# 04 Renaissance Thought ## Niccolo Machiavelli [1469-1527] **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli has been called the most influential political philosopher of the Renaissance, and his philosophy of politics has influenced rulers down to modern times. He is typical of the Renaissance in that he turned from the subjects of the Church fathers—such as God, heaven, and salvation—to concentrate on man and nature. The Renaissance marked a decline in the Church's power, and philosophy began a process of secularization. Machiavelli himself admitted that his most famous work, *The Prince,* does not apply to a Utopian state composed of good citizens; rather, it is an unscrupulous philosophy that applies to corrupt citizens. The Prince* is a guidebook for a tyrant, and it contains the advice he chose to impart to the ruling Medici family. It is a justification for immoral actions. Power is the ultimate goal, and in the quest for power, the end justifies the means. Success in attaining power makes one the object of obedience and respect. Failure is the only sin. **Prabhupāda:** So, this is politics, the occupation of *kṣatriyas.* In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, the qualities of a *kṣatriya* are given: > śauryaṁ tejo dhṛtir dākṣyaṁ > yuddhe cāpy apalāyanam > dānam īśvara-bhāvaś ca > kṣātraṁ karma svabhāva-jam "Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity, and leadership are the qualities of work for the *kṣatriyas*" [*Bg.* 18.43] Of course, in modern politics, the king or president does not come onto the battlefield to exhibit his courage. He simply appears when there is a battle of words, but when there is an actual battle, he remains in a secluded place and lets the citizens fight. And he institutes a draft board to assure that they will. According to the Vedic system, however, when there is a fight, the king or president must be present on the battlefield and should lead the fight himself so that his men will be encouraged. This is called *yuddhe c***āpy apalāyanam**. The leader of a nation should fight with all his ability and be determined either to gain victory in the battle, or lay down his life. *Bhagavad-gītā* itself is a guidebook for *kṣatriyas* and was originally spoken to the sun-god millions of years ago. Sometimes, people try to interpret *Bhagavad-gītā* as a philosophy of nonviolence, but in politics there must be violence, because the king must emerge victorious. It is stated in the Vedas* that if the king is victorious, he will be respected. Strength must be there. Apart from this, the chief of state must also be charitable, and formerly all the great kings performed big *yajñas,* sacrifices. > annād bhavanti bhūtāni > parjanyād anna-sambhavaḥ > yajñād bhavati parjanyo > yajñaḥ karma-samudbhavaḥ "All living bodies subsist on food grains, which are produced from rains. Rains are produced by performance of *yajña* [sacrifice], and *yajña* is born of prescribed duties." [*Bg.* 3.14] When sufficient sacrifices are performed by the royal head of government, rainfall results. Power in itself is not sufficient. One must be powerful enough to fully satisfy the citizens by supplying them sufficient grains so that men and animals can eat and be satisfied. This is an ability that the politician or prince should have. He should be not only powerful but charitable as well. Taxes exacted from the citizens should be properly utilized in performing sacrifices. Of course, it is not possible to perform *yajñas* today as previously. Formerly, they used to sacrifice tons of ghee and grain in the fire, but today that is impractical. The best *yajña* for today is *saṅkīrtana-yajña* propagated by this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. The heads of state should encourage this. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli felt that the prince must at least exhibit five basic virtues, whether he has them or not. These are mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion. He writes: "It is not necessary for a prince to have all the above-mentioned qualities, but it is very necessary to seem to have them. I would even be so bold as to say that to possess them and always to practice them is dangerous, but to appear to possess them is useful. Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must have your mind so disposed that, when it is needful to be otherwise, you can change to the opposite qualities." **Prabhupāda:** Well, Machiavelli may think like that, but unless a prince or king possesses all these qualities, he is unworthy. If he is unworthy, he cannot remain a prince because he is situated artificially. Because the kings lacked the proper qualities, monarchy is finished today, and democracy has become prominent. In Indian history, however, there were kings like Mahārāja Parīkṣit, who actually possessed all good qualities. When Parīkṣit Mahārāja went on a tour of his kingdom and saw a black man attempting to kill a cow, the Mahārāja immediately drew his sword and said, "Who is this person trying to kill a cow in my kingdom? He must be punished." A king must exhibit such determination to give protection to all the inhabitants of his kingdom. At the present moment, governments are not offering protection for animals. They are killing cows, although cows are supplying milk from which we can make wonderful preparations. This is Kali-yuga, and the government does not exhibit good sense in any field. Since the government is unworthy of governing, there is chaos throughout the world. According to Vedic civilization, the king is worshipped as God in human form and is therefore called *Naradeva.* If the good qualities are lacking in a king, he can no longer be considered Naradeva*, and he cannot rule for very long, because his rule is artificial. Therefore in Kali-yuga, the royal order is finished. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli didn't say that this is the way political life ought to be. Rather, since this is the way political life is at present, this is the best way a prince can rule. **Prabhupāda:** Our principles should be the same, whether in the past, present, or future. Kṛṣṇa delivered *Bhagavad-gītā* millions of years ago to the king of the sun, Vivasvān. Five thousand years ago He repeated these same principles to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra. It is not that the principles have changed. Whether one is a prince, president, or whatever, the ruling principles should be maintained. Then the people will benefit. It is said that when Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira ruled, the people suffered neither from intense heat nor intense cold. There was regular rainfall, and people were free from all anxiety. Such is an ideal kingdom in which the people are happy in all respects. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli thought that the ruler should take the sins of the state upon himself, just as Christ took upon himself the sins of the world. **Prabhupāda:** But if the ruler himself is sinful, how can he assume the sins of others? **Hayagrīva:** Well, Machiavelli felt that evil in politics was a necessity. He writes: "A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good." **Prabhupāda:** But if one is not good himself, how can he introduce anything that is good? Presently, in India, there are many people claiming to be big mahdtmds, religionists, scholars, and politicians, but they cannot even protect the cows. *Bhagavad-gītā* says: > kṛṣi-gorakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ > vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam "Farming, cow protection, and business are the natural work for the *vaiśyas.*" [*Bg.* 18.44] It is at least the duty of the state to protect the cow, which is a special animal. It is the king's duty to protect the welfare of all citizens, including the cows. If the king or president does no more than sit in an exalted position, the people will not be happy. Even in America, the people dragged their president down when they were discontent with him. In any case, the head of state must be ideal and exhibit the ideal princely characteristics. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli suggested that since the people usually desire peace, the prince should promote peace in his public addresses. On the other hand, the army always prefers war, which gives opportunities for promotion, and the prince should also appease the militarists. Although publicly promoting peace, the prince can break his promise whenever necessary to start a war abroad, especially when there is trouble at home. **Prabhupāda:** No one can introduce peace unless he is educated in God consciousness. It is stated in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ > sarva-loka-maheśvaram > suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ > jñātvā māṁśāntim ṛcchati “A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries." [*Bg.* 5.29] The king should not think of his kingdom as his property or his father's property. Rather, knowing himself to be the representative of the Supreme Father, he must understand that the state belongs to the Supreme Father. He is a representative whose duty is to protect the state and the citizens. The proprietor of the state is God Himself. There is not a spot of land throughout the universe that is not owned by the Supreme Personality of Godhead; therefore all property should be engaged for the satisfaction of God. Bhoktāraṁ *yajña-tapasām.* Everything must be carried out for the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord, and this is ideal activity for all societies. > ataḥ pumbhir dvija-śreṣṭhā > varṇāśrama-vibhāgaśaḥ > svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya > saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam "O best among the twiceborn, it is therefore concluded that the highest perfection one can achieve, by discharging his prescribed duties [dharma] according to caste divisions and orders of life, is to please the Lord *Hari.*" [*SB.* 1.2.13] According to the *śāstras,* there are social divisions—*brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya,* and śūdra*—and these divisions allow for proper management. It is the king's duty to divide human society according to the *varṇāśrama-dharma.* There should be genuine *brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, śūdras, brahmacārīs, gṛhasthas, vānaprasthas,* and *sannyāsīs.* No one should cheat but should carry out his duty accordingly. The king must know what is sin so that he can take precautions against it. But if he supports sinful activities—for instance, if he maintains a slaughterhouse—how can he become sinless? The *śāstras* say that the king attains political power by pious activities, but if he does not give security to the citizens, he loses his power automatically. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli certainly believed that the people should be protected, but he also believed in the use of power and might. If there are internal difficulties, they must be put down by force. If this proves impossible, the prince should divert people's attention by starting a war abroad. He even felt that it was better to go to war than to remain neutral because a neutral nation is hated by the loser and not respected by the winner. Consequently, he praised power and war. **Prabhupāda:** He praises war because he cannot manage internally. That is most inhumane. **Hayagrīva:** "Trouble at home, war abroad" is one of his most famous points. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and sometimes the governments create artificial restlessness and poverty. We have seen in 1940, when the Second World War was going on, that the government created an artificial famine in order to get men to fight. People who didn't work had no alternative but to join the military. The government increased the price of food, and I remember the price of rice jumping from six rupees to ten rupees. The very next day, the price rose to twenty rupees. Then it jumped again to fifty rupees, whereas formerly it was only six. This is all the results of politics. When the government is not pious or strong, this will go on, and the people will be unhappy. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli's view of man was very cynical. He wrote: "In constituting and legislating for a commonwealth, it must be taken for granted that all men are wicked." **Prabhupāda:** This is not philosophy, considering all men wicked. **Hayagrīva:** Well, he considered that men are so created that they desire all things, although they cannot acquire them. Men are never satisfied. As soon as they have one thing, they crave another. **Prabhupāda:** Therefore it is the duty of the government to introduce Kṛṣṇa consciousness so that the people can know the way of peace and happiness. **Hayagrīva:** As long as the prince benefitted the people, they would be entirely his. **Prabhupāda:** But he must know how to benefit them. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli was very fond of speaking of "the common good," and he set love of country and the common good above the Christian love of God. **Prabhupāda:** But what is his common good? He is thinking that people must have enough to eat, but it is for the common good of everyone to love God. Love of God is for everyone, and God is one. When we become lovers of God, our lives are perfected. **Hayagrīva:** But if the people are basically wicked, he argued, a strong prince is necessary to control them. **Prabhupāda:** Why should the people remain wicked? It is the king's duty to see that all the citizens become gentlemen. He should not allow them to remain wicked. The educational, social, and religious systems should be so perfect that the people become God conscious. At least a sector of the people, the *brāhmaṇas,* should be perfect. **Hayagrīva:** But he felt that if the prince were perfectly virtuous or truthful in all cases, he couldn't possibly survive in the political world. **Prabhupāda:** That is why there are social divisions: *brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas,* and *śūdras.* It is not possible for everyone to be truthful, but at least a section of the people should be ideal so that others can take advantage of their good advice. It is not that everyone is in the same position, nor that everyone should join the military. Only those who are interested in fighting should join the military. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli recommended compulsory military service as a primary form of education for everyone. **Prabhupāda:** Nothing is meant for everyone. There must be divisions. Machiavelli had no idea that brahminical training is absolutely necessary for intelligent men. **Hayagrīva:** Since youth should especially become used to hardships, he considered war as a form of education. **Prabhupāda:** Well, any education requires hardships, and to become a *brāhmaṇa* or *brahmacārī* requires the greatest hardships. In any case, there must be educational divisions, just as there are divisions in the human body: the head, arms, belly, and legs. Military education is education of the arms, but where is the education for the brain? Unless the head is educated, how will the arms act? **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli recommended a democratic republic for a society consisting of virtuous people. In such a state, the ruler must obtain the people's consent. But he considered such a society to be purely Utopian. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, a completely virtuous society is Utopian in this age. It is not possible. Yet a section of the population can be ideally virtuous, and the remainder may take lessons from them. It is not possible for everyone to become a *brāhmaṇa,* but a few can be trained. The sky may be full of stars, but one moon is all that is necessary. If the populace consists of fools and rascals, how can anything be managed? There must be at least a section that shines like the moon. **Hayagrīva:** This cynical view of mankind was partially based on the Christian doctrine—or at least on the doctrine of Augustine—which held that man is by nature corrupt. Whereas Augustine believed in the saving grace of God, Machiavelli believed in man's willpower to overcome bad fortune. **Prabhupāda:** But who adjusts good and bad fortune? If we consider good and bad fortune, we must consider a dispenser, a supreme power or controller, and that supreme power is God. Therefore people should be educated in God consciousness by reading transcendental literatures like *Bhagavad-gītā* and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.* **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli's attitude toward religion has greatly influenced modern governments. He considered religion to be a department of the state; it should not be separate in the sense that it should not compete. **Prabhupāda:** In that I agree. It is the government's duty to give protection to religion, and if that religion is scientific, the state will be sound. America is presently strong in many respects, and now America must become strong in God consciousness. It is very good to write, "In God We Trust," but we must also know who God is and why we should trust in Him. We are therefore trying to introduce this science of God, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli felt that as long as religion is not detrimental to the state, the state may accept it as valid. But in one sense, religion is subordinate to the state. **Prabhupāda:** Of course, they are separate, but the state must know what religion is and how to introduce it to the general public. There is no question of blind faith. The government is maintaining many different departments: an engineering department, medical department, military department, and so forth. Similarly, a religious department may be subordinate to the state because all other departments are subordinate, but religion must be based on scientific knowledge. If the state takes advantage of the Vedic literatures, it can introduce a scientific system of religion. Then the people will be knowledgeable and happy. **Hayagrīva:** For Machiavelli, the only sin is not acting for the common good. First, the ruler must protect the citizens from physical harm. Citizens are happy when they obey the laws, follow customs, and pray to God. **Prabhupāda:** If the ruler must first of all protect the citizens from physical harm, how can he advocate animal slaughter? Animals are also subjects because they are born in a country. A citizen is anyone who is born in a state. So how can a ruler discriminate between one type of citizen and another? If he discriminates, he