by purujit dasa
INJECT THE MISSING CHEMICAL
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?
Dr. Singh. From experience they know that it will not grow.
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.
(Life Comes from life:The Individual Living Force)
This is a very powerful argument, when you think about it deeply. If you ask scientists what is the cause of life, if they’re not humble enough to admit that they don’t know yet, they will say something like: “It’s the reaction of such and such chemical with such and such chemical and because the chemical is no longer there, there’s no life anymore.” Just like so many people say, when challenged by the science of soul: “We’re not the body. That’s nice, but if we don’t feed the body, we will die!” But that’s foolishness. If the food or chemical was the cause of life, then we could go on living forever. Just before dying, we would simply take a sandwich and everything would be fine.
Prabhupāda: People die even if he has got many things to eat, still he dies. Can you check it? That does not depend on eating. There are many men. They are dying. Although they are...
Mr. Wadell: I am taking you too literally. Let us forget about that point. It's not worthwhile.
Prabhupāda: No, no, because you say, "They are dying, God is not supplying," that is a mistaken idea. God is supplying. God is supplying. He is dying natural death. It is not that because there is want of supply, therefore he is dying. That is a mistaken idea. Death is not dependent on supply of food. There are so many other causes.
Conversation with Mr. Wadell -- July 10, 1973, London
Now, someone may say: “It’s not just eating. It’s the sun, the tissues of the body, so many things.” But if that is the case, why can’t you just supply whatever is needed and make a dead person alive again?
There are so many arguments. Now, if you say "This body's dead because the blood has become white. Blood corpuscles, they are now become white instead of becoming red." So if that is the possible, so why don't you make the blood red? By some chemical injection or by adding some color, as soon as the blood becomes red... Why don't you do that? No. If you say "That was 'natural' redness. That natural redness cannot be brought," then your science is defective. And even if we accept that natural redness is the cause of living force, there are many natural redness in the flower, in the jewels. Why does it not move?
Bhagavad-gītā 2.17 -- Hyderabad, November 22, 1972
In other words, if the cause of life is matter, then prove it. Replace the blood, make it red again, replace the bones, replace the heart, replace the muscles, replace the skin, basically replace all the organs so that a person can live on. Although appearing as science and a fact, when we push for such a proof, the scientists are silent. They are either working on it, or they say that the science has not come to that stage yet. But if you’re not able to do it now, then the claim that life comes from matter is nothing but faith, which we tend to think science is not.
(to be continued...)