View source for Is this statement (individual ego is eternal and also subordinate to that which is eternal), a statement of fact based on direct perception, or it is something what follows traditional belief and is just the axiomatic basis of your philosophy?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Is this statement what you made, a statement of fact based on direct perception, or it is something what follows traditional belief and is just the axiomatic basis of your philosophy or similar other philosophies of axiomatic basis"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|09Jul11}}
{{last|09Jul11}}
{{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... 1975]]
</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="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithWomanSanskritProfessorFebruary131975Mexico_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="6" link="Room Conversation with Woman Sanskrit Professor -- February 13, 1975, Mexico" link_text="Room Conversation with Woman Sanskrit Professor -- February 13, 1975, Mexico">
<div class="heading">No, this is axiomatic basis because you have to accept that your senses are imperfect. So you, by speculation, cannot have perfect knowledge. This is axiomatic truth.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Woman Sanskrit Professor -- February 13, 1975, Mexico|Room Conversation with Woman Sanskrit Professor -- February 13, 1975, Mexico]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Professor: I think you are also supporting the possibility to acquire knowledge through contact.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Our position is—I have already explained—that we are all imperfect. Therefore we have to take knowledge from the perfect. So God is perfect, or Kṛṣṇa is perfect, so we have to receive knowledge from Him. Then our knowledge is perfect. And so long we shall speculate, that is not perfect because you are speculating with imperfect instruments, what is the use? If I want to cut this table, I must have proper instrument. If I want to cut this table with this book, "Let me cut this," how it will be possible? You must know that for cutting this table it requires this instrument.</p>
<p>Professor: Yes, they say that the only way to acquire knowledge is through śabda.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Śabda-pramāṇa.</p>
<p>Professor: And I think other pramāṇas will be also possible according to those...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just like I am trying something, and some experienced man says, "Do like this." This is śabda-pramāṇa. The śabda-pramāṇa, one who knows, he says, "Do like this." The "Do like this," means śabda, sound, and it enters your ear, and you do adjustment. Therefore śabda-pramāṇa. Just like you are sleeping, and one is, another man is coming to kill you. And another friend says, "Get up, get up, get up! There is enemy. He is coming to kill you." Then you wake up. Therefore the sound is the pramāṇa, there was enemy. These are crude examples. When you are asleep, you cannot understand. You have got eyes, you have got hands, you have legs but no experience, but the ear gives you warning even if you are sleeping. There is enemy, your eyes cannot see, your hand cannot touch, but the ear can give you evidence, "Yes." As soon as you are awakened you say, "Yes, here is enemy. He is coming to kill me." Therefore the aural reception, sound reception, is the evidence. Knowledge received through authentic sound vibration, that is perfect.</p>
<p>Guest (1): Let's just say I would like to ask a question in this way. We don't doubt what you said, the assumption that individual ego is eternal and also subordinate to that which is eternal, hierarchically higher, nevertheless is the part of that which is the eternal reality. And that is (indistinct) that which you later developed. Question, sir: Is this statement what you made, a statement of fact based on direct perception, or it is something what follows traditional belief and is just the axiomatic basis of your philosophy or similar other philosophies of axiomatic basis.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, this is axiomatic basis because you have to accept that your senses are imperfect. So you, by speculation, cannot have perfect knowledge. This is axiomatic truth.</p>
<p>Guest (1): With that epistemological truth, all right we may go along, and, as a matter of fact, doubt about the truths of direct sensual perception is the basis, one of models of scientific activity.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Direct perception...</p>
<p>Guest (1): My question is, rather, this statement, this basic statement about eternal ego and so on, is a statement which you somehow give to us as revealed message, something what is...,</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, revealed.</p>
<p>Guest (1): ...or is...? Yes. Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Revealed. It is revealed. Hm? Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā the vibration is coming from Kṛṣṇa. Now, you practically realize it: "Yes, what is said is correct." That is direct perception. First of all, you receive the message, and then apply your logic and see that it is fact. Therefore it is perfect. When you receive the knowledge and when you directly apply it to your perception, when you see it is correct, that is the proof that the message which you received, that is correct.</p>
<p>Professor: Very difficult to have proofs of that, where the eternality of your own ātman for instance, things of that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is called realization. Yes. First of all you receive the sound, then apply your instruments, and when you find it, it is correct—that is the realization. So our process is to receive knowledge from the perfect. That's all. We are not perfect. But the knowledge we are getting, that is perfect. So according to that perfect direction, if we mold our life, then we are successful. Otherwise you go on experimenting, speculating. Ciraṁ vicinvan. Ciram, you understand, "perpetually," vicinvan, "thinking." Ciraṁ vicinvan.</p>
:athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-
:prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi
:jānāti tattvaṁ (bhagavan mahimno)
:na cānya eko 'pi ciraṁ vicinvan
:([[Vanisource:SB 10.14.29|SB 10.14.29]])
<p>What is the use of speculating with imperfect senses? Useless waste of time.</p>
