Kierkegaard's Three Stages of Life Experience
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
Critique of aesthetic and ethical stages
The philosopher is called Kierkegaard. He is a Danish philosopher, last century. He is the father of what is called existentialism, which is a very prominent modern philosophy. Probably the most prominent modern philosophy.
Last time we were discussing the phenomenologists who were interested in getting at the whatness or the essence of a thing. These existentialists, they are more interested in the, uh, thatness or the existence of a thing.
So this Kierkegaard describes three steps of the life experience. The first step he calls the aesthetic step or stage of life.
This aesthetic stage of life is characterized by two types of persons: that one engaged in sense gratification completely, unrestricted sense pleasure, and the mental speculator or philosopher. He said
that in both cases, that both persons are uncommitted to any specific goals and that they become bored with their activity—unrestricted sense gratification and philosophical speculation.
That they're devoid of commitment, they're not committing themselves to anything, simply enjoying and speculating. And that this type of life, this aesthetic type of life, is how they can be—they have no ultimate goal.
He says they are not really philosophers, they are mental speculators. The mental speculators anyone can become without any aim. What is it? A ship without a rudder, a man without a head.
He says that both of these types of persons become bored with themselves and they get a feeling of emptiness or meaninglessness or despair. We call it despair, hopelessness, nothingness.
So that this pleasure that we condemn, śūnyavāda. Śūnyavāda. It leads to śūnyavāda. Impersonalism and voidism. It must be overcome by this. They have no aim. They do not know what is the aim of life.
Being disgusted in the present form of life, they look, when there are no conclusions, no high end, they become disappointed.
Yes, he says that they then indulge in pleasure and in mental speculation as a diversionary tactic to try to cover up this despair; they become more indulged in sense pleasure, more speculating.
They are like people in the material world. When a businessman is a failure, he takes to drinking sometimes. Yes, to forget, he takes to drinking.
So he says that this is the stepping stone or the first stage toward self-realization, that from this despair one can find his authentic self, we admit. That is therefore the Vedānta-sūtra is there.
People become disgusted that we have worked so hard, but still we could not attain the goal of life, peace and prosperity—despair. Then they begin to think, actually, what is the purpose of life?
That is called brahma-jijñāsā. Inquiry into the, uh, absolute truth or the ultimate truth of life. That is natural in human life. That sort of inquiry is necessary for further development.
He says that to find our authentic selfhood, then the next step, beginning with the stage of not being committed to anything, is to be aware that life is an either-or decision, that we must begin to commit ourselves to certain patterns of action and make conscious commitments, either this or that, and make decisions and become concerned, ethically concerned with life.
This, he says, is the second stage towards self-realization. Self-realization, as I said, enquiry into the absolute truth. It's not that simple. That is self-realization. So there the philosophy of life begins.
Enquires into the origin, source of everything. The emphasis of these existentialists is upon acting.
They think that, um, first there must come an active decision to be concerned one way or the other about something and take an active role in dealing with life rather than aimlessly taking pleasure from it.
Try to, uh, ethically become involved with life and make decisions, either this or that.
Consciousness as the source of life
So these things are very nicely described in Vedānta-sūtra. Sūtra.
And Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the right commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, just like it is also philosophy that what is the actual aim of life or what is the absolute truth. So the Vedānta-sūtra, janmādy asya yataḥ, is also there.
The absolute truth must be that thing which is the origin of everything. Now, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam can say, what is the nature of that origin? This requires philosophical and as well as uh, authentic proof.
Now that origin, first of all, the origin is uh, conscious and not conscious. Origin. Um, some philosophers, they are tracing life from bones. Tracing life.
So now one should be intelligent enough to understand whether actually life can begin from bones and stones, or life begins from life, actual life.
So in the origin of everything, you can say the origin, source of creation, or the creator. If you take it as creator, that we have to take. The creation does not get automated. There is no proof. There is no proof.
From matter, automatically creation takes place. There is not any perfect philosophy. Neither one can support this view in the long run. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam says that the origin of everything must be conscious.
And that consciousness also exists, existing eternally. Not that consciousness has developed under certain conditions. In this way Bhāgavatam has explained Vedānta-sūtra expression very logically and sensibly.
So these answers are there in the Purāṇas and Vedānta.
They're—what they're more concerned with is that they find themselves here in this world as an active living being, and they're concerned more with the activity of life. How to explain? But how the activity came?
One should be intelligent; man should be concerned, first of all, where from this activity came. What is the origin of activity? That is philosophy.
You are simply saying that there are some—sometimes we see activity in matter. Just like the cloud: cloud is coming on the sky, it is moving, there is activity. But that activity, this material activity, is interaction.
That is not real activity. Real activity—the modern science, they are concerned with material science.
Seeing the activity, they are saying it is by nature: it is a fruit is coming out, a flower is coming out, this is there is activity. So one should know what is the cause of this accident.
They think that it is automatically coming by nature. Nature. They cannot explain. That is not closure. But we have to see where from this activity comes.
We get answer from Bhagavad-gītā that behind all this material activity, there is a brain, that is Bhagavān. It's like this machine is working. A tape. It is talking. As soon as you press one button, it's talking.
But a child will say, "Oh, how wonderful this machine is talking." It is child. One who has got sense, we know this talking is not coming automatically. Somebody has spoke and it is simply a record, and that is interesting.
So where from the activity is coming? They say that at this level of existence that we can't say where it's coming from, we simply find it. Then you learn. Then you are not in the perfect state.
No, this is only the middle stage, because the middle stage is then you have to learn. You are not perfect because you do not know. So one who does not know, his speculation, what is the value? That's like a child.
If he does not know how the machine is working, how then this speculation on this machine, what is the value? Without perfect knowledge, simply speculation, that is going on in modern civilization.
They prefer simply speculation without any basic truth. That is a defect. Andha yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ. And that which they have become leaders, philosophers, scientists. Bhāgavata condemns them.
They are blind themselves and they are trying to lead other blinds. So their leading, their science and philosophy are practically useless. They cannot give any benefit to the human society. Child.
So if he does not know, why you take the post of teacher? That is our proposition. If you do not know, sit down. It is better not to talk foolish. It is better not to talk than to talk foolish.
If you do not know, then don't talk. That is nice. What is the use of philosophically, foolish talking, this and that, that maybe, perhaps like that, like that?
Limitations of human speculation and philosophy
What is the use of such? Well, he, he proposes these three stages of existence. The first one we talked about is the aesthetic stage of non-commitment, simply sense gratification and speculation.
Second stage, he says that a man makes a leap in commitment and begins to, uh, concern himself or involve himself with the world on an ethical level. And the third stage is the religious stage or self-realization.
But in the second stage, he says that the despair of life has led one to the commitment to make choices, to commit himself to action, to enter into life's involvement, to become ethically concerned.
That suddenly he turns within himself and in passion and freedom and decision or subjectivity, then he begins to find himself. Or the divine.
This may be likened to the, uh, people who do pious works or the people who do good to others, who are morally committed to life on that level. To feed others, clothe others, like that.
They say that that is a step higher than simply sense gratification or speculation. It says that this is a move in the right direction toward authentic selfhood. Eventually this way we will understand what I am.
And because we are at last doing something, we are involved with life, then we are no more abstract, we are existing, then we are existing.
That someone who is, uh, doing all sense gratification and mental speculation, they are living abstract life. Abstract life. External life.
Simply waiting for the enjoyment of life and speculating what is the meaning of things. That is abstract life, the same thing. And this being committed to action or decision making is called existence.
This is the first step toward real existence. So in this ethical stage, he says that by the very act of making decisions that we become aware, that we become more and more aware, that decision-making means awareness.
