# 07 German Idealism ## Immanuel Kant [1724-1804] **Śyāmasundara:** In *Critique of Pure Reason,* Kant asks the fundamental question, "How are a priori synthetic judgments possible?" How can we apprehend the relationship between cause and effect? Where does this facility come from? What is the source of knowledge? He proposes that one knowledge-acquiring process, the transcendental aesthetic, synthesizes sense experience through the concepts of time and space. The mind acts upon sensory perceptions and applies time and space relations to them. Knowledge of time and space is a priori, prior to and independent of sense experience. It is an internal creation of the mind. Even before we sense anything, we have an idea of time and space. **Prabhupāda:** He speaks of the transcendental aesthetic, but we understand the real meaning of transcendental to be beyond the senses— that is, referring to something not in our experience. We have to receive this knowledge from higher authority, *paramparā,* a source beyond the reach of the material senses. By sense perception, we have no knowledge of the spiritual world, but in Bhagavad-gītā*, Kṛṣṇa says that there is another nature, a spiritual nature, which is beyond this material nature [*Bg.* 8.20]. We have to understand this through transcendental knowledge; we cannot experience it. > 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 names, qualities, pastimes, and nature of God cannot be understood by these material senses, but if we engage in God's service, they will all be revealed. Vaikuṇṭha and Goloka Vṛndāvana, Kṛṣṇa's abode, will then be confirmed. These truths are revealed gradually; they are not abruptly understood. Common men cannot understand the meaning of going back to Godhead. They say, "What nonsense is this?" They cannot understand because it is transcendental, beyond the reach of the gross senses. It is revealed knowledge. If one becomes submissive and engages in the service of the Lord and the spiritual master, all these truths will be revealed. No one can mislead a person who receives knowledge through revelation. From Bhagavad-gītā,* we understand that there is a transcendental abode, *cintāmaṇi,* and we cannot forget this even if offered a great fortune to forget. On the other hand, if we offer a person a million dollars to believe in the transcendental abode, he will not believe in it. Transcendental knowledge is not a matter of speculation. It is received from higher authority. As we progress in *bhakti-yoga,* these things become clear. **Hayagrīva:** Kant strongly advocated the right and duty of every man to judge for himself in religious and secular matters. "Have courage to make use of your own intellect" was his motto. He emphasized individual freedom and the ability of man to intuit the truth. **Prabhupāda:** Does this mean that whatever anyone does is perfectly right? If we are given that freedom, then anyone can do as he likes. **Hayagrīva:** At the same time, Kant considered the Bible to be the best vehicle for the instruction of the public in a truly moral religion. **Prabhupāda:** This means that he has accepted some authority. Where is his freedom then? **Hayagrīva:** The individual can intuit truths within, but can be helped from without by scripture. **Prabhupāda:** This means that we should not be totally independent. We should be dependent on some authority, and that authority should be recognized. Then knowledge is possible. That is Vaiṣṇavism. **Śyāmasundara:** Descartes believed that knowledge comes through innate ideas, and Hume opposed this by saying that knowledge comes from sense experience. Kant tries to unify these extremes. **Prabhupāda:** Knowledge comes from purified sense experience. That is *sevā.* I may see Kṛṣṇa, whereas others may see a stone. This means that my eyes and vision are different. > premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena > santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti > yaṁśyāmasundaram acintya-guṇa-svarūpaṁ > govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi "I worship the primeval Lord, Govinda, who is always seen by the devotee whose eyes are anointed with the pulp of love. He is seen in His eternal form of Śyāmasundara situated within the heart of the devotee." [*Brahma-saṁhitā,* 5.38] When our eyes are anointed with the ointment of love of God, we can truly see. The same applies to the rest of the senses. Unless our senses are purified, we can neither see nor know. **Śyāmasundara:** In *Critique of Pure Reason,* Kant wrote: "Thoughts without content are empty, perceptions without conceptions are blind....Understanding can perceive nothing, the senses can think nothing. Knowledge arises only from their united action." **Prabhupāda:** When you try to understand through the senses, that is called *pratyakṣa.* There is knowledge through direct perception, *pratyakṣa,* and knowledge received from higher authorities, *paro'kṣa.* When we apply our senses and come to the same conclusion, that is *anumāna.* For instance, a higher authority says that there is a spiritual world. Now, how can we come to this conclusion? Obviously, we have to apply our senses. We can reason, "I am a combination of spirit and matter. That is a fact. However, I cannot see the spirit at the present moment, but I know that there is spirit." If we understand that there is a material world, we can also understand that there is a spiritual world. We can arrive at this conclusion by applying our senses and reason. If a material world is possible, certainly a spiritual world is possible. This is preliminary knowledge. When we see a dead body, we understand that something is missing. We see this with our senses, and from higher authority, from *Bhagavad-gītā,* we understand that this something that is missing is eternal. > avināśi tu tad viddhi > yena sarvam idaṁtatam > vināśam avyayasyāsya > na kaścit kartum arhati "That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul." [*Bg.* 2.17] That consciousness is spread throughout the body. It is eternal and spiritual. Through our sense experience, we can also understand that the body is constantly changing from the body of a child to that of an old man, and that this consciousness is continuing. Despite the different bodily changes, consciousness is enduring. The basic principles of knowledge are received from higher authorities, just as preliminary mathematical information is given by the teacher when he informs the student that two plus two equals four. God has given us reason, senses, and consciousness, and by applying them, we can arrive at the proper conclusion. **Hayagrīva:** In *Critique of Judgement,* Kant writes: "Absolutely no human reason...can hope to understand the production of even a blade of grass by mere mechanical causes. That crude matter should have originally formed itself according to mechanical laws, that life should have sprung from the nature of what is lifeless, that matter should have been able to dispose itself into the form of a self-maintaining purpose—is contradictory to reason." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and therefore we have to learn from an authority, from one who is cognizant and knows things as they are. Matter certainly cannot combine itself without a brain behind it, and that brain is the Supreme Lord, God. It is unreasonable to think that matter automatically combines independent of intelligence to form the sun, moon, and other planets. **Śyāmasundara:** If we are unable to receive knowledge from a higher authority, is it possible to have it innately inside of us? **Prabhupāda:** Innate knowledge is knowledge that is already there. We say that Kṛṣṇa is the *caitya-guru* because Kṛṣṇa is within. Kṛṣṇa is everything both inside and outside. Within, He is the Paramātmā, the Supersoul, and outside He is the spiritual master and the *śāstra,* the scripture. Kṛṣṇa is trying to help the conditioned soul in both ways: from within and without. It is therefore said that the spiritual master is the representative of Kṛṣṇa because Kṛṣṇa appears outside as the spiritual master. Inside, He is personally present as Paramātmā. **Śyāmasundara:** For Kant, the second knowledge-attaining process is the transcendental analytic. First, the mind applies the concept of time and space. Then it applies the categories of quantity, cause and effect, quality, modality, and so on. **Prabhupāda:** That is all right. **Śyāmasundara:** The third process is the transcendental dialectic, whereby the human mind seeks to understand everything. But since sensory information is inadequate, the mind tries to go beyond sense experience. **Prabhupāda:** How is that? **Śyāmasundara:** The mind is aware that there is an ultimate reality, a thing in itself, a noumenon, which produces each phenomenon. But because the mind is not equipped to sense this ultimate reality, the mind must forever remain agnostic. **Prabhupāda:** Why agnostic? He should go to higher authorities. If we hear a sound on the roof, we may speculate that the sound is this or that, but with our imperfect senses we cannot ascertain what made the sound. But if someone is actually on the roof, he can tell us, "The sound was made by this." Why should we remain satisfied with an agnostic position? We should satisfy ourselves by asking, "Is there someone on the roof?" If someone says, "Yes, I am here," then we can ask him what made the sound. Therefore the *Vedas* enjoin: tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum *evābhigacchet* [*Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad* 1.2.12]. In order to understand what is beyond the senses, we must approach a spiritual master who can impart information. When we actually want to understand transcendental subjects, we must approach a guru. And what is a guru? > tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta > jijñāsuḥśreya uttamam > śābde pare ca niṣṇātaṁ > brahmaṇy upaśamāśrayam "Any person who is seriously desirous of achieving real happiness must seek out a bona fide spiritual master and take shelter of him by initiation. A spiritual master must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities who have taken complete shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters." [*SB.* 11.3.21] A guru is one who is well versed in the Vedic literatures, *śruti.* And how can we understand that he is? *Brahmaṇy *upaśamāśrayam.* One who knows the Vedas* forgets everything material and concerns himself only with spirit soul. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant was just exploring the possibility that although we cannot know ultimate reality by our senses, the mind nevertheless wants to know it. **Prabhupāda:** But that is misleading. No one can ascertain the Absolute Truth by mental speculation. That is impossible. The *śāstras* state: *panthāstu* *koṭi-śata-vatsara-sampragamyaḥ* [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.34]. Even if we travel at the speed of mind for thousands of years, we cannot find Kṛṣṇa. If this is the case, a man, who lives the utmost for only a hundred years, cannot understand Kṛṣṇa through his material senses. The material attempt will be futile. The Vedas* say that the devotee who has received a little grace from Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet can understand Him. Others will speculate for millions of years to no end. Kṛṣṇa can be understood only through the grace of Kṛṣṇa. Because the devotee is engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service, Kṛṣṇa reveals Himself. **Hayagrīva:** Kant would also say that we cannot experience God through our senses but only through faith and intuitive reason. Speculative reason is unable to attain to a sure or adequate conception of God. **Prabhupāda:** That is correct: it is not possible to understand God by mental speculation. When God explains Himself, we can understand Him. The devotees can accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His instructions, but a nondevotee or atheist, unable to understand, simply speculates. It is not possible for a speculator to reach the vicinity of God. We can understand God only by God's mercy, which is bestowed by a pure devotee surrendered to God. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa explicitly states: > nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya > yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ > mūḍho 'yaṁ nābhijānāti > loko mām ajam avyayam "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and inexhaustible." [*Bg.* 7.25] Revelation means that God opens the curtain for His devotee. The sun is in the sky all the time, but at night it is obscured. By God's mercy, the sun rises in the morning, and everyone can immediately see the light. At night, we may speculate about the sun, but when the sun rises in the morning, we can immediately understand what the sun is. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant maintains that the mental speculators try to reconstruct ultimate reality by applying mundane categories to it. They attempt through the mind to create what they believe to be the real world. **Prabhupāda:** For mental speculators, the real world is nothing more than the negation of this world. This is voidism. In this world, we experience that everything is material. The mental speculator's materialistic thinking induces him to conclude that the spiritual must be the opposite of the material. Since the material has form, the spiritual must be formless, or void. This is typical materialistic thinking. He thinks, "Since this is not truth, the opposite must be truth." **Śyāmasundara:** Kant says that "the world is my representation." That is, this real world becomes an ideal construction in the mind of man. **Prabhupāda:** We try to construct an ideal world, but we are frustrated here because everything is temporary; therefore we can understand that the ideal must be eternal. No one wants to die; we all want to live. However, this is hopeless because the body is not eternal. Therefore we understand that in the ideal world, the body is eternal. **Hayagrīva:** Kant acknowledges that there is a design in nature but that man, not being able to know the total design, cannot know for certain whether there is a designer. The design, as man sees it, does not necessarily prove the existence of the designer. His existence can only be intuited. **Prabhupāda:** As soon as we see pottery, we immediately understand that there is a potter. It is impossible for pottery to be made any other way. **Hayagrīva:** Kant maintains that due to the overwhelming effects of suffering and natural calamities, it is impossible for man to see nature's final end. **Prabhupāda:** Nature does not have a final end; nature is only an instrument. If I beat you with a stick, it is I, not the stick, that is beating you. When we receive pains and tribulations from nature, we should understand that nature is an instrument designed by God. *Śītoṣṇa-sukha-duḥkheṣu* [*Bg.* 12.18]. By witnessing the changes of seasons, heat and cold, happiness and distress, we can understand that there is a designer or brain behind the functionings of material nature. > 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] **Hayagrīva:** Kant would say that the design can be intuited but not known. **Prabhupāda:** To a foolish man, everything is unknown, but a man in knowledge knows everything from authority, or from direct perception. Some way or other, the knowledge is there. Something is unknown when one doesn't care to know, or doesn't want to receive the knowledge. **Śyāmasundara:** When man realizes the futility of mental speculation, he attempts to create ideas about the universe which transcend the bounds of experience. For Kant, this is the third stage, the transcendental dialectic. These ideas belong to the realm of pure reason, or transcendental reason, and are not mere fictions. They spring from the very nature of reason itself. **Prabhupāda:** We are all seeking eternity. Because we understand that we are eternal souls, we know that this is not our place, and are therefore seeking the eternal world. The spirit soul does not feel comfortable within this material body. This is understood when we conclude that we must return to the spiritual world and attain a spiritual body. Information on how this is done is given in *Bhagavad-gītā,* wherein Kṛṣṇa says that one who understands Him and develops love for Him attains a spiritual body that will enable him to see God. If we are very anxious to see Kṛṣṇa and full in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we will be transferred to Kṛṣṇa's abode at the time of death. This is Kṛṣṇa's promise in Bhagavad-gītā*. **Śyāmasundara:** Transcendental reasoning is in man to guide his understanding to clearer and wider knowledge. For instance, the idea of a Supreme Being is a regulative principle of reason because it tells us to view everything in the world as if it proceeded from a necessary cause, the Supreme Being. **Prabhupāda:** The Supreme Being is the cause of all causes. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant says that it is the natural impulse of pure reason to perceive a total regularity in everything. To arrive at this total synthesis, the mind must suppose that there is a Supreme Being. **Prabhupāda:** This is confirming the statements of *Bhagavad-gītā.* **Śyāmasundara:** He claims that it is impossible to arrive at the ultimate reality by pure reason alone because phenomena are endless. **Prabhupāda:** Therefore he has to accept Kṛṣṇa's assertions. He has to admit that he is puzzled with these various changes in phenomena. As soon as we come to Kṛṣṇa, we find out that Kṛṣṇa is behind the changing phenomena and that the universe is working under His direction. This is the perfect conclusion. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Kant, when we examine material phenomena by our reason, we arrive at certain contradictions called antimonies—that is, two opposing statements regarded to be true. **Prabhupāda:** In Sanskrit, this is called *viruddhārtha,* words that mean both yes and no. **Śyāmasundara:** For instance: "The world has a beginning in time, and is enclosed within limits of space." And, "The world has no beginning in time, and no limits in space, but is infinite." As far as reason is concerned, both conclusions are true. **Prabhupāda:** So how is this adjusted? The adjustment is given in *Bhagavad-gītā,* wherein Kṛṣṇa says that this phenomenal world of materials comes into existence, is annihilated, and then comes again into existence. > avyaktād vyaktayaḥ sarvāḥ > prabhavanty ahar-āgame > rātry-āgame pralīyante > tatraivāvyakta-saṁjñake > bhūta-grāmaḥ sa evāyaṁ > bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate > rātry-āgame 'vaśaḥ pārtha > prabhavaty ahar-āgame "At the beginning of Brahmā's day, all living entities become manifest from the unmanifest state, and thereafter, when the night falls, they are merged into the unmanifest again. Again and again, when Brahmā's day arrives, all living entities come into being, and with the arrival of Brahmā's night they are helplessly annihilated." [*Bg.* 8.18–19] **Śyāmasundara:** Another antimony of Kant's is: "Every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts, and nothing whatever exists but the simple, or what is composed out of the simple." And, "No composite thing in the world is made up of simple parts, nor does anything simple exist anywhere in the world." **Prabhupāda:** We say that the whole world is made of material energy, and this is the simplistic view. Now, there are many component parts of material energy: the *mahat-tattva,* the *pradhāna,* the *puruṣa,* the twenty-four elements, the five gross elements, eight subtle elements, the senses, the objects of the senses, and so forth. In this way, when we begin to analyze material energy, so many complications arise. **Śyāmasundara:** Another antimony deals with causal relations: "Causality and conformity with laws of nature are not the only causality from which all the phenomena of the world can be derived. To explain those phenomena, it is necessary to suppose that there is also a free causality." And, "There is no freedom, but all that comes to be in the world takes place entirely in accordance with laws of nature." **Prabhupāda:** He cannot explain the cause because he does not know it. The ultimate cause is Kṛṣṇa, God. Events may seem miraculous because we cannot understand how they are taking place. God's energy is so subtle that it works simply by His will. By His will, all processes in nature take place, but they take place so swiftly that we see them as miracles. Actually, there is no such thing as a miracle; we only see it as a miracle. Kṛṣṇa is floating many planets in space, and this may seem like a miracle, but to Kṛṣṇa it is not. Kṛṣṇa is known as Yogeśvara, the master of all mystic power. **Śyāmasundara:** Another antimony questions the existence of an Absolute Being: "There exists an absolutely necessary being, which belongs to the world either as a part or as the cause." And, "There nowhere exists an absolutely necessary being, either in the world or outside, as its cause." Thus, according to reason, we can conclude that there is either a God or no God. **Prabhupāda:** What reasoning can support the nonexistence of God? **Śyāmasundara:** We can conclude this by using the senses. **Prabhupāda:** But where do you get your senses? **Śyāmasundara:** One could say that they are only a combination of matter. **Prabhupāda:** But where does this matter come from? **Śyāmasundara:** According to material reasoning, one can say that there is no necessary cause. **Prabhupāda:** But we can see that matter is growing, coming into existence like a tree. **Śyāmasundara:** It may have been eternally existing. **Prabhupāda:** How is that? A tree is not eternally existing. This brass pot is not eternally existing. Someone has made it. **Śyāmasundara:** But the matter itself could have been eternally existing. **Prabhupāda:** But we can see that it is not only existing. It is growing. A tree is wood, and wood is matter. How is it growing? Similarly, our material bodies take birth at a certain moment, grow, reproduce, dwindle, and finally vanish. This is the nature of all matter. Everything starts out as a seed and grows from there. Now, where does the seed come from? Kṛṣṇa says, *bījaṁ m***ām** *sarva-bhūtānāṁ.