Hayagrīva: The purpose for studying the universe is to improve nature, is to improve man's situation in nature. To improve the lot of man.
Prabhupāda: How? How? So far we are concerned, that any living being is destined to a certain position of happiness and distress. By dint of his past activities he gets a particular type of body destined to suffer or enjoy. That cannot be changed. Either you call this fatalism or destiny—every man is destined—that cannot be changed. His intelligence can change only his position with reference to God. His present position is he is forgetful of God and his relationship with God. So this position, forgetfulness, can be changed, and human life is meant for that purpose. So far improvement of economic condition or other condition, that is already fixed up. One cannot change it. So that is confirmation in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: he is creating his own destiny. Just like it is said, "Man is the architect of his own fortune." Destiny cannot be changed. It is fixed up. Tasyaiva hetoḥ prayateta kovido (SB 1.5.18). Anyone who is very expert and intelligent, he should know that destiny cannot be changed, but he can change his position with reference to his relationship with God. At the present moment he is forgetful of his relationship, but by good association, by Vedic knowledge, by training, he can change his position, and in that way he can improve his destiny also, or he can change his destiny. Karmāṇi nirdahati kintu ca bhakti-bhājām (Bs. 5.54). A person, by engaging himself in devotional service, he can change his destiny. Otherwise destiny is very strong. It cannot be changed.
Hayagrīva: He draws a distinction between atheism and positivism. He says, "Atheism, even from the intellectual point of view, is a very imperfect form of emancipation, for its tendency is to prolong the metaphysical stage indefinitely by continuing to seek for new solutions of theological problems instead of setting aside all inaccessible researches on the grounds of their utter inutility. In a word, atheism is still concerned with studying the 'why' instead of the 'how,' and positivism, true positivism, is concerned with the 'how' instead of the 'why.' " In other words, he felt that religion quo religion, religion as religion, had best be set aside because religious questions are basically childish. They can never be answered. So atheism is rejected because atheists "occupy themselves with theological problems and yet reject the only appropriate method of handling them." And for him the only appropriate method is to forget the whole thing.
Prabhupāda: So how can he forget? Atheism will help anyone to improve his position? Just like death. Atheist, if he does not believe in God and God sends him death, how he can counteract it? He has no power to counteract it. We understand from Bhagavad-gītā that death is God for the atheist. Atheists do not believe in God, but God comes to him as death to convince him that "Here I am." So how the atheist can avoid? How it will improve his present situation by atheistic speculation? So how the atheist can become independent? That is not possible.
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: He felt that more..., even more than the vaiśya, the merchant, or the kṣatriya, the administrator, that the man who will usher in positivism will be the working man, or the śūdra. He says, "The occupation of working men are evidently far more conducive to philosophical views than those of the middle classes, since they are not so absorbing as to prevent continuous thought even during the hours of labor." In other words, when a man is working he can think of philosophical issues because he doesn't have to use his mind, oh, like a merchant or a kṣatriya.
Prabhupāda: He, he, he has used this word kṣatriya, brāhmaṇa...?
Hayagrīva: Oh, no. I'm using this.
Prabhupāda: Oh.
Hayagrīva: He says..., he's speaking of the working man.
Prabhupāda: Hm.
Hayagrīva: In this he is a..., he influenced Marx considerably in his belief in the worth of the working man.
Prabhupāda: But so far we have seen that even the working man requires a director. In the present Communist society there is working man and the manager class. So as soon as you have to accept a manager, then simply working man will not help us. There must be a managerial person. Otherwise, how the working man can be, I mean to say, systematically engaged in working?
Hayagrīva: He believed in forming working men's clubs that would be dedicated to the philosophy of positivism. He wrote, "The real intention of the club is to form a provisional substitute for the church of old times." He's referring specifically to the Catholic Church; he's a Frenchman. "Or rather, the working man is to prepare the way for the religious building of the new form of worship, the worship of humanity."