There is a Bengali verse, kṛṣṇa ye bhaje se baḍa catura? Yes. Unless one is very wise and intelligent, he cannot become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. The first-class intelligent class of men surrenders to Kṛṣṇa. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna, after understanding Bhagavad-gītā, he replied to Kṛṣṇa, kariṣye vacanaṁ tava (BG 18.73), "Yes, I'll do." In the beginning, he was posing himself as very nice man, renounced. "My dear Kṛṣṇa, the other side is my brothers, my grandfather, my teacher, Dronācārya, my nephews, my son-in-laws, all my relatives. So I do not wish to fight. Let them enjoy." That was Arjuna's decision, in the beginning. And thus Bhagavad-gītā was taught to him. But after teaching Bhagavad-gītā to Arjuna, Kṛṣṇa inquired from him, "Now what is your position? Your illusion is over or not? What you have decided to do now?" He said, "Yes, my illusion is over." Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava (BG 18.73). "What You are saying, I shall act." This is Bhagavad-gītā understanding. Sarva-dharmān parityaja mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja. Then Arjuna went against his first decision. In the beginning he was nonviolent. But he changed. He become violent. Violent means he fought. He was a warrior. He was kṣatriya. His business was to fight when there is necessity. But in the beginning he was illusioned. Kārpaṇya-doṣo upahata-svabhāvaḥ (BG 2.7). Svabhāvaḥ, by nature, he was fighter, warrior, but kārpaṇya-doṣa, being miserly, upahata svabhāvaḥ, he's going, he was going against his nature. And after understanding Bhagavad-gītā, he was posed in his real nature.
Decision (Lectures, Other)
Lectures
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
Just like Arjuna. In the beginning he declined to fight. He was thinking favorably to his own senses, that "If I kill my brother, grandfather, nephews, those who are on the other side,... They have come to fight with me. So I can kill them. I can own victory over them. But what is the profit? If my relatives, friends, and all others die, then what is the use of my become victorious?" That was his... That means he was thinking in his favor. Kṛṣṇa wanted that "You must fight. You are a kṣatriya. It is your duty to fight. You are My friend. If you go away, fly away from this battlefield, what people will say? That 'Kṛṣṇa's friend has gone away.' So this is not good." So when he could not be convinced, then Kṛṣṇa had to speak the whole Bhagavad-gītā. Then after hearing Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa inquired from Arjuna "What is your decision now? Are you going to fight or not?" Arjuna said, "Yes, my illusion is over." Naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā tvat-prasādān madhusūdana. So kariṣye vacanaṁ tava (BG 18.73). "Yes, I shall fight." So this is favorable to Kṛṣṇa.
Ordinary behavior, my neighbors, they call me very learned scholar, but I am such a scholar that I do not know what I am." Ke āmi kene more jare tāpa... Why I am put into this miserable condition of life—birth, death and disease and old age? And threefold miseries—ādhyātmika, ādhibhautika, ādhidaivika? And the whole struggle is to minimize our miserable condition of life. The struggle is going on, whole day: work, day and night. What is the purpose? Ātyantika duḥkha nivṛtti. To minimize our miserable condition of life. So why I am put into this miserable condition of life although I do not know, I do not want it? So what I am? What is my position? That is Bhāgavata decision. The, you don't forget yourself by simply satisfying your senses. Kāmasya nendriya-prītir (SB 1.2.10). Don't be satisfied simply when you see that your senses are satisfied. No. Jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā. One should be forward to understand what he actually is. The same, same story, that I am simply seeing dreams, day and night. I am seeing, that's a fact. Law of identity, I am. Then what I am? I'm simply seeing these dreams? What is my actual life? That is tattva-jijñāsā. What is that? Read it. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇanu-śīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167).
He was a soldier; he knew how to fight. So by, for his personal consideration, he was thinking not to fight, not to kill the other side, because the other side happened to be his kinsmen, his grandfather, his brother, his nephews. So he was thinking in terms of his own sense gratification, because "The other side, if they are killed, I'll be unhappy." That was his consideration. Therefore he was not willing to fight. And to induce him to become Kṛṣṇa conscious, the whole Bhagavad-gītā was explained. And at the end Kṛṣṇa asked Arjuna, "What is your decision?" Yathecchasi tathā kuru (BG 18.63). "You can do whatever you like. I have given you instruction, full instruction. Now whatever you like, you can do." This means every living entity has got a little independence. Kṛṣṇa, or God, does not interfere with that independence. Yathecchasi tathā kuru. At the last, also, Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). "You do it." Kṛṣṇa can instruct us, "You do it." If I don't do it, that is my option. That option is always there. Kṛṣṇa does not oblige me. Otherwise, what is the difference between me and the stone? The stone has no independence. But I am a living entity; I have got my independence. So do you... Kṛṣṇa does not interfere with my independence. Voluntarily, if we surrender to Kṛṣṇa, voluntarily if we serve Him, then our life is successful.
Pradyumna: "To support this statement there are many authoritative assertions by the learned scholars of bygone ages. According to their general opinion, a person may become governed by certain convictions derived by his own arguments and decisions. Then another person, who may be a greater logician, will nullify these conclusions and establish another thesis. In this way, the path of argument will never be safe or conclusive. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam recommends therefore that one follow in the footsteps of the authorities. Here is the general..."
Prabhupāda: Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). You cannot come to the conclusion what is śraddhā and sādhana by simply argument. Tarko apratistha. By argument, we cannot establish. Śrutayo vibhinnā. The scriptures are many varieties. Śrutayor vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And every philosopher must differ with another philosopher. Therefore, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: We have to follow the footprints of great authorities.
Devotee: (reading) "...of bygone ages. According to the general opinion, a person may become governed by certain convictions derived by his own arguments and decisions. Then another person, who may be a greater logician, will nullify these conclusions and establish another thesis. In this way the path of argument will never be safe or conclusive. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam recommends, therefore, that one follow in the footsteps of the authorities."
Prabhupāda: Yes. To make progress in devotional service, one cannot manufacture anything. The authoritative statements of ācā ryas, that we'll have to follow. Mahājana yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. We should not manufacture, invent anything. As they are stated in the śāstras, confirmed by spiritual master and ācāryas, that will be accepted. Nobody can say, "I think devotional service should be like this." No. Therefore spiritual master is the guidance. He is the representative of the ācāryas. In this way, we should make progress, not by concoction.
"The second-class devotee has been defined by the following symptoms: he is not very expert in arguing on the strength of revealed scripture, but he has firm faith in the objective. The purport of this description is that the second-class devotee has firm faith in the procedure of devotional service unto Kṛṣṇa, but he may sometimes fail to offer arguments and decisions on the strength of revealed scripture to an opposing party. But at the same time, he is still undaunted within himself as to his decision that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of worship.
"The neophyte, or third-class devotee, is one whose faith is not strong and, at the same time, does not recognize the decision of the revealed scripture. The neophyte's faith can be changed by someone else with strong arguments or by an opposite decision. Unlike the second-class devotee, who also cannot put forward arguments and evidences from the scriptures, but who has still, has all faith in the objective, the neophyte has no firm faith in the objective. Thus he is called a neophyte devotee.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
In the bhakti platform there are different stages. Spiritually, there is no difference. One in dāsya-rasa and one in mādhurya-rasa, there is no difference. But a devotee likes to serve the Supreme Lord according to his inclination. Some wants to love Him in śānta-rasa, some wants to love Him in dāsya-rasa, someone in friendly, then paternal love, then conjugal love. So there is no difference between these different phases of loving affair, but great devotees and learned scholars, they have given their decision that the loving affairs of Kṛṣṇa in the conjugal platform between husband and wife, or above that, between lover and beloved... That is very much prominent in the Western countries, friend, boyfriend, girlfriend. In the spiritual world that platform of remaining as friend without marriage, that is considered as the highest. And whatever we see here—a perverted reflection of that loving affairs.
"So long I have been engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa and I am rendering more and more service and getting spiritual pleasure, since then, as soon as I think of sex life, I immediately spite upon it and I hate to think of it." This is the result. So people should know what is Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa pra... If one becomes attached to rādhā-kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ, then the test is that his lusty desires will vanish. This is the test. Therefore Kavirāja Gosvāmī explains that "This is not ordinary thing. This is the transformation of the ahlādinī śakti." Samvit, sandhinī, ahlādinī. The Supreme Lord has got three potencies, or energies, primarily. So this rādhā-kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ is transformation of the pleasure potency. Kṛṣṇa is described in the Bhagavad-gītā, paraṁ brahma. Paraṁ brahma. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). That is the explanation given by Arjuna. This is called paramparā system. If we follow Arjuna, Arjuna's decision should be taken. Arjuna decision is: "Kṛṣṇa is paraṁ brahma." So the Māyāvādī philosophers, they are after brahma-sukha. Brahma-sukhānubhūtyā. Brahma-sukhānubhūtyā. The source of brahma-sukha is Kṛṣṇa, but they cannot reach up to that point.
