HH BVPS Maharaja: So we'll begin with these questions on the varnashrama. So it opens with...

Written question: Problem nowadays, how to realize Daivi-varnashrama?

HH BVPS Maharaja: It's a matter of understanding. Only if you understand then you can actually apply. First you hear, then contemplating what is heard then you try to apply it. If you apply something, then naturally there is going to be questions. Then application will improve, like that, and so that combination between contemplation and application then will give realization. By applying something the desire to know arises. From the desire to know then there is questions. The questions then being answered then are applied. Because Krishna, that's what He says in Gita, that's how the education works. In other words, sravana works because someone wants to know. Manana works because someone questions and then applies it in service. Then you realize. That's how the education works. So, okay...

Written question: Who can we consider a vaishnava, what is the common faith, religious practice, lifestyle and what are the common moral principles that all vaishnavas have to follow?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Vaishnava means that they worship Vishnu. So that they accept Vishnu as Supreme, that makes them Vaishnavas. And then vaishnavas will be basically in 2 categories: ordinary and sampradayic. Ordinary means, they believe in Vishnu, but they may or may not be following so many of the principles and things like that. Like example is given is of someone born in a devotee family, so basically they are devotees, but they may or may not take the process seriously. So they are devotees, like that, they will happily take part in things that happen, but they may not have a separate determination to practice other than what kind or programs or festivals that things happen. Does that make sense?

Written question: In Daivi-varnasharama everyone follows brahminical culture. What does that mean exactly in terms of habits and lifestyle? In other words, what are the habits and lifestyle that everyone has to follow?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Brahminical culture is the culture of Varnashrama. There is not brahminical culture, kshatriya culture, vaishya culture, no, there is only brahminical culture, because brahmana means to understand Brahman. So anyone in the Varnashrama system means those who are trying to understand Brahman, it's just a matter of how direct it is. Does that make sense? So in other words, the concept of respect, of knowledge, of sense control, cleanliness, service, sacrifice, charity, these things are common. To what degree your determination is there to follow that, then that basically makes the different varnas. Does that make sense? Just like in educational system, language, mathematics, history, general knowledge, this is common from nursery school through to PhD. It's just how much they are learning, how serious they are about learning? So they are either a good student or a bad student, but in any case they are students.

So everyone is following the Brahmical culture. That's why Prabhupada can say, Varnashrama, Brahminical culture, Vedic culture, and it means the same thing. Right? Does that make sense? But why it's brahminical culture, because it's focused on Brahman. It's brahminical culture, because brahmanas follow it as their occupation. Others follow it as their culture, not their occupation. Does that make sense? Means, the brahmanas, the following of the culture of studying shastra, of teaching, of performing sacrifice and all these things, that lifestyle is their occupation. For the kshatriyas and vaishyas, it's their lifestyle, but not their occupation. For the shudras then, how much they can do, great. How much they can't do, no one worries about it.

Does that make sense? So in other words, sacrifice, charity and austerity is the basis of the whole thing. So sacrifice means voluntarily giving up one's own satisfaction for someone else's. Austerity means following or performing your prescribed duties. And charity means then giving something of value to someone else without expecting return. So therefore the highest sacrifice is to be engaged in the Lord's service, highest austerity is to perform those duties of devotional service, highest charity is to give knowledge of devotional service. And at the other end of the spectrum is giving a coin to a beggar. And if that's done in Eger, you get even more benefit. [Laughter] Beg-ger. [Laughter] So anyone who wants to give donation to the Eger temple here, it will be appreciated greatly. [Laughter]

Also, you have the qualities of the persons who follow this, then in Manu, then at the end of the 6th chapter it says the tenfold law, that's the qualities required. And I remember it's at the end of the 10th chapter then it will give the essence of those ten as five, because those five are what makes the ten work. So that's general varnasharama. Daivi-varnashrama then Narada Muni gives 30 qualities to make it work, in the 7th Canto.

Written question: Does Daivi-varnashrama mean only the community of full-time devotees in which every activity is centered around Deity worship, or does it include the congregation also? If it does, then what are the common institution, what are the activities of community building?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Means, Daivi-varnasharama means... See, Daivi-varnasharama means varnashrama where Krishna is the center. See, we say "varnasharama", what we mean is Daivi-varnashrama, because otherwise, if we are being technical, there is Daivi-varnashrama and asuric varnashrama. Daivi means, Krishna is the center, asuric means Krishna is not the center. Asuric means, you are operating the Varnashrama system simply for dharma, artha, kama and moksha. And Daivi-varnashrama means, dharma, artha, kama, moksha are engaged in Krishna's service. Does that make sense? So that means, it's not full-time that makes the Daivi-varnashrama, and full-time then also would also have to be defined. Full-time means, everything you do is connected to Krishna, so Ambarisha Maharaja is known as the one who engaged everything, but did he live in a temple? Would he be defined by present-day definition as a full-time devotee? Does that make sense? Yeah. So full-time means whatever you are doing it's connected to Krishna. You know what I am saying?

So that's what the varna means, so varnashrama means, brahminical lifestyle means what you are doing is just the temple activities. So you may be doing that in your house, you may be doing that in the temple. In other words, studying and teaching is your occupation. Does that make sense? Like that. So that would make it there, but then someone who is practicing the kshatriya, vaishya, shudra, they may be doing that in the temple, may be doing it outside the temple. You know, just the temple affords that there can be more direct connection, while outside the temple means you'd have to be working more on indirect connection.

Because if you are in the community means, the Deity of the temple is the community Deity. Does that make sense? So technically people don't really require Deities at home if they are near enough to take advantage of the temple program. If you are too far away, then you might have Deities, then that's the only way you are engaged in the Deity worship. Does that make sense? So it's just like let's say you are in Nathdwar, then everybody is worshiping Sri Nathaji. They may have Deities at home, but that's an expansion of the main Deity. Means, house Deities of devotees in the community where there is a main temple are considered expansions of the main Deity. Or like in Udupi then everybody worships the Deity there. Like you hear today is that after the noon offering they actually light a cannon which makes a noise loud enough you can hear in the whole town. So that means, the Deity has eaten, so then everybody else will have their lunch after that cannon goes off. And they all have their Salagram and their Deities and that, but They are considered expansions of the main Deity.

Means, the common element is devotional service, and just the association with devotees, that's what creates the community building. "Us" and "them" doesn't really work so great as a building block, unless you are taking that building block and picking it up and throwing it over the chasm unto and squashing one of the dams. Then you could call it a building block, because it's a block. [Laughter] Like that, but, you know. So unless you are.. What do you call it? Unless your scripture is from The Far Side then you might find that you want to use devotional activities as your building block. You got The Far Side? That was the scripture. Those that understood will have understood, those that didn't, won't. The Far Side is a cartoon, political cartoons, like that.