* "I am the original seed of all existences." [*Bg.* 7.10] Therefore Kṛṣṇa is the cause of everything. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant's point is that these antimonies arise from the attempt by reason to apply its categories to the Absolute, the transcendent. But by mundane reasoning alone, we cannot approach the Absolute. **Prabhupāda:** By our reasoning, we can see that everything is growing and that the entire cosmic manifestation must have grown from a source. **Śyāmasundara:** But this is transcendental reasoning. **Prabhupāda:** No, common reason. Everything is growing from a certain source; therefore this material world must have grown from a certain source. It is very simple. **Śyāmasundara:** But some people can look at the seed of a tree and come to a different conclusion. **Prabhupāda:** Well, we also receive this information from authoritative literature, from the *Vedas.* **Śyāmasundara:** Someone can apply material reasoning and arrive at a different conclusion. **Prabhupāda:** But is this reasoning proved by experience? Can a man prove that he is born without a father? How did the material body come into existence? How can one deny his father? How can one deny the cause? He cannot because his very existence is depending on some cause. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant is simply saying that whenever we begin to speculate about the Absolute, we run into contradictions. **Prabhupāda:** Contradiction is due to imperfect knowledge. Unless we conclude that Kṛṣṇa is the cause of all causes, our knowledge is doomed to be imperfect. Vedic literature says that Kṛṣṇa glanced at material nature and impregnated her. Then so many products developed, including all these categories. Matter and spirit combined to bring this whole cosmic manifestation into existence. **Śyāmasundara:** For Kant, cause and effect relationships are also a priori conceptions, mental creations, like time and space. Prior to sense experience, we have an idea of them. **Prabhupāda:** I take my birth at a certain time, and I die at a certain time. Time is existing before my birth, and it will continue to exist after my death. Similarly with space. This body is temporarily manifest in time, for a certain period considered my lifespan. During that time, I occupy some space, and that is a temporary occupation. Time and space, however, are eternally there. At least, time is eternally there, because space is also born in time. **Śyāmasundara:** How is that? **Prabhupāda:** We receive information from *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* that because this material space is also *ākāśa,* it is born of the finer, subtle mind and intelligence. These descriptions are given in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.* Space is also created. **Śyāmasundara:** Hume had said that cause and effect are habitual assumptions, that we naturally assume that a certain effect follows a certain cause but that the cause does not necessarily bring about the effect. **Prabhupāda:** We don't agree with that. There cannot be an effect without a cause. Let him prove first that there is an existence without a cause. **Śyāmasundara:** Well, Hume gave the example of a footprint on the beach. Normally we can assume that a human being left the footprint. **Prabhupāda:** Why normally assume? If it is actually there, it is a fact. **Śyāmasundara:** Possibly something else left the footprint. Someone could have made a cast of a foot, or some other possibility may exist. **Prabhupāda:** That is nonsense. Why should someone make a footprint to mislead you? But even if he does, that is the cause. The cause is that someone came to mislead you. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant would say that when we see something, we intuitively understand the cause and effect relationship. **Prabhupāda:** You may or may not understand what the cause is, but there must be a cause. Without a cause, nothing can happen. People foolishly inquire when or why the living entity fell into material nature, but what is the use of this question? There is certainly a cause, but instead of trying to find out the cause, we should try to treat the disease. Why waste time? **Śyāmasundara:** Kant concludes that because the mind imposes a priori laws upon nature as both necessary and universal, the mind is creative and does not come into the world a blank slate. **Prabhupāda:** It is a fact that the mind is creative. It creates and then rejects. That is the mind's business—*saṁkalpa-vikalpa.* **Śyāmasundara:** Kant would say that apart from using the categories of thought—like quantity, quality, cause and effect, and modality— there is only mere guesswork and imperfect dogma. The mind is not satisfied with this partial explanation; it wants to grasp reality in a comprehensive way. The mind wants to know something beyond these categories, and this is the realm of the transcendental dialectic. **Prabhupāda:** This inquisitiveness is actual philosophy. We are searching for the cause of all causes. A thoughtful man is naturally interested in the ultimate cause of everything. That is human nature. It is the *mahātmā* who searches after the ultimate cause and finds it. The Vedānta-sūtra* therefore begins with the inquiry: *athāto *brahma-jijñāsā.* "What is the ultimate cause? What is Brahman?" It answers: *janmādyasya* *yataḥ.* "Brahman is the supreme source from whom everything emanates." Unless we go to the supreme source, we cannot be satisfied. Those who approach this source through mental speculation attain the impersonal feature. From this point, they can make further advancement. In Īśopaniṣad*, there is a prayer petitioning the Supreme: > hiraṇmayena pātreṇa > satyasyāpihitaṁ mukham > tat tvaṁ pūṣann apāvṛṇu > satya-dharmāya dṛṣṭaye **"O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Please remove that covering and reveal Yourself to Your pure devotee." [*Īśopaniṣad* 15] If we penetrate this impersonal Brahman, we will arrive at Kṛṣṇa, and then be satisfied. Therefore it is stated in Bhagavad-gītā*:** > 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] **Śyāmasundara:** Kant says that after the futile attempt to apply categorical analysis to transcendental knowledge, a man attempts to create other ideas about the universe which transcend sense experience. **Prabhupāda:** In other words, after failing to attain material knowledge, he attempts to attain transcendental knowledge. What is this? **Śyāmasundara:** Rather, he fails to understand transcendental knowledge when applying the techniques of material knowledge. **Prabhupāda:** This means that he cannot approach transcendental knowledge with material senses. If this is not possible, how can he hope to form valid ideas about transcendence? **Śyāmasundara:** Through pure reason. **Prabhupāda:** He admits that the material senses cannot reach transcendence, but he is not clear about the meaning of this pure reason. If the senses are imperfect, and if your reasoning is fed by the senses, your reasoning is also imperfect. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant maintains that reason can act a priori, separate or independent of the senses, to understand that there is God and a soul. **Prabhupāda:** That is possible. **Śyāmasundara:** In fact, Kant recognizes three ideals of pure reason: the soul, the ultimate world, and God. These ideals transcend the bounds of sensory experience; they are innate and a priori. **Prabhupāda:** That is also true. > 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] It is our natural tendency to offer service to the Lord. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has also said that the living entity is God's eternal servant. The tendency to offer service is natural. Somehow or other, it has been covered by material ignorance. **Śyāmasundara:** Whereas sense perception cannot provide any information about the soul and God, pure reason can provide us with certain conceptions, but not much more. **Prabhupāda:** We cannot know more by our personal attempt, but these subjects can be known by a process called *guru-paramparā.* When God speaks, it is possible to know. We hear from God in order to understand what, who, and where He is. In this way, our knowledge is perfect. According to Kant, we cannot attain reality or God through reason and the senses. That is a fact admitted in the Vedas*. The word *vacanam* means "words," and *mana***ḥ** means "mind." We cannot reach the Supreme either by words or the mind. **Hayagrīva:** Kant suggests that certain knowledge of God's existence would destroy a man's freedom and reduce human experience to a show of puppets frantically attempting to attain the favor of the Almighty. Thus uncertainty is a necessary ingredient for faith. **Prabhupāda:** Faith should not be blind. If it is, it is useless. We may believe in the government, but the government is not dependent on faith. There is a government, and we are under the government's laws and therefore have to obey them. There is no question of faith. Similarly, one who knows God becomes dependent on Him, and that is not faith but fact. The devotee is happy depending on God. He knows that it is foolishness to think himself independent. A child voluntarily depends on his parents and is therefore happy. **Śyāmasundara:** Since our knowledge is limited to mere phenomena, faith is necessary to acquire knowledge of God, freedom, and immortality. **Prabhupāda:** No, faith is not a fact but a compromise. It is good that he admits that we cannot approach God ultimately by our senses or reason, but faith alone also is not sufficient, not perfect. Western philosophers have created so many different faiths. One may believe in one faith, and another person in another, but this is faith, not fact. The fact is this: if we are convinced that there is a God and that He is omnipotent, we have to admit that by His omnipotence He can descend into the world. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says that He descends into the world for two reasons: to rectify the discrepancies in religion, and to please His devotees who are always anxious to see Him. Some people may say that God is partial, but He is not. God is kind both to His devotees and to the miscreants and demons. When the miscreants are killed by God, they attain immediate salvation, and when the devotees see God, they can understand His actual position. In Vṛndāvana, God displays Himself just as He does in the spiritual world. It is His nature to play with the cowherd boys and dance with the *gopīs.* When the devotees understand this, they become encouraged by knowing that after finishing the material body, they will return to Kṛṣṇa to join in His pastimes. This information is not only understood from the *śāstras,* but is actually demonstrated by Kṛṣṇa. Thus this knowledge is doubly confirmed. When we hear about God and His activities, we can also realize them because God is absolute. There is no difference between seeing Him and hearing about Him. In this way, true knowledge is attained. However expert a logician one may be, it is not possible by reason, logic, or mundane knowledge to approach the Supreme Absolute. It is possible to understand God only when He descends Himself, gives information about Himself, and displays His pastimes. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* is a chronicle of the descents of God. If we try to understand God through Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* or *Bhagavad-gītā,* we become a *bhāgavata.* In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, God speaks about Himself and His activities, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* is a record of God's activities and pastimes. The first nine cantos are devoted to the understanding of the transcendental nature of God, and the Tenth Canto is a chronicle of God's activities before the eyes of the people of the world. However, those who are miscreants will think that God is just a famous person, or a superhuman being, and that's all. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning religion and faith, Kant writes: "There is only one [true] religion, but there can be faiths of several kinds. It is therefore more fitting to say, 'This man is of this or that faith [Jewish, Mohammedan, Catholic, Lutheran], than he is of this or that religion.'" **Prabhupāda:** That is correct. Since religion means obedience to God, it does not refer to some sect. People are trying to understand God in different ways, but these ways are not real religion; they are methods of understanding God. Religion begins when we have understood God and are rendering Him service. **Śyāmasundara:** In *Critique of Practical Reason,* Kant affirmed that moral laws are necessary and universal objects of the human will and must be accepted as valid for everyone. We can know what is morally right a priori, by intuition. **Prabhupāda:** No. Morality is relative. It varies according to the development of a particular society. For instance, there are many immoral acts taking place in modern society, but no one cares. People go ahead and act as they please. **Śyāmasundara:** Then there is no universal morality? **Prabhupāda:** Universal morality means obeying God. That's all. **Śyāmasundara:** But are any of God's laws fixed? **Prabhupāda:** All laws are included if you obey God. That is universal morality. > man-manā bhava mad-bhakto > mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru > mām evaiṣyasi satyaṁ te > pratijāne priyo 'si me "Always think of Me, 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] This is the basis of morality. We must become Kṛṣṇa's servitor. Since so many immoral activities are being accepted as moral, how else can a person know what is moral and what is not? **Hayagrīva:** Kant writes: "For a rational but finite being, the only thing possible is an endless progress from the lower to the higher degrees of moral perfection." **Prabhupāda:** This means that there is an endless struggle to understand real morality. This is not necessary. We need only accept the orders of God and follow them. That is ultimate reality. **Hayagrīva:** What Kant means by morality is rather vague. He does not give specific outlines for action. Rather, he writes, "The moral individual is to do what is good only because it is good." According to his categorical imperative, man should act in such a way that the maxim of his actions might become the principle for universal law. **Prabhupāda:** But that is impossible for the individual soul. It is impossible for a conditioned living entity to do something that will be universally accepted. **Hayagrīva:** Then man cannot establish a universal law by his own action? **Prabhupāda:** No. Only God can do so. Only God can say, *sarva-dharmān *parityajya* *m***ām** *ekam.* "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me." [*Bg.* 18.66] If an individual conditioned soul says this, who will accept him? **Śyāmasundara:** But Kant says that there are certain imperatives that we are born with. **Prabhupāda:** What are these? He should say specifically. The only universal imperative is that you should be obedient to God. That's all. **Hayagrīva:** Kant rejects the traditional proofs of God's existence in order to clear the ground for his assertion that God is morally necessary in a moral universe. In this universe, every soul is an end in itself, and these individual souls are like citizens in a "kingdom of ends." **Prabhupāda:** Why does he use the word "kingdom" if he does not accept the king? **Hayagrīva:** No, he would say that the king is a moral necessity in a moral universe. He simply rejects the traditional proofs. **Prabhupāda:** That's all right, but he sees the individual souls as ends in themselves. There is no question of such independence, because everything is part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. God is behind nature, and if our morality denies the existence of God, what is its value? One man may think that animal killing is good, while another may think that it is immoral. So who is correct? There must be some authority to establish morality. Morality must have some background, otherwise it will change at any moment. **Hayagrīva:** Kant also writes: "It does not enter men's heads that when they fulfill their duty to men [themselves and others], they are, by these very acts, performing God's commands and are therefore in all their actions and abstentions, so far as these concern morality, perpetually in the service of God, and that it is absolutely impossible to serve God directly in any other way " **Prabhupāda:** If man does not serve God, how can he know how to serve humanity? If he does not receive information from God about how to serve humanity, what is the value of his humanitarianism? The best way to serve mankind is to preach this message of *Bhagavad-gītā* so that everyone can become a faithful servant of God. When we are God's servants, we can render service not only to our fellow man but to all other living entities as well. However, if we manufacture our service, it is useless. **Hayagrīva:** In the preface to one of his last works, *Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone,* Kant seems to shift his position to say that morality "extends itself to the idea of a powerful moral Lawgiver, outside of mankind." Still, he believes that knowledge of God is ultimately uncertain. **Prabhupāda:** It is uncertain for one who does not have perfect knowledge. If you believe in God and know God, you can get perfect knowledge from Him. Then you'll become perfect. **Śyāmasundara:** Ideally, for Kant, it is the moral obligation of everyone to obey the moral commands. **Prabhupāda:** Not moral commands, but the supreme command. As I said, what is moral for you may be immoral for others. One man's food is another's poison. If Kṛṣṇa tells Yudhiṣṭhira to lie, that lying is moral. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna to fight and kill, and that killing is moral. Morality means obeying God's order. Because your senses are imperfect, you cannot create morality. You cannot even know what is moral. Therefore you should follow the orders of Kṛṣṇa or His representative. The real categorical imperative is to obey the Supreme. That is morality, and anything else is immoral. **Śyāmasundara:** Then we are not born with a priori knowledge of what is right? **Prabhupāda:** A priori in the sense that we know we have to obey Kṛṣṇa. That knowledge is manifest even in uncivilized men. When aborigines see a thunderbolt, they offer prayers. It is natural and inborn to offer obeisances. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant says that it is not the act itself which is good or bad, but the will behind the act. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but that will has to be developed. A child has will, but it has to be developed by his teacher. Everyone in the material world is in ignorance; therefore it is called a place of darkness. The *Vedas* advise: "Don't remain in darkness. Go to the light." The spiritual world is light. In the material world, since our will is in darkness, it is bound to be imperfect. The will has to be dragged to the light, and that requires superior help. We cannot think, "I am doing this for a good cause; therefore it is good." In this way, people manufacture all kinds of creeds and act in every way. Guidance is required. We must consult a superior authority for confirmation. **Hayagrīva:** Kant believed that only man can be regarded as nature's own end, or highest product, because on earth only man is capable of complying with the categorical imperative, the moral law. **Prabhupāda:** But if nature creates man, then nature is supreme. However, nature is only dull matter. > 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] Human beings cannot create these things, nor can nature in itself create them. So how can nature create man? How can man be considered nature's own end or highest product? What is the logic in this philosophy? **Hayagrīva:** Kant would say that man is nature's final end because man's moral nature alone is worthwhile. **Prabhupāda:** We object to his emphasizing that man is a product of nature. Nature itself cannot make man. Nature provides the body, just as a tailor provides a suit. This body is but the outward covering of the living entity. The living entity within the body is not created by material nature. He is part and parcel of God. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant says that man belongs to "the kingdom of ends" because man is not just an object of utility but an end in himself. Since he alone possesses self-direction, or dignity, he should never stoop to sell himself like a commodity. **Prabhupāda:** And what is that end? Kant does not give any concrete example. Man's dignity is his inherent quality of obedience to the Supreme. It is that obedience that we should not sacrifice. We are not independent, but subordinate to God's will. Kant may be a strict moralist, but that is not the highest platform. We have to transcend even the moral principle to attain perfection. There is morality and immorality in the material world because there are the three modes of material nature operating: goodness, passion, and ignorance. Morality is on the platform of goodness. According to the transcendental, spiritual point of view, the entire material world is condemned. One may be a first-class prisoner, or a second-class prisoner, a *brāhmaṇa* or a *śūdra.* Whatever the case, one is still a conditioned soul. Of course, as far as conditional life is concerned, there is value in morality. Morality may help us come to the transcendental platform, but coming to that platform is not dependent on morality. It is independent of everything. Kṛṣṇa's order is above morality. **Śyāmasundara:** But might not morality help us see behind the moral law and transcend it? **Prabhupāda:** Not necessarily. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, we find that Arjuna was trying to become moral by not killing his relatives, but that could not help him. Rather, by directly abiding by the orders of Kṛṣṇa, he transcended morality. So morality in itself does not always help. **Hayagrīva:** Kant spoke of "the starry sky above, and the moral law within." This seems to echo Christ's teaching that "the kingdom of God is within you." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, if you are actually a lover of God and His instructions, the kingdom of God is within. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant proposes that since the moral law cannot possibly be fulfilled within the limits of one lifetime, the soul must be immortal. **Prabhupāda:** That is a very good proposition. That is real evolution. Darwin had no idea of the existence of the soul, and he gave some theories about material evolution, which we do not accept. But there is spiritual evolution. Even though a devotee falls down, what he has earned in devotional service will never be lost. In the next life, he begins from that point. However, as far as material activities are concerned, they vanish with the change of body. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant also proposes that since only God can insure the human endeavor for the supreme good, God's existence is a necessary postulate of practical reason. **Prabhupāda:** We have already explained this. Whatever devotional service is rendered in this life is taken up in the next. Who can give the living entity that chance but God? I may forget, but God does not forget. God is Paramātmā. He is within, and He knows what the living entity has done to this point. **Śyāmasundara:** For Kant, the *summum *bonum* is virtue combined with happiness. Happiness is the knowledge of doing what is right. **Prabhupāda:** Happiness means spiritual happiness. There is no material happiness because whatever is material is temporary. Since the spirit soul is eternal, he must have spiritual happiness. That happiness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If you know that you are the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, and you are serving Kṛṣṇa, that service is your happiness. Even if your duty is painful, you are still happy because you know that you are acting for Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant points out that on earth, happiness does not necessarily accompany goodness; therefore there must be a God who sees that a virtuous man finds his deserved happiness in a future life. Without such justice, there would be no meaning to morality. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, in the last *mantra* of Īśopaniṣad,* it is stated: > agne naya supathā rāye asmān > viśvāni deva vayunāni vidvān > yuyodhy asmaj juhurāṇam eno > bhūyiṣṭhāṁ te nama-uktiṁ vidhema "O my Lord, powerful as fire, omnipotent One, now I offer You all obeisances, falling on the ground at Your feet. O my Lord, please lead me on the right path to reach You, and, since You know all that I have done in the past, please free me from the reactions to my past sins so that there will be no hindrance to my progress." [*Īśopaniṣad* 18] We should be very sincere in our service to God so that He will relieve us of the reactions of our karma. Unless there is a Supreme, what is the value of morality? **Śyāmasundara:** Kant would say that in his earthly life, a man should not be motivated toward moral conduct out of any expectation of happiness, but out of a sense of duty, or reverence for the moral law. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that means unmotivated service. It is not that we love Kṛṣṇa just to receive some benefit. It is our duty. That is pure morality. Knowing that we are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, we should render service to Kṛṣṇa without ulterior motivation. **Śyāmasundara:** The goal of Kant's personal ethics is twofold: it is a person's duty to attain his own perfection and also to seek the happiness of others. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. A Kṛṣṇa conscious man is not happy thinking, "I have now contacted Kṛṣṇa; therefore my business is finished." Other living entities are also part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, but due to misguidance, they are not serving Him. Consequently, they are not attaining happiness. It is the duty of one who knows Kṛṣṇa to preach about Him out of mercy. Those who are satisfied just tending to their own personal spiritual life are not as highly elevated as those who try to enlighten others. **Śyāmasundara:** Pure practical reason, the free will's ability to choose, takes priority over pure speculative reason, or theorizing about reality. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is not sufficient to merely understand that there is a God. We must render service to God. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means applying knowledge of Kṛṣṇa. If you are a devotee, you must demonstrate it. My Guru Mahārāja therefore condemned those who make a show of being devotees and spend all day and night within closed doors chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa. Sometimes such people smoke and have illicit sex because they are not mature in their devotional service. A neophyte should work for Kṛṣṇa; otherwise he will simply be a showbottle. We have to spread Caitanya Mahāprabhu's teachings all over the world. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant concludes that self-realization is superior to mere philosophy. **Prabhupāda:** This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is a practical demonstration of this. Since we know that we are the eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa, we engage in His service. Kṛṣṇa wants it to be known that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We may either accept this or not— that is all right with Kṛṣṇa—but it is our business to inform everyone that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord and that everyone else is His eternal servant. If we enlighten people in this way, we are engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service. It is not that we go to church and ask God, "Give us our daily bread." God is giving bread daily to everyone, even to birds and beasts; therefore it is not practical to ask God for what He is already supplying. According to our Vaiṣṇava philosophy, we must work for Kṛṣṇa. We are not just theorizing, but practicing. **Hayagrīva:** Kant rejected church-going as a means to salvation. He states that "sensuous representation of God is contrary to the command of reason: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,' etc." **Prabhupāda:** If someone imagines an image, that is not good. An image arises from the imagination. However, it is different to keep a photograph of your beloved. The photograph of your beloved is not imaginary. It is a fact. **Hayagrīva:** Although rejecting prayer as an inner formal service to God, Kant believed that it is good to teach children to pray so that in their early years they might accustom themselves to a life pleasing to God. **Prabhupāda:** Religion means pleasing God, and that is not restricted to children. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body, Kant writes: "For who is so fond of his body that he would wish to drag it about with him through all eternity if he could get on without it?" **Prabhupāda:** It is natural to want to retain one's body. Even though his life is abominable, a hog will cry when being captured or killed. He does not consider his body to be undesirable, although he is eating stool and living in a filthy place. It is natural to want to protect one's body perpetually, regardless of one's condition. This tendency is there because the living entity is eternal, and he is hankering after that eternity. It is his mistake to desire this eternity in a material body. **Śyāmasundara:** In his book *Eternal Peace,* Kant asserts that there can be peace in the world if certain laws are followed. **Prabhupāda:** We often hear that peace can be attained, but it can be attained only when we understand that Kṛṣṇa is the factual proprietor of everything. We must accept Kṛṣṇa as our friend and understand that we are not the proprietors of anything. We must know that everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa if peace is to reign. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning government, Kant writes: "An ethical commonwealth can be thought of only as a people under divine commands, as a people of God....This would be a commonwealth wherein God would be the Lawgiver." **Prabhupāda:** If the king or president and the people abide by the orders of God, the state will be ideal. **Hayagrīva:** Kant's state would be theocratic in its constitution; however, since priests receive gifts from God directly, they would construct an aristocratic government. **Prabhupāda:** A theocratic government is properly outlined in *Manu-saṁhitā,* given by Manu for the benefit of all human society. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant believes that there should be a world state in which everyone can participate, and a system of international law regulating relationships between various nations or states. **Prabhupāda:** This is also our position, the proposition of the International Society for Kṛṣṇa consciousness. There is one God, and there should be one state. If we can turn the majority of people to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they will vote for Kṛṣṇa conscious people, and they will not be exploited. The principles that we are following individually can be introduced on a larger scale. **Śyāmasundara:** Kant believes that the leaders should follow the moral principles, but he rejects Plato's idea that the philosophers should be kings. Rather, they should serve as advisors only. Then they will be able to exercise good judgment. **Prabhupāda:** That is also the Vedic system. The *brāhmaṇas* advise the *kṣatriyas.* If the *brāhmaṇas* are empowered and try to administer, their philosophical qualities will be diminished. They should remain free and act only as advisors. ## Johann Gottlieb Fichte [1762-1814] **Hayagrīva:** Fichte is not as important as Kant or Hegel, but he is in the same tradition. He followed pretty much in the footsteps of Kant. In his first work, entitled *Our Belief in a Divine Government of the Universe,* he writes: "Our belief in a moral world order must be based on the concept of a supersensible world." That is, without the conception of a transcendental reality, morality in the world has no basis. **Prabhupāda:** First of all, he must define morality. He cannot do this simply by saying, "Our moral principles are...." It is not sufficient to imagine moral principles. Everyone is always saying, "This is moral, and this is immoral." There must be some standard. Following the Vedic scriptures, we say: *kṛṣi-gorakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ* [*Bg.* 18.44]. Cows should be protected. Others claim that cows should be killed in a religious place, in a mosque, synagogue, or whatever. So who is to say what is moral? **Hayagrīva:** Following Kant, Fichte would emphasize inner reality, intuition, or conscience. **Prabhupāda:** Fichte may follow Kant, and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is a contradiction, who is to decide which is moral? Who is to be our leader? How can we decide? In any case, we cannot avoid following some leader, be this leader Lenin, Kṛṣṇa, Kant, or whoever. **Hayagrīva:** Fichte would emphasize the use of individual intuition, or conscience. **Prabhupāda:** Our conscience is determined according to our association. There is no standard conscience. The conscience of a drunkard says that drinking is good, and the conscience of a devotee says that chanting is good. So which are we to follow? We may follow one definition of God, and others may follow another definition. There must be some standard. > dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītaṁ > na vai vidur ṛṣayo nāpi devaḥ > na siddha-mukhyā asurā manuṣyāḥ > kuto nu vidyādhara-cāraṇādayaḥ "Real religious principles are enacted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although fully situated in the mode of goodness, even the great *ṛṣis* who occupy the topmost planets cannot ascertain the real religious principles, nor can the demigods or the leaders of Siddhaloka, to say nothing of the *asuras,* ordinary human beings, Vidyādharas and Cāraṇas." [*SB.* 6.3.19] The definition of God and the orders of God are standard. We cannot manufacture God or morality. **Hayagrīva:** For Fichte, the world has no objective reality outside of its being an instrument for the enactment of duty. He sees the world of the senses as the "stuff of duty." He writes, "Our world is the centralized material of our duty....It is our duty that is revealed in the world of the senses." **Prabhupāda:** If there is no definition of duty, everyone can manufacture his own. Our standard is given by Lord Kṛṣṇa: > sarva-dharmān parityajya > mām ekam śaraṇaṁ vraja > ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo > mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." [*Bg.* 18.66] So whatever duties have been manufactured should be given up. It is not necessary to go on speculating, because the instructions are very clear. For our standard, we refer to the Vedas.* *Śabda-pramāṇam.* If our actions are approved by Vedic injunctions, they will meet the standard and be perfect. **Śyāmasundara:** Fichte believes that the world is a rational unified system directed toward a purpose. It is not a mere machine. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we agree to that. The material world is created for the pastimes of the conditioned soul, just as the spiritual world is manifest for the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa. Those who are eternally liberated and enjoy Kṛṣṇa are called *nitya-mukta.* The *nitya-baddha* is a soul conditioned by material nature. These souls, or *jīvas,* are given a chance to play as they like, and they have come here to satisfy their material senses. Ultimately, they should come to their real senses and understand that it is not their business to enjoy material sense objects here but to return home, back to Godhead. This is a good plan, and one who takes advantage of it does not deviate. If one follows the Vedic instructions concerning eating, sleeping, defending, and mating, he can become eligible to return to Godhead very quickly. However, those who manufacture their own way and go against the plan become implicated in *karma-bandhana.* The word *bandhana* means "to be implicated." **Śyāmasundara:** Fichte claims that because the world is a rational system, reason has a very important place. Reason is a real entity or power which performs purposeful acts. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is so. Caitanya Mahāprabhu pointed out that the living entity is the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. If he utilizes his reason, he can understand very well what he is doing here. He can understand that he is receiving everything through his senses, and by acting in this way and that, has become a servant of his senses. People cannot master their senses, yet they are prepared to try to master the world, or society. The living entity is not the master, yet he artificially attempts to be master. We attain knowledge when we realize that we are not masters but the eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa. People are trying to serve their senses, their family, their country, society, dog, or whatever. This service is misplaced. By the use of reason, we can come to the understanding that we are eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa. When we abandon the service of the senses, of māyā, and take to Kṛṣṇa's service, we attain liberation, *mukti.* **Hayagrīva:** Fichte believes that true atheism consists in "...refusing to obey the voice of one's conscience until one thinks that one can foresee the success of one's actions and thus elevating one's own judgment above that of God and in making oneself into God. He who wills to do evil in order to produce good is a godless person." **Prabhupāda:** If you do not know God or His orders, how can you verify your duty? Do you simply manufacture your duty? Anyone can do that. First of all, you must understand what is meant by duty. Duty means following the orders given by your superior, but if you have no superior, if you have no conception of the Supreme and His order, how can you know your duty? Of course, you may imagine your duty. Is this what he advises? **Hayagrīva:** He is vague on this point. **Prabhupāda:** Because he does not know. According to the *Vedas,* we have definite, prescribed duties. Society is divided into eight divisions comprising the *varṇāśrama-dharma.* There are four *varṇas* [*brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya,* and *śūdra*], and four *āśramas* [*brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha,* and *sannyāsa*]. Whatever you do, you must function according to one of these *varṇas* or *āśramas,* and there are duties prescribed for each. If you follow the principles that are set forth specifically for each stage of life, you are doing your duty. **Hayagrīva:** For Fichte, our knowledge of God arises from the enactment of our duty. **Prabhupāda:** That is all right, but what is our duty? God must assign our duty for us to understand God by enacting our duty. But if we have no conception of God, how can we know what our duty is? **Śyāmasundara:** For Fichte, self-consciousness is the basic principle of human knowledge and our means for searching out the Absolute. **Prabhupāda:** That self-consciousness should be "I am the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa." This can be realized by practice, by education, and by study of the *Vedas.* **Śyāmasundara:** Fichte believes that the philosopher's search for the truth begins with a demand for fulfillment—that is, "Think thyself!" **Prabhupāda:** We should think, "What am I?" By profound meditation, we can understand, "I am not this body but something else. I am eternal. I existed in the past, I exist now, and I will continue to exist in the future. Whatever I am doing now in the material world is separate and temporary. But what is my eternal duty?" If we understand our position and learn from a spiritual master that we are the eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa, we will take to Kṛṣṇa's service—that is, if we are sensible. In this way, we can attain a higher position. **Hayagrīva:** Fichte was ambiguous and vague when he wrote of God as a personal being. He seemed to lean toward pantheism or impersonalism. **Prabhupāda:** If he is an impersonalist, he has no understanding of his master, God, who is giving him his duty. **Hayagrīva:** He looked on the attribution of personality to God as simply a multiplication of oneself in one's own thoughts. **Prabhupāda:** If our understanding of God is only impersonal, where is God's leadership? Is there any question of leadership in impersonalism? **Hayagrīva:** Well, he feels that if you attribute personality to God, you are projecting yourself onto God—that is, you are manufacturing God. **Prabhupāda:** We cannot manufacture God by giving Him imaginary attributes. Whatever attributes we ascribe to Him must be logical. For instance, we say, "God is great" because we have some conception of greatness, and we understand that greatness must be in God, Or we say that God is supremely wealthy, and that also is quite reasonable. We say that God is supreme, and that also logically follows. The attributes of God given by Parāśara Muni—knowledge, fame, wealth, strength, beauty, and renunciation—all combine to give a reasonable definition. **Hayagrīva:** Like many other impersonalists, Fichte believes that if you attribute personality to God, you necessarily limit Him. **Prabhupāda:** He is thinking that God's personality is finite like his, and that is his mistake. Kṛṣṇa's personality is not like that of an ordinary man. As soon as it was necessary to protect the inhabitants of Vṛndāvana from the torrents of Indra, Kṛṣṇa immediately lifted Govardhana Hill to serve as an umbrella. When He did this, He appeared as a seven-year-old boy. He did not have to meditate for years in order to become God. Presently, rascals are meditating to try to become God, but what kind of God? God is always God. He is the transcendental personality, and there is no need for Him to meditate. **Hayagrīva:** Fichte rejects the personality of God because he felt that "the concept of God as a separate substance is impossible and contradictory." **Prabhupāda:** Since God is everything, there is no question of separation. As stated in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > 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] If everything is in God, how can He be separate? **Hayagrīva:** He rejects God as a separate person. **Prabhupāda:** If God is everything, why is He not a separate person also? There is no question of rejection. If he admits that God is everything, how can he reject God's personality? **Hayagrīva:** Since Fichte's pantheism would not admit that God is more than the creation, he would reject the transcendental personality. **Prabhupāda:** Then he is trying to create God after his own conceptions. But if he admits that God is everything, how can he reject God's transcendental personality? If God is everything, He is that which is transcendental, as well as what is not. Those who follow the *Vedas* do not reject any part of God. They see God in everything. Īśāvāsyam *idam* *sarvaṁ* [*Īśopaniṣad* 1]. A real Vaiṣṇava sees everything related to God. If one thinks, "This is matter, and this is spirit," he is speculating. We have to see God in relation to everything. When we do not, everything becomes material. Materialism means forgetfulness of God. **Hayagrīva:** Most people, including Fichte, would find it difficult to concentrate on the transcendental personality of Kṛṣṇa, especially when they know nothing about Kṛṣṇa. **Prabhupāda:** It requires a little intelligence and purification. Once the impurities are cleansed from the mirror of the mind, we can understand; otherwise, we think of God as a ordinary person. > ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitābhis > tābhir ya eva nija-rūpatayā kalābhiḥ > goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūto > govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Rādhā, who resembles His own spiritual figure and who embodies the ecstatic potency [*hl***ādinī**]. Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated with ever-blissful spiritual rasa." [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.37] God is a person living in Goloka Vṛndāvana, dancing with the *gopīs,* and playing with the cowherd boys. Despite this, God is everywhere. It is not that because He is dancing, He has no time to go anywhere. Although He dances in Goloka Vṛndāvana, He is still present everywhere. *Īśvaraḥ *sarva-bhūtānāṁ* *hṛd-deśe.* "The Supreme Lord is in everyone's heart." [*Bg.* 18.61] By His inconceivable potencies, God can be in one place and everywhere else simultaneously. This is the philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva*—simultaneously, inconceivably one with the creation and different from it. **Hayagrīva:** Although an impersonalist, Fichte is certainly not an inactivist. In *The Vocation of Man,* he writes: "Not merely to know, but according to thy knowledge to do, is thy vocation—Not for idle contemplation of thyself, not for brooding over devout sensations—no, for action art thou here; thine action, and thine action alone, determines thy worth." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and that is also the philosophy of our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, which maintains that we are meant for rendering daily service to Kṛṣṇa. We do not believe that you should simply sit down, smoke cigarettes, and speculate on God. What will be the use of such speculation? We advocate a practical life of action devoted to Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** In this, Fichte seems closer to Vaiṣṇavism than most impersonalists, who advocate inaction and meditation on the void. At the same time, how can you act without directing your action toward some person or specific goal? **Prabhupāda:** Even in India, the impersonalists have some activities. Śaṅkarācārya gives many *vairāgya* instructions, which are more difficult to perform than the Vaiṣṇava instructions. As far as Vaiṣṇavism is concerned, Caitanya Mahāprabhu taught through His personal example that there is no time for inactivity. We should not sit idly and gossip about God or imagine what He is like. Both personalists and impersonalists are fully engaged: the impersonalists in reading Vedānta-sūtra,* and the personalists in rendering service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. **Śyāmasundara:** Fichte says that in order to understand reality, reason must follow a process called the dialectical method, which involves thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. First comes the thesis, which fails to provide an adequate solution; this gives rise to an antithesis, the opposite, which is also inadequate; the dilemma is resolved by combining the two into a synthesis. **Prabhupāda:** The thesis is that I am trying to be master of this material world. The antithesis is that my spiritual master informs me that I am the eternal servant of God. The synthesis is that I become master and servant simultaneously, because by serving Kṛṣṇa, I master my senses. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Fichte, the thesis is the ego; the antithesis is the non-ego; and the synthesis is the unification of ego and non-ego. **Prabhupāda:** The ego arises when I think, "I am the monarch of all I survey." The antithesis is, "I am not the monarch but the servant of my senses." Through the synthesis, I become a servant of Kṛṣṇa and simultaneously a master of the senses, a *svāmī,* or *gosvāmī.* **Śyāmasundara:** For Fichte, this dialectical process is endless, for each synthesis in turn becomes a new thesis, etc. However, the ultimate synthesis is the Absolute, or God. **Prabhupāda:** It is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* that those who attempt to attain God in this way, through the process of mental speculation, eventually attain God, but only after many lives. However, one who is intelligent immediately surrenders when he understands God to say, "Just surrender unto Me." This saves time. You can come to the ultimate synthesis, God, by immediately surrendering. If you can perfect your life immediately, why perpetuate this process? **Śyāmasundara:** Fichte states that the original thesis, or the starting point, is the person and his consciousness, the ego. The antithesis is the object of consciousness, phenomena, the non-ego. The synthesis arises with the unification of the subject-object. **Prabhupāda:** The *Vedas* admit that there is direct knowledge, then knowledge received from authority. These combine to form transcendental, spiritual knowledge. At present, our ego is false because we are thinking, "I am matter. I am this body." When we come to real knowledge, we understand that we are spirit soul. This is our true identity. The function of the individual spirit soul is to eternally serve the supreme spirit soul, Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** For Fichte, ultimate reality is the moral ego. This is the pure will, active reason, or the good. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, God is also the ego. We say, "I am," and God also says, "I am." However, God's "I am" is superior to ours. He is the eternal primal living force. We are also eternal living force, but we are subordinate. **Hayagrīva:** Fichte considered faith to be the real basis of action. He felt that knowledge in itself was insufficient. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, faith must be there. We see faith exhibited even amongst the lower species. We see cygnets following their mother swan into the water to swim and play. Faith is quite natural. **Hayagrīva:** In Kṛṣṇa consciousness, does faith or knowledge serve as the basis for action? **Prabhupāda:** In the last chapter of *Bhagavad-gītā,* Kṛṣṇa tells us to abandon everything and just surrender unto Him [*Bg.* 18.66]. Now this requires full faith. If we speculate about this, we do not have faith. In Caitanya-caritāmṛta,* faith is described: > śraddhā'-śabde—viśvāsa kahe sudṛḍha niścaya > kṛṣṇe bhakti kaile sarva-karma kṛta haya **"By rendering transcendental loving service to Kṛṣṇa, one automatically performs all subsidiary activities. This confident, firm faith, favorable to the discharge of devotional service, is called *śraddhā.*" [*Cc Mad* 22.62] Faith means believing firmly. If we have firm faith, we will become perfect by surrendering unto Kṛṣṇa. If we still have reservations, we cannot have firm faith. We may then ask how this faith comes to be, and to this, Bhagavad-gītā* answers:** > 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] This faith, therefore, is not very easily come by. Piety is also required of a candidate. Kṛṣṇa appeared on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra five thousand years ago, and Bhagavad-gītā* has recently been studied by many people like Gandhi, Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda, and Aurobindo. But where is their faith? They have taken advantage of *Bhagavad-gītā* by interpreting it according to their own pleasure. They have never taught complete surrender unto Kṛṣṇa. That requires firm faith in Kṛṣṇa. In any case, in this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, we are teaching our students how to capture Kṛṣṇa through firm faith. There are many faithless people, including yogīs and *svāmīs,* who are commenting on *Bhagavad-gītā,* but this is useless. In the beginning, there must be firm faith. Faith is the foundation. If the foundation is lost, how can a big building stand? **Hayagrīva:** Fichte believes that faith is innate in all men. He writes: "So has it been with all men who have ever seen the light of the world. Without being conscious of it, they apprehend all the reality which has an existence for them through faith alone. This faith forces itself on them simultaneously with their existence. It is born with them. How could it be otherwise?" **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and this faith is also strengthened by experience. For instance, in the world we understand that everything has some proprietor. Since this is the case, why shouldn't the entire cosmic manifestation have a proprietor? We may not see the proprietor, but we accept His existence on faith. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the infallibility of conscience, Fichte writes: "This voice of my conscience announces to me precisely what I ought to do, and what leave undone, in every particular situation of life....To listen to it, to obey honestly and unreservedly...is my true vocation, the whole end and purpose of my existence." **Prabhupāda:** As soon as he says that he listens, he indicates that someone is speaking. That someone is God situated in everyone's heart and dictating. This is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ > hṛd-deśe'rjuna tiṣṭhati > bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni > yantrāruḍhāni māyayā "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine made of the material energy." [*Bg.* 18.61] Thus God is dictating to everyone. He is telling the thief, "You may go out and steal, but this is not good. If you are arrested, you'll be punished." That dictation is there, and if one disobeys and goes ahead and steals, he commits sin. God is there giving dictations within, the heart, and we may either obey or disobey. If we obey, we become devotees. As I said before, the dictations come from the heart, and also from the scriptures and the spiritual master. If we regularly disobey, how can we be happy? **Hayagrīva:** Fichte is typical of the impersonalist in his desire to merge into what he calls "the universal Ego." He feels that this should be our ultimate goal. **Prabhupāda:** In this material world, we all have some ego. We think, "I am the husband of this woman, I am the head of this family, I am the president of this state, and so on." These are different manifestations of ego. However, we cannot say, "I am the master of this entire universe. I am the universal ego." That is also called false ego. **Hayagrīva:** Fichte thinks that we can go through the universe embracing and assimilating everything until we finally unify with the impersonal Absolute. **Prabhupāda:** As soon as we speak of "Absolute," there is no distinction between the impersonal and the personal. If there is a distinction, you are not referring to the Absolute. It is contradictory to speak of the "impersonal Absolute." **Hayagrīva:** More precisely, Fichte would consider the original thesis to be one's own consciousness, or ego; the antithesis to be the object of consciousness, sense phenomena, or the non-ego; and the synthesis to be the unification of these opposites. **Prabhupāda:** He is distinguishing between the ego and non-ego, and between the personal and the impersonal, but in the Absolute, there are no such distinctions. > vadanti tat tattva-vidas > tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam > brahmeti paramātmeti > bhagavān iti śabdyate **"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagāvan." [*SB.* 1.2.11] In the Absolute, there is no duality. When we search for the Absolute Truth, we may realize it in three different aspects:** as Brahman, as Paramātmā, and as Bhagāvan. Depending on our relationship to the Absolute, the Absolute appears in different ways, but this is not due to some inconsistency in the Absolute. The Absolute is always one, but due to our relative position, we see the Absolute as the impersonal all-pervading Brahman, as the localized Supersoul, or as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagāvan. Ultimately, the Absolute is Bhagāvan, and the impersonal feature is resting on Him. *Brahmaṇo *hi* *pratiṣṭhāham.* "I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman." [*Bg.* 14.27] We may attempt to merge with the impersonal aspect, Brahman, but our position will not be permanent. As for merging or unifying with the Absolute Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagāvan, this is not possible. It is not possible for the finite living entity to become the infinite God. ## Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel [1770-1831] **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel sought to synthesize other philosophies to arrive at the truth, and in so doing, he concluded that everything that exists is reason; what is real is rational, and what is rational is real. **Prabhupāda:** This means that he wanted to arrive at the Absolute in whom there is no duality. That is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says: > paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ > vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām > dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya > sambhavāmi yuge yuge **"To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium." [*Bg.* 4.8] He comes to earth to protect the devotees and kill the demons. Although He actually did this, we should not think that He is partial. When He killed the great demon Pūtanā, for instance, Pūtanā attained a position like Kṛṣṇa's mother Yaśodā. Because Kṛṣṇa is Absolute, there is no difference between His loving Yaśodā and killing Pūtanā. Whatever He does is good:** be it killing or loving. The two opposites are reconciled in Him. The Sanskrit word for this is *virudd***ārtha**- *sambandha.* **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel saw that his predecessors had become so increasingly abstract in trying to find out the nature of substance, that they had reduced substance to nothingness. **Prabhupāda:** This was due to ignorance. That is called *virasa.* When one cannot understand the nature or form of God through speculation, out of frustration he says, "Oh, there is no God." **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel's predecessors analyzed an object into smaller and smaller parts until they arrived at a nonentity. **Prabhupāda:** The fact is that the Absolute cannot be divided into parts. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā** it is stated: > nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi > nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ > na cainaṁ kledayanty āpo > na śoṣayati mārutaḥ **"The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind." [*Bg.* 2.23] It is possible to cut a material thing into pieces, but it is impossible to divide a spiritual being. A spiritual being is inexhaustible. The Māyāvādīs think that since the Absolute is all-pervading, He has no form, but this is incorrect. The Absolute can maintain His form as He is and yet expand Himself. Kṛṣṇa says, mayā *tatam* *idam *sarvaṁ* *jagad *avyakta-mūrtinā.* "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded." [*Bg.* 9.4] Kṛṣṇa has three features:** *brahmeti *paramātmeti* *bhagavān *iti* *śabdyate* [*SB.* 1.2.11]—the impersonal, localized, and personal. Unless we come to understand this science, it is very difficult to know the forms of the Absolute Truth. One who is incompetent, who has a poor fund of knowledge, concludes that the Absolute Truth is *nirākāra,* void, but this is not so. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel wanted to reverse the trend from abstraction to concretion. He believed that every phenomenal object has its relationship with the whole, which is reality. To understand reality, we must examine all objects and relate them to the whole and to each other. **Prabhupāda:** That is our process. The whole is Kṛṣṇa, and everything is related to Kṛṣṇa. Because we see everything related to Kṛṣṇa, we do not artificially renounce anything, but try to utilize everything in the service of Kṛṣṇa. Although the Māyāvādī philosophers say that everything is Brahman, their process is *neti-neti:* "Not this, not that." In this way, the Māyāvādīs say that Kṛṣṇa and His worship are also māyā. Our philosophy is that everything is a manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's energy; the energy and the energetic are one. Nārada explained: > idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaro > yato jagat-sthāna-nirodha-sambhavāḥ > tad dhi svayaṁ veda bhavāṁs tathāpi te > prādeśa-mātraṁ bhavataḥ pradarśitam "The Supreme Lord Personality of Godhead is Himself this cosmos, and still He is aloof from it. From Him only has this cosmic manifestation emanated, in Him it rests, and unto Him it enters after annihilation. Your good self knows all about this. I have given only a synopsis." [*SB.* 1.5.20] The whole universe is Bhagāvan, Kṛṣṇa, but it appears to be separate. How it is not separate can be understood through Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Ordinary men think of Kṛṣṇa and non-Kṛṣṇa, but there is no non-Kṛṣṇa. That is illusion. Everything is Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, nothing can be separated from the spiritual whole because everything is related to it. For Kant, phenomenon is the mode in which things-in-themselves represent themselves to the individual. **Prabhupāda:** It is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* that Kṛṣṇa has two energies: the spiritual and the material. His spiritual energy is described as superior, and His material energy as inferior. These designations are given for our consideration because we cannot understand otherwise, but the fact is that there is only one energy: the superior spiritual energy. When this spiritual energy is covered by ignorance, it is called material energy. The sky is naturally clear, and we can normally see the sun, but when there are clouds, we cannot see it. Still, the sun is there. When we cannot see Kṛṣṇa or understand Him, we experience what is called the material energy. The fact is that there is nothing material because everything is Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel says that objects themselves are the spirit expressing itself in objective nature, whereas Kant maintains that the spirit expresses itself through objects. There is a distinction made between the spirit within the object expressing itself, and the spirit as the object. **Prabhupāda:** The object as it is is spirit. In one sense, the sunshine is not the sun, but at the same time, it is not different from the sun because it is the sun's heat and light. Therefore our philosophy is *acintya-bhedābheda-tattva:* simultaneously one and different. All these objects are actually spirit, but if we have no sense of Kṛṣṇa, we consider them to be material. Sometimes people criticize us for using material devices like dictaphones, typewriters, and airplanes, but we reply that these things are spiritual. If they are used for our sense gratification, they are material, but if used in relation to Kṛṣṇa, they are spiritual. It is the consciousness that is important. Rūpa Gosvāmī says: > anāsaktasya viṣayān > yathārham upayuñjataḥ > nirbandhaḥ kṛṣṇa-sambandhe > yuktaṁ vairāgyam ucyate > prāpañcikatayā buddhyā > hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ > mumukṣubhiḥ parityāgo > vairāgyaṁ phalgu kathyate **"One is said to be situated in the fully renounced order of life if he lives in accordance with Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He should be without attachment for sense gratification and should accept only what is necessary for the upkeep of the body. On the other hand, one who renounces things which could be used in the service of Kṛṣṇa, under the pretext that such things are material, does not practice complete renunciation." [*Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu* 1.2.255-256] Everything has its relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Rejecting everything as false is artificial renunciation. Our method is to renounce things for our sense gratification, but accept everything for Kṛṣṇa's satisfaction. Kṛṣṇa says:** > māṁ ca yo 'vyabhicāreṇa > bhakti-yogena sevate > sa guṇān samatītyaitān > brahma-bhūyāya kalpate "One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman." [*Bg.* 14.26] As soon as we engage fully in devotional service, we are immediately spiritualized. When we are in devotional service, the spiritual quality of everything is revived. In truth, everything is spirit, but it is covered by our material consciousness, just as gold may be covered by mud. If we cleanse the heart, we immediately understand that things are spiritual. In material consciousness, we conceive of ourselves as Americans, Indians, men, women, and so on, but when we come to our spiritual consciousness, we realize, "I am Kṛṣṇa's servant." Thus we understand that we are spiritual. These material conceptions are like dreams. When we are dreaming, we may think that we are this or that, or that we are performing so many acts, but when we awake, we understand our real identity. Because we are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, we have no duty other than to serve Kṛṣṇa. When this consciousness comes, everything is spiritual. **Hayagrīva:** In *Philosophy of Religion,* Hegel writes: "God is a living God, who is acting and working. Religion is a product of the divine spirit; it is not a discovery of man, but a work of divine operation and creation in Him [God]." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is very important to understand that a man cannot manufacture religion. We define religion as "the orders given by God." As stated in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > yadā yadā hi dharmasya > glānir bhavati bhārata > abhyutthānam adharmasya > tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham > paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ > vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām > dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya > sambhavāmi yuge yuge "Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion—at that time, I descend Myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium." [*Bg.