View source for He said also, the doctrine of Buddha, that man has not person, doesn't exist as person. He's only some moving elements, physical and psychical and nothing else?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"He's only some moving elements, physical and psychical and nothing else"|"he said also, the doctrine of Buddha, that man has not person, doesn't exist as person"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|24Jun11}}
{{last|24Jun11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1974]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithProfRegamayProfessorofSanskritattheUniversityofLausanneJune41974Geneva_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="97" link="Room Conversation with Prof. Regamay, Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Lausanne -- June 4, 1974, Geneva" link_text="Room Conversation with Prof. Regamay, Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Lausanne -- June 4, 1974, Geneva">
<div class="heading">Person. He is person. He is person. Lord Buddha is person.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Prof. Regamay, Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Lausanne -- June 4, 1974, Geneva|Room Conversation with Prof. Regamay, Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Lausanne -- June 4, 1974, Geneva]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prof. Regamay: And but he said also, the doctrine of Buddha, that man has not person, doesn't exist as person. He's only some moving elements, physical and psychical and nothing else.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Person. He is person. He is person. Lord Buddha is person.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: Yes, but Brahman is not person. Brahman.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He says that Buddha's philosophy did not admit a spiritual personal identity to the living being, that Buddhist philosophy was that we are simply this combination of chemicals.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is all right.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: Chemical, psychical, but no continuous, no ātman.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is śūnyavādī. We say also.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: So they are... I think it's... I must say that when comparing different religions, I see that for instance, what I find here...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There is no different religion. As soon as one tries to understand different religion, it is to be concluded that he does not know what is religion. That religion cannot be different. Religion is one. God is one. And the order given by God, that is religion. But "different" means according to time and circumstances... Just like Lord Buddha, he is giving the same religion. He is God, incarnation of God. He is asking, "Just obey Me." The same philosophy is being taught by Kṛṣṇa, "Surrender unto Me." That is religion. Buddha also says "Surrender unto Me. Obey Me." So that is religion. Yes. So the religion is... One who knows God and surrenders to Him, that is religion, and anything, that is all cheating. Anything else, that is all cheating. That is not religion. This is religion. God is one, and surrender to God, that is religion. That's all. You take any religion, it doesn't matter. If one has learned what is God and how to surrender to Him, that is religion.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: But I noted that for instance our Christian approach to God...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: In Christianity they also recommend surrender to God.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: It's nearer to your approach than, for instance, I don't know, as the kevalādvaita I mean, where nirguṇa-brahman is the higher form of, than...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nirguṇa-brahman... Just like... Here we have got this example. This is, what is called, New Zealand lake, and a few step after...,</p>
<p>Guru-gaurāṅga: Geneva Lake.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Geneva Lake. And few step after French lake.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Because French is a border of Geneva lake also. Therefore sometimes it's considered French.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So the sky is one. Sky is one. So in the sky, in the atmosphere, where God is forgotten, that is called material sky. And the sky where God is not forgotten, that is spiritual sky. Just like the sky is one, and the sun is one. But when your eyes are covered by cloud, you say the cloudy sky. The sky is not cloudy. The sky is one, it is always clear. But some portion of the sky there is cloud, and you say, "This is cloudy." (break) Similarly, materialism means when you forget Kṛṣṇa, that is material. And when you know Kṛṣṇa and act for Kṛṣṇa, that is spiritual.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: Now, one question still. Why in the Ṛg Veda there is not even the name of Kṛṣṇa?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh yes, Viṣṇu, there is. Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, I have already. There is no difference.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: Viṣṇu, yes, but not the name of Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, in Atharva Veda there is name of Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: Viṣṇu, yes, I know that the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So it doesn't require that in every Veda there should be, because the Upaniṣads, they are impersonal study, negation of the material existence. That is negation. There is no positivity. So when you come to the positivity, then you can understand Kṛṣṇa.</p>
:goloka-nāmni nija-dhāmni tale ca tasya
:devī-maheśa-hari-dhāmasu teṣu teṣu
:te te prabhāva-nicayā vihitāś ca yena
:govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
:(Bs. 5.43)
<p>So you cannot understand the goloka-nāmni nija-dhāmni tale ca tasya, the Goloka-nāmni planet, where it is. We do not know where is or how many planets are in this material world. (break) ...seeing very, very distant, ninety-three million miles away. But we have got little heat and light, we are satisfied. You see. But if you have got the capacity to run on..., just like they are trying to go to the moon planet, go to the sun planet... Actually it is a fact, this planet is in your front. Where can you go? Why? Why is it impossible to go? It is material. So you cannot go even the material planets, what to speak of the spiritual planets. So for them, this, this much knowledge, "Sunshine is light." That's all. Nothing more. They cannot understand with their poor brain.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: But I am struck that, for instance, for us in the West the idea of personal God is strongly rooted in our consciousness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Lord Jesus Christ, he was Vaiṣṇava. He directly gave you the idea of personal God. The personal God is the origin. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.11|SB 1.2.11]]). The... Just like, the same example: the sun god, the sun planet and sunshine, they are one. They are not different. But still, this is impersonal, that is localized, and within the sun globe, there is the sun god. So sun god is the origin of this light. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is the origin of everything. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvam ([[Vanisource:BG 10.8|BG 10.8]]). That's the fact. But people with poor fund of knowledge they cannot understand it. Therefore stop... (break) ...light, that's all. So much. Just like Lord Buddha. He did not explain anything about God. He said, "Just obey me and stop this animal killing." Therefore this much sufficient for him, that's all. The lower class students, one plus two equal to three, two plus two..., that much mathematics, not higher mathematics. Higher mathematics is not possible to understand.</p>
<p>Prof. Regamay: Yes, of course.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's it. But there is higher mathematics. Not one plus two or two plus three, no. There is still higher mathematics. So that is not meant for them. That will be explained, explained in the Bhagavad..., ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham ([[Vanisource:BG 4.11|BG 4.11]]). Those who are expert, or sufficient, insufficient knowledge, they cannot understand the Supreme Absolute. That is also confirmed, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.19|BG 7.19]]) "After many, many births, when one is actually in full knowledge, he can understand Kṛṣṇa and surrenders unto Him." Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 7.19|BG 7.19]]). So Vedas and scriptures are there, differently, according to different conditions. Now, what Jesus Christ was teaching the people? You can understand. The first injunction is "Thou shalt not kill." So what class of men they were, just you can understand. Otherwise, why he is first of all telling "Thou shalt not kill"? The Mohammed also said, "From this day, there is no sex with your mother." So just see what class of men. So according to class of men, there should be teaching. Similarly, Buddha also, Lord Buddha said, "No, no, there is no God. Just try to understand me. You obey Me." "Yes, sir." It has to be done like that.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>