Carl Jung And The Concept Of God
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
Personal nature and character of God
This is Carl Jung, Carl Gustav Jung. What an interesting point is that the inscription above the door of Jung's house read in Latin: "Summoned or not summoned, God will be there."
And in his book, his autobiography, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", we find most of his thoughts about the, uh, about theology and psychoanalysis.
In that book he writes: "I find that all my thoughts circle around God like the planets around the sun and are as irresistibly attracted by Him.
I would feel it to be the grossest sin if I were to oppose any resistance to this force." He sees all creatures as parts of God. He says: "Man cannot compare himself with any other creature.
He is not a monkey, not a cow, not a tree. I am a man. But what is it to be that? Like every other being, I am a splinter of the infinite deity." Part and parcel. There is a particular... We are part and parcel of God.
Like fire and its parts. He writes: "It was obedience which brought me grace. One must be utterly abandoned to God. Nothing matters but fulfilling His will. Otherwise all is folly and meaninglessness." Very good. Sādhana.
Śaraṇāgati.
Very real life śaraṇāgati: to surrender to God, to accept things which are favorable to God, to reject things which are unfavorable to God, always maintaining the conviction that God will give me all protection, and remain humble and meek, and think oneself as one of the members of God's family.
That is a spiritual community. As a communist thinks as a member of a certain, uh, community, similarly, a man's duty is to think of all as members of God's family.
The same idea I was speaking, that God is the supreme Father, material nature is the mother, and anything, any living entity coming out of material nature, they are all sons born.
So practically we see that all living entities coming either from land or from water or from air. Everywhere there is living entity. So the material nature is the mother, there is no doubt about it.
And we have got experience that mother cannot produce child without connection with the father. So this is absurd to think that without father a child can be born. That is foolishness. Father must be there.
And that supreme father is God. This conception of a spiritual family is Krishna consciousness or God consciousness.
Concerning God's personality, he writes, according to the Bible, God has a personality and is the ego of the universe, just as I myself am the ego of my psyche and physical being. But here... Well, you have to speak.
That, that is our... that consciousness is like I am conscious, but I am conscious about my body. I am not conscious of your body. This is individual consciousness. You are conscious of your body.
But you are not conscious of my body. Then he explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: kṣetra-kṣetrajña. The individual soul is conscious of its own body. Each and every individual soul.
But there is another consciousness, that is super-consciousness. That is God. God is in everyone's heart.
Kṣetrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata. And also within the body, but He is not like that individual soul limited within that body. He is residing in everyone's body.
He is super-conscious, Super Soul, Paramātmā. Continuing on this God's personality, these are his recollections of his spiritual encounters. He says, "But here I encountered a formidable obstacle.
Personality, after all, surely signifies character. Now, character is one thing and not another. That is to say, it involves certain specific attributes.
But if God is everything, how can He still possess a distinguishable character? On the other hand, if he does have a character, he can only be the ego of a subjective limited world.
Moreover, what kind of character or what kind of personality does he have? Everything depends on that. For unless one knows the answer, one cannot establish a relationship to him. His character is transcendental character.
He's not like the material character. Aprākṛta. It is said just like Bhagavān is very kind to his devotee. This kindness is one of his characteristics.
Similarly, he has got unlimited qualities and, according to that transcendental quality, he is sometimes described, but all those qualities are permanent.
Whatever qualities and character we have got, they are minute manifestations of God's character. Because we have got character also, that is only a minute manifestation of God's character.
He is the origin of all character. And that is described in the śāstras.
He has got also mind, he has got also feelings, he has got also sensation, he has got senses, sense perception, sense gratification, everything is there. There it is unlimitedly.
We being part and parcel of God, we possess in minute quantities all the God's qualities. Actually our characteristics, qualities are simply atomic manifestations of God's quality. The original qualities are in God.
Jung complained that at least the philosophies and theologies of the West... He is personal. Yes. He is personal. That is the Vedic description. He is personal, exactly like us, but his personality is unlimited.
The same example I was giving that I am a person so far as I am concerned with this particular body, but he is a person living in every body. Super-person.
And the Bhagavad-gītā also said that that personality, either of God or of the individual soul, is eternally existing.
And the Bhagavad-gītā says that in the past we were existing, at present we are existing, and in the future we shall continue to exist.
Spiritual relationships and devotional practice
Past, present, future. That means all the times, eternally, both of them are person; one person is unlimited and the other person is limited. Finite and infinite.
So God is a person by unlimited qualities, unlimited characteristics, unlimited power, unlimited strength, unlimited influence, unlimited knowledge. That is God.
And we are also the same person with little power, little influence, little knowledge, everything limited. That is the difference between two personalities. One is limited, another is unlimited.
But the qualities are the same. Jung then found that the philosophies and theologies, at least of the West, could not give him a clear picture of God's personality.
He concluded: "What is wrong with these philosophers, I wondered? Evidently they know of God only by hearsay." Yeah, that I was complaining. And none of these authors have any clear idea of God. They're simply speculative.
Therefore, they cannot speak anything about religion and God because they have no clear conception. But so far we are concerned, we have clear conception of God. Yes, Kṛṣṇa.
And we want to give that conception to the world, that is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the supreme person, supreme God by everyone, all authorities, past, present, and future must be.
So why they do not accept this personal God? If they have got any reason, if they have got any logic, any philosophy, here is Kṛṣṇa, perfect God. So he, according to Vedic scripture, he is complete, cent percent God.
Other incarnations of God, they are not cent percent. It has been analyzed in our Nectar of Devotion. How much? Ninety-four percent, ninety-six percent God.
Lord Śiva, eighty-four percent God; Lord Brahmā, eighty, seventy-eight, seventy-eight percent. That is also very minute quantity. All the characteristics and qualities of God.
But Krishna is full-fledged, hundred percent God. That Rūpa Gosvāmī has analyzed in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta- sindhu. We have given the translation in Nectar of Devotion. So God is person.
Simply if we study man's character, then we can study also God, the same character, loving affairs; as we also want to enjoy with friends, with girls, with uh, parents, with uh, superiors, with servants, as we take pleasure in these relationships.
Similarly, God also takes pleasure in this similar relationship. Yes, God, five relationships primarily, and seven relationships secondary.
So twelve kinds of relationship, and therefore He is described as akhila-rasāmṛta-mūrti, the reservoir of all pleasure. That is His completeness.
