Sartre and Existentialism Versus Vedic Philosophy
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Sartre and atheistic material existence
Today's philosopher is called Jean-Paul Sartre. He's a contemporary French philosopher.
And he is the father of this existentialism philosophy, which deals with the fundamental problem of dualism, that is, subject and object. He calls the object the things of this world, these things.
He calls them being, because they exist, and he calls the subject or the consciousness, individual consciousness, a nothingness, no-thingness. This is a thing, but the individual entity is no thing.
Because it is constantly changing. Why is it not changed? Because the structure is not determinant. It's always changing, always, uh, on both sides there is nothing. Changing, changing is the mind, not the person.
Changing position is of the mind. So he is identified with the person, with the mind. Therefore, he is not a perfect creature. He says that this objective being, like his objects— he calls it being-in-itself.
And only these concrete phenomena are real. But he says these concrete phenomena are more than their phenomenal appearances.
Just like this thing is more than what it appears to be, but it is no more than the sum total of all of its appearances. In other words, this thing may appear like this, but it is more than this.
It is all of its possible appearances, from the time it was clay to the time the paint was, uh, applied, different things. All in all of its appearances, that is the reality of this thing.
It is not just this thing, it is all of its appearances. But that is all. There's nothing more than it; it doesn't have any reality beyond its phenomenal appearances. Why did the material again?
Well, from beyond the material? The source of material?
Well, because he says that material in itself is non-conscious, inert, fixed, opaque, uncreated, devoid of potency, lacking becoming, and without any reason for existing; therefore it is superfluous.
In other words, existence doesn't have any meaning. So what is this house then? Well, there's no meaning to anything, it's just here.
There's no tracing out, it's not created, it's just here. This kind of philosophy is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā as āsurī philosophy, demonic philosophy. Because the demons do not believe any superior cause.
They say everything is accidental. Just like a man and a woman unite accidentally and a child is born. It is like that. There is no, actually, purpose. Sāṅkhya, the atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophy, is also like that.
But if the guru meets, all of a sudden there is lust and then they meet and there is some product. Otherwise, there is no other cause. This sort of theory is called āsurī.
He says that these things, they have no reason for existing, there's no purpose.
Vedic perspectives on phenomenal reality
No, that is nonsense. Everything has its purpose. Without purpose, nothing is created. And there is a supreme cause. So they have nowhere to go further. That is the fact. What they superficially see, they take it.
They do not find out the cause. That is less intelligence. Modern scientists also say, they simply explain, "It is nature, nature," but we do not believe in such theory. We understand that the background of nature is God.
Nature is not independent. Nature is phenomenal. But the noumena is Bhagavān Krishna. He says that the phenomena and the noumena are the same. Phenomena are noumena. Yes, there's no separation. Yes. Same in this sense.
It's like the sun and the sunshine. It's the same. The sunshine is light and the sun is also light. The sun is hot. And sunshine is also hot. But still, you cannot say the sunshine and the sun are the same.
Therefore, Lord Chaitanya's philosophy: simultaneously one and different. That is perfect. He is taking only the one mass, but there is still different. Just like the fire and the heat. He cannot separate heat from fire.
Still, heat is not fire. That is perfect. So therefore, heat is simultaneously one and different from fire. That is fact. You are getting heat. That doesn't happen. You are touching it, fire. This is but...
one and different, both. So he says that opposite to this objective being is the subjective individual, which he called being-for-itself. And he says that the nature of this subjective individual is that it is incomplete.
It has potency, but it... the structure is indeterminate. There's no mass or no density. These things all have density and mass.
They're heavy, gross, but the thing... the being-for-itself or the subjective individual has no mass or density. This time we have got the senses, smelling. This is concrete, but the smell is not concrete. Subtle. Subtle.
Subtle in this sense that I cannot...
Because we are so materialistic that our senses cannot perceive anything which is not concrete, but the high level of the very Vedic philosophy, this sense of smelling and the sense object smell simultaneously begin.
Unless there is a smell, the nose has no value. Therefore, the sense and the sense object, they are simultaneously created. Tan-mātra, in Sanskrit word, it is called tan-mātra. It's like eyes and beauty. Simultaneously.
If there is no beauty, then there is no value of eyes; if there is no music, the ear has no value. If there is no soft thing, the touch has no value.
Similarly, everything is created: the sense and the sense object and the controller of the sense. That is Hṛṣīkeśa.
Existentialism and the active soul
So last time we didn't quite finish the last philosopher we're going to do in the modern times; his name is Jean-Paul Sartre, French philosopher. He's living now. His philosophy briefly is called existentialism.
And last time we saw what it actually means, existentialism. Well, it means that the existence is prior to essence.
In other words, the fact that I am first of all existing, living here, is the important thing, and that I determine what I am, my essence, as I unfold my life. So existence is the most important thing.
Prior to essence, what I am, my nature. Well, what is the essence and what is existence? Well, according to Sartre, the existence... all I know when I am analyzing what I am, all I know is that I exist. I am.
This is the first fact. So what I am more than that is determined as I live my life, as I grow older, so that is no standard of how I live. The dog is living, he also exists. A cat is living, he also exists.
A man is also living, exists. So different types of living beings that are existing in different consciousness. So what is this standard consciousness? There is no standard.
He says that the essence, man's essence, is nothingness, or no-thingness. There's no thingness about me. I am always changing. There's nothing determinant about my subjectivity, my existence. I am changing.
Then the changing is existence, but I am different from this existence because I am changing. I am changing. Suppose I have just now changed my dress. So I am the same.
Actually I am existing the same, but I am changing different dress or different body. So this changing is not very important because it will be changed. I am important. I am changing.
He says that there are two types of being. There's being-in-itself like this table, which is solid, massive, it doesn't change, uh, it doesn't have—it has a phenomenal... That we say the one is matter, another is spirit.
Yes. He says being-in-itself and being-for-itself.