Translator: We translated that [Indistinct 20:48] purport, means, the scriptures are from the right place, and not from far side...

HH BVPS Maharaja: [Laughter] No, I was saying, if your scripture is The Far Side, then you could use that as a community building block, but if....

Translator: ...if they are from their... then you use devotional service?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, yeah, okay. The danger of making jokes that means something in English. [Laughter]

Written question: In Daivi-varnashrama, where everyone being a vaishnava has the level of consciousness of a self-realized brahmana and follows brahminical culture, what is the importance of someone being a brahmana according to his varna also? Does that entail extra duties or activities they (the brahmanas by varna) also can carry out? What is the connection today between brahmana varna and brahmana initiation?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Not necessarily much. Temple needs a pujari, someone has to be rewarded for doing well in a marathon, one temple has to show that they have enough senior devotees over another temple. I mean, because today is underlying so... [Laughter] But here Daivi-varnashrama means those who are... See, it appears that here there is a concept that Daivi-varnashrama is something different from varnashrama. But another way you can put it is devotional varnashrama or non-devotional varnashrama. So it means, a devotee is interested in Brahman. Therefore by consciousness it's brahminical. It doesn't necessarily mean they are self-realized. Means, they are self-realized in that they understand that they are the soul, but it doesn't mean that that's vijnana. Means, there is enough realization that keeps them in the devotional process. But it's not that they are necessarily liberated. Does that make sense?

So in other words, Daivi-varnashrama is something that everybody can follow today. It just means you follow the culture that is set in the system to please Krishna. It's not something hard to obtain, it's actually something quite simple. One just has to understand it and practice it. So as we mentioned that someone is a brahmana by varna because the culture itself is his occupation. Means, everybody does yajnas, everybody worships the Deity, everybody studies. But some do that worship for others, some do that yajnas for others and some do that teaching for others, and they can live by charity. Does that make sense? So then that means the same lifestyle, that is their occupation, while for somebody else, they get their money by other means. Does that make sense?

Also, the point is is, brahmana, kshatriya and vaishya, they accept the same brahminical initiation. Means, the kshatriyas and vaishyas, they practice that brahminical culture for themselves. While the brahmanas, then they practice it for others. Does that make sense? So that's there. Because brahmana initiation means, you are trying to attain to Brahman. And as a devotee then being brahmana is just the bottom level where you wanna start, because devotee is beyond brahmana, but at least as a social status it's something that, it's the minimum that people would accept devotees as. So we are generally looking at it more from the platform of ashrama, not varna. Brahminical initiation is an element of ashrama, not varna. It's in your lifestyle that you come to the point where there is initiation. Varna is how you make your money, how you are maintained. You know what I am saying? Ashrama also has an element of how you are maintained, but for brahmanas it doesn't change. Brahmachari begs, grihastha begs, vanaprastha begs, sannyasi begs. But if they are not brahmanas, then as brahmacharis they all beg, but as grihasthas then they'll make money. But if they take then vanaprastha or sannyasa, then again they go back to begging.

Technically, you only need to expand kshatriya, vaishya, shudra when you are dealing with grihasthas. But amongst brahmanas and brahmacharis, vanaprasthas and sannyasis there is no difference in basically the lifestyle, because their economics is the same. But the grihasthas then who are kshatriya, vaishya, shudra, then the nature of their economics is different, but their lifestyle is the same. Does that make sense? So in other words, for the kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras their economics is separate from their lifestyle. For the brahmanas, there is no difference. Does that make sense? That's why then even the kshatriyas and vaishyas as brahmacharis, it's they're Brahman, so therefore it's still the same as a brahmana. Means, their lifestyle is that of... Means, their focus is on Brahman, so they are practicing the activities of a brahmana. So their lifestyle and occupation are the same at that time for everybody. But when they graduate and become grihasthas, then it separates. But for the brahmana it remains the same. Does that make sense?

But even as brahmacharis mentality may be slightly different, therefore the difference in the style of begging. "Bhavati bhiksham dehi"

Translator: Bhavati diksham dehi...

HH BVPS Maharaja: No, "bhiksham", not "diksham", I mean, unless you are going door to door and asking for initiation. [Laughter] Try this door, maybe they are more liberal... [Laugher] So that means, you are respecting the person and then the activity that is being performed then "dehi", giving, then that becomes the important thing. You know, but for the kshatriyas then it moves. So then you'll have "Bhiksham dehi bhavati,"meaning that the work is this, because the work is important for kshatriyas. And so giving that, then that's there, then for the vaishyas then the result is important, so it's "Dehi bhiksham bhavati." So that way you also when they are begging you know who they are.

Written question: Are the leaders of Daivi-varnashrama kshatriyas with the brahminical lifestyle or brahmanas who carry out kshatriya duties? If they are kshatriyas then in what and how are they limited and restricted by brahminical culture?

HH BVPS Maharaja: No, leaders of Daivi-varnashrama are brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaishyas, means, the varnashrama system means you have the people, so that's the basic platform. From amongst those people you have leaders and those leaders are of 3 types - leaders in economics, leaders in administration, leaders in education.


Translator: "Shag" is is it's an affix to make a noun from a verb, and "bom" is the locative, "in"

HH BVPS Maharaja: [Laughter] Like in noun.

Translator: So like a noun...

HH BVPS Maharaja: [Laughter] Okay. Does that make sense? So everyone is leading in their different way. But of that knowledge is most important, then protection of religious principles, that's next, and then economics is after that. Does that make sense? So in other words, the economics becomes important when you are doing something very big. If they are living in the forest then economics is not so prominent. That's why you see brahmanas, kshatriyas, it's not a problem for them to live in the forest, because the basis of their occupation is not economics. It's education and protection. Does that make sense?

Written question: Can a full-time devotee who strictly follows the brahminical culture be considered a vaishya or a shudra? What kind of activities the full-time vaishyas and shudras, if they exist at all...

HH BVPS Maharaja: If they exist at all? I would consider if full time brahmanas and kshatriyas exist at all.