So the philosophers, they should try to understand, very analytically, what is God. They do not know God, and they speak of God imaginary. That is not perfect knowledge. One must study what is God with perfect knowledge.
That is that Bhagavad-gītā. That is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha, yoga-yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ, asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu.
Krishna says: "O Arjuna, simply by concentrating your attachment for Me, mayy āsakta, and practicing the bhakti-yoga under My guidance, mad-āśrayaḥ, yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ."
You can learn about God by keeping yourself always under the protection of God, or under the protection of the representative of God. Then without any doubt, samagram, perfectly, you can understand God.
Otherwise, there is no possibility. Mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha yogaṁ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ asaṁśayaṁ samagram. Then there will be no doubt whether God is there or not. What is my position? What is my duty? And so everything.
That is perfectly Krishna consciousness.
He writes, "The theologians are different from the philosophers. In this respect, at any rate, at least they are sure that God exists, even though they make contradictory statements about Him."
God's existence does not depend on our proofs. I understood that God was, for me at least, one of the most certain and immediate of experiences. Yes. That is, uh, transcendental conviction.
And it is very easy to understand that God—I do not know God. That is another thing. I'll have to learn it. But God is there, there is no doubt about it. Any sane man can understand.
You cannot say there is no God because you are under control. So who is that controller? The Supreme Controller is God. This is a sane man's conclusion. Now, I do not know who is God, but there is God as a fact.
So he is right when he says, "I believe and not believe there is God." Now it will depend on my personal endeavour to know God. He writes, "In my darkness I could have wished for nothing better than a real live guru."
He uses the word guru: "someone possessing superior knowledge and ability who would have disentangled for me the involuntary creations of my imagination." Guru. Guru, that is required.
Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet. That is the Vedic process: to have, to possess perfect knowledge, one must have a guru.
And guru means one has—one is actually a representative of God, not theoretically, but one who has practically seen and experienced God. We have to approach such a guru, then by service and by surrender and by sincere inquiries we shall be able to understand what is God.
That is the point. The expert is no use. Prasāda-leśa-anugṛhīta eva hi jānāti tattvam. This is the statement of Vedic literature, my Lord. One who has received a little mercy and favor of Your Lordship, he can understand.
Others may speculate for millions and millions of years. Athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi. Clearly, the śāstra says: bhaktyā mām abhijānāti. Simply through the process of bhakti.
Bhakti means śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ: hearing, chanting about Viṣṇu, always remembering Him. Satataṁ kīrtayanto mām. That is the process. Always glorify the Lord. And a devotee's only business is to glorify.
That is a devotee. A devotee's consciousness is always drowned in the ocean of the pastimes of the Supreme. Unlimited activities. And devotees always think of those activities.
That means they drown in the ocean of the activities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is transcendental bliss. And one should learn how to be always merged in the ocean of God and His existence.
That training is given by the spiritual master. Therefore, one must have ācāryavān puruṣo veda: one who is under the direction of the ācārya, he knows everything about God.
Leadership and the necessity of guru
He gave the following criticism of Sigmund Freud. He says, "Sexuality evidently meant more to Freud than to other people. For him, it was something to be religiously observed.
One thing was clear: Freud, who had always made much of his irreligiosity, had now constructed a dogma, or rather, in the place of God whom he had lost, he had substituted another compelling image, that of sexuality."
He has taken sexuality as God. Our position is that we must accept a leader; that is our natural tendency. So he gave up the leadership of God and took the leadership of sex. That is his position. Leadership we must have.
This question also I asked Professor Kotovsky there: "Where is the difference between your pleasure and our pleasure? You accept leader Lenin. We accept leader Krishna. Where is the difference in the process?"
So this is the nature of human beings, to accept a leader. And this man, unfortunately, he lost the leadership of God and he took the leadership of sex. That is his position.
Jung concluded concerning Freud, he said: "Freud never asked himself why he was compelled to talk continually of sex, why this idea had taken such possession of him.
He remained unaware that his monotony of interpretation expressed a flight from himself or from that other side of him which might perhaps be called mystical.
So long as he refused to acknowledge that side, that is, the mystical side, he could never be reconciled with himself. So he couldn't sleep.
He said that Freud's absorption with sexuality expressed a flight from himself, a fleeing from himself, from the side of himself which might be called mystical; and as long as he refused to acknowledge that side, that is, the mystical side, he could never be reconciled with himself.
He could never be at one with himself. So under the leadership of sexuality... that's why everyone is, uh, does a leadership. Just like sometimes we say, the material scientists say like this, they say like this.
Then he accepts the leadership. So we have to accept the leadership. But if we accept the leadership of Krishna, then our life is perfect. Other leadership is māyā, māyā's leadership. But we have to accept leadership.
There is no doubt of... So he accepted the leadership of sex, but he did not admit it. But going on, speaking on sex... and those who have taken the leadership of God, they will speak only of God. Nothing else.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that we are eternal servants of God. As soon as we give up the service of the Lord, then we have to accept the service... So all these divine atheists, scientists, they're all servants of māyā.
Instead of becoming a servant of God, he is a servant. But he is a servant. That is the difference between a devotee and the materialistic person.
He saw that the soul was always longing for light, the urge to rise out of the primal darkness, and he says that is the pent-up feeling that can be detected in the eyes of primitives, that is, primitive people, and also in the eyes of animals.
There is a sadness in animals' eyes, and we never know whether that sadness is bound up with the soul of the animal or is a poignant message which speaks to us out of that existence. Yeah.
Every man is seeking... constitutionally he is a servant. He is seeking his master. That is natural potentially.
So in the animal kingdom, animal life, this like a small calf, what is called, this cat and dog, but it's called calf. A baby... baby dog, what is called? Puppy. Puppy is in some time.
They try to take shelter of some boy, of some, um, man. That's a tendency: "Give me shelter, keep me as your pet, and help me." That means by nature they are wanting some shelter. Child is also wanting some shelter.
So that is our constitutional position. So in the human form of life, when consciousness is developed, that tendency to have a leader, to take a shelter, that is Krishna.
Krishna is giving direction that he wants shelter, he wants guidance. So you take my guidance: sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja. Then we perfect. That is the ultimate in the bhakti.
In 1938, Jung was invited by the British government to take part in celebrations connected with the 25th anniversary of the University of Calcutta. He writes: "By that time I had read a great deal." Hmm?
Twenty-fifth anniversary. Nineteen thirty-eight. So Calcutta University was started long ago. Huh? Nineteen thirteen. The University of Calcutta? No. Before that? Yeah. That's been misinterpretation. Mm.
