View source for Changing (Philosophy Discussions)

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"changing"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|SunitaS|Mayapur}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|07Aug11}}
{{last|14Aug11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=72|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|72}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Changing|1]]
[[Category:Compilations from Lectures]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: Another way of looking is that Hegel considered that his predecessors were abstract philosophers, in other words they were isolating or severing from the whole into parts and that each part was static, not moving, but he saw that the truth is dynamic, it is always changing that these dynamic or that these isolated factors, he called them moments, momentums, that the total of moments was a moving force, that truth was actually dynamic and always changing, not static.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That we can understand from our personal self, that I am the soul, I am existing, and the bodily features changes, changes. Then it is changing, therefore it is material. And the spirit soul, it is existing in all conditions. That is the difference between spirit and matter. Hm.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_1" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: His idea was that the truth is in the sum of all moments, he called the organic theory of truth. The truth is not static or composed of isolated segments or parts, but it is the sum total of everything and it is constantly changing. So he says that these phenomena or facts of nature or these moments, they are progressing in an evolutionary process according to a course which is prescribed by a universal reason or the world spirit, weltgeist. That the world spirit is unfolding itself through phenomenal events.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That means... This is another nonsense proposition. According to the universal reason. So wherefrom the reason comes unless there is a person? That he does not know.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_2" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: So the world is a school house or a school ground where we become educated...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, a playground, it is called field. It is called field. Kṣetrajñā. Idaṁ śarīraṁ kaunteya kṣetram ity abhidhīyate ([[Vanisource:BG 13.1-2 (1972)|BG 13.2]]). Idaṁ śarīram, this body is field, a small field. You wanted to play, "Alright take this field and work." That is going on. You are exhausted with this field, Kṛṣṇa gives another field, "Alright, take this." He gives another field, in this way changing different fields, fields of action, that's all. This body is field of action.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_3" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: He says this dialectic, basic dialectic between being and nothing is the basis of becoming, that because these two things are always conflicting, we are always becoming.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Becoming, that's... Therefore, the question becoming means I am now in this awkward position, that I am eternal and immortal but I have been entrapped by something which is mortal, therefore I am changing my position. So when I shall stop this taking of different position, I shall remain in my own being, that is the (synthesis).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_4" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: It is very much different, (indistinct) of difference. He'll have to go through millions of births to come to our understanding.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Yes. In one sense he believes that the absolute truth is always changed, is always changing and yet is also permanent.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Absolute truth, how can you change?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But it is also permanent at the same time.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that means he does not know what is Absolute Truth. Absolute cannot be changed.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Just like Kṛṣṇa is walking, moving, that means changing...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That does not means He is not Absolute Truth.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_5" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: Well these can be altered by cosmic radiation. Supposing a cosmic ray hits the gene, it may change it slightly so that maybe it comes out with...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is not the question. Suppose if you have got life, I can kill you with a knife. But the question is, "Wherefrom this life came?" I can change, merely with a knife, your life. That is not very important thing, changing. The thing is to find out the origin, wherefrom the genes came.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He has a book called The Origin of Species, and he traces back...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: First of all, you are testing his knowledge.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_6" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes. That is our argument.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So if you accept that there is an evolution, do you accept that the bodies change because of changing conditions of the natural surroundings?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Body is not changing. The body is already there. The soul is changing bodies, transmigrating from one body to another.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_7" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: But all that Darwin is interested in is in the evolution of species: how one type of body evolves to the other type due to the changing conditions, and that because he has evolved a certain body he is best adapted to survive in that condition so that his species survives. So the scientists have shown that by bombarding the cosmic radiation or radioactive elements, that a gene or cell can change, mutate, so a different kind of animal comes out. From one kind of mother a different kind of animal comes out.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But we say that different kind of animal is not beyond these 8,400,000 species.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_8" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: It is already there. I am simply changing place, transmigration. That is our theory-transmigration.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But you still haven't answered satisfactorily...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just like you are traveling in a train. There is first class, second class—that is already existing. But if you pay more, you come to the first class. You cannot say, "Now the first class is now created." It was already existing. So their defect is that they have no information of the soul. The soul is transmigrating. The forms are already there. The soul is transmigrating from one apartment to another apartment. That they do not know.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_9" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: They say simply the apartment is changing.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Just like if it suddenly got cold, the spirit soul would desire to be warm so he would evolve a body with hair.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That we say. That is our..., according to the mentality at the time of death you get another apartment. But the apartment is already there.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_10" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: "If you want this, come on here." It is already there.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: And then all the others will die out and that new one will begin, because the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Everyone will die. Everyone will die means change his apartment. Now at the time of changing apartments... Suppose I am here, I have to change another, so I can select my apartment, what kind of apartment I shall have. But that apartment is already there. I'll have to simply make arrangement, that's all. It is not that I am creating that apartment.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_11" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: It is, apartment is not evolving. I am evolving in this sense that I am changing one apartment to a better apartment. The better apartment is already there.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: To go back to this survival of the fittest theory,  supposing we are all here and the water comes, like you said. Supposing one of these persons in Los Angeles has the ability to breathe in water, somehow or other he can breathe under water...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So we have no objection.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So he survives; everyone else...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He survives means... He survives means that even if he's dead, that does not mean that the species is dead. There is another human being in another part of the world.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_12" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Svarūpa Dāmodara: But the real theory started by Darwin, that was accepted for several years, but later on, with new advancement, his theory changed. His theory became disproved, that "What you are saying, it is not right, it is not final." So theories can change. So same thing, Darwin's theory is also changing.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But his impact upon the thinking of the world so completely changed the whole conception of...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is now changing again. So what is the use of that, such change?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, you have to investigate, because he is important for our...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. That's all right. We will investigate; and a theory which changes, it will change, that's all. It is not a fact. The sun rising is a fact. It cannot change.