View source for William James

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|04Jan12}}
{{last|04Jan12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=4|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|5}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:William James|1]]
</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="PhilosophyDiscussiononWilliamJames_0" 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;">Śyāmasundara: Today we are discussing American philosopher William James. His philosophy is called pragmatism, or that which can be practically applied. The central thesis of his philosophy is that the whole function of thought is to produce habits of action. In other words, he was tired of theoretical philosophy, and he wanted to see that philosophy had practical application.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So philosophy without practical application is called mental speculation. It has no value. We agree to that. Philosophy must be practically applied in life. That is real philosophy.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that there is a question, "What difference would it make, practically, to anyone, if this notion rather than that notion were true?" He says that the criterion for deciding that question is the practicality of something. If there are two questions, two notions, then the standard of judgment should be which notion is applicable in practice.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Which notion should be...?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Which notion will have the better result in practice.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Which is factual, not theoretical—that will have good effect in practice. What is his example?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: There is no example given, but for instance, if there are two different theories involving a subject, then that theory which is more easily practiced is more true. It has become part of our experience; that is true. He says that anything that is meaningful or real must have some influence on practice on our experience, and vice verse. Anything that is practiced must be meaningful or real.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We have invited our students, and when they actually practice Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the result is immediately there. Just like you all European and American boys, you were eating meat, and other things were practiced, but since you have taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you have left it. So by practicing, we see the practical result; therefore this is most practical.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononWilliamJames_1" 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 (HAY)|Philosophy Discussion on William James]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: This is William James. All of these quotations are taken from his most famous book, which was entitled The Varieties of Religious Experience. He's an American philosopher. He defines religion in this way: "Were we to limit our view to it, we should have to define religion as an external art, the art of winning the favor of God. The relation goes direct from heart to heart, from soul to soul, between man and his maker."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The man or not man, there are living beings, varieties; we simply do not see the man as a living being. We see there are varieties of living beings, beginning from water up to the higher planetary system. There are different forms of living being, we have several times repeated. Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi sthāvarā lakṣa-viṁśati, like that, nine millions, ah, nine hundred thousands forms of body within the water; then plants, trees, creepers, insects. So all of them are living beings. God is concerned with all of them. Why man is created? Every one of us in different form we are created. Or exactly not created; we are part and parcel of God. In one word God is the father of all living entities. So the simple relationship is that God is maintainer, we are maintained. This is our relationship. In the material world, as a man may have more than one wife, so similarly God has two prakṛtis, or subordinate energies—material and spiritual. So in the material world the material nature is the mother, God is the father, and varieties of living entities, they are all maintained by the father, supreme father. This is the conception of universal brotherhood. And if we understand our relationship with God as father and son... There are so many sons. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-yoniṣu. All different forms of life, the mother is material nature, and God says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā: ([[Vanisource:BG 14.4 (1972)|BG 14.4]]) "And I am the seed-giving father." So that relationship should be known, and if we act according to that relationship, there will be actual peace and prosperity and advancement of all knowledge. That is wanted.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Concerning the founding of religions, James writes, "The founders of every church owe their power originally to the fact of their direct personal communion with the Divine. Not only the superhuman founders—the Christ, the Buddha, Muhammad—but all the originators of Christian sects have been in this case. So personal religion should still seem the primordial thing even for those who continue to esteem it incomplete."