And if we make choices about anything, that means that we are becoming aware. What is the decision? Why people become moral, to feed this, more like that, humanity? What is the decision? "I'll do it."
He says it's, it's not so much the fact of the decision but how the decision is made. It is made with integrity and self... the decision? Why? How the decision is made. That is the problem. How? Why?
Why they make such a decision? One man is running on a slaughter. He's killing anything. Another man is after human, taking a white, giving food, giving them chance to live. So what is the ultimate decision?
The two sides, or two kinds of people, are going. The same man is giving charity for feeding poor men or giving relief to the distressed man, but at the same time he's encouraging animal killing. So what is the ethics?
What is the ethical law in these two contradictory activities? One side, just like our Vivekananda, he is advocating daridra-sevā to feed the poor. But feed the poor with Mother Kali's prasāda where two goats are killed.
So on one side feeding the poor, another side killing the poor goats. So what is the ethic? What is the ethical law in this sense?
It's like people open a hospital and the doctor prescribed, "Give this man what is called carnage, ox blood or chicken juice." So what is this? And
they are supporting that, yes, chicken juice, because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge.
So on the basis of imperfect knowledge, these ethics or this humanitarian... what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is it?
If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing. There are so many medicines. The killing is very prominent.
Then next point should be, we should say that the human life is important, so non-important animal killing can be supported to save the important life. Then the question will be: why it is important?
Why you consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important? These are the questions of Vedic law. Where are these discussions of the Vedic law?
He gives importance not so much to the facts of the—there is no fact. What is the Kierkegaard philosophy? It is not based on facts. Yeah. He gives stress on how the decision is made.
The decision is made, then you should go further. How the decision is—that is our question. How you make this decision that you kill somebody and, by killing somebody, you protect somebody?
How this decision is—that is our question. What is the answer? His answer is that you make the decision by inwardness, by turning inward. What is that inwardness?
Why you are thinking that "I shall give protection to my brother by killing another gentleman"? Why are you thinking like that? What is the ethics? What is the value of ethics? That is our question.
Well, perhaps his ethical man would not make that decision. Perhaps his ethical man would make the decision to protect the cow also.
Because the idea is that through a passionate feeling, re- awareness inside, that one will come to the right decisions. But he has no standard of right decision. What is this standard of right?
No, his—it's not so much the—it's... His motto is not so much "know thyself" as to "choose thyself." He's not so much saying that—how you can make your choice if you do not know yourself? You make your choice.
"This is good, this is bad." So this choice is made when you know yourself. So this is my interest. I am interested in this, therefore it is good. So without knowing yourself, how you can make your choice?
How is that making a decision? He says that you will know yourself when you begin choosing yourself.
And when you begin making choices and examining them to find the right choice for you, that you will begin to know yourself.
That this—that this is a passionate inner awareness where one becomes engaged in life, in doing things actively and making decisions. So, this choice—when you know yourself,
How you can know yourself unless you go to somebody who knows things as they are? It's like people know that "I am this body." This kind of knowing is animals.
This kind of knowledge, that "I am this body," sa guṇa-buddhir eva hi dharma. If one understands that "I am this body," that is nobody than an ass. The animals, they are... the ass also thinks "I am this body."
And you also think you are the body. Then what is the difference between you and the ass? And what is the value of the philosophy of an ass?
This particular philosophy puts emphasis on the act of deciding that whatever is decided doesn't matter, but you cannot decide without your aim. What is the aim of life?
Well, he says that because we cannot know the aim, then who can make a decision? Then we must make a choice, either this or that. That is childish. That is childish. That's like a child. He does not know.
He sometimes plays with this thing, sometimes plays with that. Yeah.
So he says, well, his idea is that you choose one path and stick to it, no matter what it is, but that it must be your... your decisions must be free, full of passion, tension, and integrity.
What about something like Hitler? Just like Hitler, they might say, or actually the whole hippie philosophy comes from these men, these existentialists.
It's not so... it doesn't matter so much what you do, it's that you do it with conviction, determination, passion, freedom. However foolish it may be. They would admire Hitler because at least he stuck to his principles.
They would admire Hitler. Huh? They would admire Hitler for sticking to his principles and acting upon it. So what happened? Now they admire the Hell's Angels. Yes.
So wouldn't you say that this philosophy is... "God is dead"? This is the most prevalent philosophy today, guiding people. It says that because God is dead, we don't know where we came from.
All we know is that we're here existing. The only way we can genuinely know ourselves is to exist authentically. But our point is we do not know genuinely. Yes. What do you know? That is... who is there?
That is ass's knowledge. That's the ass's knowledge, that "I am this world." "I am his servant," of this what servant. So this knowledge, like this.
So he has made his decision, the ass has made his decision, that "I shall take a morsel of grass and hold it, I shall carry tons of cloth of his washerman." He has made the decision. That is very nice.
They say that rather than indulge in unrestricted sense gratification or spend our lives speculating about why, why not unrestricted sense gratification, one makes a decision. Huh? Because it becomes boring. Huh?
He says because unrestricted sense gratification becomes boring and full of despair at the end. Boring. Then he must be that... The aim of life, which is not boring, he says, the only...
It is not boring if one becomes actively engaged somehow with life, he gets a purpose in life. He chooses to act on that purpose. One makes that choice, that is the point.
No, he says the choice is made through inward, subjective, passionate search. That it will come out. So that inward and subjective, just like the Bowery bum. Bow... Bowery bum. Yes.
So they are mentioned, as soon as they get some money, they buy just one bottle of whiskey and drink like that.
Well, he would say that there's no decision being made there, there's no commitment to any ethical decision there. That is just sense gratification.
He says the next higher level above unrestricted sense gratification is to take up a cause, a good cause. And how you make it a good cause? Good cause is relative. You think something is a good cause.
I think something is a good cause. So what is really a good cause? We'll decide that this is a good cause. That the good cause is determined when we begin to anticipate death.
He says that if we live every moment as if we might die soon, in anticipation of death, that we will make the right decisions, that then the value of the, real value of things will come out.
That is not possible because we see that in the slaughterhouse the animal is staying. The next life is my—what decision he can make? He's still, he's standing there. There's a threat.
He's talking about the human, the human being. He can at least—human being, if he is like animals, then he must be animals.
That, that this is human being, that one should think that I do not wish to die, but death is overcoming. So what is the cause? Then what should I do? That is human.
Nobody says... if any one of us is asked, "Would you like to die?" We can say yes, but no, actually we don't like to die. But death overcomes. If I ask somebody that, "Will you like to be diseased?"
You say no, but disease comes. So these are the human problems, that simply making some physical decisions... the real decision is that I do not wish to suffer. But suffering comes up. So how to make this solution?
That is the elite. Then everyone is trying to do that. Everyone is... they're working so hard just to get out of the place.
The one of the examples that, uh, this man's predecessor, uh, successor has used, which probably would apply here, is that in the state, in the, uh, in a case for instance of having to fight, not walking. It, it ended.
I am the trial. So, uh, therefore, uh, considering as you say, past, present and future, uh, we have to act in, in such a way. But it's beneficial, but past, present, future.
Then the next question is: if I existed in the past, I'm existing now, I shall exist in future, uh, present—what
is this body? The body, this body was not in the past. This body, uh, it exists for some years and in the future this will not exist. Then immediately understand that this body is external.
Then my decision should be not on the basis of body, on the basis of my real, uh, position, the soul. This thing is—that is the right decision. Yeah.
He says, where is the condition of modern man? That he is disintegrated, he doesn't have connection with the past, he's lost his memory, he has no connection with the future, then he becomes hopeless.
That the opposite of this is the integrated person. In other words, his present position is connected with past and future. This is the integrated personality.
