Language Knowledge and Human Distinction
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Language and human education
Mrs. Uh, Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley felt that the main difference between man and the animals is the ability to speak. Now, is that—is the beginning of another sense? Everyone speaks in his own language.
What does he—what do he mean by speak?
But, uh, isn't speech, which is the articulation of the intellect, um, the primary difference between man and the animals in the sense that is it not through words that one can come to understand God?
That is animal thing. But the animal has its own language. Every human being has his own language.
So why does he say that when he speaks, he speaks from the very beginning, in his own language? Well, he's—he's—he mentioned speech
as being intelligible, rational speech, uh, that accumulates and organizes experience, which is almost lost with the cessation of every individual life in other animals.
In other words, man has a history due to language, but animals may be able to articulate certain basic facts to one another, then, but they have no culture or history.
Speaking is good language, and they're only human beings, all are animals. If he says like that, the Sanskrit language is the old language, the mother of all languages.
Then one who speaks in Sanskrit, he only perfect, all are animals, according to his theory. But Mr. Huxley does not speak in Sanskrit. Well, we'll see, he read quite a bit.
Yeah, I don't know if he read in Sanskrit or English, but he read quite a bit of the Vedas. He gives that everyone has—probably not. Every—everyone has its language.
And it—it does not mean that the animals have no language. They have got their own language, the birds have their own language, the Englishmen have their own language, the Indians have their own language.
There are different varieties of life and each one has his own language. Although Huxley was called—language is not important. The education is important.
A developed human being can take real education while the animals are not able to take. That is the point. It is not a question of language.
Knowledge can be imparted in particular knowledge, uh, a language, just like we are imparting Vedic knowledge in English. So it is not the language, it is the knowledge.
God consciousness and ethical survival
But animals cannot take the knowledge of God. That is a defect.
But a human form of body or a human being, it doesn't matter in what language he speaks, but if the knowledge of God is properly imparted in him, then he can understand. The dog cannot understand. That is it.
Huxley, although an evolutionist, and although he was called Darwin's Bulldog, he differed with Darwin, especially on the theory of the survival of the fittest.
He believed in the survival of those who were ethically the best. Best and fittest, probably the difference. He says the strongest, the most self-assertive tend to tread down the weaker. What do they mean by survival?
Well, the continuance of a culture that is going on. Agriculture is continuing. The daivī culture is there and other cultures are also there.
The discontinuing... He says the influence of the cosmic process on the evolution of society is greater the more rudimentary its civilization.
Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process.
The cosmic process is the process of creation, maintenance, and ultimate annihilation. Culture. The cosmic process cannot be checked. But the cosmic process is continuing in different modes; that is called tri-guṇa.
Material nature and social progress
One process is the process of goodness, another process is the process of passion, another process is called ignorance. So in the process of goodness, real advancement goes on.
And ultimately one has to transcend the process of goodness also and come to the platform which is all good. In a material world, whichever process you accept, it is mixed — both goodness, passion and ignorance.
It is very difficult in the material way of life to keep the process pure.
Therefore, the real process is gradually bring the being or the soul to the platform of goodness and then transcend also goodness and keep him, or let him remain in the actual platform of pure goodness that is wanting.
That is the real progress. That pure goodness is bhakti. When the transaction is only with God, there is no other transaction. That is pure goodness. That is śuddha-sattva.
When one comes to that platform of pure goodness, he survives. Otherwise, nobody survives. Everyone has to change the body.
This body to that body. But one who comes to the pure goodness platform, he understands God; then he hasn't got to change. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti, that is survival.
Otherwise there is no meaning of survival. They do not know what is survival. Survival means that when the soul remains pure in its original position, it does not change body. That is survival.
In the spiritual world there is no more change. So that is survival. And in the material world, there is change. That is not survival. So they do not know what is the meaning of survival.
If there is change, there is no survival. Everyone has to change the body. Well, that so negate the rest of this. So "survive" explained. The rest of this doesn't survive. No. What do you think?
Oh, I... he said Huxley looks on civilization as something of an attempt to give order to nature. Civilization might be defined as a complex ethical understanding between men, enabling as many men as possible to survive.
No, that is not possible. Nature is so strong that either you become Huxley or Einstein or somebody else, you must die. That is nature's law. You cannot dictate nature. Nature is going on dictating you. Then you must die.
That is it. There is no question of survival under the regulation of the material nature. There's no... when you go above the dictation of the material nature, then you survive. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā.
Sa guṇān... When one realizes Brahman understanding, then he survives. Otherwise there is no survival.
Renunciation and the cosmic process
Well, Huxley, as is typically British... Uh, he wrote in British... Frenchman? Uh, Huxley, no, he was English. Englishman. He says, "By the Ganges, ethical man admits that the cosmos is too strong for him." Yeah.
"And destroying every bond which ties him to it by ascetic discipline, he seeks salvation in absolute renunciation." He says, but he says, "This attempt to escape from evil has ended in flight from the battlefield."
