# 06 Britsh Empiricism ## John Locke [1632-1704] **Hayagrīva:** In *Essay Concerning Human Understanding,* Locke writes: "This argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such because there are none to which all mankind give a universal consent." That is, it cannot be argued that all people have an innate or inborn idea of God. But do innate ideas have to be universal? Might they not differ from person to person? **Prabhupāda:** Innate ideas depend on the development of our consciousness. Animals have no innate idea of God due to their undeveloped consciousness. In every human society, however, men have some innate idea of a superior power. For instance, even aborigines offer obeisances when they see lightning. The offering of obeisances to something wonderful or powerful is innate in man. The consciousness of offering respects is not developed in animals. When we have developed this innate idea to its fullest extent, we are Kṛṣṇa conscious. **Hayagrīva:** Wouldn't it be better to say that the living entity is born with certain tendencies, which carry over from the previous life, and that all he needs is to meet with some stimulus in order for them to be manifest? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. For instance, when an animal is born, it naturally searches for the nipples of its mother. This means that the animal has had experience in a previous life, and therefore knows how to find food. Although the animal may not be able to see, it knows how to search for its food by virtue of past experience. This proves the eternal continuity of the soul. Presently, I am living in this room, and if I go away for ten years, then return, I can still remember where the bathroom and living room are. This remembrance is due to my having lived here before. In material life, the living entity passes through different species, or forms. **Hayagrīva:** Locke would argue that the idea of Kṛṣṇa is not innate because it is not universally assented to. Since not everyone acknowledges that Kṛṣṇa is God, Locke would say that the idea is not inborn in the mind. **Prabhupāda:** In the material world, different living entities have different ideas. The ideas of a person with developed consciousness are different from those of a person with undeveloped consciousness. If someone is Kṛṣṇa conscious shortly after his birth, we are to understand that he has previously contemplated Kṛṣṇa. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Śrī Kṛṣṇa says: > tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogaṁ > labhate paurva-dehikam > yatate ca tato bhūyaḥ > saṁsiddhau kuru-nandana **"On taking such a birth, he again revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru." [*Bg.* 6.43] Our culture of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is never lost; it grows until it is perfected. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says:** > nehābhikrama-nāśo 'sti > pratyavāyo na vidyate > svalpam apy asya dharmasya > trāyate mahato bhayāt "In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear." [*Bg.* 2.40] We have the example of Ajāmila, who cultivated Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the beginning of his life, and then fell down and became the greatest debauchee. Yet at the end of his life, he again remembered Nārāyaṇa and attained salvation. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke maintains that there are two basic ideas: those which come from sensations, external experience, and those provided by inner reflection. **Prabhupāda:** That is known as *pratyakṣa *pramāṇa.* However, we have to go higher. Pratyakṣa*, *paro'kṣa, anumāna, adhokṣaja,* and *aparājita.* These are different stages of knowledge. *Pratyakṣa* means direct knowledge, paro'kṣa* is knowledge received from others, and *anumāna,* inference, is knowledge acquired after judging direct knowledge and knowledge received from authorities. Adhokṣaja* is knowledge beyond the limits of direct perception. *Aparājita* is spiritual knowledge. All the stages of knowledge advance toward spiritual knowledge. Direct perception is material. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke states that the mind can reflect only after it has acquired some sense experience. In other words, only after acquiring some knowledge of this world through the senses can we have thoughts and ideas. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but my ideas may not always be true. I may have experience of gold and a mountain, and I may dream of a golden mountain, but a golden mountain does not exist in the external world. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke distinguished between simple ideas and complex ideas. There are four types of simple ideas: those we perceive from one sense, such as sound, touch, and so on; those we receive from two or more senses, such as motion or space; those we receive by reflection, such as remembering, reasoning, knowing, and believing; and those we receive from both sensation and reflection, ideas of existence, or unity. **Prabhupāda:** These all arise out of different material conditions. For instance, how do we experience ether? By sound. We can neither see nor touch ether. As the material condition changes, the sense perception also changes. We can sense air and water by touch, fire by form, and fragrance by smell. In the beginning, the living entity has his mind, intelligence, and ego, but presently the mind, intelligence and ego are false, just as this present body is false. The spirit soul has a body, but this body is covered. Similarly, the mind, ego, and intelligence are covered by material conditioning. When they are uncovered, we acquire our pure mind, pure intelligence, and pure identity. Devotional service means bringing the soul to his original, pure condition. In Kṛṣṇa consciousness, everything is pure: pure mind, pure intelligence, and pure ego. *Tat-paratvena *nirmalam* [Nārada Pañcarātra]. Everything is purified when it is connected with the supreme spirit. When we are purified, we have nothing to do with the material mind, body, intelligence, or ego. We are purely spiritual. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke is trying to find a basis for knowledge beginning with sense perception. He states that the mind receives knowledge from the senses and is able to reflect on this. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we agree that the mind receives knowledge through the senses. Then there is thinking, feeling, and willing. There is also judgment and work. We receive many impressions and then plan something. We think and feel, and then we put the plan into action. That action is the process of work. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke states that these simple ideas combine to form complex or abstract ideas like the conception of God. This is an enlargement upon the simple ideas of existence, knowledge, time, power, and so on. We combine these to make a complex idea like the idea of God. **Prabhupāda:** God is not a complex idea but a perfect idea. However, God is so great that He is naturally complex to the ordinary man. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke states that there are three types of complex ideas: that which depends upon substances like roundness, hardness, and so on; that which is a relation between one idea and another, agreeing or disagreeing with another; and that which is a substance or body subsisting by itself and providing the basis for experience. Because we can know only the quality of a substance, we cannot know what the substance itself is, nor where it comes from, nor how it is produced. The nature of ultimate reality cannot be known or proved. **Prabhupāda:** It is a fact that it cannot be known by such mental speculation, but it can be known from a person who knows it. Locke may not know, but someone else may know. Everyone thinks that others are like himself. Because he does not know, he thinks that others do not know. But that is not a fact. There may be someone who knows. > tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet > samit-pāṇiḥśrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham "In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth." [*Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad* 1.2.12] The Vedas* tell us to seek out the person who knows. That is the bona fide guru. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that such a guru is one who knows that the ultimate reality is Kṛṣṇa. That is the most important qualification. > kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya > yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei guru haya "Whether one is a *brāhmaṇa,* a *sannyāsī,* or a *śūdrā*—regardless of what he is—he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa." [*Cc Mad* 8.128] **Śyāmasundara:** Locke claims that objective reality has primary qualities that are inseparable from the object itself, just as the color red is inseparable from a red object. **Prabhupāda:** We say that which cannot be separated is called dharma. Dharma is the particular characteristic of a particular thing. For every living entity, dharma means rendering service to Kṛṣṇa, the supreme. That is liberation and the perfection of life. **Hayagrīva:** Some people claim to remember events from their previous lives. How are these reminiscences different from innate ideas? **Prabhupāda:** An innate idea is inevitable. The idea that God is great and that I am controlled is innate everywhere, but sometimes out of ignorance, one tries to become God. That is not possible. That is māyā, and one simply suffers. It is an innate idea with the living entity that he is a servant and that God is great. **Hayagrīva:** Locke further writes: "The knowledge of our own being we have by intuition. The existence of God, reason clearly makes known to us. We have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God than of anything our senses can discover." How is this? If this is the case, how is it that some men have no conception of God? **Prabhupāda:** Everyone has some conception of God, but under the spell of māyā, the living entity tries to cover that conception. How can any sane man deny God's existence? Some superior power must be present to create the vast ocean, land, and sky. No one can avoid some conception of God, but one can artificially and foolishly attempt to avoid it. This is called atheism, and this will not endure. One's foolishness will ultimately be exposed. **Hayagrīva:** Locke recommends four tests to know whether knowledge is true, by which we can perceive agreement or disagreement between ideas. **Prabhupāda:** Whether we agree or not, truth is truth. There is no question of my agreement or disagreement. **Śyāmasundara:** We can objectively study something to see if there is agreement or disagreement. It is not that knowledge depends on our subjective opinion. There must be some scientific proof. **Prabhupāda:** Our test of truth is Vedic evidence. For instance, it is stated in the *Vedas* that cow stool is pure. We accept this as true. We cannot reach this conclusion by argument. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke states that God must be a thinking being because matter, which is senseless, could never produce sense experience, perception, and thoughts. **Prabhupāda; Certainly. By definition, God has full knowledge of everything. Kṛṣṇa says:** > 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] Kṛṣṇa also told Arjuna that millions of years ago He instructed the sun god in the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā.* Kṛṣṇa also points out that Arjuna took birth with Him, but that Arjuna had forgotten. Kṛṣṇa knows everything. That is the meaning of omniscience. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke also says that since there are no innate ideas, moral, religious, and political values must be regarded as products of experience. **Prabhupāda:** We should understand what is the best experience. For instance, we consider Manu to be the authority on political and social affairs. *Manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt* [*Bg.* 4.1]. Manu instructed his son Ikṣvāku. If this depends on experience, we should accept perfect, unadulterated experience. **Śyāmasundara:** He states that values must obey the will of God as expressed in natural law, the laws upon which men agree, such as social contracts, and the established traditions, customs, and opinions of mankind. He states that our laws must be obeyed in such a way that we will exist in harmony. **Prabhupāda:** And what is that harmony? Perfect harmony is in knowing that we are part and parcel of God. In this body, there are different parts, and each part has a particular function. When each part performs its function, the body is harmonious. The hand is meant for touching, lifting, and grasping, but if the hand says, "I shall walk," there is disharmony. Being part and parcel of God, we have a particular function. If we fulfill that function, there is harmony. If we do not, there is disharmony. The law of nature means working in harmony with the desire of God. > 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] Under Kṛṣṇa's superintendence, everything is functioning in harmony. Events do not happen blindly. In any organization, there is a supreme authority under whose orders everything moves in harmony. Harmony means that there must be some supreme superintendent. It is generally said that obedience is the first law of discipline. There cannot be harmony without obedience. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke would say that we have to obey the laws of nature. **Prabhupāda:** Everyone is obeying the laws of nature. *Yasyājñayā *bhramati.* Brahma-saṁhitā* [5.52] states that the sun is moving in its orbit fixed by the law of Govinda. The ocean has certain limitations fixed by the Supreme. All nature is functioning according to the law of God. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke believes that we must also obey the laws upon which we agree, that is, the social contract. **Prabhupāda:** This is the law: we must surrender to Kṛṣṇa. When we agree to the laws of the Supreme, that is religion. **Śyāmasundara:** Men agree socially not to steal one another's property, or to kill one another. Shouldn't we obey these laws of man? **Prabhupāda:** Men's laws are imitations of God's laws. God's law states: *Īśāvāsyam idaṁ *sarvaṁ.* "Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord." [*Īśopaniṣad* 1] Every living entity is the son of God, and he has the right to live at the cost of God. Everyone is eating food supplied by God. The animals are eating their food. The cow is eating grass, but why should we kill the cow? This is against God's law. We have rice, grains, fruits, vegetables, and so on. These are for us. Tigers do not come to eat our fruits or grains, so why should we kill tigers? A tiger is not encroaching upon our rights. **Hayagrīva:** Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. He believes that a man may have stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Īśopaniṣadic version? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. *Tena tyaktena *bhuñjīthā.* "One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota." [*Īśopaniṣad* 1] Everything belongs to God. A father may have many sons and be the ultimate proprietor of his house, yet he gives different rooms to his sons. The obedient son is satisfied with what his father has allotted him. The disobedient son simply wants to disturb his other brothers, and so he claims their rooms. This creates chaos and confusion in the world. The United Nations has been formed to unify nations, but they have not succeeded. People continue to encroach on one another's property, and therefore there is no peace. If we accept God as the supreme proprietor, and are satisfied with the allotment He has given us, there will be no trouble. Unfortunately, we are not satisfied. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Locke's utilitarian ethic, happiness is the greatest good, and obedience to the moral law results in happiness. **Prabhupāda:** But the difficulty is that here in this material world, happiness is temporary. And even if we follow moral laws, other people will give us trouble. There are people who don't care whether you are moral or immoral. *Bhagavad-gītā* confirms that this is not a place of happiness. Duḥkhālayam *aśāśvatam.* "This temporary world is full of miseries." [*Bg.