Written question: ... and what kind of activities they cannot do?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Means, because we see here, full-time devotee means, you are full-time trying to connect your life to Krishna. That's the brahminical culture. How they make their money then it may be as a brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya or shudra. Does that make sense? So that would be... Generally vaishya and shudra would stick to that area. But as devotees, if there is a need then they could perform brahminical and kshatriya activities. But you generally do it as a temporary thing, because a vaishya will be most comfortable performing vaishya activities, a shudra will be most comfortable performing shudra activities. So temporarily they may perform another activity. But that's only in Daivi-varnashrama. Asuric varnashrama, a vaishya can do shudra activities, a shudra then can independently work and do trades, but it should be trades that are needed by the brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaishyas. Does that make sense? Then...

Written question: In the congregation devotees with what kind of civilian jobs can be considered brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya or shudra? And to what extent can their duties and lifestyle be different from those of full-time devotees?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Means, brahminical then naturally teachers would be considered in that category. Means, we can go by what traditionally they would be, not what they've turned them into. Because if you remove Vedic knowledge, basically then the problem comes is then everything works on, instead of dharma, ir works on artha. Because varnashrama is dharma, so then artha becomes prominent, because it's obvious, you need artha for kama. So that tends to put the vaishyas on the top of the piles, how they like it. In other words, they didn't have the French revolution because the vaishyas were comfortable being underneath the brahmanas and kshatriyas. They wanted to be on the top of the pile. So therefore they've cleverly arranged it basically to turn everybody into their shudras. That's why there is such a mess in society, because if it makes money, a vaishya will do anything, while a kshatriya or brahmana will only do things that are sanctioned by the scripture. But for a vaishya, money is God, so if it makes money, who cares what happens to the rest of the world? So if after 20 or 30 years there is no planet left, who cares, I'll be gone, that's the next generation's problem, not mine. You know what I am saying? In other words, all of the greenies aren't vaishyas, otherwise they wouldn't be out on boats being run over by big tankers and that. It doesn't make profit. [Laughter] Like that.

Okay, but what you could say is some semblance, teachers... In brahminical category you have teachers, doctors, pained to say it, but lawyers, priests, academics, philosophers, except Salvador Dali [Laughter], directors of orchestras, directors of drama... Yeah, that's all what comes to mind. Kshatriyas then would be, you know, heads of state, heads of, the officers within the army, at least your... What you call it? There is a name for it, when you are above sergeant. Commissioning officers, is that the term? I don't know, but there is a hierarchy even of officers. Because they are actually making the strategy, they are making the plans, they are... you know. Like that. Sometimes ministers, may or may not be, but it's a position they could hold. Yeah, may also possibly the heads of police, like that. That would generally be what's there, you would find them filtered throughout, just like the brahmanas you find filtered here and there. Means, it's spread out, because the modern is not very scientific, so sometimes... Vaishyas, that's pretty obvious, if they are the one that is responsible for generating the money, that's a vaishya. So in other words, someone who has their own business, generally those who are on the board of directors and stuff like that, generally they would be vaishyas, probably they'd always be vaishyas. But they themselves are so clever, they would even put themselves in a position of shudras... They in an illusory way sell their company to everybody else to get their money. [Laughter] Like somebody has a piece of paper and says, "Yes, I own IBM." Like that. I think the Chinese bought IBM. Then, whatever, yeah... So whether it's big or whether it's small, but as long as they are generating the money then that's there.

But if it's skilled trades, there is an owned business of skilled trades, then they may or may not be a vaishya. Generally, vaishya means, he has a lot more people working for him, so he may or may not do this trade himself. While a shudra would be doing it himself, he may be alone, he may have some assistants. You know what I am saying? Let's say they make musical instruments. So if it's a vaishya, he knows how to make the instrument, he will start making the first instrument. After making and selling some instruments, he will hire people to start helping him make the instruments. And with time then he has a big, multi-national musical instrument making business. The artist then, he would make, if he has more money, has some people assist, but he'll still be him making the instruments. Does that make sense?

So, and then a shudra means one who assists anyone else. So secretaries, bureaucrats, policemen, soldiers, people let's say in the medical field who assist, let's say, who do the anesthetics, nurses... Anesthesia, that would be... Nurses, technicians, cleaners, like that, people who do massage, hand on to doctor, people who mix things, make things under someone else's direction.

Oh, excuse me, in the vaishyas you also have, of course, you have farmers and bankers and the like. Could even be tax collectors. They are another group you don't wanna mention.

Salespersons, supervisors, then those in the, let's say, fine arts, skilled trades and unskilled labor. So any of them then whatever it is, as devotees then would be keeping their lifestyle as close as they can to whatever they can do to practice the devotional activities. So technically it doesn't really matter. The brahminical culture is common for anyone in the system. It's just to what degree they can follow it, that makes the individual, or which aspect they follow. Someone is more done the austerities, someone charity, someone sacrifice, someone studies more, someone let's say is more good at developing personal character, someone is more expert at rules. Someone is more simple in their economics, someone is more complex. Does that make sense? Like that. Any other questions? No?

Ah, now "The study in the birds and the beasts."

Translator: Study in the birds and beasts?

HH BVPS Maharaja: It's another joke, it means something in English that would mean absolutely nothing in Hungarian. No, it's okay.

Okay, here we have...

Written question: Classification and hierarchy of living beings. Here we have a quote.

"There are 900,000 species living in the water. There are also 2,000,000 non-moving living entities, such as trees and plants. There are also 1,100,000 species of insects and reptiles, there are 1,000,000 species of birds, as far as quadrupeds are concerned, there are 3,000,000 varieties, and there are 400,000 human species."

HH BVPS Maharaja: Where it's from I'm not sure, but it has been quoted. Okay.

Written question: Does this verse show a hierarchy order of the reincarnation of the soul?

HH BVPS Maharaja: It's the hierarchy of consciousness, like that. This goes from bottom to top. Yeah? Okay. I was expecting another, at least one or two words, and so the thought process hadn't ended.

Written question: Reincarnation depends upon the activity that has been performed...

HH BVPS Maharaja: Whose questions are these? Yours? Okay. So depending upon the particular activity performed there is a particular list of animals that one goes through. And then naturally generally those would go wherever they fit in this classification you would move up through. Yeah, so it is a hierarchy of consciousness. So are plants more elevated than fishes? That's the question. It says, yes, because they are dealing with all five elements, while fish only really deal with one. You know what I am saying? Means, look at it. You have a forest in Vrindavan. Krishna moves through the forest, He interacts with the trees. Does He interact with the fish? Do you understand? He appreciates the fish, but there is not a whole lot you can do with them. You know what I am saying? So therefore aquatics are lower than plants. Does that make sense?

