Kaka-Tal-Nyaya: The logic of Tal tree and the Crow
This is one more interesting philosophical discussion between Srila Prabhupad and his disciple Syamasundara Prabhu. This is only a small part of the whole conversation.
Just for clarification – Kaka means a crow and Tal tree means a Palm tree which is common in India. Leibniz defines a Monad as a simple substance which cannot be divided into parts. A compound substance may be formed by an aggregation of monads. Thus, a compound substance may be divided into simple parts.
Syamasundara: Today we are discussing Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Leibnitz was a great mathematician. He invented the calculus. But he was also a philosopher. He said that in the universe every act is purposeful; that the purpose of the universe is to realize the goals set forth by God pre-established harmony. Just like He sets two clocks in motion, both synchronized. One is the body and one is the soul. Even though they are going together…
Prabhupada: The body is separate, body separate from the soul. We say that.
Syamasundara: Just like the body is acting, but the soul is independent. It’s not really affected by the body.
Prabhupada: Yes. That’s all right. We agree.
Syamasundara: So they are like two clocks going at the same synchronization, but not together. They are separate.
Prabhupada: But why two clocks? What is the relationship between the body and the soul? You cannot analyze separately. The body and the soul, they are practically combined. That example is not complete. They are two individual clocks. They are not combined.So therefore there is fallacy of analogy. If there is no common point, you cannot have analogy.
Syamasundara: The common point is that they say the same time. They have the same time.
Prabhupada: But the same time, gradually one clock goes slow and the other clock goes fast. This analogy is not perfect. Similar point. Analogy means there must be a majority of similar points. Similar point is lacking because the one clock is moving,you’ll start the other one moving, and one may go slow or one may go at higher speed.
Syamasundara: I think it’s like this, that the monad of the body desires a body like this, and the monad of the soul desires to inhabit a body like this. But they are separate entities, body and soul, and they work independently of each other.
Prabhupada: It is not exactly the way it is. It says in the Vedic śastras that the soul is the master of the body. Therefore how can you say that the body is working independently?This body, I now like to place my hand here, so I desire and the hand is there,not that all of a sudden my hand, by not desiring, it is coming…
Syamasundara: He would say the act of your desiring and the act of the hand coming are simultaneous but they are separate.
Prabhupada: Jugglery of words. It has no meaning.
Syamasundara: Just like the example of the rock falling in the water. He would say that the water separating and the rock falling are two separate acts. Neither one affects the other.
Prabhupada: This is nonsense. This argument is called in Sanskrit kaka-tal-nyaya. There was a tal tree, and one crow came, and immediately the fruit fell down. And there were two arguers: one said that the crow sat down on the fruit and it was so light it fell down, and the other said no, the crow was trying to sit down on the fruit but mean while the fruit fell and he could not sit. It is like that. It may be coincidence, the crow was just trying to sit on the fruit and the fruit fell. But these people’s answer is no, the crow first sat down, then the fruit fell. Another says no, the fruit has fallen down; therefore the crow could not sit. So this kind of argument has no value. The water separated and the stone fell-they are nonsensical. Our argument is strong: that if Krsna desires, the stone can float on the water, despite the law of gravitation. The law of gravitation is not working. So many huge planets are floating. How they are floating? The law of gravitation is working here. The stone falls down and goes down in the water. But that is one of the ingredients of the planet. But the planet itself is floating in the air. Where is the law of gravitation? Therefore Krsna’s desire. The cause is Krsna’s desire. Krsna wanted, “Let it be floating.” Or He has made some arrangement. By law of gravitation every planet should have gone down, But no. By His order they are all floating. That is Krsna.Is that all right? Or still more?
Syamasundara: There’s another page. This whole idea is so vague, that the water parting and the rock falling are individual.
Prabhupada: Yes. It is simply useless talk. Because it is a fact that the fruit has fallen, and the crow has flown away. Now why should we bother? A waste of time. But both can be possible. These argument-one is saying that the bird sat down, which is the cause of falling of the fruit, and the other says the falling down is the cause of the bird’s not being able to sit on it-both can be possible. But we say therefore the ultimate desire is of God. If God desired that the fruit would not fall, it would not have fallen. That is our proposition.
Syamasundara: I think you said once that the devotee picks up the fruit and offers it to Krsna and eats it.
Prabhupada: Yes. We don’t see the cause and effect; we see that ultimate cause is Krsna. “By Krsna’s desire we have got this nice thing. Offer it to Krsna and eat it,” that’s all.
Syamasundara: So whether the water’s parting allowed the rock to fall in, or whether the rock caused the water to part, it doesn’t really matter.
Prabhupada: It is ultimately depending on God’s will. That is the explanation.
(Excerpted from the talks between Srila Prabhupad and Syamasundara Prabhu)