Well, it could have been this type or it could have been this, maybe eighteen... Mm-hmm. Eighteen thirteen. Nineteen thirty-eight. I know. Not 1933. I'll... I'll have to check these dates. Yeah.
He writes: "By that time I had read a great deal about..." Eighteen thirty. Eighteen thirty. Eighteen thirteen. So maybe it's the... maybe it was the anniversary that's wrong. Probably not the year.
Because he was most famous in '38. He wasn't before that, he wasn't. Animate city, maybe. Animate city is going on. It might have been the 50th anniversary, yes.
He writes: "By that time I had read a great deal about Indian philosophy and religious history, and was deeply convinced of the value of Oriental wisdom."
On this visit Jung had an opportunity to talk with S. S. Subramanya Iyer, the guru of the Maharaja of Mysore, who hosted Jung. Jung says that he studiously avoided the so-called holy men.
He says: "I did so because I had to do, I had to make do with my own truth or what nature brings to me." He did not like to accept any guru. Self-reliance. It seems to be a self-reliance.
But then all you have to say is Indian pleasure. Well, on the one hand, at least he didn't accept... on the one hand he says he wanted a guru. Right, previously. Yeah.
But here, after going to Calcutta, perhaps it was the the so-called gurus that he met that discouraged him. So-called gurus at that... there are many, that is no doubt.
So he might have seen that bogus guru he did not like. But the principle of accepting guru cannot be avoided. That is not possible. That contradicts the previous statement.
Transmigration and the eternal soul
Concerning consciousness after death, Jung feels that after death, the individual must pick up the level of consciousness which he left. The level of consciousness continues. Continues. Yeah.
Therefore, according to that consciousness, he has to accept the body. That is transmigration of the soul.
That ordinary person, they can only see the body, but along with the body, there is mind and there is intelligence, there is ego. One cannot see what is mind, what is intelligence.
So there is no reason that when the body is finished, why the mind and intelligence should be finished. But he cannot see the mind, cannot see the intelligence. He says everything is finished.
Why everything should be finished? The body is finished, but the mind is not finished. So the soul is carried by mind, intelligence; there is a subtle body.
And it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā: «na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre». He's not finished. He's there. He's being carried by mind and intelligence. But these foolish persons, they cannot see.
But even in a lifetime, they cannot see what is mind. They cannot see what is intelligence. He says one's spiritual education must continue at the point he left off.
"If there were to be a conscious existence after death, it would, so it seems to me, have to continue on the level of consciousness attained by humanity, which in any age has an upper, though variable, limit."
That is clearly explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. The past consciousness... personally, the consciousness is continuing. So if the body is destroyed, the consciousness continues.
So according to the consciousness, we get another body. And again, in that body, the future, past consciousness works.
So if in the past life you were a devotee, again he becomes a devotee, and from the point where he died, the machine body became destroyed. Again, as soon as you get a body, the same consciousness begins to work.
Therefore we find somebody quickly accepts Krishna consciousness, and sometimes it takes delay. So it is continuous. In every verse we see that, just like the Bhagavad-gītā: «bahūnāṁ janmanām ante».
«Bahūnāṁ janmanām 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.
He changed so many bodies. But the consciousness continues. So this is clear, but on the contrary, modern medicine, dull brain, they cannot understand. Here is the reason: that you do not see mind, you have not seen.
So Mr. John we see daily, but we don't see Mr. John's intelligence. We can perceive that this man is intelligent. But we have not seen what is intelligence.
When he talks, you understand, you perceive that he has got intelligence. So this, this gross body, when he's no more talking... So why that intelligence should be finished? This is common sense.
When a man talks, we say he is an intelligent man. But we do not see what is intelligence. So the talking instrument is this body. So this body is finished, gross body is finished.
Does it mean... does his consciousness, intelligence finish? No. They continue. That's like in a dream. This body is not working. This is practical. But his consciousness is working. His mind is working.
So similarly, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre. After this, under this gross body, the mind, intelligence continues. And because to work the mind and intelligence, he requires a body, so he develops a body.
That is transmigration, and very clear at once. Well, he felt that the level of consciousness could not supersede whatever knowledge is available on this planet. I guess that's clear.
No, you can supersede, provided you get knowledge from authority.
Just like somebody is sitting here, he has not seen India, but somebody who has full knowledge of India, or seen or gone there, he can describe, and he can understand that there is a place.
India, the place is like this, like that. So similarly, from authority, Lord Kṛṣṇa says there is another nature. That nature is eternal. Here, this nature, as it finds, it is not eternal. It is, uh, temporary.
It takes birth, it is maintained for some time, it changes, it becomes old, and again, destroyed, finished. And therefore, in this material world, there is dissolution. But there is another world which has no dissolution.
That information we get from authority, Kṛṣṇa: sanātana. Everything finished here, that is not finished. So we have to receive this knowledge from authority, not necessarily by your personal experience. Pratyakṣa. Aparokṣa.
This is... there are different stages of knowledge. Pratyakṣa, parokṣa, aparokṣa, adhokṣaja, aprākṛta. So that requires, uh, advancement of knowledge. So not that all knowledge we can have by direct perception.
That is not perception. He says this is probably why earthly life is of such great significance, and why it is that what a human being brings over at the time of his death is so important.
Only here in life on earth can the general level of consciousness be raised. That seems to be man's metaphysical task. So since consciousness survives death, it must therefore be elevated while man is on earth. Yes.
That consciousness should be developed automatically. And pūrva- buddhikam. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said. Śuci-śrīmatāṁ gehe, in the sixth chapter.
Pūrva-buddhikam. The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people or into a family of rich aristocracy.
Then, atha vā yoginām eva kule bhavati dhīmatām. Etad dhi durlabhataraṁ loke janma yad īdṛśam. Or he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom.
Verily such a birth is rare in this world. Tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogaṁ labhate paurva-dehikam.
On taking such a birth, he again revives the divine consciousness of his previous life and he tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success.
Because of the the incompleteness of his practice, and if he dies prematurely or he could not finish and died, then the consciousness goes with him. So in the next life, again he begins from that point. Pūrva-buddhi.
What is the exact word? Śloka? Buddhi-saṁyogam. Buddhi-saṁyogam. The intelligence becomes revived. Buddhi-saṁyogaṁ labhate paurva-dehi- kam. Material you also find sometimes one person is very extraordinary in every...