Written question: Where do water-plants fit in this classification?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Let's see.. Well, as long as they are out of the water, then... [Laughter] you know what I am saying? See is, you are always going to have overlaps. That's always... If you have night, you have day, you have to have twilight. So you are always gonna find those things of the twilight between the two. Like I am not sure, is Plankton little dinky fishes, or is it plant-like? You know? Anyone knows? What did he say?

Translator: He says that there are both kinds, so there are planktons which belong to the plant category and others, which belong to the animal kingdom.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Okay, so then...

Mataji: This is a Solomon-like decision that keeps the balance. They are both.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Oh, okay, but what I am saying is that they would be under the water, so they would be plants, it's mainly being water aquatic that has then the touch of the plant. Just like in sandhya, one part is more towards night, one part is more towards day. And then water-plants that sit on top of the water or float on the water will be more plant, but a little bit towards water. Does that make sense?

Problem in the modern academy is boxes. You have a box, everything fits in the box and that box has absolutely nothing to do with the next box. But life doesn't work like that. You know, it's just like you have the tree, the top of it is in the air, but the bottom of it is in the ground, and they both look the same. You know what I am saying? Does that make sense? So that's the difficulty in the modern academy is the sandhya, or the junction between the two categories, so they'll make it into a third category, but still it doesn't quite work right, therefore there is so much ways you could categorize it. While the Vedic academy you are going by perception. What is the point you are trying to make? Therefore which approach will be the most successful in expressing that?

"Shegeti," that means a small sheg?

Translator: [Laughter] No. Anything that assists or helps.

HH BVPS Maharaja: A small amount of help.

Translator: "Eti" is the third personality transitive verb.

HH BVPS Maharaja: That's why we were saying, it's also in English. Okay, so then... Let's try here little bits and pieces of something that connects in other languages. Okay.

Does that make sense? So here you are trying to see consciousness, so then you see it through here, so that would mean then if you had a plant that was connected more to water means it would have a lower consciousness than a plant that was on land. You know what I am saying?

Or like in here, your dolphins and whales, they are still aquatics, so their consciousness is still low, but they'll be the highest of what's in the low. You know, just like a rat also has four legs, and so does a cow, but a cow is higher consciousness from the rat. Right? So this perception is how you would look at it by consciousness. Does that make sense? Like that. So that's the principle. Okay?

Written question: Is there a connection of the Vedic kind of living beings on the modern specie terms?

HH BVPS Maharaja: You could probably take it and break it down. Means, if you can find a list, someone who knows those things, then they'll their bigger things and then they have a... It's quite complicated. Yeah, I don't remember the terms they use, but it's... Like you'll have your canines and felines and bovines, and those are all within the quadrupeds. Or with insects then they'll have their ants, they will have 6 legs and then they'll have I forget what they call them, spiders that have 8 legs.

Mataji: The cancers, lobsters with ten legs.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, so like then, then you have shellfish, you'll have non-shell fish, so like this they have all these things, but if you see that basically what they have will fit into all these. So then it's just a matter of knowing that ones that overlap just where they go. You know what I am saying? Like that.

Written question: What is our definition of our species or living forms? Do we accept the following definition "a reproductive group of beings"?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Erm, you can do it that way, that's another view. Then you have those that are born from the womb, those that are born from eggs, those that are born from slips or shoots... You know, like you walk down the stairs, you slip, then a law-case is born, like that. Then you have those born from seeds... Oh no, excuse me. Yeah, those born from sweat. Sweat means that heat, that humidity. There are certain living entities, if the humidity is not there they are not generated. Seeds go in with the slips and shoots. You know, like that. And some of them it's... What you call it? Has an overlap, like a worm, you can cut it, which technically would mean a slip and you can get another living entity. Does that make sense? So that's another way of categorizing them. If you wanna know how they are produced, it's those four. Do you wanna know the consciousness, then you use this other one. Right?

Also you see in the Bhagavatam, 5th Canto, defines sometimes by teeth, by toes. You take something with five toes, so elephant has five toes, so then they would be classified with other animals like monkeys that have five toes. Also you have categories on living entities that they themselves are the medium through which omens are perceived. You know, like crows and then these various little lizards and frogs. So the killing of those living entities is in a different category than others that may be in the same group. That's why the book is on mocking birds, not on crows. You know, because to kill a crow is more, that carries a heavier sin, but mocking birds, no one bothers. Okay?

Is there any other questions on this, on this half?

Prabhu: The question refers the first categorization of animals, whether it was according to the consciousness, because it was mentioned that according to the consciousness the aquatic organisms are in a lower category than the plants. Then how can we understand this principle in our diet, which is based on the level of consciousness, because we try to eat by committing the least amount of violence, and that's why we don't eat animals. But if plants are in higher category according to that consciousness, so consciousness is related to the perception of violence, then why is there a ban on fish, if they are even lower? I don't want to eat fish, but...[Laughter] it would be interesting to answer...

HH BVPS Maharaja: [Laughter] Fish eat anything. So it's said in Manu that someone who eats a particular type of flesh is known as an eater of that particular type of flesh. But someone who eats fish is known as an eater of anything. You know what I am saying? If it's organic and it's in the water and it's smaller than you, a fish will eat it. You know what I am saying? So that's the one element that puts them there. I'm not sure that fish even come in as anything that can even be offered in sacrifice. I haven't heard. It's always animals. And I am not sure if you can see in the sraddha rites in Manu it will list all the animals. I don't think, I don't think fish are included.

Generally I've heard it explained directly, this is a level of consciousness, but I also heard it said that you have the plants on the bottom and then the aquatics at the bottom of the other living entities, the moving living entities. So then you get that moving and non-moving is also a division. Right? But if that was the case, then it would have been much more easy to list the plants first, then the aquatics. But it's not.

Also you get like, let's say, let us take a goldfish. You can put him in a bowl that's only got water in it, nothing else, no little castles, no little green plants, no rocks, nothing, just a plain glass bowl with water. They swim from one side of the little glass bowl to the other. And when they get to the other side, they've forgotten where they've come from, so when they turn around, then they go, "Oh, some place new!" And then they go to the other side. Then they turn around and, "Oh, check that out!" I don't think all the fish are like that, but goldfish are like that. [Laughter] So, whatever it is. Of course, I don't wanna worry anybody, Nemo, of course is in a different category. [Laughter]

Prabhu: He wasn't a goldfish.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah. You have to get this straight. [Laughter][Indistinct 01:19:45]

Prabhu: So we hear that they are 8,400,000 forms of life and does that coincide with the category of species, so does it mean that there are 8,400,000 species?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, but that's the universe. You generally don't find yakshas, rakshasas and gandharvas around here. So there is species that are only there in the first 3 yugas. Like the yalis, they are lions that have elephant noses, and they eat elephants for lunch, probably also breakfast. They don't eat anything else. You see them on temples, they are the ones on the temples,they look like this, like lions with the elephant nose and then there is a little dinky elephant that they got. So if we had one of those around, then it would be a problem. So like that, there is so many different... Does that make sense?