cannot speak of common good. He can only say "man's good." According to the common good, animals as well as men are protected. **Hayagrīva:** Machiavelli placed love of country and the common good above everything else. He rarely uses the word "God" or "Providence," but prefers the word "fortune." It is fortune that plays tricks on men and changes friends into enemies. **Prabhupāda:** If God is fortune, who is misfortune? Since God is the supreme controller, He is both fortune and misfortune. When you act wrongly, punishment comes from God, and when you act properly, the reward comes from God. **Hayagrīva:** Love of country transcends everything religious and moral, so that one may even lose his own soul for his country's sake. Indeed, Machiavelli wrote: "I love my country more than my soul." **Prabhupāda:** But how long will he remain in his country? **Hayagrīva:** Well, he remained from 1469 to 1527. **Prabhupāda:** So what is that? Time and the soul are eternal. Such deification of one's country is not very intelligent. ## Francis Bacon [1561-1626] **Hayagrīva:** Francis Bacon is generally acknowledged as the founding father of modern science in England, and although he did not work in a modern laboratory like today's scientists, he inspired what has become known as the scientific method. He believed that science could give man a mastery over nature that would improve his life on this earth. For Bacon, science was not simply an intellectual or academic undertaking, but a utilitarian one. **Prabhupāda:** It is erroneous for Bacon or any other scientist to think that science can control nature. It is not possible to control birth, old age, disease, and death. During our lifetime, we may be able to make some changes and give some facilities, but that is not the ultimate end. **Hayagrīva:** Bacon disliked mental speculation about God because we cannot expect God to conform to our own conception. Due to God's infinitude, no conception of God can be unbelievable. By and large, Bacon relegated theology to the realm of faith, and science to the realm of knowledge of the world. **Prabhupāda:** It is good to be a master architect and make a house with all modern facilities, but if these facilities cause us to forget life's real aim, we have lost a great deal. It is better to remain without facilities, evacuate in the field, and bathe in the river, than overly concern ourselves with modern amenities, facilities for a pampered life. If we forget our real business—how to revive God consciousness—we have not advanced but regressed. **Hayagrīva:** Bacon did not conceive of science as being a disunifying factor as far as religion or God is concerned. Rather, he believed that science could enable civilization to progress. It could be a binding force between man and God. **Prabhupāda:** That is certainly a very good idea, but many modern scientists are denying the existence of God. Many are claiming that God is dead, that there is no need of God, or that we can manufacture God and man in our own way. **Hayagrīva:** Bacon considered some knowledge to be supernatural in that it comes from God, whereas other forms of knowledge are attained through man's own attempts. He admits that the material senses are imperfect and act like false mirrors, which distort the actual world. Thus men are constantly being deceived. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, although they are advancing the cause of material science, they are forgetting God in the process. This is most degrading. Men should prove by scientific methods that God exists and is doing everything. Scientists should use a scientific method to understand how the supreme intelligent Being is working. God's scientific knowledge is perfect, and knowledge that complies with this is very good. But if men have a little knowledge and defy the existence of God, their knowledge is useless. So their little knowledge has become a dangerous thing. **Hayagrīva:** Bacon says something very much like this. He writes: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Kṛṣṇa says 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] If we have a little intelligence and think about this verse, we can understand that all living entities are coming from some womb. Since everyone is the child of some mother, there must be a father. When we are grown, we must understand our father, his property, and his desire. How can we deny a universal father? **Hayagrīva:** This is Bacon's conclusion: "For a while, the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." **Prabhupāda:** Yes. This is the version given in *Bhagavad-gītā.* > ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo > mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate **"I am the origin of everything. Everything is emanating from Me." [*Bg.* 10.8] The Vedānta-sūtra* also states:** *janmādyasya *yataḥ.* "The Supreme Being is He from whom everything is emanating." It is a fact that there must be a source of everything, and it is the business of philosophy to find that original source. It is neither scientific nor philosophic to try to obscure or ignore the original source. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning superstition, Bacon writes: "It were better to have no opinion of God at all than such an opinion as is unworthy of Him. For one is unbelief, and the other is contumely." **Prabhupāda:** Why should we remain superstitious? Why not introduce education whereby everyone can understand God and His nature? We are trying to establish such an institution with this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. If the government participates and cooperates, the masses of people can understand this science of God and benefit. **Hayagrīva:** Bacon distinguished between sects and religions. Sects change, but true religion "is built upon the rock; the rest are tossed on the waves of time...." **Prabhupāda:** Real religion comes directly from God because religion is the law of God. Therefore we must philosophically and scientifically understand God and His law. That is the perfection of knowledge. **Hayagrīva:** Many of the Indian sects are successful in America because their leaders do not impose any restrictions, **Prabhupāda:** They have no conception of God. They come for some material profit, and this is revealed in the course of time. **Hayagrīva:** Bacon also believed in the divine right of kings, maintaining that the king is empowered by God to make laws. He also felt that a national church could best provide for the people's spiritual needs. **Prabhupāda:** Therefore it is necessary that the king be so trained as not to misuse his power. According to the Vedic system, the king was educated to abide by the instructions of saintly persons, *brāhmaṇas.