# 08 Evolutionary Naturalism ## Charles Robert Darwin [1809-1882] **Hayagrīva:** Darwin's conception of evolution rests on the premise that there is a real genetic change from generation to generation. In other words, he rejects the Platonic *eidos* [idea, type, or essence] for a species. Whereas Kṛṣṇa says that He is the generating seed of all existences, Darwin would reject the existence of a particular seed for a particular type. There are no fixed species, but shifting, evolving, physical forms, constantly changing. **Prabhupāda:** No. The forms are already there from the beginning of creation. There is evolution, however, but Darwin thinks that this is an evolution of the body. That is incorrect. The body never evolves, but the soul within the body evolves and transmigrates from one body to another. The soul is within the body, and as he desires, he evolves. A man may desire to change apartments, and he may move from one apartment to another, but it is the man who is doing the changing, not the apartment. According to the Vedic conception, the soul evolves, not the body. **Śyāmasundara:** Darwin originated the doctrine of natural selection and survival of the fittest. An animal, he maintains, will develop in a way that is best suited for survival in his environment, and he will pass on his superior qualities to his offspring. Some species survive, and others, not so suitable to the environment, die out. **Prabhupāda:** A snake gives birth to many hundreds of snakes at a time, and if so many snakes are allowed to exist, there will he a disturbance. Therefore, according to nature's law, the big snakes eat up the small snakes. Nature's law is not blind, because behind it there is a brain, and that brain is God. > mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ > sūyate sa-carācaram > hetunānena kaunteya > jagad viparivartate "This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again." [*Bg.* 9.10] Whatever is taking place in material nature is being directed by the Supreme Lord, who maintains everything in order. When one species becomes overly dominant, nature arranges to curb it. According to the theory of Malthus, whenever there is overpopulation, there must be some war, epidemic, or earthquake. These natural activities do not take place by chance but are planned. If Darwin says it is a matter of chance, his knowledge is insufficient. **Śyāmasundara:** Darwin also sees a plan or design in nature. **Prabhupāda:** If you see a plan or design, you must ask, "Whose design?" As soon as you admit that there is a design, you must admit a designer. It is nonsense to say that nature is simply working mechanically. If so, there must be some mechanic to set it in motion. The sun rises exactly to the minute, to the second, and the seasons also come according to plan. Behind the great machine of nature there is a brain that has set it in order. We explain the original source of everything as Brahman, the Absolute Truth, Kṛṣṇa. Scientists admit that they do not know where things are coming from, but when they see them, they suddenly claim to have invented them. But that is not invention. These things are already there. **Śyāmasundara:** From scientific research, it is concluded that through the years, animals have evolved toward more and more complex forms, from very simple forms found in the sea to more complex forms, such as dinosaurs and so on. These forms eventually died out, and other forms evolved from them. **Prabhupāda:** When you say they died out, you mean that those animals no longer exist on this earth. But how can you say that they are not existing somewhere else? Now, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, the human body evolved from the simians. **Śyāmasundara:** He claims that they are related, that they come from the same ancestor. **Prabhupāda:** That is another thing. Everything is related. But he claims that the ape's body or monkey's body developed into a human body. If that is the case, why haven't the simians ceased to exist? We can see that apes, monkeys, and human beings are existing simultaneously. Scientists cannot prove that no human being existed aeons ago. If man evolved from the ape, the ape should no longer exist. *Kārya-kāraṇa.* When the effect is there, the cause is finished. **Śyāmasundara:** It is not that the monkey caused the man to exist; rather, they came from a common ancestor. **Prabhupāda:** We say that we all come from God, the same ancestor, the same father. The original father is Kṛṣṇa. > sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya > mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ > tāsāṁ brahma mahad yonir > ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā "It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kuntī, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father." [*Bg.* 14.4] **Śyāmasundara:** Any any rate, according to Darwin's theory, there is an evolution from simpler forms to more complex forms, from small one-celled animals to more complex animals like man. **Prabhupāda:** But at the present moment, the simple forms are existing along with the complex. It is not that the simplest developed into the most complex. My present body has developed from my childhood body, but that childhood body is no longer existing. Presently, the species are simultaneously existing. **Śyāmasundara:** But they find no evidence that all these complex forms existed in earlier times. **Prabhupāda:** Earlier times or modern times are not in question. When I see all the 8,400,000 species still existing, where is the question of development? You may not know or have evidence that these forms existed long ago, but that is due to your imperfect knowledge. These species are all existing now, and they were existing millions of years ago. You may not have evidence of this, but that is a different thing. We accept evolution, but we also accept the fact that the species are all existing simultaneously now. If they are not existing on this planet, they are existing on some other. Of course, Darwin had no chance to study that. We accept the proposition that there is an evolutionary process from aquatics to insects to birds to animals and to humans, but we do not accept Darwin's theory that one species becomes extinct as another survives. All are existing simultaneously. **Śyāmasundara:** But there are many forms that are extinct on this planet. **Prabhupāda:** But has Darwin seen all the planets and all the universes? Has he the power to see everything? Since our powers are limited, we cannot conclude that a particular species is extinct. Of course, the scientists do not accept the fact that our senses, by which we are gathering information, are limited. But they are. It is not possible to excavate the entire earth. We can only take samples. Our first charge against Darwin is that human life was always existing. He cannot prove that at a certain time there was no human life. It is not that the bodies of the species are changing. These bodies are already there. Rather, the soul is changing bodies, transmigrating from one body to another, and this is actual evolution. It is the evolution or progress of the soul from one body to another. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the soul, Darwin writes: "A few persons feel anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being, and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." That is, it is impossible to know at what point the immortal soul inhabits these species. **Prabhupāda:** The soul is the most important factor, and in order to understand the soul, education is required. It is the soul that moves the body, whether that body be that of an ant, bacteria, a human being, animal, or whatever. Nothing can move without the presence of the soul, and each and every individual soul is immortal. **Śyāmasundara:** As mentioned, Darwin doesn't accept the fact that there are a fixed number of species. Rather, he maintains that the species may vary at different times according to natural selection. There are new species always evolving. **Prabhupāda:** But what does he know of all the species? Does he have a complete list of all the species in the universe? From *Padma Purāṇa,* we learn that there are 8,400,000 species. First of all, we must understand what all these species are. You may walk through a market and see many different types of people. As you walk, you continue to see different types of people, but you cannot say that a particular type no longer exists because you do not see it anymore. The point is that you can neither see nor comprehend the beginning or the end. **Śyāmasundara:** Well, they claim that everything started with a one-celled animal. **Prabhupāda:** But where did that animal come from? **Śyāmasundara:** From chemical combinations. **Prabhupāda:** Then who supplied the chemicals? **Śyāmasundara:** Scientists are not so concerned with who, but with the existing phenomena. **Prabhupāda:** Mere study of phenomena is childish. Real science means finding the original cause. Darwin may have studied this island or that island, or he may have dug holes in this desert or that desert, but he has not seen the other millions of planets that are existing in the universe. He has not excavated and dug into the depths of all the other planets. How, then, can he conclude that this is all? He speaks of natural selection, but he has not perfectly studied nature. He has only studied nature functioning in a particular place, and a very small place at that. When we speak of nature, we refer to *prakṛti.* We refer to the universe. There are millions of universes, and Darwin has not studied them, yet he is drawing all these conclusions. There is certainly natural selection, but Darwin does not know how it is working. Darwin's defect is that he has no information of the soul. **Śyāmasundara:** The fact remains that excavations throughout the world prove the existence of species that no longer exist on this planet. **Prabhupāda:** But nature is not confined to this one planet. When you speak of material nature, you must include all the planets in the universe. **Śyāmasundara:** But the scientists have no evidence that all the species have been existing from time immemorial. **Prabhupāda:** You cannot give evidence that the sun existed millions of years ago; still, we conclude that it did. The sun was not just created this morning. Within the sun, everything is existing, and if the sun is existing, other things must be existing also. Darwin draws conclusions about nature from a limited study of this one planet. This is not full knowledge. If your knowledge is not perfect, why should we accept your theories? Whether complex life-forms were existing on this planet millions of years ago is not really the point. All these forms are existing in nature. According to the *Vedas,* the species in nature are fixed at 8,400,000. These may or may not be existing in your neighborhood, but that is not important. The number is fixed, and they are simultaneously existing. There may be an evolution from simpler forms to more complex, but it is not that a species becomes extinct. Real evolution is the evolution of the soul through the existing species. Now, we admit that with the changes of seasons, or with extreme heat or cold, differences may arise, but it is not that the species are new. If there is a great flood, and all the men on earth are drowned, the human species is not extinct. Man may or may not survive certain catastrophes; this does not affect the species. We cannot say that the human species is extinct, but that under these circumstances man has survived or not survived. Whatever the case, human beings are existing somewhere else. **Śyāmasundara:** When the *Padma Purāṇa* says that there are 400,000 species of human life, what does it mean? **Prabhupāda:** There are differences in culture and in body types. Scientists will say that human beings are all of one species, but when they speak of species, they mean something different. The *Vedas,* for instance, would consider the Negroes and Aryans to belong to different species. As far as Kṛṣṇa consciousness is concerned, bodies may differ; it doesn't matter. Our classification is on the basis of the soul. The soul is equal despite different types of bodies. The soul is one and does not change. > vidyā-vinaya-sampanne > brāhmaṇe gavi hastini > śuni caiva śvapāke ca > paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ "The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle *brāhmaṇa,* a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater [outcaste]." [*Bg.* 5.18] One who sees to the bottom, sees the soul. Because Darwin and other material scientists have no information of the soul, they have missed the whole point. On the material platform, one material form may be superior to another, just as one apartment may be better than another, but these are material considerations. Now, according to our position, we may evolve from lower apartments to higher, but it can also work the other way around. If we are not able to pay the rent or price for a higher apartment, we have to enter a lower one. It is not that the soul is necessarily progressing from lower to higher forms. **Śyāmasundara:** Darwin would claim that all living things on earth are evolving from lower to higher. **Prabhupāda:** Generally, that may be accepted because at certain periods people may be constructing certain types of apartments, but the apartments themselves are not evolving. Evolution takes place within the apartment according to the desire of the *jīva,* the living entity. Darwin thinks that it is the apartment that is changing, but actually it is the desire of the *jīva.* According to our mentality at the time of death, we get a certain type of apartment. In any case, the apartment is already there. It is not that I have to create it. The types of apartments are fixed at 8,400,000, and we can enter into any of them. You cannot conceive of a type of apartment beyond this number. A hotel keeper knows that different customers want different types of facilities; therefore he makes arrangements to receive all kinds of customers. Similarly, this is God's creation, and God knows how many different ways a living entity can think and desire; therefore God has created all these species. If the living entity thinks in a certain way, God says, "Come on. Here is the body that you want." > prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni > guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ > ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā > kartāham iti manyate "The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature." [*Bg.* 3.27] Nature is giving us all facilities. God, as the Paramātmā within the heart of everyone, knows what the living entity wants, and orders nature to give it to him. **Śyāmasundara:** But presently we see that on this planet there are no longer any dinosaurs. That type of apartment is no longer available. **Prabhupāda:** As I said before, you may or may not have seen dinosaurs. In any case, you have certainly not seen all the 8,400,000 species of life. This does not mean that these species are no longer existing. They may be existing on some other planet. You have no information of this. Scientists are experimenting with their imperfect senses, but we are receiving knowledge from a different source. Regardless of the amount of scientific research, the conclusions will always be imperfect because the senses are imperfect. **Hayagrīva:** At first, Darwin was a Christian, but his faith in the existence of a personal God eventually faded. He finally wrote: "The whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect—The mystery of the beginning of things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic...." He *based* The Origin of Species* on evidence he had amassed on a voyage around the world from 1830 to 1836. **Prabhupāda:** In any case, his research was limited. He certainly could not have investigated all the species on the planet. **Hayagrīva:** He spent the rest of his life writing about the information he gathered during this voyage. According to his theory of natural selection, the best and fittest survive, and therefore the race necessarily and steadily improves. But then, in Kali-yuga, isn't there steady degeneration? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we can actually see that the human race has become degraded. **Hayagrīva:** What is the cause of this? **Prabhupāda:** Improper education. Every individual person is a soul, and each has a particular type of body. The human body in particular requires education. The soul evolves through various species according to his desires. Material nature supplies the bodies, acting under the orders of God. God exists within the core of everyone's heart, and when the individual soul desires something, material nature, following the orders of God, gives him a machine in the form of a body. When we attain the human form, we can either regress to the animal form, or make spiritual progress. Animals also have desires, but they change bodies and species according to the laws of nature. The human body in particular is meant for understanding God, acting accordingly, and returning home, back to Godhead. If we do not utilize this opportunity, we regress to lower species. **Śyāmasundara:** According to the Vedic version, were there higher life forms on this planet millions of years ago? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. The *Vedas* inform us that the first created creature within this universe is also the most intelligent—Lord Brahmā. How, then, can we accept the theory that the intellect develops over so many millions of years? We receive Vedic knowledge from Brahmā, who was instructed by Kṛṣṇa. Darwin's theory that intellect developed is not scientific. It is merely a suggestion, a guess. **Śyāmasundara:** When Brahmā created, were there also other developed life-forms beside man? **Prabhupāda:** All the forms have been existing since the creation. **Śyāmasundara:** What evidence do we have that higher life-forms existed on this planet millions of years ago? **Prabhupāda:** The authority of Vedic literature. **Śyāmasundara:** But what other authority is acceptable? If we dig up a bone and make a test with our senses, isn't that authoritative? **Prabhupāda:** That is bone authority. You may be satisfied with such authority, but we have our own. You will accept your authority, and I will accept mine. That is a different matter. Scientific authority is always relative, just like scientific knowledge. Theories are always being contradicted by other theories. Has Darwin gone down to the bottom of the sea and excavated there? Who has dug into the layers of the earth below the sea to find out what is there? All Mr. Frog knows is that his well is only three feet deep and three feet wide. If you tell him of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean, he will say, "How big is it? Twice as big as my well? Ten times as big?" Since he can never conceive of the Atlantic Ocean, what good will his investigations do? What knowledge can he have of the vast ocean? Therefore we must take knowledge from one who has created the Atlantic Ocean. In this way, our knowledge will be perfect. **Śyāmasundara:** But certain of Darwin's theories appear factual. For instance, no one can deny the fact that the fittest survive. **Prabhupāda:** We may try to adjust things, but if our adjustments are not approved by the Supreme, they will not be successful. According to nature's way, parents have affection for their children, but if parents do not take care of them, the children will not survive. Still, the parents' care is not the last word. If the child is condemned by the Supreme Lord, he will not exist despite the parents' care. In other words, we have to go to the Supreme Lord if we ultimately want to survive. If Kṛṣṇa does not want us to survive, we will not be able to survive, despite all our attempts. All these natural laws are working under one controller, God. Electricity may serve many purposes, but the powerhouse is one. It is generating energy for all. We may utilize the same electrical current to serve different purposes, but the power is the same. **Śyāmasundara:** Well, the same current may be working in both the deer and the tiger, but the tiger is able to kill the deer. In this case, one survives, and the other does not. **Prabhupāda:** According to the law of karma, no one will survive. The body is the field of activity, and we are given license to act within this body for some time. That is all. There is no question of survival. **Śyāmasundara:** By survival, Darwin means that the species will survive. **Prabhupāda:** There is no question of survival. The species are always there. **Śyāmasundara:** But why is there no evidence that human civilizations existed on this earth millions of years ago? **Prabhupāda:** Our evidence for a previous Vedic civilization is *śruti,* spoken evidence. For instance, Vyāsadeva received Vedic knowledge from Nārada, and Nārada received Vedic knowledge from Lord Brahmā millions and millions of years ago. We can hardly calculate one of Brahmā's days in which fourteen Manus come and go. Each Manu lives for 306,720,000 years. According to the Vedic calculations, millions, billions, and trillions of years are not very astonishing. When Brahmā was born, he was educated by God. This means that this Vedic philosophy was existing then. **Śyāmasundara:** But if the earth is so old, it must have undergone many transformations. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but this doesn't matter. After one day of Brahmā, there is devastation. Brahmā lives for a hundred years composed of his incredibly long days, and at the end of each day there is devastation. So there are many devastations, and we are not very amazed to hear about them. Nor are we amazed at hearing about the passage of millions and trillions of years. This is nothing. According to Vedic historical methods, trillions and trillions of years account for nothing. Even though we do not find evidence of civilization existing on this earth millions of years ago, we cannot conclude that there was no civilization. We can only conclude that our knowledge is imperfect. **Hayagrīva:** Debating against Darwinism, William Jennings Bryan, a famous lawyer and politician, said, "They [the Darwinists] do not dare to tell you that it began with God and ended with God—Darwin says the beginning of all things is a mystery unsolvable by us. He does not pretend to say how these things started." **Prabhupāda:** The material world is created, and the living entities are allowed to act within it. Since the living entities all come from God, God says *bījaṁ māṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ viddhi pārtha *sanātanam.* "O son of Pṛthā, know that I am the original seed of all existences." [*Bg.*7.10] Material nature is the mother, and God, the father, gives the *bījaṁ,* the seed. The mother's womb cannot produce in itself, but when the spiritual seed is given, the body can form and develop. The living entity, an eternal part and parcel of God, is put into material nature and develops a body according to his desire. This is the actual beginning of life. **Hayagrīva:** According to the Biblical version, God created man in His image some six thousand years ago. **Prabhupāda:** It was not so recent. According to the *Vedas,* this creation goes back millions and millions of years. Whatever the case, God created this cosmic manifestation and impregnated it with living entities to appear in different species according to their desires. The individual soul proposes, and God disposes. All the species have been existing from the very beginning. It is not that there was no human form in the beginning of the creation. This is very easy to understand. The body is created by material nature, and the soul, part and parcel of God, is placed into the body according to his desires. Material energy is called the inferior energy of God, and the living entity, the individual soul, is called the superior energy. Both come from God, and therefore it is said that God, the Absolute Truth, is He from whom everything flows. **Hayagrīva:** In *The Descent of Man,* Darwin writes: "The idea of a universal and beneficent creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man until he has been elevated by a long continued culture." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, culture is very important, because we can be elevated by spiritual association. According to our cultural life, we can go to higher planetary systems, remain where we are, or go back home, back to Godhead. Therefore culture is most important. **Śyāmasundara:** Darwin felt that if we could sufficiently understand the evolutionary process, we could control it. Today, people speak of conquering nature, and claim that man is now living a longer, healthier life than ever before. **Prabhupāda:** That is just more nonsense. My grandmother lived ninety-six years, but I don't expect to live that long. The life span is decreasing. People are not sufficiently healthy because they are not getting proper food. Where is the medicine that puts an end to all disease? Every time you discover new medicines, new diseases come along. There is no question of stopping them. Even if you find a cure for cancer, you cannot put an end to death. However great our scientific advancements may be, we can never put an end to birth, old age, disease, and death. The attempt is a waste of time. Our business is to utilize our time in such a way that after giving up this material body, we can return home, back to Godhead. **Śyāmasundara:** Darwin made the evolution of species seem so mechanically arranged that God is removed from the picture. It appears as if combinations of ingredients created animals, and that they evolved from one another. **Prabhupāda:** Combination means God, because it is God who is combining. It is not that the combination takes place automatically. A cook combines many ingredients when he is making a preparation. It is not that the ingredients can combine themselves. Darwin should have asked how the combination comes about, but it appears that he did not even raise this question. Material elements, ingredients, do not combine automatically. There must be a living entity who combines them. **Śyāmasundara:** One theory is that everything emanates from some energy. **Prabhupāda:** That energy must belong to the energetic. When a computer works, there must be someone pushing the button. According to the *Vedas,* as soon as God wishes, material energy is immediately set into action. Then things emerge automatically. A man may say that there is no God behind the material energy, but if God withdrew such a man's speaking power, he would not even have the ability to deny God's existence. In order to support Darwin's theories, Western philosophers and historians reject the fact that the Vedic literatures were composed thousands of years ago. But the discovery of the Ajanta Caves proves that there were very intelligent people living many thousands of years ago. But these scientists are simply searching after bones. What is more important? Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa*, or a pile of bones? In ages past, the memories of the students were very sharp because they were pure *brahmacārīs,* strictly celibate. There was no need to write these literatures down. According to the *śruti* system, the student heard the subject matter once from the spiritual master, and after that he could recall every word. Now Darwin and other material scientists are trying to understand phenomena, Kṛṣṇa's energy, but they are not interested in knowing the source of this energy. Kṛṣṇa says, *ahaṁ *sarvasya* *prabhavaḥ.* "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds." [*Bg.* 10.8] If we are Kṛṣṇa conscious, we know that Kṛṣṇa is the original source of all energy. If a person becomes a chemist or physicist, his duty should be to prove that Kṛṣṇa is the original source of all energy. Then his knowledge of chemistry and physics is perfect. People want knowledge through the modern scientific method; therefore if one is a real scientist, it is his duty to prove that this material energy is coming from Kṛṣṇa. If one is a biologist, or naturalist, it is his duty to prove that all life-forms are coming from Kṛṣṇa. Unfortunately, scientists are thinking, "Oh, we shall create something." But they cannot create anything because God is doing all the creating. They are trying to imitate God just as a child seeing his mother cooking. "Oh, I shall cook too!" It is childish play, and for this play they are spending much labor and many billions of dollars. They try to create a human in a test tube, but every day many humans are being born. They are trying to create something artificial, that's all. By God's multi-energies, everything is being created automatically. All ingredients are given by Kṛṣṇa. Your intelligence and your body are given by Kṛṣṇa. He gives us everything, and we cannot do anything without Him. When we act, we should try to satisfy Kṛṣṇa; then our action will be successful. It is not possible to go outside the boundaries of Kṛṣṇa. ## Thomas Henry Huxley [1825-1895] **Hayagrīva:** Huxley felt that the main difference between man and the animals is the ability to speak. In his essay "Man and the Lower Animals," he writes: "Man alone possesses the marvelous endowment of intelligible rational speech, whereby...he has slowly accumulated and organized the experience which is almost lost with the cessation of every individual life and other animals" **Prabhupāda:** That is another misconception. Everyone speaks his own language. Animals have theirs, and human beings theirs. **Hayagrīva:** He specifically mentions "intelligible, rational speech." **Prabhupāda:** Animals have rational speech. **Hayagrīva:** They may be able to articulate certain basic facts to one another, but they have no culture or history. They have not been able to accumulate and organize the experience of their species. **Prabhupāda:** According to the Vedic tradition, the Sanskrit language is the mother of all languages and is spoken in the higher planetary systems, but this is not to say that one is an animal if he doesn't speak Sanskrit. Everyone has his own language—Englishmen, Indians, animals, birds, whatever. It is education that is really important, not language. A human being with developed consciousness can receive a spiritual education, whereas animals cannot. That is the main difference. It is not basically a question of language, because knowledge can be imparted in any language, just as we are imparting Vedic knowledge in English and other languages. It is not language that distinguishes man from the lower species, but knowledge. Animals cannot receive knowledge of God, but a human being, regardless of his language, can understand God if knowledge is properly imparted to him. **Hayagrīva:** Although Huxley defended Darwin's theory of evolution, he differed in his belief in the survival of those who are "ethically the best." In *Evolution and Ethics,* he writes: "Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest... but of those who are ethically the best." **Prabhupāda:** The cosmic process cannot be checked. It continues functioning in different modes: goodness, passion, and ignorance. In the mode of goodness, there is advancement, but ultimately the individual has to transcend the mode of goodness to come to the platform of the all-good, the platform of pure goodness. In the material world, whatever process we accept for advancement is conditioned by goodness, passion, and ignorance. It is very difficult in the material world to keep a process pure; therefore the soul must come to the platform of goodness and then transcend it. The platform of pure goodness is called *bhakti,* and on that platform our transactions are only with God. It is only when we come to that platform that we can survive. Otherwise, no one survives, because everyone has to continue transmigrating from one body to another. Tathā dehāntara-pr***āptir** [*Bg.* 2.13]. However, when we come to the platform of pure goodness, we can understand God and transcend repeated birth and death. > 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] Apart from this, there is no meaning to survival. Survival means that the soul remains pure in its original position and does not transmigrate. Survival is only in the spiritual world, where there is no change. **Śyāmasundara:** Huxley believed that it is within our own hands to guide our ethical evolution. **Prabhupāda:** It is certainly within our hands. First of all, you hear that it is wrong to steal and that those who steal go to jail. Then it is up to you to steal or not. **Śyāmasundara:** Huxley believed that we have to qualify ourselves ethically to be worthy to survive. It is not just a question of the physically fittest. **Prabhupāda:** Nobody is fit to survive. This idea of survival is simply nonsense. However, we can elevate our consciousness and that of all human society by this Kṛṣṇa consciousness process. This is a question of education. When we become Kṛṣṇa conscious, we become worthy to survive. We no longer have to undergo the process of transmigration. **Śyāmasundara:** Huxley maintains that the most morally worthy ought to survive. **Prabhupāda:** The most morally worthy is he who is Kṛṣṇa conscious. There is no question of ought; rather, he will survive. But as far as morality is concerned, what is Huxley's morality? We say that cow killing is immoral, but others say that it is moral because by eating beef, the body is developed. Which morality is more worthy for us to select? There are many questions like this, and one person says that this is moral, whereas another says it is immoral. Of course, the meat eaters claim that morality depends on what the majority wants—that is, the majority of meat eaters. Such people will naturally agree that cow killing is very nice, but does this make cow killing moral? **Śyāmasundara:** Huxley believes that because nature is amoral, man must not imitate but must combat nature. **Prabhupāda:** There is no question of combatting nature. You cannot conquer nature. Of course, everyone is perpetually trying to fight nature, but in *Bhagavad-gītā,* Kṛṣṇa says: > 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] It is impossible to defeat material nature. You are trying to live, but material nature deals death to everyone. This combat is going on, but nature is always stronger. No one has ever been successful in battling nature. **Śyāmasundara:** Is it true that nature is amoral? **Prabhupāda:** Nature is most moral because she is abiding by the order of Kṛṣṇa. How can nature be mistaken? In *Brahma-saṁhitā* [5.44] it is said: sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktir-ekā chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni bibharti durgā. *Durgā, material nature, is so powerful that she can create, maintain, and annihilate. **Śyāmasundara:** Huxley based his morality on sympathy, and he claimed that nature has no sympathy. **Prabhupāda:** Nature has all sympathy because she is working under the orders of Kṛṣṇa. Nature is very much like the police. When a person breaks the law, he thinks that the police are most unsympathetic, but if a person abides by the law, the police are friends and protectors. In any case, this is the proposal. **Śyāmasundara:** It would appear that if one man's house burns down and another man's doesn't, there is no sympathy involved—just arbitrariness and chance. **Prabhupāda:** It is not arbitrary. It is not by chance. It is clearly stated that material nature is working under the orders of Kṛṣṇa. Since Kṛṣṇa is not immoral, one carrying out His orders cannot be immoral. The apparent punishment dealt by nature is also sympathy. Mother Durgā is always seen with a trident in her hand, and she is always punishing, but this is indirectly moral. She is punishing living entities so that they will become Kṛṣṇa conscious. She puts them in all kinds of miserable conditions in order to bring them to awareness of Kṛṣṇa, to the consciousness whereby they can understand that if they surrender unto Kṛṣṇa, they will be free. It is not possible to conquer nature by material contrivances. We can conquer nature only by rendering devotional service to the Lord. The material attempt to conquer or control nature is man's disease, his attempt to imitate Kṛṣṇa. Such imitation is never perfection. **Śyāmasundara:** Still, Huxley felt that man could improve his environment. Agriculturally, for instance. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but although the governments are promising people more and more, the people are becoming more miserable. They give man food to eat, facilities to sleep, to have sex life, and assurance from danger. These are the primary necessities, and even an animal can be satisfied with these. But man cannot. Because he has developed consciousness, man wants something more. Therefore in human society there is music, art, philosophy, and religion. But if man utilizes his developed consciousness simply to eat, sleep, defend, and mate, he will never be satisfied. Man's higher consciousness should be utilized to develop Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The material struggle for survival is not natural. Struggle is unnatural. Our natural condition is enjoyment. **Śyāmasundara:** But, by use of intelligence, can't man come to understand the world, and in this way make his own world? **Prabhupāda:** It is stated in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > antavat tu phalaṁ teṣāṁ > tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām > devān deva-yajo yānti > mad-bhaktā yānti mām api "Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." [*Bg.* 7.23] It is up to you. If you want to remain here, you can. Kṛṣṇa has given us intelligence and all facilities. It is now up to us to make our choice, whether to go to heaven, hell, or to Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** Huxley looked on civilization as something of an attempt to give order to nature. Civilization might be defined then as a complex ethical understanding between men enabling as many men as possible to survive. **Prabhupāda:** That is not possible. You cannot dictate to nature; rather, nature will dictate death to you. According to the laws of material nature, there is no question of survival. When you can actually dictate to material nature, then you can survive. This is possible only through Brahman realization, as explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > 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] **Hayagrīva:** Huxley saw the Indian philosopher as buckling under a stronger cosmos. He writes: "By the Ganges, ethical man admits that the cosmos is too strong for him—" **Prabhupāda:** Yes. **Hayagrīva:** "—and destroying every bond which ties him to it by ascetic discipline, he seeks salvation in absolute renunciation." **Prabhupāda:** That is correct. **Hayagrīva:** However, Huxley saw this attempt as "flight from the battlefield." Exhorting Englishmen to cosmic battle, he writes, "We are grown men, and must play the man 'strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'" **Prabhupāda:** And at last to die. He may not yield, but nature will kick him and say, "You must die." In any case, Mr. Huxley is no longer surviving. Whether we be Englishmen, Frenchmen, Americans, or whatever, we cannot survive but have to succumb to the dictations of material nature. According to *Bhagavad-gītā:* > prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni > guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ > ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā > kartāham iti manyate "The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature." [*Bg.* 3.27] It is false ego that says, "I shall survive. I am an Englishman." According to the law of nature, death is unavoidable for everyone; therefore the intelligent man first of all considers how he can transcend death. It is explained in Bhagavad-gītā* that if we understand Kṛṣṇa, we can survive. **Hayagrīva:** It is not that Huxley believed in any kind of material immortality. In *Evolution and Ethics,* he writes of transmigration and karma: "Every sentient being is reaping as it has sown; if not in this life, then in one or other of the infinite series of antecedent existences of which it is the latest term." Also, of Indian philosophy: "The substance of the cosmos was Brahman, that of individual man Ā*tman; and the latter was separated from the former only, if I may so speak, by its phenomenal envelope, by the casing of sensations, thoughts, and desires, pleasures and pains, which make up the illusive phantasmagoria of life." **Prabhupāda:** Brahman is not separated from *ātmā;* rather, they are eternally co-existing. That is explained in the Thirteenth Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā*, wherein Śrī Kṛṣṇa discusses the body, *kṣetra,* which is the field of action, and the *ātmā,* the individual soul, who is the owner of the field and who works in it. It is also pointed out that there is another owner: > upadraṣṭānumantā ca > bhartā bhoktā maheśvaraḥ > paramātmeti cāpy ukto > dehe 'smin puruṣaḥ paraḥ "Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul." [*Bg.* 13.23] The *ātmā,* the individual soul, knows only his own body, but the Supersoul knows everything about everybody. I may know the pains and pleasures of my body, but I am ignorant of the pains and pleasures of another. The Supersoul, Paramātmā, knows everything about all bodies in the universe. There is no question of separation; rather, the two are eternally co-existing. **Hayagrīva:** Huxley's understanding is similar to that of the Saṅkarites: the *ātmā* is imprisoned within the body, and when he attains enlightenment, "the bubble of illusion will burst, and the freed individual Ātman* will lose itself in the universal Brahman." **Prabhupāda:** This does not mean that the *ātmā* becomes Paramātmā. A drop of water may merge into the sea, but it does not become the sea. The sea remains the same, whether a drop of water merges with it or not. When a green bird enters a green tree, you may not be able to see the bird anymore, but it is foolish to think that the bird has become one with the tree. The individual *ātmā* retains his individuality, although our defective vision may not be able to perceive it. The Saṅkarites mistakenly think that the individual soul merges with the Supreme and becomes the Supreme, but this is not the case. In all cases, he retains his individuality. **Hayagrīva:** Huxley writes: "There was no external power which could effect the sequence of cause and effect which gives rise to karma; none but the will of the subject of the karma which could put an end to it." **Śrīla Prabhupāda:** As long as the individual soul acts according to bodily designations, he is not free. When he gives up these designations and agrees to become Kṛṣṇa-*Dāsa,* the servant of Kṛṣṇa, he saves himself. **Hayagrīva:** But is there any question of liberation independent of Kṛṣṇa? **Prabhupāda:** No. It is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* [*Bg.*3.9] that we should work only for Kṛṣṇa. Otherwise, we become entangled. Freedom means acting on behalf of the Supreme. By acting in this way, we are not bound by karma. When a soldier follows his orders and kills on the battlefield, he receives medals, but as soon as he kills one man on his own behalf, he is considered a murderer and is subject to be hanged. This is *karma-bandhana**ḥ,* bondage to karma. The act may be the same, but in one instance the soldier is acting under the orders of the state, and in the other he is acting for his own sense gratification. Similarly, when you act for Kṛṣṇa, you act in freedom, and when you act for yourself, you are bound by karma. That is the main teaching throughout Bhagavad-gītā*. Arjuna was thinking of leaving the battlefield due to personal considerations, but when he understood that it was his duty to fight on Kṛṣṇa's behalf, he agreed. **Hayagrīva:** In *Evolution and Ethics,* Huxley tries to relate karma to evolution: "In the theory of evolution, the tendency of a germ to develop according to a certain specific type...is its karma....The snow-drop is a snowdrop and not an oak, and just that kind of snowdrop, because it is the outcome of the karma of an endless series of past existences." **Prabhupāda:** That is correct. This process is called *karma-bandhanaḥ.