Prabhu: So in the modern categorization, if an insect has 2 dots on its wings and another one doesn't have any dots, then they belong to 2 different species. Would they belong to two different forms of life according to the Vedic categorization too, or they would be just...

HH BVPS Maharaja: May or may not, like that. Yeah, may or may not. Means, if it's always the same kind of spot, maybe, but if it's ones where those spots move around, then that's a different thing. You know what I am saying? Like tigers have stripes, but the stripes aren't always exactly the same. You know what I am saying? So you just have to see is that, is within that point where the spots are everybody in that group has in different places, then that would be one kind. If they are always in the same place, that would be then one kind. So it's the modes of nature, you add something, then it adjusts it a little bit. Changes the color, changes the length, changes... Like that. Does that make sense?

Prabhu: Do these 8,400,000 categories include forms of life which can only be found on the sun planet, for example?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah. Means, it's in the universe. It also includes anything that it's a combination. You know, like a horse and a donkey you get a mule. So those are the species also. Whatever can be created, then that would be within this also. But it's just they have to be generally artificially generated. But still, that you can generate them, means, they are one of the species. You know what I am saying? Because it still won't function outside of the laws of nature. You know what I am saying? You know, you get a tiger and a lion, you get a liger, you know. [Laughter] But they are a way bigger than either a tiger or a lion, but much more gentle, like that. So like that. Anything else on this?

Written question: Creation. All the species appear on the earth at the same time. How the ecosystem was built?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Means, Krishna created it. Primary creation means, everything is already in place, so it's just a matter of Brahma through his meditation manifesting it.

Written question: Are there differences in the creation process in the beginning of the day of Brahma, the beginning of Manvantara and the beginning of simple Satya-yuga?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Means, is there a difference in creation from a day of Brahma, a Manvantara and just beginning of a Maha-yuga?

It means, whatever is missing, that's the only thing that has to be created. Does that make sense? You know, so what's missing, that's all that has to be re-created.

Written question: In the Kali-yuga the number of species decreases. How are they re-created in the next Satya-yuga?

HH BVPS Maharaja: That basically Manu is in charge of all these things. So then they'll have their way. In other words, the higher authorities, they are in charge of seeing that things work. Does that make sense?

Written question: Daksha's daughters bring the species to the earth. How do they give birth to them? 1) They bear different species, 2) They transform themselves into a certain species, then bear offspring, 2) They create manifested living beings through the mental power without the usual birth?

HH BVPS Maharaja: They just give birth to the different species. Like we saw, who was it, Kadru and... What was her name? Two of the sisters then gave birth to eggs, then one turned into snakes, and the other one you got Garuda and Aruna. Does that make sense? So normal process, just different species. Is that okay?

Means, from the Prajapatis you are asking how many individuals were created in certain species?

Prabhu: So at the moment of creation in certain species, how great is the population created?

HH BVPS Maharaja: It's means like snakes were a thousand. And then their descendants then spread throughout the universe. Like that, so then it takes time. Like that, so your generations, they go down, down, down, they generally get less and less. You know, the first are Ananta, Vasuki, Takshaka, Dhritarashtra, like this kind-of personalities. As time goes then you get down to just the regular snakes here. Does that make sense? So it starts there and then it just spreads through the universe. Right? Isn't it? You know, you start, you have a group sitting over in some... How you say? Slightly grassy, hilly, marshy land, and then they get inspired and then they come over here. Right? You know, it was there, so they came. Does that make sense? So just living entities will always, as they expand, find some place to go.

Written question: Are there parallel creation on different continents?

HH BVPS Maharaja: The creation is happening from the top down, so then wherever they belong then they end up there. So the place between... What was it? The Indian ocean and the Bay of Bengal, between the Himalayas and the Vindhya mountains, that's called Aryavarta. So there your civilized human beings are manifest. Everywhere else then is manifest tribals, except, of course, in Eger. Does that make sense? So it's just in the same process that you know, uncivilized tribes are manifest, so this is the place where they like to live. You know what I am saying? You have people that don't like to take a bath. So would you rather live in a humid hot climate or in a colder climate? Right?

Prabhu: Cold.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, cold, because you don't really notice, means, the smell gets frozen, so you don't really notice. Right? Like that. And it's too cold for bugs to grow in your hair and stuff like that. Does that make sense?

Written question: How do the plants appear?

HH BVPS Maharaja: They are just part of the creation. Somebody gives birth to them.

Written question: Who brings up the first created beings, are they created as young or as adult?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Means, the Prajapatis, they create all the species. As young, means they are created as young, but in the heavenly planets generally within one day they become adults. Demigods aren't so cool with, you know, taking 16 years to grow up. They got more important things to do, like party. Means, the people are coming from somewhere else, then they come here. Means, Prajapatis create the Manus, Manus then create the people, so that's created. Yeah, does that make sense? And then, like that and then that expands.

Written question: How many of the 8,400,000 live on the earth today?

HH BVPS Maharaja: That I wouldn't be able to say. But we know what doesn't live here generally. They visit, but they don't live here, you know, nagas don't live here, asuras don't live here, gandharvas, yakshas, rakshasas, all these different forms, the demigods don't live here, kinnaras, kimpurushas. They all live somewhere else.

Written question: And how many of the 400,000 human forms live on the earth?

HH BVPS Maharaja: That would be a seriously politically incorrect question. [Laughter] So you wanna know if Hungarian is a species? Good chance. Like that.

Written question: Did Ice Ages really existed?

HH BVPS Maharaja: There is more ice, less ice, that only affects over here. India is India, it doesn't change with all these things. Latitude, longitude doesn't change. See, you don't have to worry that Sweden is gonna be on the equator. You don't have to go out and buy your banana trees now to get prepared. As it is we see now, ice is reducing, but at other times, you know, ice was more, so ice goes back and forth, that doesn't really matter. You know what I am saying? Because all it really does is affect the outline tribal areas. Good for the polar bears, not so great for the Norsemen. Is that okay what I am saying?

Written question: Dinosaurs...

HH BVPS Maharaja: If we remember that... Oh, you wanted to say something?