* The *brāhmaṇas* would advise, and the king would follow their desire. If a king misuses his power, he is good for nothing. His monarchy will be abolished, and the people will replace it with something else. ## Thomas Hobbes [1588-1679] **Śyāmasundara:** It is Hobbes who declared, "Whatever exists is matter, and whatever changes is motion." For him, mental or spiritual entities are not realities in their own right, but are merely by-products of matter. Spirit and mind perish when the material basis is destroyed. **Prabhupāda:** Spirit is not a combination of material conditions. If so, why not combine matter in such a way as to produce living spirit, living forms? **Hayagrīva:** Hobbes believed that a "substance incorporeal" is contradictory because nothing exists in the world but bodies. He defined God as "a most pure, simple, invisible, spirit corporeal." **Prabhupāda:** Why invisible? When Kṛṣṇa came, He was certainly visible, for Arjuna was talking to Him face to face. God's visibility or invisibility depends on God's own good will. He is visible to one who is competent or perfect. Not only was He visible to Arjuna, but He reciprocated by answering Arjuna's questions. If we become qualified like Arjuna, we can see God and talk with Him. Then God will give direct instructions. God is invisible for one who is imperfect, but for one who is perfect, He is certainly visible. **Śyāmasundara:** Empiricists maintain that the only proof we have of anything is through our senses. **Prabhupāda:** We say that since the senses are imperfect, whatever you believe through them is imperfect. This is very simple. When the sun rises in the morning, it is many millions of miles away, but can a child tell how far away it is? Who can really tell how far away the sun is? **Śyāmasundara:** They have invented certain instruments to measure distance. **Prabhupāda:** Therefore they have learned from some authority. Because they could not measure with their own senses, they have turned to instruments. But we should take the help of the expert instrument driver, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. What is the value of our senses if they are imperfect? **Śyāmasundara:** So the mind or soul is not simply a physiological system? **Prabhupāda:** The soul is a different energy. Heat and light emanate from the same source, fire. Nonetheless, heat is not light, and light is not heat. Sometimes we may feel heat, but that does not mean that there is light. Sometimes we may have light, but that does not mean that there is heat. Still, heat and light come from the same source. **Śyāmasundara:** How is it that the soul and mind are different from the body? **Prabhupāda:** They are not different, but they are being manifested in different phases. At the moment, we are experiencing sunshine, and we are feeling heat from the sun, but if we approach the sun, we feel much more intense heat. If we approach very closely, we will be disintegrated. **Śyāmasundara:** But how is it that the soul is not produced by the body? How do we know that it is not a mere by-product? **Prabhupāda:** At death, all the physical parts of the body are present. But why is the man dead? What is missing? His heart may be present, but why is it not beating? All the parts of the body may be present, yet you can see that the body is dead. What is it that is missing? **Śyāmasundara:** Impulses are no longer being sent from the brain to the heart. **Prabhupāda:** But why has the brain stopped? The brain's construction is all there. What is missing? Why not replace what is missing? If you are a mechanic, and the machine stops, you should be able to find the defect and immediately repair it. But no one has been able to do this with the body, no scientist or philosopher. They cannot meet such a challenge. **Hayagrīva:** Hobbes is best known as a political philosopher, and in his most famous work, *The Leviathan,* he set forth his socio-political theories, as Machiavelli had done in The Prince*. Hobbes's ruling body, or monarch, his "mortal god," who was under the immortal God, was *The Leviathan,* who would rule above the law. Now, according to the Vedic conception, is the king, or head of state, above the law? **Prabhupāda:** No. The king is also under the law. As we understand it from *Bhagavad-gītā,* Śrī Kṛṣṇa imparted His laws to the sun god. Since the sun god followed these laws, he is, compared to a common man, a supremely elevated being. The king is supposed to be the representative of God in the state, and the king's perfection lies in following the laws of Kṛṣṇa. If the king follows the order of Kṛṣṇa, the king's orders are final. In the *Bhagavad-gītā** [4.1-2], Kṛṣṇa says that He originally imparted the laws of Bhagavad-gītā* to the sun god, Vivasvān, who imparted them to Manu, the father of man, who in turn imparted them to Ikṣvāku, and in this way *Bhagavad-gītā* was received via disciplic succession and imparted to the *rājarṣis,* the saintly kings. If the king rules according to *Bhagavad-gītā,* he cannot be subjected to any other law. If the king follows the laws given by God, he is above mundane laws and conventions. **Hayagrīva:** Hobbes compares man to a machine ultimately made by God, but he does not consider this machine to be controlled directly by God but by *The Leviathan,* the king or ruler. **Prabhupāda:** No. God is situated in everyone's heart, and every moment He is witnessing the actions of the soul. He knows what the soul desires, and He sees how the soul is manipulating the machine of the body. This is clearly explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ > hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati > bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni > yantrārūḍhāni māyayā "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine made of the material energy." [*Bg.