Natural Selection and the Soul
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Evolution and the modes of nature
Today we're discussing two more scientists who came after Darwin, evolutionists. The first one is Thomas Huxley.
Darwin saw only that in nature there was a natural selection process, and he called that evolution, survival of the fittest. But here is the step. Natural selection. Nature is not selective. The soul is selective.
It is not that nature is selecting a certain type of house. It is the man who will decide in the house. He is selecting the type. He cannot say that there are different types of residence and houses.
Nature, nature can supply the ingredients. You require brick, stone, wood, so many things you require. Nature will supply all right. Take this. But the type of the house that image got nature. See, there is a great mistake.
The nature is selective. Nature is not selective. The soul is selective. That they do not know. We should be practical. When I prefer a table like this, it is my selection, not nature's selection.
Nature can supply me the wood. I prepare according to my selection. But my selection must depend upon the conditions. If it's cold, I must build a warm house. If it's hot, I must build a warm house.
Whatever it may be, the selection is one, not nature's. But don't I select in terms of the past, the actual? But former is the soul, not nature. Nature can supply you the materials.
But if it's cold, it must build a warm house, so that means nature is selecting which type of... No, nature... you are selecting. You are feeling cold. But if you build a cold house, you'll suffer. You won't survive.
No, I saw... when I feel cold, naturally I select to make a warm house. The theory is that if you do not select the warm house, the nature will select to destroy you.
And once nature destroys you, because you did not select the most intelligent... No. Or you did not select why, first of all, why selects. Just like, uh... Yeah. When I become criminal, I select my life in the jail.
Oh, I see. This rascal thinks that the judge and the magistrate put him in the jail. The judge and the magistrate have no business to put him in the jail, right?
So nature will present a set of laws, and you select either to follow them or reject them. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo 'sya sad-asad-janma-yoniṣu.
These different species of life are due to his selection of a particular mode of nature, the soul's. And thus he is given the facility of taking birth in a certain type of species. Just like I am a house for rental.
Now I ask you what sort of room you want. You say, "I can pay hundred dollars." Oh, you give... which we can enter it. The selection is yours. See, these rascals do not... Nature is forcing.
But the original selection was mine. I selected to associate with... Nature has got three types of modes of nature. So as soon as I associate with certain... Just like here. Here also nature is working.
It is working on the modes of goodness. But the drunk is not coming here. He's not selecting this. He's selecting... This also applies to all living entities, Prabhupāda, right? All living entities, yeah.
Even the trees, even everything. Yes. Everything. Just like I told you. That, uh, consciously and unconsciously, these naked boys and girls in the country, they get fixed like trees.
Supposing a seed of a tree falls on the ground, isn't it nature that determines whether it will grow or live or be stunted or grow big by the conditions of it? The rain and the nature gives you facility to grow.
That's all right. But the selection is mine. As a landlord gives you facility, he will select the apartment. The landlord, sorry, I want this facility or this—the pipe is not working. The heat is not working. So, heat fancy.
And if you don't deserve it, you don't get the heat fixed or the pipes. So, perceiving that it is wrong to meet this. But nature is good, you know. They don't see any background cause in nature, and to see nature's effects.
Nature is far, is far as silent. Such a gigantic nature is working. Uh, whimsical. Because he's whimsical. So, Prabhupāda, according to our philosophy, then there is nothing that happens in nature which is without reason.
Yes. That is out of just luck or chance. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: «mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram».
This is: the living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature.
This is due to his association with that material nature; thus he meets with good and evil amongst various species. Yes. Very. Now we associate with a kind, puruṣaḥ bhuṅkte. Then you get a next life. A hog. A dog. Mm-hmm.
Even bodies change by association. Not that a human body evolves to a chemistry. According to their theory, it cannot be. But yeah, we get inside even if you have got this human body. Next one we get a dog body.
But the evolution theory is finished. It's like if there's a giant wardrobe and you have 8,400,000 coats and you decide, you tell the tailor which coat you want. And he supplies. So you have to pay for it. Yeah.
Vedic perspective on the soul and causality
So in Bhagavad-gītā, this is this kind of evolutionary theory is that actually evolution is there. You get that it is Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa. It is a thing, aśītiṁ caturaś caiva.