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_13" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So different forms, just like human beings, formerly they were very tall, and they are reducing their stature, and at the end of Kali-yuga they will be stature like this. So this is not change of the species. This is changing, just like your father is taller than you, is he not? Is he not taller?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: No. I'm taller than he is. But they say because our generation got better foodstuffs than our parents.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So therefore, according to circumstances, the stature is changing. It is not the species. It is the same human, but formerly the human being was taller, stouter; now they are reducing in strength, in stature, in memory, in duration of life, span of life, in mercy. That is stated in Bhāgavatam. They do not change every species.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_14" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: This must be changing because the instruments by which we acquire knowledge, they are imperfect. So by our so-called research and sensuous acceptance of knowledge, that is never perfect. It cannot be perfect.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Just like they say that the rate of disintegration of the atomic particles of an element is constant. But it may not be constant; perhaps in earlier times it was faster or slower, there are so many possibilities.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So the so-called scientists and philosophers who do not follow the system of (sic:) ascending knowledge, knowledge received from higher authorities, they are not perfect. They cannot have any perfect knowledge, either research work with the blunt imperfect senses. They will not... So whatever they say, we take it as imperfect-dream. And when Kṛṣṇa says that "I enter into the universes," viṣṭabhyāham idaṁ kṛtsnam ekāṁśena sthito jagat ([[Vanisource:BG 10.42 (1972)|BG 10.42]]). Now the weightlessness of the planets, the scientists describe in so many ways, but that is not very perfect. What is the cause of weightlessness? I have, what is called, (indistinct).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_15" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: He sees only the bodies are changing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke, sa eva go-kharaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 10.84.13|SB 10.84.13]]). Anyone, that is also mentioned there. Teṣām ātma vimanuna (indistinct). Foolish. Child. Child thinks "I am this body." (indistinct) means fools. Ātma vimanu: "I am this body." Animal thinks that "I am this body." Virakara (indistinct) ātmā vinanena anāśrita. They do not know what is my position. Misleading.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_16" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Discovering, partial, that's like... They cannot discover. The things are there passing on, so many things, passing on.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: What it means in essence is that they have analyzed the individual cell of the living entity and they have found in each cell a set of genes, forty-six in each cell. These genes contain the blueprint for the whole body, like the seed of a tree contains the  whole tree. So it is possible, they say, by rearranging these genes or changing them slightly that a new type of person can come out, or a new type of living entity, from the original.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Definitely. What we call the jīva, they might be talking of the jīva or genes. The genes, the jīva, they can have any nice type of body.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_17" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That's all right. Even they... But ultimately the  mechanic (is) able to work on the computer machine.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But what about this artificially changing bodies before they are born, before they are growing?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is also same thing. Just like I change your shirt, what is that?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But I mean, isn't that a demonic act?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That we shall consider later. Demonic it must be, but this change, this change can be possible.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCharlesDarwin_18" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="5" link="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin|Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That is education. Every individual person, he is a soul, and he has got a particular type of body. Especially in the human body he requires education. What is this animal and what is higher than human race, these are Vedic description. So there are 8,400,000 different forms of life, and the body is being evolved. The body is machine, and the individual soul desires and he gets a suitable body made by material nature under the order of God. This is Vedic idea, as it is said in the Bhagavad-gītā, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe arjuna tiṣṭhati ([[Vanisource:BG 18.61 (1972)|BG 18.61]]). God is existing within the core of everyone's heart, and the individual soul is desiring something, and upon the order God he is given a machine made by material nature. So this is evolution, and even a man, although he is human form of body, he can again degenerate to animal form of body according to his desire. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 2.13 (1972)|BG 2.13]]). He has to change the body, and the body is changed according to his work and desire. In the animal kingdom they have also desires, but they are under the laws of nature changing body, and one is given the chance to become a human being, and then he may desire, and according to his desires he gets the next body. If he likes, he can go higher forms of life, and if he degenerates he goes lower form of life.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_19" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: When science tries to investigate something, they assume that what they are investigating is static, that it is a constant, that it is not changing, that it's static, mechanical. But the life force, he says, is dynamic; it's always changing, unpredictable.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Because it is living force, it must be dynamic. It is not a dead stone. Because it is living force, it must be dynamic. We are all living force, sitting here, we may sit down or we may go away. That nobody can check. Similarly, we are dynamic forces, and God does not interfere with our dynamic force. He allows us, "Do whatever you like." Because if He interferes with our independence, then we are no longer living entities; we become dead stones. So God does not interfere. He gives us full freedom. But at the same time He comes down and instructs us, "But why you are engaged in this foolish activity? Please come to Me, back to home, back to Godhead, (indistinct)."</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_20" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Devotee: Well, Bergson's idea of creative means we are creating our immortality.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. You are immortal always, by constitution, but you are changing your bodies exactly like the moon is fixed but the bodies are changing, clouds, changing, and it appears that the moon is also going on, but moon is not going on. Similarly, soul is permanent.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Is that process we take, from body to body to body, is that a creative process?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. You create your own body, next body, as you desire. If you create your mentality like a dog, you get a body of a dog; if you create your mentality like a hog, you get a body of hog; if you create your mentality like a tree, then you become a tree; and if you create your mentality as servant of God, you go back to home, to Kṛṣṇa.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_21" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: He does not know. At the present moment I am fallen, so even if I go to my original position, there is chance of again falling down. Otherwise, how I became fallen? Just like a child once falls and again stands up, he has got chance of again falling down. You cannot say, "Now he has stood up, he'll not fall again." That is not possible.</p>
<p>Devotee: The different kinds of bodies, they're just different phases of the illusion, because the real, spiritual body is always the same, it's not changing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. This is called sanātana, eternal.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_22" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Within the world Bergson sees nothing but constant, unceasing change. He even sees ego change. He says, "If our existence were composed of separate states with an impassive ego to unite them, for us there would be no duration, for an ego which does not change does not endure, and a psychic state which remains the same so long as it is not replaced by the following state does not endure either." So he sees the psychic state of the individual in the ego and all that the ego contains as cognitively changing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is false ego, that "I am this body." So it has to be changed by education, that "You are not this body." Then when he understands that he is spirit soul, then the activities of the spirit soul begin, mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām ([[Vanisource:BG 18.54 (1972)|BG 18.54]]). That is stated in Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā, that first of all he has to understand that he is not this material body; he is spirit soul. That is the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe ([[Vanisource:BG 2.13 (1972)|BG 2.13]]). Within this body the soul is there, and that soul is Brahman, spiritual. People, if they do not understand this, so they are in the animal status of life. But if he understands that he is not this body, then his struggle for existence, to maintain the body, stops. Brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā ([[Vanisource:BG 18.54 (1972)|BG 18.54]]). That it is, when he understands that he is not this body, then his unnecessary endeavor to keep the body in comfortable position without the, without executing the business of spiritual life, then he is kept in darkness. So when one understands that he is spirit soul, so how to elevate the spirit soul to the highest perfection, that will be the main business.