Now, being-for-itself means the living entity, because by choosing things he does things for himself, he makes decisions, he creates things. For what we admit that for the living being who decides
to change or to accept something is important. Actually, he is existing, whereas the bodily changes or circumstances changes, that is temporary. But the person who is changing is eternal.
But his idea is that because a man or a living entity has no thingness, no solid mass, he's always changing one thing to another. Actually, we should not be misled simply by, uh, uh, solid mass. The principle which is
changing, it may not be a very big solid mass, but it is the active principle which is changed. It doesn't matter, it is not like a big hill or mountain. But that is the active principle which is changing.
He says that there's no thingness, nothingness. It is not nothing. This is substance. He has no eyes to see. The principle who is changing, that is important. We cannot say it is nothing.
But it doesn't have qualities of being a thing of mass. Uh, he has the—actually, he has the quality of becoming, uh, massy. Uh, the same thing we can describe: the active principle which develops the body within the womb.
He may not accept it as soul or something. But without that active principle, simply, uh, cohabit of the male and female and combination of secretion does not, uh, develop the body. The active principle must be there.
So as soon as the active principle is there, the combination of male and female secretion, uh, acts and it develops into what? Yes. Mass body.
It may develop into an ant or it may develop into a big hill, that is different. Just a seed, a small seed, that is actually. So from that seed, a big tree developed.
So this existence of the big tree depends on that small seed. So that is affected. Hmm. Oh, why it is nothing? That is an answer. Well, because it's one thing now and then it will change. It may change. That's all right.
I am here, I may be, uh, next moment down. Yes. But I am the same, either here or down. That "I" am important. The active principle is important. The changing existence has no importance.
At one time the external feature of the active principle may be a mountain, and next the external feature of the active principle may be a small ant, but the active principle which is becoming sometimes mountain-like and ant-like, that is important.
So he is seeing these external features and he's saying that is imperfect. He has no perfect vision. His philosophy is not very sound. He there, he can be classified according to Bhāgavata, dvire-tamas.
One who gives importance to the external feature, one who has no eyes to see the internal potential.
So because the living entity is so much changing that he doesn't have any one-thingness, therefore he says the living entity is nothingness. No.
Freedom responsibility and material nature
He has his identity. But in the present circumstances, because he is conditioned by the matter, therefore he is changed. And when he becomes free from the condition, he will have not changed. Is he in fact a thing?
Certainly. Otherwise, how it is changed? Unless we have got some basic principle, how you can account for the change on which platform the change is taking place?
So the nature of a living being is that he is actually a thing. Yes. Actually. The changing feature is not actual. Because it is changing. But the principle on which this change is taking place is actually fact.
So he cannot be nothing. These imperfect philosophers, they have no eyes to see. They have no eyes to see and they are not very intelligent; therefore, they conclude like that.
He says that the structure of man's essence, his consciousness, is freedom. Freedom. He's continually free to change and say freedom. The freedom of some living being— the matter has no freedom.
So as soon as you speak of freedom, that freedom must be a living being. A huge mountain, dead mountain, or any dead body, it has no freedom. It is lying down.
Or you keep it with some chemical process, the body is remaining lying down, that's like the Egyptian mummies there or something. So it has lost its freedom because the active principle is not there.
As soon as you see a freedom, the freedom is only applicable to a living being, not to the matter. Matter has no freedom. So he says that matter is something and that the living being is nothing. No, that is his nonsense.
He has no perfect knowledge. Matter is something and the basic principle on which the matter stands, it is nothing—that is most important. Stephen? They're all, uh, nonsense for that.
He says that we are condemned to be free. Who has condemned you? Who has condemned? That he says, uh, he denies the existence of God. He says there's a lot of... who has condemned you?
As you say we have condemned, there must be somebody who has condemned. He says it's, uh, accident. Huh? It's accident. That is nonsense. By accident somebody is condemned and somebody is blessed? This is all nonsense.
But he says that all by accident somebody is put into jail. By accident somebody is hanged. Is there any experience like that? There is a judgment. When a man is condemned, that means it is done by some living judgment.
So how is it accident? These are all imperfect knowledge, misleading. Nothing there, there is nothing else there. Well, he says that all living entities are condemned to be free. Everything. Yeah, that we can admit.
Anyone who is in this material world is condemned. But the next question will be: if one is condemned, then he can be blessed also. The other side of condemnation is blessing. So what is the blessing side?
Has he got any knowledge of the blessing side? Then he is in purpose. As you now say "condemned", there must be blessing. So he does not know what is the blessing side. That he takes as nothing. And that is nonsense.
He says that we cannot escape this situation of freedom, that somehow or other we are therefore responsible for our activities. We cannot escape the situation of being free.
Everyone is free to determine what is his future. Then why do you speak of accident? If you are responsible, then why do we say accident? Two things cannot go on.
If you are responsible, we must be responsible to something else who is condemning you or blessing you, and how can it be accident? These are contradictory.
This situation that we find ourselves in, choosing our future—everyone has to choose his future, what is the next step—then why do you say it's accident, accident?
First of all, you withdraw the word "accident", then you adopt all this. Well, there are certain events that we cannot control. They simply happen to us.
You cannot control that, that can be accepted, but it is supposed that you have controlling power; nothing is accident. Sometimes when you miscontrol, that is accident. So actually that is not accident.
That is your miscontrolling. Not accident. The reason is miscontrol. Miscontrol. Yeah. Uh, mistake-making. Yeah. Because you are responsible. As soon as you act irresponsibly, something, uh, happens which you take as accident.
It is miscontrolled. It is not accident. The same thing, this is like I am shaving with control, and as soon as I am inattentive, it may cut my chin. So it is not accident. It is due to my inattention. Nothing accident. I see.
I am responsible for shaving. But as soon as I become inattentive, my cheek is cut. But that is not accident. That is due to my inattention. So there is nothing like accident.
Even if I open the front door and something hits me on the head, falling on the head. Yeah, inattention. Inattention. We shall be always very attentive. That's why the military laws say—first they say, "Attention!"
