So dharmasya āpavargyasya arthaḥ na arthāya upakalpate. So dharma is not meant for developing economic condition. That is secondary. But dharma is meant for ultimate goal of liberation. People do not know that. People are not educated that what is the ultimate goal of life. Still, they take to religious life as a compromise between the contending elements, that "We must live peacefully under religious system." The aim is how to live in this material world peacefully. Sometimes religion and God is conceived in that way, that is, "If we have some conception of God, then we shall be moral, we shall be peaceful. Otherwise, there is no need of presenting God in the society." There are so many different opinions, different philosophers, different religious system, according to the modes of nature. But actually every system must be targeted towards realization of Kṛṣṇa, or God. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). That is Bhāgavata-dharma. Bhāgavata-dharma means realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Prahlāda Mahārāja recommended culture of this Bhāgavata-dharma from the very beginning of life: kaumāra ācaret prājño dharmān bhāgavatān iha (SB 7.6.1). That is the success of human form of life, to execute Bhāgavata-dharma. The, the process... And dharma, as we have several times explained, dharma means the codes of Bhagavān. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19).
Morality (Lectures, Other)
Expressions researched:
"moral"
|"moralism"
|"moralist"
|"moralistic"
|"moralists"
|"morality"
|"morally"
|"morals"
Lectures
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
You may be Jews. You may be Muhammadan or Hindu, Muslim. Whatever you may be, it doesn't matter. Please come and join with us, the Hare Kṛṣṇa chanting. Actually, that has become successful. In Tompkins Square, I was sitting underneath a tree and chanting this Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra alone. And these young men, they used to assemble and dance also in the tune, for three hours—from two to five. In this way, we got our followers, associates. And gradually it developed into organization. So in the beginning we did not impose so many rules and regulations. There is no rules and regulations. First thing required: ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam (CC Antya 20.12). Unless one's heart is cleansed, he cannot accept rules and regulations. That is not possible. Cora nasane dharme khaiḥ (?). If, if a man is thief, and if you give him moral instruction, that "Stealing is very sinful; do not do it," he will not care for it. A butcher, if you advise him that "Animal killing is very bad. It is sinful," he'll not accept it. That is not possible. His heart should be cleansed. Prāyaścittaṁ vimarśanam.
So every... Stenayor sa ucyate. Everyone in this material world, one who has no Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he's a thief, he's a rogue, he's a robber. Everyone. Just like the Americans. They occupied the land of America by killing the Red Indians, and now they are claiming proprietor, and there is immigration department: "Nobody can come here. It is our land." This is going on. The first thing is stolen property, everyone. There is another story. A group of thieves stolen some things, and when they were dividing, one of them: "Kindly, morally divide. Morally divide. Honestly divide." The thing is taken dishonestly, and they are dividing honestly. This is going on, whole world. Everything is taken dishonestly, and when there is question of division, the United Nations honestly divides it. The association of the honest men, United Nations. All plunderers, rogues, thieves, and they have made an association, United Nations. You see. Basically they're all rogues and thieves. As soon as there is opportunity, they'll commit all criminal activities. And they're doing. So this is not philosophy. So here happiness by material possession is the happiness of the rogues and the thieves. One who is happy by possessing some material things, he is no better than rogue and thief. And one who is renouncing, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, he is a fool. Because how, what you are renouncing? When did you possess it? If you possess something, then you can say, "I renounce it." But if you do not possess, then where is the question of renouncement? So both of them are wrong.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
So bhakti, or cultivation of spiritual knowledge, is never subjected by any material things. Ahaituky apratihatā. No material thing can check us in our progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. It is not possible. Never think like that. Simply follow the instruction of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). Follow the rules and regulations and everything will be clear, very crystal clear. There will be no impediment. Always chant, hear; don't waste time. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, he is a moral instructor. He says about wasting time, he says, āyuṣaḥ kṣaṇa eko 'pi na labhya svarṇa-koṭibhiḥ, "Even one moment of your life cannot be returned, even if you are prepared to pay millions of dollars." It is so valuable, time. One moment past. What is this month? April, now seven of April, 1975, past. If you ask one to return seven of April 1975, it is not possible even if you are prepared to pay millions of dollars.
So Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, he was a great logician. He was unfaithful. Not... He was moralist, but he had no faith in God, or impersonalist. There are many persons who have faith in something superior or absolute, but they do not believe in the personal nature of God. But here, from the Bhagavad-gītā, we can clearly understand, from Bhāgavata we can clearly understand, from Vedānta philosophy we clearly understand that God is person, a person like you and me. Take, for example, in the Vedānta-sūtra, the first aphorism is janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). The first sūtra is athāto brahma jijñāsā: "Now you have to understand what is Brahman, or what is the Absolute Truth." The next aphorism is, immediately, that "The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates, the original source of all emanation." Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Janma, janma means birth. Ādi means et cetera. But janma, where there is birth, there is death and there is existence.
"My dear Vyāsadeva, I see that you are not very happy. But I am asking you question, whether a person becomes ever-happy who has accepted this body as self or the mind as self?" There are two classes of men in the material world—I mean to say intelligent class. I am not speaking of the ordinary class of men. Those who are interested in knowledge, in higher thoughts, in philosophy, in religion, ethics, morality... So many things there are. In science, in literature... So Vyāsadeva is everything in one person. And he has written so many books, as I have described. Now Nārada is asking him, "My dear Pārāśarya...," Pārāśarya means Vyāsadeva was the son of Parāśara. His father's name was Parāśara; therefore he's addressing him, pārāśarya mahā-bhāga. Mahā-bhāga: "You are very fortunate. You have got the opportunity of doing the best service to the humanity by presenting such important literatures. Therefore you are mahā-bhāga."
He's really paṇḍita. That is spiritually. And material paṇḍita, that is also mentioned by Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, his moral instruction. He gives description of a paṇḍita:
- mātṛvat para-dāreṣu
- para-dravyeṣu loṣṭravat
- ātmavat sarva-bhūteṣu
- yaḥ paśyati sa paṇḍitaḥ
He never said that anyone who has passed his M.A. degree or Ph.D. degree, he is paṇḍita. No. The test of paṇḍita is here, from moral instruction, that anyone who sees all other woman except his wife as mother, he is paṇḍita. Just see. This is the test. Mātṛvat para-dāreṣu and para-dravyeṣu, other's property as garbage in the street, nobody touches. And ātmavat sarva-bhūteṣu, and treat everyone as his own self. If anyone has learned these three things, then he is paṇḍita. And spiritually, when one sees that all living entities, may be in different types of bodies, he is spirit soul, part and parcel of God, then he is paṇḍita.
So uttara, uttara means uttara-mīmāṁsā. There is a philosophy which is called karma-mīmāṁsā. Karma-mīmāṁsā means there is no need of making your relationship with God. God is Supreme, accepted, but He is bound to give you the result of your honest work. This is another philosophy. So you work honestly, there is more or less moral principles. If you stick to the moral principle, ethics and morals, then you will be entrapped by the prideness that "Oh, I am very moral. I do not speak lies. I do not steal. I treat with my neighbors very nicely. So I have no necessity to search out father. I am quite all right." That means, this mundane moralist, if you become mundane moralist, or if you become mundane philosopher or if you stick to the ritualistic process of your particular faith, then there is no hope of reaching to the Absolute Truth. Mundane scriptural, ritualistic way and dry speculative philosophy and mundane moralists. Just like Arjuna and his brother. His eldest brother is Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira; he was very moralist, Dharmarāja. His name was "the king of religious principles," Dharmarāja. So Kṛṣṇa Himself advised him that "You go to Droṇācārya and tell him a lie, that 'Your son is dead. Your son is dead.' " Now Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, he was a mundane moralist, so "How can I tell lie? How can I tell lie? I have never spoken lie in my life." So there was some argument. Of course this was, fight was, some compromise was made between them in the camp. So he became a mundane moralist. He did not consider that "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, is asking me to tell lie." So he could not transgress his moral principles so he could not become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. He (was) considered mundane moralism, so it was not possible for him to become a Kṛṣṇa conscious person. He could not take Kṛṣṇa's order as the Supreme. But Arjuna, in the beginning, he was hesitating to fight and kill his kinsmen, and when he understood that "Kṛṣṇa wants this fight," he decided, "Yes, I shall do." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
So these are the principles. If we stick to the particular type of ritualism—because I confess a particular type of faith, and my faith describes this sort of ritualism, I must follow—then you stick to that, you cannot make any progress. And if you go on simply philosophizing—this ism, that ism, that ism, nonsense-ism—then also you will not be able. And if you become mundane moralist, then also you will not be able. You have to become transcendental to all these mundane principles; then it will be possible to become perfectly Kṛṣṇa conscious. So it is not transgressing, because as soon as you become really Kṛṣṇa conscious, then you become all: you become a philosopher, you become a ritualistic, you become actually moralist. What is the standard of morals? Can you explain? What is the standard of morality? Can you explain? Can any one of you say? Have you got any idea what is the standard of morality? The standard of morality is to obey the Supreme. That is standard of morality. Standard of morality does not mean that you manufacture something morality out of your concoction. No. Standard of morality is to obey the Supreme. That is standard of morality. Example. Example is, just like this State, the State has law that if you commit murder, then you will be hanged. It is immoral. If you commit theft, then you will be punished. But when the State says that you go and become a spy and become a thief and bring out these documents on the enemy's camp, that is morality. If you kill a man, you will be hanged. But when the State order, if you kill an enemy, hundreds of enemy, you will be awarded gold medal. So if you stick to the principle, theft and murder, and do not follow the State order, you will be considered, what is called, tyrant, or what is that? Traitor. Traitor.
So if in our practical experience we see to obey the order of the Supreme is morality, standard of morality, don't you think to obey the supermost supreme, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to obey Him, that is morality. That is morality. So if you stick to the mundane principle, then it will not be. Therefore the astrologer advises the poor man,
- pūrva-dike tāte māṭi alpa khudite
- dhanera jhāri paḍibeka tomāra hātete
In other words, that if you take this process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, devotional service, a slight attempt will give you the treasury house of that wealth. A slight attempt. Sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt. This is the only, only path. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (BG 18.55). In the Bhagavad-gītā you will find that if you actually want God, then you will have to follow this process, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord. That will make you successful. Even if you execute a little percentage of this process, then you will touch at once, at least you will know, "Oh, here is the hidden box containing the treasure." Now, gradually, you open it and then enjoy. But at once you will get information, "Here is the thing." So this is the process. Aiche śāstra kahe—karma, jñāna, yoga tyaji'.
Now, Lord Caitanya is explaining this system, different system, ritualistic, philosophical, meditation, morality, all these in śāstra-kahe. Real Vedic instruction... Just like, what is Veda? Veda means the words of the Lord. That is Veda. Scripture means the words of the Lord. God says, "Let there be light." God says, "Let there be creation." These words are scripture. Now one who takes out... Just like sound is transmitted from a certain place, and one who catches by the machine, he gets the information. Similarly, Veda means instruction transmitted by the Supreme Lord, and there are capable personalities, just like Brahmā, that capture it, and that is distributed, either in writing or by tradition, by hearing. That is scripture. The words of God. Now, here the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, is personally speaking Bhagavad-gītā. Is it not Veda? That is Veda. That is real Veda. Sarva-upaniṣade. In the Gītā-māhātmya it is said, "This is the essence of all Veda." This is Vedānta. Simply by studying Bhagavad-gītā, one becomes a learned science in the science of God. So śāstra-kahe. And what is that śāstra? The essence of all śāstra, the essence of all scripture, asks you to do—the śāstra says, the Lord says—sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) "Give up everything, just surrender under Me." This is the most confidential part of knowledge.
So "give up everything" means there are different processes, different processes, ritualistic process, different religious processes, philosophical processes, meditation, so many. "Give up all them. Simply surrender to Kṛṣṇa." So Lord Caitanya is stressing on that point, that aiche śāstra kahe—karma, jñāna, yoga tyaji'. Karma. Karma means general activities on moral principle. That is called karma. Karma means, real karma means that you have to live, so you have to work. So work in such a way that you may not be entangled. Just like honest businessman, he works, he works according to the law. He does not play any blackmailing, and he pays the proper income tax to the government and the other taxes. He does nicely. This is called work, karma. You have to live. Without working you cannot live. But you work in such a way so that you may not be entangled. That is called work, karma. Now, this work is not the solution of your human life. You can get some morsel of bread and eat and drink and sleep and just enjoy your life and die like cats and dogs, that's all. And then you will take with you the result of your good work or bad work. That is karma. That is not solution. Then the next stage is, above this karma, this ordinary, general people, there is a class, they are thinkers.
The rāsa dance, that is described in the Thirty-second Chapter of the Tenth Canto in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Five chapters, from Twenty-ninth Chapter to Thirty-fourth Chapter, Kṛṣṇa's rāsa dance is described there. The rāsa dance... The short history of rāsa dance is that Kṛṣṇa was sixteen years old, and the girls of the village, Vṛndāvana, and the boys, they were all friends. Naturally in India the girls were early married, some at the age of twelve years, some at the age of thirteen years, some at the age of ten years. The boys remain... So the girls who were friends of Kṛṣṇa, they always prayed to different demigods, Lord Śiva, that "Kṛṣṇa may be our husband." So that desire was there, but it was not possible to get Kṛṣṇa to become everyone's..., because He was only a boy. But they maintained that idea although they were married and some of them were mothers. Some of them were unmarried. So Kṛṣṇa, to fulfill their desire, He blew on His flute on a nice moonlight night, and all the gopīs, all those girls, they came. And Kṛṣṇa advised them, "Oh, you are now married. You have come at dead of night to Me. It is not good." In this way He advised so many things. They were very moral instruction. But the gopīs denied to go back, and they arranged that dancing. That is called rāsa dance.
She has to live just like prostitute. She has no shelter. But when this, I mean to say, popular opinion was there... But He was king. He has to take the criticism of the public. Just like at the present moment the president, they don't care for public opinion, irresponsible. They say, "Responsible government." They are most irresponsible. But formerly, although there was monarchy, they were very much responsible. As soon as there was some criticism from the public, Rāmacandra at once banished Sītā: "Oh, I cannot live with Sītā. Public opinion is against it." Just see. He is following the rules and regulations. His father told Him, "My dear boy, I wish that instead of being enthroned, please go to the forest." "All right, it is your order. I must carry." Just see. He is following the principle. He is ideal... Rāmacandra is ideal king means He has followed the principle of moral codes. But Kṛṣṇa's behavior, you will find there is no moral code. He is free. At night He is calling girls, "Come on," and dance with Him. They were coming. From material point of view it is immoral, at least in India. But He is free. Rāmacandra accepted one wife. He accepted sixteen thousand wives.
If there is any God, all right, you do your duty nicely, and He will be obliged to award you the required result. Then there is no question of flattering Him." That is mīmāṁsaka philosophy. Just like in government, there are so many departments. So you need not to flatter him, but you do your duty, you pay your tax, you abide by the laws, then everything will be right. You need not worship any person. That is their philosophy, mīmāṁsa karma-mīmāṁsa. Everyone is... Under the spell of karma, everyone is suffering or enjoying as the result of his past deeds. So the karma-mīmāṁsaka philosopher says, "There is no necessity of worshiping God. You do your duty." Just like some moralists say that "What is the use of God, God, Hare Kṛṣṇa? Just do your duty." But he does not know that what is his duty. The duty is only to worship God, and nothing more. That is the duty. All other duties are māyā's spell only. There is no other duty. Because this human life is meant for that duty. The animals cannot execute that duty. Only the human being. Therefore our only duty is to understand God and engage ourself in that way. So these different kinds of philosophies are there. We shall gradually discuss.
Thank you very much. (end)
Sri Isopanisad Lectures
Apāpa-viddham (ISO 8). This is most important part of this verse. No sin can pollute Kṛṣṇa. There is nothing sinful for Kṛṣṇa. How it is? The example is given generally, just like the sun. There is no contamination for the sun. There is no possibility of the sun being contaminated, or the sun being dark. This is a material thing. So how Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord, He can be contaminated by any kind of sinful action? God is good. There cannot be any sinful action. Sometimes less intelligent class of men, they criticize Kṛṣṇa, "Why Kṛṣṇa did it?" Yes, Kṛṣṇa is God. He can do anything, whatever He likes. Your laws cannot restrict Kṛṣṇa. You may... For you there may be so many restrictive laws, but for Kṛṣṇa there is no restrictive law. He can surpass all restrictive regulations. This question was put to Parīkṣit Mahārāja after rasa-līlā that "Kṛṣṇa came to establish the principles of moral and religious life. How He enjoyed the company of so many young girls who were not...? They were wives of other persons. So how it is so?" So the answer was given that Kṛṣṇa cannot be contaminated. Rather, anything comes to Kṛṣṇa, even with contaminated mind, becomes purified. The same example: the sun cannot be contaminated, but anything contaminated, if you put into the sunshine, it becomes purified. So you approach Kṛṣṇa with any desire... Akāmaḥ sarva-kāmo vā (SB 2.3.10). The gopīs... Of course, that is not this material thing. Still, as young girls, they were captivated by the beauty of Kṛṣṇa. So they approached Kṛṣṇa with a view to accept Him as paramour. But actually, they became purified.
