Choose (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"choose" |"chooses" |"choosing"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.7-11 -- New York, March 2, 1966:

Young man (2): But if the disciple is in ignorance before...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Young man (2): ...how does he know which master to choose? I mean, because he doesn't have the knowledge...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Young man (2): ...to make a wise selection.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. So the first thing is that one should be searching after a disciple, er, or searching after a spiritual master. Now, just like you search after some school. You search after some school. So when you are searching after some school, you must have at least some preliminary knowledge what a school means. You cannot search after a school and go to a cloth shop. If you are so ignorant that you do not know what is a school and what is a cloth shop, then it is very difficult for you. You must know, at least, what is a school. So that knowledge is like this: tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet, samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). The spiritual master is required for a person who is inquisitive to have transcendental knowledge.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.3.9 -- Los Angeles, September 15, 1972:

He has no sense. He thinks that carrying the tons of clothes for the washerman he has responsibility in business, so many things.

So actually the modern men, without being properly civilized, without being properly educated, they are exactly like dogs, hogs, camels and asses. We take it like that, they are no better than. So what is the votes of them? What will they choose? They will choose another big camel or big cat or big dog, that's all, because he doesn't know. If you are human being, you know who is another human being. But if you are dog, camel and ass, how can you understand who is a human being? Therefore people sometimes misunderstand us, just like the dog comes: bow, wow, wow, wow. Similarly, the society of dogs, they also come, making their chase upon these Kṛṣṇa conscious people. They take away from the street. They do not know that they are the best persons in the world. They are disseminating the message of God, making people men of character. No illicit sex, no gambling, that is character. They are becoming saintly person, always chanting. But they have no respect.

Lecture on SB 1.3.9 -- Los Angeles, September 15, 1972:

They are disseminating the message of God, making people men of character. No illicit sex, no gambling, that is character. They are becoming saintly person, always chanting. But they have no respect. Because they are dogs, hogs, how they can respect? So because they have no discrimination, these animals, then how they will choose to make the president a first-class man? He has no choice.

So to become actual human being, one has to undergo tapasya. Tapasā brahmacaryeṇa, jñānena, śamena, damena (SB 6.1.13). This is the prescription, that if you want to become actually a human being, then you have to undergo tapasya, brahmacarya, śama, dama, titikṣā (BG 18.42). These things have to be practiced. Not that because I want sense gratification, therefore let me under the name of independence, let me become naked and have sex life on the street. That day is coming. It already has come to some extent. They are taking this as freedom. This freedom is not very good. This freedom means that as soon as you become so free that to have sex life on the street like cats and dogs and hogs, you will get your next life.

Lecture on SB 7.9.10-11 -- Montreal, July 14, 1968:

Prabhupāda: I don't follow what you say. What is that?

Haṁsadūta: Why would someone take less? Why would someone choose Viṣṇu and not Kṛṣṇa if they know that Kṛṣṇa is cent percent and Viṣṇu is ninety-four percent?

Prabhupāda: That we have already answered. Why you like this child?

Mālatī: No, what I mean is...

Prabhupāda: That is your selection.

Mālatī: Then what I want to know is, if you worship Kṛṣṇa and you go to Kṛṣṇaloka...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Mālatī: ...and if you worship Viṣṇu, what happens to you? Where do you go? What happens to those people?

Prabhupāda: He goes to Viṣṇuloka.

General Lectures

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

Young man (5): You said that everybody who has laws should live under them. Does an individual have a right to choose his own laws?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like when you go pass "Keep to the right," you have got the right also to go to the left. But as soon as you go to the left, you are criminal. That's all.

Young man (5): But taking one of the commandments of the Christian Bible, "Thou shall not kill," and applying that to a federal law or our American scriptures, there you have two laws that are not stemming from the same law, with different interpretations...

Prabhupāda: What is that?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: The law in the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill." But the federal law of the United States says you must go into the Army and kill. So which to follow? There is a difference. They both say opposite things.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 11, 1968:

"For a perfect yogi there are eight kinds of superachievements. One can become smaller than an atom, one can become bigger than a mountain, one can become lighter than air, one can become heavier than any metal, one can achieve any material effect he likes—create a planet for example. One can control others like the Lord, one can travel anywhere within or without the universe freely, one can choose his own time and place of death and take rebirth wherever he may desire. But when one rises to the perfectional stage of receiving dictation from the Lord, that is more than the stage of the material achievements above mentioned. The breathing exercise of the yoga system which is generally practiced is just the beginning of the system. Meditation on the Supersoul is just a step forward. Achievement of wonderful material success is also only a step forward. But to attain direct contact with the Supersoul and to take dictation from Him is the highest perfectional stage.