That is being taught, that integration, that Krishna reminds: that you were in the past, you will be in the future, and you are existing. So this is sense to take along this plan. He
said that at the moment of decision or of commitment of the integrated personality, that the self unites the past with the future and establishes an integrity. Then it comes to the point of self. Yes.
That the self — he accepts that self is eternal. Integrity. Yes.
Religious existence and the nature of faith
Well, this is the next level. This is the third and highest level. It said that first of all there is the aesthetic level of unrestricted sense gratification, but this ends in despair.
Then comes the ethical level when one decides: "Well, I will take a cause, a good cause, and I will commit myself to it and act upon that."
Then he comes to the development of the religious stage or the highest stage when his decision-making power has so advanced that, in other words, he is supporting our movement. Yes. We are... we are in the top of the day.
He does. The modern philosophers, his followers like Sartre and Camus and people like that, they have only borrowed his lower development stages. They have not thought of this aspect of the religious stage.
He said that the ethical stage is typified by a regard for duty. But this advances to the religious stage when there is obedience and commitment to God. And the chief symptoms of this stage is not there.
He's supporting our movement. Yes. He does. He says that the chief symptoms of the religious, when one has advanced to the religious stage, are suffering and faith. Not all is suffering, faith, suffering.
We are... we are really... we are on the top one. Does it mean that we are somebody? He's a Christian religionist. He's a Christian religionist. They give importance to suffering. Christ suffered for us, so he
says that to abstain from sin means suffering, that we are suffering. That is also wrong here. If Christ is God or God's son, then why should he suffer? If God is subjected to this happening, then what kind of body?
They say that he did not suffer for God, he suffered for man. Anyway, if there is no suffering, then where is the portion of suffering for God or suffering for man? They say that it's a paradox.
They say there's a paradox or an apparent contradiction that the transcendental came into the material world and appeared to suffer for men, but actually does not suffer, because he is God.
That he only appeared to suffer to save us from our sins and remind us always not to sin. They have given a contract to Jesus Christ that he suffered for us and we go and love it, you see. Very good, pure.
Well, going on now. It says that these life stages or these three levels we have talked about are the levels of attaining selfhood.
That is, that selfhood is an achievement, not that it is a given, a given human nature, but that it is an achievement.
Not that a self-realized soul is simply that way because that is his nature, but because he has achieved that stage. He has developed to that stage.
Without any endeavor? No, no, that he has with great endeavor intelligently and consciously achieved that stage, not that he has without any endeavor got that stage, that it is not a natural stage. So when that endeavor is made...
That means this endeavor is possible in the human form of life. Yeah. Therefore, we are the same as human form, especially meant for God realization.
That is the first function and the one that is not to... There are some philosophies, such as the phenomenologists, they say that essence is prior to existence.
But these existentialists say that existence is prior to essence. In other words, that by existing we come to our essence. We realize ourselves by going through stages of different existence. Yeah. That is our field.
That we are struggling or transmigrating from different species of life. And when we come to the perfectional state of living condition, human form of life, so then we understand what is the aim of life.
So as spirit soul, I am existing. And then at my perfectional stage I learned what is the essence of life. The essence of life is Krishna consciousness. Wherefore existence is first and then to understand it.
Yes, He says the culmination of commitment is religious life. Or he calls it the inwardness of suffering. That we, uh, no, we don't follow that suffering. Uh, actually, uh, there is no suffering because...
Because the spirit soul is different from the body. The same example:
just like when there is an accident in the motor car, the motor driver and the owner of the car is not actually separate, but because he has identified his motor car with himself, therefore...
Similarly, either you say God and, or, uh, God's personal parts, part and parcel, the living entity as the spirit soul, he has no suffering, but the ordinary spirit soul, because he has identified himself with the matter, he suffered.
Whereas God, because He has full knowledge, is always apart from this material. Na haṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ. Just like Bhagavān, God has no suffering. It is pure love. Just like the same example:
in a motor car I am sitting and my friend is sitting, there is some accident, the motor car is lost, so the man who possesses the motor car, he suffers. But I do not suffer. I am in the same car, but I do not suffer.
What is the difference? The difference is that I have full knowledge that I am not this car. But he, being identified with the car, meaning ignorance, he suffered.
So it is a question of knowledge whether there is suffering and no suffering. Oh, so penance and austerity, there is not really suffering? No suffering involved. No. No suffering.
Those who are advanced in knowledge, there's no suffering. Actually, those who are spiritually advanced, if there is some bodily pain, he knows that "I'm not this body." Why should I suffer? Well,
by this, by this inwardness of suffering, he, he applied the same principle, the same idea is there, that one goes on and he risks... Actually, somebody is deeply ignorant. That's fine. Yeah.
That he risks serving God, uh, on his faith of and no reason whatever, whatever, because he knows that "I'm part and parcel of God." So my duty is to serve God. So why is this happening? Yeah. There is blame there.
I mean God. They see. They are ministers. They are ministers. Tyaktvā tūrṇam aśeṣa-maṇḍala-pati-śreṇīm. They're living in most times for categories.
Now they are taking the day, so many can live in the garden, no bodily comfort. That is stated in the, uh, that, uh, vande rūpa-sanātanau. The Jīva. And most insignificant, this society, this aristocratic.
Tyaktvā tūrṇam aśeṣa-maṇḍala-pati-śreṇīm sadā tucchavat. What is the value of it? Bhūtvā dīna-gaṇeśakau karuṇayā kaupīna-kanthāśritau.
And in order to become merciful to the mass of people, that's simply a lion cloth. Anyway, power is that, that is a suffering.
And no, they are not suffering. Then people may say that there is suffering, but, uh, there is a gopī- bhāva-rasāmṛtābdhi-laharī-kallola-magnau muhuḥ.
They merged into the ocean in the thought that how gopīs, gopī... How that transacting that business is kṛṣṇa-gopī-bhāva-rasāmṛta. That is an ocean of transcendental bliss.
So because they are merged into that ocean, what is this suffering? They have no sense of suffering. One man is suffering because he has identified this body, his suffering.
But they are identified with the cause of the gopīs. They're simply writing Krishna's pastimes with gopīs with Vidagdha-mādhava, the Lalita-mādhava.
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, they are simply engaged in thoughts of Krishna and the gopīs and writing, singing. So where is the suffering?
Other fools may think, "Oh, this man was minister, somebody is interested now, they are taking this cloth, they have no home, no home, nothing other." They are thinking that's suffering. They are not suffering.
They are not suffering, they are enjoying. I think that's the difference between the Christian emphasis and, uh, Krishna consciousness.
The Christian monks, ascetics, they always thought that the life they were giving up, they were suffering. Always had that feeling.
Anyway, to go on, they have developed this philosophy and this Bible after the demise of the Savior. Yes. So more or less it is found from... He says that the opposite of faith is sin. That sin is the same as despair.
Sin and despair are the same. Well, unless you have a complete sense of God, there is no question of sin or faith. Because if you do not know what is the standard of sin and faith...
Just like the same example can be given that in this India-Pakistan war, that party killed so many men and this party killed so many men on the other side. Well, you take killing as sin. But it is piety.
From their side it is piety, our side it is piety. So how these sinful activities and pious activities are considered to satisfy the higher authority? Yes.
He means faith in the orders of God. It is not a question of faith, it is a question of fact.
Then it is the same example: if Arjuna decided to become non-violent in the beginning, but at the end, he decided to fight and kill. So now, which is piety and which is sinful?
Actually, this decision to kill by the order of Krishna is piety. Yes. Because he satisfies the higher authority.
So in this material world, uh, we concoct that this is sinful, this is piety, but actual sinful and piety is decided on the order of the Supreme God. That is it.
