Vanibot: Vanibot #0019: LinkReviser - Revised links and redirected them to the de facto address when redirect exists

2018-05-21T02:25:17Z

Vanibot #0019: LinkReviser - Revised links and redirected them to the de facto address when redirect exists

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 21 May 2018
Line 10:		Line 10:
	{{total\|11}}		{{total\|11}}
	{{toc right}}		{{toc right}}
	[[Category:Utility]]		[[Category:Utility\|1]]
	</div>		</div>
	<div id="Other_Books_by_Srila_Prabhupada" class="section" sec_index="3" parent="compilation" text="Other Books by Srila Prabhupada"><h2>Other Books by Srila Prabhupada</h2>		<div id="Other_Books_by_Srila_Prabhupada" class="section" sec_index="3" parent="compilation" text="Other Books by Srila Prabhupada"><h2>Other Books by Srila Prabhupada</h2>
Line 33:		Line 33:
	<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeremyBentham_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="7" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham">		<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeremyBentham_0" 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;">Śyāmasundara: The first one's name is Jeremy Bentham, and his philosophy is that virtue is defined in terms of utility, and that utility is defined as that which enhances the happiness of men. So that the goal of society, according to the utilitarians, is the greatest happiness for the greatest number.</p>		<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham\|Philosophy Discussion on Jeremy Bentham]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: The first one's name is Jeremy Bentham, and his philosophy is that virtue is defined in terms of utility, and that utility is defined as that which enhances the happiness of men. So that the goal of society, according to the utilitarians, is the greatest happiness for the greatest number.</p>
	<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So that is also our aim but that happiness is described in the Bhagavad-gītā, sukham ātyantikaṁ yat. Ātyantikam. Atyantikam means the greatest happiness. Sukham ātyantikaṁ yat tad atīndriya grāhyam ([[Vanisource:BG 6.21\|BG 6.21]]). That happiness can be perceived by transcendental senses.</p>		<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So that is also our aim but that happiness is described in the Bhagavad-gītā, sukham ātyantikaṁ yat. Ātyantikam. Atyantikam means the greatest happiness. Sukham ātyantikaṁ yat tad atīndriya grāhyam ([[Vanisource:BG 6.20-23 (1972)\|BG 6.21]]). That happiness can be perceived by transcendental senses.</p>
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Labangalatika: Created page with '

{{terms|"utilitarian"|"utilitarians"}} {{notes|Philosophy Discussion on David Hume is with Hayagriva, not Syamasundara}} {{compiler|Labang…'

2010-03-27T11:06:08Z

Created page with '<div id="compilation"> <div id="facts"> {{terms|"utilitarian"|"utilitarians"}} {{notes|Philosophy Discussion on David Hume is with Hayagriva, not Syamasundara}} {{compiler|Labang…'

