then again, ādhibhautic, sufferings offered by other living entities. Just like we are human being, we are sending millions of poor animals to the slaughterhouse daily. They cannot express, but this is called ādhibhautic, sufferings offered by other living entities. Similarly, we have to suffer also sufferings offered by other living entities. God's law you cannot, I mean to say, supersede.

Lecture -- Seattle, September 27, 1968:

Yes, past, future, present is according to the different kinds of relativity. That is a scientific proof. Professor Einstein has proved it. Just like your past is not past of Brahmā. Your present is not the present of an ant. So past, present, future-time is eternal. It is according to the different dimension of body relativity. Time is eternal. Just like a small ant. In twenty-four hours he has twenty-four times past, present and future. In the sputnik, in the Russian sputnik, circumambulated round this earth in one hour, twenty-five minutes, or something like that. They, I mean to say, went round the earth for twenty-five times. That means within one hour, twenty-five minutes, the sputnik man saw twenty-five times day and night. So in the higher atmosphere the past end present is different. So this past, present, future is relative according to your body, according to circumstances. Actually, there is no past, present, future. Everything is eternal. You are eternal, nityo śāśvato 'yaṁ na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). You do not die. Therefore... The people do not know that I am eternal. What is my eternal engagement? What is my eternal life? They're simply captivated on the spot life: "I am American," "I am Indian," "I am this," "I am that." That's all. This is ignorance. So one has to search out this eternal engagement with Kṛṣṇa. Then he'll be happy. Thank you. (devotees offer obeisances) Chant, Upendra, chant. Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. Chant. (kīrtana) (end)

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

So... But karma is accepted? But I do not know. Dr. Urquhart was arguing that if I am suffering or enjoying as the effect of my previous life, so who is the witness? His argument was like this. Just like if I have committed some criminal act, in the court there is need of witness. Then one has to prove that somebody has seen that he has done this. This is simply a legal formality. Who is going to steal while keeping one witness? Nobody's going, but court wants that who has seen that he has stolen. Anyway, Dr. Urquhart's argument was that "Who is the witness? I am suffering the reaction of my previous bad or evil activities, but who is the witness?" But at that time we were not so intelligent. We could not answer. But later on, when we were grown up and studied Bhagavad-gītā, then here, in the Bhagavad-gītā, we saw that upadraṣṭā. The Lord is upadraṣṭā, He is witness. Upadraṣṭā. Anumantā. Anumantā means ordering. You cannot do anything without being sanctioned by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You have no power. Therefore we are, in all respect, we are dependent. That we have got very nice experience. This hand is moving, but if the power is withdrawn, I cannot move my hand. Therefore I am not independent to move my hand. So upadraṣṭā anumantā. We cannot do anything without being sanctioned by the Supreme Lord. There is an English word, that not even a grass moves without the sanction of the Lord. So that is a fact. So how one is doing nice thing and how one is doing evil things if He is the order giver? That is our independence. We can take sanction from the Lord.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

Prabhupāda: No. Rāma was accepted as incarnation. Kṛṣṇa was accepted as incarnation. In every home, there is Rāma and Kṛṣṇa worship. Not this Ramakrishna. Neither any ācārya accepts him. If Ramakrishna... He said himself that "One who was Kṛṣṇa, one who was Rāma, I am the same." So his disciple accepted. Vivekananda accepted. But in that way, if somebody dies, he says, "One who was Kṛṣṇa, one was Rāma, I am," his sons accept. That is not the way of. There must be proof. Kṛṣṇa is accepted by Vyāsadeva, by Nārada, by Caitanya, by Rāmānuja, by so many great scholars, stalwarts. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is accepted by all Indians as God. And He has proved Himself, His activities. There is Vedic proof, scholarly proof, authority proof. There are so many things. And people... There are thousands and millions of temple of Kṛṣṇa worship in India, and how many temples they have got Ramakrishna?

Young man (6): Well, Ramakrishna is pretty recent also.

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa, because He's old, therefore people have taken? People forget old things. Why they are adhering to the old things? At Vṛndāvana only, one place, there are five thousand temples of Kṛṣṇa. Only in Vṛndāvana. So this is all propaganda. We have to test who is incarnation, who is not, by the authorities.

Young man (6): And who are the authorities?

Prabhupāda: Vedic literatures. Lord Buddha is accepted as incarnation in the Vedic literatures.

Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969:

Prabhupāda: Who knows me?

Man (8): You cannot prove everything by one authorized man. Another authorized man, he can change the words. Anybody can. Prabhupāda: No. If he is a perfect man, then he will not change because he knows the thing, "Yes, it is this." But if he is imperfect rascal, then he will change.

Man (8): How do you know that person who wrote it was perfect?

Prabhupāda: That you have to know from the perfect man. That is the way.

Man (8): And who is the perfect man?

Prabhupāda: That you have to find out, if you have got that capacity.

Man (8): How do you find out?

Prabhupāda: How do you find out a lawyer?

Man (8): Well, that's what I'm asking, you see. I've got a...

Prabhupāda: You have to see that "This man is lawyer, and many men is going there to take law advice, and he is gaining case. He is working." In that way you have to know.

Lecture 'Nobody Wants to Die' -- Boston, May 7, 1968:

So if you cannot present yourself even like ordinary president—you are claiming that you're God—how much nonsense you are. Don't claim in that way. There is no equal to God. Oh, there are so many equals to you, so many greater than you, lower than you. So you are not absolute. God is absolute. In the Bhagavad-gītā the same thing is described, that mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: (BG 7.7) "My dear Dhanajaya, Arjuna, nobody's greater than Me." Anyat. Anyat means anyone. So this is the one of the symptoms of God, that nobody is greater than Him. So you have to prove that nobody's greater than you. If you simply think falsely that "Nobody's greater than me. Nobody's...I am moving this sun. I am moving this moon. I am...," so you have to prove it. Otherwise, it is nonsense. But if you remain in your actual position, that "I am not God, but I am part and parcel of God, and God is nondifferent..." Just like the part and parcel of your body, this finger, and the whole body... If you make analytical study: "Oh, there is blood, there is vein, there is muscle, there is skin, there is bone, everything complete," as much as there is blood, vein, muscle, bones, everything in the whole body, so, as part and parcel, the, all the qualities, or all the ingredients of God are there. But he is a small quantity; therefore part and parcel. But even it is small quantity, if you actually come to the platform of God, then you'll become almost equal like God. But you cannot be God. That is not possible. Then there is no meaning of God, because God is great. And in the Vedic literature it is confirmed that na tasya kāryaṁ ca vidyate na tasya sama adhikaś ca dṛśyate: "Nobody's greater than Him, nobody's equal to Him. He, He has nothing to do. Everything is being performed by His multi-energies."

Lecture 'Nobody Wants to Die' -- Boston, May 7, 1968:

So these descriptions are there. So you have to... Vedic knowledge means the knowledge of authority. So you have to prove. But there is a process for understanding God, that "I am God." That is a process. But not that one is God. "I am God" means in that way: "Qualitatively, I am God." So we have to find out, meditation, "What is that quality?" That quality is the spirit soul, on account of whose presence the whole body is working. As soon as the spirit soul is absent from this body, this body has no more any value. That you have to understand. And what is that spirit soul? That you have to find out, where it is. Where is the spirit soul... Now, if you medically analyze where is the spirit soul, you cannot find out. But there, in the yoga process, there are different rules and regulations, sitting posture and then breathing exercise, controlling the air passing through this body. In that way, gradually you come to know what is that... Not only you come to know, but the perfection of yoga system is that you can practice to take the soul from six different position, from the navel position to the heart, then to the, it is called, what is called?

Lecture (Day after Lord Rama's Appearance Day) -- Los Angeles, April 16, 1970:

This song was sung by a great Vaiṣṇava poet, Jayadeva Gosvāmī. So the purport of this verse, Sanskrit verse, is keśava-dhṛta-buddha-śarīra. "My dear Kṛṣṇa"—Keśava means Kṛṣṇa—"You have assumed the form of Lord Buddha. And what is Your function? Nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam." In the Vedic literature there are numerous prescription of sacrifice. And in some of the sacrifices animal sacrifice is also recommended. So that animal sacrifice does not mean to kill the animal. Animal sacrifice means to prove the strength of Vedic hymns so that one old animal is put into the fire and he's given again a new life, renewed life, just to show the potency of the hymns, Vedic hymns. But in this age, Kali-yuga, those sacrifices are forbidden. So Lord Buddha, when he saw that people are sacrificing animals in the name of religious rituals without any pity for them, at that time Lord Buddha appeared. Therefore it is stated, sadaya-hṛdaya-darśita-paśu-ghātam: "My dear Lord, You have appeared as Lord Buddha, just being compassionate to the poor animals." Lord Buddha preached ahiṁsā paramo dharmaḥ: "The best religious principle is to become nonviolent." He preached this philosophy, that "If somebody hurts you, you feel pain, then why should you kill other animal and put it into painful condition? So don't do these sinful activities." That was his main principle of philosophy that he preached. He was Hindu, kṣatriya, Hindu prince, born in a kṣatriya family, and he was prince, a very luxurious life.