So if you have no connection with God, so our these thoughts of sinful and piety, they are simply mental concoctions. Yes, go ahead. He says that faith in the order of God, that is piety. Yes.
Unless you have no conception of God, where is the question of order? If God is impersonal, He cannot speak, He has no mouth, He has no tongue, He has no eyes, where is the question of order?
The idea is that Jesus is the standard. There is no Krishna. Jesus Christ's first order is, "Thou shalt not kill." But they're killing, simply killing. Then where is Krishna? There is no Krishna.
So he calls the modern Christianity "the sickness unto death." Because it says all the... Yes, he says modern Christianity is sick.
It's sickness unto death because if he accepts Jesus as the, as the perfection, why doesn't he... In the beginning, when he was looking for his way of... Why then people follow Jesus' pattern around him? No, he, he does.
He does. He's just describing, uh, the philosopher, describing the way that's coming to the world, really, yeah. Yeah, he comes to the point.
He says that modern Christianity, uh, is despairing and they're, they're becoming sick. Why not say not "Christianity"? Modern Christianity... Christianity is Christianity. You cannot make it modern and past.
You cannot say "God modern" and "God past." That is not good philosophy. You say Christianity and no Christianity.
What I am saying is that, um, uh, if you do not follow the certain religious principles, then how can you claim that we belong to that religion? That is applicable everywhere. That's why
the so-called Hindu... They do not believe anything. And they are passing on as Hindus, as brāhmaṇa, as like this. But this passing... At the time he was writing, uh... You want to talk?
Oh, I got some more to go and say, I'll come in again if he... At the time he was philosophizing, Europe was in a very sad state of affairs and everyone was, uh, trying to commit suicide. It was the, was the, uh, in vogue.
So he said that because Christianity is sinning—they are sinning despite their knowledge of what is right—then they have come to the point of despair and they are trying to kill themselves, even though they know that Christianity says we are immortal, that you cannot kill yourself.
So he says that suicide is no answer to Christianity's beliefs in the immortality. Yes. So, so for Christians, suicide is no answer to escape their sinning and despair. That's it.
So he says, "We have committed so many sinful activities, and simply by killing you are trying to escape." He says, "So we must be committing another sin." You are committing another sin.
So he says we... Therefore, these and these persons who commit suicide, they become ghosts. So he says we must live as if, at any moment, we may die. So that at the last moment we must be fully, uh, absolved of all sin.
We must be fully authentic at the last moment. So he says that we must live as if we are going to die at the end. That is not possible. If you don't practice, it is not possible to understand at the last moment.
No, that's what he means. We must practice it so that, as if thinking any time we may die, so we must practice being absorbed. That is practically being done by our movement.
We are teaching our students to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa without any stopping. So death may come at any moment. But if we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, there is happy death.
Christians have this philosophy that if, at the time of death, a priest is there, he can give you absolution at your deathbed and then you can reach out.
Even if you've committed sinful activities all your life, if he is there at your deathbed, then you can be saved from your sins.
Yeah, that is quite possible because he can remind you, but at the time of death, when everything is stopped, function of the body, the... therefore, Kulasekhara says, "Let me die immediately."
Actually, natural death means I'll be encumbered with so many things: natural disturbance, and this body disturbance, choked up and cough, mucus, and so many things. So unless one is practiced, it is not possible.
Therefore, practice requires from the very beginning austerity, penance, and permanent celibacy, like the leaf in the back.
Liberation through service and surrender
He says that faith is the self willing to be the self, willing to be itself, the self willing to be itself. This is faith. Or authenticity. That the self's desire is willing to be itself. That's what he calls faith.
Uh, not in the sense of... just like what we might say, the surrender. We might say surrender. No, there is no call self-surrender. To become self, that is... maybe he means that I become one with the Supreme Self.
No, he means as a part and parcel of God. Because he says faith is the self willing to be itself, authenticity, and to stand the same thing. Then it can be honest to that I am part and parcel of the Supreme.
So when I remain as part and parcel, that is part of the—when I surrender to the idea that I am part and parcel of God, then I am. So that
that surrender to the idea means the same example that part and parcel of my body, they are engaged in the service of the body. So as soon as you engage yourself in the service of the Lord, that is your self-reality.
That is perfect sādhu. Because you remain in your position. Your position as part and parcel of the Supreme is to serve, practically. So if you engage yourself always in the service of the Lord, that is simple.
There is no other philosophy. He says that in a way because he says that at this stage one stands transparently before God and this is his integrity. Then he realizes his integrity.
So this Kṛṣṇa bhakta says more is teaching that. They are always engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service, 24 hours. And they are there self-realized. They are standing on their self. That is mukti, that is liberation.
And those who are the karmīs, the jñānīs, the yogīs, they are not engaged in the self. They are trying to realize self. Therefore, all the students, all the disciples of Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, they are liberated.
Because they are acting as that. So everyone should join this movement and become liberated. To preach like that, try to understand and preach.
He says that this is our authentic position, that if being—this is authentic position. We are serving Kṛṣṇa. This is authentic position. My position is part and parcel to serve Kṛṣṇa.
Now actually I'm engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa. That is my authentic position. So this authentic position is at the present moment and it will continue. Because now I am liberated, healthy.
So if I continue healthy, that is my real position. I will keep all myself healthy. Healthy. That's all. There's no change. And also this word integrity is there. It means integrated or complete.
The more you become practiced to Krishna consciousness, then more you are standing integrity. Integrity. Yes, don't fall down. When someone has integrity, you can see that they are one-minded. That's what we are.
Our concern is Krishna and Ārati. We stand before Krishna. The integrity is that Krishna is the center.
We are all serving, chanting Krishna, Hare Kṛṣṇa, somebody chanting, somebody dancing, somebody center is this; similarly, when you go to preach,
when you write books, when you go to the prayer, the center is the—all our activities are on the platform of liberation. The idea is there also in this philosophy that all of us know what is the real position.
But that either due to weakness or poor fund of knowledge or defiance... That's what we require guidance of the spiritual master, so that we may not fall down. Or defiance.
Sometimes due to—even though we know the real position, we defy it, then we become sinful. Defy, defy. There's no Krishna if you are actually engaged in the titles of Krishna. Where is the Krishna defy?
No, he's talking about someone who may know what is the law of God but he defies it. Someone who wants to sinfully act. Either due to weakness or defiance we sin.
But he says that the self-integrated personality is willing to be himself. He surrenders to what his real position is. This is called self-realization. Be self-realized and practicing.
To be self and to remember as part of it, he says that full self equals full will; that when we are fully ourselves, then we are fully willed. That means when we make decisions that they are... You cannot make decisions.
If you are part and parcel, then you have to take decisions from the whole. I say finger, stand up like this.
No, but just like when there's a decision to be made, we, because we are self-realized, so all that is, is that I shall serve Krishna as one's order. But the order comes from the ordinance. Arjuna is ordered by Krishna.
Fine. So yes, that's the—Arjuna's decision was wrong. But when he takes decision from Krishna, then he's right. So we have to take decision from Krishna or his impression. That is right. We cannot make our own decision.
That is wrong. So full will means to follow. Full will means full will to surrender, full will to follow. Yeah. You ordered what we should be.
That is full will. So how does he ever come to the point of, um, of real religion if he wants men to make their own decisions? How can we make our own decisions for it? But there's no one decision.
If we want to become self, that means I am part and parcel. So I have no personal decision. I have to take decisions from the hierarchy.
He, that when we were talking about the decision, we're talking about the other levels. And the stage of religious stage, he says obedience and commitment to God.
That means... But to get to that stage you have to go to the second stage. Yeah. So how do you get to the second stage if you're making your own decision without God's, without God's representation? Why...