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. God is person. If He is the supreme father, the father is a person. We have got no experience of father being imperson. My father is person, his father is person, his father is person. In this way go on, father's father's..., searching. So the ultimate father is also person. There is no doubt about it. Either human father or animal father, every living being is a person. Therefore the right conclusion is God the father of all living being is person. Personal conception of God is there in every religion-Christian religion, Muhammadan religion, or Vedic religion. In the Vedic religion, oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayoḥ. Those who are sura, means advanced in spiritual knowledge, or the brāhmaṇas, one who knows the Supreme, they find the supreme father is Lord Viṣṇu. Lord Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa is the same category, or same substance. So God is person and the ultimate end. The impersonal realization is imperfect realization of God. The Supersoul  realization is still advancement, but the final advancement is Bhagavān, or person God. So we must know our relationship with, and first of all our first business is to know God and our relationship with Him, then act accordingly. Then our life becomes perfect. This is the process of God realization.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononWilliamJames_2" 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 (HAY)|Philosophy Discussion on William James]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So philosophy means advancement of knowledge. So we are making progress in knowledge when our knowledge is actually come to the point of perfection of knowledge, that is understanding of God. God is there, but on account of our foolishness, sometimes we deny the existence of God. That is the most foolish platform of living condition. But sometimes we have vague idea, some imagination, and sometimes impersonal, sometimes pantheistic. In this way different philosophies means they are searching after God, but on account of not being perfect, there are differences of opinion or different conception of God. But actually God is person, and when one comes to that platform—to know God, to talk with Him, to see Him, to feel His presence, even to play with Him—that is the highest platform of God realization. And the relationship is God is the great and we are small. So our position is always subordinate. (break)</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: This is the continuation of William James.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So to carry the orders of God is religion. So the more this fact is realized, that is perfection of religion, and dharma, religion, is perfect when he understands who is God and how to learn to love Him.</p>
:sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo
:yato bhaktir adhokṣaje
:ahaituky apratihatā
:yenātmā samprasīdati
:([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.6|SB 1.2.6]])
<p>When we actually understand God and try to please Him, serve Him, that is really religious life and perfection of life.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: James gave the following estimation of impersonalism and Buddhism. He wrote, "There are systems of thought which the world usually calls religious and yet which do not positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case. Popularly, of course, the Buddha himself stands in place of a God, but in strictness, the Buddhistic system is atheistic."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, sammohāya sura-dviṣām ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.24|SB 1.3.24]]). Lord Buddha appeared at a time when people became atheistic, and especially they began to kill animals in the sacrifice in large quantity. So God, Lord Buddha, appeared, being sympathetic to the poor animals. Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. He was very, very much aggrieved to see the poor animals are being killed unnecessarily. So he preached the religion of nonviolence, and because the people became atheist, so Lord Buddha, just to take them under his control, he also collaborated and said, "Yes, there is no God, but you hear me." But he is incarnation of God, so it is a kind of transcendental cheating that in the beginning he said there is no God, but he is God himself, and people accepted his words or instruction. That is Buddhism. So this very word is used, sammohāya sura-dviṣām ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.24|SB 1.3.24]]). Sura-dviṣām, atheist class of men, are always against theist class of men. Therefore their name is that atheist means who are  envious of devotees. So in order to cheat these persons who are envious of God or devotee, Lord Buddha appeared and established a system of religion on the platform of nonviolence—no more animal killing. Because those who are animal killers, they cannot understand God (indistinct). That is not possible. They may have some vague idea. So Lord Buddha wanted to stop these sinful activities, and he established the system of nonviolence.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: James writes about religion and total surrender and involvement. He says, "In the religious life surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused. Even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our life can so successfully fulfill."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Without religion the human society is animal society. So religion must be there, and religion means to understand God, to learn how to love God, how to obey His orders, and actually real religion means to accept the order of the Supreme Lord, God. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā this fact is taught. God is personally teaching that "You become My devotee, always think of Me," man-manā bhava mad-bhakto, "worship Me," mad-yājī, "and if you cannot do anything more, you simply offer your obeisances unto Me." Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65 (1972)|BG 18.65]]). Without any big, I mean to say, attempt for religious system, if one has got the idea that there is God, and even without seeing Him if he follows His instruction, always think of Him... Either you think of Him as personal God or as localized or all-pervading, but God has got form. One has to think of the form of the God. That is easier. And if God is accepted as impersonal, that is very troublesome. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyakta āsakta cetasām. Those who are impersonalist, for them to think of God becomes very difficult job. Who is God and what to think of, so the so-called meditation is very difficult. But if you have got really conception of a God, just like we have got Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead... Although He has got different incarnations, forms, He is the Supreme, so we think of Him. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We can think, because we have got the form, we have got the Deity in the temple, we have got the picture in our room, and so we have got definite conception of God and definite instruction of God. So this system, following the Bhagavad-gītā, is definitive understanding of God, so people may take this system, and by practical example they can see how those who are Kṛṣṇa conscious, how they are advancing in the religious system, in every system, because God has instructed everything—religious, political, social, cultural, philosophical, science, physics—everything perfectly. God, God means He gives perfect instruction. So this perfect instruction in the Bhagavad-gītā, we, we have accepted. Not accepted; we have known. God is there; you accept or not accept, it doesn't matter. So those who are fortunate, they will see the actual form of God, follow His instruction, and be perfect in the life. That is wanted.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononWilliamJames_3" 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 (HAY)|Philosophy Discussion on William James]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Samādhi means ecstasy, always in God consciousness. That is samādhi. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, yoginām api sarveṣāṁ mad-gata āntarātmanā ([[Vanisource:BG 6.47 (1972)|BG 6.47]]). The yogis means they are always remaining in meditation of the Supreme Lord. Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā. Mind is always absorbed in God. That is samādhi. He has no other thought than God. So if we can continue in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that is samādhi.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Now James equates this mystical union, or samādhi, to be a union in which the individual has lost contact with the external world.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: And he therefore concludes that mystical states cannot be sustained for long, except in rare instances. Half an hour or at most an hour or two seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day. "Often, when faded, their quality can be but imperfectly reproduced in memory, but when they recur it is recognized, and from one recurrence to another it is susceptible of continuous development in what is felt as inner richness and importance."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That richness comes to perfection when one thinks of Kṛṣṇa constantly, without any cessation. That is recommended in the yogic chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā:</p>
:yoginām api sarveṣāṁ
:mad-gata āntarātmanā
:śraddhāvān bhajate
:yo māṁ sa me bhak...
:([[Vanisource:BG 6.47 (1972)|BG 6.47]])
<p>Uh...</p>
<p>Hari-śauri: Yuktatamo mataḥ.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh?</p>
<p>Hari-śauri: Sa me yuktatamo mataḥ?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hm, yes. You can find out that verse.</p>
:yoginām api sarveṣāṁ
:mad-gata āntarātmanā
:śraddhāvān bhajate (yo māṁ)
:sa me yuktatama...
:([[Vanisource:BG 6.47 (1972)|BG 6.47]])
<p>He is first-class yogi who does not cease to think of Kṛṣṇa, or God. So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is that we keep always in the thought of Kṛṣṇa, twenty-four hours. Then we do not fall down from the yogic principle. That is our...</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Such mystical states, as James points out, have been also experienced momentarily and artificially through drugs such as ether. William James himself took ether...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: These are all artificial thing. This is not sustained.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: LSD and these...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Another artificial names. Artificial things cannot sustain, but if you engage yourself in the devotional process, śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevā ([[Vanisource:SB 7.5.23-24|SB 7.5.23]]), always hearing a about Kṛṣṇa, always talking about Kṛṣṇa, always remembering about Kṛṣṇa, always engage in some service in the temple—there are so many services—or distributing literature about Kṛṣṇa, in this way, if you keep always engaged in Kṛṣṇa's business, that is perfection of life.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: James, after analyzing all of these religions, different religious experiences, he gives his own conclusions, and he concludes his book in this way. He gives five basic conclusions. The first-one—"That the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance." (break)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Material world means it is existing in the spiritual effulgence of the Lord. Just like all the planets they are resting, living within the sunshine, but by geographical position, when it is back side, the sun is not in the front but in the back, then it becomes dark. Similarly, everything is existing in the spiritual effulgence, rays of the Lord, and when you forget, this is called material world. So the material world is in that piece of spiritual world, but forgetfulness of God is material. So when we..., our revival of consciousness, God consciousness, then there is no more material world. For such person who is advanced in spiritual consciousness or God consciousness, there is nothing material; everything is spiritual.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well that's his second conclusion. His second is that "Union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Spiritual realization.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Three...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There is no material realization. No more material realization means no more forgetfulness of our eternal  relationship with God. Then it is spiritual.