General Lectures
In our last meeting we were discussing. Why people are forced to commit sinful activities? This point is also discussed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Arjuna inquired from Kṛṣṇa, "What is that thing which forces a man to commit sinful activities?" Just like the same example that one man is seeing practically that one who has committed something criminal, he is punished. And he has heard it also from authorities, from lawyers or from respectable gentlemen, that "If you commit such and such sinful activities... If you steal, then you will be imprisoned for six months. If you cheat, you'll be imprisoned for such and such period. If you commit murder, then you'll be hanged." These things are taught some way or other. Either in religious scripture or by lawbooks or by morality or ethical principle, they are taught to the human, civilized human society. And he sees also practically that "This man has committed this kind of criminality, and he is punished." And again why does he commit? That is the problem. So kāma eṣa krodha eṣa rajo-guṇa-samudbhavaḥ. Kāma and krodha. Kāma means desire, lust. Kāma. And when the desire or lust is not fulfilled, then there is krodha. Krodha means anger. There are so many cases of criminality, when the lust is not fulfilled, one commits some criminal action and he is punished and so many things happen. So kāma eṣa krodha eṣa rajo-guṇa-samudbhavaḥ. As we have discussed many times that we are in this material world controlled by the three modes of material nature.
So we have to come to the platform of goodness from the platform of ignorance and passion. Then our life will be successful. Our life, the human form of life, is meant for changing the platform of activities. The animals, they cannot change their platform (of) activities. A tiger, however you instruct it nicely, it is not to be tamed. It is not... Because it is animal. It cannot change its, I mean to say, activities. But a human being, if he is trained... Therefore for human being there is system of the schooling. The children are... (break) They are advised to go to the church, to go to take moral instruction. It is for the human being, not for the animals. Because the human form of life can accept and make his path clear. His present activities, path, is very hazy. He does not know where he is going, what is his destination of life. That he does not know. Therefore education, training, and all so many things there are in every civilized human form of life so that he may come to the platform of goodness. And not only that goodness. One has to surpass that platform of goodness and come to the platform of pure goodness. In this material world it is very difficult to stand on the platform of goodness pure. Even a good man sometimes commits some mistake, commits some blunder in the material world. Because you should always remember that there are three modes of material nature—ignorance, passion, and goodness. Even you are on the platform of goodness, the other two qualities may be studied. Because it is the kingdom of māyā, or material nature, these things are very prominent. Sometimes goodness is prominent, sometimes ignorance is prominent, sometimes passion is prominent. In this way sometimes they are mixed up.
Then there is no chance of materially being contaminated. Just like if you keep yourself always in the sunlight there is no chance of coming down into darkness. The darkness cannot penetrate light. Light can penetrate darkness. This is our practical experience. You cannot make sunlight dark, but your darkness can be lighted by sunlight. Similarly, if you keep yourself in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is no chance of coming māyā and attack you. No. That is not possible. But if you forget Kṛṣṇa, then māyā immediately will catch you. Just like side by side there is darkness and light. If you keep yourself light, there is no darkness, and if you keep yourself in darkness... So you have to use your intelligence. God has given you intelligence, mind, senses, and you have to utilize them. If you utilize, then you become free from these clutches of māyā or being covered by the three modes of material nature, ignorance, passion, even goodness. Even you become a very good man, moralist, that is also a bondage. That is also your bondage. You may have good knowledge, you may be a very good philosopher, you can understand, you may be a very learned man to understand what is this world, what is this, how it is working—very great scientist, advanced, educated man. That is goodness. But that is not the cause of your being freed from material contamination. You have to go above goodness.
Our conditional life of material existence is due to dirty things in our heart. Originally we are all Kṛṣṇa conscious living beings, but due to our long material association in different species of life, varying to 8,400,000 different forms of life, we are accustomed to transmigrating from one form of body or another. In such cycle of birth and death, I, you, and every one of us, although originally spirit soul and therefore qualitatively one in constitution with the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa, we have identified with this material form of life, subjected to various forms of material pangs, specifically in the shape of birth, death, old age and disease. The whole material civilization is a process of hard struggle of life, ending in birth, death, old age and disease. The human society is struggling fruitlessly against these perpetual problems of life in different ways. Some of them are making material attempts and some of them are making partially spiritual attempts. The materialists are trying to solve the problems by achievement of scientific knowledge, education, philosophy, morality, ethics, poetic thoughts, etc., and the spiritualists are trying to solve the problems by different theses like discerning matter from spirit in various ways. And some of them are trying as mystic yogis to arrive at the right conclusion. But all of them must know it for certain that in this age of Kali, or the age of quarrel and dissension, there is no possibility of success without accepting the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī, the speaker of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, has therefore recommended that everyone, be he a fruitive worker, a salvationist or a mystic yogi, if actually he wants to be freed from the pangs of material existence, he must take to the process of chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare.
So there is life, and we are preparing for the next life. That is real knowledge. So we should not waste our, this valuable life whimsically. That is the instruction of all Vedic literatures. Don't spoil it. Even an ordinary moral instruction by one Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, he says, āyuṣaḥ kṣaṇa eko 'pi na labhyaḥ svarṇa-koṭibhiḥ. Your one moment of your life cannot be returned back even if you are prepared to pay millions of dollars. Today is 16th April, 1969. Now it is about 8 o'clock. The 7 p.m. of 16th April, 1969, is gone. If you want to take it back again and if you are prepared to pay millions of dollars, that 7 p.m., 16th April, 1969, will never come back. That's a fact. That 7 p.m., 16th April, 1969, if you have spoiled, then just imagine how much money you have spoiled, because you cannot get it even in exchange of millions of dollars. Therefore if you have spoiled that point of time without any utility, then you have spent at least many millions of dollars for nothing. That should be our calculation. Āyuṣaḥ kṣaṇa eko 'pi na labhyaḥ svarṇa-koṭibhiḥ sa cen nirarthakaṁ nītiḥ. If that valuable time is spoiled without any benefit, then just imagine how much you are losing every moment. So we should be very careful about our time. Don't spoil time. That is our request. Don't spoil time like animals. They have no responsibility because there is gradation. After this life, they get another life. After this life, they get another life. From aquatics they are promoted to the plant life. From plant life they are promoted to the insect life. From insect life they are promoted to the birds' life. Gradual evolution. They are coming by nature's way.
Pure means materially pure. But yoga practice means go to the spiritual platform. Just like in the material qualities, some men are very good men—the quality of goodness—and some men are in passion. That is the rajo-guṇa. And some men are in darkness. So there are three qualities in the material world: sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, and tamo-guṇa. So those who are situated in the modes of goodness, they are called perfect in the material world, very good men. That "very good man" does not mean that he is spiritually advanced. He may be moralist. He may be philanthropist, just like so many leaders of nations. That is another thing. The spiritual state is called viśuddha-sattva. Viśuddha-sattva means goodness where no other quality can contaminate. Here even one man is very good man, sometimes he is tinged with passion or ignorance. Just like I told you that Mahātmā Gandhi, he was a recognized good man, but he committed so many mistakes. So pure goodness is not possible in this material world. Pure goodness means spiritual life. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ (SB 5.18.12). So because the spirit soul by nature is pure, by nature... As God is pure, similarly, we are part and parcel of God. We are also pure in our original position. But since we have come in contact with this material nature, our inferiority in different qualities or different degrees are present. So for spiritual advancement, one has to come first to the platform of goodness, then pure goodness.
Human civilization is meant for understanding one's self, what I am, and act according to that. So Bhāgavata says, if we do not come to that point of understanding my self, then whatever I am doing or acting, this is simply defeat, or simply waste of time. At the same time, there is warning that we should not waste even a single moment of our life. Please try to understand these Vedic instructions, how nice they are. There is a great politician of the name Cāṇakya Paṇḍita. He was prime minister of Emperor Candragupta, a contemporary to the reign of Alexander the Great, in Greece. So, he was Prime Minister of that Emperor Candragupta, and he has many moral instructions and social instructions. In one of his verses, he says that āyuṣaḥ kṣaṇa eko 'pi na labhyaḥ svarṇa-koṭibhiḥ. Āyuṣaḥ, "of your duration of life." Suppose you are twenty years old. Today is 19th May, and there was 4 p.m. Now, this time, 4 p.m., 19th May, 1969, gone. You can never get it back even if you are prepared to pay millions of dollars. Just try to understand. Similarly, even a moment of your life is wasted for nothing, simply in the matter of sense gratification-eating, sleeping, mating and defending—then you do not know the value of your life. You cannot get back even a moment of your life by paying millions of dollars. Just try to understand how much valuable is your life.
People are hooked on matter and on their own identity in matter, taking their own identity from their faces, nose, bodies, and immediate physical city-complex around them, and not realizing another, sweeter, deeper but wilder or "transcendental" identity than the identity of the one-dimensional man that Marcuse has talked out. So what we are proposing here is a modern-minded view, or some indications of a modern Western, i.e., gnostic, Marcuse view of Kali-yuga, as applying to our own situation, rather than being an oriental fairy tale. As it stands, I read in the paper today, the prognosis for our... According to U Thant in today's paper, according to the head of the U.N., mankind has only ten years to reverse the political, social, moral, emotional, bhakti course of the planet, and alter our technology, alter our consciousness radically enough to preserve human existence on the planet. (applause) So this is not only the official U.N. pronouncement; it's also the pronouncement of most of the ecologists, biologists, and ecosystemic students of the planet that are presently considering the ecological disruption that we have caused through our greed and destructiveness.
Violence? Kṛṣṇa does not sanction violence, but if there is absolute necessity, then violence is required. Yes. Kṛṣṇa wanted to mitigate the misunderstanding of two groups of cousin-brothers. So Kṛṣṇa personally induced, "All right, they are, your brothers are kṣatriyas. Kṣatriyas, they cannot do any business or take the profession of a brāhmaṇa. So you give them five villages. They will be satisfied." And they replied, "Oh, what do You call five villages? I cannot spare even that land which can hold the tip of this needle." Then Kṛṣṇa says, "You must fight." So Kṛṣṇa or Kṛṣṇa's devotees, they are not after fight, but if there is absolute necessity of fight, then they can fight also. Because they are prepared to do anything. Just like in Rāmāyaṇa also, the same subject matter. Hanumān. Hanumān is a devotee of Lord Rāmacandra. So he fought with Rāvaṇa not for his personal self, but Rāma wanted, that "He has kidnapped the queen of Rāma. She must be delivered." And there was fighting. That is the principle. When one does not agree to the religious principle or to the moral principle or any instruction, he is adamant, then there must be fight.
Striyaḥ sūnā pāna dyūta. Pāna means intoxication. We are already intoxicated by illusion. Because we are in the material world, we are accepting false things. Just like this body. I am accepting I am this body. This is intoxication. I am soul, I am Brahman, but I am accepting this body that I am this body. This is already intoxication. And if you increase more intoxication, then where is the possibility of getting real knowledge, brahma-jñāna? So the pāna, intoxication, should be avoided. Animal killing should be avoided. Illicit connection with woman should be avoided. And gambling, speculation, Patavad(?), that should be eliminated, avoided. Then you get the chance of becoming pure. And without being pure, you cannot be engaged in the loving service of the Lord. The Lord is pure. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). So you cannot approach Lord being impure. Even I do not indulge in illicit sex life or meat-eating or very much moralist, still I am impure if I think myself "I am Indian," "I am American," "I am Hindu," "I am Muslim." These are also impurities.
So the bhāgavat-dharma means to become completely pure. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170). And you cannot keep your purity without being in touch with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, so many moralistic movement has failed. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā (SB 5.18.12). Even one has got brahma-jñāna, even one is elevated to become mixed or amalgamated with the brahma-jyotir, still he is not pure. That is the statement of śāstra.
(break) ...immoral(?) generation means godlessness. It is said in the śāstra, yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvaiḥ guṇaiḥ tatra samāsate surāḥ. If you have unflinching faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then all the good qualities of demigods will develop unto you. It is not story. It is fact. Just like these European and American students. They, in their previous life, before becoming Kṛṣṇa consciousness, according to our standard, they were all immoral. Our, in India, illicit sex life still, it is admitted, if it is not followed, to have sex relation with other's wife or other woman except one's wife, that is called immoral or sinful. So in Western countries these things are not immoral or sinful. It is very daily affair. But now, because they have come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they have given up all these things. No illicit sex life. Unless one is married, he must remain brahmacārī or vānaprastha or sannyāsī. Only gṛhastha, duly married wife, he can have sex. This is morality. And you should not kill the animals unnecessarily. That is immoral. You are already intoxicated by the influence of māyā. You should not be more intoxicated. This is immoral. You should not indulge in gambling. These are immoral. So as soon as you become Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then all these immoralities vanish immediately. That is the only. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā, sarvaiḥ guṇaiḥ tatra samāsate su..., harāv abhaktsya kuto mahad-guṇā. One who is not Kṛṣṇa..., he cannot have any good quality or any morality. That is the decision of the śāstra. So if you want to revive the morality of the society, you must take up this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then everything will come.
Guru-gaurāṅga: You may see that in this presentation book we have a center in Māyāpur, in Navadvīpa, in West Bengal. We are distributing Kṛṣṇa-prasāda. There is no problem.
Prabhupāda: Yes. In all our centers, we distribute prasādam. Anyone who may come, "Take prasādam."
Guest (4) (Indian man): Has the movement involved itself in social philosophy, then? Because sometimes I'm sure you, if you propagate your good will, the moral path...
Prabhupāda: Yes. We are spreading the best moral principle, Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Guest (4): But don't you come... (sound of jet drowns out) ...who don't like you? Does it not mean a bit of problem?
Prabhupāda: We are getting a better response from the Western countries than in India. In India, we see that the leaders, they do not like it. They are now opening beef shop, wine shop, and we are preaching "No intoxication, no meat-eating." So actually, we are not very favorable to their propaganda. (laughs) They don't like us, the leaders. Now there are big, big signboards. In Juhu we have got a center, and the government has opened beef shop, very big. And wine shop, you'll find everywhere. And we are preaching, "No intoxication, no meat-eating." So how they'll like us? That is the difficulty. "It is folly to be wise where ignorance is bliss." But still, we are struggling.
This is the question by Dhṛtarāṣṭra. Dhṛtarāṣṭra was the father of the Kurus, and the Pāṇḍavas were the five brothers, the sons of the younger brother of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Mahārāja Pāṇḍu. So Dhṛtarāṣṭra was blind, born blind. Actually he was to inherit—the eldest son of the family. But on account of his blindness the throne was given to his younger brother, Pāṇḍu. So the sons of Pāṇḍu is known as Pāṇḍavas, and the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra are known as Kurus or Dhṛtarāṣṭra. So after all, politics, it is always very intriguing in all times. So Dhṛtarāṣṭra was very sorry that he could not become the emperor. At least his son should be. Because he was blind, that's all, but his sons were not blind. So naturally father wants... So this is the whole history of Mahābhārata, intriguing, politics, and ultimately there was fight between the two parties, Kurus and the Pāṇḍavas, to decide. By logic, by morality and other things, everything failed. Then there was declaration of war. The Bhagavad-gītā is spoken in that warfield.
So everything is very nicely explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, and you have got a nice club. So I request you to discuss on the Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any malinterpretation. Then it will be beneficial for your club. Because Cāṇakya Paṇḍita... You have heard the name of Cāṇakya Paṇḍita. In New Delhi there is a Cāṇakya Purī. He was a great politician, very learned scholar, brāhmaṇa and great moralist also. So he has instructed about this Brahman knowledge in various ways. So our point is that we should not spoil this life. We should utilize every moment of our life very properly. This Cāṇakya Pandit I am referring because he has given very good instruction how to utilize our life. He says,
- āyuṣaḥ kṣaṇa eko 'pi
- na labhyaḥ svarṇa-koṭibhiḥ
- na cen nirarthakaṁ nītiḥ
- kā ca hānis tato 'dhikā
We are calculating of loss and gain. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says that "Even one moment of our life, if it is lost, then you cannot get it back even by paying hundreds and thousands of dollars." One moment of this day, if it is lost, you cannot get it back by paying hundreds and thousands of dollars. So if the moments of your life is spent uselessly, then how much loss you are suffering, you just imagine. Therefore our request is that we have got this valuable life, human form of life, bahu-sambhavānte, after many, many births in the evolutionary process. Now we should try to understand what is Brahman.
Departure Talks
That is the recommendation of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Premā pum-artho mahān. Pum-artho means puruṣārtha, or the goal of life. The goal of life in the material world, generally, not for the animals but for the human being, the goal of life, generally-religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation. Dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa (SB 4.8.41, Cc. Ādi 1.90). Some people are interested to become pious, religious, because by becoming pious and religious their economic development will be automatically there. And some of them are interested in simply in economic development for satisfaction of the senses. And some of them—they are considered to be the topmost-interested in liberation. But a Kṛṣṇa conscious devotee, he is not interested in either of these four items. He is interested how to love Kṛṣṇa. That is pure devotion. That is paneama-puruṣārtha (?). So people do not know it. Na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum (SB 7.5.31). People do not know it generally. If one is very pious man, he wants to be religious, moralist, religious. And others, karmīs, they are interested how to develop economic position. And others, they are simply interested in sense gratification. This is material world. And when these materialistic persons are disgusted, then they want liberation. Their liberation means to become one, merge into the existence of the Supreme.
Philosophy Discussions
Hayagrīva: Leibnitz pictures a kind of city of God. He writes, "God is the monarch of the most perfect republic composed of all the spirits, and the happiness of this city of God is His principal purpose. The primary purpose in the moral world, or the city of God, which constitutes the noblest part of the universe, ought to be to extend the greatest happiness possible."