Gradual development? Yeah, Krishna says. The Supreme says... But there is no question... Krishna said that you surrender them to me. I haven't heard in this philosophy yet where he is mentioned either guru or śāstra.
How do I know what this path is? We're continuing with our discussion of Kierkegaard.
And yesterday we were discussing that this idea that this despair leads one to desiring genuine life or becoming self-realized in the end, that the despair is the springboard for that higher consciousness.
He says that he defines the word despair to be... It is called āśā hi paramaṁ duḥkhaṁ, nairāśyaṁ paramaṁ sukham. When one is in despair, there is a great happiness. Now everything finished. I believe some best like this
yaya kind. Yay in yay. All responsible. But we can feel the time. Now and it comes back. That's where all of you know. just where many can be great yogī, or even if you are a politician and you are condemned to death.
So you are saved by fear, that put into lifetime, put into jail for trial.
So this way, that "my political career is now finished," to be set to this yogī that... So when you are in Pondicherry... the Gandhi movement was going on, and Gandhi and others have to share so many times, we are supposed that "you come and take our leadership."
He said, "This is all useless. I'm now used." So this despair made him a great yogī. Huh. It says that, uh, despair is the unwillingness to be oneself. That despair is the—is the unwillingness to be oneself.
Unwillingness to be oneself. What is that? One unwillingness of the oneself. Unwillingness, uh, to commit oneself to his authentic existence.
Or he accepts that "I'm not all in all. There is something superior which has made me, uh, despair, or who has baffled my activity." That is—that is the fact. That is a fact.
Because when one is actually God conscious, at the same time he wants material enjoyment, by the grace of God he's put into despair. Because our material attachment is so strong, sometimes we want to utilize God.
Just like in this paper, there is a picture wherein the Pakistanis, who are committing so much horrible sinful activity in Bangladesh, at the same time they pray. This is nonsense. That makes sense. Sometimes we do that.
We do not know what we are doing—nonsense— and at the same time praying. So Kṛṣṇa takes note of this, that "this man is actually in need of Me, but at the same time he's wanting something which is detrimental."
So He smashes them. So that out of despair he becomes fully engaged in God. He thinks that, uh, God is so unkind to me that He has smashed all my hopes.
But he does not know that God is so intelligent that that was his impediment to come absolutely, fully to the surrender. That He has smashed that. At
that time He displayed that... there is a nice story in this kind of connection, that, uh, sometimes Indra was cursed—Indra, the king of heaven—he was cursed to become a hog.
So he came in this material world and became a hog. And the hog had his wife too.
So after many days, when there was, I would say, his absence was very much felt, the Lord Brahmā came: "Now come and become your heavenly king again." He has forgotten everything. He is now a hog.
So he has forgotten that he was king of heaven, Indra. He had so much attachment.
And he's thinking that this is a very nice life, to eat stool and to lie down in dirty things and have unlimited sex life—the hippies' life. It is to be meant dirty and to have unlimited sex life, and a hog's life.
Brahmā said, "Now come." "Why shall I go to? I am sorry. Where can I go to? No, you have forgotten. You are the king of heaven. Why should you rot in this life?" "No, no, I am... I don't want it. I'm very nice."
Then Brahmā thought that this hog has become so much attached. So he took one of his hog children and smashed him on the... dashed on the ground.
"And what you are doing, sir? What you are doing, sir? You are killing my child, killing my child!" And one by one he killed all the children. Then at last his wife... "Come again." "Now we come to..." So
he agreed. Uh, this kind of despair is sometimes created by God to favor a special devotee. In our... that is a scriptural verse: Āmi vijña, tāre viṣaya kene diba, sva-caraṇāmṛta diyā viṣaya bhulāiba.
He is after this material. At the same time, he wants Me. So he may be fooled that these two things cannot go parallel. To hand up the sense gratification, at the same time, God can't serve. These are incompatible.
Because material world means sense gratification. Then how can one become God-conscious and sense gratification, two things? These are incompatible.
Therefore, Krishna says, "Āmi vijña, tāre viṣaya kene diba?" He may be a rascal, fool, but I am intelligent. Why shall I give him this material happiness?
Sva-caraṇāmṛta diyā viṣaya bhulāiba: I shall give him shelter in My lotus feet so that he'll forget all this nonsense. So, to create that situation, fully dependent on Krishna, Krishna creates this way.
So-called way, it's not this way. Sometimes this way. Because he is foolish, he's thinking that "I've lost everything." But actually he has got the highest perfection of life and the university. It says that... that
despairing over sin, if, for instance, a Christian, he's realizing that "I am a sinner. I'm sinning." So he despairs over that sinfulness. He says that that leads us even further away. No. Then there is no personal despair.
He knows that "I am doing all right." Then he... somebody doing something harmful, happiness. He does not know that "I am doing sin." Ask anybody. That ask a butcher that "You are doing sin, killing life."
"My business is the same. This is my business. This is my livelihood. I don't care for your thing for that. This is my life." So he does not think. That's like the hunter and Nārada. You know that story.
So he was not put into this world, but by instruction, he was taken to Krishna consciousness. But he did not know that was very singularity. But good association, he gave up that professional singularity.
So if anyone knows that he is doing sinful, then there is no constant despair. When he's taken out all these things, we know, "I was doing this sinful." All right.
But those who are in the material world by the influence of māyā, he just does not know that's like the hog. He's living a filthy life. He doesn't. That is a filthy life. Others there say, "Oh, what is that?"
Nasty life it is. He thinks too, lying down in a filthy place. And simply it was self-gratification without any distinction. Mother or sister or anyone, he is thinking happy. So he says that faith conquers sin and despair.
That if one has faith in God, then it conquers sin and despair. Faith in me? Faith in God. Yeah.
Spiritual reality versus material variety
To strengthen the faith in God, one has to become despair in his material life. So he makes what is called a leap of faith. I think what he calls a leap, leap of faith.
From the point of despair and hopelessness, he makes a leap to the other side of faith, and this gives him hope. There are many examples that they... that the original look like. Despair, and then he despair.
He dreamt Krishna in his jail life. He dreamed Krishna. But later on, he became impersonal. Then, then unfortunate, bad as it is. I think that friends almost... He says that an existential system is impossible.
For instance, when we were discussing Hegel, Hegel had a system of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, a system which made order out of everything. He saw the whole world cosmic order in this certain system.
This was Hegel's idea, but Kierkegaard says that an existential system is impossible because it implies completion, but existence is continuous, it is incomplete, it is an incomplete state.
Just like we... does not like the... Well, he said, just like we are continually becoming something.
Just like we are always, each day—each day changes, we grow some, and then each day continues. That to put a system around uh this and say that it is a complete system is impossible because we never can find the end.
Yeah, another one there is complete system. We are making progress by our experience to the complete system. The complete system is to surrender unto Krishna. That is the complete.
By our experience, we are advancing to that completeness. He says, yes, he says that God may have a system. He says that God may have a system. That is complete system.
But for the existent individual, that he is never complete. He continues on continually. So to say that he is... That means to come to God consciousness is the complete system. God has complete system. He admitted.
Yes, he says God. Our progress means to come to God consciousness, that is complete. So long you do not come to that point, that is called progress. Yeah.
He says that the individual—the individual is in a continuous state of becoming. Is there any completion to that becoming? Yeah, the completion is to become God conscious. And then, ārādhito yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kim.
Completion there, and undergoing many tapasya, austerities, penances, culture of jñāna, and so on and so on. So, but the whole aim is Krishna. Therefore Krishna says: «mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya».
Well, I am the Supreme Goal. There is no more further, higher truth than this. Completion means to come to Krishna consciousness. That is... Krishna. And when our complete thing is Krishna consciousness...
