# 09 Utilitarianism and Positivism ## John Stuart Mill [1806-1873] **Hayagrīva:** In *Essay on Nature,* Mill writes: "The order of nature, insofar as unmodified by man, is such as no Being whose attributes are justice and benevolence would have made with the intention that his rational creatures should follow it as an example—It could only be as a designedly imperfect work which man, in his limited sphere, is to exercise justice and benevolence in amending." **Prabhupāda:** Man is called a rational animal; he has a rational nature and an animal nature. Eating, sleeping, mating, and defending are activities common to animals, but a man should cultivate his rational nature. For instance, by his reason, man can understand that it is not necessary to eat meat in order to live a healthy life. It is not that man should be carried by nature's way, which says that man can eat anything. Human beings are accustomed to eating the most abominable foods, and in so doing, they become implicated. Beyond eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, man should search out the Absolute Truth. In this way, man's rationality is properly used. Otherwise, he remains an animal. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill claimed that the world, or nature, can be improved by man's efforts, but that perfection is not possible. **Prabhupāda:** In one sense, that is correct. This world is so made that although you make it perfect today, tomorrow it will deteriorate. Nonetheless, the world can be improved by this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. You can better the world by bringing people to Kṛṣṇa consciousness and delivering the message of Kṛṣṇa to whomever you meet. That is the best social activity you can perform. **Śyāmasundara:** The goal of the utilitarians was more specifically to obtain whatever the people desire or require. **Prabhupāda:** The people desire happiness. The utilitarians try to give people artificial happiness, happiness separate from Kṛṣṇa, but we are trying to give direct happiness, happiness that is connected with Kṛṣṇa. If we purify our existence, we can attain spiritual, eternal happiness and bliss. Everyone is working hard for happiness, but how can happiness be attained in a diseased condition? The material disease is an impediment to happiness. This disease has to be cured. **Hayagrīva:** Mill felt that virtues like courage, cleanliness, and self-control are not instinctive in man but have to be cultivated. In Nature, he writes: "The truth is that there is hardly a single point of excellence belonging to human character which is not decidedly repugnant to the untutored feelings of human nature—" **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Therefore there are educational systems in human society. Men should be educated according to the instructions given in the Vedic literatures. *Bhagavad-gītā* is the grand summation of all Vedic literature, and therefore everyone should read it as it is. It is not necessary to interpret. **Śyāmasundara:** For Mill, there are several ways to ascertain knowledge. For instance, we can determine the cause and the effects of things by determining whether the phenomena under investigation have only one circumstance in common. If so, we can conclude that the circumstance alone is the cause of the effect. **Prabhupāda:** Certainly there is the natural law of cause and effect, but if we go further to determine the cause, we ultimately arrive at Kṛṣṇa. Everything has an original source, a cause. If you try to find out the cause of this and that, and conduct research, that is called *darśana,* which means "to find the cause." Therefore philosophy is called *darśana-śāstra,* which means "finding the cause of the cause." The idea is that we ultimately arrive at Kṛṣṇa, the original cause of everything. **Śyāmasundara:** But what kind of test can we apply to phenomena to find out the cause? How can we determine that God is the cause behind everything? **Prabhupāda:** For every phenomenon, there is a cause, and we know that God is the ultimate cause. Mill may give many methods for studying immediate causes, but we are interested in the ultimate cause of everything. The ultimate cause has full independence to do anything and everything beyond our calculation. Everything that we see is but an effect of His original push. **Śyāmasundara:** If we see rain falling and want to prove that God is the cause of rain, what test can we apply? **Prabhupāda:** The *śāstras,* the Vedic literatures. We are advised to see through the *śāstras* because we cannot see directly. Since our senses are defective, direct perception has no value. Therefore we have to receive knowledge through authoritative instruction. **Śyāmasundara:** In other words, when we see an apple fall from a tree, we have to see through the eyes of the *śāstras* in order to see God in that act? **Prabhupāda:** God has made His laws so perfect that one cause effects one thing, and that in turn effects another, and so on. We may see an apple grow and explain it as "nature," but this nature is working according to certain laws. An apple has a certain color and taste because it is following specific laws set down by Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa's energies are perfect and are working perfectly. Everything is being carried out under systematic laws, although we may not perceive these laws. **Śyāmasundara:** Scientists admit that nothing can come out of nothing. **Prabhupāda:** If something emerges, there must be a cause in the background. We say that the root cause of everything is Brahmān, the Absolute Truth. **Hayagrīva:** Mill certainly did not see God as the cause of evil. In fact, he considered God at war against it. Man's role is to help God end this war. He writes: "If Providence is omnipotent, Providence intends whatever happens, and the fact of its happening proves that Providence intended it. If so, everything which a human being can do is predestined by Providence and is a fulfillment of its designs. But if, as is the more religious theory, Providence intends not all which happens, but only what is good, then indeed man has it in his power, by his voluntary actions, to aid the intentions of Providence...." **Prabhupāda:** Providence desires only the good. The