# 13 Psychoanalysis ## Sigmund Freud [1856-1934] **Śyāmasundara:** Freud saw a conflict between the primal self, which he called the id, and the ethical self, the ego. It is the id that attempts to gratify all needs, and its basic motivating force is the libido, the sexual instinct. When the id comes in contact with the senses, the ego is formed. The superego is a modified part of the ego, which is formed through experiences related to one's parents. The superego is characterized by the feelings of conscience, and it is the principal repressive factor in the ego's striving to curb the primitive, sex-motivated, lawless tendencies of the id. **Prabhupāda:** We also agree that everyone has a sexual appetite, and it is stated in *śāstras* that sex is the principal bond to the material world. Actually, everyone has a tendency not only for sex, but for intoxication and meat eating also. These tendencies are inherent in the living entity. According to the *śāstras,* we are allowed sexual intercourse in marriage, but we are prohibited from having any other sex. Kṛṣṇa says, *dharmāviruddho bhūteṣu kāmo 'smi.* "I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles." [*Bg.* 7.11] This means that sex life has to be regulated. Of course, people have a perverted tendency to have sex against the Vedic injunctions. The Vedas* give regulations for all undesirable activities, not only sex, but meat eating and intoxication as well. The idea is to restrict these *anarthas,* these unwanted things, so that the living entity may eventually be freed of them. In the conditioned state, everyone creates a false ego, thinking, "I am American, I am Hindu, I am Christian, Moslem, Russian, I am a human being, I am this body, I am this and that." This is false ego. Superior ego says, "I am Brahman. I am the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa." If we understand the self in this way, false ego automatically vanishes. Our senses are gross, but they are controlled by the mind. The mind is part of the subtle body, and the mind in turn is controlled by the intelligence. The intelligence is controlled by the ego, and if this ego is false, the entire structure is false. False ego thinks, "I am this body." This is false identification. When the ego is thus deluded, everything subordinate to it is also illusioned because everything else is standing on a false platform. Therefore the Vedas* advise us to come to the platform of knowledge, and this is called *brahma-jñāna.* As Bhagavad-gītā* states: > brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā > na śocati na kāṅkṣati > samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu > mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām "One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me." [*Bg.* 18.54] When we come to the knowledge that we are not the body but pure spirit soul, we immediately become happy. All the neuroses and problems that Freud is trying to cure are due to false ego. When we understand our actual position, the blazing fire of material existence is immediately extinguished. Freud is describing this blazing fire, and he is trying to treat people within this fire. But how can a person be happy when there is fire all about? It is the fire itself that must be extinguished, or the person himself must be removed from the fire. Then there will be happiness. I recall some years ago in India, when a criminal was pleading insanity to a murder charge, a psychiatrist was called to judge whether this person was sane during the time of the murder. The psychiatrist said, "I have examined many people, and I have concluded that more or less, everyone is insane. If his innocence depends upon his sanity, then I would say that he should be excused, but as far as I know, everyone is more or less insane." This is also our conclusion. Whoever is infected with this material nature is more or less insane. When the living entity takes on the material body, he must be crazy. Therefore everyone is speaking in different ways. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud believed that painful or traumatic experiences, often repressed by forgetfulness, lie deep in our subconscious. By recalling them, we may be able to overcome the neuroses that they inflict. **Prabhupāda:** Our process is different. When you give a man a better thing, he will forget inferior things. > viṣayā vinivartante > nirāhārasya dehinaḥ > rasa-varjaṁ raso 'py asya > paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate "Though the embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, the taste for sense objects remains. But ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness." [*Bg.* 2.59] Fear is created when we are not in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is a characteristic of the conditioned soul. As soon as we become Kṛṣṇa conscious, our fears and anxieties automatically vanish. > nārāyaṇa-parāḥ sarve > na kutaścana bibhyati > svargāpavarga-narakeṣv > api tulyārtha-darśinaḥ "Devotees solely engaged in the devotional service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, never fear any condition of life. For them the heavenly planets, liberation, and the hellish planets are all the same, for such devotees are interested only in the service of the Lord." [*SB.* 6.17.28] When we are God conscious, we don't fear anything. Although Prahlāda Mahārāja's demonic father threatened him with death and put him in all kinds of frightful circumstances, Prahlāda remained quiet and peaceful. Indeed, his father asked him, "Prahlāda, how is it that you are so proud and fearless when I am trying to chastise you?" Prahlāda replied, 'The person who gives you your power is the same person who is protecting me." Forgetfulness of painful experiences is in itself artificial. People forget because they are not properly trained. There is no usefulness in forgetting painful experiences. When we are Kṛṣṇa conscious, we are not afraid to remember them. We actually thank Kṛṣṇa, and say, "Kṛṣṇa, You are so kind that You have saved me from so many frightful situations. Now I am sure that I am pure and have my safety in You." A Kṛṣṇa conscious man is not frightened by any of his past experiences. Rather, he laughs at them, thinking, "What a fool I was to have been afraid of all these things!" **Śyāmasundara:** Freud did not believe that forgetfulness is artificial. He felt that it is a natural instinct to forget painful experiences. **Prabhupāda:** Well, that is so. For instance, when you were in the womb of your mother, you were in a very, very painful situation. Now you have forgotten that experience, and that forgetfulness is certainly natural. It is a fact that you were confined to a womb, but you cannot remember this. When you think about it, you can understand what a horrible situation that was. However, the *śāstras* say that even though you have forgotten this, you have not escaped the situation. You are waiting for a similar painful experience. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud contends that anxieties and tensions are caused by the id's primitive instincts that are always forcing us to act contrary to the rational, moral ego and superego. **Prabhupāda:** Anxieties will continue as long as you are in the material condition. In conditioned life, you cannot be freed from anxiety. **Śyāmasundara:** Is this because we are always desiring something and being frustrated? **Prabhupāda:** Frustration must be there because you do not desire the right thing. You are desiring something that is not permanent, and this is a cause for anxiety. We wish to live forever, but we have accepted this temporary material body. Therefore there is no question of living forever, and we are always anxious because we fear that death is coming. We fear death and the destruction of the body, and this is the main cause of our anxiety. Anxiety is due to our acceptance of something which will not exist, which is temporary. **Śyāmasundara:** The ego develops strategies of defense against this anxiety engendered by the id. Whenever there is a strong animalistic desire, the ego represses it for self-preservation. **Prabhupāda:** Repression is always there. If we are diseased, and the doctor advises us not to take solid food, we have to repress our appetite. In the system of *brahmacarya,* the *brahmacārī* represses his desire for sex. This is called *tapasya,* voluntary repression. Of course, this is very difficult without some better engagement. Therefore, as I said, we have to replace an inferior engagement with a superior one. When you are captivated by seeing the beautiful form of Kṛṣṇa, you naturally no longer desire to see the beautiful form of a young woman. **Śyāmasundara:** The Buddhists speak not only of the repression of desires, but of their extinction. **Prabhupāda:** We don't advocate that. There will always be desires, and sometimes we have to repress them. My Guru Mahārāja used to say that as soon as you rise from bed, you should beat your mind a hundred times with your shoes, and when you go to bed at night, you should beat your mind a hundred times with a broomstick. In this way, you will be able to control your mind. Wild tigers have to be controlled by repression, but when the tigers are under control, there is no question of repression. Then you can play with the tigers, and they will be your friends. So repression is not always bad. **Hayagrīva:** Freud considered sexual repression to be harmful, but sublimation to be often beneficial. He didn't advocate total sexual freedom; rather, he suggested that instead of trying to deny the sex drive, we should try to redirect it, perhaps to some artistic activity, or positive study. **Prabhupāda:** This means diverting our attention, and that is recommended in the Vedic culture for the *brahmacārī.* If we are taught Kṛṣṇa from the very beginning of life, we will forget sex. Even if an adult takes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness seriously, he can also forget sex. That is the experience of Yamunācārya,: Yadāvadhi mama cettaḥ padāravinde, *kṛṣṇa-padāravinde.* "Since I have been engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, every time I think of sex, I spit." If we engage in sex without restriction, we will eventually become impotent. That is nature's way of punishment. Sex cannot be artificially repressed, but there is a proper training process. **Hayagrīva:** Freud believed that sex could not be stamped out, and that if one tried, it would manifest itself in undesirable neurosis. **Prabhupāda:** He did not know the training process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. According to our philosophy, as long as we have sexual inclinations, we have to accept a material body and become entangled in the miseries of material existence. However, there is such a thing as spiritual life, and if we are trained spiritually, we will no longer be bothered by material desires. **Hayagrīva:** In exploring the realm of infantile sexuality, Freud discovered a definite sexual nature in the early stages of childhood. He concluded that sexual activities in childhood were normal, and this led him to write that "in a normal sex life, no neurosis is possible." **Prabhupāda:** It all depends on the child's training. If a child is trained as a *brahmacārī,* he will have no inclination for sex. Sometimes a father enjoys sex before his children, and the children imitate. It is the nature of a child to imitate, especially his parents. According to Vedic civilization, as soon as a child is four or five years old, he is sent to a gurukula, where he is disciplined. There, he practically forgets sex life. But when he becomes a young man, he may naturally have a little tendency for sex, and if this is the case, the guru suggests marriage. If, on the other hand, one can perfectly control his sexual tendencies, he can become a *sannyāsī.* My Guru Mahārāja, for instance, never married. This is all a matter of education. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud believed that many of our present unconscious wishes and conflicts have their origins in these infantile experiences. **Prabhupāda:** That may be, but you are not going to be an infant again. So why not forget all this? After this life, you will be placed in the womb of another mother, and all those experiences will happen again. It is therefore the duty of the guru and the parents to save the living entity from rebirth. > gurur na sa syāt sva-jano na sa syāt > pitā na sa syāj jananī na sā syāt > daivaṁ na tat syān na patiś ca sa syān > na mocayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother, or a worshipable demigod." [*SB.* 5.5.18] Janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi.* At the time of death, we will again experience this horrible situation. We will again have to enter a womb, be confined, and undergo birth. Whether we forget these experiences or not, we will have to undergo them again and again if we do not become Kṛṣṇa conscious. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud felt that most of our problems, which are sexual in nature, can be cured by recalling painful experiences and objectively analyzing them. **Prabhupāda:** We must understand why this sex problem is there. If we tolerate a little itching sensation, we will be spared much pain. *Yan maithunādi-gṛhamedhi-sukhaṁ hi tucchaṁ kaṇḍūyanena karayor iva *duḥkha-duḥkham.