German Philosophy and Self-Consciousness
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
German philosophy and the absolute ego
We were discussing this German philosophy. We have discussed the whole philosophy over the last half, the last half of the tape. So I'll just start where we have got.
So why don't you, whatever you have got, you get it transcribed and send to IG too? Well, I'm pretty... I'm pretty much gonna have to edit this because, uh, maybe it's good.
But, uh, Christian's idea is, uh, that the world is a rational unified system which is directed for a purpose and that, uh, the self-consciousness, it is opposite to that level. He said there is no purpose. Yes.
He said there is a purpose. This man is coming in about eighteen hundred, 1820. Schlegel is contemporary. In those times it was about a hundred and fifty years ago.
And it takes as the absolute first principle, uh, self-consciousness or the ego, "I am," awareness that I exist, the absolute. After that is Vedanta. Yes, Vedānta, but "I am." Okay. The answer is given by us. It's not true.
But you are the current type of answer. Everyone is helping what "I am." We are giving the answer. We are eternally silent at all. Now, let them be not silent.
Alright, Haṁsadūta and Hṛdayānanda, can they empower our brāhmaṇa schools for these kids, for this thing? So we can know by the findings how we are. We are, I think we are the real entity. But we can know something.
Analyzing identity and the material body
He says that philosophy is a search for truth, begins with, uh, the self-conscious demand that one should think myself. Think myself, that's nice. Discussing the world, we back. But this is every day. I tell you what "I am."
You go on analyzing your body. Am I this hand? So naturally we come to the point. I'll say everything like a home of it. What is that? I, that is replying, a bodhida.
This body... I'm not body. This body, it is a field which is given to me for acting. This is if we are... if we are giving some jurisdiction, some field for actor.
Well, similarly, this body is given to us by nature as a field of work. Therefore, this is meditation, this is consciousness. And I am not this. Very beginning of life.
Before that, so long one is thinking that he is the body, he is no other than... When one understands that he is not this body, something jñāna is. I am not this body. It is manas that is it.
This... this Fichte comes to that, uh, naturally comes to that conclusion because he, he, uh, borrows from Kant and develops this idea of the dialectic, that, uh, there's, uh, the thesis, the antithesis, and combined in the synthesis.
He, he, uh, puts forward the idea that the ego and the subjective identity is the thesis, is given. And opposite, opposing that, is an antithesis or material nature. It's like my body; it's the antithesis of my ego.
So it is non-ego. Uh, there's a continual struggle. When I think that I'm this body, there is fallacy. That is fallacy. So those who have falsely identified this body with them, then anyway, the animal are not.
So he sees the world as made up of a combination of continuous struggle or dialectic between the, the opposing elements of ego and non-ego.
My subjective identity and the objective world are continually locked in struggle endlessly, and this is... this is the way things are going on, not endlessly,
but we do understand that you are not this body, and then this knowledge is ended anyway. So we cannot say this end, yes.
Well, he, he says that, that there's gradual evolution towards uh, self-realization if one uses his reason. Yeah. That, that is a gradual process of evolution from anyone came down to human life.
When one comes to the human form of life, then realize that is there. So he, he seeks to combine these two, uh, types of reasoning.
Moral reasoning and the three modes
Kant set up his pure reason and, uh, practical reason or, uh, moral reasoning. Whether it's speculative reason and practical reason or moral reason, that you don't practically reason is that I am this. If I
think I am this body, then what is then when we have people to be dead body and living body? Living body means I am in this body, then living.
As soon as I give up this body and go and accept another body, then it is dead body. This is practical. But without the soul, this body is a lump of matter. Therefore, it probably depends on this method.
Because our progress toward this kind of understanding comes about because we unify our speculative reason or our theoretical reason with our practical reason. Why we do practical?
Body is no... does not... it's so dead, your body, lump of matter. So this soul is the function. The only one cannot understand when we listen to you.
His idea of ultimate reality is that it is moral, the moral ego or pure will. He has to define what is morality. For example, in India, somebody talks, how someone says. So what do you want to say?
He uses the categorical imperative. Kant set up the different categories of
goodness and... and so then what that means if you... you are... if the morals have goodness, your morality is different from the morality of a man who is in the moral evil.
But he says that everything should be understood in terms of what it ought to be, that there is an absolute good. And everything, everything should be understood in terms of that. That we say divided.
One should be free from these material contaminations. That is right. Because under natural condition, he is in three modes: goodness, passion, ignorance.
So one who is in goodness, he does not approve... conclusion is ignorance. And one who is in goodness and ignorance, he thinks it is better.