As soon as there is no attention, you meet with so many so-called accidents. He says that, uh, the man's nature is an indefinite state of freedom. There's no definite nature that a man has.
That it's continually created as he is. That means he is, uh, eternal. It has to accept that he is eternal. Because he has no definite nature? No, indefinite. What is that indefinite? That means he's constantly changing.
Just like tomorrow I may have another... my body will be slightly different, my mind may change, I may decide, "No, no, change." But that changing is taking place under certain regulation. Not that by accident.
Just like if I become educated, then I get a change in my position, a very nice post. So this is not accident. Because I'm educated, I am getting a nice post.
And because I'm not educated, so I am getting out of that course. But just like moods, for instance, today I'm happy, tomorrow I may be unhappy. So I'm always... I'm not definite. There's no definite nature that I have.
That can be admitted to some extent, that it has got cause. Just like you are put into the sea. So there you have no control and you are moving according to the waves. Yeah.
That means you have controlling power, but you are put in certain conditions where you lose your controlling power.
So it is to be admitted that you are in an awkward position; therefore you cannot ascertain what change is going to take place next. This means you are not in a good situation.
Just like a man, when he is on the land, he has got control. If a car is coming, he can take care. He can save from the accident. But when he's put into the water, the waves are floating here;
it is circumstance, not accidental. Oh, circumstantial and not accidental. If you put yourself in better circumstances, then this uncontrolling feature will not be there. He cannot control himself.
Everything is accident for him. Because he is mad. But if he is cured mad... Um, supposing today I'm happy and my tomorrow is completely within my hands to... because you are under a different condition.
That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: «prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ». You have put yourself under the control of material nature.
Therefore, according to the moods of the material nature, your position is there. Whether when you shall be unhappy or happy, you cannot control it. But his idea is that we have the freedom to control it.
Yes, you have to be freedom. But your freedom is now choked up, being conditioned. But if you are thrown into the ocean, your freedom is choked.
Therefore your duty is how to get yourself released from the condition where your freedom is choked.
Ah, so this is one reason why he says that we are nothing, because he cannot explain, he has no such knowledge that word; it is very easy to say "nothing". Because today we are one thing, tomorrow we are another thing.
So therefore we are nothing. Nothing, of course, nothing in this sense: that we are under the full control of a superior power. Oh, I see. Superior power. Carried by the waves. Ocean is a superior power.
And if you put yourself under the superior power, you are carried out by the field. Therefore you say, "I am nothing." But you are something. Your something will be very much exhibited when you are put on the land.
Anxiety death and spiritual safety
So this nothingness concludes that is out of despair. Yes, yeah. That's his whole philosophy. It is out of despair. So that is not intelligent. That is not intelligent. Intelligence doesn't come from despair. No.
He says that a man chooses himself, he creates his own nature. Yeah, that's a fact. That we have—he creates his nature. So now you have created your nature as nothing, but you can create your nature as something.
Well, the poor fundamental knowledge cannot do that. Therefore he has to take lessons from a high person. Before philosophizing, he should have taken some lesson from persons who are in the knowledge.
That is the Vedic injunction. He says that our essence or our nature is always in the making. It's continually becoming essence. It is not in the making, it is change. He is thinking it is making.
But in this sense, making it can be telling when he comes to his senses that, "I don't want change. Why the change is taking place?" So when this inquiry comes into him, and if he inquires,
"What is the reason? Although I do not want..." That is the point where making takes place. Then he is able to really know the nature. But he is dismissing, being confused and disappointed.
He's dismissing the whole case, and there is nothing. Make it zero. That is fundamental. And he says that as we make our life continually, but it all ends at death, everything's finished.
The principle on which the body is standing, that he does not die. The changing is accepted as death. Change. It's like I am in this apartment, I change this apartment, I go three miles away. So that does not mean I am dead.
Similarly, the active principle which is changing, when he takes another, because we cannot see where he has gone, we say it is dead.
But a sane man who knows that although I cannot see him, he must have taken somewhere another apartment. That's all.
He says, "Once I have the thought that I am free, then and that my choices will cause changes in the world. Therefore, I become overwhelmed with the responsibility and I become full of anguish and anxiety."
This, he says, is the modern man's condition of existence. That he's overwhelmed with the anxiety of having issues. He is in an awkward position. He wants to be in a peaceful position.
But he does not know how to get that position. So because he does not know, that does not mean that there is no peaceful position.
Suppose it is something like that: that a man in the market, he has been cheated simply by counterfeit currency. He is disappointed that there is no real money. But actually that is not a fact.
The government is there and the currency is there. There is real currency. And his idea is that "Once I understand that whatever I choose, that I will have to be responsible for that.
Then I become full of anxiety because I'm always thinking, 'Well, I have to choose right in order to enjoy something. If I choose wrongly, I must suffer. I am responsible both ways.'" That's right.
So he says this feeling of responsibility makes me always dreading and anxious about the future. Yeah. But the responsibility is there, certainly.
But why you do not take the responsibility of transferring yourself to a safe place where you will have no anxiety? But it may be you do not know where is a safe place. But why don't you ask somebody who knows it?
Why are you becoming disappointed? As you say that you have got responsibility, why, as a responsible man, search out somebody who can see you about the safety place where there is no anxiety? We can give.
That is called Vaikuṇṭha. No anxiety. Vaikuṇṭha means no anxiety. There is a claim. His claim is that we are tossed into the world and we are abandoned by God. That God is dead. Yes. Abandoned by God does not mean God is dead.
You are condemned. That you have admitted. So your condemnation, does that mean God is also condemned? God is always... who has condemned you, he is always saved. So he cannot be dead.
Because we've been abandoned by God, therefore we must rely on ourselves alone. That I can... No. He... abandoned by God, why? God is not partial that he is accepting somebody and abandoning somebody.
You have done something for which you are abandoned. So you, if you rectify your position, you will be accepted again.