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_23" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: From this, Bergson concludes that we are evolving, that we learn from an accumulation of experience, that we cannot, in a sense, repeat the same mistake twice. He writes, "From this survival of the past, it follows that consciousness cannot go through the same state twice. Circumstances may still be the same, but they will act no longer on the same person since they find him in a new moment of his history. Our personality, which is being built up each instant with its accumulated experience, changes without ceasing. Thus our personality shoots, grows and ripens without ceasing."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. There is no cessation because the soul is eternal, so his consciousness is also eternal. But it is changing according to the circumstances, association, time, place, and the party changes. Therefore good association required. Sādhu-saṅga ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 22.83|CC Madhya 22.83]]). It is called sādhu-saṅga, association with the devotees. By good association the consciousness can be changed from material to spiritual. That is the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, how to change the consciousness from matter to Kṛṣṇa. So that requires guidance. The guidance is Kṛṣṇa's instruction and the spiritual master. Kṛṣṇa is so kind that he has given us śāstra and the sādhu and guru. So if we take advantage of that then we become reformed, our life becomes successful.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_24" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That's, what is called, that is the nature. First, first of all something is created, then it develops, it stays for some time, then it becomes old, dwindling, and then finished. This is called six changes of sarvika (?), of anything material. But a spirit soul is not material. He is not subjected to all these changes. This is our practical experience. The body is changing but spirit soul is the same. He remembers that "I had this body, a child's body. I have this young boy's body." He remembers; therefore he is eternal. The change is taking place of the body, so therefore the soul has nothing to do with the bodily changes. He has got his perpetual duty, perpetual activity—that is devotional service. So he has to be trained up in that perpetual duty, then he will stop this process of bodily changes, he will remain in his eternal body, spiritual body. That is going back to home, back to Godhead.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_25" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Soul is eternal. Soul is ever-existing. There is no question of evolution or..., that it is according to the body. So long he is in the material existence and bodily concept of life, he is thinking that a better body is evolution and a lower body... But if his consciousness is changed, then there is no chance of changing, different bodies. He remains in his eternal body.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well the basic contradiction, it seems, between Bergson and the Vedic version is that of the evolution of the universe.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Evolution of universe means, I have already explained, that anything material, it goes under six changes. So this universe, since its birth, it is increasing in volume. So that is material change. It is nothing to the, to do with the spiritual. Spirit, the soul, as we have got soul within this body, similarly ākāra, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu is the soul of this universe. He is not changing; the universe is changing, the body is changing.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Bergson's theory seems to be that there's greater harmony being realized the further life advances or the further the universe goes on.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Harmony is there, certainly. That harmony, just like  the child's body is harmonically changing into boy's body, harmonical changes, there is harmony. But the change is there.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHenriBergson_26" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="6" link="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson|Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: The evolution is all harmony. Just like from aquatics one has to become insect. From aquatic one has to accept the body of plants and trees, then he has to accept the bodies of insects. This is harmony. Changing is there, but it is in harmony. Now, when one comes to accept the body of human being, then his consciousness is developed. Now he can accept, because he has got greater freedom than the animal, so he has to make his choice whether he is going to stop this evolutionary process or he wants to remain in this evolutionary process. So if he takes instruction of Kṛṣṇa, then he can stop this botheration of evolution, and if he does not take, then he remains. (aside:) Find out this verse, aśraddadhānāḥ puruṣā dharmasyāsya parantapa.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeremyBentham_27" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="7" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham|Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Physical. But physical senses cannot actually cannot give you the greatest happiness. Just like a man is sensuous. So he can enjoy one woman, two women, but he cannot enjoy unlimitedly. But our standard of happiness means "which is increasingly unlimited." That is happiness. Therefore it is said, ramante yogino 'nante satyānande cid-ātmani. Those who are yogis, they enjoy. So enjoyment... Without enjoyment, nothing is relished. Just like you are taking to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there is some enjoyment, transcendental bliss. Otherwise how you can stick to it? So real happiness means "which is increasingly unlimited." That is happiness. Temporary happiness... Vidyāpati sings, tātala saikate vāri-bindu-sama suta-mita-ramaṇī-samāje, that we are trying to enjoy in this material world, happiness in the society, friendship and love. Suta-mita-ramaṇī-samāje, friends, children, wife, like that. That is in the society. But Vidyāpati says, "Yes, there is happiness undoubtedly, but that happiness is just like a drop of water in the desert. Desert means it is hankering after water. Dry desert, he requires water, but if you go there and put a drop of water, "Now here is water." So our, we are, who are hankering after so great happiness that these rascals' sense gratification happiness is not giving us. It is just like a drop in the desert. Therefore we are changing, changing simply. The same thing, punaḥ punaś carvita-car... The same thing, we do not know what is real happiness so simply changing the posture.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnStuartMill_28" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="8" link="Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill|Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: If somebody thinks that "In future, fifty years after, I shall become old man," this is knowledge. And if somebody thinks that "No, no, I shall never become old," that is ignorance. Although it is future—a man of knowledge knows that this will be future. So I shall continue to live in future, and I was a child in the past, and I am a middle aged man at this time, so in these three, past, present and future, I am existing. Where is the difficulty? If this simple truth one cannot understand, that what kind of human being he is? I remain in the past as child, the body is finished. Now I am a middle-aged man or young man, the body is different. And in future I shall become old man, that body will be different. So I, as a child, I, as a young man, as an old man, I am the same, all the bodies changing. This is the fact. Who can deny it? So where is the difficulty to understand it? And in the Bhagavad-gītā, it is said, Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna, "Both you, Me, and all these soldiers, they existed in the past, and they are present existing, and in future they will continue to exist. This is immortality. He says when, I mean very openly, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre ([[Vanisource:BG 2.20 (1972)|BG 2.20]]), na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin. This living soul, he is never born.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononWilliamJames_29" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="9" link="Philosophy Discussion on William James" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on William James">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on William James|Philosophy Discussion on William James]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Nature means always changing.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Chance.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Chance. Accident. That there is an aspect of accident.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. We don't accept that. If there would have been accident, so many planets are rotating in, and so forth... There is no collision. There is no accident. But in your motorcar there is so many accidents, and people are dying.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononWilliamJames_30" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="9" link="Philosophy Discussion on William James" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on William James">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on William James|Philosophy Discussion on William James]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Changing, that is a mind's business. Changing. Saṅkalpa, vikalpa-accepting and rejecting.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Oh. So the mind I have now, the mind I have now...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: ...I may not have had in the past.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. No. Why not? The same mind?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Same mind.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Rejecting these circumstances, accepting another circumstances.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_31" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="10" link="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey|Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: We have come to the same question we were discussing with Marx: whether changing external environment is prerequisite to improvement or changing the consciousness is prerequisite. And you answered before, in Marx's case, that if we change the consciousness, then the environment becomes changed...