Lecture 'Nobody Wants to Die' -- Boston, May 7, 1968:

Prabhupāda: Yes. Why do you believe her? I say that it is not your name. Why do you believe that this is your name?

Young woman: I can choose my name if I don't like the name I have.

Prabhupāda: That is all right. But why do you believe? When I say, "What is your name?" you put your name which is given by your parents? And why not by your friend?

Young woman: It's arbitrary.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Young woman: It's arbitrary.

Prabhupāda: But you accept it.

Lecture at St. Pascal's Franciscan Seminary -- Melbourne, June 28, 1974:

Madhudviṣa: He wants to know... Kṛṣṇa says that once you are in the spiritual world you are full of bliss. Why would someone choose to come to this material world, which...?

Prabhupāda: That I have already explained. A rich man's son, he thinks that he will be happy independently. His father has got everything, but he goes out of home and chooses to live independently. That is a craziness. Similarly, when you come to this material world, giving up the protection of God, that is our craziness. So a crazy man must suffer. Therefore we are suffering. Yes. But you have the right to become a crazy. All right. Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Subha Vilasa Home Engagement -- Toronto, June 19, 1976:

"To preach means to accept discomfort," that for an older person to travel on airplanes and to always move about and to go here and there for the service of the Lord is naturally more difficult than for a very young person. But Prabhupāda is accepting this uncomfortable situation simply to establish Kṛṣṇa consciousness throughout the world, at least to give people the opportunity that "Choose, if you like, between the internal potency and the external potency." The external potency means you're forced. We have no choice. We're forced to undergo repetition of birth and death. Janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi (BG 13.9). Nobody likes to grow old, but this youthful age, soon it will become old age. And nobody likes to die. So present-day civilization is blindly going on. Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās: (SB 7.5.31) the blind leading the blind. People are thinking that "My parents did it. Their parents did it. Generations have done it. So also we engage blindly in materialistic way of life and everything will be okay." But the result is that everyone is simply suffering, and after this lifetime they also have to suffer the consequences of this present life's activities blindly, not knowing that they're responsible for their activities.

Subha Vilasa Home Engagement -- Toronto, June 19, 1976:

It is not impersonal, void, lifeless, without any happiness. It is what everyone is actually looking for, simply pervertedly within this material world. So this opportunity is here. Before Prabhupāda came to the Western countries, actually there was no hope. There was no hope at all. There was no such knowledge, there was no such opportunity to choose between material life and something else. There was no reality other than this body, and for everyone it was simply a very hopeless, distressful situation. But Prabhupāda personally, even at advanced age, he's coming simply to give this opportunity to the Westerners and to everyone throughout the world, that besides this material life, there is another, eternal life, and if you utilize your independence very carefully to transfer your attachment to this internal potency of devotional service and service to the Vaiṣṇavas and to Kṛṣṇa, then you can become free forever from the encumbrance of repeated birth and death and go back to home, back to Godhead.

Subha Vilasa Home Engagement -- Toronto, June 19, 1976:

These four kinds of persons do not surrender to Kṛṣṇa. In the purport in Bhagavad-gītā Śrīla Prabhupāda has explained that practically 99.9% of the human population fits in these categories, will not surrender unto the Supreme Lord. Therefore the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is formed to give opportunity to those who choose to surrender to the Lord to associate with one another, to cooperate together in serving the mission of the Lord.

The material world is created for a specific purpose by the Supreme Lord. That purpose is to give a chance to the forgetful living beings who have tried to exercise independence from Kṛṣṇa to once again understand their position. They're put into various conditions of material existence in order to learn that they are not the enjoyers and controllers. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme enjoyer. Param īśvara. He's the supreme controller. Everything is meant for His satisfaction. In Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa is described, describes Himself, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8), that "All material and spiritual worlds are created by Me.