Eight million four hundred thousand species of life. The living entity is passing through, then he gradually gets the human form of life. Now this opportunity is missed if he does not take shelter of Krishna.
If you take shelter again of the three modes of material nature, then next life it can be converted again to the lower mode. They do not know that. The human being can evolve; next life is body of the cat, dog, or can.
So what is the truth of this nonsense in the sense? Where is the body in the womb built simply by the laws of nature? Does he help or is he just given the body?
Does the spirit soul assist in building the body or does simply the ingredients of nature combine to form it without his help as a person?
Yes, he desired such a body and he is put into the womb of a particular mother, and the mother is the format. So he develops the body according to the mother. Oh, the body is already formed by the mother? No.
It begins forming. As soon as the spirit soul takes shelter, then it forms. Then it forms. Before then, is it the egg? The egg. Nothing. There's nothing. Nothing.
After sexual intercourse, the two kinds of secretions, they mix and emulsify. They say, the scientists say, that each sperm which is entering from the male is a living entity. Each of millions of sperm, maybe.
When the sperm enter, there are millions of it. And each one is a living entity, but only one out of those will enter the egg. Only one out of those millions. Only one of that is allowed to stay by superior arrangement.
So, Prabhupāda, this material philosophy is based on chance. In other words, the materialist philosophy does not believe in the cause of all causes.
In the spiritual philosophy, we also use the word "chance" and "luck"; we also state that there is chance in the spiritual life. Chance means that, like, we are talking about philosophy.
Somebody by chance comes in this moment. How is that somebody? That is... that is possible. Then otherwise, what is the use of preaching? We are preaching, means that is... that is the cause, because we are giving chance.
So the chance in spiritual life is created by the mercy of the master or Krishna. Yes. It's not that it's caused... it's caused by the... it's caused beyond. We are giving. We are inviting everyone. Please come to us.
So this chance is given. This is chance. This is luck. You provide the luck. It is creating a situation so that others might take the chance. That chance, you can say. But this chance is also caused by us. Causeless mercy.
Causeless. Causeless mercy, that is, uh, he did not ask me. Still I go. He did not ask me. He did not ask me, nobody, to come to USA. I have come. This is part of this. Well, should we discuss this?
That is also not strictly causeless. Because I have come on the order of my guru. Yeah. Yes. His order was causeless. Krishna is causeless. So actually, in the high sense, there is nothing caused. You can take it in this way.
This is like, "Let me go to America." So I have come. Nobody invited me. But only things that relate with Krishna are causeless. Only things as they are related with Krishna are causeless, isn't it?
If they're otherwise, we can see everywhere cause and effect. Yes, Krishna can't make anything without any cause. Because He's the cause of all causes. He is making that he's this prime cause.
So when scientists observe phenomena, they're just observing how Krishna has caused things. Parasya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate, he is working by diverse energies.
They are unable to see the energy, or they're saying simply the energy, not the energetic. But shouldn't we refute the system of investigation which is ascending rather than descending process?
The scientists' way, could they find any time find any truth with this system that they're investigating? Like the way Darwin investigated, could he possibly have come to find the truth? No. He couldn't.
Because Darwin is himself defective. So his ascendance is also defective. They, they've ascended out as far as they can go, a chunk, but they don't know how, how much further process is defected.
He cannot go to the real point. Suppose you have to go to the beach. Now you have taken to this way. And what is the beach in this side? So if the beginning is mistaken, then where do you go? Yeah.
I'm now that I'm leaving for Nityānanda, should should we discuss this, uh, Thomas Huxley systematically, his, his philosophy? Particularly, I, I, I don't want to go off on too many tangents or we'll never finish.
Um, his anyway, he saw that there are two types of evolution, not strictly one type, as Darwin saw.
Limitations of moral education and human selection
Darwin saw that there's only one type, a changing of bodies. But Thomas Huxley observes that there's also an ethical process of human evolution.
In other words, according to, to Darwin's law, that, uh, bodies are changing according to survival of the fittest.
But if you look at that on an ethical level, that would mean those who are the good, best cheaters, the best killers, the best, uh, robbers, that these would be the most morally fit to survive in that, but he
says no, that there is an ethical process of human evolution whereby educating, by education, uh, what is the correct morality, that we can evolve in that way.
That, that, that we are the control of our evolution is in our own hands, in other words.
