Jacques Maritain and Essence Versus Existence
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
Philosophical concepts of existence and essence
Today's philosopher is called, uh, Jacques Maritain. He's a French, contemporary French philosopher. Very influential and religionist, believing the personal God. Believing? Yes.
His, uh, main, uh, philosophy is that existence and essence are both there, that existence is not possible without essence. So we define existence to be, uh, essence to be, uh, potential, and existence to be the actual.
So that, um, a thing and everything in the that we can perceive has both existence and essence, in other words, potentiality and, and, uh, actuality.
For instance, this, this cup has the potentiality to be something else, to be a piece of metal. But in its actual form it is like this. But it has potentiality to become something else.
But he says these two things, uh, the essence and the existence exist simultaneously.
So we at least need this twice with like present moment, uh, we have got a certain type of body, human body, but we have full potentiality to have a spiritual body or a dog body. Both potential there.
So the essential is the soul and the reality—it is not reality, temporary part in the material form.
But the potentiality as the soul has his own spiritual body when he is uncontaminated by the material contamination, he remains only reality without any, um, so-called actuality or temporary form.
It is a self-activity, uh, occurs on an immediate level of experience without any conscious awareness of itself. But that true knowledge of reality comes through intuition. And if this is, um, this reality is called being.
In fact, it is also past experience. What we call intuition, that is past experience, just like when a child is born, by intuition seeks mother's breast. Because this child does not know where is food,
but by intuition, as soon as the mother's breast is given, put in his mouth, he sucks it. This is called by intuition.
But actually it is past, that since at the same time as the soul may have been something else in a different body. The fact is that the soul is wandering in different types of body.
And when he comes to a particular type of body, he remembers everything. Just like fifty years ago when I was a business, uh, with that Gaudiya Math.
As soon as I go there, uh, I remember all those things as if I'm again fifty years back.
That is, that is actually... So this, uh, suppose if I say I'm going to... I do not require to be, uh, directed that here is this thing, here is that thing.
Immediately I enter that house, I will understand that it has to go to the stairs, here it is. It will go to the kitchen, here it is. You may call it the intuition. But actually it is experience.
There is no, again, such thing as intuition. That is a vague experience. Actually, it is past experience.
Divine nature and spiritual energy dynamics
He says that God, He is pure actuality. There's no, uh, potentiality. Okay. Absolute. He is absolute, His pure existence and essence together.
But that everything else that exists besides God has these two characteristics of potentiality and actuality. That potentiality, actuality, that is material ability and physical words they tell, potential reality we want.
You are like Krishna, Krishna, radical follow the thing that Krishna's body and Krishna's soul is divine as as it is, uh, expressed by Daphne. But that is not a fact. There is no such difference.
And Krishna also says, "avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ," because He comes in a human form. They still think of Him as ordinary human beings, but He's not that. He's absolutely nothing to do to be body and soul as we are.
He is body and soul, potentially and actually. Similarly, anyone who gets a physical body, we are in the same position. There is a law defined with the actuality and probability.
It says that, uh, God or the divine intellect perceives His own essence. That's right.
He says that God perceives his own essence and, uh, does everything else; all the creation came into existence as a part of his essence, of God. But everything is a part of God's essence.
And he's coming into existence in different forms, in different states of actual. That everything is the expansion of God's energy.
The example is given in the Vedic literature that the fire is there in one place, but the heat and light of the fire expands. Similarly, God, Krishna, is there in Goloka Vṛndāvana now.
But his energy — external energy, and internal energy, and marginal energy — they are expanding and displayed. What is his opinion of this?
Energy you would call material energy, you would call potential energy, and the spiritual energy is actual energy. So, after all, the energy is one. But it is working differently. That's why electricity is one.
But it is working differently as cooler and heater, although cooling and heating are two opposites. Cooling is just the opposite of heating. And heating is just the opposite of cooling.
But the electric energy is working in both places. Electric energy is also measured in terms of its force, its potential. Yes. But for God, there is no such distinction.
Therefore, it is called kevala, or one. Material energy and the spiritual energy is the same. That's why the Māyāvādīs, they cannot understand God. They think that Krishna, when he comes, he accepts a material body.