Subha Vilasa Home Engagement -- Toronto, June 19, 1976:

So this is because he's part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, and he has the same tendency as Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme enjoyer, and He has expanded Himself in multi-energies to enjoy Himself, and the conditioned souls are also part of that multifarious energy. They are called marginal. Jīva-śakti. And that means they can go one way or the other. They can choose to use their independence to please Kṛṣṇa or they can choose to use their independence otherwise. That otherwise means that they must come to the material world. That is Kṛṣṇa's purpose in creating the material world—to give a chance to these foolish living entities to revive their eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa and go back to home back to Godhead.

So within human society... This is also stated in the Seventh Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye: (BG 7.3) "Out of many thousands of men, one may endeavor for perfection. And of many such perfected men, hardly one knows Me in truth." So the material world is a very dangerous place.

Subha Vilasa Home Engagement -- Toronto, June 19, 1976:

They are simply interested in their own aggrandizement and welfare. If they don't surrender to Kṛṣṇa, that is the only alternative.

Therefore Kṛṣṇa comes and canvasses, and He tells the conditioned souls, "You must surrender to Me." And if one chooses not to surrender to Kṛṣṇa, that means that he himself wants to become Kṛṣṇa—without any qualification. The spirit soul is infinitesimal spark of Kṛṣṇa. And that spark, when not in touch with Kṛṣṇa, the fire, becomes like the sparks of the fire not in contact with the fire: extinguished. So there is no good qualities for the living beings who are outside Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So the four types of men who surrender to Kṛṣṇa, they're doing so with some selfish interest. All of the conditioned souls are acting for their own selfish interest. They do not know otherwise. But somehow or other, if one of the conditioned souls will surrender to Kṛṣṇa by the grace of a pure devotee, then that immediately puts him into a situation of becoming purified.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: No, but within the hydrogen atom, there is Kṛṣṇa; therefore it is combining. Not this hydrogen atom as matter is combining, but because Kṛṣṇa is within that hydrogen atom existing. He knows that by combination this thing will come about, that will come out, that will come out...

Śyāmasundara: But the individual soul has a little independence to choose?

Prabhupāda: No, no.

Śyāmasundara: Has no independence?

Prabhupāda: No. The individual soul does not. In Bhagavad-gītā it says that anumantā, individual soul, wants to do something and Kṛṣṇa gives orders. Man proposes and God disposes.

Śyāmasundara: So we have no free will?

Prabhupāda: No. Without sanction of Kṛṣṇa we cannot do anything. Therefore He is the ultimate cause.

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

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.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Līlāvatī: So those eternally liberated souls in the spiritual sky will never come here because they choose not to. It's not that... (indistinct) they never choose to come here.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. They never choose. They are very experienced. (laughter)

Śyāmasundara: Bergson says that this quality of the soul can only be perceived by man's intuition, not by his senses, but by his intuition.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is nice. Soul cannot be experienced by senses, but we can understand when there is a dead man, we can perceive that there was soul, which is now absent; therefore the body is dead. This is called perception.

Śyāmasundara: The dictionary defines intuition as "immediate apprehension by the mind without any reasoning."

Prabhupāda: That is experience. That is experience. Intuition means mature experience. Just like when as soon as there is mosquito, my hand immediately sees. You can say it is intuition, but it is experience, that when there is mosquito my hand must go there and try to kill him. But the experience is so mature that without consideration the hand goes.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: But he has no standard of right decision. What is the standard of right decision?

Śyāmasundara: His... It's... It's not so much... His motto is not so much "Know thyself" as to "Choose thyself." He's not so much saying that what you...

Prabhupāda: So how you can make your choice if you do not know yourself? You make your choice, "This is good, this is bad." So this choice is made when you know yourself. So this is my interpretation. I have interest in this; therefore it is good. That, so without knowing yourself, how you can make this choice? How you can make your decision?

Śyāmasundara: He says that you will know yourself when you begin choosing yourself. And when you begin making choices and examining them, you find the right choice for you, and you will begin to know yourself. That this passionate, inner awareness when one becomes engaged in life, in doing things actively, and making decisions...

Prabhupāda: So this choice, when you know yourself, so how you can know yourself unless you go to somebody who knows things as they are? Just like people know that "I am this body." But this kind of knowing is animal knowing. This kind of knowing, that "I am this body," yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke (SB 10.84.13). If one understands that "I am this body," then he is no better than an ass.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: That is childish. That is childish. Just like a child, he does not know. He sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with that. That's all. That is child.

