Phenomenology and the Nature of Being
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
Phenomenology and the data of consciousness
Today we're discussing one German philosopher named Edmund Husserl. And he started a school of philosophy known as phenomenology.
The definition of phenomenology is a descriptive analysis of inner experience or subjective processes or the intuitive study of essences.
So the idea behind this philosophy is that, uh, to find out the essence of things, we, uh, describe the data of our consciousness without any bias or prejudice, or, uh, ignoring all theories and scientific facts, everything, but simply looking at a thing or a phenomenon, I try to understand what it is by analyzing our inward or intuitive knowledge of things.
That is just about on its— like at the present moment I'm thinking in that thinking everywhere that you see interested. So it's born with that. In some things, concrete. But I do not... That is real platform.
By one hundred band, that's half five hundred five kilometers. The method begins with the things themselves. They say, uh, "to the things themselves," or in other words, they begin from phenomena. Yes.
Reject all theory, scientific phenomenon, all the strategy, phenomenon, the body. But then this body of God. Then you come to the conclusion that "I am not body. I am the soul." Then what for I have soul I come?
Then we can system and Bhakti-yoga. The phenomena are get less. One can analyze in this way. I'm sitting on this comfort of, uh, seat. Why I'm sitting here? Because you know some part of my body—
that I can't understand the body. Why I'm maintaining this body? Because I am soul. I am living in the world that ultimately I love myself, myself. I love this being because it is centered to my body.
I love this body because it is centered to my soul. I love this soul because it is part of the particle of Krishna. That ultimately I love this. Is it? That is your purpose.
They say that the phenomena or the things are the ways or the manifestations in which objects present themselves through the appearances. Yes. It acts as phenomenal. Phenomenal means it comes and it goes.
According to, uh, their way of thinking, the appearance of the phenomenon comes and goes, but the phenomenon itself is changeless. That is not... that is called noumena in Kant, Ram, Thailand. Noumena.
Well, in... I'm going to know it is that's done. Yeah. He gets into noumena later, but he said just like this is a picture.
It appears as this picture, like this now, but sometimes it may not appear like this, but still picture, the idea of picture or the essence picture exists only kind of appearance in this form.
That's... that is always, you know, I say. Like idea to me. Um, that's phenomenon, yes. But if, uh, it's a permanent type of, uh, change of idea picture. You may have... it may have many appearances that come and go.
But the idea picture, it's permanent, changeless.
Spiritual reality versus material representation
That is confirming our theory, a spiritual world, as far as here the picture of a tree, that is phenomenal. But the picture is the original. Sometimes there are dogs, four dogs. That is similar.
But the idea behind the dark, beautiful girl standing on the focus, that is gone, that is phenomenal. But a bit of food is not this. This material world is phenomenal. That is explained by Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Because the principle is true, facts, therefore, the phenomenon expression of the principle or matter appears to be true. This material world, phenomenal world, is not facts.
But because the representation of a fact, therefore we can appreciate that is the outline, three techniques of finding essences of things.
Limitations of science and independent speculation
The first step is called the phenomenological reduction, which begins by excluding consideration of everything transcendent, including all theory, the scientific, uh, knowledge, everything, only presenting to our immediate senses, uh, the objects to be considered without any preconceived idea of what is that idea.
So we call this the suspension of judgment. Suspend all judgment about an object, just look at it.
And the object itself will be intuitively understood, that the idea that is the object to remain, then even comes to the conclusion the source of that, of this, right? All in this knowledge is that to research. Yes.
That is called brahma-jijñāsā. Vedānta-sūtra is called brahma-jijñāsā. Inquiring about that is that is the priority of human life, and if human life one can make an inquiry: "What is the ultimate force?" All.
And in animal life, it is that false. So if that increases, it's not there. But like at the present moment, a news soap is full of hiding news. These beings are animal. That kind of hiking are there also. Animal life.
Dogs are dogs, right? They are not very important. The real important thing is what I am. That is real important. Just like Nathan was telling you quite funny. She's a map. What I am. I do not want to suffer.
But I have to suffer. This is the thing. They are busy with the suffering of this party or that part.
But we are busy, why you are that is human at heart, and why you are not that the particular three people are suffering and giving some relief and then again suffering, again relief, service of Delva.
But the goal, inquire: why is it? That is the thing. Very good. These are they are studied these United Nations for the last twenty-five years.
This never inquires that we have tried human and see why he could not suffer. The establishment of events was that, that is no one, because they had very bitter experience of the world, Second World War.
So this doesn't be like a nation. But the world, let's say the Americans, they thought that "we are very least, we have got, we are very powerful."
So under the God of the human nature control over all, that will be followed. So the superficial phenomenon, and that might go deep to the root. Why people are suffering? Everything is.
The idea is to reduce everything to the level of pure consciousness; that is pure consciousness.
But by examining a phenomenon purely without any other consideration, he says that each thing has its given content or its principle of principles, as the, as an object of intuition, or he calls it also a thing's authentic reality.
Just like a leaf.
We look at a leaf and you have no consideration of previous knowledge—where the leaf came from, what is the leaf, anything—then the authentic reality of that leaf will produce... It will be self-evident: what is that leaf?
What is it? That means that you think, "I've a good study of the leaves."
But without any previous knowledge, as if I knew nothing about leaves before, but I began to look at the leaves, I mean, it would be self-evident what that leaf is. So we can through any other things.
Then why is... why did we lose that? Going to be true? There is no need of opening, coming to the one, setting in another order. And stop out and run. In the most intelligent person, scientists.
We have to go to not that at all; by speculating and talking nonsense, we are sitting on the scientists. They are never to do that. But it... but it's evidence from that leaf that is the color green, for instance.
I don't know. Well, he calls that... that kind of knowledge, how the color human comes in. Um, that kind of consideration only that... that other thing. That's... it doesn't describe the... to ask anyone.