Not nature is, nature is not guiding ethical evolution, but, but it is, it, it is within our hands to evolve our own ethical evolution, within our hands, just like I say that you don't steal, this is ethical.
And I give you an example also that if you steal, you see here is a thief, he's arrested, he's going to jail, you'll also go to jail. So you have heard me, you have seen, but still you steal. What is the defect?
What is the ethics? You have heard from preachers that stealing is not good. From your teachers, from your nice books, stealing is not good. You have seen the man who has stolen is going to jail. But still, why do you steal?
He says, he would say that the man has not been properly educated. That's what that is equal to. Education. That's what he said.
He says Darwin's theory is those who are fit to survive, but it should be that those who are worthy to survive. So he says we have to qualify ourselves to be worthy to survive. Nobody is fit to survive.
That is a nonsense thing. But one can elevate himself, just like we are trying to elevate the consciousness of the human society to Krishna consciousness. This is educational.
And by this education, when actually one becomes Krishna conscious, then he becomes fit to survive. Not to die. Worthy, he has the worth to survive. Yeah. Fit is something different than worth.
Fit is a physical... he can't say he's no more, he's going to die. And the only real virtue of their so-called ethics, it doesn't take into account devotional service to the Supreme.
It just extends the principle of sense gratification. Yes. That I won't steal from him, so he won't steal from me. That isn't part of the philosophy. We're just using the general terms.
But when they say ethics, that's what they mean. Well, we don't know what he means yet. We haven't unfolded his philosophy yet. No, one thing is this training. Education means training. This is essential.
And actually, by educational evolution, one can survive. Otherwise nobody can survive. That's his thesis.
He says the dharma's theory is too mechanical and, and logically it's, it's false because we would all be a society of murderers, killers, and the, the might makes right. But that is the European flood.
They are attacking the nation, colonizing, killing them. They are... You Americans, you have killed the Indians. Now you are fit to send by India. And the Russians will come in.
He, he uses the example of the, uh, Europeans and, uh, some barbaric tribes in Africa. That the European, uh, consciousness has evolved to a superior level because they have adopted morality.
Whereas the tribes in, in the jungles are killing each other simply and there's no morality, they're not very superior in intelligence. So he uses that example.
But how the Europeans and the Americans have come to this morality? By education. Yeah. The others, they're not educated, they are not in that. Therefore, real education is the cause of evolution to the highest perfect.
During, during this period of, uh, history following, uh, Huxley, there be... there was a widespread belief that by edu... if everyone got enough education, then everything would be improved.
Everything, everyone would live properly. But, and that's still going on, that, that concept. But it's the education. Everyone cannot be enough education. Everyone cannot be enough rich.
Everyone cannot be an beautiful by nature. That is also another. And everyone cannot take birth in high family. That is not possible. That depends on his past deeds. So their democracy is, their democracy is not logical.
Then, then you have to take chance. That same moment, one child is born in a very easy family. At the same moment, one is born.
If you take astronomical calculation, that both is getting the astronomical facilities, but one is born in a poor family, one is born in Israel.
And if you educate them both the same, it doesn't mean they're both going to turn out as good citizens. Yes. And yes. So many boys are going to school, some of them becoming in future very well-known personality.
Another ordinary boy. So the education and facility was given to work of that. Just like in your country, the education is free. But why not all educated?
So there are two factors: one resulting from past activity and one resulting from the present education provided. Yes.
Karmic seeds and spiritual humanitarianism
There are three, uh, bīja, kūṭastha, uh, just like you sow some seeds, so some of them grow next day. And not that all the seeds have grown. Another seed will take little time to grow.
Really, whatever we act, that is just like seed. So that seed remains, and some of the seeds has grown little, some of them has fructified, some of them is giving the result, and we have to enjoy or suffer.
But everything is coming from the seed. Pāpa-bīja. Pāpa-bīja, kūṭastha, phalam, uh, but there are three stages: one is just going to fructify, one is already fructified, and one is uh, still in seed form.
We have got many, uh, seeds within us that is not yet fructified. What is fructified, now we are enjoying or suffering. But when you take to Krishna consciousness, this very seed is destroyed.
So there is no question of coming out practically. This is... there is seed, just like you take peas, if you fry it, and in the same fried peas if you sow, there is no plant. The scientists call these seeds perhaps genes.