When one becomes completely Krishna conscious and associates with Krishna, isn't there still a becoming process? No. There is no becoming process. But there are varieties. Varieties. Yes. Spiritual varieties.
Krishna is sometimes a cowherd boy. Krishna is sometimes the child of Mother Yaśodā, He is consort of Rādhārāṇī. Sometimes He is going to Mathurā. There are so many. But they're all spiritual varieties.
That is not competition. They're varieties. Just like you supply me one plate of nice foodstuffs. I'm eating. So I'm tasting, "Oh, it is very nice." Then I say, "Oh, this is still nice." So there is no competition.
Everything is complete there. But I'm enjoying the variety. I see. Sometimes this, sometimes that, sometimes that I will enjoy. So it's still a dynamic state, but there is no more becoming something else. No.
It's always simply... it's not static though, it's not monotonous.
Sometimes we are doing this, sometimes we drink that, sometimes dictating, dictating, sometimes reading, sometimes talking pleasantly, sometimes going somewhere, sometimes chastising somebody. "Why did you not do that?"
But they are all complete. Kṛṣṇa-kathā. But they're varied. They're nothing but Kṛṣṇa-kathā. We have come to the point, but now we are enjoying the difference between that and material variety.
Material variety means artificial. Actually there is no variety. Just like this flower and a what is called plastic flower. What is there? Plastic flower. And one who is satisfied with the plastic flower rejects this.
They're fools. So the materialist persons, they are satisfied with the plastic flower. And he has real flower. So in one hand touch with real flower and in another plastic flower, do you think this is the same?
There is no flavor. It is simply artificial color. That's all. A child can be satisfied. But a learned person: "What is this nonsense?" Here is the real place. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate.
Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, when one comes to the platform of reality, he rejects this nonsense. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā.
The example is that the progress, spiritual life progress, that teaching you become... śaucena tyāgena brahmacaryeṇa...
This type of... the example is given: a person lying on a bed in the hospital and the doctor says, "You cannot eat." You cannot eat. Ekādaśī. And we are observing Ekādaśī. So he is forced not to eat. Does it mean Ekādaśī?
He has a desire to eat, but he has been forced not to eat. But here, voluntarily: "No, today is Ekādaśī." Both of them are fasting. This man on the hospital bed, under the direction of the physician, is fasting.
And the another one, voluntarily fasting, but they are not the same thing. He, this hospital man, if his... I mean, disease is aggravated. That is forced. But he's not able to eat. But here, he is able to eat.
But voluntarily, he's fasting for his spiritual way. That is the distinction. Once you told that someone may be perfect, someone may have attained perfection, but still he will become increasingly more and more perfect.
He can become more and more perfect. That is Brahma-bhūta. Brahma-bhūta prasannātmā... If you have come to the light, from darkness you have come to the light, this is sunshine.
But if you are able to go more and more, more and more, and go to the sun planet... For everyone, the sun planet is light, but still, the light in the sun planet... Right. Light in this, yeah, a sunset.
Although they are both light, that is different. The proportion and the temperature is different. So when one enters into the sun planet, that is the end of perfection. Yeah. Then there is no more becoming more perfection.
That is the last, uh, source of the light. The one when one comes to Krishna. And then when he is completely Krishna conscious, then there's no one. Yes.
I think Kierkegaard's definition of, um, existence is good for the—it applies for the material level, that one is continuously becoming in the material level.
The beings, the human beings in the material level are continuously becoming. What is that? See that up? The Malati should have content.
So, um, he says that previous philosophers like Hegel, who have engaged in so much thinking... He says, but, uh, the opposite: that the existentialist engages in acting. It is more important to act than to think.
Yes, acting. Acting. In physical life also there is acting. This is a wrong theory. That's when one comes to the professional state, that is Māyāvāda theory. Māyāvāda theory is that you take one jug and put it to the water.
And it will make some sound: "Bug-bug-bug-bug-bug-bug-bug-bug-bhak." But when it is full, there is no more bhag-bhak. So this is—this is our Krishna's here. So, when it's not full in physical concept, he talks bhag-bhak.
But why no, why? Full. There is no other bhaka. That's what the artificial sometimes take mauna-bhāva. Mauna-bhāva. Silent. Silent. To show that he has become complete. No talk. He has become artificial.
And Prahlāda Mahārāja has condemned this silence as a profession for begging. A profession. Just like my Guru Mahārāja has condemned the Vrindavan so-called śāntas, śāntas in a secluded place, imitating.
At the same time smoking. Bhāva-hīna. May not smoke, but it's still in an immature state to take such inactivity, inactive, to become inactive, because and in Bhagavad-gītā it is said that the soul is never inactive.
Soul is never. When sometimes it is recommended that you become inactive, that inactiveness, that's like it is better not to talk than to talk foolish. You better talk—stop your foolish talking. That is called mauna.
Because you cannot talk intelligently, better you stop talking. But that stop talking is not perfection. So therefore inactivity is not perfection. But because one cannot act nicely, better stop. It's like Rudra. Rudra.
When these four Kumāras were born, Lord Brahmā asked that, "Now you get yourself married and beget children. I require population." So they said, "Father, we are not going to marry. We shall remain brahmacārī.
We are not going to enter into this family." So Brahmā became angry. Although the proposal was very nice, but because they disobeyed the order of the father, so Brahmā became angry and his eyes became red.
At that time, Rudra was born from his eyes. This rage. That was called Rudra. So Rudra began to produce all kinds of demons, then Brahmā stopped him: "Please stop your increasing population, please stop."
No, so talking is good. But if you talk nonsense, better stop. Become maunī. Become silent. Yes. Therefore, the impersonalists, because they cannot talk much, they become all these bābās. All this human is near bābā.
Yeah, yeah. What they have—what to speak? How long this "Brahman, Brahman" can go on? People become disgusted. I have seen so many times that like, uh, Bengal, in Omkarnath, now he has stopped.
Brahmananda also, he has stopped. And that Hare Krishna Sahajiya party, He has become a politician. He is now going to jail. He's more... uh, similarly another. He had to become a saṁnyāsī.
Then after coming back from America, he became a communist. But he has no other engagement. That's our Bon Maharaj. He has no engagement. He's now Oriental Institute. He's begging from door to door.
What he has done for Caitanya Mahāprabhu, for Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, he cannot give any account. But he must have some engagement. He must make money.
Oh, therefore, here is my institute, I have got so many students, I'm giving them food, so give me money. And people are very much in ignorance; they do not understand what is Krishna consciousness.
So they think, "Oh, this is very nice." "Give me money." So he has taken the shelter of collecting money on this institute, Oriental Institute, philosophy, all these names.
What he has done for Caitanya Mahāprabhu, what he has done for Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, Bhaktivinoda? They wanted this: that this Krishna consciousness should be spread all over the world. What is their account?
They cannot give any account. And that was the envy. "We could not do anything. He is doing everything." So that's that... that is that. Now that we have another thing.
But actually, if we ask that, "What is your credit for spreading Krishna saṁsāra, Mahāprabhu's śikṣā?" we can argue it. What is the value of this institute? One degree college. There are thousands and thousands.
You... you said what? Just the opposite. You said, "Keep me talking, that is my life." Yeah. So, sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayor vacāṁsi vaikuṇṭha-guṇānuvarṇane. That is Ambarīṣa Mahārāja, the great saintly king.
About him in this... the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayor, completely fixed up his mind on the lotus feet of Krishna, and
Bhīṣma... Bhīṣma-deva is talking simply on Vaikuṇṭha subject matter and Vaikuṇṭha Kṛṣṇa. Tad-vīrya-gāyā, glorifying your deeds. Tad-vīrya. Heroic deeds. Glorifying, hearing. They have no conception of God.