But even if he accepts a material body, for him there is no such distinction — spiritual body and material body. He being omnipotent, he can act even in his material body as Krishna.
Just like when Krishna was present, accepting that he has a material body, but at the age of seven years old, he lifted the big hill. That is not possible if that is a material body.
Therefore, as omnipotent, he can change the material energy into spiritual energy and the spiritual and the material world. That is only possible.
But those who are with poor fund of knowledge, they say that Krishna has got this material body. Actually He has no such distinction, either material or body. Just like electrical engineers.
He knows how to tackle electric energy. He can convert the heater into refrigerator and he can convert the refrigerator into heat, because he knows how to do this.
There's another school of modern philosophers who have the same idea of existence and essence, but they say that there is only existence, that there is no essence, therefore there's no meaning to life.
No, in reality, existence is simpler. So he opposes these philosophers by saying that there cannot be existence without essence.
That is our view of essence, that you say, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, the existence is mithyā, he says mithyā. But we Vaiṣṇavas, we say not mithyā, not false, but temporary. But temporal. So mithyā we cannot say.
Because anything coming from God, it cannot be false. But it is temporary. He can change it as He likes. But very simple. So he says existence is the coming into being of the essence. Yes.
The only screen state he calls becoming. That is dharma. Brahman is asat. And from Brahman everything is coming out. Janmādy asya yataḥ. Brahman means everything is emanating.
Now this dharma is in reference to this material world.
Human inquiry and the ultimate cause
In the spiritual world, there is no such thing as creation. Creation, that is the nature of this material world.
So when we speak of janmādy asya yataḥ, it means the creation of the material world, but the original source of creation, that is the janmādy asya yataḥ, the source from which everything is taking birth.
So everything is taking birth means before the birth of everything, there was the source wherefrom the birth is taking place. That the child is born, but before the birth of the child, the mother existed.
Similarly, before the creation of this material world, as the source, Brahman was there. But Brahman is not matter. Brahman is not matter. Brahman is there before the creation of the manifestation.
And that Brahman, Krishna says and Vedanta says, janmādy asya yataḥ. Krishna says, aham sarvasya prabhavo, and Brahma-saṁhitā says: Krishna, sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam, the cause of all this.
Before creation, Krishna existed, and God was existing. Creation means matter. So the source of creation, God and Krishna, is not matter. He said that the essence of an entity is its intelligible nature,
or that one can have ideas that prove that we are more than existence, that we are also essence. And this existence is temporary, except on the fact of this, about this source.
This is not existence, but it changes next time. But I am the essence, I am permanent. They can perceive the existence of something just by feeling it or seeing it.
But they can't say anything about it until the intelligence comes into play. And then the intelligence says what it is and gives it being. Intelligence says, what is it called? Yes. And it describes it.
So that cause, we find some cause, and again we find out the cause. Again you find out the cause.
And then again, we find out cause and effect, we study effect and find out the cause, then when you come to the ultimate cause, which has no other cause, then that is this cause.
He says that the senses can say this exists. If they see something, the senses can say this exists, but the intellect is what says this being is. In other words, it describes what exists.
Not only that something exists, but what exists.
So that this intellect, or this just being able to describe the essence of something, proves that we are made of this essence, that this is our real nature, that we are not simply blind existence, but that there is some essence.
He says that to exist means to act. Actuality means continual activity; there's no no life that is completely alone, which doesn't require activity. Why they are so active? Because they want to enjoy.
Everything that exists wants to enjoy. Yes. Here in this material world, that is why it is so hard. The same activity, when it is for Krishna, concerning that, it is free presentation. So
the essence of any object is its power to exist and be known. To be known. That is, that is the basic principle of Vedānta-sūtra, athāto brahma. What is the basic platform of existence? That is called brahma-jijñāsā.
That is intelligence. That is intelligence. Yes. No. By intelligence one can inquire: what is the cause of this? Jijñāsā, it's called jijñāsā. Those who are not jijñāsu, tṛpya-māṇam, they are animals.
That's like animals, they cannot ask what is its cause. That is animal life. As human life means when the inquiry is: what is its cause? That is, that is the distinction between animal life and human life. Must be improved.
What is called? What is the self? That why I suffer some threefold misery. I do not wish to suffer, but why? At this "why" question, unless this "why" question is there, uh, then he is not to be considered as human being.