* 8.15] Therefore we have to find where real happiness exists. That is the spiritual world. Happiness here is only another illusion. It is not possible. If Kṛṣṇa Himself says that this is a place of misery, how can we find happiness here? In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa speaks of real happiness: > sukham ātyantikaṁ yat tad > buddhi-grāhyam atīndriyam > vetti yatra na caivāyaṁ > sthitaś calati tattvataḥ **"In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth." [*Bg.* 6.21] Real happiness is beyond the senses. It is *atīndriya.* In other words, we have to purify our senses in order to attain it. This is also confirmed by Ṛṣabhadeva:** > nāyaṁ deho deha-bhājāṁ nṛloke > kaṣṭān kāmān arhate viḍ-bhujāṁ ye > tapo divyaṁ putrakā yena sattvaṁ > śuddhyed yasmād brahma-saukhyaṁ tv anantam "Of all the living entities who have accepted material bodies in this world, one who has been awarded this human form should not work hard day and night for sense gratification, which is available even for dogs and hogs that eat stool. One should engage in penance and austerity to attain the divine position of devotional service. By such activity, one's heart is purified, and when one attains this position, he attains eternal, blissful life, which is transcendental to material happiness and which continues forever." [*SB.* 5.5.1] Presently, our existence is impure. If a man is suffering from jaundice, he tastes sweet things as bitter. In order to taste real happiness, we have to purify our senses. Materialists think that as soon as they have sexual intercourse, they will be happy, but that is not real happiness. We cannot even enjoy that happiness. The conclusion is that we should not seek happiness like cats, dogs, and hogs, but as human beings. This means *tapasya,* purification of the senses. First we must be cured of this material disease, then we can taste real happiness in our healthy life. A sane man knows that he is spirit soul covered by a material coating. So let this coating be washed away by devotional service. *Tat-paratvena *nirmalam* [Nārada Pañcarātra]. When we engage in devotional service, we remove the false coating, and our real senses emerge. We enjoy those real senses by serving Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Locke also says that all men are born free and equal in the state of nature and that they have formed a social contract; therefore the government must be based on and subject to the mutual consent of all the citizens. **Prabhupāda:** That agreement can be reached when everyone is situated on the spiritual platform. On the material platform, people are subject to the three modes of material nature: goodness, passion, and ignorance. How can the vote of a God conscious man and the vote of a drunkard be equal? Equality is not possible unless everyone comes to the spiritual platform. **Śyāmasundara:** Is it true that all men are born free and equal? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact. If we are not free, how can we commit sin? Committing sin means that we have the freedom to commit sins. And equality means that we all have small independence. We are equal in the sense that we can properly utilize or misuse our independence. Because we all have independence, we are equal. If we misuse it, we go downward, and if we use it properly, we go upward. In the use of our independence, we have equal rights. ## George Berkeley [1685-1753] **Hayagrīva:** Berkeley seems to argue against objective reality. For instance, three men standing in a field looking at a tree could all have different impressions or ideas of the tree. The problem is that although there are three different impressions of the tree, there is no tree as such. Now, how does the tree as such exist? In the mind of God? Is it possible for a conditioned living entity to perceive the suchness or essence of anything? **Prabhupāda:** Since everything is God, or an expansion of God's energy, how can a tree or anything else exist independent of God? A clay pot is not different from earth. Since there is nothing but God's energy, how can we avoid God? Since nothing can exist independent of God, whatever we see must refer to God. As soon as we see a clay pot, we remember the potter. God is not only the original creator; He is the ingredient, the category, and the original substance as well. According to the Vedic conception, God is everything. That is a nondual conception. If you separate anything from God, you cannot say, *sarvaṁ khalv ida***ṁ brahma** [*Chāndogya Upaniṣad* 3.14.1]. "Everything is Brahman." Everything refers to God, and everything is God's property; therefore whatever exists should be utilized for God's service, and that is the object of our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley maintained that nothing exists outside perception. Matter is simply perceived. For instance, this table is only an immaterial substance which enters my mind. It is not made of matter. **Prabhupāda:** Then what is your mind? Is the mind also immaterial? This is the Śūnyavādī position. They believe that everything is zero. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley says that everything is spiritual, not zero. **Prabhupāda:** The spiritual is not an idea but a fact. The Śūnyavādīs cannot understand how spirit has form. They have no idea of *sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha,* our spiritual form of bliss. They really have no idea of spiritual existence. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley says that everything has form, but that it is not made of matter. **Prabhupāda:** That is nice. Everything has form. It is not necessary that the form be material. We say that God has a spiritual form. **Śyāmasundara:** But Berkeley goes so far as to say that everything is made of spirit. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, in the higher sense, everything is spirit. We always say that materialism means forgetfulness of Kṛṣṇa. As soon as we dovetail everything to Kṛṣṇa, nothing is material but spiritual. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley uses the example of a book on a table. The only way the book exists is through the idea or sense impression in the mind. It doesn't enter the mind as matter but as spirit, something immaterial. **Prabhupāda:** If it is not matter, it is spirit. If everything is spirit, why distinguish between the idea of the book and the book? **Śyāmasundara:** Well, for him there is no difference. **Prabhupāda:** But he explains that the book is not material. If everything is spiritual, the idea is spiritual as well 'as the book. Why make the distinction? *Sarvaṁ *khalv* *idam *brahma* [*Chāndogya Upaniṣad* 3.14.1]. If everything is Brahman, why make these distinctions between the idea of the book and the book? Why is he trying so hard to attempt to explain? **Śyāmasundara:** He also states that God creates all objects. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that's right, and because God creates all objects, there is no object that is not true. We cannot say that something false comes from something true. If God is truth, then whatever emanates from God is also truth. It is Māyāvādī philosophy to say that everything that we are seeing is false. *Brahma satyaṁjagan *mithyā.