View source for It is accepted that nature creates man, and that is not very good philosophy. Nature creates man, then nature is supreme. There is no such thing. And nature is ultimate. Nature is dull matter

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"it is accepted that nature creates man, and that is not very good philosophy. Nature creates man, then nature is supreme. There is no such thing. And nature is ultimate. Nature is dull matter"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|25Aug12}}
{{last|25Aug12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:accept]]
[[Category:that]]
[[Category:nature]]
[[Category:create]]
[[Category:man]]
[[Category:That Is Not]]
[[Category:Not Very Good]]
[[Category:philosophy]]
[[Category:nature]]
[[Category:then]]
[[Category:supreme]]
[[Category:There Is No]]
[[Category:No Such]]
[[Category:Such Things]]
[[Category:ultimate]]
[[Category:Dull Matter]]
</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="PhilosophyDiscussiononImmanuelKant_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="3" link="Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant">
<div class="heading">It is accepted that nature creates man, and that is not very good philosophy. Nature creates man, then nature is supreme. There is no such thing. And nature is ultimate. Nature is dull matter. What do you call nature? Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ: (BG 7.4) earth, water, fire. They cannot create. Nature cannot create. Otherwise the materialist scientist, they could do it by combining, combining this earth, water, air, fire. So nature is dull, lifeless. How nature can create life? What is the logic?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant|Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: According to the Christian religion, at the end of the world there is a resurrection of the body, that is the gross  material body. Kant does not think very much about this. He writes, "For who is so fond of his body that he would wish to drag it about with him through all eternity if he could get on without it?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is the nature. Even a hog, pig, he is living so abominable. Still, when he is captured for being killed, he cries. He does not think that "My body is so low-grade that I have to eat stool, I live in filthy place, in a very bad smell, and I am trying to save my, this body?" But he cries. So this is called māyā. Although his body is so abominable, he wants to protect it perpetually. This tendency is there because the living entity has actually..., he is perpetual living condition. He wants that, but he wants that in this material body. That is his mistake.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He writes that "Man alone can be regarded as nature's own end or highest product, because on earth only man is capable of complying with the categorical imperative, the moral law."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So it is accepted that nature creates man, and that is not very good philosophy. Nature creates man, then nature is supreme. There is no such thing. And nature is ultimate. Nature is dull matter. What do you call nature? Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4|BG 7.4]]) earth, water, fire. They cannot create. Nature cannot create. Otherwise the materialist scientist, they could do it by combining, combining this earth, water, air, fire. So nature is dull, lifeless. How nature can create life? What is the logic? What is the philosophy?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He wouldn't say that. He would say that man is nature's final end...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: ...because man's moral nature alone is worthwhile.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. He is giving stress that nature has made man. That is our objection, that nature cannot do anything. Nature has given a body that..., just like a tailor can give me a set of dress, but the dress, when I put on, the dress looks like a man, with hands and legs. But dress is nothing; it is simply outward covering of a man, a living entity. Similarly, nature gives us this material body, outward coating. The inside is living entity, that..., not the creation of this material nature. That is creation of part and parcel of God. This (indistinct) knowledge is imperfect, that nature has created man. That is imperfect knowledge.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>