His idea is that because, we have to choose for ourselves, everything is in our hands; that, for instance, we can become in a situation either a coward or a hero. This is in our hands. Some situation that we must confront.
What we can do if you say that you are being tossed by some superior power, how you can become a hero? If you become a hero, then you will be more kicked. Because you are under superior power.
Therefore, a man is a culprit, he is under police custody. So if he becomes a hero, he'll be simply beaten and punished, that's all.
Yeah, his... I remember one example he gave was that supposing there is wartime and you are called upon to go to war. He said it wouldn't matter if you went or didn't go. If you went, then you must choose to be a hero.
You must fight very bravely and not be a coward. But if you don't go, then you must choose to be a hero to resist the war. You must choose to be a hero resisting the war.
One way or the other you have to choose to be a hero and not a coward. A coward? You are neither a coward nor hero. You are simply an instrument. You are just like a child plays with the doll.
The doll is plays sometimes with this side, that side, sometimes sometimes on his breast. So you are just like a dog. You can neither become hero nor become crowd, uh, coward.
You are completely under the control of somebody superior. Suppose someone is attacking you, ready to kill you.
Do you have the power to choose whether to be a hero and defend or whether to run or not? Hero to defend is a natural, uh, action. Even a dog can become hero when he's attacked by somebody. Even an ant can become hero.
One ant is walking on the table. If you check his way, he he also becomes a hero. So there is no use becoming a hero like that. Suppose someone that heroism and cowardism is the same. It is simply mental concoction.
Because after all you are under the control of somebody; he can do as he likes with you. So what is what is the value of your becoming hero and coward?
And supposing someone else is in danger and you go and rescue them, isn't that being a hero? Or you decide not to and you go away. But you cannot rescue.
You rescue and it's like one man is drowning and you become a hero and jump over the water and take out his shirt and coat, and you come on the shore: "They are safe." Similarly, you have no eyes to see whom to save.
We are simply seeing the dress. So they're saving the dress; that is not heroism, neither it is protection. So the real heroes are the devotees. Yeah. Actually so. I see.
His idea is that in any situation you have to be the hero, whether it's if you're a businessman you have to valiantly do your business and make, uh, a good business, and then you're a hero.
So a real hero one can be when he is fully empowered or he's fully protected. So that hero is a devotee. He's fully protected by Krishna. Oh. Huh.
Sometimes they when they portray heroes in in different ways. that kind of hero you find, the insect... they're very heroically falling on the fire. It always belies it.
It always appears that the hero is protected, that nothing can stop him. He's so, uh, he's so heroic, nothing can stop him. That heroism is like the insect heroism.
There's blazing fire and all kinds of ants and heroes and things, and so what is the use of such heroes? He has no sound on it. No. He's talking special. Well, there he's divorced.
Social choice and individual integrity
No, yesterday we were discussing this Jean-Paul Sartre. And his point was that man finds himself responsible for his own actions.
Not only individually, but he finds that the world is his own choosing, so that he has a social responsibility as well. As soon as we speak our response, we speak. So there is no question of chance.
You cannot say sometimes like chance. Sometimes he says that by making decisions and choosing this or that, that one, uh, becomes responsible for his actions. But ultimately it doesn't really matter what he chooses.
The choice is the... the choosing is the important thing. That is whimsical. And it's still irresponsible. Yes. Whatever I choose, I must be responsible for. But it doesn't matter so much for the choice.
If the beginning is irresponsible, then what is the question of responsibility? This is an answer in trouble.
The beginning is... it is just like there is a story: some thief stole some gold, and there are many, four or five thieves, they were dividing the stolen property, and one of them said, "Now let us divide it honestly."
And they are speaking of honesty. Just like you Americans, you came from Europe, another country. You stolen the property. Now you make immigration. "You cannot come." "You cannot come." It is like this pillage.
The whole thing is stolen property and they are talking of honesty. Devil citing scripture. So where is the response? The beginning is the response from chance.
One of his examples I remember is, uh, for instance, there's a war, so I have to choose whether to fight in the war for my country or resist the war as unethical. And his, his idea is that it doesn't matter.
Whatever you choose, you must be a hero or do it very responsibly. Either resist the war or fight in the war. But it doesn't matter ultimately which side you choose. What does that mean?
If you go to hell, you must go like a hero. Yeah. That's like one man who was fighting with another man and he could not fight yet. He was going away, running away. The other man challenged, "Where are you going away?"
So, "Why not? I select to go away." "Am I afraid of you?" "Why should I not go away?" "Am I afraid of you?" He's going away, he's defeated. Still he said that, "Why should I not go?" "Am I afraid of you?" It is actually... Yeah.
So this is, this is childish feeling. It says that because I, I have freedom to choose, that makes me susceptible to bad faith. To a condition which you call bad faith. Yeah, or irresponsibility. Yeah, freedom of choice.
That's nice. But, but if you do not make your choice nicely, then you have to suffer. That is his point.
Well, his, his, his idea is that because we have freedom, this makes us tend to be irresponsible, to, to shun, uh, to, uh, uh, shy away from taking responsibility. No. Responsibility is there. And freedom is there.
Just like ordinarily in our dealing. Upon responsibility, the direction is given to the right, or there is red light, stop. So if I do not care for the red light, then I am thinking I will be killed. That is responsibility.
We have responsibility, but at the same time, we have got the discrimination. Without discrimination, there cannot be any response. So responsibility is not blind.
That means you should discriminate; you should know what is right and wrong. That is responsibility. If you do wrongly, then you'll have to suffer. That is his point.
But his idea is that because we're free, we tend to avoid responsibility. That is freedom: that you can make your choice between right and wrong. That is without... But what if you avoid even choosing right or wrong?
What if you even avoid the act of choosing right or wrong? You simply drift without any decision. Right or wrong? Wrong. That is... it is faulty. That's what he's saying.
You have to... it means you have to make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom. Yes.