Prabhupāda: Yes. We agree to that. If everyone becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious and acts according to the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, then this hell, hellish world, becomes the city of God.
Hayagrīva: He says we must... "Therefore we must not doubt that God has so ordained everything that spirits not only shall live forever, because this is unavoidable, but that they shall also preserve forever their moral quality so that His city may never lose a person."
Prabhupāda: Yes. This is Vaikuṇṭha conception, yaj jñātvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramam, "That is My specific place, where going nobody returns back to this miserable material world." These ideas are taken from Vedic literature, that's all. They are not new. It is known already to the Vedic students. Everyone has taken from Vedas, and they have presented their own way.
Hayagrīva: Leibnitz did not believe that the city of God, what he called the city of God, is divorced from the natural world. Rather, it is a moral world within the natural world. He writes, "The assembling of all spirits must compose the city of God. That is the most perfect state possible and of the most perfect of monarchs," meaning God. "This city of God, this truly universal monarchy, is a moral world within the natural world and the highest and most divine of the works of God."
Prabhupāda: Yes. We can construct such city immediately if the League of Nation—they are trying to be united—they come to their right sense, that this planet does not belong to any particular nation; it belongs to God. This simple fact, if they accept and cultivate on this point, then immediately the whole world will be the city of God. But they will not do this. They have gone to the United Nation to settle up all problems of the world, but they keep themselves in the dog's mentality: "I am this body." "I am American," "I am Indian." But he is not. But if they give up this designation, that "I am American," "Indian" or "Hindu" or "Muslim," "Christian..." We are all part and parcel of God, and the whole planet belongs to God. We are His sons, and we can live peacefully as the sons of father. Father is supplying everything, so we can utilize. Now they, in some country, just like in Australia or New Zealand we find enough cows to supply milk, and in India practically there is no milk. So if the United Nations gives this, accepts this version, that everything belongs to God, so where is the scarcity? It may be in one place one thing is in scarcity, but other place it is enough. So where it is enough, that can be distributed where there is need. Then immediately it becomes city of God. If anyone abides by the order of God and everything produced is divided among the sons of God, then where is the question of scarcity? There is..., there cannot be any scarcity. But they have no reason. They are denying the actual fact that everything belongs to God. It is common sense. Such a vast ocean, who has created this? Has any nation has created, or any individual person has created? So to whom belongs this ocean? What will be the answer? Huh? What will be the answer? If I question that "Shall we dig a little ditch and there is water. We fill up." So such a big ditch, who has done it? Where is the question that there is no God? Somebody has done. That is common sense. And who has done it not only this one ocean-millions of oceans are floating in the sky—who has done it? Who has created? Huh? What will be the answer? So they, this modern so-called civilization, they have lost their common sense. They want to remain in animal consciousness; therefore they are suffering. (end)
Śyāmasundara: He says that morality consists of values which the individual formulates for himself, as a matter of personal opinion. In other words, I can do whatever my conscience dictates.
Prabhupāda: So another man can also say "what my conscience dictates." So there is a difference.
Śyāmasundara: But in society, moral values are based upon the opinion of the whole society. In other words, my moral values are relative to public opinion.
Prabhupāda: When the majority opinion is something, you have to accept it. That is democracy.
Śyāmasundara: But still he says it's up to the individual whether to accept or reject it. This is where you were talking about the left side of the road and the right side of the road, that even though the law is there as agreed upon by society, still it's up to me whether I want to follow it or not. It's matter of my personal opinion.
Prabhupāda: If you don't follow, then you'll be punished. That will be the effect. You'll be punished. Therefore, the conclusion is that your independent thinking is not absolute; it is also relative.
Śyāmasundara: He says that logic or reason don't determine morality, but sentiment determines morality—how I feel, that's how I should act.
Prabhupāda: Or in other words, what is accepted by the supreme will, that is morality. You cannot decide what is morality. The supreme will decides whether it is morality or immorality.
Prabhupāda: But your personal opinion sometimes does not meet with approval. So if you are satisfied with your personal opinion, but if it is not approved by others, then you are in the fool's paradise. That's all.
Śyāmasundara: So he says that the remedy for this is social, that we should try to change the laws of the state or change the opinion of the state to accept a certain type of morality. If I think something is right and the state says it is wrong, then I should act through politics to change it.
Prabhupāda: He agrees to surrender to the supreme-state—so if the supreme state sanctions, it is morality. Is it not that?
Śyāmasundara: Yes. Public opinion.
Prabhupāda: But anyway, it goes to somebody, public opinion, but this public opinion is not final. Therefore above the public opinion there is the supreme will of Kṛṣṇa. That should be the final, to sanction morality or immorality.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the moral sentiments which are approved by society enhance the social good, whereas immoral attitudes are egoistic and antisocial. So that a society will always approve of a certain set of moral values, and then the individual living in the society must either accept or reject them. And if he rejects them, then he must act through politics, through the social body, to try to change their attitude, their opinion.
Prabhupāda: Therefore it depends on that social body, which is authority. So ultimately we have to depend on the authority for all sanctions. So our proposition is that the supreme authority is Kṛṣṇa. So whatever He sanctions, that is morality; whatever He does not sanction, that is immorality. Just like Arjuna was thinking to become nonviolent, not to fight, is good. But Kṛṣṇa said, "Now you fight." So fight became good. So ultimately it depends on Kṛṣṇa's will, what is morality, what is immorality, what is good, what is bad. Therefore our duty is, instead of depending on social body or political... (break) ...are so many, one is different from the other—we depend on the supreme will of the supreme authority.
Śyāmasundara: He says that there is no absolute morality, that everything is relative.
Prabhupāda: Yes. We say also. If it is sanctioned by Kṛṣṇa, then it is morality; otherwise the same morality may be immorality. Just like Yudhiṣṭhira was asked by Kṛṣṇa to speak lie—"Go to Droṇācārya and inform him that 'Your son is dead,' " because Droṇācārya had a benediction that unless he was shocked by the dead limbs of his son, he would not die. So he had to be shocked. But he would not believe anybody except King Yudhiṣṭhira because he was known as very honest and truthful. Therefore Kṛṣṇa employed this service that "You go." Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, he said, "Oh, how can I tell a lie?" So this is immorality. Kṛṣṇa is ordering, and he is saying that "How can I say lie?" This is immorality; he is disobeying the order of Kṛṣṇa. But Arjuna, he rejected all morality and immorality. He accepted Kṛṣṇa's order. That is morality. He was personally thinking that "If I kill my brothers, cousins, this, that," so many things, but because he was a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa, when he understood "Kṛṣṇa wants it," he said, "Yes." This is morality. That is the fact. When your actions are approved by the supreme authority, that is morality. If it is not approved by the supreme authority, that is immorality. Therefore so-called morality-immorality has no fixed position. When it is approved by Kṛṣṇa, it is morality. Even so-called immorality will be morality, and so-called morality will be immorality. That we practically see, the same example as I gave you, that a soldier killing so many human beings, he is awarded, and it is... (break) ...he does what he likes, then it becomes chaos.
Śyāmasundara: That's what has happened.
Śyāmasundara: As far as his philosophy of religion, he rejected the idea of absolute matter and the concept of a soul as substance. He rejected the utility of scientific laws, and he rejected moral principles as objective realities. He says all religious ideas are relative. There is no certainty and anything religious may be merely probable but never certain.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That also he says. Therefore religion means love of God. The means may be different in different processes of religion, but ultimately if one develops love of Godhead, that is the prima facie factor, love of God. So if any religious principle love of God is absent, that is simply show, it is not factual religion.
Śyāmasundara: He says that even the idea of God is merely probable but not certain.
Prabhupāda: That he cannot say. As soon as he speaks of authority, there must be a supreme authority. That is God.
Prabhupāda: Then why does he say public opinion? Your senses may not be approved by the public opinion. Then where do your senses stand?
Śyāmasundara: That's as far as morality goes, public opinion. But for my understanding of God, I can only rely upon my own senses.
Prabhupāda: Morality, morality means what is sanctioned by... (break)
Śyāmasundara: ...imperfection or finiteness.
Prabhupāda: God is absolute. For Him there is no evil. Absolute good. Otherwise He cannot be absolute. So what you think evil, to God it is good. Just like a father slaps a child and he cries. For the child it is evil, but for the father it is good. Father thinks, "I have done right. He is crying. He will not commit the mistake again." So this chastisement is just like sometimes Aravinda complains he thinks "I was unnecessarily chastised," but I say it is good. (laughter) The same thing. So whose opinion is to be taken?
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that God is limited.
Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. If God is limited, then He cannot be God.
Śyāmasundara: After Kant finished this analysis of the pure reason, then he began his Critique of Practical Reason, of reason applied to practical living, to try to find out what were the limits of that study. This is his idea: moral laws are necessary and universal objects of the human will, which must be accepted as valid for everyone. He calls this his categorical imperative. That means that there are certain moral commandments which are universal, and which must be applied to everyone, and which everyone must obey without exception. Now, he says that we know these moral laws a priori, by intuition, and that the individual fact and the situations have no bearing, and there is no consideration of what I want or what I desire, but what I must do, what I ought to do.
Prabhupāda: No. Morality varies according to the development of the particular society. There are so many immoral things going on in the particular type of society which are very, very immoral, but they do not care for it; they do it.
Śyāmasundara: There is no universal morality?
Prabhupāda: Universal morality is to obey God, that's all. This is universal morality.
Śyāmasundara: But are any of God's laws fixed...
Prabhupāda: That is included. If you obey God, then all the laws are also included. That is the universal morality. Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Just become My servitor, always think of Me, just offer obeisances unto Me," that is morality.
Śyāmasundara: Oh, that's the basis for morality?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Otherwise, there are so many immoral things going on that are accepted as morality. How can you find out?
Śyāmasundara: He says that there are...
Prabhupāda: I do not wish to say that in the Koran it is said that "From this day you should stop intercourse with mother."
Śyāmasundara: He recognizes this, and he says that there are certain imperatives that we are born with, that we know are...
Prabhupāda: What are these? He should say practically. The certain, imperative morality is this: that you should be obedient to God. That's all.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the standard for the categorical imperative is that one should act only in such a way that he would want his action to be followed by everyone. In other words, sort of "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." That is his...
Prabhupāda: This is a compromise. This is not morality.
Śyāmasundara: That you should act only in such a way that your action, you would want everyone in the world to act in the same way. You would want it to be a universal law.
Prabhupāda: So you can allow me to do in my own way, and I allow you to do in your own way.
Śyāmasundara: He uses the example of breaking a promise. He says that if the opportunity is there to break a promise, I should never break the promise, because I would never want anyone else to break a promise.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is going on, man-made laws. But that is not morality. That standard of morality is one in one country and just the opposite in another country.
Śyāmasundara: But isn't the breaking of a promise a universal moral command, that one should never break his promise, whether it is here or other countries?
Prabhupāda: Well that's all right, but for practical purposes they are breaking promises at every moment.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. He understands this, but his idea, he wants to get to the basis of morality by saying that...
Prabhupāda: That is a good quality. That is brahminical quality, not to break promise, to be truthful. That is goodness.
Śyāmasundara: He says that these moral imperatives or these moral commands must be obeyed without exception.
Prabhupāda: That is nice, but it is not possible.
Śyāmasundara: Individual circumstances should not have any bearing.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Then the basic principles of civilization should be that those who are unable to do it, they should be trained up. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We are elevating persons from the lowest level to the highest level. That we are actually doing. So these four classes of men exist, but by education, by training, the lowest class of men can be elevated to the highest class. That is our movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Śyāmasundara: It is true that if there are certain laws, moral commandments, that I should follow them regardless of individual exception? There are no exceptions, regardless...
Prabhupāda: That is brahminical qualification. A brāhmaṇa shall be truthful in all circumstances. Even before his enemy, he will disclose everything, what is truth. That is brahminical qualification, whereas kṣatriya, he is a diplomat. Although he is truthful, but he will not be truthful before his enemy.
Śyāmasundara: He says that duty is one's individual obligation to obey the categorical imperative by choosing the morally right action. In other words, duty means it is my duty to choose the morally right action, free from emotion.
Prabhupāda: Therefore, as soon as you say duty, duty should be prescribed by some higher authority. In that sense, this system is very scientific: brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra. It is very scientific. For brāhmaṇa, these are the duties; a kṣatriya, these are the duties. Every duty may appear different, but because it is a command of the Supreme, by discharging these duties on different platform, he is serving the Supreme. If Kṛṣṇa says, "All right, I see you are a brāhmaṇa. Your duties are like this," "I see you are a kṣatriya. Your duties are like this," "I see you are a vaiśya. Your duties are like this..." But Kṛṣṇa says cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam (BG 4.13). I have divided, so Kṛṣṇa gives duty, that "Your duty is this, your duty is this, and your duty is this." And if he faithfully serves the duty, that means he is serving Kṛṣṇa. The duties may appear different, but because he is serving Kṛṣṇa, he is going to perfection. Just like in our institution, I am the head man, so I may say, "You paint. You preach. You type. You do this." So the duties may be different, but by discharging duty, you are serving me; therefore you are perfect. Similarly, duties are given by the Supreme. Because I see that you are a śūdra, you cannot discharge the duties of a brāhmaṇa. That is not possible. So you do your duty like this. So superficially it may seem that a śūdra's duty is inferior to the brāhmaṇa's duty, but if the śūdra is performing his duty in accordance to the order of the Supreme, then he is also serving. The service is the main point. The same example of our body, that the duty of eyes, seeing, it is different from the duty of the legs, walking. But walking and seeing, both of them are being utilized for the whole body; therefore all of them are useful. So there cannot be any fixed-up duty, neither is everyone able to follow the same principles. Therefore this varṇāśrama-dharma is very scientific. That is to be understood.
Śyāmasundara: So ideally it is the moral obligation of everyone to obey the moral command, but...
Prabhupāda: Not moral command—the supreme command. What is moral for you, it may be immoral for others. One man's food is another man's poison. So therefore Kṛṣṇa says to Yudhiṣṭhira, "Go and tell lies." That is moral. Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna, "What is this nonsense? You fight. Kill them." That is moral. So moral means to obey Kṛṣṇa's order, God's order. That is morality. You cannot create morality. You are imperfect. Your senses are imperfect. You do not know what is actually moral. Therefore we should implicitly, blindly follow the orders of Kṛṣṇa or His representative. That is moral.
Śyāmasundara: So the real categorical imperative is to obey the Supreme.
Prabhupāda: That is right. That is moral. Other things, all immoral.
Śyāmasundara: He says that we must follow our duty—not mechanically, but out of respect for it.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Suppose if I say that "You do this," just like Kṛṣṇa says that "You go and say Droṇācārya." So unless he has got implicit faith... Yudhiṣṭhira was lacking that implicit faith. Therefore he said, "How can I say such lies?" But Arjuna is better than Yudhiṣṭhira. He thought that "Although I am thinking it is very moral not to kill my relatives, but Kṛṣṇa likes it, I must do it." That's all.
Śyāmasundara: He says that ethics or morality should be institutionalized, regardless of the individual circumstances.
Prabhupāda: He comes to the circumstances. Therefore the morality should be according to the circumstances.
Śyāmasundara: He says the opposite: regardless of individual circumstances, everyone should follow the moral imperative. But we say that circumstances determine how one follows.
Prabhupāda: Then suppose the (indistinct) state, "Thou shalt not kill." So why killing is going on?
Śyāmasundara: In wars.
Prabhupāda: In any circumstances. It is not that killing is stopped, although the state is meant for prohibiting killing. But there is still in the slaughterhouse killing is going on, in war killing is going on, and so many other places killing is going on.
Śyāmasundara: He is thinking of it more as a personal way of determining how to act, like "I should not act counter to this moral imperative."
Prabhupāda: No. Because suppose that a snake is here and it is dangerous; he'll bite. So killing is necessary. But if you say, "No. I shall not kill this snake. Let it bite. All right, let them all die..." These are simply mental speculations. He has no perfect knowledge.
Śyāmasundara: He has the idea that we know what is morally right.
Prabhupāda: You do not know what is morally right! Therefore you have to take instruction from Kṛṣṇa, or His representative. You do not know.
Śyāmasundara: A priori we are not born with knowledge of what is right?
Prabhupāda: No. A priori, in this sense, that imperceptively I have got obedience to Kṛṣṇa, or God—everyone. That is manifested even in uncivilized men. Whenever they see a thunderbolt, they offer prayer. Just like these Africans, they are coming here, offering obeisances. That is inborn. Although we say they are not civilized, but that thing is there, that we are sādhus, or here is God. So that is there. But it is not very much manifest.
Śyāmasundara: So there is no inborn idea of that is always correct.
Prabhupāda: Even inborn there is, you must get it confirmed by the superior.
Śyāmasundara: He says that man, because he respects the moral law and practices it, is a personality having infinite dignity. He believes in the dignity of man based upon his adherence to moral principles. If a man follows moral principles, then he has dignity, which is different than any other...
Prabhupāda: That is already explained, that varṇāśrama-dharma, because the brāhmaṇas, they follow the good laws, therefore dignity. A brāhmaṇa is supposed to be the first-class man in the society, and therefore they are honored.
Śyāmasundara: He says everything else has an exchange value or a price, but man alone possesses self-direction or dignity, and this is priceless, and so we should never stoop to sell ourselves. If we sell ourselves like a commodity, then we lose our dignity.