In fact, he is looking on the objects of the world in terms of what they ought to be. Ought to be? How... how... how you know it? Unless you get the information from the head of it. You can have that.
If you are in the modes of ignorance, your optimism is going to be a sense. The animals have no soul. And we have said, no, we cannot feel anything. So we are in a different position. So what is optimistic? Who will dictate?
You will dictate yourself: your concept of killing is "ought to be," and my concept of not killing is "ought to be." Then you have to vote to the alpha. Go to general.
They generally accept—these, uh, these German philosophers—they generally accept the Christian standard of morality, philanthropy. That's not Krishna morality.
In Christian morality, in the beginning it is said, "Thou shalt not kill," and they all kill. It is very, uh, difficult to find, uh, find out a real Christian. That's all that far away.
And they're doing all these languages.
Anyway, he is more or less investigating just what is the nature of man without going into the, uh, higher goals that we have got. Each other— maybe we have to be... each other is serving.
Absolute authority and superior orders
Everyone is serving. Who is a living entity here in this world? We can say that "I'm not serving." I'm not sure. I'm nobody's servant. Everyone is serving. Either he is serving māyā or Krishna. Krishna.
When he is in knowledge, he's serving Krishna. And when he's fully ignorant, it remains that you must serve, just like the citizen. You must abide by the, uh, order of the state.
If he abides by the order of the state, uh, in an ordinary way, then he's a good citizen. And if he doesn't, then he will be forced to abide by those orders in the state of the jail.
But in all cases, we must abide by the order. He, uh, he also sees things that way. He sees the unfolding of reality as the fulfillment of duty.
That, that one must always strive, uh, for what ought to be, for the fulfillment of his duty. One definition we are given: that in reality everyone is a servant.
But he, under this concept and his thinking, is master and is forced to serve māyā. This is it. It's like an outlaw is thinking that he's free from the state law, but he's forced to abide by the state law in the jail.
Similarly, my position is I must carry out the order of the superior. I must carry out the order of the superior. The superior, the supreme superior is Krishna.
If I voluntarily become His servant and carry out His orders, then it is my normal life. Otherwise, I'm not like... I have to sign my... māyā. Māyā will kick upon my breast and force me to do something. You must do it.
So I will be a servant of nature. That means I will be a servant of my senses. I will make my senses... that I will do this, I will be forced to do. Is it nothing?
When you spoke earlier about that there must be a definite idea of what is good to strive for... If you were to say that "thou shalt not kill" is good, then what if Krishna says "kill"?
Then that doesn't have any meaning, "thou shalt not kill." Krishna doesn't say that. Well, if it's all about... and then say that. Krishna says... No, I'm saying that is our... Krishna is absolute.
He can order anything He likes. But you have to carry out Krishna's order. Krishna says you do it, then He can do. And you cannot say that Krishna has said to Arjuna to kill the lives of people.
So what I mean is, instead of saying that this is good and that is bad, all you can say really is what is good is what Krishna... That's it. Krishna's order is what is good. That is actually good.
Actually, I have experienced that. It's just like a soldier. He kills. Like the order of a superior, order of the state, he's given a gold medal. And the same man, when he comes home, if he kills, he's hanged. Why?
Because you can kill under superior order. Not doing... Generally, the order is not to kill. But if he says, "Now kill," he is under that order, that will do.
So if you say, "I got that, sir, you told me not to kill," that is... That is so. Now, all I'm specifying... So Krishna will say, amānitvam adambhitvam... He is giving the process of knowledge.
Amānitvam is to be humble, adambhitvam, not to be proud, ahiṁsā, non-violence. These are the eighteen qualities for understanding spiritual values. So that is jñāna.
Now, for particular purposes, Krishna says, "Yes, you must." We must have it like that, or that is Krishna. So the standard of what ought to be is that one should fulfill one's duty to Krishna by all... So Krishna
uses the same terminology, that one should fulfill his duty and that this is what ought to be. Yukti means to be there. That is, you cannot manufacture yukti.
His idea is impersonal because he says that you should discern what ought to be from the forces of nature around you, reality unfolding. Then he is overwhelmed by the forces of nature.
That is, nature is... he does not know beyond nature there is another superior being, that is God. That is his lack of knowledge. That is the difficulty.
People are not perfect when they feel that they see... he sees an intelligence acting in nature. An intelligence acting in... we accept it should be the entity of nature. Should be the production of nature. He accepts it.