* One takes on one body after another until he reaches the human form. He is then capable of deciding whether he should continue or put an end to this process of *karma-bandhanaḥ* by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa. If he surrenders to Kṛṣṇa, the process stops, and if he does not, the process continues according to the laws of nature. **Hayagrīva:** As soon as Huxley became a Darwinist, he rejected a supernatural God and the Bible, proclaiming that "argument from design" had "received its death blow." Unlike Spinoza, he did not accept a pantheistic God, but believed in "the Divine government of the universe," and felt that the cosmic process is rational and not accidental. Still, he rejected a personal God concerned with morality. **Prabhupāda:** That is a mistake. Nature in itself is not rational; it is simply dead matter. A piece of wood is not rational, but the carpenter who shapes it is. The cosmic process may be rational, but this is only because there is a rational being behind it. That rational being is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nature cannot be rational out of its own accord any more than a piece of wood can become a table without a carpenter. **Śyāmasundara:** Huxley felt that man must remain an agnostic because he cannot know God, even though God may exist. **Prabhupāda:** Why can man not know Him? **Śyāmasundara:** Because He does not appear in phenomenal form. **Prabhupāda:** But what if He appears? You say that you cannot see Him in a phenomenal form, but God can appear and teach you. Then you can know Him. We don't try to attain knowledge of God by speculating, nor do we try to get knowledge of God from fools, rascals, and philosophers. We take knowledge directly from God Himself. God appears and gives us the instructions of *Bhagavad-gītā,* and we take our knowledge from this. **Śyāmasundara:** In any case, Huxley agreed that we can never realize God by the empiric method. **Prabhupāda:** That is nice. We agree that God cannot be known by our present senses. However, we do not agree that God cannot be known at all. The present senses can be purified by Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and with purified senses, we can come to know God. **Śyāmasundara:** Huxley also introduced the conception called epiphenomenalism, the belief that the mind and consciousness are products of the physical process. **Prabhupāda:** We also accept the fact that the mind is physical and that consciousness is also physical and yet subtle. **Śyāmasundara:** For Huxley, when the body dies, the mind and consciousness also die. **Prabhupāda:** But he has no information of the soul. Wherever there is the soul, there is mind, consciousness, and everything else. The mind, consciousness, and intelligence are all present, but now they are materially contaminated. What we have to do is to purify them. It is not that we are to try to make our mind, consciousness and intelligence nil. That is not possible. **Śyāmasundara:** But when the body dies, does the individual consciousness also die with it? **Prabhupāda:** No. How can you die? Your consciousness simply carries you to another body. ## Henri Bergson [1859-1941] **Hayagrīva:** Bergson maintained that God's reality can be intuited only by mystical experience. The creative effort "is of God if it is not God Himself." This knowledge of God leads to activity, not passivity. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, knowledge of God certainly leads to activity. For instance, in *bhakti-yoga* we are engaged twenty-four hours daily in Kṛṣṇa's service. It is not that we just sit down and meditate. In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says that the best activity is to preach the message of Bhagavad-gītā:* > ya idaṁ paramaṁ guhyaṁ > mad-bhakteṣv abhidhāsyati > bhaktiṁ mayi parāṁ kṛtvā > mām evaiṣyaty asaṁśayaḥ **"For one who explains the supreme secret to the devotees, devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me." [*Bg.* 18.68] This is also Caitanya Mahāprabhu's order:** "Become a guru by spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness." To be a guru means to be active. **Hayagrīva:** The word "mystic" can have many different meanings. When Bergson says that God's reality can be intuited only by mystical experience, what is meant? **Prabhupāda:** God is mystical for one who does not know God, but for one who knows God and receives orders from Him, God is a perceivable person. The word "mystic" may imply something vague or obscure. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson believed that the mystic who has contact with God can lead others and teach them to become godly. **Prabhupāda:** That is very nice. Then by "mystic," he means God's representative. That is the spiritual master who is following in the disciplic succession. The *Bhagavad-gītā* tells us to approach a guru who has realized the truth, God. It is not that the mystic poses himself to be God. No, he surrenders unto Kṛṣṇa and teaches others to do so. In this way, he teaches us how to become godly. Actually, it is better to say God conscious instead of godly. One who is God conscious is a true mystic. **Śyāmasundara:** According to modern interpretations, a mystic is someone mysterious or magical. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the meaning has degraded to that because so many gurus come over, display miracles, and claim to be God. So these rascals are misleading the unintelligent who want to see miracles, and the unintelligent look on these miracles as mysticism. It is another case of the cheaters and the cheated. **Hayagrīva:** Originally, the Greek word *mystikos* referred to one initiated in secret religious rites, and today the word has degenerated to mean something obscure or occult. For Bergson, a mystic is one who can commune with God through contemplation and love, participate in God's love for mankind, and aid the divine purpose. This is the real meaning of "creative evolution." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, everyone is in ignorance due to a long separation from God. In the material world, the living entity has forgotten his relationship with God; therefore he acts only for sense gratification. He awakens to his real life when he is given instructions on how to become God conscious; otherwise, he lives like an animal. Sentiment is one thing, but when religion is understood in the light of good logic and philosophy, we can attain a perfect understanding of God. Without philosophy, religion is simply sentiment. Sentiment in itself does not help very much. A sentimentalist may be interested one day and disinterested another. As stated in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,* religion means learning how to love God. At the present moment, in our physical condition, we cannot see God, but by hearing about Him, we can develop our dormant love. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson envisioned two types of religion: static and dynamic. Static religion is comprised of myths devised by human intelligence as a means of defense against life's miseries. Fearful of the future, man attempts to overcome his condition by constructing religious myths. **Prabhupāda:** Whatever is created by human beings is not acceptable. We do not follow such faiths because human beings are always imperfect. We cannot accept anything manufactured by human beings; we must take our information directly from God, as it is given in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,* Bhagavad-gītā* and other scriptures. *Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād *bhagavat-praṇītam.* "Real religious principles are enacted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead." [*SB.* 6.3.19] Kṛṣṇa says, "Surrender unto Me." This is real religion. It is not man-made. Man is constantly creating so many ism's, but these are not perfect. Religion that leads us to surrender to God is real religion. Otherwise it is bogus. **Śyāmasundara:** For Bergson, real religion is dynamic. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is so. It is not static because it is on the spiritual platform. The spirit is the dynamic force in this body. There is no question of the spirit being static. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson says that prompted by the vital impulse, by dynamic religion, the human will identifies with the divine will in a mystical union. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We are teaching people to agree with the divine will, which means surrendering to God. Oneness means agreeing with this teaching. **Śyāmasundara:** Real religion is a mystic oneness with God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, oneness means that I agree with God. God says, "Surrender," and I say, "Yes, I surrender." God tells Arjuna, "Fight," and Arjuna fights. Oneness means that we agree with God on all points. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson felt that the greatest obstacle to creative evolution is the struggle with materialism. He believed that politics and economic reforms cannot help matters. **Prabhupāda:** Politics and economic reforms can help provided they are properly guided—that is, provided they aim at helping our understanding of our relationship with God. Vedic civilization was divided into four *varṇas* and four *āśramas,* and these divisions were meant to help people develop their dormant God consciousness. Unfortunately, today the *kṣatriyas,* the administrators, have forgotten the real objective of human life. Now they are thinking only of caring for the body, living comfortably, and gratifying their senses. But that is not the real purpose of human civilization. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson believed that the spirit of mysticism must be kept alive by the fortunate few who know God "until such time as a profound change in the material conditions imposed on humanity by nature should permit, in spiritual matters, of a profound transformation." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is dedicated to bringing about this change. I have already said that a perfect society is centered in love of God. This love is without motive. It is a natural love, like the love between a son and his father or mother. The material conditions provoke certain bodily demands: eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. At present, people are interested only in these four activities. **Hayagrīva:** How are these material conditions going to change? **Prabhupāda:** These daily bodily necessities will remain, but in addition, people should understand God and His instructions. That will bring about change. We are not neglecting the bodily necessities, but we realize that our main business is advancing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Presently, Kṛṣṇa consciousness is not supported by the state or social leaders. People are busy thinking of eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. It is not that these activities stop when we are Kṛṣṇa conscious; rather, they are regulated. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson was optimistic in his belief that the mystics, through love, would eventually help mankind return to God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, this is the real purpose of human life. Man has the opportunity afforded by nature to understand the instructions of the *Vedas* and the spiritual master. Only a suicidal civilization remains in darkness, concerned only with the bodily necessities. **Śyāmasundara:** For Bergson, the nature of God is love, through which the world comes into being. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, of course God loves. Unless He loves, why does He come down personally to give us instructions through the scriptures? **Hayagrīva:** In *Creative Evolution,* Bergson writes: "For an ego which does not change does not endure, and a psychic state which remains the same so long as it is not replaced by the following state does not endure either." He sees all psychic states of the individual, including the ego, as constantly changing. **Prabhupāda:** This is the false ego that says, "I am this body." By education, we can come to understand that we are spirit soul. Then the activities of the soul begin. The first lesson of *Bhagavad-gītā* instructs us that the living entity is not the material body but the soul within. That soul is Brahman, pure spirit. Once we understand that we are not the body, our struggle to maintain the body stops. Brahma-bhūtaḥ *prasannātmā* [*Bg.* 18.54]. Once we understand that we are spirit soul, we concern ourselves with elevating the spirit soul to the highest perfection. We then come to understand that we are not only spirit soul, but that everyone else is spirit soul as well. We then want everyone to be given a chance to attain perfect understanding. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson's *Vitalism* states that the life force cannot be explained by physics and chemistry or the other sciences. It is separate from Darwin's mechanical laws. Science will never be able to accurately explain the source of life, which is nonmaterial. **Prabhupāda:** That is very nice. He is speaking of the soul, but he is unable to capture the idea positively. It is true that the soul is not controlled by physical laws, and that is verified by *Bhagavad-gītā* itself: > 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] The vital force, or the soul, can be temporarily covered by physical elements, but the soul itself does not belong to any of the physical elements. The soul is a living force, and it has a little independence. The supreme living force is God, and the individual soul is part and parcel of God, just as sparks are part of a great fire. The individual soul misuses his independence when he himself wants to become God and lord it over material nature. He then falls from his purely spiritual position into the physical encagement, and, forgetting his real identity, he thinks that he is the body. But he is not. The body is a circumstantial covering, a dress. The living, vital force is different. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson says that the reality, the living force, is always in a state of becoming and never at rest. Logical or scientific explanations are ineffective because they deal with static problems. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, so-called scientists do not know the real basic principle; therefore they are misled and misleading. The soul is living force. The soul has a little independence, and he wants to enjoy the material world, which he cannot do. By running after phantasmagoria and trying to lord it over material nature, he becomes more and more entrapped. **Śyāmasundara:** Being constantly dynamic, changing, and unpredictable, the life force is too elusive for scientific investigation. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, this is so. Because it is living force, it must be dynamic. Living force is not dead stone. We are all living force. We may be sitting here now, or we may be leaving. No one can check these movements in time. Not even God interferes with our dynamic force. He allows us to do whatever we like. If God interferes with our independence, we are no longer living entities. We become dead stones. Therefore God does not interfere; He gives us full freedom. At the same time, He comes down to instruct us, saying, "Why are you so engaged in this foolish activity? Please come to Me, back home, back to Godhead. Then you will be happy." **Śyāmasundara:** For Bergson, the unpredictable life force is constantly creating new things. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is creating new things in the material phenomena, but when the life force is spiritually situated, there are no such changes. Our only business is to serve Kṛṣṇa. And even in the service of Kṛṣṇa, there are many varieties, but those are spiritual varieties. At the present moment, we are creating material varieties and a variety of bodies, all subject to the threefold miseries and to birth, death, old age, and disease. As long as we are materially entrapped, our dynamic force is creating trouble, and we are becoming more and more entangled. **Śyāmasundara:** Can we ever predict the movements of the life force? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is moving in a variety of dresses, but its ultimate future is to return home, back to Godhead. But because the individual soul is acting unintelligently, he has to be kicked in the face very strongly by material nature. Then he will come to his senses. That is his position. When he thinks intelligently, he realizes that it is his duty to serve Kṛṣṇa instead of his own material body. In this material world, we see that everybody is trying to be happy, but everyone is constantly being frustrated. This is because material happiness ultimately means frustration. This is māyā's way of kicking. **Śyāmasundara:** In any case, the life force will eventually return to Godhead? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, everyone will sooner or later. Some sooner, and some later. **Śyāmasundara:** But can we predict that the process of punishment will have some permanent effect? Many prisoners leave the prison, but some come back. **Prabhupāda:** There is nothing permanent. Because we have a little independence, we have the freedom to misuse our independence again and return to the prison; otherwise there is no meaning to independence. Independence means that you can do what you like. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson spoke of the soul as *elan *vital,* "vital impulse." **Prabhupāda:** The soul is a living, vital force, and is therefore dynamic. It is never at rest, but is always working through the mind, intelligence, and body. **Śyāmasundara:** Is the soul present in the same quantity in every living body? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Its measurement is the same: one ten thousandth part of the tip of a hair. **Śyāmasundara:** But what about its amount of energy? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the same amount of spiritual energy is everywhere, in the ant and in the elephant. **Śyāmasundara:** When you say that the soul is one ten thousandth part of the tip of a hair, this seems to denote a physical size. That is, this seems to be a physical concept. **Prabhupāda:** Material size and spiritual size are not the same. Spiritual size is permanent, and material size is changing. We give this example of the tip of a hair because you have no spiritual vision. Therefore you have to understand by a material example. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson believes that the qualities of the soul can be perceived only by intuition, not by the senses. **Prabhupāda:** That is correct. The soul cannot be experienced by the senses, but we can understand that the soul is absent from a dead man. We see the dead body, and this is called perception. Then we understand that there is something intangible that is absent, and we call that the soul. This is the process of intuition. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning remembering and forgetting, Bergson writes: "The cerebral mechanism is arranged just so as to drive back into the unconscious almost the whole of this past, and to admit beyond the threshold only that which can cast light on the present situation or further the action now being prepared—in short, only that which can give useful work." **Prabhupāda:** The cerebral mechanism is a machine, just like this microphone. This machine has nothing to do with my voice, but it amplifies it so that others may hear. In this way, the machine can help. Similarly, the brain is a machine that can help us understand God. Human beings have a good machine, but they do not know the use of it. That is their misfortune. **Hayagrīva:** Doesn't Kṛṣṇa arrange this cerebral mechanism, causing remembrance and forgetfulness? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, because He is the supreme power, He can do this. If we persistently want to forget Kṛṣṇa, despite Kṛṣṇa's instructions, Kṛṣṇa, who is within the heart, gives us a chance to become more and more forgetful so that we completely forget our relationship with God. Kṛṣṇa says: > tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān > saṁsāreṣu narādhamān > kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān > āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu **"Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life." [*Bg.* 16.19] He also 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] It is Kṛṣṇa's punishment that the living entity remains in perpetual darkness, but it is the mercy of Kṛṣṇa's devotee, the Vaiṣṇava, that he remembers his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says, "O Vaiṣṇava, please accept me as your dog." The cerebral mechanism, the brain, is a machine, and according to one's desires, he remembers Kṛṣṇa or forgets Him. Just as Kṛṣṇa enables the demoniac to be punished, He gives the devotee the intelligence by which he can remember and understand. > teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ > bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam > dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ > yena mām upayānti te "To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me." [*Bg.