# 03 Scholasticism ## Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] **Hayagrīva:** Thomas Aquinas compiled the entire Church doctrine in *Summa Theologiae,* which constitutes the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas did not make Augustine's sharp distinction between the material and spiritual worlds, or between secular society and the city of God. For him, both material and spiritual creations have their origin in God. At the same time, he admits that the spiritual world is superior to the material. **Prabhupāda:** When we speak of "material world" we refer to that which is temporary. Some philosophers like the Māyāvādīs claim that the material world is false, but we Vaiṣṇavas prefer to say that it is temporary or illusory. It is a reflection of the spiritual world, but in itself it has no reality. We therefore sometimes compare the material world to a mirage in the desert. In the material world, there is no happiness, but the transcendental bliss and happiness existing in the spiritual world are reflected here. Unintelligent people chase after this illusory happiness, forgetting the real happiness that is in spiritual life. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas agreed with both the statements of Anselm and Abelard: "I believe in order that I may understand," and, "I understand in order that I may believe." Thus reason and revelation complement one another as a means to truth. **Prabhupāda:** Since human reason is not perfect, revelation is also needed. The truth is attained through logic, philosophy, and revelation. According to the Vaiṣṇava tradition, we arrive at the truth through the guru, the spiritual master, who is accepted as the representative of the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead. He transmits the message of the truth because he has seen the Absolute Truth through the disciplic succession. If we accept the bona fide spiritual master and please him by submissive service, by virtue of his mercy and pleasure, we can understand God and the spiritual world by revelation. We therefore offer our respects to the spiritual master in the prayer: > yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo > yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi > dhyāyan stuvaṁs tasya yaśas tri-sandhyaṁ > vande guroḥ śrī-caraṇāravindam **"By the mercy of the spiritual master, one receives the benediction of Kṛṣṇa. Without the grace of the spiritual master, one cannot make any advancement. Therefore, I should always remember and praise the spiritual master, offering respectful obeisances unto his lotus feet at least three times a day." [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka* 8] We can understand God if we please the spiritual master, who carries the Lord's message without speculation. It is stated:** *sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty *adaḥ* [*Padma Purāṇa*]. When we engage our senses in the Lord's service, the Lord is revealed. **Hayagrīva:** For Aquinas, God is the only single essence that consists of pure form. He felt that matter is only a potential, and, in order to be real, must assume a certain shape or form. In other words, the living entity has to acquire an individual form in order to actualize himself. When matter unites with form, the form gives individuality and personality. **Prabhupāda:** Matter in itself has no form; it is the spirit soul that has form. Matter is a covering for the actual form of the spirit soul. Because the soul has form, matter appears to have form. Matter is like cloth that is cut to fit the body. In the spiritual world, however, everything has form: God and the spirit souls. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas believed that only God and the angels have nonmaterial form. There is no difference between God's form and God's spiritual Self. **Prabhupāda:** Both the individual souls and God have form. That is real form. Material form is but a covering for the spiritual body. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas set forth five basic arguments for God's existence: first, God necessarily exists as the first cause; second, the material world cannot create itself but needs something external, or spiritual, to create it; third, because the world exists, there must be a creator; fourth, since there is relative perfection in the world, there must be absolute perfection underlying it; and fifth, since the creation has design and purpose, there must be a designer who planned it. **Prabhupāda:** We also honor these arguments. Also, without a father and mother, children cannot be brought into existence. Modern philosophers do not consider this strongest argument. According to *Brahma-saṁhitā,* everything has a cause, and God is the ultimate cause. > īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ > sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ > anādir ādir govindaḥ > sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam "Kṛṣṇa, who is known as Govinda, is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes." [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.1] **Hayagrīva:** He also states that the relative perfection we find here necessitates an absolute perfection. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the spiritual world is absolute perfection, and this temporary material world is but a reflection of that spiritual world. Whatever perfection we find in this material world is derived from the spiritual world. *Janmādy asya *yataḥ.* According to Vedānta-sūtra*, whatever is generated comes from the Absolute Truth. **Hayagrīva:** Today, some scientists even admit Aquinas's argument that since nothing can create itself in this material world, something external, or spiritual, is required for initial creation. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, a mountain cannot create anything, but a human being can give form to a stone. A mountain may be very large, but it remains a stone incapable of giving shape to anything. **Hayagrīva:** Unlike Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas maintained that God created the universe out of nothing. **Prabhupāda:** No, the universe is created by God, certainly, but God and His energies are always there. You cannot logically say that the universe was created out of nothing. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas would contend that since the material universe could not have arisen out of God's spiritual nature, it had to be created out of nothing. **Prabhupāda:** Material nature is also an energy of God's. As Kṛṣṇa states in the *Bhagavad-gītā:* > bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ > khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca > ahaṅkāra itīyaṁ me > bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies." [*Bg.* 7.4] All of these emanate from God, and therefore they are not unreal. They are considered inferior because they are God's separated material energies. The sound that comes from a tape recorder may sound exactly like the original person's voice. The sound is not the person's voice itself, but it has come from the person. If one cannot see where the sound is coming from, one may suppose that the person is actually speaking, although the person may be far away. Similarly, the material world is an expansion of the Supreme Lord's energy, and we should not think that it has been brought into existence out of nothing. It has emanated from the Supreme Truth, but it is the inferior, separated energy. The superior energy is found in the spiritual world, which is the world of reality. In any case, we cannot agree that the material world has come from nothing. **Hayagrīva:** Well, Aquinas would say that it was created by God out of nothing. **Prabhupāda:** You cannot say that God's energy is nothing. His energy is exhibited and is eternally existing with Him. God's energy must be there. If God doesn't have energy, how can He be God? > na tasya kāryaṁ karaṇaṁ ca vidyate > na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate > parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate > svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca "He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All His senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him, or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natural sequence." [*Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad,* 6.8] God has multi-energies, and the material energy is but one. Since God is everything, you cannot say that the material universe comes from nothing. **Hayagrīva:** Like Augustine, Aquinas believed that sin and man are concomitant. Due to Adam's original sin, all men require salvation, which can be obtained only through God's grace. But the individual has to assent by his free will for God's grace to function. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we call that assent *bhakti,* devotional service. > ataḥśrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi > na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ > sevonmukhe hi jihvādau > svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ "Material senses cannot appreciate Kṛṣṇa's holy name, form, qualities, and pastimes. When a conditioned soul is awakened to Kṛṣṇa consciousness and renders service by using his tongue to chant the Lord's holy name, and taste the remnants of the Lord's food, the tongue is purified, and one gradually comes to understand who Kṛṣṇa really is." [*Padma Purāṇa*] *Bhakti* is our eternal engagement, and when we engage in our eternal activities, we attain salvation, or liberation. When we engage in false activities, we are in illusion, māyā. Mukti,* liberation, means remaining in our constitutional position. In the material world, we engage in many different activities, but they all refer to the material body. In the spiritual world, the spirit engages in the Lord's service, and this is liberation, or salvation. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas considered sins to be both venial and mortal. A venial sin is one that can be pardoned, but a mortal sin cannot. A mortal sin stains the soul. **Prabhupāda:** When a living entity disobeys the orders of God, he is put into this material world, and that is his punishment. He either rectifies himself by good association, or undergoes transmigration. By taking on one body after another, he is subject to the tribulations of material existence. The soul is not stained, but he can participate in sinful activity. Although you cannot mix oil and water, oil floating on water is carried away by water. As soon as we are in contact with material nature, we come under the clutches of the material world. > prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni > guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ > ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā > kartāham iti manyate "The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature." [*Bg.* 3.27] As soon as the living entity enters the material world, he loses his own power. He is completely under the clutches of material nature. Oil never mixes with water, but it may be carried away by the waves. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas felt that the monastic vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience give a direct path to God, but he did not think that these austerities were meant for the masses of men. He looked on life as a pilgrimage through the world of the senses to the spiritual world of God, from imperfection to perfection, and the monastic vows are meant to help us on this path. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, according to the Vedic instructions, we must take to the path of *tapasya,* voluntary self-denial. *Tapas***ā brahmacaryena**. *Tapasya,* or austerity, begins with *brahmacarya,* celibacy. We must first learn to control the sex urge. That is the beginning of *tapasya.* We must control the senses and the mind, then we should give everything that we have to the Lord's service. By following the path of truth and remaining clean, we can practice yoga. In this way, it is possible to advance toward the spiritual kingdom. All of this can be realized, however, by engaging in devotional service. If we become devotees of Kṛṣṇa, we automatically attain the benefits of austerities without having to make a separate effort. By one stroke, devotional service, we can acquire the benefits of all the other processes. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas did not believe in a soul per se as being divorced from a particular form. God did not create a soul capable of inhabiting any body or form; rather, He created an angelic soul, a human soul, an animal soul, or a plant soul. Here again, we find the conception of the soul's creation. **Prabhupāda:** The soul is not created but is eternally existing along with God. The soul has the independence to turn from God, in which case he becomes like a spark falling from a great fire. When the spark is separated, it loses its illumination. In any case, the individual soul is always there. The master and His servants are there eternally. We cannot say that the parts of a body are separately created. As soon as the body is present, all the parts are there with it. The soul is never created, and it never dies. This is confirmed in the very beginning of *Bhagavad-gītā:* > na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin > nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ > ajo nityaḥśāśvato 'yaṁ purāṇo > na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre "For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." [*Bg.* 2.20] It may appear that the soul comes into existence and dies, but this is because he has accepted the material body. When the material body dies, the soul transfers to another body. When the soul is liberated, he doesn't have to accept another material body. He can return home, back to Godhead, in his original spiritual body. The soul was never created but is always existing with God. If we say that the soul was created, the question may be raised whether or not God, the Supreme Soul, was also created. Of course, this is not the case. God is eternal, and His parts and parcels are also eternal. The difference is that God never accepts a material body, whereas the individual soul, being but a small particle, sometimes succumbs to the material energy. **Hayagrīva:** Is the soul eternally existing with God in a spiritual form? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. **Hayagrīva:** So the soul has a form that is incorruptible. Is this not also the form of the material body? **Prabhupāda:** The material body is an imitation. It is false. Because the spiritual body has form, the material body, which is a coating, takes on form. As I have already explained, a cloth originally has no form, but a tailor can cut the cloth to fit a form. In actuality, this material form is illusory. It originally has no form. It takes on form for a while, and when it becomes old and useless, it returns to its original position. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā** [18.61], the body is compared to a machine. The soul has his own form, but he is given a machine, the body, which he uses to wander throughout the universe, attempting to enjoy himself. **Hayagrīva:** I think that part of the problem is that Augustine and Aquinas could not conceive of a spiritual form. When they speak of form, they think that matter must necessarily be involved. Aquinas followed the Augustinian and Platonic doctrines maintaining that if the soul is independent from matter, man loses his basic unity. He saw man as both body and soul. A man is a particular type of soul in a specific body. **Prabhupāda:** When you are dressed, it appears that you are not different from your clothes. Your clothes move just as you do, but you are completely different. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas did not believe that the living entity has pure spiritual form as such. Matter is necessary to give the soul form. **Prabhupāda:** No. He has his original form. **Hayagrīva:** Is this the form of the body? **Prabhupāda:** It is the form of the spirit. The body takes on form because the spirit has form. Matter has no form, but it coats the spiritual form of the soul and thus takes on form. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas considered sex to be meant exclusively for the begetting of children, and the parents are responsible for giving their children a spiritual education. **Prabhupāda:** That is also the Vedic injunction. You should not beget children unless you can liberate them from the cycle of birth and death. > gurur na sa syāt sva-jano na sa syāt > pitā na sa syāj jananī na sā syāt > daivaṁ na tat syān na patiś ca sa syān > na mocayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother, or a worshipable demigod." [*SB.* 5.5.18] **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas argued that sex for reasons other than propagation is "repugnant to the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species." Considering today's overpopulation, does this argument still hold? **Prabhupāda:** The conservation of the species doesn't enter into it. Illicit sex is sinful because it is for sense gratification instead of the begetting of children. Sense gratification in any form is sinful. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the state, Aquinas believed like Plato in an enlightened monarchy, but in certain cases, he felt that it is not necessary for man to obey human laws if these laws are opposed to human welfare and are instruments of violence. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but first of all we must know what our welfare is. Unfortunately, as materialistic education advances, we are missing the aim of life. Life's aim is declared openly in the *Vedānta-sūtra: athāto* *brahma-jijñāsā.* Life is meant for understanding the Absolute Truth. Vedic civilization is based on this principle, but modern civilization has deviated and is devoting itself to that which cannot possibly relieve us from the tribulations of birth, old age, disease, and death. So-called scientific advancement has not solved life's real problems. Although we are eternal, we are presently subjected to birth and death. In this Age of Kali-yuga, people are slow to learn about self-realization. People create their own way of life, and they are unfortunate and disturbed. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas concludes that if the laws of God and man conflict, we should obey the laws of God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. We can also obey the man who obeys the laws of God. It is useless to obey an imperfect person. That is the blind following the blind. If the leader does not follow the instructions of the supreme controller, he is necessarily blind, and he cannot lead. Why should we risk our lives by following blind men who believe that they are knowledgeable but are not? We should instead decide to take lessons from the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa, who knows everything perfectly. Kṛṣṇa knows past, present, and future, and what is for our benefit. **Hayagrīva:** For Aquinas, all earthly powers exist only by God's permission. Since the Church is God's emissary on earth, the Church should control secular power as well. He felt that secular rulers should remain subservient to the Church, which should be able to excommunicate a monarch and dethrone him. **Prabhupāda:** World activities should be regulated so that God is the ultimate goal of understanding. Although the Church, or the *brāhmaṇas,* may not directly carry out administrative activities, the government should function under their supervision and instructions. That is the Vedic system. The administrators, the *kṣatriyas,* used to take instructions from the *brāhmaṇas,* who could deliver a spiritual message. It is mentioned in Bhagavad-gītā* [4.1] that millions of years ago, Kṛṣṇa instructed the sun god in the yoga of *Bhagavad-gītā.* The sun god is the origin of the *kṣatriyas.* If the king follows the instructions of the *Vedas* or other scriptures through the *brāhmaṇas,* or through a bona fide church, he is not only a king but a saintly person as well. The *kṣatriyas* should follow the orders of the *brāhmaṇas,* and the *vaiśyas* should follow the orders of the *kṣatriyas.* The *śūdras* should follow the instructions of the three superior orders. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the beauty of God, Aquinas writes: "God is beautiful in Himself and not in relation to some limited terminus....It is clear that the beauty of all things is derived from the divine beauty....God wishes to multiply His own beauty as far as possible, that is to say, by the communication of His likeness. Indeed, all things are made in order to imitate divine beauty in some fashion." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, God is the reservoir of all knowledge, beauty, strength, fame, renunciation, and wealth. God is the reservoir of everything, and therefore whatever we see that is beautiful emanates from a very minute part of God's beauty. > yad yad vibhūtimat sattvaṁ > śrīmad ūrjitam eva vā > tat tad evāvagaccha tvaṁ > mama tejo-'ṁśa-sambhavam "Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor." [*Bg.* 10.41] **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the relationship between theology and philosophy, Aquinas writes: "As sacred doctrine is based on the light of faith, so is philosophy founded on the natural light of reason....If any point among the statements of the philosophers is found contrary to faith, this is not philosophy but rather an abuse of philosophy, resulting from a defect in reasoning." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is correct. Due to material conditional life, every man is defective. The philosophy of defective people cannot help society. Perfect philosophy comes from one who is in contact with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and such philosophy is beneficial. Speculative philosophers base their beliefs on imagination. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas concluded that divine revelation is absolutely necessary because very few men can arrive at the truth through the philosophical method. It is a path full of errors, and the journey takes a long time. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact. We should directly contact the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa, who has complete knowledge. We should understand His instructions and try to follow them. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas believed that the author of sacred scriptures can be only God Himself, who can not only "adjust words to their meaning, which even man can do, but also adjust things in themselves." Also, scriptures are not restricted to one meaning. **Prabhupāda:** The meaning of scriptures is one, but the interpretations may be different. In the Bible it is stated that God created the universe, and that is a fact. One may conjecture that the universe was created out of some chunk, or whatever, but we should not interpret scripture in this way. We present *Bhagavad-gītā* as it is without interpretation or motive. We cannot change the words of God. Unfortunately, many interpreters have spoiled the God consciousness of society. **Hayagrīva:** In this, Aquinas seems to differ from the official Catholic doctrine, which admits only the Pope's interpretation. For him, the scriptures may contain many meanings according to our degree of realization. **Prabhupāda:** The meaning is one, but if we are not realized, we may interpret many meanings. It is stated both in the Bible and *Bhagavad-gītā* that God created the universe. > ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo > mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me." [*Bg.* 10.8] If it is a fact that everything is an emanation of God's energy, why should we accept a second meaning or interpretation? What is the possible second meaning? **Hayagrīva:** Well, in the Bible it is stated that after creating the universe, God walked through paradise in the afternoon. Aquinas would consider this to have an interior, or metaphorical, meaning. **Prabhupāda:** If God can create, He can also walk, speak, touch, and see. If God is a person, why is a second meaning necessary? What could it possibly be? **Hayagrīva:** Impersonal speculation. **Prabhupāda:** If God is the creator of all things, He must be a person. Things appear to come from secondary causes, but actually everything is created by the Supreme Creator. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas seems to have encouraged individual interpretation. He writes: "It belongs to the dignity of divine scripture to contain many meanings in one text, so that it may be appropriate to the various understandings of men for each man to marvel at the fact that he can find the truth that he has conceived in his own mind expressed in divine scripture." **Prabhupāda:** No. If one's mind is perfect, he may give a meaning, but, according to our conviction, if one is perfect, why should he try to change the word of God? And if one is imperfect, what is the value of his change? **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas doesn't say "change." **Prabhupāda:** Interpretation means change. If man is imperfect, how can he change the words of God? If the words can be changed, they are not perfect. So there will be doubt whether the words are spoken by God or by an imperfect person. **Hayagrīva:** The many different Protestant faiths resulted from such individual interpretation. It's surprising to find this viewpoint in Aquinas. **Prabhupāda:** As soon as you interpret or change the scripture, the scripture loses its authority. Then another man will come and interpret things in his own way. Another will come and then another, and in this way the original purport of the scripture is lost. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas believed that it is not possible to see God in this life. He writes: "God cannot be seen in His essence by one who is merely man, except he be separated from this mortal life....The divine essence cannot be known through the nature of material things." **Prabhupāda:** What does he mean by divine essence? For us, God's divine essence is personal. When one cannot conceive of the Personality of Godhead, he sees the impersonal feature everywhere. When one advances further, he sees God as the Paramātmā within his heart. That is the result of yoga meditation. Finally, if one is truly advanced, he can see God face to face. When Kṛṣṇa came, people saw Him face to face. Christians accept Christ as the son of God, and when he came, people saw him face to face. Does Aquinas think that Christ is not the divine essence of God? **Hayagrīva:** For a Christian, Christ must be the divine essence. **Prabhupāda:** And didn't many people see him? Then how can Aquinas say that God cannot be seen? **Hayagrīva:** It's difficult to tell whether Aquinas is basically impersonalist or personalist. **Prabhupāda:** That means that he is speculating. **Hayagrīva:** He writes about the personal feature in this way: "Because God's nature has all perfection and thus every kind of perfection should be attributed to Him, it is fitting to use the word 'person' to speak of God; yet when used of God it is not used exactly as it is of creatures but in a higher sense....Certainly the dignity of divine nature surpasses every nature, and thus it is entirely suitable to speak of God as a 'person.'" Aquinas is no more specific than this. **Prabhupāda:** Christ is accepted as the son of God, and if the son can be seen, why can't the Father be seen? If Christ is the son of God, who is God? In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says: *ahaṁ* *sarvasya *prabhavaḥ.* "Everything is emanating from Me." [*Bg.* 10.8] Christ says that he is the son of God, and this means that he emanates from God. Just as he has his personality, God also has His personality. Therefore we refer to Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning God's names, Aquinas writes: "Yet since God is simple and subsisting, we attribute to Him simple and abstract names to signify His simplicity, and concrete names to signify His subsistence and perfection; although both these kinds of names fail to express His mode of being, because our intellect does not know Him in this life as He is." **Prabhupāda:** One of God's attributes is being. Similarly, one of His attributes is attraction. God attracts everything. The word "Kṛṣṇa" means "all attractive." What, then, is wrong with addressing God as Kṛṣṇa? Because Kṛṣṇa is the enjoyer of Rādhārāṇī, His name is Rādhikā-ramaṇa. Because He exists, He is called the Supreme Being. In one sense, God has no name, but in another sense He has millions of names according to His activities. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas maintains that although the names apply to God to signify one reality, they are not synonymous because they signify that reality under diverse aspects. **Prabhupāda:** God's names are there because He has different features and activities. **Hayagrīva:** But Aquinas asserts that no name belongs to God in the same sense that it belongs to creatures. **Prabhupāda:** The names of creatures are also derived from God. For instance, Hayagrīva appeared as the horse incarnation, and therefore a devotee is named Hayagrīva, which means "servant of God." This name is not created; it refers to the activities of God. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas believed that names of God that imply relation to creatures are predicated of God temporarily. He writes: "Though God is prior to the creature, still, because the signification of 'Lord' includes the idea of a servant and vice versa, these two relative terms, Lord and servant, are simultaneous by nature. Hence God was not 'Lord' until He had a creature subject to Himself....Thus names which import relation to creatures are applied to God temporarily, and not from eternity, since God is outside the whole order of creation." **Prabhupāda:** God is always existing as the Lord, and His servants are existing everlastingly with Him. How can He be the Lord without a servant? How can it be that God has no servants? **Hayagrīva:** Well, the contention is that creatures were created at one point in time, and before that, God must have been by Himself. **Prabhupāda:** That is a material idea. It is the material world that is created, not the spiritual world. The spiritual world and God are existing everlastingly. The bodies of creatures in this material world are created, but God is always in the spiritual world with countless servants. According to our philosophy, there is no limit to living entities. Those who do not like to serve are put into this material world. As far as our identity as eternal servant is concerned, that is eternal, whether we are in the material or spiritual world. If we do not serve God in the spiritual world, we come down into the material world to serve the illusory energy of God. In any case, God is always master, and the living entity always servant. In the material world, the living entity, although a servant, is thinking of himself as a master. This is a false conception that creates many disturbances. This forgetfulness or misconception is not possible in the spiritual world. There, the self-realized souls know their position as eternal servants of God, the eternal spiritual master. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas felt that the less determinate God's name, the more universal and absolute it is. He therefore believed that the most proper name for God is "He who is." **Prabhupāda:** Why? If God is active and has created the entire universe, what is wrong in addressing Him according to His activities and attributes? **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas claims that the very essence of God is the sheer fact of His being, the fact that He is. **Prabhupāda:** He is, certainly, but "He is" means that He is existing in His abode with His servants, playmates, hobbies, and paraphernalia. Everything is there. We must ask what is the meaning or nature of His being. **Hayagrīva:** It seems that Aquinas was basically impersonalist. **Prabhupāda:** No. He could not determine whether God is personal or impersonal. His inclination was to serve God as a person, but he had no clear conception of His personality. Therefore he speculates. **Hayagrīva:** In the *Vedas,* is there an equivalent to "He who is?" **Prabhupāda:** *Oṁ *tat* *sat* is impersonal. This *mantra,* however, can also be extended as *o***ṁ** *namo bhagavate *vāsudevāya.* The word *vāsudeva* means "one who lives everywhere," and refers to Bhagāvan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. God is both personal and impersonal, but the impersonal feature is secondary. According to Bhagāvan Śrī Kṛṣṇa in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham > amṛtasyāvyayasya ca > śāśvatasya ca dharmasya > sukhasyaikāntikasya ca "And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable, and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness." [*Bg.* 14.27] What is the purport to that? **Hayagrīva [reading]:** "The constitution of Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramātmā, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth." **Prabhupāda:** That is divine essence. **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas was perhaps the most prolific of the Church writers. His *Summa Theologiae* still serves as official Roman Catholic doctrine. Since the words of Christ are often allegorical, they have always been open to many different interpretations. **Prabhupāda:** That is not very good. **Hayagrīva:** Christ used a lot of parables to simplify a transcendental message. For instance, he likened the word of the kingdom of God to a seed that sometimes falls among thorns, or on rocky land, and even somtimes in a fertile place, where it grows. **Prabhupāda:** A similar description is given in the *Upaniṣads,* wherein the living entity is compared to a spark, and God to the fire. When the sparks are in the fire, they are illuminated, but when they fall from the fire, their position is different. The sparks may fall on rock, in the water, or on the ground, just as the living entity may fall into the modes—*sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa,* and *tamo-guṇa*—within the material world. ## John Duns Scotus [1266-1308] **Hayagrīva:** Scotus, a Thirteenth Century Scotsman, was Thomas Aquinas's principal antagonist. Whereas Aquinas emphasized the intellect, Scotus emphasized what he called the primacy of will. The will is even superior to the intellect, and this is true for both God and man. Scotus felt that if this were not the case, the will would not be free but would be controlled by the intellect, which is exterior to the soul. **Prabhupāda:** According to the Vedic understanding, intelligence, or intellect, is superior to the mind, and superior to the intelligence is the ego. The mind is superior to the gross senses and controls them. > indriyāṇi parāṇy āhur > indriyebhyaḥ paraṁ manaḥ > manasas tu parā buddhir > yo buddheḥ paratas tu saḥ "The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence." [*Bg.* 3.42] If the mind acts intelligently, the senses can be utilized for self-realization. If the mind does not act intelligently, the senses act for material sense gratification. This is the conclusion of *Bhagavad-gītā.* > bandhur ātmātmanas tasya > yenātmaivātmanā jitaḥ > anātmanas tu śatrutve > vartetātmaiva śatruvat "For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy." [*Bg.* 6.6] A dog also has a mind, but his intelligence is inferior to that of human beings. When a dog sees some eatables, he will come for them, although his master may drive him away. If he has a little intelligence, he goes away when his master tells him to, but due to his limited intelligence, after a few minutes he may return. He has a mind capable of remembering that there is something eatable for him, but he hasn't sufficient intelligence to know that the food is forbidden. That is the difference between the mind and the intelligence. Therefore, according to the Vedic understanding, intelligence is superior to the mind. **Hayagrīva:** Where does the will enter? **Prabhupāda:** Thinking, feeling, and willing are activities of the mind, and are within the mind. **Hayagrīva:** Scotus believes that everything is subordinate to the divine will. **Prabhupāda:** Of course, because the divine will is always perfect. Whatever is divine is perfect and flawless. Whatever the Supreme Divine Personality wills actually becomes a fact. Our thinking, feeling, and willing differ from the supreme will of the Personality of Godhead. Our mind proposes, and God disposes. We may express our will, but unless our desires are sanctioned by the will of the Supreme, they cannot be fulfilled. Despite our willing to live to a certain age, for instance, we cannot do so if God does not will us to. In every sphere of activity, we express our will, but our will must be sanctioned by the supreme will in order to be successful. Therefore God's will is called supreme. **Hayagrīva:** Scotus would say that everything is good because it is sustained by God's absolute will. God's killing is good, for instance, simply because God wills it to be so. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Because God is perfect, whatever He does is perfect. **Hayagrīva:** Scotus's view is in opposition to that of Aquinas, who would say that everything is subordinate to the divine intelligence. **Prabhupāda:** But what does he understand by the divine intelligence? In relation to us, divine intelligence is this: We living entities are eternal servants of God, but we have wanted to become God ourselves, master of everything. Ignorance, or māyā, thus differs from divine intelligence. In the ignorance of materialism, people work very hard to become monarchs of all they survey. All this is taking place under various "ism's." We are thinking that we are proprietors, but the Supreme Lord is the only factual proprietor. > īśāvāsyam idam sarvaṁ > yat kiñca jagatyāṁ jagat > tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā > mā gṛdhaḥ kasya svid dhanam "Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong." [*Īśopaniṣad* 1] **Hayagrīva:** Scotus believes that there is an interplay of the will and the intellect because before we will something to be, we must first know the facts about it. Despite this counterplay, Scotus maintains that the will alone is the total cause of volition in the will. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is thinking, feeling, and willing. When we are ignorant, we think our will is supreme. So-called philosophers like to say, "I think," or "I believe," but this is not perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge is thinking as God Himself thinks. **Hayagrīva:** Scotus affirmed that it was the Church's unfailing authority that provided the criterion of truth. Church dogma was sacred, and philosophy was naturally subordinate to it. Revelation was behind all Church dogma, and therefore sacred dogma is not open for debate. **Prabhupāda:** If by "church" we mean an institution wherein we can learn about God, then philosophy is certainly subordinate. In such a Church, we can learn what God Himself is, what He is willing, and how He is acting. We may learn this either from the Bible or another scripture. However, if the Church is polluted by imperfect interpretation, and there are different factions, the truth is lost. At such a time, the authority of Christ is no longer imparted. People become free to think and act as they like, and thus God's kingdom is lost. **Hayagrīva:** Because the *parampar**ā* is broken? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. The Church is the supreme authority provided that it maintains itself in exactly the same way and does not deviate from its beginning. As soon as we interpret and divide, the message is lost. **Hayagrīva:** The Protestants claimed that the *paramparā* of the Catholic Church was broken, therefore they broke from Catholicism and fragmented into many different sects. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, they condemned the Catholic Church because its *paramparā* was broken, but they concluded, "Let us also break." Those who first broke away from the message as it is and those who followed them by breaking away themselves are both to blame. Since the original solidarity of the Christian religion is broken, the Christian religion is dwindling and losing its importance. **Hayagrīva:** For Scotus, apart from being a human being, each individual is also a specific personality. The individual is the ultimate reality because prior to existence he existed in essence in the mind of God. **Prabhupāda:** The real fact is that the living entity is eternal, and the material world is created to satisfy his false existence, which is called false ego [*ahaṅkāra*]. The individual is thinking that he is independent and can act independent of God. That is the beginning of paradise lost, of Adam's fall. When Adam and Eve thought that they could do something independently, they were condemned. Every living entity is the eternal servant of God, and he must act according to the desire or will of the Supreme Lord. When he deviates from this principle, he is lost. Losing paradise, he comes into the material world, and God gives him certain facilities to act, but says, "If you act according to this system, you can come back to Me. If you do not follow this system, you go down and down." That is the process of transmigration, the rotation of the cycle of birth and death. This is all due to disobeying God. When the living entity hears the instructions of the Supreme Lord, he again revives his original constitutional position and returns home, back to Godhead. > sarva-dharmān parityajya > mām ekaṁśaraṇaṁvraja > ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo > mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear." [*Bg.* 18.66] **Hayagrīva:** Aquinas believed that the angels—what the *Vedas* might call devas*—have pure spiritual forms, but Scotus argues that only God Himself has a purely spiritual form since only God is perfect essence. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, since God exists in His spiritual form, He never falls down; therefore He is sometimes called *Acyuta.* When a person falls from his original, spiritual position, he is *cyuta,* fallen. God, however, is *Acyuta* because He is not subject to falling down. **Hayagrīva:** Scotus rejects the method of negation, the *neti-neti* process, as being of no particular value. Knowledge of God must be positive, and negative concepts only presuppose a positive concept. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the *neti-neti* process is for those who are still speculating. This is an indirect process by which one negates everything material. Positive understanding means taking direct knowledge from God Himself. > mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat > kiñcid asti dhanañjaya > mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ > sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva **"O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." [*Bg.* 7.7] If we accept the words of God, we save ourselves much labor. We cannot understand God by speculation, but still we are inclined to speculate. But knowing God perfectly is knowing God beyond a doubt. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna:** > mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha > yogaṁ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ > asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ > yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu **"Now hear, O son of Pṛthā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt." [*Bg.* 7.1] The word *asaṁśayam* means "without a doubt," and *samagram* means "complete." Following Kṛṣṇa and trying to understand Him is called bhakti-*yoga, and such yoga is possible for one who is actually attached to Kṛṣṇa. Therefore our first business is learning how to be attached to Kṛṣṇa [*mayy āsakta-manāḥ *pārtha*]. There are nine different aspects of *bhakti-yoga*:** *śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ *smaraṇaṁ,* etc. Of these, *śravaṇaṁ* [hearing], and *kīrtanaṁ* [chanting], are most important. Then there is remembering, worshipping in the temple according to the regulations, rising early in the morning, offering *ārātrika,* and so forth. This is the process of *bhakti-yoga* meant to increase our devotion for Kṛṣṇa. When attachment increases, we become very obedient and always engage devotedly in His service. When Kṛṣṇa sees that we are obeying Him, He reveals Himself. > teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ > bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam > dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ > yena mām upayānti te "To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me." [*Bg.* 10.10] These are the words of Śrī Kṛṣṇa speaking directly to Arjuna, and we take this to be a perfect statement. What is the purport I give to this in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is?* **Hayagrīva [reading]:** "In this verse the word *buddhi-yogam* is very significant. We may remember that in the Second Chapter, the Lord, instructing Arjuna, said that He had spoken to him of many things, and that He would instruct him in the way of *buddhi-yoga.* Now *buddhi-yoga* is explained. Buddhi-yoga* itself is action in Kṛṣṇa consciousness; that is the highest intelligence. *Buddhi* means intelligence, and *yogam* means mystic activities, or mystic elevation. When one tries to go back home, back to Godhead, and takes fully to Kṛṣṇa consciousness in devotional service, his action is called *buddhi-yogam.* In other words, *buddhi-yogam* is the process by which one gets out of the entanglement of this material world. The ultimate goal of progress is Kṛṣṇa. People do not know this; therefore the association of devotees and a bona fide spiritual master is important. One should know that the goal is Kṛṣṇa, and when the goal is assigned, then the path is slowly but progressively traversed and the ultimate goal reached."When a person knows the goal of life but is addicted to the fruits of activities, he is acting in *karma-yoga.* When he knows that the goal is Kṛṣṇa, but he takes pleasure in mental speculations to understand Kṛṣṇa, he is acting in *jñāna-yoga.* And when he knows the goal and seeks Kṛṣṇa completely in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and devotional service, he is acting in *bhakti-yoga,* or *buddhi-yoga,* which is the complete yoga. This complete yoga is the highest perfectional stage of life. "A person may have a bona fide spiritual master and may be attached to a spiritual organization, but still, if he is not intelligent enough to make progress, then Kṛṣṇa from within gives him instructions so that he may ultimately come to Him without difficulty. The qualification is that a person always engage himself in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and with love and devotion render all kinds of services. He should perform some sort of work for Kṛṣṇa, and that work should be with love. If a devotee is intelligent enough, he will make progress on the path of self- realization. If one is sincere and devoted to the activities of devotional service, the Lord gives him a chance to make progress and ultimately attain to Him." **Prabhupāda:** So this is the process in summary. **Hayagrīva:** Scotus argued for the existence of God on the basis of primary cause, but he felt that the proposition "God exists" is not of much use unless we understand what God is and know something of His nature. **Prabhupāda:** God is the Supreme Father, and He has created everything within our experience. When we are convinced that there is certainly a creator, we can make further progress to understand the nature of that creator. Is He animate or inanimate? Is He matter, or a living being? Further analysis takes up from this point, but first we must understand that God is the creator. That is very well explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya > mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ > tāsāṁ brahma mahad yonir > ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā "It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kuntī, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father." [*Bg.* 14.4] Everything is coming from the womb [*yoni*] of material nature. If the earth or material nature is the mother, there must be a father. Of course, atheists think that a mother can give birth without a father, but that thinking is most unnatural. One next asks, "Who is my father? What is his position? How does he talk? How does he live?" First we must understand that there is a creator father, and then we can understand His nature. This understanding must be beyond a doubt [*asaṁśayaṁ*]. **Hayagrīva:** Scotus was also opposed to Aquinas in his belief that the human soul can be separated from the body, and when it is separated, it is not changed at all. When the soul is united with the body, it activates the body, but the soul itself is beyond corruption. The individual soul is incapable of destroying itself or giving itself being. **Prabhupāda:** The individual soul is always separate from the body. That is the Vedic injunction:* asaṅgo hyayaṁ puruṣaḥ *iti* [*Bṛhad-āraṇyak-opaniṣat* 4.3.16]. If the body actually mixed with the soul, how could the soul give up one body and accept another? The soul is always aloof from the body, from its material formation. The living entity, the jīva*-soul, is always *asa***ṅga**, incorruptible.