* **Śyāmasundara:** No, he says it is real because God perceives it. **Prabhupāda:** If it is real, and my idea of it is real, then everything is real. Why make these distinctions? Our philosophy is that there cannot be these distinctions. If the world emanates from God, can it be false? If everything is spiritual, why does he make the distinction in saying that it is not matter, that it is something else? As soon as we bring up the subject of matter, we imply that matter is something separately existing. In other words, there is duality. As soon as you say that this is not matter, you are making matter into something that is not true. If everything emanates from God and is true, there is no question of there being anything that is not true. If everything is spiritual, we cannot make these distinctions. When he says, "This is not matter," he implies that there is matter somewhere. If everything is spirit, there is no question of material existence. **Śyāmasundara:** He says that there are two types of objects: those which we actively sense, perceive, and experience, and those which are passively sensed, perceived, and experienced. Both are basically the same because they are equally spiritual. **Prabhupāda:** But two types means duality. How does he distinguish between this type and that type? He distinguishes between the senses and the objects of the senses. If everything is spiritual, we can say that there is spiritual variety. But the senses and the objects of the senses are all real. **Śyāmasundara:** No, he says that they are real and made of spirit. They are not real in the sense that they are made of matter. **Prabhupāda:** I do not understand this logic. If everything is spirit, why is he making these distinctions? There is no need to make such distinctions if you are spiritually realized. Rather, you can say that these are spiritual varieties. For instance, you can say that stone is not water, that air is not stone, that water is not air, and so on. These are all spiritual varieties. The exact Sanskrit word is *saviśeṣa,* which indicates that everything is spirit but that there is variety. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley says that if no one experiences a thing, not even God, then it cannot exist. Things can exist only when they are perceived by God. **Prabhupāda:** This means in one word that there is no existence except God, that nothing exists but God. **Śyāmasundara:** He uses the example of the far side of the North Star. We will never be able to perceive it from our viewpoint, but because God can perceive it, it must exist. **Prabhupāda:** That's nice. The idea that something does not exist because I cannot perceive it is not very logical. I may not perceive many things, but that does not mean that they do not exist. In the beginning, this is what I understood you to say Berkeley was saying. That kind of logic is contradictory. God's perception is different. He is unlimited, and we are limited. Since He is unlimited, His perception is unlimited; therefore there are unlimited varieties of existence that we have not even perceived. We cannot say that objects do not exist just because we cannot perceive them. **Śyāmasundara:** He says that objects exist because of perception, whether it is God's perception or ours. **Prabhupāda:** God's perception is another thing. Perception means *cetana.* Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś *cetanānām* [*Kaṭha Upaniṣad,* 2.2.13] The word *cetana* means "living." We are living, and God is also living, but He is the supreme living entity. We are the subordinate entities. Our perception is limited, and God's perception is unlimited. It is admitted that everything exists due to God's perception. Many objects exist that are not within our experience or perception. However, God experiences everything. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says that He knows everything, past, present, and future [*Bg.* 7.26]. Nothing is beyond His experience. **Śyāmasundara:** He says that because God experiences all objects, objects are rendered potentially perceptible to human minds. **Prabhupāda:** That's all right, because as we advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we experience objects through God, not directly. That is stated in the *Vedas:* yasmin vijñāte sarvam evaṁ vijñātam *bhavanti.* God experiences all things, and if we receive our experience from God, we are advanced. We are preaching that people should receive their experience, their perception, through Kṛṣṇa. We shouldn't try to speculate because speculation is always imperfect. We are searching after the original source of everything, and Kṛṣṇa says: *ahaṁ *sarvasya* *prabhavaḥ* [*Bg.* 10.8]. Kṛṣṇa is the root of all emanations, of all creation. The conclusion should be that we should receive our experience through God; therefore we accept the experience of the Vedas.* The *Vedas* were spoken by God, and they contain knowledge given by God. The word *veda* means knowledge, and the knowledge of the *Vedas* is perfect. The Vedic system is *śruti-pramānam.* As soon as an experience is corroborated or verified by Vedic statement, it is perfect. There is no need to philosophize. If we can receive perfect knowledge directly from the *Vedas,* why should we speculate? Why should we take so much unnecessary trouble? > dharmaḥ svanuṣṭhitaḥ puṁsāṁ > viṣvaksena-kathāsu yaḥ > notpādayed yadi ratiṁ > śrama eva hi kevalam "Duties [dharma] executed by men, regardless of occupation, are only so much labor if they do not provoke attraction for the message of the Supreme Lord." [*SB.* 1.2.8] My speculation is always imperfect because I am imperfect. **Śyāmasundara:** There is an inherent tendency in men to want to experience something first hand rather than through someone else. **Prabhupāda:** From the beginning of our lives, we are experiencing things through authority. A child receives experience by asking his parents. A child knows nothing about fire, and he wants to touch it because it is red. However, he receives knowledge from his parents that he shouldn't touch fire. In this way, he comes to understand certain basic laws of nature. The *Vedas* tell us that in order to know the transcendental science of Kṛṣṇa, we must approach a guru. We cannot speculate about God, the spiritual world, and spiritual life. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley says that the world is real because if it were not real, we could not experience it. **Prabhupāda:** That is also our version. The world is real because it was created by God. But the Māyāvādīs say that the world is unreal. *Brahma satyaṁjagan *mithyā.* **Śyāmasundara:** He states that the only way we can know that this table exists is through our senses, but these sense impressions are subtle, not material. **Prabhupāda:** Instead of saying that they are not material, he should say that they are abstract. Abstract is the original position. The Śūnyavādīs cannot understand the abstract; therefore they say that the abstract is zero, nothing. But the abstract is not nothing. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley says that if this table were composed of matter, we would not be able to experience it because the only objects capable of entering our experience must be sensitive substances. **Prabhupāda:** Kṛṣṇa is nondifferent from everything because everything is Kṛṣṇa. Fools look at the Deity and say, "This is not Kṛṣṇa, this is stone." Because a fool cannot see anything but stone, God appears to him as stone. Unfortunate atheists make these distinctions. They will say, "Everything is Brahman, but not this stone Deity." Or, they will say, "Why go to the temple to worship when God is everywhere?" What they are saying is that God is everywhere, but not in the temple. This means that they have no clear idea. We see that everything has form. Are we to assume that we have form and God hasn't? Impersonalists have no conception of Kṛṣṇa's original form. Kṛṣṇa very kindly and mercifully appears before us so that we can experience Him. Ultimately, there is no distinction between matter and spirit, but because at the present moment I cannot conceive of spiritual form, God appears in the form of the Deity. Kṛṣṇa says: > kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām > avyaktāsakta-cetasām > avyaktāhi gatir duḥkhaṁ > dehavadbhir avāpyate "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied." [*Bg.