Prabhupāda: That dignity is his inherent quality of obedience to the Supreme. That we should not sacrifice. Here, modern civilization is that he knows that he is not independent, he is subordinate to God's will. Still, artificially, to defy God he is manufacturing so many philosophies, hypocrisy.
Śyāmasundara: He sees that men sell themselves like commodities. In order to get something, they sell themselves.
Prabhupāda: Yes. To get some popularity, to get some money, to get some adoration, he sacrifices.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the way man should really act is to follow the moral code, and then he has dignity, because he has self-direction. He is determined to follow the moral principles, so he has dignity.
Prabhupāda: The moral codes are there. If anyone follows actually, he has dignity.
Śyāmasundara: He says that man belongs to what he calls the "kingdom of ends," because he looks to the ideal, or the perfect. He sees everything in relation to the perfect end and guides his life accordingly. So the means and the end are both perfect, ideal.
Prabhupāda: And what is that end? That he does not describe.
Śyāmasundara: He calls the end the moral law, the moral imperative.
Prabhupāda: That moral law is... What is moral in one circumstance is immoral in another circumstance. That means again imperfectness of idea.
Śyāmasundara: He calls the end the golden rule, that one should act...
Prabhupāda: That is simply abstract ideas. He does not give any concrete example.
Śyāmasundara: He gives the example of breaking a promise.
Prabhupāda: Breaking a promise is sometime moral. Just like Kṛṣṇa broke His promise, Himself. Kṛṣṇa broke His promise. He promised that "In this fight, this war, I shall not take a weapon." But when Arjuna was jeopardized by the fighting of Bhīṣma, He immediately took some weapon and approached Bhīṣma, because Bhīṣma promised that either Kṛṣṇa has to break His promise or Arjuna will die, two things... "Tomorrow I shall fight in this way, then Arjuna will die, unless Kṛṣṇa takes special step." That means He has to break His promise. So he wanted to see that Kṛṣṇa breaks His promise to protect His devotee. That was his idea. So when He broke His promise, he gave up fighting. "That was my purpose, that You have to break your promise to protect your devotee."
Śyāmasundara: He says that a man should never become a mere object of utility. In other words, he should not lower his standard just because it is practical at the time.
Prabhupāda: More or less, he is a strict moralist. But that is not the highest stage. One has to transcend even this moral principle. That is perfection. Because this moral value is within this material world, moral values, morality, immorality are of this material world. Just like there are three qualities. Morality is on the platform of the modes of goodness. So from higher standard, here in the modes of goodness, suppose one is brāhmaṇa, perfect brāhmaṇa, but he is in the material world. Even though he has got some moral principles, still he is existing in the material world. But according to transcendental spiritual vision, the whole material world is condemned. It is like that if one is a first-class prisoner. Just like if a politician is in prison, he is given first-class treatment, he is given special bungalow, servants, many facilities, does it mean that he is not a criminal? As soon as one comes to the prison, he's a criminal. He may be a great politician or an ordinary pickpocket. A pickpocket is given third-class prisoner's life, and a politician, Gandhi or Nehru or someone else, big politicians, when they are imprisoned, they are given special treatment. But on account of his being within prison walls, he is condemned. Similarly, anyone who is in this material world, either with the brahminical qualifications or śūdra qualifications, he is a conditioned soul. Of course, so far conditioned life is concerned, there is value of morality and immorality. But the morality may help him to transcend, to come to the transcendental platform, but to come to the transcendental platform is not dependent on morality. It is independent of anything. Just like under the order of Kṛṣṇa, fighting by Arjuna, killing his kinsmen, that is above morality.
Śyāmasundara: It's like you say: morality may help him to transcend. He is beginning to perceive behind this moral law.
Prabhupāda: No. From this instance we find that Arjuna was trying to become moral, not killing his own men; but that did not help him. Rather, by directly abiding by the orders of Kṛṣṇa, he transcended morality. So morality does not always help.
Śyāmasundara: In this particular case of Kant, he begins to perceive that behind morality there is something higher. He says that even though a man is sinful...
Prabhupāda: Yes. Certainly there is higher. That highness is within this material world. There are two stages, two platforms: transcendental platform and physical platform. That highness is physical. Just like Mahatma Gandhi. He was known as a very high-class man, but he was a materialist, that's all. By his pious activities he may be elevated materially. Just like if you act piously, giving charity, then next birth you get very nice opulent birth, you are born in a rich family, you get enough money. But that is not the solution of your conditional life. To take birth in this family does not mean he hasn't got to undergo the process of birth, the pains of birth, the pains of death. But real problem is that I want to stop these pains of birth, death, old age and disease. Hari me nana mitinatante (?). Without love of Kṛṣṇa, nobody can escape these material conditions of life.
Śyāmasundara: So Kant is beginning to realize that, by observing that if a man does sin, nevertheless, the fact that the moral law is present somewhere in his personality, that he is able to understand it if he is rightly trained, that this in itself must be regarded as holy. This propensity to understand the moral principles is an inborn holy trait that everyone has. And he says that this self-determination is the indispensable condition of all morality, that in order to be moral one must be self-determined.
Prabhupāda: That point we have already discussed, that one should be self-determined. But sometimes it is not possible to become self-determined. So first of all he does not know what is the aim of life. Suppose one becomes moral or becomes immoral. So what is the difference? I say that it is very easy for me to earn my livelihood by becoming immoral. Why shall I become moral? Then should he be condemned? If he is condemned, why is he condemned?
Śyāmasundara: Because he is not realizing the real nature of man, which is to be dignified and moral.
Prabhupāda: But then he must say what is the real nature of man.
Śyāmasundara: He comes to that. He finds out what is the nature of men through his investigation of morals. He later comes to that point of understanding what is the purpose of man.
Prabhupāda: What does he say is the purpose, ultimate goal of life?
Śyāmasundara: The ultimate goal of life is to attain its own perfection, and to attain...
Prabhupāda: But he does not describe what is perfection.
Śyāmasundara: Perfection is happiness combined with virtue.
Prabhupāda: Happiness everyone thinks. Even a drunkard, he is feeling happiness. Is that happiness? The hog, by eating stool, is feeling happiness. Is that happiness?
Śyāmasundara: But it is not combined with virtue.
Prabhupāda: Why not virtue? If you get happiness, that is virtuous. That means he has no standard knowledge. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā (SB 5.18.12). If a man is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he has no good qualities. He may be a great philosopher, scientist, but he is a nonsense. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā, mano-rathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ (SB 5.18.12). By his mental speculation he is coming again and again on this material platform, that's all. He has no idea what is happiness, what is goal of life, the aim of life. He has no such idea. Vague. So therefore imperfect knowledge. (break) (end)
Hayagrīva: Well he, at the same time, he considered the Bible to be the best vehicle for the instruction of the public in a truly moral religion.
Prabhupāda: Then he has to accept some authority. Where is freedom?
Hayagrīva: He believed that the individual can intuit truths within, but could be helped from without by scripture.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That means he should not become independent, but he advocates in the beginning that everyone should be independent. So that is not right proposal. One should be dependent on authority, and that authority should be recognized or well established. Then knowledge is possible.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "Absolutely no human reason can hope to understand the production of even a blade of grass by mere mechanical causes."
Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore he has to know everything from the person or authority who knows that thing. That means this is perfect way of understanding, to take knowledge from the authority who is actually cognizant and knows things as they are.
Prabhupāda: All of a sudden, as if it is coming from the sea.
Hayagrīva: He rejects the traditional proofs of God's existence in order to clear the ground for his assertion that God is morally necessary in a moral universe. In this universe, every soul is an end in itself, and these individual souls are like citizens in a kingdom of ends. He calls it "a kingdom of ends."
Prabhupāda: So why does he use that word kingdom if there is no king? This is unreasonable. Why does he say kingdom if...
Hayagrīva: Oh, he would say there is a king.
Prabhupāda: ...he does not believe in king? He does not believe in God. The individual souls are ends themselves.
Hayagrīva: Oh, he believes in God...
Prabhupāda: Oh.
Hayagrīva: ...but that he rejects the traditional proofs of God. He says that God is morally necessary in a moral universe. His philosophy is a philosophy of ethics and morality.
Prabhupāda: That's all right. But if your, his morality does not accept God, and God is there—because we have already discussed that behind the nature there is God. So if his morality denies the existence of God, then where is the value of this morality? This morality can change at any time into degradation.
Hayagrīva: His, his emphasis are on morality is based on this. He says...
Prabhupāda: So what is morality?
Hayagrīva: He says, "For a rational but finite being..."
Prabhupāda: No.
Hayagrīva: "...the only thing..."
Prabhupāda: So one man is thinking that animal killing is good, and another man is thinking animal killing is immorality. Then who is correct? Unless you know morality means this—it is coming from authority—that you have to follow it, otherwise you will be punished, then morality. Otherwise, if there is no background of forcing, that morality can be degraded into immorality at any moment.
Hayagrīva: Well, this is the weak..., this seems to be the weakness in his philosophy. He says, "For a rational but finite being the only thing possible is an endless progress from the lower to the higher degrees of moral perfection." So...
Prabhupāda: That means endless struggle to understand real morality. But if he takes the order of God, that he must do it, that is final morality.
Hayagrīva: This is... What he means by morality is rather vague. He does not say what this moral law is, other than it's called a categorical imperative.
Prabhupāda: But who is...
Hayagrīva: The categorical...
Prabhupāda: Who is, who will force that categorical imperative?
Hayagrīva: That says, "One should act in such a way..."
Prabhupāda: So how he will act? He is immoral. How he will act morally unless there is force?
Hayagrīva: For him, he says that the categorical imperative is that "One should act in such a way that the maxim of one's action becomes the principle for universal law."
Prabhupāda: That cannot be done. By individual soul it is impossible...
Hayagrīva: For a man.
Prabhupāda: ...to do something which will be universally accepted. That is nonsense. That is not possible.
Hayagrīva: A man cannot establish a universal law by his own action.
Prabhupāda: No. So God can do it. Just like God says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām e.. (BG 18.66).. Because God says, it has to be accepted. But if some individual soul said, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām, who will do that? Nobody will do it. That's why we are preaching that "You surrender to Kṛṣṇa." We do not say that "You surrender to me." Who will hear me? "Who are you? Why shall I surrender to you?" But if one understands that God wants this surrender, then he will agree.
Hayagrīva: He writes that "Man alone can be regarded as nature's own end or highest product, because on earth only man is capable of complying with the categorical imperative, the moral law."
Prabhupāda: So it is accepted that nature creates man, and that is not very good philosophy. Nature creates man, then nature is supreme. There is no such thing. And nature is ultimate. Nature is dull matter. What do you call nature? Bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ: (BG 7.4) earth, water, fire. They cannot create. Nature cannot create. Otherwise the materialist scientist, they could do it by combining, combining this earth, water, air, fire. So nature is dull, lifeless. How nature can create life? What is the logic? What is the philosophy?
Hayagrīva: He wouldn't say that. He would say that man is nature's final end...
Prabhupāda: No.
Hayagrīva: ...because man's moral nature alone is worthwhile.
Prabhupāda: No, no. He is giving stress that nature has made man. That is our objection, that nature cannot do anything. Nature has given a body that..., just like a tailor can give me a set of dress, but the dress, when I put on, the dress looks like a man, with hands and legs. But dress is nothing; it is simply outward covering of a man, a living entity. Similarly, nature gives us this material body, outward coating. The inside is living entity, that..., not the creation of this material nature. That is creation of part and parcel of God. This (indistinct) knowledge is imperfect, that nature has created man. That is imperfect knowledge.
Hayagrīva: In his last work Kant seems to shift his position. He says, "Morality thus leads ineluctably to religion, through which it extends itself to the idea of a powerful moral law-giver outside of mankind for whose will that is the final end of creation, which at the same time can and ought to be man's final end. Make the highest good possible in the world your own final end." So he seems to point to an absolute law-giver or an absolute morality, which is God, but he believes that this knowledge of God is ultimately uncertain.
Prabhupāda: Uncertain—for the man who does not possess the perfect knowledge. But if we believe in God, if we know God, we can get perfect knowledge from Him. Then we become perfect.
Hayagrīva: He says, "An ethical commonwealth can be followed only as a people under divine commands, that is, as a people of God, and indeed under laws of virtue. We might indeed conceive of a people of God under statutory laws. Under such laws, that obedience to them would concern not the morality but merely the legality of acts."
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: "This would be a commonwealth of which indeed God would be the law-giver."
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the best quality of state. If we abide by the orders of God, or the king or the government abides by the order of God, that is ideal state.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "It does not enter men's heads that when they fulfill their duties to men they are performing God's commands and are therefore, in all their actions, so far as they concern morality, perpetually in the service of God, and that it is absolutely impossible to serve God directly in any other way, since they can effect and have an influence upon earthly beings alone and not upon God." He said we can only relate to man. We can only serve man and not serve God directly, but only serve god through man, like a humanitarianism.
Prabhupāda: So if he does not serve God, then how he will get direction how to serve the humanity? If he does not know how to serve humanity from God, then what is the value of his service to humanity? (break) ...giving direction that "You serve humanity in this way, by preaching His message, Bhagavad-gītā, to all humanity." Then he becomes very faithful servant of God. So to give service to the humanity means when one is a faithful servant of God, he can service to the humanity or to all other living entities, and if he manufactures his service, that is useless.
Hayagrīva: For Kant, the true religion is the divine ethical state. He is..., he was fond of quoting the Christian Bible. When Christ was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, 'Lo here' or 'Lo there,' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Now Kant footnotes this passage by saying, "Here a kingdom of God is represented not according to a particular covenant, but moral, knowable through assisted reason." So again he insists on the priority of God within, on the priority of ethical action and the freedom to accept ethical action. And this is epitomized in his famous line, "The starry sky above and the moral law within." The starry sky above is the abode of God, is very far away, but the moral law within is very close. Thus he emphasizes that the kingdom of God is within you.
Prabhupāda: Yes. If one is actually aware of God and His instructions, then the kingdom of God is within himself.
Śyāmasundara: He says it is the purpose of the state and king to apply the moral law.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the duty of the king, that is the king but the modern democracy state, they're simply concerned with the tax. That's all. But in the śāstra it is said that if you keep the citizens blind in the matter of morality and immorality and levy tax only, you will be satisfied with tax, then you will also go to ruin and they also go to ruin.
Śyāmasundara: Ruin.
Prabhupāda: Yes, ruination. Yes. Because he is taking all the sins. Tax means it is sinfully earned, and he's taking the money.
Śyāmasundara: So he gets it worse than anyone.
Prabhupāda: Yes, he'll be the worst sufferer, in this life and next life. These things I have discussed in Mahārāja Prthu's. You cannot, if you keep the, just like I am accepting disciples so I am taking responsibility of the sinful reactions. So similarly a king levying taxes, that means that he will take the share, the sinful or pious life of the citizens. Therefore if he keeps the citizens pious life, then he will be profited and citizens will be profited. Otherwise he will go to hell and the citizens will go to hell. Andhā yathāndair upanīyamānā. One blind man leading another blind man. So this is nice philosophy, that this is not the right philosophy, that the state head, the president or the king or whatever his name is, he is the representative of God. Therefore his duty is to train the citizens to become God conscious, pious, without any sinful life. But these big, big state head, just like in our country, Dr. Radhakrishnan is supposed to be a very great philosopher, and what he was doing? He was sanctioning to keep slaughterhouse. So he is philosopher and he had no sense that "I am the state head. I am sanctioning slaughterhouse. And I am passing as a philosopher." And now he is suffering, you have seen?
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that our everyday life, everything is a state of war and that this is a purifying, this conflict is purifying, that it has an ethical element and he makes the statement, "By this war, ethical health in the nation is preserved and their finite aims uprooted. War protects the people from the corruption which an everlasting peace would bring upon it. He says that to be in a state of peace is corrupt, and when there's always a war that it purifies the country, makes it more ethical, moral.
Prabhupāda: Then he wants continuous war?
Śyāmasundara: Something like that; he glorifies war, says that it makes a nation healthy to have war.
Prabhupāda: Then Hitler was first-class man by his standard.
Śyāmasundara: He says that progress only comes through conflict.
Prabhupāda: That means, according to his philosophy, people should always engage themselves in war, because they will be progressing?
Śyāmasundara: He says that it makes for progress to be in conflict. Competition, conflict, this creates progress.
Prabhupāda: Competition, that is another thing. But if you say that war settles up morality, ethical law, then... Without any aim. We say yes, war may be there or must be there, but the party who has got Kṛṣṇa's support, they are victorious, they are right party. This is our philosophy. We don't say that war should be stopped, war must be there, because this world is material world, there must be war, opposite elements. Now, the party who has got Kṛṣṇa's support, that party... That is the battlefield of Kurukṣetra. We don't say stop war, but we say if you fight, fight on behalf of Kṛṣṇa.
Śyāmasundara: He says the subjective mind manifests itself again in three ways. First...
Prabhupāda: So that three ways, impersonal, localized and personal.
Śyāmasundara: In a way. First I understand that I relate to this body, somehow, then I get some understanding of outside objects, and then I get intelligence, real and moral choice.
Prabhupāda: Yes, these things are there. These things are there. Supposing the animal, he is thinking that he's body but when he comes to the human form of body he thinks, "Am I really body?" Then he thinks, "No, I am not this body. It is my body." Advanced thinking. "Then what I am?" This is progression.
