The Four Defects of Ordinary Knowledge
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
Limitations of human perception and induction
So the second person who we'll discuss is the utilitarian called John Stuart Mill. He says that reason is essentially inductive. That is, that we can generalize from particular instances.
For instance, we have observed that all men die, so we can say that all men are mortal. Yes, that's all right, but you cannot see all men in your whole life. Therefore it is different. You cannot study already.
That would be the fact, 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? You cannot generalize because your senses are limited.
Your life is limited. How you can study all men? You cannot go to all countries. There are so many men all over the world, anywhere. You cannot test them. Therefore your method is defective.
From his definition that studying all men—but you cannot study, you can study a limited number of men. And if you conclude, suppose whoever you have met, you have seen that he has died.
But I may say you might not have seen a man who never dies. Then what will we accomplish? Well, knowledge is limited to our experience. That's all, that if your knowledge is limited then you cannot generalize.
Therefore our conclusion is that we don't take knowledge from anyone whose power is limited. There are four defects of the ordinary man. He may be John Stuart Mill or something. Because he is to commit mistake.
He's in illusion. That's like he's talking of that induction, studying all men. This is an illusion. You cannot study.
Suppose hundreds of thousands of men you have studied, and that does not mean the whole setup of human beings is finished. No. Therefore this theory is illusory.
And because he is an ordinary man, he is in illusion that it is possible. So these are the defects. One commits mistake, one is in illusion, one cheats— this is cheating also.
The theory which he is putting forward is never possible to be executed, still he is posing himself that he is a philosopher; that is cheating. His senses are imperfect, he cannot do that.
And still he proposes a theory, and there is cheating. So these four defects are there: committing mistake, to illusion, to cheat others, and studying everything with imperfect sense of knowledge.
So he has five methods for ascertaining knowledge, for discriminating knowledge, but then they already we approved that all these methods are defect. He says there's five ways.
Everything, all knowledge, he says, is cause and effect. There's always some cause and some effect. So he said we can determine what is the cause or what is the effect of anything according to these five methods.
One is the method of agreement. That is, if we have two or more instances of a phenomenon and there is one common circumstance behind both of them, then we can conclude that that circumstance is the cause or the effect.
It's like if we observe that two stones were thrown into the water and that each stone was thrown by someone, then we can determine that the throwing is the common cause of that stone throwing into the water.
A common circumstance.
Oh, like these examples... What is that, this example? Well, any example that anything that's caused, if there are two instances of it, say two balls are dropping, we can conclude if we study both of them, if they're both moved by some person, that that person is the cause of their falling, if there's a common circumstance for any phenomena.
Any phenomena that has natural law. So that is the cause.
Krishna as the ultimate remote cause
And if we go on, so what is the cause of that natural law? Then ultimately find Krishna. Everything, janmādy asya yataḥ, everything has got a cause, origin, source.
So if you make actually research, what is the cause of this? What is the cause of this? That is called darśana. Darśana means seeing, finding out the cause.
That philosophy is called darśana-śāstra, to see the cause of the cause, cause of the cause, cause of the cause. So ultimately they have found Krishna is the cause. Original cause of origin.
He's more interested, I think, in the immediate cause of something. That it's caused immediately by something else. Ultimately Krishna is the cause, but what about the immediate cause?
Is that also... Yes, immediate cause we say. Immediate cause. Immediate cause also we accept. So what is the conclusion? There is cause immediate and remote. That we agree with. But what is this proposition?
So this proposition is that we can study any instance of a phenomenon and find out the cause by applying these five methods. The method of agreement and the second one is the method of difference.
They're rather complicated. Five causes. Five — no, five methods of studying something to find out the cause. Five tests.
To find out the circumstances behind the cause, uh, behind the phenomenon, the instance of the phenomenon, find out the cause. They find out agreement. What is agreement? What is the method of difference?
In other words, uh, if, if we find two rocks and one is, one is, uh, thrown into the water and the other one remains standing still, that we can examine them both and find out that all circumstances for both of the rocks are the same except one.
And that one circumstance which is different will be the cause.
So say that we find out, well, both rocks come from the same place, they're both sitting in similar positions, they're both on the same at the same time, they're there like that.
But we find that one rock is thrown by someone and one rock is not thrown by someone. So we can say the cause of the rock being thrown is the thrower. Like that. That's a rough example.