Prabhu: According to modern scientists the continents are moving... [indistinct 01:40:30]

HH BVPS Maharaja: I see. But they are working by how it's moving today. But before they started to measure it, how do they know wasn't going the other way? You know what I am saying? We are taking a measurement today, it's moving this much today, but what happens if a hundred years ago it was moving the other way?

Maybe a little bit out of the modern academy thing, but, you know, you sit this way, then you get tired, then you lean this way, and then you move back over this way and then.... [Laughter] You know, Bhumi is a person. She moves around. [Laughter] You know what I am saying? May not be very popular amongst the modern academics, but if we are being objective, it is a possibility. You know what I am saying? If it can move one way, it can move the other.

Because the astrological... How you say? What you call it? You know, elements of latitude and longitude, we have those for Ramachandra, for Krishna, it's like that. So Ramachandra, you are talking millions of years ago. They can tell you what day of the week the yuga starts. That I know of Kali-yuga started on Wednesday. So that means, India was where it is now, it always was. You know, they say it moved, but it could have been at the same place, everything else could have moved. You know what I am saying? Just like you have, the sun is in the middle, all the planets go around, that's if you have the thing and it's moving in that way and you put a pin in the sun and they all move, but if you pull the pin out and put it into the earth, it will still move in the same exact dynamic, but it looks different. You know what I am saying?

So something is moving, but how it's moving it could be perceived from so many different angles. So technically let's say in the moving of the plates, how many people on the planet have actually measured it, contemplated it, digested the information and therefore created the theory?

Translator: Plates?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Plates, the continental plates. You know what I am saying? It's not really that many. So that means, the millions of academics on the planet are taking their word for it, but they could have been wrong. The Lantian Man was in their books for 20 years.

Prabhu: They fit together, the continents... [Indistinct 01:45:30]

HH BVPS Maharaja: They fit? Okay. So does your little finger and your nostril. [Laughter] Maybe not the best example. I'll give another example. Let us go to the river. If you check, the two banks on the opposite side of the water fit. So does that mean that one time there was no river and they were together?

Prabhu: According to geology [Indistinct 01:46:26]

HH BVPS Maharaja: I see, so... [Laughter] Why would there have to have been a time that there wasn't a river? Means, you have a hill here and a hill there. There is a gap in-between. Water moves, right? So because of the movement of the water they kind-of take on a similar kind-of cut. So why would those two mountains have to have been next to each other according to geology? Why couldn't they have been two separate mountains that water just happened to go between? You know what I am saying?

Prabhu: They say that now the river is going downwards through the layers of the earth.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, but it doesn't mean that the two banks were touching each other one time. They are just two separate banks that the water moves through. Water moves in a certain way, therefore it will mold things in a certain way. You have the water moving by the moon. It's not going to create similar shape? Like let's say you go to some area where the wind always blows. The nature of the wind makes the rocks and caverns into a certain kinds of pattern that only wind does. There is a canyon, the wind comes, hits here, then it hits there, then it hits here, so this curve and that curve and this curve are similar, so does that mean at one time they were all together? These two are similar, does that mean at one time they were here? And if I come back after million years, then this chair will be another three feet bigger or...? Do you understand?

So what's happened is is some intelligent person has observed the phenomena and according to their... I'll use the word "limited", because I know if I said "subjective," it would be too painful. Due to their limited observational power they came up with this is a solution that they could put it together that they could sleep at night. Right? So then that starts a way of thinking that people that that is not their field of thought then will accept. Right? In other words, you respect somebody else's intellectual endeavor, but that doesn't make it correct. All that you can do is respect the amount of thought that went into it, but it's not necessary that their conclusions were correct, or it means partially correct or fully incorrect, whatever it's ... You know what I am saying?

Because the whole intellectual process at one time, a few... What was it? Over a thousand years ago the modern academy, but it was grounded in theism, all the teachers, all the professors were all basically hard-cored theologians. And only because their scriptures didn't give enough information, then the observation and the description didn't necessarily match. And actually that was found, it's actually a Christian dilemma, because all the old body of knowledge that did answer all their questions was removed as superstition, witch craft and the like. Right? So all the things, your astrology, astronomy, your alchemy, your all these different sciences were all considered heredical. Things that were accepted by every religion on the planet except Christianity.

So then that faith, throwing that out, that faith was able to generate, inspire the culture for some time, but at some point it was unable to inspire anymore, so therefore secular thought then had to rise up as the religion itself would not acknowledge or accept the metaphysical, or even the subtler aspects of the physical.

You didn't catch that? I don't even remember what I said. Anybody remembers what I said?

Basically is, intellectuals when being smart wasn't considered... How you say? Burnable at the stake, then sciences had to be then re-generated through a secular viewpoint. While previous to it being removed from the religion, it was an intrical part of the whole religious process. Okay. Because before God and His creation were taken as a package deal. But since Jesus was just going to just come back and the end of the world was supposed to happen, therefore the whole creation was thrown out as Maya. So simply faith in God and a few rituals, everything else was nonsense. But...

So then when you bring back these things, you bring it in from a secular viewpoint. Does that make sense? You see the parallel with us? We throw out the Vedic culture, so that means any knowledge of the creation, we have to get it from the karmis. So in other words, we are Vaishnava by philosophy, but basically Christian by religion. Does that make sense? Therefore any knowledge other than philosophy we have to get from the secular, because we've thrown out the culture that actually has all those answers that we are looking for. And because the secular is professed to not be connected to God, the answers that they come up with cannot be complete, right? Does that make sense.

But... This is really fun, you may appreciate... Acintya-bhedabheda tattva, what is that? That's quantum physics. Two seemingly contradictory things happen at the same time. But the problem with quantum physics, it's atheistic. The theistic form of it is called the Vedic culture. You know what I am saying? Because all you are dealing with is contradictions and how to put them together. Because the main thing is not the physical, but it's perception. So the Vedic gives all different perspectives depending upon what it is you are trying to look at. So in other words, acintya-bhedadheda-tattva is the next step in quantum physics. Right? So if they could just get rid of the guy in the wheelchair, we might have a chance, because he is such a hardcore atheist. Is that okay?