So, but beyond the nature, there is the Supreme Personality of it. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ. And then, "by my direction nature works." They term nature, the unfolding of events, as a thing in itself.
They don't understand that beyond that control there is... that I am not for times. But this person says four times they should not take the position of the player. This is misguided, misleading.
Mental speculation versus spiritual guidance
That is going on. Mental concoctions. Speculate. This without any of it. This idea of Krishna's means theory. What is your duty? Unless then we ask you to do something, then what is your duty?
Well, we do... our duty is to do what ought to be. Who says, who prescribes that this is "ought to be"? Well, the world order prescribes what ought to be. The world order. Harmony. Harmony. Whatever it causes, harmony.
That is harmony. You say this is harmony, I say this is harmony. However, because of this purpose, we are taking a duty from the Supreme.
Actually, his philosophy has that loophole, that there's no... every blow up in loopholes. What is what ought to be? And so every word that is a time now. That's kind of funny.
Because, uh, because of this, uh, the German state was able to step in and say, "Your, your duty is to, uh, follow us." Who are you? The question is: who are you? Mighty is like the finished house.
But anyone can say, the tiger can also say. My two wife. And five true. It must be true. And you can say that philosophy must begin with the assumption that being is nothing, but that doing is absolutely anything.
That is nonsense; without being, how we can have the duty? But that, that, that being, being doesn't strive for what is; being is always striving for what ought to be. It always has a sense of duty.
There's something—there should be something, um, other than this, and I must let that be; that's the thing then. Become a mistake that we do not know what we ought to be.
Just like the propensity is there in men not simply to be satisfied with what is, but always strive for something improving, what ought to be. Well, we, we give that ultimate "ought to be" the time, uh,
send that story to be that is actually and, and it sees that everything should be seen in relation to that "ought to be," all objects. Yeah. Everything. He would be approved. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam.
Our "ought" is what is prescriptive. What is representatively approved. That is our stuff. Otherwise not. Therefore we accept our guidance we have.
So dhī-jñāna comes from—say that the Vedas say that one must accept the fully in knowledge. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda. One has accepted, one has master, evam. Ācāryavān puruṣo veda means in knowledge. One has accepted asat.
Our principle is to follow the asat. And Bhagavad-gītā should be say, ācāryopāsanam, and much worse ācārya.
Um, in his, uh, in his epistemology or in his study of knowledge, he said that that, uh, events are not made necessary by causes, but that everything is motivated by its own purpose.
In other words, um, if I drop that, there is no chance. No chance. Yeah.
There's no... if I drop this and there is a reaction, uh, noise, it was not because this caused the noise, but that each thing is motivated by its own purpose. There's, there's no... there has already been love.
It requires... down very much. It doesn't matter. The thing is already there. And it becomes manifested, and that's happy something.
Uh, dropping of this does not cause it to be necessary that there is noise, but that because the world purpose is unfolding. Well, that positive... there are two kinds of problems: efficient power and remote power.
That is the tech powers. So it may be efficient power, there are many remote powers. And ultimate power is speaking. Yes, yes. That's his idea. He's looking at the ultimate cause. It's not accidental.
But that nothing is... no event is made necessary by that too. In other words, if I perform some act with the expectation that something will result, it's not necessary that that act, that that, uh, event will result.
There's no necessity for that result there, unless Krishna śānta. Yeah. Yeah. There's no necessity about... try to do something with my expert knowledge, but it's still... it is not something like Krishna, it will know.
There is no necessity by cause. Actually, cause is He. Daivī. That is, this is done by the high cause. So out of the high cause, the daivī, providence. Providential cause we try. Whatever.
Although we place the worker, the means. Yeah. Very exquisite. But the ultimate daivī cause is not in favor.
Yeah, example is that like you appoint... your son is suffering sick and you have appointed first-class doctor, first-class medicine, first-class everything, but there is no guarantee that you will save him.
And what is the part? What is the part? In the scientific world, you can say that many things are appointed, S plus P squared, everything. But many have died. Whatever cause of death is there, that would be positive.
Your so-called first-class medicine stays in its own place and everything is lost. And on the other hand, even if you don't appoint any physician, and Rakhe Kṛṣṇa māre ke, māre Kṛṣṇa rākhe ke.
If Kṛṣṇa kills, nobody can save. And if Kṛṣṇa saves, nobody can kill. Rakhe Kṛṣṇa māre ke, māre Kṛṣṇa rākhe ke. Make plans, but they never work. What Kṛṣṇa kills, no body is able to save.
