View source for If I am perfect, then why do I have to submit to imperfection?... That means actually I am not perfect. Therefore what qualification have I got to give truth?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"if I am perfect, then why do I have to submit to imperfection"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|02Aug11}}
{{last|02Aug11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1971]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononMaoTseTung_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="23" link="Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung">
<div class="heading">Yes.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung|Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Revatīnandana: Now they have invited the American president to come there for talks. The imperfect one, they are inviting to talk with him now for some compromise.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is described in Bhāgavata: punah punaś carvita-carvaṇānām ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.30|SB 7.5.30]]), "chewing the chewed." Once it is chewed, it is thrown away, and then again, "Let me see if there is any juice." (laughter) Chewing the chewed. Or in plain words, mental concoction. The mind's business is acceptance and rejection. First of all, reject American capitalists; then again accept for consulting. That means they are hovering on the mental plane. They have no intelligence. In big scale, accepting and rejecting. That's all. It is the business of the mind. As in your personal mind you see, you accept something immediately and again reject, "No, no, it is not good." The same thing is going on in a bigger scale. That's all. They are not... Just like a pickpocket and a big scientific thief. Huh? They are trying to... Modern, scientifically, they want to rob the bank. They set the bomb. And pickpocket is satisfied by taking one paisa from your pocket. But the principle is stealing. Because you are very organized thief, it does not mean from the eyes of the law you are honest. You cannot say in the court that "I am organized thief. I am scientific thief, and he is a pickpocket." In the eyes of the law you are also punishable, he is also punishable. That's all. So they are, I mean to say, large-scale speculators. That's all. But it is, after all, speculation. It has no fact.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So these governments, meaning American government or Chinese government, they live on slogans, on ideas, mental concoctions.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all. Mental concoction. They are not perfect. Perfection is this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If they are intelligent, they should consider this movement very seriously and apply it for practical life all over the world. That will make people happy.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So that's all.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all.</p>
<p>Devotee: Is it not a fallacy to think that by adding sense gratification we will decrease the demands, desires for more?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is not possible. Adding sense gratification means adding ghee, pouring ghee on the fire.</p>
<p>Devotee: Yes. But some has to be there as the senses, which they're denying. The basis of their ideology is that conflict brings about growth or progress. If they want a peaceful society, they're still trying to get rid of their conflicts.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That we have discussed in the beginning. Conflict must be decided by higher intelligence. Just like I have given yesterday, there is conflict between two litigants and the high-court judge decides. So conflict there must be, but it must be decided by higher authorities. That's all. Otherwise it will go on. If you don't go to the higher authorities, then it will go on. It will never end, conflict.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: It also follows from his philosophy that if somebody defeats him and throws him out, that other person was right.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: He was wrong.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is right.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: So his philosophy is very conditional.</p>
<p>Devotee: The antithesis is there in his teaching. He defeated his  own instruction in his preface. That's what I was trying to... One thing about Mao's Communism in Russia in its relation to the Soviet Communism is that Soviet Russians are finding that the (indistinct) in a commune is going down because the family life is broken up. The children are taken away from the parents. The parents live separately and see one another occasionally. Similarly, it's dropping still more sharply in Red China, Mao's state. So Mao, in an effort to curb back and to reduce things to their natural order, wants to still further dissolve the struc...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But we don't accept either Mao or Marx. We don't accept anyone.</p>
<p>Devotee: Why are you discussing them?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Discussing to defeat their philosophy. Because their philosophy is accepted in the world, so we are giving the weak points of that philosophy.</p>
<p>Devotee: When I (indistinct) they simply say I'm dogmatic, but when I defeat them in terms of their own premises, that they have to admit.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That we are doing. We are defeating on their own principles. On principles. Just like we are speaking that Mao thinks that he is not controlled. He should be controller. But he is controlled by heart attack. Then how he can be controller? The same example. If you are blind, how you can lead other blind men? First of all, he has to know that "I am so powerful, why I am being controlled by heart attack?" Let them philosophize on this point. You must admit that "I am controlled." So if I am controller, then how I can be supreme controller?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Or if I am perfect, then why do I have to submit to imperfection?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: That means actually I am not perfect. Therefore what qualification have I got to give truth?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. You cannot give. You are cheating only. Because you are imperfect, but you are giving ideas to people. What right you have that you are teaching?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Suppose he says, "Yes, it's true, I will die. We all will die. I am just giving a formula for now until I die. Until we die, then we will do like this."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then all will die. Those who will follow, he will also die, they will also die. So first of all, stop yourself from death.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: They will say "That cannot be done."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why it cannot be done? Search out the cause. You don't want to die, but you are being forced to die. First of all, answer this problem. Otherwise, "Devils cite scripture." You first of all become perfect. Why you remain a devil? How you can cite scripture?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Also his (indistinct) that "If we are imperfect, how can we govern?" Their whole slogan, Communist slogan is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." How can you get from a person according to his ability and how can you give according to his needs? If all the time there are the four errors of cheating propensity and so many other factors of imperfection are there, how can you possibly take a person and treat him as an individual and expect to have any kind of a reasonable conception of what he is capable of doing? (end)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>