Speech at Olympia Theater -- Paris, June 26, 1971, (with translator):

Similarly, we living entities, being part and parcel of God, it is our duty to serve Him. Actually our position is that we are rendering service to somebody else. Every one of us who are sitting in this meeting must admit that he is giving service to somebody else. Somebody is rendering service to his family, somebody is rendering service to his country or to his society, or if one has nobody to serve, sometimes he keeps a pet like cats and dog and renders service unto it. All these factors prove that we want and we are constitutionally so made that we have to render service to somebody else. But in spite of our rendering service to the best capacity, we are not satisfied nor the persons to whom we are rendering service, they are satisfied. Therefore in spite of our rendering service to one another, every one of us are frustrated. The reason is that the service which we are rendering, that is not properly placed. The method is... Just like a tree. If you want to render service to a tree, you must water to the root. If you pour water on the leaves, branches and twigs, that is not properly served. If you pour water on the root, that is the way of serving the tree. Similarly, in your body, if you supply food to the stomach, the energy will be distributed. You need not give food separately to the different parts of your body. From this example we can understand that the supreme whole, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, if He is served, then all other parts and parcels and... Just like the limbs of the body are served automatically by supplying food to the stomach, similarly, by serving the Supreme Personality of Godhead everyone is served. Therefore all welfare activities, all service to the society, family, nature... (break)

Lecture -- Los Angeles, July 11, 1971 :

The past, present and future calculation is according to this body. That there are different calculation, it is scientifically proved—relativity, law of relativity. This world's past, present and future is different from the past, present, future of ordinary man. The ant's past, present and future is different from human being. So, this past, present and future is in relationship with this body. Actually, as we are eternal spirit soul, we have no past, present or future. Just like this child, he is playing. After a few years this age will be a past tense. Every one of us, we had also similar body, and that is now past tense. But I am this proprietor of the body. I remember that in such and such year I was a child like this, in such and such year I was a boy like this, in such and such year I was a young man like this. Therefore, "I" is eternal. I am eternal. This past and present and future is due to the change of body. Is it not a fact? I am the same, feeling; I am feelng same. The old man, an old man, he also remembers his enjoyments during his youthful time, and sometimes he wants to go back to those youthful days. An old man, when he meets his old friends, he talks about his youthful days. That means as spirit soul I am always youthful, but due to this condition of this body, I am feeling sometimes childish, sometimes old man, sometimes this or that.

Lecture -- Tokyo, April 29, 1972, (with interpreter):

That spiritual consciousness, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, is there in everyone's heart, dormant. It has simply to be awakened. Just like the European and American boys who have come to your country, four years ago they did not know what is Kṛṣṇa. So now they are dancing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Not that we have bribed them to dance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Their dormant Kṛṣṇa consciousness has been awakened. Similarly, this same Kṛṣṇa consciousness is there within your heart. It doesn't matter whether you are Indian or Japanese or European. Kṛṣṇa consciousness is there in everyone's heart. By this process it can be awakened. And as soon as it is awakened... It is practically proved. When you are here, you are dancing in ecstasy. That means it is being awakened. So simply by trying to understand, or simply by coming here and joining this chanting and dancing and taking little prasādam, gradually your consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, also will be awakened. So chanting, dancing, and taking prasādam are universal formula, and we have experienced everywhere in the world. In Europe, America, Australia, Africa, Canada, in Japan—everywhere it is being proved that simply by chanting, dancing, and taking prasādam, everyone is coming to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So there is a great need of awakening this Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over the world because people, being lost of this consciousness, are creating only problems of life. So I thank you very much for your coming here and taking part with this festival.

University Lecture -- Calcutta, January 29, 1973:

So that is lamentable. Now Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's mission is being spread all over the world, but our Indian brothers are not joining it, although it is the order of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Bhārata-bhūmite manuṣya janma haila yāra. He requested to the humankind who has taken birth in this land, in this puṇya-bhūmi, Bhāratavarṣa. Not to the cats and dogs, but to the human beings. That time has come now. If you want to prove that you are actually human being in this land, then you must take seriously the mission of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and spread all over the world. That is the order of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And it is not very difficult. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says,

āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra sarva deśa

yāre dekha tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa

(CC Madhya 7.128)

To become guru, or spiritual master, is not very difficult task. Simply you have to follow the order of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as he said. He accepted Kṛṣṇa: the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Ārādhyo bhagavān vrajeśa tanayoḥ. We have to simply preach that "You are searching after God, you great scientists, theologists, theosophists, mental speculators. You are searching after God, the Absolute Truth. Here is God, Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28).

Lecture -- London, August 26, 1973:

And then insects, reptiles, there are eleven hundred thousand varieties. Then there are one million varieties of birds. Pakṣiṇāṁ daśa-lakṣaṇam. Then beasts, three million. Three million varieties of animals, beasts, four-legged beasts, and then there are four hundred thousand forms of the human being, out of which the civilized men, they are taken into consideration. All other varieties, they are in the lower grade of life. They cannot understand Kṛṣṇa consciousness. It is not possible. It is in the human form of body when the consciousness is developed. In the tree also, there is consciousness. It is now scientifically proved. When you cut tree or take its leaves, it feels, and that is recorded in the machine. This machine was discovered by Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, a great physicist in Calcutta. So everyone has got consciousness, there is no doubt about it. But the developed consciousness is found in the human being. And the topmost development of consciousness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore we are appealing to the people in general all over the world that "Now you have got developed consciousness than the lower animals, birds, trees, beasts. Now you develop further so that you can awaken your original consciousness, which is called Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then your life is successful." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

Lecture at World Health Organization -- Geneva, June 6, 1974:

Prabhupāda: We are getting a better response from the Western countries than in India. In India, we see that the leaders, they do not like it. They are now opening beef shop, wine shop, and we are preaching "No intoxication, no meat-eating." So actually, we are not very favorable to their propaganda. (laughs) They don't like us, the leaders. Now there are big, big signboards. In Juhu we have got a center, and the government has opened beef shop, very big. And wine shop, you'll find everywhere. And we are preaching, "No intoxication, no meat-eating." So how they'll like us? That is the difficulty. "It is folly to be wise where ignorance is bliss." But still, we are struggling.

Guru-gaurāṅga: The value of this movement is that if we can prove on a small level, on a model level, that it works, then any scientific man... This is the empirical method. If it works on a small level, it shall work on a large level.

Guest (5) (Indian man): Yeah, like what?

Guru-gaurāṅga: Well, for example, Isaac Newton discovered gravity. That discovery was a universal discovery. It was an axiom. If it works here, it will work anywhere.

Guest (5): No. That I understand. But I mean in regard to your own work, can you give an example of something having worked that..., whatever you mean by work?

Lecture at World Health Organization -- Geneva, June 6, 1974:

Prabhupāda: Yes. In Virginia, it has proved very successful. We are getting eighty pounds of milk daily. And from that milk...

Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Eight hundred.

Prabhupāda: Eh? Eight hundred. Yes. Eight hundred, I am sorry. So that milk product is sufficient for give them nutritious food. We are preparing ghee. Just like in India, they utilize milk so nicely. And vegetables we are growing. They are making sweetmeats, sandeṣa, rasagullā. There is enough milk product. And ghee, luci, purī. They are satisfied. So that is the basic principle.

Guest (5): This is just an example of a successful corporative enterprise which is... But would you speak something new which has not been tried before?

Public Speech -- Bad Homburg, Germany, June 22, 1974:

The hint is given: "The something which is spread all over the body, that is eternal." And what is that something? That something is our consciousness. Here it is stated, avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tataḥ. In this body there is something. That is consciousness. That is eternal. Just like if you or I pinch my body, I feel pain because the consciousness is there. But when the consciousness will not be there, if I cut my hand or cut your hand, you will not protest. Even scientists have proved this consciousness is there in the tree also. If you cut the tree, there is sensation, feelings of pain, and that is recorded in the machine. So here it is hinted that this consciousness is spread all over the body. That is eternal. The body is not eternal. As soon as the consciousness is gone, the body is dead. Therefore we should take care of the thing which is consciousness. That is the soul. On account of presence of the soul, there is consciousness. So Kṛṣṇa further says in this connection, antavanta ime dehā nityasyoktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ (BG 2.18). This body—deha means body—antavat, it is perishable. Nityasya uktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ. But the thing which is covered by this material body, that is eternal. So that consciousness of the rays of the soul is described here: na jāyate mriyate vā kadācit. This consciousness, or the soul, is never born, neither it is ever dead. Nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ. The soul and the consciousness has no past, present or future. It is eternal. Ajo. Ajaḥ means who does not take birth. Ajo nitya, eternal.

Speech -- Vrndavana, April 27, 1975:

I could have spoken in Hindi, but with the permission of Śrīpāda Nṛsiṁha-vallabha Gosvāmī, because most of my students here present, they could not understand the Hindi speaking, so it is my duty to inform them the substance of his speech in English so that you can appreciate how much he has eulogized our movement. You haven't got to be disappointed because some of the envious person, they are not accepting you as Vaiṣṇava. Śrīpāda Nṛsiṁha-vallabha Gosvāmī, quoting from many authorized scriptures, he has proved that in the matter of engaging oneself in the devotional service, there is no check, there is no impediment. That is confirmed in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: ahaituky apratihatā. That he has very nicely explained, quoting many authoritative statement from scriptures. And another thing... It is a fact that nobody can check Kṛṣṇa-bhakti. It is transcendental; it is not material. Unless one acts on the platform of spiritual activities, one cannot understand why bhakti is apratihatā. Pratihatā means checked by impediments. So that is for material things. Just like a living being, a soul, he is checked by this material body. Otherwise a living being can go anywhere, sarva-gaḥ. The spirit soul is free to move anywhere, but because we are now covered by the material body, we are checked. But devotional service is on the transcendental platform; it cannot be checked. Therefore in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is explained, ahaituky apratihatā yenātmā samprasīdati.

City Hall Lecture -- Durban, October 7, 1975:

Prabhupāda: That I have already explained. We have to accept the Vedic evidence. So the Vedic evidence establishes kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Otherwise you have no opportunity to understand what is God. Then, if you don't accept Kṛṣṇa as God, then present somebody else who is God and whether he is satisfying the definition of God. So considering the Vedic evidences, authorities, we have to accept Kṛṣṇa as God. And when He was present on this planet, He proved that He is God. Then we have no other alternative than to accept Kṛṣṇa as God.

Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Any other questions? Yes.

