Your existence means

From Vaniquotes
Jump to: navigation, search

Expressions researched:
"Your existence means"

Lectures

Philosophy Discussions

Your existence means you are trying to be perfect. You are making progress from one state to another.
Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Devotee: Later existentialists, though, they said existential means that right now at any given moment, whatever I do is completely independent of all other sources, and I am just like a ship without a rudder; whatever I do is another path of action. At any given moment I can go any direction. And as soon as you have any idea that there is a God, then that is no longer existential; that is putting a direction on something which is actually (indistinct).

Prabhupāda: What is that existence? Foolishly driving? Does that mean existence cannot mean foolishly driving?

Devotee: (indistinct) existentialists, they talk like that.

Śyāmasundara: But this Kierkegaard, he was living in last century, he was prior to the modern existentialists, so he was still thinking about God. He came before God (indistinct). His final thought is that..., the final idea is that thought should be separated from existence, because existence cannot be thought, but it must be lived; that the thought process should be separated from the existing process or the acting process.

Prabhupāda: Our process is already guided (?). (indistinct). Just like in university if you want to be a doctorate in philosophy, three other big philosophers are appointed to guide you, and then you present your thesis. But these people are thinking without any guidance, (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: He says that the (indistinct) must come from Christ ultimately...

Prabhupāda: Then they're accepting some (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his emphasis is on the acting part, not the...

Prabhupāda: Guidance is (indistinct), then where is different thought? What is that? If the guidance is one, then thought must be on the same relation as different thought.

Śyāmasundara: But he makes this statement that "The difference between God and man can be discerned in that God does not think; He creates. God does not exist; He is eternal. Man thinks..."

Prabhupāda: But He's eternal, He does not exist? What is this? What is that nonsense? He's eternal, He does not exist.

Śyāmasundara: He's thinking that the word "existence" as meaning something that becomes something else-developing, growing, that is existence. And in that sense God is eternal because He does not become anything else, He's always...

Prabhupāda: Then He's perfect. Your existence means you are trying to be perfect. You are making progress from one state to another.

Śyāmasundara: Becoming something else.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So their existence means to..., the process of becoming perfect. Is it?

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: Whereas God is already perfect.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. So He does not in the same way exist, but He...

Prabhupāda: So if that is his philosophy, then why not take the direction from God, Bhagavad-gītā? Why you are making experiments from this platform to that platform? Why you are wasting time in that way? If he agrees that God is eternal, existing, perfect, then why don't you take direct from God, or God's representative? Why you are making experiment?

Śyāmasundara: He also recommends that. He says in this case he's simply formalized the difference between God and man, that God does not have to think; He creates. He does not think; He creates.

Prabhupāda: So he (indistinct) if God is omnipotent, all-powerful, as soon as... That we also say, Vedas, that He doesn't require to make plan how to do things.

Śyāmasundara: No. It just comes.

Prabhupāda: Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). His energies are so perfect and subtle, as soon as He thinks, "Let there be creation," immediately everything perfectly done. That is God. So if God is perfect in that way, then we should take guidance from God and mold our lives. That is perfect leader. That we are doing. We have taken Bhagavad-gītā, the words of God, and guide, that is the guide, and we are following. Therefore our principle, our process is perfect. We don't make any experiments for perfection. Take. Just like a teacher, if he shows that you write "A" like this, that is perfect. That's all. Why should I go on, lifelong, just like this child is doing, this scientist. No. But if he takes guide from his teacher, he immediately teaches, "Make this one like this, one like this, one like that. Three lines makes 'A'." Immediately. And he'll go on, lifelong, like this, like that—he'll never come to God. Nobody will like. So their process is like this. You go on like this—existential—one problem, one problem, one problem, go on. But he does not know "If I continue in this way millions of lives, I will never come to perfection," unless the teacher shows, "Do like this." That is their foolishness. Ciraṁ vicinvan. That is described, athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi, jānāti tattvam (SB 10.14.29). One can understand the truth, simply one who has got a little, little, fractional portion of Your mercy, he knows the truth. Others, athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-prasāda-leśa. Prasāda means mercy; leśa, "a little fragment of Your mercy." One who has this, jānāti tattvam, he knows the truth. Others, na cānya eko 'pi ciraṁ vicinvan. Eko 'pi. There are many mental speculators, philosophers, all of them, if they go on thinking like that for life after life, they will never understand. Simply waste time. That's all. So why not try to have a little fraction of mercy of Kṛṣṇa? And Kṛṣṇa says, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti: (BG 18.55) "Simply by devotional service one can understand Me." So why not take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness immediately? That is perfection. That is perfectional stage. Why should he speculate and be misguided by your so-called (sic:) existentional person?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. I see what he's saying now. He's saying that our existence as men, man's existence, continually becoming something else, separates thought from our being, our actions, so that there is always a gap between the two, so that we're always becoming something. But when we are united, thought and being are united, then we cease to become.