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: ...rather than vice versa. Also, to a certain extent the other way. If we change the environment, the consciousness changes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is the cause and effect. One is the cause of the other; other is the cause of the other. But actually it is the consciousness that requires to be changed—either by hearing from authority or by circumstances. There are two processes to achieve knowledge. This, in Bengali it is said, dekhe sekhara, teke sekhara. When one is actually in an awkward circumstances, that's a fact. So "This kind of way of life is not good. I have to change it." This is called tekhe sekhara. When he is actually in danger, he takes precautions of danger.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_32" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="10" link="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey|Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Just like this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Five thousand years ago Arjuna became Kṛṣṇa conscious. The same Kṛṣṇa consciousness we are also preaching. This is standard. And before that Arjuna, the same Kṛṣṇa consciousness was preached to the sun-god forty millions of years ago. So this does not change. This is unchanging, avyakta. Param avyayam. Kṛṣṇa is avyayam and His consciousness is avyayam. It is not changing.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that we must develop..., the whole world must develop a common faith in practical activity.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. This is Kṛṣṇa's position.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_33" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="10" link="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey|Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_34" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="10" link="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey|Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: His idea is that philosophy is always changing, that we always have to revise.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is in the material platform. He has no information what is perfect state. He does not know. Ārādhito yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kim (Nārada Pañcarātra). All tapasya finished. Samsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.13|SB 1.2.13]]). If Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, then the all duty is all right. You don't require to satisfy anyone else. Whether Kṛṣṇa is satisfied. That's all.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_35" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="10" link="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey|Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Why does he say? That is his inexperience. God means supreme controller. So everything is being controlled. So how he can say there is not God? That is his imperfect knowledge. The nature is going on in perfect order, and we have got experience that without being a director, controller... (break) ...first proposition, that the natural phenomena, that is going on in systematic way, and we have no experience anything going on in a systematic way has no controller. How they can think of this big phenomena without any controller? At least any sane man cannot think like that, that it is going on automatically, it is happening automatically. The season is changing in time, the sun is rising in time, the moon is rising—everything is going on systematically—and how he thinks that there is no controller, there is no God? That is insanity. To become atheist is, means, a greatest insane person. It has no meaning to become atheist.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononArthurSchopenhauer_36" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="12" link="Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer|Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Hitler's plan, Nazism, in so many ways, māyā has broke it into pieces. The Britishers, they also found the British empire, and māyā broke it. Roman empire... So, this frustration. But we are so fooled that in spite of repeated frustration, we are still trying to do the same thing. That is explained in the Bhāgavata, punaḥ punaś carvita-carvaṇānām ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.30|SB 7.5.30]]), chewing the chewed. Chewing the chewed. He has been frustrated in so many ways, in sexual life, divorce this wife, again another accept, another wife. So what is the another wife? The same thing, sex, but he is making he is (indistinct): "Now again another." That is very nicely experienced in your country. In a year, three times divorce, three times accepting. That is named carvita-carvaṇānām, chewing the chewed. He should have experienced that "I am changing, but what is the change? The same sex life. So what is the use of changing?" But he has no intelligence. Punaḥ punaś carvita-carvaṇānām ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.30|SB 7.5.30]]). His business has become like that.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononArthurSchopenhauer_37" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="12" link="Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer|Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Material life is a projection of the will.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, he has read it. It is taken from Indian... It is called vāsanā. Vāsanā means desire. So that desire, material desire, but the living entity cannot be desireless. Desireless..., nirvāṇa means material desires finished. But because living entity is eternal spiritual being, he is, he has got spiritual desire. Now it is covered. The desire is there, desire is constant companion, but because it is materially covered, we are thinking this temporary world as reality, and it is not reality; therefore it is changing. We are having different types of desires according to the body we get, and the soul is transmigrating in this material world from one body to another, and he is creating a certain type of desires, will. And to fulfill that will he is getting a different type of body by the Supreme Will. He is willing, and the Supreme Will, God, Kṛṣṇa, understanding his will, giving him facility to accept a certain pattern of circumstances, body, to fulfill his particular desire. That is going on. Therefore this vāsanā, or will, is the cause of his material existence, constantly changing, and on account of changing will he is changing body. This is the complication of material existence. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to teach the living entity that as living being you must have desires.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononArthurSchopenhauer_38" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="12" link="Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer|Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Well as, as to the nature of the world, Schopenhauer is vague, but he sees material life as basically irrational and whimsical.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that's a fact. Therefore you are changing body. Material mind is not fixed up; rejecting and accepting. This is going on. That Māyāvāda philosophers say as well. The Buddhists also say this material pains and pleasure is account to the material combination. It does not say material combination of this body. Soul is different, but he did not say because during his time they could not understand it. So he did not say that the..., there is soul, but he simply said that this body is combination of material thing; that is the cause of pains and pleasure. So dismantle it. Let earthly part of the body go to earth, watery part of the body, let it... Nirvāṇa, that is.  Then I become zero, śūnyavādī. Because he does not get any information of the soul, he takes account of the body. Analyze the body and it is composition of earth, water, air, fire, like that. So when it is dismantled, then where is pains and pleasure? That is his philosophy, śūnyavāda, make it zero.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononLudwigWittgenstein_39" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="14" link="Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein|Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: This is evidence: that there is no soul. The self, the individual soul, is now departed; therefore this body is lump of matter. This is evidence. And because the soul is there, therefore the body changes or develops. Just like if a child is born dead, then the body does not develop or changes. It remains in the same condition. But so long the soul is there, the child grows or changes his body. That is evidence. Because the soul is there, therefore the child is growing or changing body from childhood to boyhood, boyhood to youth. Suppose a child is born, doctor says it is dead child. You say something is wanted, but what is that something? You do not know. Otherwise, if you know, you add it. What is that something? Suggest, what is that something? Simply vague idea something, that is nonsense idea. That is not science. You must give, "This is wanting." Suppose that you say that the blood, the redness, just like nowadays blood supply is the theory, so what is this blood? Blood is a liquid, red liquid, like chemical or something, with some salt. So you can add salt, just like in cholera cases, they add saline injection. So dead body, you give saline injection, make it red  by some color, give him life. If you say that "Red blood is now white," so make it red. What is the difficulty? There is no difficulty. There are so many chemicals. If you say the redness is the life, then there are many natural products, just like jewels, by nature it is red. Why is it not alive? Why it is not alive? By natural redness of something, if you say that is the cause of life, then there are many jewels.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononLudwigWittgenstein_40" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="14" link="Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein|Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Clarification... It is supported by the greatest authority, Kṛṣṇa. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 2.13 (1972)|BG 2.13]]). He says that, the greatest authority, God Himself, He says that as the body's changing in different phases of my life, similarly, ultimately, at the end, this body is left and another body is accepted. That is scientific. It is not our bogus proposition. It is supported by the whole Vedic knowledge and especially by Kṛṣṇa, and who can be greater authority than Kṛṣṇa? That will be scientific. Just like modern science: if somebody proves some theory and it is accepted by the scientific world, then it is accepted as scientific; similarly, our proposition is accepted by Kṛṣṇa, the greatest scientist; therefore it is fact. But you have no support by the scientists, what you say; therefore your proposition is nonsense. My proposition is accepted by the greatest scientist. He has created this whole world.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononLudwigWittgenstein_41" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="14" link="Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein|Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Totality of not facts, that is a combination of gross matter, combination of gross and subtle matter. But this gross and subtle matter are projection of Kṛṣṇa's energy. Therefore totalities, they can be said Kṛṣṇa's external energy. And because Kṛṣṇa's energy, the energy and energetic,  sometimes separated, sometimes mixed up; when separated, it manifests as something creation; when it is mixed up, the energy is no longer—it is merged into the energetic. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate cause.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So the picture of reality is always changing? There are no set combinations?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Reality is not changing. The combination of different energies is changing. Reality is not changing.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So true thoughts are not changing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Reality is Kṛṣṇa, but Kṛṣṇa has got unlimited number of energies, so the combination of different energy is making some manifestation and they are changing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJacquesMaritain_42" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="15" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain|Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: He says that the essence of an entity is its intelligible nature, or that one can have ideas. This is proof that we are more than existence, that we are also essence.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. This existence is temporary. Just like this, I have got this coat. This is also existence, but I may change it next time, but I am the essence. I am permanent. I am changing.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says this is proven by the fact that the senses, they can perceive the existence of something by feeling it or touching it or seeing it, but they can't say anything about it until the intelligence comes into play, and then intelligence says what it is and gives it being.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Intelligence says what is its cause.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononSigmundFreud_43" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="17" link="Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud|Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: What is that psy...? He is deficient in psychoanalysis also, because he is practically seeing in his daily life that a child is growing to become a boy, a boy is growing to a young man, but the body is changing and the soul is there. So if he has no sense to understand this, what kind of psychoanalysis he is? The body of the child is finished, then he accepts another body, boy. So how you can deny it? You say it has grown. I say that it is finished. Then what is the difference? Actually the child's body is not there. So you can show..., speak in a different language, but the, when the child's body is finished, there is the boy's body. When the boy's body is finished, the young man's body. So body is changing, but still my child, my son, John, I still call him John, although he has changed his body, because I know my son, the soul John, whom I call John, he is there. So the soul is there; the body is changing, we are experiencing every day. So what kind of psychoanalyst he is, that he cannot understand this simple truth? And still he says, "I cannot believe in the eternity of the soul." That how poor thoughts he is maintaining, and he is proclaiming himself a philosopher. What kind of philosopher he is?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCarlGustavJung_44" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="18" link="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung|Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: But someone would say that that bud is developing into a flower.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is a (indistinct) in the terminology. Just like we say that we are changing bodies, they say developing bodies. So anyway, either you say developing or changing, the original  body is not there. That you have to accept. The child's body, either you say it has developed into youth's body, and either you say that is (indistinct) body. I say the child's body is gone; it is another body. In both cases, the child's body is no longer existing. That you have to agree—either you call developed or it has gone.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCarlGustavJung_45" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="18" link="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung|Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: So this Jung sees a positive aspect of psychology, not just the negative aspect, whereas Freud saw that the goal of psychology was to restrict or reach (indistinct) these powerful, primitive instincts then to mitigate troublesome symptoms, which is a rather pessimistic or negative philosophy. Jung says that man is capable of changing positively into something better by the use of psychology.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Otherwise why he was making this propaganda unless there is chance that we will be better? And actually we see they are becoming better.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So actually this Kṛṣṇa consciousness is also psychology.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (indistinct) That is the term of psychology. Therefore Kṛṣṇa recommends, yoginām api sarveṣāṁ: ([[Vanisource:BG 6.47 (1972)|BG 6.47]]) "Of all the yogis, the Kṛṣṇa devotee is the highest, topmost." All, of all psychologists, the person who is Kṛṣṇa conscious is the most elevated. Transcendental position. Everyone is within the modes of the material nature, but a Kṛṣṇa conscious person is above, transcendental. Sa guṇān samatītyaitān brahma-bhūyāya kalpate ([[Vanisource:BG 14.26 (1972)|BG 14.26]]).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCarlGustavJung_46" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="18" link="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung|Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That is clearly explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, that the past consciousness, that passion, the consciousness is continuing. So even the body is destroyed, the consciousness continuing. So due to the consciousness he gets another body, and again, in that body, the future, past consciousness works. So, if, if, if in the past life he was a devotee, again he becomes devotee, and from the point where he died, the material body became destroyed, again, as soon as he gets a body, the same consciousness begins to work. Therefore we find somebody quickly accepts Kṛṣṇa consciousness and sometime it takes delay. So it is continued, past. In every verse we see that, just like in the Bhagavad-gītā, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante ([[Vanisource:BG 7.19 (1972)|BG 7.19]]). Bahūnāṁ janmanaṁ ante means the consciousness is being continued but the body is changing. Therefore it is said, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante. Janma means to accept another gross body, but the consciousness is continuing. Just as Bhārata Mahārāja, he changed so many bodies but the consciousness continued. He remained in full understanding of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So this is clear, but on account of, I mean to say, dull brain they cannot understand. Here is the reason, that you do not see mind. You have not seen. So Mr. John you see daily, but we don't see Mr. John's intelligence. We can perceive that this man is intelligent, but you have not seen what is intelligent. When he talks, you understand, you perceive, that he has got intelligence. So this gross body, when it is no more talking, so why that intelligence will be finished? This is common sense.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCarlGustavJung_47" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="18" link="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung|Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Psychic nature means so long you are not Kṛṣṇa conscious there will be varieties of psychic nature, because we are changing constantly to different bodies by transmigration. So we, we are accumulating varieties of experiences. But if we don't change, remain fixed up in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then one identification we have got—that "I am servant of Kṛṣṇa. My duty is to serve Him." Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava ([[Vanisource:BG 18.73 (1972)|BG 18.73]]), as Arjuna realized after studying Bhagavad-gītā. "Yes," naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā. "Now I have revived my real consciousness and I  will act as You dictate." That is final.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononCarlGustavJung_48" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="18" link="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung|Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Now the, this would be the view, the second view, that is reincarnation. "This concept of rebirth necessarily implies the continuity of personality. Here the human personality is regarded as continuous and accessible to memory, so that when one is incarnated or born one is able, at least potentially, to remember that one has lived through previous existences, and that these existences were one's own, namely that he had the same ego form as the present life. As a rule, reincarnation means rebirth in a human body."