Indian man (4): With the present state of the world as it is—it seems to be in a pretty mess—what would you say we are actually advancing spiritually?

Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: "With the present state of the world, in the present mess that it's in today, would you say that we are advancing spiritually?"

Prabhupāda: No. Practically, the present state of the world means without any spiritual knowledge. We are blind; therefore it is very dangerous position. The spiritual knowledge we must have; otherwise we are doomed.

Lecture Excerpt -- Vrndavana, December 6, 1975:

What kind of sannyāsī You are?"—this question was put by Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī to Caitanya Mahāprabhu-Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, "My dear sir, I am a great fool." Guru more mūrkha dekhi karila śāsana: (CC Adi 7.71) "My guru saw Me a great fool number one; therefore he has chastised Me." What is that? That " 'You cannot read Vedānta. You chant Hare Kṛṣṇa.' So my Guru Mahārāja has ordered Me like that. But by chanting only, I get ecstasy, I realize, like that." So the idea is Caitanya Mahāprabhu was not a mūrkha, fool. He is God Himself. And besides that, even in His līlā, pastimes as human being, He was a great learned scholar. His name was Nimāi Paṇḍita. He was not ordinary. He's paṇḍita. His education is proved when He explained ātmārāma śloka in sixty-four ways.

General Lecture -- (location & date unknown):

So when Kṛṣṇa was personally present on this planet... You know. Those who have read Kṛṣṇa literature, I think most of you know Bhagavad-gītā, such a nice philosophical presentation. Oh, there is no comparison in the world. That's a fact. Everyone—it doesn't matter if he is a scholar or if he is a serious student of religious principle or philosophy—he studies Bhagavad-gītā very seriously, in all countries. There are many varied editions of Bhagavad-gītā, and actually, the instruction is so high that it cannot be instructed by anyone else except the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Besides that, Kṛṣṇa proved Himself from His very childhood. When He was a small child on the lap of His mother, beginning from that, up to the time of His disappearance from this world, oh, He played everything just like God. There is no comparison. He... Those who have read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, they are acquainted with the activities of Kṛṣṇa. I am speaking this for people who are outside the scope of Vedic religion. Those who are in the Vedic religion, all of them, they accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no doubt about it. So far our Vedic religion is concerned, the propounder of the Vedic religions in India still existing, still continuing, the ācāryas, just like Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka, these ācāryas...

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: So any mathematical calculation is like that. Why this example? Mathematical means this: Two plus two equals four. That is always the truth.

Śyāmasundara: He is trying to prove that there are certain truths that we cannot deny they exist independent of our knowledge. Fundamental. And there are other truths that people say, like snow is white, which may not be true because our senses deceive us.

Prabhupāda: That is your defective senses. But snow is white, that's a fact. Why should it be red? At least we have no experience with red snow.

Śyāmasundara: I've seen red snow.

Prabhupāda: How it is?

Śyāmasundara: Particles of lava dust gathered in the snow and in the air...

Prabhupāda: That is not pure snow. That is another thing. Pure snow is white. Just like water. Water, by nature, it is crystal. But when it comes in touch with the earth, it becomes muddy. So that muddiness is due to contact with something external. Snow is white by nature, but in contact with something else it looks red. But the truth that snow is white, that is truth. Not that snow becoming red... You are making, or by some other contact it is looking like that. But snow is white, that's a truth.

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: It's impossible to conceive of the opposite of that truth. So that is what he would call logically necessary proof, proved by the law of contradiction.

Prabhupāda: My point is that he says that there are two types of truth. No. There cannot be two types of truth. That is my protest. I say there is only one truth. When you think two types of truth, then you are mistaken. Then same thing: when you think that two plus two equals five, then you are mistaken. Two plus two is always four. That is truth. Similarly, snow is white always. That is truth. When you think it is red, it is untruth. But you cannot say it is another type of truth. Mistake cannot be accepted as another type of truth. Mistake is mistake.

Śyāmasundara: I think he says the same things, but the language is different.

Prabhupāda: There are two types of truth—what is that language? One truth is real truth, another truth is shadow truth. It is not truth, it is shadow. That is the exact language. The same example we can give: you see your face in the mirror as exactly the same, but it is shadow; therefore it is untruth. You cannot say that this reflection of your face on the mirror is another type of truth. Can you say like that? You cannot say that.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: Today we are discussing philosopher David Hume. He is probably the most famous of the British philosophers. He was very skeptical about achieving certain knowledge, so he came to the conclusion that the only knowledge we can possess is a mere sequence of ideas, none of which can be proved to be true. In other words, we can only derive any knowledge from our senses, but even that knowledge is mere assumption.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We say also, because our senses are imperfect, so there is no possibility of achieving perfect knowledge by sense exercise. It is not possible. That is our philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: He says there is no other source of knowledge except the senses.

Prabhupāda: No. We don't agree. Therefore it is called avāṅ-manasā gocaraḥ, adhokṣaja—there are so many names. The senses are imperfect. They cannot reach. Just like we cannot know what is there in the sun, but a geologist or astronomer, he can say, one who has studied. Therefore our process of knowledge is to take from the authorities. That is perfect. Our senses cannot read, that is a fact. But it is not that without senses, no knowledge can be... No. We receive by senses, but from superior authority, one who knows. That is perfect knowledge. According to him, there is no possibility of having perfect knowledge?

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Śyāmasundara: We'll discuss that in a minute or two. But he divided human understanding into two classes. The first class is the relationship among ideas, just as mathematical compositions, they are true and certain, whether or not the things they refer to exist in nature. Just like two plus two equals four. This is a relationship among ideas. And the second-relationship among facts. He says that these cannot be proved by reasoning. They are merely assumed on the basis of sense experience. For example, that sun will rise tomorrow. This is a relationship among facts. But it is merely an assumption based upon our sense experience, but it's possible to imagine that the world will end or the sun may not rise. So it's only an assumption that the sun will rise. So this world of facts that we see, we can only assume that they will act in certain ways. There is probability, but there is no certainty.

Prabhupāda: That is already discussed: why it is so, probability, who takes it, who makes it not possible, how it happens. Sun is rising, and sun may not rise, stop. How it is? Accidentally or by somebody's will?

Śyāmasundara: He would say that it's accidental.

Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. Nothing is accidental. Everything is symmetrical. Therefore, we have to admit that supreme direction, and that is Kṛṣṇa, as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: "Under My direction everything is going on." The sun is rising on His direction, and when He orders, the sun will not rise. But it is not accidental.

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: These are notations on David Hume. Abstract objects, relations, space, matter and time are all considered by Hume to be mind-dependent perceptions. In other words, perceptions are all there is. He rejects revealed religion, that is, the religion of the śāstras, and embraces natural religion, that is, a religion wherein the existence of God can be proved or even shown to be probable by argument and reason. According to Hume we really know nothing of God, for at the most we can only know are peoples' ideas of God, and these are but perceptions. It would thus seem that it is impossible to know God according to Hume's natural religion because the senses are admittedly imperfect, and these are the only instruments of certainty Hume admits in his natural religion.

Prabhupāda: What is that natural religion?

Hayagrīva: Well, he says the self is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement. So he says there's nothing but perception. He rejects revealed scriptures as such, but he says, "The heavens and the earth join in the same testimony. The whole course of nature raises one hymn to the praises of its creator. I have found a Deity and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go further who are wiser or more enterprising."

Prabhupāda: First point is that our senses are imperfect. That is admitted. And God is perception. But whether he believes actually in the existence of God?

Philosophy Discussion on David Hume:

Hayagrīva: He says, "All the new discoveries in astronomy which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of nature are so many additional arguments for a Deity according to the true system of theism," that is his natural, what he calls natural religion. In this way Hume rejects the necessity or desirability of miracles as well as the conception of a God transcendental to his creation. He says it's not the being of God that is in question but God's nature. This nature cannot be ascertained through study of the universe itself. However, if the universe can only be studied by imperfect senses, what is the value of our conclusion? How can we ever come to know the nature of God?

Prabhupāda: Nature of God, it can be explained by God Himself. That is our Vedic process. We know who is God, and He explains, "My nature is this." Just like He says, "I am the greatest principle," mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). "There is no more higher principle than Me." This is fact. If something is greater than God, then how one can become God? That is not possible. So greatest means He is great in everything. He is great in richness, He is great in reputation, He is great in influence, He is great in bodily power, He is great in beauty and He is great in renunciation. If we can find out somebody that He tallies with this greatness, then He is God. So that we find in Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, and what He says in the Bhagavad-gītā we accept as fact. And if we analyze His statements intelligently, pruriently, then we will find that what Kṛṣṇa says, that is fact.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Śyāmasundara: How is it that someone else could apply their material reason and come to a different conclusion?

Prabhupāda: What is that reason? How can he prove? He must have proved by his experience. Thus his experience proving that things are... The man who is talking of this nonsense can he prove that he is born without his father? How is that? How his existing is there? How his material body came into existence? It was caused by his father. Then how can he deny the cause? His very existence is depending upon some cause.

Śyāmasundara: So according to one point of view, Hume's point of view, cause and effect are not necessarily related, that they are habitually connected.

Prabhupāda: The scientist, he'll say that the father begets the child. Why it is not related? It is simply lunacy not to believe this. Where is the instance that without father some child has taken birth? Where is such instance? He himself is talking such nonsense. He is born by his father. The cause is his father. Similarly, his father is also the effect of his father. Therefore there is supreme father, father of this cosmic manifestation. How you can deny it? That is the defect of the speculators: they contradict themselves.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: That we get from Bhāgavata. Because this material space is also ākāśa, it is born of the finer subtle mind and intelligence. In the Bhāgavata the description is there. Space is also the creation.

Śyāmasundara: So this Hume has said that cause and effect are habitual assumptions, that we can naturally assume that a certain effect follows a certain cause. But it is not necessary that the cause makes the effect.