* 18.61] If a person wants to enjoy this material world as a human being, God gives him the opportunity to become a human being, and if he wants to enjoy it as a dog, God gives him the body of a dog. This is all God's mercy. As long as the individual living entity wants to enjoy this material world, God gives all facility through a particular body. The body itself is material and is supplied by *prakṛti,* material nature. The machine is composed of material ingredients supplied by *prakṛti,* which follows the orders of Kṛṣṇa, and it is given for the enjoyment of the living entity. The living entity, or *jīva,* sits in that machine and travels, just as a person travels in a car. He receives a particular machine in some species on some planet. There are innumerable planets, and over eight million different species. Due to his contact with material nature, the living entity desires so many things, and God is so merciful that He supplies all facilities. At the same time, God is a friend to everyone, and when the *jīva* is prepared to understand ultimate happiness from God, God says, "Give up all your nonsensical plans and surrender unto Me." This is the living entity's perfection, and if he does not come to this perfect stage, he will constantly desire so many things. God will then supply an unlimited number of machines to go here and there, and up and down, within this universe. Either you go up, or you come down. When you come down, you enter the lower species, and when you go up, you enter the higher species. These include the demigods like Lord Indra and Lord Brahmā. There are different types of life, and some endure millions of years, while others endure only a few moments. In any case, every opportunity is given by the Supreme Lord because He is the supreme controller. Man proposes, and God disposes. As long as we continue to propose this and that, we'll never be happy, but when we agree to comply with God's plans, we will attain happiness. **Hayagrīva:** Hobbes would say that since warfare is perpetual, and the struggle for existence goes on and on, the Leviathan is necessary. It is the fear of death that drives men together into a social contract, and it is the Leviathan who places everything under a common power and authority. This Leviathan is like God's representative or lieutenant, who has sovereignty under God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is the perfection of monarchy. Therefore the king is called *nṛpadeva,* or *naradeva,* God in human form. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hobbes, the Leviathan must be sufficiently strong to enforce the social contract, the law. It is he who can punish anyone who does not live up to his end of the bargain. In this way, society and peace will be preserved. **Prabhupāda:** But who is the right man? Since men are always defective, how is this possible? This means that we have to accept a man or an authority who is infallible, who is beyond suspicion. **Śyāmasundara:** Yes, and therefore Hobbes says that such a man must be something like a mortal god. If such a mortal god cannot be found, a government has to be instituted. **Prabhupāda:** Such a man has to be the direct representative of God. He not only has to understand what is written in the scriptures; he has to follow the instructions as well. This is the exalted position of the bona fide spiritual master. > sākṣād dharitvena samasta-śāstrair > uktas tathā bhāvyata eva sadbhiḥ > kintu prabhor yaḥ priya eva tasya > vande guroḥ śrī-caraṇāravindam "The spiritual master is to be honored as much as the Supreme Lord, because he is the most confidential servitor of the Lord. This is acknowledged in all revealed scriptures and followed by all authorities. Therefore I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master, who is a bona fide representative of Śrī Hari [Kṛṣṇa]." [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka,* 7] The spiritual master, or guru, is the direct representative of Kṛṣṇa because he is the most confidential servant of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore his position is as good as Kṛṣṇa's. He renders the most confidential service by trying to bring everyone to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Unless we come to that position, we will never be happy. Hobbes says that we have to find some sort of mortal god, but such a person must be one who actually knows God. We have to understand the qualifications of the bona fide guru from the Vedas*. Then we have to approach the guru submissively. The guru is expert in transcendental Vedic knowledge, and he has fully given himself to Kṛṣṇa. He is no longer disturbed by anything material. He is full in Brahman realization, and he is free from all material contamination. These are some of the preliminary qualifications of a godly man, but since Hobbes did not know these qualifications, he could never find such a man. Even when Kṛṣṇa Himself was present, not everyone could understand that He was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. How will we be able to find the godly man unless we know what is God and what is a godly man? In order to find this out, we have to approach *Bhagavad-gītā;* otherwise our knowledge will remain imperfect. **Śyāmasundara:** In Hobbes's case, a godly man is only necessary insofar as he is required to maintain peace. **Prabhupāda:** But since godly men cannot be found, peace is maintained for a while, and then again there is disturbance. Social contracts can never be absolute because things are always changing. A certain social condition may prevail for a while, but in fifty years it will be totally different. How can we make a social contract that will never change? It is not possible in the material world. In the Vaikuṇṭha-loka, the spiritual sky, the social condition never changes. It is eternal. The inhabitants there are pleased to be with Kṛṣṇa and dance, eat, play, and live with Him. That condition is eternal, *nitya-siddha.* Kṛṣṇa is always there, and He is always tending surabhi cows. He is always playing on His flute, and He is always dancing with His friends, the *gopīs.