* 12.5] People are going through unnecessary labor in order to meditate on something impersonal. Because they have no idea of God, they superficially say, "Everything is God." Still, they cannot see God in the temple in His *arca-vigraha* form. They cannot understand why all the *ācāryas* like Rāmānujācārya and Madhvācārya have established these temples. Are these *ācāryas* simply fools? There has been Deity worship since time immemorial. Are all the people who have participated in Deity worship fools? **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley says that spirit is the only genuine substance, that there is no substance that exists without thinking. In other words, there is thinking involved even in objects like this table. This table is made of spirit, and spirit is thinking and thoughtful. **Prabhupāda:** That's nice. His conclusion is that everything is Brahman because thinking is also Brahman. At the present moment, we cannot perceive the spiritual; therefore God, out of His unlimited kindness, comes to us in a small, tangible, concrete form that we can dress, feed, and handle. We cannot say that this form is different from God. > arcye viṣṇau śilādhīr guruṣu > nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhiḥ "One who considers the *arca-mūrti* or worshipable Deity of Lord Viṣṇu to be stone, the spiritual master to be an ordinary human being, and a Vaiṣṇava to belong to a particular caste or creed, is possessed of hellish intelligence and is doomed." [*Padma Purāṇa*] It is horrible to think of these spiritual things in a material way. We should always offer respect and consider that Kṛṣṇa is present. We should not think that the Deity is simply stone and cannot hear or see. There are sixty-four items mentioned in Nectar of Devotion* [*Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu*] that guide us in Deity worship. **Hayagrīva:** In his last dialogue, Berkeley writes: "The apprehension of a distant Deity naturally disposes men to be negligent of their moral actions, which they would be more cautious of in case they thought Him immediately present and acting on their minds without the interposition of matter, or unthinking second causes." **Prabhupāda:** The Vedic *śāstras* say that God is everywhere; He is not distant. In Queen Kuntī's prayers, it is said that God is both distant and near. God's proximity is manifest in His Paramātmā feature. He is living in everyone's heart. Īśvaraḥ *sarva-bhūtānāṁ* *hṛd-deśe 'rjuna* *tiṣṭhati* [*Bg.* 18.61]. If He is within our heart, how can He be distant? At the same time, He is present in His personal feature in Goloka Vṛndāvana, which is far, far beyond this material existence. That is God's all-pervasive quality. Although He is far, far away, He is still very near. The sun may be very far away, but its light is present in my room. Similarly, God is both far away and also within my heart. One who is expert in seeing God sees Him in both ways. Goloka eva nivasaty *akhilātma-bhūtaḥ* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.37]. Although He is living in His own abode, eternally enjoying Himself with His associates, He is still present everywhere. That is God. **Hayagrīva:** In what way is God concerned with the moral or immoral actions of man? Is God indifferent to them, or has He simply set the laws of nature in motion, allowing men to follow their own course and reap the fruits of their own karma? **Prabhupāda:** Because we have disobeyed God, we are thrown into this material world and placed under the supervision of material nature for correction. As long as we are in the material world, there is a distinction between what is moral and immoral. Actually, moral and immoral have no meaning, but in the material world, we have conceptions of them. When we are in the spiritual world, there is no conception of immorality. For instance, the *gopīs* went to see Kṛṣṇa in the dead of night, and ordinarily this is considered immoral, but because they were going to see Kṛṣṇa, it was not immoral. In one sense, in the spiritual world everything is moral. In the material world there is duality in order for the material creation to work properly. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley gives two arguments for the existence of God: first, the things we perceive in our waking state are more vivid than those things we imagine or dream about, and this is because God's mind is activating these things. **Prabhupāda:** We accept that. God is the superior mind, and because God sees, we can see. Because God walks, we can walk. This is also admitted in *Brahma-saṁhitā: yasya* *prabhā *prabhavato* *jagadaṇḍa-koṭi* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.40]. Due to the bodily effulgence of Kṛṣṇa, many universes have come into being. In these universes, there are many varieties, many planets, and on each of the planets are many different living entities. All these varieties are there because they are emanating from Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Secondly, the things we perceive do not obey our wishes as our imaginations do, but resist them because they obey the will of God. God's will is arbitrary, and we cannot predict it. **Prabhupāda:** Therefore it is better to always obey the orders of God. If we do what God says, we are perfect. In any case, there is no need for all this speculation. The basic proof of God is God. Kṛṣṇa says, "I am God," and Nārada, Vyāsadeva, and Arjuna agree, "Yes, You are God." If we accept Kṛṣṇa as God, we save ourselves much labor. Why speculate? In the causal ocean, the Mahā-Viṣṇu is inhaling and exhaling, and many universes are being manifest and then destroyed by His breathing. When He breathes out, all the universes are created, and when He breathes in, they all return to His body. This entire creation is the dream of God, Mahā-Viṣṇu. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley would maintain that our dreams are imperfect, and when we open our eyes, we see that everything is perfect; therefore there must be a perfect person, a perfect dreamer. **Prabhupāda:** But when we open our eyes and see perfection, that is also dreaming. But the dreaming of the perfect is perfect also. That is absolute. Unless we accept the absolute, how can we say that His dream is perfect? The dream of the absolute is also perfect. **Śyāmasundara:** He also asserts a doctrine of divine arbitrariness. Because God's will is arbitrary, we cannot predict what will happen. **Prabhupāda:** That is correct. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava says, "If Kṛṣṇa wills, I will do this." He never says, "I will do this." If Kṛṣṇa so desires, a thing will be done. A Vaiṣṇava always considers himself helpless without God. As far as we are concerned, we are always incapable. **Śyāmasundara:** Berkeley states that our repeated experience will discern the regular activity or will of God, and that by experiencing nature, we can understand that God's will is regular. In other words, we can come to understand the habits of God by observing the laws of nature. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, Kṛṣṇa says in *Bhagavad-gītā* that nature is working under His direction [*Bg.* 9.10]. Nature is not blind. Because it is working under the direction of God, it is perfect. **Śyāmasundara:** He also states that there is no necessary connection between cause and effect, but that things follow one another in sequence in time. **Prabhupāda:** If there is no cause, why does he say that effect follows cause in a sequential order? This is contradictory. The supreme cause is Kṛṣṇa, the cause of all causes. In that sense, we cannot say that there is no cause. The ultimate cause is the supreme, and to Kṛṣṇa there is no difference between cause and effect. Since He is the supreme cause, He affects everything. In the absolute sense, there is no difference between cause and effect. **Śyāmasundara:** As an example, he would say that a rock falling in the water will not necessarily splash, but that it regularly follows in sequence that it will splash. **Prabhupāda:** But we say that if God does not will this, it will not happen. It is all dependent on the supreme will. It is not necessary for the rock to splash. It is not compulsory. If God so wills, it will simply float. We admit that everything is affected by the will of God; therefore our best course is to depend totally on His will. ## David Hume [1711-1776] **Hayagrīva:** Abstract objects, relations, space, time, and matter are all considered by Hume to be mind-dependent perceptions. For him, perceptions or impressions are all there is. He rejected revealed religion, which he considered dogmatic, and accepted "natural religion" instead, a religion wherein the existence of God can be proved or even shown to be probable by argument and reason. According to Hume, we really know nothing of God; at the most we can know only of people's ideas of God, and these are but perceptions. **Prabhupāda:** What is that natural religion? **Hayagrīva:** Hume writes: "The whole course of nature raises one hymn to the praises of its creator. I have found a Deity, and