That means to cause and everything there is, uh, behind a living entity. Just like there are so many rocks, they're not moving, mm, but one rock moves because behind that rock there is a living entity who pushes the rock.
But what about if they accidentally fell off? Thunderbolts hit the rock and it moves like that. Or gravity made it fall. Gravity, but, uh, when you say law of gravity, then the question that somebody has made that law.
One, one, uh, one, uh, we should give up for this, uh, materialistic, uh, philosophical this like when, uh, Ramachandra threw stones on the sea, uh, the gravity did not work, it was floating. The rocks were floating.
Therefore, the grav— law of gravity, uh, ultimately is made by the supreme law. So he can change it. So my study of the law of gravity is not final.
One of the other methods of testing is called the method of concomitant variation. No, this method of study — the cause. So we take the ultimate cause of everything with His full independence.
The ultimate cause can do anything and everything beyond our calculation. There is cause, but because it's so powerful that it is beyond our calculation how it is being done.
Our knowledge is limited, therefore our calculation maybe, maybe almost always it is not perfect. For instance, he observed if a ball being hit by a bat, it always goes, moves.
So he can conclude that whenever there is a circumstance of a bat hitting a ball, that the ball will always move. But the bat is hitting, yeah. It is caused by a living thing. The bat is not hitting automatically.
And not each hitting is of the same force. Therefore, the hitting of the ball by the bat, it depends on the other cause: the man who is handling the bat.
Then they use another example, that every apple on the tree will fall when it is, when it is ripe. They fall to the ground. There is no man involved with that. What do you mean by that? No, that is his imperfect vision.
We say that God is everywhere. God is everywhere. And Paramāṇu-cayāntara-sthaḥ: God is present everywhere, even within the atom.
Now the modern atomic theory, and they will explain from atomic theory about the fall down of the atom. But we say that within the atom there is God. Therefore God is the ultimate cause.
What kind of test do we apply to phenomena to see what is the cause? Every phenomena, there is a cause. But how do we determine that God is the cause behind everything?
Understanding natural laws through divine energy
Because then we know that God is the ultimate pusher. The pushing begins from there. So it may come through various agents.
Just like one railway wagon is pushed by the engine, and it strikes another wagon, and that is also pushed, another wagon, that is also pushed, that is also pushed. Similarly, the original pusher is the engine.
So our study is like that, that original cha— sa aikṣata, sa aikṣata, these are the Vedas. He glanced over, He desired, immediately there was creation. Therefore the original pusher is God, Krishna.
Now, how it is happening, that we cannot see. That's why the same example: the wagon is already forced, it is coming automatically.
A child sees, uh, this, uh, this wagon is coming automatically and it hits another wagon and it is now moved. He sees that, but he did not see that, uh, ultimately there was a big engine that pushed.
Well, if we see a phenomenon like the rain falling or anything and we want to apply the test that will prove that God is the cause of that phenomenon, what, what test do we apply?
How can we? There's śāstras, the Vedic literature is there, the Upaniṣads are there, the books are there. Śāstra-cakṣuṣā. You have to see through the śāstra. That is the engine pusher. You cannot see directly.
You have to see. Śāstra-cakṣuṣā, your eyes, they're defective.
Uh, just like if you read, uh, astrology, astronomy, then you can understand what is the actual volume or the bulk of the sun, but by your eyes you are seeing just like this. So all your senses are defective.
So by directly seeing or perceiving, a testing has no value. Because they are, these are all defective. So you have to... that's why it is said you should see through śāstra, through authoritative instruction.
So if we see the apple fall from the tree, the test that we apply is the śāstric test. What... where in order to see God in that act of falling, we have to see it through the eyes of the śāstra.
Now what did scientists say? The law of gravity. Yeah, the fruit became ripe. Why it was not applying, why it did not fall before? Well, now, now the fruit has become ripe, so the stem is not...
That part is... a law of gravity is not all. There's another condition. Yeah. So that he does not... many conditions must be. The same apple is hanging, not falling down. That means other conditions are not fulfilled.
So therefore simply studying law of gravity is not perfect. No, well, they all study the... the fruit was not yet ripe; when it becomes ripe, the stem rots, dies. And then it will become loose and fall.
So that means there are other conditions. Yeah. And ripening condition is not any... Yes. But that is the law, not in your hand. When it will ripen, your law of gravity will be left.