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Three: "That prayer or a communion with the spirit thereof, be that spirit God or law, is a process wherein work is really done and spiritual energy flows in and produces effects, psychological or material, within the phenomenal world, for religion produces a new zest which adds itself like a gift to life and takes the form either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and heroism." In other words, our relation with God in the world gives...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That we have al...</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: ...it's like a gift to life.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: ...already explained. We have got five relationships. To realize the creation of God with awe and veneration, appreciation, that is one relationship. This is called śānta rasa. Then further progress is that to offer himself to serve God. That is called dāsya rasa. And further advancement, to treat God as friend, that is sākhya rasa. Then accept God as son, that is vātsalya rasa. And accept God as the most beloved, that is mādhurya rasa. So in this mādhurya rasa, to accept God as the most beloved includes other relationships; therefore here is the highest perfection of relationship. Although all other relationships they are as good, but it depends on the devotee's choice whichever relationship we like. The result is the same, but by comparative study it has been decided by the saintly persons that our relationship with God as the lover and beloved, that is the highest position.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: The fifth is an assurance of safety and temper of peace and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affections.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That's nice. When you actually come in contact with God, these senses prevail. What is that? The last point?</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: An assurance of safety and a temper of peace.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. A devotee is always confident that "I am sincerely serving Kṛṣṇa, so in case of danger Kṛṣṇa will save me." The, just like Prahlāda Mahārāja life we see. He was helpless child, and his father, great demon, always chastising him, but he was confident that Kṛṣṇa would save him. So when the things became too much intolerable, so Lord appeared as Nṛsiṁha-deva and killed Hiraṇyakaśipu. So therefore a devotee's protection by God is always guaranteed, and one who is pure devotee, he is not disturbed by any material condition. He keeps his firm faith in God. That is called surrender. It is called avaśya rakśibe kṛṣṇa viśvāsa pālanam, to continue the faith that "Kṛṣṇa will give me protection." This full suvrender means to accept things which is favorable to God consciousness, to reject things which is unfavorable to God consciousness, to have firm faith of security under the protection of God, to enter into the family of God. These are the different processes of surrender.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He concludes, "In opening ourselves to God's influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled. The universe takes a turn generally for the worse or for the better in proportion as each one of us fulfills or evades God's demands."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is concept. God demands that "You fully surrender unto Me." So when one fully surrenders unto God, that is perfection of life.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: So that's the conclusion of James. (end)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithDrJohnMizeJune231975LosAngeles_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="108" link="Room Conversation with Dr. John Mize -- June 23, 1975, Los Angeles" link_text="Room Conversation with Dr. John Mize -- June 23, 1975, Los Angeles">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Dr. John Mize -- June 23, 1975, Los Angeles|Room Conversation with Dr. John Mize -- June 23, 1975, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Bahulāśva: Śrīla Prabhupāda, the doctor's first question that he brought up that although we are conscious, our consciousness seems to be affected by different material arrangements. There's one philosopher William James, who is like the father of psychology. He says the same thing that consciousness can be affected by removing the material elements. So that is simply the arrangement of the modes of nature?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. The same three guṇas. If you contact with tamo-guṇa, then your consciousness is tamo-guṇa. Tamo-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, sattva-guṇa, and if your consciousness is always with Kṛṣṇa, then Kṛṣṇa consciousness.</p>
<p>John Mize: James had a very interesting view of consciousness. The brain doesn't cause the consciousness, he felt. It does not originate it. It only receives it like a radio receiver is receiving transmissions.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is the...</p>
<p>John Mize: He felt that the source of consciousness was divine. James was a religious man.</p>
<p>Bahulāśva: Sometimes also he would have a material view also.</p>
<p>John Mize: That matter can give rise to consciousness.</p>
<p>Bahulāśva: Yes. He would take both sides.</p>
<p>John Mize: His final stand on it was theistic, that the brain simply gives transmission of the consciousness through it. It does not produce it, whereas in the Soviet philosophy, that is, that matter gives rise to consciousness.</p>
<p>Jayatīrtha: Where do they have any example that matter has given rise...</p>
<p>John Mize: This. They point to us. They deny a soul. There is simply matter, the brain, that generates consciousness.</p>
<p>Brahmānanda: Śrīla Prabhupāda, Rāmeśvara would like to show you some paintings. They are bringing the book to the printer this evening.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: All right. I am coming. (break)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>