We are existing at the present moment also, and in future also we shall continue to exist." And how we shall exist? Individually. Otherwise Kṛṣṇa would have said that in future, when we become liberated, then we shall become one. No. He says, "Even in future also, we shall continue to exist like this. You are individual. You are Arjuna. I am Kṛṣṇa. And all other living entities..." That is real understanding. Every one of us living entities, we are all individual persons, and Kṛṣṇa is also individual person. This is knowledge. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). Kṛṣṇa, or God, He's also nitya, eternal. We are also nitya, eternal. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). We do not die. That is the preliminary knowledge of spiritual understanding, that "I am not this body, I am spirit soul, ahaṁ brahmāsmi, but I am individual." Nityo nityānām. Kṛṣṇa is individual person; I am also individual person. When Kṛṣṇa says that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), it does not mean that I become one with Kṛṣṇa or merge into the existence of Kṛṣṇa. I keep my individuality, Kṛṣṇa keeps His individuality, but I agree to abide by His order. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā to Arjuna that "I have spoken to you everything. Now what is your decision?" Individual. It is not that Kṛṣṇa is forcing Arjuna. Yathecchasi tathā kuru: (BG 18.63) "Now whatever you like, can do." That is individuality.
He said, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, now I am surrendering unto You. I accept You as my spiritual master." Śiṣyas te aham: "I am Your disciple, not friend." Because friendly talks, arguments, there is no end. But when there is talk between spiritual master and disciple, there is no argument. No argument. As soon as the spiritual master says, "This is to be done," it is to be done. That's all, final. So you'll find, throughout the whole instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, not that blindly. There is submissive presentation, "Kṛṣṇa, I cannot understand this." That is allowed. But it is not that you have to change the decision of the spiritual master. No. If you cannot understand, it is..., you should know it that "Due to my less intelligence, I just now do not understand what the spiritual master said, but that is already concluded. But I may try to understand so that I may not be misleading." That is the position. So just see. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "My Guru Mahārāja saw Me a rascal, fool. Therefore he asked Me, 'You don't touch Vedānta-sūtra. It is not for You. You simply chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare.' "
So Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a great scholar. There is no doubt of it. But in spite of His becoming a great scholar, He is presenting Himself as a great fool. He says, "My Guru Mahārāja saw Me a great..." Even one is very great scholar, he has to abide by the decision of his spiritual master. Even one is very great scholar, and if his spiritual master says that "You are a great fool," he should accept it. This is called full surrender. For example, I'll give you a practical... My Guru Mahārāja was very great scholar, and his Guru Mahārāja, from literary point of view, he could not even sign his name, Gaura-kiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja. And Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura asked Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura to accept Gaura-kiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja as his, as his spiritual master, that "You go and take your initiation from Gaura-kiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja." So he thought that "I am a great scholar, and I am son of a magistrate, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and great Vaiṣṇava. He'll be very much pleased to accept me." Of course, he was very much pleased. But in the beginning he refused. He refused. Because... Of course, that is only show. He was not proud. Just to teach us. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī explained that "I was little proud. So I was thrice refused by Guru Mahārāja," although he was the only disciple. So the scholarship is not a qualification of becoming devotee. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's teaching. Scholarship may help, but it is not necessary. Real necessary is that one should be humble and meek and follow the instruction of the spiritual master. This is real qualification.
Prabhupāda: No, no. Suppose if I say "I am greater than the President of the United States." Will you accept?
Guest (1): Sad-dharma (Hindi). How he says sarva-dharmān parityajya... (BG 18.66)?
Prabhupāda: Because you have created so many rascal dharma; therefore, you have to give it up.
Guest (1): The decision of dharma is dharati, sa dharma.
Prabhupāda: Yes. And what is that dhārayet? What is your position? You are servant. You cannot give up your servitude. All of you, you have assembled here. Can you say you are master? You are all servant. Is anyone that you are the master, supreme master? Who is a master? You are all servants, but you are servant of māyā. That's all. You are servant of your senses. Your senses dictate something, and you are obliged to abide by that. So you have to give up this service attitude of māyā and you have to take the real servitude of Kṛṣṇa. That is your salvation. Constitutionally, you are servant, nothing but servant. Artificially, you are claiming that "I am master." Nobody's master. You are servant. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). That is the real identity of jīva. He's eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. So as soon as you accept that position, you are liberated. That is your natural position. You are constitutionally a servant. Artificially, you are thinking, "I am master." That is māyā.
Now these Gosvāmīs, the Sanātana Gosvāmī... There is a nice story about Sanātana Gosvāmī, of whom we are now studying. Sanātana Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī, two brothers, they went to Vṛndāvana for devotional service. So their all business was... Rūpa Gosvāmī, especially, he was always engaged in writing books. And when he was hungry, he went to some householder: "Give me a piece of bread." And everyone at Vṛndāvana... They were leaders. All the Vṛndāvana inhabitants, they took... Even their household quarrels, they used to represent, "Swamijī, this is our position. Please settle up." So whatever decision he would give to the villagers, they will accept. Their court was Swamijī, Rūpa Gosvāmī. So he was so lovable. So one day Rūpa Gosvāmī was thinking that "If I could get some, I mean to say, commodities for cooking, then I would have invited Sanātana Gosvāmī to take some prasādam." He thought like that. And, and after, say, one hour, one young girl came with sufficient quantity of rice, flour, ghee, and vegetables, so many things: "Bābājī..." They were called... They call in the India, especially in Vṛndāvana quarters, they call all these transcendentalist swamis "Bābājī." "Bābājī, please accept these commodities.
So ultimately, a person, Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, ultimately. That is the evidence from all Vedic scriptures. Tāhā nāhi māni, paṇḍita kare upahāsa. And these impersonalists, they do not accept this personal aspect of the Absolute Truth, and they laugh at the devotees, "Oh, what they are doing? They are less..." They are thinking that the devotees are less intelligent. And the devotees, they are also thinking that less intelligent. But you have to decide who is less intelligent. If you, from the Vedic literature, if you do not accept the decision... And the essence of Vedic literature is Bhagavad, Bhagavad-gītā, and it is clearly stated there. When understood..., Arjuna understood Bhagavad-gītā, he clearly accepted Him that paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12), "You are the Supreme Lord, and nobody knows Your personality." So personality is accepted. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also says that the verdict of all Vedic literatures is to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Festival Lectures
Just try to understand this. Saguṇa-upāsanā means when Brahman takes a form He takes a form from this material help. Just like we take a form, we spiritual entities. We also take a form, transmigration of the soul according to karma. I create a certain type of mentality, and that continues throughout my life. And at the time of death, because I have got a certain type of mentality, man-mentality or God-mentality or dog-mentality or fly-mentality, any kind of... There are so many. So I have to take a certain type of body. So that body I have to take not by my whim. Daivena. Daiva-netreṇa: by the decision of higher authorities. Daiva, generally, it means the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His agents. He has got many. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). So the material agent is Durgā. So I create a mentality by my association with this material world. There are three kinds of qualities: sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. So one of them or mixed, I will have to accept. Because I am associating. Just like... It is not difficult. If you associate with the hippies, you will become hippie. If you associate with the hippies, you will become hippie. If you associate with the Vaiṣṇava, you become Vaiṣṇava. That is practical. So similarly, if you associate with tamo-guṇa... One of the features of tamo-guṇa is laziness and sleepy. I am against so much sleeping because it is tamo-guṇa. And the features of rajo-guṇa is very active, but for sense gratification. Just like ordinary persons, they are very active. They rise also early in the morning, they work very hard, but the whole plan is for sense gratification. That's all. That is rajo-guṇa. And sattva-guṇa means they are silent, they are sober, they know what is what, and they try for spiritual advancement. That is sattva-guṇa.
Arrival Addresses and Talks
Then he decided, "Yes, I shall fight." Kṛṣṇa inquired from him, "Now I have instructed you. Now, whatever you like you can do. And what is your decision?" Then he clearly said, "Yes, my decision is there. I'll fight." Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava (BG 18.73). "As You advise, I understand that You want this fighting." So Vaiṣṇava means for the sake of Kṛṣṇa he can do anything. Not that he is lazy fellow, showing, "I have become very big Vaiṣṇava. Let me sleep under the name of chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa." That is not Vaiṣṇava. Vaiṣṇava must be very busy, always awaiting the order of the... Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167). "What is Kṛṣṇa's order? What does He want?" He is ready. Just like a servant is always ready to receive the order of the master. That is faithful servant. That is real servant. Not that at night duty he is sleeping somewhere. No. That is not faithful servant. Faithful servant means always alert. And that is bhakti. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam bhaktir uttama (CC Madhya 19.167). Simply one has to execute, ānukūlyena, how Kṛṣṇa is satisfied. This is bhakti.
Initiation Lectures
So all the sages and brāhmaṇas and everyone stood up. This Romaharṣaṇa did not. So Balarāma punished him, killed him. But although he was killed, but he got salvation and he was recognized. But, he... It was an example that we should be always very careful about offering respects to the Supreme Lord. He was sitting on the vyāsāsana. Vyāsāsana, one who is sitting on the vyāsāsana, if somebody comes, he does not require to offer respect. That is the rule. But that is not applicable when God enters. No. (laughter) That was his offense. So exemplary. He was killed not with any weapon. One straw. He was immediately... Balarāma had some straw. So all the sages said that "Sir, we allowed him to sit on the vyāsāsana, and he was speaking. Now what is to be done? He's killed." So then Balarāma said, "All right. If you want, I can make him immediately alive." So they also considered that "If we say that 'Make him alive,' then... Balarāma's decision was to kill him. Then we overrule Him." Just see how the behavior. Then the saints and sages said, "No, Sir. We do not want. Whatever You have done, that is all right. But You do something, that we blessed this man for long life to speak. Now he is dead. So our version is also nullified. But we want that our version may not be nullified and Your action may not be nullified. You do something like that." (laughter) So then Balarāma said, "All right. You bring his son. I shall empower him and he shall be a great speaker on this Vedic literature." And because his son means he himself... Ātmaiva jayate putra. Son is born, there is no... The father and son there is no distinction. Just like in Bible sometimes it is said the son of God and God is one. That's a fact, because son is expansion of the body of the father.
