Philosophy and Religion in Western Thought

А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада

Главы

Vedic authority and historical reality

This is John Dewey, who believed that religions were basically myths and that experience is of the utmost necessity. He felt that philosophy was superior to religion.

He writes: "The form ceases to be that of the story told in imaginative and emotional style, and becomes that of rational discourse observing the canons of logic."

So it's apparent that Dewey considers religion simply to be a story told in an imaginative and emotional style, and for him philosophy observes the canons of logic.

So for him the Vedic accounts of Krishna's pastimes would be imaginative and emotional or mythic. How does one argue against this kind of a precise historical fact? But it's not imaginary. To think like that is imaginary.

Because the Mahābhārata is there, it is accepted by all Indian authorities, and Krishna is a historical figure, how it can be imaginative?

So we may think like that, like a madman, but India's leaders will not accept that. Especially the ācāryas who are controlling the spiritual life of India. They do not accept a lunatic foreigner speaking like that.

He writes: "According to the religious and philosophic tradition of Europe, the valid status of all the highest values — the good, true and beautiful — was bound up with their being properties of ultimate and supreme being, namely God.

All went well as long as what passed for natural science gave no offense to this conception.

Trouble began when science ceased to disclose in the objects of knowledge the possession of any such properties; then some roundabout method had to be devised for substantiating them."

In other words, science began to investigate the phenomenal universe without admitting the proprietorship of anyone, of God, and this brings a breakdown in morality and value.

So Dewey attempts to reassemble these shattered values in a philosophical way, but he, like science, attempts to do so without recognizing the proprietorship of an ultimate and supreme being. Another

Defining religion as divine law

uh, lunacy. Because everything has a proprietor. So why this big cosmic manifestation will not have a proprietor? To accept the proprietor is natural and that is logical, and not to accept a proprietor — that is lunacy.

How can it be possible? Just like we give this example: we are standing on the land, we know that there is government, there is proprietorship.

And a few years after, when this ocean begins, how can we think that the ocean has no proprietor, no government? How any philosopher and man having logic can believe it? What is the answer?

Well, he felt that science dealt a death blow to the religions as we know them, to the orthodox religions. Religion we have to be clearly explained: religion means to accept the laws of God. That is religion.

He refers to historical religion. Historical, it is historical. The cosmic manifestation has a date of creation, therefore, it is historical. Anything material which has a beginning, that is history, it has got a history.

So people do not know how long before this material cosmic manifestation was created, it is beyond their conception. Even the mathematical millions and trillions and billions will not do when it began.

But it has got a history beyond the calculation of so-called scientists and mathematicians. But there is history. According to Vedic description, there is history. There is history of Manu, there is history of Brahmā.

So in this way there is a regular history. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā, a small instance of history is being given. Sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ.

The Brahmā's date is like we have got solar calculation, twelve hours, daytime. That twelve hours of Brahmā is calculated: sahasra-yuga-paryantam. One yuga means forty-three hundred thousand years.

Similarly, thousand times. That is Brahmā's twelve hours. So everything is related. We are teeny people. We have got history of this world some thousands of years.

But Brahmā is greater than the human being, his history is different. Here everything is related. My history is different from an ant's history. Similarly, a man's history is different from Brahmā's history.

Limitations of modern scientific calculation

So, historical does not mean whatever you have calculated, that is history. History is relative according to the person. So these people, they have no information of the greater personalities than us.

But we have got information from Vedic literature. In the higher planetary system, the duration of life, standard of life, is different from here.

So on this platform, mostly the philosophers, scientists, they are doctor frogs. So their calculation is not correct. So whatever they cannot calculate, they take it as myth, imagination.

Even for ordinary human beings to think of Brahmā's duration of life — three hundred thousand multiplied by one thousand — that becomes twelve hours of Brahmā.

Because it is beyond your calculation, he thinks it's imaginary. So unless one has got thorough knowledge of the whole universe, for him it is imaginary. But one man's imaginary may be fact to the other man.