But his idea is that because we are free, we sometimes we neglect to even choose between right and wrong decision; then we should suffer. That is the response. Why you have done wrong? That is a choice. That is a choice.
Yeah. He's not recognizing that that is a choice. You could not choose that way unless you had this freedom. No, it's not like that.
Supposing there's a war, a country goes to war; there's the choice whether to say it is... choose whether it is right or wrong, but I avoid the choice altogether. I don't enter into it. Apathetic.
No, why? We cannot avoid the choice. There is democratic government when we agree to fight with the other. That means you have given assent. No, but I haven't made this very clear.
But that because we have freedom, we become susceptible to bad faith. Bad faith means that we avoid making any decision at all, good or bad. We simply drift. We call it the drift.
We go day to day without entering and becoming involved with any responsible decision- making. That means drift means that is decision. That is decision. When you drift, that is disease.
People, uh, people especially these days, they, they want to avoid making any kinds of decisions. Especially hippies. Therefore you must take other decisions. Uh, media's decision.
So he says that this condition cannot make any decision. He should take decisions from the parents. That is the point. It's like these hippies: they wake up whenever they wake up, they wake up.
Whenever they want food, they eat. Like that. So what do you... who cares for them? Yeah. Well, he says this is the condition of the Arjun. No. This is the... this is condition of a pig, not for Arjun.
No, he says that because we are free, that we are susceptible to this condition, that's all. But he said that this condition means free means to make right or wrong. That is free. Freedom does not mean dullness or passive.
Yes. But because we are free, we become secondary. It's like a dog. The dog is free. He can go to the right, to the wrong, right side or wrong side. Nobody cares for that. That is for the dog.
But he is human; he decides instead of going to the right, to the left, then he's killed because he is not responsible. Yeah. So I will take dog's philosophy and man's philosophy. Dog's philosophy: he has no decision.
It sometimes goes this and... So whether he is man or dog. He is a man, he must decide right or wrong with this one. That is a man.
He says that that this condition, this condition of bad faith, must be replaced by a solid choice in choosing and faith in their choosing.
For instance, if one chooses a certain path of action, then he must have faith that by carrying out this action valiantly, heroically, that he will, uh, be doing the right thing.
But if his decision is wrong, then what? He did not say it is easy. He says there's no such scale of right and wrong. There's no, uh, absolute right and wrong. But everything depends upon how the most responds.
There is no right and wrong. Well, whatever I do, I must do it all, I must do it anyway. Whatever you do, we do it too. Physically, does he need to say like that? No, whatever you do, you do, uh, courageously.
And courageously, that's like the, uh, example I gave: the insect goes very courageously to the fire. Is that a very nice decision? To go forward courageously into the fire. They go courageously.
He has another, uh, definition of this bad faith: that bad faith means treating oneself as an object instead of a person. That I treat myself like a thing or an object instead of a person. This is bad faith. Bad faith, me?
Treating myself as an object instead of a person. But you are personal, how can we become an object? No, but because we, we are susceptible to bad faith, that this condition exists in the world.
People are treating each other as objects. He is black, he is white, he is old—all these rich objects instead of persons. This is called bad faith. He wants to rectify that condition that prevails.
Good faith is dealing with someone else, uh, genuinely as a person, uh, despite whatever that person is doing. That doesn't matter so much, what he is doing, but how he is doing it. Uh, is that very clear?
A person is doing something. It doesn't matter so much what he is doing, but how he is doing it. That he is doing it genuinely with full, uh, integrity.
Then if, if a man is stealing, then he, he is doing it very scientifically. Yes. Is that all right?
Yes, the existentialist... And there are many, many, uh, thieves, they know how to go into the bank treasury, yeah, trying to... Is it all right?
Yes, he is an existential hero, the thief, or the good, the good thief, or the good killer. Then the same hero, just like the insect hero. The same hero. The insect hero very boldly goes to the fire. The same.
He is no better than an insect without any knowledge of this goodness. We treat ourselves as things, as objects, because we are afraid to accept ourselves from being such unsavory characters.
In other words, if I look at myself, I do not like what I see because I'm so full of, uh, sinful activity, I'm such an unsavory character. So therefore I objectify myself.
I begin to think that I am, uh, an engineer, I am a scientist, I am this, I am that. So many designations, but I don't see myself as a person because I don't like to see myself.
So he says that existential analysis requires existential psychoanalysis. He's a cruel. He doesn't say, "I'm a philosopher." Then what does he say? Other people say he is a philosopher.
He says he wants to pose himself as a... but that was talking all this nonsense. Yes. So this existential psychoanalysis is supposed to get down to the root of a man's existence. And has he seen that? Has he gone up to that?
Well, the level that he takes it to is that man is basically being-for- himself. That's a life, that is the individuality. Yes.
And that his decision-making power, his freedom to make decisions, is his real essence, his real nature. So he admits also at the same time responsible. Yes.
So that means he must have the power to make decisions, right and wrong. Yes, that is the main thing, though, is that he must abide by his decision. That is his idea. But whatever he chooses, then he must live it.
Not necessarily. If I decide to stay, it is better to avoid. See. Not that because I've decided to stay, I must stay, just like the hero. And then what to do? For Sartre there's no absolute right and wrong.
Some of his main heroes are great thieves and debauchees. Like, uh, there's one... what is his name there? Alexander. Alexander and the robber, there is a story. A robber was arrested by Alexander.
And there is talk between Alexander and the robber. He proved that "You are a big robber, that's all." "Why you are going to punish me?" And he was released. Yes, it would be. I don't think I would take you on, so...
He says that we can remedy the whole situation of, uh, bad faith, and, uh, being an unsavory character, and being, being treating myself as an object instead of a person, by choosing for myself the person I ought to become.
Ideal person. An ideal person, and become that ideal person. So what is the definition of that ideal person?
Well, from some of his books, it would be the person who, uh, very heroic type person who sees things as they, as they are, and courageously.