Śrī Rāmānuja, when writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu, he says manuṣya means inquisitive, not with two legs and hands. That is an animal. Śāstra-dṛṣṭi-cakṣuḥ.
One who inquires from authenticity, they are actually humans. And those who are not inquisitive, they are not considered humans. What is their status? That is what... and
Spiritual authority and authentic religious systems
tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet — one who is actually in physically, he requires to have the guidance of śāstram. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam.
Guru is required for one who is inquisitive of the higher self. Not for us to accept... the guru is not a fashion, without being inquisitive of the highest, acceptance of guru. They think that it is a fashion.
To keep a guru just like one keeps one dog. My father, my friend is keeping a dog, I shall keep a dog. My family keeping a car, I shall keep a car. Such kind of acceptance of guru is useless. It has no meaning.
Actually, guru means... one, this disciple must be very much inquisitive, intense intuition to understand the original essence. And he should approach a suitable bona fide person who can answer about the section.
This is the system of guru and the śiṣya. It is not a fact, vague passion.
He must be intensely inquisitive to understand the original essence, and guru must be a well-known person who can answer his disciple's relevant questions. This is the way.
Because God is pure actuality, the opposite of godly nature is pure potential without much existence. So the existence is there. The essence is there, but it is a question of awareness and not awareness.
One who knows Brahman, one who does not know, he is... just a human being. One who knows what is Brahman, he's called brāhmaṇa. And one who does not know what is Brahman, he's called a kṛpaṇa. Kṛpaṇa.
Kṛpaṇa means one who got the opportunity to understand Brahman, but he did not care for it. It's like a man has got money, but he could not utilize it. Similarly, the opposite word of brāhmaṇa is kṛpaṇa.
Those who are trying to understand the essence, they are brāhmaṇa, brāhmaṇa. Janmanā jāyate śūdraḥ saṁskārād bhaved dvijaḥ veda-pāṭhād bhaved vipro brahma jānātīti brāhmaṇaḥ. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
And vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham. Really to understand Vedas means to understand Krishna. So those who are trying to understand Krishna, they are human beings.
Ah, that's... we are not the one.
He sees the same kind of hierarchy that, uh, on the one hand, the highest types of beings are those who are most actualized or those who are most, uh, perfect, that they have, uh, realized their essence. They're bad. Yeah.
Whereas the lower types of entities who are purely potential but have very small existences, like human, animal, plant life.
He sees that hierarchy and he says that the highest summit of man is, uh, the summit of wisdom when he becomes capable of loving God lovingly as well.
Then you become purely... bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate. Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ. And Bhāgavata says: sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje.
That is what Vyāsadeva follows, being... man develops this dormant love. That is, that is such a transcendentality. And Bhāgavata in other passages says: dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra.
All cheating religious systems rejected. Yes. Because not accept a religious system as genuine unless he follows sarva-dharmān parityajya. This is a text.
And dharma means, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja. This is all. Krishna says that give up all kinds of religious principles. That means they are not religious.
They are not religious. Otherwise, why Krishna will ask religious... He in the beginning says that I come to establish religion. And he says give up all these so-called religions.
But they are not religion, and that is confirmed in dharmaḥ kaitavaḥ. Dharmaḥ kaitavaḥ. Anything, any religious system which does not give knowledge of Krishna, that is cheating.
Dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra, and Śrīdhara Svāmī comments that parama-mokṣa-paryantam... those who are after, uh, mukti, liberation, they are also cheated here. The jñānīs, they are after mukti.
So Śrīdhara Svāmī says they are also within the category of the cheating religious. Because they are being cheated. They are cheating themselves that "I become God." So that is another type of cheating.
Therefore Krishna says that give up all this cheating, sarva-dharmān parityajya. Just śaraṇāgati. This is as far as teaching these Vidura and his sister, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, not a younger son.
Yes, anything you do is not teaching, so and to be teaching love, Krishna, then teaching you.
Actualizing potential through devotional service
He says that this love of God is significant to one's experience of being a living soul. Yes.
I am individually living well, I want to exist by loving somebody. That is, you can practice and see: I want to love somebody, that gives significance to my existence if I love someone.