Śyāmasundara: Then he says that this absolute idea, the in and for itself manifests itself in the objective mind such as our laws, our ideas of morality, our social ethics. In other words the individual consciousness manifests itself as a group consciousness, as we have laws that govern the state. These are extensions of our own...
Prabhupāda: As soon as we accept a controller, all these things will come. The laws must come, the control must come, the morality must come, immorality, everything will come as soon as we accept a controller. The atheistic persons do not accept the controller, they do everything nonsense, immoral.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the free will develops in these three areas of experience of law, morality and social ethics.
Prabhupāda: That's nice. That is the field of free will activities. Unless you have got platform to execute your (indistinct), there is no meaning of free will. So that is the platform. There must be law, there must be system, morality. That is (indistinct). Just like Arjuna was advised by Kṛṣṇa, "Now, whatever you like, you do." That is free will. But He has explained to him, "This is this, this is this, now it is you have your choice."
Śyāmasundara: Here's where he may differ from you. He says that morality is where the will evaluates itself and sets its own standards.
Prabhupāda: No. Our morality is not like that. We accept morality from higher authorities. Our morality is standardized. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekāṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). We accept that is morality.
Śyāmasundara: Just like the state of California's morality may change. It may say gambling is legal tomorrow and then drinking is not legal.
Prabhupāda: Because that law is imperfect but God's law cannot be imperfect. That's perfect. Therefore we don't take others' advice. That is imperfect. We take God's advice because that is perfect. Or God's representative's advice, that is perfect.
Śyāmasundara: Tomorrow we can discuss ethical evolution, how ethics evolved. That is also part of his doctrine.
Prabhupāda: Ethic morality?
Śyāmasundara: How morality is also a product of evolution.
Prabhupāda: We change morality within six months. The most immoral man, you can make the most moral man within six months. This is practically happening.
Śyāmasundara: It also helps the fittest to survive.
Prabhupāda: You may not be fit, but we can make you fit.
Śyāmasundara: That's what I mean. If you become moral you become fittest to survive. That is also his theory, doctrine.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So that we can do within six months.
Śyāmasundara: He says that at some point a man who had developed sympathy for others, he was able to survive because he would cooperate with them to survive when others were killing each other, like that. So gradually morality also evolved. Tomorrow maybe we should finish Darwin. (break)
Prabhupāda: An animal is put in some certain atmosphere, he adjusts. But there are different types animals. Just like we see while walking (in) severe cold, we try to adjust by covering. Others, the birds, the skylark, the so on, they do not adjust.
Śyāmasundara: If Darwin's theory is correct, some new form of cancer will evolve which will survive...
Prabhupāda: Why? Any disease will be (indistinct). You can check the disease. Therefore our conclusion is that however scientifically you advanced you make, you cannot stop birth, death, old age and disease. That is our conclusion. So why should we waste our time for that purpose? We are utilizing our time, and after giving up this body we may go back to home, back to Godhead. That is our business. But everyone has to give up his body. Mr. Darwin and his company will give up this body like cats and dog. We shall give up this body for higher elevation of life. Therefore our philosophy is better, far better than all these things.
Śyāmasundara: There's a corollary to his theory of evolution that our standards of morality have also evolved from primitive stages. For instance, in a group, within a group of apelike creatures who were normally fighting with each other for dominance, one may develop the quality of sympathy for someone else. So by that sympathy he cooperates with the other person and together they survive when the others die. So that evolution of sympathy, morality, love, compassion—the good qualities of the human being—have evolved due to necessity, evolution, survival of the fittest.
Karandhara: The thing is this whole perspective of evolution... There doesn't have to be a sequence, that one came before the other. They all were there.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Karandhara: They're basing their quality on whether there's a better level of consciousness and what is more (indistinct) sense gratification.
Śyāmasundara: Technical advancements, scientific. Actually, morality...
Prabhupāda: ...is degrading.
Śyāmasundara: ...hasn't evolved. The ancient Greeks had a much higher standard of morality than the British or Darwin's time.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Svarūpa Dāmodara: (indistinct) degrading (indistinct). We see every day, every moment.
Prabhupāda: So we have seen in our childhood, they're also. No voucher or receipt. I'll tell you one little story. My father was dealing in cloth. So supposing he has come, my customer, he wants so many things. So I haven't got stock all of these things, but I wrote down his order, that you are market broker, I say just get these things immediately from the market. You go to the particular person who has got the stock and you order him to my shop, "Such and such you send me." So you have ordered for say twenty, fifty men. So their men are coming with a load of cloth, and he'll simply ask the firm's name: "This is Rajaram (indistinct)?" And someone declares, "Yes, yes, yes." But no voucher. He simply asks whether this firm is Rajaram (indistinct), and somebody nods, "Yes, yes." So he drops the bundle of cloth. It may be five hundred, or thousand rupees' worth or more than that. So similarly, many porters drop, because I require so many things. Now, you are my broker, you come, you see the stack of cloth, you ask my clerk, "Just credit this from such and such firm." But firm has sent without any voucher, without any (indistinct), and the porter simply asks whether this is the same firm, and somebody nods and we (makes noise like stamping something), that's all. Then you come, you pick up so many bundles, "Just note down, 'This has come from such and such firm.' " You note down. Then my clerk notes it.
Svarūpa Dāmodara: (indistinct) degrading (indistinct). We see every day, every moment.
Prabhupāda: So we have seen in our childhood, they're also. No voucher or receipt. I'll tell you one little story. My father was dealing in cloth. So supposing he has come, my customer, he wants so many things. So I haven't got stock all of these things, but I wrote down his order, that you are market broker, I say just get these things immediately from the market. You go to the particular person who has got the stock and you order him to my shop, "Such and such you send me." So you have ordered for say twenty, fifty men. So their men are coming with a load of cloth, and he'll simply ask the firm's name: "This is Rajaram (indistinct)?" And someone declares, "Yes, yes, yes." But no voucher. He simply asks whether this firm is Rajaram (indistinct), and somebody nods, "Yes, yes." So he drops the bundle of cloth. It may be five hundred, or thousand rupees' worth or more than that. So similarly, many porters drop, because I require so many things. Now, you are my broker, you come, you see the stack of cloth, you ask my clerk, "Just credit this from such and such firm." But firm has sent without any voucher, without any (indistinct), and the porter simply asks whether this is the same firm, and somebody nods and we (makes noise like stamping something), that's all. Then you come, you pick up so many bundles, "Just note down, 'This has come from such and such firm.' " You note down. Then my clerk notes it. This is transaction. And out of many such bundles, you find that you did not order this, "Wherefrom it came? It is not mine." So we set aside. Three days after, one (indistinct) comes, "Sir, on such and such date I dropped a bundle here which did not belong to you, so please give me this back." "Oh, you will see there are so many. What is yours you can take back." And he picks up, "Sir, this is my bundle," "All right, take it." He's unknown, but simply he comes and says that "I dropped one bundle here which does not belong to you. By mistake I dropped it," and I say, "Yes. So many bundles there are, you can take whatever is yours." This was the transaction. Then on the due payment day, those who supplied the cloths, they come to take payment and they say, "Sir, on such and such day, such and such cloth was supplied to you." No voucher, nothing. I open my book: "Yes, yes. That's all right." So he says that "This is the price and so much money is due payment." So he calculates, "Yes." So he pays the money and then, when taking money, he puts a stamp and he signs on the book. Now in the meantime, so many transactions we'll see, how much faithfully it was going on. So how much we have now became degraded: we supply something to somebody, we take three copies of voucher; one he takes, one we keep on book, one he gives (indistinct); then also he will try also, cheat, again. So much morally we have improved. I am speaking, say within, when I am child's age, now I am seventy-six. I may be fourteen, fifteen years old, like that. Fifty years ago these things were going on. Fifty or sixty. Sixty years ago the business dealings was so easy and plain.
Śyāmasundara: So even though there may be an evolution from simple to more complex, there's no evolution from inferior to superior.
Prabhupāda: That is not improvement. No. Now human society has become very complex. I don't trust you, you don't trust me. I keep my dog so that you may not come in my house—"Beware of Dogs"—and if you enter I can fire you, there is law. So what is this (indistinct)? Therefore we get from our śāstra that even you will receive your enemy at home, you will receive him so friendly way that he'll forget that you are his enemy. Gṛhaṁ satram api prāptaṁ visvastham akuto 'bhayam. He should feel himself so confidential that he's not near his enemy. His dealing and behavior are so nice. The morality is that "Whatever you may be, you have come to my house, you are my guest, so I must offer you all kinds of hospitality, never mind you are my enemy. Now you are my guest." So how much ethically improved the society was. "Yes. We are enemy, so when we fight we shall fight like enemies. But now we have come to my home, you are my guest, honorary guest, I must receive you with honor." That was being done Mahābhārata time.
Śyāmasundara: But there is no difference between the oldest cavemen and the men today. We're still killing, still hunting, still fighting. Same things.
Prabhupāda: No. Suppose just like Jesus Christ instructed his disciples, "Thou shall not kill." Say two thousand years ago in the Western countries, the men were killers, that's all. But we'll see Bhagavad-gītā, five thousand years ago, Kṛṣṇa is arguing that "If our women become widows then they'll be polluted. There will be varṇa-saṅkara, unwanted children, the society will go to hell." How much elevated society. Five thousand years ago. It is a question of place. It is a question of place. If Darwin says... Here in the Bible it is said that "Thou shall not kill," so that means two thousand years ago they were simply killers. That does not mean five thousand years there were no highly elevated personalities. That is his lack of studying. He is too much localized. He has no broadened knowledge, neither he has studied all the books, contemporary books; therefore he has poor fund of knowledge. He's very poor in his knowledge. Just like, still, there are many Americans... You Americans are completely different from others. You cannot say that all the Americans are drunkards and irresponsible; therefore, they are also. Side by side some moral is still there. You don't drink; you don't take meat; you are all God conscious; side by side there is. So how you can write history that "Such and such, 1971, '72, all Americans were LSD"? How you can conclude like that?
Śyāmasundara: They may find three or four bodies...
Prabhupāda: Even they may find one, they cannot conclude.
Śyāmasundara: Just like the seasons. We just place ourselves in the seasons, take us towards something, towards springtime. (break) Yes. So the other type of morality he calls "open morality." This is determined by individuals, in a dynamic way. You blaze new trails guided by...
Prabhupāda: As soon as it is invented by individual men or society, this is all rascaldom. It has no value.
Śyāmasundara: He calls it the higher morality. Just like St. Paul or some great saint receives inspiration from God, and he blazes a new trail to morality in the society.
Prabhupāda: That is nice. Because he is God conscious, he can dictate what is real morality.
Śyāmasundara: He is speaking in this case of St. Paul.
Prabhupāda: So St. Paul, he is a sādhu. So our process is that sādhu, guru, śāstra. We have to accept everything through saintly persons, confirmed by the scripture, and described or explained by guru. Then it is perfect. The scriptures are already there, and we have to see how the scriptures are being followed by saintly persons. And if there is any difficulties, they should be explained by the spiritual master. Then it is confirmed: sādhu-śāstra-guru vākya (cittete koriyā aikya). Scriptures you cannot understand directly. Then you have to see how the scriptural injunctions are being followed by saintly persons. Even if you cannot understand, then the spiritual master will explain to you.
Śyāmasundara: One of the tests is duration.
Prabhupāda: Duration, that duration will not allow to enjoy that kind of cheating happiness.
Śyāmasundara: He rejects duty or sense of duty or conscience to be the guide for moral conduct, good and bad conduct, and he accepts only the amount of pleasure or pain as the criterion of right conduct.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: Whether I'm doing right or wrong will be measured by how much pain or pleasure I am getting from it.
Prabhupāda: Yes, this definition we can also accept because we are try to Kṛṣṇa conscious, to derive the permanent happiness, first quality happiness.
Śyāmasundara: So if I'm feeling happy that means I am proceeding...
Prabhupāda: You must feel, if it is happiness, you must feel happy. Just like eating is happiness. So if you actually eat, you must feel happiness. It is not that (indistinct). Eating, when you are hungry, eating is happiness. But if you are not feeling happiness then what is the use of eating? By eating if you are feeling happiness, then you are eating. Strength, you'll feel strength, "Yes, I was fatigued. Now eating I am getting strength." Satisfaction. These three things are to be there when you are eating. If there is no satisfaction, no strength, then what is the meaning of eating.
Śyāmasundara: Someone might raise the point, "Well, the man is hungry and he has no food, therefore in order to feel pleasure he must steal it and cause displeasure to someone else." But this Bentham says that there are four natural curves or preventions, preventative forces to keep people from egoistic over-indulgence. One is the physical consequences of over-indulgence. If I eat too much, I get sick. One is political, that I will be imprisoned if I transgress. I will be punished. One is moral, or popular opinion, the public will think badly of me if I over-indulge. And the fourth one is religious, that God will punish me if I am an evil-doer. These four preventions he says, keep us from over-indulging in pleasure.
Prabhupāda: But if there is some happiness, why there is no prevention. That is real happiness. There is no prevention, simply go on increasing.
Śyāmasundara: Indulging.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like Kṛṣṇa's happiness, there was no prevention. So that is real happiness. Prevention means material, limited. Just like drinking liquor. There is prevention also. There are no-alcoholic beer. You have seen the signboard? That is prevention.
Śyāmasundara: They were just lifting the ban in some big city in...
Prabhupāda: In Bombay. It was prohibited area. So Gandhi made this prohibition as far as possible. Now they are lifting. Because simply prohibition will not help you. Unless you have got a better engagement, this prohibition will not help you. By law you can say, "Don't do this," but if you have no better engagement, this order of the law, "Don't do this," will not act. Will not act. Just like government, your government is trying to stop this intoxication. They could not. It is increasing. But so far our society is concerned, anyone who is coming here, immediately there is no intoxication. That means he gets something better. Therefore he voluntarily checks himself. And it is possible to check. So unless you give better thing, simply by prohibition you cannot check. That is not possible. The same example again, just like a thief, he knows the prohibitive order that you shall not steal. He knows the prohibitive order even in śāstra, that if a man is a thief he will suffer this kind of hellish condition. So he has heard it from the lawyer and from the śāstra that stealing is not good and he has seen it that a thief is arrested and is punished but still he does it. But a Kṛṣṇa conscious person will not do it. That is the difference. So by law or by pressure you cannot make anyone moral. That's not possible. He has to be given something which is better than morality, then he will stop committing all kinds of sins.
Śyāmasundara: He says that there are two moral sanctions for our conduct: one is the internal sanction, or our own inner conscience...
Prabhupāda: These are all nonsense-inner conscience. These are all nonsense. He's a nonsense philosopher. What do you mean, inner conscience?
Śyāmasundara: Well, our sense of duty...
Prabhupāda: Sense of duty is different from conscience. The duty, that should be taught by higher personalities: "This is your duty." Just like our principles. The spiritual master orders we must chant so many times, you must give up all these bad habits, sinful habits. This is duty. By conscience what you will understand of duty, a child?
Śyāmasundara: He's not so much talking about what is the duty, but that these two things are what motivate our moral behavior. They are what check and safeguard our moral behavior: one is conscience, or my own sense of duty, whatever that may be.
Prabhupāda: But how you will know it is? He says that one should know whatever his duty. So whatever what is his duty, how he will know it?
Śyāmasundara: Well, that, our duty is that which produces the most good for the most people.
Prabhupāda: This is also vague. This is also vague. There is no definite understanding.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the second sanction for moral conduct is external—that is, fear of displeasing men, other men, or fear of displeasing God, hope of winning their favor, that this keeps us in moral conduct.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So that means accepting authority. That means accepting authority. So without authority, nobody can be good. That is the conclusion of this philosophy.
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: That we accept. Without becoming, without following authority, nobody can become good. That is not possible. Therefore our Vedic injunction is tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). You must approach a guru if you want to be really learned. Like that. John Stuart had any guru?
Śyāmasundara: His father.
Prabhupāda: His father.
Śyāmasundara: Also a great philosopher, James Mill.
Prabhupāda: So without following guru authority, nobody can be learned. That is not possible.
Śyāmasundara: Actually, he accepts authority in both cases of moral, of moral sanctions. One, he says, that the authority should determine what is duty, and also so that my conscience will keep me following the duty.
Prabhupāda: That duty means to take orders from authority. That is real duty. Otherwise, I cannot create my duty.
Hayagrīva: Concerning morality, Mill writes, "Belief then in the supernatural, great as are the services which it rendered in the early stages of human development, that is for children," because he says early religious teachings "has owed its power over mankind rather to its being early than to its being religious." That is you can train a child...
Prabhupāda: Religion means to carry out the orders of God. This is the simple definition of religion.
Hayagrīva: But the power over man, he says, is due to early training.