Śyāmasundara: Well, his idea is that you choose one fact and stick to it, whether..., no matter what it is, but that it must be..., your decisions must be free, full of passion, tension and integrity.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: What about someone like Hitler, who chose...

Śyāmasundara: Just like, just like Hitler, they might say, or actually the whole hippie philosophy comes from these men, these existentialists. It's not... It doesn't matter what you do, it's that you do it with conviction, determination, passion, freedom.

Prabhupāda: However foolish it may be. That is nice. (laughter) However foolish it may be, you go on.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: That is boring, then he, he must give that aim of life which is not boring.

Śyāmasundara: He says the only..., that it is not boring if one becomes actively engaged somehow with life, you see. He gets a purpose in life and chooses to act on that purpose.

Prabhupāda: How you make such choice, that is the point. Whimsically.

Śyāmasundara: No. He says this choice is made through inward, subjective, passionate search, and it will come out.

Prabhupāda: So that inward, subjective, just like these Bowery bums—what is called?

Devotees: Bowery bums.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So they have made decision as soon as they get some money, purchase one bottle whiskey and drink it, and lie down.

Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:

Prabhupāda: His idea of existence is: from birth to death. Not beyond death. He did not exist before his birth, and he'll not exist after his death. So his existence means from the point of birth up to the point of death. So that is not very good philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: He says that because... A human being has numerous possibilities open to choose from-different kinds of being for himself. He can choose different kinds of being for himself.

Prabhupāda: Mm.

Śyāmasundara: The possibilities of becoming this or that are his. He can choose. He can elect what he wants to be in the future.

Prabhupāda: That is also not proof. As soon as he gets a body, his thing is settled up. Just like you have got this body—white body. You cannot become black body. Or a man who has got black body, he cannot become white man. This is wrong philosophy. How you can settle up?

Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:

Śyāmasundara: What about if someone can choose to become a doctor or a lawyer or a physician or anything like that.

Prabhupāda: That is quality; that is not the body.

Śyāmasundara: No. He doesn't say body, he says that he can choose his different kinds of being, how he will be, whether he will be a lawyer or a doctor, like that. He can be good, he can be bad...

Prabhupāda: First thing is that if he has no clear idea of existence, then what he can be, that will depend on the idea of existence. So as he is thinking of to become doctor or lawyer and teacher, similarly he should know that he eternally exists, then he can also make a program what he can become next time.

Śyāmasundara: He says that that is the essence of existence, that we can become something which we choose, of our own choosing.

Prabhupāda: That means he is talking of this existence. According to him, the existence finishes after death. That is poor fund of knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:

Prabhupāda: So everyone is afraid of death. That animal is also afraid of death. Then? What is the special philosophy? This is animal, also they think, "I will die," he's afraid.

Śyāmasundara: He says that there are numerous possibilities to choose from, to become what we like. There are unlimited possibilities. We can become this or that. So that we can choose our essence, that the essence of a man is in his own hands. He can choose his own essence, what he wants to be.

Prabhupāda: That we are also stating, that essence is that "I will exist in future." Is it not? So if one knows that "I will exist even after destruction of this body," then he will think of essence differently.

Śyāmasundara: Ah.

Prabhupāda: That is knowledge. But if we simply take account, just like "I shall go from this room to that room, no more. I have no knowledge," that is not perfect knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:

Prabhupāda: What is that essence?

Śyāmasundara: This is what the man, a man has to choose-find out his essence. But first there is existence, before that search...

Prabhupāda: But the existence, therefore we say that your real problem is unless you know what is your position, then there cannot be any tangible program. If I know that I exist eternally, then my real concern should be how to check all these concerns so that I may live eternally without any concern. My question will be: "I am existing eternally. Why there should be concerns?" I must live and exist eternally without any concern. Why there have to be so many concerns? I do not want. Suppose the death. I know I shall death, but I do not know; I do not want to die. That is my concern. That my concern should be how I can live without death. That is real intelligent concern. There is death. I know I will die, but I do not wish to die. That is also fact. Suppose you are... If I take a sword and want to kill you, you know that you will die, why don't you accept, "All right, kill me. I'll have to die, so kill me"?

Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:

Śyāmasundara: He claims that the consciousness of death makes a difference in the choices that an individual makes during his life. He says that the consciousness that this body will end, this consciousness guides him to choose in a certain way.