And whatever their God's idea is, is... the God is impersonal. It's not a person. So where is the heroic deed? So they come to the heroic deeds of this world. Come to the land, this another policy, another this.
Or they want to become a hero in themselves. I am a great philanthropist, I am a great nationalist, I am a great philosopher. And when they finish their stuff, then become... no more movement. No more, stop. Finish.
The futility of temporary material plans
Now I'll go to Himalaya. Why should you go to Himalaya? I said that I'm going to Himalaya. He said that śoce tato vimu-cetasaḥ, I am simply, simply thinking of these rascals who are without our consciousness.
Tato vimu-cetasaḥ, those who are rascals, I'm thinking of them. So, tva-vīrya-gāyana-mahāmṛta-magna-cittaḥ... māyā-sukhāya bharam udvahato vimuḍhān.
These rascals, simply for māyā-sukha, temporary happiness, they are running, yeah, yeah, yeah, and constructing and then a fifty-story house and bringing money for that. Very busy, very busy.
That's why Mr. Birla, all are busy. Cannot be. They do not know that what happiness I am creating, what I am creating, whatever I am creating, just at the end of my life, everything will be finished.
As soon as I close my eyes and I go away from this body, all these things that I have created will be finished. I cannot remember, you cannot remember what was in your past life.
But... yeah, the... and first we... so suppose I was a king in my last life, I was another Birla, or Birla's father. Or suppose I was Jawaharlal or Gandhi. What benefit am I deriving now?
Who is respecting me as Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru? Then it finished with that body. Even I do not know that my photograph or statue is being worshipped. I do not know that. Such foolish persons.
Therefore, Prahlāda Mahārāja said, māyā-sukhāya bharam udvahato: simply for illusory happiness, they have created gigantic shows of civilization. An advancement of materialistic life. And māyā... Everything will be smashed.
As soon as they die, that's all. Simply wait for death and everything is smashed. Finish. You cannot say that, "Let me enjoy." Actually, one of my friends in Allahabad was dying at the age of 54.
I was also there at the last minutes. So he was begging the doctor, "Doctor, can you not give me four years' life? I've got some unfinished work. Let me finish."
What answer is to suppose he... he pleases, what is it for him? What he will give? But he does not know where he's going next life. Maybe the doctor... Pleasing. "I've got some plan, it is not yet finished."
So all these rogues and fools, they are doing like that. "I've got some plan. It is not yet finished. Please allow me to live."
So suppose you are living for another four or five years or ten years, what achievements you are going to do? That they do not know. Therefore, Prahlāda Mahārāja has classified them as fools and asuras and rogues.
Just Kierkegaard, he... he considers that truth is found... truth is subjectivity or, uh, personal, individual reflection? Uh, another nonsense. Inward passion. Truth is truth. Not I... I cannot fashion truth.
That is... this statement is nonsense. Truth is truth. Fire is hot. That is truth. I... I... if I imagine that fire is cold, is that... He does not... truth... does not know what is truth. One who does not know what is truth.
Therefore they imagine and manufacture, then they become yata mata tata patha. Yatha-mata yatha-patha. You can manufacture your truth. That is going on. That is going on. The hippies, they have manufactured the truth.
So truth cannot be manufactured. Truth is truth. That is called Absolute Truth. Not relative truth, Absolute. You can manufacture relative truth. But Absolute Truth is what? Satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi.
We meditate upon the Absolute Truth. But they have no knowledge of the Absolute. They're hovering over the relative. Their idea is that passion, inner passion is truth, subjectivity. My impulse is passionate nature.
But the passion is working differently. Yeah. A-la. Passion is a-la activity. But if you do not know the goal, then you're missing. This philosophy has been adopted by them: "My passion is true."
Passion is true, that's their name. But the passion means activity. So where your activity will end? What is the purpose of the activity? You start your car.
But if you do not know where to go, then what is the use of starting the car? Simply spoiling your energy and spoiling the petrol. Is that a very good proposition? "I do not know that, doesn't matter. Let me start my car."
Yeah. No mind, I need to do that. That's why. That's their philosophy. It is not what is done or the object of the doing, it is how it is done. That is what they say. Not what it is, not what is done, but how it is done.
That is another foolishness. Obstinate is that it's called. Dog obstinate. Dog obstinate. He said that the normal state of man's existence is an anxious uncertainty.
And one is naturally anxiety and uncertainty, anxious uncertainty. What happens to be part of them who, who do not know what is the end of life, what is the goal of life?
Well, he says that this anxiety and uncertainty is displaced or replaced by the passion of truth or faith. Yes, the modern economists talk that they think that this anxiety is the impetus for economic development.
They are successful. Just like in America especially, they are never satisfied. They are manufacturing another message, another message, another message.
That hungering after another, another, they think it is really progress. In one sense it is alright.
It's in one sense alright that, but the attempt should be made when there is a goal. Just like, "No, I have to rise up to the 102nd story," that Empire Building. Now you are going step by step.
He knows that "I have not completed the step." That attempt to go further, farther, is all that. But you know that "I have to go to the 102nd story." But if you do not know, this is simply something.
And if you take the patha, mahājano, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Even if you do not know where to go, you have seen somebody is going up. So you follow him, you follow. That is also life.
Even if you do not know what is the goal, you see that this man who is perfect, he has followed this path. If you follow him, mahājano yena, that is also some fixed up.
But unless you know the goal, the fixed-up point, then your energy may be misused, the passion, the energy would be misused.
His idea ultimately is that that point should be God, and then our energy is used toward reaching God through Christ. And he says in the in-between state, then it is that ultimate goal is God. Yes.
And God should be known through this God. That is a good purpose. And he said the in-between stage... first stage is aimless wandering.
In-between stage is... why aimless? He knows that through... that's the highest stage he talks about. But he's talking about three levels of existence: that in the lowest stage they're aimless.
The second stage, that they fix one point, no matter whether that point is the highest or not, at least there is a point fixed and they act toward that point. Like the pious...
That means the other two stages, they're simply swallowing time. Yeah. But they advance slowly toward that stage of God realization. So why not that? Immediately. That is what it's recommending.
Necessity of guidance from spiritual masters
That is our process. That's like the Bhagavad-gītā and the Vedas. Actually, once you know the high goal of your life, you must have to guru. That is the grid.
And the Bhagavad-gītā also says: we try to understand the highest truth by surrendering, praṇipātena, by serving, by giving service.
If you are actually inquisitive to understand the highest truth, then you must surrender yourself to guru. That is the guru. Not that by experience I go on, go on, go on, I shall be baffled here, there, here, there,
then automatically knowing... you may not come even to the right path by such experience. Just like in the... uh, if you do not know direction. Vast sea. How you direct your sea? This way, that way.
You can go on this way sometime, this way, that way, this way, that way. Then you will be lost. It will be lost. All your endeavors will be simply bad. You must know the direction.
That was the captain's... that is the compass of this. Yes, I'm going to be this side. And actually, when I was coming on the ship, yes, they were calculating, and maps are there. And images: "Now we are here."
"Now we are in Mediterranean." "Italy is there." I was asked, I was very inquisitive. But actually, it is vast, no time. But by the compass and by the maps, they are coming to the right direction. Captain's business.
They have got different types of maps and the compass. So they have sextant. Everything is there. The captain orders now. "Go this way." "Go this way." So, therefore, captain is required. I don't know if this is nonsense.
If there is no captain, if they have got the sea and everything, everybody's going this way. Wasting petrol. They, they're existentialists, though they say.
Uh, existential means that right now, at any given moment, whatever I do is completely independent of all other sources, and I'm just like a ship without a rudder. Whatever I do is another path of action.