Prabhupāda: Yes, that I have already said, that there are two authorities, one God the master authority and God's representative is the master author..., is the servant authority. So it is the duty of the servant authority to preach the instruction of God. That will make the human society happy, and this instruction should be taught from the very beginning of life. That is said in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by Prahlāda Mahārāja. Prahlāda Mahārāja was teaching God consciousness when he was five years old only and he was teaching amongst the class friend. The class friends wanted to play in the tiffin hour and Prahlāda Mahārāja asked them to sit down and to learn God consciousness. So the class friend protested, "My dear friend, why you are insisting now? We are now children, let us play." That Prahlāda Mahārāja protested, "No, no, you should not waste your time playing because this God consciousness should be learned from the very beginning of life." Kaumāra ācaret prājño dharmān bhāgavatān iha (SB 7.6.1). From the very childhood Kṛṣṇa consciousness should be learned. Why from the, so early, that durlabhaṁ mānuṣaṁ janma tad apy adhruvam arthadam. He says that this human form of life you have got after many, many millions of births so we should not misuse this opportunity. We do not know when we shall meet next death, but if before meeting the next death we make our life perfect in Kṛṣṇa consciousness that is the special boon to this human form of life. We should utilize it.
Hayagrīva: He says, "Belief in the supernatural, great as though the service is which it rendered in the early stages of human development, cannot be considered to be any longer required either for enabling us to know what is right and wrong in social morality, or for supplying us with motives to do right and abstain from wrong." That is God is not actually necessary for a sense of morality and in communist countries today we see that they instill a social morality in their citizens that is devoid of any conception of God.
Prabhupāda: Morality means to abide by the orders of God. That is real morality. Other things which we manufacture, that you will find different in different countries. But religion and morality both of them are the same principle because religion means to carry out the orders of God, and morality means only the, I mean the principle to fulfill the desires of God. Just like in the battle of Kurukṣetra, Arjuna was considering, "Killing is immorality." But when he understood by the instruction of Kṛṣṇa that this fight is necessary as it is designed by Kṛṣṇa, so this is morality. Ultimately, morality means to carry out the desire of Kṛṣṇa or God. He knows what is morality. This, another example can be given, that in the warfield the soldier is there and the commander is there. The commander is asking, kill the enemy, and if he considers that "Killing is bad, why shall I kill the enemy?" That is immorality. He should be immediately killed by martial law. He is disobeying the order of commander. So similarly, what you get, orders from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, if you carry it that is morality. Any other things manufactured by you, that (is) immorality.
Hayagrīva: James saw religion as the source of philosophy. He writes, "Since the relation of man to God may be either moral, physical or ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may secondarily grow."
Prabhupāda: So philosophy means advancement of knowledge. So we are making progress in knowledge when our knowledge is actually come to the point of perfection of knowledge, that is understanding of God. God is there, but on account of our foolishness, sometimes we deny the existence of God. That is the most foolish platform of living condition. But sometimes we have vague idea, some imagination, and sometimes impersonal, sometimes pantheistic. In this way different philosophies means they are searching after God, but on account of not being perfect, there are differences of opinion or different conception of God. But actually God is person, and when one comes to that platform—to know God, to talk with Him, to see Him, to feel His presence, even to play with Him—that is the highest platform of God realization. And the relationship is God is the great and we are small. So our position is always subordinate.
Hayagrīva: He sees the lover of God as being a morally free person. He writes, "As St. Augustine's maxim, 'If you but love God you may do as you incline,' is morally one of the profoundest of observations, yet it is pregnant for such persons with passports beyond the bounds of conventional morality."
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is very nice. Morality means to execute the orders of God. If God is satisfied then it is moral. Otherwise our so-called convention in this material conception of life, "This is good," "This is bad," they are described as mental concoction. We must have clear orders from God, and if we execute it for the satisfaction of God, this means, in other words, morality means the action which satisfies God, the Supreme Lord. That is morality. And if he does not satisfy the Lord, then it is not morality; it is immorality. We therefore sing every day yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo **, and the orders of God is carried through the representative of God, spiritual master, because directly we have no connection with God. The spiritual master is the transparent via media between God and ourself. In our perfect stage, of course, we can talk with God, but in the beginning, neophyte state, there is no such chance; therefore we have to take instruction from the spiritual master who has got direct connection with God. And if we satisfy the spiritual master, this means we have satisfied God. That is happiness.
Hayagrīva: Concerning evil, James writes, "Evil is a disease, and worry over disease is itself an additional form of disease which only adds to the original complaint. Even repentance and remorse, affections which come in the character of ministers of good, may be but sickly and relaxing impulses. The best repentance is to up and act for righteousness and forget that you ever had relations with sin."
Prabhupāda: Yes. The final morality is... What in this portion?
Hayagrīva: He feels that evil is a disease first...
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: ...but worry about evil is just an orig...
Prabhupāda: Another.
Hayagrīva: ...just another disease.
Prabhupāda: So disease, when you are in diseased condition, it means increasing suffering. Disease increases. Without treatment disease increases, as fire, without being extinguished, without attempt of extinguishing the fire, it increases. Debt, compound interest, increases. So therefore the instruction is that disease, fire, and debt should not be kept as it is without any attention. The attention must be there to see that it is not increasing, it is being completely extinguished. That is intelligence. So therefore we must know our suffering is on account of disobedience to the orders of God, or on account of becoming irreligious. So we must find out the real system of religion, and we, there is already, but on account of our ignorance it is now covered by material contamination. Otherwise our relationship with God is a fact. We are thinking independently. That is foolishness. The demons, or the atheist class, they falsely think independent of the orders of God; therefore they are forced to accept which they do not want. Ultimately they are forced to accept the punishment—birth, death, old age, and disease—but still, atheist class, they deny existence of God. That is their foolishness. Actually God is there, His order is there, and if we are deficient in carrying out the order, we should take the instruction of bona fide spiritual master, the representative of God, and we should execute it, and then we become happy.
Śyāmasundara: Dewey says that the ethical goals are fulfillment of human needs and desires, that all morality should lead to this goal of fulfillment of human needs and desires.
Prabhupāda: The human need is to get out of the clutches of māyā. That is the actual need. Janma-maraṇa-mokṣaya, that is the need. But the modern society, they do not know what is needed. They are making simply plans, uselessly. Śrama eva hi kevalam (SB 1.2.8). Simply laboring hard, they do not know the need. The real need is to get out of the clutches of repetition of birth and death in different forms. But people do not know this. They are simply concocting ideas. Durāśayā ye bahir-artha-maninaḥ. Durāśayā, hopeless, or they are trying to educate something which is impossible. They are making plans to be happy in this material world. And by the United Nations it is impossible. That is not intelligence. He says... We can say in the United Nations clearly that "Your, this attempt will be failure." It is already failure. (aside in Hindi) Hariṁ vinā naiva mṛtiṁ taranti. What is the solution? You cannot make any solution of this repetition of birth and death, disease and old age. What do you mean by solution? The real problems are there. So they do not know what are the problems, how to solve them. So andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās (SB 7.5.31). Some blind leaders, so-called leaders, they are leading other blind men. This is going on. They do not know what is the aim of life, how to make solutions of the problems. They do not know.
Śyāmasundara: He says that there must be a continuous probe of human beings in moral sensitivity. In other words, that people must become more and more sensitive to moral values and that there must be practical realization of a better social world.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness society, International Society for Kṛṣṇa Consciousness. Simply come forward and understand. Therefore we have made it society, Kṛṣṇa conscious society.
Śyāmasundara: He makes one statement. He says that "The good man is the man who, no matter how morally unworthy he has been, is moving to become something better."
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: "Growth itself is the only moral end."
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā: api cet su-durācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk. The devotee, even in the beginning he is found not in order, doing something wrong, still, because he has taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is accepted as sādhu. Api cet su-durācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk, sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ (BG 9.30). Where one may say that there are so many discrepancies in his life and yet he is doing all right in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but he has not corrected his habits, the reply is, kṣipraṁ bhavati dharmātmā śāśvac chāntiṁ nigacchati. Because he has taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, all his bad habits will be corrected very soon.
Śyāmasundara: So that as long as one is improving in his moral nature...
Prabhupāda: Yes. This is ultimate moral nature—take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and gradually all moral things will come. Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ (SB 5.18.12). All good qualifications will come automatically if he sticks to these four principles—these regulative principles and chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, and abiding by the orders of the spiritual master. Then everything will come automatically.
Śyāmasundara: Moral qualities will follow?
Prabhupāda: Oh, yes.
Śyāmasundara: It's not that one has to develop them independently?
Prabhupāda: No. Automatically it will come. Because the good qualities are already there in the spirit soul, and it is being purified, uncovered by the material contamination. The original cult is coming out. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Prabhupāda: Yes. This is required.
Śyāmasundara: He says that moral laws are comparable to physical laws. In other words, they are guidelines to elicit certain responses under given conditions. Just like if I throw a ball up, I know it is going to come down. So a moral law will guide me in the same way. If I act in a certain way, there will automatically be a certain result, a response.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like we prescribe, ādau śraddhā tato sādhu saṅgasya. If you follow one after another, you get the result. If you have got faith, you make association with devotees. Then the next step, you will be eager to execute devotional service. Ādau śraddhā tataḥ sādhu-sango 'thya bhajana-kriyā 'nartha-nivṛttiḥ syāt (Cc. Madhya 23.14-15). Then all misgivings are eradicated. Then you become firm faith, niṣṭhā, then attachment, one after another. Unless you experience the next result, how can you make progress?
Śyāmasundara: Are there any moral guidelines to Kṛṣṇa consciousness?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Moral guidelines are there. That is given by Rūpa Gosvāmī, sato vṛtteḥ, sadho saṅge, utsāhān niścayād dhairyāt (Upadeśāmṛta 3). With patience and conviction, enthusiasm, becoming very fair in your dealings, and in association of saintly persons, devotees, you will advance.
Śyāmasundara: So if one follows these moral guidelines, the result is certain, predictable?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Certainly. (Hindi with guest) Good association means to associate with one of the devotees. Sādhu-saṅga (CC Madhya 22.83). (Hindi with guest)
Śyāmasundara: He says that moral laws are not absolute rules which never permit exceptions. He says that moral laws are flexible; that they're not absolute.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Real moral law means the law of the Supreme. Just like Kṛṣṇa has preached dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga, haṭha-yoga, so many yoga systems. Then He says, sarva-dharmān parityajya (BG 18.66). These principles have not less moral, dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga, aṣṭāṅga-yoga, but ultimately He says, "Give up all of them." Then what is moral? His word is moral. Whatever He says, that is moral. Not this dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga. No. Whatever He says, that is morality. So it is changed. Nobody can argue: "Sir, you have prescribed so many kinds of yogas. Now You say to give up all these things. It is contradictory." No. It is not contradictory. Whatever He says, that is morality. That is Vaiṣṇava principle. We don't consider anything moral or immoral. Whatever is ordered by Kṛṣṇa or His representative, that is moral. That is our position.
Śyāmasundara: He says that morality is social, that besides a personal meaning it must have a social meaning.
Prabhupāda: So Kṛṣṇa consciousness is a type of morality which is above social meaning. It is transcendental. Social means guided by the three modes of material nature. But Kṛṣṇa's order is above, transcendental. Sa guṇān samatītyaitān (BG 14.26).
Śyāmasundara: So it's asocial but not antisocial. Our morality is above social.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Social is subordinate to this world.
Śyāmasundara: But it is not antisocial.
Prabhupāda: No. It is social. It is sublime social. It is not only social but sublime social.
Śyāmasundara: He says that rights are also social, just like if I claim a right, a certain social right, that I must also accept my responsibility. Just for instance free speech. If I accept free speech as my social right, that I must also accept others' right to free speech.
Prabhupāda: But that is lacking in the present society, because these rascals, they are proud of their nationals but they are denying this same national life to the animals. They are being sent to the slaughterhouse. Therefore they are rascals. Why the animals should be denied their national right? They are born in the same country. They have a right to live at the cost of God. Why we are interfering with their independence, given right? Therefore they are rascals. Their so-called social, moral, philosophical, political, they are all rascaldom. Therefore our decision is, harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā: (SB 5.18.12) anyone who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he has no good qualities. In the other direction, we will find so many defects with his so-called moral and social position.
Śyāmasundara: Just like the Christian civilization, they, at their peak, when they are most enlightened, they also prized honesty, uprightness, love thy neighbor—these different social values.
Prabhupāda: The Christian civilization has got values undoubtedly. But they do not follow it. They do not follow it. There is God consciousness, there is morality, there are ethical laws, there is acceptance of God's authority, (indistinct), but they do not follow it. Not only Christians, even the so-called Hindus, they also do not follow. That is the world situation.
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that the problems of philosophy are rooted in social conditions, so that we should... Urgent social reform is required in order to solve the problems of philosophy. By changing social structures through education, then the problems of philosophy will be solved.
Prabhupāda: Therefore we take the standard method. Just like this varṇāśrama method-standard. We maintain it and there will be no trouble in the society. Actually, there is natural division. The intelligent class of men, the administrative class of men, the production class of men and the laborer class of men, that is prevailing all over the world. That is no doubt. But they are not doing their duty. The brāhmaṇas, the intelligent class of men, they are not following these strictly the principles, satya, śama, dama, titikṣava. Similarly the administrative class, they are not following the strictly the rules and regulations. Therefore it is fallen.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "According to the religious and philosophic tradition of Europe, the valid status of all the highest values, the good, true and beautiful, was bound up with their being properties of ultimate and supreme being, namely God. All went well as long as what passed for natural science gave no offense to this conception. Trouble began when science ceased to disclose in the objects of knowledge the possession of any such properties. Then some roundabout method had to be devised for substantiating them." In other words, science began to investigate the phenomenal universe without admitting the proprietorship of anyone, of God, and this brings a breakdown in morality and value. So Dewey attempts to reassemble these shattered values in a philosophical way, but he, like science, attempts to do so without recognizing the proprietorship of an ultimate and supreme being.
Prabhupāda: That is another lunacy, because everything has a proprietor. So why this big cosmic manifestation will not have a proprietor? To accept the proprietor is natural, and that is logical. And not to accept a proprietor, that is lunacy. How it can be possible? Just like we give this example: We are standing on the land. We know that there is government, there is proprietor. And a few yards after, when this ocean begins, how we can think of that the ocean has no proprietor, no government? How any philosopher and man having logic can believe it? What is the answer?
Hayagrīva: Well, he felt that science dealt a death blow to the religions as we know them, to the orthodox religions.
Prabhupāda: No, religion we have repeatedly explained. Religion means to accept the laws of God. That is religion.
Śyāmasundara: This may be likened to the people who do pious works, or the people who do good to others, who are morally committed to life, on that level. To feed others, clothe others, like that. They say that that is a step higher than simply sense gratification and speculation. He says that "This is a move in the right direction toward authentic selfhood, and eventually this way we will understand what I am. And because we are at last doing something, we are involved with life, then we are no more abstract. We are existing." Then we are existing. That someone who is doing all sense gratification and mental speculation, they are living abstract life, abstract life, external life. Simply waiting for the enjoyment of life and speculating what is the meaning of things, that is abstract life, and this being committed to action or decision-making is called existence. This is the first step toward real existence. So in this ethical stage he says that by the very act of making decisions that we become aware, that we become more and more aware, and that decision-making means awareness. And if we make choices about anything, that means that we are becoming aware.
Prabhupāda: What is the decision? Why people become moral—to feed the poor, like that, humanitarian? What is the decision, ultimate decision?
Śyāmasundara: He says that it's not so much the fact of the decision but how the decision is made: if it's made with integrity and self-confidence.
Prabhupāda: How the decision... Why, how the decision is made, that I still don't know. How? Why? Why they make such decision? One man is running on a slaughterhouse. He's killing only. Another man is after humanitarian work, giving food, giving them chance to live. So what is the ultimate decision?
Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says that modern Christianity is sick. It is sickness unto death, he calls it.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: If he accepts Jesus as the perfection, why doesn't he, in the beginning when he was looking for a way of making decisions, why doesn't he follow Jesus's path of morality?
Śyāmasundara: Well, he does. He does. He's just describing the philosophers describing...
Prabhupāda: He's coming to the point of religion.
Śyāmasundara: Yeah. He comes to the point. He says that modern Christianity is despairing, and they are becoming sick.
Prabhupāda: Then why not say not Christian? Modern Christianity... Christianity is Christianity. You cannot make it "modern" and "past." You cannot say "God modern" and "God past." That is not good philosophy. You say there is Christianity or no Christianity. So our system is that if we do not follow the tenets of some religious principle, then how you can claim you belong to that religion? That is applicable everywhere. Just like the so-called Hindus, they did not believe anything, and they are passing on as Hindus, as brāhmaṇas, as (indistinct). That is just passing.
Śyāmasundara: But what about a person, say like this person, who had no access to God's laws, but he was simply speculating with his intelligence to try to find out what is right and what is wrong? Can he ever understand?
Prabhupāda: He'll understand when he comes in contact with a devotee; otherwise he is also in ignorance.
Devotee: By following the regulative principles, we develop a Kṛṣṇa conscious conscience.
Prabhupāda: No. Regulative principle is good—he may be, one may be moral, ethical—but that does not mean he is a Kṛṣṇa conscious. A Kṛṣṇa conscious person, even without moral principles, he is higher than the person without Kṛṣṇa consciousness, simply sticking to the moral and ethical principles, he has no... Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā (SB 5.18.12). Anyone who is not a devotee of Hari, Kṛṣṇa, he has no good qualification. He may be good morally, good about following rules and regulations, but that does not mean that he is good. We have many instances in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Those who are strictly following their religious principles but has no idea of devotional service, he does not gain anything in this life. And a person who has engaged himself in the devotional service of the Lord, even if he falls down due to immaturity, he has gained so many things.
Śyāmasundara: He thinks more in terms from the very beginning of birth there is sex impulse.