These, these, these genes are latent propensities. It is that... it's karmic law. They just cannot see it. It is not possible. It is subtle. It is living in my mind, intelligence, and ego. They cannot see the mind.
Then how can they see it? So material education is how to take care of these seeds once they fructify. Yeah, that's it. Spiritual education, however... Spiritual education is to destroy that seed.
And to start the seed of devotional service, to plant of love of God. To destroy the material seed and sow the spiritual. Accept what is favorable and reject what is unfavorable. So both seeds are there.
Both kinds of seeds are within us. And if you destroy this material seed, then you do not grow again a material body. That is tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti. By giving up this body, no more material.
Because this material seed will be destroyed. There's no material way to do that. There's no material or scientific way to destroy that seed. That seed can be destroyed by Kṛṣṇa.
That's what He says: "You surrender unto Me and I give you protection from all reactions of sinful life." That means immediately destroyed. He can do that. Because He is the Supreme. He can do it. You are condemned to die.
But the king can excuse you. No other man can do that. No law can protect. But if the king desires, he can. That's why all their attempts at atheistical ethics and advancement of humanitarianism always fail. It is useless.
Uh, getting back to his thesis, do you agree then? Only humanitarian work is to awaken his Krishna consciousness. This is the humanitarian.
But do you agree with him so far? He says that the evolution of our morality is within our own hands. It isn't determined by selective nature. It isn't determined by our environments. No, it is in our own. We can expect it.
So he says that that which is most morally worthy ought to survive. He says that which ought to survive is what we should most morally advance, is he? He is personal consciousness. So he will survive. He ought to survive.
He will. So he will survive. There's no question of "ought". He will. What is his definition of reality? Uh, why should they "ought" to survive? That is flexible depending upon whatever we choose.
Well, but the civilization that he's talking about is a material civilization, isn't it? In other words, the spectrum that he's talking about is limited to the, to the man's limited question. Morality.
Defining morality through divine surrender
Now we say that cow eating is immoral. And these karmi say that it is moral because by eating beef, we develop our brain. Yes. Strong. We become strong. Now, how this in case reaches morality, it will be selected.
There are so many dual things like this. One says this is moral. One says this is moral. Standard. He says it's practically, um, by, by, uh, agreement, um, unanimous agreement. But agreement—the, the meat-eaters will agree.
Yes, cow killing is very nice. Yeah. Well, is that cow killing? Why not just train everyone to be, to be killers? Yeah.
No, he's, he says that, that according to Darwin, we would all be killers, the best one, the best killers. But we have evolved certainly. Aesthetically. We select morality.
If you go by votes, then the morality in one country is immorality in other country. Well, he says that which is most worthy will survive. It's changing, it's evolving. That is most important.
If we're taking a position of responsibility, how will we work? That history, history will decide it, that we are evolving in history. He has no proposition, which is morality. No, we don't agree in that.
Morality cannot be changed. His value is based on maximization of pleasure for the society. That's all right. That, that depend, depends on different types of society.
And because he doesn't see, I, as, as little as I know about him, he doesn't see the spectrum of spiritual life. He has no idea of spiritual life. At least I know. He, he's, he's not talking about specific moral standards.
He's talking about the process. But if he was, how you say, he says that man's intelligence will decide to curb the egoistic instincts and act in a moral way. That's all. That means, what is morality?
Those persons who are accepting immoral things as moral, they are less intelligent. He says that the intelligence will decide. Okay, so if you accept something immoral as moral, then you're less intelligent.
So that isn't intelligence. If you have intelligence, proper intelligence, you'll find what is moral. Is that acceptable? Yes, proper intelligence. Proper intelligence.
So the proper intelligence, how we can decide here is the proper intelligence. So by his thesis, in message, he's concluding that nature has a direction. If intelligence is ruling, then nature has a direction.
Nature has a direction. But what makes a direction unarbitrary? Where is the direction? He says that it's gradually, just like Darwin saw things are going from simple to complex and therefore from inferior to superior.
He also sees that morality is going from inferior to superior because in the ancient times they... that, that's all right, inferior to superior. My point is, who is to decide the real morality? He says man. Nature.
He says, no, he says not nature. He says man. Man, he's rejecting deity. No, he's rejecting Darwin's proposal that nature forms morality, and he says that man forms morality, chooses morality. Not nature. Educated.