In the class, some students speak up very quickly. Some students cannot understand. So this is continuation. Why he is intelligent means he has got some previous revival of his consciousness. So in this way it is going on.
That is the proof. Immortality of the soul. Otherwise, wherefrom the previous patterns? This is the proof. Because there are a lot of sort of interesting points here. He points out that there's a paradox surrounding death.
On the one hand, from the point of view of the ego, or what we call the false ego, death is a horrible catastrophe, a fearful piece of brutality.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the psyche, the soul, death is a joyful event. In the light of eternity it is a wedding. Yes, in one case it is eternal.
But death is horrible for the person who is going to accept a lower grade of life. And it is pleasure for the devotee that he's going back to home, back to Godhead. That is the difference.
So it's not always a joyful event for the soul. No. How it can be? If he is not developed to spiritual consciousness, Krishna consciousness, it is very horrible for him. But in this life he became very proud.
I don't care for God. I am independent and so on and so on, so I'm talking like a crazy fellow. But after death he has to accept a body as dictated by nature. My dear sir, you are like a dog, you become a dog.
You like this surfing in the sea, now you become a fish. That will be given by the superior order. Karmaṇā-daiva-netreṇa. You have worked in a certain way. Now by superior dictation, you will accept a type of body naturally.
If you have infected some disease, when you are attacked by the disease, you cannot protest because you have been already infected. Similarly, but we are creating our next body, kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo 'sya.
We are keeping ourselves in touch with a certain type of material nature, that means we are creating our next body. How can you stop it? That is nature's way. The same.
If you have infected some disease, you must get that disease. Similarly, there are three modes of material nature: tamas, rajas, sattva, and transcendent.
As you have kept your association in this life, you get a similar body, o guṇeṣu.
So even if you fail to achieve the highest goal in Krishna consciousness, instead, because you have kept yourself in the association of Krishna consciousness, so you are going to get the chance to take birth, śucīnāṁ śrīmatāṁ, in the family of pure brāhmaṇa, or in the aristocratic family.
In both the families, you get the chance of reviving your spiritual consciousness. But we forget that, or you do not get superior guidance, and then we again fall. But there is a chance.
One who is born in this family, one who is born in a high- grade family, he has got the chance, and you have to take a lesson from Bhagavad-gītā that, "I am because I am born in the rich family or in a brāhmaṇa family, so I'm well situated; now I must take where I left my developed spiritual consciousness."
So if he tries, he gets the chance. So human form in general is a chance for making progress in spiritual consciousness, especially when one is born in an aristocratic family or a brāhmaṇa family or the Vaiṣṇava family.
Despite so many interesting points, Jung appears to have a somewhat limited understanding of Indian philosophy.
He did not appear to understand that saṁsāra, although it appears to be endless, can be ended if one surrenders to Krishna, that there is mukti, that saṁsāra can be overcome by surrendering unto Mukunda.
He writes: "The succession of birth and death is viewed as an endless continuity, as an eternal wheel rolling on forever without a goal. Man lives and attains knowledge and dies and begins again from the beginning."
He says: "Only with the Buddha does the idea of a goal emerge, namely the overcoming of earthly existence. So overcoming the earthly existence means you enter in the spiritual world.
Because spiritual soul is eternal, from this atmosphere to another. That is explained clearly in the Bhagavad-gītā: «tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so 'rjuna». After giving up this present body, this material.
So those who continue in the cycle of birth and death, they get another material body. But those who are Krishna conscious, they do not get another material body. But he goes to Krishna. That is the difference.
Krishna says that over and over in Bhagavad-gītā; he says it many times. Yeah, that is... dviṣataḥ krūrān. Those who are envious of Krishna, for them it continues.
And those who are not envious, accept Krishna's structure, surrender unto him, and understand Krishna, for them this is the last birth, material birth.
After this, he goes back to home, back to the... Concerning the question whether karma is personal, he writes: "The crucial question is whether a man's karma is personal or not.
If it is, then the preordained destiny with which a man enters life represents an achievement of previous lives, and a personal continuity therefore exists.
If, however, this is not so, and an impersonal karma is seized upon in the act of birth, then that karma is incarnated again without there being any personal continuity." Karma is always personal.
He points out that Buddha was twice asked by his disciples whether man's karma is personal or not. Each time he fended off the question and did not go into the matter.
To know this, he said, would not contribute to liberating. He did not teach about soul. That, uh, how you could test that, Bhagavat? He refused to respond to those questions. Yes, because he did not accept the soul.
There, as soon as you deny the personal aspect of the soul, how that can be personal? He wanted to avoid this. Otherwise his whole philosophy becomes dismantled. Well, this is Jung's conclusion on the matter.
He says, "Have I lived before in the past as a specific person..." off the track.
Uh, concerning whether or not karma is personal, uh, Jung concludes: "Have I lived before in the past as a specific personality, and did I progress so far in that life that I am now able to seek a solution?" Yes.
He says, "I do not know." That is explaining to Bhagavad.
He says, "Buddha left the question open, and I like to assume that he himself did not know with certainty. I could well imagine that I might have lived in a former—in former centuries and there encountered questions I was not yet able to answer. That I had to be born again because I had not fulfilled the task that was given to me."
That is practical. "When I die, my deeds will follow along with me." That is how I imagine it. That's karma. That's personal, too. "I will bring with me what I have done."
In the meantime, it is important to ensure that I do not stand at the end with empty hands. No.
So even if you're then really progressing, that then at the end it is not empty, it is completeness to go back to home, back to Godhead. That is completeness. There is not energy.
The Māyāvādī cannot understand the, the, uh, positivity of, uh, God's kingdom, so they simply make empty. There is no positive concern. Therefore. No. Oh, he says no.
He says, "It is important that I do not stand at the end with empty hands." Yes. In other words, he has good deeds. Not only good deeds. That is our aspiration. We don't want emptiness. Yes.
Because this materialistic person... They do not want any emptiness. They think that after finishing this life everything will be empty. So let me enjoy as much as possible in this life. That is the view.
That I'm going to be empty. That before becoming empty, let me enjoy life, and the sense environment is the center of material life. Therefore, this materialistic person has so much after-sensing.
Pride is one of them. because then life is empty after death. So before it becomes empty, let me enjoy as far as possible. He believes that karma brings rebirth.
He says, "If a karma still remains to be disposed of, then the soul relapses again into desires and returns to life once more, perhaps even doing so out of the realization that something remains to be completed. In my case, it must have been primarily a passionate urge toward understanding which brought about my birth, for that is the strongest element in my nature."