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not human body. Just, we have got historical references in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. A king, Bhārata Mahārāja, he was king, and in next life he became a deer, and the next life he became a brāhmaṇa. So the soul is continuing, changing. The example is given, just like a man changes his dress. The man is the same; the dress may be different. That is going on. Vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya ([[Vanisource:BG 2.22 (1972)|BG 2.22]]). This very word is there. Just when the dress is old it cannot be used any more, he has to change another, to another dress. It is very common sense. So now that next dress you have to purchase or you have to prepare according to your money. Your dress is something now; the next dress you will purchase according to your money. So the exact example is very nice—to change the dress. The man is the same, but he exchanges dress, and the dress is supplied according to the price he can pay. This is common sense. So the price means karma. According to karma he has done, he gets a particular type of body.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeanPaulSartre_49" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="19" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre|Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: Today's philosopher is called Jean-Paul Sartre. He is a contemporary French philosopher, and he is the father of this existentialism philosophy, which deals with the fundamental problem of dualism—that is, subject and object. He calls the object, the things of this world, he calls them "beings" because they exist, and he calls the subject, or the consciousness, individual consciousness, "nothingness," "no-thingness." This is a thing, but the individual entity is no thing, because it is constantly changing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why it is not thing?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Because the structure is not determinant. It is always changing. On both sides there is nothing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Changing is the mind, not the person. Changing positions is of the mind. So he is identifying the person with the mind; therefore he is not a perfect philosopher.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeanPaulSartre_50" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="19" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre|Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: There is no standard. He says that man's essence is nothingness or no-thingness. There is no-thingness about me. I am always changing. There is nothing determinant about my subjectivity.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If you are changing, I am changing, then the changing is existence. But I am different from that existence because I am changing. I am changing. Suppose I have just now changed my dress. So I am the same. Actually, I am existing the same, but I am changing different dress or different body. So this changing is not very important because it will be changed. I am important. I am changing.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that there are two types of being. There is "being in itself," like this table, which is solid, massive, and then he's saying it doesn't have..., it has a phenomenal...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So that we say—the one is matter, another is spirit.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeanPaulSartre_51" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="19" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre|Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that this no-thingness, nothingness...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is not nothing. This is substance. He cannot say nothingness. He has no eyes to see. The principle which is changing, that is important. He cannot say it is nothing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeanPaulSartre_52" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="19" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre|Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: It will change. That's all right. I am here, I may be next moment down. But I am the same, either here or down, and therefore I am important, and the active principle is important. The changing existence has no importance. At one time the  external feature of the active principle may be a mountain, and next, the external feature of the active principle may be a small ant, but the active principle which is becoming sometimes mountain life and the ant life, that is important.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So he is seeing the external features and he is saying...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore he is imperfect. He has no perfect vision. His philosophy is not very sound. He can be classified, according to Bhāgavata, bahir-artha-māninaḥ: one who gives importance to the external features; one who has no eyes to see the internal potency.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeanPaulSartre_53" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="19" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre|Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: So because the living entity is so much changing that he doesn't have any one thingness, therefore, he says the living entity is nothingness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. He has his identity, but in the present circumstances, because he is conditioned by the matter, therefore he is changing, and when he becomes free from the condition, he will have no change.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Is he in fact a thing?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Certainly. Otherwise how it is changing? Unless we have got some basic principle, how we can account for the change, on which platform the change is taking place?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: So the nature of a living being is that he is actually a thing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He is the actual thing. The changing feature is not actual, because it is changing. But the principle on which the change is taking place, he is actual fact, so he cannot be nothing. These imperfect philosophers, they have no eyes to see. They have no eyes to see, and they are not very intelligent; therefore they conclude like that.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeanPaulSartre_54" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="19" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre|Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: Because he has no definite nature?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Indefinite. What is that indefinite?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: That means he is constantly changing. Just like tomorrow my body will be slightly different, my mind may change, I may decide...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Change, but that changing is taking place under certain regulations, not that by accident. Just like if I become  educated, then I get a change in my position, a very nice post, but this is not accident. Because I am educated, I am getting a nice post. And because I am not educated, so I am getting another post.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeanPaulSartre_55" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="19" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre|Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: It is not in the making. It is changing. He is thinking it is making. But in the sense making, it can be taken, when he comes to his senses, that "I don't want change. Why the change is taking place?" So when this inquiry comes to him, and if he inquires, "What is the reason of this changing although I do not want?" that is the point where making takes place.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Then he is able to really mold his nature.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. But he is dismissing. Being confused and disappointed, he is dismissing the whole case, that "There is nothing. Make it zero." That is poor fund of knowledge.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that as we make our life continually, but it all ends at death. Everything is finished.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Death means change, another body. But the active principle on which the body is standing, he does not die. The changing is accepted as death, changing. Just like I am in this apartment; I change this apartment, I go three miles away. So that does not mean I am dead. Similarly, the active principle which is changing when he takes another, because he cannot see where he has gone, we say it is death. But a sane man who knows that "Although I cannot see him, he must have taken another apartment..." That's all.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononBertrandRussell_56" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="20" link="Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell|Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That means he does not know what is philosophy. Philosophy cannot be changed. Just like āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithunam—the four principles of life—eating, sleeping, mating... (aside:) Sit down here.</p>
<p>Devotee: I was watching the (indistinct). </p>
<p>Prabhupāda: All right. So they are eating—where is the change of philosophy? Eating philosophy is there. Sleeping philosophy is there. Why it should change? What is fact, there is no need of changing. Imperfect knowledge changes. Perfect knowledge never changes. So he changes philosophy means his knowledge is imperfect.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononBertrandRussell_57" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="20" link="Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell|Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Well, that means they could not reach to the ultimate goal of knowledge.</p>