Prabhupāda: That is admitted. We say that as soon as there is an embodied living being, he must have hunger, he must have sex impulse. (indistinct), we find in the animals these impulses are there, so why so much philosophy? They are already there. What is the use of philosophizing?
Śyāmasundara: He analyzes that besides the id, or these sex impulses, there is the ego, which is the moral self, which tries to adjust these impulses, these sexual impulses, and tries to...
Prabhupāda: That we have already discussed, that because just like that the sex impulse you are giving him some facility that "You have sex life with your married wife." This is real (indistinct). Not (indistinct) because I have sex impulse, I can (indistinct) anyone, never mind mother or sister, and have sexual intercourse. That is not very nice.
Śyāmasundara: The Vedic program is a social program.
Prabhupāda: Social, yes. Just like Cāṇakya says. He is an experienced moralist, his ethical laws. He says, (indistinct), if you indulge in freedom, (indistinct) and if you restrict and restrain, that is very, very (indistinct). Therefore one should take care of his disciple and serve by chastising them, not giving them independence.
Śyāmasundara: Freud would say that this system of repression, by saying "Don't do this," is harmful to the child.
Prabhupāda: (indistinct) repression of course—his idea of repression is different. Our idea is different. Our repression is you must rise early in the morning, you must attend maṅgala ārati.
Śyāmasundara: It's with knowledge.
Prabhupāda: Knowledge will come later on. But in the beginning, "must"; otherwise he will not (indistinct). Even if there is no knowledge, if by the order of the spiritual master or superior, you must do it.
Śyāmasundara: Later on, Freud began to accept that certain nonsexual factors might produce these unconscious conflicts, also, and he divided the personality into three separate systems, called the ego, the super-ego and the id. The id is the unconscious instinctive drive to enjoy-sex desire, everything animalistic. The ego is that part of the mind concerned with adjusting efficiently to external reality. In other words, it's a moral segment of the personality which tries to adjust or protect.
Prabhupāda: We are trying to create (indistinct) these falsity. Everyone has got some false egoism. That is our (indistinct). Just like Freud is thinking that he is American or (indistinct). This is false ego. We are giving everyone the intelligence that this identification with this material body, that is (indistinct). Due to ignorance I am thinking that "I am Indian," "I am American," "I am Hindu," "I am (indistinct)." This is false ego-ahaṅkāra, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. This is inferior quality of egoism. The superior quality of egoism is Brahman: "I am eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa." So if he is taught to the superior engagement, then automatically this false egoism becomes stopped.
Śyāmasundara: Another area of his investigation was the problem of anxiety. He says that the source of anxiety is the id, or the primitive instincts, which are always forcing us to do this and do that. In other words, desire. These impulses threaten to overpower the rational or the moral self. So there is always a tension or an anxiety produced.
Prabhupāda: Anxiety shall continue so long as you are in material condition. You cannot be free from anxiety in your conditioned life.
Śyāmasundara: It is because we desired something and we were always frustrated by that desire?
Prabhupāda: Frustration must be there, because you do not desire the right thing.
Śyāmasundara: So that is the basic cause of anxiety-desire?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Desiring something which is not permanent. That we call (indistinct). Suppose that I wish to live forever, but if I have accepted this material body, therefore there is no question of living forever. So I am always anxious when death should come. I am afraid of death, when the body will be destroyed. This is (indistinct). So therefore the conclusion is that anxiety is due to our acceptance of something which does not exist. This is the right definition of anxiety.
Śyāmasundara: He would say there are instinctive defense mechanisms in the psychological make-up of everyone, such as repression, projection, excessive overt reactions of an opposite kind, different mechanisms which the ego employs to cover up, to protect itself from the impulses of the id, primitive impulses.
Devotee: Just like he says that from the social standards of conduct and moral codes, a person develops an ideal conception of himself. He wants to think himself ideal, and this ideal conception fits the standard of the society and his environment. Then from inside, from his more animal desires, sex desire, etc., he gets impulses which don't fit that standard, that he feels some sex love, but it should not be there, so he wants to say, "I don't really have that." So he tries to repress that desire either by repressing it or by saying, "I don't desire that. Somebody else desires like that," or in so many ways he tries to cover the fact that his own psychological make-up doesn't fit his standard. Therefore he calls it defense mechanism, a way to pretend as if I still am ideal, although I don't really have ideal desires and thoughts, like that. That's the (indistinct). So he postulated all these different mechanisms for defending the ego against the desires of the id or... (break)
Prabhupāda: You have seen that play?
Śyāmasundara: Tarzan?
Prabhupāda: Tarzan. Yes. He was brought up by monkeys. He was brought on... He has got the monkey habits. Children, if you keep them in good association, then they will come out very good. They will have psychological development in good way. And if you keep them in bad association, they will come out bad. Just like in Boston the priest regretted that these our American boys, they were so much after God, but they could not lead(?) them. Actually you American boys, before coming to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there was no God consciousness; there was hippie consciousness. And now this has changed, due to association. So you are all grown-up, but even small children, if you keep them in good association, they come out nice. Demigods they come out. And if you put them in the demon association, they come out demons. So they are blank slate. As you write, it is written. That is real psychology. You can mold children as you like. They have got the capacity to... Therefore children are sent to a school for taking education, not old men.
Hayagrīva: Now the following quotes are taken from a, a much later book, one of the last books he wrote, called The Undiscovered Self. And it's very popular, and in it he discusses religion, in certain ways almost anticipates the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. At the beginning he defines the purpose of religion. He says, "The meaning and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God, or to the path of salvation and liberation." And of the first instance he gives Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the last instance he gives Buddhism. He says, "From this basic fact, that is the relationship of the individual to God, all ethics is derived, which, without the individual's responsibility before God, can be called nothing more than conventional morality."
Prabhupāda: Yes. Morality, as we understand from Bhagavad-gītā, that nobody can approach God without being purified of all sinful reaction. Yeṣām anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām. A person who has finished all sinful activities, and simply standing on the platform of pious activities, they can understand what is God and be engaged in God's service. And another place it is said by Arjuna, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān: (BG 10.12) "You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, param brahma." Every living being is Brahman, spiritual, but Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Being; therefore He is paraṁ brahma, and the paraṁ dhāma, and the resort of everything, ultimate resort of everything, and pavitra, purified, there is no material contamination. So, what is this? What does he say in this?
Hayagrīva: That, that same point?
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: All ethics are derived.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So to become completely pure, then he is the necessity of morality and ethics. Just like we prescribe, "No illicit sex, no meat-eating, no intoxication, no gambling." These are the four pillars of sinful life. If we avoid these thing, then we can stay on the platform of purity. And God consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, is based on this morality. One who cannot follow the principles, he falls down from the spiritual platform, and he cannot make any progress. So purity is the basic principle of God consciousness.
Hayagrīva: Jung sees atheistic Communism as the greatest threat in the world today. He writes that "The Communist revolution has debased man, because it robs him of his freedom, not only in the social but in the moral and spiritual sense. 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."
Śyāmasundara: That there's no absolute good and bad. Nothing can be said "This is true or false," that "This is good," or that "This is bad."
Prabhupāda: That means he could not observe the distinction between good and bad. Does it mean like that?
Śyāmasundara: He says the only knowledge which is valid is proven scientifically, and he says that since moral right and wrong is not...
Prabhupāda: What is his proposal? What is scientifically proven? What is scientifically bad?
Śyāmasundara: He says good and bad are not subject to scientific proof.
Prabhupāda: But proof to him. But there is proof, what is really good and what is really bad. Has he given any practical example, that "This is scientifically good" and that "this is scientifically bad"?
Śyāmasundara: He says, "What is good is that which is desired," that desirable.
Prabhupāda: But anyone can desire anything. (laughter) So it is nonsense.
Śyāmasundara: He says that now the conditions that control us are haphazard. Some are designed by selfish men to exploit others.
Prabhupāda: Why (indistinct) that he is perfect man?
Śyāmasundara: He says that we can design a culture that will survive due to its being moral, set, upright, honest, hard-working, all-typical American.
Devotee: What about the standard? Someone has to be God in order to set the standard.
Śyāmasundara: He said, "Between God and I, I must admit that God is (indistinct)." (indistinct) quote. He says that "Between myself...," between himself... He says there is a curious similarity between himself and God, adding, however, that "Perhaps I must yield to God in point of seniority." He wants to play God.
Prabhupāda: He wants to play God.
Śyāmasundara: He wants to design the culture.
Prabhupāda: What is his conception of God?
Śyāmasundara: Senior qualities.
Prabhupāda: That's right. (laughter) We accept that. Nityo nityānām. (laughter) We accept that. That is Vedic. That is Vedic. He is also living being, but who is the superior, chief living being? That is Kṛṣṇa. Just like we are also living beings, but you accept me as chief of the society. Similarly, there are innumerable living entities all over the universes, all over the creation, but who is the chief of them? That is God, the leader. Our philosophy is to follow the leader, Kṛṣṇa.
Śyāmasundara: So this philosopher Bergson, he sees two types of morality. The "closed morality," which is the compulsive forms of behavior, which conform to prevailing convention or social pressure or tradition; static morality, one simply follows the tradition blindly.
Prabhupāda: That can be changed according to the... Just like in some scriptures it is said that "Thou shall not kill." So the killing is ordinary thing there. But in some society killing is already prohibited by so much culture that they do not want to kill even an ant. So that depends on education of the particular society. It is not static, that "This will be like this." No. Not like that. "One man's food another man's poison." What is morality in one society, it may be immorality in another society.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. So the other type of morality he calls "open morality." This is determined by individuals in a dynamic way, blazing new trails, guided by...
Prabhupāda: As soon as it is invented by individual men or society, this is all rascaldom. It has no value.
Śyāmasundara: He calls it "the higher morality." Just like St. Paul or some great saint receives inspiration from God and he blazes a new trail to morality in a society.
Prabhupāda: That is nice. Because he is God conscious, he can dictate what is real morality.
Śyāmasundara: He's speaking of the case of St. Paul.
Prabhupāda: So St. Paul, he's a sādhu. So our process is that: sādhu-guru-śāstra. We have to accept everything through saintly person, confirmed by the scripture, and described or explained by guru. Then it is perfect. The scriptures are already there, and we have to see how the scriptures are being followed by saintly persons. And if there is any difficulty, they should be explained by the spiritual master. Then it is perfect. Sādhu-guru-śāstra-vākya, tinete kariyā aikya. Scriptures you cannot understand directly. Then you have to see how the scriptural injunctions are being followed by saintly persons. Even if you cannot understand, then the spiritual master will explain to you.
Śyāmasundara: So he seeks to combine these two types of reason, Kant set up. There's pure reason and practical reason or moral reason. In other words speculative reason and practical reason or moral reason.
Prabhupāda: Practical, practical reason is that if I think I am this body, then where is the difference between dead body and living? Living body means I am in this body, that is living body. As soon as I give up this body, I go and accept another body. Then it is dead body. So this is practical reason, that without the soul this body is a lump of matter. It is very practical. Therefore soul is different from this matter.
Śyāmasundara: He says that our progress towards this kind of understanding comes about because we unify our speculative reason, our theoretical reason with our practical reason or our moral reason.
Prabhupāda: This is practical. Anyone can understand that when the body is, does not contain any more the soul, then it is dead, dead body, lump of matter. So spirit soul is different from the matter. This is practical. If anyone cannot understand, then he's less intelligent. This is practical.
Śyāmasundara: His idea of ultimate reality is that it is the moral ego or pure will that...
Prabhupāda: Then he has to define what is morality.
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Everyone says, "It is my morality." Everyone can manufacture (indistinct). Just like, for example in India if somebody talks of homosex (indistinct) immoral, and here it is going on. (indistinct). So what is morality? (indistinct).
Śyāmasundara: He uses the categorical imperative that Kant set up, the different categories of goodness and badness.
Prabhupāda: That means if you are in the modes of goodness, your morality is different from the morality of the man who is in the modes of ignorance.
Śyāmasundara: But he says that everything should be understood in terms of what it ought to be, that there is an absolute good.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: These German philosophers, they generally accept the Christian standard of morality to be what ought to be.
Prabhupāda: That's also good, but Christian morality, who is abiding by Christian morality? The Christian morality, in the beginning it is said "Thou shalt not kill," and they're all killing. So it will be very difficult to find out a real Christian who is following the morality. "Thou shalt not covet," and they're doing all this nonsense.
Śyāmasundara: Any rate, he's more or less investigating just what is the nature of man without going into the goals.
Prabhupāda: That we have got. Nature of man, nature of living entity is that he's eternal servant. He is serving. Everyone is serving. Who is a living entity where in this world he can say that "I am not serving, I am absolute, I am nobody's servant"? Everyone is serving. Either he's serving māyā or Kṛṣṇa, that's all. When he is in knowledge, he is serving Kṛṣṇa and when he's foolish, ignorant, he's serving māyā. That's all. But he must serve. Just like a citizen, he must abide by the order of the state. If he abides by the order of the state in an ordinary way, then he's a good citizen. And if he (indistinct), then he will have to be forced to abide by the order of the state (indistinct). But in all cases he must abide by the order (indistinct).
Śyāmasundara: So the standard of what ought to be is that one should fulfill one's duty to Kṛṣṇa.
Prabhupāda: That is good, that is moral, real morality.
Śyāmasundara: So Kṛṣṇa uses the same terminology that one should fulfill his duty and if this is the what ought to be.
Prabhupāda: Duty means superior order. That is duty. You cannot manufacture your duty.
Śyāmasundara: His idea is a little impersonal because he says that we discern what ought to be from the forces of nature around you, reality unfolding.
Prabhupāda: Then he abides by the forces of nature. That is nature is superior. He does not know beyond nature there is another superior being, that is God. That is his lack of knowledge. That is the difficulty. If you are not perfect, where is that philosopher?
Prabhupāda: Then you require the shelter of Vedas. He will give you direction how to live. You have come in this material world for fulfilling your material desires therefore the Vedas give you direction that you try to fulfill your desires in this way, so that one day you may come to your original.
Śyāmasundara: He says that all of nature as we see it is only illusory sense material reflecting the ongoing moral necessity of reality of the universe.
Prabhupāda: That is our philosophy. Mirage, sometimes mirage, if you see in front of the water in the desert. Actually there is no water in the desert, but you see under illusion. But you know, you are human being, you know that there is no water, you don't go after it. But the animal will go after it and he'll lose his life because (indistinct). He wants to take that water, and the water also goes ahead. In this way when he's too thirsty in the midst of desert he becomes dead. So that is the difference between man and animal. So the human consciousness, when it is developed, you come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then you become detached with this material mirage. He does not run after the false water. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Others may go after the false water. That is called māyā, or illusion.
Śyāmasundara: Because everything is seeking to realize itself, that that means there is a moral order to...
Prabhupāda: Certainly.
Śyāmasundara: So that each individual must act according to his duty and his conscience in this world.
Prabhupāda: No. Conscience, an entity is Kṛṣṇa conscience, it is useless.
Śyāmasundara: Conscience.
Prabhupāda: Conscience, yes. A thief, he also prepares his conscience. When he goes to steal he says, "I must, because I have to maintain my family. I do not know any other business, I must." This is his conscience. The other conscious is, "No, no, no I cannot steal. It is sin." So where is the conscience? Conscience is not standard. You make your, manufacture your own conscience. Therefore you have to take advice from Kṛṣṇa conscience. That is real conscience. Whether it is (indistinct) with Kṛṣṇa conscience, that is (indistinct). Otherwise he created own conscience.
Śyāmasundara: But we cannot..., pure thought process, I cannot do anything more than think myself. I can think that I think therefore I am.
Prabhupāda: You can think, but if you are helped by somebody else who knows the way, then it becomes easier. You are thinking of driving a car. If somebody expert... (break) ...that is practical. Yes.
Śyāmasundara: He says that it is very difficult because the nonego objects are always trying to lead us astray.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore you have to take advantage of an experienced man who knows things. He does not accept any superior.
Śyāmasundara: He says that the moral goal, the moral reality of (indistinct) is the ultimate in superiority...
Prabhupāda: That morality we have already discussed, what is the morality. You can create your own morality, I can create my own morality. What is actual morality?
Śyāmasundara: Maybe that's a good place to end. (end)
Hayagrīva: This is Fichte. He's not as important as Kant or Hegel, but he followed pretty much in the footsteps of Kant. His first work was entitled Our Belief in a Divine Government of the Universe, and he writes, "Our belief in a moral world order must be based on the concept of a supersensible transcendental world."
Prabhupāda: But thing is that what is morality? If he cannot define what is morality, simply saying on moral principles, what is this morality? First of all you have to understand what is morality. Simply imaginary moral principle. We want practical understanding what is morality. That they have not defined.
Hayagrīva: Not, not specifically.
Prabhupāda: Then what is immoral? Everyone will say this is morality. Just like we say, following the Vedic scripture, we say kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyam (BG 18.44), go-rakṣya, to give protection to the cows. So according to the scripture we would say it is morality, and somebody will say no, killing a cow in some religious place, mosque or synagogue, this is morality. So which one is morality?
Hayagrīva: Well he, following Kant, he emphasized inner reality...