Yes.
Consciousness and liberation from illusion
So that understanding—I do not know whether he has full degree. That understanding is Krishna. That is explained. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate.
That understanding is full, complete when it comes to the point of understanding Krishna. And as soon as he understands Krishna, his life is successful. His material journey stops: tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti.
That is full understanding. Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ. When he understands Krishna in complete... and Krishna is giving the lesson how one can understand Krishna completely.
Asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu. Krishna says now here, how you can understand Me in complete without any doubt, that He begins in the seventh chapter.
So if we understand Krishna in complete without any doubt, then our next birth is in the spiritual world. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so 'rjuna.
This is the result. So we have got this opportunity, at least those who have come to Krishna consciousness, to understand Krishna completely, without any doubt, then our life will succeed.
He sees the word of God and God as being the same. He says, "It is not that God is a myth, but that myth is the revelation of a divine life in man. It is not we who invent myth; rather, it speaks to us as a word of God.
The word of God comes to us, and we have no way of distinguishing whether and to what extent it is different from God." It is not at all different from God. God is absolute. Therefore His words are as good as God.
That we are discussing this morning. God's name and God is the same. God's pastime and God is the same. God's deity and God is the same. So anything in relationship with God is God, just like Bhagavad-gītā is God.
Śānta, śānta. Sama. Because everything is God. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam, everything is God. But when there is God, the Allah is there is God. Other is God. Everything is God. Without God, nothing can exist. He
conceived of a persona. What do you call a persona? He says the persona is the individual system of adaptation to or the manner he assumes in dealing with the world.
A profession, for example, has its own characteristic persona. Only the danger is that people become identical with their personas: the professor with his textbook, the tenor with his voice.
One can say with a little exaggeration that the persona is that which in reality one is not, but which one self as well as others think one is. That persona... For as I take it from this statement,
that persona, when one comes to the understanding that "I am eternal servant of God," that persona is salvation, perfection. Persona must be there.
But so long one is in the material world, his personal identification with some interest varies.
Sometimes his persona is with the family, his persona is with the community, or with the nation, or with some idealism, communism, this-ism, that-ism. This is going on.
But when that persona comes to the understanding of Krishna, that "I am eternal servant of Krishna," that is perfect. Persona must continue. So this persona he's speaking of is like the false ego.
The false ego, so long he is in the material world. Otherwise, "I am." "I am American." This is false ego. "I am servant of God, Krishna," that is reality. That is real ego too. We say there is a false ego. Ego must be there.
That's purified ego, he says in Satanish. And otherwise, and this and that and this and that. He envisions the soul as a personality composed of the conscious and also the subconscious.
Everything is dependent on the personality. And he's surrounded by so many concepts of, uh, when they... and what is called samskaras. We see different types of dreams.
But when we are purified, then just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu was dreaming Krishna's pastime.
So similarly, when we have some deep bhakti, we dream also about Krishna, his activities, uh, his preaching, so many connections with reference to Krishna. So persona is permanent.
But when we, uh, apply this persona in the material activities, uh, that is temporary, false, false ego; and when the same persona is engaged as servant of Krishna, that is self-realized.
He believed that the self, which is basically a personality, composed of the conscious and the subconscious, the sub can never be fully known, uh, by the individual, but it does have individuality.
Individual... I know that I'm an individual person. I've got my own ideas, my own activity, but it is difficult. Simply it has to be purified. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktam.
I am identifying with America or India, or Hindu, or Muslim, or this or that; this should be purified. I should identify with Krishna. But I am only servant of Krishna to do this. Then I am purified.
He speaks of the soul in this way. He says, "If the human soul is anything, it must be of unimaginable complexity and diversity so that it cannot possibly be approached through a mere psychology of instinct."
That he does not know. As soon as we train ourselves that, just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu, "I'm not a brāhmaṇa, I'm not a kṣatriya, I'm not a śūdra, I'm not a sannyāsī, I'm not brahmacārī," my identification...
I'm not, I am not, I am not. Then what are you? "Gopī-bhartuḥ pada-kamalayor dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ." I am the servant of the servant of the servant of the, uh, maintainer of the gopīs, that means Krishna.
That is my real identification. So, uh, so long we should not identify as the eternal servant of Krishna, there will be so many varieties of identification.
And bhakti, devotional service, means to become purified from all these false identifications. He says, "I can only gaze with wonder and awe at the depths and heights of our psychic nature."
But psychic nature means so long you are not Krishna conscious, there will be varieties of psychic nature. Because you are changing constantly to different bodies by transmigration.
So we are accumulating varieties of experiences.
But if we don't change, then we fix the consciousness in one identification: that I am a servant of Krishna, my duty is to say, "kariṣye vacanaṁ tava," as Arjuna realized after studying Bhagavad-gītā.
Yes, "naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā." Now I revive my real consciousness and I act as it dictates. That is fine. Concerning God and God's relation, find out this: "naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā."
What was that line again, Syamasundara? Naṣṭo. Naṣṭo. And yes, "naṣṭo mohaḥ." Naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā. Now we are passing on through more illusions. The question is that the illusion should be over.
"Naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā tvat-prasādān mayācyuta." Acyuta, he told, "tvat-prasādān mayācyuta." By your mercy.
This moha, the illusory existence—that I am American, I am Indian, I am black, I am white, Hindu, Muslim—this is our moha. So it can be liberated from, this can be liberated by the mercy of Krishna.
"Naṣṭo mohaḥ smṛtir labdhā tvat-prasādān mayācyuta," by your mercy. Then, "sthito 'smi gata-sandehaḥ." "Sthito 'smi gata-sandehaḥ," now all my doubts are over. I am fixed up now in my original position.
So what is that original position? "Kariṣye vacanaṁ tava." Now I simply act and do whatever You say, that's all. That is perfect. Concerning God and the individual soul, he writes...
māyā-pāśa... Krishna speaking, individual soul Arjuna is hearing. So hearing, when he comes to the conclusion that "my all illusion is now over by Your mercy." Now I'm fixed in my original position.
And what is that original position? Whatever you say, I shall do. The Bhagavad-gītā began from the fight. But Krishna said to you, "Fight," and he denied to fight.
He put so many pleas that "How can I fight with them?" and so on, so on, so on, so on, so on.
This whole discussion was met; now at the end he says, "Now my moha is over, I am situated in my own original constitutional position." What is that? "Whatever you say I shall do," that's all. That's my view.