Similarly, other individuals also want to love someone. Loving specificity is there. So our love is now distributed in so many ways: to our children, to our friends, to our country, to our family, to our wife.
And if somebody has nothing like that, he reposes his love to a dog, to a cat. The love must be there and it must be for... but we do not know that we have been questioning.
But when it is done to Krishna, the light, the Govinda, love is there. So it's just a call. It says that this state, we... it's called realization or actualization. This is real. Everyone knows. But anyone will love someone.
But any good love... Anyone, even animals. There is every living entity wants to love.
But because our love is reposed in the wrong place, he says when we come to the platform of loving God, that is what... then our potential nature is no more existing. Everything is purely actual. Yes.
We have actualized our potential absolute to be done. Up to that stage everything has got some potential. Definitely, potentially that stage. But they're acting on a smaller level.
And when they finally reach that stage of loving God, then there's no more potential, purely actual then. That is a high practice. So it's just being part of it. That is a high practice.
He said now here it may be one degree of difference. He said that ethical life or knowledge of the Absolute comes through our conscience or our reason.
And that ethical life is to act in accordance or obedience to our conscience, our reason. Conscience, not by any consciousness. This... no concepts.
The conscience is pure, but when it is diluted, contaminated, somebody has got conscience, consciousness, a different type. Just like Pakistani, Hindustani. They have got Hindustani concept there, a Pakistani concept.
Mahajan consult there. Conscience... Okay, not consciousness, but conscience. Conscience, everyone is conscious function. And the living entities have got function.
Is that if I'm... that's the sense of whether what I'm doing is right or wrong, and it's conscience. It's different from consciousness. Consciousness means... not conscious, yes. Conscience. Content. Content.
Discrimination and good... and said that we lack conscience is due to practice. Just like a butcher. He has no conscience that the killing is bad. That he is practiced to do that. He doesn't think.
That his conscience is not touched by feeling. So this content is by practice created in a different aspect. So it has no value. Unless one comes to personal consciousness, this consciousness has no value.
It is contaminated sound. So as you are accustomed, so we have made a particular type of see. A thief, when he goes to steal, he can't sense it, it is all sense in my livelihood. Why I stop it?
So what is the value of this kind? Because if he comes from a Christian background where there is no... unless some background he's speaking upon.
But I say that there are different concepts according to different backgrounds. So unless one comes to Krishna consciousness, this concept is as well. That it does.
Because, well, he said that, uh, through the speculative faculty of the intelligence, that we can understand. Book of Killing. He's all-pervading. What is it wrong here? Why people are putting that he was a second?
But because his background is too fast, his conscience does not help him.
So unless there's an authority basis for right and wrong given by God Himself, then we can never know as to left by Himself, unless one contact uh, these concepts or that concepts and all that.
But what about a person, say like this person, who had no access to God's laws, that he was simply speculating with his intelligence to try to find out what is right and what is wrong? Can he ever understand?
He'll understand when he comes in contact with the devotees. Otherwise, he or she knows. But following the regulative principles, you develop, you develop a Krishna consciousness. No. Regulative principle is rule.
We may—one may be very moral, uh, etc., but that does not mean he is a Krishna-bhakta. Krishna-bhakta is higher.
Without moral principles, he is higher than the person without principle who is simply sticking to the moral and ethical principle. Bhagavad-gītā says... Anyone who is not a devotee of the Lord, he has no good value.
Maybe good morality, good, I mean, other following you can make it, but that does not mean that is good. There
are many instances in this one, uh, those who are simply following morality but has no idea of devotional service. He does not gain anything in this life.
And a person who has engaged himself in the devotional service of the Lord, even if he falls down due to immaturity, he has, he has gained so much.
It would seem like this, uh, idea of pure actuality would also, could also be called devotional service. It's because everything that I'm asking is for Krishna, for uh, the pure actual love.
Now, if I, if I'm engaged in devotional service, I'm just acting under the spiritual master. That is the buddhi. Not that you manufacture the fact. No, no.
But that's the data acting under the guidance of the spiritual master, yes. That would be pure actuality. There would be no... oh yes. That is, um, beyond the... transcendental to the guṇas.
It is above, transcendental to the three modes of nature, guṇānām. Samatītya, it all these material qualities. Samatītyaitān, it's that. And Radhakrishnan, he suggested in actuality.
