View source for Sankaracarya has described about the seven islands 1,500 years ago. So why the credit should go to Columbus? (laughter) It should go to Sankaracarya

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Sankaracarya has described about the seven islands 1,500 years ago. So why the credit should go to Columbus? (laughter) It should go to Sankaracarya"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|19Sep12}}
{{last|19Sep12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Sankaracarya]]
[[Category:has]]
[[Category:describe]]
[[Category:about]]
[[Category:Seven Islands]]
[[Category:years]]
[[Category:ago]]
[[Category:why]]
[[Category:credit]]
[[Category:should Go]]
[[Category:go To]]
[[Category:Laughter]]
[[Category:Prabhupada's Jokes]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB11612LosAngelesJanuary91974_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="328" link="Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974">
<div class="heading">Śaṅkarācārya has described about the seven islands 1,500 years ago. So why the credit should go to Columbus? (laughter) It should go to Śaṅkarācārya. But andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ. He says that "I have discovered."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974|Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: This island might have changed, the name. Because there are so many islands. Just like the Java(?) island and Laksadvipa island, very small islands. Similarly, this Meru is also another island. Not only these small island, but according to Vedic culture, each planet is called island. Each planet. Just like this planet, earthly planet, is called Jambūdvīpa. Why it is called dvīpa? Dvīpa means island. Because actually it is island of the air. Just like there are so many islands in the sea, similarly, this vast air, outer space, and all these planets, are floating like island. Therefore they are called island, dvīpa, Jambūdvīpa. Here in this earthly planet, long, long ago, it is said in the Vedic literatures, sapta-dvīpa. Sapta means seven. So this earthly planet is of seven dvīpa, seven islands. These two Americas, north and south, they are islands. Africa, one island. And combined Asia and Europe, another island. The two poles, two islands. Australia, another island. You see? Sapta-dvīpa. So they say they discovered America. But this discovery was long, long, many, many millions of years, it was known. Where is the discovery? Their poor fund of knowledge. Because they have no knowledge in the Vedic literature, they think, "Now I discovered." Just like a child born, he thinks, "Now I've discovered the world. Before my birth, there was no world." This kind of knowledge called poor fund of knowledge.</p>
<p>Therefore knowledge must be taken from the Vedic literature. Veda means full knowledge. And that full knowledge, when it is properly utilized, then you can understand Kṛṣṇa. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 15.15|BG 15.15]]). First of all you have to take to take to the Vedic literature for real knowledge. And when you come to the platform of real knowledge, then you can understand Kṛṣṇa. Before knowing Kṛṣṇa, you are in darkness. You are in darkness. Because it is said, vedaiś ca sarvaiḥ. Veda means knowledge. The ultimate goal of knowledge is to understand Kṛṣṇa. And therefore it is called Vedānta. Vedānta. Veda means knowledge, and anta means the ultimate. Vedānta. Vedānta philosophy. So Vedānta philosophy gives you direction that what is the object of knowledge. Athāto brahma jijñāsā: "Now object of knowledge is to understand the Supreme, the origin of everything." That is object of knowledge, philosophy. Philosophy means science, anything. Science also trying, "What is the original cause of this creation? What is the original cause of life?" But because andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.31|SB 7.5.31]]), the so-called philosophers, scientists, they have been taught by another unscientist, not scientist, so he is also not scientist, not philosopher, because he has been taught by another andha. Just like one blind man leads other blind man. So what he will get, knowledge? So therefore, according to Vedic civilization, it is enjoined, it is ordered, that "If you want to take knowledge," tad-vijñānārtham, "to understand the complete science," tad-vijñānārtham, "the spirit," sa gurum eva abhigacchet, "oḥ, you must approach a bona fide guru." Otherwise there is no knowledge. That is not knowledge.</p>
<p>So Vedic knowledge is so perfect that this Bhārata-varṣa, seven islands. Now the seven islands still there. You cannot make eight or nine, or six. The seven islands are still there. So seven islands means, within seven islands, the two Americas, North and South America, are there. So why it is called Columbus, Columbus discovered? No. It was already in the Vedic literature. You will find in Śaṅkarācārya's... When Columbus discovered America, how many years ago? Two hundred years?</p>
<p>Devotee: Five hundred.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Five hundred years. And Śaṅkarācārya has described about the seven islands 1,500 years ago. So why the credit should go to Columbus? (laughter) It should go to Śaṅkarācārya. But andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ. He says that "I have discovered." So he was talking, perhaps you know this story. He was talking among his friends. So the friends ridiculed another friend. So they were criticizing, "Oh, for nothing you got some credit, that you have discovered America. What you have done? It was already there." So he said, "Yes, that is knowledge. Things are already there, but one who puts it into the forefront of the public, that is credit."</p>
<p>So actually, everything is existing. We have to simply take the knowledge. The modern method is ascending process. The knowledge is there, but still, they are trying to understand it by āroha-panthā, ascending process. It is called inductive knowledge. Inductive knowledge means that... Suppose a man is mortal. So the so-called scientists, they are trying to discover the law, why man is mortal. They are studying, "This man is mortal, this man is mortal, this man is mortal. Therefore it is concluded that all men are mortal. Nobody is immortal." But another man will argue that "You have not studied all the human society. How you can conclude? Therefore we must study." So this study will go on for life after life. They will never come to a person who is immortal. But they will protest that "We cannot accept." But our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given.</p>
<p>But we accept this Vedic knowledge, the first premises, accept, accepted. Just like we accept that God is the source of everything. God says, Kṛṣṇa says, that,</p>
:ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
:mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
:iti matvā bhajante māṁ
:budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ
:([[Vanisource:BG 10.8|BG 10.8]])
<p>Kṛṣṇa says, "I am the origin of everything. Everything emanates from Me." Mattaḥ sarvaṁ prava... Sarvam means everything. There are two things: animate and..., what is opposite? Inanimate. There are two things. So Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the source of both animate and inanimate." So Kṛṣṇa. What is Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa is life, supreme life. Kṛṣṇa is not dead. We are getting Kṛṣṇa's description. He is not a dead body. These are things very, I mean to say, elaborately described in the Vedic literature. Just like in Vedānta it is said, "The origin of everything is Brahman." Janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]), athāto brahma jijñāsā. Now this origin of everything, what is the formation, animate or inanimate? This is accepted, that Brahman means, the Absolute Truth means, the origin of everything. Now the next question would be that "What is that origin?" The modern scientists, they think the origin is chemicals. But we say, "No. It cannot be chemicals." Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). The origin of everything must be cognizant. He knows everything. Otherwise how He can be origin? It is very logical. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayāt ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]), origin. Just like I have established this institution. I know how it was established perfectly, and how it is going on. And somebody may not know how it was established in New York with so great difficulty. But because I am the origin founder, I know. So similarly, so many things are going on in the nature's way. So the origin, He must know everything. And if He knows, then He cannot be inanimate. Where is the possibility of the origin becoming inanimate? No. Because the argument is, if one is origin of everything, or something he is origin of, he must have sense how things are going on.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>