That conclusive platform that we shall simply execute the orders of Krishna. That is what this is a continuation of Jung.
Metempsychosis and the spiritual body
Jung noted that there are five types of rebirths—not that he particularly ascribed to them, but that he noted that in religions there are five types of rebirth. One is called metempsychosis.
He says, according to this view, one's life is prolonged in time by passing through different bodily existences, or from another point of view, it is a life sequence interrupted by different reincarnations.
It is by no means certain whether continuity of personality is guaranteed or not; there may only be a continuity of karma. So this is like a transmigration of souls. What is the technique out of that?
But he called it metempsychosis. What is its meaning?
That means transmigration of souls, yeah, but through different passing, through different bodily existences; the life sequence is interrupted by different reincarnations, but it's not certain whether or not personality survives; there may be only continuity. Is there? Suppose a man
rebukes a dog, so the dog also responds. A small ant, it is going in a certain direction. If you check it, it will protest. No. Personality is there always, either in the body of human beings, cats, dogs, even an ant.
So the body it changes do not affect the personality. But one identifies himself according to the body. When a soul is within the body of a dog, he thinks in that bodily conception. "I am a dog." In the human society also,
When one is born in America, he thinks, "I am American." I have my duty like this, my duties like this, and this. Uh, according to the body, the personality manifests, but personality is there.
Personality is there, certainly. But is it continued? Is there a continuity of personality from the dead body to the new body? Yes. Totally. Well, according to the first theory of rebirth, that's not guaranteed.
Now the second type of rebirth that they do not know is... With his mental, intellectual and, uh, identification, uh, as that is nature's gift. That is said in the Bhagavad-gītā:
kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo 'sya. Uh, in fact, a certain type of modes of nature is getting a similar body. But the person is the same. Now 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. Oh, not human body. A king, Bharata Mahārāja, he was king and he next life he became a deer and the next life he became a brāhmaṇa.
So the soul is continuing, changing. The example is given that like a man changes his dress. The man is the same, the dress may be different. That is going on. Vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya. This very word is there.
That when the dress is old, it cannot be used anymore. He has to change to another dress. This is very common sense. So now the next dress you have to purchase, you have to prepare according to your money.
Your dress is something now. The next dress you will purchase according to your money. So with exact, um, example, it's very nice to change the dress. The man is the same, but he changed his dress.
And the dress is applied according to the price he can pay. This is common time. So price means karma. According to karma he has done, he gets a particular type of body.
The third type, another continuation, is that the... child changed body, so... as he was acting in his childhood, he does not act in the same way when he has got a different body that we all have.
But the same soul is there. It can be understood very easily. The third type of rebirth listed is called resurrection. Now, there are two types of resurrection.
He says it may be a carnal, that is, gross material body, as in the Christian assumption that this body will be resurrected.
That is, the Christian doctrine is that at the end of the world, somehow or other, through the miracle of God, the gross body will reassemble itself and ascend into heaven or descend into hell; it's somehow survival of the gross body.
He says on a higher level, what do you do in the meantime? I don't know. What happens is... what happens to the material elements is material elements disintegrate, material body distributed in nature in a sense.
Of course, this idea can be maintained in the higher sense, that is not gross body, that is spiritual body. That is applicable to God and special representatives of God, not to all.
That is not material body, that is spiritual body. Means when God appears, He appears in a spiritual body. It does not change.
It's like Krishna says that millions of years ago he spoke to the sun-god, and Arjuna's answer is to be understood, that "millions of years ago you spoke it?" So he said that, "Yes." And, "I did, you were also present."
But, "We do not remember, I remember." So how it is possible? One who does not change the body, he can remember. Just like when we not change the body, I can remember. But when we change body, we do not remember.
This is the principle. So this resurrection, I do not know what the exact meaning. But as the Bhagavad-gītā said, Krishna said, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā, he comes in his original body, not covered by material body.
Therefore, because He has no material body, there is no sin. I think the Christians, they must... um, they do not have a clear idea of this.
But he says on a higher level, the process of resurrection is no longer understood in a gross material sense.
It is assumed that the resurrection of the dead is the raising up of the corpus glorificacionis, that is, the glorified body, the subtle body in the state of incorruptibility that I said, the spiritual body.
The spiritual body—when one comes with the spiritual body, there is no change. Material body change. But God has no material body.
The concept is Māyāvādī conception, that absolute truth is impersonal; when He comes as a person, He accepts a material body. Uh, that is not understood by those who are advanced in spiritual knowledge or taking information from Krishna.
Krishna says: “avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam”. Because He appears as a human being, the rascals think that He is a human being. But he is not: “paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ”.
He has no knowledge of the spiritual body.
The fourth form of rebirth is called renovatio and applies to the transformation of a mortal into an immortal being, of a corporeal into a spiritual being, and of a human into a divine being.
Well-known prototypes of this change are the transfiguration and ascension of Christ and the assumption of the Mother of God into heaven after her death together with her body.
In other words, the body is somehow— it doesn't die, the gross body doesn't die, but it's transformed. That is of the material body. The spiritual body is never. “na jāyate mriyate vā”.
The spiritual body—neither it is generated, neither it is dead. Krishna says: “na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre”. It is not destroyed even after the destruction of the body. That is prakṛti.
But is there any example of this ascension into heaven? Uh, didn't Arjuna uh, ascend into the higher... who? Yudhiṣṭhira? Was it Yudhiṣṭhira? Yes, there are many instances. The first instance is Krishna and his associates.
They didn't go through any death of any sort, but the body traveled to higher spheres. That is. Krishna also took Arjuna to physical body, everyone possesses it. The fifth—this is the continuation of Carl Jung.
The fifth type of rebirth is called transformation, and this is a form of indirect rebirth. One may use the initiation ceremony of the twice-born of the brāhmaṇa.
In other words, one has to witness or take part in some rite of transformation. This may be a ceremony. And through his presence at the ritual, the individual participates in divine grace.
That is a transformation of the body into knowledge. Dvija. The word, exact word is dvija. One birth is by the father and mother. The next birth is by the spiritual master and Vedic knowledge.
And that means—and that is also liberation. He understands that he is not this material body. That is spiritual education. Brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāṅkṣati. So birth of knowledge, that is called vision.
And all of—all of these preceding quotes were taken from... Now the following quotes are taken from a much later book, one of the last books he wrote, called "The Undiscovered Self."