It depends on the knowledge. So unfortunately, the so-called scientists, philosophers on this planet, they are thinking in their own terms and they're taking a path.

They must think other things as mythological, imaginary. Dewey, as an American writing in the early part of the 20th century...

And he writes: "Logic demands that in imagination we wipe the slate clean and start afresh by asking what would be the idea of the unseen."

In other words, he feels that it's time to set aside the orthodox, what he calls superstitious religions, and create a new religion. In other words, we must define God and religion anew.

Yes, that is required because in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is also accepted that except the Vedic religion, all others are cheating religion because they have no perfect knowledge.

Absolute Truth and supreme control

It is clearly stated: the cheating type of religion is rejected from the Bhāgavata-dharma. Bhāgavata-dharma, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is accepting God as the Supreme Controller. Satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi. This is the beginning.

And what is that Absolute Truth? Janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ, that there is a principle, Brahman, from whom everything has come.

So unless you find out what is the ultimate source of emanation, the knowledge is imperfect. Or imperfect. But you must have to admit from your experience that everything has a source of emanation.

Anything — we cannot go beyond your experience. You see this table; the table has got a history. Somebody has collected the wood and he has made it into a shape. So everything that we see, it has got a history.

Similarly, the whole creation, it has got a history. And to know who has created, janmādy asya yataḥ, that is perfect knowledge.

If you do not know, if you cannot reach, that is your inability; don't think that it is imaginary or mythological. That is your imperfection of knowledge. You cannot reach. And you make a conclusion like a crazy man.

That is not philosophical at all. So there is no question of starting a new religion. The religion is already there. But poor people, they do not accept it. The simple thing is that somebody must be the Supreme Controller.

He is God. And everything is under His control. Actually, if somebody asks, "What is your experience?" So the real experience is that we see two things. One thing is matter — inert matter, without any consciousness.

Another we see, another element with consciousness. Two things we see. You cannot go beyond this. And among these two things, there is one controller, the third element.

The third element is the Absolute Truth, and these two elements — one inert and one living — are categories. This is a pair.

So the third element, the controller of the living, animate and inanimate — the controller is the supreme Lord. So this is simple philosophy. Everyone can understand that there is a supreme controller.

And both these visible animate and inanimate objects, they are controlled by Him. This is a simple fact; why these big, big philosophers cannot understand this? Anyone can understand it. What is it immediately?

He says, "What I have been criticizing is the identification of the ideal with a particular being, especially when that identification makes necessary the conclusion that this being is outside of nature, that is, transcendental. And what I have tried to show is that the ideal itself has its roots in natural conditions. It emerges when the imagination idealizes existence by laying hold of the possibilities offered to thought and action."

In other words, there is no God outside of nature. God has his roots in nature. Why does he say that? That is his inexperience. God means supreme controller. So everything is being controlled. How he can say there is no God?

That is his imperfect knowledge. The nature is going on in perfect order. And we have got experience that without being a director, controller...

First proposition: that the natural phenomena that is going on in a systematic way, and we have no experience of anything going on in a systematic way that has no control — how they can think of this big phenomenon without any control?

At least any sane man cannot think like that. That it is going on automatically, it is happening automatically.

The season is changing in time, the sun is rising in time, the moon is rising, everything is going systematically. And how he thinks that there is no controller, there is no God? That is insanity.

Humanity under superior natural laws

To become atheist means the greatest insanity. It has no meaning to become atheist. He wouldn't consider himself an atheist, but anyone who cannot think of a supreme controller is an insane man. He's not a sane man.

How can he propose? Where is his experience? Everything is going on under some control. And even this wonderful machine, computer, that requires an operator.

So how can one think that without a controller things are going on very systematically? This is insanity. It has no meaning. He sees God emerging as man's striving for perfection. God is there.

Man's perfection will depend on his ability to understand God. God is already there. It is not that a perfect man is by imagination creating God. Anything created by man, that is controlled. God is the supreme controller.