Prabhupāda: No. We disagree with that. Without cause there cannot be any effect. Let him prove that this is..., there is an existence without any cause. Then he can say like that.

Śyāmasundara: Hume's example is if we find a footprint on the beach, normally we can assume that a human being left it...

Prabhupāda: That is a fact. Why normally? That is factually.

Śyāmasundara: Still, it remains a probability.

Prabhupāda: Why probability?

Śyāmasundara: It is possible that something else left the footprint.

Prabhupāda: How is it possible?

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: No. Unless there is a brain... Matter has no brain. Matter cannot combine together without a brain behind. That brain is the Supreme Lord, God. That is quite reasonable. And if somebody thinks matter automatically combines together and becomes the sun, becomes the moon, so bright, without any brain behind it—that is ludicrous.

Hayagrīva: Well, he sees the design in nature, but he says the design only suggests a designer; it doesn't prove the existence of the...

Prabhupāda: No. As soon as there is earthen pot, immediately the potter is understood, and that is a fact. We cannot say that it is simply understanding that there is potter, but there is no potter. That is foolishness. Without potter, the pot is never manufactured, so as soon as you see the pot, you can immediately understand that some potter has made it. That is logic. That is philosophy.

Hayagrīva: He says because suffering and calamities overwhelm man in nature, it is impossible for man to see nature's final end.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Actually modern scientists try to prove that life itself started from four basic chemical elements. They are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. These four basic elements are necessary for making all the by-processes. Somehow they say that it is made and they don't know who made it.

Prabhupāda: Therefore their knowledge is imperfect. As soon as you say chemical, chemical we have got experience, it is manufactured. Some by big company, they manufacture chemicals, so basic principle is chemicals, who made the chemicals? That question must be there.

Śyāmasundara: Jus t like a hundred years ago we did not know about the existence of uranium, so isn't it possible...

Prabhupāda: You did not know but you don't know who was there. You did not know. Then three hundred years ago that governments did not know there is a land. But it was there.

Śyāmasundara: But isn't it possible that some day we may be able to discover the source of all these chemicals.

Prabhupāda: No, no, it is... There is no question of discovering. There is already, it is known. It is not known to you. We know. It is not known to you, but it is known to us. And the Vedānta says, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), the original source of everything: Brahman. We know it. Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8): "I am the origin of everything." So we know that there is a big brain who is doing everything, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ (BG 9.10). So we know. Darwin may not know. That is his foolishness.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: In the ground? That means that in the ground is the only evidence? There is no other evidence?

Karandhara: Scientists think that the only way to maintain integrity is not to accept anything until they can see it or understand it with their own senses and mind, by material evidence. That is their whole platform of empiric research, that nothing can be accepted until it's proven by their own sensuous experience.

Prabhupāda: But they cannot prove that there was no human being wherefrom they are starting their study. They cannot prove.

Śyāmasundara: It appears from the evidence that there are apelike men in certain layers of...

Prabhupāda: The apelike man or manlike ape is already existing. If you say development, just like from this, it has developed this, then there should be no existence of this. Kārya-kāraṇam. That's all. Now when I see still both are existing...

Śyāmasundara: The former doesn't exist any more.

Prabhupāda: No, no, no. If from monkey, man is coming, so then when monkey develops into man, the monkey should not exist. Kārya-kāraṇam, kārya-kāraṇam, cause and effect. When the effect is there, the cause is finished now.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: But what about cities and tools, these things? There must be some evidence. In the lowest layer there are clam shells that have become fossilized. In the lower levels millions of years back they find clam shells.

Karandhara: They say it's been millions of years, but how do they prove it's been millions of years?

Śyāmasundara: Through radioactivity.

Karandhara: But that is an imperfect method, devised by imperfect senses.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: It is limited. It is limited. It is very hard to find about five thousand or six thousand years back.

Karandhara: They don't even agree amongst each other about what the age of things are.

Śyāmasundara: Just like if you go down a hundred feet below the soil, that soil has been down there a long time. But there is no evidences of men, actually civilized creatures.

Prabhupāda: Why he is trying to find out men's bones there? What is the...

Śyāmasundara: I'm just saying that it appears, because layer after layer is deposited in the earth's crust, that the animal forms are evolving toward more complex forms, from simple animals to bigger animals, and then more complex, then to the man, civilized man.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes. The, normally, what they call the age determination, or how old a species is, they normally find out from this so-called (indistinct). They find some bone or something which contains normally carbonate. And normally they get this age of the elements or age of these findings by so-called Carbon 14 method. Carbon 14 is an isotope of normal carbon, it is called Carbon 12. Carbon 14 is radioactive. It's one in which they put in the radioactive testing, and they find out because it follows the normal chemical laws or physical laws. This is governed by the Lord Himself, by Kṛṣṇa Himself. They're finding the chemical lowest form, and from that chemical lowest they normally try to reduce the, how old the sample is, and that method is very limited, it is not applicable to all findings also, and a test, a very reliable test (indistinct) to about five thousand, six thousand years old but beyond that it is very doubtful whether the findings are really true or not. (break) It is empiric so we cannot fully convince that such-and-such species lives such-and-such long just from that finding. You need more evidence to prove it (indistinct) was existing and it disappeared from such-and-such time but it gives a relative value from so-called modern scientific point of view.

Prabhupāda: But evolution we accept. Evolution we accept but it is not that there was no existence of human being. That we do not accept. Evolution we accept. Just like my childhood manifestation is extinct but there are many other child. Same time. So our point is all the species of life, they are existing simultaneously. Evolution there is, we accept that but it is not that one is missing, one has gone away, and another is come, ten million, thirty millions there was no human being. This is all nonsense. He cannot find in the layer, that is not evidence.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Svarūpa Dāmodara: That's what the modern scientists are doing. They're trying to make life in a test tube. What they are trying to do, these so-called biochemists, at the present time, their goal is to make life in a test tube. So what they do is they are going to put so-called big molecules—they say DNA, dioxynucleic acid. This molecule is a necessary molecule for..., it's a lively thing. So they're going to make certain combinations of these molecules and put in the test tube and find out whether there is life coming out from the test tube, and then trying to prove how life was formed. But it's such a foolish idea that they will never be able to make the...

Prabhupāda: They are a set of fools. And going on under the name of scientists. Set of fools.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: On the other hand, the so-called physicist... His name was Heisenberg. He produced the concept of the theory of uncertainty, and he found out that certain physical rules that govern certain parts of the so-called universal system of rules—why the planets are moving around the sun, and why they have a repeated course and so on. But he did not know what was the answer. So he named the title of the theory, the Theory of Uncertainty. Based on that, there are so many groups coming up, but they found uncertainty itself, that implies that there is some...

Prabhupāda: Basic principle is uncertainty, and they're building on big, big buildings.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: That missing link, let them learn from us. We can give him the missing link.

Karandhara: But ultimately they'll say it'll come down to we propose that Kṛṣṇa is the creator or that God is the creator, then they'll say "That must be proved to me." In other words, they want to fit God within their own empiric gaze. That will be their only satisfaction when they actually become able to circumvent God's existence and create a power by their own intelligence.

Prabhupāda: He has to admit that the theory of uncertainty is bogus, but everything is there, and that masking behind all these things there must be big brain. That one has to accept. Simply uncertainty, that is not a science. The certainty is that behind all these things there is a big brain. I do not know Him—that is a different thing—but there is a big brain.

Śyāmasundara: Darwin, he was not so much interested in those questions of origin and those things, but he was a botanist and a biologist, and he simply wanted to investigate how things evolved from one simple form to a more complex form...

Prabhupāda: That he cannot say, how the evolved. He captured something out of his imagination, but he cannot explain scientifically.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yes. That they prove by so-called... That's why the cancer... The example of that mutation is the cancer cell. They try to find out how cancer is caused in the body. They say that somehow the cell has been changed, and they say that it has been done by mutation, so they try to prove it in the laboratory by changing the structure of the cell, and that is called mutation. So they say why the cancer is formed because cancer is an abnormal cell, this is a normal cell. In answering why these elements are formed from these basic four chemicals-carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen—they try, they say that somehow this nitrogen and hydrogen, they combine forming ammonia. That is called ammonia, from nitrogen and hydrogen. They say somehow this has formed, and somehow, by combination of hydrogen and oxygen, water is formed. And somehow by combination of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, these so-called carbohydrates, or these are formed. But they say somehow these are formed, but they do not know how it is formed.

Śyāmasundara: But all that Darwin is interested in is in the evolution of species: how one type of body evolves to the other type due to the changing conditions, and that because he has evolved a certain body he is best adapted to survive in that condition so that his species survives. So the scientists have shown that by bombarding the cosmic radiation or radioactive elements, that a gene or cell can change, mutate, so a different kind of animal comes out. From one kind of mother a different kind of animal comes out.

Prabhupāda: But we say that different kind of animal is not beyond these 8,400,000 species.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: Yes. During Rāmacandra's time there were chariots. Everything was there.

Karandhara: They have found pieces of chariots and pieces of cities.

Śyāmasundara: Not millions of years ago.

Karandhara: How do they know it's not millions of years ago? What is their test for proving?

Prabhupāda: That millions, that is also bogus. You see? In the human history there is no history more than three thousand years. They are talking of millions of years. Why?

Śyāmasundara: You are a scientist. What other ways do they date geological findings? How do they date them?

Svarūpa Dāmodara: Now it is Carbon 14 is the most reliable technique.

Śyāmasundara: Before they discovered that, how did they do it? They knew the Pleistocene, the Iocene, all these different ages. How did they date them?

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: If I'm a Darwinist; I'm still not convinced. Because you still haven't proven to me that the layers of earth that are far, far below are not millions of years old. You say that they may be newly formed, but...

Karandhara: They haven't proven that they are millions of years old.