living entity is in this material world due to the improper utilization of his will. Even though he wants to enjoy this material world, God is so kind that He gives him facilities and directions. When a child wants to play in a certain way, he is guided by some nurse or servant hired by the parents. Our position is something like that. We have given up the company of God to come to this material world to enjoy ourselves. So God has allowed us to come here, saying, "All right, enjoy this experience, and when you understand that this material enjoyment is ultimately frustrating, you can come back." Thus the Supreme Lord is guiding the enjoyment of all living beings, especially human beings, so that they may again return home, back to Godhead. Nature is the agent acting under the instructions of God. If the living entity is overly addicted to misuse his freedom, he is punished. This punishment is a consequence of the living entity's desire. God does not want a human being to become a pig, but when one develops such a mentality by eating anything and everything, God gives the facility by providing the body of a hog. God is situated in everyone's heart, and is noting the desires of the living entity from within. According to one's desires, God orders material nature to provide a particular body. **Hayagrīva:** Mill further writes: "Limited as, on this showing, the divine power must be by inscrutable but insurmountable obstacles, who knows what man could have been created without desires which never are to be, and even which never ought to be, fulfilled?" Thus Mill concludes that the existence of evil, or pain and death, excludes the existence of an omnipotent God. He sees man in a position to "aid the intentions of Providence" by surmounting his evil instincts. God is not infinite in His power, because if He were, there would be no evil. **Prabhupāda:** Evil is undoubtedly created by God, but this was necessary due to the human being's misuse of his free will. God gives man good directions, but when man is disobedient, evil is naturally there to punish him. Evil is not desired by God, yet it is created because it is necessary. Although a government constructs prisons, it prefers to construct universities so that people can attain an education and become highly enlightened. Because some people misuse their independence, prisons are necessary. We suffer due to our evil activities. Thus God, being supreme, punishes us. When we are under the protection of God, nothing is evil; everything is good. God does not create evil, but man's evil activities provoke God to create an evil situation. **Hayagrīva:** In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is at war with Satan. In Vedic literatures, there are also wars between the demigods and the demons, as well as Kṛṣṇa and the demons, but these wars do not seem to be taken as serious confrontations between God and His enemies. Isn't Kṛṣṇa's mood always playful? **Prabhupāda:** Since Kṛṣṇa is all powerful, when He is fighting with demons, He is actually playing. This fighting does not affect His energy. It is like a father fighting with his small child. One slap is sufficient. Kṛṣṇa gives the demons a chance to play by fighting Him, but one strong slap is sufficient. There is no question of fighting with God. He is omnipotent. However, when a living entity is disobedient and harasses the devotees, God kills him. *Paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca *duṣkṛtām* [*Bg.* 4.8]. When Kṛṣṇa descends on this earth, He chastises the demons and protects His devotees. Whenever there is a fight between the demons and the demigods, God takes the side of the demigods. **Hayagrīva:** Mill saw it more like an actual struggle between God and Satan, or evil. **Prabhupāda:** There is struggle because the demons are always transgressing God's rules. A demon is one who rejects God's rules, and a demigod is one who accepts them. That is the main difference, as stated in the *śāstras.* **Hayagrīva:** But Mill pictures God Himself as struggling hard in the fight to conquer the demons. **Prabhupāda:** God has no reason to struggle. According to the *Vedas,* He is so powerful that He has nothing to do. Just as a king may have many servants, ministers, and soldiers to carry out his desires, Kṛṣṇa has many energies that act according to His order. Kṛṣṇa Himself has nothing to do. He is playing His flute and enjoying Himself. That is *ānanda.* Although He is enjoying Himself, the universe is going on in accordance with His orders, through the agencies of His multi-energies. There is no question of God struggling. He doesn't even have to fight. His various agents can easily enough kill all the evil elements in the world. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill believed that God is good, but that He is involved in a world not of His own making. **Prabhupāda:** Is God to be judged by Mr. Mill? God is good, but not as good as Mr. Mill thinks He ought to be? Is this his opinion of God? Is God good in all conditions? Or is God only good when Mr. Mill considers Him good? What is God's position? **Śyāmasundara:** Mill says that the presence of evil indicates that if God were everything, He would not be completely good. **Prabhupāda:** Therefore God has to depend on the opinion of Mr. Mill. Is it that Mr. Mill does not approve of all God's activities? **Śyāmasundara:** He maintains that God is good, but that He is limited in His power. If His power were absolute, everything would be good. **Prabhupāda:** How nonsensical! Everything is good! That is our philosophy. When God kills a demon, immediately flowers are showered from the sky. Whatever God does is good. Kṛṣṇa danced with other men's wives in the dead of night, and this activity is worshipped as *rāsa-līlā.