He has to think that himself and think any kind of way he likes. He wants that... he wants to understand the object; it is self-evident, not refunding it really. What is saying, yeah, so what is it?
By... by studying the appearance of the leaf, then its nature or its essence will become self-evident. Why do we need to stretch it in a certain way? What does it look like? How do you get it wrong?
The structure of the tree, why is plain sample and why the logo, why they come, we need to say that these things operate again. That's the success. And we know. We have to go to a botanist to study.
What about before they had botanists? They didn't know anything about leaves before? No, botanist may not be there, but the knowledge was there.
But say this: five hundred years ago there was, since the beginning of the two years ago. Why do you say... I don't think that's... I didn't give you... Let me ask you that.
Let me give you an example: that 500 years ago when we had no microscope, we had no idea, but then all that was there. That is bringing love. Not enough there. That's right. I mean, it's a... yeah, it won't.
There was no time to get it for him, and then you should have a laboratory. But the basic knowledge is there, the botanist is here.
Now we analyze at the present moment, and to begin with finding... yes, so that one is not there. There is no need of... thank you. It's the knowledge of that. That is basic.
What about someone who has no recourse to basic knowledge or any sort of... he's a fool. But for thousands of years men have been in contact with life and they have not had Vedic scriptures to read. But that was bad.
They've been trying to read the test of... Does that mean they have no knowledge about it? No. They may have perfect knowledge. I believe they have perfect knowledge. Just like the śānta.
How down it is true, like an animal, but it is a very basic language, basic literature, that it is kept. Now we analyze it more and more. So,
Necessity of Vedic knowledge and authority
whatever is there in the Veda, there is something. There may be botanist or no botanist. The knowledge is there. So in order to understand anything, I have to start seeing. Yeah. That is the process.
Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet samit-pāṇiḥ śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham. So anything that is very path, either material path or spiritual path, you must have rules. And that is being all over everywhere.
We cannot become bhakta by speculating at all. You have to go—no, he doesn't say he has to become a bhakta. So anything, whatever he may be, he never becomes without hearing from another person.
I know, that is not—that isn't what you say. I'm saying that if you look at an object, the object— of that object, the nature of that object will be self-evident.
That it isn't that we have to know everything about the object, but the nature of it, the essence of it will be self-evident. I take the house with... well, the... what is bhāva, whatever it is, the case I practice.
Therefore you get the knowledge. That didn't make it. But if there was no jñāna in the fitness, well then he didn't fit in it. Well, it isn't—this isn't a philosophy for children exactly.
Anyone who is following the future is no better than a child. This is a child. This man is no better than a child. Because he's definitely functioning for him. He wants to study this leaf without any other help.
But the nature of that leaf... Whatever nature is already there, nature of the leaf is already there. But you cannot understand it by figuring. You can understand that it's green and it's growth.
Well, simply understanding green is not a complete study of the reason why. That's all you want. The next question: why is it green? Why is the other leaf yellow? That is the other request.
Why is this flower red and that flower white, and why is each leaf green? This is real inquiry. Why? Is it possible to understand without the "how does it work"?
But you were just saying before that if someone analyzes everything through nitrogen, they will find out that it's quite a possible trick.
But unless they are able to make that analysis, then what is the point of analyzing? I mean, shouldn't we have the freedom to analyze when it says—no, this is just the first step of this process. There are three steps.
The first step is simply to reduce the phenomenon through the self-evident facts. Those simple things that anyone can see that are self-evident. That's all right.
So we don't have to solve any authority about or have any knowledge about treaty issues to treat our things that... That's all, that's the first step. And the second step is
to make a universal reduction to find out which things are common to all these. What things in this leaf, which single appearance, have the same thing in common with all appearances of these?
Then he calls these the ideas which underlie the pure phenomena, like, uh, greenness and growth, things like that. Basic principle, we call these the changeless form, changeless form. Just like when this leaf is gone and it disappears, the color green will still exist somewhere.
It's always existing. And the idea of growth will always exist somewhere. So, uh, that's the second step.
It says that these changeless ideas like greenness and growth must be applied to phenomena to give them stability or endurance, and thus rescue them from a state of constant flux and unreality.
So just seeking to find out something permanent inside the temporary appearance of the things. So he says that the essence is, uh, the essence of something is unlike the phenomenon by virtue of its universality.
Uh, in other words, the experience that this leaf is green can be shared by all persons alike. Everyone will see the green. Not that one person will see the yellow or another person see the red.
Everyone sees that, that is the self-evident nature or essence for that reason. So, uh, there's an example. Here's the example: we see a green object, for example, and green color is immanent in our consciousness.
But when we postulate the transcendent color, it is not immediately sensed, but rather described scientifically as consisting of light waves. And in
other words, the knowledge that that greenness is caused by a certain light wave, which are measured by scientists, is not important to have. The real idea is that that immediate greenness is shared by everyone.
That is the nature of... That is then the third, radically, the third exercise. Then the third, uh, step is an analysis of the correlation between the phenomenon of cogitation and the object of cogitation.
In other words, now he says we must make a distinction between the appearance and that which appears. We have this form and greenness, permanent idea.
So, uh, why now at the wintertime it is leafless, and why there is... Why is the fusion? There is no leaf, and in the springtime, the leaves come on. Why? That's all the phenomenon can.
So therefore, the next step in you, out of general sex place, a while in gender place, that is level. Simply satisfy that means that they meet that far line. And then you don't need that for that.
That is not very important. No. This is the money and energy. So this is childish, childish at the same time, childish as well. Why sometimes there is, sometimes no, each and class, then no need that file, right?
So this is just my process. And as you say, it would stop at that point that seems childish. But the idea is that it's a process and that you do inquire then, not sometimes the process.
And then yes, and then you take the next step. Now, why is there no meeting at a certain time? And then you go on inquiring in that way. But you already got one inquirement with the intuition.