He doesn't advocate this for an Englishman. In a typically British manner, he quotes Alfred Lord Tennyson. He says, "We are grown men and must play the man, strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
You do not like to die, but the nature kicks on your face and says you must die. That he does not. Well, at any rate, he's dead now, so at least he's not surviving. Yes.
He admits, he says, this being this man or Frenchman and this man... You cannot survive, you have to succumb under the dictation of the superior nature.
That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, that I think Huxley read Bhagavad-gītā.
He does not know that prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ, ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā — this kind of conception that "I shall survive, I am English," this is a false egotism. And vimūḍhātmā.
Whatever he may be, Englishman or this man or that man, he must die. That is the law of it. So intelligent man first of all makes provision, how I shall not die. That is real business of human beings.
That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, that if one simply understands Krishna, then he survives. Otherwise, one has to die, there is no doubt. Nobody can avoid it.
Transmigration and the individual soul
Huxley did appear to adhere to the doctrine of transmigration. He says, "The doctrine of transmigration constructs a plausible indication of the ways of the cosmos to man.
Every sentient being is reaping as it has sown, if not in this life, then in one or other of the infinite series of antecedent existences of which it is the latest term."
In Evolution and Ethics, he writes about Brahman and ātmā and liberation.
He says the earlier forms of Indian philosophy agreed with those prevalent in our times, and supposing the existence of a permanent reality or substance beneath the shifting series of phenomena, whether of matter or of mind, the substance of the cosmos was Brahman, that of individual man, ātmā.
And the latter, that is ātmā, was separated from Brahman only by its... that is also... Brahman and ātmā, that existing, coexisting... and that is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, in the chapter, kṣetra and kṣetra-jña.
The body is field, and the ātmā, individual soul, is the owner of the field, of the worker in the field.
So it is also said there is another owner, kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi, as the individual soul is watching in the body. Similarly, there is another soul working in the body. What is the difference between the two?
The difference is that the individual soul knows only about his own body, but the other soul, Super Soul, He knows everything of everybody. That is the difference. I know the pains and pleasure of my body.
I do not know the pains and pleasure of your body. But this Super Soul, He knows the pains and pleasure of this body and that body and millions and millions of... that is the difference between the two souls.
But the two souls are there. One is called Super Soul, Paramātmā, and the individual soul is called ātmā. ātmā and Paramātmā are there.
The difference between them is that the ātmā knows about his own body and Paramātmā knows everything of all bodies, the division.
His understanding was the understanding of the Shankarites that the ātmā is imprisoned in the body; when the man is enlightened and sees apparent reality as mere illusion, the bubble of illusion will burst and the freed individual ātmā will lose itself in the universal Brahman.
Does that mean the ātmā becomes the Paramātmā? There, it's like a drop of water you put into the sea. It mixes with the sea. It is not mixing. I suppose it's mixing.
But that does not mean that the drop of water has become the sea. He is mixed with the sea water. But that does not mean he is the sea. He was not sea before. And after dropping into the sea, he is imagined what he was.
But he is mixed up in the sea. This is like, uh, an aeroplane is flying, you see, and going high and high and going very high, you do not see. That means the flight is lost. You do not see. So this Śaṅkara purpose is defect.
It's like if you, uh, a green bird enters a tree, but, uh, you do not see the bird anymore. You simply foolishly think that he has become one with the tree. But that is foolishness.
He keeps his individuality, but your defective eyes cannot see him anymore. The Śaṅkara theory is like that, a defective understanding that the individual soul, merged, is the Supreme.
He keeps always his individuality; a foolish man cannot see how he has merged or existed.
Ending karma through devotional service
He says there is no external power which could affect the sequence of cause and effect which gives rise to karma, none but the will of the subject of the karma, which could put an end to it.
Now, by willing to surrender to Krishna, the individual allows Krishna to put an end to his karma. Yes. So Krishna is called Mukunda. Yes. So that is... Huxley has no idea that... I said this. Karma-mukti. Hm. You said that.
Yeah. I think this is... I said that. Yeah. No, this is Huxley. Huxley says, uh, this salvation or liberation from karma was to be attained through knowledge and by action based on that knowledge.
The supernatural, in our sense of the term, is entirely excluded. Actually, yes. We are acting under, uh, certain designation that, just like Mr. Syāmasundara said a few minutes before, that we are Englishmen.
So this is designation. So long you work under designation, there is no freedom.
Because under false impression that "I am Englishman, I am Frenchman, let me work in this way," that means you are entangling yourself into some other way.
So that today you are Englishman, next day you may be Frenchman or Dutchman. But when you give up this designation, that "I am no other small, but I am Krishna's man," then you save yourself.
Otherwise, therefore, to become Krishna conscious is the actual platform of freedom from God. So that there's no question of independent liberty. No, that was—that is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: yajñārthāt karmaṇo.
Only for Yajña or Krishna you should work. Yajñārthāt karmaṇo 'nyatra loko 'yaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ. Otherwise you are entangled. This is freedom. To work for Krishna, then you are not under entanglement.
There are many practical examples, just like a soldier: he is killing, his business is killing, and the more he kills, he gets recognition. But as soon as he kills one man on his own account, he is a murderer.