Śyāmasundara: Well, I'm not a geologist...

Prabhupāda: My charge is that you cannot give history of human society more than three thousand years; how you speak of millions of years? That is my charge.

Śyāmasundara: Written history...

Prabhupāda: No. Suppose a child says that "Millions of years ago it happened like this," but I will say (to) the child, "You were born three years ago. How you speak of millions of years?" That is my charge.

Śyāmasundara: I don't know how geologists date earth layers...

Prabhupāda: They bluff everything.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: They are better than us, than human being?

Atreya Ṛṣi: What the theory is Prabhupāda is that, for example, if there are many, many swans living in one place, those who cannot adjust will be extinct after many, many years, and those who can adjust will live. In effect, what he tried to prove was that Kṛṣṇa's law, nature's law, is perfect. But he was missing Kṛṣṇa. In other words, what the proof is very scientific, but it is lacking.

Prabhupāda: Yes. He is adding zero, without one.

Atreya Ṛṣi: That's right, Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: Therefore the value remains zero. He couldn't find the one, so that the value of the zeroes at once increases.

Atreya Ṛṣi: But there are some great scientists like Newton who studied many, many, many years and made many, many theories and then they gave it up when they realized that they couldn't go further. Newton, at a very early age, like forty-three I think, went to a monastery.

Śyāmasundara: We discussed Newton's philosophy.

Prabhupāda: Sir Isaac Newton?

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: Again "in future."

Śyāmasundara: I have that article, I want to read it and study it first. I wasn't prepared for today.

Prabhupāda: The future... Any fool can say "In future I shall prove." Then what is the difference between scientists and the fool? "Trust no future, however pleasant."

Śyāmasundara: But Darwin is the one who introduced this whole concept that we are evolving towards something better.

Prabhupāda: That we accept. That we accept. Just like we are now in human form of life. Now we can go, can make our position better. Either we go in so many higher planetary systems or we go to Vaikuṇṭha.

Śyāmasundara: In terms of species actually living on this planet, he thinks that we have come up from apes, now we may go up to higher forms of men or species.

Prabhupāda: That is already... The apes are already there. You are also there.

Karandhara: Their idea is that if they can sufficiently understand this process of evolution and know its principles then they can control it, they can manipulate it to their own ends.

Prabhupāda: There is information.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: The Western philosophers and historians, in order to support Darwin's theory of anthropology, has never agreed to accept that the Vedic literatures written long, long years ago, but these less intelligent philosophers and theologists, their theory has been also dismantled by the discovery of this Ajanta Cave. From that cave it was very, very intelligent; as they are excavating other part, simply studying the bones. But there is other side also, this is also excavation; and it can be proved that very intelligent persons were there.

Śyāmasundara: I read about a column near Delhi that they found, made of some metal, that has been there for many, many thousands of years.

Prabhupāda: Many such things have been discovered, and besides that, they are searching after dead bones, and we are searching after living brains. So which should we consider better? Now this Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, it was written at least eight hundred, five thousands of years ago.

Śyāmasundara: Eight hundred times five thousand?

Prabhupāda: No. Eight hundred thousand and five thousand.

Śyāmasundara: 850,000 years.

Prabhupāda: Eight hundred thousands of years and five thousands of years.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: Now what is there? Finished. (break) ...fact. It is known to the Vedic culture millions of years ago. (indistinct) I was reading, aśitiṁ caturaś caiva, this is Brahmā-vaivarta Purāṇa and this Brahmā-vaivarta Purāṇa was written by Vyāsadeva five thousand years ago. And it was known long, long years ago. It was written in the Purāṇas, but it was coming by tradition long, long ago. So (indistinct). He has stolen this theory, this idea, from Brahmā-vaivarta Purāṇa, and he has tried to prove it in a different way. Otherwise this evolutionary theory is already there.

aśitiṁ caturaś caiva

lakṣāṁs tāñ jīva-jātiṣu

bhramadbhiḥ (puruṣaiḥ prāpyaṁ

mānuṣyaṁ janma-paryayāt)

Śyāmasundara: But Darwin doesn't have any conception of the jīva.

Prabhupāda: He's a nonsense. That's all.

Śyāmasundara: He sees only the bodies are changing.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Prabhupāda: We have already proved that all his methods are defective.

Śyāmasundara: He says there are five ways. All knowledge, he says, is cause and effect. So he said we can determine what is the cause and what is the effect of anything according to these five methods. One is the method of agreement, that is, if we have two or more instances of a phenomenon and there is one common circumstance behind both of them, that we can conclude that that circumstance is the cause of the effect. Just like if we observe that two stones are thrown into the water, and that each stone is thrown by someone, then we can determine that throwing is the common cause of that stone's going into the water, the common circumstance.

Prabhupāda: Why this example? What is the value of this example?

Śyāmasundara: Any example. Anything that is caused, if there are two instances of it-two balls are dropping—we can conclude, if we studied both of them, that they were both moved by some person, that that person is the cause of their falling. If there is a common circumstance for any phenomenon.

Prabhupāda: Any phenomenon that has natural law, so that is the cause. And if we go on, so what is the cause of that natural law? Then ultimately we find Kṛṣṇa. Everything, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), everything has got a cause, original source. So if you make actually research work what is the cause of this, what is the cause of this, that is called darśana. Darśana means seeing, finding out the cause. Therefore philosophy is called darśana-śāstra, to see the cause of the cause, cause of the cause, cause of the cause. So ultimately they have found Kṛṣṇa is the cause, original cause of everything.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: If we see a phenomenon like the rain falling or anything, and we want to apply the test that will prove that God is the cause of that phenomenon, what test do we apply?

Prabhupāda: The śāstras, the Vedic literature is there, the Upaniṣads are there, books are there, śāstra cakṣuṣa. You have to see it through the śāstras. That is the injunction. You cannot see directly. You have to see śāstra cakṣuṣa. Your eyes, they are defective. Just like if you read astrology, astronomy, then you can understand what is the actual volume or the bulk of the sun, but by your eyes you are seeing just a disc. So all your senses are defective. So directly seeing or perceiving or tasting has no value, because these are all defective. So we have to, it is said, you should see through śāstras, through authoritative instruction.

Śyāmasundara: So if we see the apple fall from the tree, the test that we apply is the sastric test. In order to see God in that act of falling, we have to see it through the eyes of the śāstras.

Prabhupāda: Now what do the scientists say—the law of gravity.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. The fruit became ripe, the stem...

Prabhupāda: The law of gravity, why was it not applying..., why did it not fall before?

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Prabhupāda: That means both of them are not practical. It will be proved in due course of time.

Śyāmasundara: He says that terms such as "God" and "matter" and "absolute" and terms like that must have cash value or practical worth. He says, "You must bring out of each work its practical cash value."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement daily brings cash value without any business, without any labor. What do you think?

Viśāla: Yes.

Prabhupāda: Viśāla knows very well.

Śyāmasundara: So when we use the word "God," it has cash value?

Prabhupāda: Cash value. We are going to everyone, we are simply showing some book and taking (indistinct). You can say, somebody may say, you are giving books worth $200 and taking $1,100...

Śyāmasundara: I think this may be one reason why Kṛṣṇa consciousness is thriving in America, because this is a typically American idea, that everything must have a cash value or it is useless.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Prabhupāda: Yes. But that does not prove the fact. Different men have got different ideas of peace, that does not mean that is peace. Peace is a different thing. Peace is that which applies to everyone. That is peace. Not that because I think by drinking I shall be peaceful, therefore drinking is peace. No. And somebody thinks, "By doing this thing, I'll feel peaceful." No. There must be a standard of peace which will be applicable to everyone. That is real peace. We are talking of that peace.

Śyāmasundara: He sees that there are two basic or fundamental philosophical temperaments. The one he calls tendermindedness, which is exemplified by the rationalist, the idealist, the optimist, the religionist, and the dogmatist; and toughmindedness, or the empiricist, the materialist, the pessimist, the irreligious, the fatalist and the skeptic. He says that philosophers are of two types: tender minded and tough minded.

Prabhupāda: So this depends upon one's education. If one is educated, in one way he may become tender, and another man, if he is educated in a different way, he may be hard. But our proposition is that originally the soul is good. This tenderness and hardness, they are developed later on. But they are not standard. When you come to the platform of soul, there everything is good. In that platform, either tenderness or hardness, both of them are in the absolute. So our philosophy is that, as we understand from Bhagavad-gītā, that every living entity is part and parcel of God. So God is good, pavitra. Just like Arjuna accepts, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitram (BG 10.12). Pavitra means pure. But because we are part and parcel of God, therefore we are pure. The impurities are acquired by our contamination with this material world. So either you become tender or hard—that is impurity of this material world. So we don't give any credit to any person, either he is tender or hard.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Prabhupāda: That will never happen. The so-called unity of man by the imaginative process of so-called intelligent philosopher, it has never become possible, neither it will become possible, because every man has got little independence. So unless they are controlled, they will assert their independence, and by this imaginative process they cannot be united. That is another insanity. History has never proved this in the past, and it is not going on in the present, so naturally in the future it will not be possible. That is sane man's conclusion.

Hayagrīva: You..., when you discussed Dewey with Śyāmasundara Prabhu, you said that Dewey wants to make God his scapegoat—why does he mention the word God, and he uses the word God to serve his own ends. His philosophic conception is the working union of the ideal and the actual. This is rather vague, but this is his definition of God: Man striving for perfection.