* Our business should be to enter into that eternal play, and that is the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Hayagrīva:** Hobbes claims that the Leviathan could not only be an individual but also a group of individuals. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, a group of individuals can run the government provided they are devotees. But if this group is composed of rogues and rascals, it cannot represent God. Representatives of God abide by the laws of God. > dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītaṁ > na vai vidur ṛṣayo nāpi devāḥ > na siddha-mukhyā asurā manuṣyāḥ > kutaś ca vidyādhara-cāraṇādayaḥ "Real religious principles are enacted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although fully situated in the mode of goodness, even the great *ṛṣis* who occupy the topmost planets cannot ascertain the real religious principles, nor can the demigods, or the leaders of Siddhaloka, to say nothing of the *asuras,* ordinary human beings, Vidyādharas and Cāraṇas." [*SB.* 6.3.19] Actual religion, or law, consists of what God Himself says. If we manufacture our own laws, without referring to God's program, we will ultimately fail. **Hayagrīva:** In *Leviathan,* Hobbes writes: "Some men have pretended for their disobedience to their sovereign a new covenant, made not with men but with God, and this also is unjust; for there is no covenant with God but by mediation of somebody that represents God's person, which none does but God's lieutenent, who has this sovereignty under God." But might not this argument of divine right be used by a tyrant to discourage his subjects from rebelling? What guidelines are there to assure against this? **Prabhupāda:** Everything depends on the king's accepting the absolute instructions of God. In the Vedic civilization, the king absolutely followed the regulations given by God. The king's activities were confirmed by saintly persons, sages, and then they were carried out. It was not that the king acted whimsically. There was always an advisory board composed of saintly persons, who knew the *Vedas* very well. The sages used to guide the monarch, and therefore the monarch was the absolute governing body. The ministers helped, but the king was educated by God's direct instructions. For instance, Kṛṣṇa gave direct instructions to the sun god [*Bg.* 4.1]. According to Vedic tradition, there are two *kṣatriya* [administrative] families: one coming from the sun god [*sūrya-vaṁśa*], and one coming from the moon god [*candra-vaṁśa*]. Sūrya, the sun god, is the original *kṣatriya,* and from him came Vaivasvata Manu. This is the age of Vaivasvata Manu, and from him came his son Ikṣvāku. Kṛṣṇa's instructions are explicitly given in *Bhagavad-gītā,* and if governments throughout the world take them up, they will attain perfection. Then there will be no disturbances, and there will be peace and happiness. That will make a perfect world. Kṛṣṇa has given instructions in all fields of activity, but people are so foolish due to their demoniac tendencies that they attempt to manufacture their own standards. If the heads of state are degraded either individually or collectively, how can there be good government? **Śyāmasundara:** Hobbes contends that in the natural state, man is like all other animals. Might makes right, and the strongest always prevail. Therefore it is necessary that man form a social contract and volunteer to restrict natural liberties for the sake of self-preservation. **Prabhupāda:** That is not natural liberty but ghostly liberty. There are many haunted people, and in their unnatural condition they are falsely thinking, "I am God." The natural condition is to think, "I am God's servant." Any condition devoid of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is unnatural. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme, and I am His subordinate. My business is to render service unto Him. This is the natural position. **Śyāmasundara:** Yet when men group together in a society to preserve themselves, they make a contract to the effect that they will not kill one another. **Prabhupāda:** Why not a group of asses? What is their utility? Do you mean to say that because a group of asses congregate that some good will come of it? These rogues are always making contracts after a big war. After World War I, they made a contract through the League of Nations, and that failed. Then they had a Second World War, and they formed the United Nations and made more contracts. Eventually that will all be dissolved again. These contracts and compromises may serve some purposes for the time being, but ultimately they are useless. **Śyāmasundara:** Men in society volunteer, "I will not kill you or steal your property if you will not kill me or steal my property." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is the thieves' contract. But, after all, if you remain a thief, what is the improvement? Thieves may steal some valuable things, and afterwards they congregate and say, "Let's divide the property honestly." Thieves are all dishonest, although they talk of honesty among themselves. Originally, everyone immigrated to America, and the whole land was stolen from the Indians. Now the thieves have formed a government and will not allow outsiders in without visas and passports and so many things. This is the kind of morality that is going on. **Śyāmasundara:** Hobbes's social contract was something like the converse of the Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." **Prabhupāda:** That was also Buddha's theory. Lord Buddha pointed out that if someone hurts us, we feel pain. Why, therefore, should we hurt others? Of course, third and fourth-class men have to be taught in this way. But in *Bhagavad-gītā,* Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna, "Kill them!" Does this mean that Kṛṣṇa's position is reduced? It is a question of the intelligence of the men involved. **Śyāmasundara:** Well, Hobbes is trying to determine how society can live peacefully. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, people have tried many times but have always failed. There cannot be any peace in this material world. Kṛṣṇa says plainly: > ābrahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥ > punar āvartino 'rjuna > mām upetya tu kaunteya > punar janma na vidyate **"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again." [*Bg.