<p>Dr. Rao: Not only that, but the scientists, really, they are changing like anything. Einstein developed the theory, and that theory was thought to be superior to that developed by Newton. Now another theory has been developed which is being thought to be superior than that of Einstein. So these things are only relative. The real scientist can see that all these things are relative. Everything is changing. Our conception of life—somebody says that sun is moving; somebody says earth is moving. But (indistinct) calculation you find that eclipse, lunar or..., (indistinct), it does not not matter which thing is moving and which thing is not moving. It is so complicated.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And the complicated things are so nicely (indistinct), that you know or do not know, it goes on. It doesn't matter.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononBertrandRussell_58" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="20" link="Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell|Philosophy Discussion on Bertrand Russell]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. That is nonsense. That we have already discussed, that if evolution of bodies, then just like this Darwin says that some monkeys, eh? So where is the direct proof that a monkey body is changing to a human body? We say that there are different types of bodies always, just like different types of apartment. But the living entity, the soul, is transferring from one apartment to another just like we change. We are in this room, we may go to another room—but that room is already ready. But I am entering a certain type of apartment according to my means. If I can pay more rent, I can get very nice apartment. If I do not pay, I cannot pay, then that is not possible. Similarly, according to our karma, nature is offering us different apartments, and these apartments are already there, fixed up, 8,400,000 species of life. So as you make yourself fit, you enter accordingly. It is not fixed up that because you are now in a very nice apartment you cannot go down or go up. If you are fit for entering into better apartment, that is also ready. And if you are unfit for entering a better, then lower class of apartment, that is also ready. So these things are already there.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononBFSkinner_59" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="21" link="Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner|Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: Anyway, the philosophy is that the Christian idea that inside the body there is a person is outmoded, because the science has discovered that a person's behavior and his reactions are simply a product of his environment, his conditioning; so he can make a fool out of a wise man or a wise man out of a fool simply by changing the surroundings and the conditions.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why the man has not been able to change the surroundings of death, birth? What is his philosophy?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, he said that problem can be never be solved.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then how he says it can be explained by surroundings?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He only talks about behavior.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Behavior, that's all right. Whatever behavior, in the ultimate, goal, everyone is dying so how man can change this condition? Then he can say that there is no God, there is no soul.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononBFSkinner_60" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="21" link="Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner|Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: The defect is that these programs are being forwarded by some rascal. Therefore they are defective. If they would have been forwarded by perfect man, then you would have actual (indistinct). Now one rascal is forwarding some program, another rascal next time (indistinct) this is true. So this is going on in Western world. Because according to Bhāgavata we belong to the category of dogs, hogs, camels. So what is the benefit of a dog's program and (indistinct) by camel's program. If they are on the, basically there is nothing but dogs, hogs, camels and asses, then suppose dog has given some program and the camel says, "No. This program is better than this one." And the ass comes, he introduces another program, "This program is better than this program." So either of these programs, because they are made by dogs, hogs, asses and camels, they cannot be perfect. Take a program from a real human being. Then it is perfect. The defect is there. One philosopher is proposing something, another philosopher is proposing something... That is (indistinct) especially in the Western countries, they are doing so independence (?). But the Vedic civilization there is no independence. They must follow the Vedic injunction. As I have said several times, the Vedas says that the stool of cow is completely pure. They do not argue that "Formerly you say that the stool of animal is impure. Now you are saying that the stool of animal, cow, is pure. So how can we accept?" There is no such thing. The Vedas says, even it is stool, but the Vedas says the stool of cow is perfectly pure. Yes. No contradiction. Our presentation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is like that. But Kṛṣṇa says, "(indistinct), as it is." There is no question of altering or changing according to circumstances. We know Kṛṣṇa is perfect. Whatever He has said, it is all right, in all conditions. That is our belief. We do not deviate. So similarly, if the direction is taken for training from the perfect, that is the best.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononBFSkinner_61" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="21" link="Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner|Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Then the question arises, how to rectify these defects?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says by changing the social environment. By changing the social environment.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But he cannot do.</p>
<p>Devotee: But in my experience changing the social environment...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The social environment is already there, but still you will be punished.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But his idea is that if you reward them for not stealing that they will not steal. If you reward them sufficiently.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: First of all let him come to the point of not stealing. Then you will be all right. (indistinct)</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But if you pay him more, then he won't steal.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That you cannot. That you cannot. That is not possible.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononKarlMarx_62" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="22" link="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx|Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes. But he got the opportunity to become capitalist. And there are so many in our country also (indistinct) that I was a (indistinct) I was out getting money, I was starving, and now I have become first-class. (laughter)</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. They get credit. I recall one book, in Mathura one Mr. (indistinct), he was begging his brother, he became a very businessman, so he wrote his history, that I was begging now I am sitting (break) like that. That's all. So, the theory(?) that my propensity is there, that as soon as I get the opportunity I suck the blood of others and become fat. So unless he changes mentality, there is no question of changing capitalist or communist or this or that. It is all useless.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononKarlMarx_63" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="22" link="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx|Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Well that is the way of..., everything is changing. This tree is changing daily, your body is changing, that is not a very high philosophy.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: His idea is that if you mold...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Jagat. Jagat means change. Jagat. (indistinct) jagat, everything is changing. Just like wind(?), time and tide. So that is not a very unique proposal. It is the nature's way, it is going on. And therefore I say this theory, this Marx theory, it is all changeable(?). It will not stay.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Does this mean that man's nature, there is no fundamental nature that a man's reality is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is spiritual nature. That is spiritual nature. We are teaching people to come to that standard, spiritual nature which will never change. Just like we are trying to serve Kṛṣṇa. This is not (indistinct). We are serving Kṛṣṇa and when we go to Vaikuntha, we serve Kṛṣṇa. That which is called nitya. Nitya means eternal. Nitya-yukta upāsate. Bhagavad-gītā, eternally engaged in the service of the Lord. Not like Māyāvādī. Māyāvādī philosophers, they will say that "Let me serve Kṛṣṇa now. As soon as I become liberated, I become God. I become God." This is another bluff. Just like I am serving you to take your favor and as soon as I get opportunity I ride upon you.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononMaoTseTung_64" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="23" link="Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung|Philosophy Discussion on Mao Tse Tung]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That superficial means it is changing. It will never be perfect. If you take superficial thing, then it is changing always. That is nature's law.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: My only interest is in the dictatorship of the proletariat, that everyone should have an equal opportunity, equal pay, equal property, everything.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is theory, but it will never be successful. Why in Russia there is manager's pay and the worker's pay? Why not equal pay?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: He says, "Abolish that." Mao says, "Abolish  that system."</p>