Because that's the problem where devotees can't see the application of our philosophy. Because you are supposed to be doing 2 contradictory things at the same time. Karma, I perform an activity because I want a result. Jnana, I don't do the activity, because I don't want a result. Both very straightforward. Buddhi-yoga, I perform the activity, I don't want the result. That's quantum physics. Do you understand? Two absolutely contradictory things that have been perfectly blended because God is in the center of it. So that's the thing, the modern academy, if they would add God, it would all just fall into place. Actually the only difference between the modern academy and the Vedic is that point. Knowledge is knowledge, it's just that the Vedic consider some knowledge not so important. Because it won't help you get back to Godhead. But the modern academy is trying to find out where do we come from. But the problem is is, they won't accept the answer. So because of that then so many branches of knowledge come up that are interesting, but not necessarily useful for the progression of human life. And sometimes they don't even have a use in economics or sense gratification or anything else. Basically, just good clean fun for a few individuals down at the pub over a beer, right? No? Like that.

So are we okay on that now? Because God is objective. Look at this one. Because He is everything, so He is objective, He can look at anything in any perspective, because He is all of it. Anything of the creation is an expansion or a portion of that absolute whole. So they can only look at it from their perspective. So that means, only God can be objective and every other living entity must be by definition subjective. Therefore God's opinion will always be the most objective opinion because it will take into consideration other living entities that might even be out of our perspective. Does that make sense? Yeah, like that. So that is a great weakness in the modern academy that objectivity is defined as whoever is sitting in the chair at the university, his opinion, that's objective. But according to the Vedic, that would be defined as subjective. So then you could say, the Vedic academy says, the modern academy is subjective, the modern academy says, the Vedic academy is subjective. Right? But then you have God's opinion, who, by definition, has to be objective. Therefore then it weights the balance in favor of the Vedic academy. Is that okay?

It's fun. What was it? I mean, the example is given is that you take a branch from the tree, you refine it, it makes a handle on an ax you cut the tree down with. So you take elements of the modern academy, make it into an ax handle with which you cut it down and then it just leaves the natural tree of the Vedic. [Laughter]

Oh, we were talking about dinosaurs. I've been thinking about it these last few days, and I'm just... [Laughter]. Erm, depending on how it goes, you get... Sometimes the definitions of the ages, then each age the living entity will be half the size of the previous, or if you are going backwards, twice the size of the... You know what I am saying? Means, in this age, then in Dvapara they are twice as big, then in... What you call it? Dvapara it will be twice that, which will be 4 times us, and in Satya they will be 8 times. So some definitions give it 10 times.

So now you have... What are they called? I think, Komodo... What was it? Those big lizards, it's something "dragons." Komodo? Kilto?

Prabhu: Varanas.

Mataji: Iguanas...

HH BVPS Maharaja: Varanas? The iguanas? But they are 8 feet long, they have a name, a specific name. Whatever, you know those ones.

Prabhu: Varanas.

HH BVPS Maharaja: You call them varanas? Okay, so now in the Satya-yuga how big would one of those be? So at least 8 times. I mean, 64 feet long. So now, if professor Leakey and his boys then dug one of those up... Then what would we have? Iguanas really biggest, right? You know what I am saying? So like this, so you put different things together and you have some fun. You know what I am saying? And how do you know that some of these things were what they are? You have Trentasaurus [? 02:08:58], big legs and small little dinky feet. But a kangaroo is like that. How do you know the thing wasn't a big, monstrous kangaroo? You know what I am saying? Little feet, big feet on the bottom.You know what I am saying? Because you put it together the way you think, right?

Once I saw, interesting, is you take, let's take one of the early, earlier, I mean, when I was a kid it was Neanderthal, I think you had ape, then you had Neanderthal, then you had... I'm not sure if you had Homo erectus, or you just had modern man, but there wasn't much, now you have about 15 different options. Right? But someone had done a thing where you take the high cheek bones and a low nose, and the different facial things of these so-called ancient men, and then they showed how they started adjusting and adjusting and adjusting, until it gets to modern man, right? The higher nose and lower cheek bones and all that. Then for fun they kept the process going. [Laughter] So you start getting the Simpson forehead, like that, pelican nose, all this disappears, and it's just... [Laughter] You know what I am saying? So a bit absurd.

So the whole thing is is how they put it together. They are able to find one little piece of a cheekbone, and then they make a whole face out of it, no? You know, it's like that. Means, just like, if you see, if you've ever seen an elephant skeleton, I mean, it's just, others have a kind-of more of a regular head and this, they have a completely different kind-of thing. How would you guess there was a nose on it with 15,000 muscles? So how do they put it all together? I am saying, they are smart, they make an intelligent guess, they may be right, may be wrong. But the point is is, so many millions of years ago then Lord Ramachandra was there or other personalities here in India doing their normal activities. You know what I am saying? So if any of these things were going on somewhere else, then fine, it's all good tribal fun, like that. Does that make sense? In other words, if the modern scientists would take the Vedic version and try to prove it, they would probably be surprised. But they won't because it's theistic. Like that. Does that make sense? So dinosaurs are big lizards and other things like that. Ever seen Lego bricks? Yeah? How many ways can you put them together?

Prabhu: Unlimited.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Yeah, so like that then, you know, they try to put something together. It's just like this, whenever they draw... Here is a good example that could show. Whenever they show aliens, they make an alien for some movie, what do they look like? They always have to make them look very different than us. Huge eyes or funny foreheads and weirdo noses, fluorescent green blood. But we know on the other planets are yakshas and gandharvas, and rakshasas, and nagas, and none of them look like what they say they look like. You know what I am saying? So if it's an alien it must be totally different. What if they are not, what if they are exactly the same? It is a possibility, but no one would be very impressed. Star Track would not have played for so many seasons if every planet, everyone was the same. Right? Does that make sense?

So in the same way is how they are putting together previous history also has to be a similar kind-of thing. Men today has to be more developed than previously. The locals are grabbing around in the mud. Somebody creates a castle. It's made out of a few cut down trees that they kind-of put in a line like this and put a roof on it. Then slowly we get to the modern single houses and then more people, we make it into apartments, and then we make it into high-rises. Okay, so that's within the last some hundreds of years, as modern man was on the rise of perfection. 2,000 years ago Julius Cesar lived with his mother in a 7-story apartment building that his mother was the landlord for, and it was so full of people from all different countries and civilizations and language that he as a kid moved around and learned so many of the languages. So when he went out to conquering these different areas, sometimes he'd go out dressed as a local, speaking fluently the local language, and in this way then politically overtake. What's new? They used to smoke marijuana. You know what I am saying?

