# 05 Rationalism ## Rene Descartes [1596-1650] **Hayagrīva:** In *Meditations on First Philosophy,* Descartes writes: "The power of forming a good judgement and of distinguishing the true from the false, which is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men.... God has given to each of us some light with which to distinguish truth from error." Is he speaking of the Supersoul, or another form of intellection? **Prabhupāda:** The Supersoul is one thing, and reasoning is another. Still, reasoning should be there. For instance, through reasoning, we can understand that the body is just a lump of matter composed of skin, bone, muscle, blood, stool, urine, and so forth. Through our reasoning power, we can ask if a combination of these ingredients can bestow life, and we can come to understand that life is different from a lump of matter. **Śyāmasundara:** For Descartes, all truth can be derived from reason, which is superior to and independent of sense experience. Knowledge is deductible from self-evident concepts, or innate, necessary ideas. In other words, he disagrees with those empiricists who believe that truth can be derived only from sense experience. **Prabhupāda:** We cannot understand God through sense experience, but through our reason we can understand that there is God. We can reason, "I have my father, and my father also has a father, who has a father, and so on. Therefore there must be a Supreme Father." God is the supreme and original Father, and by reasoning we can understand that He exists. Similarly, we can also understand by reasoning that God is the creator. We see that everything has a maker, a creator, and we can conclude that this great cosmic manifestation also has a creator. This is reasoning, but rascals speculate that in the beginning there was a big chunk of matter and an explosion, or whatever, that started the universe. But if there were an explosion, there must have been some explosive, and if there were some explosive, there must have been some worker to set it off. Otherwise, how did the chunk of matter explode? Through our reason we can perceive that everything has some creator or cause. **Hayagrīva:** Descartes claims that good sense or reason is by nature equal in all men, but doesn't the reasoning power differ? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, otherwise why is one man intelligent and another ignorant? When, through reasoning, one concludes that the living force within the body is different from the body itself, he is on the human platform. If he considers life to be nothing more than a combination of material ingredients, he remains an animal. That is the verdict of the *Vedas.* > yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke > sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu bhauma ijya-dhīḥ > yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile na karhicij > janeṣv abhijñeṣu sa eva go-kharaḥ "A human being who identifies this body made of three elements with his self, who considers the by-products of the body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of birth worshipable, and who goes to the place of pilgrimage simply to take a bath rather than meet men of transcendental knowledge there, is to be considered like an ass or a cow." [*SB.* 10.84.13] If one thinks that he is the body, he is no better than an animal. So through reasoning, we can conclude that the soul is not this and not that. This is the *neti-neti* process. We then have to continue our search and ask, "What is soul? What is Brahman?" We can then conclude that Brahman is the origin of matter and that matter is developed by the soul. That is the Vedic conclusion in the *Vedānta-sūtra.* The act of sex, for instance, cannot bring about pregnancy unless a soul is present. People may have sex many times, and no pregnancy may result. You may sow a seed, and a tree may develop, but if you fry that seed before sowing it, it will not fructify because it is unsuitable for the soul to remain. The conclusion is that the soul is the basis of matter. Although the soul cannot be perceived materially, it is certainly there. Yet its presence can be understood by its symptoms, which are consciousness and bodily development. Just as the individual soul is the living force that gives life to the body, God is the supreme living force that gives life to the entire cosmic manifestation. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes's method involved searching within one's self for a basis of truth. That basis he found to be self-consciousness. He concluded that first of all, I exist, and then reasoned that God exists necessarily. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. I exist, my father exists, my grandfather exists, and so on; therefore God exists. In Sanskrit, we use the word *ahaṅkāra,* "I am." At the present moment, we exist, but our conception of existence is incorrect. We are thinking, "I exist through my body." We do not understand how it is we exist. By reasoning and understanding, we have to come to know that we are spirit soul and not the body. It is the spirit soul that exists. By reasoning, we can understand that we existed as a child, as a young man, and as an old man, and that after the body is finished, we will continue to exist. I still exist, and I have passed through many bodies, and by reasoning I can conclude that even after this body is destroyed, I will continue to exist. It is stated in 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] Even when the body is annihilated, the spirit soul continues. We can arrive at this conclusion through experience, and our experience can be confirmed by the *śāstras.* This can also be concluded by reason. If this is supported in so many ways, it is a fact. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes claims that truth must be self-evident and innate, like the intuitive knowledge "I exist." **Prabhupāda:** This is innate knowledge: I exist now, I existed in the past, and I shall continue to exist in the future. This is also confirmed by *Bhagavad-gītā:* > na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ > na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ > na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ > sarve vayam ataḥ param "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." [*Bg.* 2.12] This is confirmed by Kṛṣṇa, and my reasoning also agrees. The body changes during one lifetime. As I exist in a body that is different now from my childhood body, in the future I will continue to exist in a different body. **Śyāmasundara:** For Descartes, whatever is clear and distinct— such as the mind's consciousness of itself—must be true. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, this is true. I think in this way, and this is corroborated by authoritative scriptures and confirmed by the *ācāryas.* It is not that we think in a whimsical way. Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and all the *ācāryas* agree; therefore there is no doubt. **Hayagrīva:** In *Meditations on First Philosophy,* Descartes further writes: "I fall into error because the power which God has given me of distinguishing the true from the false is not in me an infinite power." If we can never be certain that we can distinguish truth from error, where does certainty lie? **Prabhupāda:** Certainty is in Kṛṣṇa because He is absolute. He is infinite, and we are finite. The soul is finite Brahman, and the infinite Brahman is God. All religions accept the fact that God is the Supreme Father and that all living entities are His sons. Our existence is based on the mercy of the Supreme Father, and we can reach this conclusion by reasoning. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes claims that the elementary truths of consciousness are innate in man's personality and that they provide man with immediate and rational proof. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact. Because I am part and parcel of the Supreme Perfection, I am minutely perfect. A particle of gold may be minute, but it is gold nonetheless. Because I am part and parcel of the Supreme Perfection, I am perfect in minute quantity. Of course, I cannot become as great; that is the difference. We are qualitatively one with God and quantitatively different. All of the qualities found in God are also found in us in minute quantity. Due to association with māyā, we have become imperfect. The whole process is to return to the perfectional point through Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and that is called *mukti,* liberation. When we are situated in our original form, we attain perfection. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes says that the alleged truths which appear to our senses are unreliable and that only innate ideas are clear and unmuddled by the senses because they are derived from our own nature. **Prabhupāda:** Is it that the truth has to be established by oneself and not by others? **Śyāmasundara:** He first searched within himself to find some innate basis for truth. First of all, he discovered that "I am." **Prabhupāda:** Ages ago, there were many people who could understand this. A fool thinks that all others are fools. A deaf man will talk very softly because he thinks that the sound he is making is sufficient. He has no other experience. Everyone thinks that all others are like himself. It is not that Descartes was the first man to realize the identification of the self, "I am." This awareness has been existing a very long time. Kṛṣṇa says: > aham evāsam evāgre > nānyad yat sad-asat param > paścād ahaṁ yad etac ca > yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham "Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead." [*SB.* 2.9.33] This is Kṛṣṇa talking about the creation, but we can also say the same. We existed before these bodies were created, and we will continue to exist when these bodies are annihilated. However, our business involves these little bodies, and Kṛṣṇa's business involves the whole universe. That is the difference. So this conception of "I" is present in God as well as in the living entity. What is so new about all this? **Hayagrīva:** Descartes considers God a substance that is infinite, immutable, independent, all-knowing, and all-powerful. He is the creator of all things. Descartes writes: "Perhaps all those perfections which I am attributing to God are in some fashion potentially in me, although they do not show themselves, or issue an action." **Prabhupāda:** I have often explained that the qualities that are infinitely present in God are finitely present in the living entities. For instance, the creative force is also within us, and we can create an airplane that can fly. However, we cannot create another planet that can float in space. Although we may be able to create so many wonderful devices, we are still finite. The creative power is present both in God and in the living entities because the living entities are part and parcel of God. God's knowledge is total, and our knowledge lies only within our limited sphere. God knows everything, and we know some things. The difference was pointed out by Kṛṣṇa in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > vedāhaṁ samatītāni > vartamānāni cārjuna > bhaviṣyāṇi ca bhūtāni > māṁ tu veda na kaścana "O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows." [*Bg.* 7.26] **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes worked with a four-part methodology which is now called Cartesian methodology. First of all, one is never to accept anything as true which is not known truly and distinctly to be true. **Prabhupāda:** Of course it is commendable not to accept anything blindly, but if you do not have the intelligence to understand, you have to consult one who is intelligent. **Śyāmasundara:** He felt that the truth must be as clear and distinct as mathematical proof. **Prabhupāda:** That is good provided one is a mathematician, but if one is a plowman, what can he understand about mathematics? **Śyāmasundara:** According to Descartes, it was up to those who could understand mathematics to chalk out the truth and pass it on to those less intelligent. **Prabhupāda:** In other words, higher truth cannot be understood by everyone. We have to accept the truth from authorities. Therefore we take the *Vedas* as truth. *Śruti-pram**ānam.* When the Vedas* give evidence, we accept it whether we understand it or not. **Śyāmasundara:** The second part of his methodology involved dividing the complex into simpler and simpler parts in order to arrive at a solution. In this way, the whole will be proved. **Prabhupāda:** But one must be expert in analysis. If I give you a typewriter to fix, and you know nothing about the machine, you will open it up, see all the parts, and not know how to adjust it. It is easy to open the machine up, but it is very difficult to adjust it. **Śyāmasundara:** The third part involved arranging ideas from the simplest to the more complex according to the sequence of events. **Prabhupāda:** First of all, we must understand that we are spirit soul. That is the first step in our process. We must first understand ourselves and how we are existing despite these changes of bodies. We have to study ourselves as masters of our bodies. Then we can conclude that for the universal body there is another source. That is the Supersoul, or God. Just as my body is existing due to my presence, the gigantic *virāṭ* body exists due to the presence of the Supersoul. Everything in the universe is constantly looking fresh and new; therefore there must be a large soul maintaining it. This is confirmed by the Vedas: aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.35]. God is all-pervasive as Brahman, and He is also within the smallest atom. By His plenary expansion, God pervades the entire universe. According to the Vedas,* there are different manifestations of God: Mahā-Viṣṇu, Kāraṇodakaśāyī-viṣṇu, Garbhodakaśāyī-viṣṇu, and Kṣīrodakaśāyī-viṣṇu. What is the difficulty in understanding this? In large lamps and small lamps there is the same electricity. The Māyāvādī philosophers consider only the similitude; they do not take the varieties into account. God is all-pervasive, but there is variety. **Śyāmasundara:** How is it that we create the body by our presence? **Prabhupāda:** You create your body by your work. A dog has created his body according to his desire, and a tiger creates his body according to his. In any case, the soul is the same. The learned man, the *paṇḍita,* does not see the external varieties, but the soul within. According to their desires and activities, souls are acquiring different bodies; therefore there are 8,400,000 different types of bodies. Kṛṣṇa claims all of these as His sons. Ahaṁ *bīja-pradaḥ* *pitā.* "I am the seed-giving father." [*Bg.* 14.4] Kṛṣṇa, the Father of all, gives the seed, but the son creates his own situation. Some of His sons are very rich, some very poor, some are great scientists and philosophers, and some are simply rascals. When a child is born, the father does not say, "You become a rascal," or, "You become a scientist," or whatever. The father sees them all as his sons. **Śyāmasundara:** The fourth part of Cartesian methodology involves taking into account the most detailed points and making sure that nothing is omitted. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is knowledge. For instance, we are considering the details when we consider the difference between the Supreme Lord and ourselves. **Śyāmasundara:** And we can place everything in the scheme of Kṛṣṇa's creation? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Kṛṣṇa says *ahaṁ *sarvasya* *prabhavaḥ.* "I am the origin of all." [*Bg.* 10.8] Kṛṣṇa says that He is the *bīja,* the seed or soul, the spiritual spark of all living entities. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes also suggested rules of conduct which everyone should follow. He felt that we should obey the laws and customs of our nation, religious faith, and family tradition, and should avoid extreme behavior. **Prabhupāda:** That is a good proposal. Actually, family tradition is respected in Vedic civilization. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Arjuna argues: > kula-kṣaye praṇaśyanti > kula-dharmāḥ sanātanāḥ > dharme naṣṭe kulaṁ kṛtsnam > adharmo 'bhibhavaty uta "With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligious practice." [*Bg.* 1.39] This means that Arjuna was respecting family tradition, but Kṛṣṇa pointed out that this consideration was material. It really has no spiritual value. Therefore Kṛṣṇa chastised Arjuna, telling him that he was situated on the material platform. Arjuna was lamenting over things for which a learned man does not lament. So, perhaps Descartes made these propositions for ordinary men, but they are not for those who are highly elevated or spiritually advanced. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes considered these practical rules for daily conduct. He also believed that we should stand by the convictions we have formed and be resolute in the course of action we have chosen. **Prabhupāda:** This could also be a dog's obstinacy. However, if our final conclusion is true, then this obstinacy is nice. But if we have not reached the final goal, the Absolute Truth, such obstinacy is an impediment to advancement. This should not be generally applied because in the neophyte stage, we must be flexible. In the advanced stage, when we are firmly situated in the truth, it is, of course, good to stand by our convictions. That is determination. For instance, we have understood that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. No one can change us in this conviction. In the Christian system, they say that only Jesus Christ can help one go back to Godhead. That was meant for those whom Jesus Christ instructed because Jesus Christ saw that if the people left him, they would go to ruination. He saw that these inferior people had to stick to him in order to progress. Lord Buddha rejected the *Vedas,* but this does not mean that Vedic authority is diminished. The men to whom he spoke were not able to understand the authority of the Vedas*, and they were misusing the Vedic rituals. This is all relative truth, but Absolute Truth is different. Relative truth is within Absolute Truth, but Absolute Truth is independent of relative truth. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Descartes, we should adapt ourselves and our ambitions to our environment and fortune, instead of defying them. In other words, we should be satisfied with what we have and utilize it to the best of our ability. **Prabhupāda:** That is nice. In Vedic civilization, for instance, there is no great endeavor for economic development. In India, you will still find villagers satisfied with whatever they have. There are even street sweepers who are great devotees. After they work, they bathe, put on *tilaka,* and sit down to chant and worship the Deity. Why should we be unnecessarily ambitious? Better to be satisfied. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes also believed that we should carefully choose the life work which is best for our personal selves. **Prabhupāda:** Well, if you are given that freedom, a drunkard will say that the best thing is to drink and sleep. Everyone has his own program, which he thinks is the best. So who will judge what is best? According to Vivekananda's philosophy, whatever philosophy you select is all right. That is nonsense. **Hayagrīva:** In the same *Meditations on First Philosophy,* Descartes writes: "It is not in truth an imperfection in God that He has given me the freedom of assenting or not assenting to things of which He has not placed a clear and distinct knowledge in my understanding. On the other hand, it is an imperfection in me that I do not use this freedom righ...." But then, why doesn't God give us the understanding by which we can choose properly in all cases? Why can't we have free will and at the same time infallible judgement? **Prabhupāda:** Free will means that you can act wrongly. Unless there is a chance of your acting properly or improperly, there is no question of free will. If I only act in one way, I have no freedom. We have freedom because we can sometimes act improperly. **Hayagrīva:** In other words, freedom means that a man may know better, yet still act wrongly? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is free will: the freedom to misuse free will. A thief may know that stealing is bad, yet he steals. That is his free will in action. He cannot check his greed, despite his knowing that he is acting improperly and that he will be punished. He knows all the repercussions that result from stealing, yet he steals and misuses his free will. So unless there is a possibility of misusing our free will, there is no question of freedom. **Hayagrīva:** In the *Meditations,* Descartes maintains that when one does not know God, he really has no perfect knowledge of anything, and when he knows God, he knows everything else. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and knowledge of God means following the instructions of God. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa imparts the most confidential knowledge to Arjuna, but it is ultimately up to Arjuna to accept it or reject it. At the conclusion of Bhagavad-gītā,* Kṛṣṇa tells him: > iti te jñānam ākhyātaṁ > guhyād guhyataraṁ mayā > vimṛśyaitad aśeṣeṇa > yathecchasi tathā kuru "Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do." [*Bg.* 18.63] This is free will. It depends on the individual whether to act according to the instructions of God or according to his own whims and sensual inclinations. **Hayagrīva:** Descartes further writes: "I see that the certainty in truth of all knowledge depends on knowledge of the true God, and that before I knew Him I could have no perfect knowledge of any other thing. And now that I know Him, I have the means of acquiring a perfect knowledge of innumerable things...." Descartes goes on to conclude that since God is all good, He would not deceive him in matters pertaining to the Godhead. **Prabhupāda:** If he follows God's instructions and has real knowledge of God, he will never be misled, but if he selects a false God, or if he has not met the real God, he is subject to being misled. To save him from this danger, God imparts instructions in *Bhagavad-gītā.* Whoever follows these instructions will be perfect. If we receive knowledge of the soul from God, there is no chance in being mistaken. As soon as we think in our own way, we are subject to error because we are imperfect and finite. Kṛṣṇa precisely says that the soul is within the body, and if we accept this, we can immediately understand that the soul is different from the body. Kṛṣṇa says that the owner of the body is the soul within the body, and immediately the false impression that one is the body, which is a fool's conclusion, should be eradicated. The light is there, but those who do not accept it prefer to live as fools and speculate. **Śyāmasundara:** It was Descartes's contention that the most perfect and highest emotion is intellectual love of God. **Prabhupāda:** That is also confirmed in *Bhagavad-gītā.* Kṛṣṇa says that the *jñānī-bhakta,* the intelligent *bhakta,* is very dear to Him. > teṣāṁ jñānī nitya-yukta > eka-bhaktir viśiṣyate > priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham > ahaṁ sa ca mama priyaḥ "Of these, the one who is in full knowledge and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me. " [*Bg.* 7.17] An unintelligent devotee may accept the principles today, and leave tomorrow. A person who accepts the Kṛṣṇa conscious philosophy intelligently is very rare. We should not accept it by sentiment, but by intelligence. **Śyāmasundara:** For Descartes, real happiness arises from consciousness of perfection. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that consciousness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the awareness that God is the supreme and that I am His eternal servant. This consciousness is happiness, and it is confirmed by *Bhagavad-gītā.* When Dhruva Mahārāja was offered all the riches in the world by Kuvera, the treasurer of the demigods, he said, "Please benedict me so that I may have unflinching faith in the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa." That is proper intelligence. Similarly, when Prahlāda Mahārāja was offered whatever he wanted by Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva, he said, "What should I ask from You? My father was a great materialist, so great that the demigods were afraid of his anger, yet You have finished him in one second. What then is the value of this material power and opulence? Please engage me in the service of Your servants. That is all I want." **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes maintains that a man is virtuous insofar as his reason controls his passion. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, if one can control his passions somehow or other, he is freed from many troubles. > viṣayā vinivartante > nirāhārasya dehinaḥ > rasa-varjaṁ raso 'py asya > paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate "Though the embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, the taste for sense objects remains. But ceasing such such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness." [*Bg.* 2.59] People are suffering due to their passionate activities. Therefore there are many Vedic rules and regulations governing action. If we can subdue our passionate impulses, we can save ourselves a great deal of trouble. Due to passion, one becomes a drunkard, engages in illicit sex, gambles, and acts unreasonably. If one can check his passion by reason, he can save himself from the greatest danger. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes had a great reverence for theology, the science of God, because he felt that it was an open road to heaven for everyone, the intelligent and unintelligent alike. For Descartes, theology is concerned with real truths that transcend human reason. **Prabhupāda:** This means that we have to take the truth from the revealed scriptures. Every revealed scripture gives some hint of an understanding of God. **Śyāmasundara:** First of all, Descartes tried to find some basis for truth. Then he came to the proof of the existence of God. As far as philosophy is concerned, he maintained that it lacks certainty and that its tenets are always subject to dispute. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we agree with that. It is said that a philosopher is not a philosopher unless he differs from other philosophers. If one is to be a great philosopher, he has to defy all his predecessors. Scientists also work in the same way. If we try to find out whose statement is true, we have a great deal of difficulty. Therefore the Vedic *śāstras* enjoin that we follow the personalities who have realized God, and therefore we follow Prahlāda Mahārāja, Dhruva Mahārāja, Vyāsadeva, Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva, Kapila-deva, the twelve *mah**ājanas,* and their followers, the followers of Brahmā's disciplic succession, the Brahma-*sampradāya,* the Rudra-*sampradāya,* the Viṣṇusvāmī-*sampradāya,* the Rāmānuja-*sampradāya,* and so on. If we follow the *ācāryas* in the disciplic succession, our path is clear. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes felt that because science is based on philosophical principles which have no basis in themselves, science is not worthy of our cultivation. He condemns people for using scientific technology to make more money. He said, "I am resolved no longer to seek any science other than knowledge of myself." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but he had no guru. **Śyāmasundara:** No, he didn't accept a guru. He accepted only what he could know through self-realization, the innate truths that he discovered in himself by meditation. First, he came to the understanding that I am, and later he concluded that because I am, God is. **Prabhupāda:** That is a nice conclusion. **Śyāmasundara:** He had an obsession for the need of absolute certainty because he felt that all the conclusions of the philosophers before him were dubious. He believed that every idea must be subjected to doubt until the truth or falsity can be ascertained, just as a mathematical formula can be ascertained. Every idea must be subjected to cross examination. **Prabhupāda:** But when will these doubts be finished? Your standard of understanding self-evident truths may be different from mine. So what is the standard? He must give some standard. **Śyāmasundara:** When Descartes meditated on the first philosophy, he concluded, *cogito ergo *sum,* "I think; therefore I exist." He felt that everything was subject to doubt with the exception of the act of doubting itself. Since doubting is a part of thinking, the act of thinking is an undeniable experience. Therefore he concluded that because I doubt, I think, and because I think, I exist. **Prabhupāda:** That is a good argument. If I do not exist, how can I think? But is he condemning doubt or accepting doubt? What is his position? **Śyāmasundara:** He accepts doubt as the only real fact. Because I can doubt that my hand exists, it may be a hallucination, a dream. I can doubt that everything perceived exists because it may all be a dream, but the fact that I am doubting cannot be doubted. **Prabhupāda:** So what is his conclusion? Should one stop doubting or continue doubting? If I doubt everything, I may come to the truth and then doubt the truth. **Śyāmasundara:** His point is that the truth cannot be doubted, but that to discover the truth, we have to doubt everything. When we come to the truth, the truth will be undoubtable. **Prabhupāda:** But how do you come to the truth if your business is simply doubting? How will you ever stop doubting? **Śyāmasundara:** Well, I cannot doubt that I am, that I exist. That truth is undoubtable. So he proceeds from there to the fact that since I exist, God exists. **Prabhupāda:** Then his point is that by doubting, we come to a point where there is no more doubt. That is good. Doubt in the beginning, then the truth as the conclusion. But in any case, that doubt must be resolved. I doubt because I am imperfect and because my knowledge is imperfect. So another question is how we can obtain perfection. As long as we are imperfect, there will be doubt. **Śyāmasundara:** He says that even though I am imperfect, there exists perfect knowledge, or a self-conscious awareness of perfect ideas within myself. Knowledge of the perfect is innate within me, and I can know it through meditation. **Prabhupāda:** That is also acceptable. **Śyāmasundara:** Because I understand that I think, I can establish existence of my soul beyond all doubt. **Prabhupāda:** Everyone thinks. Everyone is there, and everyone has a soul. There are countless souls, and this has to be accepted. **Śyāmasundara:** What about a blade of grass, for instance? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it has a way of thinking. That has to be accepted. It is not that we have souls and that the grass has no soul, or that animals have no souls. Jagadish Candra Bose has proved by a machine that plants can feel and think. "I think, therefore I am" is a good proposition because everyone thinks and everyone exists. There are 8,400,000 species of living entities, and they are all thinking, and they all have individual souls. **Hayagrīva:** There is a lot of conjecture in Descartes concerning the location of the soul. In his *Meditations,* he writes: "Although the soul is joined to the whole body, there is yet a certain part in which it exercises its functions more particularly than in all the others; and that is usually believed to be the brain, or possibly the heart; the brain, because it is with it that the organs of sense are connected, and the heart because it is apparently in it that we experience the passions." Descartes then goes on to conclude that the soul is situated in a small appendage of the brain called the pineal body. **Prabhupāda:** This speculation means that he has no definite information. Therefore we have to accept God's instructions. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa specifically states: > īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ > hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna." [*Bg.* 18.61] There are two kinds of *īśvaras,* controllers. One is the individual living entity, the *jīva,* and the other is the Supreme Living Being, the Paramātmā, or Supersoul. From the Vedas*, we understand that both are sitting together within this body, which is compared to a tree. Both the Supersoul and the individual soul are living within the heart. **Hayagrīva:** But at the same time, doesn't the soul pervade the whole body? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. That is also explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > yathā prakāśayaty ekaḥ > kṛtsnaṁ lokam imaṁ raviḥ > kṣetraṁ kṣetrī tathā kṛtsnaṁ > prakāśayati bhārata **"O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness." [*Bg.* 13.34] This is the illumination of the soul. It is like the sun, which is situated in one particular location, yet its illumination is spread everywhere. Similarly, although the soul is situated within the heart, his illumination is characterized by what we call consciousness. As soon as the soul leaves the heart, consciousness is immediately absent from the entire body. At one moment, there may be consciousness, and at the next moment there may be no consciousness at all. When there is no consciousness, one may hack the body to pieces, and no pain will be felt. This is because something is missing, and that something is the soul. When the soul is gone, consciousness is absent from the body. Both the individual soul and individual consciousness are immortal. Under the influence of māyā, the illusory energy, our consciousness is absorbed in many material things:** society, nationality, sex life, speculation, and so forth. Kṛṣṇa consciousness means purifying the consciousness so that it will remain fixed only on Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** Descartes writes: "I know that brutes do many things better than we do, but I am not surprised at it; for that also goes to prove that they act by force of nature. If they could think as we do, they would have an immortal soul as well as we. But this is not likely, because there is no reason for believing it of some animals without believing it of all, and there are many of them too imperfect to make it possible to believe it of them, such as oysters, sponges, etc." **Prabhupāda:** First of all, living entities do not act by force of nature, but by force of God. Even in the heart of the brute, God is also present. God is within all, and He gives us instructions so that we can advance. When we attain the platform of human life, we have the alternative to refuse God's instructions. Lower life forms do not have the power to refuse. **Hayagrīva:** You have just said that whatever grows has a soul, including the grass. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, in a dormant stage. For instance, a child has a soul, but it is not yet developed because the body is not yet developed. According to the body and circumstances, the soul acts. **Hayagrīva:** Descartes equated the mind, the higher mental processes, with the soul. He believed in an incorporeal, immortal, human mind, which has been mysteriously injected somewhere into the body. **Prabhupāda:** No, the mind is not the soul but an instrument through which the soul acts. The mind is rejecting and accepting according to the dictations of the soul. Although I walk with my legs, I do not consider myself to be my legs. Although I think with my mind, I am not my mind. Some philosophers identify the mind with the self, and this is a mistake. Intelligence is subtler than the mind, and the mind is subtler than the senses. The gross senses can be seen, but the center of the senses, the mind, cannot be seen. Therefore it is called subtle. The mind is guided by the intelligence, which is even subtler. The background of that intelligence is the soul. The mind is the instrument by which we think, but that instrument is not "I." **Hayagrīva:** For Descartes, animals are mere machines that react. He felt that they have no souls or minds, and hence no consciousness at all, and the basis for this view is ratiocination, language. In other words, because they have no language, they simply act as machines. **Prabhupāda:** They have languages, but you do not understand them. **Hayagrīva:** Scientists claim to be able to communicate verbally with dolphins. **Prabhupāda:** That may be, but Kṛṣṇa was speaking with everyone, even with the birds. When one *gopī* went to the Yamunā to bathe, she was surprised to see that Kṛṣṇa was speaking with the birds. Because Kṛṣṇa is God, He can understand everyone's language. That is a qualification described in the Nectar of Devotion* as *vāvadūka.* When a human being can understand many languages, he is called a linguist. Another name for Kṛṣṇa is *vāvadūka,* which indicates that He can understand everyone's language, even the languages of the birds and bees. That is the potency of God. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes considers five basic ideas to be inherent within every man, ideas which every man knows without having to verify. One is that God is innate to us as our own soul. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, this is because we are part and parcel of God. For instance, in the material world, everyone knows that he has a father. This is common knowledge. **Śyāmasundara:** Secondly, it is impossible for something to originate out of nothing; every effect must have a cause, and therefore there is a cause of everything. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we have discussed this. That ultimate cause is Kṛṣṇa. We do not accept the Māyāvādī philosophy because they philosophize in a negative way to try to make the ultimate truth zero. **Śyāmasundara:** Thirdly, it is impossible for a thing to exist and not exist at the same time. **Prabhupāda:** Who protests this? Who says that something can exist and not exist simultaneously? Who is he trying to refute? **Śyāmasundara:** He is not refuting anyone. He says that this is an innate idea that we know for certain without having to verify. **Prabhupāda:** This body is a temporary manifestation, and this soul is always existing. Eventually, this body will not exist, but the owner of the body is eternal and existing eternally. If something is a temporary manifestation, we can say that it is simultaneously existing and not existing. On the material platform, everything is existing and not existing because it is temporary. For instance, we are existing in this room right now, but at the next moment we may not be existing. The whole cosmic manifestation is like that. As stated in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > nāsato vidyate bhāvo > nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ > ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntas > tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ "Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both." [*Bg.* 2.16] Because the soul is never created, the soul never dies. Everything that is born must die. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes's fourth innate idea is that whatever is done can never be undone. **Prabhupāda:** Karma cannot be undone. However, it can change. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa tells us to abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Him. If we do so, He will relieve us of all the reactions of karma. [*Bg.* 18.66] So in this sense it is not a fact that what is done cannot be undone. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes is thinking in the realm of the physical. After I throw a ball, that ball can never be unthrown. **Prabhupāda:** That is a child's knowledge, not a philosopher's. Direct perception is childish. A child believes so many things by direct perception. I remember that when I first saw a train in Calcutta, I thought that within the engine there must have been horses, otherwise the train could not have run. This kind of thinking is not really philosophy. Of course, it is a part of philosophy because all philosophers are nature's children. Therefore they think in that way. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes's fifth principle is that we cannot be nonexistent as long as we are thinking. **Prabhupāda:** We have already discussed this. Everyone thinks, and therefore everyone is a soul. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes also gives two arguments for the existence of God. First, an innate idea of an infinite being necessitates the existence of that infinite being because a finite being could not possibly create such an idea. In other words, because I can think of the infinite, the infinite must exist. The infinite must have put that thought in my head. **Prabhupāda:** There are many ways of thinking of the infinite. The voidists think of the infinite as zero, void. Descartes may be thinking in one way, but someone else may be thinking in another. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes argues that because we can conceive of perfection, perfection must be there. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but just because I am thinking of something does not mean that it exists. Everyone is thinking in his own way. Who will decide which way of thinking is correct? Who will judge? Therefore we ultimately have to accept the confirmation of authorities. If our thinking is confirmed by the authorities, it is all right; otherwise it cannot be accepted. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes was thinking more in terms of mathematics. If we begin counting, we can conceive of numbers stretching to infinity. So the fact that one can think of infinity necessitates the infinite. **Prabhupāda:** But the voidists are thinking that the infinite is zero. Some mathematicians calculate that infinity means zero. **Śyāmasundara:** Secondly, God is an absolutely perfect being, and perfection necessarily implies existence. Since God's existence is the same as His essence, He must exist. **Prabhupāda:** That is our proposition. We say that Kṛṣṇa is the sum total of all wealth, knowledge, fame, power, beauty, and renunciation. Because these opulences are attractive, and Kṛṣṇa has them in full, Kṛṣṇa is all-attractive. All these attractive qualities must be there in Kṛṣṇa in totality. That is Parāśara Muni's definition of God. **Śyāmasundara:** This is similar to Descartes's contention that perfect beauty and wisdom must exist somewhere because we can conceive of the fact. **Prabhupāda:** *Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ *kṛṣṇaḥ* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.1]. No one is richer, more famous, wiser, more beautiful, or more powerful than Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the sum total of all qualities; therefore He is complete. Because we are part and parcel of the complete, we can think of the complete. Because I am the son of my father, I can think of my father. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is the Father of all living entities, and every living entity has the power to offer his respects to God. Unfortunately, the living entity is artificially educated by society not to obey God, and that is the cause of his suffering. **Śyāmasundara:** When Descartes inspects reality, he concludes that reality consists of substances. He defines substance as "a thing which exists in such a way as to stand in need of nothing beyond itself." He says that there is only one absolutely independent substance—God. All other substances are created by Him. There are also two types of substances—matter and spirit. **Prabhupāda:** This is all described in *Bhagavad-gītā.* The summum *bonum* substance is Kṛṣṇa, and everything emanates from Him. All these emanations can be divided into two categories: inferior and superior. The inferior energy is matter, and the superior energy is spirit. Everything that we see or experience is a combination of the inferior and superior energies. Since these energies emanate from Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is the origin of everything, the cause of all causes. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes states that the chief attribute of this spirit or soul is consciousness. **Prabhupāda:** That is so. **Śyāmasundara:** And the chief attribute of the body is extension. Both the body and mind are finite and depend upon God for their existence, whereas God is completely independent. **Prabhupāda:** *J***īvera 'svarūpa' haya-kṛṣṇera 'nitya-Dāsa'** [*Cc Mad 20.108]. Therefore every living entity is the eternal servant of God, or Kṛṣṇa. Since we all depend upon Kṛṣṇa for our existence, it is our duty to please Him. That is the process of *bhakti.* In the material world, we see that we depend upon our employer for our salary. Therefore we always have to please him. Eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti *kāmān* [*Kaṭha-Upaniṣad* 2.2.13]. God is providing everything for everyone. So why not please Him? Our only duty is to please Him, and that process is perfectly manifested in Vṛndāvana. It is in Vṛndāvana that everyone is trying to please Kṛṣṇa, and because they are trying to please Him, they are happy. Kṛṣṇa in turn is pleasing them. > jaya rādhā-mādhava kuñja-bihārī > gopī-jana-vallabha giri-vara-dhārī > jaśodā-nandana, braja-jana-rañjana, > jāmuna-tīra-vana-cārī "Kṛṣṇa is the lover of Rādhā. He displays many amorous pastimes in the groves of Vṛndāvana. He is the lover of the cowherd maidens of Vraja, the holder of the great hill named Govardhana, the beloved son of mother Yaśodā, the delighter of the inhabitants of Vraja, and He wanders in the forests along the banks of the river Yamunā." [from Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura's *Gītāvalī*] Kṛṣṇa engages in pleasing the *gopījana,* and the *gopījana* is engaged in pleasing Kṛṣṇa. That is the perfect relationship. In a perfect family, the head of the family tries to please all the members by providing them with food, shelter, clothing, and everything else. Therefore he works hard to please them, and their duty is to please him. When the father comes home, the wife and sons try to please him, and that makes the perfect home. Similarly, God is the original creator, and we are all subordinates maintained by Him. Our only duty is to please Him, and if He is pleased, we will all remain pleased. If we pour water on the root of a tree, all the parts of the tree—the leaves and flowers and branches— are nourished. The process of *bhakti-yoga* is the process of pleasing the Lord. This is our only business, and as long as we take to some other business, we are in māyā. We have no other business. The living entity who does not serve Kṛṣṇa is in māyā and is diseased, and the living entity who is constantly engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service is liberated and situated in his constitutional position. If anyone within the creation is not cooperating with God or not satisfying the senses of the Lord, he is not in his normal condition. It is the function of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement to engage everyone in Kṛṣṇa's service and bring everyone to his normal condition. People are suffering because they are in an abnormal condition. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes believed that God's truth is the basis for our knowledge of the truth, and that God is truth. **Prabhupāda:** Since God is truth, everything is emanating from the truth. We are trying to employ everything in the service of the truth. Because God is truth, we do not say that the world is false. The Māyāvādīs claim that the world is false, but we say that it is temporary. For instance, this flower is the creation of God. It therefore cannot be false; it is truth. It should therefore be employed in the service of the truth, and that is our reason for offering it to Kṛṣṇa. Suppose you work very hard to make something beautiful, and then you bring it to me, and I say, "Oh, it is all false." Will you be pleased with me? You will say, "What is this nonsense? I have travelled so far and have made such a beautiful thing, and he says it is false." Similarly, since God has created such a wonderful universe, why should we say that it is false? Our philosophy is that the universe is God's creation and therefore should be employed in God's service. For instance, we are using this tape recorder to record this conversation. It is being used for Kṛṣṇa. We do not say, "Oh, it is false. It is material. We won't use it." That is the position of the Jains, who do not take advantage of these things. We say, rather, that we can use these devices, but not for our personal sense gratification. That is real *vairāgya,* detachment. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes maintains that we can know and understand truth because God is true. This is the basis for our knowledge. God's existence assures us that this external world is not a fiction. **Prabhupāda:** This is what I was explaining. Because God is truth, His creation cannot be untrue. It is untrue when I see everything devoid of God. If I see this table as unrelated to God, it is untruth. However, when I see this table as a product of God's energy, I am seeing it in the proper way. In other words, I am seeing God. One who has no sense of God sees the table as a temporary creation, something produced by nature's law. He sees that it comes from zero, and that it will return to zero, and that ultimately it is zero, false. We do not say this. We do not say that Kṛṣṇa is zero but that this table comes from Kṛṣṇa's energy. Kṛṣṇa's energy is not zero, and the table is not zero. Whatever is within our experience has some relationship with Kṛṣṇa. The vision of that relationship is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Generally, people have no vision of Kṛṣṇa. Their only vision is that of their family, their wife, their children, their this and their that. That is māyā. **Śyāmasundara:** If people see nothing in relation to Kṛṣṇa, how can they justify saying that it is all a dream, that it is unreal? **Prabhupāda:** Because they cannot understand the beginning, they say that it is a temporary manifestation. People may say that this tree has come out of nothing and that when the tree dies, it will again become nothing. However, this tree has not come out of nothing, but from a seed, and Kṛṣṇa says, *ahaṁ *bīja-pradaḥ* *pitā.* "I am the original seed of all existences." [*Bg.* 14.4] In a cinema, an image comes from a small hole, and we see it expanded on the screen. When the projector stops, the pictures on the screen cease to exist. People may say that these pictures come from nothing, but actually they are focused by the projector that projects the film, and behind that film there is an actual performance. Similarly, the material world is a perverted reflection of the spiritual world. That spiritual world is reality, not zero. When we see a photograph, we understand that it is an image of something actual. This material world is like something being played on a screen. Therefore the Māyāvādī philosophers say that it is false. In one sense, it is false, in that the show is not an actual performance. But it is a reflection of the original play under a different process. Because the original play is not within our vision, we are thinking that the projection on the screen has come from zero. However, one who knows things as they are knows that the projection has come from reality, even though it is temporary and not permanently existing. In other words, the reality is the basis of what is being shown. When we see this, there is no question of anything being false. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes sees matter operating like a machine under mechanical laws. The sum total of all motion in the world is always constant; it neither increases nor decreases. However, he claims that the soul is unaffected by mechanical causes and is therefore immortal. **Prabhupāda:** Yet somehow or other he has been put into this mechanical process. **Śyāmasundara:** Yes, and this was Descartes's problem. He could not understand how spirit and matter interact, how the nondimensional, nonextended spirit can have a three dimensional body. **Prabhupāda:** When you are on the land and fall into the water, your struggle begins. This means that on land you are safe, but somehow or other you have fallen into this material struggle. Spirit is spirit, and matter is matter, but now they have come in contact with one another. We have caused this contact because we have misused our independence. A boy may stand firmly beside the water, but if he wants to enjoy the water, he may fall in. If he cannot manage to swim, he is lost. This is our position. The spirit soul has a spiritual body, but he accepts a foreign body. The spirit soul has a body, and his business is to enjoy life, but because he falls within the jurisdiction of matter, he cannot enjoy his labor. As long as he is within water, there is no possibility of happiness. **Śyāmasundara:** Does the spiritual body have dimensions? Does it exist in space? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it has dimensions. It has length, breadth, and everything. Otherwise, how can we say that it is one ten-thousandth of the tip of a hair? In other words, there is measurement, but that measurement is beyond our imagination. The soul is something different. It is inconceivable. If the spirit soul has no body, how can the material body develop? A material body is like a coat molded in the form of the spiritual body. You cannot make a dress without measuring the body. **Śyāmasundara:** Then the spiritual body is very small? **Prabhupāda:** You cannot imagine it. Because the materialists cannot see or measure the spiritual body, they say that it does not exist. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes says that the soul exists, but not that it occupies space. **Prabhupāda:** This means that his conception of space is limited. The material body is a body that has a beginning and an end. Your coat is made at a certain date. The spiritual body is changing dress from one material body to another, just as you change your clothes. **Śyāmasundara:** After the soul has fallen into matter, can it be delivered through proper knowledge? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is the purpose of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Even if a person is an expert swimmer, how long can he swim? He will eventually succumb because he is in a fallen condition. However, if one is elevated just one inch above the water, he is immediately safe. The water may remain in its position, but he is transcendental to it. This transcendental position is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Śyāmasundara:** In other words, the spirit soul can rise above matter, above the water. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, just like a flying fish. This fish may swim within the water, but suddenly he may fly over it. As soon as you become Kṛṣṇa conscious, you can fly over the water of material existence. Then you can gradually come to land. **Śyāmasundara:** If the spirit is unlimited and has unlimited power, how does it fall within matter? **Prabhupāda:** It does not have unlimited power. Its power is so great that in the material sense it is unlimited, but actually it is not unlimited. **Śyāmasundara:** How is it able to be confined by something as limited as a body? **Prabhupāda:** I have already explained this. It is like falling into the water. As spirit soul, we have nothing to do with this material body, but somehow or other we have come in contact with it. There is a cause, but instead of finding out this cause, we should realize that we are in a dangerous position. **Śyāmasundara:** But if the spirit has great power, and the body has limited power, how is it that this limited power is able to hold onto the great power, to capture it and keep it? **Prabhupāda:** The material energy is Kṛṣṇa's energy, and each and every energy of Kṛṣṇa is as great as Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī > mama māyā duratyayā > mām eva ye prapadyante > māyām etāṁ taranti te "This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it." [*Bg.* 7.14] **Śyāmasundara:** In other words, it is sometimes stronger than the spiritual energy? **Prabhupāda:** When you come in contact with the material energy without a specific purpose, it is stronger. Kṛṣṇa's representative comes into the material energy in order to preach. Although he is within the material energy, he is not under its control. But if you come in contact with material energy without serving Kṛṣṇa's purpose, you suffer. For instance, in a jail there are many superintendents and government officials. There are also prisoners. However, their conditions differ. We cannot say that because they are all in jail that they are all suffering in the same way. The superintendent is there because he is serving the government's purpose. Therefore he is not subject to the laws of the jail. When you are in the service of Kṛṣṇa, you are no longer under the laws of māyā. You are liberated. **Śyāmasundara:** So the prisoners who have forgotten their real service have been weakened? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, because they have disobeyed and have forgotten their subordinate position. They want to be independent of the state, and therefore they have been put into jail. **Śyāmasundara:** Then for them, the material energy is stronger. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. It is stronger for them. Those who are conditioned and are serving the material energy cannot escape through their own endeavor. They are dependent on the mercy of Kṛṣṇa and His representatives. ## Blaise Pascal [1623-1666] **Hayagrīva:** Pascal saw man situated in the universe between two extremes: infinity and nothingness. Man has a body like the animals, and an intellect like the angels or demigods. As such, he is neither a demigod nor an animal but somewhere between the two. He is intelligent enough to know that he is in a miserable situation, despite his great desire to be happy. Man engages in all kinds of pastimes and diversions to forget his misery, but nothing ultimately helps. What man once possessed and now has lost is perfect happiness. All men suffer and complain, despite their situation, and Pascal believed that the emptiness felt by man can only be filled by God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, life after life, the living entity strives for happiness, but he only becomes more morose because he does not take shelter of Kṛṣṇa. He manufactures new ways to sport. He dives in the water, and flies in the air, and God is supplying him all facilities. If you want to fly, become a bird. If you want to dive, become a fish. Sometimes, after making many attempts to be happy, the living entity gives up his planmaking and surrenders to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says, "Surrender unto Me, and I will make you happy." God comes personally as Lord Rāmacandra, Lord Kṛṣṇa, and Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu to give instructions how to surrender and attain happiness. **Hayagrīva:** Whereas Descartes emphasized the importance of reason, Pascal believed that the principles that are understood by the heart are absolutely certain and adequate to overcome all skepticism and doubt. Is this because the Supersoul speaks within the heart? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. As Kṛṣṇa says in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > 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] Every living entity is living with God, but out of ignorance he does not know this. As we have stated before, there are two birds situated in the tree of the body. One bird is enjoying the fruits of the tree, while the other bird is witnessing. God gives instructions whereby we can return home, but nondevotees will not accept these instructions. A devotee strictly follows the orders of God, but the demoniac act according to their own whims, even though knowing God's desires. There is no doubt that God is giving instructions. Instructions are given externally through God's agent, the spiritual master, and through the scriptures. Instructions are given internally through the conscience, the Supersoul. **Śyāmasundara:** Pascal was a mystic who believed very deeply in God, but he was also a skeptic in the sense that he believed that we cannot prove the existence of God by our reason or any other way. Therefore he emphasized that we have to believe in God with our heart. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact. You cannot prove the existence of God by your material senses. > 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*] The senses are incompetent to appreciate God, but if you are anxious to know God, you should render Him service. Then He will let you know what He is. The more we engage in God's service, the more He reveals. He cannot be perceived by our senses; therefore His name is *adhokṣaja,* which means that He is beyond our sense perception. We worship the Deity of God in the temple, but the gross materialist with his sense perception can never understand that the Deity is God. He will say that it is simply a stone carving. Therefore we have to believe in God with our heart. Because the atheist does not believe in God with his heart, he sees only a piece of stone. **Śyāmasundara:** Pascal says that the heart has reasons which the mind does not know. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the mind is an instrument; it is not something final. For instance, the brain is instrumental just like this tape recorder. Behind the mind there is the intelligence, and behind the intelligence there is the soul. **Hayagrīva:** Pascal ascribed to the doctrine of original sin, which holds that at one time man fell from grace by committing some sin or other, and this fall from grace accounts for his present position between the angels and the beasts. In other words, original sin accounts for man's encagement in matter. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. This is also our philosophy. **Hayagrīva:** What was this original sin? **Prabhupāda:** Disobedience—refusing to serve Kṛṣṇa. Sometimes a servant thinks, "Why am I serving this master? I myself must become a master." The living entity is eternally part and parcel of God, and his duty is to serve God. When he thinks, "Why should I serve God? I shall enjoy myself instead," he brings about his downfall. Original sin means refusing to serve God and attempting instead to become God. Māyāvādīs, for instance, are still attempting to become God, despite their knowledge and philosophy. If by meditation or some material effort, we can become God, what is the meaning of God? It is not possible to become God. The attempt to become God is the original sin, the beginning of sinful life. **Hayagrīva:** Pascal believed that it is impossible for man to understand the universe or his position in it. We cannot look for certainty or stability in the material world because our reasoning powers are always being deceived. Therefore man must surrender to the dictates of his heart and to God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is our position. We are not depending on the heart, however, because the dictations of the heart are not appreciated by nondevotees. Direct instructions are given in *Bhagavad-gītā* and explained by the spiritual master. If we take the advice of God and His representative, we will not be misled. **Hayagrīva:** Of all things in the world, Pascal considered this to be the strangest: "A man spends many days and nights in rage and despair over the loss of his job or for some imaginary insult to his honor, yet he does not consider with anxiety and emotion that he will lose everything by death. It is a monstrous thing to see in the same heart and at the same time this sensibility to trifles and the strange insensibility to the greatest objects [death]. It is an incomprehensible enchantment, and a supernatural slumber, which indicates as its cause an all-powerful force." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, according to *Bhagavad-gītā,* when one does not believe in God, or when one disobeys God's orders, God comes as death. Then all power, pride, imagination, and plans are broken. After this, one may attain the body of an animal because in his life he acted like an animal. This is the process of transmigration. This is suffering. **Hayagrīva:** Pascal writes: "If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous." **Prabhupāda:** Yes that is a fact. The orders of God constitute religion, and if we carry out these orders, we are religious. Pseudoreligions, religions that cheat, are condemned in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.* Any religious system which has no conception of God and which annually changes its resolutions is not a religion but a farce. **Hayagrīva:** Pascal seems to be saying that we should not accept our faith blindly, but at the same time we should not expect everything to be comprehensible to our understanding. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. A father may tell his child to do something, although the child may not comprehend it. In any case, we understand that the father's plans are complete and good for the son. If the son says, "No, I don't wish to do this," he may fall down. God's orders constitute religion, but there is no question of blind following. We must understand God's nature and realize that He is all perfect. In this way, we can understand that whatever He says is also perfect and that we should therefore accept it. If we apply our finite reasoning and try to change God's instructions according to our whims, we will suffer. **Śyāmasundara:** Pascal claims that by faith we have to make a forced option, or what he calls a religious wager. We either have to cast our lot on the side of God—in which case we have nothing to lose in this life and everything to gain in the next—or we deny God and jeopardize our eternal position. **Prabhupāda:** That is our argument. If there are two people, and neither has experience of God, one may say that there is no God, and the other may say that there is God. So both must be given a chance. The one who says that there is no God dismisses the whole case, but the one who says that there is a God must become cautious. He cannot work irresponsibly. If there is a God, he cannot run risks. Actually, both are taking risks because neither knows for certain that there is a God. However, it is preferable that one believe. **Śyāmasundara:** Pascal says that there is a fifty-fifty chance. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, so take the fifty percent chance in favor. **Śyāmasundara:** Pascal also advocated that. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. We also advise people to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. Since you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, why not chant? **Śyāmasundara:** Pascal's religious wager rests upon the assumption that God will punish the individual who refuses to believe in Him, and reward the one who believes. **Prabhupāda:** Well, God is the Supreme Person who rewards and punishes. Lord Viṣṇu has four hands holding four symbolic objects. Two hands are for punishment, and two for protection. The conch shell and lotus give protection to the devotees, and the club and disc punish the nondevotees. **Hayagrīva:** Pascal writes: "Man is great in that he knows himself to be miserable. A tree does not know itself to be miserable....These miseries prove man's greatness. They are the miseries of a great lord, a deposed king." **Prabhupāda:** Yes. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* points out that we are trying to live long, but a tree lives longer. Does this mean that the tree has attained perfection? Does perfection mean longevity? We may analyze life's conditions in this way in order to understand that perfection means coming to God consciousness and understanding God and our relationship with Him. **Hayagrīva:** For Pascal, knowledge can be attained only by curbing the passions, submitting to God, and accepting God's revelation. He considered himself a Christian. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, without religion, one is an animal. Amongst animals, there is no discussion of God and no sense of religion. Presently, society is becoming degraded because governments are forbidding the discussion of God in schools and colleges. This causes increased suffering. **Hayagrīva:** Although Pascal was considered a great philosopher, he concluded that philosophy in itself only leads to skepticism. Faith is needed. "Hear God" was his favorite motto. **Prabhupāda:** Philosophy means understanding the truth. Sometimes philosophers spend their time speculating about sex and thus become degraded. Sex is present in animals as well as man. Sex is not life itself; it is only a symptom of life. If we emphasize only this symptom, the results are not philosophy. Philosophy means finding out the Absolute Truth. The real subject of philosophy is Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagāvan. ## Benedict Spinoza [1632-1677] **Hayagrīva:** Spinoza asserts that God cannot be a remote cause of the creation. He sees the creation flowing from God just as conclusions flow from principles in mathematics. God is free to create, but He is the immanent cause; the creation is but an extension. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, because He creates through His energy. As stated in *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] The material world is composed of these eight material elements, and because it is made out of God's energy, it is called the creation of God. More directly, however, it is His energies that create the material universe. The ingredients come from Him, and *prakṛti,* nature, creates. God is both the remote and immanent cause of the creation because the elements are God's energies. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza sees God as the universal principle that binds together all the relationships in the material world. **Prabhupāda:** If God is nothing but a principle, He has no personal activity. Is it that Spinoza is an impersonalist? **Śyāmasundara:** He states that God is the sum total of everything. **Prabhupāda:** Certainly God is everything, but why shouldn't we utilize discrimination? By saying that God is a principle like light, we imply that God is like a material thing. According to him, what is man's position in relationship with God? **Śyāmasundara:** He states that the infinite universe is like a machine, yet all things are conditioned to exist in a particular way, and this is necessitated by the divine nature. **Prabhupāda:** Everything may be like a machine, but a machine is devised by a person. So according to him, who is God? Is God the machine, or the person who devises the machine? **Śyāmasundara:** For him, God is the absolute universal principle behind everything. God is a thinking thing. **Prabhupāda:** If He is thinking, He must be the creator of that machine. **Śyāmasundara:** Yes, he says that God is the creator, but we cannot know anything beyond the fact that God is that thinking and extended thing. Because we are aware of mind and matter, God must be thinking, and God must have extension. He claims that man cannot know more than that about God. Extension means that God takes up space. **Prabhupāda:** If God is everything, He must exist in space. That is understood. But it must also be understood that if God is thinking, He is a person. How can He simply be a principle? How can we say that God is nothing but a principle and yet is thinking? The sun is working according to certain principles. It has to be at a certain place at a certain time. There is no question of thinking. If I say that the sun, which is a principle, is thinking, I am contradicting myself. If God is reason, God is a person, not a principle. Has Spinoza not explained what that principle is? **Śyāmasundara:** He says that everything is God, and that God is everything. **Prabhupāda:** That is logical, but what is his conception of God? Is He a person or not? According to the Vedic version, the person is the origin, and the impersonal aspect is secondary. God is a person, and His influence or His supremacy is in everything. > 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] Everything is made of God's energy, and therefore indirectly everything is God. Yet at the same time, everything is not God. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy of *acintya-bhedābheda-tattva*:** everything is simultaneously one with and different from God. Everything is God, but at the same time, we are not worshipping this table. We are worshipping the personal God. Although everything is God, we cannot necessarily conceive of God in everything. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza says that we can appreciate God by intellectually appreciating all of His creation and therefore understanding that God is the perfect principle behind everything. In this way, we can have an intellectual love for Him. **Prabhupāda:** God is a person, otherwise why are we worshipping the Deity? What is the difference between the Deity and this table? God has a personal form, but this table is not that form. Everything is the manifestation of God's energy. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa gives the example of fire, which expands as light and heat. Light and heat are nothing but fire, but at the same time, light and heat are not fire. They are simultaneously one and different. God is everything, but everything is not God. This table is God in the sense that it is part of God, but we cannot worship this table. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says: > mayātatam idaṁ sarvaṁ > jagad avyakta-mūrtinā > mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni > na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." [*Bg.* 9.4] For instance, in the solar system, everything is resting on the sun's energy, but everything is not the sun. The sunshine is different from the sun, yet the sunshine is nothing but the sun. It is simultaneously one and different. This is perfect philosophy. Everything that is manifest is due to God, and when God withdraws His energy, there is no existence. It is insufficient to understand God simply as a principle. Spinoza says that God is a principle, but actually God is the Supreme Person. God expands His energy, and that energy is His principle. **Śyāmasundara:** God is identical with the substance of the world, the stuff the world is made of. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, you cannot separate the energy from the energetic. That is one fact, but at the same time you cannot say that the sunshine is the same as the sun. It is identical and at the same time different. **Śyāmasundara:** In a sense, Spinoza would agree in that he says there is a God who is substance but who also has an infinite number of attributes unknown to man. **Prabhupāda:** That's all right, but the attributes are simultaneously God and not God. There is substance and category. Gold is the substance, and a gold ring is the category. The gold ring is certainly gold, but the original substance gold is different. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza would call God the substance and the things of this world the categories. Because the categories are made of the substance, they are all God. **Prabhupāda:** This clay pot is made of earth, but would you say that it is the whole earth? You may call it earthly, just as you may call the creation godly. That is pantheism. **Hayagrīva:** Spinoza writes: 'The more we understand individual objects, the more we understand God." Is this the proper process? Or is it that the more we understand God, the more we understand individual objects? **Prabhupāda:** Everything is related to God. In the material world, for instance, things are composed of the five gross elements, which are expansions of God's energies. An intelligent person sees everything in relation to God's expansions of energy. A devotee does not look on anything as being separate from God. Since he is a lover of God, he wants to engage everything in God's service because he understands that everything is God's property. The *asuras* have no conception of God, nor do they obey or love Him. The demoniac living entity thinks that the material world is created for his enjoyment. He does not see the material world as an expansion of God's energy. One who uses material products for his personal benefit is called a thief because he does not acknowledge the proprietorship of the creator, God. If we do not consider everything to be *prasāda,* the mercy of God, we become thieves subject to punishment. The conclusion is that the devotee sees every material object related to God and tries to use everything for God's benefit. **Hayagrīva:** The emphasis in Spinoza is on intellectual knowledge of God through self-knowledge. He writes: "He who knows himself and knows his affections clearly and distinctly— and that with the accompaniment of the idea of God—is joyous, for he knows and loves God." Through knowledge of the self, we can come to know something of God. In this way, man can be happy and love God. There is no mention of service, however. **Prabhupāda:** Love means service. When a mother loves her child, she renders him service. > dadāti pratigṛhṇāti > guhyam ākhyāti pṛcchati > bhuṅkte bhojayate caiva > ṣaḍ-vidhaṁ prīti-lakṣaṇam "Offering gifts in charity, accepting charitable gifts, revealing one's mind in confidence, inquiring confidentially, accepting *prasāda,* and offering *prasāda* are the six symptoms of love shared by one devotee and another." [*Śrī Upadeśāmṛta* 4] Love means giving to one's beloved and also accepting some gift from him. Dadāti *pratigṛhṇati.* Love means feeding one's beloved and also taking food from him. It means disclosing one's mind to him, and understanding his mind also. There are six reciprocal relationships in love. Love includes service. **Hayagrīva:** Spinoza's God is basically not personal. His love for God is more intellectual or philosophical than religious. He takes the typical impersonalist stand in his belief in the identity of the individual soul with God. This is not to say that he believed that the individual soul is infinite but that it is not distinct from God. He writes: "Thus that love of the soul is a part of the infinite love with which God loves Himself." He sees the soul's intellectual love of God, and God's love for the individual soul, to be one and the same. **Prabhupāda:** There are five kinds of love: *śānta, dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya,* and *mādhurya.* In the beginning, there is love in awe and adoration [*śānta*], and one thinks, "Oh, God is so great. God is everything." When the soul understands God's unlimited potencies, the soul adores Him, and that adoration is also love. When our love advances, we serve God as a servant serves his master [*dāsya*]. As the service becomes more intimate, friendship is established, and a reciprocal relationship of service is developed. This is the kind of service one friend renders to another. As this develops, the love turns into paternal love [*vātsalya*], and this expands into conjugal love [*mādhurya*]. Thus there are different stages of love of God, and Spinoza only touches the beginning one: adoration and appreciation of God's powerful expansions. That is commendable, but when this love expands, it reaches the platforms of *dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya,* and *mādhurya-rasa.* **Hayagrīva:** It appears that Spinoza believes in the Paramātmā present within all beings but not in the *jīva* accompanying the Paramātmā. Is this not a typical impersonalist position? **Prabhupāda:** This means that he does not know what is love. If God loves the living entity, He must be both well-wisher and friend. Because God expands Himself unlimitedly, He lives in the living entity. This is the conclusion of *Bhagavad-gītā:* > īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ > hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna." [*Bg.* 18.61] The Upaniṣads* also give the example of two birds sitting on a tree. One bird is eating the fruit of that tree, and the other is simply witnessing. The bird that witnesses is God, the Paramātmā. Thus God, the Paramātmā, and the individual soul, the *jīvātmā,* live together on the same tree of the body. This is confirmed throughout the Vedic literature. > sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo > mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca "I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge, and forgetfulness." [*Bg.* 15.15] God reminds the living entity that unless Brahman is present, he cannot remember anything. The Paramātmā is always there with the *jīvātmā.* **Hayagrīva:** Spinoza does not believe that God has a body because "by body we understand a certain quantity possessing length, breadth, and depth, limited by some fixed form; and that to attribute these to God, a being absolutely infinite, is the greatest absurdity." **Prabhupāda:** God has a body, but it is not like this material body, which is limited. Spinoza's view comes from imperfect knowledge of God's spiritual qualities. It is confirmed in Vedic literatures that God has a body: *sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha.* Vigraha* means "body" or "form." God's form is eternal, and He is all-aware. *Sac-cit.* He is also always blissful. The material body is neither eternal nor blissful, nor all-aware, and therefore it is different from God's body, which possesses different qualities and is all spiritual. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the individual material body, Spinoza asserts that each soul coincides with its body. That is, the soul acquires the body that befits it. However, the soul can progress beyond bodies to come to know spiritual truths by turning toward God rather than the material world, or, as Spinoza would put it, God's "extensions." **Prabhupāda:** The extension or expansion is also God, but at the same time, God is not personally present in the extension. The extension or expansion comes from the person. We might compare the expansions to the government and the person to the governor. The government is under the control of the governor, just as the impersonal expansion of God is under the control of the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa. Pantheism says that because everything is God, God Himself has no individual personal existence. To say that everything is God and that God is no more than everything is a material conception. In the material world, if you tear a piece of paper into pieces and throw the pieces away, the original paper is lost. The spiritual conception is different. God may expand Himself unlimitedly through His extensions, but He still remains complete in His own person. **Hayagrīva:** Spinoza believed that as long as man is composed of body and soul, he will be under the mode of passion, and as long as the soul is confined to the body, the living entity will necessarily be attached to the physical world. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we call this māyā, forgetfulness. The real aim of life, however, is to learn how to distinguish the soul from the material body so that when they separate, we may remain in our original, spiritual form. As long as we are attached to the material body, we have to continue to transmigrate from one body to another. If we give up our attachment to the material body, we are liberated from transmigration, and this is called *mukti.* It is possible to remain in our spiritual body by always thinking of God. That is the real meaning of meditation. This is confirmed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad-gītā*: > manmanā bhava mad-bhakto > mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru > mām evaiṣyasi satyaṁ te > pratijāne priyo 'si me "Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend." [*Bg.* 18.65] **Hayagrīva:** Spinoza considered good and evil to relate only to man. They have no basis in God, who is beyond both. **Prabhupāda:** But if everything is in God, as Spinoza thinks, what is man's position? God is there, but what is the position of evil? Evil is there, but he says that there is no evil in God. If this is the case, where does evil come from? According to the *Vedas,* good and evil also emanate from God. It is said that evil is His back, and that good is His front. **Śyāmasundara:** Since the absolute reality is perfect, error and evil do not really exist because they would imply imperfection. According to Spinoza, since everything is God, everything must be perfect. **Prabhupāda:** *Pūrṇāt *pūrṇam* *udacyate* [*Īśopaniṣad,* Invocation]. Everything that is produced from the perfect is also perfect. Because God is perfect, the expansions of God are also perfect. If things are perfect in themselves, as long as we keep them in a perfect state, they are perfect. Because material nature is temporary, in the course of time it will become imperfect. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza says that imperfection or error arises from a partial view of the whole. They are not viewed under the aspect of the eternal. **Prabhupāda:** In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says that when the material energy is wound up, it again enters into Him. In the material world, everything is temporary, and everything will eventually be annihilated. > sarva-bhūtāni kaunteya > prakṛtiṁ yānti māmikām > kalpa-kṣaye punas tāni > kalpādau visṛjāmy aham "O son of Kuntī, at the end of the millennium all material manifestations enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another millennium, by My potency, I create them again." [*Bg.* 9.7] This body will eventually catch some disease, and there will be some so-called imperfection. You cannot consider that disease or imperfection is not in perfect order. This cosmic manifestation is created by Lord Brahmā, maintained by Lord Viṣṇu, and annihilated by Lord Śiva. There is perfect order here, and this annihilation is also perfect. Thus in a larger sense you can also say that when the body grows old, catches some disease, and dies, these events are also in perfect order. From one point of view, we may see birth, old age, disease and death as imperfections, but actually they are in perfect order. In order to fulfill the whole plan, there must be some disease, or some destruction. We cannot call this imperfection. The plan of destruction is there from the beginning, and that plan is perfect. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza says that we err because we cannot see the whole. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the mistake is also in perfect order. For instance, it was the plan of Kṛṣṇa that so many warriors die on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra. That was all in perfect order because it was all planned by God. *Parāsya *śaktir* *vividhaiva *śrūyate* [*Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad* 6.8]. The Vedas* say that the energies of the Lord are multifarious, and just as God is perfect, His energies are also perfect. **Śyāmasundara:** For Spinoza, evil is due to ignorance, an inability to see reality in its entirety, which is all good because it is God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, evil is due to ignorance. That is a fact. In a higher sense, there is no evil. Ignorance may be considered the cause of evil. **Hayagrīva:** In his *Ethics,* Spinoza writes: "Properly speaking, God loves no one and hates no one; for God is not affected with any emotion of joy or sorrow, and consequently, He neither loves nor hates anyone." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and therefore He is called *ātmārāma.* Being complete in Himself, He doesn't require anything from anyone. However,. He states in Bhagavad-gītā*: > patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ > yo me bhaktyā prayacchati > tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam > aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water, I will accept it." [*Bg.* 9.26] It is not for God's benefit that He accepts the offering of His devotee; rather, it is for the devotee's benefit to offer something out of love so that his love for God will develop. If we are decorated, our reflection in the mirror is automatically decorated. If we are God's reflections, we also become decorated if God is decorated. **Hayagrīva:** When Kṛṣṇa destroys demons, does He do so without passion or hatred? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. He kills demons for their benefit. **Hayagrīva:** Spinoza writes: "No sorrow can exist with the accompanying idea of God. No one can hate God." **Prabhupāda:** By nature, God is always full of pleasure. He is *sac-cid-ānanda.* He is the very source of pleasure. When Kṛṣṇa dances with the *gopīs,* He appears very pleasing, and when He kills a demon, He appears very pleasing also. It is not that He is morose when He destroys a demon. He knows that He is not killing the demon, but awarding him salvation. **Hayagrīva:** What about the contention that no one can hate God? What of Kaṁsa and others? **Prabhupāda:** Hatred of God is demoniac. Naturally, the living entity is in love with God, and he certainly should love God, but when he is in māyā, he considers himself separate from God. Instead of loving Him, he begins to consider God a competitor and hindrance to sense gratification. It is then that he thinks of avoiding God, or killing Him. The living entity then thinks, "I will become an absolute sense gratifier." In this way, he becomes demoniac. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza defines the supreme virtue to be understanding God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Therefore *Bhagavad-gītā* says: > bahūnāṁ janmanām ante > jñānavān māṁ prapadyate > vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti > sa mahātmāsudurlabhaḥ "After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare." [*Bg.* 7.19] Unless we come to that point, our knowledge is necessarily imperfect. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza's idea of understanding God is understanding nature. This is because he believes that God reveals Himself in nature. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, just as in order to understand the sun, we have to understand the sunshine. If we study nature, *daiva-śakti,* we can get some idea of God. Those who are just beginning to understand God are nature worshippers. They cannot go directly to God. The study of nature is the first stage of understanding God. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza stresses the importance of the intellect, which allows a man to understand the laws of his own personality and thereby control his emotions. **Prabhupāda:** What does he mean by the emotions? **Śyāmasundara:** Acting emotionally means acting instinctively by one's senses without intelligent consideration. **Prabhupāda:** A madman acts according to his emotions. But what is the source of these emotions? Unless there are emotions in the whole substance, how can emotions exist? There must be emotions in the whole. The substance is the origin, and therefore emotion is a category. Unless emotions are already there in the substance, how can they be manifest? How can you neglect your emotions? If emotions exist in the substance, they have some purpose. Why is he trying to negate his emotions? **Śyāmasundara:** He thinks that emotions will only lead one to error. **Prabhupāda:** Whatever the case, emotions are concomitant factors in the substance. Every madman also has a mind just as a sane man, but the sane man does not commit mistakes because his mind is in order. Similarly, when emotions are not in order, they lead to trouble, but when emotions are in order, they serve a purpose and are proper. Spinoza does not know this? **Śyāmasundara:** He claims that the intelligence can direct the emotions. **Prabhupāda:** Love of God is an emotion. One may cry in the perfectional stage of devotional service. When Caitanya Mahāprabhu threw Himself into the ocean, that was an emotional act, but that was also a perfect act. According to his emotions, Caitanya Mahāprabhu was considering one moment to be like a *yuga,* like forty-three million years. This was because He was feeling separation from Kṛṣṇa. When we feel separation from Govinda, Kṛṣṇa, our emotions are in perfect order. That is the perfection of life. However, when the emotions are misused, that is māyā. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza believes that by nourishing our intelligence, we can will things accordingly. First of all, our will should be subordinate to our intelligence. **Prabhupāda:** It is already subordinate to our intelligence. **Śyāmasundara:** But in a madman, is it not reversed? **Prabhupāda:** A madman actually loses his intelligence. He thinks wildly. This is due to derangement, to a loss of intelligence. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza says that God's intelligence controls His will. **Prabhupāda:** That is a different thing. In God, there is no such distinction. There is no distinction between God's body, soul, mind, and intelligence. In Him, everything is absolute. You cannot say that this is God's intelligence, or that this is God's mind. If you make these distinctions, how can you say that God is absolute? In the relative material world, there are such distinctions. We say that this is the intelligence, this is the mind, this is the soul, and so on, but in the spiritual world, there are no such distinctions. Everything is spirit. **Śyāmasundara:** For Spinoza, nature and God are one, and the moral and the natural are the same. **Prabhupāda:** Sexual desire is a part of nature. Why is it sometimes called immoral? **Śyāmasundara:** It is immoral when it is unnatural. **Prabhupāda:** Then we must distinguish between what is natural and unnatural. Whatever is done in God's service is natural and moral, and whatever is not done in His service is unnatural and immoral. Everything in nature is for the satisfaction of God. God has created this flower, and this flower should therefore be employed in God's service. That is moral. As soon as you take this flower for your own sense enjoyment, that is immoral. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza states that man should act for his own self-preservation because this is a natural law. **Prabhupāda:** All preservation depends on God; therefore self-preservation means surrendering to God. A child can preserve himself by surrendering to his parents' will, but if he acts independently, he may be in trouble. If we do not surrender to God, there is no question of preservation. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says: > sarva-karmāṇy api sadā > kurvāṇo mad-vyapāśrayaḥ > mat-prasādād avāpnoti > śāśvataṁ padam avyayam **"Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My pure devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace." [*Bg.* 18.56] Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna to surrender unto Him. "I will give you all protection." Without Kṛṣṇa, we can not protect ourselves. When Lord Rāmacandra wanted to kill Rāvaṇa, no one could preserve him, not even Lord Śiva or Goddess Durgā. Although there was a huge arrangement for the slaughter of the Pāṇḍavas, no one could kill them because they were protected by Kṛṣṇa. Self-preservation means taking shelter of Kṛṣṇa and depending on Him. *Rākhe kṛṣṇa māreke māre kṛṣṇa r**ākheke.* "If Kṛṣṇa protects one, who can kill him? And if Kṛṣṇa wants to kill one, who can protect him?" Just surrender unto Kṛṣṇa, and you will never be destroyed. That is self-preservation. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna:** *kaunteya pratijānīhi na me bhaktaḥ *praṇaśyati.* "O son of Kuntī, declare it boldly that My devotee never perishes." [*Bg.* 9.31]. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza believes that the more we understand reality, the more we understand God. **Prabhupāda:** This is because God is reality, and forgetfulness of God is illusion. Illusion is also God, but in illusion we forget God; therefore it is not real. Sunshine and darkness are both reality because they exist side by side. Wherever there is light, there is also shadow. How can we say that the shadow is not reality? It is māyā, but because māyā attacks the individual soul, Kṛṣṇa is forgotten. In that sense, illusion or the unreal is also reality. **Śyāmasundara:** But in illusion we forget the reality, the light. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. But this is so-called illusion. It is darkness, the atmosphere in which Kṛṣṇa is forgotten. Māyā is the shadow of darkness, yet even if we come under the shadow of darkness, reality remains. That atmosphere of the unreal is existing side by side with the real. Kṛṣṇa states, "Māyā is Mine." [*Bg.* 9.10] It is created by God; therefore how can it be unreal? Kṛṣṇa is reality, and everything dovetailed to Kṛṣṇa is reality. Therefore māyā, or the unreal, is also Kṛṣṇa. However, when we are in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we are situated in reality. This material world is called the unreal, but if we are Kṛṣṇa conscious, there is nothing unreal. **Śyāmasundara:** Because there is no forgetfulness? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. As long as you are engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa, there is nothing unreal for you. **Śyāmasundara:** Spinoza also believed that man, by subordinating his spirit to natural necessity, finds perfect peace. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that natural necessity means surrender unto Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the Supersoul, and naturally if I surrender unto Him, I will find perfect peace. > tam eva śaraṇaṁ gaccha > sarva-bhāvena bhārata > tat-prasādāt parāṁśāntiṁ > sthānaṁ prāpsyasi śāśvatam "O scion of Bharata, surrender unto Him utterly. By His grace you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode." [*Bg.* 18.62] ## Gottfried von Leibniz [1646-1716] **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz was a German mathematician and philosopher who maintained that in the universe, every act has a purpose, and the purpose of the universe is to realize the goal set forth by God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, actually the goal is to reach God. The ignorant do not know this. Instead, they are hoping for something that can never be realized. This is the version of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:* > na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁhi viṣṇuṁ > durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ > andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās > te 'pīśa-tantryām uru-dāmni baddhāḥ **"Persons who are strongly entrapped by the consciousness of enjoying material life, and who have therefore accepted as their leader or guru a similar blind man attached to external sense objects, cannot understand that the goal of life is to return home, back to Godhead, and to engage in the service of Lord Viṣṇu. As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries." [*SB.* 7.5.31] Throughout history, people have been trying to adjust situations by manipulating the material, external energy, but they do not know that they are bound fast by the laws of material nature. No one can violate the laws of nature. As Caitanya Mahāprabhu explained:** > kṛṣṇa bhuli' sei jīva anādi-bahirmukha > ataeva māyā tāre deya saṁsāra-duḥkha **"Forgetting Kṛṣṇa, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy [māyā] gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence." [*Cc Mad* 20.117] Māyā, the illusory energy, ties the living entity by his neck, just as one ties a dog. The dog thinks, "I am very happy and free. My master is controlling me." In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, it is also stated:** > 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] Prakṛti,* material nature, is controlling the living entity by her different modes, but in ignorance the living entity is thinking, "I am inventing, I am acting, I am progressing." This is called māyā, illusion. No one can progress or improve without Kṛṣṇa consciousness.The living entities have come into this material world because they wanted to imitate Kṛṣṇa. Therefore they have been given a chance to engage in so-called enjoyment. At the same time, Kṛṣṇa is so kind that He has given them the *Vedas,* the right directions. He says, "All right, if you want to enjoy, enjoy in this way so that one day you may come back to Me." If a child insists on acting improperly, the father may be very careful in giving him what he wants, and at the same time directing him. **There are two kinds of activities. One is *pravṛtti,* by which we become very much attached to the material world. By the other type of activity, *nivṛtti,* we become detached. Both activities are mentioned in the *Vedas.* However, there is a plan. Because the living entities have forgotten or disobeyed Kṛṣṇa and are trying to enjoy life by imitating Him, they are placed into this material world. Under the supervision of the superintendent of this material world, Durgā, these living entities can return home, back to Godhead. That is the plan, and there is really no other. Every one of us has to go back home, back to Godhead. If we do so immediately and voluntarily, we save time; otherwise we waste time. We have to come to this point. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā* says:** *bahūnāṁ *janmanām* *ante* [*Bg.* 7.19]. After struggling for many births, the wise man surrenders unto Kṛṣṇa. The final point is surrender, and māyā gives the living entity trouble in many different ways so that he will eventually come to this point. When he becomes frustrated in his attempts at sense gratification, it should be understood that he is receiving special favor. When Kṛṣṇa is anxious to reform the living entity, He bestows His mercy by first of all taking away all his money. This is a special favor. The living entity always wants to delay, but by special favor Kṛṣṇa draws the living entity to Him by force. This is explained in Caitanya-caritāmṛta.* The living entity wants Kṛṣṇa, or God, but at the same time he wants to enjoy the material world. This is inconsistent, because desiring God means rejecting the material world. Sometimes the living entity is caught between these two desires, and when Kṛṣṇa sees this, He places him in a hopeless condition. He takes away all his money, and then the living entity sees that all his so-called relatives and friends turn from him, saying, "Oh, this man is useless. He has no money." In this hopeless condition, the living entity surrenders to Kṛṣṇa. **All beings are trying to be happy in this material world, but it is nature's plan to give them trouble. In other words, every attempt at happiness will be frustrated so that eventually the living entity will turn to Kṛṣṇa. This is the plan:** to bring the living entity back home, back to Godhead. This plan does not apply to just a few living entities. It is not that some will remain here and others will go back to Godhead. No, the whole plan is that everyone must come back to Godhead. Some living entities are very obstinate, just like bad boys. The father says, "Come on," but the boy says, "No, I'll not go." It is then the father's business to drag him. At the end of *Bhagavad-gītā,* Kṛṣṇa says: > sarva-guhyatamaṁ bhūyaḥ > śṛṇu me paramaṁ vacaḥ > iṣṭo 'si me dṛḍham iti > tato vakṣyāmi te hitam "Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit." [*Bg.* 18.64] Then He says, "Surrender unto Me, and I will give you all protection." [*Bg.* 18.66] In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa instructed Arjuna in *karma-yoga, jñāna-yoga,* and other yogas, but His final instruction was to surrender. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz agrees that the mechanics of nature serve to fulfill God's purposes. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that's it. All the laws of nature are working under Kṛṣṇa's direction. > mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ > sūyate sa-carācaram > hetunānena kaunteya > jagad viparivartate "This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again." [*Bg.* 9.10] Material nature is the goddess Durgā. It is she who is the superintendent of the fort. Material nature is like a fort which no one can leave. Durgā is the confidential maidservant of Kṛṣṇa, but she has a very thankless task of punishing the demoniac living entities, who are thinking, "I will worship my mother Durgā," not knowing that her engagement is punishment. She is not an ordinary mother. She gives the demonic living entity whatever he wants. "Give me money. Give me a good wife. Give me reputation. Give me strength." Goddess Durgā says, "All right, take these things, but at the same time you will be frustrated with them." On the one hand, the living entity is given whatever he wants, and on the other there is frustration and punishment. This is nature's law, and nature is functioning under the instructions of Kṛṣṇa. The living entity in the material world has revolted against Kṛṣṇa. He wants to imitate Kṛṣṇa and become the enjoyer; therefore Kṛṣṇa gives him all the resources of material enjoyment, but at the same time He punishes him. The goddess Durgā is so powerful that she can create, maintain, and dissolve, but she is working just like a shadow. A shadow does not move independently. The movement is coming from Kṛṣṇa. A fool thinks that material nature is there for his enjoyment. This is the materialistic view. When he sees a flower, he thinks, "Nature has produced this flower for me. Everything is for me." In the Bible, it is stated that animals are placed under the dominion or protection of men, but men mistakenly think, "They are given to us to kill and eat." If I entrust you to someone, is it proper that he eat you? What kind of intelligence is this? This is all due to a lack of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz believed that truth could be represented by an exact, mathematical science of symbols, which could form a universal language, a linguistic calculus. He believed in a rational world and an empirical world, and that each stood opposed to the other. He felt that each had its own truth, which applied to itself, and that each had to be understood according to its own logic. Thus for Leibniz, there are two kinds of truth. One is the truth of reason, which is a priori. This is innate knowledge which we have prior to and independent of our experience in the material world. The other truth is a posteriori, which is knowledge acquired from experience. This is accidental knowledge in the sense that it is not necessary. **Prabhupāda:** The real truth is that God has a plan, and one has to be taught that plan by one who knows it. This is explained in *Caitanya-caritāmṛta:* > nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya > śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya "Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, the living entity naturally awakens." [*Cc Mad* 22.107] The truth is there, but we have forgotten it. Through the process of chanting and hearing, we can revive the truth, which is that we are eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa. The living entity is good by nature because he is part and parcel of the supreme good, but due to material association, he has become conditioned. Now we have to again draw forth this goodness through the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Śyāmasundara:** As an innate, or a priori truth, Leibniz gives the example of a triangle: three angles of a triangle must always equal two right angles. This is a truth of reason which is necessarily permanent. The other type of truth is gathered by experience and is called accidental, or unnecessary. For example, we see that snow is white, but it is also possible that snow may be red. **Prabhupāda:** It is also experienced that the three angles of a triangle must always equal two right angles. **Śyāmasundara:** But this truth exists independently. **Prabhupāda:** How is that? Not everyone knows how a triangle is formed. Only when you study geometry do you understand. You cannot ask any child or any man who has no knowledge of geometry. **Śyāmasundara:** Whether the man knows it or not, this truth exists. **Prabhupāda:** But truth by definition exists. It is not this truth or that truth. You may know it or not, but truth exists. So why is he using this particular example? **Śyāmasundara:** Because there is also another kind of truth, which may say that snow is white, but that truth is not absolute because snow could conceivably be red. However, a triangle must always have certain innate properties. That is a necessary truth. **Prabhupāda:** Any mathematical calculation is like that. Why use this example? Two plus two equals four. That is always the truth according to mathematical principles. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz was trying to prove that there are certain truths that we cannot deny, that exist independent of our knowledge, and that are fundamental. There are other truths, like snow is white, which may or may not be true because our senses deceive us. **Prabhupāda:** But that is due to our defective senses. It is a fact that snow is white. Now why should it be red? In any case, we have no experience of red snow. Pure snow is white by nature. It may assume another color due to contact with something else, but actually it is white. It is an innate truth that the three angles of a triangle must always equal two right angles, and it is also an innate truth that snow is white, that water is liquid, that stone is hard, and that sugar is sweet. These are fundamental truths that cannot be changed. Similarly, the living entity is the eternal servant of God, and that is his natural position. Water may become hard due to temperature changes, but as soon as the temperature rises, the water again turns into a liquid. Thus the liquidity of water is the truth, the constitutional position of water, because water by definition is a liquid. Similarly, the whiteness of snow is truth, and the servitude of the living entity is truth. In the conditional world, the living entity serves māyā, and that is not truth. We cannot consider that there are two types of truth. Truth is one. What we take to be not truth is māyā. There cannot be two truths. Māyā has no existence, but it appears to be true or factual due to our imperfect senses. A shadow has no existence, but it resembles whatever projects it. In the mirror, you may see your face in exactly the same way that it exists, but that is not truth. The truth is one, and there cannot be two. What is taken for truth at the present moment is called māyā. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz says that innate truths are governed by the principle of contradiction. That is, the opposite of the truth is impossible to conceive. **Prabhupāda:** The opposite is māyā. **Śyāmasundara:** For instance, it is impossible to conceive that the three angles of a triangle cannot equal two right angles. **Prabhupāda:** My point is that there are not two types of truth. When you think that there are, you are mistaken. When you think that two plus two equals five, you are mistaken. Two plus two is always four, and that is the truth. Similarly, snow is always white, and when you think that snow is red, it is the same as thinking that two plus two equals five. It is an untruth. You cannot say that the whiteness of snow is another type of truth. You may make a mistake by thinking snow to be red, but this mistake cannot invalidate the truth that snow is white or that water is liquid. There is one truth, and any other truth is but a shadow. It is not true. Our language must be exact. You can see your face in the mirror as exactly the same, but it is a shadow only; therefore it is not truth. You cannot say that the reflection of your face in the mirror is another type of truth. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz would call this type of truth conditional truth. **Prabhupāda:** That conditional truth is not the truth. For instance, the living entity is trying to become master of the material world. He thinks, "I am monarch of all I survey." That is not the truth. The truth is that he is the eternal servant of God. You cannot say that because he is trying to imitate God that he is God. There cannot be a second God. God is one, and that is the Absolute Truth. Our point is that we do not accept the proposition that truth is two. There are relative truths, but Kṛṣṇa is the Absolute Truth. Kṛṣṇa is the substance, and everything is emanating from Kṛṣṇa by Kṛṣṇa's energy. Water is one of Kṛṣṇa's energies, but that energy is not the Absolute Truth. Water is always a liquid, but that is relative truth. Absolute Truth is one. Leibniz should more precisely say that there is Absolute Truth and relative truth, not that there are two types of truth. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Leibniz's law of continuity, everything in nature goes by steps and not leaps. In other words, there are no gaps in nature. Everything is connected, and there is gradual differentiation. **Prabhupāda:** No, there are two processes: gradual and immediate. Of course, in one sense everything is gradual, but if the gradual process takes place quickly, it appears immediate. For instance, if you want to go to the top of the building, you can go step by step, and that is gradual. But you may also take an elevator, which may take just a second. The process of elevation is the same, but one takes place very quickly, and the other is gradual. Foolish people say that a flower is created by nature, but in fact the flower is growing due to the energy of Kṛṣṇa. His energy is so perfect that He doesn't have to take a brush and canvas and try to paint a flower like an artist. The flower appears and grows automatically. Kṛṣṇa is so powerful that whatever He desires immediately happens. This process is very quick, and it appears to be magical. Still, the process is there. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz sees in nature a combination of forces or activities at work. According to the law of motion, there is an uninterrupted series of regularly progressive changes in a body as it moves. If a ball rolls along the floor, it goes progressively, without gaps or sudden changes. **Prabhupāda:** I explained that. The complete motion is part of the same process. However, the ball has no power to move of itself. If you push it in one way, it will roll slowly, and if you push it in another way, it will roll quickly. All these wonderful processes are happening in material nature due to the will of the Supreme. The process takes place automatically, but it is initially pushed by God, who created this material nature. In the beginning, material nature was unmanifest. Gradually, the three qualities or modes came into being, and by the interaction of the modes, many manifestations arose. First there was space, then sky, then sound, one after another. Kṛṣṇa's push is so perfect that everything comes into being automatically in perfect order. Foolish people think that everything comes about automatically without an initial push, without a background. Therefore they think there is no God. This cosmic manifestation has not come about automatically. Kṛṣṇa is the creator, and He gives nature its original purpose. A potter may make a clay pot on a wheel, but the wheel is not the original cause of the pot. It is the potter who gives force to the wheel. Foolish people think that the wheel moves automatically, but behind the wheel's movement there is the potter who gives it force. There is no question of nature creating independently. Everything results from God, Kṛṣṇa. As soon as you speak of a process, you imply that everything is linked together, that one event follows another. That is nature's way. The first creation is the *mahat-tattva,* the sum total of material energy. Then there is an interaction of the three *guṇas,* qualities, and then there is mind, ego, and intelligence. In this way, creation takes place. This is explained in the Second Canto of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.* The Supreme Lord impregnates matter, *prakṛti,* by glancing at her. In the material world, one has to impregnate by the sexual process, but in the *Vedas* it is stated that Kṛṣṇa impregnated the total material energy simply by His glance. This is due to His omnipotence. When Kṛṣṇa throws His glance toward material nature, material nature is immediately activated, and events begin to happen. So the original cause of the creation is Kṛṣṇa's glance. Materialists cannot understand how Kṛṣṇa can set material nature into motion just by glancing at it, but that is due to their material conception. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz says that space and time are mere appearances and that the ultimate reality is different. **Prabhupāda:** The ultimate reality is Kṛṣṇa, *sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.1], the cause of all causes. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz calls the ultimate entities monads. The word "monad" means "unity," or, "oneness." He says that the stuff out of which even atoms are made are all monads, the ultimate particles. **Prabhupāda:** That small particle is not final. Within that particle there is Kṛṣṇa. *Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.35]. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz says that these monads are individual, conscious, active, and alive, and that they range in quality from the lowest type [matter] through the higher types, such as souls, to the highest, which is God. **Prabhupāda:** Does he state that within the atom there is the soul? **Śyāmasundara:** His theory is that even the atoms are composed of these monads, which possess activity, consciousness, individuality, and other inherent qualities. The monad is the force or activity that constitutes the essence of a substance. **Prabhupāda:** We understand from *Brahma-saṁhitā* that Kṛṣṇa is within the atom. That is Kṛṣṇa who is the substance, the summum *bonum.* He is smaller than the smallest, and is within everything. That is His all-pervasive nature. **Śyāmasundara:** Then how are the individualities accounted for? **Prabhupāda:** Every individual soul is awarded a portion of independence because each is part and parcel of God. Thus he has the quality of independence, but in minute quantity. That is his individuality. We consider the atom to be the smallest particle of matter, but we say that Kṛṣṇa is the force within the atom. Leibniz is suggesting that some force or power exists, but we are directly saying that the force or power is Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** But he says that the force or power in each atom is individual, separate, different. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is so. By His omnipotence, Kṛṣṇa can expand Himself in innumerable forms. *Advaitam *acyutam* *anādim *ananta* *rūpam* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.33]. The word *ananta* means unlimited, and it is clearly said *a***ṇḍāntara**-*stham:* He is within the atom. **Śyāmasundara:** Is he within each atom as an individual entity different from every other entity? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. If Kṛṣṇa is there, He is individual. There are varieties of atoms, and sometimes they are combined together. **Śyāmasundara:** How is each Kṛṣṇa different? How is it He is an individual in each of the atoms? **Prabhupāda:** Why is He not an individual? Kṛṣṇa is always an individual. He is always a person, the Supreme Person, and He can expand Himself innumerably. **Śyāmasundara:** And is Paramātmā a person? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, every expansion is a person. We are all atomic expansions of Kṛṣṇa, and we are all individual persons. Paramātmā is another expansion, but that is a different kind of expansion. **Śyāmasundara:** Is the *jīvātmā,* the individual soul, also a person? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. If he were not a person, then how would you account for the differences? We are all different persons. You may agree with my opinion or not, but in any case you are an individual. Kṛṣṇa is also an individual. *Nityo *nityānāṁ.* There are innumerable individual souls, but He is the supreme individual person. Now Leibniz may say that within the atom there is a monad, or whatever—you could call it by any name you want—but within the atom the force is Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz maintains that the lowest type of monad is found within material atoms, and then they progress to higher monads, which are souls. **Prabhupāda:** Directly we say Kṛṣṇa, and that is automatically spiritual. **Śyāmasundara:** He says that each monad has an inner or mental activity, a spiritual life. **Prabhupāda:** As soon as we say Kṛṣṇa, we include everything. **Śyāmasundara:** So even within material atoms, there is a spiritual life, a spiritual force? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, force means spiritual force. **Śyāmasundara:** He says that all bodies are ultimate quantums of force, and that the essential nature of all bodies is force. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that force is the spiritual soul. Without the spirit soul, the body has no force. It is a dead body. **Śyāmasundara:** But even within the dead body there are forces. There is the force of decomposition. **Prabhupāda:** Kṛṣṇa is within the atom, and the body is a combination of so many atoms; therefore the force for creating other living entities is also there even in the process of decomposition. When the individual soul's force is stopped within a particular body, we call that body a dead body. Still, Kṛṣṇa's force is there because the body is a combination of atoms. **Śyāmasundara:** He says that what is manifested to our senses, what occupies space and exists in time, is only an effect of the basic nature, which is transcendental to the physical nature. Physical nature is just an effect of a higher nature. **Prabhupāda:** Physical nature is a by-product. As I have explained, according to your desire, you receive or create a body. Physical nature is subservient to the soul. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Leibniz, these monads create bodies. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, at the time of death, you think in a certain way, and your next body is created. Therefore you create your next body according to your karma. **Śyāmasundara:** But does the monad of a hydrogen molecule, for instance, create its own body? Does it only accidentally become part of a water molecule? **Prabhupāda:** Nothing is accidental. **Śyāmasundara:** Then does it also desire to become a water molecule? Does the hydrogen desire to combine with oxygen and become water? **Prabhupāda:** No. The ultimate desire is of Kṛṣṇa. If you take it in that way, Kṛṣṇa is within every atom, and therefore Kṛṣṇa wants whatever is to be. Therefore He wills that these two elements become one, and therefore the molecules combine to create water, or whatever. Thus there is a creation, and again there is another creation, and so on. In any case, the ultimate brain governing all creation is Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** But does the hydrogen molecule have an independent desire? **Prabhupāda:** No, because Kṛṣṇa is within the atoms, they combine. It is not that the atoms as matter are individually willing to combine; rather, because Kṛṣṇa is within the atoms, He knows that by certain combinations, certain creations will result. **Śyāmasundara:** But does the individual soul have a little independence to choose? **Prabhupāda:** No. *Bhagavad-gītā* states that when the individual soul wants to act, Kṛṣṇa gives the orders. Man proposes, and God disposes. **Śyāmasundara:** So we have no free will? **Prabhupāda:** Not without the sanction of Kṛṣṇa. Without Him, we cannot do anything. Therefore He is the ultimate cause. **Śyāmasundara:** But I thought you have been saying that we have a little independence. **Prabhupāda:** We have the independence in the sense that we may deny or affirm, but unless Kṛṣṇa sanctions, we cannot do anything. **Śyāmasundara:** If we desire something, we take a body because of that desire. Now, can a hydrogen molecule desire to become a part of water and be given a body accordingly? Does it have the independence to desire something? **Prabhupāda:** As far as we understand from the *Vedas*—*aṇḍāntara-stha *paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.35]—Kṛṣṇa is within the *paramāṇu.* It is not stated that the soul is within the *paramāṇu.* **Śyāmasundara:** Then the individual soul is not present within the atom? **Prabhupāda:** No. But Kṛṣṇa is present. **Śyāmasundara:** Then Leibniz's view does not accord with the *Vedas?* **Prabhupāda:** No. **Śyāmasundara:** Is this because he states that in matter there is also this kind of individuality? **Prabhupāda:** That individuality is in Kṛṣṇa. As I have stated, Kṛṣṇa knows that a certain element will be formed when so many atoms combine. It is not the individual soul enacting this, but Kṛṣṇa Himself directly. **Śyāmasundara:** But when we refer to the living entities, the individual soul is also there? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the individual soul is within the body. Both are present within the body: Kṛṣṇa and the individual soul. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Leibniz, substance is defined as being capable of action. **Prabhupāda:** Substance is original, and extensions are categories. Since substance is the original cause, He is completely able to act. To be means to act. Without activity, what is the meaning of existence? **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz states that the monads change in their appearance because their inner desire compels them to pass from one phenomenal representation to another. **Prabhupāda:** The monad does not change, but the mind changes. At any rate, I do not know what Leibniz means by monads. He is simply complicating matters. **Śyāmasundara:** By definition, the monad is a small unit, a unity, which is the substance behind everything, even the atom. **Prabhupāda:** That is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is fully independent. **Śyāmasundara:** Yet Leibniz says that a monad changes his appearance according to his desires. **Prabhupāda:** That is the case for the individual souls, but Kṛṣṇa is not like that. Kṛṣṇa is *acyuta.* He does not change. It is Kṛṣṇa who creates the entire cosmic energy. By His plan and devices, so many creations are divided into different parts, and they change. Material objects change according to the will of God, Kṛṣṇa. These individual monads are more precisely the Supersoul existing within matter, within the atom. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz would say that each particle of Supersoul, or each monad, is self-contained, that there is no loss or gain of force. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, each is eternal. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the relationship between the soul and body, Leibniz writes: "Insofar as the soul has perfection and distinct thoughts, God has accomodated the body to the soul, and has arranged beforehand that the body is impelled to execute its orders." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* [18.61] that the body is like a machine. Because the soul wants to walk or move in a certain way, he is given this instrument. The soul has particular desires, and God gratifies these desires through His material agent, a particular type of body. Therefore there are birds flying, fish swimming, animals hunting in forests, men in cities, and so on. According to Padma Purāṇa,* there are 8,400,000 different bodies created to gratify the desires of the soul. Thus the machine of the body is supplied by nature under the orders of God. **Hayagrīva:** For Leibniz, in that the soul is perfect, it controls the body. However, "insofar as the soul is imperfect and its perceptions are confused, God has accomodated the soul to the body, in such a sort that the soul is swayed by the passions arising out of corporeal representations." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* that the soul in the material world is influenced by the three modes of material nature. > na tad asti pṛthivyāṁ vā > divi deveṣu vā punaḥ > sattvaṁ prakṛti-jair muktaṁ > yad ebhiḥ syāt tribhir guṇaiḥ "There is no being existing, either here or among the demigods in the higher planetary systems, which is freed from these three modes born of material nature." [*Bg.* 18.40] He receives a particular type of body according to his position in respect to the modes. If his appetite is insatiable and his eating indiscriminate, he receives the body of a pig. If he wants to kill and eat bloody meat, he gets the body of a tiger. If he wants to eat Kṛṣṇa *prasādam,* he is given the body of a *brāhmaṇa.* Thus we receive different types of bodies according to our desires. People attempt to gratify their desires because they think that by doing so they will be happy. Unfortunately, people do not know that they will be happy only by completely abiding by the orders of God. Kṛṣṇa comes personally to request the living entity to abandon his material desires and act according to God's orders. **Hayagrīva:** In *Monadology,* Leibniz writes: "The soul changes its body only gradually and by degrees, so that it is never deprived of all its organs at once. There is often a metamorphosis in animals, but never metempsychosis or transmigration of souls." **Prabhupāda:** What is his understanding of the soul? **Hayagrīva:** He believes that it is not possible for souls to be entirely separate from bodies. For living entities, a body must always accompany the soul. **Prabhupāda:** According to Vedic understanding, the body changes, but the soul remains eternal. Even in one lifetime we can see that our material body is changing from childhood to youth to old age, yet the soul remains the same. When the body dies, the soul takes on another body. This is the first lesson of *Bhagavad-gītā.* If the soul is distinct from the body, it is nonsensical to say that a soul cannot exist without a body. **Hayagrīva:** Leibniz elaborates on this: "There is, strictly speaking, neither absolute birth nor complete death consisting in the separation of the soul from the body. What we call birth is development or growth, and what we call death is envelopment and diminution." **Prabhupāda:** But that is the process of transmigration. Why does he deny it? The diminution is temporary. The living entity is not dead; he goes on to develop another body. **Hayagrīva:** He seems to be saying that as soon as the human soul leaves the body, it must immediately enter another body. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is the case, but that is the process of transmigration. So why does he deny transmigration? **Hayagrīva:** Well, he denies the existence of the soul apart from some form of material body. He writes: "God alone is wholly without body." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is, He has no material body. He does not transmigrate. According to *Bhagavad-gītā, mūḍhās,* fools, consider Kṛṣṇa's body to be like that of a human being. > avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā > mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam > paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto > mama bhūta-maheśvaram "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be." [*Bg.* 9.11] Kṛṣṇa does not change His body as an ordinary living entity does. He is the Supreme Person. Because He does not change His body, He remembers everything in the past. When we receive a body, we do not remember our past lives, but Kṛṣṇa remembers because His body never changes. God is without a body in the sense that He has no material body. **Śyāmasundara:** According to his doctrine of preestablished harmony, Leibniz likens the soul and the body to two perfectly synchronized clocks, both going at the same speed but both separate. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the soul is different from the body, but the body is manifest due to the soul's desire. The body is the instrument of the soul. **Śyāmasundara:** Does the body ever affect the soul? **Prabhupāda:** The soul is unaffected by the body, but the body is helping the soul to fulfill its desires. I am using this microphone to serve my purposes, but this microphone is not influencing me. It is not that this microphone wills that I dictate this or that. The body is a combination of atoms. If Kṛṣṇa is within the atoms, the monads of the atoms and the monad in the body are different. If the monad is a small united particle, Leibniz is speaking of the Supersoul. Although the Supersoul appears innumerable, it is in actuality one. As stated in *Īśopaniṣad:* > qyasmin sarvāṇi bhūtāny > ātmaivābhūd vijānataḥ > tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥśoka > ekatvam anupaśyataḥ **"One who always sees all living entities as spiritual sparks, in quality one with the Lord, becomes a true knower of things, and there is no illusion or anxiety for him." [*Īśopaniṣad* 7] Although we find the Supersoul all-pervasive, there is but one. Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā*:** > samaṁ sarveṣu bhūteṣu > tiṣṭhantaṁ parameśvaram > vinaśyatsv avinaśyantaṁ > yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati "One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies, and who understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul is ever destroyed, actually sees." [*Bg.* 13.28] The devotee always sees all things in Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa in all things. That is the true vision of oneness. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz believes that God creates the principle of preestablished harmony, that He sets the two clocks in motion and synchronizes them. The body is acting, but the soul is independent. It is not really affected by the body. **Prabhupāda:** We also agree to that, but why use the example of clocks? Why not analyze the relationship between the body and the soul? You cannot consider them separately, because they are combined. The fallacy of this analogy is that two individual clocks are not combined at any point. **Śyāmasundara:** The common point is their synchronization. **Prabhupāda:** But eventually one clock will go faster than the other. You cannot consider the body and soul as completely separate entities working independent of one another. It is stated in the Vedic *śāstras* that the soul is the master of the body; therefore you cannot say that the body is working independently. If I tell my body to place this hand here, my hand will move to this spot. It is not that suddenly my hand moves without my desire. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz would say that the act of your desiring and the act of the hand moving are simultaneous but separate. **Prabhupāda:** In Sanskrit, this argument is called *k***ākatālīya**-*nyāya.* Once, when a crow flew into a *t**āl* tree, the fruit on that tree immediately fell to the ground. One observer said that the crow lighted on the tree first, and then the fruit fell, and the other observer said that the fruit fell before the crow could light. This kind of argument has no value. We say that if Kṛṣṇa so desires, a stone can float on the water, despite the law of gravitation. Although the law of gravitation is working here, there are so many huge planets floating in space. All these laws act according to Kṛṣṇa's desire. By the law of gravitation, all these planets would have fallen into the causal ocean and hit the Garbhodakaśāyī-viṣṇu in the head because He is lying on that ocean. But by His order all these planets are floating in space. Similarly, if God so desires, a rock may fall into the water, but the water will not give way. The rock will simply float. Since God is the ultimate monad, this is possible. Whatever God wills will come into effect. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz admits that the monads are spiritual in nature and therefore immortal. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we agree to that. Both Kṛṣṇa and the living entity are spiritual. Ultimately, everything is spiritual because everything is Kṛṣṇa's energy. If Kṛṣṇa is the original cause, matter can be changed into spirit, and spirit into matter. Electricity may be used to heat or to cool, but in either case, the original energy is electricity. Similarly, the original cause is Kṛṣṇa; therefore He has the power to change matter into spirit, or spirit into matter. **Śyāmasundara:** He states that unlike the other monads, God is absolute necessity and eternal truth, and He is governed by the law of contradiction. That is to say, it is impossible to conceive of no God. **Prabhupāda:** The atheists say that there is no God, although God is there. Unless God is there, where is the idea of God coming from? The atheist refuses to accept God. Similarly, the impersonalists refuse to accept a Supreme Personality of Godhead. Unless the idea of personality is there, how can they consider God to be impersonal? All this is due to frustration. **Hayagrīva:** Leibniz pictures a city of God very much like that of Augustine. He writes: "God is the monarch of the most perfect republic composed of all the spirits, and the happiness of this city of God is His principal purpose." **Prabhupāda:** Yes. If everyone becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious and acts according to the instructions of Kṛṣṇa, this hellish world will become the city of God. **Hayagrīva:** Leibniz further writes: "We must not therefore doubt that God so ordained everything that spirits not only shall live forever, because this is unavoidable, but that they shall also preserve forever their moral quality, so that His city may never lose a person." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, this is Vaikuṇṭha consciousness. As stated in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > avyakto 'kṣara ity uktas > tam āhuḥ paramāṁ gatim > yaṁ prāpya na nivartante > tad dhāma paramaṁ mama "That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns—that is My supreme abode." [*Bg.* 8.21] That spiritual sky, or city of God, is well known to Vedic students. **Hayagrīva:** Leibniz did not believe that the city of God is divorced from the natural world. In *Monadology,* he writes: "The assembly of all spirits must compose the city of God, that is, the most perfect state possible and of the most perfect of monarchs [God]. This city of God, this truly universal monarchy, is a moral world within the natural world, and the highest and most divine of the works of God." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and we can realize this city immediately if we come to the proper consciousness that this planet does not belong to any particular nation but to God Himself. If people accept this principle, the entire world will become the city of God. Presently, the United Nations is attempting to settle all the problems of the world, but the leaders themselves have an animalistic mentality. They are thinking, "I am this body, I am American, or Indian, or whatever." People must give up these designations and understand their real identity as part and parcel of God. The entire planet belongs to God. We are His sons, and it is possible for us to live peacefully understanding that our Father is supplying us everything. If there is scarcity, it is due to improper distribution. If everyone abides by the orders of God, and everything produced is divided among the sons of God, there no question of scarcity. Since people are denying the actual fact that everything belongs to God, and since they are hoarding goods, there is scarcity. If people want to remain in animal consciousness, they will continue to suffer. Once they come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they will realize the city of God, even within this material world. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz also states that the world could have been otherwise if God so desired, but that He chose this particular arrangement as the best possible. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, God can do as He likes, but this world was not exactly planned by God. It is given to the living entities who want to imitate God. The plan is shaped according to the desires of the living entities who want to lord it over material nature. This is not God's plan. This material world is like a prison supported by the government because there are criminals. It is God's plan that all the living entities in the material world give up their striving and return home, back to Godhead. **Śyāmasundara:** But from the standpoint of the ingredients of this world, is this the best possible world? **Prabhupāda:** The spiritual world is the best possible world. This planet earth is not a very good planet; there are many other planets even in the material world thousands of times better. The higher you go in the planetary systems, the more comforts and amenities you find. The next planetary system is a thousand times superior to this one, and the planetary system above that is a thousand times superior still. In Brahmā-loka, the highest planet, twelve hours of Brahmā's day are beyond our comprehension. **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz accepts the conditions of this material world as being the best we can hope for, the best of a bad bargain. **Prabhupāda:** But *Bhagavad-gītā* states that this is a place of misery: > 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] This place is meant for suffering. We cannot stay here for very long, even if we agree to stay in such an uncomfortable situation. We have to change our body and go to a higher or lower situation. On the whole, material life is miserable. There is no question of happiness. **Śyāmasundara:** He also states that because there is more good than evil in this world, the creation of this world is justified. **Prabhupāda:** Well, there is good and evil according to our angle of vision. A devotee sees this material world as good. In the material world, people are always complaining and are in a distressed condition, but a devotee sees that there is really no distressed condition. Everything is happiness because he lives with Kṛṣṇa. Because he dovetails everything with Kṛṣṇa, including himself, for him there is no misery. **Śyāmasundara:** He also says that if the world had not been worth creating, God would not have created it. The fact that He created it makes it worth creating. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is stated in the *Vedas:* > oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idea > pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate > pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya > pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate "The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance." [*Īśopaniṣad,* Invocation] The creator is complete, and the creation is also complete. Nothing incomplete can be created by the complete. In that sense, everything that is wanted in this world is here. The arrangement is complete.