General Lectures
So your business is how to become happy, because by nature you are happy. Diseased condition, that happiness being checked. So this is our diseased condition, this material, conditional life, this body. So as one intelligent person puts himself under the treatment of a physician to get out of the disease, similarly, human life is meant for putting himself to the expert physician who can cure you from your material disease. That is your business. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam (SB 11.3.21). That is the injunction of all Vedic literature. Just like Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is teaching Arjuna. Arjuna is surrendering to Kṛṣṇa, śiṣyas te 'ham māṁ prapannam: (BG 2.7) "My dear Kṛṣṇa, so long I was speaking with You just as friends. Now I surrender unto You as Your student, as Your disciple. You become my spiritual master and teach me properly." This is the process. Arjuna is exampling himself that he's accepting Kṛṣṇa as the spiritual master, teacher. And then Kṛṣṇa began to teach the Bhagavad-gītā, and he changed his decision, and he was freed from all anxieties. This is spiritual life. So this spiritual realization is easier than any kind of material realization because we are not meant for material realization. We are meant for spiritual realization, the human form. So that we should take advantage of. That is the mission of human form of life. If we miss this, then we are committing suicide.
Yes. He accepted Kṛṣṇa's, Kṛṣṇa's path, surrender. Kṛṣṇa wanted that "You must fight." So in the beginning he did not like to fight, but when he surrendered... Kṛṣṇa asked him, "My dear Arjuna, I have spoken to you everything. Now what you are going to do?" Now here also Kṛṣṇa is giving independence to Arjuna: "What you are going to do?" Yathecchasi tathā kuru (BG 18.63). "Now whatever you like, you do." He never interferes. And what Arjuna said? Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava: (BG 18.73) "Oh, I shall do what You are saying. Yes." (laughter) This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava. Yes. He changed his decision and he wanted to do as Kṛṣṇa desired. This is Kṛṣṇa conscious. He remained the same military man, but he changed his consciousness. He perfected. Arjuna, after learning Kṛṣṇa consciousness or teachings of Bhagavad-gītā, he did not go away from the battlefield, but he sternly fought the fight because he knew that "Kṛṣṇa wants it. All right." Kariṣye vacanam. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So when we take to this conclusion, kariṣye vacanaṁ tava (BG 18.73), "Kṛṣṇa whatever You want, I shall do," that is perfection.
Everyone subordinate. Everyone is lower than God. He may be very powerful, but nobody can be equal or greater than God. That is the Vedic information. Na tasya sama adikasya dṛśyate. We don't find... They are also, great saintly persons, they're researching that who is the greatest personality. Greatest personality. So by research work by great saintly persons, especially by Lord Brahmā... He is the first creature within this universe. So he has found by his spiritual advancement and research work that Kṛṣṇa is the greatest. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). He gives his decision: "The greatest personality is Kṛṣṇa." Just like we are sitting, so many ladies and gentlemen here. We can analyze who is the greatest here. So, say, for arguing, you can accept that "You are the greatest." But I am not the greatest. I have got my spiritual master. He has got his spiritual master. He has got a spiritual master. In this way, we go up to Brahmā. Brahmā is the original spiritual master within this universe, who gave us the Vedic knowledge. He's therefore called forefather, er, grandfather, pitāmaha. But he's also not independent. In the Vedānta-sūtra or Bhāgavata it is said that Brahmā... He's the first creature. There was no other any other living entity when he was created first. So if I say that he also got knowledge from others, then the argument may be, "Who is the next person to give him knowledge?" So therefore Bhāgavata says, "No. He received knowledge from Kṛṣṇa." How? "From the heart." Tene brahma hṛdā. Hṛdā. Because God, Kṛṣṇa, is sitting in everyone's heart—your heart, my heart, everyone. And He can give you instruction.
It is said in the śāstra, yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvaiḥ guṇaiḥ tatra samāsate surāḥ. If you have unflinching faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then all the good qualities of demigods will develop unto you. It is not story. It is fact. Just like these European and American students. They, in their previous life, before becoming Kṛṣṇa consciousness, according to our standard, they were all immoral. Our, in India, illicit sex life still, it is admitted, if it is not followed, to have sex relation with other's wife or other woman except one's wife, that is called immoral or sinful. So in Western countries these things are not immoral or sinful. It is very daily affair. But now, because they have come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they have given up all these things. No illicit sex life. Unless one is married, he must remain brahmacārī or vānaprastha or sannyāsī. Only gṛhastha, duly married wife, he can have sex. This is morality. And you should not kill the animals unnecessarily. That is immoral. You are already intoxicated by the influence of māyā. You should not be more intoxicated. This is immoral. You should not indulge in gambling. These are immoral. So as soon as you become Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then all these immoralities vanish immediately. That is the only. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā, sarvaiḥ guṇaiḥ tatra samāsate su..., harāv abhaktsya kuto mahad-guṇā. One who is not Kṛṣṇa..., he cannot have any good quality or any morality. That is the decision of the śāstra. So if you want to revive the morality of the society, you must take up this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then everything will come.
So you'll find in this Bhagavad-gītā, when there was talks going on between Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa, friendly talks... Arjuna was speaking, "Let them enjoy this kingdom. I don't want to fight with my own men." That was his decision. Kṛṣṇa said, "No, no. This is not your duty. You are a kṣatriya. Now you are in the battlefield. You must fight." In this way, ordinary topics were going on. But when Arjuna saw it very difficult to understand, "Whether I shall fight or not fight?" he accepted Kṛṣṇa as guru. Because he thought that "Friendly talks will not make solution. Let me accept Kṛṣṇa as my..." Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). Prapannam: "I surrender unto You. You are my guru. Now You are not my friend; You are my guru." Because a disciple cannot disobey the guru. A friend can disobey. Kṛṣṇa is asking to fight. As a friend, he was disobeying. But if a guru says that "You must fight," then you cannot disobey. Therefore he accepted, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam.
Some of them forming were forming one group; another some of them, they formed another group. Exactly the same thing was done. Now Kṛṣṇa was the charioteer, but when the chariot was brought in front of the two soldiers' party, Arjuna became little bit disturbed that "I have to fight. On the other side they are my brothers, they are my nephews, they are my gurus, Dronācārya, and they are my grandfather, Bhīṣmadeva. So what kind of fight this is that I have to fight with my friends and relatives and family members?" So he hesitated, that "Kṛṣṇa, what kind of fight this is? They are not my enemies; they are all family members. So I am not interested in this fight." So he practically decided not to fight. And Kṛṣṇa said that "What is this nonsense? You are a military man, and you have come to fight here, and you are My friend and My relative also, and if you decide not to fight, what people will say?" This is the beginning. Then, after some arguments, Arjuna thought it wise that "Actually, I am a military man and I have come to fight a decision that we shall fight. Now what I am trying to do, to avoid this fighting? Actually it is not my business. I am deviating from my duty."
Yes. So Arjuna understood his weakness, his weak point. Therefore he said to Kṛṣṇa that kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ. Kārpaṇya, this word, comes from kṛpaṇa. Kṛpaṇa... Kṛpaṇa, this word, is known practically everyone. Kṛpaṇata means miserly. A person who has got enough resources but if he does not use it properly, it is called, he is called a kṛpaṇa, miser. And the opposite word of kṛpaṇa is udhara, or liberal. So there are two words, kṛpaṇa. So Arjuna said, kārpaṇya-doṣa: "I know I can fight. I am quite competent military person, but I am not using my resources; therefore it is kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ." Svabhāvaḥ means naturally a military man, a kṣatriya, is very bold enough to fight. That is one of the qualification of a military man. Yuddhe cāpalāyanam. The śaurya, vīrya, tejaḥ, yuddhe cāpalāyanam, these are the symptoms of kṣatriya. He would never go away from fighting. When there is challenge, fighting, a kṣatriya will never deny. Yuddhe cāpalāyanam. So when kṣatriya, is especially a kṣatriya like Arjuna... He is the best military man of that age, and he was denying to fight. So he could understand his weakness. He said, kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ: (BG 2.7) "Naturally I should fight, but on account of my crippled decision or miserly decision, I am perplexed." So Kṛṣṇa... He knew Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. "Therefore I am surrendering unto You." What is that? Two, last lines?
Śiṣyas te 'ham. Ahaṁ te śiṣya: "I just become Your disciple, and You just educate me. Please enlighten me." This is the position. Before that, Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, they were talking like friends. Friends means argument. We can go on arguing for days together, but there is no decision. That is friendly talk. But when there is talk between a master and disciple, there is no question of arguing. The disciple has to accept what is ordered by the master.