Social morality and spiritual communism
It was very popular. And in it he discusses religion in certain ways, almost anticipates the Krishna consciousness movement. At the beginning, he defines the purpose of religion.
He says the meaning and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God, or to the path of salvation and liberation.
And of the first instance he gives Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the last instance he gives Buddhism.
He says, from this basic fact—that is the relationship of the individual to God—all ethics is derived, without which the individual's responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional morality.
Morality has... As we understand from Bhagavad-gītā, nobody can approach God without being purified of all sinful reactions.
A person who has finished all sinful activities and is simply standing on the platform of pious activities, they can understand what is God and be engaged in God's service.
And in another place it is said by Arjuna, pāraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān. You are the Supreme Personality, Parabrahman. Every living being is Brahman spiritually.
But Krishna is the Supreme Being, that Bhagavan is Parabrahman. And the param dhāma, and the result of everything, ultimate result of everything, and pavitra, pure, there is no material contamination. So what is this?
What does it say? Um, all ethics are derived. Yes. So to become completely pure, there is the necessity of morality and ethics, just like we prescribe: no illicit sex, no meat-eating, no intoxication, no gambling.
These are the four pillars of sinful life. If we avoid these things, then we can stay on the platform of purity. And God consciousness, Krishna consciousness, is based on this morality.
One who cannot follow the principles, he falls down from the spiritual platform. He cannot make any progress. So purity is the basic principle of God. Jung sees atheistic communism as the greatest threat in the world today.
He writes that the communist revolution has debased man because it robs him of his freedom not only in the social but in the moral and spiritual sense. The state has taken the place of God.
That is why, seeing from this angle, the socialist dictatorships are religions and state slavery as a form of worship. Yes, I agree with him. That is the degradation of human civilization.
But the philosophy of the communists, that everyone has equal right or everyone must take share of the state equally, that is a little basic principle of real communism.
According to our understanding, God is the father, material nature is the mother, and we all living entities are sons of the father and mother. So as sons, everyone has the right to live at the cost of other property.
The whole universe is the property of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and all living entities, they are being supported by the father, but one should be satisfied with the supplies allotted to him.
That is, Īśopaniṣad said: tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā. There is no need of encroaching on other property.
We should not become envious of the capitalist or rich man, because everyone is given his allotment by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. I should be
satisfied with my allotment; I should not encroach upon others' allotment. But the exploitation idea is not the same thing. Nobody should exploit. If one has become a rich man, that's all—that is natural.
One is born in a rich family; from his very birth he is a rich man, so why we should interfere with his richness? But everyone should be God conscious. Either the rich man or the poor man, they must be God conscious.
God consciousness means that the property I am owning or the position I am placed in, that is by God's arrangement. Therefore my duty is to serve God in my position. Svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam.
This is the philosophy of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, confirmed by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu: sthāne sthitāḥ, we should stay in our place as it is allotted by God.
But our common culture should be śruti-gatāṁ tanu-vāṅ-manobhir, and we should hear about God and act accordingly. It doesn't matter in the future; then there will be harmony.
And if we become envious—"Why this man has become rich? I shall encroach upon him"— that is again another type of revolution or encroachment. That is not required. You remain in your position as you have been allotted.
But everyone be engaged in submission. Another example is that there are different positions of different parts of the body: the head, arms, the belly, the legs.
There are different parts doing different functions, but the idea is how to maintain this body.
So even if we remain in different positions that we get from birth, we should be engaged in the service of the Supreme, the owner. The hand is owned by the body. The hand must work for the body.
The leg is owned by the body, the leg must work for the body. So we are all part and parcel of God.
We should, everyone, we should work for God. And how we shall work, that we have to hear from the position where we are and act accordingly. Then there will be real spiritual coming.
In the atheistic communism, he says the goals of religion — deliverance from evil, reconciliation with God, rewards in the hereafter, and so on — turn into worldly promises about freedom from care for one's daily bread, the just distribution of material goods, universal prosperity in the future, and shorter working hours.
In other words, material worldly promises are given. And the communism... In atheistic communism. Yeah. But they have no idea of spiritual life.
Neither they can understand that there is spirit within the soul, within the body. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā. That they cannot understand.
But he feels that socialism or Marxism, communism cannot possibly replace religion in the proper traditional sense. No, it is not religion. It is simply mental speculation. How to adjust material things.
It will never be able to adjust you. That is just simply imagination. It will all fail as the ultimate end.
He says a natural function which has existed from the beginning, like the religious function, cannot be disposed of with rationalistic and so-called enlightened criticism.
The thing is that these people, they do not understand what is religion. Religion you cannot avoid; that is characteristic. Just like we gave several times this example, that everything has got a particular characteristic.
Just like salt. Salt is never sweet. And sweet is never salt. It has got a characteristic. Chili is pungent. Similarly, living entity. What is our characteristic? Our characteristic is to render service.
Either you take communism or this or that, your real characteristic to render service, that will not change.
In the capitalist country, they are asking people that you work in the factory and work for me, and whatever I say you do; the same thing is being dictated by the communist leader. What is the difference?
There is no difference. But it is only defense, a nonsensical idea. Therefore, a mass of people, they have to render service either to Mr. Lenin or Mr. Roosevelt, it doesn't matter. He has to render service.
But both the services are not being profitable to the mass of people. That what we suggest, following the footprints of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, that you serve Kṛṣṇa. Service is your essential duty.
But because your service is wrongly being executed, you are not happy. But if you render your service to Kṛṣṇa, that is natural and you will be happy.
So our Kṛṣṇa conscious men, they're happy by rendering service to Kṛṣṇa or God. So individually or collectively, if every state, every individual person renders service to Kṛṣṇa, then that is perfect state is applied.
He has to render service to somebody. But because it is misplaced, he is never happy. But when the service is rendered to Kṛṣṇa, then he service... he has to render without any value. But he does not know what to render.
Communist dictating you, and that service to me. And the capitalist is dictating him. But Kṛṣṇa said, "No, no service to this, no service." Caitanya Mahāprabhu... You should give service to Me.
Then ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo, you will become free. He feels that a materialistic Western capitalism cannot possibly defeat a pseudo-religion like Marxism.
He says that the only way to combat atheistic communism is for the individual to adopt, to adopt a non-materialistic religion. That is Vaiṣṇavism. That is Kṛṣṇa-bhakti. It has nothing to do with materialism.