One look at a body, it's like the body. The essence of the body is a soul. But by looking at the body, they would detect the soul issues.
Just like before, before Western scientists have never read great literature, but they understand why there's really something, why not anything, head and down. This is the love. Check this in from their chairs.
We are father, some way, mother, they have a bit. This is everybody. But this very process to understand who is my father, simply by asking my mother, why play so? We were over this intuition yesterday.
Intuition is experience. Actually experience. With that intuition about the soul, one must have had memorable experience of the soul. We haven't had that. We have not had experience with this soul. How can we have intuition?
Nor do we have direct success number. Nor do we have direct success number. Not the guys.
See, what all I described so far is all only the first part of this process to understand. It comes to the idea eventually that everything is spiritual or nominal,
that what we see is merely a reflection. It comes to that point. So so far I've described as the first part, so we — I don't think we made judgments on on the philosophy so far that may be pretty savage.
But actually he was very, very, uh, thoughtful and and, uh, spent many years on the philosophy, so he's not... still he has, uh... But his idea is that it is hard, you know, this, yeah, the argument.
And one one can very large and can call śruti. Because as well as it is defeated by... I didn't have done to for it.
But if it... if it's just our... if all philosophy on on being part of it, then it doesn't, uh, coming to say that we have done this anomaly, what we see.
Starting with that, starting with that, reducing everything today, if you... if you start in with that, that's our life. But how you come to the perfect... not right for me, that's all part.
But and in two times also all the time. You cannot come to the perfect by taking guess. You must approach the person who knows. Serving them repeatedly. You cannot understand who your father is by speculating.
You must approach your mother and ask her who he is. That we should have. That is the problem. But when he insists on that, "Without asking my mother, I will not let that mind." That is notion. That is to be here.
But it has to be if you are still so, uh, uh, primitive and junior in your understanding that you don't even know there is such a thing as a father. First you have to find out that there is such a thing as a father.
Yes, he can ask, "Is there a father?" He... he's less than... he does not know that there is even a father. No, I mean in the example, the Western philosophers, they have... that starts from zero, from zero points.
We have no knowledge whatsoever. So again with the idea, you know, that is our point. From zero knowledge, we cannot go to the perception by zero speculation. That is our point. But you have zero.
You want both of someone who is one. And when zero is added to one, it is ten. Otherwise, with one added zero, you're called zero.
But if you think that, no, there is such a thing as fathers, to say you are so inside, you do not know that I have fathers. First of all, it must—you must discover that I think the change.
Buddhi guy knows that he doesn't become his father. My mother is everything. Just like this, Buddhist scientists. They are teaching the nature is everything. Nature is mother. The small child of Nanda Mahārāja,
he knows simply: "My mother is everything." But when he's grown up, he'll understand that "I have a father." Similarly, these so-called scientists who do not see God behind this nature, they are just like the same child.
That simply, "I am with mother, mother, mother." That's because, as the father of God is... God is father, and the wonderful activities of the mother.
But when he's grown up, he knows that my mother has a controller, has a husband. We went back.
But these, these philosophers, especially Husserl, because there's so much confusion and chaos in the world of philosophy, of thought,
they wanted to start from the beginning, from zero knowledge, from wiping everything away and beginning over again. But first of all, it started with the phenomenon, because that's what we can perceive.
Just like if you were a newborn child. Then they began... newborn child... at that school in class. Yeah, on the mala. That's what he's doing. But he is zero. But oh, maybe zero something. Yes.
But he doesn't have anything for that. No, there's... who can he ask? He doesn't know who that is. That is the main thing. That's what. So he says by intuition. Yeah.
I think that you can tell me who is the father, but I can't understand who the father is unless I perceive it myself. You have given me a word or a thought: "This is your father."
But actually, the meaning of father has nothing beyond that word or thought. Unless I understand that as father, maybe I might call it by a different name than father.
No, and by you saying this is father or this is lead, it's just, uh, semantic, uh, label you have put on that.
And if you understand me, I must receive it for myself because leave a father, maybe something will be forgiven for me and you. And this, the idea is, first of all, you have to understand what is me, for what is father.
Then, then you can understand where the meat came from, where the father came from. But he wants to start from the point of having no knowledge about anything and building up gradually.
So they begin with only the bare phenomena, understanding what is the bare phenomenon, because there's no authority for them to truth to that. What is philosophy? They don't know where, where is your authority.
So the only authority you can rely on is that which is self-evident instinct. That which is in the... that is all, but it's that why he then doesn't become a food. Why he philosophized?
Let everyone learn for himself, self-study. Why is he writing such books? Because he wants to understand the nature of that. He wants to help other people understand.
He doesn't, he doesn't want that his book to be read by anyone. Yes. He wants to understand the nature of things so that he can help other people. He wants an authority. But he, he wants to become authority.
Why he should deny another authority? He doesn't deny another authority, he just doesn't know which authority is the real, correct authority that he wanted to say. But that's what we know. But that's what he said.
That is the defense. Within the wisdom inventory. They have the authority of the deal. Well, even when one chooses a spiritual master, it's not as if he accepts anybody that comes along.
He must have some criteria for choosing that person, and that criterion must begin with an observation of phenomena because that's all he has to work with.
It's not as if you take any bogey to walking down the street and say, "All right, see some like they'll stand that." They'll stand that. That he does not ever see. So he can have some... Prabhu, we are saying... so
you, uh, uh, accepting an authority as Krishna, he will have to guess whether he is śrotriya, whether he is Brahman. Śrotriya means whether he has heard perfectly from his spiritual master.
And by hearing, whether he becomes deeply, calmly, śānta, and brahma-niṣṭha. These are the two qualities.
So anything you have to learn definitively from... At... Could Krishna, if He is feeding the intelligence also, isn't it possible that someone who has no, uh... Isn't it then...
He has... I'm saying that because Krishna is there in the, uh, process of all, uh, intelligence, then is it not possible, if someone has no closure to base authority, that he can still approach the absolute truth through clear intelligence?