So Kṛṣṇa is accepted guru or the spiritual master, and Arjuna says, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). Prapannam means that "I am surrendered to You. I don't think myself on the equal level with You." The spiritual master and the disciple, they cannot be on the equal level. Therefore a spiritual master is called guru. Guru means heavy. Just like in the scale we put something this side, something that side. The thing which is weighty, that goes down. Similarly, guru is supposed to be weighty than the śiṣya. So Kṛṣṇa begins to speak when He is accepted as guru; otherwise He does not speak. Now, our subject matter is "Let Kṛṣṇa speak for Himself." So we have to accept Kṛṣṇa as the supreme authority. Then His speaking will be useful for us. Otherwise, if we think that Kṛṣṇa is on the equal level—"He is also a historical personality and His education and my education equal and so on, so on"—so long we think like that, then we cannot hear or understand Kṛṣṇa. But if we take the position of Arjuna—śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam—then Kṛṣṇa will speak to the disciple like Arjuna, and everything will be clear.
Philosophy Discussions
Śyāmasundara: He sees in our human conduct that we have the choice to make certain decisions, certain...
Prabhupāda: Decision means because you are imperfect, human beings are imperfect, so their machine, these motorcars, there are so many accidents, so many killing. But because God is so perfect, although all the planets are rotating in their speed, just like this earth is rotating... What is the speed? At least in twenty-four hours it is completing 25,000 miles. That means its speed is about 1000 miles at least. And similarly, other planets are also moving, similarly. And the sun planet is moving at 16,000 miles per minute or second, calculated. But all these planets are moving in this way, so much speed, but they are not colliding. The perfect arrangement is there, and they are floating. How it is possible? This is accidental? Do you think this is accidental?
Śyāmasundara: Well, he says it like this, that there are alternative courses of action. For every possibility there are several other possibilities. So that for instance a man can make a decision, a choice, to take different, alternative way. So he says that nature works in that way also.
Prabhupāda: No. Nature is not working that way. Nature is working very perfectly. We can see. Just after... So perfect that the astronomers, they are calculating that on such and such date there will be an eclipse, and it will be seen in India; it will not be seen in Europe; and exactly at this time the eclipse will begin. So how they are calculating unless there is a rigid law? How it is possible? They are calculating mathematically. The general matter that two plus two is always four, not that by accident it becomes five. That is not possible. So the nature's law is working in that way. Otherwise how one year before you can calculate this solar eclipse and lunar eclipse so rightly? And they can say that from this country it will be seen, and from this country it will be not seen. That means the position of the sun, moon and everything, of the latitude and longitude, everything is so nicely done that you can make calculations very perfectly. How you can say accident? There is no accident.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So who can be more intelligent than Kṛṣṇa?
Śyāmasundara: Then he says that "Values must be regarded as goods of practical significance which result from intelligently directed activities." So something we place value on must be acted...
Prabhupāda: Yes. Arjuna followed the decision of Kṛṣṇa, so there is value. He became victorious, he enjoyed the kingdom, and he became a famous devotee.
Śyāmasundara: As a practical result of his activities?
Prabhupāda: Yes. As a practical result. Parīkṣit Mahārāja said that this Kurukṣetra fight was just like a great ocean, and all these Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Karṇa, they were just like big animals in the ocean. He said, "It is important for my grandfather to cross the ocean dangerously with all these big, big animals. But by the grace of Kṛṣṇa it was possible." This is value.
Śyāmasundara: He says that rights are also social, just like if I claim a right, a certain social right, that I must also accept my responsibility. Just for instance free speech. If I accept free speech as my social right, that I must also accept others' right to free speech.
Prabhupāda: But that is lacking in the present society, because these rascals, they are proud of their nationals but they are denying this same national life to the animals. They are being sent to the slaughterhouse. Therefore they are rascals. Why the animals should be denied their national right? They are born in the same country. They have a right to live at the cost of God. Why we are interfering with their independence, given right? Therefore they are rascals. Their so-called social, moral, philosophical, political, they are all rascaldom. Therefore our decision is, harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā: (SB 5.18.12) anyone who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he has no good qualities. In the other direction, we will find so many defects with his so-called moral and social position.
Śyāmasundara: He says that to find our authentic selfhood then the next step, beginning with the stage of not being committed to anything, is to be aware that life is an "either/or" decision; that we must begin to commit ourselves to certain patterns of action and make conscious commitments—either this or that—and make decisions and become concerned, ethically(?) concerned with life. This he says is the second stage toward self-realization.
Prabhupāda: Self-realization, as I said, that enquiring to the Absolute Truth. It is not that?
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: I think that. Yes. That is self-realization. So there the philosophy of life begins: inquiry into the origin, source of everything.
Śyāmasundara: The emphasis of these existentialists is upon acting. They think that first there must come an active decision to say, be concerned one way or the other about something, and take an active role in dealing with life rather than aimlessly taking pleasure from it. But try to ethically become involved with life and make decisions, either this or that.
Prabhupāda: So these things are very nicely described in Vedānta-sūtra, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the right commentary on Vedānta-sūtra. Just like it is also philosophy, that what is the actual aim of life, or what is the Absolute Truth. So the Vedānta-sūtra is so nicely made, the answer is also there. The Absolute Truth must be that thing which is the origin of everything. Now Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam discusses what is the nature of that origin. This requires philosophical as well as authentic proof. Now, that origin, first of all the origin is conscious or not conscious.
Śyāmasundara: So he proposes these three stages of existence. The first one we talked about is the aesthetic stage of noncommitment—simply sense gratification and speculation. The second stage he says that a man makes a leap in commitment and begins to concern himself or involve himself with the world on an ethical level. And the third stage is the religious stage, or self-realization. But in the second stage he says that "The despair of life has lead one to the commitment to make choices, to commit himself to action and to enter into life's involvement and become ethically concerned; that suddenly he's turned within himself and in his passion and freedom and decision or subjectivity, then he begins to find himself."
Prabhupāda: What does he find?
Śyāmasundara: This may be likened to the people who do pious works, or the people who do good to others, who are morally committed to life, on that level. To feed others, clothe others, like that. They say that that is a step higher than simply sense gratification and speculation. He says that "This is a move in the right direction toward authentic selfhood, and eventually this way we will understand what I am. And because we are at last doing something, we are involved with life, then we are no more abstract. We are existing." Then we are existing. That someone who is doing all sense gratification and mental speculation, they are living abstract life, abstract life, external life. Simply waiting for the enjoyment of life and speculating what is the meaning of things, that is abstract life, and this being committed to action or decision-making is called existence. This is the first step toward real existence. So in this ethical stage he says that by the very act of making decisions that we become aware, that we become more and more aware, and that decision-making means awareness. And if we make choices about anything, that means that we are becoming aware.
Prabhupāda: What is the decision? Why people become moral—to feed the poor, like that, humanitarian? What is the decision, ultimate decision?
Śyāmasundara: He says that it's not so much the fact of the decision but how the decision is made: if it's made with integrity and self-confidence.
Prabhupāda: How the decision... Why, how the decision is made, that I still don't know. How? Why? Why they make such decision? One man is running on a slaughterhouse. He's killing only. Another man is after humanitarian work, giving food, giving them chance to live. So what is the ultimate decision?
Śyāmasundara: The decision is...
Prabhupāda: There are two sides. There are two kinds of people are going. The same man, he is giving charity for feeding poor man or giving relief to the distressed man, but at the same time he's encouraging animal-killing. So what is the ethics? What is the ethical law in these two contradictory activities? One side... Just like our Vivekananda. He is advocating daridra-nārāyaṇa sevā, "Feed the poor," but feed the poor with mother Kālī's prasāda, where poor goats are killed. Just like, another, one side feeding the poor, another side killing the poor goat. So what is the ethic? What is the ethical law in this connection? Just like people open hospitals, and the doctor prescribes, "Give this man," what it is called," (Hindi), ox blood, or chicken juice." So what is this ethic? And they're supporting that "Here is chicken juice." Just because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics? If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing—there are so many medicines, but the killing is very prominent—then next point should be that if you say that the human life is important, so nonimportant animal-killing can be supported to save the important. Then the question will be, "Why it is important? Why consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important?" These are the questions of ethical law. Where are these discussions on the ethical laws?
Śyāmasundara: He gives importance not so much to the facts of the...
Prabhupāda: Then if there is no fact, then what is the use of such philosophy? It is not based on fact.
Śyāmasundara: Yeah. He gives stress on how the decision is made.
Prabhupāda: When decision is made, then you should go farther. How the decision is made, that is our question. How is this made this decision, that you kill somebody and by killing somebody you protect somebody? How this decision is? That is our question. What is the answer?
Śyāmasundara: His answer is that you make the decision by inwardness, by turning inward...
Prabhupāda: And what is that inward mean? Why you are thinking that "I shall give protection to my brother by killing another gentleman"? Why you are thinking like this? What is the ethic? What is the value of ethic? That is our question.
Śyāmasundara: Well, perhaps his ethical man would not make that decision. Perhaps his ethical man would make the decision to protect the cow also. Because the idea is that through a passionate, feeling, awareness inside that one will come to the right decisions, that, that...
Prabhupāda: But he has no standard of right decision. What is the standard of right decision?
Śyāmasundara: His... It's... It's not so much... His motto is not so much "Know thyself" as to "Choose thyself." He's not so much saying that what you...
Prabhupāda: So how you can make your choice if you do not know yourself? You make your choice, "This is good, this is bad." So this choice is made when you know yourself. So this is my interpretation. I have interest in this; therefore it is good. That, so without knowing yourself, how you can make this choice? How you can make your decision?