Perception and the illusion of matter
Is it the, say, the of all things, the ego is uncaused, the spontaneous self-consciousness? I am. Because I am a living force, the ego must be there. I am. And that "I am" may be misplaced: "I am this body," "I am this mind."
But "I am," "I am" as such, that is the ahaṅkāra. The "I am" is not caused by anything. Huh? I am. No, I am, and I also don't. So he says that the uncaused ego posits the non-ego, or it gives them meaning, existence.
It gives non-ego. Means although I've got my identification "I am," still I sacrifice everything for Kṛṣṇa. If Kṛṣṇa says, "You do this," I don't say, "I will not do this," I don't impose myself.
I sacrifice my individuality. Therefore my ego is not good. Example of Berkeley, that says that this exists because I perceive it. That all the non-ego objects of the world, they exist independent of my perception.
It must be perceived by someone to exist. And that that is the moment manufactured you have perceived. Yeah. So then God is knowledge of everything.
I mean of his idea that he heard that is describing his rather... a... māyā-devī-kāśra, anyathā divyaṁ sarva-vijñāna. He knows and God knows it. Nothing can you can see from the vision of God.
So to be is to be perceived, as Berkeley meant it. God, because God perceives that it exists. So he says that we come into this world and these objects are here.
The... sa-ghata-māyā is a... pātra or... pṛthvī or Vedānta-sūtra... I, the originator on... the... I... I do not know who has manufactured this. I see all the... but I do not know the baggage.
He says we come into this world and we... we... we posit or we... we bring into existence the material objects, non-living objects.
But it's the duty of the practical reason to guide these objects properly, to utilize them according to the practical will, practical reason.
Then... then we require the central Vedas; they give you direction how to live without coming into this material world or continuing in material desires.
Therefore, the Vedas give you direction that you try to continue desires in this way. So that one day you may come to... So,
the all of nature as we see it is only illusory sense material reflecting the ongoing moral necessity of reality of the universe. That is... māyā; it is compared to it.
You see in front of the water in the... Actually there is no water in the desert. But you see under illusion. But you know, you as human beings, you know that there is no water, you don't go after it.
But the animal will go after it. And he loses life. He wants to take that water and water always goes ahead. In this way, ahead is too fast, and then he runs until he is dead.
So that is the difference between man and animal. So the human consciousness, when it is developed, he comes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then he becomes detached from this material world. He does not run after false water.
That is... others, they will go after the false.
That is, my idea is that by observing, uh, by observing the material, uh, energy, that we can get an idea of the, of what is the real duty of the universe that we perceived in the ongoing, uh... He
says to pure speculative reason, yes. But this pure speculative reason must be unified with practical reason. But practical means we got that.
Vedic laws and social institutions
Because the institutions, such as laws, can participate in this, um, this uh, unfolding of the reason of the universe, or the, or duty of the universe.
For instance, by controlling conflicts between personalities, and so laws, uh, the laws of the states, um, these can participate in the employee of the universe, the purpose of the universe. Yeah.
So we accept the personality by design success. Not that we pick up any man from this cave and we accept God. That is not interesting. So the young Brahman is one. One who has heard probably from his people.
And as a result of such giving up and God processing.
How, how does this fit in with the, how does this fit in with what I was just saying about, uh, institutions, things like laws, things like that, they can participate in the purpose of the universe, in, in bringing out the purpose of the universe?
Because if I make a law that you shall not kill, that participates... No, you cannot make it. You have to arrive at you. You can have. You are imperfect. How we can make a law?
The state now, being allowed to state is a... because we have no other experience beyond the state. I think state also, according to Bhaktisiddhānta, state means he must be, uh, the king. King must be the density of God.
The king is therefore called Naradeva. That we have discussed in the matter of Pṛthu Mahārāja. The king is supposed to be representative of God. And he has to execute his real authority by direction of God.
The brāhmaṇa and the sādhus give him direction. These things are being very powerfully discussed when people are civilization.
He appreciates that, he said that the institutions of civilization can help bring out the purpose of the universe. But you have to know it through proper channel. If you do speculate them in this way, that's it.
If they want to speculate, that is their difference. He says that the world is—he calls it the stuff of duty. The world is made up of stuff of duty.
Yes, stuff of duty, because duty means you are abiding by the superior order, that is duty. So we accept Vedas as the superior order. What is taken order in the Veda. Then we accept that example I have given several times.
The Veda said the cow dung is pure. Once it is said that any stool of animals is impure. Like Veda says, "No, cow dung is pure."