* "Sex life is compared to the rubbing of two hands to relieve an itch. Gṛhamedhīs*, householders without spiritual knowledge, think that this itching is the greatest platform of happiness, although it is actually a source of distress." [*SB.* 7.9.45] When ordinary men are overly attached to materialistic life, their only happiness is sexual intercourse. The *śāstras* say that happiness derived from sexual intercourse is very, very insignificant. Indeed, it is not even happiness. At best, it may be considered a tenth-class happiness. Because people have no idea of the happiness of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they think that sex is the highest happiness. But if we analyze it, what kind of happiness is it? When we have an itch, we scratch it and feel some pleasure, but after that pleasure passes, the effects are abominable. The itch becomes worse. The *śāstras* tell us that if we just try to tolerate this itching sensation, we will be spared a great deal of pain. This is possible if we practice this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud believed that neuroses, disorders, anxieties, and frustrations have their origin in repression. **Prabhupāda:** And I am telling you that all these are due to sex. But we are not advocating repression. We give facility in the form of a wife. The sex impulse is to be directed to the wife. **Śyāmasundara:** But Freud insisted that the sex impulse is present at the very beginning of life. **Prabhupāda:** We also admit that. We say that as soon as the living being is embodied, he experiences hunger and sex. Why is that? *Āhāra-nidrā-vyavāyaḥ.* We find these impulses even in animals. These drives are already there. What is the use in philosophizing about them? **Śyāmasundara:** Through psychoanalysis, pent-up emotions can be released, and the original shock mitigated by remembering and confessing. **Prabhupāda:** But what guarantee is there that we will not receive another shock? The living entity is receiving shock after shock. You try to cure him of one, and another comes. It is a fact that material life is painful. As soon as you receive this material body, you must suffer the threefold miseries. Everyone is seeking happiness, but unless materialistic life is stopped, unless we put an end to birth, old age, disease, and death, there is no question of happiness. Materialistic life is a disease, and Vedic civilization attempts to cure this disease. Our program is total cure. No more shock. Freud's treatment is useless because he cannot guarantee that there will not be another shock. If you are situated in real Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the worst type of misery may face you, and you will not be disturbed. You will not experience any shock at all. Freud was trying to cure his patients of the results of some shock they had experienced years ago , but there is no guarantee that a similar shock will not come again. Rather, the living entity will receive one shock after another after another. > 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] As soon as we try to solve one problem, another problem comes, then another. If we are in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there are no more shocks. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud believed that our present personality is greatly influenced by our sexual experiences in infancy and childhood. **Prabhupāda:** Therefore we are trying to train our boys as *brahmacārīs.* Of course, there is the tendency for sex, but by practicing *brahmacarya,* by diverting our attention to Kṛṣṇa, there will be very little chance that a shock will come about. If the Vedic system is followed by human society, these shocks will not be there. **Hayagrīva:** Freud also tied infantilism in with the religious impulse. He wrote: "Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the intimate connection between the father complex and belief in God, has shown us that the personal God is psychologically nothing but an exalted father....Youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down." Thus Freud sees God as a father figure arising out of the helplessness experienced by the little child. **Prabhupāda:** How can a little child invent his father? Was he not born of his father? And how can he abandon the idea of his father? Without a father, how can one come into being? Even Freud had a father, grandfather, great grandfather, and so on back. We speak of God as the first father because there is no one beyond Him. **Hayagrīva:** Still, Freud considers belief in God as infantile. In *The Future of an Illusion,* he writes: "Man cannot remain a child forever; he must venture at last into the hostile world." Instead of continuing to dwell in such a nursery, man should try to rid himself of the psychic crutch of religion. **Prabhupāda:** What is his definition of childishness? Everyone must be a child, and everyone must have a father. Just as we cannot deny our biological father, we cannot deny the ultimate Supreme Father. **Hayagrīva:** It is not that he is denying biological fathers, but the idea of a Supreme Father, which he felt arose out of man's initial helpless state. **Prabhupāda:** Helplessness is always there, because the threefold miseries will always exist in material life. There will always be miseries arising from the body and mind, miseries inflicted by other living entities, and natural catastrophes. In addition, there is always birth, old age, disease, and death. It is only a fool or a rascal who hopes against hope and makes plans to overcome all these difficulties. However we may plan, nature is so strong that it will smash our plans to pieces with the kick of death. Man hopes against hope to adjust material things so that he can be happy in this world, but this is foolishness. Man is helpless at every step. **Hayagrīva:** Freud felt that belief in God the Father is "so patently infantile, so incongruous with reality, that to one whose attitude to humanity is friendly, it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life." **Prabhupāda:** So what is his reality? Belief in God may be infantile to him, but what is he except a child? He also makes plans, and that in itself is childish. How is it that he is more than a child? Can he give an ultimate solution that will rid man of his helplessness? **Hayagrīva:** Well, he personally hoped that psychoanalysis would provide the answers. **Prabhupāda:** How can a common man understand psychoanalysis? The fact is that there is a supreme controller who is present everywhere. Psychoanalysis should begin with this point. Why is he defying this fact? **Hayagrīva:** He sincerely believed that the maturation process necessarily entails ridding oneself of religion. He writes: "If one attempts to assign religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity." **Prabhupāda:** He has reached this conclusion because he has seen so many sentimental religions, but first of all he must understand what religion actually is. Religion is not possible without an understanding of God, and a religion without God cannot truly be called a religion. According to the Vedic system, religion refers to the orders of God; therefore if we have no conception of God, we cannot be said to have a religion. If we do not know God or His nature, how can we know the orders God is giving? **Hayagrīva:** It has often been noted—initially by Jung—that Freud tried to repress religious feelings within himself. In a letter, he once confided, "I cannot rid myself of certain materialistic prejudices, and I would carry them over into the research of the occult." **Prabhupāda:** Religion is neither occult nor obscure. Of course, everything is obscure for an unintelligent person who has no idea of either God or religion. **Hayagrīva:** In the same letter, Freud continues: "Thus I am entirely incapable of considering the 'survival of the personality' after death, even as a mere scientific possibility....I think, therefore, it is better if I continue confining myself to psychoanalysis." **Prabhupāda:** But if he cannot understand the eternity of the soul, he will be deficient in psychoanalysis as well. Even within one lifetime, we can see that the body changes while the soul remains the same. We go through the changes of childhood, youth, manhood, middle age, and old age, but the soul, the person, is always there. **Hayagrīva:** In *Beyond the Pleasure Principle,* Freud theorizes on the death instinct. Equating a child's fondness to repeat a certain act that gives him pleasure with the tendency to restore a previous state of affairs, he concludes that if instincts aim at the past, they would necessarily tend to regress to the prenatal state. This is a desire to "return to the womb" that brought Freud to write: "The goal of all life is death." For him, death is the cessation of suffering. **Prabhupāda:** If this is the case, why are people afraid of death? Why do people go to a doctor when they fear some disease? If death is ultimate happiness, why do people try to avoid it? **Hayagrīva:** Once, after an argument with Jung, Freud fainted, and his words when he came to were, "How sweet it must be to die." **Prabhupāda:** Now, what pleasure does one derive from being dead? What is the pleasure of extinction? That is the pleasure of a stone. **Hayagrīva:** Well, he did speak of return to the "quiescence of the inorganic world." **Prabhupāda:** Then why bother philosophizing or psychoanalyzing? Just commit suicide and become like a stone. Why take up so much time? If it is better to die, then become a stone, and be happy. If ultimate happiness is extinction, why write so many books? **Hayagrīva:** Freud considered the quietude that follows the sexual act to be very much like death, because desires are extinguished. Thus sleep often follows sexual intercourse. In this sense, the pursuit of pleasure is a drive to extinction. **Prabhupāda:** If this is the purpose of life, we should pray to God to make us dogs and hogs because these animals have very good facilities for sex life. They all consider sex to be the ultimate goal, and then sleep. > ṛṣabha uvāca > nāyaṁ deho deha-bhājāṁ nṛloke > kaṣṭān kāmān arhate viḍ-bhujāṁ ye > tapo divyaṁ putrakā yena sattvaṁ > śuddhyed yasmād brahma-saukhyaṁ tv anantam **"Lord Rsabhadeva told His sons:** My dear boys, of all the living entities who have accepted material bodies in this world, one who has been awarded this human form should not work hard day and night simply for sense gratification, which is available even for dogs and hogs that eat stool. One should engage in penance and austerity to attain the divine position of devotional service. By such activity, one's heart is purified, and when one attains this position, he attains eternal, blissful life, which is transcendental to material happiness, and which continues forever." [*SB.* 5.5.1] Human life is meant for *tapasya,* for putting an end to sex. This is the process of *brahmacarya.* **Śyāmasundara:** For Freud, the sexual energy, or libido, is not only manifest through sexual intercourse. It is associated with a wide variety of pleasurable sensations relating to bodily activities and including pleasures of the mouth and the different organs. **Prabhupāda:** We have already said that the only happiness in this material world is considered to be sexual. *Yan maithun***ādi** [*SB.* 7.9.45]. The word *ādi* means the basic principle, which, in the material world, is sex. What is materialistic happiness? It is enjoying this life with one's friends and family. But what kind of pleasure is this? It is compared to a drop of water in the desert. Actually, we are seeking unlimited pleasure. *Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt.* How can this drop of water in the desert, which is materialistic pleasure, ever satisfy us? No one is satisfied, although people are having sex in so many different ways. And now young girls are almost going naked, and the female population is increasing everywhere. As soon as there is an increase in the female population, the women say, "Where are the men?" There then must be disaster because every woman is trying to attract a man, and men will take advantage of this situation. When milk is available in the market, what is the use in keeping a cow? The more men become attached to women, the more the female population will increase. **Śyāmasundara:** How is that? **Prabhupāda:** When you have more sex, your power to beget a male child is diminished. When the man is less potent, a girl is born, and when a man is more potent, a boy is born. If a man's discharge is larger, there will be a male child. If the woman's discharge is larger, there will be a female child. When women are easily available, men become weak, and they beget female children because they lose their power from overindulgence. Sometimes they even become impotent. If you don't restrict your sex life, there will be so many disasters. Yamunācārya, says: > yadāvadhi mama cetaḥ kṛṣṇa-pādāravinde > nava-nava-rasa-dhāmanudyata rantum āsīt > tadāvadhi bata nārī-saṅgame smaryamāne > bhavati mukha-vikāraḥ suṣṭhu niṣṭhīvanaṁ ca "Since I have been engaged in the transcendental loving service of Kṛṣṇa, realizing ever-new pleasure in Him, whenever I think of sex pleasure, I spit at the thought, and my lips curl with distaste." **Śyāmasundara:** Freud would consider this a form of repression. **Prabhupāda:** His idea of repression is different from ours. Our repression means rising early in the morning, attending *maṅgala-***āratik**, chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa *mahā-mantra,* and engaging in devotional service. In this way, we repress material propensities. **Śyāmasundara:** In other words, it's repression with awareness and knowledge. **Prabhupāda:** Actual knowledge will come later. In the beginning, there is obedience to the spiritual master. In this way, we will not become habituated to undesirable activity. **Śyāmasundara:** Yet by remembering some traumatic or shocking experience, our tensions are often relieved, and personality disorders rectified. This is a fact of psychoanalysis. **Prabhupāda:** That may be, but when a seed has fructified and grown into a tree, it is no longer possible to rectify the seed. The seed is no longer there. It has changed into a tree. Freud may be able to find out the cause, but does he know the cure? Our cure is to divert the attention to Kṛṣṇa. By understanding Kṛṣṇa, we automatically forget our problems. Kṛṣṇa is the panacea for all diseases. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud also investigated projection, that is attributing one's own personality onto others. A man may regard others as a thief because he's a thief himself. **Prabhupāda:** We accept that. *Ātmanā manyate *jagat.* Everyone thinks others to be like himself. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud also felt that children act in different ways to win the love and affection of their parents. **Prabhupāda:** Children imitate. In Agra, I have seen two and three-year-old children try to imitate the sexual intercourse of their parents. They did not know anything about sex pleasure, but they were imitating what they had seen. Children do not know the value of things, but they imitate their parents. There is no fixed pattern of development for the personality of children. You can mold children in any way. They are like soft dough, and you can make out of them what you like. All you have to do is put them into the mold. Many of the neuroses Freud talked about are not experienced in Indian families. If you place a child in good association, he will act properly, and if you place him in bad association, he will act improperly. A child has no independence in that sense. **Śyāmasundara:** Freud believed that our behavior must be understood in terms of our entire life history. **Prabhupāda:** That is so. Therefore in our Vedic system, it is forbidden for the husband and wife to speak of sex even jokingly before a small child, because the child cannot understand. If children know of sexual intercourse, it is because they have learned about it from their parents. **Hayagrīva:** Although often avoiding the very subject of religion, Freud sometimes took an agnostic stand. He writes: "Of the reality value of most religions we cannot judge; just as they cannot be proved, neither can they be refuted." **Prabhupāda:** First of all, he does not know what religion is. As we have said, religion means the orders given by God. Since he has no conception of God, how can he know anything of God's orders? He is acquainted only with fictitious religions, which have been described in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* as kaitava*—cheating religions. Real religion is law. Just as you cannot manufacture laws in your home, you cannot manufacture religion. **Hayagrīva:** Freud further writes: "The riddles of the universe only reveal themselves slowly to our inquiry. To many questions science can as yet give no answer; but scientific work is our only way to the knowledge of external reality. ...No, science is no illusion. But it would be an illusion to suppose that we can get anywhere else what it cannot give us." **Prabhupāda:** First of all, we have to learn what the object of knowledge is. The word *veda* means "knowledge," and *anta* means "ultimate." Unless you come to the ultimate point of knowledge, or Vedānta, your knowledge is imperfect or insufficient. The ultimate object of knowledge is God, and if we cannot define God or explain His nature, we have not reached the ultimate point of knowledge. God is a fact, but unfortunately we have no clear idea of Him. This means that our knowledge has not reached the ultimate point—that is, it is imperfect. If the knowledge of a philosopher or scientist is imperfect, of what value is it? According to the Vedic method, we receive our knowledge from the perfect person: Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. **Hayagrīva:** As for the origin of religions, Freud writes: "As it is a delicate task to decide what God has Himself ordained and what derives rather from the authority of an all-powerful parliament or a supreme judicial decision, it would be an indubitible advantage to leave God out of the question altogether, and to admit honestly the purely human origin of all cultural laws and institutions." **Prabhupāda:** God does not derive power from anyone. As stated in the beginning of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: janmādy* *asya *yato* *'nvayād *itarataś* *cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ *sva-rāṭ* [*SB.* 1.1.1]. The Supreme God, the Absolute Truth, knows everything in complete detail. The word *abhijñaḥ* means "complete awareness." How is it God has complete knowledge? From whom has He received this knowledge? The answer is: *sva-rāṭ.* He does not receive it from anyone. He is completely independent. If God has to receive knowledge from Mr. Freud, He is not God. God is the only person who is completely independent. > na tasya kāryaṁ karaṇaṁ ca vidyate > na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate > parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate > svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca **"He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All His senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natural sequence." [*Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad* 6.7-8] God is naturally all perfect, and He doesn't have to adopt some process in order to become perfect. Anyone who is trying to be perfect is not God. When Kṛṣṇa was only three months old, He could kill the big giant Pūtanā. His potencies are there automatically, whether He appears as a child or as a young man. Nowadays, so-called yogīs are trying to become God by meditating, but Kṛṣṇa did not have to meditate. If God is always God, He doesn't have to learn anything from anyone. That is the true meaning of independence. If we want to know something about God, we should receive knowledge from Him directly, or from a person who knows Him. This is the direction given in Bhagavad-gītā*:** > tad viddhi praṇipātena > paripraśnena sevayā > upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ > jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ **"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth." [*Bg.* 4.34] The word *tattva-darśinaḥ* refers to one who factually knows about God. It is necessary to learn about God from one who has seen Him face to face. Arjuna, for instance, was talking to God on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra. If we wish to understand God, we should understand Him as Arjuna did. What was Arjuna's understanding? That is found in the Tenth Chapter of *Bhagavad-gītā*:** > 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] **Hayagrīva:** Concerning early religious training, Freud writes: "So long as a man's early years are influenced by the religious thought-inhibition and by the lower one derived from it, as well as by the sexual one, we cannot really say what he is actually like." Freud strongly believed that early religious education warps a man's natural development. **Prabhupāda:** What is wrong with informing a child that there is a Supreme Being controlling the whole cosmic situation? Is it that Freud did not believe in education? **Hayagrīva:** He felt that children should not be indoctrinated with religious "thought-inhibitions." **Prabhupāda:** But there must be some form of education, and spiritual education is the most important. The only business of human life is to learn about God. Lower species cannot understand God, but understanding is possible in the human form. Therefore spiritual education is primary. **Hayagrīva:** Marx called religion "the opiate of the people," and Freud similarly says that "the consolations of religion may be compared to that of a narcotic." **Prabhupāda:** As I have said before, neither Marx nor Freud know what religion is, and that is their difficulty. First, they have to learn what religion is before they can discuss it intelligently. **Hayagrīva:** Freud writes: "The believer will not let his faith be taken from him neither by arguments nor by prohibitions. And even if it did succeed with some, it would be a cruel thing to do. A man who has for decades taken a sedative is naturally unable to sleep if he is deprived of it...." **Prabhupāda:** It is also cruel to mislead people by telling them that God the Father is simply an infantile conception. That is real cruelty. It is cruel to stress sex and death and deny the conception of God as the Supreme Father. **Hayagrīva:** Freud would not think that it is cruelty to disenchant man with an illusion. He writes: "I disagree with you when you go on to argue that man cannot in general do without the consolation of the religious illusion, that without it he would not endure the troubles of life, the cruelty of reality." **Prabhupāda:** Without a spiritual education, man remains an animal. A man's life should be more than merely eating, sleeping, mating, defending, and dying. Man should strive to advance in spiritual knowledge. Spiritual education means understanding God. Freud may deny the existence of God, but in any case the conception of God is there in human society. One may accept or reject different conceptions of God, but the fact is undeniable that in every civilized country, there is some form of religion. One may be Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Moslem: the designation is not very important. Understanding God is the important factor, because that ultimate understanding is Vedānta, the ultimate conclusion of all knowledge. *Athāto *brahma-jijñāsā* [*Vedānta-sūtra*]. Now, in this human form, is the time to inquire, "What is Brahman?" Brahman, the Absolute Truth, is the goal of real knowledge. Man does not have to be educated to understand sex. According to a Bengali proverb, you do not have to be taught how to cry, or how to enjoy sex. When you lament, you automatically cry, and when there is the impulse to enjoy sex, you enjoy it automatically. This doesn't require the help of an educator like Mr. Freud. Everyone, animals and human beings, knows how to enjoy sex. There is no question of a "sex philosophy." Philosophy means inquiring into the Absolute Truth, Brahman, the supreme controller, He from whom everything has emanated. Philosophy is concerned with understanding where things come from. We may inquire into the origin of life on earth, and conclude that life comes from water, earth, or fire. Then, where do earth, water, and fire come from? **He who is the source of everything is the Absolute Truth. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Lord Kṛṣṇa says:** > ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo > mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate > iti matvā bhajante māṁ > budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts." [*Bg.* 10.8] You become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa when you perfectly understand that Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate source. This knowledge comes after many lifetimes of searching and searching. > 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] After understanding that Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa, is everything, the *mahātmā,* the great soul, begins his *bhajana,* his worship. > mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha > daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ > bhajanty ananya-manaso > jñātvā bhūtādim avyayam "O son of Pṛthā, those who are not deluded, the great souls, are under the protection of the divine nature. They are fully engaged in devotional service because they know Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, original and inexhaustible." [*Bg.