Hayagrīva: These are notations on David Hume. Abstract objects, relations, space, matter and time are all considered by Hume to be mind-dependent perceptions. In other words, perceptions are all there is. He rejects revealed religion, that is, the religion of the śāstras, and embraces natural religion, that is, a religion wherein the existence of God can be proved or even shown to be probable by argument and reason. According to Hume we really know nothing of God, for at the most we can only know are peoples' ideas of God, and these are but perceptions. It would thus seem that it is impossible to know God according to Hume's natural religion because the senses are admittedly imperfect, and these are the only instruments of certainty Hume admits in his natural religion.
Prabhupāda: What is that natural religion?
Hayagrīva: Well, he says the self is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement. So he says there's nothing but perception. He rejects revealed scriptures as such, but he says, "The heavens and the earth join in the same testimony. The whole course of nature raises one hymn to the praises of its creator. I have found a Deity and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go further who are wiser or more enterprising."
Prabhupāda: First point is that our senses are imperfect. That is admitted. And God is perception. But whether he believes actually in the existence of God?
Hayagrīva: He believes in the existence of God.
Prabhupāda: And what is his perception of God? If he believes in God, then he must give some idea what is God.
Hayagrīva: He has no idea other than the fact that...
Prabhupāda: Anyway, if he believes in God, a fact, then instead of so-called perception, why not understand from God what He is?
Hayagrīva: Well, he, um...
Prabhupāda: Our senses are imperfect. We, we admit that there is God. Now, if our senses are imperfect, how we can imagine "God is like this," "God is like that"? That actually if God explains Himself, why should we not accept that?
Hayagrīva: In his, uh... Hume appears opposed to the search for God in the ideal world. He writes, "Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum, forever. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.
Prabhupāda: Material world means full of miseries. Therefore those who are advanced, they are searching after another world where there is no misery. This is the idea. And this searching after happy world, that is permanent. Everyone is searching after that. That is not unnatural. But actually there is such world, and if there is, why should you not hanker after that world?
Hayagrīva: He appears opposed...
Prabhupāda: Two things: that this world is experienced, nobody is happy, unless he is an animal. Animal, they do not know what is happiness or distress. In any condition they remain satisfied. But a man, he feels pain. Just like our Hari-śauri was speaking that there were reports that because the children cry, sometimes parents kill them. This is the world. And actually there have been many cases. So from practical point of view, this world is not happy. That is a fact. Now if there is a happy world, why one should not try for that?
Hayagrīva: He says the sooner we arrive at that divine being—the sooner we arrive at God—so much the better.
Prabhupāda: We become God?
Hayagrīva: No. In the search for God...
Prabhupāda: Oh.
Hayagrīva: ...the sooner we find God, the better. He says when you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy.
Prabhupāda: What..., I do not follow what you mean. What is the meaning of this?
Hayagrīva: He appear... He is opposed to the search for God in the other world.
Prabhupāda: No. You cannot search out God in your present condition. You have got some glimpse of idea that there is God. What is that mean—"There is God, then you are advanced"? At least you are better than the atheist. But by speculation you cannot understand what is God. Revelation is there to fortunate person, one who is very seriously searching after God. God is within himself. He reveals. And the other process is that if you are searching after God, then you know it from the person who has already known God, or directly from God. So the Bhagavad-gītā is direct perception from God, so with our all reasons, all logic, if we try to understand Bhagavad-gītā, then we understand what is God.
Hayagrīva: Hume is a famous skeptic, and he would reject a revealed scripture. He looks toward science. He says all the new discoveries in astronomy...
Prabhupāda: Then if he is skeptic, that why one should believe his words and take his instruction? He is skeptic, so others skeptically reject his statement also. So there is no use of his talking.
Hayagrīva: Well, he felt that...
Prabhupāda: Now you said that he is skeptic.
Hayagrīva: Oh, yes. He felt...
Prabhupāda: So he is also skeptic. So why people should be induced to believe him and hear him? He is immediately rejected.
Hayagrīva: He felt that instead of basing belief in God...
Prabhupāda: No, he should not think, because nobody will take his instruction. He does not believe others, does not take others' statement—why his statement should be accepted?
Hayagrīva: Well, well he believes at least in the material senses.
Prabhupāda: Everyone believes that. Materially everyone believes. But if he says none of them are correct, so why he is so..., pose himself as correct? He is rejected immediately.