And the ripening condition is not in your hand. But there are other material conditions that cause the ripening. Whatever conditions they mean, these conditions are already there, made by God.
You are simply studying some of them, that's all. But for your studying is not sufficient. What do you think? Huh? Our senses are perfect? Yes. So we can conclude the... I have the algorithmic conclusion. Sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam.
So our knowledge, Krishna consciousness, our knowledge is perfect. We say everything is caused by Krishna.
Even if you study the way the sun, the rain, and so on combined to make this fruit ripe, you still have the question: "Well, why is there fruit in the first place?" Why is there fruit?
Why has fruit appeared on this planet? There's no cause apparently, but God has... God has made the law so perfect that one after one cause affects something, and that affects another thing, another thing.
One after another, so many things, ultimately. So we do not know so many things. We see the fruit, but how the fruit is growing, under which law, you simply explain nature.
But it's not nature; there is a law which is not only growing the apple and having this nice color outside the skin — they have been painted. Everything is perfectly being done by the laws, by the energy of Krishna.
That's like if you want to make a beautiful fruit, we paint it yellow, red; it takes so much time. We apply our energy. The same energy is being applied there.
Otherwise, where from you get the idea that a nice fruit can be painted like this? God is dictating. If you want to make a fruit, paint, do like this. Do like that. So similarly he is doing.
But my doing takes so much time because my energy is so blunt and limited. But his energy is so perfect that immediately, immediately. It's like telex. There are so many methods.
Now this is letters and immediately type here. So before that, one could not believe how that I type here and 5,000 miles away it types, types. So there is a law. It is not that it is magic. Oh, I see.
Before, before the telex there was a law, but we didn't know it. Yes, we didn't know it. Similarly, everything is... we do not know.
Yes, there's one common version also in non-scientific discoveries; they say nothing can come out of nothing. That is already there that we do not know because that is sat. We do not know. Nothing can come out of nothing.
Nothing. If something has come out, then the background must be something. Therefore, our definition is janmādy asya yataḥ, everything, the root cause, the original source is the Brahman, Absolute Truth.
So whatever we are existing, the other day, whatever thinking, there is some existence. Otherwise it cannot come to our ideas and thinking. The same scientific theory: nothing can come out of nothing.
So if you are thinking of something, it is already there. Yeah. That's it. That I also said the other day. We can say we have discovered. We cannot invent. America was discovered, not invented. The land was already there.
Anyone does something new, he takes credit. So, can tomorrow we'll finish? The sun is taking our time. Are you all not present? And we're discussing this light. The sun is taking our light?
Yeah, I came in about halfway through. Right. I was... I was typing, I should have gone. Yeah. Unless here I will be able to hit a little ready button.
Is the sun... Oh, actually the rays are taking away the life or the other? Actually, you're going to find you're dying daily. Yes. It means as this each time the sun rises and one day is past, means one day you lose.
A sunshine, a sunrise and sunset means passing days. No, I thought it's dropped somewhere. And she said, she said Kalimati made a mistake. She told you 400 if it said 500. So
today we'll finish up John Stuart Mill by discussing his ethical and social and political philosophy. Sorry, somebody was typing this, told me. This philosophy. Two girls. They've done some. Oh, they're great.
So they're going to leave... they're leaving wherever they cannot understand, they're leaving blanks, and I'll listen later.
Critique of utilitarianism and transcendental pleasure
So, so we were discussing last time that these utilitarians, their philosophy is that the greatest good for the greatest number of people, that that should be followed, that law.
And that that means the greatest pleasure for the greatest... greatest good for the greatest number of people. So that is... that means even the people are fools and rascals. Does it mean so? Yeah.
Now, some of the fools and rascals, they just like at the present moment, they will want, "Give us LSD." Then LSD is first class. Is that philosophy?
Well, according to... to some, according to that, we are discussing whether this is philosophy or nonsense. That is our question. Greatest number at the present moment in your country, there is a... LSD is very nice.
We like it. Then government will allow? Yes, greatest number of people are wanting it, then it must be... Well, he makes a distinction between quality and quantity.
If we're only thinking of quantity, then... if you come to the quality, then it'll be smallest. Because quality, some of the whole population, two million population.
If you pick up from the population quality, first-class population, we will find very small. In a mass meeting, if you ask in the meeting who have passed an M.A. examination, then maybe three or four may come. Quality.