Prabhupāda: He can define, but he must be a very, what is called, sane man to define. The sane man's definition of God is there. Just like everyone says, "God is great." So now if he can define what is the greatness... The greatness, if one man is very rich, we consider him great man. If a man is very wise we call him a great man. If a man is very strong or influential or beautiful... Greatness according to our estimation. So all this greatness must be there in God. God must be the richest, God must be the strongest, God must be the most beautiful, God must be wisest. In this way, six opulences calculated, and when these opulences are in completeness, that is God. So that completeness we find in the history Kṛṣṇa. In the history of humanity it is very easy to find out that when Kṛṣṇa was present on this planet, so He proved the strongest, the most influential, the most beautiful, the supreme wise—everything—supreme famous. Kṛṣṇa's fame, fame is still going on. Kṛṣṇa's knowledge, stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, is still being studied all over the world.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Prabhupāda: In the history we find that Kṛṣṇa went within the sea. Within the sea. Kṛṣṇa penetrated the universe. He is God. God can do that. We have no conception of God, and when God comes and shows His godly power, we take it as mythology. Then what, how God will be proved? When you see Him doing uncommon activities, you say it is mythology; and he does not see, he will say there is no God. This is your position. So this is not sanity. It is all insanity. Let them talk all this nonsense. We do not accept that.

Hayagrīva: He says in the realm of philosophy and religion, certainty is impossible. He says, "The moment philosophy supposes it can find a final and comprehensive solution, it ceases to be inquiry and becomes either apologetics or propaganda. Any philosophy that in its quest for certainty ignores the reality of the uncertain in the ongoing processes of nature denies the conditions out of which it arises."

Prabhupāda: There is uncertain when you do not accept the reality. The reality is God, and God is explaining how things are going on, but you take it as mythology. Then how you will know?

Hayagrīva: No way.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: That is another nonsense. That is another nonsense. Truth is true. Not that... I cannot fashion truth. This statement is nonsense. Truth is true. Fire is hot. That is true. If I imagine that fire is cold, is that philosophy? He does not prove. He does not know what is truth. One who does not know what is truth, therefore they imagine or manufacture truth. Just like Vivekananda, yata mata, Ramakrishna, yata mata tata patha, "You can manufacture your truth." That is going on. That is going on. The hippies, they are manufacturing their truth. So truth cannot be manufactured. Truth is truth. That is called absolute truth. Not relative truth, absolute truth. You can manufacture relative truth, but absolute truth is one: tattvaṁ phalaṁ yena (?), just like Bhāgavata says. Who is meditated upon? Who is worshiped? The Absolute Truth. So they have no knowledge of the absolute.

Śyāmasundara: Their idea is that...

Prabhupāda: All they know is the relative truth.

Śyāmasundara: Their idea is that passion, (indistinct) passion is truth.

Devotee: Sense activity. If my impulse is passionate nature.

Prabhupāda: But passion is working differently. Unless... Passion is all right, activity, but if you do not know the goal, then you are misled.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

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.

Śyāmasundara: In order for that statement or that proposition to be true, there must be evidence.

Prabhupāda: This is evidence: that there is no soul. The self, the individual soul, is now departed; therefore this body is lump of matter. This is evidence. And because the soul is there, therefore the body changes or develops. Just like if a child is born dead, then the body does not develop or changes. It remains in the same condition. But so long the soul is there, the child grows or changes his body. That is evidence. Because the soul is there, therefore the child is growing or changing body from childhood to boyhood, boyhood to youth. Suppose a child is born, doctor says it is dead child. You say something is wanted, but what is that something? You do not know. Otherwise, if you know, you add it. What is that something?

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Prabhupāda: The senses, it is also senses. I am taking it as waterpot, that is I am taking it by my senses. But the shape of the waterpot is temporary.

Śyāmasundara: That can be proven.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So whatever there is in this world, even this house, this big house, this is also temporary.

Śyāmasundara: But what about a principle, like "Two plus two equals four"?

Prabhupāda: Principle is truth, but the manifestation is temporary. Principle... Just like earth. Just like we hear from Bhagavad-gītā, bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca: (BG 7.4) "This earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, ego, they are My separated energies." And because it is Kṛṣṇa's energy, and Kṛṣṇa is true, therefore that energy is true. But this interaction of the energy, manifestation of different things out of that energy, that is temporary. Therefore it is called material energy or external energy, temporary manifestation.

Śyāmasundara: What about the proposition that "Two plus two equals four"?

Prabhupāda: That is also temporary.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Prabhupāda: This is demonstration. Demonstration, this is demonstration, that as soon as I go, actually I go (indistinct). That is demonstration. What do you want more demonstration?

Śyāmasundara: He says we have to know what conditions are required to show that it is true and then satisfy those conditions. So one condition you say is that as soon as the body dies, then there is no more movement. But what is there to prove that the soul has left the body or that there was ever a soul in the body?

Prabhupāda: That is the proof. Because the soul takes shelter into the womb of the mother, the father injects the soul—that is the statement of the śāstras—in the womb of the mother, and the mother gives shelter. So the body develops from the womb of the mother. There is conception, pregnancy. That is the proof.

Śyāmasundara: Ultimately there is nothing to measure, when the body dies, to determine where that soul went.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That you can measure by knowledge. Just like Bhagavad-gītā has said, ūrdhvaṁ gacchanti sattva-sthā (BG 14.18). Just like a man has committed murder, killed somebody. He is arrested, he is taken away from your sight, but you can know that he has committed murder, he will be hanged. That's all. You do not require to go there and see that he is hanged. It doesn't require. That is foolishness. If somebody says that "I did not see that the man was arrested," that's all right, but "I did not see that he was hanged. I cannot believe it," no. You believe or not believe, it is a fact.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Prabhupāda: But why does he believe of his eyes so much? Why does he not accept that his eyes are so imperfect that he cannot see the soul?

Śyāmasundara: Either directly or indirectly he says that we have to be able to prove...

Prabhupāda: No. The same example, just like a man has committed murder and he is arrested and taken away. So others, they know that this man will be hanged. And one was, "Oh, I have not seen, so how he is hanged?" But that is foolishness. The state law says that if a man has committed murder he will be hanged. So you have to see through the law, not with your eyes. The nonsense eyes, what can they see? So see through knowledge, through books.

Śyāmasundara: So our ultimate verification does not rest with our senses but with the authoritative...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Authoritative knowledge, that is real seeing. That is real seeing. Just like we have not seen Kṛṣṇa, take for example. Then all we are fools and rascals, that we are after Kṛṣṇa? People may say that "You have not seen Kṛṣṇa. Why you are after so much, Kṛṣṇa?" They can say. But then you are all set of fools. Does it mean that we are all set of fools? Then how we have seen Kṛṣṇa?

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Prabhupāda: No. This existence is temporary. Just like this, I have got this coat. This is also existence, but I may change it next time, but I am the essence. I am permanent. I am changing.

Śyāmasundara: He says this is proven by the fact that the senses, they can perceive the existence of something by feeling it or touching it or seeing it, but they can't say anything about it until the intelligence comes into play, and then intelligence says what it is and gives it being.

Prabhupāda: Intelligence says what is its cause.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. And he describes...

Prabhupāda: So that cause is find some cause and again you find out the cause, again you find the cause, and then you find out cause and effect, you study effect and find out the cause, then when you come to the ultimate cause, which has no other cause, then that is Kṛṣṇa, that is God. (break)

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: Why nonsense Freud would analyze it? He is not Kṛṣṇa. What does he know? What rascal (indistinct). He is a big man among the rascals. A big rascal, that is all. He is a rascal, but a big rascal, that's all.

Śyāmasundara: What is the purpose of discussing him?

Prabhupāda: Just to prove that he is a big rascal. He may be a very big man amongst the other rascals, small rascals. Jīva Gosvāmī—this is Jīva Gosvāmī's language. I think I have mentioned somewhere in my Bhāgavata, (indistinct), big rascal, that is all. The analysis of (indistinct), how can we approach that with little knowledge? What improvement has (indistinct); after his philosophy in the Western countries? He has degraded more.

Devotee: He has put their attention more on sex.

Prabhupāda: That's all. What actual benefit is derived from him?

Śyāmasundara: He has made the impression that all of our troubles are due to frustrated sex life in our childhood, and that by analyzing these activities of childhood we can rectify our situation.

Prabhupāda: That is (indistinct).

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: (indistinct)

Śyāmasundara: We have scientific reasons

Devotee: But there are aspects of Freud's philosophy and psychology which they feel have proven beneficial for mankind. So many cases of, say, someone is paralyzed and they can't find any direct physical reason why a person can't walk, and through analysis they are able to trace down that it is due to some repressed trauma, what they call trauma.

Prabhupāda: What is?

Śyāmasundara: Shock.

Devotee: And therefore the person reacts on a physical level and they can't (indistinct) psychoanalyzing him and having him recall that event, then he is free...

Prabhupāda: Therefore our prescription is that in the beginning of life, teach him brahmācārya restraint, and when he is grown up, he is above twenty, get him married. In the beginning he will learn how to restrain. If you teach your child to become saintly, he retains his semina, his brain becomes strong, he can understand things, because wasting your semina means less intelligence. So from the beginning, if he is brahmacārī, if he stops misuse of semina, then he becomes intelligent and strong and fully grown. For want of education, everything is being stunted-brain, bodily growth, and everything.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: (indistinct) he is already grown up. Where is the seed? That is nonsense. Seed means those already grown up, fructified. Where do you find the seed? That is nonsense. Just like as example you have got arrow and bow. So long as it is in your hand, it is all right, but when it is thrown, you cannot control it. It is out of your hand. Another example is this (indistinct). You have seen bamboo. When it is green, you can bend it, but when it is yellow, it will break.

Śyāmasundara: It is proven in practical experience of psychoanalysis that by remembering some traumatic or shocking experience in the person's life it relieves the emotional tension which has caused the disorder in his personality, and he becomes healthy again.

Prabhupāda: That may be, but if you sow a seed, the seed, when fructified, grown into a tree, then it is no more...

Śyāmasundara: He doesn't call it a seed; he calls it a shocking experience which we repress because it causes pain, and this repression makes a tension. For instance, a person grows up with a great hatred of woman: "Oh, I hate all woman."