At any given moment, I can go any direction. And I said as soon as you bring in the idea that there is a God, then that is no longer existential. That is putting a direction onto something which is actually meaningless.
What is that, existential? Huh? Does that mean existence means aimless driving? Well, we'll be discussing that in a few days, Sartre and some of those other existentialists. They all, they talk like that.
But this Kierkegaard, he was living in the last century. He was prior to these modern existentialists, so he was still thinking about God. He came before Darwin and those.
His, his final thought is that, um, his final idea is that thought should be separated from existence because existence cannot be thought, that it must be lived, that the thought process should be separated from the existing process or the acting process.
Acting process without any guide? Is that their philosophy? Even in university, if you want to be a doctorate in philosophy, three other big philosophers are appointed to guide you in presentation.
These people are thinking without any guidance, this thought? So there he says, uh, that the thought must come from Christ ultimately. That is his... Then the acceptance of guidance. Yeah.
But his, his emphasis is on the acting part, not the... If the guidance is right, then the acting part... What is that? If the guidance is one, then acts must be in the same direction. By the way...
He makes this statement that the difference between God and man can be discerned in that God does not think, He creates. God does not exist, He is eternal. Man thinks eternal, he does not exist. What is it not?
He thinks he's thinking of the word "existence" as meaning something that becomes something else. Developing, growing—that is existence. And in that sense God is eternal because He does not become anything else.
He is always the same. That means He is perfect. Huh. Yet existence means you are trying to be perfect. You are making progress from one stage to another, becoming something else. So their existence means... yes.
Is that whereas God's existence is... whereas God is already perfect. Yes, so He does not in the same way exist that He becomes. So if that is the philosophy, then why not take the direction from God, Bhagavad-gītā?
Why you are making experiments from this platform to that platform? Why are you wasting time in that way? He agrees that God is eternal, existing, perfect. But why don't you take guidance from God?
Or God says, why you are making experiments? That's... yeah. He also recommends that. He sent... in this case he's simply pointing out the difference between God and man, that God does not have to think, He creates.
He does not think, He creates. Whereas he might see God is omnipotent, all-powerful. As that we also say, Vedas, that He doesn't require to make plan how to do things. No. He just can. Simply.
Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate, His energies are so perfect and subtle. As soon as He thinks, "Let there be creation," it is everything perfectly done, then God.
So if God is perfect in that way, then we should take guidance from God and mold our life. That is perfect wisdom. That we are doing.
We have taken Bhagavad-gītā, the words of God, and there is a guide, and we are following. That's all. Therefore our principle, our process is perfect. Don't make any experiment. But perfection... Just like a teacher.
He shows that he writes 'A' like this. That is what... that's all. That's all. Why shall I go on lifelong, just like this child is going like this? That's not scripts.
But he takes guide from the teacher; he immediately teaches: "Make this one line, this one line, this one line, three lines, make an image." And if he goes on lifelong like this, he'll never come to it.
And no one will ever be able to understand him. Nobody will. So their process is like going on like this. One curved line, after one curved line, one curved line, go on.
But he does not know: "If I continue in this way, millions of lives, it will never come to perfection." Unless the teacher shows: "Do like that." That is foolishness. Ciraṁ vicinvan, that is this word.
Prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi jānāti tattvam. One can understand the truth simply one has—one who has got a little fractional portion of Your mercy, he knows it. Athāpi. Prasādam means mercy.
Leśa, a little fragment of Your mercy. He knows it. There are many mental speculators, philosophers. All of them, if they go on thinking like that for life after life, they'll never understand. Simply waste of time.
So why not try to have a little fractional mercy of this? And Kṛṣṇa says: bhaktyā mām abhijānāti. Simply by devotional bhakti one can understand. So why not take to Kṛṣṇa process? That is dharma.
Why should this person be misguided by your so-called existence or passion? Yes, that's fine. I see what he's saying now.
He's saying that our existence as men, uh, man's existence, this continually becoming something else, separates thought from our being, uh, our action.
So that, uh, there's always a gap between the two, so that we are always becoming something. But when these are united, thought and being are united, then we become one. Cease to become. Nice. Why doesn't he unite?
God is conversing: "Unite with Me." Yes, and... Why don't you accept it? That is the perfect end. Yes. Unification. Why don't you unite? Yes. There is. That is unification. There is unity. It is individuality.
I keep my individuality, but you surrender it to Me. Then it is quite finished. That, that unifies thought and being together; that's the only way. Huh?
That seems to be the only way that thought and, and being can actually be united. Yeah. If you surrender to God. Take this thought. Yeah. Otherwise your thoughts will always be different than your actions.
So do you think God actually... he understands the principles? Did he actually understand that one has to surrender to God and one is united to Christ? He does.
His, his, his statement is that we have here assumed a new organ, faith; a new presupposition, the consciousness of sin; a new decision, the moment; and a new teacher, God in time. That is Christ.
Christ is so-called God in time. So he considers Christ as the teacher. Why Krishna not our teacher? They, they were... they did not have... they were not so fortunate as we are. All the atheists, but, uh, seeker...
But why do you not follow? All the five... Are we following the commandments? Then commandments. Then that follows. That's all. Caitanya Mahāprabhu simply leads sympathy with Christ and does everything against Krishna.
Simply leave sympathy that I am Krishna. We are following Krishna. Yes. But doing all nonsense against the initial. So what is the use of sac-cid-ānanda? Before, when I was going to Vietnam, I did not want to go.
And so I went to a Catholic priest and I read this Bible and I said to him, "It says here that thou shalt not kill." "Yes, you are saying I should go and kill." And he said, "Yes, you should go anyway."
He just told me to go anyway. No reason, no explanation. He said, "You go anyway and kill." I said, "What it says here?" He says, "So you should go anyway." We saw a very interesting thing yesterday.
Uh, it was myself and Śruta-kīrti. We were reading in this Time magazine that there is a big fight going on in, in where is that? Uh, Ireland, is it? In Ireland, between the Protestants and Catholics.
So the Pope and I think the Archbishop of Canterbury is the other word they want.
Yeah, the two of them have been trying to work together to come out with a statement which will satisfy both churches, uh, which will satisfy both the churches according to scripture.
So Time Magazine reports that after one and a half years of laborious work, they have finally come out with a 2,500-word statement.
But the Pope says that it should not be taken as the church teachings, but should only be used for consideration. That means that after spending so much time, he still admitted that he may be imperfect.
He says it should not be taken as a teaching, as a scriptural teaching. Yeah. Because you cannot. You can't absolutely have no absolute knowledge. Even in the midst, this is for the consideration of the people.
If people are the ultimate person to consider, then what is the use of he giving this statement? He's not happy. No, he's not a thing. The Archbishop of Canterbury, he is a good friend of Mr. Driver, Tom Driver.
They went to school together. And he said that in college they were, they used to get drunk together. That was their favorite pastime. There is a picture. A point. A point. And Brahmananda sent me the picture, hospital.
Five thousand police are in that hospital on account of the drinking habit. Five thousand. Five thousand. In Africa. Not how many? In America? Difference, I see. As I stab with a knife, the same blood is coming.
Here also, the same blood is coming. He is also crying, he is also crying. How do we say that this man has got a soul and this animal has no soul? Where is the analogy? Points of similarity is this.
Analogy means points of similarity. So the points of similarity while killing either man or animal are all the same. Then how I bring this analogy, that he has got a soul, he hasn't got a soul? What is the logic?
I think part of the illogic is the fact that they'll go out and bury the man and eat the animal, and they'll put a cross on the man and say, "Well, this man could realize God, he is civilized, but the animal has no chance of perfection, so it is alright to eat."
That means that... it does not mean that...