Yes. So this is... that means we have to take lessons from this one, one in you. Yeah, that... Brahmā. That's... that's the whole idea: to turn within and get the answers by wiping away all of the prejudices.
So that is... that is our expression. Just like Brahmā. There is nobody external. But Brahmā brought all the knowledge from internal. Tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye. Learn all the knowledge, uh, from Krishna. Where is Krishna?
Hṛdā. No. Hidden. Hṛdā. Krishna is in the heart. Samyag-adhīta. Just like, uh, one of Husserl's predecessors, Descartes, we discussed him before, he wanted the same platform, the same basis for understanding.
So his only thought, his first thought was, uh, "Cogito, ergo sum" — "I think, therefore I am." Eliminating all other thoughts, the conclusion is: there is at least that one thing.
So he wants to start on the same basis by wiping away all the understanding and knowledge and beginning from the objects themselves and reducing from those things, extracting from those things to the truth.
It might be any... over. No, then... and, uh, doesn't have to be one of the... then it's not as far as this, like... In this... this is another example. They are called avyakta.
Avyakta simply that... so we had marked something. But the... behind sense perception, we also proceed to the other levels of, uh, for instance, the...
We have to distinguish between the phenomenon of a sound, of a sound, and the constitutive or intelligible essence of sound. From one particular sound, try to understand the nature of sound in general. What is sound?
Because the intelligence comes into play there. I only this income of this dot. When there is sound, there is time. So that would be the next logical understanding, intuitive understanding. Yes.
Behind hearing one sound, the key to that understanding of sound in general that I try... and that's that anyway, that's his process, this is a process of understanding that. But
he said that in things there is a self-evident truth; in everything, there is something self-evident that makes it true. Is that not possible? Temperature hasn't been disin there belief. That is not all.
If you actually want to study that belief, simply what we can of the belief as being is not all. No. So persons who are unhappy since practice, and they cannot have big knowledge. Behind the phenomena, they cannot.
That's what they are knowledge, in fact. And that in the example of Brahmā took instruction from within his heart. We can understand that he had a pure heart.
He was able to take instruction from Krishna from within, that his heart was pure. If one of that contaminated document, then that's that kind of knowledge is inaccessible to this in that contamination.
It's just like if I understand the science that the greenness has has a wavelength of 550 millimicrons per second, I would never know. But there is measurement.
If I'm saying, if how does that understanding, scientific understanding help my understanding of the green? And it doesn't really enhance anything just to know there is a way on the life dreaming.
So you don't have it fast, typically, all the external speaker of the meaning. We don't want to go deep into the matter. That is also knowledge. You want to channel.
Transcendental ego and the superior being
When you want to go deep into the matter, how we can go to this man? And because he doesn't want to consult anybody and he cannot see behind that supporters from doing them. They are common things.
It's like you said that the sound was a stuff, a symbol of the st... That symbol is kind of understood by the scientist. And that's true, the sound is the symbol of the sun.
You see, the scientists, those who are dealing with physics, they say that the... the center is sound. It seems that it's kind of their own. That is not self-based. That is a temptation.
So it seems like I did come to that same conclusion without consulting a side that you cannot. That is... that is not... we cannot.
Because we... we seem to be like... So, as probably sound comes, we have to approach our building.
It seems like with this method we could get to the point of, uh, Brahman, gonna recognize the spiritual substance behind everything eventually, just by going...
starting with the point of belief, you can gradually reach the point of understanding that it is spirit, and then you can understand the part of the... But, uh, we're just at the beginning of outlining the process. But
how we can understand a... a different thing very technically?
It's like you were saying that that knowledge could come from within, how something... what is the, uh, substance behind something, something reasonable? That is our living platform.
Any human living entity, human entity can follow the same thought, that the intelligence...
Anyway, to... to proceed, it says that after this phenomenological deduction, the residue or the essence of the thing which remains is characterized in threefold structures.
In other words, after you analyze one phenomenon... Not exactly in a way, two dimensions. One is the... the first one is the phenomenological ego.
Because first of all, if there are two egos, there's a phenomenological ego and the transcendental ego.
I think what we would call the ātmā and the phenomenological ego is the psychological or empirical ego which is, uh, found in the catching stream of consciousness, or the false ego, like the... the ego that identifies with the events and the ephemeral events of day-to-day life, if we're what I think I am.
And the transcendental ego is the observer behind that stream of consciousness.
But his idea is that still, down on the phenomenological level, the phenomenological ego deals with appearances as an activity that it, uh, cogitates upon, appearances that they pass through my perception.
Appearances pass through my perception. My phenomenological ego cogitates on appearances and gives what I call the world a structure. That means he knows that he has got another existence. Yeah.
But he's still dealing on the lowest level now, just beginning to understand. He says that, he says that this ego and pure subjectivity, that is the understanding that "I am," is the wonder of wonders.
And he considers that it is a mystery that the world should contain a being which is aware of its own existence. The phenomenological ego becomes the fundamental fact of the universe in which all truth is found.
In other words, beginning with this understanding that I am existing, that I am this, becoming aware of myself—this is the springboard, the launching pad for one who knows the truth.
And an animal, he does not have that knowledge. Subject is how we move with it, so... But I'm not a mystery. But I'm not a bad idea. That is, that's what he calls the mystery.
But, uh, the idea is that then it is better to concern that, better than me. Why do you, why do you try to roll down to the animal and sit there? No. We are above the animal status because we can understand what we are. Yes.
Now, how you become more than animal? The conclusion should be: as I am better than an animal, therefore, somebody there is who is better than me. Is it not good to suggest this?
He says that the transcendental ego is better than the... why not, uh, ego? Why you said evil? This is what he calls the intuition: transcendental ego, his understanding of things. Anyway, better than the ego.
It is better to become conscious. That's what he's trying to do. But through inward consultation, not that he has an outside source, or he doesn't have access to the transcendental ego.