But I mean the pleasure, the type of pleasure, should be qualitatively and quantitatively degraded. Pleasure also.
Whatever you take, when you go, put the question of quality, the pleasure... Just like ordinary people, they are taking pleasure in eating, sleeping, mating, and drinking like that.
But Kṛṣṇa pleasure, this transcendental pleasure — very people, very small number of them. So the same question again: they say that many number of people are there taking pleasure, so-called pleasure, and taking LSD.
So will that be taken as pleasure, or will that be accepted? You're talking of philosophy. Yeah. Qualitatively, that's not a very high pleasure. So he would not recommend it. What is this philosophical?
As the Buddha says that greatest number... They generally, after all, his condition shows that fools. So if the greatest number you take, then greater number of fools only.
Because in the conditioned state, abodha-jāta, they're all fools. Our Vedic philosophy is that a man is born fool, but he is made intelligent by education and culture. And that is a fact. That is a fact.
In practical life also, we see that we send our boys and children to school to become educated.
Out of the fools, so many fools, children who go to school, some of them take degrees; and out of many who take the degrees, some of them become a postgraduate; and out of many postgraduates, some of them become a still more learned doctor, like that.
So if you go to the quality, the number will decrease. You cannot say "greatest number."
But his idea is to find or to utilize those principles of life which give the qualitatively and quantitatively the most pleasure to the most people. That means he says by quality he means like,
I said, for instance, he makes the statement: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
But Socrates, how many Socrateses he'll find then? Then it again he comes with the manner. But you cannot find Socrates. But he says that that standard of pleasure. But then, then why is the question of maximum men?
Socrates will find in millions one. But he says that that standard of pleasure, that's a good one, there is no question of a maximum people. Socrates, the number of Socrateses is not maximum. There is minimum.
There is minimum. If you come to the question of quality, the quality, philosophy, quality, understanding, that is minimum. Just like Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gītā: kaścin māṃ vetti... this is that. And
yatatām api siddhānām kaścin māṃ... and out of millions of such perfect men, one may understand Me, Krishna. There is not quantity, there is quality.
There is what he says, that the highest quality pleasures, such as Socrates would enjoy, the high intelligence, but that is not for the mass of men. But it's not for the greatest number of men.
That the minimum for that is that philosophy is understandable by the minimum number. But he says that this standard should be applied to all men. All men should be trained to, uh, find pleasure in this standard.
That is another thing. That means quality pleasure should be introduced to the... the what is beginning he said, maximum pleasure, maximum number.
He wants to find something that will give them... Is it the purpose of government, politics, social, ethical theory of life is to provide the greatest pleasure for the greatest number? Now we find out the greatest number.
To find out what is the greatest pleasure, we look for the best quality which we find in someone like Socrates, he said. And then we find, we introduce that as the standard for the greatest quantity.
But that is not acceptable by the greatest number. No. That is to be accepted by the smallest number. Yes, but he said that should be the standard.
That is not meant for the mass of people. That is not mass of people, about the aja, they are fools and rascals.
Krishna consciousness movement cannot be understood by the mass of people; a selected number of men who are fortunate, they can understand.
He advises that the stay or the... Just like, uh, uh, ekoś candras tamo hanti, you will find one in the sky, a stars, millions. The moon is wanted, not the stars, to drive out the darkness. And that is our aim.
You cannot say that there may be many moons. No, that is not possible. Many stars may be, which has no utility. They're glittering only. But thing... what is called? Twipping... Twinkling. Twinkling.
But they cannot drive away darkness. That's not fun. Glow-worms. As soon as we come to the quality, that will be the lowest now, meaning... He's trying to find out the standard of pleasure that is most desirable to us.
That he does not know, that he has to learn from us. He may be a big philosopher in the Western country. But our, yeah, utility in cessation. It will not stop. That is the standard of pleasure. That is quality.
Here in the material world, we have what experience, we get pleasure. But that is transient. It's like ordinary men. They understand sex pleasure is the highest pleasure.
Actually, on sex pleasure, the whole material world is existing. But how long the sex pleasure can remain? A few minutes. So, our philosophy is we don't want that transient pleasure.
We want pleasure which will continue perpetually. Nityānanda. Nitya means eternal. Ānanda means bliss. Satyam. Real bliss. Satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi. We want the actual truth. That is quality.
So that standard is mentioned in the Vedic literature that those who are intelligent persons, those who are yogis — yogis means perfect men — so they want pleasure which is eternal. not transient.