So man is dying under the control of the Supreme. So how can man create God? He is already under the rules of God, that he must die. He must suffer from disease. He must become old.

So if he cannot control what is already imposed by God, how can he think of God, how can he create a God? That is also another insanity. First of all, you become independent of the laws of God.

Then you can think of the creation of God. And you are completely under the supremacy of the Supreme Lord, how can you think of creating God? That is another insanity.

So all these atheistic persons who are thinking that we can create God, God is imagination, they're all insane persons.

He says use of the words "God" or "divine" to convey the union of actual with ideal may protect man from a sense of isolation and from consequent despair or defiance.

But the so-called unity of man by the imaginative process of so-called intelligent philosophers... It has never become possible, neither will it become possible because every man has got little independence.

So unless they are controlled, they will assert their independence, and by this imaginative process they cannot be united. That is another insanity.

History has never proved this in the past and it is not going on in the present, so naturally in the future it will not be possible; that is a sane man's conclusion.

When you discussed Dewey with, uh, Śyāmasundara Prabhu, you said that Dewey wants to make God his scapegoat. Why does he mention the word God? And he uses the word God to serve his own ends.

His philosophic conception is the working union of the ideal and the actual. This is rather vague, but this is his definition of God: man striving for perfection. He can define, but he must be a very... what is God?

Sane man to define.

Divine opulences and universal divinity

The sane man's definition of God is there, just like everyone says God is great. So now if we can define what is the greatness. The greatness, uh, if one man is very rich, we consider him a great man.

If a man is very wise, we call him a great man. If a man is very strong, or influential, or beautiful—greatness according to our estimation. So all this greatness must be there in God.

God must be the richest, God must be the strongest, God must be the most beautiful, God must be wisest; in this way, six opulences calculated. And when these opulences are in completeness, that is God.

So that completeness we find in the history, Kṛṣṇa, in the history of humanity; it is very easy to find out that when Kṛṣṇa was present on this planet.

So he proved the strongest, the most influential, the most beautiful, the supreme wise, everything, supreme famous. Kṛṣṇa's fame, fame is still there.

Kṛṣṇa's knowledge stated in the Bhagavad-gītā is still being studied all over the world. This is the proof that he is God. And all saintly persons in India, they are not controlled by these foreign Dr. Frogs.

So these big, big ācāryas like Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka, Śaṅkarācārya, and Caitanya Mahāprabhu—all big ācāryas. They have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Lord.

So there is complete uniformity of the authorities in the past, present, and future. So here is God. If one cannot accept God, then he is insane.

With so many evidences and practical evidences, when Krishna was present, He showed. That is history. But, uh, these, uh, imperfect "Dr. Frogs", when they see God is doing something uncommon, they take it as mythology.

God, huh? They take it— they take it as mythology. Mythology. Just like Krishna, He's lifting the hill. What is the difficulty for God to lift a hill, if He is all-powerful?

But as soon as they read it, that Krishna is lifting a hill, they will take it as mythology. So when God shows that "I am God," that is mythology, and they imagine God. This is rascaldom.

When God comes and shows His godly power, they take it as mythology. And they imagine God according to their definition. Is that sanity? The ācāryas are describing, "Yes, Krishna lifted this."

And Govinda, they have appreciated, and they are taking His mission. Just see, when God shows His godly power, they take it as mythology. Just see how much fool we are, and we have to follow these "Dr. Frogs."

He differs from Kant and Marx in that he does not believe that humanity is the object of worship. In fact, he excludes everything as an object of worship.

He writes: "Nature produces whatever gives reinforcement and direction, but also what occasions discord and confusion." "The divine is thus a term of human choice and aspiration." No. There is no question of human choice.

Can you say that death is my choice? It is force. So, from where the force is coming? That is God. Nobody wants to die, but that is force. You must die. Nobody wants to become an old man. You must become an old man.

The sanity is to find out where from this enforcement is coming. That is supreme. Just like the government. If you disobey the orders of government, immediately you will be punished.