Śyāmasundara: He says that you will know yourself when you begin choosing yourself. And when you begin making choices and examining them, you find the right choice for you, and you will begin to know yourself. That this passionate, inner awareness when one becomes engaged in life, in doing things actively, and making decisions...
Prabhupāda: So this choice, when you know yourself, so how you can know yourself unless you go to somebody who knows things as they are? Just like people know that "I am this body." But this kind of knowing is animal knowing. This kind of knowing, that "I am this body," yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke (SB 10.84.13). If one understands that "I am this body," then he is no better than an ass. The animals, the ass, the ass also thinks, "I am this body," and you also think that you are body, then what is the difference between you and the ass? And what is the value of the philosophy of an ass if you are in the bodily concept of life?
Śyāmasundara: This particular philosophy puts emphasis on the act of deciding, that whatever is decided doesn't matter, but...
Prabhupāda: But you cannot decide without your aim. What is the aim of life?
Śyāmasundara: Well, he says that because we cannot know the aim or...
Prabhupāda: Then how we can make decision?
Śyāmasundara: Then we must make a choice, either this or that.
Prabhupāda: That is childish. That is childish. Just like a child, he does not know. He sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with that. That's all. That is child.
Śyāmasundara: Well, his idea is that you choose one fact and stick to it, whether..., no matter what it is, but that it must be..., your decisions must be free, full of passion, tension and integrity.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: What about someone like Hitler, who chose...
Śyāmasundara: Just like, just like Hitler, they might say, or actually the whole hippie philosophy comes from these men, these existentialists. It's not... It doesn't matter what you do, it's that you do it with conviction, determination, passion, freedom.
Prabhupāda: However foolish it may be. That is nice. (laughter) However foolish it may be, you go on.
Śyāmasundara: This is the most prevalent philosophy today, guiding people. It says that because God is dead, that we don't know where we came from, all we know is that we're here existing, the only way we can genuinely know ourself and exist authentically...
Prabhupāda: But our point is that we do not know genuinely. What we know, that is foolishness, that is asses' knowledge. Just like ass knows that "I am this body. I am the servant of this washerman." So this knowledge, like this. So he has made the decision. The ass has made this decision that "I shall take a morsel of grass and whole day I shall carry tons of cloth of this washerman." He has made this decision, that's all. Then is it that the decision is very nice? This is asses' decision, that's all.
Śyāmasundara: They say that rather than indulge in unrestricted sense gratification or spend our life speculating about...
Prabhupāda: So why not unrestricted sense gratification, if one makes that decision?
Śyāmasundara: Just because it becomes boring.
Prabhupāda: Ah?
Śyāmasundara: He says because unrestricted sense gratification becomes boring and full of despair and...
Prabhupāda: That is boring, then he, he must give that aim of life which is not boring.
Śyāmasundara: No. He says this choice is made through inward, subjective, passionate search, and it will come out.
Prabhupāda: So that inward, subjective, just like these Bowery bums—what is called?
Devotees: Bowery bums.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So they have made decision as soon as they get some money, purchase one bottle whiskey and drink it, and lie down.
Śyāmasundara: Then he would say there is no decision being made there. There is no commitment to any ethical decision there. That is just sense gratification. He says the next higher level above unrestricted sense gratification is to take up a cause, a good cause, and determine...
Prabhupāda: So how he'll make it a good cause? The good cause is relative. You think something good cause, I think something good cause, so what is really good cause? Who will, who will decide that this is good cause?
Śyāmasundara: He says that the good cause is determined when we begin to anticipate death. He says that if we lived every moment as if we might die soon in anticipation of death that we will make the right decisions. That then the value, the real value of things will come out.
Prabhupāda: That is not possible, because we see that in the slaughterhouse the animal is seeing that "Next life is mine." What decision he can make? And still he is standing there and does not go away.
Śyāmasundara: He's not exactly human. The human being, he can think of things, death.
Prabhupāda: The human being, if he is like animal, then he must be animal. Just like this is human being, that one should think that "I do not wish to die, but death is overcoming me. So what is the cause, and what should I do?" That is human being. Nobody says, if any one of us is asked, "Would you like to die?" You may whimsically say yes, but no, actually he does not like to die. But death overcomes. If I ask somebody that "Would you like to be diseased?" he'll say no, but disease is coming. So these are the human problems, that simply making some whimsical decision. The real decision is that I do not wish to suffer, but suffering comes upon me. So how to make the solution? And that is real decision. And everyone is trying to do that. Everyone is working so hard just to get out of suffering.
Śyāmasundara: One of the examples that this man's successor has used, which probably would apply here, is that in the case, for instance, of having to fight... (break)
Prabhupāda: ...not working?
Śyāmasundara: It ended. I had to turn it over.
Prabhupāda: So therefore, considering as he says past, present and future, we have to act in such a way what is beneficial for past, present and future, and then the next question is that if I existed in the past, am existing now, and I shall exist in future, then what is this body? The body, this body was not in the past. This body, it will exist for some years, and in the future it will not exist. Then you immediately understand that this body is external. Then my decision should be not on the basis of body, but on the basis of my real position, the soul. These things (indistinct). That is right decision.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says whereas the condition of modern man—that he is disintegrated and he doesn't have connection with the past; he's lost his memory; he has no connection with the future, then he becomes hopeless—that the opposite of this is the integrated personality: that he has memory and that he has hope, these two qualities. In other words, his present position is connected with the past and future. This is the integrated personality.
Prabhupāda: That is being taught, that integration, that Kṛṣṇa reminds that you were in the past, you will be in future, and you are existing now. So decision should be taken on this platform. That is real decision.
Śyāmasundara: He said that at the moment of decision or of commitment of the integrated personality that the self unites the past with the future and establishes an integrity.
Prabhupāda: Then he comes to the point of self.
Prabhupāda: And he accepts that self is eternal, integrating past, present and future.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. Well, this is the next level. This is the third and highest level. He said that first of all there's the aesthetic level of unrestricted sense gratification, but this ends in despair. Then comes the ethical level, when one decides, "Well, I will take a cause, good cause, and I will commit myself to it and act upon that." Then he comes to the development of the religious stage, or the highest stage. When he, his decision-making power is so advanced that...
Prabhupāda: In other words, he's supporting our movement.
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Because we are in the topmost stage.
Śyāmasundara: He does. The modern philosophers, his foIlowers like Sartre and Camus and people like that, they have only followed his lower development stages. They have not thought of this aspect of a religious stage. He said that the ethical stage is typified by a regard for duty, but this advances to the religious stage when there is obedience and commitment to God. And the chief symptoms of this stage...
Prabhupāda: So it is not that he is supporting our movement?
Śyāmasundara: No, no. He does. He says that the chief symptoms of the religious..., when one is advanced to the religious stage, are suffering and faith.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. He means faith in the orders of God; the opposite of that.
Prabhupāda: It is not a question of faith, it is a question of fact. Then it is, the same example, just like Arjuna. He decided to become nonviolent in the beginning, but at the end he decided to fight and kill. Now which is piety and which is sinful? Actually, this decision to kill by the order of Kṛṣṇa is piety, because he satisfies the higher authorities. So in this material world we concoct that "This is sinful, this is piety," but actual sinful and piety is decided on the order of the Supreme God. That is (indistinct). So if you have no connection with God, so our these thoughts of sinful and piety, they are simply mental concoction. It has no value.
Śyāmasundara: He says that faith in the order of God, that is piety.
Prabhupāda: Then you must have order of God. Unless you have no conception of God, where is the question of order? If God is impersonal, He cannot speak, He has no mouth, He has no tongue, He has no eyes, He has..., where is the question of order?
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that Jesus is the standard.
Prabhupāda: But that's all right. Then there is no Christian. Jesus Christ's first order is "Thou shall not kill," and they're killing, simply killing. Then where is Christians? There is no Christian.
Śyāmasundara: So he calls the modern Christianity the "sickness unto death," because he says...
Prabhupāda: In the other words, we say there is no Christian.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says that modern Christianity is sick. It is sickness unto death, he calls it.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: If he accepts Jesus as the perfection, why doesn't he, in the beginning when he was looking for a way of making decisions, why doesn't he follow Jesus's path of morality?
Śyāmasundara: Well, he does. He does. He's just describing the philosophers describing...
Prabhupāda: He's coming to the point of religion.
Śyāmasundara: Yeah. He comes to the point. He says that modern Christianity is despairing, and they are becoming sick.
Prabhupāda: Then why not say not Christian? Modern Christianity... Christianity is Christianity. You cannot make it "modern" and "past." You cannot say "God modern" and "God past." That is not good philosophy. You say there is Christianity or no Christianity. So our system is that if we do not follow the tenets of some religious principle, then how you can claim you belong to that religion? That is applicable everywhere. Just like the so-called Hindus, they did not believe anything, and they are passing on as Hindus, as brāhmaṇas, as (indistinct). That is just passing.
Śyāmasundara: He says that full self equals full will. That when we are fully ourself, then we are fully willed.
Prabhupāda: What you mean? That is Māyāvādī. Full self, what is that? Then what is the question of part and parcel?
Śyāmasundara: That means when we make decisions that they are...
Prabhupāda: You cannot make decision. If you are part and parcel, then you have to take decisions from the whole. You cannot make. The finger does not make decision. I say "Finger, stand up like this, please."
