Religion And Philosophy Combined Together
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
The relationship between philosophy and religion
Samuel Alexander basically wrote one major book called "Space, Time and Deity". Deity. Deity. And in this book, he defines religion.
He says religion leans on metaphysics for the justification of its conviction of the reality of its object, God; philosophy leans on religion to justify it in calling the possessor of deity by the religious name of God.
The two methods of approach, that is philosophy and religion, are therefore complementary. That's right. Really? When it is combined with philosophy, that makes sense. And religion without philosophy is sentiment.
It has no practical value. For Alexander, religion is like... we should say in this connection, that is, religion and philosophy combined together.
The religion is God worship and everything explained there, just like immortality of the soul, there is philosophy. So it is a combination of religion and philosophy that makes sense.
For Alexander, religion is like hunger, and God is the food for that hunger. Yes. He writes: "The religious which sets us in search of God is our groping out to the reality which is God.
This religious appetite may either be stirred in us directly by the impact of the world with its tendency to deity, or it may first be felt by us as a need of our nature."
So the desire or hunger for God may be motivated either externally or internally. That I explained this morning partially, that actually we are seeking love of God beginning with the body.
That I explained this morning, that we love this body because I live within this body. As soon as I give up this body, the body is neglected; it has no value, throw it.
So so long the living soul is there, the body is valuable.
Understanding the soul and the proprietor
So why the living soul is valuable? Because he is the part and parcel of God. The God is there also within this body. This is explained in the Gītā. There are two living entities.
One is... they all, both of them are known as kṣetra-jña. One kṣetra-jña only knows about his body and the other kṣetra-jña knows all other bodies. That is God and the living entity.
So the body is important because the living entities are there. The subordinate living entity is the part of the supreme living entity.
So ultimately the conclusion is, because the supreme living entity is in the body or within the universe, therefore we have manufactured so many activities of law, society, friendship, nationality, community.
Ultimately, when it culminates to the love of God, then it is perfect.
So the conclusion is that we are searching after the platform where God is loved, but it is going on, I would say, by degrees, one after another in different names.
Alexander despairs of the speculative method as a means for connecting with God, and he also feels that proofs of God's existence in nature are non-existent if such a God is to be identified with the object of worship.
That is to say, we shouldn't worship God in nature. But how can God be known? For him, God can be known by experience. Nor can we prove the existence of God, whether worshipable or not, except on the basis of experience.
It is natural. It is just like the other day I was saying that on the Hawaii island we're standing, we know that the proprietor, the government, is there.
So just as I perceive where there is the sea, and we can conjecture the land has its proprietor, the sea has also its proprietor. We have not seen who is the proprietor of the land, or the governor of the land.
Similarly, there is a governor, proprietor of the sea and the sky, but we have not seen. That does not mean there is no proprietor. No.
By our present experience, we can guess the experience which we have not actually experienced,
as we see that everything has got... I am the proprietor of this body, he is the proprietor of this house, he is the proprietor of that land, he is the proprietor. There must be a proprietor of the sea.
This is common sense. And that is God. The proprietor of the sun, the proprietor of the moon, the sky, that is God. That is described in the Vedic literature.
It is said that the moon is the mind of God, the sun is the eyes of God, the land is the food of God, the water is the semen of God. Everything is discussed. So God can be seen in nature? Yes.
Not only nature, this is the beginning of realizing. This is impersonal.
Defining the supreme authority and deity
But there is a person at the background. If we do not see... We know that there is one governor, a proprietor of the Hawaii Island. We have not seen him. But when he is seen, he is a person. This is the conclusion.
Similarly, so long as we are not competent to see God, we can understand: this is God's hand, this is God's heart, this is God's mind, this is God's eyes.
But when competent, we can see regularly, here is God, face to face. That requires qualification. Because I did not see the governor of Hawaii, that he is not a person, he is impersonal— that is foolishness.
When I become competent to see, qualified to see the governor, you see he's a person. Alexander distinguishes between what he calls deity and God himself. For him, deity is how it feels to be divine.
Now, deity for him is a relative term. It is the next highest level of existence. For instance, for an ant, a dog may be a deity. For a dog, a man may be a deity. For a man, a demigod may be a deity.
He says for any level of existence, deity is the next higher empirical quality. It is therefore a variable quality, and as the world grows in time, deity changes with it.
On each level, a new quality looms ahead, which plays to it the part of deity. However, God is the being which possesses deity in full. That is to say God is always one step ahead of every creature.
They do not know the science of God, but as philosophers they suggest the method that is nice. Just like for an ant, a bird is deity; for a bird, a cat is deity; for a cat, a dog is deity.
So in this way, according to the position, one selects the deity.
But if you go on searching out, when you find out somebody that, uh, he has no anyone to worship, the ant has to worship, the bird has to worship the cat, cat has to worship, and so on.