* 10.10] **Hayagrīva:** Can we forget Kṛṣṇa eternally? **Prabhupāda:** No, it is not possible. A son may be separated from his father, but it is not possible for him to forget his father eternally. Sometimes he remembers his father. The father is always remembering the son, and looking forward to the time when the son will obey his orders. So there is no question of forgetting perpetually. **Śyāmasundara:** Because the living entity has independence, at one moment he may be liberated, and at another moment, conditioned? **Prabhupāda:** Kṛṣṇa has given you liberation. When you misuse your liberation, you become entrapped. **Śyāmasundara:** But is this all predictable? Can we know it beforehand? **Prabhupāda:** What is the use of all this prediction? The prediction is that the living entity will be kicked, kicked, kicked, and kicked, until someday he will come to Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** So after falling down many times, the living entity will eventually come to Kṛṣṇa and remain permanently. Is that right? **Prabhupāda:** No, there is no question of permanence. Because the living entity has independence, he can misuse that independence and fall down again. A man is not permanently free just because he's released from prison. He can return to prison again. There is no guarantee. This is what is meant by eternally conditioned. The living entities in the spiritual sky who are eternally liberated will never be conditioned because they never choose to misuse their independence. They are very experienced. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning karma and transmigration, Bergson writes: "What are we, in fact, what is our character, if not the condensation of the history that we have lived from our birth—nay, even before our birth, since we bring with us prenatal dispositions. Doubtless we think with only a small part of our past, but it is with our entire past, including the original dint of our soul, that we desire, will, and act." Although we cannot recall much of the past, our present state has grown out of it. **Prabhupāda:** It is our defect that we cannot recall the past; therefore little tests are there to remind us of our opportunity to take advantage of Vedic knowledge. We have forgotten, but our forgetfulness is not perpetual. When we are reminded, we can come to our real consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Forgetting Kṛṣṇa, God, people are thinking that they are masters of everything. Many so-called scientists are decrying God, and claiming that they can do everything independently. This attitude is demoniac. *Sādhu, śāstra,* and guru are here to remind us that we are under the clutches of māyā and that we are not to remain in this position. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson is essentially saying that our past activities have determined what we are today. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is karma. According to our past karmas, we are in a particular position. However, this position can be changed; it is not that it will have to continue indefinitely. Kṛṣṇa says that we are suffering due to our past misdeeds, and this suffering was caused by our not surrendering to Him. If we surrender to Kṛṣṇa, He will put an end to all the reactions of karma. So we do not have to continue to suffer the reactions of our past activities. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson writes: "From this survival of the past, it follows that consciousness cannot go through the same state twice. Circumstances may still be the same, but they will act no longer on the same person, since they find him at a new moment of his history. Our personality, which is being built up each instant with its accumulated experience, changes without ceasing." **Prabhupāda:** There is no cessation because the soul is eternal. Consciousness is also eternal, but it is changing according to the circumstances, association, time, place, and personalities involved. Good association is required, because by it, our consciousness can be changed from material to spiritual. The purpose of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to change our consciousness from absorption in material things to Kṛṣṇa. This requires guidance, which is provided by Kṛṣṇa's instructions and the spiritual master. Kṛṣṇa is so kind that He has given us *śāstra, s**ādhu,* and guru. **Hayagrīva:** But if the personality is determined by experience, and experience is forgotten at death, then a new personality must emerge at rebirth. How can the personality be built up with accumulated experience? **Prabhupāda:** We may forget our deeds in the past, but Kṛṣṇa does not forget them. He therefore gives us a chance to fulfill previous desires. At death, the body changes, but the soul does not change. The soul continues and brings with him reactions of past deeds. Even though the soul forgets what he has done in the past, Kṛṣṇa is there to remind him that he wanted to do this or that. **Hayagrīva:** So the person is the same, but the personality changes? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. This personality can be perfected if we follow the instructions of Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** But personality, as we understand it, changes from life to life, doesn't it? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but according to your work, your body will be selected. It is not that you select your body. Because you have acted in a certain way, superior authorities select your body according to your activities. **Hayagrīva:** If at death the soul takes the mind, intelligence, and ego with it into a new body, isn't it possible for the mind to remember past lives? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and there are many instances of this. Bharata Mahārāja received the body of a deer, but by the grace of Kṛṣṇa he remembered everything about his past life. Although Bharata Mahārāja was a devotee, he neglected his devotional service due to being overly attached to a deer. Since he was thinking of the deer at the time of death, he received the body of a deer, but out of His great mercy, Kṛṣṇa reminded him of his situation. In his next birth, therefore, Mahārāja Bharata was born into a good *brāhmaṇa* family. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson says that "our personality shoots, grows, and ripens without ceasing." If this is so, how can the *jīva* regress to a lower form of life? How could a greater experience be confined to a lesser one? **Prabhupāda:** According to nature's process, everything is calculated at the time of death. Here in Hawaii we see that there are many boys addicted to the water sport called surfing. Now they are creating a mentality which will enable them to become aquatics. So naturally at the time of death they will think of all these things, and nature will give them a body accordingly. We cannot check this process. After death, we are completely under nature's control. We cannot dictate. Since people cannot or will not understand this, they conclude that there is no life after death. **Hayagrīva:** How could a great personality like Indra, with his mind, intelligence, and ego all intact, possibly become a hog? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, this can be done, because as long as we are materially existing, our thoughts are under the modes of material nature. Sometimes our thoughts are in the mode of goodness, sometimes in passion, and sometimes in ignorance. Accordingly, we go up and down the scale in different species. In order to keep ourselves on the proper platform, we should engage in devotional service. This is confirmed in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > 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] If we stay on the Brahman platform, there is no degradation. We are trying to do this by engaging ourselves every moment in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson saw change as maturation. He writes: "We are seeking only the precise meaning that our consciousness gives to this word, 'exist,' and we find that, for a conscious being, to exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly." **Prabhupāda:** It is not necessary to struggle to attain our highest position, because that position is indicated by Śrī Kṛṣṇa: "Abandon all *dharmas* and surrender unto Me. I will give you all protection." [*Bg.* 18.66] Unfortunately, the living entity thinks that Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary human being and therefore incapable of granting the topmost position. Therefore he goes on with his plan making. After many, many births, he finally comes to the conclusion that everything is Kṛṣṇa. *V***āsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmāsudurlabhaḥ** [*Bg.* 7.19]. But why go through many births of struggle? If we at once accept Kṛṣṇa's instructions, we can become perfect immediately. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson sees the life impulse moving through the universe and creating new forms and varieties, just as an artist creates different paintings. The creations progressively improve. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, you might call that evolution. The living entity moves through 8,400,000 species, and each is better than the last, until one comes to the human form. Once he has reached the human platform, he may choose to become a demigod like Lord Brahmā. Brahmā is also a living entity; he is not in the Viṣṇu category. Yet Brahmā has such power that he can create this universe. God can create infinite universes, but Brahmā can create at least one universe. Of course, from the human form, one can also regress to lower forms. **Śyāmasundara:** For Bergson, world evolution moves progressively through history as instinct, intelligence, and intuition. **Prabhupāda:** Then he agrees that one moves from the lower stages to the higher. **Śyāmasundara:** To realization? **Prabhupāda:** Realization means arriving at the truth. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson says that understanding through intuition is superior to understanding through the intelligence. **Prabhupāda:** That is correct. **Śyāmasundara:** He sees the creative process as advancing up to the level of immortality. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we are receiving different types of bodies, and when we are perfectly situated in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we no longer receive material bodies. **Śyāmasundara:** Then although the life force itself is eternal, the forms advance up to the form of immortality? **Prabhupāda:** The forms are changing, but the living force is not changing. The forms are changing, but the person within the forms is permanent. When he identifies with the body, he thinks that he is changing. **Śyāmasundara:** Is the progress toward human immortality a creative process? By creative, Bergson implies that we are creating our immortality. **Prabhupāda:** No, you are always immortal. You are immortal by constitution, but you are changing bodies. The process is creative in the sense that you create your own body or your next body as you desire. If you create within yourself the mentality of a dog, you will get the body of a dog in the next life. Similarly, if you create the mentality of a servant of God, you return to Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** In *Creative Evolution,* Bergson writes: "We may conclude, then, that individuality is never perfect, and that it is often difficult, sometimes impossible, to tell what is an individual, and what is not, but that life nevertheless manifests a search for individuality, as if it strove to constitute systems naturally isolated, naturally closed." **Prabhupāda:** Why is there a search for individuality? We are all naturally individuals. > na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ > na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ > na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ > sarve vayam ataḥ param "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." [*Bg.* 2.12] We are individuals in the past, present, and future. Our individuality is always there, but in quantity we are not as great as Kṛṣṇa. Compared to Him, our intelligence is very meager. When we utilize our individuality properly and follow Kṛṣṇa's instructions, we perfect our lives. Māyāvādī philosophers want to annihilate this individuality, but this is not possible. We are perpetually individuals, and God is also an individual. It is incorrect to think that by killing individuality, we become one with God. Our individuality is retained. Even though for a time we may think, "I will merge into the existence of God," we will fall down again due to individuality. In any case, there is no need for a search for individuality because we are always individuals. **Hayagrīva:** According to Bergson, we can see the creation as either coming from God, or moving toward Him. Depending on our viewpoint, "we perceive God as efficient cause or as final cause." **Prabhupāda:** God is always there. He was there before the creation, and when the creation is finished, He will be there. God is not part of the creation. Being the creator, He exists before, during, and after His creation. This is standard Vedic knowledge. > 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] **Hayagrīva:** Bergson is saying that God is the beginning, middle, and end, depending on our point of view. **Prabhupāda:** It is not dependent on our viewpoint. God is always there, but because we are imperfect, we are thinking in this limited way. This cosmic manifestation is a temporary creation to give the individual soul a chance to develop his consciousness. If he does not do so, and there is universal annihilation, he must remain in an unconscious position. When there is creation, he again comes to consciousness. This is the cycle that is going on. But God is always there. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson further writes: "If life realizes a plan, it ought to manifest a greater harmony the further it advances, just as a house shows better and better the idea of the architect as stone is set upon stone. If, on the contrary, the unity of life is to be found solely in the impetus that pushes it along the road of time, the harmony is not in front but behind. The unity is given at the start as an impulsion, not placed at the end as an attraction." **Prabhupāda:** This is what is called nature's course. First of all, something is created, it develops, stays for a while, leaves some by-products, grows old, dwindles, and finally vanishes. These are the changes that all material things are subject to, but the spirit soul is not material and therefore has nothing to do with bodily changes. The soul has his perpetual duty and activity, which is devotional service. If we are trained in our perpetual duty, we can put an end to bodily changes, remain in our eternal, spiritual body, and return home, back to Godhead. **Hayagrīva:** So creative evolution must necessarily be the evolution of the soul? **Prabhupāda:** No, since the soul is ever existing, there is no question of evolution. As long as the soul is entangled in material existence and bodily conceptions, he thinks that a superior body evolves from an inferior one. However, if his consciousness is changed, there is no changing bodies. He remains in his eternal body. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson thinks that it is the vital force that is guiding everyone and creating its own evolution. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the vital force will determine this. But the individual must be educated to know how to make progress. It is ultimately up to the spirit soul whether to surrender to Kṛṣṇa or not. The living entity has the right to accept or reject. If he takes the right path, he progresses, but if he rejects this path, he will regress. This depends on him. **Hayagrīva:** There seems to be a basic contradiction between Bergson and the *Vedas,* as far as the evolution of the universe is concerned. **Prabhupāda:** Anything material, be it the universe or whatever, undergoes the basic changes I mentioned. Since its birth, this universe has been increasing in volume, and that is material change. This has nothing to do with the spiritual. Just as we have a soul within this body, the universe also has a soul within, and that is the Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu is not changing, but the universe is. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson theorizes that the further life advances, the greater harmony is being realized. **Prabhupāda:** There is harmonious change, just as a child's body harmoniously changes into a boy's body. In any case, change is there. **Hayagrīva:** So there is harmony in the beginning, middle, and end? **Prabhupāda:** Everything is in harmony, be it material or spiritual. That is God's law. **Hayagrīva:** If everything is always in harmony, evolution has an incidental meaning. **Prabhupāda:** This is harmony: One is an aquatic, then an insect, then a plant, then a tree, and so on up to the body of a human being. Change is there, but there is harmony. Once one has attained a human body, he can decide whether or not to stop this evolutionary process, or to remain in it. If one accepts the instructions of Kṛṣṇa, he can put an end to this bothersome evolution. If not, he remains. This is the version of *Bhagavad-gītā:* > aśraddadhānāḥ puruṣā > dharmasyāsya paran-tapa > aprāpya māṁ nivartante > mṛtyu-saṁsāra-vartmani "Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. Therefore they return to the path of birth and death in this material world." [*Bg.* 9.3] By following Kṛṣṇa's instructions, we can become completely detached from the cycle of birth and death. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson sees man as the culmination of earth's evolution. He writes: "Man might be considered the reason for the existence of the entire organization of life on our planet." **Prabhupāda:** On this planet there are different types of men. Not everyone is in the same position. There are fools and sages, rich men and poor. **Hayagrīva:** He is speaking of mankind in general. **Prabhupāda:** What does he mean by all mankind? Everyone is an individual. In any case, man is not the highest form of life. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson sees the material worlds as being basically isolated from one another. He writes: "It is not artificially, for reasons of mere convenience, that we isolate our solar system: Nature itself invites us to isolate it." **Prabhupāda:** We feel isolated because we are individuals. In a prison, every criminal is different from every other criminal, and everyone has to suffer the consequences of his criminal activities. Thus every individual is suffering or enjoying according to his past deeds. If there is combination, you forget individuality. But that is not possible. **Hayagrīva:** We feel isolated as individuals, but in addition we feel isolated communally on this planet. Man has never been able to communicate with beings on other planets. **Prabhupāda:** What is the point in communicating with other planets? They are also like this planet. People there have their individuality also. **Hayagrīva:** Well, man has always had the desire to communicate with something outside of this world, something higher. Basically, this must be a desire to reach God. **Prabhupāda:** Since God is there, why not communicate with Him? There is no point in communicating with other planets. Other living entities cannot help us. If we communicate with God, Kṛṣṇa, we automatically understand everything else. If you hear people talking on other planets, what benefit will you derive? It is better to listen to Kṛṣṇa speaking *Bhagavad-gītā.* **Hayagrīva:** Is this isolation between worlds characteristic only of the lower and middle planetary systems? Is there as much isolation between the higher systems? **Prabhupāda:** Isolation is always there. Even in this world, crows remain to themselves, and swans remain to themselves. This isolation is natural because everyone is functioning under the different modes of material nature. However, if people come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is no longer isolation because everyone is engaged in the Lord's service. **Hayagrīva:** Bergson sees the universe itself as expanding and evolving. He writes: "For the universe is not made, but is being made continually. It is growing, perhaps indefinitely, by the addition of new worlds." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the universes emanate from the breathing of Mahā-Viṣṇu. If we accept the fact that the universe is increasing, then universes may come out like particles and then begin to develop. We see that for everything material, there is a small beginning. When the living entity enters the womb, he is very small indeed. A banyan tree begins to grow from a small seed. This is the way of nature. It is a fact that the universe is increasing, but not perpetually. It increases to a certain extent, stops, dwindles, and vanishes. **Hayagrīva:** Modern astronomers theorize that the universe is expanding and that the systems are exploding outward into space and moving proportionately further and further from one another, just like raisins expanding in dough when it is heated in the oven. **Prabhupāda:** That expansion goes on to a certain extent. Then it Stops. **Hayagrīva:** But Bergson sees the universe as evolving toward some grand harmony. **Prabhupāda:** What does he mean by grand harmony? Everything is increasing, and everything will eventually dwindle and be annihilated. That is the course of material nature, and the harmony is in this process. **Hayagrīva:** In attempting to relate God to the universe, Bergson speaks of "a center from which worlds shoot out like rockets in a fireworks display." **Prabhupāda:** The creation is like a wheel rotating. There are spokes, and there is a rim. There is also a center around which everything revolves. *Ahaṁ *sarvasya* *prabhavo *mattaḥ* *sarvaṁ *pravartate.