Just like when a soldier—his business is to kill. And so long he's killing for the satisfaction of the state, of the government, he is getting recognition, medals.
The same soldier, as soon as he kills one man for his own self-satisfaction, he's a murderer. He's doing it. This is the karma-bandha. The business is the same: killing.
But one killing is on the order of the state, and one killing is for the sense gratification. The killing business is the same, but the position is different.
Similarly, when you act for Krishna, that is not problematic, that is freedom. And when you act for yourself, that is bondage.
That is the teaching of Bhagavad-gītā throughout. Arjuna was thinking killing and suffering the sinful activities. Because he was thinking on account of himself.
But when he understood that "I am induced to kill on behalf of Krishna, Krishna wants this fight," and then he accepted Krishna's proposal. That is not karma-bandha. That is not killing. One has to understand this.
Evolutionary theory and logical evidence
Now there is one interesting point that Huxley makes in Evolution and Ethics, and he tries to tie in the theory of karma with the theory of evolution. He writes in this way:
"In the theory of evolution, the tendency of a germ to develop according to a certain specific type, for instance, of a kidney bean seed to grow into a plant and to grow into a plant having all the characters of Phaseolus vulgaris, that is a kidney bean, that is its karma.
The snowdrop is a snowdrop and not an oak tree, and just that kind of snowdrop because it is the outcome of the karma of an endless series of past existences." Yeah. That is called karma-dhārā.
One after another, one after another, one after another is going on. So
in this evolutionary process, when one comes to the form of human being, then he is allowed the discrimination to decide whether he shall continue in this karma-bandhana process or he should stop his karma-bandhana process and surrender to Krishna.
If he surrenders to Krishna, then his karma-bandhana process stopped. And if he does not do that, then he is again put into the karma-bandhana process by the laws of nature.
So he does appear, at least a little closer than Darwin, because Darwin didn't recognize any of the spiritual truth.
Everyone, more or less, unless one has got the right jñāna, why Darwin, everyone is under false impression.
Therefore, our proposition is that you take that knowledge from the right person, Krishna, then you are all right.
And if you go on speculating—you speculate in one way, I speculate in another way— it does not mean that we are intelligent persons.
Huxley—it was Huxley who coined the word 'agnostic' as the opposite of 'Gnostic' of church history. The word 'Gnostic' is one who follows in the Gnostic tradition of church history.
According to Vedas, nāstika... what is that nāstika? Gnostic. Nāstika means who does not believe in the Vedas. Well, this is different. Gnostic. It is Gnostic.
This is Gnostic, G-N-O-S-T-I-C. Gnostic is one in the Gnostic tradition or in the tradition of the Christian church. And he used the word agnostic.
So this word was coined by... coined... "a-g", uh, that means... well, like there's dharma and there's adharma. That is, uh, not. "Ag" meaning against. Against. As theism and atheism. That means against.
"Ag" means against. Against. But according to him, agnosticism holds that man shouldn't assert what he calls the truth without logically satisfactory evidence.
When Huxley became a Darwinist, he rejected a supernatural God and the Bible for argument from design. He believed...
previously he believed in, uh, a Christian God as the designer, but he believed that Darwin's theory gave this Christian conception its death blow.
He did not accept a pantheistic God like Spinoza did as being identical... excuse me. He did accept a pantheistic God, like Spinoza did, as being identical with nature.
That is, he saw God as nature, and he believed in the divine government of the universe. He believed that the cosmic process is rational, not random. How it becomes rational?
But he rejected a personal God concerned with morality. That is his defect.
Intelligence behind the cosmic process
Uh, the nature is dead body, matter. So how it can be rational? Just like this table is dead wood, how it can be rational? That is nonsense. The carpenter is rational, who has made the wood into the table.
So he says the nature is rational. Nature is dead matter. How it can be rational? Therefore, there is a rational being behind the nature. There is God. The wood is dead. The wood out of its own accord cannot become a table.
The carpenter is shaping the wood into a table, that is rational. Therefore, behind the dead nature, the rational being is God. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā.
I think Mr. Huxley is supposed to have read—unless he has given some, uh, comment on the Rāmāyaṇa. But he has not studied Bhagavad-gītā thoroughly. Oh, that's his son, his grandson. Oh, that's, um, Aldous... Aldous Huxley,
and this is, uh, Thomas Henry Huxley. Oh, it's a very famous English family of many. Anyway, that's his grandson was... so this Thomas Huxley, uh, how he says that the nature has, uh, rationality, rationality?
We don't find dead stone, uh, maybe big mountain, but has it got rationality? How does he say that the nature has rationality?
What is the basic... Well, it's, uh, the pantheistic, it's the same pantheistic, um, contention that, uh, that God is God, uh, is impersonal and made the tree grow. Maybe, and impersonal, personal, that we shall consider.
But, uh, God is sentient. He is all-pervading, that is accepted. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram, that's all life. But God is not like the dead matter who has no sense.
We don't find the dead matter has got rationality. The rationality behind the dead matter is God. That's it on Huxley.