Transient pleasure is liked by fools and asses. Because fools and asses, they do not know what is their constitutional position.
But one who is intelligent, one who is learning, he knows his constitutional position, that he is eternal. He is not this body. Therefore, he must be seeking eternal pleasure.
Bodily pleasure—bodies are transient and bodily pleasures are transient. So that is not sought after by any intelligent man. These are sought by asses.
Because one who identifies himself with the body, therefore bodily pleasure is sought; but one who knows that he's not this body, he's eternal, then he seeks what is eternal.
He says that a small amount of a higher type of pleasure is better than a great amount of lower type of pleasure. Yes. That is our pleasure.
Spiritual advancement and the soul's love
What is that? Small? A small amount, small quantity of a high quality pleasure is better than a great quantity of the same. Bhagavad-gītā: «svalpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt».
If one executes devotional service a little, he can be delivered from the greatest danger. In another place, it is said that if anyone by sentiment accepts Krishna consciousness, without any much understanding—
sometimes we are led by the majority. Ah, so many people are chanting, let me also chant.
Even in that way, by sentiment, if one accepts Krishna consciousness, and because he did not accept Krishna consciousness very diligently, he was not very strong, later on he may fall down. He still is gainer.
Still is gainer. Whereas on the other hand, a person who is very intelligent, karmī, yeah: "What is nonsense, Krishna consciousness?"
"Let us do our duty, we have got our duty to serve our country, to our family, we must earn money," and so on. That is called varṇāśrama.
According to varṇāśrama they are working, they think to execute the duties of varṇāśrama is first class. And they do not take to devotion. For such person Vyāsadeva says, "What do they gain?" What do they gain?
It is so great that even taking to Krishna consciousness, even for a few days... This is like this boy. What is his name? He has come back. He has come back. Harināma is coming, but he wants to post from his condition.
We say, "No, no condition." Purushottam is writing later. Excuse me. They are there, other by his name? No. Durlabha. He does the kind. They cannot go. They cannot go. Sulabha.
But even, even for a few days, they have mixed with devotees. It is very difficult for them to give it up. The quality is so nice. Yeah. This, this, this is Miller's idea that his wife went there.
And the boy, they went there. And again, come on. So because the quality is so great. So that's his idea. He said that this state should be introduced in the society.
So therefore those who are sane men, actually they should take up this Krishna consciousness as the best philosophy and best utilitarian product; they should take it seriously.
But they have no such knowledge, they're simply speculating. But when the actual thing is given, they cannot understand. And I, we are discussing this this morning. Except this, everything is taking our life.
Except uttama-śloka-varta. Tasya śāntir na vidyeta uttama-śloka-varta. Except this. This discussion of Krishna consciousness. Except this time, any time that is being taken by the rise of the sun.
Anything in this world, whatever it may be, they're all transient. This is only permanent. And because we are permanent, eternal, we should gain, we should accept things which have permanent value.
It is foolishness to be satisfied with some ephemeral, some temporary. But svalpa-dhī-dhanam... So, kṣetra, such valuable time, if it is why, without any utility, kṣaṇam apy apahṛtam.
Then what is the greatest loss than that? So you should utilize this philosophical point on Mr. Sir John... uh, Sir John Stuart Mill to support our movement. Yes, write one article.
The John Stuart Mill says this, this, this is real utility. And here is real utility thing.
And he, he gives, he gives the same idea by saying it is better to be like Socrates and be dissatisfied than to be like a pig satisfied. Yeah, that's nice. That's like we don't have everything. Dissatisfied.
I left home because I was dissatisfied with my wife and say that. Yes. Just like to be a devotee, even though I may be dissatisfied a little still, but it's better to be that king, dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction.
Dissatisfaction is a good thing. It, it is for better advancement. That is what dissatisfaction... That's the karmī. They are also dissatisfied with one hundred thousand of dollars.
That means they want to make one million thousand of dollars. That's kind of dissatisfaction for the economy's goal because we can increase further assets' civility.
If I am dissatisfied spiritually, or I'm not making advancement, I'm still in the material platform, that is good. That is satisfaction is subject to satisfy. Mm-hmm.
And, and as cats and dogs are, they satisfied with the morsel of grass, mm, that's all. What is the value of that solution? What is the value of the solution? And that is our prayer.