Spiritual personality and pure absolute form
He says that God knows reality as it exists and as it has the potentiality to become. In other words, He knows everything. He knows. "I know everything." He has nothing like that: past, present and future.
The past, present and future, you can see this temporary material body. He says that the human being is nature's most perfect creation. That's it. That's many, many births.
8,400,000 species of life. One gets this human form of life, and that also civilized life, and that also in India following the basic principles. That is the highest.
But he says that the human being has the, uh, material aspect of individuality plus the spiritual aspect of personality. Yes. That's that personality.
Understanding is the perfect understanding of the Absolute Truth as it is given in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti. Bhagavān is what? So when one comes to Bhagavān, vāsudevaḥ, that is the highest.
Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate. After many, many births, completion of knowledge. When that attainment is wise, he said that's true. Very important.
It's because of the spiritual personality that he can know and love God. Yes. Without personality there can be no love. There's no question of love. He cannot love, yeah, a sky.
You must find out a man or woman in this... that is God. So therefore if you want to love God, then you must accept God as the person. There is no function of love.
Therefore, for the Māyāvādī philosopher, there is no question of love. They merge, they want sāyujya-mukti, to become one. They have no other conception because they cannot conceive bhakty-ānanda. So there is no love.
Therefore, they manufacture an idea that in the material condition of life, you just imagine any form of God and love it, and ultimately merge. That is that. Ultimately, this example is given:
that if we want to rise on some top floor, you take a ladder and go to the top, and then throw off the ladder. There is no need of this ladder. Now you come to the position.
But their theory is that because we cannot love or worship something impersonal, and because it is difficult, it is troublesome, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā:
«kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām». And those who are attached to the impersonal, their progress in spiritual life is very slow because they are not reached yet.
So in order to give them some facility, they say that you imagine some form of the Ātmā. And when you are perfect, then throw off that form to become one. This is their philosophy.
But if God is God, then how can I throw Him off? That means what they are thinking as God, that is not God. And they say it is imagination. So what is the value of imagination? Yeah.
If it is not realistic, how by imagination, by kalpanā, by taking something false, you can reach the reality? That is a defect subject. If we take something wrong, how can we...? Your process is wrong.
Because you are accepting something wrong. Imaginary. Imaginary. So he says because men are a combination of spiritual personality and material individuality.
He says because of this spiritual personality we can know God, and because of the material individuality, evil arises. Because of the material body. No. He has no perfect knowledge of the individuality.
Individuality does not mean always evil and good. That's saying as the law, the bugis, they are what individuality. But that in the vānaprastha, that was that on one. The objective is one.
The example was given by my guru mahārāja. According to the Vedic system, when one's husband is away from home, she does not dress very nice. So she does not look very attractive.
But the same woman, when the husband is at home, she dresses very nice. Now, this dressing and not dressing, they are two contradictories. But the aim is one. Therefore that is one.
The aim is the husband, for the husband's satisfaction. See dressing, husband, and not this. So these two things, dressing and not dressing, apparently may be contradicting. But the aim being one, there is that.
Similarly, there is variety in the spiritual world, but all the varieties, the central point is Krishna.
But it means more in the sense that because of this material body, this material condition, that is where evil arises, by identifying with the superior condition only. But our real nature is spiritual.
Personality is spiritual. It is contaminated. Variety that they are, that is spiritual world; the same varieties where they are presented here with material contamination, which is called karma.
Just like the example in the 15th chapter of Bhagavad-gītā, on the bank of the river, the trees are reflected. The tree is reflected. The varieties are there: the trees, plants, branches, flowers, everything is reflected,
but they are all void. The real value is there on the bank of the river. And because it is reflection, it appears that everything is there in the water, but they are all false.
This potential and actual—he also says that potential is matter and actual is form. So that God, being purely actual, is also pure form. Yes.
Without God being form, how the form that saviśeṣa in the original? The talk is the same about it: potentiality is matter and actuality is form. Potentiality is undifferentiated matter, whereas actuality is form.
So God, being pure actuality, is also pure form. That's also what we say. So, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha. That's the vigraha. Vigraha means form. So I don't... I think that's the one that...