Therefore, therefore, our bidding consultation, the transcendental ego appeared externally and speaking. That, yes, he recognizes it, but where can you go? He has no treatment after that also. No, if
the transcendental ego appears as the spiritual master, then what is the difficulty? If he accepts the transcendental ego and he appears external as spiritual master, then what is the difficulty to find out the truth?
The transcendental ego will confess. He has nothing again. Why does it say that? Well, because we have got the acquaintance and the transcendence and ego, in compound, yes.
In the — I mean, in Germany at that time, around the turn of the century, there's just no authority that he could control. No other rather — yeah, we have to sometimes believe it. Yes.
We say that transcendental ego appears externally as śiṣya. Then where is the difficulty of finding our śiṣya? How to find that it's something? If you accept something ego in there, then you accept. There is no deal.
There is no question of how I can find it. If you have faith in transcendence and you are saying, "Yes, yes." Where is it? And when she tells them to the new concept, that is also faith. It is not that.
It — we seem to, uh, bring — bringing in mental along with transcendental all the time anyway, as if you could like the mind clean and have an intuitive understanding of everything. How can you do that?
Everybody's got subjective value. How they can look at something and just understand it intuitively — that's not transcendental, that's mental. Subjective is that — that's intuition, subjective.
So how can you understand the transcendental with that kind of an instinct? I mean, it's possible you can understand it at the first point.
Just like he was like, uh, Mahāprabhu was saying, unless you understand the idea of father, then how can anybody tell you, "This is your father"? You won't understand what he's talking about.
The point is, how can you ever understand fatherness? Fatherness becomes self-evident. If you analyze how self — self-evident, if the mind is a limited instrument, how is it self-evident?
As you can see, that it's — child is coming out of the — child is conceived by a father. But who is the father and how the father is there? He has to go to that control. No, the father made the idea of fatherness.
Suppose the child does not know what his father meant to his father, he doesn't care to know. But when he grows up, he can see one man, honored, constant companion of the mother, and he's man.
I mean, mother, he's a father. What, what, what does it mean? What does father mean, though? It doesn't matter, does it? He doesn't know. But mother is best. But he's your father.
But he doesn't understand that someone else is your father. If he says, "No, he's not your father, he's your father over there," he's never seen before.
Still, the idea of fatherness is the man who's been with him all the time. Yes. But the mother saying, "This is father," has no meaning, has no value; they can have no potential of father.
The father is the person who is supposed to guide you, of the mother and the guiding of the father. Then the next question will be from the child: "What is father?" Yeah. Yeah, what is, what is father? What is father?
That embrace. Then he said that without a father you cannot get birth. That is part of it. Why should we set it five on the file? This enterman is a part. So anything else? What is that? Then he understands.
Before we ever found out or knew who is Krishna, we had ideas of body, nature, sky, all these things we knew about: fire, earth, water.
We had made studies so we could understand when He said that the earth, the sky, they are My separated energy. When He told us that, we could understand it.
But unless we knew or had the conceptions of those things, we could never have understood. That way it is needed. It is essential. One must have a spiritual master.
So long as he is not teaching that, then you remain in darkness. Yeah, it's something... how do we see the... when you go on inquiry, then the question of spiritual master. But inquiry is there within yourself.
That doesn't sound like that, but the inquiry is there.
Developing consciousness and individual soul identity
That inquiry will make you... man making wise by inquiring from spiritual master, but the inquiry. Human, human, human life means developed consciousness, means the animal cannot inquire.
The human life, human being can enquire. That inquiry will give him everything. He's got masters, all his commitment. That enquiry, simply this enquiry. That enquiry is there.
This, this understanding of, uh, Sankhya philosophy is still at a, at a a lower stage now, because eventually we come to fact. It's been, it is, that's that saṁsāra,
when somebody goes to inquire something about Brahman, very seriously, they recommend that one must go to the other.
Because then, now, it's a fact that is to, uh, everyone is saying that we are the only coming in the whole world. Let me be fine. One does not know how you say it also good, this is good. And he does not know what is good.
Just like one who does not know which one is stone and why which one is uh, glass. In fish and drill. But one or not, this is real and this is only glass, polished glass.
So to distinguish these, what is genuine is all, you must have gone to the perfect person. Then going there. That is needed. When you, when you have somebody, which one is yes, and then you have to go and go to such person.
Go to the for inquiry is taking to the serious initial. Yes. It's a fear. But that entire is there. That didn't be. I wanted all. I wasn't. Since I'm more than serious too, also personal lovely intelligence.
I may be very serious and I may say we can go. He's not intelligent. I mean he just says that's not me. Serious means intelligent. But that is not what they say.
Uh, yeah. Intelligence means seriousness means that he takes knowledge from the man who is better, and that is real.
So we still reach the point when it's a observing, analyzing the transcendental observer or the transcendental ego. It comes to the understanding that there's a spiritual basis for everything.
But still we're talking about how he reaches that point. So he describes, sentimental otherwise, that there is sometimes known as content, something dictating. Yeah. I digest, I may accept something dictating from within.
Yeah. Well, that is transcendent. The phenomenological and the transcendental. Phenomenological ego would be the transcendent, while phenomenal ego means I. I am the individual soul. Yeah. And then you go with Paramātmā. Yeah.
Yeah. That's just the same thing. Yeah. The I-feeling is that would be the content, which is made up of the data day-to-day that I observe. This is my world, through consciousness. I think I am.
So I may be allowed to... every moment I, I speculate, my mind accepts something, something. Then I am... I... I... what is that?
Then something decreases, that is that something is... How did we give it a conceptual circuit? Well, that we haven't come to yet. That's later. No.
I mean, if we want to jump to that we can, but it's missing a lot of things. That's not like it's sound gradually. Mm-hmm.
Yeah, but now he's discussing the phenomenological ego or what we would call a false ego, sense of I.