* However, if an ordinary man does this, he is immediately condemned as a debauchee. In all circumstances, God is good and worshipable. It is not that we subject God to our judgement, saying, "Oh yes, You are good, but not so good." Fools think, "I am better than God. I can create my own God." God creates us; we cannot create God. Unfortunately, Mill did not know what is evil and what is good. He should have known that whatever is created by God is good, even if it appears to be evil to us. We may think that such and such is evil, but actually it is good. If we do not know how it is good, that is our fault. God cannot be placed under our judgement. In all circumstances, God is good. **Hayagrīva:** Mill was particularly interested in the role of authority. In *Utility of Religion,* he writes, "Consider the enormous influence of authority on the human mind....Authority is the evidence on which the mass of mankind believe everything which they are said to know except facts of which their own senses have taken cognizance. It is the evidence on which even the wisest receive all those truths of science, or facts in history or in life, of which they have not personally examined the proofs...." **Prabhupāda:** You can neither defy nor deny real authority. We are presenting our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement on this principle. We should carry out the orders of the authority, and Kṛṣṇa, or God, is the Supreme Authority. Whatever He says must be accepted without interpretation. In this way, everyone can be happy. Those who are sane do not hesitate to accept God's authority, and they become happy abiding by His orders. Those who exactly follow the instructions of the Supreme Authority are also authorities. The spiritual master is the authoritative servant, and God is the authoritative master. If we follow the instructions of the authoritative servant, we in turn become authoritative servants of the spiritual master. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning morality, Mill writes: "Belief, then, in the supernatural, great as are the services which it rendered in the earlier stages of human development, cannot be considered to be any longer required either for enabling us to know what is right and wrong in social morality, or for supplying us with motives to do right and to abstain from wrong." **Prabhupāda:** Morality means abiding by the orders of God. That is real morality. Other moralities are manufactured, and they differ in different countries. Religion and real morality, however, function according to the same principle. Religion means carrying out the orders of God, and morality means following those principles whereby we can fulfill the desires of God. Before the battle of Kurukṣetra, Arjuna considered killing to be immoral, but when he understood from the instructions of Kṛṣṇa that the fight was necessary, he decided to carry out his duty as a *kṣatriya.* So this is morality. Ultimately, morality means carrying out the desires of God. **Śyāmasundara:** For Mill, there are two moral sanctions of conduct. One is internal, which is our conscience and sense of duty. **Prabhupāda:** What does he mean by conscience? A sense of duty is different from the conscience. It is our duty to receive instructions from higher personalities. If we do not, how can we know our duty? **Śyāmasundara:** Mill felt that our duty is that which produces the most good for the most people. **Prabhupāda:** That is all so vague. What if everyone wants to take drugs? Is it our duty to help them? How can a rascal understand what his duty is? One has to be trained to know. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill would say that there is a rational or guiding principle for action, and this is the golden rule of the Christians: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." **Prabhupāda:** This means that you have to approach Christ. You cannot manufacture golden rules yourself. You have to abide by the orders of Christ, and that means approaching a superior authority. **Śyāmasundara:** The second sanction of moral conduct is external: the fear of displeasing other men or God. We hope to win favor through acting morally. **Prabhupāda:** This also means accepting authority. Therefore the *Vedas* tell us that if we want to be really learned, we must approach a guru. Did John Stuart Mill have a guru? **Śyāmasundara:** His father, James Mill, was also a great philosopher. **Prabhupāda:** In any case, we must accept some authority, be it Christ or Kṛṣṇa. Our duty lies in following the orders of the higher authority. Of course, we accept Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as our authority. **Hayagrīva:** Mill himself rejected many basic Christian tenets, and he even believed that there is no intrinsic value in the belief in the immortality of the soul. He writes: "Those who believe in the immortality of the soul generally quit life with fully as much if not more reluctance as those who have no such expectation." **Prabhupāda:** We have daily experience of how the soul continues, even though the body changes. In our own family we can see that the body of an infant changes into the body of a boy, a young man, a middle-aged man, and then an old man. In any condition, the soul is the same. Why is it difficult to understand the immortality of the soul? If we cannot understand it, we are not very intelligent. > yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke > sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu bhauma ijya-dhīḥ > yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile na karhicij > janeṣv abhijñeṣu sa eva go-kharaḥ "A human being who identifies this body made of three elements with his self, who considers the by-products of the body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of birth worshipable, and who goes to the place of pilgrimage simply to take a bath rather than meet men of transcendental knowledge there is to be considered like an ass or a cow." [*SB.* 10.84.13] If a person does not understand the immortality of the soul, he is an animal. There is no question of belief. It is a fact. If a man says, "I don't believe that I will grow old," he is ignorant of facts. If he does not die when he is young, he necessarily grows old. This is a question of common sense, not of beliefs. In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says that there was never a time when we did not exist, nor will there ever be a time when we will cease to exist [*Bg.