Prabhupāda: So what is that way? The atheists, they think that "I shall die. That will finish. So let me enjoy to the best capacity. There is no question of pāpa and puṇya." That is atheist philosophy. "I have got this opportunity of sense enjoyment. Let me enjoy, to the best capacity, my senses." Because he has no next life. Void. Because after death everything is zero. So "Why should I care for 'This is pāpa, and this is puṇya.' Whatever is palatable for me, I shall do that." But he has got also consciousness of death. Another, we have also got consciousness of death. So our philosophy is that before death, let us inquire in such a way that we may go back to home, back to Godhead. Both of them have got the death consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on Edmund Husserl:

Prabhupāda: Well, that we know. Therefore we say that Vedic knowledge is authority. That is the difference between the Western philosophers and the Indian philosophers. They accept the authority of the Vedas.

Devotee (2): Well, even when one chooses a spiritual master, it's not as if he accepts anybody that comes along. He must have some criteria for choosing that person, and that criterion must begin with an observation of phenomena because that's all he has to work with. It's not as if you take any bhogī who is walking down the street and say, "All right, you become my spiritual master."

Prabhupāda: No. There is standard. There is standard. That is also authority. The Vedas says, tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet, abhigacchet śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). These are the qualities—śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham. So accepting an authority as spiritual master, you have to check this, whether he is śrotriyam, whether he is brahma-niṣṭham. Śrotriyam means whether he has heard perfectly from his spiritual master, and by hearing, whether he is completely, firmly standing on brahma (indistinct). These are the two qualities. So anything, you have to learn the same thing from authority.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: So that we say—the one is matter, another is spirit.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says "being in itself" and "being for itself." "Being for itself" means the living entity, because by choosing things he does things for himself; he makes decisions and creates things for himself.

Prabhupāda: That we admit. Therefore, the living being who decides to change or to accept something, he is important. Actually, he is existing, whereas the bodily changes or circumstantial changes, that is temporary. But the person who is changing, he is eternal.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that because a man or a living entity has no "thingness," no solid mass, he is always changing one thing to another.

Prabhupāda: Solid... We should not be misled simply by a solid mass. The principle which is changing, it may not be a very big solid mass, but it is the active principle which is changing. It doesn't matter it is not like a big hill or mountain, but that is the active principle which is changing.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the structure of man's essence, his consciousness, is freedom. He is continually free to change as he chooses.

Prabhupāda: As soon as you say freedom, it is freedom of some living being. Matter has no freedom. So as soon as you speak of freedom, that freedom must be a living being. A huge mountain, dead mountain, or any dead body, it has no freedom. It is lying down. You keep it with some chemical process and the body will remain lying down, just like the Egyptian mummies, there are so many. So it has lost its freedom because the active principle is not there. As soon as you say of freedom, the freedom is only applicable to a living being, not to the matter. Matter has no freedom.

Śyāmasundara: He says that matter is something and that the living being is nothing.

Prabhupāda: No. That is his nonsense. He has no perfect knowledge. If matter is something and the basic principle on which the matter stands, it is nothing, that is the most imperfect statement. These are all nonsense philosophy.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: Then why do you speak of accident? If you are irresponsible, then why do you say accident? The two things cannot go. If he was responsible, he must be responsible to something else, who is condemning you or blessing you. How it can be accident? These are contradictions.

Śyāmasundara: This situation that we find ourselves in, choosing our future, everyone has to choose his future, what is the next step...

Prabhupāda: Then why do you say accident? First of all you withdraw the word accident, then you can talk all this.

Śyāmasundara: There are certain events that we cannot control. They simply happen to us.

Prabhupāda: Cannot control, that can be accepted. But it is supposed that we have controlling power. Nothing is accident. Sometimes, when you are miscontrolling, that is accident. But actually that is not accident; that is your miscontrol, not accident. The reason is miscontrol.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: Yes. So if you put yourself in better circumstances, then this uncontrolling feature will not be there. He cannot control himself. Everything is accident for him, because he is mad. But if he is cured to a sane man, there is no question of accident.

Śyāmasundara: Supposing today I am happy and my tomorrow is completely within my hands to choose.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Because you are under different conditions. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). You have put yourself under the control of material nature; therefore, according to the modes of the material nature, your position is there. You cannot... When you shall be happy or unhappy, you cannot control.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that we have the freedom to control it.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: It is out of despair. So that is not intelligence. That is not intelligence.

Śyāmasundara: Intelligence doesn't come from despair.