Yes, many of his heroes are robbers and, uh... so the, the robbers are, uh, ideal person? With big thieves? In that they portray a, uh, an integrity, a self-integrity idea. Then tiger is also very nice.
Why do you fight with tiger? Why do you... that's right.
Well, his, his idea of a hero would be, would be someone who meets a tiger face to face and courageously deals with it instead of running away. And waiting... whatever
the challenge in life is there, the hero is the one who takes it up. This is... that is natural. I may be hero or not hero, it doesn't matter.
If somebody comes to attack me, I try to fight with him, try to save me, so I may not be successful, but that is my natural instinct. So everyone is having this.
Is free of this bad faith, of this, uh, uh, treating... what is bad faith and is good faith according to him? Bad faith is that I, I avoid decision-making. Mm-hmm. Avoiding decisions, avoiding making decisions is bad faith.
Avoiding making decisions. Yes, and treating other people as objects. Good faith is to make decisions courageously and follow them. Whatever those decisions are. So who makes the decision? I make the decision.
So if your decision is wrong? Well, there's no question of right or wrong in that case. Whatever decision I make, that is final, absolute. Yes. So I will just follow that. And then the same gladness.
The insect decision. Actually. Absolute decision. Even if it is wrong, it is all right. So that is seen in your animals also.
One of Sartre's counterparts, one of his colleagues, Albert Camus, he also wrote about this philosophy, and himself he typified this type of person, that he simply died in an automobile accident by driving a hundred and thirty or forty miles an hour on a small road.
Like an insect player. My decision to run my house without caring for others. Yeah. So this is exactly like the insect.
And they think, "Well, I am responsible for my action," but it's a very irresponsible position because it doesn't take into consideration other people, or supposing you would kill other people too. Irresponsible.
So that is anyone with the same business. Human decision is that there is some law, this speed limit that we abide by. He doesn't care; then he is not a human being, he's an animal.
The human being will take care of it. It might as well, this philosophy gives rise to so much... this philosophy giving rise to these hippies, yeah. So without any response. Whatever is life, I do. That is animalism. He
Universal purpose and Krishna consciousness
says that he has an optimistic side to his philosophy, and that he says the fate of the world depends upon man's decisions. So obviously, if men decide to do things properly, the world can be a better place. Yeah.
We are trying to introduce Krishna consciousness to make the world even... that is our... anyone can come to this Krishna consciousness. But that is not a blind decision. Take decision from higher authority.
Therefore it is perfect. We are taking decisions from the Acyuta, Krishna. There's also a pessimistic side to his philosophy in that he says that man is a useless passion, vainly striving in a universe without a purpose.
And that he is, not all. He is that. He is. Man is useless. A useless passion. So he is that. Not all that. Useless passion. No, say man is used as passion. Say man is guided by superior. That is Vedic Śrīvāsa.
Then he's not useless, then he's not useful. But because he doesn't see any purpose in the universe, then he thinks that is his blindness. He has no sufficient knowledge, he has no sufficient seeing power. There is a plan.
That is stated in the sixteenth chapter of Bhagavad-gītā: asatyam apratiṣṭham, that the world, there is no truth, there is no creator. These are the decisions of the demons. We don't. We say dharma-siddhānta. Supreme.
Everything is that we want to try to understand there is our level. At this level, there is no plan, there is no truth, everything is happening accidentally. Yeah. This is deva.
Because if because he doesn't see any purpose, then he sees all of our efforts. But there is purpose. But because he is foolish, then he does not see anything of purpose. It's like I am hungry.
This fellow said, "Accidentally I'm hungry." I eat some. You know. I am hungry when there is purpose. My body limbs are exhausted. They require energy. So therefore I am hungry. I must take some food.
The food stuff will convert it in energy. And there is a plan. It's not plan. Everything is going on by plan. The sun is rising under some plan. The moon is rising under some plan. Seasonal change is under plan.
Everything is plan. But those devoid, they cannot see. They say, "No, there is no plan there." All activity is a useless struggle, a vain struggle. That is for him because he's unglued and without any direction.
He thinks like that. So his emphasis is not on the activity itself, because it's all made, but how you do it. We don't say it. How you do that? Everything has got a plan.
This guy... we are moving this Krishna consciousness movement. There is a plan. There is an objective. It is not mainly we are doing that. Nothing is done. And that we are, you are in there. There must be some plan.
There it is, plan. That plan, we like that all. So this is actually a major issue with people, especially today, that is there really any purpose to all my work, or for anyone's work, or for anyone's activity?
Is there any ultimate meaning to it or purpose to it? Yeah, do you think people... If you make a decision to do something criminal, the already plan is there: he'll be arrested and punished.
If you make your choice that "I must do it, this is my decision, I must kill that person." You can do that, but there is already a plan that will be the end. That is less intelligence. And not intelligent.
You say there is nothingness. Why nothingness? If it is nothing, then why are you speaking any nonsense? Nothingness. You said yesterday it was a philosophy of despair. Yes. That's what they also say. So we are not despair.
We are not following despair for them. We are hopeful for them. We are going back to home, back to Godhead. He says that to live eternal, blissful love.
He says that we are alone in the world, but we can be a being for others. Why you are alone, why you become being for others? You remain alone, let them remain alone.
But he says we require other people for our self-realization. If we want to understand what I am, that means he requires a guru. Yeah. That's what he means.
Sometimes he means that it is blank, there is no end, there is no plan. Again, he wants to have a guru. But he doesn't say guru, but he says other people we must... Yeah, that's what guru is also, rather than that.
We interact with other people in order to understand ourselves. Yeah. So why not the best man? If we require other men to understand, then why not take the best man?
He says because there are other people, and in the presence of others we feel ashamed. There are many other people, many people.
But we have to take help from others, that I must take help from the best man who knows things. He has observed that if I'm acting in bad faith, that I will be ashamed in the presence of others.
Yes, therefore you should take advice from a man who can give you right direction so that at the end we may not be ashamed, we may be glorious. That is the injunction of the Vedas.
Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet in our today. Converse into that sun. Transcend into a sign, I must have to know if I do it. This... this being ashamed before others. Yes. You will be ashamed.
If you don't be guided by a superior man, you will be ashamed. But if you be guided by a proper man, you will not be. He will be glorified.
He says that if a man considers himself as an object, if he's afraid to look inside himself, then he will also consider other people as objects. And that is the cause of the basic sickness of the world.
So because we treat each other as objects instead of persons. But there is no person. Everybody is person. What is our remedy? What is your remedy? What is your remedy for seeing everyone as persons?
Yeah, that is... that is the real reason. Everyone is person. What... what is the remedy? Where is the cure for seeing everyone as persons? Everyone is, you see or not see, everyone is a person. Yeah. So what does it mean?
Supposing I want to observe everyone in their personal, uh, manifestation, I want to see everyone as a person. See or not see, everyone is a person. Yeah, he is black, he's an American, he is white.
But I want to see everything. That on that—that means discrimination. Every individual person has got discriminate. That is discriminating. That is discriminating. This is good, this is bad, this is bad, this is white.
Duality. So he has got this discriminating power. But I want to see everyone as a person, not as an object. So what is the—how do I do that? Because it's partial, that—what is this unity?
No, but how do I—how do I perceive someone as a person? How do I do it? Because we have got discriminating power. What is the—what is the method for doing it? What is the method of seeing someone as a person?
There is no method. It is directly perceived. I see you. You are what? Individual. But I don't see your individual eye. I see you as an object. Why do you see like that?
Well, I want to know—I want to know how I can see you as a person. What is the cure? What is the remedy? What is the, uh, solution? What is the solution? Everyone is saying. I'm seeing you're a person.
You are seeing—no, I'm seeing someone as an object. How can we change our consciousness? How can we change our consciousness? No, I didn't say that. I want to know how I see someone as a person and not as an object.
How do I do that? What does it—you say that you can tell me how to see someone as a person? Because Māyāvādī, see, he has got some individual propensities. Anyone will see. He has got some individual propensities.
Therefore he's a person. So by observing someone's individual propensities, then I can see them as a person. Yeah. Instead of just seeing black, white, this and that. No. I look for individual propensities. Yeah. Yes.
So I appreciate those. I appreciate or not appreciate. It is there.
Eternal being and spiritual service
He says that the fundamental project of man is his desire to be. Yeah. That means he is eternal. Because he is eternal and he has got that desire to be.
Unfortunately, he is put under certain conditions that he cannot keep himself eternal. That is his problem. That problem we have solved. How to remain, how to keep myself eternal. That is Krishna consciousness.
He says that this desire to be makes us want to seek after thingness, thingness, solidity, density. I want to become like this table because it's something that exists stable.
But because my nature is unstable, then I'm always seeking after thingness. But my real nature is no thingness. The table also will not exist.
It's like if I say that a tree is existing ten thousand years, I don't exist in a hundred years. That does not mean the tree will exist. It will be finished after one thousand years.
Because I do not see the duration of time of its existence, I think that it is... similarly, I'm thinking the table exists. Exists. The table also will not exist. That is my deficiency in seeing power. Nothing exists.
Still, this does not prevent me from wanting something solid, something dense, some situation of permanence. That situation is spiritual. What? That we are giving information.
Because everyone is seeking after that, but they do not know where it is. We are giving that information. Yes. Paras tasmāt tu bhāvo 'nyo 'vyakto 'vyaktāt sanātanaḥ. There is another nature. It is permanent, sanātana.
Even after the annihilation of the whole universe, it will exist. That information we are given.
So he said that this unity of myself, the subject, desiring objectivity, this union of subject and object is called the being-in-itself or God; that man is desiring to be God or a being in himself.
This is more or less that, uh, Māyāvāda philosophy. That when I am completely in knowledge, I become God. It is that he said that is the man's fundamental orientation, is that he wants to become God.
Yes, that we confirm in this way that because he is part and parcel of God, so he wants to be united with God. Because he is now detached from God. So therefore this is like a man is for long, long years out of home.
So he wants to go home again. He says that this desire to be God is bound to fail. Because he is not God. If he is God at all, then how he failed to become non-God? He is desiring to be God. That means he is not God.
So if he is God, how he can become non-God? Therefore he cannot become God, but he can become godly. Very simple. Just that I am in darkness, I want light, so I can come into the sunshine. That does not mean I become sun.
But, uh, when I come to the sunshine, I come to the light. Similarly, when we come to perfect knowledge, that is God, but we cannot become God. If you are God, then there is no question of becoming non-God.
Kṛṣṇa's name is Acyuta. Acyuta means He never becomes non-God. He's God always. When He's three months old on the lap of His mother, He's God. When He's seven years old, lifting the hill, He's God.
And when He's married to 16,000 wives, He is God. When He is dancing with gopīs, He is God. That is God. God is always God. Not that I am non-God now and I shall become God by some means. Mystic factor.
I'll just read a quote from one of these quotes. It says, "To be a man means to reach towards being God." Or if you prefer, "Man fundamentally is the desire to be God."
Every human reality is a passion in that it projects losing itself so as to found being and by the same stroke to constitute the in-itself. So to desire to become God, that is also passion. Because he cannot become God.
This is simply passion. And he says that each—that the human being has the capacity to give up or sacrifice something in order to reach for something higher. Yeah. That's God's too.
He says that we have the ability to lose ourselves to find ourselves, to lose something in order to find something else. That is our process.
That to find ourselves in our real position, we give up so many material enjoyments. Just like a diseased man is ordered by the doctor, "Do not do this."
So peace, sacrificing those things, do not accept them, to become cured from the disease.
This is why he calls man a "useless passion," because he says in the passion of losing himself or giving up something, he'll never really find anything else. So that it's a useless passion to give up this alone. No.
In his case, but this is the process to find out, for understanding, what to find out—the best, I give up something worst. Give up this health. So they're giving up with the aim to get a better thing, Krishna.