* 2.12]. The soul is immortal; he never takes birth, and he never dies. This is the beginning of knowledge. First of all, we must understand what we are. If we do not, we will surely be wrongly directed. We will take care of the body just as a foolish man might take care of a bird cage, and neglect the bird within it. **Hayagrīva:** Mill was not only a utilitarian but a humanist, and he felt that a religion of humanity can have a greater effect than a supernatural religion. The religion of humanity would foster unselfish feelings and would have man at the center. **Prabhupāda:** Without God, how can it be a religion? As I have already explained, religion means carrying out the orders of God. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning immortality, Mill asserts that there is no evidence for the immortality of the soul, and none against it. **Prabhupāda:** What does he need to be convinced? There is a great deal of evidence. It is mankind's misfortune that a person like Mill cannot understand a simple truth that even a child can understand. **Hayagrīva:** Ultimately, Mill considered the whole domain of the supernatural as removed from the region of belief into that of simple hope. **Prabhupāda:** It is neither hope nor belief, but a fact. At any rate, to those who are Kṛṣṇa conscious, it is a fact. Kṛṣṇa came and gave Arjuna instructions, and those instructions are recorded. **Hayagrīva:** Mill was such a staunch humanist that he wrote: "I will call no being good who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures, and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go." **Prabhupāda:** God is always good, and if one does not know the goodness of God, he is imperfect. According to all Vedic literatures, God is always good and always great. What does Mill consider to be a good man? **Hayagrīva:** One who works for what he calls "the greatest happiness principle," that is, the greatest happiness for everyone on earth. **Prabhupāda:** Is there any man who can do good for all? **Hayagrīva:** Christ said that no man is good, that there is only one good, and that is God. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact. You may think that this man is good, but he is limited in his power. He may still think in terms of his nation or society. Only a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa can be good because he abides by the order of the Supreme Good. Even if one has the desire to be a good man, it is not possible independent of God. In any case, these are all mental concoctions: good and bad. One who is not God conscious is necessarily bad, and one who is God conscious is good. This should be the only criterion. **Śyāmasundara:** But what of Mill's contention that the good gives the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of people? **Prabhupāda:** And what if the people are fools and rascals? The greatest number of people may say that cigarettes are very nice, but does this mean that they are desirable? **Śyāmasundara:** Mill makes a distinction between the quality and the quantity of pleasure. Certain pleasures are superior to others. **Prabhupāda:** When you have quality, the quantity naturally decreases. For instance, ordinary people take pleasure in eating, sleeping, mating, drinking, smoking, and so on. The pleasure of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is a transcendental pleasure, but the people who take to it are very few. Generally, since conditioned souls are fools, the pleasure that is most popular is the one followed by the greatest number of fools. According to our Vedic philosophy, man is born a fool, but he can be made intelligent through education and culture. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill advocated utilizing those principles that can give the pleasure of highest quality to the maximum people. He also wrote: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." **Prabhupāda:** But how often will you find a Socrates? You cannot find Socrates loitering on every street. There will only be one in millions. There is no question of the maximum number of people. Men of Socrates's caliber are a minimum. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says: > manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu > kaścid yatati siddhaye > yatatām api siddhānāṁ > kaścin māṁ vetti tattvataḥ "Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth." [*Bg.* 7.3] This is not a question of quantity, but of quality. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill felt that the highest quality of pleasure might also be enjoyed by a larger number. All men should be trained to find pleasure according to this higher standard. **Prabhupāda:** This means that the maximum pleasure should be introduced to the maximum number of people. Unfortunately, it is not accepted by the greatest number but by a few only. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, for instance, cannot be understood by the masses. Only a few who are fortunate can understand. There may be millions of stars in the sky, but there is only one moon, and that is sufficient to drive away the darkness. It is not possible to have many moons, although there may be many glowworms. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill was trying to ascertain that standard of pleasure which is most desirable. **Prabhupāda:** That he does not know. That he has to learn from the *Vedas.* Ordinary men take sex to be the highest pleasure, and the entire material world is existing because of sex, but how long does this sex pleasure last? A few minutes only. A man who is wise does not want pleasure that lasts only a few minutes but pleasure that continues perpetually. Nitya* means "eternal," and *ānanda* means "bliss." The Vedas* state that those who are intelligent are not interested in transient pleasure but in eternal pleasure. They know their constitutional position; they know they are not the body. The pleasures of the body are transient and are sought by rascals. If one identifies with the body, he naturally seeks bodily pleasure. One who knows that he is not the body but eternal spirit soul seeks eternal spiritual pleasure. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill believed that a small amount of a higher type of pleasure is superior to a greater amount of a lower type. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is our philosophy. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā** it is said: > nehābhikrama-nāśo 'sti > pratyavāyo na vidyate > svalpam apy asya dharmasya > trāyate mahato bhayāt "In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear." [*Bg.