Śyāmasundara: So just like when there are decisions to be made, because a self-realized soul automatically...
Prabhupāda: The decision is that I shall serve Kṛṣṇa as soon as ordered. But the order comes from the superior. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna is ordered by Kṛṣṇa to fight, so he has to fight. That is all. Arjuna's decision was wrong, but when he takes decision from Kṛṣṇa, that is right. So we have to take decision from Kṛṣṇa's representative. That is right. We cannot make our own decisions. That is wrong.
Śyāmasundara: So full will means to follow...
Prabhupāda: Full will means full will to surrender, full will to follow the orders of the superior. That is full will.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So how does he ever come to the point of religion if he wants men to make their own decisions? How can we make our own decisions according to him?
Prabhupāda: There is no own decision. If we want to become self, that means I am part and parcel, so I have no personal decision. I have to take decisions from the higher authority.
Śyāmasundara: We were talking about the decision; you were talking about the other levels. The religious stage, you said, is obedience and commitment to God.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But to get to that stage, you have to go through the second stage. So how do you get to the second stage by making your own decisions without God's..., without God's representative? In other words, how can you come to the platform of the third stage from the second stage?
Śyāmasundara: It is gradual development. You gradually develop.
Prabhupāda: Why gradual development? Here Kṛṣṇa says, the Supreme Self, "Surrender unto Me. I give you all protection." Why gradual? Immediate.
Śyāmasundara: He is saying we are motivated by despair to come to this stage.
Prabhupāda: But there is no question. Christ says, or Kṛṣṇa says that "You surrender unto Me, I'll save you," no more disappointment.
Devotee: I haven't heard in this philosophy yet where he has mentioned either guru or śāstra. How... (break)
Prabhupāda: ... dealing factually, scientifically.
Śyāmasundara: Otherwise the thought will always be different from the action.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Kierkegaard, actually, he understands the principles, but he actually understands that one has to surrender to God in order to (indistinct).
Śyāmasundara: Yes. He does. His statement is that "We are here as shown a new order, faith(?), a new pre-supposition that consciousness is (indistinct), a new decision, a learning, and a new teacher, God, in time." That is Christ. Christ is so-called "God in time." So he prefers Christ as the teacher.
Prabhupāda: Why Kṛṣṇa not teacher?
Śyāmasundara: Maybe they're not so personal as we are. (laughter)
Prabhupāda: All right. It is better to accept Christ as teacher, but why he does not follow? So all philosophers have been following these commandments of Christ, ten commandments. They are not following.
Śyāmasundara: No. That's all. (break)
Prabhupāda: ...Caitanya Mahāprabhu, simply we think like this, with Christ. And (indistinct) another thing, against God. Simply (indistinct) say that "I am Christian. We are following Christ."
Hayagrīva: And he says, "Ultimately, love of God is the decisive thing. From it stems love to the neighbor. If you love God above else, then you also love your neighbor, and in your neighbor every man. To help another man to love God is to love the other man. To be helped by another man to love God is to be loved."
Prabhupāda: That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We are learning how to love God, and we are teaching the same principle to the whole world, without any discrimination, that "God is one." Not that there are different Gods of different faiths. God cannot be two. Eko brahma dvitīyaṁ nāsti. God is one. There cannot be any competitor. His name is Asamaurdhva; nobody is equal to Him, nobody is greater than Him. Therefore God is great. Nobody is equal. So in any form of religion, if love of God is instructed, that is first-class religion. It doesn't matter whether it is Christian religion or Hindu religion or Muslim religion. The test is how the followers have learned to love God. And now God being the center of love and everything being God's expansion, so a lover of God is lover of everyone. He does not discriminate that "Only man should be loved, and man should be given service." No. He is interested with all living entities, never mind in which form he is existing. So he is interested in..., lover of God loves everyone, and the love reaches everyone. The example is given in this connection. Just to water the root of the tree means to expand nourishment for all other parts of the tree, namely the trunk, branches, leaves, twigs, everything. Or to supply food in the stomach means satisfying the necessities of all parts of the body. This is the fact. God being everything, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4), as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, nothing can exist without God, and everything is expansion. Another word is there in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. It is said that the fire remaining in one place distributes its heat and light. Eka-sthāne sthitasyāgner jyotsnā vistāriṇī yathā. The fire can distribute its heat and light although localized in a place. Similarly God, He is in His own abode, but by His energy He is present everywhere. Sarva-vyāpī, all-pervading. The all-pervading feature of God means everything is manifestation of His energy. Nothing can exist without God. But it does not mean everything is God. Everything is resting on His energy, but not everything God. In spite of expanding, God, by His different potencies, He keeps His personality. That is God.
Śyāmasundara: By this existence or (indistinct) that a man can choose himself or win himself by his own improvement, that he can realize himself. If I exist then I can realize myself, what I am, what is my essence. And there are two types of existence, he says: authentic existence and inauthentic existence. Authentic existence is what one feels when that existence is something of his own. (break) So he says there are two kinds of existence: authentic existence and inauthentic existence. So a man who is leading an authentic existence, then he is something of his own. But he is leading an inauthentic existence, then he is busy, excited, or preoccupied, what they say, when he has lost himself, when he loses himself. That is inauthentic existence. Thus authentic existence is when a man is always aware, self-aware, of his existence: "What I am doing now, what I am doing now, what am I doing now." So he says that an inauthentic existence is fallen existence, that a man falls into averageness or everydayness or what he calls publicness, where he lacks individuality and becomes the group self, and his personal decisions are not based upon a individual...
Prabhupāda: Everyone is living an inauthentic existence because... That is animal existence. He knows only the span of life from birth to death. That's all. That is inauthentic existence. When he knows that this is temporary... Just like suppose we are preacher, living in this apartment, say for a month. (indistinct). So this span of existence, one month or ten days or six months, this is inauthentic. But my preaching work, as preacher, I am (indistinct), that is my authentic existence. Is it not?
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. Because whatever you're doing, you are always aware of why I am doing it, what is it for, like that.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So therefore the conclusion is that a human being should know, should distinguish what is authentic existence and what is inauthentic existence. That is human life. At least we should know it. That is the order of the Upaniṣads, that anyone who knows this, he is brāhmaṇa. Etad viditvā yaḥ prayāti. The dog does not know it, but a man can know this. If he knows it, then he's a brāhmaṇa.
Śyāmasundara: He says that men have the tendency to fall into this not making their own decisions. Their decisions are not based upon a personal basis but upon group decisions, and just because someone else does something, I do it.
Prabhupāda: That is authentic decision.
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Authentic decision. You must make your decision; therefore there is no... In any human society there is law, there is division, there is social etiquette, social obligation, so many things. So we are not independent to decide that we have to abide by the customs and etiquette.
Śyāmasundara: Because we are hoping for the same result.
Prabhupāda: Just like a thief, he gets more money by stealing, but that is not allowed by the society. It is law. So that is not very good.
Śyāmasundara: No. He says that is not a good faith. But our decisions are not (indistinct) based upon..., our authentic, personal commitment, whatever that is.
Prabhupāda: Mm?
Śyāmasundara: Whatever that may be.
Prabhupāda: That he does not know, but we know. He is simply philosopher. We know that we must exist for Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That we know, but he does not know.
Śyāmasundara: He is..., he is looking for Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Prabhupāda: He does not know this.
Śyāmasundara: But he does not know.
Prabhupāda: Everyone is looking. Everyone... The struggle for existence means everyone is looking for "How shall I exist forever?" But he does not know. Everyone... Nobody wants to die. Everyone wants to free himself from the clutches of death, but he does not know it.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "As it is a delicate task to decide what God has Himself ordained and what derives rather from the authority of an all-powerful parliament or a supreme judicial decision, it would be an indubitable advantage to leave God out of the question altogether and to admit honestly the purely human origin of all cultural laws and instructions." In other words, man is the law-giver...
Prabhupāda: That, that means he has no clear conception of God, because God has to take power from some parliament. God does not take power from anyone. He is God. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataḥ ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ (SB 1.1.1), that the Supreme, God, or Supreme Truth, Brahman, He knows everything. He knows everything in details. And wherefrom? Abhijñaḥ. He is, abhijñaḥ means completely in awareness. Then the question may be raised that "How He got this complete knowledge? From whom He received?" The answer is immediate, svarāṭ. Svarāṭ means independent. That is God. If one has to take knowledge from Mr. Freud, then he is not God. Anyone, if you come to that person that He is independent, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport), naturally He is all-perfect. He hasn't got to become perfect by some process or from some authority. That is God. He is all-perfect automatically. That is God. So anyone who is trying to be perfect, he is not God. One who is... That, that, that is in the history, we find in the history of life of Kṛṣṇa. When He was three-months-old child He, He could kill big giant like Pūtanā. That is automatic. Either He is child or He is a young man or He is old man, the godly power is there. The nowadays these so-called yogis, they are becoming God by meditation, but the three-months-old child in the lap of His mother, how He became God? The God is God always. He hasn't got to learn it from anyone. That is His svarāṭ, independent. So these people have no conception of God; therefore they are simply speculating and misleading persons. God is not the subject matter of speculation. We, if we want to know God, then we must know it from God Himself or a person who knows Him.
Śyāmasundara: He says that there are two types of being. There is "being in itself," like this table, which is solid, massive, and then he's saying it doesn't have..., it has a phenomenal...
