Hayagrīva: Leibnitz did not believe that the city of God, what he called the city of God, is divorced from the natural world. Rather, it is a moral world within the natural world. He writes, "The assembling of all spirits must compose the city of God. That is the most perfect state possible and of the most perfect of monarchs," meaning God. "This city of God, this truly universal monarchy, is a moral world within the natural world and the highest and most divine of the works of God."
Prabhupāda: Yes. We can construct such city immediately if the League of Nation—they are trying to be united—they come to their right sense, that this planet does not belong to any particular nation; it belongs to God. This simple fact, if they accept and cultivate on this point, then immediately the whole world will be the city of God. But they will not do this. They have gone to the United Nation to settle up all problems of the world, but they keep themselves in the dog's mentality: "I am this body." "I am American," "I am Indian." But he is not. But if they give up this designation, that "I am American," "Indian" or "Hindu" or "Muslim," "Christian..." We are all part and parcel of God, and the whole planet belongs to God. We are His sons, and we can live peacefully as the sons of father. Father is supplying everything, so we can utilize. Now they, in some country, just like in Australia or New Zealand we find enough cows to supply milk, and in India practically there is no milk. So if the United Nations gives this, accepts this version, that everything belongs to God, so where is the scarcity? It may be in one place one thing is in scarcity, but other place it is enough. So where it is enough, that can be distributed where there is need. Then immediately it becomes city of God. If anyone abides by the order of God and everything produced is divided among the sons of God, then where is the question of scarcity? There is..., there cannot be any scarcity. But they have no reason. They are denying the actual fact that everything belongs to God. It is common sense. Such a vast ocean, who has created this? Has any nation has created, or any individual person has created? So to whom belongs this ocean? What will be the answer? Huh? What will be the answer? If I question that "Shall we dig a little ditch and there is water. We fill up." So such a big ditch, who has done it? Where is the question that there is no God? Somebody has done. That is common sense. And who has done it not only this one ocean-millions of oceans are floating in the sky—who has done it? Who has created? Huh? What will be the answer? So they, this modern so-called civilization, they have lost their common sense. They want to remain in animal consciousness; therefore they are suffering.