ISKCON Press


The Second Morning Walk: April 19, 1973

Recorded on April 19, 1973,
In Cheviot Hills Park, Los Angeles id1

Śrīla Prabhupāda is accompanied by Dr. Singh, Karandhara dāsa adhikārī, Brahmānanda Svāmī and other students. id2

Darwinism Extinct

Śrīla Prabhupāda: This material world is a composition of three qualities—sattva, rajas and tamas (goodness, passion and ignorance)—which are working everywhere. These three qualities are present in various proportions in all species of life. For example, some trees produce nice fruit, while others are simply meant for fuel. This is due to the association of particular qualities of nature. Among animals also, these three qualities are present. The cow is in the quality of goodness, the lion in passion, and the monkey in ignorance. According to Darwin, Darwin's father is a monkey. [Laughter.] He has theorized foolishly. id3

Dr. Singh: Darwin has said that some species become extinct in the struggle for survival. Those which are capable of surviving will survive, but those which are not will become extinct. So he says survival and extinction go side by side. id4

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Nothing is extinct. The monkey is not extinct. Darwin's immediate forefather, the monkey, is still existing. id5

Karandhara: Darwin said there must be a natural selection. But selection means choice. So who is choosing? id6

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That must be a person. Who is allowing someone to survive and someone to be killed? There must be some authority with discretion to give such an order. That is our first proposition. Who that authority is, is explained in Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ: “Nature is working under My supervision.” (Bg. 9.10) id7

Dr. Singh: Darwin also says that the different species were not created simultaneously, but evolved gradually. id8

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then what is his explanation for how the process of evolution began? id9

Karandhara: Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically. id10

Śrīla Prabhupāda: And I say to them, “If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?” id11

In the Future

Karandhara: They say they will create life in the future. id12

Śrīla Prabhupāda: What future? When this crucial point is raised, they reply, “We shall do it in the future.” Why in the future? That is nonsense. “Trust no future, however pleasant.” If they are so advanced, they must demonstrate now how life can be created from chemicals. Otherwise what is the meaning of their advancement? They are talking nonsense. id13

Karandhara: They say that they are right on the verge of creating life. id14

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That's only a different way of saying the same thing: “In the future.” The scientists must admit that they still do not know the origin of life. Their claim that they will soon prove a chemical origin of life is something like paying someone with a postdated check. Suppose I give you a postdated check for ten thousand dollars but I actually have no money. What is the value of that check? Scientists are claiming that their science is wonderful, but when a practical example is wanted, they say they will provide it in the future. Suppose I say that I possess millions of dollars, and when you ask me for some money I say, “Yes, I will now give you a big postdated check. Is that all right?” If you are intelligent, you will reply, “At present give me at least five dollars in cash so I can see something tangible.” Similarly, the scientists cannot produce even a single blade of grass in their laboratories, yet they are claiming that life is produced from chemicals. What is this nonsense? Is no one questioning this? id15

Karandhara: They say that life is produced by chemical laws. id16

Śrīla Prabhupāda: As soon as there is a law, we must take into consideration that someone made the law. Despite all their so-called advancement, the scientists in their laboratories cannot produce even a blade of grass. What kind of scientists are they? id17

Dr. Singh: They say that in the ultimate analysis, everything came from matter. Living matter came from nonliving matter. id18

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then where is this living matter coming from now? Do the scientists say that life came from matter in the past but does not at the present? Where is the ant coming from now—from the dirt? id19

Dr. Singh: in fact, there are several theories explaining how life originated from matter, how living matter came from the nonliving. id20

Śrīla Prabhupāda: [casting Dr. Singh in the role of a materialistic scientist]. All right, scientist, why is life not coming from matter now? You rascal. Why isn't life coming from matter now? Actually such scientists are rascals. They childishly say that life came from matter, although they are not at all able to prove it. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they create life immediately? In the past, they say, life arose from matter; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will create life from matter. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life began from matter. This refers to the past—“began.” Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense. id21

Karandhara: They say that life arose from matter in the past and that they will create life this way in the future. id22

Śrīla Prabhupāda: What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past? id23