Prabhupāda: Why don't you unite? Why don't you unite? Why refusing to unite? God is conversing, "Unite with Me. Yes. Surrender unto Me. I'll fix up. What is (indistinct)?" If that is the perfection, (indistinct), why don't you unite? That "You surrender unto Me," that is the difficulty. "You keep your individualism, I keep My individualism, but you surrender unto Me," then it is (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: That unifies thought and being together.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That's the only way.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That seems to be the only way that thought and being can actually be united.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: If you surrender to God.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: Otherwise the thought will always be different from the action.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Kierkegaard, actually, he understands the principles, but he actually understands that one has to surrender to God in order to (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He does. His statement is that "We are here as shown a new order, faith(?), a new pre-supposition that consciousness is (indistinct), a new decision, a learning, and a new teacher, God, in time." That is Christ. Christ is so-called "God in time." So he prefers Christ as the teacher.

Prabhupāda: Why Kṛṣṇa not teacher?

Śyāmasundara: Maybe they're not so personal as we are. (laughter)

Prabhupāda: All right. It is better to accept Christ as teacher, but why he does not follow? So all philosophers have been following these commandments of Christ, ten commandments. They are not following.

Śyāmasundara: No. That's all. (break)

Prabhupāda: ...Caitanya Mahāprabhu, simply we think like this, with Christ. And (indistinct) another thing, against God. Simply (indistinct) say that "I am Christian. We are following Christ."

Śyāmasundara: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes. But doing all nonsense against the instruction of Christ. So what is the use of such philosopher, and (indistinct)? Act.

Devotee: Prabhupāda, before I was going to Vietnam, I did not want to go. I went to a Catholic priest and I brought this Bible, and I said to him, "It says here, that 'Thou shalt not kill,' and yet you are saying that I should go and kill." And he said, "Yes. You should go anyway." He just said, "You should go anyway." No reason, no explanation, just "You go anyway and kill."

Prabhupāda: Just see.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: We saw a very interesting thing yesterday, myself and Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa. We were reading in the Time magazine that there is a big fight going on in Ireland between the Protestants and Catholics. Now the Pope and, I think, the Archbishop of Canterbury...

Prabhupāda: Yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: The two of them have been trying to work together to come out with a statement which will satisfy both Churches according to the scriptures. So Time magazine reports that after one and a half years of laborious work, they have finally come out with a 2,500-word statement, but the Pope said that this should not be taken as the Church teachings but should only be used for consideration. That means that after spending so much time, and still (indistinct). He said it should not be taken as a teaching, as a scripture.

Prabhupāda: Then what is the use of giving it?

Devotee: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: If people are the ultimate persons to consider, then what is the use of his giving this statement? He is not authority.

Śyāmasundara: That Archbishop of Canterbury, he is a good friend of Mr. (indistinct). They went to school together, and he says that in college they used to jog together. That was their favorite pastime. (laughter) Now he is archbishop.

Devotee: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: And Brahmānanda sent me that picture, Africa, five thousand priests in that hospital, on account of their drinking habits.

Devotee: Five thousand!

Prabhupāda: Five thousand. In America. (break) ...as soon as I cut with knife, the same blood is coming. Here also the same blood is coming. He is also crying, he is also crying. All these things are (indistinct). Then how do you say that this man has got soul and this animal has not got soul? Where is analogy? And points of similarities are there. Analogy means points of similarity. So the points of similarity, while killing either a man or animal, are all the same, then how are you bringing this analogy that he has got soul, he hasn't got soul? Where is his logic?

Devotee: (indistinct) illogic is the fact that they'll go out and (indistinct) (end)

Facts about "Your existence means"
Compiled byVaishnavi +
Completed sectionsALL +
Date of first entryNovember 17, 0012 JL +
Date of last entryNovember 17, 0012 JL +
Total quotes1 +
Total quotes by sectionBG: 0 +, SB: 0 +, CC: 0 +, OB: 0 +, Lec: 1 +, Conv: 0 + and Let: 0 +