And that he doesn't discuss. He only says that he grew that much. No, man will say that that I have already put before you. I say that I am a man, that cow killing is immoral.
And others say that no, it is not immoral, it's moral. That we'll decide. Well, that he doesn't get into. He only says that men will decide. Man cannot decide. Because, uh, doctors differ. That is the problem.
Even highly educated doctors, they differ in diagnosis. Yes. Well, so many of the modern philosophers, that is their conclusion: that it's man's responsibility to mold his world and to make things advance.
They come to that conclusion and they're very expert at criticizing, uh, faults, but they never offer any way to do it. Man cannot do it. That is our project. Man cannot do it. Man cannot do it. How then is it done?
By God, Krishna. Śyāmasundara, when you say men, don't you mean the mind and psychology of man and nature? I'm strictly sticking to the philosophy.
Krishna says, "Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja", you give up all this nonsense. The man's description of morality, immorality—these are all nonsense. He says, "Give up all this nonsense." He surrendered.
This is morality. This is morality. Always this morality is perfectly... But can a man not use his intelligence to, to, uh, improve his ethical goals, reject animal instincts, curb his ego, and, uh, improve his motivation?
No, because he's a fool. He may, he may pose himself a philosopher. Just a dying pose himself as a philosopher. And Huxley—no, he is a fool. So somebody else will come, he'll say, "Actually, you are a fool."
So these fools' estimation will go off. When the most intelligent Krishna will come, then all the fools will come. And meanwhile, the evolution is going exactly the opposite way they're thinking.
People are not becoming more elevated. They're becoming more degraded. Well, we're still back in 1880. We're still back in 1880 when Thomas Huxley is writing all this;
in that age of Queen Victoria, everything seemed to be improving. Yeah, she was introducing, "Everything is improving now." They, they improved by plundering other countries, by colonizing,
sending Lord Clive, a great thief, a, uh, and a great cheater. Uh, they, they think that if we produce a cheater and thief like Lord Clive, that is important. Mm-hmm. That is there. And that's what they are suffering now.
Now the Lord Clive is standing as a statue and the country cannot repair the house. But the Lord Clive's street... Yes.
Lord Clive, by plundering all other countries, he built up some nice buildings; now they cannot even repair. They were, they were preaching strict morality, but they're acting in another way.
They do not know what is morality. They do not know. That is the hypocrisy of anyone except someone who's God conscious. Whatever they say is simply just for their own interest. They do not... Man cannot know.
Man is defective. He does not know anything. Abhijña. Śāstra says, "abhijña". All śāstra says, "abhijña". Therefore, he has to find out a teacher. Man is born fool. Otherwise, why are you sending your children to school?
It is to be supposed that he is born fool. He says that men achieve a better progress in a society than they do alone. Yes. Society... In the society is good. A man can become good in our society. Not in this Mason society.
What is it? Masons. Masons. If the society is good, then benefit. That I was explaining. From that verse in Bhagavad-gītā, by the association.
He, he says that morality is, is based... what the ideal, uh, morality and everything can be learned by the human society from ideal man, ideal society.
Now we have to find out who is the perfect ideal man, perfect ideal society. That is Kṛṣṇa. And that is our Prabhupāda. That here, He is the perfect being, Kṛṣṇa. And here is the perfect society. Krishna calls a society.
You come here, take education here, you become perfect. He says we have to find out that ideal which will make us most worthy to survive. Yes. That is. That how he'll see. He'll die himself. How he'll see?
He's surviving morality. He bases the line here. He bases his morality on sympathy. He says that all men are born innate with innate sympathy for other people.
So this sympathy, if it is developed properly, that this will make him moral. But he's still victory because he's sympathetic with man and not the animals. Yeah. Therefore he's defective.
And also he's talking about survival on this planet and he doesn't seem to be relational. So his purposes are his defect. He doesn't say that there is sympathy in the animals, but I've seen you—you must have sympathy.
You are man. But I mean, in animals I've seen sympathy also; I've seen dogs' sympathy for animals. Everywhere there. But because you are higher animals, so you must have sympathy with the lower animals. Why are you killing?
Where is the sympathy? What kind of morality you are? That is also bogus. What does that word mean, sympathy? Sympathy means if by something I feel pain, so why should I induce you also to feel such pain? This is sympathy.