So we can understand here is, uh, supreme authority. Similarly, uh, I do not want to die. Uh, I am enforced to die. So there must be some supreme authority. That supreme authority is God. Either call nature or God.

Whatever, it is God. There is something supreme which is controlling you. How you can philosophize and imagine that man can imagine God? Man can imagine the insanity. That is insanity.

He says a humanistic religion, if it excludes our relation to nature, is pale and thin, as it is presumptuous when it takes humanity as an object of worship.

Certainty through historical Vedic records

Humanity is not... according to a God-conscious person, everything is worshipable, even an ant, but supreme worshipable is God. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ.

So that is, uh, what nature these uh, persons, they're taking as nature as the supreme, but those who are actually in awareness of God, they know that God is the controller of nature also.

That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: «mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram». Nature is matter. Matter cannot act, uh, independently.

Uh, Bhagavad-gītā defines what is the basic difference between matter and the living being. The difference is that matter is being handled, controlled by the living being. The living being is the superior nature.

And matter is inferior nature. «bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṃ mano buddhir eva ca». This earth, water, air, fire, etc., everything, these are inferior nature. Just try to understand nature.

Above this inferior nature, there is a superior nature. Inferior nature is a vast ocean. But the superior nature, man, has a big ship. The ocean is not allowed to walk over it.

And they have control over the ocean, not exclusive control, but little control. Because he is living, he can cross over the big mass of water by inventing some means. So that at least they control it to some extent.

But among these, ocean and the man who is trying to control over the ocean, there is another control. That is Supreme Control. That is God.

Uh, it is very easy to understand that there are two natures: one active nature, inactive nature. And among these both, active and inactive, there is another active personality who is controlling both of them.

That we can understand Bhagavad literature very clearly. There is no difficulty. But those who are obstinate, they will not accept. And that is a misfortune. What can be done? But this is the fact.

In the, in the realm of philosophy and religion, in the history we find that Krishna went within the sea. Within the sea. Krishna penetrated the universe. No, God can do that. We have no conception of God.

And when God comes and shows His godly power, we take it as myth. Then what, how God will be proved? When you see Him doing uncommon activities, you say it is myth; if you do not see, you say there is no God.

This is your position. So this is not sanity. This is all insanity. Let them talk all this nonsense. We do not accept them. He says, "In the realm of philosophy and religion, certainty is impossible."

He says, "The moment philosophy supposes it can find a final and comprehensive solution, it ceases to be inquiry and becomes either apologetics or propaganda."

"Any philosophy that in its quest for certainty ignores the reality of the uncertain in the ongoing processes of nature denies the conditions out of which it arises."

There is uncertainty when you do not accept the reality. The reality is God, and God is explaining how things are going on. But if you take it as myth, then how you know? No way. Huh? No way.

You are rascal, and it is explained by God Himself and actually by doing it, you do not accept it. And still you imagine. So your position is very precarious.

When God comes Himself and shows Himself, His activities, with Him it is mythology. Then how can he be convinced? Direct perception and authority. And the direct perception, when it comes, you take it that it is mythology.

When the direct perception history is written about Krishna in Mahabharata, then you take it, "I don't believe it," and the authority accepts, "Yes, Krishna is the Supreme, He has done it." He says, "Don't accept."

Then how will you be convinced? What is the way to convince you? What is the way? Possible way?

He says for him, he says there is but one sure road of access to truth: the road of patient, cooperative inquiry, operating by means of observation, experiment, record, and controlled reflection.

The record is there, all the Mahabharata. And those who have seen, they have confirmed it. Vyāsadeva has confirmed, Nārada Muni has confirmed. Arjuna talked with Him personally, he has confirmed.

And everything is there in the record. But you don't believe it, then how can you be convinced? Neither you have got perfect senses to see that. What is the way to convince you? You remain always in darkness.

There is no way out. You can, within your dark world, you can go on imagining, Dr. Frog, but you never have perfect knowledge. Well, that's the conclusion of John Dewey.

Most of the other points have already been dealt with.