This ego is an act, an activity of doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing, refusing, imagining, feeling; let us call that saṅkalpa-vikalpa, because you accept something and you reject something.
You can make a different branch of these two words. These are all intentional acts. The ego, false ego, is responsible for all my intentional activities.
Intentional activity, rather than doubting something, understanding something, affirming something, denying something, willing something—these are all activities having intent. Yeah. Without intent, how can we act?
So this is the second part of the structure of the phenomenological channel. But that intent has two kinds. That's like a man what, uh... for himself. And then he works for others. When I'm alone, I work for myself.
But when I'm married, I work for my wife and children. So the intent of the top kind... So we try and put an intent. That is also... And this way it's like you just give an example.
That's how he wants to study phenomena like that. Oh, when I watch on myself, that is one phenomena. And why, for what? Now, we see them better. People are watching. Somebody watching for his personal satisfaction.
Somebody is working to maintain the health of his children. So, no. We thought it meant that. That was every intention for the most people? Huh?
There was every intention for... No, you just generally just intention for personal self and for others. Which is better? Which is better? For others? Yes.
If it is not, then why are you giving, uh, so much honor to this Mahatma Gandhi? Is it gift? Because he has worked for others. Now, if you expand the intent, uh, then well, it is not other, it's Kṛṣṇa.
For other is good, we can see. But that other, complete other is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, when you watch for Kṛṣṇa, that is good. That is the best in him. Actually, in this phenomenology, I studied it for years.
I don't find it so much different than Kṛṣṇa consciousness theory. Just like when he says the essence of the thing, we call it the dharma of things. Just like you say the essence of sugar is sweetness.
If somebody observes sugar, he will understand that the essence of that sugar is sweetness. That's self-evident. So you don't need an authority to tell me that that is sweetness. So in this way, the sweetness has degrees.
It's like you bring the sugarcane juice. That is also sweet. If concentrated, it becomes molasses. If further concentrated, it becomes sugar. If further concentrated, it becomes candy.
So the same sweetness, when it is concentrated, ideally, you cannot say generally the sweetness. The sweetness has that degree. The highest degree of sweetness is true.
He said once that everything has a dharma, that which cannot be separated from, self-evident content. Yeah. So first of all, he wants to find out that self-evident content in everything. What is it?
And then he proceeds to the transcendental level, but this is the process to begin from that, in that way. But isn't that a certain type of yoga, Sāṅkhya-yoga or something?
Yes, some object has to be out there to draw an analogy. But the thing is, the analysis should be some ancient object of animal. Why you are analyzing?
If you simply go and analyze it and do not come to the aim, to the ultimate goal, then you are simply killing it. You can analyze everything for years together.
Anything you get, even in this piece of paper, you can go analyze. And you can write volumes and books. Only there's no value. So what is the value of this value?
It says the value is the perceived value for the... but then everything that is technically. But we have to analyze something in the end to understand everything. No, not to understand everything.
We do understand the original. So then later we understand everything. Because there are varieties of sweets. You take any, even if the doll is made of sweet sugar, there is no need of analyzing each and everything.
Sweetmeat means it is made of sugar, that's all. That is the basic knowledge. Tasmin vijñāte sarvam idaṁ vijñātaṁ bhavati. If you understand Krishna, then you understand everything. But if you
go on analyzing to understand everything without any understanding of Krishna, it is simply labor. Yes, it is. What is that? Anyone, anything can analyze, one analyze it or like whatever. What do you mean?
There's one place you write in the Gita purport that by a minute analysis of oneself one can understand what is Krishna. Yes. But that requires also guidance.
So if I try to analyze my own personality without your guidance, I won't reach. No, to some extent, you are part and parcel of this life. I have got this propensity. Otherwise, how will I get it?
If I am part and parcel with Krishna, then I can make progress. But if I don't know that, then I won't. You know from Krishna. Krishna said that all living entities are My part and parcel.
Now you see, if you are part and parcel of Krishna from the book, then I can understand Krishna by analyzing it. So that real premise, then we can progress into something else.
Also to understand everything subjectively, intuitively, to understand myself by going inwardly.
If I understand it, that I must be a part of something that is like me, that created me, then I come to the right conclusion. But now you know that. Yes.
By understanding that in each thing there is an essence or a dharma common to all those things.
Thinking myself, it must be an essence which is part of... Yes, I am a living entity, you are a living entity, so there must be a source of living force.
From this living entity, the way we can analyze it, it comes to that level. But with that, the next position, with that, the original source of living force must be a person.
Because the living force—you are a living force, you are a person, I am a person, everyone's a person. So why the original should not be a person? We come to that conclusion. That there must be a Supreme Source. Yes.
But isn't that... I am a person. My brother is a person. My brother is born of my father. I am born of my father. I did not see my father. But I can understand.
Because we were born, therefore I have a father and my sister has a father. Then I still have to know what is my relationship with that person.
Even if I know that it is a person. How I know what is my relationship with that supremacy? No, no, this simple thing is that that is also to be analyzed. My there is relationship with my father.
My existence is due to my father. Everyone can understand it. Therefore, his existence must be due to his father. Say his father, his father, his father, that we must suppose to be the entity. That's a causal relationship.
That's the causal relationship. I'm talking about the other side of relationship. Once I know who is my father, then what do I do in relationship with my father? That kind of relationship. Well, that everyone knows.
My father maintains me. And that's why I must be grateful to my father. How do you show that gratitude? How do I show that gratitude? By knowing the orders. Huh? To know the orders of my father. Yes.
How I will know what are those orders? Yeah, but from the śāstra. So from the śāstra, I guess I'm wrong. From the śāstra I know I have to... my father is not different from my father.
And from the spiritual master he tells me for surrendering unto Kṛṣṇa. Yes. Because my spiritual master is not different from the father. That's right.