Dr. Singh: They are assuming… id24

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Everyone can assume, but this is not science. Everyone can assume something. You can assume something, I can assume something. But there must be proof. We can prove that life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. But where is their proof that a father can be a dead stone? Where is their proof? We can easily prove that life begins from life. And the original life is Kṛṣṇa. That also can be proven. But what evidence exists that a child is born of stone? They cannot actually prove that life comes from matter. They are leaving that aside for the future. [Laughter.] id25

Karandhara: The scientists say that they can now formulate acids, amino acids, that are almost like one-celled living organisms. They say that because these acids so closely resemble living beings, there must be just one missing link needed before they can create life. id26

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Nonsense! Missing link. I'll challenge them to their face! [Laughter.] They are missing this challenge. The missing link is this challenge to their face. id27

Nobel Prize for an Ass

Dr. Singh: Some scientists hope that in the future they will be able to make babies in test tubes. id28

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Test tubes? id29

Dr. Singh: Yes, they intend to combine male and female elements in biological laboratories. id30

Śrīla Prabhupāda: If they begin with living entities, what is the purpose of the test tube? It is only a place for combination, but so is the womb. Where is the credit for the scientists if this is already being done in nature's test tube? id31

Karandhara: It is already being done by nature, but when some scientist does it, people will give him the Nobel Prize. id32

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, that is stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: śva-vid-varāhoṣṭra-kharaiḥ saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ.[4] This verse indicates that those who praise men who are like animals are no better than dogs, hogs, camels and asses. Śva means “dog,” vid-varāha means “stool-eating hog,” uṣṭra means “camel,” and khara means “ass.” If the Nobel Prize is given to a scientist who is a rascal, the men on the committee who give him that prize are no better than dogs, hogs, camels and asses. We don't accept them as human beings. One animal is praised by another animal. Where is the credit in that? If the men on the committee are no better than animals, anyone who receives the Nobel Prize in science is fool number one, because animals are praising him, not human beings. id33

Dr. Singh: For some scientists, the Nobel Prize is the ultimate. id34

Śrīla Prabhupāda: They are rascals. They are speaking nonsense, and because they are juggling words, others are being misled. id35

Brahmānanda Swami: Nobel is the person who invented dynamite. id36

Śrīla Prabhupāda: He has created great misfortune, and he has left his money for creating further misfortune. [Laughter.] id37

Brahmānanda Swami: The Gītā says that demoniac people perform acts meant to destroy the world. id38

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. Ugra-karmāṇaḥ kṣayāya jagato 'hitaḥ (Bg. 16.9). They perform acts meant for inauspiciousness and the destruction of the world. id39

The Difference Between the Living and the Nonliving

[Śrīla Prabhupāda points at a dead tree with his cane.] id40

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Formerly leaves and twigs were growing from this tree. Now they are not. How would the scientists explain this? id41

Karandhara: They would say the tree's chemical composition has changed. id42

Śrīla Prabhupāda: To prove that theory, they must be able to inject the proper chemicals to make branches and leaves grow again. The scientific method includes observation, hypothesis and then demonstration. Then it is perfect. But the scientists cannot actually demonstrate in their laboratories that life comes from matter. They simply observe and then speak nonsense. They are like children. In our childhood, we observed a gramophone box and thought that within the box was a man singing, an electric man. We thought there must have been an electric man or some kind of ghost in it. [Laughter.] id43

Dr. Singh: One of the popular questions that arises when we start studying biology is “What is the difference between a living organism and that which is not living?” The textbooks say that the chief characteristics that distinguish the two are that a living being can move and reproduce, whereas dead matter can do neither. But the books never talk about the nature of the soul or about the consciousness of the living entity. id44

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But consciousness is the primary indication that life is present. Only because of consciousness can a living being move and reproduce. Because a person is conscious, he thinks of marrying, and begetting children. And the original consciousness is described in the Vedas: tad aikṣata bahu syām (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.3). This means that God, the original conscious being, said, “I shall become many.” Without consciousness, there is no possibility of by-products. id45