Prabhupāda: He may, he may follow Kant and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is contradiction, then which one is morality? How it will be decided, and who will decide? He may follow somebody. That this question I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader. Now who shall be the leader and who will decide it? Regards to both of us, we have got a leader. Now which leader is perfect? If both of them are perfect, then why there is difference of opinion—one leader does not agree with the other leader? So who will answer this question that who is the best leader? Leader you have to follow. That you cannot avoid. Either you follow Kant or you follow Kṛṣṇa. Either you follow Lenin or you follow Kṛṣṇa. What is the answer? Who is the perfect leader? You cannot avoid leader, either you say according to Kant, I say according to Kṛṣṇa.
Hayagrīva: They seem to think there is a standard within everyone.
Prabhupāda: So what is that standard? We say the order of Kṛṣṇa is standard. That's all. What Kṛṣṇa says, that is standard, that we have got some standard. Unless there is standard, you say conscience, high sense, morality... What is that? Define it. Just like we have got definition of God. I think nobody has got any definition of God. What is the standard that a person should be called God? I don't think... it is only in Vedic literature.
- aiśvaryasya samagrasya
- vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ
- jñāna-vairāgyayoś caiva
- ṣaṇṇām iti bhaga iṅganā
- (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47)
Clear. What is religion? Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). This is the definition of God, and dharma means the order of God. Everything is standard. What is their standard conception? And if you have no standard conception, simply imaginary morality, imaginary controller, imaginary God, how it will help us?
Hayagrīva: For Fichte the world has no objective reality outside of its being an instrument for the enactment of morality. He calls the world of the senses "the stuff of duty."
Prabhupāda: This is all vague. There is no definite direction.
Hayagrīva: He says our duty is revealed in the world of the senses. There's no definition of duty as such.
Prabhupāda: That means I can manufacture my own duty, you can manufacture your own duty. There is no standard. But our standard is, Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śar... (BG 18.66), whatever you, rascal, whatever you have manufactured, give it up. The Bhāgavata says that dharmaḥ projjhita atra kaitavaḥ, that all cheating type of religious system is kicked out. Here is the religious system, satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi (SB 1.1.1). What is that satyam? Oṁ namo bhāgavate vāsudevāya. Everything is clear. And where is that clear understanding? Simply speculating. That is the difference, the Vedic standard knowledge and this speculative philosophy. So, so far we are concerned, we refer to the Vedas, śabdaḥ pramāṇam. Śabdaḥ means Vedas, śabdaḥ brahman. So whatever action we do, if it is approved by the Vedic injunction then it is standard and confirmed.
Hayagrīva: The way of action in the world. And the jñāna, or knowledge, in itself is not sufficient, but it must be applied and must serve as a basis for action in the world.
Prabhupāda: Yes, ethics is the basic principle of purification. Unless one does..., knows what is moral and what is immoral... Of course, in this material world everything is immoral, but still we have to distinguish good and bad. That is called regulative principle. Simply by following the regulative principle, if he does not reach the ultimate goal of spiritual life, so that is also not wanted. The real aim is to come to the spiritual platform and become free from the influence of these laws of material nature. So passion is the binding force in the material nature. Just like in the prison house the prisoners are kept sometimes chained by some iron shackles and other method, so material nature has given the chain, shackles, of sex life, passion, rajas tamaḥ. Kāma eṣa krodha eṣa rajo-guṇa-samudbhavaḥ. Rajah-guṇah means the modes of passion. So modes of passion means kama, lusty desires, and krodha. When the lusty desires are not fulfilled, one becomes angry. But these things are the means of bondage in this material world. In another place it is said, tadā rajas-tamo-bhāvāḥ kāma-lobhādayaś ca ye (SB 1.2.19). When one is afflicted with the base material modes of nature, namely rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa, then he becomes greedy and lusty. So ethics require to get out of the clutches of greediness and lusty desires. Then he comes to the platform of goodness, which will help him to go to the platform of spiritual life.
Hayagrīva: In his Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes, "Moral excellence is concerned with pleasure and pain. It is pleasure that makes us do base or ignoble action, and pain that prevents us from doing noble actions. For that reason," as Plato says, "men must be brought up from childhood to feel pleasure and pain at the proper things, for this is correct education." So how does this correspond to the Vedic view of education?
Prabhupāda: Vedic view of education is, actually there is no pleasure in this material world, because we may arrange for all pleasure artificially in the material world, but all of sudden one has to die. So where is the pleasure? If you make arrangement of all pleasure and all of a sudden death comes upon you, then where is pleasure? So first of all they must, if they are intelligent, they must make arrangement that they will be able to enjoy the pleasures they have created. Otherwise, where is pleasure? It is disappointment. That is going on. They are trying to become pleased by inventing so many things, but because they are controlled by some superior element, so at any moment they will be kicked out of the pleasure platform. Then where is pleasure? Therefore the conclusion should be: there is no pleasure in this material world. If one is searching after pleasure in the material world, then it is the same thing as the animal is searching water in the desert. There is no water in the desert; it is simply illusion, and he is preparing for death. Because he is thirsty, he is searching after water, and in the wrong way he is searching water. The ultimate result will be he will die of thirst.
Hayagrīva: Concerning law and government, Aquinas believed in the Divine Law, which consisted of the commandments of God given in the Bible. Aquinas felt that human laws also have some moral bearing, and that they also emanate indirectly from God, for he felt that all earthly powers exist by God's permission. Ideally, the Church is God's emissary on earth, and Aquinas considered it proper that the Church control earthly secular power as well. That is, he felt the secular rulers should remain subservient to the Church, and he felt that the Church could excommunicate, that means throw out, a monarch or ruler, in which case the ruler could no longer claim his throne. In other words, that the church has not only spiritual power but secular power on earth. Should have.
Prabhupāda: Yes, because the world activities must be regulated to the ultimate goal, understanding of God. Human civilization is meant for understanding God. So although the Church or the brāhmaṇas may not directly handle administrative activities, but it must be done under their supervision, or under their instruction. That is Vedic system. The brāhmaṇa is the Church, and the kṣatriya, the administrator. So the administrator used to take instruction from the brāhmaṇas, or one who can deliver a spiritual message. This is also mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā, that Kṛṣṇa, millions of years ago, He instructed the message of Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god. Sun-god is the origin of administrators, kṣatriya. So therefore the king, or the kṣatriya who administrators the business of the state, if he follows the instruction of veda through the brāhmaṇa or the Church, then he is called rājarṣi-king, and at the same time saintly person. Although he is king, he is following the instruction of saintly person or the Church. So in this way if the brāhmaṇas or the Church are in order, their instruction is in order, and the administrators, kṣatriya, they follow that instruction, he is in order. So the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya. Vaiśya, if he follows the instruction of the kṣatriya, he is in order, and śūdras, they have no intelligence; therefore they follow the instruction of the three superior orders. This is the division of the society.
Hayagrīva: In his last dialogue, Berkeley writes, "The apprehension of a distant Deity naturally disposes men to be negligent of their moral actions, which they would be more cautious of in case they thought Him"—that is God—"immediately present."
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is a fact. We say, the Vedic śāstra says, that God is everywhere; He is not distant. In the Kuntī's prayer it is said, "God is distant and nearest also." So nearest, by God's paramātmā feature, He is living in everyone's heart, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe... (BG 18.61). So He is within our heart; how He can be distant? But at the same time He is in His personal feature, He is in Goloka Vṛndāvana, which, beyond, far, far beyond this material existence. So that is God's all-pervasive equality, that although He is far, far away, still He is near, nearest. The crude example is there that the heater, the original source of heat and light, is far, far away, ninety-three millions miles according to the modern scientist calculation, the sun. But still the light is in my room. So God is both far away and also within my heart. So one who is expert to see God, he sees both way. Goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūto (Bs. 5.37). Although He is living in His own abode eternally, and enjoying with His associates, still He is present everywhere. That is God.
Hayagrīva: Well, in what way is God concerned with the moral or immoral actions of man? Is God indifferent to them, or has He simply set the laws of nature in motion and allowed men to follow their own course and reap the fruit of their own karma?
Prabhupāda: The nature's course is that because we have disobeyed God, therefore we are thrown into this material world under the supervision of the material nature to correct him. So, so long he is in the material world, there is distinction between moral and immoral. Although both of them are material, it has, actually has no meaning, moral or immoral. But in the material world that conception is there, moral or immoral. But when one is in the spiritual world, there is no such thing as immoral; everything is moral. Just like gopīs, they were others' wives, but they were coming to Kṛṣṇa in dead of night. That is immoral. But because they are coming to Kṛṣṇa, it is not immoral. Therefore in the spiritual world there is no such thing as moral or immoral. Everything is moral. In the material world there must be moral and immoral; otherwise this material transaction cannot go properly.
Hayagrīva: So much for Berkeley. (end)
Prabhupāda: How it becomes rational?
Hayagrīva: ...but he rejected a personal God concerned with morality.
Prabhupāda: That is his defect. The nature is dead body, matter. So how it can be rational? Just like this table is a dead wood. How it can be rational? That is nonsense. The carpenter is rational, who has made the wood in the shape. So he says the nature is rational. Nature is dead matter. How it can be rational? Therefore there is a rational being behind the nature. That is God. This, the wood, is dead. The wood, out of its own accord, cannot become a table. The carpenter is shaping the wood into table. That is rational. Therefore behind the dead nature, the rational being is God. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. I think Mr. Huxley is supposed to have read..., understand he has given some comment on the Ramakrishna Mission Bhagavad-gītā, but he has not studied Bhagavad-gītā thoroughly.
Hayagrīva: He says, "Even the laws of the solar system are very far from perfect. The increasing imperfection of the economy of nature becomes a powerful stimulus to all our faculties, whether moral, intellectual or practical. Here we find sufferings which can really be alleviated to a large extent by wise and well-sustained combination of efforts." Another way, in other words, man can improve on nature. "Those who look wisely into the future of society will feel that the conception of man becoming without fear or boast, the arbiter, within certain limits, of his own destiny, has in it something far more satisfying than the old belief in providence, which implied our remaining passive." So he felt that man's improvement on nature is better than a passive belief in God.
Prabhupāda: So he is..., he does not believe..., there is no belief in God is there? There is no question of? No. But our point of view is different: that God is the ultimate decider of everything. That is called daiva-netreṇa. He may be acting through different agents, but ultimate decision is given by Him. And He is sitting in everyone's heart. He is observing the activities of the individual soul as witness, giving permission. Without God's permission, nobody can act. So He is giving intelligence also, and He is the cause of forgetting. Two things are there, remembering and forgetting. Both these things are coming from God. If He keeps him in forgetfulness, then he cannot remember, and if He gives him the power to remember, he can remember for long, long past activities. So ultimately God is the final director. That is our conception. Man cannot remain independent. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). Everything is being done, impelled by the three material modes of nature, and the ultimate dictator is the Supersoul, or the Personality of Godhead in His localized aspect, situated everywhere in the heart of the living entity, or even within the atom He is there, and His is the supreme director.
Hayagrīva: His philosophy is one of total materialism. He states, "A nation that has made no efforts to improve itself materially will take but little interest in mental or moral improvement."
Prabhupāda: That standard of material improvement, that is not fixed up. One person in the material existence, he is satisfied in certain condition of life. Other man is not satisfied in that position; he wants a different standard of life. Then the question will be, "What is the standard of material life?" So far our Vedic civilization is concerned, this, the material necessities are there—eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. These are material necessities, so they are equally visible in animal kingdom or human kingdom—everywhere. It is simply mental improvement of standard, but the standard are different. So what will be the actual standard of materialistic way of life? That is the question.
Hayagrīva: Well from this he concludes that woman, being dominated by love, is morally superior to man.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: And he considered woman, or all women, to be what he called "The spontaneous priestess of humanity. She personifies in the purest form the principle of love upon which the unity of our nature depends." So the woman is to act almost like the brāhmaṇas, in being a priestess or in charge of the, of the religion of man, being that she's dominated by the heart.
Prabhupāda: These are all imagination. When woman, when she is misguided, she becomes dangerous. There is no question of love. But one thing, according to Vedic conception life, that women and children are on the same level, so they should be given protection by men. In childhood the protection is from the father, in youthhood the protection is from the husband, and in old age the protection is from the grown-up sons. So they should never be given independence. They should be given protection, and their natural love for father or for husband or for children, then that propensity will grow very smoothly, and that will establish the relationship with woman and man very happy, and both of them will be able to execute their real function, spiritual life, by cooperation. The woman is known as his better half, so if she looks after the comfort of the man, a man is working and he is looking after the comfort, then both will be satisfied and their spiritual life will progress. Woman is meant for certain duties; man is meant for... Man is meant for hard working, and woman is meant for homely comfort, love. So both of them, if they are situated in their respective duties under proper training, then this combination of man and woman will help both of them to make progress in spiritual life.
Hayagrīva: He felt that in the beginning stages at least, of positivism, woman should take the role of God. He says, "From childhood each of us will be taught to regard their sex as the principal source of human happiness and improvement, whether in public life or in private. In a word, man will kneel to women and to women alone. The worship of women, when it has assumed a more systematic shape, will be valued for its own sake as a new instrument of happiness and moral growth. The worship of women satisfies this condition and is so far a greater efficacy than the worship of God."
Prabhupāda: Worship of man, woman.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Yes, to give protection to women. That is not actually worshiping, but maintaining her comfortably, that is the duty of the man. But to worship woman as God, that is not very good proposal. Then he will be henpecked. Worship of God is reserved for God only, not for anyone else. But the exchange, cooperation, between men and women for worshiping God, that is essential. Not that woman should be worshiped like God, or man should be worshiped like God. But the affection sometimes is stressed that you see him as God or see, see her as God. That is sentimental. But God is different either from man or from the woman. Both of them are living entities, both of them meant for worshiping God. Just like sometimes in the Vedic conception the wife is considered as dharma-patnī, religious wife. Means wife helps the husband in the matter of his religious life. That is found in, still in Hindu family: the man is worshiping the Deity and the woman is helping about the paraphernalia Deity worship, helping the husband so that he can immediately come into the Deity room and begin worshiping comfortably. So woman should always be engaged to assist the man in every respect in his religious life, in his social life, in his family life. That is real benefit of conjugal life. But if the woman does not agree with the man, and the man treats the woman as his servant, that is not good. The man should give the woman all protection and the woman should give all service to the man. That is ideal life, family life, conceived in the Vedic way of life.
Conversations and Morning Walks
1968 Conversations and Morning Walks
Devotee (2): What is the difference between an expansion and an incarnation?
Prabhupāda: Expansion is direct, and incarnation is indirect. When expansion of expansion is accepted, that is called kalā, incarnation, avatāra, kalā. So Advaita is not direct. The example is given in Brahma-saṁhitā. Just like you get one candle kindled from the first candle, another from the second, another from the third. So similarly, either expansion or incarnation, they are all candles. The original candle is Kṛṣṇa. It is not that expansion of expansion is less powerful. The candle power is the same either origin or expansion or expansion of the expansion. It is not that Nityānanda is less powerful than Caitanya, or Advaita is less powerful than... No. Any incarnation or expansion has the same potency, Viṣṇu-tattva. The manifestation of potency is different. Just like Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and Lord Rāma is also the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But one is original. Kṛṣṇa is original, and Rāma is an expansion. Why? Because Kṛṣṇa exhibited the qualities of God fully. Rāma exhibited qualities of God partially. Take for example, Rāma was manifesting Himself as an ideal king. He was not manifesting Himself as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore as ideal king He was limiting Himself with the moral principles of this world. And Kṛṣṇa, being the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He exhibited that He's above any principle of the material world. He's free to act any way He likes. Otherwise what is the meaning... Means full-fledged manifestation of God. Lord Rāma, He married only one, Sītā. And when Sītā was kidnapped by Rāvaṇa, He never married again. Or when Sītā was sent to the forest for public opinion, He never married again. He remained a sticked to, stuck to only one wife because He was setting example, moral principle, to the world. Kṛṣṇa married 16,108. Not religious. Religious, He married only eight wife. But these 16,100 girls were kidnapped by one demon, and they were concentrated in a camp. So they prayed to Kṛṣṇa to save them. Kṛṣṇa is kind to everyone. So Kṛṣṇa came to their rescue, and He killed that demon. He rescued all the girls.
Journalist: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Now for our disciples, we don't give anything cheap. Our first condition is character, moral character. You see? So unless one is accepting moral character, we don't initiate, don't allow him in this institution. And this Maharishi was, "Oh, you do whatever you like. You simply pay me thirty-five dollars and I'll give you some mantra." You see. So people wanted to be cheated, and so many cheaters come. They do not wish to undergo some disciplinary action, you see? Anything. They have got money. They think that "I shall pay," and immediately he'll get the money.
Journalist: Instant heaven.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is their position. Just like people are trying to go to the moon planet. I have given my opinion. You have seen in the Los Angeles Times? This chance is very remote.
1969 Conversations and Morning Walks
Interviewer: And do they raise questions or is it a formalized ritual?
Prabhupāda: Yes. First of all we pray to God to help us in the, our, I mean to say, preaching or chanting process. Then we begin chanting this Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma, conjoinedly, congregationally. And it immediately transfers the atmosphere to a spiritual feeling, and if you sometimes attend our class, you can see practically how the boys and girls, they become ecstatic and chant and dance. So after chanting and dancing for a few minutes, say, fifteen to twenty minutes, then we speak something from Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam about theology and philosophy, ethics, morality. Then again we chant and pray to God and then close our class.
| Page Title: | Morality (Lectures, Other) |
| Compiler: | Mayapur |
| Created: | 12 of Oct, 2011 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=125, Con=3, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 128 |