here I stop my enquiry. Let those go further who are wiser or more enterprising." **Prabhupāda:** He admits that the senses are imperfect, and at the same time that there is a God. Now, if our senses are imperfect, how can we imagine God to be like this or that? If God explains Himself, why should we not accept His version? **Hayagrīva:** In *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,* Hume opposes the search for God in the ideal world. He writes: "Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum?...If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other, and so on without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world. By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be God, and the sooner we arrive at the divine being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor which it is impossible ever to satisfy." **Prabhupāda:** The material world by definition is full of misery, and those who are advanced therefore search for another world where there is no misery. Everyone is searching for a happy world that is permanent, and that search is not unnatural. There is such a world, and since it exists, why should we not hanker after it? If we look at the world objectively, we can see that no one is really happy—that is, unless he is an animal. Animals do not know what is happiness or distress. They remain satisfied in any condition. A man, however, feels pain more acutely. **Hayagrīva:** Hume felt that the sooner we find God the better, and therefore he opposed going beyond the mundane system in search of Him. **Prabhupāda:** You cannot find God in your present conditional state. You may glimpse the fact that there is God, but you cannot understand His forms and pastimes by speculation. Therefore revelation is there for those fortunate people who are seriously searching for God. God is living within, and when we are serious, He reveals Himself. It is also possible to learn about God directly from a person who knows God. *Bhagavad-gītā* is God's direct revelation, and if we try to understand it, we can understand what God is. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume maintains that all that we are, all that we know, is merely a sequence of ideas. **Prabhupāda:** But behind the ideas there must be a fact. Otherwise, how can we have the ideas? **Śyāmasundara:** He separates facts from ideas. For instance, I may think that this table is red, but I may be wrong; it could be brown. **Prabhupāda:** Your idea may be incorrect, but actually the table has some color, be it red, yellow, or whatever. If you have some eye disease, you cannot determine the color, but one whose eyes are not diseased can tell you. Because our eyes are diseased and we cannot see things properly, we have to receive knowledge from one who is not diseased. Hume is wrong when he says that there is no possibility of attaining right knowledge. **Śyāmasundara:** He admits that the external world is full of concrete objects, but he thinks that we are also one of those objects because the self is "nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in a perpetual flux and movement." Our consciousness is composed of only our observations of material nature. **Prabhupāda:** That is so far as direct perception is concerned, but indirect perception is different. It may be taken from authorities. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume distrusts all authority. For him, the only certainty is found in mathematical proofs and immediate sense perceptions. We can perceive that there is time and space, but this is the only knowledge that he will admit. **Prabhupāda:** And beyond time and space? **Śyāmasundara:** We cannot know anything. **Prabhupāda:** Perhaps you cannot, but there is a process whereby we can know. We cannot say that beyond the mind there is no time or perception. There are insects that are born in the evening and die in the morning, and during that time they experience a lifespan. For a man, this is only twelve hours of life, but the insect cannot live beyond that time. From *Bhagavad-gītā* we understand that Brahmā lives for many thousands of years, and that compared to him we are like insects. Everything is relative: our lifespan, knowledge, and perception. We are small human beings, and what is impossible for us is not necessarily impossible for others. Hume is talking from the relative platform. **Śyāmasundara:** He believes that objects are only relative, not that there is anything absolute. **Prabhupāda:** But as soon as he speaks of relative, he posits the existence of the absolute. If there is no absolute, how can we have the conception of an object being relative? **Śyāmasundara:** He believes that things exist only in relation to one another. **Prabhupāda:** Then what is the supreme relation? **Śyāmasundara:** He doesn't admit one. **Prabhupāda:** According to logic, at the end of all relative truths there is Absolute Truth, the *summum *bonum.* But if Hume denies substance, he has no idea of the summum *bonum,* the ultimate substance. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume says that an object like an apple consists only of certain sensory qualities, like sweetness or color, and that the individual consists of only a series of mental activities, not of a soul capable of creating experiences. **Prabhupāda:** Inert objects have certain qualities, but the living entity possesses senses by which he can appreciate those qualities. He is therefore superior to inert matter. Because the living entity has senses, he can appreciate sense objects. We have eyes with which we can see color and perceive beauty. **Hayagrīva:** Hume is famous for his skepticism. He rejected revealed scriptures and looked toward science instead. **Prabhupāda:** If he preaches skepticism, why should we believe his words? If he does not believe the statements of others, why should others accept his statements? **Śyāmasundara:** Hume postulates three laws whereby perceptions are associated or connected with one another. First, according to his principle of resemblance, a picture, for instance, makes us think of the original. Secondly, according to the principle of contiguity, if I mention a room in this building, I think of other rooms also. Third, according to the principle of cause and effect, if I think of a wound, I automatically think of pain. Thus he suggests that our whole being consists of such a stream of ideas and associations, which follow one another perpetually. **Prabhupāda:** This is the nature of the relative world. We cannot understand what a father is without understanding what a son is. We cannot conceive of a husband without a wife. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume denies the existence of an ultimate reality, asserting that only the phenomena of the senses exists. **Prabhupāda:** But where do these phenomena come from? If there are phenomena, there must be noumena. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume suggests that it is possible that the world has existed since eternity and that therefore no first cause is required. **Prabhupāda:** But what about the manifestation of past, present, and future? Why does death take place if there is no cause? **Śyāmasundara:** The body is like a machine which is born and dies. **Prabhupāda:** When you say machine, you automatically presuppose the beginning of the machine. In other words, the machine must be made by someone. **Śyāmasundara:** The machines may be like the seasons. They may come and go. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, they may come and go, and then come again, but what is the meaning of this? **Śyāmasundara:** They may be eternally existing facts without cause or creator. Hume says that we may believe in a creator if we like, but this is based on mere probability, not knowledge. We may think as we like. **Prabhupāda:** Well, he goes on talking as he likes. In other words, you can speak all kinds of nonsense, and I can too. You are right, and I am right, and everything is right. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume divided human understanding into two categories: relationships among ideas and relationships among facts. The first involves mathematics. Two plus two equals four is true whether it refers to something existing in nature or not. According to the relationships among facts, this is a knowledge to be assumed on the basis of sense experience. According to the information we have based on sense perceptions, we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, there is a possibility that the world will end, and the sun will not rise tomorrow. **Prabhupāda:** Why is this so? Who makes this possible or impossible? The sun may rise, or the sun may not rise. Is this accidental, or is this according to someone's will? **Śyāmasundara:** Hume would say that it is accidental. **Prabhupāda:** Nothing is accidental. Everything is symmetrical. According to Kṛṣṇa in *Bhagavad-gītā,* everything in nature is working under His direction. The sun rises because God has so ordained it. If God does not ordain it, the sun will not rise. It is not accidental at all. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume denies cause and effect relationships. We associate friction with heat, but he says that it is a mistake to assume that friction causes heat. For him, there is merely a repetition of two incidents. The effect may habitually attend the cause, but it is not necessarily its consequence. There is only association, not cause and effect. **Prabhupāda:** But who made the laws of association? The association may be accidental, but as soon as there is friction, there is heat. This means that in nature there is a systematic law. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume would say that this law is not ultimate reality but mere probability. **Prabhupāda:** Nonetheless, there are physical laws. The sequence of these laws may differ because they are created by someone who can change them. A legislature may assemble today and pass a certain law, but tomorrow it may assemble again and nullify that law. Similarly, a supreme will makes these laws, and He can also nullify or change them. As far as you are concerned, when there is friction, there is heat. It is not that we can rub our hands together without experiencing a sensation of heat. This means that we are subject to the supreme will. God gives us a chance to speak all kinds of nonsense, but He can stop us immediately. At any instant, our tongue may be in a dead body. The supreme will gives us the freedom to talk in this way or that, and concoct all kinds of philosophies, but at any moment He can put an end to all of this. Thus the supreme will is the ultimate cause of all causes. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume rejected the idea of absolute matter and the conception of the soul as a substance. He also rejected the utility of scientific laws and moral principles as objective realities. He claims that all religious ideas are relative, maintaining that there is no certainty in religious matters. **Prabhupāda:** Religion means love of God, and there are different religious processes. If we ultimately develop love of God, we have realized the first and most important factor of religion. If love of God is absent, what passes for religion is not really religion. It is simply a show. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume states that even the idea of God is merely probable but not certain. **Prabhupāda:** We do not agree to that. As soon as we speak of authority, we posit the existence of a supreme authority. We call that supreme authority God. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume would say that we would have to accept the authority of our senses. **Prabhupāda:** The senses are imperfect, and God is beyond the senses. We cannot see God, touch Him, or hear Him because our senses are imperfect. A man with imperfect senses says that there is no God, but those who have cleansed their senses can see God, touch Him, and talk with Him. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume denies the existence of miracles. **Prabhupāda:** One thing may be a miracle for one person and not for another. An electric fan may seem like a miracle for a child, but not for his father. So our conception of miracles is also relative. **Hayagrīva:** On this subject, Hume writes: "All the new discoveries in astronomy, which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of nature, are so many additional arguments for a Deity, according to the true system of theism." In this way, Hume rejects the necessity or desirability of miracles as well as the conception of a God transcendental to His creation. He states that it is not the being of God that is in question, but God's nature, which cannot be ascertained through study of the universe itself. However, if the universe can only be studied by imperfect senses, what is the value of our conclusion? How can we ever come to know the nature of God? **Prabhupāda:** According to our Vedic philosophy, the nature of God can be explained by God Himself. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna: > mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat > kiñcid asti dhanañjaya > mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ > sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva **"O conqueror of wealth, there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." [*Bg.* 7.7] We accept this as a fact, because it is not possible for anyone to be greater than God. It is God's nature to be the greatest in everything:** wealth, fame, power, beauty, knowledge, and renunciation. If we can find one who is garnished with such greatness, we have found God. These qualities are found in Kṛṣṇa, and therefore we accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Lord. **Hayagrīva:** In *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,* Hume writes: "All religious systems, it is confessed, are subject to great and insuperable difficulties. Each disputant triumphs in his turn, while he carries on an offensive war and exposes the absurdities, barbarities and pernicious tenets of his antagonists. But all of them, on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the skeptic, who tells them that no system ought ever be embraced....A total suspense of judgement is here our only reasonable recourse." **Prabhupāda:** We do not accept this. We believe that we can know God from God Himself. Religion refers to the principles given by God. If there are no directions given by God, there is no religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith; it is factual because it is given by God Himself. If you know God and follow His instructions, you are religious. **Hayagrīva:** Hume did believe that religion is necessary. He says that religion, however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all. **Prabhupāda:** We agree to that, but religion without philosophy and logic is simply sentiment. That will not help us. Real religion is given by Śrī Kṛṣṇa. > man-manā bhava mad-bhakto > mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru > mām evaiṣyasi yuktvaivam > ātmānaṁ mat-parāyaṇaḥ "Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me, and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me." [*Bg.* 9.34] If we always think of God, we will become purified. Religion means meditating upon God and thinking of Him. Therefore temple worship is necessary to facilitate our constantly thinking of God. But if we do not know of God's form, how can we offer Him worship? How can we think of Him? We then have to construct a pseudoreligion, and this kind of religion will not help us. **Hayagrīva:** Hume's conception of religion is utilitarian and social. He writes: "The proper office of religion is to regulate the heart of man, humanize their conduct, infuse the spirit of temperance, order, and obedience...." **Prabhupāda:** We also say that religion is the greatest welfare work for all humanity. For instance, religion forbids illicit sex, and if people indulge in illicit sex, society will become chaotic. If we continue eating meat, we revolt against God's will because God is the father of all living entities. When other foods are available, why should we kill animals to eat meat? When there is a wife, why should we have illicit sex? A religious man is necessarily a man of good character. If we are God conscious, all good qualities are automatically manifest. A devotee can sacrifice his own interests because he is a devotee. Others cannot do this. **Hayagrīva:** Hume felt that one must first be a philosophical skeptic before accepting the revealed truths of religion. Ultimately, he insists that these truths can be accepted only on faith, not experience or reason. **Prabhupāda:** Why not on reason? We can use our reason to consider that everything has some proprietor and that it is quite reasonable that this vast universe also has a proprietor. Is there a fault in this logic? Of course, now astronomers are saying that in the beginning there was a chunk, but where did that chunk come from? Where did gas come from? Where did fire come from? There is a proprietor, and He is described in *Bhagavad-gītā.