Prabhupāda: No.

Śyāmasundara: He says that a man chooses himself. He creates his own nature.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's a fact. That we admit. He creates his nature. So now you have created your nature as nothing, but you can create your nature as something. But a poor fund of knowledge cannot do that. Therefore he has to take lessons from a higher personality. Before philosophizing, he should have taken some lessons from persons who are in the knowledge. That is the Vedic injunction: tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). In order to learn that transcendental science one must approach a bona fide spiritual master.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: This, he says, is the modern man's condition of existence, that he is overwhelmed with the anxiety of having to choose.

Prabhupāda: That means he is in an awkward position. He wants to be in a peaceful position, but he does not know how to get that position. So because he does not know, that does not mean that there is no peaceful position. Suppose some... It is something like that, that a man in the market, he has been cheated simply by counterfeit currency. He is disappointed that there is no real money. But actually that is not a fact. The government is there, and the currency is there, the real currency.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that once I understand that whatever I choose, I have to be responsible for that, then I become full of anxiety because I am always thinking I have to choose right in order to enjoy something. If I choose wrongly, I must suffer. I am responsible both ways. So he says this feeling of responsibility makes me always dreading and anxious about the future.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: No. Abandoned by God—why? God is not partial, that He is accepting somebody and abandoning somebody. You have done something for which you are abandoned. So if you rectify your position, you will be accepted again. (aside as someone enters:) Yes?

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that because we have to choose for ourselves, everything is in our hands. That for instance we can become in a situation either a coward or a hero. This is in our hands, some situation that we must confront.

Prabhupāda: Then what you can do? If you say that you are being tossed by some superior power, how you can become a hero? If you become a hero, then you will be more kicked, because you are under superior power. Therefore a man who is culprit, he is under police custody, so if he becomes hero he will be simply beaten and punished, that's all.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: I remember one example he gave was that supposing there is wartime, and you are called upon to go to war. He said it wouldn't matter if you went or didn't go. If you went, then you must choose to be a hero; you must fight very bravely, and not a coward. But if you don't go, then you must choose to be a hero to resist the war. You must choose to be a hero resisting the war. One way or the other, you have to choose to be a hero and not a coward.

Prabhupāda: Coward... You are neither coward nor hero. You are simply an instrument. You are... Just like a child plays with a doll. A doll is placed sometimes on this side, that side, sometimes so, sometimes on his breast. So you are just like a doll. You can neither become hero nor become coward. You are completely under the control of somebody who is superior.

Śyāmasundara: Suppose someone is attacking you, ready to kill you. You have the power to choose whether to be a hero and defend or whether to run.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: Yesterday we were discussing Jean-Paul Sartre. His point was that man finds himself responsible for his own actions—not only individually, but he finds that the world is in his own choosing so that he has a social responsibility as well.

Prabhupāda: As soon as we speak of responsibility, there is no question of chance. We cannot say sometimes by chance, sometimes by responsi... Where is the question of chance, if there is responsibility?

Śyāmasundara: He says that by making decisions and choosing this or that, that one becomes responsible for his actions. But ultimately it doesn't really matter what he chooses. The choosing is the important thing.

Prabhupāda: That is whimsical. And still he is responsible.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Whatever I choose, I must be responsible for it. But it doesn't matter so much what...

Prabhupāda: But if the beginning is irresponsibility, then where is the question of responsibility? This is nonsense philosophy. If the beginning is irresponsibility... Just like there is a story, some thieves stolen some gold, and there were many, four, five thieves, so they were dividing the stolen property, and one them said, "Now let us divide it honestly."

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: One of his examples, I remember, is there is a war, so I have to choose whether to fight in the war for my country or resist the war as unethical. His idea is it doesn't matter. Whatever you choose, you must be a hero or do it very responsibly, either resist war or fight in war. But it doesn't matter ultimately which side you choose.

Prabhupāda: That means if you go to hell you must go like a hero.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. (laughs)

Prabhupāda: Just like one man was fighting with another man, and he could not fight, he was going away, going away. The other man challenged, "Why are you going away?" So, "Why not shall I go away? Am I afraid of you? Why should I not go away? Am I afraid of you?" He is going away, he is defeated, still he said that "Why shall I not go? Am I afraid of you?" So this is childish philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: He says that because I have freedom to choose, that makes me susceptible to bad faith, to a condition which he calls bad faith, irresponsibility.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: That is freedom, that you can make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom. Freedom does not mean you are dull.