* 8.16] Since this is a place of misery, how can we establish peace here? We cannot. The material universe is structured in such a way that peace is not possible. As Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says:** *saṁsāra-dāvānala-līḍha-loka* [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka,* 1]. This material world is exactly like a blazing forest fire. No one wants fire in a forest, but it takes place naturally. No one wants to fight, but fighting takes place. How can you check it simply by making a contract? We are thinking that the material world is a nice place to live, but this is like a man thinking that stool is nice because it has been dried in the sun. If the stool is soft, it is not so good. But in either case, it is stool. Padaṁ padaṁ yad vipadāṁ na *teṣām* [*SB.* 10.14.58]. In this world, there is danger at every step. Throughout history, people have tried to make contracts for peace, but it is not possible. One may refuse to submit to Kṛṣṇa, but nature will not allow this. If we do not submit to Kṛṣṇa, nature will punish us so that we will finally be obliged to submit to Him. That is nature's law. If We voluntarily submit to Kṛṣṇa, that is for our benefit, but if we do not, nature's laws are so stringent that they will always give us trouble, and at the end we will be obliged to agree: *v***āsudevah sarvaṁ iti**. "Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa, is everything." [*Bg.* 7.19] If, after many births of struggle, we have to come to this point, why waste our time? Why not surrender to Kṛṣṇa immediately? Otherwise, we will go on suffering according to nature's law. **Śyāmasundara:** Hobbes is called a utilitarian because he accepts a thing only if it's pragmatic or useful. **Prabhupāda:** That is relative. A child is satisfied if you give him five rupees, but if you give his father five rupees, the man will think, "What is the use of this?" So the utility of five rupees is relative. Hobbes's conception of utility is not the same as Kṛṣṇa's conception. Arjuna was thinking that he was speaking like a very learned man, but immediately Kṛṣṇa told him that he was not [*Bg.* 2.11]. All this is relative. The hog thinks that he is in a comfortable position and is eating very nicely, but he is eating stool and living in garbage. Crows believe one thing, and swans believe another. An imperfect man like Hobbes may believe one thing to be pragmatic, but one who is perfect may consider something totally different to be pragmatic. **Śyāmasundara:** Hobbes accepted religion only as a practical instrument. He says that it doesn't have any real value as a science but that it may be used by the state to pacify the people or to keep them confused. **Prabhupāda:** This means that he does not know what religion is. Of course, some people have made religion into a certain type of faith, but actually religion means one's inherent characteristic. Religion is to the living entity what sweetness is to sugar. It is an inherent characteristic that cannot be separated. Every living entity is rendering service to someone. Everyone is subordinate to someone else, or to his senses. It is the characteristic of the living entity to be subordinate and to render service. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says, "Surrender unto Me." [*Bg.* 18.66] That is our first business, but we are too busy trying to become Kṛṣṇa. Therefore we say, "I am God," or, "You are God," or, "We are all God." The living entity is not the Supreme God, but he is playing that way. When a man is haunted by ghosts, he says many nonsensical things. Similarly, when the living entity is under the clutches of the material energy, he speaks in such a way. **Śyāmasundara:** What about this idea of utility? What do you think of something being accepted only as long as it is useful? **Prabhupāda:** It is our foolishness that we accept something temporarily useful. Our real desire is to have eternal life. We want something that is eternally useful, but in the material world we are always being frustrated. We want to live here permanently, but nature will not allow this. Even if there is no disturbance in the form of war, we will still not be allowed to remain. **Śyāmasundara:** A utilitarian would say that a thing should be used only insofar as it is required for some time. Then something else can be used, and in this way we can adjust things indefinitely. **Prabhupāda:** But another point is that no one wants anything to change. Why? People want permanence because they are seeking their eternal, spiritual nature. **Śyāmasundara:** Hobbes might say that although we may be seeking something eternal, we may employ temporary things just as long as they are useful. **Prabhupāda:** First of all, we must know what our eternal life is; then we can try to use everything favorable to further that end. Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate goal, and whatever is favorable in helping us toward Him should be accepted. That is real utilitarianism. For instance, Arjuna said, "What should I do? Kill or not kill? Kṛṣṇa wants me to kill. All right, I'll kill." This is utilitarianism. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hobbes, the goal is a peaceful society. **Prabhupāda:** That is not possible. The goal should be the advancement of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then peace will follow automatically. **Śyāmasundara:** His utilitarianism means the acceptance of whatever is favorable for the preservation of society. **Prabhupāda:** In any case, society cannot be preserved. So many societies have come and gone. British society. Roman society. Greek society. Only Kṛṣṇa's society is eternal. Knowing this is intelligence. *Nitya-līlā-praviṣṭa.* "Now he has entered the eternal society of Kṛṣṇa." This is what we say when our guru passes away. We are accepting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme and glorifying Him here on earth. This same process will go on there in the spiritual sky, in Kṛṣṇa's abode. However, there it will take place in a perfect way. Here we are just practicing.