So even if I can reason that my father is a person, without the spiritual master, I cannot know how to get into a relationship with my father. Transcendental, by the divine mind to see everything transcendental.
And in the Bhagavad-gītā, it is described that there are five agents for... what are those? Actions?
Purifying the ego from material suffering
By place, the doer, the instrument, uh mean, and... I'll collect the thing uh we we had at this level. We had three three of those things.
We have the what is observed, the observer and the observing, the what do you call the ego? Let's go. Well, we got... Right. Yeah. Material transform or today transform. Is it the ego or the material uh identification?
The cogitation or the thoughts about something and the cogitata, or the objects of those thoughts that people... the observer, the observing, and the observed. And then you postulate the transcendental observers.
So it's typical, Upanishadic typical. Well, you can't include those five, that is... Green ball. That is five green balls. Yeah, yeah. Oh yeah. Oh, it's the supreme will.
We can arrange everything, but without the supreme will, it will not be. But we have a drug and thing that we uh the female and the owner at ten year old one. Yeah. Tomorrow we'll step down and tomorrow we'll finish that.
Yesterday we were discussing that behind and above this phenomenological ego, or as the ego that deals with temporary things, there is an unobserved observer or a transcendental ego which lies behind every perception of thought and feeling.
Transcendental ego is unaffected by transcendental reduction, the epoche. If we reduce all phenomena to the essence, that despite that reduction, the transcendental ego is unaffected. It's unaffected by anything.
It's unobserved observer of everything. It's that which observes everything, but it it's unobserved. All the hita and silamina. And uh unaffected by the phenomenal activity.
That's like you are sitting on a car, there is a driver, and you are sitting also. Now the machine is going on and the car is running, but both the driver and the passenger, both of them are attached to this car.
But if we don't have gone in the thought that I possess this car. "It is my car, it is so nice a car." In this way, when there is some accident in the car, we feel that the accident is upon him. Actually, he is not the car.
So we, the living entity, I am now moved into this car of this body. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati. Bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni yantrārūḍhāni māyayā.
The Īśvara, the Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān, and then this car of this body, yantra, yantra. This is a yantra; yantra means machine. So I am sitting on this machine. By the will of the Supreme, I am traveling, bhrāmayan, by my karma.
But actually I am not that. There is nothing to do. Car is running, car is breaking, car is lying, car is lost. There is nothing to do with me. But I have been accustomed to change or identifying myself with the car.
That is my māyā. And when one understands clearly that I am not this body, I am completely separate from this body, and feels so, that is the perfection of knowledge.
He says that the process for realizing the transcendental ego is that the phenomenological ego, or the phenomenal ego, is also capable of identifying.
It is called also, it's purifying the ego because it can suspend all belief about the world reality because it can conceive of these temporary objects of the material world as being temporary, so it can suspend judgment and belief in those temporary things and strive for something permanent.
Yes. This is a special facility of the phenomenal ego. And that is expressed in the Vedānta-sūtra, at the Vedānta-sūtra, that I am put into this body, and according to my body, I am suffering. I think that I am enjoying.
But actually I am suffering. Māyā's pulling power. I am actually, with this intoxication, is putting me into so many diseases. But I'm thinking I'm right. That's a fact. Those are not... every Krishna intoxication...
That's... these are only disease. This... four sinful pillars of life do not make him happy, but he thinks that "I'm happy." This is māyā. Covering. Covering potency, māyā. Māyā has got two-fold potency.
One is covering potency, uh, uh, uh, throwing potency. What throwing? Showing, yes, that... one has taken to the path, now my time is driven. Why is it fun? Enjoy this life. Come here. Come here. So I'm done with God.
Do a mind work. One way is covering potency, means he is actually suffering. And this way, these people discovered working real night hard and getting some money and hitting down there.
I mean, putting that money in some paper, that hundred dollars and hundred dollars, and what part there, and get some paper. At night he came down and, right, he is getting nothing, only a bunch of paper.
But he's thinking, so this is where I'm becoming more and double and liker. Māyā. Well, you know, I want my desire. That is what I'm saying. So this is where this... then very well is in one sense.
I'm not actually any enjoyer, I'm suffering. I'm suffering. That is human life. When you understand that "I am suffering and not enjoying," then we come to the human perfection of life. That is called Brahman realization.
Then why and at heart of the magic done. And then he realized we before. That's where the everyone is coming. It's like we passed with 14 days, samādhi. Everyone. Somebody. Somewhere said, somewhere.
In this way, so many happening and coming. Coming and going, coming and going. Therefore, Krishna says, "Āgamāpāyino 'nityās". These things are coming and going.
And it is in your body that you are feeling sometimes, suffering sometimes, but actually you are Brahman. You do your reason.
This is what Husserl describes as a particularly unique function of our phenomenal ego: that we can throw doubt on things. That we can doubt the... doubt means jijñāsā. Yeah. Jijñāsā.
If I am in doubt, then there will be inquiry. Usually subjective understanding and some of the inquiry, the Veda says: "Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet".
One has to do "tad-vijñānārthaṁ" in order to understand that time, God, the guru, "gurum evābhigacchet". And what is guru? How can I know? Śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham. One is well-versed in Vedic knowledge.
And as the result of that, he is fully fixed up in Brahman. Here again, like we were discussing yesterday, he says that after the ego suspends judgment on temporary things, it finds itself to be the only certain being.
So that it finds it must find truth out within. The truth dwells within. He doesn't know about who he is. But how to easily go down? This example is given by what is called musk.
Musk within the manas of the deer, and this flavor, it is running here and there, yeah. Musk. Musk with the deer. And he is thinking something outside, here and there he is jumping. But it is in his navel.
So one has to show: why you are jumping here and it is here? He does not know. That time the "īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati". He is there in "sarva-bhūtānām". But we do not know how to see. That requires...
Do me well, we are saying. That would require the same. He says that the world is transcendent. It is beyond these bounds of phenomenal experience.