If somebody pricks me, I feel bad. Therefore, I should not allow anyone to prick you. This is simple. Golden rule, Christian and Christianity. Don't feel.
Although I'm not feeling, but I know I have got sympathy that you are like me. So he will feel. So before you finish, I ask him not to do this. But it's not... we cover it up.
We don't... if it is developed properly, then we will choose this, the proper morality. Yeah, that development depends on education. Uh-huh. Proper education.
So without proper education, without proper association, there is no question of development and there is no question of sympathy. There is no question of morality. So education is the key. Yes.
Now the question is: what kind of education? But he says that our education must come about not by imitating nature, but by combating nature.
Failure of human control over nature
He says nature. That is impossible. This idea of combating nature began to grow at that time by men like Huxley. And now you see it. No, that is not Huxley. Everyone is trying to... that is the picture. Yeah.
Everyone is trying to combat nature. Therefore, in the Bhagavad-gītā, it is said: daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī. You are trying to combat with the nature, but it is impossible. It is impossible. Just like nature... Life to death.
You are trying to live. That is combat. By nature's law you must die. Yeah. And you are trying to live. Yeah. That is problematic. Yeah. Right. That survival means to combat nature successfully. Yeah. Nobody has become successful.
Therefore, nature is always strong. The combat is going on. He says that nature is non-moral. Huh? Nature is non-moral. He does not know what is nature. Nature is the most moral. Most moral. How is that?
Because he is abiding by the order of Krishna? Those who do wrong get punished, and those who do right get rewarded. How nature can you myself?
The Brahma-saṁhitā say: sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktir ekā chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni bibharti durgā. The Durgā, material nature, is so powerful that she can create, she can maintain, uh, sṛṣṭi, sthiti. Such a power.
He bases his morality on sympathy, and he says nature has no sympathy. Nature has all sympathy. Actually, today scientists have proved that, Prabhupāda, that nature is very moral. Nature is all sympathy.
Because nature is working as the police. The police is, uh, apparently, is most unsympathetic. But if it is ordered by a superior official, "Take care of this man." Police is a great friend to protect you.
Just like it would seem to somebody... Is it what? Yes. You have no danger. Police is always protecting.
It would seem to someone who was just seeing that if one man's house burned down and another man's house did not burn down, there would be no sympathy involved. Arbitrary. Chance. No, no chance. Just like my disciples.
It will actually, disciples, that whatever order I give you. So nobody can expect some order which is immoral from me. That they are carrying out order cannot be immoral. Right. Cannot be immoral.
Although instrumental, but because they are carrying out higher authority's order, it cannot be immoral. The apparent punishment by nature is also sympathy. Correct.
Just because nature is material nature, Mother Durgā has got the child, and in her hand, or is punishing. So that is also indirect moral. So that he becomes Krishna-bhakta. Giving him all kind of misery, uh...
If it's possible for a house to burn down, we can create so many systems of fire alarms, fire brigades, fireproofing, fire extinguishers, so that nature will not be able to, uh, destroy us.
We can prevent fires from, uh, houses from burning down. No, even in spite of your so many arrangements, if, uh, nature likes to smash all these things.
The example for that is that, for example, in agriculture they found so many ways to stop pest control or animals. And in fact, one example is in, in some farms near New York, they found that they killed certain insects.
And because that certain insect was killed, nature has stopped carrying seeds from flower pollination, of the pollinating the plants, and therefore all the vegetation, everything is going to die.
Just like we saw, because the intelligence is imperfect. The highest intelligence is nature. Because by nature, you cannot stop eating of the insect. Yes. And they tried and they... Because they are also beings, sons of God.
They must live. This is spiritual community. If some insects is eating grain, let them eat. Don't stop it. There will be enough product. Let them eat, eat, and they eat. Just like I shall eat and they shall be kicked.
There's so many examples of how man has failed to really combat nature successfully. It is not fun. Always backfiring. It is not functional. Every time someone dies.
They, they introduced DDT, a, a chemical to kill all the pests, but now it's killing every... it's killing people too. It's in a... it doesn't break down in nature. It's present everywhere, DDT. It's poisoning everyone.
A better example is that mechanically we're so advanced in these civilized nations, but we have such high rate of people who are going crazy, committing suicide. The same disease has increased.