So that's the whole point, we think that everything is so new, but they had their lawyers, they had their all the different laws, they had their parliament, had everything. Right? So what is being built now that matches some of the things that they'd build? This house is definitely the pinnacle of human architectural perfection. [Laughter] You just wanna draw your tech unto some many special aesthetic elements. Notice how the tiles are put in a very, not in a normal straight way, but kind-of like a, you know, asymmetrical, kind-of more artistic fashion. And just like in a good poem it's not all exactly rhyming, so therefore the last little bit kind-of like crumbles into the drain up there, right? [Laughter] So like that then this is the pinnacle of.... How you say? Technically it is, because it's used as the temple, so it's the best building in the city. Like that.

So they have these concepts, but we know that it's actually the opposite. It was more developed, and as it goes it gets less and less developed. But nothing goes in a straight line, you are dealing with energy. So it will go down, up a little bit, down, up a little bit, down, up a little bit. So you have Vedic, then it drops down into the, you know, your Egyptian or Greek, or Roman and then it goes up a little bit, then it drops down, then it comes up a little bit, then it goes down. Yeah? Is that okay? So, whether dinosaurs were there or not, it's not really so important, because what they put together... One, unless they will accept that it was better before and now it's getting worse and things were bigger and they are getting smaller, they wouldn't be able to answer their own questions anyway. You know? What happens, what doesn't happen, that you can't say. Is that okay? Last thing...

Written question: Species can change by genetic mutation. What are the limits of these kind of changes, what causes the limitation?

HH BVPS Maharaja: But they keep going around in circles. On the island then you have a species of birds, and they're all basically of one smaller-size beak. By the modes of nature the girls all pick the boys with the bigger beaks. With time then another generation or two, and then are all birds then have bigger beaks. And does a girl wants something everybody else has? Therefore now the fashion is the small beaks. So then a couple of generations, and all the birds have smaller beaks again. So even though they've been watching it for generations, it's not going anywhere. You now, that little bird didn't turn into a... I don't know what they are supposed to turn into. I know that whales are supposed to turn into polar bears. Like that. I'm not sure, what... I mean, if the plankton is enough, why would you turn to having to fish through the ice? If the plankton is enough, why through survival of the fittest you go to the North pole and then fish through some ice? You know what I am saying? So adjustments, just like what's going on here. Different people married different people, you end up with different features and stuff like that. But it still stays within the same basic patter, you know. But sometimes when you cross species, you end up with one or the other species, but sometimes you end up with a third, right? That's why in the Vedic culture then finding someone of like-minded nature, compatible nature, that's the most important. Because you kind-of like it that your kid is more like you than something else. Is that okay? That answers your earlier question?

Written question: From which shastra can we understand more about the living word and the creation?

HH BVPS Maharaja: Living word? Or living world? What is... About the living word? And the word was God... Word? With an "l" or without an "l".

Prabhu: World.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Depends what you want to understand. You want to understand how to get out, or you want to understand how to get in? Since you're already in, then just how to move around? You know what I am saying? The shastra's description of the species is how to get out. Because you are supposed to connect what you are doing back to God. So you can see where you connect in and how you connect back to God. Right? We are in the mammal species, then those are directly in line with the Prajapatis, who came from Brahma, who came from Krishna. So why are we here? You know what I am saying? So that connects that.

Or, you've created the species. Species have to live somewhere. Therefore you make the mountains, you make the valleys, you make the flatlands, you make the forests, the rivers, the oceans. It all has to function, you create the clouds, you create the rain, you create the lightening bolts. People should know, since the whole purpose is elevation, therefore they should know how it's functioning, so you create the omens, you create the stars, the nakshatras, the zodiac signs. It has to function, so you have to have time, you have to have the directions. So all that in place, now that means, the activity can be performed. Because only then you can get out. So then you have to divide it into correct action and incorrect action. That's Dharma shastra. So in other words, you establish everything that's there and how the particular scripture connects back to God. So that's not interpolation. That's what is the origin of that scripture in the creation of God. Does that make sense? So therefore the whole point of it is how to get out. It's just like the Bhagavatam's description of the creation and the universe. The Buddhists have the same thing. But we also have definitions of astrology, astronomy and all these things. The Buddhists don't, because their only purpose is to get out, not to actually deal within the world. Does that make sense? Like that. So the Vedic is, since one is attached to what's inside, therefore dealing with it in such a way and see its connection to God. But then to see it not connected to God and not getting out, that's your modern academy. So since you don't know, you don't have anything to root of it, therefore I can go off in any of the 8,400,000 different ways. And that's why you have so many disciplines that don't have anything to do with each other.

But in the Vedic you could take Ayurveda and take a verse and explain astronomy from there, or explain philosophy from there. Or grammar, any other branch can be defined, explained from any verse from any other scripture. Because it's all held together, because God is the center of it. But what is thrown out today by one, chemistry, has accepted tomorrow is the new theory in biology or something. You know, it's like that. So they are completely separate disciplines that basically have nothing to do with each other. You know, that's like gonna figure out the architecture by taking a little, we'll go up to that wall there, very carefully take off a little piece of that yellow plaster, put it under an ion microscope and we'll get the whole... How you say? Origin of this house and how it came into being and why it came into being and everything, right? It would have been possible? Never, if you said that to a scientist, they'd say you are absurd. But that's exactly what they do, so it's funny. Sadly funny. Sometimes annoyingly funny and sometimes just annoying. Like that. Is that okay?

So in other words, the scriptures, means, all the scriptures are gonna define the creation. Depending upon how the scripture functions in the Vedic system then you are going to get different emphasis on the creation. You know, like in Manu there is a second description that would be... No, it's just a further description of creation where it emphasizes the element of the mind. Because you are gonna do what you think, you know what I am saying? Or, let's say, what you feel. You could think anything, but what you feel that's what you'll do, right? So therefore the mind is very important when you are dealing with Dharma-shastra. So you want to do the right thing, means you have to think and feel the right thing. So they'll bring out the element of creation of mind more than you'll find let's say somewhere else. Does that make sense?

So depending upon what you want then you look, but basically the first chapter of every shastra will deal with creation. But we see that the Bhagavatam and second canto then they get into third and then fifth, like this it deals, so putting those together, these are different perspectives of the same thing. So if you look through the different Puranas, they all, by definition they have to have primary and secondary creation as part of the presentation. But every other Vedic literature will also have it. Prabhupada mentions, the Padma Purana talks more on the species. But to understand the species you have to understand the modes, because the modes create the species. So the 12th chapter of Manu then it tells what species come from what modes. Like that. Is that okay? What's the time?

Mataji: Ten to one.

HH BVPS Maharaja: Ten to one... Okay, so we can take a little break and then we'll continue with the... What you call it? More questions, questions on astrology and history. Jaya!

Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!

All comments.