New page

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"utilitarian"|"utilitarians"}}
{{notes|Philosophy Discussion on David Hume is with Hayagriva, not Syamasundara}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|27Mar10}}
{{last|27Mar10}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=1|Lec=10|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|11}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Utility]]
</div>
<div id="Other_Books_by_Srila_Prabhupada" class="section" sec_index="3" parent="compilation" text="Other Books by Srila Prabhupada"><h2>Other Books by Srila Prabhupada</h2>
</div>
<div id="Nectar_of_Instruction" class="sub_section" sec_index="2" parent="Other_Books_by_Srila_Prabhupada" text="Nectar of Instruction"><h3>Nectar of Instruction</h3>
</div>
<div id="NOI2_0" class="quote" parent="Nectar_of_Instruction" book="OB" index="3" link="NOI 2" link_text="Nectar of Instruction 2">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:NOI 2|Nectar of Instruction 2, Purport]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="purport text"><p style="display: inline;">Accepting some of the scriptural rules and regulations for immediate benefit, as utilitarians advocate, is called niyama-āgraha, and neglecting the rules and regulations of the śāstras, which are meant for spiritual development, is called niyama-agraha. The word āgraha means "eagerness to accept," and agraha means "failure to accept." By the addition of either of these two words to the word niyama ("rules and regulations"), the word niyamāgraha is formed. Thus niyamāgraha has a twofold meaning that is understood according to the particular combination of words. Those interested in Kṛṣṇa consciousness should not be eager to accept rules and regulations for economic advancement, yet they should very faithfully accept scriptural rules and regulations for the advancement of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They should strictly follow the regulative principles by avoiding illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling and intoxication.</p>
</div>
</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="PhilosophyDiscussiononDavidHume_9" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="2" link="Philosophy Discussion on David Hume" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on David Hume">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on David Hume|Philosophy Discussion on David Hume]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Hayagrīva: His conception of religion is utilitarian and social.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He says, "The proper office of religion is to regulate the heart of man, humanize their conduct, infuse the spirit of temperance, order and obedience."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is our system. We say, the social service, that "No illicit sex." If people indulge in illicit sex, society will be in chaotic condition. "No meat-eating." If we go on eating meat, then we revolt against the will of God, because God is the father of all living entities; He does not like that one of His son unnecessarily killed by another son on the plea that he is advanced son. The father cannot agree that the advanced son kill the ignorant or foolish son, the father will not agree. Therefore we say no meat-eating. When other foods are available, why one should eat meat? When there is wife, why there should be illicit sex? So religion means one should be good character. That is religion. This is one of the qualification becoming, that one who is actually religious, God conscious, that all the good qualities, either socially, politically, everything, even politician religious.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJeremyBentham_0" 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;">Śyāmasundara: The first one's name is Jeremy Bentham, and his philosophy is that virtue is defined in terms of utility, and that utility is defined as that which enhances the happiness of men. So that the goal of society, according to the utilitarians, is the greatest happiness for the greatest number.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So that is also our aim but that happiness is described in the Bhagavad-gītā, sukham ātyantikaṁ yat. Ātyantikam. Atyantikam means the greatest happiness. Sukham ātyantikaṁ yat tad atīndriya grāhyam ([[Vanisource:BG 6.21|BG 6.21]]). That happiness can be perceived by transcendental senses.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnStuartMill_1" 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;">Śyāmasundara: So the second person we'll discuss of the utilitarians is called John Stuart Mill.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He was a great philosopher.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that reason is essentially inductive, that is, if we can generalize from particular instances. For instance, we have observed that all men die, so we can say that all men are mortal.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right, but you cannot see all men in your whole life; therefore it is defective. You cannot study all men; therefore it is defective. Which is not possible by you, if you propose something which is not possible by you, then what is the meaning of this? What is the utility?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnStuartMill_2" 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;">Śyāmasundara: We were discussing last time these utilitarians. Their philosophy is that the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and that that should be followed, that law, and that that means the greatest pleasure for the greatest number.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Greatest good for the greatest number of people. So that means even if the people are fools and rascals. Does it mean so? Now some of the fools and rascals, they, just like at the present moment, they'll want, "Give us LSD." Then LSD is first-class thing? Is that philosophy?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnStuartMill_3" 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: So therefore, those who are sane men, actually philosophers, they should take up this Kṛṣṇa consciousness. It is the best philosophy and best utilitarian product. They should take it seriously. But they have no such knowledge. They are simply speculating. But when the actual thing is given, they cannot understand, they cannot evaluate.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnStuartMill_4" 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;">Śyāmasundara: That rule is, "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." That is the golden rule, this rule of the utilitarians.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. But they are not following. They are killing, but when he is to be killed, he goes away. But he does not think that "I don't want to be killed. Why shall I kill?" And Jesus Christ said, "Thou shall not kill." But they do not abide by this, and still they will call themselves Christians. Who wants to be killed? Nobody wants. Then why you are killing other animals? Where is your philosophy?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_5" 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: When we were discussing the utilitarians, we discussed that their goal was to achieve what was desired by the people, to do whatever was required...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Desired by the people-happiness. But they are trying to give happiness temporary, and we are giving happiness direct. Just like Bhāgavata says, yasmād brahma-saukhyam anantam, tapo divyaṁ putrakā yena śuddhyed sattvam ([[Vanisource:SB 5.5.1|SB 5.5.1]]). Purify your existence, and you'll get perpetual, eternal happiness, bliss. So everyone is working hard for happiness, but how happiness can be attained in diseased condition? So cure the disease and he'll get it eternal.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_6" 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: These utilitarians said that activity should be to achieve all that is desired by the people, but Dewey says that activity should be to achieve what is worthy to be desired.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. First thing is, people are desiring happiness. Whatever one may desire, the ultimate end is happiness. Nobody can deny this. But a diseased fellow, if he thinks that "I am happy," that is false happiness. A diseased man cannot be happy unless the disease is cured. Sometimes we go to a diseased person and ask, "How are you?" "Yes, I am all right." If he is all right, why is he lying down? He is not all right. He is artificially saying that "I am all right." What is this "all right"? Similarly, these foolish people, they are thinking, "I am happy." What is their happiness? If you have to die, then where is your happiness?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_7" 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: This is called utilitarian.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Called what?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Utilitarian.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Utilitarian. He differs from the utilitarians, because they say that we should not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They say if some idea can be utilized for some better position of society. That is utilitarian.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononJohnDewey_8" 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: But the utilitarians say that everything should be utilized to serve man's desires. But he says everything should be used to serve man's worthiest desires, man's highest desires, worthy desires.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is the difference between desire and highest desire?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, someone may desire more broadness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Who will judge who is highest? Everyone will say, "My desire is the highest."</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: The utilitarians might say that "People desire more brothels, so let us build more brothels.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Modern world, that is the highest desire. How can you refute that if there is no standard? Everyone says, "This is my law." Unless you go to the court, who will judge?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Utilitarian - Revision history

Vanibot: Vanibot #0019: LinkReviser - Revised links and redirected them to the de facto address when redirect exists

Labangalatika: Created page with ' {{terms|"utilitarian"|"utilitarians"}} {{notes|Philosophy Discussion on David Hume is with Hayagriva, not Syamasundara}} {{compiler|Labang…'

Labangalatika: Created page with '

{{terms|"utilitarian"|"utilitarians"}} {{notes|Philosophy Discussion on David Hume is with Hayagriva, not Syamasundara}} {{compiler|Labang…'