Prabhupāda: That is particular (indistinct) for a particular person.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: Concerning religion, he said, "Of the reality value of most of them, of most religions, we cannot judge. Just as they cannot be proved, neither can they be refuted."

Prabhupāda: First of all, he does not know what is religion. That is the defect in him. We say religion means the order given by God. Simple thing. But he has no conception of God. How he can get orders from God? Therefore how he can understand what is religion? He has got some ideas of fictitious religion, which is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, kaitava, cheating. Cheating religion. That is not religion. Religion means, just like law. Law means the order given by the government. You cannot manufacture law at your home. That is not... Similarly, if somebody manufactures law at home and says that "I have manufactured one law. You take it," so who, what sane man will accept that law? "Sir, you keep your law in your pocket." Similarly, this so-called religious system, which is not given by God, that is just like outlaws. They are not religion. He has simply studied which is not religion. That is his defect. Real religion is the law given by God. So he has no conception of God, how he can understand what is religion? He has studied only pseudoreligion, cheating religion; therefore he is dissatisfied.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Prabhupāda: That we are teaching. That we have shown. But he remains unconscious state. That is (indistinct). That we are teaching. We are simply, loudly stating, "Please wake up. Please wake up. We are not this body. We are not this body." So these are the (indistinct) dream. You cannot raise him to the consciousness. He is fully packed up in matter. That is not possible. But he is also conscious. That is proved by (indistinct). He applied machine: in the remote part he is feeling the pain when you cut. But it is not very manifest. Just like children, they are not so conscious, you operate. I have got a (indistinct), my eldest daughter, she (indistinct). So she was about less than one year... No, no. About six months. The doctor was operating, (indistinct). She was not frightened. (indistinct) Minor operation. So the human form of life is the developed consciousness of the living entity. In other forms of life they're more or less in dreaming state or unconscious state. But as living entity, the consciousness is there, in different stages.

Śyāmasundara: Yes, he (indistinct) in all mythology and religion and all of these so-called scientific symbols for the conscious state and the unconscious state. Just like the unconscious state is often represented as the ocean.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: Alexander. Alexander and the robber. There is a story that a robber was arrested by Alexander and there was talk between Alexander and the robber: "You proved that you are big robber, that's all. Why you are going to punish me?" And he was released: "Yes. I'm a big robber. I have no difference between you and me."

Śyāmasundara: So he says that we can remedy the whole situation of bad faith and being an unsavory character and treating myself as an object instead of a person by choosing for myself the person I ought to become.

Prabhupāda: Ideal person.

Śyāmasundara: An ideal person. And become that ideal person.

Prabhupāda: So what is the definition of that ideal person?

Śyāmasundara: Well, in some of his books it would be the very heroic type person who sees things as they are.

Prabhupāda: A big robber is also heroic.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Many of his heroes are robbers and...

Prabhupāda: So these robbers are ideal persons? Big, big thieves.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: So he, at last he accept there is God. (laughter) Otherwise what is the meaning of going to God? Yes, he is trying to deny God when there is God. Unless there is God, where is the question of accepting or denying? He is denying in the other way; that means there is God.

Devotee: As soon as he mentions God he's proved there is God.

Prabhupāda: No, as soon as he denies God, there is God.

Devotee: Or denies, because he has admitted God...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Devotee: ...one way or another.

Hayagrīva: He says that he prefers to set the question aside, but at the same time...

Prabhupāda: That is the main question. That is the main question, that God has created everything. He has created you, He has created your mind, intelligence, your body, your existential circumstances—everything He has created. So how you can deny God? In the beginning, that Bible says, "In the beginning there was God." Is it not?

Devotee: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the existence of the real world beyond sense data cannot be proved.

Prabhupāda: Such a nonsense cannot perceive. Therefore we have to go to a person who knows. I may be fool, rascal, so I cannot perceive, but that does not mean things are there as the fools and rascals perceive. Our process is, therefore, Vedic process-tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). In order to be really learned, wise, one must go to a guru. Gurum eva abhigacchet. Must. This abhigacchet word means "must." There is no alternative. He cannot know things as they are without approaching guru. That is our Vedic system. And guru means one who knows the Vedas, and one who is firmly fixed up in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is guru.

Śyāmasundara: But how does someone prove that something exists beyond his..., beyond our senses?

Prabhupāda: That I have already explained. Just like child does not know. He simply sees the fan is running-superficially. But he does not know that there is electricity power, and there is a powerhouse. So that is lack of knowledge. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā says, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). After many, many births, one comes to the real knowledge, and that is vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19). Then he knows that Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa, is the original (indistinct). It is a question of knowing, and knowing through the direct current via media-guru. Otherwise he remains in darkness. Therefore guru-namastaya. Ajñāna timirāndasya. Everyone is blind by the darkness of ignorance. Jñānāñjana śalākayā. And the guru's business is to lighten ignorance, the śalāka. What is called, śalāka?

Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell:

Prabhupāda: That means he could not observe the distinction between good and bad. Does it mean like that?

Śyāmasundara: He says the only knowledge which is valid is proven scientifically, and he says that since moral right and wrong is not...

Prabhupāda: What is his proposal? What is scientifically proven? What is scientifically bad?

Śyāmasundara: He says good and bad are not subject to scientific proof.

Prabhupāda: But proof to him. But there is proof, what is really good and what is really bad. Has he given any practical example, that "This is scientifically good" and that "this is scientifically bad"?

Śyāmasundara: He says, "What is good is that which is desired," that desirable.

Prabhupāda: But anyone can desire anything. (laughter) So it is nonsense.

Pañca-draviḍa: Also it is nonsense because he went to jail because he wanted them not to bomb. He went to jail himself.

Prabhupāda: So was that not bad thing, to go to the jail? (laughter)

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Prabhupāda: Therefore he is useless. Example is better than precept. By example he cannot prove. Therefore his precept has no value.

Atreya Ṛṣi: Another thing he says that if you tell the society to get comforts, material comforts, have peace, in relationship with man to man, benefits one's own self on a very false ego level.

Śyāmasundara: Humanitarian.

Prabhupāda: What is that humanitarian? I kick you, you kick me.

Śyāmasundara: He says that now the conditions that control us are haphazard. Some are designed by selfish men to exploit others.

Prabhupāda: Why (indistinct) that he is perfect man?

Śyāmasundara: He says that we can design a culture that will survive due to its being moral, set, upright, honest, hard-working, all-typical American.

Devotee: What about the standard? Someone has to be God in order to set the standard.

Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Prabhupāda: That is another nonsense. He is a nonsense rascal. That is being proved by his talks. Tāvac ca śobhate mūrkho yāvat kiñcin na bhāṣate. You cannot understand a rascal fool unless he talks. Now he is talking. And sooner I did not know that he is so fool, but I can understand now he is a great fool. This is the test. Tāvac ca śobhate mūrkho yāvat kiñcin na bhāṣate. Mūrkha, you can... A mūrkha can dress himself very nicely, like gentleman sitting amongst the gentlemen, but a learned man and a fool will be understood as soon as he speaks. As soon as talks like a foolish man, one can understand, "Oh, he is a rascal." And as soon as one speaks great subject matter, then one can understand, "Oh, he is learned." So by his talking, now we can understand he is a great fool.

Śyāmasundara: So his follower was Nikolai Lenin. Mostly he reinforced all of Marx's ideas, but he added a few touches of his own. One is that revolution is fundamental, that history...

Prabhupāda: There were so many revolutions. It is not that they have made revolution. There were other revolutions, especially in Europe, the French Revolution. There were so many revolutions.

Śyāmasundara: He studied the revolutions, and he said that history moves in leaps and progresses toward the Communist leap. So he wants to make a leap into the dictatorship of the proletariat, and this he calls the final stage of development of history.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: Well, he says that the criterion for truth is man's social practice, that it has proven over...

Prabhupāda: But what is that social practice? What is the standard of social practice? You manufacture...

Śyāmasundara: Whatever is practical for the most people's happiness, that is truth.

Prabhupāda: So practical happiness, that differs between persons. Just like ordinarily in your country boys and girls meet very intimately, without any restriction. But we say, "No mixing." So which is practical? That is according to circumstance? For our purpose, if we allow illegitimate sex, then there is no spiritual progress. Therefore this stoppage is practical. And because others, they have no spiritual idea, they think, "Oh, why not? Why the sex urges should be restricted? Let us enjoy it. It is enjoyment." They're animals. So which one ms practical? This one is practical or... That practical means according to the aim and object.

Śyāmasundara: Relative.

Prabhupāda: Yes. But if one understands what is spiritual progress, what is his need, then he'll understand that these are all practical.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Prabhupāda: It is not the question of social. You say that this body is dead because some chemicals are wanting. So you should make experiment that such chemicals be replaced and the body may come out again in life. Then your scientific statement is... Otherwise, it is most unscientific. So how to test the scientist? His theory is not practical. You say that the dead man means some chemical wanting. So you put that chemical. Just like when a motorcar is stopped, so the engineer comes, a mechanic comes, he says, "This part is broken. It should be replaced." All right, replace it and car moves. But you say that "This part is wanting; therefore this man is dead." Now you replace that part. Then it will be scientific because it will be proved by experiment.

Śyāmasundara: Well, speaking more of, for instance, Marx's theory, that...

Prabhupāda: Now, first of all... He said scientific. So I mean to say that so-called scientists are imperfect. So what is the value of such scientific statement? There are so many scientists. Their statements are imperfect. Or other scientists differ. Then what is real scientific? You are scientist and he is scientist. I am talking on the scientific... Experiment. He says experiment. So when a scientist says that "This is wanting," then by experiment let him prove it that actually this is wanting.