* Mayādhyakṣeṇa *prakṛtiḥ* [*Bg.* 9.10]. It is completely illogical to think that there is no universal proprietor. **Hayagrīva:** As far as we can ascertain, Hume personally had no religion, no faith in the Christian or any other God. He also rejected the contention that argument or reason could justify a faith. He is a skeptic who denies the possibility of attaining certainty outside of a mere sequence of perceptions or ideas. **Prabhupāda:** In other words, all statements are to be rejected except his. **Hayagrīva:** Well, he claims that man cannot know ultimate reality or possess knowledge of anything beyond a mere awareness of phenomenal, sensory images. **Prabhupāda:** If man cannot possess knowledge, why should we accept Hume's knowledge? It is better to stop the search for knowledge altogether, is it not? Why does Hume bother to write so many books? He is simply trying to set up his own system as supreme. But a skeptic has no foundation for anything. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume says that if we like, we can attribute the order and design of the world to an architect, but as far as he is concerned, there is no proof that a superior architect exists. **Prabhupāda:** If something is artistic and systematic, we must admit that there is some intelligence behind it. We have no other experience. According to our experience, things do not work well without some brain behind them. When we see that the cosmic manifestation is systematic, we must admit that there is a guiding intelligence. **Śyāmasundara:** He feels that if such an architect exists, he must be responsible for evil in nature. He therefore concludes that God is either finite or imperfect. If He were perfect, there would be no evil, and if He were infinite in power, He could eliminate it. **Prabhupāda:** God is absolute, and for Him there is no evil. For Him, there is only good, otherwise He could not be called absolute. What we think is evil, is good to God. A father may slap his child, and that child may cry. For the child, this is evil, but for the father, this is good, because he thinks, "I have done right. Although he is crying, he will not commit this same mistake again." Chastisement may sometimes appear evil, but that is relative to our position. Whose opinion are we to take? **Śyāmasundara:** Hume would say that this means that God is limited. **Prabhupāda:** That is nonsense. If God is limited, He cannot be God. **Śyāmasundara:** The logic is that God must be limited in His goodness to allow evil to exist. **Prabhupāda:** God is unlimitedly good. **Śyāmasundara:** Then God must be limited in His power because He cannot eliminate evil. **Prabhupāda:** No. Evil works under His guidance. God controls both good and evil; therefore He is called the supreme controller. He is not limited in any way. The exact word used in Sanskrit is *ananta,* unlimited. God is advaitam *acyutam* *anantam:* nondual, infallible, and unlimited. **Śyāmasundara:** Concerning world morality, Hume maintains that morality consists of values formulated by the individual for himself as a matter of personal opinion. Each man may do as his conscience dictates. **Prabhupāda:** One man may say that his conscience dictates this, and another that his conscience dictates something else. Therefore there is no agreement. **Śyāmasundara:** However, in society, Hume would say that moral values are relative to public opinion. **Prabhupāda:** Then we have to accept the opinion of the majority. This is democracy. **Śyāmasundara:** Yet Hume admits that it is up to the individual whether to accept public opinion or reject it. Although the law is there, and society agrees to it, it is still up to the individual to follow it or not. **Prabhupāda:** If you do not follow the law, you will be punished by the state. So we can conclude that independent thinking is not absolute. It is also relative. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume would say that it is not logic or reason that determines morality, but sentiment. **Prabhupāda:** We cannot decide what is moral or immoral. Only the supreme will can decide that. **Śyāmasundara:** It is the sentiment of the individual that decides. A person should act according to the way he feels at the moment, according to his personal opinion. **Prabhupāda:** You may be satisfied with your personal opinion, but if it is not approved by others in society, you are living in a fool's paradise. **Śyāmasundara:** The remedy for this is social. We should try to change the laws or opinions of the state so that they will comply with a certain type of morality. If I think that something is right, but the state says that it is wrong, I should act politically to change it. **Prabhupāda:** But public opinion and individual opinion are not final. Above them is the supreme will of Kṛṣṇa, and that ultimately determines what is moral or immoral. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume believed that moral sentiments enhance the social good, whereas immoral attitudes are egotistic and anti-social. **Prabhupāda:** In any case, for him the social body is the authority. Ultimately, we have to depend on some authority for all sanction. We propose that the supreme authority is Kṛṣṇa, and that whatever He sanctions is moral, and whatever He does not sanction is immoral. Arjuna was thinking that it was moral to be nonviolent on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra, but Kṛṣṇa told him otherwise. Instead of depending on the social, political, or communal body to determine morality, we should depend on the supreme will of the supreme authority. We maintain that all morality is relative to Kṛṣṇa's sanction. Killing is considered immoral, but because Kṛṣṇa ordered Arjuna to fight, Arjuna's killing was not immoral. When our actions are approved by the supreme authority, we are moral. If our acts are not approved by the supreme authority, we are immoral. Morality and immorality have no fixed position. When something is approved by Kṛṣṇa, it is moral. Thus what is considered immoral may actually be moral, and vice versa, depending on the orders or desires of Kṛṣṇa. In a war, a soldier may kill many human beings and be awarded many medals for this, but if he kills one person when he returns home, he is considered immoral, and he is hanged. Even on the mundane platform, morality and immorality depend on the sanction of the state. The state says, "It is moral that you kill this man because he is an enemy." And the state also says, "If you kill, you will be hanged." In this way, people accept authority. Everything in the universe depends on Kṛṣṇa's will, on His authority. In the beginning of *Bhagavad-gītā,* Kṛṣṇa says that He comes to reestablish religious principles [*Bg.* 4.8], but at the conclusion He states that one should reject all religious principles and simply surrender unto Him and accept His order [18.66]. This is the confidential teaching of Bhagavad-gītā.* In any case, He is the ultimate authority, and surrender unto Him is the ultimate religious principle. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume lays the groundwork for permissiveness in modern society because he leaves it up to the individual to choose a specific ethical attitude. In other words, to do as he pleases. **Prabhupāda:** But this is not possible because no one can do as he pleases. In life, there are many stumbling blocks. A person may propose a certain action, but his proposal may not be practical. We cannot act independently. Otherwise, there will be chaos. There must be some authority.