* "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me." [*Bg.* 10.8] That center is God, and all the parts are revolving around Him. In any case, the center remains where it is, and is always the same. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson spoke of the world as "a machine for the making of gods." In a sense, this world is a training ground wherein we can make ourselves immortal. **Prabhupāda:** You are immortal already. You have just forgotten. > mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke > jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ > manaḥ-ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi > prakṛti-sthāni karṣati **"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind." [*Bg.* 15.7] There is bewilderment, but no change. We are fixed as spirit soul. It is as if we are dreaming:** "Oh, I have fallen into the Pacific Ocean. I am drowning. Save me!" We may dream so many troublesome things, but actually there is no Pacific Ocean, and we are not drowning. It is simply a dream. The temporary covering of the body is just like a dream, and as soon as you come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you wake up. When you are awake, the dream has no value. However, when the dream is happening, you are thinking that it is real, but since it has no value, it is called māyā. Māyā means "that which has no real existence but appears to." **Śyāmasundara:** Does māyā mean nothingness? **Prabhupāda:** You cannot say that. It is nothing appearing like something, but we do not say that it is nothing. Māyāvādīs say that it is nothing, but we say that it is temporary. How can you say that a cloud is nothing? A cloud appears, remains for a while, and then goes. The body is there temporarily for a few years, or a few hours. It is like a cloud. We cannot say that it is nothing, but that it is temporary. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson thought that the life force, passing through different bodies, will eventually become immortal on this planet. **Prabhupāda:** At present, people are living for an average of seventy years, at the utmost a hundred. They are thinking that they would like to live for a hundred and seventy years, but in this material world, seventy, a hundred and seventy, or seventeen million years are the same. The years will eventually end. However, one who only lives for seventy years thinks that a million years is immortality. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson is interested in knowing the course of future evolution. He feels that because man has progressed from the instinctive stage to the intelligent and then to the intuitive stages, he will eventually attain the immortal stage. **Prabhupāda:** That is very nice, the idea that man will attain perfection. Progress means that you go forward, that you do not remain stagnant. The *Vedas* say: > tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ > sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ > divīva cakṣur ātataṁ > viṣṇor yat paramaṁ padam "The lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu are the supreme objective of all the demigods. These lotus feet of the Lord are as enlightening as the sun in the sky." [*Ṛg Veda* 1.22.20] Those who are learned and advanced in knowledge are called *sūrayaḥ.* Modern scientists are looking forward to going to other planets, but those who are learned are looking forward to going to the lotus feet of Viṣṇu. They are thinking, "When will I reach You?" The goal is there, and those who know it do not miss it. One who is Kṛṣṇa conscious knows the goal and attempts to reach it. Those who do not know the goal waste their time philosophizing and misleading others. This is the blind leading the blind. **Hayagrīva:** So when Bergson refers to the universe as "a machine for the making of gods," in what sense is he correct? **Prabhupāda:** Well, in one sense there is no making of gods, because the demigods are already there. All the parts of the wheel are there complete. Our normal life is a life in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is *mukti,* liberation. It is not a question of becoming something different, but of returning to normal health, to our constitutional position. In māyā, a man is diseased, and in his delirium, he speaks all kinds of nonsense. **Hayagrīva:** Then instead of speaking of the universe as a machine for the making of gods, it would be better to call it a hospital for the curing of souls. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is a hospital. When we are cured, we are freed from all designations, which begin with the body. People are thinking, "I am European, American, Christian, Hindu," and so on. These are all misconceptions. Our real position is that we are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa and are His eternal servants. It is not that a man can be made into a demigod or God. Man is already part and parcel of God. He has to understand his position in order to attain *mukti.* After all, what is a demigod? There is no difference between a demigod and a man. A demigod is in a better position, that's all. A high court judge and a layman are both human beings, but the judge is in a superior position. The demigods are elevated due to their being situated in a higher mode, in *sattva-guṇa.* On this earth, *rajo-guṇa* and *tamo-guṇa,* passion and ignorance, are prominent. Being spirit soul, however, we are not subject to any *guṇa.* We are transcendental. If we keep ourselves in our constitutional transcendental position by engaging in devotional service, we are above all the *guṇas,* including *sattva-guṇa.* This is the liberation attained by devotional service. The devotees are not interested in becoming demigods. After all, the demigods are also rotting in this material world. For a devotee, Brahmā, Indra, Candra, and the other demigods are no better than small insects. Everyone has a different type of body according to karma, whether it be Brahmā's body or an ant's body. One who has attained liberation is not at all concerned with the body; therefore devotees are not interested in being elevated to higher planetary systems. In fact, one devotee prays, "I don't care to be a Brahmā. I would prefer to be a small ant in the house of a devotee." This is the Vaiṣṇava position. **Śyāmasundara:** Bergson conceived of two types of morality: closed and open. Closed morality depends on prevailing conventions, or social pressures. This is traditional morality. **Prabhupāda:** That kind of morality changes according to time and circumstance. What is moral in one society may be considered immoral in another. **Śyāmasundara:** Open morality is determined by individuals and is guided by intuition. Bergson saw this as the morality of saints like St. Paul or St. Francis. **Prabhupāda:** If we are God conscious, we can tell what is real morality. Because St. Paul was a *sādhu,* he could say what morality is. Our process is *sādhu,* guru, *śāstra.* We have to accept knowledge through saintly persons, and this knowledge has to be confirmed by the scriptures and explained by the guru. In this way, our knowledge can be perfect. The scriptures are already there. We have to read them and understand how they have been realized and followed by saintly persons. If there is any difficulty in understanding, we should inquire from the spiritual master. In this way, *sādhu,* guru, and *śāstra* confirm one another. It is not that we try to understand these scriptures directly. We have to see how the scriptural injunctions are being followed by saintly persons. ## Samuel Alexander [1859-1938] **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander is the philosopher of emergent evolution. For him, external objects have an existence independent of consciousness. Unlike many other philosophies, Alexander's neo-realism contends that something may exist even though it is not perceived. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is so. God exists whether we perceive Him or not. God is the original creator, and just as everyone has a father, all living entities are coming originally from this original father. The father is there. Fact is fact, whether anyone perceives it or not. You may not have seen my father, but you know that I had a father. You do not have to perceive him directly to know that he is a fact. Because I exist, my father is essential. That is understood and assumed by everyone. Therefore people say, "What is your father's name?" instead of, "Do you have a father?" It is assumed that one has a father, even though this father is not immediately perceived. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander uses the example of a house: whether we are conscious of a house or not, the house itself is a real entity unaffected by our awareness of it. It has a real, objective existence. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, as far as that proposition is concerned, if we accept the fact that we are eternal, it is very natural to assume that we have an eternal house, an eternal home. That is back home, back to Godhead. When people ask, "Where do you live?" they are asking for your residence. Your present address may not be your birthplace, but it is a fact that we must live somewhere. No one may be interested in knowing where I live, but everyone knows that I have a place to live. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander believes that our consciousness of an object gives us only limited perspective. When we shift our position, our perspective changes. If I see a table, that table has an objective reality; it is not just a mental image. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, you cannot say that the table is just a mental image. If someone throws the table and knocks you down, you will bleed. That is not simply mental. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander also claims that even illusions or hallucinations are genuinely real objects. If I think I see a snake, which is really a rope, the illusion of that snake is real. **Prabhupāda:** There is in reality a snake, otherwise how can the image of a snake come to the imagination? I may falsely take a rope to be a snake, but that doesn't matter. In reality, the snake exists. **Śyāmasundara:** For Alexander, the mind never creates anything new, but rearranges things. Since everything already exists, there is no question of creating anything. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, you cannot create anything. You can only transform. This table is nothing but wood. The wood is not my creation; it is already there. I have only transformed the wood into a shape called a table. It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. When I need something to sit on, I invent a chair. **Śyāmasundara:** Some philosophers reason that because man feels a necessity for God, he has invented God. **Prabhupāda:** Not invented. He knows God. And this is perfectly natural. Any sane man would ask, "Who is the original father?" There is no question of inventing the original father. Anyone can understand that there is an original father by philosophical research. The *Vedānta-sūtra* states, janmādy *asya* *yataḥ.* "God is the original father of everyone." Invention refers to a thing that I create which was not in existence, and discovery refers to something I find that is already there. Invention and discovery practically convey the same idea because nothing is new. In the case of God, it is discovery. There is no question of invention. **Hayagrīva:** In his major work, *Space, Time and Deity,* Alexander writes: "Religion leans on metaphysics for the justification of its indefeasible conviction of the reality of its object [God]; philosophy leans on religion to justify it in calling the possessor of deity by the religious name of God. The two methods of approach are therefore complementary." **Prabhupāda:** We have often said that philosophy without religion is mental speculation, and religion without philosophy is sentiment. The combination of the two is most desirable. *Bhagavad-gītā* is religion and philosophy combined. Religion is explained in terms of worship of God, and philosophy is explained in terms of the immortality of the soul, and other subjects. Thus Bhagavad-gītā* is the supreme combination of religion and philosophy. **Hayagrīva:** If religion is like hunger, God is the food for that hunger. Alexander writes: "This religious appetite may either be stirred in us directly by the impact of the world with its tendency to deity, or it may first be felt by us as a need of our nature—" **Prabhupāda:** We are seeking love of God beginning with our own body. We love this body because we live within it, and as long as the living soul is there, the body has value. The living soul is valuable because he is part and parcel of God. We also understand from *Bhagavad-gītā* that within the body God is also living. So within there are two *kṣetra-jñas,* one who knows the individual body, and the other who knows all bodies. The ultimate conclusion is that because the Supreme Living Entity, God, is within the body and within the universe, we are attracted by love, society, friendship, communalism, and nationalism. When all this culminates in love for God, we attain perfection. We are searching for love of God, but we are moving by degrees from one platform to another. **Hayagrīva:** Alexander writes: "It is idle to hope that by defining God in conceptual terms, whether as the sum of reality, or the perfect being, or the first cause, or by other device, we can establish the connection between such a being and the rest of our experience. We do but start with an abstraction, and we do but end with one. Proofs of God's existence in nature there are none, if such a God is to be identified with the object of worship." **Prabhupāda:** We can understand the presence of God in nature, and we can certainly see His presence there. We can understand that there is a proprietor of the land, sea, and air. We may not be able to see the proprietor of the universe, but from our present experience with proprietorship, we can understand that there must be an ultimate proprietor. God is the proprietor of the sun, moon, and the sky itself. Vedic literatures describe the moon as the mind of God, the sun as the eyes of God, the land as the food of God, and the waters as the semina of God. This is the beginning of impersonal realization, but we should understand that there is a person in the background. Although we have not seen the Governor of Hawaii, we can understand that he is present by seeing the different branches of government. Similarly, as long as we are not qualified to see the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we can understand that this is God's hand, this is God's heart, His mind, His eyes, and so on. When we are qualified, we can personally see God, face to face. **Hayagrīva:** Alexander felt that "even the description of God...is full of figurative language." For him, it is impossible to describe God. **Prabhupāda:** If it is impossible, why is he trying? Why shouldn't we accept the Vedic descriptions? In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Arjuna tells Kṛṣṇa: > paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma > pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān > puruṣaṁ śāśvataṁ divyam > ādi-devam ajaṁ vibhum > āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve > devarṣir nāradas tathā > asito devalo vyāsaḥ > svayaṁ caiva bravīṣi me "You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me." [*Bg.* 10.12–13] If all authorities accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, what further evidence do we need? No further argument is necessary. Things should be simplified. **Śyāmasundara:** The mind is always reorganizing existing things, new comes from old, and from this, Alexander draws his idea of evolution. **Prabhupāda:** Since there is gold and mountains, I can imagine a gold mountain. I can combine many ideas with my imagination. The mind creates some ideas, and then rejects them to create others, and then rejects them also. The mind is not satisfied with creating something final. The mind by nature is creative. It creates something, then thinks, "Oh, this is not perfect," and then begins again. That is the mind's business: accepting and rejecting. **Śyāmasundara:** For Alexander, the mind has two functions: contemplation and enjoyment. Contemplation involves perceiving the qualities of an object— for instance, an apple's redness. **Prabhupāda:** Or, if I see a tamarind, I immediately salivate. **Śyāmasundara:** Enjoyment involves a mental awareness of inner, physiological activity. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, there are many examples. One may dream of a sex object and have a nocturnal discharge. The mind creates things in this way, and there are actual physical reactions. In a dream, the mind may create a tiger, and the dreamer may cry aloud in fright. But actually there is no tiger. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander believes that even these dream images have an objective reality in our consciousness. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, when I dream of a woman or a tiger, they exist in objective reality. The impressions in my mind are created hallucinations, but they may evoke physical reactions. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander describes time as an infinity of single instants, and space as an infinity of points. Together, they constitute primordial reality. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we also consider time and space to be reality. Time is eternal, and therefore we take time to be another feature of God. Space is a later creation. Space is *prakṛti.* Prakṛti* refers to nature, the elements like earth, water, fire, ether, space. Space or sky is one of the fundamental factors of *prakṛti.* Prakṛti*, *kāla, jīva,* Bhagāvan: nature, time, the individual soul, and God. These are all realities, and they are all eternal. There is only one ultimate creator, Bhagāvan, and the *jīvātmā,* the individual soul, is the subsequent creator. God creates wood, and from this wood I create a table or a chair. Thus I am the subsequent, not the ultimate creator. Both creators, Bhagāvan and *jīvātmā,* are eternal. Because the creation has a past, present, and future, time is also eternal. **Śyāmasundara:** Is there such a thing as spiritual space? **Prabhupāda:** Of course. If not, how could there be a spiritual world? The quality is different, but the ingredients are exactly the same. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander, like Bergson, also believes that nothing remains at rest, that everything is in perpetual transition. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we also accept that. Everything is going forward. That is called *jagat.* **Śyāmasundara:** Can this be said of the activities in the spiritual world? **Prabhupāda:** We are speaking of the material world. The spiritual world is different. In the spiritual world, activities are eternal. In the material world, they are not. **Śyāmasundara:** But isn't the motion of everything eternal? **Prabhupāda:** That motion is the interaction of the three modes: goodness, passion, and ignorance. In course of time, these modes react, and creation takes place. There is certainly motion. Without motion, there cannot be creation. Material nature is composed of earth, water, fire, ether, and space. Whatever you see is composed of one or more of these ingredients. There are also subtler ingredients: mind, intelligence, and ego. These are the eight material elements given in *Bhagavad-gītā,* and they are considered the differentiated energy of Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander's primary category is more abstract. He says that it is motion. **Prabhupāda:** But where does the motion come from? Motion means that there must be someone there to push. **Śyāmasundara:** Another major category is identity, or diversity. Everything has a personal identity and individuality differentiating it from every other thing. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is called *sajātīyo *vijātīya* in Sanskrit. There is difference [*vijātīya*] even between like things. There may be two mango trees, but there is still a difference between them. They may be one as mango trees, but there is still individuality. Similarly, my fingers are one, but each finger is different from the other. Sajātīya* refers to the same category, but even within that category there is a difference. **Śyāmasundara:** Existence, or being, is another major category. **Prabhupāda:** That existence is composed of one or more of the five elements. One ingredient may be more prominent than the other, but there is at least one ingredient. **Śyāmasundara:** Relation and order are other categories. Everything relates to everything else, and there is order in everything. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, there is certainly order in *prakṛti.* The sun rises and sets at designated times. There is order everywhere. **Śyāmasundara:** The mind also occupies space and works in time. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we are occupying space, and since the mind is within us, the mind also occupies space. From practical experience we can understand that the mind can immediately travel thousands of miles with no difficulties. **Śyāmasundara:** But is that distance within me, or does my mind actually travel there? **Prabhupāda:** It travels. It actually occupies space. Unless it occupies space, how could it travel? It travels so fast that you can't exactly remember how it is going, but as soon as it reaches its destination, you can apprehend it. In any case, it occupies space. **Śyāmasundara:** The mind can leave the body and go somewhere? **Prabhupāda:** Not leave. It is just like a shoot: it extends. At night, when we are dreaming, the subtle body also extends and comes back again. In fact, we may take the subtle bodies in dreams to be very important at the time. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander maintains that new categories are constantly being uncovered because evolution is progressing. The living entity can evolve into new forms that we now know nothing about. **Prabhupāda:** No, we do not agree. We know that the days are going on now, and will continue, just as we have experienced them in the past. In the past there was summer, autumn, winter, and spring, and in the future these will also be experienced. Of course, the old order changes and yields to the new, but from our past experience we know what will be there. **Śyāmasundara:** Then in the future there will be nothing unpredictable appearing, such as an entirely new form of existence? **Prabhupāda:** No. Why should there be? Why should there be a winter without spring, or a spring without summer? Why should there be a new type of man? A new species? According to the Vedic version, everything is here. The number of species in the water, in air, and on land is fixed. There is no question of the species increasing. **Śyāmasundara:** Some scientists predict that the future man will have no bodily hair, that his head will be very large due to increased brain capacity, that the rest of his body will be atrophied, that he may lose some of his toes, and so on. **Prabhupāda:** This is more foolishness. There has never been such a thing, nor will there ever be. Man has always had ten toes, and he always will. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander believes that man may evolve to the demigod platform in the future, that he may have super consciousness. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is possible. *Y***ānti deva-vratā devān** [*Bg.* 9.25]. If you are fond of the demigods, you will go to the demigods. Pitṝn yānti *pitṛ-vratāḥ* [*Bg.* 9.25]. Or you can go to the ancestors. Or remain within this material world. **Śyāmasundara:** But Alexander thinks that evolution is moving in this way, progressing from inorganic life, to organic, to mental, and to demigod. **Prabhupāda:** How can life come from inorganic matter? That is nonsense. What evidence do we have that life is developing from inorganic matter? If that is the case, why don't they manufacture life in the laboratory? Living force cannot be produced from matter. Matter is different from living force, or soul. Of course, in one sense, they are both the energy of God, but categorically they are different. You cannot even manufacture an ant. You may have all the chemicals, but you cannot inject the soul. The soul appears in different ways. For instance, fermentation, perspiration. When rock and water decompose, there may be fermentation, and it may be possible that the soul takes advantage of this and comes out, being born in some life form. In any case, life never comes from matter. It is thought by the foolish that scorpions are born out of rice, but actually the scorpion lays its eggs within the rice, and by the fermentation, or heating of the rice, the eggs incubate, and scorpions are born. But this does not mean that matter itself is producing life. The *Vedas* accept the fact that living creatures can arise from fermentation, but this is only because the soul finds refuge there. **Śyāmasundara:** But what of the idea that nature is progressing? Will man some day evolve to the demigod stage? **Prabhupāda:** According to the *Vedas,* the demigods were created before men. First, Lord Brahmā was created, and from Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva was created. By created, I mean born. Similarly, from Brahmā, others came, the Prajāpatis, and then the Manus. There were many. There is no question of these personalities emerging from inorganic life. Lord Brahmā came from the navel of Viṣṇu. You may ask, What is the origin of Viṣṇu? We have no information of this because Viṣṇu is the origin, and it was from Him that Brahmā and all the other demigods came. Then the animals and others came. The first created being is Lord Brahmā, and he is also the most intelligent. It is not that he evolved from animals or man. These evolutionists propose that life evolves from the lowest to the highest, but we believe that it begins with the highest, with Viṣṇu. Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ *sarvasya* *prabhavaḥ.* "I am the origin of everything." [*Bg.* 10.8] How can you say that higher species will develop from the lower? God is the origin. Vedānta-sūtra* also says, "The Absolute Truth is He from whom everything is generating." The Absolute Truth is the supreme life, and from Him all life is coming. What evidence do we have of a dead stone giving birth to a man or animals? **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander felt that in the future, the race of man will evolve into super-conscious beings, into demigods. **Prabhupāda:** No, we have no information of this. Why is he so anxious about the planet earth? These super-conscious beings are already existing on Siddha-loka, Gandharva-loka, and many other higher planets. There are millions of planets with super-human beings. From the *śāstras* we learn that the inhabitants of Siddha-loka can fly from one planet to another without the aid of a space vehicle. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander proposes that nature develops bodies to that point. **Prabhupāda:** No. Bodies never develop in that way. There are different types of bodies, and the soul takes shelter of a particular type, selecting bodies just as a person selects clothes in a store. When we are within a suit, the suit moves. Bodies are selected according to the soul's desires. By your karma, you get a particular type of body. We have already discussed this. **Śyāmasundara:** Then demigods will not evolve on this planet in the natural course of things? **Prabhupāda:** No. **Śyāmasundara:** How is genius, accounted for? **Prabhupāda:** When one is born a genius, we must understand that in his previous life he cultivated a particular faculty, and that knowledge is being manifested in this life. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says that if a *yogī* does not complete the yoga process, he is given another chance [*Bg.* 6.41]. It is not that these things happen accidently. **Śyāmasundara:** Then, through the practice of yoga, a higher consciousness can be developed? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. For instance, we are practicing *bhakti-yoga* to develop Kṛṣṇa consciousness. As far as your spiritual development is concerned, you must understand that you are spirit soul. Then you can qualify yourself to return to the spiritual world. There you can associate with the Lord and engage in spiritual activities. The *śāstras* tell us that we should try for spiritual perfection and not waste our time endeavoring for material comforts. Material comforts and distresses automatically come; there is no need in wasting time striving for them. In nature, there are many millions of living entities without business or profession, yet they are living, eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. These things will come automatically. Our endeavor should be for spiritual emancipation. **Śyāmasundara:** According to Alexander, on the mental level, we are capable of enjoying objects and receiving pleasure from them, but cannot understand them as they are. On the higher level, we can contemplate objects and understand them as they are, as well as enjoy them. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is our philosophy. A common man may see a rose and think, "Oh, I will offer this nice flower to my girlfriend." But when a devotee sees a rose, he thinks, "How wonderfully God's energy is acting!" He understands that it is through Kṛṣṇa's energy that such a wonderful flower exists, and therefore he knows that the flower should be offered to Kṛṣṇa. After all, since Kṛṣṇa produced it, it is Kṛṣṇa's property. After offering the rose to Kṛṣṇa, the devotee smells it. Then it is *prasādam,* the Lord's mercy. This is higher consciousness. Lower consciousness thinks, "Let me pick it and enjoy it!" That is mere enjoyment without understanding. An animal eats just as man eats, but a man should have sufficiently developed consciousness to understand that what he is eating is given by Kṛṣṇa. The Vedas* state: *eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti *kāmān.* "The Supreme Lord is supplying all necessities of life to everyone." [*Kaṭha-Upaniṣad* 2.2.13]. When one understands that Kṛṣṇa is supplying everything, he thinks, "First, let me offer this to Kṛṣṇa." If everything is not offered in sacrifice to the Supreme Lord, we will be entangled. Higher consciousness is mature consciousness. It is like a flower that has blossomed and is emitting a fragrance. That full blossom of consciousness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander believes that the entire world is moving to that point. **Prabhupāda:** Well, nature is giving us the chance, but because we have independence, we may or may not take the opportunity. **Śyāmasundara:** Will only certain individuals attain that higher consciousness, or will the whole world attain it? **Prabhupāda:** That is a nonsensical question. Sometimes rascals inquire, "Swamījī, if everyone becomes God conscious and goes back to Godhead, then who will remain here?" What is the meaning of such a nonsensical question? Why is a fool anxious for everyone? Why is he not anxious for himself? It is the same to ask, "If everyone is honest, then who will go to jail?" As if maintaining the jail is a very important business! **Śyāmasundara:** During Alexander's day, people were very optimistic about man's future, thinking that everyone would be benefitted by scientific discoveries. **Prabhupāda:** People think that by nature's way, they will be promoted, that once they have attained the status of man, they cannot be degraded. But if one can go up, he can also go down. The rich can become poor again. Theosophists and others think that everything goes up, progresses. They don't even have the common sense to look around them. **Hayagrīva:** Alexander distinguished between deity and God Himself. For him, deity is a relative term for the next highest level of existence. For an ant, a dog may be a deity; for a dog, a man may be a deity; for a man, a demigod may be a deity. Deity is always one evolutionary step ahead of us. Alexander defines God as "the being which possesses deity in full." That is, God is always one step ahead of every creature. **Prabhupāda:** He does not know the exact Vedic science of God, but as a philosopher he is suggesting a very nice method. For an ant, a bird is a deity; for a bird, a cat is a deity, and so on according to one's position. And if you continue searching, you will find someone who has no one to worship. The ant must worship the bird, the bird worship the cat, and so on, but when we arrive at a person who has no one to worship, we have arrived at God. In the lower stages, there are always higher living beings, but when we come to the highest living being, we come to God Himself. This is explained in the Vedic literatures: > īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ > sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ > anādir ādir govindaḥ > sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam **"Kṛṣṇa, who is known as Govinda, is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes." [*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.1] And in Bhagavad-gītā,* Kṛṣṇa says:** > mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat > kiñcid asti dhanañjaya > mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ > sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva "O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." [*Bg.* 7.7] There is no authority superior to Kṛṣṇa. As long as one has a superior, he is not God, but a servant of God. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander believes that lower organisms strive to emulate higher. Animals strive to become like men, and men strive to become like gods. **Prabhupāda:** There is no question of striving. It is by nature's way that the lower animals come to the platform of men. The living entity evolves from one life form to another, but this is with the help of nature. This law holds, up to the human platform. Having developed consciousness, the human being has the power of discrimination. Originally, the soul is given independence. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna, "Whatever you like, you do." [*Bg.* 18.63] God is the Supersoul, and we are the *jīva* souls subordinate to Him. Therefore we are called *taṭasthā,* which means that we are marginal; we can go either way. We may take God's side, or māyā's side. That is our choice. When we don't want to serve God, we are sent to māyā to serve her. Man's position as a subordinate remains the same, but in māyā he thinks, "I am the master." This is just like a child trying to act against his father's wishes. When he is given a chance to do as he likes, the child thinks, "Oh, I am independent now." Actually he is never independent, but he thinks that he is. When death comes, no one is independent. Although man continually serves māyā life after life, he still thinks of himself as independent. Only when we surrender to Kṛṣṇa do we enjoy our real independence. **Śyāmasundara:** But don't lower forms try to emulate higher ones? **Prabhupāda:** That is natural. Everyone wants a higher position because everyone is trying to be master. That is the whole problem. One can be a master to some extent: a head clerk in an office, a president, or prime minister. There is much ambition in the material world because materialistic men are guided by the idea that "I shall become like Kṛṣṇa." When their efforts fail in-the material world, they strive to merge into Kṛṣṇa. This is Māyāvādī philosophy. Not knowing that they are already Brahman, spirit soul, they consider themselves the Supreme Brahman, God Himself. Therefore they sit and meditate, thinking, "I am moving the sun. I am moving the moon." This is simply imagination. This is the last snare of māyā. Māyā first of all allures us to become a big merchant, a prime minister, a president. Māyā is always saying, "Become this, become that, become, become." Māyā is always telling us to work under her direction. Finally, she says, "Now you have failed in all these things. It is better now that you become God, and attain your real status again." So the living entity begins to think, "I am God," but māyā is still kicking him. As soon as this so-called God gets some toothache, he runs to the doctor. He does not stop to think, "What kind of God am I?" **Śyāmasundara:** But what is that urge for promotion? **Prabhupāda:** It is not the individual's urge. Nature is giving the impetus. For instance, when you were a child, there was no sex urge, but when you attained adolescence, immediately the sex urge became manifest. Similarly, the perfection of consciousness is there, but unless you come to the platform of human life, it will not develop. **Śyāmasundara:** Is there also an urge among lower animals to improve themselves, to be promoted? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, but all that is being carried out by nature. That is evolution. Darwin has taken this idea from the *Vedas,* but he has no idea of the soul. The only business of animals is eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. You may call this the struggle for existence. They are simply trying to live; they have no other ambition. If a man, having attained the human stage, is interested only in these things, he is no better than an animal. Nowadays, these are being taught by modern civilization. They teach you how to live comfortably with a car, a bungalow, a girlfriend, and restaurants. All living entities in this material world have the propensity to enjoy. On one platform, the living entity enjoys certain types of pleasure, but he is always wanting more. It is the spirit of material enjoyment that brings about the disease of materialistic life. **Śyāmasundara:** So the urge to advance is perverted by the urge to enjoy? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, perverted. The living entity's position is to serve Kṛṣṇa, but instead he is serving his senses and thinking that he is enjoying. You can see how everyone is working hard day and night in order to enjoy. Everyone is thinking that he will be happy if he just becomes a millionaire. Animals work hard to get some food, and as soon as they acquire food, they are satisfied. But human beings are not so easily satisfied. They are so passionate that they are constantly working very hard to be happy. People do not understand that in material life, they cannot be happy in any position. **Śyāmasundara:** Can the urge to advance be the desire to become godly? **Prabhupāda:** Desire means that one has lost his real happiness dancing with God like the *gopīs.* Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt*. The *Vedānta-sūtra* says that by nature, the living entity wants *ānanda,* bliss. Because he seeks *ānanda* in a perverted way, he is confused and frustrated; therefore he thinks, "Not this state but that will give me happiness." However, when he goes to his desired state, he again finds unhappiness. This is because he is seeking *ānanda* in a perverted way. In Vaikuṇṭha-loka, there is eternal happiness because everyone is surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. In Vṛndāvana, all the cowherd boys, *gopīs,* cows, trees, and other living entities are centered about Kṛṣṇa. They are all concerned with making Kṛṣṇa happy. Only on that platform will we avoid confusion and frustration. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander says that at this point, we cannot know the qualities of the next stage of evolution. **Prabhupāda:** He may not know, but we know. One who has Kṛṣṇa as his master and teacher knows everything. *Yasmin vijñāte sarvam eva vijñātaṁ *bhavanti.* If you understand Kṛṣṇa, you understand everything. **Hayagrīva:** Again, concerning the conception of deity, which is so central, Alexander writes: 'The infinitude of God's deity marks the difference between Him and all other empirical beings....Not only is God infinite in extent and duration, but His deity is also infinite in both respects." **Prabhupāda:** If God is infinite deity, He is not subject to created living beings. It is incorrect to think of God's deity as one of the deities within this material world. A person who thinks in this way is condemned as a *mūḍhā.* "Because I appear as an ordinary human being," Kṛṣṇa tells us, "*mūḍhās,* asses, consider Me an ordinary human." [*Bg.* 9.11] **Hayagrīva:** Alexander states that God is both body and soul, and that His soul is His deity. "All finites are included in Him," he writes, "and are fragments of God's body, though their individuality is not lost in it—God is...an individual being just as man or any other finite is, only that He is infinite." **Prabhupāda:** That is right. God is a person, but not like us. People mistake Him to be like an ordinary human being, but this is due to illusion. Kṛṣṇa is infinite, and Arjuna is finite. It is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* that Kṛṣṇa, being infinite, knows everything in the past, present, and future [*Bg.* 4.5]. That is one of the differences between an ordinary living entity and God. The living entity forgets, but God does not. **Hayagrīva:** Alexander sees God's body as neither spaceless nor timeless, for it is space-time itself. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, since everything emanates from Him, there is nothing separate from Him. God includes everything. Everything is part and parcel of God. The Māyāvādīs say that everything is one, but they do not accept the variety. The wheel is one, but there are different parts: the rim, the spokes, and the hub. **Hayagrīva:** Alexander writes: "Now the body of God is the whole universe, and there is no body outside His. For Him, therefore, all objects are internal, and the distinction of organic and special senses disappears." **Prabhupāda:** For the impersonalists who are not familiar with the personal form of God, Arjuna in *Bhagavad-gītā* requested Kṛṣṇa to show His universal form, the *virāṭ-rūpa.* Arjuna himself was accepting the person Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme, but he knew that those with a poor fund of knowledge would not accept Him. For this reason, in the Eleventh Chapter of *Bhagavad-gītā,* the universal form of God is very elaborately explained. However, we should understand that since the universal form was shown by Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is the originator. It is not that the universal form is the origin. It was manifested by Kṛṣṇa, and Lord Kṛṣṇa's natural form is that of Kṛṣṇa Himself. The universal form is a feature. This is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā*: *ahaṁ *sarvasya* *prabhavo *mattaḥ* *sarvaṁ *pravartate.* "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me." [*Bg.* 10.8] Since everything emanates from Him, the universal form has also emanated from Him. One who understands this becomes Kṛṣṇa's devotee. **Hayagrīva:** For Alexander, theism is equated with personalism, and pantheism with impersonalism. He writes: "For theism, God is an individual being distinct from the finite beings which make up the world....For pantheism, God is eminent in the universe of finite things...." **Prabhupāda:** When we cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, God is impersonal. The sunshine is impersonal, but the sun god is in the background. Because we are on a lower platform, we cannot talk with the sun god; we can experience only the sunshine. Similarly, the expansion of God's energy is impersonal, but the personality is in the background. Because we are in the material energy, we are not in direct touch with God; therefore we say that God is impersonal. If we become devotees, we can talk with God in person, just as the cowherd boys and girls did in Vṛndāvana. It is also stated, *nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś *cetanānām* [*Kaṭha-Upaniṣad* 2.2.13]. God is an eternal, living being, and we are also eternal, living beings. Yet He is different from us in that He is the chief. He has arranged everything for us in both the material and spiritual worlds. He has given us air, water, and fire in order to live. He is the maintainer, and we are subordinate *jīvas.