Śyāmasundara: Well, still, his basic idea is that all theories, all natural laws are proven in practice, social practice, that... For instance, Marx's idea that capital is not necessary for production, that profit is not necessary for production. It's proven by the communist state where there is no profit-taking, there is no capital making, and still the wheels(?) of production go on.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Prabhupāda: No. Even if you have not heard... But you cannot change that opinion. Suppose my parents have taught me that "There is God and we are controlled," so you cannot change this. You say that you are not controlled. You prove that you are not controlled. Then you can say, "My parents have taught me wrongly." You are becoming old. You are becoming diseased. You will have to die. You have taken birth under certain system. So you are controlled. My parents have taught me that "There is God, who is supreme controller, and we are all controlled." Now you change this first of all. You are talking so nice thing, but you first of all say that you are not controlled. That is our proposition. If you say that you are not controlled, then you are mad.

Śyāmasundara: No. I would admit that I am controlled. Everyone in my Communist state is controlled because we work under the...

Prabhupāda: Apart from Communist state, by nature's law... You have spoken about nature's law. So we are controlled by the nature's law. Who can deny it? When there is severe cold, I am controlled. When there is severe heat, I am controlled. When there is epidemic, I am controlled. When there is famine, I am controlled. When there is flood, I am controlled. So how you can say that you are not controlled? You are not independent. The basic principle is that you are not independent.

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Prabhupāda: That's all right. The Russian Communism is failing; similarly, some days after, his communism also will fail. Because they are all imperfect. To criticize another man does not mean you are perfect. That is a different thing. You have to prove that you are perfect. "Judge not others lest you may be judged."

Devotee: "Lest ye be judged and found wanting."

Prabhupāda: Yes. So this is going on. That is not Mao is a very perfect man, his theory is perfect, he is better than... It is simply mental speculation.

Śyāmasundara: But he examines his theory, and he sees that the nature of his theory or the nature of things is this conflict. This is the nature of things.

Prabhupāda: That we have already talked; there is conflict. Conflict is going on.

Śyāmasundara: So he says that there are two types of conflict in social structure. One is between communists and their enemies, such as the U.S. imperialists; and those within the Communist party itself.

Prabhupāda: So... There... In communism... That means there are enemies. However perfect you may be, you have got enemies. Outside, inside both. Then what is your perfection?

Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung:

Śyāmasundara: He says the only criterion for truth is its practical application in society.

Prabhupāda: The practical... First of all, you prove practically that you are independent.

Śyāmasundara: It wouldn't make any difference because...

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.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: No. That is not organic life. The soul appears in different ways. One of the ways is by fermentation, perspiration. So rock and water, when it is decomposed there is fermentation and there is possibility of soul taking advantage and come out with a body. In any case, from matter life never comes. It is compared with... Taṇḍula-vṛścika-nyāya. A vṛścika, a scorpion, is coming out from rice. Actually, a scorpion down lays eggs within the heaps of rice, and by fermentation of the rice, heating, the egg, I mean to say, produces a small scorpion, and it comes out from the rice. So foolish people, they think that the heaps of rice is the cause of producing a scorpion. So many things come like that, but that does not mean the matter is producing life. If matter is producing life, the modern science, so much advanced, so let them prove in the laboratory, mixing some matter, life is coming. That fermentation, that is accepted in the Vedic language. By fermentation living creatures come out.

Śyāmasundara: So it is only because the soul finds refuge there.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: What about this idea that nature...

Prabhupāda: Mister (indistinct).

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: That is a different thing. But in India all the authorities, all personalities, unless you accept Vedas, you are called nāstika. Therefore Buddha philosophy was driven away, Caitanya Mahāprabhu veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika. Simply Lord Buddha says, "I don't care for your Vedas." Lord Buddha wanted to preach nonviolence, but in the Vedic literature there is violence. There is violence. Just like Gandhi wanted to prove from Bhagavad-gītā nonviolence. Where is nonviolence there? Where is that nonviolence? Kṛṣṇa is inducing Arjuna to fight, to become violent. So how can you prove there is nonviolence? These are all nonsense. So similarly, in the Vedas there is recommendation that animals can be sacrificed in the Vedas with mantra. That... Therefore the process, to test the power of the mantra, that animal is put into the fire and the animal again comes out with a new life. That is the test. Just like you test how the microphone is working. So how the Vedic mantras are being chanted rightly, that is tested by putting... Just like in laboratory a small animal is killed. But that is killed. They cannot give life. But here, in sacrifice, aśvamedha-yajña, gomedha-yajña, there is... Gavalambham, aśvamedhaṁ gavālambham (CC Adi 17.164). The animal sacrificed, but it comes again with ill life. That is the test, how the Vedic mantra is chanted. So because there is no such qualified brāhmaṇa, therefore in this age all kinds of sacrifices stopped. So Veda is no authority. The mantra has no life.

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Prabhupāda: What?

Hayagrīva: Here we go. In a letter, Descartes wrote, "I know that brutes," that is animals, "do many things better than we do, and I am not surprised at this, for that also goes to prove that they act by course of nature. If they could think as we do..."

Prabhupāda: No. Not force of nature. By force of God.

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: In the heart of the brute also there is God.

Hayagrīva: "If they could think as we do, they would have an immortal soul as well as we, which is not likely because there is no reason for believing it of some animals without believing it of all, and there are many of them too imperfect to make it possible to believe it of them, such as oysters, sponges, etc." Is thinking a necessary function of the soul? He says, well for instance an oyster. How does he know whether or not an oyster thinks?

Prabhupāda: God is there giving him. God is, gives us instruction that we will advance, human being. We refuse, but they do not refuse.

Hayagrīva: You've said that anything that grows has a soul. The grass has a soul, has soul.

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Prabhupāda: They have got language. You do not understand it.

Hayagrīva: It's been proved scientifically...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: ...that they actually... Dolphins, we, we have been able to even speak to dolphins, to communicate verbally. That also...

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa was speaking with everyone. With the birds He was speaking. One old gopī went to the Yamunā to take bath, and when she saw that Kṛṣṇa was speaking with the bird, then she, "Oh, Kṛṣṇa can speak with the birds." She became surprised. So because Kṛṣṇa is God, He can understand everyone's language. That is God.

Hayagrīva: Oh, even during his day Descartes was attacked on this...

Prabhupāda: That, that, that qualification is described in the, our Science of Devotion. What is that?

Hari-śauri: Nectar of Devotion.

Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal:

Prabhupāda: Yes. That just like the father and the child. The father says, "You do this." So that is all-comprehensive. The father's idea is complete; it is good for the son. But the son says, "No. I want to act in this way." That is his folly. Similarly, what God says, that is religion, and... So there is no question of blind following. If you know, "Here is God. He is all-perfect, and whatever He is saying, that is all-perfect. Let me accept it," then you are gainer. And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer.

Hayagrīva: He also writes, "The greatness of man is great in that he knows himself to be miserable. A tree does not know itself to be miserable. These miseries prove man's greatness. They are the miseries of a great lord, a deposed king."

Prabhupāda: Yes. The..., that is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that you are trying to live long, so does the tree not live longer than you? If you are trying by scientific method how to live more than hundred years or (indistinct), but the tree is living for ten thousands of years. Does it mean this is perfection of life, to live long? That is not perfection of life. So in this way, analyze all other living condition. When you come to God consciousness, that living condition is perfect, because by God consciousness or Kṛṣṇa consciousness you understand God—how to behave with Him; what is your relationship with God—then you become perfect and you go to the kingdom of God and live there eternally.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: And John Locke, Locke is the..., is most famous for his conception of tabula rasa, or blank slate, that a child is born with no innate ideas. He states that "If there are innate or inborn ideas, all men would have them." That is to say, there would be universal consent. He writes, "This argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such because there are none to which all mankind give a universal consent." So it cannot be argued that all people have an innate or inborn idea of God since there is no universal consent on this subject. Well, do innate ideas have to be universal? Might not some living entities have some innate ideas and other living entities have others? Why does an innate idea have to be universal and apply to everyone?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Innate idea is that there is somebody. That is developed consciousness. The animals, they cannot think, on account of nondeveloped consciousness, but even in human society, uncivilized society, they have got the innate idea of some superior form. When there is lightning, they offer obeisances. When they see big ocean, they offer obeisances, something big. So that innate idea is universal, to offer obeisances to something wonderful. But this innate idea of accepting something supreme and offering respect is not developed in the animal. So this innate idea is there. When it is not developed, it is animal, and when it is developed, then it is human being. And a perfect human being is he, when he has developed this innate idea to the fullest stage. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Hayagrīva: Alexander despairs of the speculative method as a means for connecting with God, and he also feels that proofs of God's existence in nature are nonexistence, are nonexistent. If such a God is to be identified with the object of worship, that is to say we shouldn't worship God in nature. But how can God be known? For him God can be known by experience. Nor can we prove the existence of God, whether worshipable or not, except on the basis of experience.

Prabhupāda: This is natural. This is just like the other day I was saying that on the Hawaii Island we are standing, we know that the proprietor, the government, is there. So just after few yards there is the sea. Then we can conjecture: if the land has the proprietor, the sea has also proprietor. We have not seen who is the proprietor of the land, or the governor of the land. Similarly, there is a governor, proprietor, of the sea and the sky, but we have not seen. That does not mean there is no proprietor.

Hayagrīva: Now...

Prabhupāda: By see, by exp..., by our present experience we can guess the experience which you have not actually experienced. As we see that everything has got I... I am the proprietor of this body, he is the proprietor of this house, he is the proprietor of that land, he is the proprietor..., that there must be a proprietor of the sea. This is common sense. And that is God. The proprietor of the sun, the proprietor of the moon, the sky, that is God. That is described in the Vedic literature. It is said that the moon is the mind of God, the sun is the eyes of God, the land is the foot of God, the water is the semina of God. Everything is described.