* 4.7–8] This is religion. Religion rests on the orders of Kṛṣṇa, or God, and if you strictly follow Kṛṣṇa's instructions, you are religious, pious, and transcendental. If you defy Kṛṣṇa and manufacture your own religion, you are asuric, demoniac. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Plato's and Kant's philosophy, these temporary objects are representations of an ideal. This table, for instance, represents or expresses the ideal table, but it is not the ideal itself. **Prabhupāda:** We also say that this material world is a perverted reflection of the spiritual world. It is like a mirage. Śrīdhara Svāmī said that it is due to the actuality of the spiritual world that this illusory world appears to be true. Because there is in reality a real table, we can perceive this table. Although the entire material creation is but a perverted reflection of the reality, people are enamored by it. People take this to be a real table, a real body, a real society, real happiness, and so on. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel would say that these are genuine externalizations of the reality, that this is a real table and that these are real objects. It is not that they are images of the real, but that they themselves are real. **Prabhupāda:** What does he mean by real? For us, reality means that which does and will exist. If this is not the case, it is not real. > 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 there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both." [*Bg.* 2.16] Reality refers to that which exists eternally. This table exists temporarily; therefore it cannot be classified as reality. It is like a dream or hallucination because it is temporary. We cannot say that a dream is real, although in a dream everything appears to be real. **Śyāmasundara:** But isn't there a table on the spiritual platform? An absolute table? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, in Kṛṣṇa's abode there are tables, chairs, all kinds of furniture eternally existing. But these things are manifest here only temporarily. **Śyāmasundara:** Which is correct? Does the spirit express itself in this object, or is it that the spirit is this object? **Prabhupāda:** The object is an expression of the spiritual energy. Whatever is manifest is the energy of Kṛṣṇa, but one energy is eternal, and another energy is temporary. That which is manifest temporarily is material, and that which is manifest eternally is spiritual. **Śyāmasundara:** So, in that sense, can you say that this table is made of spirit, but at the same time is not? **Prabhupāda:** Originally, it is made of spirit in the sense that Kṛṣṇa is the whole spirit, and because it is Kṛṣṇa's energy, it is factually Kṛṣṇa. You may make various images out of clay. You may mold pots and bricks, and they may be manifest temporarily as pots and bricks, but originally they are clay, and when they are destroyed, they will again merge into their original condition. There are three conditions: the formless condition, the form, and again a merging into the formless. In *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,* Kṛṣṇa tells Lord Brahmā: > aham evāsam evāgre > nānyad yat sad-asat param > paścād ahaṁ yad etac ca > yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smy aham "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] So, Kṛṣṇa existed in the beginning of the creation; He maintains the creation; and when the creation is annihilated, He continues to exist. **Śyāmasundara:** Therefore the Māyāvādīs would say that this table is māyā? **Prabhupāda:** They say that it is māyā, but we say that it is temporary. **Śyāmasundara:** But there's also a spiritual world full of form? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but the Māyāvādīs do not know of this. What is the source of these forms? The *Vedānta-sūtra* states: *janmādy* *asya.* Form comes from the original source. These forms that we see here are not eternal forms. They are imitations, perverted reflections of eternal forms. A reflection is not eternal. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel says that these forms are not eternal but that the interaction of forms is an eternal process. **Prabhupāda:** A mirage is neither factual nor eternal, but there is factual and eternal water. Otherwise, how could anyone have a conception of water? **Śyāmasundara:** But if the universe is rational and everything has a purpose, this temporary form is also spiritual because it has some kind of purpose. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we are utilizing everything for Kṛṣṇa's purpose. Our proposal is to make the best use of a bad bargain. **Śyāmasundara:** But what if a person doesn't know the purpose? Is the object still spiritual? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Whether a person knows or does not know, fact is fact. We have only to receive knowledge from one who knows. All objects are spiritual, but one who does not have knowledge does not have the eyes to see that spirituality. **Śyāmasundara:** Then, is God's plan unfolding itself everywhere, whether we understand it or not? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, He reveals Himself in *Bhagavad-gītā,* and He sends His representative to unfold His plan. The essence of things is spiritual, but our imperfect vision makes things material. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel believes that everything has a purpose, that the whole universe is rational, and that it is unfolding under the direction of reason, the spirit of the Absolute. **Prabhupāda:** Certainly. Only rascals think that there is no purpose in life, that everything is a result of chance. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, in order to understand this reality, we must examine the interrelationships of things. **Prabhupāda:** We are also teaching that. The origin of everything is Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa's energetic expansions constitute everything. > parasya brahmaṇaḥ sākṣāj > jāta-vedo 'si havyavāṭ > devānāṁ puruṣāṅgānāṁ > yajñena puruṣaṁ yajeti "O fire-god, you are a part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, and you carry to Him all the offerings of sacrifices. Therefore we request you to offer to Him the sacrificial ingredients we are offering the demigods, for the Lord is the real enjoyer." [*SB.* 5.20.17] Physical existence is heat and light, and these energies emanate from Kṛṣṇa, the original light. Everything material and spiritual is composed of heat and light. One who has eyes to see that which is spiritual can see. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel attempted to establish the relationship between concrete realities. Isolated facts, or moments, as he calls them, can never constitute the truth because the truth is the whole, an integrated unity that is organic and dynamic. **Prabhupāda:** Just by analyzing ourselves, we can understand that I, the soul, am existing and that my bodily features are changing. When things change, we call them material. The spirit soul exists in all conditions, and that is the difference between spirit and matter. **Śyāmasundara:** Moments, factors in the organic whole, progress in an evolutionary way according to the course set by reason, which Hegel calls the *Welt Geist,* the World Spirit. **Prabhupāda:** That World Spirit is a person. Unless you accept a personal God, there is no question of reason. The reason guiding everything in the universe is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā: mayādhyakṣeṇa* *prakṛtiḥ.* "This material nature is working under My direction." [*Bg.* 9.10] Direction means reason; therefore as soon as you speak of reason, you must accept the Supreme Person who is directing everything according to His supreme reason. **Śyāmasundara:** Would you say that all world events are expressions of this World Spirit, or world reason, unfolding itself? If so, what is the ultimate purpose of that plan? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, there is a plan, otherwise why would Kṛṣṇa say *adhyakṣeṇa,* superintendence? There is a plan, direction, and also reason. The living entities are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, and somehow or other they wanted to enjoy this material world. Therefore Kṛṣṇa has given them a chance, just as a father gives a chance to his small children to play. Kṛṣṇa says: > 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] The whole plan is that Kṛṣṇa gives the living entity freedom to play and then again come home. He says, "All right, you want to play, but when you are tired of all this nonsense, give it up and come back to Me." This world is like a playground for conditioned souls, and the body is like a small field [*kṣetra*] on which the living entity wants to play. > idaṁśarīraṁ kaunteya > kṣetram ity abhidhīyate > etad yo vetti taṁ prāhuḥ > kṣetra-jña iti tad-vidaḥ "This body, O son of Kuntī, is called the field, and one who knows this body is called the knower of the field." [*Bg.* 13.2] The material body is nothing but a field of action, and Kṛṣṇa says, "All right, utilize this field and enjoy yourself. When you are exhausted playing in this field, you can have another." In this way, the living entity is changing bodies, changing different fields of action. **Śyāmasundara:** Is this play aimless, or is there gradual evolution? **Prabhupāda:** There is a goal. Kṛṣṇa gives us knowledge, and the *Vedas* are also there. Kṛṣṇa says, "This play is not very healthy; therefore I request that you give it up and come back to Me." This is the plan. **Śyāmasundara:** According to the Hegelian dialectic, being and nothing are empty abstractions. Being is the thesis, nothing is the antithesis, and the synthesis is change, becoming. **Prabhupāda:** The question of becoming arises because we are now in this awkward, marginal position. Although I am eternal, I have been trapped by something mortal. Consequently, I am changing my position, and this is called transmigration. When I cease transmigrating, I attain my own true being, which is eternal. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel believes that when the dialectic is exhausted, it reveals the whole, unified Absolute Truth. But since nature is constantly unfolding, guided by the World Spirit, the dialectic process continues indefinitely. **Prabhupāda:** In other words, you cannot find out the ultimate synthesis. Therefore you have to receive information from *śāstra.* The thesis is that the soul within the body is immortal, and the antithesis is that the body is mortal. The liberation of the soul from the body is the synthesis. When we understand that we are in an awkward position within this material world, we strive for liberation. Unless we understand that we are entrapped, there is no question of liberation. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel understood the Absolute Truth to be always changing and yet always permanent. **Prabhupāda:** The Absolute does not change. Even we are permanent. Being part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, we are permanent even though we are moving about in these material bodies. Although Kṛṣṇa manifests Himself in various expansions, He remains the same. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel saw the Absolute Truth unfolding itself in history, biology, sociology, and other sciences. **Prabhupāda:** Kṛṣṇa is in the center of everything, and everything is emanating from Kṛṣṇa. Temporary manifestations come from Kṛṣṇa and then return to Kṛṣṇa. History is simply repetition. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, God, or the Absolute Truth, manifests in three forms: the idea-in-itself, the idea-for-itself, and the idea-in-and-for-itself. **Prabhupāda:** This means that he is trying to create God. For him, God is an idea. Is this his philosophy? The Māyāvādīs also believe that actually there is no God, that God is created by man's imagination, that He is impersonal or dead. So many people are busy creating God. Vivekananda, for instance, claimed Ramakrishna to be God. **Hayagrīva:** In maintaining that God's essence is "thought and thinking"—despite whatever images God may assume—Hegel is basically an impersonalist. He writes: "God is in His very essence thought and thinking, however His image and configuration be determined otherwise." **Prabhupāda:** If God is Absolute, His image is also Absolute and also God. If God is Absolute, His words are also Absolute and are non-different from Him. The image of God worshipped in the temple is God Himself because God is Absolute. God says that earth, water, fire, and everything else is His energy, and even if we think that the image of God is made of stone, we must acknowledge that the stone is God's energy. Even though a copper wire may not be electricity, it carries electricity, and if you touch it, you will understand it to be nondifferent from electricity. We may think materially that an object is different from God, but spiritually, everything is 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] We should not look upon the Deity as something material, as stone [*śilā*]. As soon as Caitanya Mahāprabhu saw the Jagannātha Deity, Caitanya Mahāprabhu immediately fainted. In order to realize God's omnipresence, we must be trained to follow God's instructions. It appears that Hegel is theorizing that God is an idea, but God is substance. **Śyāmasundara:** And what do you mean by substance? **Prabhupāda:** Substance is something concrete. You may form an idea of a golden mountain, but there,is a difference between that idea and the golden mountain itself. When you actually see and touch a golden mountain, it is a fact. That fact is substance. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, there is idea, substance, and the synthesis, which is spirit. **Prabhupāda:** According to our philosophy, spirit is realized in three phases: Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagāvan. Realizing Brahman is like realizing the sunshine, which is impersonal. Realizing Paramātmā is like realizing the sun disc itself, which is localized. However, if we have the capacity to enter the sun, we will see the sun god himself, and this may be compared to Bhagāvan realization, the personal feature of God. Once we realize the personal feature, we automatically understand the impersonal and localized features. According to *Brahma-saṁhitā* [5.40], the impersonal *brahma-jyoti* is the bodily rays of Kṛṣṇa. Similarly, Paramātmā is the localized feature of Kṛṣṇa sitting in everyone's heart. The sun is one, not many, but it is capable of being reflected in countless waterpots. One who sees the sun's reflections in the pots may think, "Oh, there are millions of suns." One who has seen only the sunshine thinks of the sun impersonally. But when one knows the sun god, he has attained personal realization. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a person, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. When you have a clear conception of God, you understand this. You cannot make God into an idea. Ideas arise because there is substance. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel uses the word "idea" to refer to rational form, which precedes material or physical form. **Prabhupāda:** It is stated in *Brahma-saṁhitā* that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has form [*vigraha*], but what kind of form is this? Īśvaraḥ *paramaḥ* *kṛṣṇaḥ *sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ.* "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Godhead, and He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body." [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.1] Sat* means eternal. Presently, we have bodies which are *asat,* temporary, but Kṛṣṇa's body is different from ours. The word *ānanda* means blissful; Kṛṣṇa is always blissful. And *cit* means knowledge; Kṛṣṇa knows everything. In this way, He is different from us. He is not an idea but substance itself. **Śyāmasundara:** When we were discussing Plato, you agreed that the ideal precedes the physical representation. **Prabhupāda:** From the *śāstras* we learn that there is a spiritual world, and that this material world is a perverted reflection of that world. From the *śāstras* we also understand that the houses in the spiritual world are made of *cintāmaṇi.* C*intāmaṇi *prakara-sadmasu.* In this world, we have no experience of *cintāmaṇi* [philosophers' stone], a stone that turns other metals to gold, but we may have some idea by hearing from authorities. It is not that we manufacture or think up the spiritual world. In other words, we have ideas of substances which we may not have seen. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, spirit generates ideas and actualizes them. **Prabhupāda:** We say that everything comes from Kṛṣṇa. Why just ideas and substances? Why this or that? Why so many distinctions? Everything comes from Him. Unless there is substance in the spiritual world, nothing could exist. In the final analysis, we have to accept the fact that everything is emanating from the substance. *Janmādy *asya.* All ideas can be traced back to the original substance, which is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, "Everything is emanating from Me." If you attain Kṛṣṇa, therefore, you attain the ultimate substance. If you understand God, you understand everything. **Śyāmasundara:** Then you would say that form precedes idea, not that idea precedes form? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, form precedes idea. Kṛṣṇa says, *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] As far as man is concerned, he cannot invent anything. He can only discover things that are already there. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel sees idea and substance opposing one another as thesis and antithesis; spirit is the synthesis containing both. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we agree. *Viruddhārtha-sambandha.* Contradictory things are adjusted in Kṛṣṇa; therefore we say that Kṛṣṇa is inconceivable. He is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. Since it is impossible to conceive of these things in the material world, they are called inconceivable. **Śyāmasundara:** Then, if we can conceive of something, must it exist somewhere? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. It is a fact that you cannot conceive of anything that does not have existence. In this material world, we understand that one plus one equals two, and that one minus one equals zero, but in the spiritual world, this law does not apply. There, one plus one equals one, and one minus one equals one. **Śyāmasundara:** But what of the idea that God is evil? Can I conceive of this? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, God is also evil, but not according to our understanding. God is Absolute, and evil and good are reconciled in Him. We cannot say that because we think of God as evil that He is evil. Rather, we say that He is all good because He is Absolute. **Śyāmasundara:** What of the idea that God does not exist? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is a fact that He does not exist as far as rascals are concerned. Since a rascal cannot understand God, God does not exist for him. **Śyāmasundara:** What of the idea that I am God? **Prabhupāda:** That is also a fact because you are part and parcel of God. You may say, "I am an American," and President Nixon can also say, "I am an American," but this does not mean that you are President Nixon. It is madness to claim such a thing. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning God and man, Hegel writes: "God is only God insofar as He knows Himself; His self-knowledge is moreover His consciousness of Himself in man, and man's knowledge of God, a knowledge that extends itself into the self-knowledge of man in God." **Prabhupāda:** If he accepts the existence of God and man, why does he not agree to receive knowledge of God from God Himself? Why speculate? To possess knowledge of God, man had best take knowledge from God Himself. Yet Hegel is opposed to receiving knowledge or instructions from an exterior source. It stands to reason that if you want to know about me and my nature, you had best take knowledge from me personally instead of speculating. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, God explains Himself, and if we accept this knowledge, which is given by God, our knowledge of God will be perfect. Why waste time speculating? **Hayagrīva:** Perhaps without speculation, a philosopher wouldn't be able to write so many books. **Prabhupāda:** No. When you have perfect knowledge, you can write perfectly. Without perfect knowledge, your writings will simply be nonsensical. If there is any meaning in our books, it is there because we are not speculating about God but are understanding God from God Himself. This is the *paramparā* system. According to Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, sākṣād-dharitvena *samasta-śāstrair* [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka* 7]. All scriptures accept the guru, the spiritual master, as the Supreme Lord Himself because he does not concoct anything. He is the servant of God, and his knowledge is given by God. If Hegel accepts the fact that he is a man and that God exists, he should logically receive knowledge about God from God Himself. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, the absolute idea, the idea-in-and-for-itself, manifests itself in the objective mind in the form of laws, morality, and social ethics, and the free will develops in these areas. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is the field of the free will. As soon as we accept a controller, all these are manifest. Laws will come, morality will come, and social ethics will come. Since atheists do not accept the controller, they act immorally. Unless we have a platform on which to execute the free will, there is no meaning to free will. There must be some law, some system of morality. At the same time, Kṛṣṇa told Arjuna to do whatever he decides [*Bg.