In this way, when you come to a person who hasn't got to worship anybody, he's God. That is sense.
In the lower state, there is another higher living being than the lower living being, but in this way, searching out, when you come to a point that there is this person who hasn't got to worship anyone,
that is explained in the Vedic text: īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ anādir ādir govindaḥ sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam. He is worshipable by everyone.
And that's why Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gītā: mattaḥ parataraṃ nānyat kiñcid asti. Everyone has someone higher than him for worship, but I have nothing to worship. I am the Supreme. Mattaḥ parataraṃ nānyat.
No, there is no more superior authority than Me. Then He is God. So if one has superior authority, he is not God. He is subordinate. But when it comes to a person who has no more superior than him, then he... Although
Alexander himself tries to describe God in philosophical terms, then his philosophy says that God is that by which... When you come to a person who has no higher, then He's Supreme.
But he feels that ultimately God is beyond description. Yes, but he's giving a description or attempting to give a philosophical definition.
Whatever it may be, but this is the right description: that you find deity in different stages, but when you come to a person that he has no more duty, then he's God.
He says even... We don't find in the life of Krishna that he was in any other, but he worships no one. No. That's why He's God. Nor does He meditate. Nor does He meditate. Meditate upon Himself.
The Māyāvādī has taken it like that. But he has no more anybody higher than him, so he has to meditate upon himself. He does meditate upon himself, just to teach us. And as a family man, in the morning he was meditating. Yes.
Vyāsadeva. So you are meditating upon him, paraṁ dhāma. pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān puruṣaṁ śāśvataṁ divyam ādi-devam ajaṁ vibhum āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve devarṣir nāradas tathā asito devalo
vyāsaḥ svayaṁ caiva bravīṣi me. Arjuna said: "You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and purifier, the absolute truth and the eternal divine person.
You are the primal God, transcendental and original, and you are the unborn and all-pervading beauty.
All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa proclaim this of you, and now you yourself are declaring it to me." That's definitely all authorities accept, and you, the Personality. Then what evidence more?
What is possible evidence? No evidence, finished. I personally experience, you personally say, and the authorities accept you. Things should be simplified.
Infinite forms and omnipotence of God
Meanwhile, Alexander is saying he seems to conceive of God in a universal form. He says, "Now the body of God is the whole universe, and there is no body outside His." That is explained in Bhagavad-gītā.
For men like Alexander and company, Arjuna requested Kṛṣṇa to show His universal form because he knew that "I am accepting Kṛṣṇa and He is supreme, but there are many persons with poor fund of knowledge, they may not accept."
Therefore he requested Kṛṣṇa to show him the universal form. That is shown. So that is another proof for persons like Mr. Alexander and company. The... in the eleventh chapter the universal form is very nicely explained.
But the universal form was shown by Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa is original. The form is not original. It was manifested by Kṛṣṇa. That Kṛṣṇa naturally... part is Kṛṣṇa. The universal part is a feature of it.
That... that is also confirmed in the Gītā: Gītā, Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo. Why not big words? “Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate iti matvā bhajante māṁ budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ”.
“I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service.”
Everything emanates from Me—meaning the universal form must emanate from Him. So one who understands it, he becomes a Krishna devotee. “Iti matvā bhajante māṁ budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ”. But He is the original form also.
Then he becomes a Krishna devotee. He sees God's... Alexander sees God's deity as being different from others in that it is infinite. This is the continuation of Alexander that was interrupted due to the defective tape.
Alexander considers God's deity as differing from that of others in being infinite. And he says God's body—this sense should be explained. Because God is infinite, He has infinite deities also. That is infiniteness.
He is presented as deity that is infinitely varieties. That is infiniteness. Why sticking to one deity? That is his not understanding the meaning of what is infinite. That is explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā:
“Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam”. Ananta-rūpam—He has deity infinite. That is infinite. Because He is infinite. “Infinite, He has no deity”—that is not real conception.
He is infinite and He has got infinite deity forms. He says God's body, being the whole universe of space-time, is the source of the categories, but not itself subject to them. Yeah.
So if God is deity, He is also not subject to this created living being. That is condemned when one thinks God's deity as one of the deities within this material world; he is condemned as mūḍha: “avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā”.
“Mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam”. Because I appear just like a human being, the rascals, asses, they think of Me as an ordinary human being.
Now in this book, Space, Time, and Deity, on page 380, Alexander writes... Alexander takes the Aristotelian view of God in saying there is no reciprocal action from God, for though we speak, as we inevitably must, in human terms of God's response to us, there is no direct experience of that response except through our own feeling that devotion to God or worship carries with it its own satisfaction.
That is his imperfectness. God is omnipotent. He comes before Kṛṣṇa or Arjuna and He speaks Bhagavad-gītā.
