View source for What is the position of one who has such theoretical knowledge (to know that he is not this body, he is different from body) but doesn't apply it?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"What is the position of one who has such theoretical knowledge but doesn't apply it"|"know that he is not this body, he is different from body"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|19Jul11}}
{{last|19Jul11}}
{{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="MorningWalkOctober191975Johannesburg_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="220" link="Morning Walk -- October 19, 1975, Johannesburg" link_text="Morning Walk -- October 19, 1975, Johannesburg">
<div class="heading">Not theoretical. Practical... No, what do you mean by theoretical knowledge?... Then, if he seriously understood, then he will act on ātmā. And otherwise, simply understanding, that is impersonal understanding, Brahman only understanding. But what is after that, Brahman knowledge, that they do not know. So they are almost as good as the animals.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- October 19, 1975, Johannesburg|Morning Walk -- October 19, 1975, Johannesburg]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: ...cutting trees.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Because they are also living beings, so you cannot take their life unnecessarily. You are responsible. You can cut trees when they are dried like this; otherwise not. (break) ...cutting trees indiscriminately for manufacturing paper, some bundles of papers nobody reads. Every day...</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: They throw away.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They are publishing hundreds of thousands of copies for wasting, and for that paper, it requires so many lives.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: No one has ever considered such things before.</p>
<p>Prahupada: No..., where is the man? All animals. Man will think. One with knowledge, he will think. And what the animal will think? Anyone who is not a devotee, he is animal. Śva-viḍ-varāhoṣṭra-kharaiḥ saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 2.3.19|SB 2.3.19]]). The big animal is being worshiped by a small animal. That's all. A lion in the forest is worshiped by the small animals. So does it mean the lion is not animal? He is also animal. So similarly, all these leaders, these scientists, these philosophers, they are applauded by the small animals, but they are also animals, big animal, that's all. The test is whether he understands the spirit soul different from the body. If he does not understand he is animal, that's all. Maybe big animal, that is a different thing. Big or small, animal is animal.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: So anyone who is not aware of the spirit soul...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He is animal. That's all. Sa eva gokharaḥ. That is the verdict of the śāstra. Yasyātmā buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke: ([[Vanisource:SB 10.84.13|SB 10.84.13]]) "Anyone who considers this body made of three elements—kapha, pitta, vayu—as self," yasyātm-buddhi kuṇape tri-dhātuke svadhiḥ kalatradiṣu, "and the accidental combination of family members, they are own kinsmen," sva-dhiḥ kala..., bhauma idyadhiḥ, "and the land in which they are born, that is worshipable..." That is nationalism, so-called nationalism. Bhauma idyadhiḥ yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile: "And going to the pilgrimage, taking the water as very important," yat tīrtha buddhiḥ na karhicij janeṣv abhijaneṣu, "and they do not care for the learned, experienced saintly person," sa eva gokharaḥ, "such person is nothing but cows and asses." That's all. If one does not know that he is not this body, he is different from body, so that sort of knowledge is there amongst the dogs. So why he should be distinguished from the dog? The basic knowledge is the same.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: One who has such knowledge... What is the position of one who has such theoretical knowledge but doesn't apply it?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not theoretical. Practical.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: What happens if someone doesn't apply it practically? What is their position? Are they higher than the person in ignorance?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, what do you mean by theoretical knowledge?</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Just like so many... In Indian philosophy everyone knows that there is ātmā, but still, people continue to act on the gross bodily platform for sense enjoyment.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then, if he seriously understood, then he will act on ātmā. And otherwise, simply understanding, that is impersonal understanding, Brahman only understanding. But what is after that, Brahman knowledge, that they do not know. So they are almost as good as the animals. Brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā ([[Vanisource:BG 18.54|BG 18.54]]). Therefore they are not happy. Simply theoretical knowledge that "I am Brahman," that's all.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): They know the knowledge but they don't act according to that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore they are not happy. Otherwise one who knows "I am Brahman," brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā—he will be happy always. That has become fashion. "Table chair brahma-jñāna," sitting on the table-chair, smoking and talking of Brahman. "Armchair brahma-jñāna." Although Kṛṣṇa is giving information, brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāṅkṣati, samaḥ sarveṣu... mad-bhaktiṁ labhate param ([[Vanisource:BG 18.54|BG 18.54]]), so they do not make further progress, mad-bhaktiṁ labhate param, to achieve that platform of bhakti. Therefore it is as good as no knowledge. These will be the symptoms of brahma-jñāna, na śocati na kāṅ..., samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu. If they have got brahma-jñāna, then why they should distinguish? Just like in our country, Mahatma Gandhi, so he is designated as mahātmā, but why he was against the Englishmen, to drive them away? That is not brahma-jñāna. Samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu. They are as good. As these white people, they do not give any chance to the other people, so similarly, Mahatma Gandhi also, he wanted that "These white people should go away." So what is the distinction? The same knowledge. "You want me ... to drive me away; I want to drive you away." So what is the distinction between you and me? The one dog is barking at another dog; another dog is barking, another dog. That's all. Where is knowledge?</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: That's a very interesting view.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Where is the change of understanding? It is natural. If you treat me as enemy, I treat you as enemy. That is natural. But brahma-jñāna means samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu, that no distinction, "Everyone is Brahman." That is brahma-jñāna. What was the movement here of Mahatma Gandhi?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): There was a movement.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. What is that movement?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): They used to call it...</p>