Cakṣuṣā prāviśatāṁ gadābhṛtaḥ, pulakair nijita-vapuḥ, gadgada-girā gaditavyam bhāva, there is this verse.
Then when my heart will be throbbing, when torrents of rain will come out from my eyes, when I, my, uh, speech will be faltering, when that day will come. That means this ordinary way he's not satisfied.
That is the ecstatic bhāva. and becomes like a madman chanting "Hari! Viṣṇu!" So he's expecting when that stage will come. This stage comes when one is in the summit of chanting.
This stage of the ecstatic symptoms for each. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is praying for him when that stage will come. This is, this is, this is, this is this. He said that "I'm not a pinch of the whole scientific."
I have... I'm going to have to try in coming to that stage of crying. He says, "Oh no, it is not this stage. I'm trying just to make a show that I am a great devotee. I do not love Kṛṣṇa.
The evidence is that I am still living. Without Kṛṣṇa I still am living. That is my defect. If I would have been a real lover of Kṛṣṇa, without Kṛṣṇa, I have long, long ago died. But that I'm not done, I am still living."
So who can show this dissatisfaction maybe? He says that "I am still living, this is the evidence I do not love Kṛṣṇa." Then kind of come to the crying stage.
First of all, he said, "When shall I cry incessantly for Govinda?" When again coming to that stage, he still is... He says, "I am simply crying just to make a show. I do not love Kṛṣṇa.
If there is a pinch of love for Kṛṣṇa, then I would have died long, long ago without Kṛṣṇa." This is the thing. Who can show such kind of this service? And who can feel this?
The best utility is this... John Stuart Mill, any philosophical... He, he says that, uh, the only standard we have for that to understand what is desirable is that people actually do desire it. Desire Kṛṣṇa.
They do not know. Even he doesn't have no story. We are desiring for Kṛṣṇa. Actually we love Kṛṣṇa. That we have experienced several times. First of all, I love my country. Or I love my body. Why I love?
Because I, this spiritual soul, am within the body. That's why I love that. His idea is that if something is desired by people, then it is desirable. Then it is people who desire so many things. Respect of desires too.
Is that desirable? Similarly, the uh bowery pumps and desire. Simply thinking. It's a very desirable thing. Desirable body equality. That's a Caitanya Mahāprabhu desire. That is desire. Not the bumps.
If something is desired by personality like Caitanya Mahāprabhu, that is standard. He desires Kṛṣṇa. That is real standard. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Greatest personalities, what they are desire, that is said.
He does not know. Or the fool sees it. Medicine the doctor may prescribe may be bitter, not desirable at all, but it will cure you.
Authority and duty in spiritual life
But still you don't want it. It's not desirable. Is it? No, I mean that seems like he... there's a fallacy in his reasoning because if the medicine were uh undesirable, yeah, still it will cure you. Yeah.
Just like I was not desiring to take medicine. When I was child, it was very difficult to give me medicine. Three men required. Yes. One will capture me, take my legs, and then my mother is like four. I do that.
This is my position. I... I won't agree to take any medicine. So obstinate. So that which is really desirable, but because it is desirable the force applied. Uh, we cannot judge what is desirable. No.
Only uh that for our personal philosophy, mahājana-bhaktas, the great personalities, what do they desire? That is why we accept spiritual paramparā. Whatever he desires, that should be standard. Not my desire.
Krishna desired to fight, not Arjuna's desire. Arjuna desired not to fight. But he changed his desire not to fight, to fight, because Krishna desired.
Therefore our standard of desire should be that which is desired by a greater personality, not by me. What am I? I should always think of me as a fool. And I am shy, I have no desire to take medicine. But my parents desire.
And that desire should be followed. And similarly, this Hare Krishna mantra is...
If actually the state is serious to be the best desirable thing, they should make a law that anyone who is not chanting sixteen rounds, he will be hanged. Then everyone chants. The whole world. Yes, there was a king.
Yes, he wanted to see that everyone must have beads and chant. So he was inspecting silently whether my subjects chant. So one day he was incognito. Incognito. Disguised. In disguise he was trying.
So one householder, he was asking, "Oh, bring that beads and now chant," because they did not want to abide by the law. So "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare..."
Then the king could understand that my order is being carried out in this way. A whole day he forgot. Now he's captured by the guard, that's why he chants. Something that happens from...