* **Hayagrīva:** Alexander seems to acknowledge both theistic and pantheistic views. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, as I said, because water has come from God, we say that it is God's semina. Because light has come from Him, we say that the sun is his eye. In that everything is an emanation from God, everything is related to God. In any case, the impersonal features are subordinate to the personal. > 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] Just as the sunshine depends on the sun itself, so the entire cosmic manifestation depends on God. Kṛṣṇa says that although everything is resting on Him, He is personally not present. Queen Kuntī also says, "You are within and without, yet fools cannot see you." These verses spoken by Queen Kuntī are given in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*:** > namasye puruṣaṁ tvādyam > īśvaraṁ prakṛteḥ param > alakṣyaṁ sarva-bhūtānām > antar bahir avasthitam > māyā-javanikācchannam > ajñādhokṣajam avyayam > na lakṣyase mūḍha-dṛśā > naṭo nāṭyadharo yathā > tathā paramahaṁsānāṁ > munīnām amalātmanām > bhakti-yoga-vidhānārthaṁ > kathaṁ paśyema hi striyaḥ "O Kṛṣṇa, I offer my obeisances unto You because You are the original personality and are unaffected by the qualities of the material world. You are existing both within and without everything, yet You are invisible to all. Being beyond the range of limited sense perception, You are the eternally irreproachable factor covered by the curtain of deluding energy. You are invisible to the foolish observer, exactly as an actor dressed as a player is not recognizable. You Yourself descend to propagate the transcendental science of devotional service unto the hearts of the advanced transcendentalists and mental speculators, who are purified by being able to discriminate between matter and spirit. How, then, can we women know You perfectly?" [*SB.* 1.8.18-20] This is a very good example. Kṛṣṇa is playing on the stage, and His son is seeing Him, and another friend is saying, "Do you see your father?" But the son does not recognize his father. A devotee can understand, but a speculator with limited sense perception cannot. **Hayagrīva:** Alexander writes: "It is not so much that God is in everything but rather that everything is in God." **Prabhupāda:** Since there is nothing but God, how can anything be without God? Since everything is God's expansion, how can we be sometimes with God and sometimes without Him? When we are not in God, we are in māyā, but māyā is also God's. It is illusion to think that we are without God. **Hayagrīva:** After analyzing both theism and pantheism, the personal and impersonal, Alexander finds them both defective in themselves, but he concludes, "if a choice must be made, it is theistic" **Prabhupāda:** This means that when one comes to the personal aspect of God, he sees that everything refers to God and that there is nothing independent. To the unintelligent, it appears that the cosmic manifestation is different from Bhagāvan, but actually nothing can exist without the Supreme Personality of Godhead. **Hayagrīva:** At times, Alexander takes the Aristotelian view in maintaining that "there is no reciprocal action from God. For though we speak, as we inevitably must, in human terms of God's response to us, there is no direct experience of that response except through our own feeling that devotion to God or worship carries with it its own satisfaction." **Prabhupāda:** This means that he does not understand God's omnipotence. God is omnipotent, and He comes before Arjuna to speak *Bhagavad-gītā.* Being all powerful, God can come and speak to His devotee. If He cannot, what is the meaning of His omnipotence? Kṛṣṇa reciprocates with the advanced devotees. > teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ > bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam > dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ > yena mām upayānti te "To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me." [*Bg.* 10.10] God talks to His devotee who is fully in love with Him, but He does not talk with ordinary men. > 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] Just as a king talks with his immediate officers and ministers and not with the ordinary man in the street, God personally talks to His devotees but not to the nondevotees or atheists. We understand that Kṛṣṇa talked to the *gopīs* and *gapas* in Vṛndāvana and reciprocated with His parents, Mother Yaśodā and Mahārāja Nanda. The cowherd boys who played with Kṛṣṇa amassed many pious activities in their previous lives to arrive at a position where they could play with God. This is not an ordinary position. People generally think that such play is inconceivable, but when we come to that platform of devotion, we can play with God, ride on God's shoulders, and talk with Him just as with an ordinary friend. Of course, one comes to that position of perfection after many millions of pious births. **Hayagrīva:** Within the same book, *Space, Time and Deity,* Alexander contradicts himself on this issue of reciprocation. "God reciprocates the worship man pays Him and the confidence he reposes in Him," he writes. "There is always the double relationship of need. If man wants God and depends upon Him, God wants man, and is so far dependent." **Prabhupāda:** God is not dependent on anyone. God is independent, but that statement is acceptable in the sense that sometimes God wants to become dependent. That is according to His pleasure. Sometimes He accepts some of His devotees in ways that He can depend on them. He became dependent on Mother Yaśodā, just as an ordinary child becomes dependent on his mother. Although everything is dependent on God, and He is not dependent on anyone, He takes pleasure in this kind of relationship. **Hayagrīva:** I don't think Alexander understood it in that way. **Prabhupāda:** This is not a very ordinary thing to understand. It cannot be understood by mental speculation. **Hayagrīva:** Alexander also writes that God Himself is involved in our acts and their issues. "Not only does He matter to us, but we matter to Him." Is this actually so? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, although we are sons of God, we are fallen conditioned souls and are suffering. Therefore God is very compassionate, and He comes personally to teach us. He says, "Why are you rotting in this material world? Surrender to Me and go back to Godhead. Then you will be happy." God is the father of everyone, and it is natural for a father to be concerned about his sons. Presently we are conditioned by material nature because we are disobedient. God, being the Supreme Father, feels for our suffering. But He is not suffering. The devotees of God also feel for the conditioned souls, and Kṛṣṇa's devotees are very dear to Him because they are trying to spread His instructions, *Bhagavad-gītā.* The devotees are acting on behalf of God to deliver conditioned souls. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander believed that man, being part of God, is capable of cooperating with God to make further progress in the universe. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is real life, cooperating with God. But in this material world, man is uncooperative. Kṛṣṇa says, "Surrender unto Me," but no one wants to do this. Even when people attain the highest levels of human life wherein their karma is regulated and they possess knowledge and yogic abilities, they still will not surrender to Kṛṣṇa. > kṛṣṇa-bhakta—niṣkāma, ataeva 'śānta' > bhukti-mukti-siddhi-kāmī—sakali 'aśānta' **"Because a devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa is desireless, he is peaceful. Fruitive workers desire material enjoyment, *jñānīs* desire liberation, and yogīs desire material opulence; therefore they are all lusty and cannot be peaceful." [*Cc Mad* 19.149] The *karmīs* want sense enjoyment, the *jñānīs* want *mukti,* liberation, and the yogīs want yoga*-siddhis,* the yoga powers. All these people are demanding various things:** sense gratification, liberation, mystic powers. Only the Kṛṣṇa-*bhakta* makes no demands. He says, "Dear Lord, I am Your eternal servitor. I surrender unto You. Now do whatever You like with me." > bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ > sarva-loka-maheśvaram > suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ > jñātvā māṁśāntim ṛcchati "A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries." [*Bg.* 5.29] By understanding that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme enjoyer, the supreme proprietor, and the supreme friend, we can become *śānta,* peaceful. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander felt that man should cooperate with God in order to usher in a higher stage of consciousness, the next stage of evolution. This is man's responsibility. **Prabhupāda:** But what is the next stage of evolution? When man is prepared to cooperate with God, he has already attained the highest position. Unfortunately, no one wants to cooperate. There is simply enjoyment; there is no more evolution. If you come to the point of worshipping the Supreme Lord, there is no question of evolution. You have already attained the highest form of evolution. > 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] The Brahman platform is already attained; he doesn't have to strive to become Brahman. He immediately transcends the three *guṇas* and comes to the platform of spirit. Without being Brahman, how can you serve the Supreme Brahman? **Alexander speaks of the higher stages of evolution, but he has no real knowledge of them. According to the Vaiṣṇava philosophy, there are five basic stages:** *śānta, dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya,* and *mādhurya.* When you attain the *brahma-bhūta* stage and understand that you are not the body but spirit soul, you have attained the *śānta* platform. On that platform, you think, "Oh, God is so great!" From the *śānta* stage, you can progress to the *dāsya* stage, wherein you realize that God is so great that some service must be rendered to Him. In the *sakhya* stage, you not only know that God is great and render service to God, but you also serve God as a friend, like Arjuna. On the *vātsalya* platform, service is rendered to Kṛṣṇa as a father or a mother. Yaśodā, for instance, rendered service to Kṛṣṇa as a mother, and she was always thinking, "Kṛṣṇa is hungry. I must feed Him. I must protect Him from monkeys and fire." On the platform of *mādhurya-rasa,* the highest platform, you can enter into intimate pastimes with Kṛṣṇa. Although there are many stages in spiritual life, there is actually no difference between them. It is not that those who serve Kṛṣṇa as friends are inferior to Rādhārāṇī, who serves Kṛṣṇa as His consort. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander sees the freedom of the will operating as an activity not subject to extraneous forces. It is the expression of a person acting to serve not only his own interests but those of society as well. **Prabhupāda:** In a state, a citizen also cooperates in two ways. When he does not break the law, he cooperates as a free citizen, and when he breaks the law, he cooperates by going to prison. He either cooperates by free will or by force. Forceful cooperation is inferior. Caitanya Mahāprabhu said: > jīvera 'svarūpa' haya—kṛṣṇera 'nitya-Dāsa' > kṛṣṇera 'taṭasthā-śakti' 'bhedābheda-prakāśa > sūryāṁśa-kiraṇa, yaiche agni-jvālā-caya > svābhāvika kṛṣṇera tina-prakāra 'śakti' haya "It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa because he is the marginal energy of Kṛṣṇa, and a manifestation simultaneously one and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Kṛṣṇa has three varieties of energy." [*Cc Mad* 20.108-109] By his constitutional position, the living entity is the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. In the Vaikuṇṭha planets, cooperation is voluntary, and here in this material world, cooperation is forced. In the material world, we are serving māyā, working under her force. We can avoid that force only by voluntarily cooperating with Kṛṣṇa. > 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] Automatic cooperation is *bhakti,* and forced cooperation is karma. These may appear to be the same, but they are not. The karmi may be typing, and the *bhakta* may be typing, but the karmi is typing under the force of māyā, to earn money for sense gratification, and the *bhakta* is typing for the glorification of Kṛṣṇa. The activity is the same, but the consciousness is different. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander believed that when one has attained the higher levels of evolution, he can see that everything on the lower levels is determined. **Prabhupāda:** Yes. For instance, we should not try to improve our economic condition because it is already decided. Why is one man born rich, and another born to work so hard? *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* [1.5.18] says that we should not strive hard for material happiness, because material happiness and distress come automatically. An intelligent man utilizes his time to develop his Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander accepted Plato's three greatest values in life—truth, beauty, and goodness—as values to be accepted by the majority. **Prabhupāda:** Unfortunately, in the material world, no one likes the truth. At least in this age, the majority of people are not truthful. As soon as one becomes truthful, he becomes a *brāhmaṇa.* Where are the *brāhmaṇas* in this age? *Kalau ***śūdra sambhava**. In Kali-yuga, everyone is a *śūdra.* If Alexander thinks that everyone will accept truthfulness as a great value, he is mistaken. **Śyāmasundara:** For Alexander, there is a practical criterion for truth, but he preferred the coherence principle by which the majority opinion determined truth by mutual agreement. **Prabhupāda:** Because he is European, he is thinking in a democratic way. The hard fact is that truth is not accepted by ordinary men. Truth is truth. Either it is in your mind or not; truth is absolute. Only highly elevated persons can understand the truth. Out of many truthful men, perhaps only one can understand Kṛṣṇa as He is. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander defines a good person as one who integrates and controls his impulses for the best interests of himself and society. **Prabhupāda:** This is also described in Vedic literatures: > tapasā brahmacaryeṇa > śamena ca damena ca > tyāgena satya-śaucābhyāṁ > yamena niyamena vā "To concentrate the mind, one must observe a life of celibacy and not fall down. One must undergo the austerity of voluntarily giving up sense enjoyment. One must then control the mind and senses, give charity, be truthful, clean and nonviolent, follow the regulative principles, and regularly chant the holy name of the Lord." [*SB.* 6.1.13] These are the processes by which we may become perfect, but if we become devotees of Kṛṣṇa, we immediately attain all the good qualities. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate *surāḥ.* "All the demigods and their exalted qualities, such as religion, knowledge, and renunciation, become manifest in the body of one who has developed unalloyed devotion for the Supreme Personality of Godhead." [*SB.* 5.18.12]. **Śyāmasundara:** In the second sense of the word "good," Alexander says that whatever enhances man's welfare or happiness is good. **Prabhupāda:** That is not necessarily so. One may open hospitals to help people, but spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness is greater welfare work. What is really good for man is Kṛṣṇa *bhakti.* Nothing else. **Śyāmasundara:** Alexander maintains that goodness consists of modifications in the environment that will aid man in his spiritual pursuits. **Prabhupāda:** That is what we are trying to do in this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. It is not that everyone can follow the regulative principles strictly. We are proposing that people chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. Whatever the situation, somehow or other, we must engage our mind in Kṛṣṇa. Rūpa Gosvāmī said: *yena tena prakāreṇa manaḥ kṛṣṇe *niveśayet.* "Never mind the rules and regulations. Just fix your mind on Kṛṣṇa! As soon as you become Kṛṣṇa conscious, the regulative principles will be your servants." **Hayagrīva:** As for the existence of evil and suffering in the world, Alexander writes: "God is not responsible for the miseries endured in working out His providence, but rather we are responsible for our acts...." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we create our own miserable condition, just as a silkworm creates a cocoon, becomes entrapped and dies. > aśraddadhānāḥ puruṣā > dharmasyāsya paran-tapa > aprāpya māṁ nivartante > mṛtyu-saṁsāra-vartmani “Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. Therefore they return to the path of birth and death in this material world." [*Bg.* 9.3] Because the living entity acts independently, not caring for God's instructions, he is entangled, and he suffers. In this Way, he creates his own suffering. ## Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche [1844-1900] **Hayagrīva:** Whereas Schopenhauer spoke of the blind will of the individual as being the basic propelling force that keeps us tied to material existence, to transmigration, Nietzsche spoke of *der wille zur *macht,* "the will to power," which is a different type of will. This will is not so much a subjugating of others as a mastering of one's lower self. It is characterized by self-control and an interest in art and philosophy. Most people are envious of others, but it is the duty of the philosopher to transcend this envy by sheer willpower. In Nietzsche's words, the philosopher "shakes off with one shrug much vermin that would have buried itself deep in others." When the philosopher has rid himself of resentment and envy, he can even embrace his enemies with a kind of Christian love. An example of such a powerful man in action would be that of Socrates meeting his death with good cheer and courage. **Prabhupāda:** This is called spiritual power. Envy is a symptom of conditioned life. In *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,* it is stated that the neophyte who is beginning to understand the Vedic literatures should not be envious. In this material world, everyone is envious. People are even envious of God and His instructions. Consequently, people do not like to accept Kṛṣṇa's instructions. Although Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and is accepted as such by all *ācāryas,* there are men called *mūḍhās* who either reject Kṛṣṇa's instructions or try to eschew some contrary meaning from them. This envy is symptomatic of conditioned souls. Unless we are liberated from conditioned life, we will remain confused under the influence of the external material energy. Until we come to the spiritual platform, there is no possibility of escaping from envy and pride by so-called power. The transcendental stage is described in Bhagavad-gītā* as *brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā samaḥ sarveṣu *bhūteṣu* [18.54]. When we attain that stage, we can look at everyone with the same spiritual understanding. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche calls the man who possesses such spiritual power the *Ubermensch,* a word literally meaning "above man," and often translated as "the superman." The Ubermensch* is totally self-possessed, fearless of death, simple, self-knowing, and self-reliant. He does not need any props, and he is so powerful that he can change the lives of others simply on contact. Neitzsche never referred to any historical person as the *Ubermensch,* and he did not consider himself such. **Prabhupāda:** We accept the guru as the superman because he is worshipped like God. *Yasya prasādād *bhagavat-prasādaḥ* [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka* 8]. By the mercy of the superman, one can get in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also accepts this: > brahmāṇḍa bhramite kona bhāgyavān jīva > guru-kṛṣṇa-prasāde pāya bhakti-latā-bīja "According to their karma, all living entities are wandering throughout the entire universe. Some of them are being elevated to the upper planetary systems, and some are going down into the lower planetary systems. Out of many millions of wandering living entities, one who is very fortunate gets an opportunity to associate with a bona fide spiritual master by the grace of Kṛṣṇa. By the mercy of both Kṛṣṇa and the spiritual master, such a person receives the seed of the creeper of devotional service." [*Cc Mad* 19.151] By the mercy of Kṛṣṇa and the guru, or the superman, we receive information about spiritual life so that we can return home, back to Godhead. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu requested everyone to become gurus, or supermen. The superman distributes transcendental knowledge strictly according to the authorized version he has received from his superior. This is called *paramparā,* the disciplic succession. One superman delivers this supreme knowledge to another superman, and this knowledge was originally delivered by God Himself. **Hayagrīva:** In *Thus Spake Zarathustra,* Nietzsche concludes that all men want power. At the top of the hierarchy in the quest for power is the ascetic and the martyr. The Ubermensch* would be one who has conquered his passions and attained all good qualifications. His actions are creative, and he does not envy others. He is constantly aware that death is always present, and he is so superior to others that he is almost like God in the world. **Prabhupāda:** In Sanskrit, the *Ubermensch* or superman is called a *svāmī,* or *gosvāmī.