Śyāmasundara: But what if you avoid even choosing right or wrong, you simply drift without any decision of right or wrong?

Prabhupāda: No. That is irresponsibility.

Śyāmasundara: That's what he is saying, that because we are free, we are susceptible.

Prabhupāda: We are free means you have to make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his idea is that because we are free, sometimes we neglect to even choose between right and wrong.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: That is wrong decision. Then you should suffer. That is responsibility. Why you have done wrong?

Devotee: That is choice.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Devotee: He is not recognizing that that is a choice. You could not choose that way unless you had this freedom.

Śyāmasundara: No. It's not like that. Supposing there is a war, a country goes to war. There is the choice whether to say, to choose whether it is right or wrong, but I avoid the choice altogether. I don't enter into it. Apathetic.

Prabhupāda: No. You cannot avoid the choice. At the present age there is democratic government. When we agree to fight with another, that means you have got your assent. Why should you not fight?

Śyāmasundara: I haven't made this very clear, but because we have freedom, we become susceptible to bad faith. Bad faith means that we avoid making any decisions at all, good or bad. We simply drift. He calls it drift. We go day to day without entering and becoming involved with any responsible decision-making.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: He says that this condition of bad faith must be replaced by solid choosing and faith in our choosing. For instance, if one chooses a certain path of action, that he must have faith that by carrying out this action valiantly, heroically, that he will be doing the right thing.

Prabhupāda: But if his decision is wrong, then what is the use of such heroism?

Śyāmasundara: He says there's no such scale of right and wrong. There is no absolute right and wrong, that everything depends upon how...

Prabhupāda: Then where is the question of responsibility if there is no right and wrong?

Śyāmasundara: Whatever I do, I must do it...

Prabhupāda: Whimsically. Whimsically. Whatever you do, you do it whimsically. Does he mean to say like that?

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: So that means he must have the power to make decisions, right and wrong. That is responsible.

Śyāmasundara: The main thing, though, is that he must abide by his decision. Whatever he chooses, that he must live it.

Prabhupāda: Not necessarily. If I decide to steal, it is better to avoid it. Not that because I have to decided to steal, I must do it just like a hero and then go to prison.

Śyāmasundara: For Sartre there is no absolute right and wrong. Some of his main heroes are great thieves and debauchers, like there's one... What is his name?

Prabhupāda: Alexander. Alexander and the robber. There is a story that a robber was arrested by Alexander and there was talk between Alexander and the robber: "You proved that you are big robber, that's all. Why you are going to punish me?" And he was released: "Yes. I'm a big robber. I have no difference between you and me."

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: So he says that we can remedy the whole situation of bad faith and being an unsavory character and treating myself as an object instead of a person by choosing for myself the person I ought to become.

Prabhupāda: Ideal person.

Śyāmasundara: An ideal person. And become that ideal person.

Prabhupāda: So what is the definition of that ideal person?

Śyāmasundara: Well, in some of his books it would be the very heroic type person who sees things as they are.

Prabhupāda: A big robber is also heroic.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Many of his heroes are robbers and...

Prabhupāda: So these robbers are ideal persons? Big, big thieves.

Śyāmasundara: In that they portray an integrity, self-integrity.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: So that's all... (break)

Devotee: That faith is not to choose, but that is a choice, as Kṛṣṇa explains in the Bhagavad-gītā, that there is action and inaction, and one who can see action in so-called inaction, he is intelligent. He is in that category of unintelligent people. They take this form of inaction as being inaction. And so he is thinking this so-called drifting as no choice; it is simply a way to make a choice very easily. You are choosing to go down the river with the current. It's choosing to remain in animal life.

Śyāmasundara: To be controlled completely by external forces.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Devotee: They are surrendering to the material nature.

Prabhupāda: Vikti mamate (?).

Śyāmasundara: This is the whole hippie philosophy.

Devotee: They are making a choice, but the wrong choice.

Śyāmasundara: But he says you shouldn't be like this. Sartre says you shouldn't be like this—this drifting.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Prabhupāda: Just to say there is no purpose?

Śyāmasundara: No. There is only existence. There is no essence.

Devotee: Then why write?

Śyāmasundara: Because it's something to do. Just like I courageously choose to write, that's all, so I must do it.