In other words, we can never experience everything in the world beyond our limits. But the ego is transcendental. It is always present in every experience. The transcendental observer is there in every experience.
Everything. It can experience everything. Well, everything. But who is the one who knows everything? Just like the vedāhaṁ samatītāni of Yaśodā-nandana: "I know past, present, and future."
So you can know past, present, and future through... Not very. Your knowledge is new. No, but I need to say what you need to do. We should be digestible.
There are two kinds of... And he says that, uh, through this type of transcendental reduction, in other words, uh, finding out the essence of the thing, that the uh, phenomenological ego can become an observer of itself, unaffected by the stream of passing consciousness.
In other words, it's a meditation that's taking in the data. That I am more entity is without any, uh, attachment for the phenomenon parts. And so it's a type of meditation, so I guess that's really coming to... So
Transcendental community and the marginal nature
he says that this pure subjectivity becomes transcendental, and in the realm of this transcendental consciousness, reality is disclosed. So there's a self-disclosure of the meaning of things.
While in this meditative posture, things as they are become true. Yes. That is the request. But not to be fooled at that.
He says, then he says, because the essence is a phenomenal object experienced in common by all persons. In other words, everyone will see this as being yellow, this flower.
Therefore, there must be other egos like my own in this. The other egos must be... that is doing it. Yeah. That is ruling out. This one is jñānaṁ kṛta, not śāntam. There is one singular number, cetana, of mukta-siddhānta.
Meaning for... And there are innumerable singular numbers. Nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām. So this nityānāṁ cetanānām, that is... And this nitya and cetanam is God.
So because God and the distinction between the two is eka, that one singular number, mukha and eka. He provides everything to this bahūnām. He's the provider of all the necessities of this any... yo vidadhāti kāmān.
Is this what we are talking about on this point, and any other point? No, how about that one? What are you talking about? What are you talking about? You don't tend to have... what is the name of this? What is the name?
H-U-S-S-E-R-L. Husserl, who's a German, generally.
He said that, uh, because I identify with other egos like my own through a process in which we equivalence as empathy, or uh, dealing with that, I belong to a community of selves or an intersubjective transcendental community.
Yes. That's right. We and DP. We are all part and parcel of God. Mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke. Well, therefore, as vibhinnāṁśa, we are the same family, same category.
Therefore, vidyā-vinaya, those who are actually learned, they do not make any distinction between one being and another. Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brāhmaṇe gavi hastini.
Śuni caiva śva-pāke ca paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ. One who is actually learned, one who has got real knowledge, he does not make any distinction between a learned brāhmaṇa and a dog or a caṇḍāla.
Because he knows that this dog is also the same. This man is also the same. And the brāhmaṇa is also the same, but they are in different dress. That's what we talked about. But these people become paṇḍita, learned,
Then this war between Pakistan and... and this world, this time. But they are not planning. And these two fools are not giving them real knowledge. They are already fools. Ajñāna-ja. Born fools, that's it.
And they are being made more fools than... My main system was to prove them that self-will and... to understand itself, self-delight. That is easy.
At the same moment, the so-called increase in... they are already fools and that we make more. You are born in this. He's already a fool.
He has accepted: "I am this body," and he's being educated more and more, concentrating on the body, and that this is called avidyā. This is avidyā. All these two followers that simply give you being avidyā.
There's not a single individual to tell them all, and all over the world, where real education... Avidyā. Avidyā-bhāvam antarā-niśritya satyam. So vidyā-śakti. Vidyā-śakti means māyā-śakti. Means that we are ignorant.
So we are becoming more and more overwhelmed by the objects. Therefore, in the Bhagavad-gītā you see that mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ. We are under the influence of avidyā, māyā-śakti.
And people are under the influence of avidyā, but mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīm. There are two natures: spiritual nature and material nature. And we are marginal nature. So the system wants to bring that under the system.
But as you become... mahātmā. And... durātmā. Durātmā is... and mahātmā is this place. That is mahā-bhāva. Mahābhārata. He says that, uh, through this intersubjectivity we obtain objectivity concerning the external world.
In other words, by reflecting with other living entities, uh, it's changing. Can we obtain real objectivity about the external world? Could it, intersubjectively, change?
Means the marginal nature, we see somebody and somebody else. Then we can understand that we are under the critical lens and they are under the critical nature. But anyone can, therefore, it's for marginal.
Anyone can change this position, from material nature to spiritual nature, from spiritual nature to material. Anyone can change the position. That's why very life, very sad. And this, what is this shadow? Absolutely.
Shadow has no separate power. Shadow is absence of light. When there is no light, then it's perhaps for God. Shadow cannot power the light, but light can drive away shadow.
Always in life, as there is no home but the battle coming. You are always in the sunlight. They're saying to go about and keep yourself.
And you felt like, just like in the beginning it took me, that they around you as well, one from time, other side of our life of the world. One foot may you start with the eastern side.
Just continually go on the western side. You never have night, it's always day. They said the sun, the sun never sets on the British Empire. Yeah. That was a fact. Well, all the way to watch.
So because, um, our experience, our experience of the world, uh, that Lebenswelt, or the life-world, which is the world which encompasses our, I mean, the experience or the complex
of our own conscious life. And he says that the Lebenswelt, or life-world, is inaccessible to us when we try to reach it through a scientific interpretation of it or through a mere reaction or natural attitude toward it.
To reach the life-world, we must utilize a special kind of reduction, phenomenological reduction, whose whole scientific interpretation is suspended and thus allows us to view directly the Lebenswelt and see its structural reality.
So in other words, we're saying that we cannot really understand the nature of things through strictly scientific interpretation or simply by reacting to the world in a natural attitude, but you must become introspective and try to understand it through a meditative milieu where you can see it directly.
That means we are doing quite a reduction. Yeah, this is his final point actually; this is as far as you can go. So you require two other reductions of Husserl. And we're going to be...