* 2.40] Even if one falls down from Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he still gains from what little he has experienced. On the other hand, if one works according to the varṇāśrama *dharma* but does not take to devotional service, all his labors go in vain. There are many students who come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness for a few days and then go away, but they return again because the quality is so great. Hare Kṛṣṇa is so potent. Save for Kṛṣṇa consciousness, everything is being dissipated by time, by the sun's progress through the sky. Everything in this world is transient, but because we are eternal spirit souls, we should accept only that which has permanent value. It is foolishness to be satisfied with anything else. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill would have said that the only standard we have for understanding what is desirable is the fact the people desire it. **Prabhupāda:** We should desire Kṛṣṇa, but people do not know about Kṛṣṇa. People are thinking, "I love my country," or, "I love my body." What is this love? Because we are spirit soul and are within the body, we say, "I love." **Śyāmasundara:** But Mill reasons that if something is desired, it is desirable per se. **Prabhupāda:** Living entities desire many things. A hog desires stool, but is that desirable? The men on the Bowery are interested only in drinking. Is that very desirable? Caitanya Mahāprabhu desires Kṛṣṇa, and that is a different type of desire. That should be the real standard for desire. We should know what the greatest personalities, the *mahājanas,* are desiring, and we should make that our standard. We may desire something that is harmful for us, and not desire the good. In the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa wanted Arjuna to fight, but this was not Arjuna's desire. Arjuna initially wanted to leave the battlefield, but he changed his mind because Kṛṣṇa wanted him to fight. The point is that we should desire what is desired by the great personalities, not by ourselves. After all, what are we? We should always consider ourselves to be fools. **Śyāmasundara:** Mill advocated complete freedom so that everyone can express himself as he pleases. **Prabhupāda:** That is nonsense. No one has that freedom. **Śyāmasundara:** But he felt that everyone should be free. **Prabhupāda:** Then everyone should be a philosopher. Mill has his own philosophy, and everyone else has his. **Śyāmasundara:** He believed that if everyone is free to compete, the best will emerge. **Prabhupāda:** That is not freedom but competition. Our viewpoint is that everyone is ultimately dependent on Kṛṣṇa. Of course, in illusion we are dependent on māyā, but in any case, we must be dependent. ## Auguste Comte [1798-1857] **Hayagrīva:** Comte is the French founder of Positivism. He felt that theology dealt solely with the heart, or sentiments, and that metaphysics dealt solely with the intellect, but that Positivism reconciled the two. In *A General View of Positivism,* he writes: "It is a fundamental doctrine of Positivism.. .that the heart preponderates over the intellect. The intellect should devote itself exclusively to the problems which the heart suggests, the ultimate object being to find proper satisfaction for our various wants." **Prabhupāda:** From *Bhagavad-gītā,* we understand that above the gross senses are the mind, intelligence, or intellect, and then the soul. The soul is the original principle of all activities, which are manifest in grosser and grosser ways. First, there are the gross activities of the body, then the subtle activities of the mind, and then the still more subtle activities of the intellect, and finally the spiritual activities. In this way, the different platforms of knowledge and understanding are categorized. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte believed that theology, metaphysics and Positivism constitute three stages through which the perfect society evolves. In the beginning, the theological stage, man moves from polytheism to monotheism. In the second stage, the metaphysical, man abandons the first stages and places his faith in impersonal forces, like cause and effect, gravity, and so on. **Prabhupāda:** This philosophy is imperfect. From the personal platform, you have to reach the person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. How can the law of gravitation save you? It is an energy of God, a natural law. When we speak of law, we predicate the fact that someone makes the law. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte suggests that primitive man worships personal forms in nature, and that as man becomes more sophisticated, he worships impersonal forms. **Prabhupāda:** That is backwards. The personal aspect is higher. Of course, if one does not know the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that is a different matter. Foolish men attempt to worship the impersonal. Primitive man by nature wants to worship a person. Because people do not know who that person is, out of frustration they turn to impersonalism. As far as our philosophy is concerned, we know the person because the personal God has told us, "Here I am." When He is present, He proves that He is God, the Supreme Lord. When people see Him, they write books about Him. When Vyāsadeva saw Kṛṣṇa, He abandoned all other literatures to write of Kṛṣṇa's activities in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.* He knew by personal, meditative, and authoritative knowledge that Kṛṣṇa is God. One who does not know Kṛṣṇa may turn to impersonalism. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte believed that above the metaphysical platform is the Positivist stage wherein man abandons theological and metaphysical explanations in order to acquire positive knowledge. In this stage, man is sufficiently competent to ascertain facts and amass scientific data. **Prabhupāda:** We don't agree with this. It is not that science is above metaphysics; rather, real scientific knowledge is metaphysical. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte maintained that the more facts that we discover through science, the more complicated science becomes. Thus science advances toward the positive stage. **Prabhupāda:** We say that it becomes more superficial. Complete knowledge means finding the original cause. Sense perception is considered scientific, but the *Vedas* state that sense perception is misleading and is not independent. For instance, at the moment you can see me, but if there were no sunlight, you would not be able to see me. Your seeing is dependent on the sun, but you have not supplied the sun. The sun has come into being by someone else's arrangement, and your seeing is dependent on that arrangement. Therefore your seeing has no intrinsic value. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte considered sociology to be the most complex science because it depends on all the other sciences for its understanding. It is the science of human behavior, of group relations. **Prabhupāda:** Sociology is already given by Kṛṣṇa. It is not Comte's gift. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says: > cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ > guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ > tasya kartāram api māṁ > viddhy akartāram avyayam "According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable." [*Bg.* 4.13] This is perfect sociology. If you try to create some system, that system will be imperfect because you are imperfect. There will not be peace. Certainly, human groups are necessary, but they must have a scientific basis. Kṛṣṇa says that He has created the *varṇas;* therefore we have to accept the system as it is given. Just as different parts of your body work in order to sustain the body, the different parts of society should work to maintain the social order. It is not that you can artificially create social orders. When people attempt this, they create only havoc. **Hayagrīva:** Comte believed that man's scientific attempt to improve nature is more desirable than a passive belief in God. He writes: "Even the laws of the solar system are very far from perfect...the increasing imperfection of the economy of nature becomes a powerful stimulus to all our faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or practical....The conception of man becoming, without fear or boast, the arbiter within certain limits, of his own destiny, has in it something far more satisfying than the old belief in Providence, which implied our remaining passive." **Prabhupāda:** This means that he has no knowledge of God. There is no question of passivity. God is the ultimate controller of everything, and although He may act through different agents, the ultimate decision is given by Him. He is sitting in everyone's heart observing the activities of the individual soul, and without His permission, no one can act. He gives intelligence, and He also causes one to forget. By God's grace, we can have the power to remember activities long past. In any case, God is the ultimate director. Man cannot be independent, because man's actions are impelled by the three modes of material nature. > 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] The ultimate director is the Supersoul situated in the heart of every living entity and within every atom. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte believed that social reforms are implemented more by love than anything else. His motto was: "Love for the principle, order for the basis, progress for the end." **Prabhupāda:** Unfortunately, he does not know what the end is. He is simply theorizing. The end is Viṣṇu. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* states: > na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ > durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ > andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās > te 'pīśa-tantryām uru-dāmni baddhāḥ **"Persons who are strongly entrapped by the consciousness of enjoying material life, and who have therefore accepted as their leader or guru a similar blind man attached to external sense objects, cannot understand that the goal of life is to return home, back to Godhead, and engage in the service of Lord Viṣṇu. As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries." [*SB.* 7.5.31] Unless we know the end, all our theorizing will not help. All their humanitarian work will never be successful because they have missed the main point:** Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** Comte would agree with Protagoras's saying, "Man is the measure of all things." He writes: "The universe is to be studied not for its own sake, but for the sake of man, or rather of humanity. To study in any other spirit would not only be immoral, but also highly irrational." **Prabhupāda:** Our view is that man should be anxious to understand the Absolute Truth. Human intelligence is meant for searching out the ultimate source of everything. It is useless to try to improve man's material situation. Every living being is destined to undergo a certain amount of happiness and distress. By virtue of our past activities, we get a particular type of body destined to suffer or enjoy. That cannot be changed. You may call this either fatalism or destiny, but it is a fact that every man is destined in this way, and his destiny cannot be changed. However, his intelligence can change his position in reference to God. Presently, man is forgetful of God and his relationship with God. Human life is meant for changing this position. Man's economic position is already fixed by destiny and cannot be changed. This is also confirmed in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.