Devotee: What is...

Śyāmasundara: Ultimately yes. Even Prabhupāda stated this, too.

Prabhupāda: It is rat philosophy. He has something to do-cut everything into pieces.

Devotee: What is that?

Prabhupāda: Something to do. I have to do something. He is cutting a book into pieces.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Hayagrīva: How, how, well, he does. He says, his very words, he says, "Since we have discarded God the father, there has to be someone to invent values. Before you become alive, life is nothing. It's up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing else but the meaning that you choose."

Prabhupāda: I will have to give meaning of my life? So what is that idea?

Hayagrīva: You must give meaning to your own life. Since, since there is no God to give life meaning, man must invent his own meaning.

Prabhupāda: Everyone will invent his meaning.

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: Then where, where there will be symmetry?

Hayagrīva: Si..., similitude.

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Prabhupāda: So that is already there. The Vedic injunction means the (indistinct), they are conditioned, so that under conditions they also can be fruitful(?). What is his idea?

Śyāmasundara: He says that society should be full of love and security and harmony, and everyone should work in unison. But because people have freedom to choose what they want, then too much freedom, the society is falling apart.

Prabhupāda: That is Western society, not the society controlled by the Vedic literature. Just like marriage in Vedic society, that is a religious obligation. They cannot cancel. The freedom, the so-called freedom is allowed in the upstart Western society.

Śyāmasundara: So he says we have to change all this now.

Prabhupāda: Then we have to take to the Vedic principles. That is the way.

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Prabhupāda: She has to push some button to take out Kṛṣṇa.

Śyāmasundara: Just like the answer has three choices: Kṛṣṇa, Durgā, Kālī. Which one is the Supreme Personality? So if she chooses Kṛṣṇa and then he gets rewarded. So in the future he will always think Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Prabhupāda: Why must think? Why not take a live master?

Devotee: Yes. He says that that can be done also, but he is saying that they should be rewarded when they say the right answer.

Śyāmasundara: He says that this will solve the problem of not enough teachers in our schools, public schools, not enough teachers for our children. A huge class, and the children have only one teacher. So there's not enough individual time given to each student.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Prabhupāda: Yes. So if by free will if you choose to surrender to Kṛṣṇa they you'll get your real free will, freedom. Otherwise you are under the clutches of māyā. Daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī mama māyā duratyayā (BG 7.14). You cannot surpass the stringent laws of material nature, that is not...

Śyāmasundara: He says, contrary to Kant, he says that the practical reason is primary, is the first thing, that what is practical is superior to what is...

Prabhupāda: Practical, this means, suppose I want to do something, I do not know, then I go and ask a superior person who knows it. Just like when you drive your car, you are going somewhere, so you take the direction from the signpost, this way go, this point here, this village. Similarly, for practical purpose you have to approach a person who knows. That is practical. And if you think that I shall do it myself, without consulting anyone, that is not practical, that is theoretical. You will be misled. At least we are prone to be misled.

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Hayagrīva: Continuing Descartes, he writes, "It is not an imperfection in God that He has given me the freedom of assenting or not assenting to things of which He has not placed a clear and distinct knowledge in my understanding. On the other hand, unquestionably it is an imperfection in me that I do not use this freedom right, yet..." So but one may then ask, Why doesn't God give us the understanding whereby we can choose properly in all cases?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: Why can't we have free will and at the same time...

Prabhupāda: Free will means...

Hayagrīva: ...infallible judgment?

Prabhupāda: Free will means that you can act wrongly. That is free will. Unless there is chance of doing wrong or right, there is no question of free will. Where is free will then? If I act only one sided, that means I have no free will. Because we act sometimes wrongly, that means free will.

Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Prabhupāda: But first thing is that if you have got will, but reasonable will, first of all you have to think, "Who has kept this gold here? I am claiming proprietorship simply by coming here, but who has kept this gold here?" Why don't you think like that? What kind of human being you are?

Hayagrīva: A final point: he believed that man should have the freedom to choose his occupation. He writes, "In the Platonic state, subjective freedom was of no account. Since the..."

Prabhupāda: That means there are already different occupations, and you have freedom to select one of them. But the occupation is already there, created by somebody else. You have the freedom to make a choice. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam: (BG 4.13) "I have created these four principles of occupational duties." Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). Now, if according to your qualification you can make a selection, "I, I like this occupation." But the occupation is already there.