* 9.13] **Hayagrīva:** Freud admits that without religion man will "find himself in a difficult situation. He will have to confess his utter helplessness and his insignificant part in the working of the universe." Yet he goes on to say that without religion, man will venture at last into the hostile world, and this venture is his "education to reality." **Prabhupāda:** And what service has Mr. Freud rendered? He has misled the world and made it more difficult for people to accept the words of God. Men who are innocent accept the words of God, but now many have become "over intelligent," and they think that sex is God. It will take some time to counteract this type of mentality, but man must eventually learn that his happiness is found in understanding and accepting the way of life defined by God Himself. **Hayagrīva:** Christ pointed out that unless one becomes as a little child, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God, but Freud advocates "growing up" and setting this illusion aside. **Prabhupāda:** He may advocate so many things, but if he does not know the meaning of God, or God's nature, what is the value of his knowledge? According to the Vedic philosophy, we should receive knowledge from a person who knows God. If one has not known God, his knowledge is useless, or, even worse, misleading. It is a fact that there is a supreme controller, and real education means understanding how the supreme controller is working. Denying Him is useless. He is there beyond our control, and we cannot avoid His control. We may make plans to live here very happily, but today or tomorrow, we may die. How can we deny the fact that we are being controlled? Knowledge means understanding how the supreme controller is controlling. People who defy religion and deny the existence of a supreme controller are like the jackal that keeps jumping and jumping, trying to reach grapes on a high vine. After seeing that he cannot reach the grapes, he says to himself, "Oh, there is no need to reach them. They are sour anyway." People who say that we do not need to understand God are indulging in sour-grape philosophy. ## Carl Gustav Jung [1875-1961] Carl Gustav Jung [1875-1961] **Hayagrīva:** Jung gave the following criticism of Sigmund Freud: "Sexuality evidently meant more to Freud than to other people. For him it was something to be religiously observed....One thing was clear; Freud, who had always made much of his irreligiosity, had now constructed a dogma, or rather, in the place of a jealous God whom he had lost, he had substituted another compelling image, that of sexuality." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact. He has taken sexuality to be God. It is our natural tendency to accept a leader, and Freud abandoned the leadership of God and took up the leadership of sex. In any case, we must have leadership. That is our position. In Russia, I pointed out that there is no difference in our philosophic processes. However, whereas they accept Lenin as their leader, we accept Kṛṣṇa. It is the nature of human beings to accept a leader. It is unfortunate that Freud lost God's leadership and took up instead the leadership of sex. **Hayagrīva:** Jung concluded: "Freud never asked himself why he was compelled to talk continually of sex, why this idea had taken such possession of him. He remained unaware that his 'monotony of interpretation' expressed a flight from himself, or from that other side of him which might perhaps be called mystical. So long as he refused to acknowledge that side, he could never be reconciled with himself." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that was because he was accepting the leadership of sexuality. If we accept the leadership of Kṛṣṇa, our life becomes perfect. All other leadership is māyā's leadership. There is no doubt that we have to accept a leader, and therefore he was constantly speaking about sex. Those who have taken God as their leader will speak only of God, nothing else. *J**īvera 'svarūpa' haya—kṛṣṇera 'nitya-Dāsa'* [*Cc Mad* 20.108] According to Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy, we are all eternal servants of God, but as soon as we give up God's service, we have to accept the service of māyā. **Śyāmasundara:** For Freud, the unconscious process, the id, was invariably animalistic and lawless, whereas for Jung, these unconscious energies were potentially sources of positive creative activity. **Prabhupāda:** The subconscious state is covered by our present consciousness, and it can also be covered by Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In that case, the subconscious states will no longer be able to react. For instance, the subconscious sex drive is there, but because Yamunācārya, was in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he could overcome it. The subconscious experiences, which have been gathering for life after life, which are stored, as it were, will not be able to overcome the individual if he is fully Kṛṣṇa conscious. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung sees the mind as being composed of a balance of the conscious and the unconscious, or subconscious. It is the function of the personality to integrate these. For instance, if one has a strong sex drive, he can sublimate or channel that drive into creative art or religious activity. **Prabhupāda:** That is our process. The sex impulse is natural for everyone in the material world. If we think of Kṛṣṇa embracing Rādhārani, or dancing with the *gopīs,* our material sex impulse is sublimated and weakened. If we hear about the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa and the *gopīs* from the right source, lusty desire within the heart will be suppressed, and we will be able to develop devotional service. What we must understand is that Kṛṣṇa is the only *puruṣa,* enjoyer. If we help Him in His enjoyment, we also receive enjoyment. We are predominated, and He is the predominator. On the material platform, if a husband wants to enjoy his wife, the wife must voluntarily help him in that enjoyment. By helping him, the wife also becomes an enjoyer. The predominator, the enjoyer, is Kṛṣṇa, and the predominated, the enjoyed, are the living entities. Actually, both enjoy, but one enjoys as the predominated, and the other as the predominator. When the predominated helps the predominator, that is the perfection of enjoyment. We must admit that sex desire is present in everyone, both male and female, and from an impartial point of view, it appears that the male is the enjoyer and the female the enjoyed, but if the female agrees to be enjoyed, she naturally becomes the enjoyer. All living entities are described as *prakṛti,* female. Kṛṣṇa is *puruṣa,* male. When the living entities agree to help Kṛṣṇa's sex desire, they become enjoyers. **Śyāmasundara:** What is meant by Kṛṣṇa's sex desire? **Prabhupāda:** You might more correctly say "sense enjoyment." Kṛṣṇa is the supreme proprietor of the senses, and when we help Kṛṣṇa in His sense enjoyment, we also naturally partake of it. The sweet *rasagulla* is to be enjoyed, and therefore the hand takes it and puts it into the mouth so that it can be tasted and go to the stomach. It is not that the hand tries to enjoy it directly. Kṛṣṇa is the only direct enjoyer; all others are indirect enjoyers. By satisfying Kṛṣṇa, we also satisfy others. We cannot possibly satisfy others directly. For instance, when a wife sees her husband eating and enjoying himself, she becomes happy. Upon seeing the predominator happy, the predominated becomes happy. **Śyāmasundara:** In the individual, should the unconscious state be predominated by the conscious? **Prabhupāda:** That is being done. Unconscious or subconscious states sometimes emerge; we are not always aware of them. But consciousness is always there. Actually, the word "unconscious" is not a good word because it implies a lack of consciousness. "Subconscious" is a better word. **Śyāmasundara:** Psychologists say that the unconscious or subconscious often acts through the conscious, but that we do not know it. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is what I am saying. The subconscious is there, but it is not always manifest. Sometimes it is suddenly manifest, just as a bubble will suddenly emerge in a pond. The energy was there within all the time, but suddenly it comes out, just like a bubble popping to the surface of the water. You may not be able to understand why it emerges, but it is assumed that it was in the subconscious state and then suddenly manifests. That subconscious state does not necessarily have any connection with our present consciousness. It is like a stored impression, a shadow, or a photograph. The mind takes many snapshots, and they are stored. **Śyāmasundara:** Does the subconscious mind think like the conscious mind? **Prabhupāda:** No, but the impressions are there, and they may suddenly come to the surface. **Śyāmasundara:** For Jung, there are two types of subconscious states. One is the personal unconscious, consisting of those personal items stored from our individual childhood, a repressed history of stored impressions that can be aroused to consciousness in dreams and through psychoanalysis. The second is what Jung calls the collective unconscious, consisting of the collective experience of the race, archetypal images passed on from generation to generation, and common to men all over the globe. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, we might even call that tradition. Of course, we emphasize *paramparā,* which is different. Paramparā* means receiving proper knowledge from the Supreme. This is not something archetypal. Archetypes may change, but the knowledge received from Kṛṣṇa is different. Spiritual knowledge imparted in *Bhagavad-gītā* is not knowledge coming from tradition. Rather, we learn it from a great authority like Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** Jung could see that the soul is always longing for light, and he wrote of the urge within the soul to rise out of primal darkness, making note of the pent-up feelings in the eyes of primitive people, and even a certain sadness in the eyes of animals, "a poignant message which speaks to us out of that existence." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, every living entity, including man, is constitutionally a servant. Therefore everyone is seeking some master, and that is our natural propensity. You can often see a puppy attempt to take shelter of some boy or man, and that is his natural tendency. He is saying, "Give me shelter. Keep me as your friend." A child or a man also wants some shelter in order to be happy. That is our constitutional position. When we attain the human form, when our consciousness is developed, we should take Kṛṣṇa as our shelter and our leader. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa tells us that if we want shelter and guidance, we should take Him. "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender to Me." [*Bg.* 18.66] This is the ultimate instruction of Bhagavad-gītā.* **Śyāmasundara:** Jung would say that our understanding of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Father and the cause of all causes is an archetypal understanding that is shared by all humans. People may represent Him in different ways, but the archetype is the same. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, it is exactly the same. Kṛṣṇa, or God, is the Supreme Father. A father has many sons, and all men are sons of God, born of their father. This is an experience common to everyone at all times. **Śyāmasundara:** There are certain common archetypes in the dream life of all men, and even similar symbols found among the Incas of South America, or the Vaiṣṇavas of India, or inhabitants of the Pacific Islands. Could this be due to a common ancestry in the original Vedic culture? **Prabhupāda:** Vedic culture or no Vedic culture, there are many similarities experienced in human existence. Because we are all living beings, the similarities are there. Every living being eats, sleeps, mates, fears, and dies. These are experiences common to everyone; therefore there must be similarities in representations, or whatever. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung believes that the unconscious sometimes emerges in the form of a superiority or inferiority complex, by which we react in inhibited or arrogant fashions. **Prabhupāda:** What are we? Inferior or superior? In Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we consider ourselves servants of God. We are not guided by impulses or complexes; we are guided directly by the superior. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung states that there are two basic attitudes: extrovertive and introvertive. **Prabhupāda:** The introvert is called a *muni* because he is introspective. The extrovert is generally guided by *rajas,* the mode of passion. **Śyāmasundara:** The personality and behavior of a living entity are determined by the interaction between the unconscious and the conscious mind. **Prabhupāda:** Full consciousness in Sanskrit is called *jāgaraṇam.* Dreaming is called *svapnaḥ,* and *suṣuptiḥ *refers to no consciousness, as in an anesthetized state. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung would call the dreaming state the unconscious also. The contents of the unconscious spill over into the conscious mind during dreams. **Prabhupāda:** I do not like the word "unconscious" because it implies lack of consciousness. When you are anesthetized, you are unconscious. In such a state, you can be cut open and not even know it. However, when you sleep or dream, a mere pinch will awake you. As I said before, "subconscious" is a better word. **Śyāmasundara:** Both Jung and Freud used the word "unconscious" to refer to the subconscious mind that determines our personality. **Prabhupāda:** When the living entity is in the womb of the mother, he is unconscious. Death means remaining unconscious for seven or nine months. The living entity does not die; he simply remains unconscious for that duration. That is called *suṣuptiḥ.* When you have an operation, an anesthetic is administered, and you are unconscious for a period. When the anesthetic wears off, you emerge into the dream state. That dream state is actually a state of consciousness. When you dream, the mind works. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung believes that if we don't awaken to the many unconscious factors governing our personality, we will remain slaves to our unconscious life. The point of psychoanalysis is to reveal them to us and enable us to face them. **Prabhupāda:** That is what we are teaching. We say that presently the soul is in an unconscious state, and we are telling the soul, "Please wake up! You are not this body!" It is possible to awaken the human being, but other living entities cannot be awakened. A tree, for instance, has consciousness, but he is so packed in matter that you cannot raise him to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Jagadish Candra Bose proved that a tree feels pain when it is cut, although this pain is very slightly manifest. A human being, on the other hand, has developed consciousness, which is manifest in different stages. Lower life forms are more or less in a dream state, or unconscious. **Hayagrīva:** In his autobiography, *Memories, Dreams, Reflections,* Jung writes: "I find that all my thoughts circle around God like the planets around the sun, and are as irresistibly attracted by Him. I would feel it to be the grossest sin if I were to oppose any resistance to this force." Jung also sees all creatures as parts of God, and at the same time unique in themselves. "Like every other being," he writes, "I am a splinter of the infinite Deity " **Prabhupāda:** It is also our philosophy that we are part and parcel of God, just as sparks are part of a fire. **Hayagrīva:** "It was obedience which brought me grace," he writes. "One must be utterly abandoned to God; nothing matters but fulfilling His will. Otherwise all is folly and meaningless." **Prabhupāda:** Very good. Surrender unto God is real spiritual life. *Sarva dharmān parityajya [*Bg.* 18.66]. Surrender to God means accepting that which is favorable to God and rejecting that which is unfavorable. The devotee is always convinced that God will give him all protection. He remains humble and meek, and thinks of himself as one of the members of God's family. This is real spiritual communism. Communists think, "I am a member of a certain community," but it is man's duty to think, "I am a member of God's family." God is the Supreme Father, material nature is the mother, and living entities are all sons of God. **There are living entities everywhere:** on land, and in the air, and water. There is no doubt that material nature is the mother, and according to our experience, we can understand that a mother cannot produce a child without a father. It is absurd to think that a child can be born without a father. A father must be there, and the Supreme Father is God. In Kṛṣṇa consciousness, a person understands that the creation is a spiritual family headed by one Supreme Father. **Hayagrīva:** Jung writes: "According to the Bible. ..God has a personality and is the ego of the universe, just as I myself am the ego of my psychic and physical being." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, the individual is conscious of his own body, but not the bodies of others. Beside the individual soul, or consciousness in the body, there is the Paramātmā, the Supersoul, the super consciousness present in everyone's heart. This is discussed in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > kṣetrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi > sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata > kṣetra-kṣetrajñayor jñānaṁ > yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama "O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its knower is called knowledge. That is My opinion. " [*Bg.* 13.3] **Hayagrīva:** Recalling his difficulties in understanding God's personality, Jung writes: "Personality, after all, surely signifies character...certain specific attributes. But if God is everything, how can He still possess a distinguishable character...? Moreover, what kind of character or what kind of personality does He have? Everything depends on that, for unless one knows the answer, one cannot establish a relationship with Him." **Prabhupāda:** God's character is transcendental, not material. He also has many attributes. For instance, He is very kind to His devotees, and this kindness may be considered one of His characteristics or attributes. He also has unlimited qualities, and sometimes He is described according to these transcendental qualities. His qualities, however, are permanent. Whatever qualities or characteristics we have are but minute manifestations of God's. God is the origin of all attributes and characteristics. As indicated in the *śāstras,* He also has a mind, senses, feelings, sense perception, sense gratification, and everything else. Everything is there unlimitedly, and since we are part and parcel of God, we possess His qualities in minute quantities. The original qualities in God are manifest minutely in ourselves. According to the Vedas*, God is a person just like us, but His personality is unlimited. Just as my consciousness is limited to this body, and His consciousness is super consciousness within everybody, so I am a person confined to this particular body, and He is the super person living within all. As Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna in *Bhagavad-gītā,* the personality of God and that of the individual are eternally existing. > 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] Both God and the living entity are persons, but God's personality is unlimited, and the individual personality is limited. God has unlimited power, strength, influence, knowledge, beauty, and renunciation. We have limited, finite power, knowledge, influence, and so on. That is the difference between the two personalities. **Hayagrīva:** Seeing that philosophies and theologies could not give him a clear picture of God's personality, Jung concludes: "What is wrong with these philosophers? I wondered. Evidently they know of God only by hearsay." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is also our complaint. None of the philosophers we have discussed has given us any clear idea of God. Because they are speculating, they cannot give concrete, clear information. As far as we are concerned, our understanding of God is clear because we receive the information given by God Himself to the world. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Person by Vedic authorities; therefore we should have no reason not to accept Him as such. Nārāyaṇa, Lord Śiva, and Lord Brahmā possess different percentages of God's attributes, but Kṛṣṇa possesses all the attributes cent per cent, in totality. Rūpa Gosvāmī has analyzed this in his *Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu,* which we have translated as The Nectar of Devotion*. God is a person, and if we study the attributes of man, we can also know something of God's. Just as we enjoy ourselves with friends, parents, and others, God also enjoys Himself in various relationships. There are five primary and seven secondary relationships that the living entities can have with God. Since we take pleasure in these relationships, God is described as *akhila-rasāmṛta-sindhu,* the reservoir of all pleasure. There is no need to speculate about God, or try to imagine Him. The process for understanding is described in Bhagavad-gītā*: > mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha > yogaṁ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ > asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ > yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu "Now hear, O son of Pṛthā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt." [*Bg.* 7.1] You can learn about God by always keeping yourself under His protection, or under the protection of His representative. Then, without a doubt, you can perfectly understand God. Otherwise, there is no question of understanding Him. **Hayagrīva:** Jung continues: "At least they [the theologians] are sure that God exists, even though they make contradictory statements about Him....God's existence does not depend on our proofs....I understand that God was, for me at least, one of the most certain and immediate of experiences." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a transcendental conviction. One may not know God, but it is very easy to understand that God is there. We have to learn about God's nature, but there is no doubt that God is there. Any sane man can understand that he is being controlled. So, who is that controller? The supreme controller is God. This is the conclusion of a sane man. Jung is right when he says that God's existence does not depend on our proof. **Hayagrīva:** Recalling his early spiritual quests, Jung writes: "In my darkness...I could have wished for nothing better than a real, live guru, someone possessing superior knowledge and ability, who would have disentangled from me the involuntary creations of my imagination...." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, according to Vedic instructions, we must have a guru in order to acquire perfect knowledge. > tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet > samit-pāṇiḥśrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham **"In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth." [*Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad* 1.2.12] The guru must factually be a representative of God. He must have seen and experienced God in fact, not simply in theory. We have to approach such a guru, and by service, surrender, and sincere inquiry, we can come to understand what is God. The Vedas* inform us that a person can understand God when he has received a little mercy from His Lordship; otherwise, he may speculate for millions and millions of years. Bhaktyd *Mām* abhijandti. "One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service." [*Bg.* 18.55] This process of *bhakti* includes *śravaṇaṁ *kīrtanaṁ* *viṣṇoḥ,* hearing and chanting about Lord Viṣṇu and always remembering Him. Satataṁ kīrtayanto *māṁ* [*Bg.* 9.14]. The devotee is always glorifying the Lord. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* says:** > naivodvije para duratyaya-vaitaraṇyās > tvad-vīrya-gāyana-mahāmṛta-magna-cittaḥ > śoce tato vimukha-cetasa indriyārtha- > māyā-sukhāya bharam udvahato vimūḍhān "O best of the great personalities, I am not at all afraid of material existence, for wherever I stay I am fully absorbed in thoughts of Your glories and activities. My concern is only for the fools and rascals who are making elaborate plans for material happiness and maintaining their families, societies, and countries. I am simply concerned with love for them." [*SB.* 7.9.43] The devotee's consciousness is always immersed in the ocean of the pastimes and unlimited activities of the Supreme Lord. That is transcendental bliss. The spiritual master trains his disciple to remain always in the ocean of God consciousness. One who works under the directions of the *ācārya* knows everything about God. **Hayagrīva:** When in Calcutta in 1938, Jung met some celebrated gurus, but generally avoided so-called holymen. "I did so because I had to make do with my own truth," he writes, "not to accept from others what I could not attain on my own." **Prabhupāda:** On the one hand, he says he wants a guru, and then on the other, he doesn't want to accept one. Doubtless, there are many cheating gurus in Calcutta, and Jung might have seen some bogus gurus he did not like. In any case, the principle of accepting a guru cannot be avoided. It is absolutely necessary. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning consciousness after death, Jung feels that the individual must pick up the level of consciousness which he left. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and therefore according to that consciousness, we have to accept a body. That is the process of the soul's transmigration. An ordinary person can see only the gross material body, but accompanying this body is the mind, intelligence, and ego. When the body is finished, these remain, although they cannot be seen. A foolish man thinks that everything is finished at death, but the soul carries the mind, intelligence, and ego—that is, the subtle body—with it into another body. This is confirmed by *Bhagavad-gītā:* na hanyate hanyamāne *śarīre.* "He is not slain when the body is slain." [*Bg.* 2.20] **Hayagrīva:** Jung believes that individual consciousness cannot supersede world consciousness. He writes: "If there were to be a conscious existence after death, it would, so it seems to me, have to continue on the level of consciousness attained by humanity, which in any age has an upper thought variable limit." **Prabhupāda:** It is clearly explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* that although the body is destroyed, the consciousness continues. According to one's consciousness, he acquires another body, and again in that body, the consciousness begins to mold its future lives. If a person were a devotee in his past life, he would again become a devotee after his death. Once the material body is destroyed, the same consciousness begins to work in another body. Consequently, we find that some people quickly accept Kṛṣṇa consciousness, whereas others take a longer time. Bahūnāṁ janmanām *ante* [*Bg.