It says that there are two moral sanctions for our conduct. One is the internal sanction, or our own inner conscience. These are all nonsense. What do you mean by inner conscience? Well, our sense of duty.
Duty should be taught by a high personality. This is their duty. It's like our principle. The spiritual master always says you must chant so many rounds. You must give up all these bad habits, sinful activities. This is this.
By conscience, what will you understand of this? He's not talking so much about what is the duty, but that these two things are, are what uh, motivate our, our moral behavior.
They're what check and safeguard our moral behavior. One is conscience or my own sense of duty, whatever that may be. How is no idea? He said one should know, whatever his duty.
No, whatever is what is his duty, how you know it. Well, that duty is that which produces the, the most good for the most people. This is also vague. This doesn't fail. There's no definite understanding.
Just like the golden rule. Do you want to... whether then he... I conclude that most of the people are taking LSD, said to take LSD is my duty. Is that all right? How a rascal can conclude about his duty?
A rascal has to be trained to know what his duty. Rascal cannot conclude that we don't have power. This is my duty and this is the best thing. Mr. Stuart. John Stuart. He may be able.
But it is not possible for ordinary man to know what is duty. The child plays, he does not know that his duty is to study. The parents teach him that "this is your duty." You must go to school, you must learn.
The duty is not created by the rascal's control. Duty is created by high authority.
He, he, he would agree with that also, but he says that the higher authorities who determine what is duty, that their rationale or their, their, uh, guiding principle should be what is the greatest good for the greatest number.
And that should be our duty. How he suggests that a man should know his duty like that? And he has to approach that greatest authority. So tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa guru-mevābhigacchet, that is our process.
In order to know our duty and in order to know what is knowledge, we must approach sad-guru. Guru-mevābhigacchet. Settle.
His guiding principle for that, to determine what is the greatest good for the greatest number, is the golden rule of the Christians. "Do unto others as you..." and that means that we have to approach through Christ.
One cannot determine himself. Golden rules of Christianity means he has to abide by the orders of Christ. That's superior authority. And that rule is: do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.
That is this program. Yes, but they—they're not following. They're killing. But when he is to be killed, he goes up. But he does not think that "I don't want to be killed." Why shall I kill?
And Jesus Christ says: "Thou shalt not kill." Well, they will not have it. Still they will call themselves Christian. Who wants to be killed? Nobody wants. Then why are you killing another? Where is your philosophy?
That is the philosophy: that I—I don't want to be killed. Why shall I kill others? Who is following me? I shall kill you under some bad name. Give the dog a bad name and hang it. I want to kill cows.
I say, "No, they have no soul." And what is the proof that we have got soul? I can kill it. Why there is law by killing a man, he's hanged, and why there is no law such for killing an animal? What is this? Kill animal?
Rascal gods. Fear of displeasing men, other men, or fear of displeasing God, hope of winning their favor, that this keeps us in moral conduct. Yeah. That means that's everything about it. That means accepting authority.
So without authority, nobody can be good. That is the conclusion of this. That we accept. Without becoming—without following authority, nobody can become good. That's not possible.
That's our basic injunction is that tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet, must have personally if you want to be really learning. And John Stuart had any guru? Prabhupāda. Prabhupāda. He also prayed for us.
So without following rules, authority, nobody can be that; actually he accepts authority in both cases of moral—moral sanctions.
One, the authority should determine what is duty and also so that my conscience will keep me following the duty. That duty means to take order from others. That is it. Well, otherwise I cannot create my duty.
If I accept the authority, yeah, as my duty, the actual order comes out as my duty, then my conscience keeps me following that order. Yes, you agree. Yeah. Uh, but it means we agree to follow. Yeah. Because we follow Krishna.
Krishna says, "Give up everything, surrender to Me." We accept that. Similarly, that is the duty. Now, I may accept Krishna, you may accept Christ. That doesn't matter.
But duty means what the higher authority orders, we must follow. That is duty. And if I'm aware where is that duty, then my feet will be aware as soon as I approach the higher authority. He'll give you order:
"Do this and do not do it." Then my conscience tells me if I am doing it right or wrong. My inner conscience tells me. Yeah, that anyone can... that even a dog can understand.
If the dog is trying to enter the home, I say, "Ah!" He can also. He has our conscience. Yeah. The master does not want him to enter. That conscience is there in cats and dogs. That is not very high consciousness.
Your consciousness is Krishna consciousness. That discrimination is there.