It is directly connected with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. God demands that. So we are teaching that you are a servant, but your service is wrongly placed; therefore you are not happy.
You place or render this to Krishna. This is the Krishna concept. We are neither for capitalism nor for so-called communism, or not for so-called religionists. We are only for Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Guidance for individual and social regeneration
Jung laments the fact that such a non-materialistic faith does not presently exist in the West.
He writes: "Not only does the West lack a uniform faith that could block the progress of a fanatical ideology, that is Marxism, but as the father of Marxist philosophy, because Marx was a Westerner, it makes use of exactly the same spiritual, so-called spiritual assumptions, the same arguments and aims."
So he feels that man is desperately in need of a religion that has immediate meaning, and he feels that Christianity is no longer effective in combating this.
This is the Krishna consciousness movement, which is above everything, either Christianism or Marxism or capitalism or anything. Uh, this is based on Bhagavad-gītā. Sarva-dharmān parityajya.
Actually, it is... Krishna said that if you adopt this principle of life, Krishna consciousness, then you will be free from all sinful reactions of life and make progress spiritually, gradually.
Mām upetya punar janma duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam / nāpnuvanti mahātmānaḥ saṁsiddhiṁ paramāṁ gatāḥ.
If we cultivate Krishna consciousness, then the result is that the devotee will come back to Me, and one who attains to Me, he hasn't got to go back again to this material world.
In another place, the same thing He says: Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti. Those who are Krishna conscious, they, after giving up this body—everyone has to give up this body—
he does not accept any more birth in the material world. He comes to Me. Comes to Me means he comes to Me in the spiritual world. So Krishna consciousness movement means... He
says: "If the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either. For a society is the sum total of individuals in need of redemption." We are individually initiating into Krishna consciousness.
So if the mass of people become a majority, if not a majority, at least a certain percentage, then the face of the world will change. There's no doubt of it.
The salvation of the world consists in the salvation of the individual soul. Man's individual relation to God would be an effective shield against these pernicious influences that is atheistic.
At least those who have taken Krishna consciousness seriously, they never be converted either by Marxism or this ism or that. That is not possible. They can convert the Marxist into Krishna consciousness.
But a Krishna conscious person can never be turned into Marxism. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate, that is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā,
because they have seen the best perfection of life, they cannot be misled by all these high-class, fourth-class believers. He also felt that materialistic progress is a possible hindrance. Yes. That's very good. Yes.
That is confirmed by Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura: jaḍa-vidyā yata, māyāra vaibhava. Material progress means expansion of the external energy, māyā, illusion.
So we are already in illusion, and therefore we practically see the so-called scientists, so-called philosophers, because they are materially advanced, they cannot understand even what is God and what is our relationship.
So this is hindrance. The so-called advance of material science, material knowledge is undoubtedly hindrance. Tomāra bhajane bādhā, they're all hindrances to the progress of Krishna consciousness.
That we minimize our necessities. That is simple life. The bare necessities of life. We are not after very luxurious way of life. We are satisfied only with the bare necessities of life.
So it is not an attempt on material progress. It is simply an attempt to make spiritual progress, Krishna contact.
Because a favorable environment merely strengthens the dangerous tendency to expect everything to originate from outside. Everything originates from inside, from the soul.
He says there must be a deep-seated change in the inner man. He also sees that modern man needs a guru, or someone, as he says, to explain religion to man.
Whereas the man of today can easily think and understand all the, quote, "so-called truths" dished out to him by the state, his understanding of religion is made considerably more difficult owing to the lack of explanations.
"Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" Yes. That is the basic insight. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet. It is essential that one must go to guru and be guru.
Guru is representative of God. Sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstrair. Guru being representative of God, he is worshipped as God. But he never says that "I am God." He is servant God.
He is worshipped as God, but he is servant of God. And God is the master God. This is the conception of vaiṣṇava. And who is guru, that is described by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He asked everyone to become guru.
Āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra' ei deśa. Wherever you are staying, it doesn't matter, you become a guru and deliver all these foolish persons who are in ignorance.
So one may say that "I am not so learned, how can I become guru?" Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that you do not require to be a learned scholar. There are many so-called learned foolish scholars; it has no meaning.
You just instruct what Krishna has instructed. Yāre dekha, tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa. So real instruction is there in Bhagavad-gītā. And anyone who explains Bhagavad-gītā as it is, he is guru.
This is the definition of guru. See, if one is fortunate enough to approach such guru, then his life becomes successful. Guru is essential.
He feels, on the one hand, philosophy has degenerated into exclusively intellectual and academic speculation.
That is our opinion, that simply mentally speculating has no value unless you are directly in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
And as the instructions given by Him, by all your reason, and then in practical life you execute it, then one can become guru, you can do good to others. Otherwise it is not good.
And on the other hand, religion, the Christian religion which was understood in the Middle Ages, has become strange and unintelligible to the man of today. Because it is simply dogmatic.
The, the preachers of the religion, they have no idea, clear idea, but officially they speak something; neither he understands, neither he can make others to understand.
But Krishna consciousness movement is not such a vague thing. It is clear in every respect. This is the expected movement as Mr. Jung wanted.
So every sane man should cooperate with this movement and deliberate the human society from the gross darkness of ignorance.
He characterizes the true religious man as one who is accustomed to the thought of not being sole master of his own house. He believes that God, and not he himself, decides in the end. Yes, that's it. That is what you said.
What we can decide? There is a little controller over me. So how I can be absolute? No. Therefore everyone should depend on the supreme controller. That is called technical language... He
feels that the only thing that keeps modern man, that will keep modern man from simply dissolving into the crowd is, he says, we must ask: "Have I any religious experience, an immediate relation to God?"
And hence that certainty which will keep me as an individual from dissolving in the crowd of, uh, humanity. So one's relation with God assures one of one's individuality. Yes. Everyone is individual. God is also individual.
So one individual is subordinate to the chief individual. That is the Vedic version: nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām. God is also an individual being, and He is the Supreme Being. And we are individual beings in the many.
So the definition says that the Supreme living being is maintaining us and we are being maintained. That you should understand.
The same example as I gave: the father and the children and the family, the father is maintainer and the children are maintained. This is the real conception of philosophy.
The mother is the material nature and father is God and we are all children.
We have got rights to enjoy the father's property, but not encroaching upon others, but as it is allotted by the father: "You sit down here, you take this." That's all, that's that much life I've got.
If I do not transgress the order of the father, then it is a peaceful situation. So that's the end of Jung.