<p>Indian man (2): Satyagraha movement.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Nonviolence.</p>
<p>Indian man (2): Fighting for the truth.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What was the truth?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): There was discriminatory laws against the Indians, trying to let them carry certain documents to identify that they are foreigners and all that type of things, not allowed to go in certain places where other people were allowed to go, and all those kind of laws, discriminatory laws, especially for the Indians. So he fought against them for the truth that everybody is equal in the eyes of God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So? But it was not successful.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Partly it was, because then they had to listen to him, what actually the grievances were. First they were not prepared to talk to him. They didn't want him to know anything. Then they compromised, and from then onwards.... Still it has been carried on up to now. The laws are there for the Indians.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Still the Indians have no equal right.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: They are not allowed to vote here even, or have any representatives in Parliament.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): No, nothing whatsoever. They are grouped up. Especially now within these couple of years. Before there was living in town and all that, but now they are grouped up in their own areas, not supposed to live in town anymore.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The Indians are driven away.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): But there is a change at the moment. We are getting indirect representation in Parliament, and most probably in a matter of twenty, thirty years... (laughter) Promises.</p>
<p>Devotee (4): Sounds like the scientists.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Live on a promise.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: If you're still alive then.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Is that also effected through karma maybe, Swamiji?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hm?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Is that also effected through karma maybe?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. (break) ...the whole, you are getting sufficient food to eat.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Yes, that we are.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But Indians are not getting that. You are better than the Indians in India.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): That's what everybody says who comes from...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, I see. Here I see you are prosperous than in India. You go to the ration shop; you simply find all rejected food grains.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Rejected food grains.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. They are not eatable. No country uses them as food grain, and India, they are selling, a good price.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): The people are lazy too, Swamiji.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Don't you think the people are lazy also?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well, you are the same Indian. Why you are not lazy here? It is the government's policy or government's management. You see? To become lazy is the recommendation of the śāstra. To become lazy... It is a bad word, "lazy," but actually life means not to work very hard. That is real life. And to work hard for eating, that is animal life, that is not human life. Human life should be very peaceful, without any hard work, and cultivating spiritual knowledge. That is human life, not that, to work hard like hogs and dogs throughout the whole day for find out some stool, where it is. That is not human life. So people are being educated to work very hard. That is not human life. Therefore those who have got money, they build nice bungalow in a secluded place to live peacefully, to become lazy. Is it not?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Perfection of life means ultimately you become lazy; you haven't got to work. That is perfection, they say. Otherwise why they get a cottage in a secluded place and live? All these Americans, they go weekend. They leave aside all working, they become tired, hard working, and they go. That is the intention, that you should live peaceful life, not working very hard. That is human life. Huh? Otherwise why they go outside the city at the weekend? Why do they go? Hm?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): They want rest, I suppose. They want rest.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So that means lazy.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Rest means lazy; you don't work.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): If one works five days a week, you rest for two...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is another thing. You have to work to become lazy. (laughter) That is another thing. But the goal is to become lazy. You work five days very hard just to become lazy for two days. That's all. So if you have got means to become seven days lazy, you'll prefer it.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: But I think people would... Most people would go crazy if they didn't have any work.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that means their life is not properly conducted. And therefore the word laziness has come. Laziness is not actually the word. Laziness means minimizing the bodily labor and engaged in spiritual work. If you ask people, "Please come to our temple," who is coming? Because he says, "I have no time." But we are not working hard. So real aim of life is to... In German, I think, or somewhere there is classification: "Lazy intelligent, busy intelligent, lazy fool, and busy fool." So at the present moment (laughs) the whole world is full of busy fools. But the first-class man, he is lazy intelligent. Lazy and intelligent, that is first-class man. And second-class man, busy intelligent. And third class means lazy fool and fourth class means busy fool. When the fools are busy... Just like nowadays they are busy but they are fools. Like monkey, he is very busy. You see? And they prefer to be generation of monkey, busy fool. That's all. Fools, when he is busy, he is simply creating havoc. That's all. Better... Lazy fool is better than him because he will not create so much harm, but this busy fool will simply create harm. And first class-man is lazy intelligent. He knows the value of life, and soberly he is thinking. Just like all our great saintly persons. They were living in the forest, meditation, tapasya, and writing books. All, you will find, lazy intelligent. They are first-class men.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>