Prabhupāda: So that we say—the one is matter, another is spirit.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says "being in itself" and "being for itself." "Being for itself" means the living entity, because by choosing things he does things for himself; he makes decisions and creates things for himself.
Prabhupāda: That we admit. Therefore, the living being who decides to change or to accept something, he is important. Actually, he is existing, whereas the bodily changes or circumstantial changes, that is temporary. But the person who is changing, he is eternal.
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that because a man or a living entity has no "thingness," no solid mass, he is always changing one thing to another.
Prabhupāda: Solid... We should not be misled simply by a solid mass. The principle which is changing, it may not be a very big solid mass, but it is the active principle which is changing. It doesn't matter it is not like a big hill or mountain, but that is the active principle which is changing.
Śyāmasundara: Yesterday we were discussing Jean-Paul Sartre. His point was that man finds himself responsible for his own actions—not only individually, but he finds that the world is in his own choosing so that he has a social responsibility as well.
Prabhupāda: As soon as we speak of responsibility, there is no question of chance. We cannot say sometimes by chance, sometimes by responsi... Where is the question of chance, if there is responsibility?
Śyāmasundara: He says that by making decisions and choosing this or that, that one becomes responsible for his actions. But ultimately it doesn't really matter what he chooses. The choosing is the important thing.
Prabhupāda: That is whimsical. And still he is responsible.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. Whatever I choose, I must be responsible for it. But it doesn't matter so much what...
Prabhupāda: But if the beginning is irresponsibility, then where is the question of responsibility? This is nonsense philosophy. If the beginning is irresponsibility... Just like there is a story, some thieves stolen some gold, and there were many, four, five thieves, so they were dividing the stolen property, and one them said, "Now let us divide it honestly." (laughter) The whole thing is stolen property, and they are speaking of honesty. Just like you Americans, you came from Europe and other countries, and you have stolen the property. Now you make immigration, "You cannot come, you cannot come." It is like this philosophy. The whole thing is stolen property, and they are talking of honesty; they are citing scripture. So where is the responsibility, if the beginning is irresponsibility, chance?
Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his idea is that because we are free, we tend to avoid responsibility.
Prabhupāda: That is freedom, that you can make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom. Freedom does not mean you are dull.
Śyāmasundara: But what if you avoid even choosing right or wrong, you simply drift without any decision of right or wrong?
Prabhupāda: No. That is irresponsibility.
Śyāmasundara: That's what he is saying, that because we are free, we are susceptible.
Prabhupāda: We are free means you have to make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his idea is that because we are free, sometimes we neglect to even choose between right and wrong.
Prabhupāda: That is wrong decision. Then you should suffer. That is responsibility. Why you have done wrong?
Devotee: That is choice.
Śyāmasundara: No. It's not like that. Supposing there is a war, a country goes to war. There is the choice whether to say, to choose whether it is right or wrong, but I avoid the choice altogether. I don't enter into it. Apathetic.
Prabhupāda: No. You cannot avoid the choice. At the present age there is democratic government. When we agree to fight with another, that means you have got your assent. Why should you not fight?
Śyāmasundara: I haven't made this very clear, but because we have freedom, we become susceptible to bad faith. Bad faith means that we avoid making any decisions at all, good or bad. We simply drift. He calls it drift. We go day to day without entering and becoming involved with any responsible decision-making.
Prabhupāda: That drift means that is decision. Yes. That is decision. When you drift, that is decision.
Śyāmasundara: People, especially these days, they want to avoid making any kind of decisions, especially hippies.
Prabhupāda: Therefore you must take others' decisions, superiors' decisions.
Śyāmasundara: So he says that this condition...
Prabhupāda: Just like a child cannot make any decision. He should take decision from the parents. That is the position.
Śyāmasundara: He says that because we are free, that we are susceptible to this condition. That's all. But he says that this condition...
Prabhupāda: Free means to make right or wrong decision. That is free. Freedom does not mean dullness or passive.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. But because we are free we become susceptible to being dull.
Prabhupāda: Just like a dog. A dog is free. He can go to the right or the wrong side, and nobody cares for it. That is for the dog. But if a human being, if he decides instead of going to the right, to the left, then he is criminal, because he has got responsibility. So either you take dog's philosophy or man's philosophy. Dog's philosophy, he has no decision. He is an animal. He can go this side or that side. But we cannot do that. So whether he is man or dog. If he is a man, he must decide right and wrong. He is responsible. That is a man.
Śyāmasundara: He says that this condition of bad faith must be replaced by solid choosing and faith in our choosing. For instance, if one chooses a certain path of action, that he must have faith that by carrying out this action valiantly, heroically, that he will be doing the right thing.
Prabhupāda: But if his decision is wrong, then what is the use of such heroism?
Śyāmasundara: He says there's no such scale of right and wrong. There is no absolute right and wrong, that everything depends upon how...
Prabhupāda: Then where is the question of responsibility if there is no right and wrong?
Śyāmasundara: Whatever I do, I must do it...
Prabhupāda: Whimsically. Whimsically. Whatever you do, you do it whimsically. Does he mean to say like that?
Śyāmasundara: No. Whatever you do, you do courageously.
Prabhupāda: Courageously... Just like the example I gave, the insect goes very courageously into the fire. Is that a very nice decision, to go forward courageously into the fire? He'll go courageously.
Śyāmasundara: He has another definition of this bad faith, that bad faith means treating oneself as an object instead of a person; that I feel myself like a thing, or an object, instead of a person. This a bad faith.
Prabhupāda: Bad faith means?
Śyāmasundara: Treating myself as an object instead of a person.
Prabhupāda: But you are a person. How can you become an object?
Śyāmasundara: Because we are susceptible to bad faith, that this condition exists in the world, people are treating each other as objects—"He is black," "He is white," "He is old," "He is rich"—objects instead of persons. This called bad faith, and he wants to rectify that condition.
Prabhupāda: Then what is good faith? That is also object?
Śyāmasundara: Good faith is dealing with someone else genuinely as a person, despite whatever that person is doing. That doesn't matter so much, what he is doing, but how he is doing it.
Prabhupāda: You have not been clear. What is it?
Śyāmasundara: A person is doing something, it doesn't matter so much what he is doing but how he is doing it, that he is doing it genuinely, with full integrity.
Śyāmasundara: The level that he takes it to is that man is basically a "being for himself."
Prabhupāda: That's all right, that individuality.
Śyāmasundara: And that his decision-making power, his freedom to make decisions, is his real essence, his real nature.
Prabhupāda: So he agrees also at the same time, responsibility.
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: So that means he must have the power to make decisions, right and wrong. That is responsible.
Śyāmasundara: The main thing, though, is that he must abide by his decision. Whatever he chooses, that he must live it.
Prabhupāda: Not necessarily. If I decide to steal, it is better to avoid it. Not that because I have to decided to steal, I must do it just like a hero and then go to prison.
Śyāmasundara: No. If a person is free of this bad faith, this...
Prabhupāda: What is bad faith and what is good faith, according to him?
Śyāmasundara: Bad faith is that I avoid decision making. I am avoiding decisions. Avoiding making decisions is bad faith.
Prabhupāda: Avoiding making decisions?
Śyāmasundara: Yes. And treating other people as objects. Good faith is to make decisions courageously and follow them out, whatever those decisions are.
Prabhupāda: So who makes the decisions?
Śyāmasundara: I make the decisions.
Prabhupāda: So if your decision is wrong?
Śyāmasundara: There's no question of right or wrong in that case.
Prabhupāda: Whatever decision I make, that is final, absolute?
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: How it is possible? Then the same philosophy comes with the insect's decision. Absolute decision, even if it is wrong, it's all right. That is seen in lower animals also.
Prabhupāda: That is insects' philosophy, that's all. This is "I have my decision to run hundred miles an hour, not caring for others." So this is exactly like the insects.
Śyāmasundara: And they say I'm responsible for my actions, but it's a very irresponsible position because it doesn't take into consideration other people, or supposing he would have killed other people too.
Prabhupāda: So that is animal decision. That is not human decision. Human decision that there is signboard, "Speed Limit 35." If he doesn't care, he is not a human being, he is animal. A human being, he will take care, "Why shall I drive 100?"
Śyāmasundara: This philosophy gives rise to so much freedom.
Prabhupāda: This philosophy has given rise to these hippies.
Śyāmasundara: Hippies, yes.
Prabhupāda: So they are without any responsibility. Whatever he likes, he can do. So that is animal. There is no question of human civilization or human beings.
Śyāmasundara: He has an optimistic side to his philosophy in that he says the fate of the world depends upon man's decision. Obviously, if men decide to do things properly, the world would be a better place.
Prabhupāda: Yes. We agree with that. We are trying to do that by introducing this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, to make the world Vaikuṇṭha. That is our philosophy. Anyone can come to this Kṛṣṇa consciousness and become happy. But that is not a blind decision. We take decision from higher authority; therefore it is perfect. We are taking decision from the ācārya, Kṛṣṇa.
Śyāmasundara: But because he doesn't see any purpose in the universe, then he thinks that...