They're always saying, "Oh, but India is so full of disease." But just because you don't see them here, they're in the hospitals. But there's more disease here than India. And they're taking pills.
Yeah, there's more disease here, more epidemic, by far. Doctors and drugstores in India... Oh, far. In India you don't see very many diseases. Yeah, they go to the doctor every day. Yes.
Everything they have, they go to the doctor. They have half a dozen pills they take every morning.
Diseased people in India, they go on the street and beg, so you think, "Oh, everyone's diseased," but here they're in hospitals, you don't see them. So you cannot conquer nature. That's not possible.
So, uh, you can conquer nature by devotional service to the Lord. When Krishna's saying nature... Don't bother it.
But that's their foolish call to arms: "Conquer nature. Gather together mankind. Yeah. Uh, consolidate our energy and conquer nature. Control nature." Control. That is not fun.
They think they'll have it—they've got some, uh, research now where they're researching with satellites and different kinds of chemicals about control of the weather. They'll control the weather.
They'll be able to make it rain when they want it to rain, uh, sunshine when they want the sunshine. Oh, crazy. They're actually successful in it partially already.
They can—they can make it rain by, by, uh, spraying the atmosphere with a certain chemical, the rain. That is, uh, in India... Yeah, Indra about childishing it and by winding it or giving some power between the runs.
So what is the use of such rain? It will just rob rain from some other place. No, no, not robbing land. Suppose every one mile you pour water. What is it? He cannot. Hundreds and thousands of miles immediately within a second.
Oh, so while in that ten hundred... There is no need of rain in the, uh, sea. It is also hurricanes and tornadoes. They, they have at the sea and satellites now from way up above.
On the whole, their only disease is to imitate Krishna. That is their disease. So imitation is never perfect. Somebody else is already controlling the weather. Meaning the nature of Krishna.
If they want to take over the control, Krishna gives the prescription that you get rain in this way. What is that? Yajñād bhavati parjanyo yajñaḥ karma-samudbhavaḥ. Performing sacrifice. That they will not do.
They will spend for experiments millions of dollars. Yes. And by performing yajña, it can be done. No, they do. They think, they see the Indian tribes, ancient tribes doing sacrifice, and they think that that's barbarian.
Barbarian. They do not know what to say, that this way we make the rain is barbarian to their ideas. Yeah. They take it as primitive.
They go to see the Navajo Indians in Arizona having their rain dance, and they take many photos, and they think it's very quaint. But then dances, but this fire sacrifice as we do.
They have fire sacrifice, everything too, these Indians.
But the modern, the modern mind takes those as rituals and primitive for less evolved intelligence to perform some sacrifice rather than going out and taking things into your own hand.
But you have not been successful at taking in your hand. Well, they'll say the idea is that to eliminate all of the conditions that make us struggle for survival.
Recently, because we performed saṅkīrtana, the Indian government won over Pakistan. Yes. The newspaper man came to me. But what is your direction of this war? We must fight. And surely we'll gain.
So it happened by the saṅkīrtana-yajña. But that Indira Gandhi is taking the credit. She's a demigod. She has become dead. But when she was there... now she is dead.
But they all say that we have eliminated the conditions that cause us to have to struggle. Just like we have better fruits, nice vegetables, orchards; they point to their successes, though. Plenty of food successes.
Plenty of medicine. Everything else. Because you have plenty of foods, plenty of medicine, therefore you have plenty of rogues also. That is also a byproduct. Plenty of rogues. Drug addicts, criminals, prostitutes.
The trouble with the scientists is they do not understand the needs, the hierarchy of the needs. They understand a little bit the need.
They think man needs food, man needs shelter, the man needs a little friendship, affection. But they do not go beyond that. They provide him all that and the man is more and more miserable. Yeah. Because that is our formula.
Āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithuna. Give him eating, giving facilities for sleeping, giving facility for sex life and giving assurance, spontaneous. So these are primary necessities.
Spiritual consciousness versus material struggle
So the animal can be satisfied with these primary necessities. A man cannot because he has developed consciousness. So he wants something more. Therefore in the human society there is art, music, philosophy, so many things.
Religion, mm-hmm, these things are there. More ways to eat and sleep. More ways to eat and sleep.
