View source for Dissolution of religion means

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"dissolution of religion means"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Vaishnavi}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|18Nov12}}
{{last|18Nov12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Vaniquotes English Dictionary A to Z]]
[[Category:Vaniquotes English Dictionary D-E-F]]
[[Category:Vaniquotes English Dictionary P-Q-R]]
[[Category:Dissolution|3]]
[[Category:religion|3]]
</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="PhilosophyDiscussiononKarlMarx_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="22" link="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx">
<div class="heading">Dissolution of religion means animalism. That has happened actually, because one does not know what is God, soon there is misunderstanding of religion.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx|Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: Well, he says, Marx says, "The incompatibility with  religion with the rights of man is so little implied in the concept of the rights of man that the right to be religious according to one's liking and to practice one's own particular religion is explicitly included among the rights of man. The privilege of religion is a universal human right."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: So he felt that man should at least be allowed to practice his religion, although he felt that the state should encourage the abolition of religion. That it is an inherent human right for man to be able to practice religion...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That, that I explain always, that state duty is the freedom of religion, but the state must see that a person advocating particular type of religion, whether he is acting according to that religion...</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: But he felt that if this religion should be allowed, it should be individual and not communal. He says, "Liberty as a right of man is not based on the association of man with man but rather on a separation of man from man. It is the right of separation..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, there is no question of separation, that if we accept God as the supreme father. Now the Christian religion believes God as the supreme father. So if the supreme father is there, and if we become obedient to the supreme father, then why, where is the difference of opinion? But we do not know the supreme father and we do not obey the supreme father. That is the cause of dissension. The son's duty is to become obedient to the father and enjoy father's property. So if we know the supreme father, and if we live according to the father's order, so there is question of antagonism, dissension. It is all our own, father being the center. That, the difficulty is that we call supreme father but we do not accept the father's order or what is the order of the supreme father. That is the defect.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well he felt that if man, if man is going to worship God, if man must worship God, he should do so privately, individually, and not communally.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, if God is a fact, and man must worship God, then why not communally? That he, he is pleading that every individual man shall manufacture his own God and worship.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well he would rather do..., do away with the whole thing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that is impossible. God means, as I have explained, the supreme father. He is the father of every man or every living entity. So how the father can be different? If man manufactures a different... There are ten sons in the family; the father is one. It is not that one son say, "No, I shall select my own father." So what kind of father he is? So that is imperfectness of understanding the father. Nobody can say that "I can select my own father." How it is possible? Father is one. Similarly God is one, and if one is actually religious and obeying the same one father's order, then where is dissension? That the difficulty is nobody knows who is that supreme father, neither they are prepared to obey the orders of the father. That is the difficulty. In one family there cannot be two father. The one father. Similarly, when you speak of the supreme father, "O father, give us our daily bread," He is father of everyone. So why one should select one father, another man will select another father? That means he does not know who is father. That is the defect.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well he was hoping that this process would eventually lead to the total dissolution of religion.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: That if everyone worships..., well not everybody, but  if you must worship God, worship Him in your own way, in your own home.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So dissolution of religion means animalism. That has happened actually, because one does not know what is God, soon there is misunderstanding of religion. Therefore if he, actually anyone is serious about religion, then they should sit down together, that "We call God as supreme father, then why should we fight ourselves? Let us obey the order of the supreme father." Then there is no dissension. But they do not do that, neither they know who is the supreme father. That is the defect.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>