* He is described by Rūpa Gosvāmī: > vāco vegaṁ manasaḥ krodha-vegaṁ > jihvā-vegam udaropastha-vegam > etān vegān yo viṣaheta dhīraḥ > sarvām apīmāṁ pṛthivīṁ sa śiṣyāt **"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger, and the urges of the tongue, belly, and genitals, is qualified to make disciples all over the world." [*Upadeśāmṛta* 1] These forces that drive men are six in number:** speech, the tongue, mind, anger, belly, and genitals. A *gosvāmī* can control these forces, especially the genitals, belly, and tongue, which are very hard to control. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says: tā'ra madhye jihvā ati, lobhamoy sudurmati, tā'ke jetā kaṭhina *saṁsāre.* "Among the senses, the tongue is the most voracious and uncontrollable; it is very difficult to conquer the tongue in this world." [Gītāvalī, *Prasāda-sevāya* 1] The force of the tongue is very great, and for its gratification we create many artificial edibles. Nonsensical habits like smoking, drinking, and meat eating have entered society due to the urges of the tongue. There is no real need for these undesirable things. A person does not die because he cannot smoke, eat meat, or drink intoxicants. Rather, without these indulgences, he can elevate himself to the highest platform. Due to the urges of the tongue, people have become addicted to drinking, smoking, meat eating, and frivolous conversation. It is therefore said that one who can control the tongue can control the urges of the other senses also. One who can control all the senses, beginning with the tongue, is called a *gosvāmī* or *svāmī,* or, as Nietzsche would say, the Ubermensch*. But this is not possible for an ordinary man. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche believed that everyone seeks power, but that the weak seek it vainly; instead of trying to conquer themselves, they attempt to conquer others, and this is the will to power misdirected or misinterpreted. For instance, in his will to power, Hitler sought to subjugate the world, but was ultimately unsuccessful, and he brought disaster upon himself and Germany. The *Ubermensch,* on the other hand, strives to overcome himself, and demands more of himself than others. In this striving for perfection, he transcends the ordinary man. **Prabhupāda:** Politicians like Hitler are not able to control the force of anger. A king or politician has to use anger properly. Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura says that we should control our powers and apply them in the proper cases. We may become angry, but our anger must be controlled. We should utilize anger at the proper place and in the proper circumstances. Although a king may not be angry by nature, he has to display his anger toward a criminal. It is not good for a king to try to control his anger when a criminal act is performed; therefore Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura says that anger is controlled when it is properly used. *Kāma-krodha-lobha-moha.* Kāma* refers to lust; *krodha* means anger; *lobha* means greed; and *moha* means illusion. These can all be properly utilized. For instance, *kāma,* which is great eagerness, or lusty desire, can be utilized in attaining the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. If we desire Kṛṣṇa, our strong desire is very laudable. Similarly, anger can be properly utilized. Although Caitanya Mahāprabhu taught that we should be very submissive, humbler than the grass and more tolerant than a tree, He became angry upon seeing Nityananda Prabhu hurt by Jagāi and Mādhāi. Everything can be properly utilized in the service of Kṛṣṇa, but not for personal aggrandizement. In the material world, everyone is certainly after power, but the real superman is not after power for himself. He himself is a mendicant, a *sannyāsī,* but he acquires power for the service of the Lord. For instance, I came to the U.S.A. not to acquire material power but to distribute Kṛṣṇa consciousness. By the grace of Kṛṣṇa, all facilities have been afforded, and now, from the material point of view, I have become somewhat powerful. But this is not for my personal sense gratification; it is all for the spreading of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The conclusion is that power for Kṛṣṇa's service is very valuable, and power for our own sense gratification is to be condemned. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche was not very clear about the utilization of power, but he concluded that power results from self-control. According to him, no one has ever attained the level of the superman. **Prabhupāda:** You cannot do anything without power. Power is required for Kṛṣṇa's service, not for sense gratification. One who can act according to this principle is a superman. Generally, people use power for their own sense gratification, and therefore it is not easy to find anyone on the level of the superman. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche claims that because the *Ubermensch* subjugates his own passions, he is beyond good and evil and not subject to mundane dualities. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, because the superman acts on behalf of God, he is transcendental. At the beginning of *Bhagavad-gītā,* Arjuna was thinking like an ordinary person in his reluctance to kill his kinsmen. From the material point of view, nonviolence is a good qualification. Arjuna was excusing the others, although they had insulted him and his wife and usurped his kingdom. He pleaded on their behalf before Lord Kṛṣṇa, arguing that it would be better to let them enjoy his kingdom. "I am not going to fight." Materially, this appears very laudable, but spiritually it is not, because Kṛṣṇa wanted him to fight. Finally, Arjuna carried out Kṛṣṇa's order and fought. Clearly, this kind of fighting was not for personal aggrandizement, but for the service of Kṛṣṇa. By using his power for the service of the Lord, Arjuna became a superman. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning religion, Nietzsche felt that because Christ's own disciples misunderstood him, Christianity as such never existed. "The last Christian died on the cross," he wrote. Although Christ was totally pure and free from all resentment and envy, Christianity has had envy and resentment as its focal point from its very beginning, even though it calls itself the religion of love. Thus Nietzsche proclaimed, "God is dead," in the sense that the God of the Christian religion is dead. **Prabhupāda:** If you create an artificial god, it is better that he is dead so that he cannot inflict more injuries. **Hayagrīva:** Then it is better to have no conception of God than a bad conception? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, better. But Christ was the embodiment of tolerance. There is no doubt about this. **Hayagrīva:** It is not that Nietzsche criticizes Christ himself, but his followers. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, actually we can see that the Christians hate the Jews because the Jews crucified Christ. They even utilize the symbol of the cross to remind people that the Jews crucified him. Even in the churches there are pictures of Lord Jesus, with thorns on his head, being forced to carry his cross. In this way, the people are reminded of all the troubles that the Jews gave to Christ. Emphasizing Christ on the cross is a way of prolonging resentment against the Jews. But the fact is that Christ had many other activities, which are not brought into prominence. Actually, it is very painful for a devotee to see his master being crucified. Even though Christ was crucified, that scene in his life should not be emphasized. **Hayagrīva:** Neitzsche considered Buddhism and Hinduism superior to Christianity, but he disliked the nihilism of the Buddhists and the caste system of the Hindus, especially the Hindu treatment of the untouchables. **Prabhupāda:** That is a later concoction by the caste Hindus. The true Vedic religion does not speak of untouchables. Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself demonstrated His system by accepting so-called untouchables like Haridasa Ṭhākura, who was born in a Mohammedan family. Although Haridasa Ṭhākura was not accepted by Hindu society, Caitanya Mahāprabhu personally indicated that he was most exalted. Haridasa Ṭhākura would not enter the temple of Lord Jagannātha because he did not want to create commotion, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself came to see Haridasa Ṭhākura every day. It is a basic principle in the Vedic religion that we should not be envious of anyone. Kṛṣṇa Himself says in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya > ye 'pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ > striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās > te 'pi yānti parāṁ gatim "O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth—women, *vaiśyas* [merchants], as well as *śūdras* [workers]—can attain the supreme destination." [*Bg.* 9.32] Despite birth in a lower family, if one is a devotee, he is eligible to practice Kṛṣṇa consciousness And return to God, provided the necessary spiritual qualifications are there. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche believed that by stressing the transcendental world, a person would come to resent this world. He therefore personally rejected all formal religions. **Prabhupāda:** This material world is described as a place of suffering. *Ābrahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥpunar āvartino 'rjuna.* "From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery, wherein repeated birth and death take place." [*Bg.* 8.16] We do not know whether Nietzsche realized this or not, but if one really understands the soul, he can realize that this material world is a place of suffering. Being part and parcel of God, the soul has the same qualities possessed by God. God is *sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha,* eternal, full of knowledge and bliss, and He is eternally enjoying Himself in the company of His associates. The living entities have the same nature, but in material life, eternity, knowledge, and bliss are absent. It is therefore better that we learn to detest material existence and try to give it up. *Paraṁ *dṛṣṭvā* *nivartate* [*Bg.* 2.59]. The Vedas* advise us to understand the spiritual world and try to return there. *T**amaso mā jyotir *gamaya.* The spiritual world is the kingdom of light, and this material world is the kingdom of darkness. The sooner we learn to avoid the world of darkness and return to the kingdom of light, the better it is. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche was greatly influenced by the ancient Greeks, and he was astounded that out of so few men, so many great individuals emerged. He believed that mankind ought to be constantly striving to produce such great men, men who conquer their evil instincts, and he considered this to be mankind's only duty. **Prabhupāda:** Everyone is trying to be a great man, but one's greatness is accepted when he becomes God realized. The word *veda* means "knowledge," and a person is great when he is conversant with the lessons of the Vedas.* The object of knowledge, as described in *Bhagavad-gītā,* is God, or the self. Since the individual is part and parcel of God, one is self-realized whether he realizes himself or God. There are different methods for self-realization, which is difficult. However, if one realizes God, he automatically realizes himself. If the sun is out, we can see everything very clearly. In the Vedas*, it is said, *k**asmin nu bhagavo vijñāte sarvam idaṁ vijñātaṁ *bhavatīti.* By understanding God, we understand all other things and automatically become jolly. Brahma-bhūtaḥ *prasannātmā* [*Bg.* 18.54]. The word *prasannātmā* means "jolly." *Samaḥ sarveṣu *bhūteṣu* [*Bg.* 18.54]. At that time, we can see that everyone is exactly like ourselves, because everyone is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. At this point, service of the Lord begins, and we attain the platform of knowledge, bliss, and eternity. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche emphatically states that there has never been a superman. "All too similar are men to each other," he writes. "Verily, even the greatest found I all too human." Nor does the superman evolve in the Darwinian sense. The *Ubermensch* is a possibility at present if man uses all of his spiritual and physical energies. But how is the superman possible without an object for his spiritual energies? **Prabhupāda:** We become supermen if we engage in the service of the Supreme Person. The Supreme Being is a person, and the superman is also a person. *Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś *cetanānām* [*Kaṭha Upaniṣad* 2.2.13]. God is the chief amongst all personalities. The superman has no other business than carrying out the orders of the Supreme Being. > anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ > jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam > ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu- > śīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā "*Uttama *bhakti,* or unalloyed devotion unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, involves the rendering of devotional service in a way that is favorable to the Lord. This devotional service should be free from any extraneous motive and devoid of fruitive karma, impersonal *jñāna,* and all other selfish desires." [*Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu* 1.1.11] Kṛṣṇa comes to make everyone a superman. He therefore orders, sarva-dharmān *parityajya* *m**ām *ekam* *śaraṇaṁ *vraja.* "Just give up everything and surrender to Me." [*Bg.* 18.66] Unless we are supermen, we cannot understand this instruction. If we can surrender to Kṛṣṇa, we are supermen. > 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] The ordinary man thinks, "I have my independence and can do something myself. Why should I surrender?" However, as soon as he realizes that his only duty is to surrender to Kṛṣṇa, and that he has no other duty in this material world, he becomes the superman. This consciousness is attained after many, many births. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche would reject dependence on anything exterior to the superman himself. That is, he would reject props. But isn't it impossible for a man to elevate himself to that platform independent of the Supreme Lord? **Prabhupāda:** Of course, and therefore Kṛṣṇa says, "Depend upon Me." You have to be dependent, and if you do not depend on Kṛṣṇa, you have to depend on the dictations of māyā, illusion. There are many philosophers and politicians dependent on others, or dependent on their own whimsical ideas, but we should depend on the perfect instructions of God. The fact is that every living being is dependent; he cannot be independent. If he voluntarily depends on the instructions of God, he becomes the superman. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche's superman seems to resemble the *haṭha-yogī* who elevates himself seemingly independent of God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, seemingly. As soon as a *haṭha-yogī* gets some extraordinary mystic powers, he thinks that he has become God. This is another mistake, because no one can become God. To some extent, a yogī may attain some mystical powers by practice, or by the favor of the Lord, but these powers are not sufficient to enable him to become God. There are many who think that through meditation, or haṭha-*yoga, it is possible to become equal to God, but this is another illusion, another dictation of māyā. Māyā is always saying, "Why depend on God? You can become God yourself." **Hayagrīva:** Independence seems to be central to Nietzsche's philosophy. In a sense, his superman is somewhat like Hiraṇyakaśipu, who made the demigods tremble to see his austerities. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and ultimately he was outwitted by the Supreme Himself. It is not good to struggle for material power and control over others. If one becomes a servant of God, he becomes the superman automatically and acquires many subordinate followers. One does not have to undergo severe austerities to control others. Everything can be mastered in one stroke. As soon as you become a devout servant of God, many people will follow you. Separate endeavor is not required. **Hayagrīva:** And what of sense control? **Prabhupāda:** Control of the senses is automatically there. > yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā > sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ > harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā > manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ "All the demigods and their exalted qualities, such as religion, knowledge, and renunciation, become manifest in the body of one who has developed unalloyed devotion for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vāsudeva. On the other hand, a person devoid of devotional service and engaged in material activities has no good qualities. Even if he is adept at the practice of mystic yoga, or the honest endeavor of maintaining his family and relatives, he must be driven by his own mental speculations and must engage in the service of the Lord's external energy. How can there be any good qualities in such a man?" [*SB.* 5.18.12] If one becomes a devotee of the Supreme Lord, he controls his senses and many other living entities. But he never thinks that he has become God or the actual controller. Rather, he receives his power automatically. **Hayagrīva:** One last point on Nietzsche. He believed in eternal recurrence—that is, after this universe has been destroyed, it will be repeated again after many aeons. **Prabhupāda:** In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, it is stated, bhūtvā bhūtvā *pralīyate* [*Bg.* 8.19]. This material world is manifest at a certain point, maintained for a certain period, then destroyed. Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva are in charge of creation, maintenance, and destruction. Above them is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is the nature of everything material to be created, maintained, and annihilated. **Hayagrīva:** Well, that's one type of general repetition, but Nietzsche believed that everything will be repeated infinitely in every detail. That is, the detailed arrangements of this world will eventually recur sometime in the future. **Prabhupāda:** The creation will be repeated in detail in that the twenty-four elements will again be assembled. There are the five gross elements—earth, water, fire, air, and ether—and three subtle elements: mind, intelligence, and ego. There are the ten senses, and the five sense objects. All these will be created again. **Hayagrīva:** That's one type of detail, but he believes that eventually, Friedrich Nietzsche will live again from 1844 to 1900. **Prabhupāda:** The year 1844 is an element of time, and from the moment of creation, we may begin to assign dates. In this way, the date may again be repeated. For instance, every day is a new day, but in every day there is six o'clock, eight o'clock, and so on. There is automatic repetition. **Hayagrīva:** If this is the case, if one has to continue being Friedrich Nietzsche, or whoever, how is liberation possible? **Prabhupāda:** This material world is created for the conditioned soul, who is put here in order to learn his position as the eternal servant of God. Lord Brahmā, the first created being in the universe, is given the Vedic instructions, and he distributes them through the disciplic succession, from Brahmā to Nārada, from Nārada to Vyāsadeva, from Vyāsadeva to Śukadeva Gosvāmī, and so on. These instructions encourage the conditioned soul to return home, back to Godhead. If the conditioned soul rejects them, he remains in the material world until it is annihilated. At that time, he remains in an unconscious state, just like a child within the womb of his mother. In due course of time, his consciousness revives, and he again takes birth. The point is that anyone can take advantage of the Vedic instructions and go back to Godhead. Unfortunately, the conditioned living entities are so attached to the material world that they repeatedly want to take up material bodies. In this way, history repeats. There is again creation, maintenance, and destruction. **Hayagrīva:** Nietzsche believes that even the minute details will recur. That is, he would again be Friedrich Nietzsche, living in Germany, going through the same actions, writing the same books, and so on. **Prabhupāda:** Why is he so attached to Germany? That is his attachment for māyā. Under māyā's influence, we think that we will again return in these same bodies and do the same things. Sometimes when people hanker after this repetition, they go to an astrologer and ask, "Can we again come back as husband and wife?" This is all due to attachment. There may be an accidental recurrence, and one will again be a husband and have a wife, but he will not have exactly the same wife. That is an illusion. What is the point in combining the same husband and wife? The living entities combine for some sense gratification, and they get it, be it this husband or that wife. The purpose is the same, though the minute details are different. **Hayagrīva:** Sometimes people claim to have experiences of deja-vu, thinking that they have been at the same spot before doing the same thing. This convinced Nietzsche of the doctrine of eternal recurrence. **Prabhupāda:** People simply want the same atmosphere. This is due to māyā's influence.