* 18.63]. That is free will. After explaining Bhagavad-gītā* to him, Kṛṣṇa told him that the choice was his. **Hayagrīva:** Hegel placed a great deal of emphasis on human freedom. He accused the "Orientals," specificially the Hindus, of not knowing "that the spirit is free in itself or that man is free in himself. Because they do not know it, they are not free." **Prabhupāda:** He speaks of human freedom, but he is subjected to birth, old age, disease, and death. Where is his freedom when he dies? **Hayagrīva:** Hegel writes that "only the Germanic nations have in and through Christianity achieved the consciousness that man qua man is free and that freedom of the spirit constitutes his very nature." **Prabhupāda:** According to the Christian religion, a man has the freedom either to go to heaven or to hell. That is, he has the freedom to make a choice. However, if he goes to hell, where is his freedom? Every citizen has the freedom either to live as a free citizen or to go to jail, but if one goes to jail, where is freedom? His freedom is dependent on someone else who gives him a chance to either remain free or go to prison. Our freedom is relative, and God is the supreme absolute controller. It is God who gives the living entity the freedom to make his choice. The living entity is never completely free, as God is. **Hayagrīva:** Hegel criticized Hinduism as a theocracy in which man is handed laws from an exterior God; for Hegel, this is a blind following of an exterior will, a following not confirmed within the individual himself. He believed that man could best attain God through the exercise of his own free will. **Prabhupāda:** If this is the case, why can't animals attain God? They are also given a free will. **Hayagrīva:** He claims that animals have no will. **Prabhupāda:** If they have no will, why do they go different directions? **Hayagrīva:** Hegel even went further to say in *The Philosophy of Right and Law* that animals have no right to life because they have no will. **Prabhupāda:** First of all, you must determine what is life. Animals are eating, sleeping, defending, and mating just as we are. A small ant has all the life symptoms that we have. Who is to say that a man has more right to live than an ant? The life symptoms are the same. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, the individual conscience evaluates itself and sets its own standard of morality. **Prabhupāda:** Our morality is not like that because we accept morality from a higher authority. Our morality is standardized. Kṛṣṇa says, "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me." [*Bg.* 18.66] This is the morality we accept. The laws of man are imperfect, but God's are perfect. Why should we accept the imperfect advice of other men? **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel sees the subjective mind dealing with inner experiences, the objective mind with exterior, and the absolute mind dealing with both, and uniting them. **Prabhupāda:** That is correct. Anyone can understand that this is the case with the Absolute. **Śyāmasundara:** This Absolute expresses itself in three forms: art, religion, and philosophy. In art, the Absolute assumes the form we call beauty. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we define God as all beautiful. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel considers religion to be like an art form. Whereas philosophy conceives or thinks of the Absolute, religion represents or pictures it. **Prabhupāda:** Without a philosophical basis, religion is simply sentiment. **Śyāmasundara:** He maintains that art is an expression of spirit. **Prabhupāda:** Well, everything is an expression of spirit. How is that a definition of art? **Śyāmasundara:** What about a tree? Can we say that a tree is the artful display of the Absolute? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, a tree is also a form of art. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme artist also. **Śyāmasundara:** The absolute mind expresses itself through religion, which presents the Absolute Truth as representations in our consciousness. **Prabhupāda:** Religion means accepting God. If he thinks that religion is a mere representation in our consciousness, he has no clear idea of religion. Abiding by the laws of God is religion. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, the highest form in which the Absolute manifests itself is philosophy, which is the synthesis of art and religion. **Prabhupāda:** Philosophy also means obeying the orders of God. Anything else is dry speculation. God says, "Thou shalt not kill." If we are religious, we stop killing. However, if we understand why we should not kill, we are philosophic. There are many people who accept Kṛṣṇa as God, but an advanced devotee understands Kṛṣṇa, and therefore he is very dear to Kṛṣṇa. But highest of all is love of Kṛṣṇa. The *gopīs* were not philosophers, but they loved Kṛṣṇa without ulterior consideration. Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself expressed this love of Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Once, you said that even higher than philosophy is the practice of philosophy. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the *gopīs* were practicing philosophy because they were loving Kṛṣṇa. Moreover, they were enjoying the results of philosophy. **Hayagrīva:** Since the body is the soul's instrument, Hegel considered injury to the body to be injury to the person himself. In *The Philosophy of Right and Law,* he says: "It is but vain sophistry that says that the real person—the soul—cannot be injured by maltreatment offered to one's body....Violence done to the body is really done to me." **Prabhupāda:** Then what is the justification for killing animals? **Hayagrīva:** He would say that a person can possess his body because he can put his will into it. Animals, however, have no right to life because they do not put their will into the possession of their bodies. **Prabhupāda:** If that is the case, why do animals object when you kill them? What kind of philosophy is he expounding? **Hayagrīva:** He says that mankind has the right of absolute proprietorship. He writes: "A thing belongs to the accidental first comer who gets it, because a second comer cannot take possession of what is already the property of another." **Prabhupāda:** In other words, might makes right. But consider, how would you take ownership of gold? First of all, you must hunt out gold that has no proprietor. You must inquire who the actual proprietor of the gold is. You may claim first proprietorship, but the gold was there in the first place. Whose property is it? Who made the gold and kept it before you came along? **Hayagrīva:** Hegel would say that "the first comer is not legal owner by virtue of his being the first comer, but because he has free will." That is, it is mine because I put my will into it. **Prabhupāda:** That's all right, but someone made the gold and kept it before you went to capture it. Since this was the case, by willing it to be yours, or by taking it, you become a common thief, not a philosopher. Our claim to proprietorship is false because we are neither the creators nor maintainers of property. **Śyāmasundara:** As far as action is concerned, activity in accordance with conscience is proper activity for Hegel. **Prabhupāda:** A thief becomes accustomed to stealing, and therefore his conscience says, "Yes, I must steal. It is my right." The conscience of a murderer tells him to murder. Originally, the Bible said, "Thou shalt not kill," but people have created a conscience by which they can think, "Yes, killing is all right." Conscience is created by association. If our association is good, we create a good conscience, and if it is bad, we create a bad conscience. There is no absolute standard for the conscience. Conscience means discriminating power. **Śyāmasundara:** He maintains that there is an absolute conscience, which is pure rationality. **Prabhupāda:** Pure rationality is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Unless we come to that platform, so-called conscience and philosophy have no value. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel believes that punishment for crime is justified because it vindicates justice and restores rights. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Therefore when one kills an animal, he should be prepared to be killed. That is justice. According to the *Manu-saṁhitā,* it is justice to hang a murderer. It is unjust to save him because if he is not hanged in this life, he escapes justice, and has to suffer severely in the next. In order to be saved from many troubles in the next life, the murderer should be killed. The king who is hanging him is doing him justice in rendering a life for a life. But according to Vedic philosophy, if one kills an animal, he should also be prepared to be killed. A sane man would not run such a risk. **Śyāmasundara:** If I observe in nature that living entities are killing one another to eat, it only seems rational that I should be able to eat animals. **Prabhupāda:** Well, Vedic philosophy also accepts the fact that one living being is food for another. > ahastāni sahastānām > apadāni catuṣ-padām > phalgūni tatra mahatāṁ > jīvo jīvasya jīvanam "Those who are devoid of hands are prey for those who have hands; those devoid of legs are prey for the four-legged. The weak are the subsistence of the strong, and the general rule holds that one living being is food for another." [*SB.* 1.13.47] But this does not mean that you should kill your son and eat him. There must be discrimination. It is nature's law that we have to eat other living beings in order to exist; therefore we can eat fruit and vegetables. We can take these without killing the trees and plants. But if we eat animals, we have to kill them. The point is that we should act intelligently to make the best of a bad bargain. We take fruits, grains, vegetables, and milk products, and offer them to Kṛṣṇa. If there is any responsibility, it is Kṛṣṇa's. After offering the food to Kṛṣṇa, we then accept it as *prasādam.* > yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo > mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ > bhuñjate te tv aghaṁpapa > ye pacanty ātma-kāraṇāt "The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin." [*Bg.* 3.13] If you cook for yourself, you have to take all the responsibility for your sinful activity, even if you are a vegetarian. We therefore take the remnants of *yajña,* sacrifice, and in this way we perform *yajña.* It is not that we prepare food directly for our own consumption. **Hayagrīva:** Hegel was a strong believer in the right of man to choose his own occupation. He writes: "In the Platonic State, subjective freedom was of no account, since the government assigned to each individual his occupation. In many Oriental states, this assignment results from birth. The subjective choice which ought to be respected requires free choice by individuals." **Prabhupāda:** The occupations are already given, but you have the freedom to select one of them. Kṛṣṇa states in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ > guṇa karma-vibhāgaśaḥ **"According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me." [*Bg.* 4.13] One can make his selection according to his qualifications. A man can become an engineer, for instance, when he becomes qualified to do the work. The words used are *guṇa-karma*:** the work is determined by one's qualities, not by birth. It is not that one automatically becomes a *brāhmaṇa* because he is born in a *brāhmaṇa* family. Rather, he has a better chance of being trained as a *brāhmaṇa* if his father is a *brāhmaṇa,* just as one stands a better chance of being trained as a musician or a cobbler if those are his father's occupations. However, it is not that a cobbler cannot become a *brāhmaṇa.* If he acquires the qualifications, he should be considered a *brāhmaṇa.* Nor is it that a *brāhmaṇa*'*s* son necessarily becomes a *brāhmaṇa* without qualification. The point is that we must first attain the qualifications and then work accordingly. **Śyāmasundara:** Concerning the state, Hegel writes: "The state is the realization of the ethical ideal—We must therefore worship the state as the manifestation of the divine on earth." **Prabhupāda:** First, we have to understand the duty of the state. If it is accepted that the state is the representative of God, the state's first business is to make its citizens God conscious. Any state that neglects this duty should be immediately rejected as unqualified. The leader may either be a president or a king—it doesn't matter. In Vedic culture, the king is called *naradeva,* God in human form, and he is offered respect in that way. A king is respected because he is considered God's representative. We also present ourselves as Kṛṣṇa's representative. And what is our duty? To lift others to God consciousness. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel recommended a constitutional monarch to be the executor for the World Spirit, but he was so vague that even Hitler could utilize his political philosophy to his ends. **Prabhupāda:** First of all, the monarch has to be educated. Hitler came not as a king but a usurper. Nowadays, any rascal can assume power. Because the leaders are not trained to protect the citizens, the whole world is in trouble. A leader can whimsically declare war and involve all the citizens. In Vedic monarchy, there is a kind of disciplic succession wherein the king trains his son, and in this way he can govern properly. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Hegel, in a well-ordered monarchy, only the law has objective power; the king is simply the servant of the law. **Prabhupāda:** That is constitutional monarchy, a showbottle king. If a king is God conscious and is trained up properly and has complete power, he is a *rājarṣi.* In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, it is mentioned that the ancient saintly kings had understood this science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness [*Bg.* 4.2]. They were not ordinary men. The king was supposed to have been saintly. He had to understand the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā* and introduce an educational system so that the people could understand the science of God. That is the very first duty of the state and king. It is also stated in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* that one should not become a head of state, a father, or a guru if he cannot save his wards from the imminent danger of death [*SB.* 5.5.18]. We are now entangled in repeated birth and death, and it is the state's duty to promote liberation from this cycle. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel considers it the purpose of the state and king to apply the moral law. **Prabhupāda:** That is the duty of the king, but the leaders in modern democratic states are concerned only with exacting taxes. It is stated in the *śāstras* that if the leaders keep the citizens morally blind and exact taxes from them, the leaders will go to ruination. Because they are sinfully earning money, they suffer in this life and the next. Similarly, when the guru accepts disciples, he takes the responsibility for their sinful reactions. When a king levies taxes, he takes a share of the sinful reactions of the citizens. If the citizens are pious, both the king and the citizens will profit. If not, if it is a case of the blind leading the blind, they will lead one another to hell. The main point is that the head of state should be a representative of God, and his duty should be to train citizens to become God conscious. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel also maintains that each state should be independent in itself and not be subordinate to other states. **Prabhupāda:** Every state may be independent in an individual capacity, but every state is dependent on God's order. If the states are representatives of God, how can they be independent? **Śyāmasundara:** He claims that there is no higher body to judge the states, and that their differences must be settled by war. **Prabhupāda:** There is a higher authority if there is religion, philosophy, and learned *brāhmaṇas.* **Śyāmasundara:** He can see no potential world authority. **Prabhupāda:** That is because the Vedic *varṇāśrama *dharma* has been rejected. According to that system, the brahminical culture was superior to the *kṣatriya* culture. The *brāhmaṇas* are to advise the kings. Because people have rejected the Vedic system, they say that there is no authority. **Śyāmasundara:** Well, there was no judge to settle the dispute between Rāma and Rāvaṇa, and that resulted in war. **Prabhupāda:** The judge was Lord Rāmacandra Himself. He is God. **Śyāmasundara:** In a sense, Hegel glorifies war. "War protects the people from the corruption which an everlasting peace would bring upon them," he says. **Prabhupāda:** At the conclusion of the battle of Kurukṣetra, Sanjaya points out that wherever there is Kṛṣṇa, there will be victory [*Bg.* 18.78]. If there is a war, the party that is God conscious will be victorious. If neither side is God conscious, it is a demonic war. It is not justified; it is just like a cat and dog fight. If we fight, we should fight on behalf of the Supreme God. That is called *dharma-yuddha.* Arjuna did not want to fight, but Kṛṣṇa told him, "I am on your side. Fight." Arjuna was victorious because God was on his side. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, because the conflict itself is purifying, it has some ethical value. He writes, "By war, the ethical health of the nation is preserved, and its finite aims uprooted." **Prabhupāda:** Then he wants continuous war? If that is the case, Hitler is a first-class man. But why is he condemned? Of course, in the material world, there are opposing elements, and therefore there must be war. It is not that war can be stopped. Rather, the party that has Kṛṣṇa's support will emerge victorious. We don't say that you can stop war, but that if you fight, you should fight on behalf of Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** But what of Hegel's view that progress comes only through conflict, and that peace means stagnation? **Prabhupāda:** We do not agree that peace is stagnation. Our peace is working for Kṛṣṇa. That is real peace. We are educating people to understand that Kṛṣṇa is our friend, and this is not stagnation. Telling people about Kṛṣṇa is our peace. **Śyāmasundara:** Are we not in a state of war with material nature, māyā? **Prabhupāda:** We don't fight with māyā. Those who are under māyā's clutches and who are being kicked by māyā are struggling with māyā. We have nothing to do with māyā. > 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] If māyā *does not disturb us, what is the point of fighting? **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel looks on world history as the supreme tribunal, the higher judge of events. History will bear out the worth of an empire and national policy. **Prabhupāda:** We say that whatever empire comes will certainly fall. There is no need to study history to know that. A godless empire will never endure. **Hayagrīva:** Hegel considered history and theology to be intrinsic. History is "a justification of God," and tells the story of man's elevation to God. Without the history of man, God would be alone and lifeless. Since God is not transcendental but is manifest in the world, He depends on human history. **Prabhupāda:** But if God is dependent on human history, how can He be God? God is always independent. *Janmādy *asya* *yato 'nvayād* *itarataś *cārtheṣv* *abhijñaḥ *sva-rāṭ* [*SB.* 1.1.1]. If He is dependent on anything, He is not God. **Hayagrīva:** Does the history of man necessarily make any sense? Hegel looked on history as evolutionary. **Prabhupāda:** As soon as there is creation, there is history. This history will continue until the universe is annihilated. We may superficially consider history as existing from the beginning to the end of the universal manifestation, just as we may consider our personal history to extend from our birth to our death, but God is not subjected to such a history. It is not that God is created at a certain point and then annihilated. Since God is eternal, there is no question of history in respect to Him. History is for the finite, for things that have a past, present, and future. Since there is no past, present, and future for God, there is no history. You must have a past, present, and future in order to have history. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel believes that the dominant nation in any epoch represents a dominant phase of the Absolute at that time. For instance, if the United States is currently predominant, the Absolute is being expressed through the United States. **Prabhupāda:** Aeons ago, the Absolute Truth was connected to the dominant nation. That is, to Mahārāja Parīkṣit. Because Mahārāja Parīkṣit and Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira were representing God, they could dominate the entire world. Now all that is lost, and today there are many small states that are not God conscious; therefore they are fighting each other like cats and dogs. Still, it is a fact that Vedic kings like Mahārāja Rāmacandra, Mahārāja Pṛthu, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, and Mahārāja Parīkṣit were actually representatives of God. In those days, one king ruled the entire world. Therefore there was no trouble. **Śyāmasundara:** Could America's dominance in this century be attributed to God's will? **Prabhupāda:** Whenever we see some extraordinary power, we should understand that it is derived from God's power. We may therefore say that the predominance of America is due to God's favor. However, if Americans spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness and make their president Kṛṣṇa conscious, America will be God's empowered nation. Let the president be Kṛṣṇa conscious. Why not? Educate the American people to be Kṛṣṇa conscious and elect a Kṛṣṇa conscious president. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is in your hands, and it is up to you to utilize it and become the factual leaders of the world. It was my mission to go to America and educate the Americans in Kṛṣṇa consciousness because I knew that if they become Kṛṣṇa conscious, the whole world will follow. You are young men, and this mission is in your hands. A few Communists like Stalin and Lenin formed a big Communist Party, and now this Party is dominating most of the world. It was started simply by a few men. Now many of you young Americans have understood this God conscious philosophy, and it is up to you to spread this movement. You should not become stagnant, thinking, "Now I have understood Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Now let me sit down and just chant Hare Kṛṣṇa." This is not desired. Go spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and in this way glorify your nation. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Hegel's aesthetics, beauty is the Absolute penetrating the world of the senses. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, Kṛṣṇa is the most beautiful. Because Kṛṣṇa is beautiful, even the chirping of a bird is beautiful. Kṛṣṇa is the reservoir of all pleasure and beauty. Beauty is appreciated in the world because beauty is one of Kṛṣṇa's qualities. Whatever little beauty we find in this material world is but the perverted reflection of Kṛṣṇa's beauty. **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel feels that art is a combination of spiritual content and sensuous form, and that the artist should try to imbue his material forms with spiritual content. **Prabhupāda:** We agree with that. When we are painting pictures, playing music, or writing books, we are placing Kṛṣṇa at the center. **Śyāmasundara:** Of all the arts, Hegel says, music and poetry are the highest. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, therefore we are writing many books. Vyāsadeva has written many great epics in praise of Kṛṣṇa. Lord Brahmā has written *Brahma-saṁhitā,* cintāmaṇi *prakara-sadmasu.* There are many poems in praise of Kṛṣṇa; therefore another name for Kṛṣṇa is Uttama-śloka, the greatest of poems. He is described in beautiful poetry in the Vedic literatures. It is not very important whether it is poetry or prose. Anything sublime is called poetry. It is not that it has to be written in meter. **Śyāmasundara:** For Hegel, religion is pure thought put into form. **Prabhupāda:** He has no knowledge of what religion is. Religion is neither imagination nor pure thought. Religion is the order coming from the most pure. This cannot be imagined or created. We need only receive the instructions from the most pure. These are given in *Bhagavad-gītā.* We are not imagining this. **Hayagrīva:** Hegel maintained that since God is necessarily manifest in the infinite, the incarnation is central to any religion. In order for God to be manifest, He has to incarnate as a finite man. **Prabhupāda:** If God becomes a mere man and is to be considered such, why should His instructions be followed? **Hayagrīva:** Hegel did not believe in following any exterior will. **Prabhupāda:** This means that he is either godless, or that God has no meaning for him. **Hayagrīva:** He interpreted the goal of Indian philosophy to be *nirvāṇa,* spiritual as well as physical extinction. **Prabhupāda:** Everyone acknowledges physical extinction, and as far as the spiritual is concerned, there is no such thing as extinction. The spirit is eternal. > 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] If the spirit is annihilated, how is it different from matter? **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel believed that in the highest religion, God is seen as Father, Son, and all-pervasive Holy Spirit. Thus he considered Christianity to be the perfect religion. **Prabhupāda:** Is it perfect to say that God only has one son? If God is unlimited, why is He limited to only one son? **Śyāmasundara:** Well, he claims that Christ represents nature, or the objective world, because Christ is God incarnate. **Prabhupāda:** When there is an incarnation of God as the son of God, and an incarnation of God as God Himself, which is superior? If God has begotten a son, God is a father, a person. How can a son be born of an impersonal father? What evidence do we have of such a thing ever happening? **Śyāmasundara:** Hegel would like to have philosophy without religion because he saw religion as basically an encumbrance. **Prabhupāda:** Such a philosophy is simply mental speculation. If he claims that philosophy is superior to religion, then religion supported by philosophy is real religion; otherwise it is sentiment. As I stated before, the orders of God constitute religion. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says, "Surrender unto Me." This is religion. When we try to understand why Kṛṣṇa wants us to surrender unto Him, why we are obliged to surrender unto Him, we are in the realm of philosophy. When philosophy supports religion, it is perfect. It is neither sentiment, nor mental speculation. **Hayagrīva:** In *The Phenomenology of the Spirit,* Hegel deprecates the use of plants and animals as objects of religion, considering it a kind of pantheism typical of Hinduism. How would worship of the *tulasī* plant or the cow differ? **Prabhupāda:** God has specifically said that among plants, He is the *tulasī.* It is not that the Hindus are worshipping just any plant. For instance, in Bhagavad-gītā*, Kṛṣṇa says, *praṇavaḥ *sarva-vedeṣu.* "I am the syllable *oṁ* in the Vedic mantras." [*Bg.* 7.8] Therefore the word Oṁ* is used in mantras, as in *o***ṁ** *tad *viṣṇoḥ* *paramaṁ *padam.* We know that *oṁkara* is God because God says so. God gives instructions on how He should be realized, and we have only to follow. What is the point in speculating? We can never understand the unlimited God by our limited speculation. **Hayagrīva:** But if God is in all animals and in all plants, why concentrate on any particular ones? Why not worship all? **Prabhupāda:** That is especially prohibited. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says: > mayā tatam idam 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] The soul and the Supersoul exist within the body of a dog, but this does not mean that the barking of a dog is the word of God. Vivekananda said that we should worship *daridra,* the poor man in the street. He even used the word *daridra-nārāyaṇa,* indicating that Nārāyaṇa, God, has become poor, *daridra.* Although the body of a *daridra* rests in God, Nārāyaṇa, we should not consider his body to be the body of Nārāyaṇa. Everything in a government may rest on the orders of the king, but the king is not personally present everywhere. According to the *acintya-bhedābheda* philosophy, God is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. God is undoubtedly present in the heart of the *daridra,* the poor man, but we should not consider the *daridra* to be God. That is an impersonalist Māyāvādī mistake. That is pantheism. **Hayagrīva:** When Lord Kṛṣṇa says that He is sex life according to dharma, does that mean that He can be perceived in that way? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, if one performs the Garbhādhāna ceremony to beget a Kṛṣṇa conscious child, Kṛṣṇa is remembered. It is the duty of the father to remember Kṛṣṇa while having sex, thinking, "Kṛṣṇa, give me a child who will be Your devotee." This kind of sex is for Kṛṣṇa, and is Kṛṣṇa, but if one has sex for his own sense enjoyment, that is demoniac. **Hayagrīva:** But isn't Kṛṣṇa present nonetheless? **Prabhupāda:** Kṛṣṇa is always present, but when we hold the Garbhādhāna ceremony to beget a Kṛṣṇa conscious child, we remember Kṛṣṇa. The rules and regulations for the Garbhādhāna ceremony are given in the *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.* As soon as society abandons this ceremony, people become degraded. **Hayagrīva:** So the philosophy behind reverence for the *tulasī* plant and the cow, or the sexual ceremony, is that these can bring remembrance of Kṛṣṇa. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Kṛṣṇa says: > satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ > yatantaś ca dṛḍha-vratāḥ > namasyantaś ca māṁ bhaktyā > nitya-yuktā upāsate "Always chanting My glories, endeavoring with great determination, bowing down before Me, these great souls perpetually worship Me with devotion." [*Bg.* 9.14] If somehow or other you always think of Kṛṣṇa, you become Kṛṣṇa conscious. **Hayagrīva:** Is it that you shouldn't think of Kṛṣṇa in any other way? Kor instance, as a palm tree? **Prabhupāda:** When Kṛṣṇa says that among trees He is the *tulasī,* or whatever, we should simply accept it. For instance, He says, raso 'ham *apsu* *kaunteya.* "I am the taste of water." [*Bg.* 7.8] When we follow these instructions, we think, "I am drinking water and am feeling satisfaction. This satisfaction is Kṛṣṇa." In this way, we can remember Him. **Hayagrīva:** Hegel mistook this for pantheism. **Prabhupāda:** He is mistaken in so many ways. ## Arthur Schopenhauer [1788-1860] **Hayagrīva:** For Schopenhauer, happiness is inactive satisfaction, inactivity, *nirvāṇa.* Since the will to live is the irrational urge that brings about all suffering, he advocates the extinction of this world. In The World As Idea*, he writes: "The *Vedas* and Purāṇas have no better simile than a dream for the whole knowledge of the actual world, which they call the web of māyā....Indeed, life is a long dream....What is this world of perception besides being my idea? Is that of which I am conscious only as idea, exactly like my own body, of which I am doubly conscious, in one aspect as idea, in another aspect as will?" He goes on to conclude that life is a projection of the will. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, life is a projection of the will, or material desire. The living entity cannot be desireless. *Nirvāṇa* means that material desires are finished, but because the living entity is an eternal spiritual being, he has spiritual desires. Now these spiritual desires are covered by material desires, but in any case, desire is the constant companion of the living entity. Because he is materially covered, he considers the temporary world to be reality, but because it is constantly changing, it is not. According to the type of body we get, we have different desires. The soul transmigrates in this material world from one body to another, and he creates desires accordingly. The supreme will affords him different bodies in order to fulfill his will or material desires. The living entity is willing, and the supreme will, God, or Kṛṣṇa, understanding the finite will, gives him facilities to fulfill his particular desire. Therefore will is the cause of this material existence. However, we say that since you are a living being, you must have desires. If your desires are stopped, you become like a stone. Instead of trying to put an end to all desire, you should try to cleanse this diseased form of desire. That is the process of *bhakti.* > sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ > tat-paratvena nirmalam > hṛṣīkeṇa hṛṣīkeśa- > sevanaṁ bhaktir ucyate "*Bhakti,* or devotional service, means engaging all our senses in the service of the Lord, the master of all the senses. When the spirit soul renders service unto the Supreme, there are two side effects. He is freed from all material designations, and, simply by being employed in the service of the Lord, his senses are purified." [*Bhakti-rasāmṛta *sindhu,* 1.1.12] Presently, our desires are desires of the body [*upādhi*]. When the living entity acquires the body of an American, a European, a Chinaman, or whatever, he thinks in a certain way. When he changes his body to that of a dog, he spends his time barking. According to his desires, he has received a particular type of body. These desires are temporary, and the living entity moves from one body to another. Therefore in one sense this is all a dream. It is a fact that we cannot fulfill our material desires, which come and go like dreams. Now all material activities, subtle or gross, are manifestations of different desires, and therefore the Māyāvādī philosophers say brahma *satyaṁ* *jagan *mithyā.* The dreamer is a fact, but the dream is false. Our Vaiṣṇava philosophy agrees that the dreamer is the factual living entity, and the dream is temporary; therefore the dreamer has to be brought to the real spiritual platform so that his material dreams can be extinguished. When we abandon the dream and awaken to reality, that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, or *bhakti.* **Śyāmasundara:** Then will or desire can never be annihilated? **Prabhupāda:** No, not even for a second. Because we are living, we must will and desire. It is stated in *Bhagavad-gītā* that we cannot live for a second without will, without desires. > na hi kaścit kṣaṇam api > jātu tiṣṭhaty akarmakṛt > kāryate hy avaśaḥ karma > sarvaḥ prakṛti-jair guṇaiḥ "Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment." [*Bg.* 3.5] **Śyāmasundara:** Don't the Buddhists advocate a state of desirelessness, or nonwillingness? **Prabhupāda:** They believe that if you dismantle this material combination, this material body, there will no longer be will, desire, or suffering. But this is not a fact. You are the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, and you do not die after the destruction of the body. Thinking, feeling, and willing are carried from this body to another body in the process of transmigration. When the body dies, the living entity is carried away by his will. According to our will, we receive another body at the time of death. That body may be the body of a demigod, dog, human, or whatever. In any case, will, or desire, is the carrier. **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer was profoundly influenced by some of the Vedic literatures. For example, he writes: "Every keen pleasure is an error and an illusion, for no attained wish can give lasting satisfaction; and moreover, every possession and every happiness is but lent by chance for an uncertain time, and may therefore be demanded back the next hour. All pain rests on the passing away of such illusion; thus both arise from defective knowledge. The wise man therefore holds himself equally aloof from joy and sorrow, and no event disturbs his composure." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, in this material world, people say, "This is good, and this is bad," but factually there is no question of good and bad. This is all on the temporary platform. The Māyāvādīs use the word "false," but we say "temporary." It is also stated in *Bhagavad-gītā* that the pains and pleasures experienced in the material world do not touch the spirit soul. Under illusion, a spirit soul, concerned with a material body, thinks that the pains and pleasures are his, but this is not a fact. Therefore Kṛṣṇa instructs that the pleasures and pains simply touch the body, not the soul. Kṛṣṇa says: > mātrā-sparśās tu kaunteya > śītoṣṇa-sukha-duḥkha-dāḥ > āgamāpāyino ’nityās > tāṁs titikṣasva bhārata "O son of Kuntī, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perceptions, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed." [*Bg.* 2.14] Since pleasures and pains come and go in due course, they are not the reality. So why bother about them? If I feel pain, let me tolerate it and go about my business. **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer sees happiness in the world as a negative state at best, a momentary suspension of suffering. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is also explained by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Sometimes when a man is to be punished, he is held under water to the point of suffocation. Then he is let up, and when he comes up for temporary relief, he thinks, "Ah! Happiness at last!" The point is, he should do something that will relieve him of his unhappiness permanently. **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer says, "Human life must be some kind of mistake." The greatest crime of man was that he was ever born. **Prabhupāda:** When you understand that there is a crime, you must understand that someone is there to punish you. If you suffer because of that crime, you must understand that there is someone who has judged you to be criminal. **Śyāmasundara:** He concludes, however, that because the world is mad or irrational, it could not possibly have an author. If there were a God, He would have set the world in order. **Prabhupāda:** We have certainly experienced that there are madmen in the world, but there are also hospitals where such men can be treated. The world may be mad, but there is hospitalization. Unfortunately, Schopenhauer has no knowledge of the hospital or of the treatment. He speaks of sinful life, but he does not accept the judge who gives the punishment for sinful life. He sees that the world is mad, but he does not know the treatment for madmen. **Hayagrīva:** In *The World As Will,* Schopenhauer writes: "My body is the objectivity of my will....Besides will and idea, nothing is known to us or thinkable—The genitals are properly the focus of the will, and consequently the opposite pole of the brain, the representative of knowledge....In this respect...they were worshipped by the Hindus in the *liṅgam,* which are thus the symbol of the assertion of the will. Knowledge, on the other hand, affords the possibility of the suppression of willing, of salvation through freedom, of conquest and annihilation of the world." **Prabhupāda:** As I said before, willing is done in accordance with the body, but we should understand that we have nothing to do with this material world, which is the production of the material will. We are spiritual, and when we will spiritually, we are Kṛṣṇa conscious. When we will materially, we get different types of material bodies. It is true that the basis of material life is sex. We always say: > yan maithunādi-gṛhamedhi-sukhaṁ hi tucchaṁ > kaṇḍūyanena karayor iva duḥkha-duḥkham > tṛpyanti neha kṛpaṇā bahu-duḥkha-bhājaḥ > kaṇḍūtivan manasijaṁ viṣaheta dhīraḥ "Sex life is compared to the rubbing of two hands to relieve an itch. *G**ṛhamedhīs,* so-called *gṛhasthas* who have no spiritual knowledge, think that this itching is the greatest platform of happiness, although actually it is a source of distress. The *kṛpaṇas,* the fools who are just the opposite of *brāhmaṇas,* are not satisfied by repeated sensuous enjoyment. Those who are *dhīra,* however, who are sober, and who tolerate this itching, are not subjected to the sufferings of fools and rascals." [*SB.* 7.9.45]. The basic principle of those who are addicted to the material world is *maithuna,* sexual intercourse. This strong desire for sex continues as long as we are in material existence, because that is the center of all pleasure. However, when we get a taste of Kṛṣṇa's pleasure, we can give this up. > 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 engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness." [*Bg.* 2.59] **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer considers sex to be selfishness, whereas real love means sympathy. **Prabhupāda:** Sex is animalistic. It is not love but lust. Sex means the mutual satisfaction of senses, and that is lust. All this lust is taking place under the name of love, and out of illusion, people mistake this lust for love. Real love says, "People are suffering from a lack of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Let us do something for them so that they can understand the value of life." **Śyāmasundara:** He also considered immoral acts to result from a sense of egoism. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is so. People think, "Why should I surrender to Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa is a person, and I am also a person." Such thinking is demoniac. Rascals cannot understand that by surrendering unto the supreme will and satisfying the supreme will, salvation can be attained. **Śyāmasundara:** Yet Schopenhauer felt that it is possible to crush egoism and desire by love and sympathy for others. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, without love, nothing can be sustained. If I do not love Kṛṣṇa, I cannot surrender unto Him. A small child naturally surrenders unto his parents because there is love for the parents. The more you love, the more your surrender is perfect. When there is a lack of love, the mentality by which you can surrender will not develop. If you have some love for me, you will carry out my orders. There is no question of forcing one to surrender. The living entity is free to love or to reject. Without freedom, there cannot be love. Kṛṣṇa consciousness means learning to love Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer looked on love as compassionate sympathy for one who is suffering. Through this compassionate love, we can lose desire. **Prabhupāda:** Why should you love those who are suffering and not those who are enjoying? **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer sees everyone as suffering. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we agree to this. Everyone within material nature is suffering. Therefore Kṛṣṇa descends and delivers *Bhagavad-gītā.* Kṛṣṇa is described as the deliverer of all fallen souls. A Vaiṣṇava takes *sannyāsa,* the renounced order, out of compassion for others, because his only duty is to preach the message of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. People in the world are suffering due to their ignorance. They think, "Oh, now I have a nice car, apartment, and girlfriend; therefore I am happy." Actually, this is not happiness but suffering. Because the Vaiṣṇava loves Kṛṣṇa and understands that he is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, he realizes that the conditioned living entities are suffering for want of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, out of compassion, the Vaiṣṇava takes *sannyāsa* and goes forth to preach. **Hayagrīva:** As for the nature of the world, Schopenhauer is vague, but he sees material life as basically irrational and whimsical. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact, and therefore we are changing bodies. This means that our material mind is not fixed; it is constantly rejecting and accepting. Māyāvādī philosophers and Buddhists say that since these material pleasures and pains arise from this material combination, the best course is to dismantle it. They do not say that the soul is the basis, but that the material body is nothing but a combination of the material elements. They therefore advise us to let the earth return to earth, the water return to water, and so on. In this way, they tell us that we should strive to become zero, to attain *nirvāṇa.* **Śyāmasundara:** Leibniz claimed that this is the best of all possible worlds, and you agreed because the world is God's arrangement. But Schopenhauer sees this as the worst of all possible worlds. **Prabhupāda:** There is no doubt that whatever Kṛṣṇa creates is perfect. However, since the nature of this world is material, there are three modes working: goodness, passion, and ignorance. As you work, you receive the results, the reactions. We do not agree that this is the worst of worlds. Why should God create the worst of anything? **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer believes this because the world is so full of madness and frustration. **Prabhupāda:** Had he taken his frustration seriously, it might have made him successful. We receive many letters from frustrated students who understand that frustration is another hell, and eventually they come to understand that they should seek the real shelter. So frustration is really not so bad. If you are put in a dangerous position, and you know how to save yourself from it, that very danger will later give you pleasure. **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer claims that the working of the world is ethically evil. **Prabhupāda:** To some extent that is right because when you are in prison, you will find that there is evil. But that evil is good for you. It is there so that you can learn a lesson. When you are out of the prison, you will be able to love someone. **Hayagrīva:** For Schopenhauer, there is frustration behind all material pleasures and endeavors. Happiness eludes us. As soon as we attain the objects of our desires, they no longer appear the same. "They soon grow stale or forgotten," he writes, "and though not openly disowned, are yet always thrown aside as vanished illusions." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, all this is going on, and therefore the living entity acquires one body after another. **Hayagrīva:** He sees us moving through a constant transition from desire to satisfaction and then to a new desire, "the rapid course of which is called happiness, and the slow course sorrow...." It is this flux from desire to satisfaction that characterizes the will's activities in the phenomenal world. Outside of this, there is only *nirvāṇa,* extinction. **Prabhupāda:** That is not a fact. We have to understand that behind the will and its satisfaction is a person who is willing. Schopenhauer does not take that person into consideration; he considers only the will and its satisfaction. It is the individual soul who is willing. If he succeeds in stopping this flickering willing, what next? Even the stopping of the will is temporary. One kind of willing may be stopped, but there will be another kind of willing and satisfaction. We must understand that behind the whimsical will is the spirit soul. When that spirit soul understands his real identification as the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, his will is purified. We should not be satisfied by simply trying to annihilate the whimsical will. We should understand the real will of the real person. That is the beginning of spiritual life. **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer believes that voluntary and complete chastity is the first step in asceticism, or in the denial of the will to live. "Chastity denies the assertion of the will which extends beyond the individual life," he writes, "and gives the assurance that with the life of the body, the will, whose manifestation it is, ceases." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but he must understand that behind the will there is a person who is willing. It will not help us simply to negate the temporary material will. We have to will in reality, and that is our eternal willing, that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In the material world, the will is directed toward sense satisfaction because the living entity has forgotten the spiritual field of willing. When the same will is directed towards satisfying the senses of the Supreme, that is the eternal willing of the living entity. *Jīvera 'svarūpa' haya-kṛṣṇera 'nitya-Dāsa'* [*Cc Mad* 20.108]. When we come to the platform of real knowledge, we understand that we are the eternal servants of God. When our will is concentrated on how to serve God, we attain our real position of eternity, bliss, and knowledge. **Hayagrīva:** Although Schopenhauer officially takes an atheistic stand, he writes: "If a man fears death as his annihilation, it is just as if he were to think that the sun cries out at evening, 'Woe is me! For I go down to eternal night....' Thus suicide appears to us as a vain and therefore foolish action...." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, because the will is there, death is not the stoppage of life. One simply gets another life. > dehino 'smin yathā dehe > kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā > tathā dehāntara-prāptir > dhīras tatra na muhyati "As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change." [*Bg.* 2.13] This is proof that the life of the person who is willing is eternal. His desire and will are eternal, but Schopenhauer does not know what his eternal willing is. His eternal will is to serve Kṛṣṇa always. It is a fact that suicide is no solution. One just implicates himself more and more. If we kill the body given by God, we have to accept another body, or remain a ghost. If I live in this body eighty years, and then commit suicide, I have to remain a ghost for five years before I get a chance to receive another body. Of course, you may argue that since the soul is everlasting, it makes no difference whether the body is killed. It is all right if the body is annihilated, but you cannot deliberately kill the body because that is hindering its progress. The living entity is destined to live in a particular body, and if you destroy that body, he has to wait for another. This means that you are interfering with his spiritual evolution, his spiritual progress. Therefore you are liable for punishment. **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer also looked on Indian philosophy as a philosophy of the denial of the will, and he cited many examples of suicide as a religious act. **Prabhupāda:** But he did not study Vedic philosophy and religion perfectly. He has some idea of some portions of the Māyāvādī and Buddhist philosophies, but evidently he did not know about Vaiṣṇavism. Although he has touched *Bhagavad-gītā,* he did not study it thoroughly, because in Bhagavad-gītā*, Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that if he only tried to attain knowledge of God, his life and will would be purified, and he would return back to Godhead upon giving up the body. > janma karma ca me divyam > evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ > tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma > naiti mām eti so ’rjuna "One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna." [*Bg.* 4.9] Either Schopenhauer did not study Bhagavad-gītā* thoroughly, or he could not understand for want of a real spiritual master. According to *Bhagavad-gītā* itself, we should go to a bona fide guru who has seen the truth. Schopenhauer is speculating on the basis of his own experience; therefore, although everything is there in Bhagavad-gītā,* he could not see it. **Hayagrīva:** As examples of the denial of the will to live, Schopenhauer cites the religious suicides under the wheels of the Jagannātha carts, and the ritual of *satī.* **Prabhupāda:** These are not suicides. These are acts based on the understanding that because we are getting different types of bodies, we are suffering a variety of miseries. When one voluntarily accepts death in these ways, he thinks of his spiritual life while dying, and he attains it. > yaṁ yaṁ vāpi smaran bhāvaṁ > tyajaty ante kalevaram > taṁ tam evaiti kaunteya > sadā tad-bhāva-bhāvitaḥ "Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits the body, O son of Kuntī, that state he will attain without fail." [*Bg.* 8.6] Therefore King Kulaśekhara prayed that Kṛṣṇa take him while he was in good health and remembering Kṛṣṇa, because he feared forgetting Kṛṣṇa when dying in a diseased condition. Often, when death comes, a person is in a coma, his bodily functions are impeded, he dreams in various ways, and so on. Therefore an intelligent man sometimes thinks that it would be more desirable to meet death in sound health so that he can think of his next life and go back to Godhead. If a person thinks of Lord Jagannātha while dying, he goes back to Lord Jagannātha. That is not suicide but the voluntary acceptance of death so that one can immediately transfer to the spiritual world. **Hayagrīva:** And that is effective? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. **Hayagrīva:** What of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's throwing Himself in the ocean? **Prabhupāda:** No, that was different. That was an act of ecstasy. **Śyāmasundara:** Schopenhauer noted that the will forces a person to live even when he has nothing to live for. It impels him to suffer day after day. He compares it to the alms which a beggar receives one day just so he can live in hunger the next day. All this misery and frustration are not partaken by a few men, but by all. **Prabhupāda:** That is certainly a good point, but why does the individual hanker after something when he is being frustrated? The point is that there is a goal, and the individual is hankering after that goal. In order to understand what that goal actually is, we should approach a spiritual master. **Hayagrīva:** According to Schopenhauer, the man of knowledge is not perturbed in any condition. "Such a man would regard death as a false illusion," he writes, "an impudent specter which frightens the weak but has no power over him who knows that he is himself the will of which the whole world is the objectification or copy, and that therefore he is always certain of life and also of the present—" **Prabhupāda:** This is contradictory. On the one side there is a desire for the certainty of life, and on the other he says that *nirvāṇa* is the only answer. Which does he want? He is simply trying to adjust things. He cannot understand the philosophy behind purification of the will. **Hayagrīva:** One of the first major Western philosophers to have read *Bhagavad-gītā,* Schopenhauer feels that it was Kṛṣṇa's assurance of immortality that brought Arjuna to fight. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but what is Schopenhauer's philosophy of the immortal living being? He does not understand that just as the living entity is immortal, his will is also immortal. If the soul is immortal, how can his will be stopped? How is *nirvāṇa* possible? **Hayagrīva:** He offers no solution other than suppression of the will. **Prabhupāda:** But that is not possible. He must change the quality of his willing in order to be happy. That is the process of *bhakti.* > sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ > tat-paratvena nirmalam > hṛṣīkeṇa hṛṣīkeśa- > sevanaṁ bhaktir ucyate **"*Bhakti,* or devotional service, means engaging all our senses in the service of the Lord, the master of all the senses. When the spirit soul renders service unto the Supreme, there are two side effects. He is freed from all material designations, and, simply by being employed in the service of the Lord, his senses are purified." [*Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu,* 1.1.12] Bhakti* is the purification process:** *śravaṇaṁ *kīrtanaṁ* *viṣṇoḥ.* Chanting and hearing the pastimes of the Lord will purify us. Schopenhauer misses the point of Bhagavad-gītā*. Although he accepts the fact that life is eternal, he thinks that its purpose is *nirvāṇa.* Unfortunately, he does not know what real *nirvāṇa* is. *Nirvāṇa* means putting an end to the whimsical will and coming to the platform of willing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer was impressed that the religion of India has endured for more than four thousand years. He writes that such a religion "cannot be arbitrarily invented superstition, but must have its foundation in the nature of man." **Prabhupāda:** Within the Vedic religion there are two basic sects: Māyāvādī and Vaiṣṇava. Both acknowledge the fact that the material world is flickering and transient and that there is another life in the spiritual world. For the Māyāvādīs, spiritual life means merging into the Brahman effulgence, and for the Vaiṣṇava it means associating personally with God in His abode, Goloka Vṛndāvana, Vaikuṇṭha. Both envision a spiritual life attainable after death. **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer considered Indian religion to be based on the denial of the will. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, denial of the will for material happiness, but it is not the will itself that is denied. While denying the will for material happiness, we must assert the will for spiritual happiness. When denying one thing, we must accept something else. No one can remain in a neutral position. *Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā *nivartate* [*Bg.* 2.59]. We give up the inferior for the superior. **Śyāmasundara:** For Schopenhauer, there are three means of salvation: aesthetic, ethical, and religious. Through aesthetic salvation, contemplation of the Platonic ideals through poetry, music, and art, we are transported above passion, desire and willing. **Prabhupāda:** This is nothing new. It is mentioned in *Bhagavad-gītā,* and the students of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement abandoned their abominable living habits because they received a better life with superior thoughts, philosophy, food, song, poetry, and art. When the mind is filled with Kṛṣṇa, there is no chance in its engaging in the contemplation of nonsense. **Śyāmasundara:** Aesthetic salvation is a temporary experience. When we look at a beautiful painting, for instance, we momentarily transcend the lower levels of consciousness and become desireless. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we admit that this may be the case, but we wish to remain in that higher consciousness continually, not momentarily. This is possible through practice. By practice, a child learns to read and write, and thus becomes educated. It is not a momentary thing. If we practice Kṛṣṇa consciousness daily, lower consciousness will automatically vanish. *Śrī-vigrahārādhana-nitya-nānā-śṛṅgāra-tan-mandira-mārjanādau* [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka* 3]. The spiritual master engages his disciples in the temple worship of the Lord. You cannot derive benefit from worshipping the Deities unless the aesthetic sense is applied with reverence and respect. **Śyāmasundara:** According to ethical salvation, we should attempt to satisfy the will. When it is satisfied, no new desires can arise. This brings permanent happiness. **Prabhupāda:** Apart from the individual will, there is the supreme will. If we satisfy the supreme will, we are happy. *Yasya prasādād *bhagavat-prasādo* [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka* 8]. Our philosophy is that by satisfying the spiritual master, the representative of God, we satisfy the supreme will. It is not our will that is to be satisfied, but the will of God. **Śyāmasundara:** By religious salvation, the most effective type of salvation, the will is denied through asceticism. In this way, Schopenhauer believed that we could attain the state of *nirvāṇa,* nothingness. **Prabhupāda:** Such people claim that when there is no longer any sense of pleasure and pain, there is no world. The fact is, there are three stages: waking, sleeping, and total unconsciousness. In all three stages, the will is there. A person can emerge from a state of total unconsciousness and immediately remember his waking state and his dreams. Therefore the will is there. The will cannot be killed because it is the function of the soul. Since the soul is eternal, willing is also eternal. The will may be suppressed for some time, however. For instance, after death, when a living entity enters a womb, he spends the next nine months developing his next body, and there is a suspension of the will. However, according to your will, you develop a certain type of body. When you emerge from your mother's womb, the willing process resumes. Death means a suspension of the will for a few months, that's all. If you train your willing process improperly, you have to suffer life after life, but if you train it properly, you can go to Vaikuṇṭha immediately after death. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning religious practices, Schopenhauer writes that "the Christian mystic and teacher of Vedānta agree that all outward works and religious exercises are superfluous for him who has attained to perfection." But doesn't Kṛṣṇa recommend just the opposite? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, He says: > yajña-dāna-tapaḥ-karma > na tyājyaṁ kāryam eva tat > yajño dānaṁ tapaś caiva > pāvanāni manīṣiṇām "Acts of sacrifice, charity, and penance are not to be given up but must be performed. Indeed, sacrifice, charity, and penance purify even the great souls." [*Bg.* 18.5] If we give up the ritualistic ceremonies, there is every chance that we will fall down. Even though we may be liberated, we should continue performing sacrifices, charities, and penance in order to keep our position secure. **Hayagrīva:** In discussing the functions of the brain, Schopenhauer notes that the need for sleep is directly proportionate to the intensity of our mental activities. Dull creatures like reptiles and fish sleep little and lightly; the more intelligent animals sleep deeply and long. 'The more completely awake a man is," he writes, "the clearer and more lively his consciousness, the greater for him is the necessity of sleep, and thus the deeper and longer he sleeps." **Prabhupāda:** No. Those who are ignorant, materially covered, sleep more, and those who are spiritually enlightened sleep less. Sleep is a necessity of the body, not of the soul; therefore those who are spiritually advanced do not require a lot of sleep. *Nidrāhāra-vihārakādi-vijitau.* We understand that Rūpa Gosvāmī conquered sleeping, eating, and mating. When we are spiritually engaged, we consider sleep a waste of time. Those who are interested in spiritual life adjust their lives in such a way that their sleep is practically nil. Arjuna was addressed as Guḍākeśa, "one who has conquered sleep." **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer recommends about eight hours of sleep a night. How many are recommended in the Vedic tradition? **Prabhupāda:** Sleep should be avoided, but since that is not possible, it should be adjusted to the minimum. The Gosvāmīs did not sleep more than two hours daily. Even some *karmīs* are so absorbed in their work that they practically don't sleep at all. It is said that Napolean slept while riding his horse, and Gandhi slept while riding in a car. Generally, six hours is sufficient. **Hayagrīva:** In *The Ages of Life,* Schopenhauer writes: "A complete and adequate notion of life can never be attained by anyone who does not reach old age, for it is only the old man who sees life whole and knows its natural course....He alone has a full sense of its utter vanity, whereas others never cease to labor under the false notion that everything will come out right in the end." **Prabhupāda:** This may seem to be the case, but in Western countries we observe old men still following the path of sense gratification. So what is the use of their experience? Unless one receives training, it is not sufficient to become an old man in order to understand the purpose of life. Training is required from early childhood. According to the Vedic plan, an old man should take the renounced order of *sannyāsa* and completely devote his time and energy to understanding and serving God. We do not become spiritually mature just by growing old. We should be trained from the very beginning as *brahmacārī.* **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer points out that it is customary to call youth the happy part of life and old age the sad part, but factually this is not the case. "This would be true if it were the passions that made a man happy," he writes, "but a man feels happy just insofar as his intellect is the predominating part of him." **Prabhupāda:** For modern civilization, happiness means sense gratification. Desire for sense gratification continues even when one is an old man; therefore early training is required. It is said that one can become an old man even without advancing in age. This means that it is knowledge that is important, not age. If one is not educated properly, he becomes an old fool. **Hayagrīva:** Schopenhauer notes that in the *Upaniṣads,* the natural human life span is set at a hundred years. "To come to one's end before the age of ninety means to die of disease," he writes. "In other words, prematurely." **Prabhupāda:** Yes. In this millennium, the maximum age is one hundred years, but in former millennia, men used to live for a thousand years. In the Tretā-yuga, the life span was ten thousand years, and in the Satya-yuga, it was one hundred thousand years. Presently, in Kali-yuga, life has become so degraded that people expect to live only about seventy years. As one becomes more sensuous, his life span decreases. That is the law of nature.