Innate Ideas and the Development of Consciousness
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Critique of innate ideas and consciousness
And John Locke. Locke is most famous for his conception of tabula rasa, or blank slate, that a child is born with no innate ideas. He states that if there are innate or inborn ideas, all men would have them.
That is to say, there would be universal consent.
He writes: "This argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such, because there are none to which all mankind give a universal consent."
So it cannot be argued that all people have an innate or inborn idea of God, since there is no universal consent on this subject. Well, do innate ideas have to be universal?
Might not some living entities have some innate ideas and other living entities have others? Why does an innate idea have to be universal and apply to everyone?
The point is that there is somebody that has developed consciousness.
Anyone, they cannot think on account of non-developed consciousness, but even human society, uncivilized society, they — they have got the innate idea of some superior power.
Natural inclination toward the supreme power
When there is lightning, they offer obeisances. And the sea, big ocean, they offer obeisances, something big. That innate idea is inborn. So offer obeisances to something wonderful.
But this innate idea of accepting something supreme and offering respect is not developed in the animal. So this innate idea is there. When it is not developed, it is animal.
And when it is developed, then he is a human being. And a perfect human being is he when he has developed his innate idea to the fullest stage. That is Kṛṣṇa-premā.
Evidence for the eternal soul and rebirth
Would it not be better to say that the living entity is born with certain tendencies rather than innate ideas which carry over from a previous life, and that he needs only meet with some stimulus in order for these tendencies to be manifest?
Yeah. That's like when a dog is born and it has no eyes and it searches out the nipples of the mother. So although his eyes are closed — you have seen the dogs.
But because in his previous life as a dog, he had the experience where to find out the food. So even though it cannot see, it searches out where is the food.
That is past experience, and that is the proof of the continuation of the soul eternally. Just like I'm living in this room and, say, for ten years I'm absent from this room.
But after ten years, when I come here, immediately I remember where is the toilet, where is my sitting place, everything. So that remembrance comes from the last visit.
So a living entity is passing through a different species of form; that is his material life. So in some previous life, millions of years ago, when he was a dog, he knew how to find out his food.
So immediately in the dog's body again he must... this is the continuation of John Locke. You said that from your very birth you knew that Krishna was the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Now, does this mean that from your very birth you were acquainted with the name Krishna? Or didn't your father have to at least say the word once?
Now, Locke would argue that the idea of Krishna is not an innate idea because it is not universally assented to. Universally, not everyone acknowledges that Krishna is God.
So he would say that idea is not inborn in the mind. No. Uh, in the material world, uh, they have got different, uh, ideas.
But, uh, undeveloped mind has got different ideas, but developed, uh, mm, what is called idea or conception, perfect conception, is Krishna consciousness.
So if one remembers Krishna consciousness after his birth, that means he had previously cultivated it. There is a verse, find out, or find that. Yes. The word begins: tatra tam buddhi-saṁyogaṁ. You can start with this.
You can take on the tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogaṁ. Buddhi-saṁyogaṁ. Yeah. That is therefore, Krishna consciousness, culture of... Krishna consciousness is never lost. It goes on. Unless it is perfect.
Remembrance and the cultivation of devotion
Therefore, it is stated, svalpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt. Even little acting in Krishna consciousness can save one from the greatest danger. As it was done by Ajāmila.
He cultivated Krishna consciousness in the beginning of his life. Then he fell down, he became the greatest debauchee, but at the end of life again he remembered Nārāyaṇa and he got service. Pratyakṣāvagamaṁ dharmyam.
Read Bhagavad-gītā carefully, all answers. This philosophy cannot go beyond Bhagavad-gītā. Some people have been said to have remembered events in their previous lives.
How are these reminiscences or ideas different from innate ideas? How is it possible for one to recall events? Innate idea is innovative. Well, that is, uh, God is great and I am, um, s— what is called, controlled.
That innate idea is everywhere. But sometimes out of ignorance one tries to become God. That is not possible.
Atheism and the misconception of lordship
That is māyā. Anyasya pūrva-sandhi. Artificially trying to become God, uh, that is simply waste of time, it will never become possible. That is called māyā. Otherwise, uh, innate idea is that he is servant and God is great.
That is in eternity. He writes, "The knowledge of our own being we have by intuition. The existence of a God, reason clearly makes known to us.
We have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God than of anything our senses can discover." Now how is this? If this is the case, how is it that some men have no conception of God? He has conception of God.
Practically, but because under the spell of māyā he has become foolish, he tries to cover the conception. That somebody is there.
How an insane man can deny that some superior power is there who has created this vast ocean, vast land, vast sky? How can a sane man avoid this conception? Nobody can avoid.
But artificially, foolishly, he tries to avoid — atheism. But that will not endure, that will not stay. His foolishness will be exposed. So this is an innate idea.
But the atheist class, demon class, they want to cover this innate idea artificially.
Divine proprietorship versus human political failure
And Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. That is to say, a man may have a certain stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Śrī Īśopaniṣad version? Yes.
Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā: everything belongs to God. Just like the father has got many sons, and the father is the proprietor of the house. He gives one son, "This is your room," and the other son, "This is your room."
So the obedient son is satisfied with the portion that is allotted to him. However, those who are not obedient, they want to disturb other brothers: "This room also belongs to me."
That creates chaos and confusion in the world. The United Nations — we have created a society for unity of the nations. But actually that is not unity. That is another way of encroaching upon others' property.
Therefore there is no peace. Unless they accept God is the supreme proprietor and we must be satisfied with the allotment God has given to us, then there is no trouble.
But the trouble is that we are not satisfied with the allotment given to us. That allotment can be understood by language or similar culture.
So why one should encroach upon others' property which is allotted by law? That creates disturbance.
So these so-called modern civilized men, first of all they create disturbances, and then they want to make some adjustment.
Spiritual civilization and righteous leadership
Of course, for the good of a certain people if somebody encroached it... But they do not know what is good. They encroach upon others' property for their personal sense gratification.
Otherwise, if for the good of the local people, somebody, some had—the Scandinavians, they conquered over many islands or places. But that was for the good of them. The Pandavas, they also ruled over.
But the Pandavas were God-conscious devotees; they made everyone enlightened in God consciousness. That kind of encroachment is like Ramachandra— Ramachandra went to Sri Lanka and conquered over it.
Because Ravana was a demon. So He conquered, Ramachandra conquered the property of Ravana and gave it to Vibhishana. But He did not take anything. They say Krishna conducted, managed this Kurukṣetra war personally.
But the kingdom was given to Yudhishthira; He did not encroach. So this kind of encroachment is all right.
Everyone should be Krishna conscious, everyone should be highly elevated in spiritual life; for spreading this civilization, encroaching on others' property is quite fit.
But if one encroaches upon others' property for self-aggrandizement, for stealing for his own self, that is prohibited. That is sin. So much for now.