* When we engage in devotional service, we can change our destiny. Otherwise, destiny is fixed. **Hayagrīva:** Comte distinguishes between atheism and Positivism in this way: "Atheism, even from the intellectual point of view, is a very imperfect form of emanicipation; for its tendency is to prolong the metaphysical stage indefinitely by continuing to seek for new solutions to theological problems instead of setting aside all inaccessible researches on the grounds of their utter inutility....The true Positivist spirit consists in studying the How instead of the Why." Since religious questions can never be answered, they had best be forgotten. **Prabhupāda:** How can man forget? If man does not believe in God, God comes as death. How can man counteract death? From *Bhagavad-gītā* we understand that God appears as death for the atheists, and in this way God convinces the atheists, "Here I am." No one can avoid this. No one can become independent by atheistic speculation. **Hayagrīva:** Comte equated intellectual and moral improvement with material progress. He writes: "A nation that has made no efforts to improve itself materially will take but little interest in moral or mental improvement." **Prabhupāda:** The standard of material improvement is not actually fixed. One person may be satisfied with certain material conditions, while another may be dissatisfied with the same conditions. The question is, "What should the standard of material life be?" As far as Vedic civilization is concerned, the material necessities are eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. These are present in both the animal and human kingdoms. Standards, however, vary, according to different cultures. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte felt that we should deal only with information that can be verified by experiment, or demonstration. **Prabhupāda:** Then, how are these planets floating in the air? What is the scientific explanation for that? Who made this cosmic arrangement? If they don't know, then what is the value of their scientific knowledge? Because they cannot answer these questions, they say that they are not worth knowing. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte would feel that such knowledge is not very useful. **Prabhupāda:** But knowledge means finding out the source of knowledge, the source of everything. You are seeing only a portion of someone's actions and reactions, but you do not know who that someone is. If you don't know, you cannot pose as a man of knowledge. **Śyāmasundara:** Comte is interested in knowledge dealing with sense phenomena, knowledge that can be directly, scientifically utilized. **Prabhupāda:** Well, naturally you can perceive a tree growing, but a man interested in knowledge wants to know the origin of that tree. One who does not or cannot know says, "It doesn't matter," but if you are serious about knowledge, it matters. Knowledge of the tree's origin is certainly practical. We understand that a tree comes from a seed, but where does the seed come from? How is it that so much potency is given to the seed? Who gives that seed such potency? **Śyāmasundara:** Is that knowledge useful? **Prabhupāda:** Yes. Of course, it may not be useful for a fool. For a fool, such scientific knowledge is of no use, but for a real scientist, knowledge of the origin of things is most essential. Only a fool would say that such knowledge is useless. A scientific man wants to find the cause of things, whether knowledge of that cause is immediately useful or not. Higher knowledge has no value for an ordinary man. In this Kali-yuga, the ordinary man is a fool. He thinks, "Why are people wasting their time searching for God?" For a fool, the search for God is unimportant, but for a scientist, it is most important. **Hayagrīva:** Comte felt that it was the working man, the *śūdra,* who is most apt to be the arbiter of Positivism, not the scientist or philosopher. He writes: "The occupations of working men are evidently far more conducive to philosophical views than those of the middle classes, since they are not so absorbing as to prevent continuous thought, even during the hours of labor." **Prabhupāda:** How can the working man become an arbiter? Every working man requires some manager to direct him, and in Communist countries we have seen that there is a managerial class as well as a Working class. If this is the case, how can the worker help us? He is always subordinate to some manager. **Hayagrīva:** Comte wanted to form working men's clubs that would be dedicated to the philosophy of Positivism. These would form "a provisional substitute for the church of old times, or rather to prepare the way for the religious building of the new form of worship, the worship of humanity." **Prabhupāda:** His conception of humanity is not very clear. What does he mean by humanity? What does the working class know of humanity? If by "humanity" he means the totality of all human beings, he must still admit that every human being has some individuality. Even if you consider all humanity to be the same, how will you account for individuality? **Hayagrīva:** Well, it is his contention and that of Communism in general that all men are basically the same in relation to the state. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, they are all under the laws of the state, but their thinking, feeling, and willing are not under the state. Men think, feel, and will differently. How, then, can they be one? Of course, human beings have two arms, two legs, and one head, but the working of the brain differs according to the individual. It is not possible to adjust these differences and reconcile all humanity as a whole. Everyone will not be in total agreement. People have their own tastes even in eating, sleeping, mating, and defending—to say nothing of thinking, feeling, and willing. If you try to force uniformity, you will create dissatisfaction. **Hayagrīva:** Comte felt that Positivism and Communism—which was then in its formative stage—could go hand in hand. He writes: "Positivism has nothing to fear from Communism; on the contrary, it will probably be accepted by most Communists among the working classes " **Prabhupāda:** He speaks of a working class but not a managerial class. He wants a classless society, but he wants it populated only by working men. But the fact is that working men require direction, just as the legs and hands require directions from the brain. That is quite natural. It is not possible for the working classes not to be under someone's direction. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning the different qualities of men and women, Comte wrote: "In all kinds of force, for the physical, intellectual or practical, it is certain that men surpass women, in accordance with a general law which prevails throughout the animal kingdom....If there were nothing else to do but to love...women would be supreme." **Prabhupāda:** This is a natural distinction between men and women. How can it be changed? Women are meant for certain activities, just as men are. You may try to change this artificially, but basically it cannot be changed. A woman becomes pregnant, but a man does not. How can this be changed? **Hayagrīva:** Well, from this he concludes that women, being dominated by love, are morally superior to men. He envisioned woman as "the spontaneous priestess of humanity. She personifies in the purest form the principle of love upon which the unity of our nature depends." **Prabhupāda:** This is Comte's imagination. When a woman is misguided, she becomes dangerous, and there is no question of love. According to the Vedic conception, women and children are on the same level, and they should both be protected by men. In childhood a woman is protected by her father, in youth by her husband, and in old age by her grown sons. Women should never be given independence, but they should be given protection. In this way, their natural love for father, husband, and children will develop very smoothly. Thus the relationship between women and men should be established very happily so that both can execute their real function: cooperative spiritual life. The woman should look after the comfort of the man, and the man, who works hard, should also look after her comfort. Then both will be satisfied, and their spiritual lives will progress. A man is meant to work hard, and a woman is meant to give comfort and love in the home. In this way, man and woman can combine so that both can progress in spiritual life. **Hayagrīva:** Comte felt that love of God is inconsistent with love for our fellow men, and that it has always interfered with man's love of woman. He writes: "It was impiety for the knight to love his lady better than his God; and thus the best feelings of man's nature were repressed by his religious faith. Women, therefore, are not really interested in perpetuating the old system [of religion]; and the very instincts by which their nature is characterized will soon incline them to abandon it." **Prabhupāda:** Generally, women are interested in a comfortable home life. That is their nature. They are not spiritually very advanced or interested, but if a man has spiritual interests, and the woman helps the man—either as a mother, wife, or daughter—both can make spiritual progress. However, the woman must remain subordinate, and the man must make spiritual progress. Because the woman helps the man, she shares his spiritual benefits. **Hayagrīva:** Comte envisioned women primarily as companions of men. He writes: "The first aspect then, under which Positivism considers woman, is simply as the companion of man, irrespective of her maternal duties....For perfect friendship, difference of sex is essential, as excluding the possibility of rivalry." **Prabhupāda:** According to the bodily demands, there are sexual necessities. Women should not only give sex pleasure to their husbands, but should also prepare good food. After coming home from a day of hard work, the man should be supplied good food, comfort, and sex. Then the home becomes very happy, and both husband and wife are satisfied. Then they can improve their real business, which is spiritual understanding. Human life is meant for progressing spiritually, and people must first of all know that the spirit soul is at the basis even of material life. The body is built upon the soul. Although women are generally less intelligent, this understanding is required of both men and women. With the help of the husband, a woman can become more intelligent. In Vedic history, we have the example of Kapila-deva giving spiritual instructions to his mother Devahūti. Whether the woman is a daughter, wife, or mother, if she remains subordinate, she can receive knowledge from either her father, husband, or son. In the *Purāṇas,* there is the example of Lord Śiva answering the spiritual questions of Pārvatī. Women supply the comforts of the tongue, belly, and genitals, and, remaining submissive, they are instructed in spiritual life. Thus there is cooperative advancement. **Hayagrīva:** Comte felt that at least in the beginning stages of Positivism, women should take the place of God as an object of man's affection and love. He writes: "From childhood, each of us will be taught to regard women's sex as the principal source of human happiness and improvement, whether in public life or in private....In a word, man will kneel to women, and to women alone....She will be regarded by man as the most perfect personification of humanity....The worship of women, when it has assumed a more systematic shape, will be valued for its own sake as a new instrument of happiness and moral growth....The worship of women satisfies this condition, and is so far of greater efficacy, than the worship of God." **Prabhupāda:** It is the duty of men to protect women and maintain them comfortably, not worship them. It is not a very good proposal to worship a woman as God. Then man will be henpecked. Worship is reserved for God only, and is not meant for others. However, cooperation between men and women for the sake of worshipping God is desirable. It is not that a man or a woman should be worshipped as God. Sometimes, affection is so strong that a person may see another person as God, but that is sentimentalism. God is different from men and women, who are but living entities meant to worship God. A woman should always be engaged in assisting a man in every respect in his religious, social, and family life. That is the real benefit of conjugal life. **Hayagrīva:** Comte writes that "the whole effect of Positivist worship will be to make men feel clearly how far superior in every respect is the synthesis founded on the love of humanity to that founded on the love of God." **Prabhupāda:** Love of humanity means raising humanity to the point where people can understand the real goal of life. We do not serve humanity by keeping people in darkness. We must enlighten others with knowledge, and ultimate knowledge means understanding God, our relationship with God, and the activities of that relationship. That is real humanitarian work. Mankind must be informed of the nature of the body and the soul and the necessities and goal of the soul. In this way, we can really serve humanity. We do not serve it by encouraging the animal propensities.