View source for Karl Marx says, "The most persistent form of antagonism between the Jew and the Christian is religious antagonism." How has one solved an antagonism by... making it impossible?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"He says"|"How has one solved an antagonism by"|"The most persistent form of antagonism between the Jew and the Christian is religious antagonism"|"by making it impossible"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|04Aug11}}
{{last|04Aug11}}
{{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="PhilosophyDiscussiononKarlMarx_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="22" link="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx">
<div class="heading">There is not the question of antagonism. If we actually know who is God and what He desires... I give always this example: if we know the government and the government laws, then there is no antagonism. The government says that "Keep to the right," so there is no question of antagonism; anyone must keep to the right. So there is no question of antagonism. But the antagonism is there when the so-called religious system does not know what is God and what is actually the desire of God. Then there cannot be any antagonism.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx|Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Marx opposed Comte's view of the worship of women, and he also opposed the worship of God in nature. He writes, "There is no question of modern sciences which alone, along with modern industry, have revolutionized the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude toward nature as well as to other forms of childishness. The position as regards to the worship of female is the same as nature worship."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But how the science or the scientific brain has surpassed the laws of nature? Has man stopped the nature's action—birth, death, old age, and disease? So how the scientist has conquered over nature? What is the meaning of this conquering? The nature's law is going on. Before Marx, his father died, his mother died, and he also died. So how he has conquered over the nature? The death is continuing.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He felt...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is the improvement?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is the improvement?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He felt that there has been no improvement because religion has kept man...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It has nothing to do with religion. It is the work of nature...</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: ...that the man takes birth and he dies. So what the science has revolutionized in this matter? Has the science stopped birth and death and old age and disease? Then what improvement has done? The work is going on. In spite of talking  all theories by Marx or anybody, nature's law is still superseding them. So how the science and others, they have surpassed the laws of nature?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well, he felt that modern industry had made men...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Industry, whatever you take, industry. Does it means when a man takes to industry he does not die? How he has conquered over the laws of nature?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He couldn't say. How can he say?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, go on.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He felt that industry or science could make man happier by emancipating man from...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We don't think so because in the industry the worker are not satisfied. They are, they are observing strike. Why? If there is happiness, why there is strike?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He felt... Well this... Of course Marx wrote before Communism came into actual existence as a, as a political institution, so he's simply theorizing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Still, his theory, he...</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He's never, he's never, he never saw Communist Russia for instance, or any Communist state. He, he felt that religion has..., was the cause of antagonism between men. He says, "The most persistent form of antagonism between the Jew and the Christian is religious antagonism." How has one solved an antagonism by...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: ...by making it impossible?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There is not the question of antagonism. If we actually know who is God and what He desires... I give always this example: if we know the government and the government laws, then there is no antagonism. The government says that "Keep to the right," so there is no question of antagonism; anyone must keep to the right. So there is no question of antagonism. But the antagonism is there when the so-called religious system does not know what is God and what is actually the desire of God. Then there cannot be any antagonism. That perfectness of understanding God and God's regulation or order is clearly described in the Bhagavad-gītā. We are therefore advocating Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that "Here is God and here is God's instructions." So if we deliver it, and the proposal in the Bhagavad-gītā, they are all practical. Just like God says that you divide the society in four division—not only worker, but also the good brain, good administrator, and good producer of food. That is the actually the divisions of the society. So without division of the society, if you simply keep worker, who will give them instruction to work? These are all imperfect ideas. But the perfect ideas are given in the Bhagavad-gītā. If we follow that, then the human society, humanity will be in perfect order. So either you call it religion or a system to..., following which one can become peaceful. Religion means, to understand God means, a system. A system is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā in three principles. God says that He is the proprietor of everything, sarva-loka-maheśvaram ([[Vanisource:BG 5.29|BG 5.29]]). So we see this planet, and there is different proprietors-individual proprietor of the land or the state proprietor, the king. So there is a proprietor of this earth, either you divide it nationally or you take it wholly. So similarly there are many, many millions of others, so they are called sarva-loka. So there must be a proprietor. So if we know who is that proprietor and how He is working... That is also stated, that the supreme proprietor is the supreme friend of everyone. So if we find out the supreme  proprietor, supreme friend, and if we understand the proprietor is the enjoyer of everything, that is real religion. Then peace will prevail. But if we do not know who is the proprietor, what is His function, what is our relationship with Him, that we create antagonism. Somebody will say, "My religion is better," somebody will say, "My religion is better." But we most of all first, first of all know what is religion. Religion, we say, that the order given by the supreme proprietor and to live according to, according to that order, that is religion. If you do not know what is religion, what is the use of criticizing religion or creating antagonism?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well, evidently Marx never got over the antagonism between his father and his mother—his mother who was Jewish and his father who was a Christian convert. He says, "As soon as Jew and Christian recognize their respective religions, there is nothing more than different stages of evolution of the human spirit, as different snakeskins shed by history, and recognize man as the snake who wore them. They will no longer find themselves in religious antagonism but only in a critical scientific and human relationship. Science constitutes their unity. Contradictions in science, however, are resolved by science itself." So that, in other words, science, material science, is to replace this religion, and religion is to be shed by mankind just as a snake sheds its skin. And in this way the antagonisms created between Jew and Christian or, or Hindu and Muslim are reconciled.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Reconciled can be only when you actually know what is God. Simply by stamping oneself Christian, Jewish, or Hindu and Muslim, without knowing who is God and what is his desire, that will naturally create antagonism. Therefore the conclusion is, as Mr. Marx giving stress on science, so we should understand scientifically what is religion, what is God. Then this antagonism will stop.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He felt that the state should eventually assume the role of Christ. He said, "As Christ is the mediator on whom man unburdens all his own divinity and his whole religious burden, so also the state is the mediator on which man places all his unholiness and his whole human burden." So, in other words, that Christ, of course, relieves man of all his burdens and his sins through his message of salvation, and instead of Christ it would be the state that would assume this role.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So Christ gives the knowledge how one can be relieved of the material burden. That is the business of all religious preacher. The religious preacher should give information to the people in general the exact position of God or idea of God, and when people will learn scientifically about God's existence and his relationship with God, then everything will be adjusted. That is wanted. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is trying to give people exact idea of God, exact definition of God, and exact instruction of God. If we take that, take to that, then our religious life will be perfect.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>