<p>Devotee: No, Russia is not a Communist state.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: The Chinese scoff at the Russians, that they are not Communist. They say we will not abide by this different manager... Only one pay scale for everybody.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: First of all, this Communistic idea came from Russia and China imitated.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononPlato_65" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="27" link="Philosophy Discussion on Plato" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Plato">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Plato|Philosophy Discussion on Plato]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Concerning education, he says, "We must conclude that education is not what it is said to be by some who profess to put knowledge into a soul which does not possess it, as if they can put sight into blind eyes. On the contrary, our own account signifies that the soul of every man does possess the power of learning the truth and the organ to see it with, and that just as one might have to turn the whole body around in order that the eye should see light instead of darkness, so the entire soul must be turned away from this changing world until its eye can bear to contemplate reality and that supreme splendor which we have called good. Hence there may well be an art whose aim would be to effect this very thing, the conversion of the soul, in the readiest way, not to put the power of sight into the soul's eye, which already has it, but to insure that instead of looking in the wrong direction, it is turned the way it ought to be.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: That.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononPlato_66" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="27" link="Philosophy Discussion on Plato" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Plato">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Plato|Philosophy Discussion on Plato]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hari-śauri: The system of continuously changing the government every four years means that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Every four days!</p>
<p>Devotee: For four years that "I'll take advantage as much as possible for my personal gain, and then retire rich."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is very, a very dangerous position, this so-called democracy. Nobody cares for it. So sometimes this emergency is required, but if it is used again for personal aggrandizement, then it is also. Actually, the perfection of government is monarchy, and the monarchy, monarch should be ideal rājarṣi. That is the Indian's, Vedic system. The Vedic system was there everywhere; therefore still there are monarchs. But they are simply maintaining the monarchy, but actually monarch has no power.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononPlotinus_67" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="29" link="Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus|Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Because he is constitutionally spiritual being, he is not any product of this material world. He is part and parcel of the Supreme One. But he is embodied by the material elements, and the material elements requires change. It becomes old. Just like our shoes, our dress, it becomes old. I can have one shirt and coat, but as soon as I change the body, the shirt and coat is no more fitting the body, so I have to change. So material life means to change. It is called jagat. Jagat means changing. But we are eternal, the same spirit soul. That this material life is not very happy, because it will change. Even if we are in the very comfortable condition of life or in miserable condition of life, it will change to better or lower grade of life. That is going on. So in order to save ourselves from the repetition of changing  body, if we want to remain in our original, eternal, spiritual form, we must take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and then we are relieved from this rotten business of repetition of birth, death, old age and disease.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononPlotinus_68" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="29" link="Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus|Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: ...they are singing in the tune, sometimes attention diverted by the audience, it becomes out of the tune. Similarly we, when we divert our attention to the illusory energy, then we fall down, and although we remain the same part and parcel of the Lord, but the influence of the material energy covers us, and we identify with the covering elements, and life after life bodies changing, and we are identify with the covering, and this is our miserable condition of material existence. And therefore first education is that "I am not this covering." That is spiritual education. That is the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā instruction, that "You are not this body. Arjuna, you are not this body. Why you are taking this bodily concepts of life, your relatives, your family, so seriously? It is all foolishness. It is accidental. You are born in this family, and you have got so-called relatives. You are actually spirit. So now you are identifying with this bodily concept of life, you are member of the Kuru family. Then as soon as this change of body takes place, you will again enter into the dog's family or cat's family or demigod's family. Again you identify, 'I am dog,' 'I am cat,' 'I am demigod.' " So this is the, our ignorance. We have to stop this mentality of bodily concept of life, identify ourself as a spirit soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Spirit, and act according to His direction. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 19.167|CC Madhya 19.167]]). What Kṛṣṇa says, if we act, then gradually, sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 19.170|CC Madhya 19.170]]), we become immediately free from all upādhi, designation, and gradually develop our Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is the instruction of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is trying to spread this knowledge all over the world.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononOrigen_69" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="30" link="Philosophy Discussion on Origen" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Origen">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Origen|Philosophy Discussion on Origen]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: That is not correct. The living entity is eternally existing, as God is eternally existing, the living entity who is the part and parcel of God. But the living entity, as we have several times..., being a small spark, sometimes the illumination is extinguished or stopped for the time being, but he is eternally existing, changing the body, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre ([[Vanisource:BG 2.20 (1972)|BG 2.20]]), after the destruction of the body. The material life means the body is destructed, one body after another, but the living being is eternally existing, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre ([[Vanisource:BG 2.20 (1972)|BG 2.20]]).</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He uses this metaphor. He writes, "The human body has unity because its various members are all made for specific  functions in it, and it is bounded by a single soul. In the same way, it seems to me, the whole immense, gigantic world should be regarded as one being kept alive by God's power and logos, as by a single soul."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But single soul is created, he says. But that single soul, his spiritual identity is never created. That is the difference between matter and spirit. Anything material, that is created. Spiritual is never created.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononReneDescartes_70" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="34" link="Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes|Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So the matter is coming out on the positive existence of the soul. This is to be learned. Without soul being present within the womb of the woman there is no pregnancy, there is no development of the matter. We can see the same thing, that the child is developing or changing the body because the soul is there. This is reasoning. Where is the difficulty? So the philosophy, first of all find out what is that external thing which is the living force. By analyzing this material body we don't find any symptom of life either from breathing or from blood or from (indistinct). Therefore something extra. Now you find out what is that extra. That extra you will find out if you come to the right platform—that it is soul, jīvātmā. And on the basis of jīvātmā, that is very minute. If you take authority of the Vedic śās..., very, very minute, one ten-thousandth part of the top of the hair, a very small particle that we cannot find it where it is in the body. It is very small. So with your material eyes and material instruments it can not be found. We are missing. But this thing is there, we get information from the śāstra. Therefore the life is going on, it is so powerful. Just like the sun is ninety-three million miles away, but it is keeping the whole universe illuminated. Similarly, although the soul is very, very small particle, it is keeping this body alive, fresh.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononBenedictSpinoza_71" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="36" link="Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza|Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: He believed that as long as man is composed of body and soul, he will be under the mode of passion, and as long as the soul is confined to the body, the living entity will necessarily be attached to the physical world.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. We call it māyā. So that can... The body and soul in the material world is there, and therefore the aim of life is how to separate this soul from material body and remain in his original, spiritual form. That is the whole ideal objective for human life, because as long as he remains attached to the body, and... But he has to change the body. That is our practical experience also. We are changing always the body, one after another, and if we give up our attachment for this body, then we are liberated. That is called mukti, to remain in a spiritual body. That is possible only by always thinking of God. That is meditation. That is actual meditation. Man-manā bhava mad-bhakta, always thinking of Kṛṣṇa. To become Kṛṣṇa's devotee, to become worshiper of Kṛṣṇa, and always offering obeisances: "My Lord, I am Your eternal servant. Kindly keep me engaged in Your service"—that much prayer; nothing more.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>