So because he has no advanced knowledge, he cannot understand how God, omnipotent, all-powerful, can come and speak with His devotees. That is his poor fund of knowledge.
If God is omnipotent, why He cannot come and talk with His devotee? Then where is His omnipotence? These rascals cannot understand. There is no meaning of omnipotence if God cannot come and talk with His devotee.
Because they have no experience of that. That means we are of four fundamentals. The knowledge is not perfect. We are talking of God omnipotent, and He cannot talk with you?
You see, he's restricted by his own law, by his own experience. He's such a fool. This was also Aristotle's view. He said it's foolish, for he says man directs love toward an object that can reciprocate love.
Therefore, it's foolish to love Zeus because Zeus does not extend his love to man. This was the Aristotelian view. Zeus. Zeus is the Greek god. Greek name for God.
Divine reciprocation and dealings with devotees
He reciprocates to the advanced devotee just like it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Once he is in full love with God, He talks with you. He doesn't talk with ordinary rascals.
And in the Brahma-saṁhitā, it is said: premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena. Santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu... when one develops love of God, sādhu person, always he sees God within his heart.
So it is the question, just like Kṛṣṇa said that, "I am talking to you because you are My devotee, bhakto 'si." Why God should talk with a non-devotee? He has no business.
Let's say a king, he talks with his immediate officer, minister. He does not talk with his street man. How can you expect? How this street man can express that "I want to talk with the king as the president"?
That is not possible. He talks. He talks with the qualified devotees, not with others. Wasn't there also something he says that "as you approach me"? Yes, actually, just like we're talking. You can talk with the others.
The gopīs, to be named inhabitants, they are playing with Kṛṣṇa. And Yaśodā is binding Kṛṣṇa. There's an ordinary child. But these things are not happening ordinarily.
Bhāgavatam says that what this gopī Yaśodā did in her past life, that the Supreme Lord is sucking her breast. You cannot expect the dealing as God is doing with Yaśodā, Nanda Mahārāja, the gopīs.
Therefore we have to be qualified to that position to deal with God. Another place is the... itthaṁ satāṁ brahma-sukhānubhūtyā dāsyaṁ gatānāṁ para-daivatena, māyāśritānāṁ nara-dārakeṇa sārdhaṁ vijahruḥ kṛta-puṇya-puñjāḥ.
These boys who are playing with Kṛṣṇa, they have amassed their pious activities for many, many lives; now they have come to this position to play with God. It is not an ordinary position.
Therefore, the rāsa thing, this is... it is... but it is inconceivable by them.
But when one comes to that state, he can play with God, he can ride on the shoulder of God and talk with Him as an ordinary friend, ordinary child. So one has to come to that position. Kṛta-puṇya-puñjāḥ.
One who has amassed the resultant action of pious activities for many millions of lives, he can have these things.
Six pages later, Alexander writes: "The community is one of cooperation. The individual is sustained by trust in God, but he wants and claims the help of God as a child his father's, and in turn God reciprocates the worship man pays Him and the confidence he reposes in Him."
He says that, six pages after he says God does not reciprocate. There is no such reciprocation from God. But yet he says the reciprocation. He says the reciprocation. That's just confusing.
But he goes on further to say there's always the double relationship of need. If man wants God and depends upon him, God wants man and is so far dependent. Yes, everyone is dependent. There's no personality.
But how is God dependent on man? Well, he seems to be saying that. Huh? He says if man wants God and depends upon him, God wants man and is so far dependent.
Yes, that is acceptable in this sense that God is independent thoroughly, but sometimes he wants to become dependent. That is his pleasure. And he accepts some of his devotees so that he can depend on them.
Just like Mother Yaśodā. God became dependent on Mother Yaśodā. Unless Mother Yaśodā allows God to suck her breast, God will die. God is thinking like that and is crying. That is God's pleasure.
That everyone is dependent on Him and He is not dependent on anyone. So, you know, to derive this pleasure, how a dependent child enjoys the care of mother, he accepts to become a son of a devotee.
That is not very ordinary thing to understand. But yes, it is extra. I'm not sure that Alexander understood it in that way. No, how he can understand? He's a talkative philosopher.
He says God himself is involved in our acts and their issues. Not only does he matter to us, but we matter to him. Yes, that is in one sense correct. Because we are fallen, conditioned, and we are sons of God.
So we are suffering. God is very much compassionate. Therefore he comes personally to teach us. "Why you are rotting in this material world? You surrender to me and go back to home, back to Godhead, I will be happy."
Therefore he is concerned. Otherwise he comes from Vaikuṇṭha. Everyone, just like a son, is not in his own way.
But the father comes: "My dear son, why you are rotting in this way? You come home, you'll live there comfortably." But he does not come. That is his misfortune.