* 7.19] This indicates that the consciousness is continuing, although the body is changing. Bharata Mahārāja, for instance, changed many bodies, but his consciousness continued, and he remained fully Kṛṣṇa conscious. We may see a person daily, but we cannot visualize his intelligence. We can understand that a person is intelligent, but we cannot see intelligence itself. When one talks, we can understand that there is intelligence at work. When the gross body is dead and no longer capable of talking, why should we conclude that the intelligence is finished? The instrument for speech is the gross body, but when the body is finished, we should not conclude that consciousness and intelligence are finished. After the destruction of the gross body, the mind and intelligence continue. Because they require a body to function, they develop a body, and that is the process of the soul's transmigration. **Hayagrīva:** Still, what of Jung's contention that the individual's level of consciousness cannot supersede whatever knowledge is available on this planet? **Prabhupāda:** No, it can supersede, provided we acquire knowledge from authority. You may not have seen India, but a person who has seen India can describe it to you. We may not be able to see Kṛṣṇa, but we can learn of Him from an authority who knows. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that there is an eternal nature: > paras tasmāt tu bhāvo 'nyo > 'vyakto 'vyaktāt sanātanaḥ > yaḥ sa sarveṣu bhūteṣu > naśyatsu na vinaśyati "Yet there is another unmanifest nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is." [*Bg.* 8.20]. On this earth, we encounter temporary nature. Here, things take birth, remain for some time, change, grow old, and are finally destroyed. There is dissolution in this material world, but there is another world in which there is no dissolution. We have no personal experience of this other world, but we can understand that it exists when we receive information from authority. It is not necessary to know it by personal experience. Parokṣāparokṣa.* There are different stages of knowledge, and not all knowledge can be acquired by direct perception. That is not possible. **Hayagrīva:** Jung believed in the importance of consciousness elevation. He writes: "Only here, in life on earth, can the general level of consciousness be raised. That seems to be man's metaphysical task...." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, our consciousness should be developed. As stated in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > prāpya puṇya-kṛtāṁ lokān > uṣitvāśāśvatīḥ samāḥ > śucīnāṁ śrīmatāṁ gehe > yoga-bhraṣṭo 'bhijāyate > athavā yoginām eva > kule bhavati dhīmatām > etad dhi durlabhataraṁ > loke janma yad īdṛśam > tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogaṁ > labhate paurva-dehikam > yatate ca tato bhūyaḥ > saṁsiddhau kuru-nandana "The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy. Or he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world. On taking such a birth, he again revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success." [*Bg.* 6.41–43] So if one's yoga practice is incomplete, or if he dies prematurely, his consciousness accompanies him, and in the next life, he begins at the point where he left off. His intelligence is revived. In an ordinary class, we can see that some students learn very quickly, while others cannot understand. This is evidence for the continuation of consciousness. If a person is extraordinarily intelligent, his previously developed consciousness is being revived. The fact that we have undergone previous births is also evidence for the immortality of the soul. **Hayagrīva:** Jung speaks of the paradox of death: from the point of view of the ego, death is a horrible catastrophe, "a fearful piece of brutality." Yet from the point of view of the psyche, the soul, death is "...a joyful event. In the light of eternity, it is a wedding." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, death is horrible for one who is going to accept a lower form of life, and it is a pleasure for the devotee, because he is returning home, back to Godhead. **Hayagrīva:** Death is not always a joyful event for the soul? **Prabhupāda:** No. How can it be? If one has not developed his spiritual consciousness, death is very horrible. The tendency in this life is to become very proud, and often people think, "I don't care for God. I am independent." Crazy people talk in this way, but after death, they have to accept a body according to the dictations of nature. Nature says, "My dear sir, since you have worked like a dog, you can become a dog. Since you have been surfing in the sea, you can now become a fish." These bodies are awarded according to a superior order. > karmaṇā daiva-netreṇa > jantur dehopapattaye > striyāḥ praviṣṭa udaraṁ > puṁso retaḥ-kaṇāśrayaḥ "Under the supervision of the Supreme Lord and according to the result of his work, the living entity, the soul, is made to enter into the womb of a woman through the particle of male semina and to assume a particular type of body." [*SB.* 3.31.1] When we are in touch with the modes of material nature, we are creating our next body. How can we stop this process? This is nature's way. If we are infected by some disease, we will necessarily get that disease. There are three modes of material nature—*tamo-guṇa, rajo-guṇa,* and *sattva-guṇa*—and our bodies are acquired according to our association with them. As far as the unsuccessful yogī is concerned, he is given a chance to revive his spiritual consciousness in his next life. In general, the human form affords us a chance to make progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, especially when we are born in an aristocratic, *brāhmaṇa,* or Vaiṣṇava family. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning *saṁsāra,* Jung writes: "The succession of birth and death is viewed [in Indian philosophy] as an endless continuity, as an eternal wheel rolling on forever without a goal. Man lives and attains knowledge and dies and begins again from the beginning. Only with the Buddha does the idea of a goal emerge, namely, the overcoming of earthly existence." **Prabhupāda:** Overcoming earthly existence means entering into the spiritual world. The spirit soul is eternal, and it can pass from this atmosphere into another. That is clearly explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > 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] Those who continue to revolve in the cycle of birth and death require another material body, but those who are Kṛṣṇa conscious go to Kṛṣṇa. They do not acquire another material body. Those who are not envious of Kṛṣṇa accept His instructions, surrender unto Him, and understand Him. For them, this is the last material birth. For those who are envious, however, transmigration is continuous. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning karma, Jung writes: "The crucial question is whether a man's karma is personal or not. If it is, then the preordained destiny with which a man enters life presents an achievement of previous lives, and a personal continuity therefore exists. If, however, this is not so, and an impersonal karma is seized upon in the act of birth, then that karma is incarnated again without there being any personal continuity." **Prabhupāda:** Karma is always personal. **Hayagrīva:** When Buddha was asked whether karma is personal or not, he avoided answering. He said that knowing this would not contribute to liberation from the illusion of existence. **Prabhupāda:** Buddha refused to answer because he did not teach about the soul or accept the personal soul. As soon as you deny the personal aspect of the soul, there is no question of a personal karma. Buddha wanted to avoid this question. He did not want his whole philosophy dismantled. **Hayagrīva:** Jung asks, "Have I lived before in the past as a specific personality, and did I progress so far in that life that I am now able to seek a solution?" **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is a fact. **Hayagrīva:** Jung admits that he doesn't know. **Prabhupāda:** That is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogaṁ > labhate paurva-dehikam > yatate ca tato bhūyaḥ > saṁsiddhau kuru-nandana "On taking such a birth, he again revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru." [*Bg.* 6.43] **Hayagrīva:** "I could well imagine that I might have lived in former centuries and there encountered questions I was not yet able to answer," Jung writes. "I had to be born again because I had not fulfilled the task that was given to me." **Prabhupāda:** That is a fact. **Hayagrīva:** "When I die, my deeds will follow along with me—that is how I imagine it." **Prabhupāda:** That is personal karma. **Hayagrīva:** "I will bring with me what I have done," Jung concludes. "In the meantime it is important to insure that I do not stand at the end with empty hands." **Prabhupāda:** If you are making regular progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, your hands will not be empty at the end. Completeness means returning home, back to Godhead. This return is not empty. Because the Māyāvādīs cannot understand the positivity of God's kingdom, they try to make it empty. Eternal life with Kṛṣṇa is our aspiration. A Vaiṣṇava does not want emptiness. Since materialists are thinking that everything will be empty at the end of life, they conclude that they should enjoy themselves now as much as possible. Therefore sense enjoyment is at the core of material life, and materialists are mad after it. **Hayagrīva:** Jung believes that we are reborn because we relapse again into desires, feeling that something remains to be completed. "In my case," he writes, "it must have been primarily a passionate urge toward understanding....for that was the strongest element in my nature. " **Prabhupāda:** That understanding for which he is longing is understanding of Kṛṣṇa. That is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā:* > bahūnāṁ janmanām ante > jñānavān māṁ prapadyate > vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti > sa mahātmāsudurlabhaḥ "After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare." [*Bg.* 7.19] Our understanding is complete when we come to the point of understanding Kṛṣṇa. Then our material journey comes to an end. Tyaktva deham punar janma naiti Mām *eti* so'rjuna. "Upon leaving the body, he does not take birth again into this material world, but attains My eternal abode." [*Bg.* 4.9] Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself gives instructions by which He can be understood. > mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha > yogaṁ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ > asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ > yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu "Now hear, O son of Pṛthā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt." [*Bg.* 7.1] If we can understand Kṛṣṇa completely, we will take our next birth in the spiritual world. **Hayagrīva:** Concerning scripture, Jung writes: "The word of God comes to us, and we have no way of distinguishing to what extent it is different from God." **Prabhupāda:** The word of God is not at all different from God. Since God is absolute, both He and His words are the same. God's name and God are the same. God's pastimes and God are the same. God's Deity and God are the same. Anything related to God is God. For instance, *Bhagavad-gītā* is God. Mayā *tatam* *idam *sarvaṁ* [*Bg.* 9.4]. Everything is God, and when we are complete in God realization, we can understand this. Otherwise we cannot. Everything is God, and without God, nothing can exist. **Hayagrīva:** Jung conceived of the false ego in terms of *persona.* "The persona*" he writes, "is the individual's system of adaptation to, or the manner he assumes in dealing with, the world....The *persona* is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is. **Prabhupāda:** Our real *persona* is that we are eternal servants of God. When we realize this, our *persona* becomes our salvation and perfection. The person must be there, but as long as we are in the material world, our *persona* identifies with our family, community, body, nation, ideal, and so on. The person is there and must continue, but proper understanding is realizing that we are eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa. As long as we are in the material world, we labor under the delusion of the false ego, thinking, "I am American. I am Russian. I am Hindu, etc." This is false ego at work. In reality, we are all servants of God. When we speak of false ego, we also admit a real ego, a purified ego, who understands that he is the servant of Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** Jung envisioned the self as a personality composed of the conscious and also the subconscious. He writes: 'The self is not only the center but also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious." **Prabhupāda:** Everything depends on the personality, and it is the personality that is surrounded by so many conceptions. In conditional life, we may have many different types of dreams, but when we are purified—like Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu—we dream of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes. In the purified state, we dream about Kṛṣṇa and His activities and instructions. **Hayagrīva:** Although the self can never be fully known by the individual, it does have individuality. **Prabhupāda:** We can know that we are individual persons with our own ideas and activities. The problem is purifying our ideas and activities. When we understand our role as servants of Kṛṣṇa, we are purified. **Śyāmasundara:** For Jung, the purpose of psychoanalysis is to come to grips with our unconscious shadow personality in order to know completely who we are. **Prabhupāda:** That means attaining real knowledge. When Sanātana Gosvāmī approached Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he said, "Please reveal to me who and what I am." In order to understand our real identity, we require the assistance of a guru. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung says that in the shadow personality of all males, there is a bit of the female, and in all females there is a bit of the male. Because we repress these aspects of the shadow personality, we do not understand our actions. **Prabhupāda:** We say that every living entity is by nature a female, *prakṛti.* Prakṛti* means female, and *puruṣa* means male. In this material world, although we are *prakṛti,* we are posing ourselves as *puruṣa.* Because the *jīvātmā,* the individual soul, has the propensity to enjoy as a male, he is sometimes described as *puruṣa,* but actually the *jīvātmā* is not *puruṣa.* He is *prakṛti.* As I said before, *prakṛti* means dominated, and *puruṣa* means predominator. The only predominator is Kṛṣṇa; therefore originally we are all female by constitution. **Śyāmasundara:** In the male species, at any rate, the temperament is different, isn't it? There is dominance and aggression. **Prabhupāda:** There is no different temperament. We can see that the female also has the same temperament because she wants to be treated equally, just like a man. In any case, the real position is that every living entity is originally female, but under illusion he attempts to become a male, an enjoyer. This is called māyā. Although a female by constitution, the living entity is trying to imitate the supreme male, Kṛṣṇa. When we come to our original consciousness, we understand that we are not the predominator but the predominated. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung noticed male and female characteristics reflected in nature. For instance, a mountain may be considered male because it is strong and dominant, whereas the sea is female because it is passive and is the womb of life. **Prabhupāda:** These are all mental concoctions. They have no real scientific value. You may imagine things like this, but the real identity of these things is different. Life is not generated from the ocean; rather, everything is generated from the breathing of Lord Viṣṇu, who lies in the causal ocean. If I am lying on this bed, and something emanates from my breathing, does this mean that something is emanating from the bed? **Śyāmasundara:** But aren't there specific male and female characteristics? **Prabhupāda:** The only male is God. Male means enjoyer, and female means enjoyed. But for God, no one is the enjoyer. Therefore He is the only male. **Śyāmasundara:** Then is it false to think of anything as masculine besides God? **Prabhupāda:** Masculine is different. We speak of the masculine gender. The *liṅga* is the symbol of masculinity in the material body. In Bengali, it is said that one can tell if an animal is male or female simply by raising its tail. But these are material considerations. The real male is Kṛṣṇa. **Śyāmasundara:** But couldn't you refer to the ocean as "mother ocean"? **Prabhupāda:** You may in the sense that the ocean contains so many living entities, just as the female contains a child within her womb. Or you may speak of a mountain as being male because of its strength and durability. In that sense, you may make these comparisons, but you should not think that these are the real identities of these things. **Śyāmasundara:** For Jung, the soul, or self, is the center of organization within the personality, and seeks a harmonious balance between the conscious and the unconscious. **Prabhupāda:** When we speak of personality, we must admit the existence of the soul. Because you are a living entity, you have a separate identity called personality. Unless there is an individual soul, there is no possibility of personality. **Śyāmasundara:** Jung said that the self is rarely completely balanced. But don't we say that the self is always stable? **Prabhupāda:** No, when the self is under the influence of māyā, he is not balanced. He is imbalanced and ignorant. His true consciousness is covered. When rain falls from the sky, it is clear, but as soon as it touches the earth, it becomes muddy. Originally, the soul's consciousness is clear, but when it comes in contact with the three modes of material nature, it is muddied. **Hayagrīva:** "If the soul is anything," Jung writes, "it must be of unimaginable complexity and diversity, so that it cannot possibly be approached through a mere psychology of instinct." **Prabhupāda:** According to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, we can understand the soul through training. By negation, we can understand, "I am not this, I am not that." Then we can come to understand. > nāhaṁ vipro na ca nara-patir nāpi vaiśyo na śūdro > nāhaṁ varṇī na ca gṛha-patir no vanastho yatir vā > kintu prodyan-nikhila-paramānanda-pūrnāmṛtābdher > gopī-bhartuḥ pada-kamalayor dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ "I am not a *brāhmaṇa,* I am not a *kṣatriya,* I am not a *vaiśya* or a *śūdra.* Nor am I a *brahmacārī,* a householder, a *vānaprastha,* or a *sannyāsī.* I identify Myself only as the servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the maintainer of the *gopīs.* He is like an ocean of nectar, and He is the cause of universal transcendental bliss. He is always existing with brilliance." [*Cc Mad* 13.80] That is our real identification. As long as we do not identify ourselves as eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa, we will be subject to various false identifications. Bhakti,* devotional service, is the means by which we can be purified of false identification. **Hayagrīva:** "I can only gaze with wonder and awe at the depths and heights of our psychic nature," Jung writes. "Its non-spatial universe conceals an untold abundance of images which have accumulated over millions of years of living development and become fixed in the organism." **Prabhupāda:** Since we are constantly changing bodies, constantly undergoing transmigration, we are accumulating various experiences. However, if we remain fixed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we do not change. There is none of this fluctuation once we understand our real identification, which is, "I am the servant of Kṛṣṇa, and my duty is to serve Him." Arjuna realized this after hearing *Bhagavad-gītā,* and he told Śrī Kṛṣṇa: > naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā > tvat-prasādān mayācyuta > sthito 'smi gata-sandehaḥ > kariṣye vacanaṁ tava "My dear Kṛṣṇa, O infallible one, my illusion is now gone. I have regained my memory by Your mercy. I am now firm and free from doubt and am prepared to act according to Your instructions." [*Bg.* 18.73] So after hearing Bhagavad-gītā,* Arjuna comes to this conclusion, and his illusion is dispelled by Kṛṣṇa's mercy. Arjuna is then fixed in his original position. And what is this?* Kariṣye vacanaṁ *tava.* "Whatever you say, I will do." At the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā*, Kṛṣṇa told Arjuna to fight, and Arjuna refused. At the conclusion, Arjuna's illusion is dispelled, and he is situated in his original constitutional position. Thus our perfection lies in executing the orders of Kṛṣṇa. **Hayagrīva:** Jung classifies five types of rebirth. One is metempsychosis, by which "...one's life is prolonged in time by passing through different bodily existences; or, from another point of view, it is a life-sequence interrupted by different reincarnations....It is by no means certain whether continuity of personality is guaranteed or not: there may be only a continuity of *karma.*" **Prabhupāda:** A personality is always there, and bodily changes do not affect it. However, one identifies himself according to his body. When the soul, for instance, is within the body of a dog, he thinks according to that particular bodily conception. He thinks, "I am a dog, and I have my particular duty." In human society, when one is born in America, for instance, he thinks, "I am an American, and I have my duty." According to the body, the personality is manifest, but in all cases, personality is there. **Hayagrīva:** But is this personality continuous? **Prabhupāda:** Certainly the personality is continuous. At death, the same soul passes into another gross body, along with its mental and intellectual identifications. The individual acquires different types of bodies, but the person is the same. **Hayagrīva:** This would correspond to what Jung calls reincarnation, the second type of rebirth: "This concept of rebirth necessarily implies the continuity of personality," he writes. "Here the human personality is regarded as continuous and accessible to memory, so that when one is incarnated or born, one is able, at least potentially, to remember that he has lived through previous existences and that these existences were one's own, i.e., that they had the same ego-form as the present life. As a rule, reincarnation means rebirth in a human body." **Prabhupāda:** Not necessarily into a human body. From *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,* we learn that Bharata Mahārāja became a deer in his next life, and after being a deer, he became a *brāhmaṇa.* The soul is changing bodies just as a man changes his dress. The man is the same, although his dress may be different. *vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya*** navāni gṛhṇāti naro 'parāṇi tathāśarīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇāny anyāni saṁyāti navāni dehī** "As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones." [*Bg.* 2.22] When a dress is old and cannot be used anymore, one has to exchange it for another. In a sense, you purchase a new dress with the money, or karma, you have accumulated in your life. The man is the same, but his dress is supplied according to the price he can pay. According to your karma, you receive a certain type of body. **Hayagrīva:** For Jung, the third type of rebirth, called resurrection, may be of two types: "It may be a carnal body, as in the Christian assumption that this body will be resurrected." That is, according to Christian doctrine, at the end of the world, the gross bodies will reassemble themselves and ascend into heaven, or descend into hell. **Prabhupāda:** And what will the person do in the meantime? **Hayagrīva:** I don't know. Obviously the material elements disperse. **Prabhupāda:** The material body is finished, but the spiritual body is always there. This type of resurrection talked about is applicable to God and His representatives, not to all. In this case, it is not a material body, but a spiritual one. When God appears, He appears in a spiritual body, and this body does not change. In *the *Bhagavad-gītā**, Kṛṣṇa says that He spoke to the sun god millions of years ago, and Arjuna questioned how this could be possible. Kṛṣṇa replies that although Arjuna had been present, he could not remember. Remembrance is possible only if one does not change bodies. Changing bodies means forgetting. **Hayagrīva:** Jung admits that on a higher level, the process is not material. "It is assumed that the resurrection of the dead is the raising up of the *corpus *gloriaficationis,* the subtle body, in the state of incorruptibility." **Prabhupāda:** This is the spiritual body, which never changes. According to the Māyāvādī conception, the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and when He comes as a person, He accepts a material body. Those who are advanced in spiritual knowledge, who accept the *Bhagavad-gītā,* understand that this is not the case. > avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā > mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam > paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto > mama bhūta-maheśvaram "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." [*Bg.* 9.11] Because Kṛṣṇa appears like a human being, the unintelligent think that He is nothing but a human being. They have no knowledge of the spiritual body. **Hayagrīva:** The fourth form of rebirth is called *renovatio,* and this refers to "the transformation of a mortal into an immortal being, of a corporeal into a spiritual being, and of a human into a divine being." As an example, Jung cites the ascension of Christ into heaven. **Prabhupāda:** We say that the spiritual body never dies, and the material body is subject to destruction. *N***āyaṁ hanti na hanyate** [*Bg.* 2.19]. After the material body's destruction, the "spiritual body is still there. It is neither generated nor killed. **Hayagrīva:** But aren't there examples of a kind of ascension into heaven? Didn't Arjuna ascend? **Prabhupāda:** Yes, and Yudhiṣṭhira. There are many instances. The special instance is Kṛṣṇa Himself and His associates. But we should never consider their bodies material. They didn't go through death of any sort, although their bodies traveled to the higher universe. But it is also a fact that everyone possesses a spiritual body. **Hayagrīva:** The fifth type of rebirth is indirect, like an initiation ceremony, or the twice-born ceremony of transformation. "Through his presence at the rite, the individual participates in divine grace." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, one's first birth is by his father and mother, and the next birth is by the spiritual master and Vedic knowledge. When one takes his second birth, he comes to understand that he is not the material body. That is spiritual education. That birth of knowledge, or birth into knowledge, is called *dvija***ḥ**. **Hayagrīva:** In one of his last books, *The Undiscovered Self,* Jung writes: "The meaning and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God [Christianity, Judaism, Islam] or to the path of salvation and liberation [Buddhism]. From this basic fact all ethics is derived, which without the individual's responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional morality." **Prabhupāda:** First of all, we understand from *Bhagavad-gītā* that no one can approach God without being purified of all sinful reactions. Only one who is standing on the platform of pure goodness can understand God and engage in His service. From Arjuna, we understand that God is paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ *bhavān* [*Bg.* 10.12]. He is the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and purifier. Paraṁ-brahma* indicates the Supreme Brahman. Every living being is Brahman spiritually, but Kṛṣṇa is the *Paraṁ-brahma,* the Supreme Brahman. He is also *paraṁ-dh***āma**, the ultimate abode of everything. And *pavitra**ṁ *paramaṁ,* the purest of the pure. In order to approach the purest of the pure, one must become completely pure, and to this end, morality and ethics are necessary. Therefore in our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, we prohibit illicit sex, meat eating, intoxication, and gambling, the four pillars of sinful life. If we can avoid these, we can remain on the platform of purity. Kṛṣṇa consciousness is based on this morality, and one who cannot follow these principles falls down from the spiritual platform. Purity is the basic principle of God consciousness, and is essential for the reestablishment of our eternal relationship with God. **Hayagrīva:** Jung sees atheistic Communism as the greatest threat in the world today. He writes: "The state has taken the place of God; that is why, seen from this angle, the socialist dictatorships are religions, and state slavery is a form of worship." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, I agree with him. Atheistic Communism has contributed to the degradation of human civilization. The Communists supposedly believe in the equal distribution of wealth. According to our understanding, God is the Father, material nature the mother, and living entities the sons. The sons have a right to live at the cost of the father. The entire universe is the property of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and living entities are being supported by the Supreme Father. However, we should be satisfied with the supplies allotted to us. According to *Īśopaniṣad,* tena tyaktena *bhuñjīthā* [*Īśopaniṣad* 1]. We should be satisfied with our allocation, and not envy another or encroach upon his property. We should not envy the capitalists or the wealthy because everyone is given his allotment by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore everyone should be satisfied with what he receives. On the other hand, no one should exploit others. One may be born in a wealthy family, but he should not interfere with the rights of others. Whether one is rich or poor, he should be God conscious, accept God's arrangement, and serve God to his fullest. This is the philosophy of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,* and it is confirmed by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. We should be content with our allocations from God, and concern ourselves with advancing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If we become envious of the rich, we will be tempted to encroach upon their allotment, and in this way we are diverted from our service to the Lord. The main point is that everyone, rich or poor, should engage in God's service. If everyone does so, there will be real peace in the world. **Hayagrīva:** In the socialist state, the goals of religion are turned into worldly promises of bread, "the just distribution of material goods, universal prosperity in the future, and shorter working hours." **Prabhupāda:** This is because they have no understanding of spiritual life, nor can they understand that the person within the body is eternal and spiritual. Therefore they recommend immediate sense gratification. **Hayagrīva:** Jung believed, however, that Marxism cannot possibly replace religion. "A natural function which has existed from the beginning... cannot be disposed of with rationalistic and so-called enlightened criticism." **Prabhupāda:** The Communists are concerned with adjusting material things that can never be adjusted. They imagine that they can solve problems, but ultimately their plans will fail. The Communists do not understand what religion is. It is not possible to avoid religion. Everything has a particular characteristic. Salt is salty, sugar is sweet, and chili is hot and pungent. These are intrinsic characteristics. Similarly, the living entity has an intrinsic quality. His characteristic is to render service, be he a Communist, a theist, a capitalist, or whatever. In all countries, people are working and rendering service to their respective governments—be they capitalists or Communists—and the people are not profiting. Therefore we say that if people follow the footsteps of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by serving Kṛṣṇa, they will be happy. In the material world, people are rendering service, and they are not happy doing so because their service is actually meant for Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, for the sake of happiness, people should individually and collectively render service to Kṛṣṇa. When that service is misplaced, we are never happy. Both Communists and capitalists are saying, "Render service to me," but Kṛṣṇa says, *sarva-dharmān *parityajya* [*Bg.* 18.66]. "Just render Me service, and I will free you from all sinful reactions." **Hayagrīva:** Jung feels that materialistic capitalism cannot possibly defeat a pseudoreligion like Marxism. The only solution is to adopt a nonmaterialistic religion. "The antidote should in this case be an equally potent faith of a different and nonmaterialistic kind " **Prabhupāda:** That religion is this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Kṛṣṇa has nothing to do with any materialistic "ism," and this movement is directly connected with Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. God demands complete surrender, and we are teaching, "You are servants, but your service is being wrongly placed. Therefore you are not happy. Just render service to Kṛṣṇa, and you will find happiness." We neither support Communism nor capitalism, nor do we advocate the adoption of pseudoreligions. We are for Kṛṣṇa only. **Hayagrīva:** Jung laments the absence of a potent nonmaterialistic faith in the West that "could block the progress of a fanatical ideology" like Marxism. He sees mankind as desperately in need of a religion that has immediate meaning. **Prabhupāda:** That nonmaterial religion which is above everything—Marxism and capitalism—is this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. If we cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we will transcend sinful reactions and make spiritual progress. *Janma karma ca me *divyam* [*Bg.* 4.9]. Kṛṣṇa says that just by knowing of His transcendental appearance and pastimes, we will not take birth in this material world again. **Hayagrīva:** Jung writes: "It is unfortunately only too clear that if the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either, for society is the sum total of individuals in need of redemption." **Prabhupāda:** True, the basis of change is the individual. Now there are a few disciples individually initiated into Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and if a large percentage can thus become invigorated, the face of the world will change. There is no doubt of this. **Hayagrīva:** For Jung, the salvation of the world consists in the salvation of the individual soul. "His individual relation to God would be an effective shield against these pernicious influences." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, those who seriously take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness are never troubled by Marxism, this-ism, or that-ism. A Marxist may take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but a Kṛṣṇa conscious devotee would never become a Marxist. That is not possible. It is explained in *Bhagavad-gītā* that when one knows the highest perfection of life, he cannot be misled by a third or fourth-class philosophy. **Hayagrīva:** Jung also felt that materialistic progress could be a possible enemy to the individual. "A favorable environment merely strengthens the dangerous tendency to expect everything to originate from outside," he writes, "even that metamorphosis which external reality cannot provide, mainly, a deep-seated change of the inner man...." **Prabhupāda:** Yes everything originates from inside, from the soul. It is confirmed by Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and others that material progress is essentially an expansion of the external energy, māyā, illusion. We are all living in illusion, and so-called scientists and philosophers cannot even understand God and their relationship to Him, despite their material advancement. Material advancement and knowledge are actually hindrances to the progressive march of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. To live a saintly life, we minimize our necessities. We are not after luxurious living. We feel that life is meant for spiritual progress and Kṛṣṇa consciousness, not for material advancement. **Hayagrīva:** To inspire this deep-seated change in the inner man, Jung feels that a proper teacher is needed, someone to explain religion. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, according to the Vedic injunction, it is essential to seek out a guru, who, by definition, is a representative of God. *Sākṣād-dharitvena *samasta-śāstrair* [*Śrī Gurv-aṣṭaka* 7]. The representative of God is worshipped as God, but he never says, "I am God." Although he is worshipped as God, he is the servant of God. God Himself is always master. Caitanya Mahāprabhu requested everyone to become a guru. "Whatever you are, it doesn't matter. Simply become a guru and deliver all these people who are in ignorance." One may say, "I am not very learned. How can I become a guru?" Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that it is not necessary to be a learned scholar, for there are many so-called learned scholars who are fools. It is only necessary to impart Kṛṣṇa's instructions, which are already there in Bhagavad-gītā.* Whoever explains *Bhagavad-gītā* as it is is a guru by definition. If one is fortunate enough to approach such a guru, his life becomes successful. **Hayagrīva:** Jung points out that "our philosophy is no longer a way of life, as it was in antiquity; it has turned into an exclusively intellectual and academic affair." **Prabhupāda:** That is also our opinion. Mental speculation has no value in itself. We must be directly in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and, using all reason, assimilate the instructions given by Him. We can then follow these instructions in our daily life and do good to others by teaching *Bhagavad-gītā.* **Hayagrīva:** He sees on the one hand an exclusively intellectual philosophy, and on the other, denominational religions with "archaic rites and conceptions," which have "become strange and unintelligible to the man of today...." **Prabhupāda:** That is because preachers of religion are simply dogmatic. They have no clear idea of God; they make only official proclamations. When one does not understand, he cannot make others understand. But there is no such vanity in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which is clear in every respect. This is the expected movement Mr. Jung wanted. Every sane man should cooperate with this movement and liberate human society from the gross darkness of ignorance. **Hayagrīva:** He describes the truly religious man as one "who is accustomed to the thought of not being sole master of his own house. He believes that God, and not he himself, decides in the end." **Prabhupāda:** Yes, that is the natural situation. What decisions can we make? Since there is already a controller over us, how can we be absolute? Everyone should depend on the supreme controller and fully surrender to Him. **Hayagrīva:** Jung feels that modern man should ask himself, "Have I any religious experience and immediate relation to God, and hence that certainty which will keep me, as an individual, from dissolving in the crowd?" Our relationship with God ultimately assures our own individuality. **Prabhupāda:** Yes, all living entities are individuals, and God is the supreme individual. According to the Vedic version, all individuals are subordinate to Him. *Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś *cetanānām* [*Kaṭha Upaniṣad* 2.2.13]. The supreme individual is one, and the subordinate are many. The supreme individual is maintaining His subordinates, just as a father maintains his family. When the children learn to enjoy their father's property without encroaching upon one another, accepting what is allotted them, they will attain peace. **Hayagrīva:** That ends our session on Jung. **Prabhupāda:** So far, he seems the most sensible.