The Individual Living Force

Śrīla Prabhupāda: The gardeners supply water to the green trees, so why don't they supply water to this dead tree and make it green? id46

Dr. Singh: From experience they know that it will not grow. id47

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then what is the element that is lacking? Scientists say that chemicals are the cause of life, but all the chemicals that were present when the tree was alive are still there. And these chemicals are still supporting the lives of many living entities such as microbes and insects. So they cannot say that life energy is lacking in the body of the tree. The life energy is there. id48

Dr. Singh: But what about the life energy of the tree itself? id49

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, that is the difference. The living force is individual, and the particular individual living entity that was the tree has left. This must be the case, since all the chemicals necessary to support life are still there, yet the tree is dead. Here is another example. Suppose I am living in an apartment, and then I leave it. I am gone, but many other living entities remain there—ants, spiders and so forth. So it is not true that simply because I have left the apartment, it can no longer accommodate life. Other living entities are still living there. It is simply that I—an individual living being—have left. The chemicals in the tree are like the apartment: they are simply the environment for the individual force—the soul—to act through. And the soul is an individual. I am an individual, and therefore I may leave the apartment. Similarly, the microbes are also individuals; they have individual consciousness. If they are moving in one direction but are somehow blocked, they think, “Let me go the other way.” They have personalityid50

Karandhara: But in a dead body there is no personality. id51

Śrīla Prabhupāda: This indicates that the individual soul has left that body. The soul has left, and therefore the tree does not grow. id52

Dr. Singh: Within the living body, Śrīla Prabhupāda, there are innumerable small living entities, but the individual self who owns the body is also living there. Is that correct? id53

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. In my body there are millions of living entities. In my intestines there are many worms. If they become strong, then whatever I eat, they eat, and I derive no benefit from the food. Therefore those who are full of hookworms eat very much but do not grow. They become lean and thin, and they are very hungry, because these small living entities are eating their food. So there are thousands and millions of living entities in my body—they are individuals, and I am an individual—but I am the proprietor of the body, just as I may be the proprietor of a garden in which many millions of living entities reside. id54

Student: So if I eat kṛṣṇa-prasāda [food offered to Lord Kṛṣṇa], are the living entities in my body also eating prasāda? id55

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. You are very benevolent. [Laughs.] You take kṛṣṇa-prasāda for others. id56

Karandhara: Welfare work. id57

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, but there are so many things within you for them to eat that you do not need to make a separate endeavor to feed them. id58

Minimum Words, Maximum Solution

Śrīla Prabhupāda: The individual soul is never lost. He does not die, nor is he born. He simply changes from one body to another, just as one changes garments. This is perfect science. id59

Dr. Singh: But why don't scientists accept this? id60

Śrīla Prabhupāda: They are not nice men. They are rascals. They are not even gentlemen. Under appropriate circumstances, gentlemen will have some shyness or some shame. But these men are shameless. They cannot properly answer our challenges, yet they shamelessly claim that they are scientists and that they will create life. They are not even gentlemen. At least I regard them like that. A gentleman will be ashamed to speak nonsense. id61

Dr. Singh: They do not think before they speak. id62

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That means that they are not human beings. A human being thinks twice before saying anything. Kṛṣṇa makes the presence of life within the body so easy to understand. He says: id63

dehino 'smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir
dhīras tatra na muhyati

[“As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” (Bg. 2.13)] In these two lines, Kṛṣṇa solves the whole biological problem. That is knowledge. Minimum words, maximum solution. Volumes of books expounding nonsense have no meaning. Materialistic scientists are like croaking frogs: ka-ka-ka, ka-ka-ka. [Śrīla Prabhupāda imitates the sound of a croaking frog, and the others laugh.] The frogs are thinking, “Oh, we are talking very nicely,” but the result is that the snake finds them and says, “Oh, here is a nice frog!” [Śrīla Prabhupāda imitates the sound of a snake eating a frog.] Bup! Finished. When death comes, everything is finished. The materialistic scientists are croaking—ka-ka-ka—but when death comes, their scientific industry is finished, and they become dogs, cats or something like that. id64

Previous PageBack to overviewNext Page