Prabhupāda: That is his blindness. He has no sufficient knowledge; he has no sufficient seeing power. There is a plan. That is stated in the Sixteenth Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā, asatyam apratiṣṭham, that the word is there is no truth, there is no creator. These are the decisions of the demons. We don't say. We say janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) the Supreme. Not that everything that we want to try to understand is the truth. That is our philosophy. This philosophy is demon philosophy—there is no plan, there is no truth, everything is happening accidentally. This is demon's philosophy.
Śyāmasundara: Because he doesn't see any purpose, that he sees all of our efforts...
Prabhupāda: There is purpose, but because he is foolish, therefore he does not see anything as purpose. There is purpose. Just if like I am hungry, this philosopher says accidentally I am hungry, I eat something. No. I am hungry when there is purpose. My bodily limbs are exhausted, they require energy, so therefore I am hungry, I must take some food. The foodstuff will be converted into energy. There is a plan. It is not blank. Everything is going on by plan. The sun is rising under some plan. The moon is rising under some plan. Seasonal changes under plan. Everything is plan. But those demons, they cannot see. They say, "No, there is no plan here."
Śyāmasundara: This is actually the major issue with people, especially today, that is there really any purpose to all my work, or anyone's work, or for anyone's activity? Is there any ultimate meaning or purpose to it?
Prabhupāda: It's quite clear. Just like if you make a decision to do something criminal, the plan is already there—you will be arrested and punished. If you make a choice that "I must do it. This is my decision. I must kill that person," you can do that, but there is already a plan that you will be hanged. That is less intelligent. They are not intelligent.
Śyāmasundara: They say that man is nothingness.
Prabhupāda: Why is nothingness? If he is nothingness, why is he speaking so much nonsense?
Śyāmasundara: You said yesterday it was a philosophy of despair.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: That's what they also say.
Prabhupāda: So we are not desperate. We are not followers of despair philosophy. We are hopeful philosophy. We are going back to home, back to Godhead...
Śyāmasundara: Jaya.
Śyāmasundara: His only value is that he encourages you to do something, just like one of his heroes is.
Devotee: Why not take that trait that is so admirable, that courage, and put it into a right decision? That's our philosophy. Our philosophy is not that we should not be determined...
Śyāmasundara: Our philosophy is based first of all that there is a purpose in the universe. If to begin with, his thesis is that there's no purpose in the universe, then he can't say anything is right or wrong.
Devotee: Then what is the point of any philosophy? If there's no purpose, why should I read his philosophy? His philosophy also is meaningless.
Prabhupāda: Just to say there is no purpose?
Śyāmasundara: No. There is only existence. There is no essence.
Devotee: Then why write?
Śyāmasundara: Because it's something to do. Just like I courageously choose to write, that's all, so I must do it.
Devotee: What is...
Śyāmasundara: Ultimately yes. Even Prabhupāda stated this, too.
Prabhupāda: It is rat philosophy. He has something to do-cut everything into pieces.
Śyāmasundara: So by "conflict" you mean the mind's engagement with...
Prabhupāda: No. I mean to say that... Just like two parties fighting on some point. They come to the court and the judgement is given by the judge. So the decision is made on the judgement. Not by simply conflict. If two parties are fighting for life together, they cannot come to the conclusion because they are fighting on the wrong basis.
Śyāmasundara: So this theory of Mao Tse Tung actually rises out of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.
Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be. Darwin's theory we have already discussed, and that is nonsense.
Śyāmasundara: "Might makes right."
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: They think whoever wins in a battle of ideas must have the right idea.
Prabhupāda: No. That is based on "might is right," but we do not accept this theory. We say, "right is might," not "might is right." Yes. If you are right, then you have got might. Otherwise, simply if you have got might, that is not right.
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Comes from the barrel of a gun.
Prabhupāda: Because he is rude. He cannot have that there may be, amongst the sober gentlemen, the gun is reasoning. And for the crude rascals argumentum vaculam. Of course, the gun reason is sometimes needed when the other party is completely animal. But if both of them are animals, then what further decision can come? You see? Therefore our conclusion is taken from śāstra. The gun is used also in terms of śāstra. Just like Kṛṣṇa first of all wanted to settle up the fight, the opposing elements, the Kurus and Pāṇḍavas. He personally became a messenger and personally requested Duryodhana that "All right. Settle up things. They are kṣatriyas. They cannot take up the business of a brāhmaṇa or a vaiśya. Give them five villages, let them rule, and they will be satisfied." But he said, "Oh, what to speak of five villages, I cannot spare the, that small portion of land which can hold the tip of a needle." Then Kṛṣṇa said, "Yes. Then you do not come to reason? Then let us turn to weapon." So this śāstra and śastra. When śāstra fails, then according to śāstra, there is śastra. Śastra means weapon. Both of them come from the śas-dhātu. Śas-dhātu, from śas-dhātu we take śāstra, śastra, śāsana, śiṣya, like that. It is coming from the same root.
Śyāmasundara: So real progress only comes through...
Prabhupāda: Authoritative decision. If we accept that, then that is real conclusion.
Śyāmasundara: He says that there is conflict, and you say that...
Prabhupāda: Yes. Conflict is always there. But you cannot come to the conclusion unless you take the right decision from the authority. Two litigants, there is conflict. I say that "You do this." You say, "No, why can I do it? Our agreement is different." So there is conflict. So you go to the court and take the right decision from the judge.
Śyāmasundara: He attacks speculators and especially empiricists, or those who draw conclusions of reality through their fragmentary sense perception.
Prabhupāda: He is also doing that. He is also one of them. Because he says that ultimately the barrel... What is that?
Śyāmasundara: That all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Prabhupāda: That's all. He is one of them.
Hayagrīva: Greece, Greece was not a country as such; it was composed of small towns or cities, and Athens was...
Prabhupāda: Anywhere.
Hayagrīva: ...Athens was the biggest, and everyone got together and the wisest men spoke, and they voted on their decisions.
Prabhupāda: That is the beginning of Parliament.
Hayagrīva: Parliament.
Prabhupāda: So in monarchy also there was council of learned men, brāhmaṇas, great saintly persons. Even Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira was guided like that. Lord Rāmacandra was guided. That is the system. Even monarchy was there, still he was advised by learned scholars and brāhmaṇas and saintly persons, and he would do according to their decision. And Vena Mahārāja, he was not ruling. The brāhmaṇas came, advised him, "My dear King, you are not doing nicely. You should do like this." And when he refused, then he was killed, and his son Prthu Mahārāja was give charge. So-called democracy is ludicrous, that's a fact. All fools and rascals bribing, and this way and that way they have taken post, and when they go to the post, simply squander money, that's all. Just they take bribes from big, big men, that "I will give you, repay you ten times, you give me money."
Hayagrīva: At the same time Origen differed from the later Church tradition in his belief in the transmigration of the soul. Although he believed that the soul was originally created, he believed that it transmigrated, and it transmigrated because the soul, the individual soul, could always refuse to give itself to God, although he believed that ultimately the time will come when everyone will return, and God's rule will be restored to its original integrity. This differed from later Christian tradition, which said that the choice one made in this one lifetime was decisive for all eternity. Origen doesn't believe this. He believes that you can be reincarnated at the end of this lifetime if you don't attain the ultimate goal. You'd be reincarnated in some other form.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is our version of the Vedas. Unless he is liberated or goes to the kingdom of God, he is, repeats, transforms, or transmigrates from one material body to another, because material body is not eternal. You can enter one material body; the material body grows or it remains for sometime; then it becomes old, and then it is useless for any purpose; you have to give up this material body and enter again into a new material body. Then you continue or fulfill your desire in that body, again it becomes old, again you have to give up, and again you have to accept another new body. Because everything material deteriorates, and the soul, being eternal, it cannot remain in the deteriorated body to function materially; therefore transmigration of the soul is essential. As the example is given that when you have got a material shirt and coat, when it is old enough, it cannot be used, you have to throw it out and accept another new shirt and coat. The material conditional life is like that. That is called transmigration.
Hayagrīva: He says, "Even the laws of the solar system are very far from perfect. The increasing imperfection of the economy of nature becomes a powerful stimulus to all our faculties, whether moral, intellectual or practical. Here we find sufferings which can really be alleviated to a large extent by wise and well-sustained combination of efforts." Another way, in other words, man can improve on nature. "Those who look wisely into the future of society will feel that the conception of man becoming without fear or boast, the arbiter, within certain limits, of his own destiny, has in it something far more satisfying than the old belief in providence, which implied our remaining passive." So he felt that man's improvement on nature is better than a passive belief in God.
Prabhupāda: So he is..., he does not believe..., there is no belief in God is there? There is no question of? No. But our point of view is different: that God is the ultimate decider of everything. That is called daiva-netreṇa. He may be acting through different agents, but ultimate decision is given by Him. And He is sitting in everyone's heart. He is observing the activities of the individual soul as witness, giving permission. Without God's permission, nobody can act. So He is giving intelligence also, and He is the cause of forgetting. Two things are there, remembering and forgetting. Both these things are coming from God. If He keeps him in forgetfulness, then he cannot remember, and if He gives him the power to remember, he can remember for long, long past activities. So ultimately God is the final director. That is our conception. Man cannot remain independent. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). Everything is being done, impelled by the three material modes of nature, and the ultimate dictator is the Supersoul, or the Personality of Godhead in His localized aspect, situated everywhere in the heart of the living entity, or even within the atom He is there, and His is the supreme director.
| Page Title: | Decision (Lectures, Other) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 23 of Feb, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=68, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 68 |