He says in the act of giving up you don't find anything any better. No, he does not find. Because he's blind. But we find; we take a vision from a superior person. Our vision is not blind.
He says we are trying to find the state of escaping contingency, or we're trying to reach an absolute state where there is—where we are not conditioned by anything. This is what we're striving for.
But we'll never be able to find that. If we are not conditioned, then how we are trying to reach to the ultimate state?
Well, he says we are conditioned, but we're trying to be unconditioned, but we can never reach that stage. No, that is his hopelessness. That is not our faith. We are giving us something from this standard.
We are giving something, forgetting higher position. So that it's an impossible project to become absolute. Not absolute, but... but to be the right relative. Right related.
I am existing now, but not in a right relative way. I... I... I... I am trying to exist as the Lord, uh, or master. But when I live as a servant, that is my right relation. His idea is that we all want to become God.
That's hopeless. That is hopeless. That... that is gonna... that is wrong. He cannot become God. Uh, the only answer is that he... how you can become God? If you are God, then how become non-God?
God cannot become non-God at any stage, right? I think he looks at it that we are non... we are not God. We know we are not God, but we are trying to become God. That is a Māyāvāda pleasure.
That's my... but he says it's impossible to become God. Yeah, that's nice. Very logical. But because it is impossible to become God, that leaves everything else useless. No. That is another tradition.
You are not God, you are God's servant. Now you are choosing to be God. So give up this idea and become servant. That is right here. You are actually servant of God, but you are posing yourself as master.
So you give up this wrong idea and then you are happy. That's all I want to say. That faith is not to choose. But that is a choice. As Kṛṣṇa explains in Bhagavad-gītā, that there is action and inaction.
And one who can see action in so-called inaction, he's intelligent. But he's in that category of unintelligent people; they take this form of inaction as being inaction.
And so he's taking this so-called drifting as no choice. It's simply a way to make a choice very easily. You're choosing to go down the river with the current. Yeah. Choosing to remain in animal life.
They be controlled completely by external forces. They're surrendering to the material nature. Bhaktimām. This is the hippie philosophy. Making a choice, but the wrong choice. But he says you shouldn't live like this too.
Sartre says you shouldn't live like this, this drifter either. Right. But he says it makes no difference what to choose. But you should have to just choose wrong. No. Just point out they're making a choice.
The point is they're making a wrong choice. Yeah. That's what they do. Therefore you have to make the right choice. It does make a difference.
His philosophy is it doesn't make a difference what you choose, but he's admitting that it doesn't make a difference.
Now you simply have to carry it out, that you have to know what is the right way by the instruction of superior environment. Yeah, we see that.
But he sees it that you don't—it doesn't matter what you choose as long as you make a conscious choice. Then why not just choose to go along consciously? Because that's bad faith.
That's not engaging myself with the world at large. The other choices are simply illusory. Yes, but they're only illusory to somebody who sees things like that.
But for him, at least there's a situation, an encounter—he calls it an encounter. And then I must—either I can walk away from the situation, which is one way of making a choice, but he calls it bad faith.
Or in good faith, I can face the situation and choose to go this way or that way. Still you weren't doing it. Yeah, but that's a bad situation, a bad thing. But I'm not facing—that's interesting.
I come to something, I stop and go back the other way, and I'm still facing something. So it seems like I'm always going back and away and face—I back and turn away. But as soon as you turn away, you're facing a different.
So you turn away again. Then you're facing a different. But you're continuously facing. His hero, the Sartre hero, is someone who courageously faces the situation and chooses one way or the other. It doesn't really matter.
Because ultimately all a man's striving is in vain. We care for that. What it matters is that how you do it. We care about that. We're not courageously drift?
That's a... I think you should probably think that's what you look at. He's arbitrarily making some value, basically.
Courageously drift... it's like Camus drifted right into a telephone pole, and that is that, that is our point. But that is the same courageousness of the animal. Yeah, into the fire, insect class.
He still must have started the other. But his only value really is... is... is the... the courage with which he does that. Just like his... one of his heroes is that... that's it.
Why not... why not take that... that... that... that, uh, that trait which... which is admirable, that courage, and put it into a right decision? That's our philosophy.
Our philosophy is based, first of all, there's a purpose in the universe. But as if... if to begin with his thesis is there's no purpose in the universe, then he can't say there's any right or wrong.
Then... then... then what is the point of any philosophy? If there's no purpose, why should... I mean, his philosophy? His philosophy also is meaningless. You know. No, there's only existence. There's no essence.
There's only existence. Why? Why? Well, because it's something to do. It's... I... I courageously choose to write that song, so I must do it all the way. But it also ultimately... yes, you can probably say this too.
It is that... no. That... that he has to do something to do. Cut everything into pieces. What is that... the famous, uh... there's a hundred jail to do the years? It. Jean-Paul. Jean? Genet, Jean-Paul's. He's one of his heroes.
Genet is here. A sadist, uh, homosexual criminal. He... he... he thought very highly of him 'cause he said, "Well, at least he has chosen something, he's doing it very courageously, openly."
So he got him released from jail. Where has he gotten his actual problem to take that authority? Where has he gotten this idea? For now, uh, he's chosen to become a communist.
So, so he's in very much trouble with government, in fairness. They want to arrest him, but he's too famous. So his life is... he's famous. So
the doubting souls have, you know, that was like a... That's what we don't see for. This was in higher... And then you left higher range because of shame. What is the actual cause of shame?
The cause is... If I'm a... if I'm ashamed to take my clothes off in public, why is that? I have consciousness. The dog has an unconscious thing. It's not developed.
He says something about it... sorry, says something about: you have a resolve in your life, but you don't carry it through.
That, uh, that basically is a shame, and that's because you have an involvement in the one following your shape of the how... giving that I decided to have a bank, I don't have the bank, and that kind of thing. So, well,
I will next. Next we'll go back to, uh, fix the journey for this in which we left the... have them...