So you cannot argue that once you say that a stool of animal is impure, how you say the cow dung is pure? You cannot contradict. You have to accept it because it's the order of the Veda. Absolute order.
He sees that everything in the world, all non-ego objects, all the objects in the world are seeking to realize themselves. Everything is seeking to realize itself. Yes, seeking.
That's why, therefore, if it takes advantage of a perfect person, then that seeking will be short time. We very soon understand. Otherwise we will hover in the oblivion. Our process is we are seeking.
But we are going to the absolute person, Krishna. And we are taking the knowledge. That saves our time. But you are seeking, considering yourself as very scholar—he said scholar— but you are misleading.
Our process is very nice. Therefore, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet. Because everything is seeking to realize itself, but that means there's a moral order to the world. Certainly.
So each individual must act according to his duty and his conscience.
Standardizing conscience through spiritual intelligence
No. Conscience identity is Krishna consciousness. It is useless. Conscience, yes. He also details his concept when he goes to steal.
He says, "I must, because I have to maintain my family. I do not know any other business. I must." This is his concept. The other conscience is, "No, I cannot steal. It is seen. So when is the conscience?
Conscience is not standard. You make and manufacture your own concept. Therefore, you have to take advice from Krishna concept. That is real concept. Whether it is challenging with Krishna concept, that is all.
Otherwise, you create your own concept. Yeah. Freedom. How important present constitution is not freedom. They're completely under the law. Daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā.
They are tied up by the ropes of material nature, hands and legs. And still they are thinking, "I am free." That means nobody is free. They are seeking freedom, but nobody is free. Nobody is good. By the... yeah. Do this.
You have to do it. Which creates itself or realizes itself is the truest of all realities. Yes. So you might be willing. If you choose to surrender to Krishna, then we get your healthy freedom.
Otherwise you are under the clutches of Daivī-māyā, you cannot satisfy the stringent laws of the nature. He says that, contrary to Kant, he says that the practical reason is kind of... is the first thing.
Practical reason means that I want to do something. I do not know. Then I go and ask a superior person to know it. Just like when you drive your car, you are going somewhere.
So you take the direction; one sign goes, "This way goes to this country," this way. Similarly, practical part, you have to approach a person who knows.
That is that if you think that, "I shall do it myself without consulting anyone," that is not true. That is theory. At least we are told to be miserable. It says that the reason is subordinate to the will. Yeah.
Thinking, feeling, willing. Yeah. So feelings — I want to do something, I apply my reason, that is intelligence. Uh, if we do it intelligently, then it is good, and if I do it foolishly, then it's bad. Will is there.
Will is, uh, uh, before reason. Will is primarily reasonable? No. After reasoning, then you will. After reasoning. First reasoning, then you will; this is the opposite. But that can be our problem.
Will he see will as practical, uh, practical reason? Because we're... Well, this thinking, feeling, willing, they are all taken together as reason. What do you have things? What do you settle as? A good power? What is that?
Thinking, feeling, willing. You think that, uh, you shall be a rich man. You think, then you make your process how you become a rich man. Then you, then you are willing. This will also kind of... Or you will.
Thinking, feeling, willing, yes, I must be reasonable. Then how you can... But intelligence is above thinking, feeling. Everyone, a dog also thinks, he feels, but he has no intelligence. He has intelligence.
Well, he says that all reasoning comes about as a result of our desires or our will. Whenever we are willing, then we begin to reason. That is not willing, that is thinking. That is not willing. Thinking.
I'm thinking to become like this. People generally say like that. I'm thinking. I'm thinking to go somewhere. Yeah. And think. So if there is any difference between thinking, feeling, and willing, then thinking first.
Desiring something, isn't it? That, that desiring begins from thinking. And then you are sources in the real life.
He says that, uh, if one combines rational thought with his will, then this will help him towards self-realization. Okay. What do you guys...? If you combine rational thought with really funny, that's not fun.
That is a priori. Okay. That's an a priori fact. I, I think that's who I am. Right. Yeah. We can, um, it's a pure thought process. I cannot do anything more than think myself. I can think that I think, therefore I am.
You can think, but if you are helped by somebody else who knows, then it becomes easier.
You are thinking of driving a car; if somebody is part, that is practical. He says it's very difficult because the non-ego objects are always trying to lead us astray.
Yeah, therefore you have to take a, uh, advantage of an experience where to know things. He does not accept any superior.
Yeah, he says that the moral, the moral goal, the moral reality of things is the ultimate superior discussion. What is the moral? You can create your own morality. I can create my own morality. What is the actual morality?