Individual freedom and divine judgment
So my inner conscience tells me... You know the consciousness of the tiger at the circus? You know the big, big circus, the tigers are trained to play. So the training is... I learned it from their men.
Because when the tiger comes, raw tiger comes, the what is it? Tiger player or what is called? What is his name? Ringmaster? Ringmaster? Trainer? Trainer? Yeah, the trainer. Yeah.
So the raw tiger is kept in a cage, and the trainer comes for several days, he simply whips them. Then, first let's whip and give some food. And then he comes with the whip and food. He does not whip, he gives him food.
In this way, the tiger becomes tamed. So he plays before the trainer. He has got that faith. Because this animal, he has got an impression: "He'll kill me." That will be.
As soon as this man goes away, he will immediately attack anyone. Just like dogs. He has a master. For others, he is dangerous. So it is a question of training. So he has got the concepts. My point is, he has got the concept.
"Oh, here is my trainer, he'll kill me." So he has got this concept. This is gold: "If I attack, he'll kill me." But he has... now he is... he's an ordinary man. "I can kill him." So he has different concepts.
Even in the tiger, even the cat and the dog. This discrimination, power of discrimination, is there in the animals. But that is not conscious. Real consciousness is to accept Krishna. That is yatha.
He advocates complete individualism and freedom, that everyone should have complete freedom to know. That is not that. That is not. That is not. Nobody has got that. He says that everyone should be free to do.
Then everyone should be philosophers. He has got his own philosophy, everyone has got his own philosophy. Yeah, he says in this way, by everyone being free to compete, that the best ones will come out.
That is another thing. That is not freedom. That is competition. Competition. But in order to compete there has to be freedom; everyone should be able to do it. But nobody is independent. That is our point of view.
Everyone is dependent. Somebody is voluntarily dependent on Krishna and somebody is by force dependent on māyā. But he must be dependent. But one individual's freedom should not encroach upon another individual's freedom.
Then why are they killing? The freedom of the poor animals, while they encourage the freedom. Philosophers do not, do not, I will say, encourage freedom. That is basically. That is nice.
But why these people are encroaching upon the freedom of the animals? The birds. The birds, they're flying. Freedom. The duty. Why they kill?
Encroach others' freedom without any harm. The birds are flying without... If you, if you kill an aggressor, then you are right. Suppose somebody is coming to kill you, then you kill first. That is good.
But if somebody is not doing anything harm to you, and if you kill, then what is this killing? What is this freedom? Giving some badness because I have to kill him. He has no soul.
You can attack him on transfer, "You have no soul, you can attack him." So you are killing, get him killed.
So far as his philosophy of religion, he says that God is good, but that he is involved in a world which is not his own making. If God didn't create the world, but he is involved with it, then we should be judged by him.
God is good, but not as good as he thinks. No, God is... his opinion about God. God, God is good. God is good in all conditions. God is good when Stuart Mill accepts. What is the position of God?
He says that the presence of evil indicates that God is... that if God were everything, then he would be not so good. Why?
That what God has to depend on the opinion, on which that will that he says that God is not so good. God is good, but not so good, because he does not have all his activities.
Well, he says God is good, but he's limited in his power, otherwise everything would be good. And he's a philosopher. He's making God limited. And he's a philosopher. He says if God were good, then everything would be good.
Everything is good. They are good. When God kills the demon, immediately flowers are showered upon him from the sky. You are not letting him. He's good. He's always good. Maybe he has no idea of God.
And still he poses himself as to the God is good. Kṛṣṇa, śānta, dance with others' wives at dead of night. Any man does it, immediately debauch and licentious. But still we worship the rāsa-līlā. We worship the rāsa-līlā.
We keep the picture: God dancing, others' wives. That is God. In all circumstances, God is good. That is worshiping. That is ideas. Not that I put him in my judgment: "Ah, yes, you are good, but not so good." Then I am a fool.
I create my own God. I am greater than God. I can create God. No, God creates you. You cannot create God. He says that because there is evil person in the world, this shows. But he does not know what is evil, what is good.
He should know what is created by God is good. even if it appears to be evil to us. That is conception. I may think it is evil, but it is good. I do not know how it is good. That is my fault. That is my fault. But it is good.
If I put God under my discrimination, under my judgment, that He is not good, He's not God, He is God. God cannot be under my judgment. God is good. And that's all for the... yeah, so...