<p>Professor: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But that is the tendency of modern... They do not accept that their senses are imperfect. They want to see something, distant place, with microscope... What is called? Telescope. Telescope. But the telescope is manufactured by you. It is imperfect.</p>
<p>Professor: But I would say that even in India, where ancient tradition... They would propose how to arrange our telescopes to be able to see more correctly.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You have to see... That... Vedic injunction says, śāstra-cakśuṣā. Śāstra-cakśuṣā: "Your eyes should be the śāstra." There is another crude example. Just like who is your father? How do you understand? Through the vibration of the mother. The mother says, "He is your father." You accept it. Otherwise there is no experiment. So things which are beyond your perception, beyond your defective senses, that should not be speculated. Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintyā khalv ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. These are the injunction. What is beyond your perception, beyond your speculation, don't waste your time so-called argument and logic. What is argument? Mother says, "He is your father." Where is the argument? You cannot apply any argument.</p>
<p>Professor: No, I said old tradition in India has been going on into argument itself.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, argument you can go on, but if you want to know the truth it will not be attained by argument because argument is also within your thinking power: thinking, feeling, willing. So if your thinking, feeling, willing is imperfect, what is the use of your argument? What is the use of your so-called advancement of knowledge? Basically, if the senses, knowledge acquiring senses, are imperfect, then how you can get perfect knowledge?</p>
<p>Professor: Well, then what do we with all techniques, all systems, that have been developed? I am thinking only India, I am not thinking other places, and all the old tradition, since Śaṅkara onwards, of different ways to think, to study, to go deeply to all these relations between...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Śaṅkara has interpreted. Śaṅkara has interpreted by his limited knowledge. So that is not perfect knowledge. Therefore we don't accept Śaṅkara's philosophy.</p>
<p>Professor: But I said if he belongs to the same tradition, and you belong to the other...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That tradition is nothing. Tradition is just temporary. You make your tradition; he makes your tradition. That is another thing. But the, fact is fact. That is not dependent on tradition. Tradition we can make, tradition. "We believe." Just like somebody says, "We believe." What is the use of such saying, "We believe"? You may believe something which is not fact.</p>
<p>Professor: Yes, but we could say that since the Upaniṣads and later, all things have been sustaining the thing which you have just said a moment ago, that there exists an identity between ātman and Brahmān.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Identity is there. That, therefore, I have already said, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānṁ. Both of them are identical so far nitya is concerned or cetana is concerned, but one is dependent, and other is maintainer. That is difference. Both of them are truth. Both of them truth. You are truth; I am truth. You are living; I am living, existing. This is truth. This is truth, but you are professor and I am something else. That is temporary. But so far you are, as living being, and I am, as living being, that is truth. But your dress and my dress, that is temporary. So we have to understand like that. In this material world we are mixed up with temporary and eternal. The living entity is eternal, but his body is temporary. This is the position. So the problem is: why the eternal has got temporary things? That is hampering his ānanda. Just like I am sitting here. Now, if somebody says, "Now you'll have to die and accept another body," this is not very pleasing to me. Or even I am sitting in this apartment, and somebody..., "No, you change your apartment. Come. Come here." Again I change another apartment. So I'll seek after: "Why I am changing this apartment? Is it not possible to get an eternal apartment?" That should be the brahma-jijñāsā. That is... Vedānta-sūtra first says, athāto brahma jijñāsā. "Why I am subjected to this change?" That is intelligence. "Why not eternal apartment if I am eternal?" That is intelligence.</p>
<p>Professor: Did you say that for the ātman, are part of the eternal? For the ātman, it is... A need for the being is for the purpose, ānanda.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Ānanda, yes.</p>
<p>Professor: That means he is inquiring...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nature, nature ānanda.</p>
<p>Professor: This other thing, they have it because of līlā, pleasure, playing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is also ānanda. Just like somebody goes within the water. Nowadays it has become a fashion. What is that? Go within the water?</p>
<p>Devotee: Diving.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But he does not belong to the water, but he takes some pleasure.</p>
<p>Professor: He needs the pleasure.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore he's seeking pleasure. That is the real aim. Therefore he's going into the water. He has no business to go to the water, but because he is seeking pleasure—"Let me see if there is some pleasure. Experiment." That's all. But he does not get... Just like they are going to the moon planet, moon planet: "Let us see." Because there is no ānanda, he is seeking another type of ānanda. And now they have failed. Now they're going to Venus or what?</p>
<p>Devotees: Mars.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Mars. This is going on. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate ([[Vanisource:BG 8.19|BG 8.19]]). He's not seeking after where is eternal happiness. He's... Temporarily, he's seeking here, there. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate. In this way his life is finished, seeking ānanda, and he gets another body, another term. So his intelligence is not coming to the point that "What is this ānanda? I am eternal. I am seeking eternal ānanda. Why this ānanda? Sometimes this body, sometimes this position, sometimes that position—what is this?" That is intelligence.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>