But if this developed consciousness is again, I will say, for the matter of eating, then he never resists these things; this higher consciousness should be utilized for developing Krishna consciousness.
Then that's what they're spending all their energy, just like instead of being satisfied with little simple food, they have to have one hundred restaurants to go to.
Different restaurant every day on every street, different restaurant. They think that'll increase their pleasure of eating. Every night they'll eat at a different restaurant. Or sleep in a different hotel. Or some feed.
Digestive food. Or in some legal verification. Or something like that. Drown it all out, all the suffering.
I think we discussed once before that even if you eliminate the conditions of struggle, that men will create more because they like to struggle. It's very easy, their job, let's say.
But on the weekend when they're supposed to relax, leisure time, they'll go to the mountains and hike and camp and cook. Cold. You can't eliminate struggle. It's part of our nature. Give him less. He'll not less.
Isn't this struggle part of the nature of a living entity? Isn't this struggle part of our nature to be active? No. To what work, hard work, he is the pleasure of the materialistic. Due to passion.
But even... but even to passion. Yes. But even Krishna, although he had no reason to, he liked to fight sometimes or this or that. He liked to have activity. Krishna, whatever Krishna does, it is for pleasure.
But he cannot do for pleasure, for your pleasure. And yes, in the material world, but is there a spiritual counterpart of this desire for struggle for... Krishna is not struggling.
When he's dancing with the gopis, he's not struggling. Isn't that... Isn't all our desires and struggles—the source of all our desires and struggles of every living entity—is basically to find Krishna? Yeah.
Then that's the natural, and every other struggle and desire is the perversion. But activity in the spiritual world is enjoyment. This... this is a perversion.
For a diseased man to get up from the bed, it is a great painful act. For a healthy man, he jumps over the bed and begins to work. And a diseased man will see and say, "Oh..." Just like some devotees.
Some devotees, before they came to Krishna consciousness, they weren't doing anything. They stopped doing anything. They've given up even a purpose for living. But they come to Krishna consciousness and they begin to work.
And now they're working harder than ever. Just like they don't feel any display. Yes. Just like when you were always traveling around the world, sometimes if someone saw, they'd say, "Why are you struggling so hard? Why?"
But for us it wasn't struggle, it was enjoyment. Display that. So anyway, the essence of his philosophy, the purpose, is that man can make his own world. Man can make his own world. Yes. That we also said. But equal.
And that is Gita said: yānti deva-vratā devān pitṝn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ. If you want to go to the planets of the demigods, you can go. You can, if you want to go to the planet. As I have explained it.
And if you want to go back to home, back to Godhead, you can go. Like, these are your selection. What you want, if you want to remain here, you can remain here.
So, about your intelligence, Krishna has given you all facilities. Now you make a choice. Whether you are going to hell or heaven or Krishna, that is your choice.
According to this Huxley, about Krishna or God, he said that we must remain what he called agnostic. He coined this term from the Greek derivative, from the Sanskrit jñāna. Jñāna means in Greek gnosis. Gnosis.
So opposite of gnosis is agnosis or agnostic. That means we can't know God. Ajña. Ajñāna. We cannot know God. Even though He may exist, we cannot know Him. Why? Why he cannot know Him?
Because he doesn't appear in a phenomenal... And if He appears... If He appears... Or He can't appear. Uh-uh. Yes. But God, He can appear and teach you. Then you can go. So our process is that.
We don't try to get knowledge of God by speculation, or we try to get knowledge of God from a rascal philosopher.
We take direct, when God appears and leaves the instruction Bhagavad-gītā, we take from... Well, yeah, he had a little bit of an intelligent perspective, because at least he realized that by empiric method they never realize God. That is nice.
He's the one who introduced this term and this concept, agnosticism. At least he doesn't deny God like an atheist. Agnosticism said, he agrees that God cannot be known by our present senses. Yeah. That we also say.
But it is not that God cannot be known. Present senses can be purified. Krishna consciousness movement means purifying the senses.
He introduced another concept which has become the byword of all of our modern thought, called epiphenomenalism, which means that the consciousness and mental phenomena are produced by physical processes.
Consciousness, the mind—these are physical things. What about consciousness? Consciousness is also physical. Physical. These are products of matter; combinations of ingredients create consciousness. Subtle physical.
Subtle physical. But they're an extension of that.