Now, how God's becoming concerned about us is natural because we are sons of God, but at the present moment we are disobedient, therefore we are conditioned by nature.
So we are suffering, and God being the Supreme Father, He feels—for He is not suffering, but He feels.
As the devotee feels for this condition, so because he is servant of God, he knows that God feels for this conditioned soul, that suffering. Krishna also gives recognition to the devotee.
The devotees who are trying to preach the gospel, the instruction of Krishna, Bhagavad-gītā, he is the most dear devotee to Krishna, He said. And because he is acting on behalf of God... Today you had this read and so.
Reconciling pantheism with the personal feature
He speaks of theism and pantheism. Now we might equate theism with personalism and pantheism with impersonal, the impersonal aspect. That is nothing. Impersonal means when we cannot see that the background is personal.
We can of course take the lesson from nature that the sunshine is impersonal, but the background is sun-god.
But because we are in a very lower state of flight, we can simply experience the sunshine, but we cannot go and talk with the sun-god. That is not possible.
Similarly, the background is person and the expansion of God's energy is impersonal. Because we are in the energy, we are not direct in touch with God, therefore we say that God is impersonal.
We have no such capacity now, but there if we become devotee, we can attain that position when we can talk with God in person as the gopīs and the cowherd boys and other Vṛndāvana inhabitants do.
He says for theism, God is an individual being distinct from the finite beings which make up the world. For finite... He's not finite. No, He is distinct. He's different.
He is an individual but He is different from the finite. That is the basic Indian... Uh, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām. He is also cetana. He is also living being. We are also eternal, we are also living beings.
But He's the chief. How is He? Eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān. That single number, eternal living being, is maintaining all this plural number of living beings.
Therefore we find, either in this material world or in this spiritual world, so much arrangement. The sky is there, the air is there, the fire is there, the water is there, the land is there.
He has made, even in this conditioned state, God has given us so many things. Made for our materials. We require water, we require fire, we require air. So many things, and God has given us ample opportunity.
So He's maintaining. Without air we cannot live. Without water we cannot live. Without fire we cannot live. So yes, that one is mentioned.
So one, the chief eternal living being, is God, and the subordinate eternal living beings are the jīvas, are the conditioned souls. Well, that's on one hand, theism.
He says for pantheism, "God is immanent in the universe of finite things, a pervading presence." Yes, presence is just like the water has come from Me.
We say the energy of God, the light is coming from God; we say the sun is the eye of God. In this way everything is related, emanating from God.
So so long we do not understand wherefrom these things are coming, it appears God is impersonal.
But when we understand that here is the source of the sky, this air, the light, the water, the land, and then so, impersonal feature means a subordinate feature to the Person.
That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: «mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ». All the sky, earth, fire, air, land, water, everything, that is My expansion. «mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam». Sarvam means everything.
And mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni, they are staying on Me. Just like the sunshine is on the sun. As soon as the sun sets, there is no sunshine. Similarly, the sunshine appears to be very big,
and the sun globe appears to be small. But the whole sunshine is depending on the sun globe. Similarly, the whole exhibition of impersonal representation — earth, water, fire, sky, service — they're all depending on God.
Krishna is saying, "mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam": "Everything that you see, that is my expansion," and everything is resting on these elements. Then when he says, "mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni." "But personally I'm not there."
Standing on this vast land or in the ocean, he is in God, but personally he cannot see. Therefore, Krishna says, "Personally, I'm not present there," although he is standing on me.
Kuntī also says that you are within and without all, but still the fools cannot see you. Only the paramahaṁsas can see you. That is in Kuntī's prayer. Find... Find out this Kuntī's prayer.
Why don't you give the verse? Why don't you just give the... give the verse, read... Give the verse numbers for the types. Yeah. Canto one, chapter eight, text eighteen, nineteen, and twenty.
Shall I just do the English? Shall I? Oh, yeah. Śrīmatī Kuntī said: "O Krishna, I offer my obeisances unto you because you are the original personality and are unaffected by the qualities of the material world.
You are existing both within and without everything, yet you are invisible to all.
Being beyond the range of limited sense perception, the eternally irreproachable factor, covered by the curtain of deluding energy, you are invisible to the foolish observer, exactly as an actor dressed as a player is not recognized."
You yourself descend to propagate the..." Very good example.
His father is playing on this stage, and the son is seeing, and another friend is saying, "See, do you see your father?" "Where is my father?" He does not recognize his father, but he is there as well.
Then the third verse.
"You yourself descend to propagate the transcendental science of devotional service unto the hearts of the advanced transcendentalists and mental speculators who are purified by being able to discriminate between matter and spirit."
Finished? The speculators have no knowledge. He says it is not so much that God is in everything, but rather that everything is in God. How foolish that is. What is this position? He is inside and outside.
He's within and without. Why should it be more one way than the other? Because there is nothing but God. How he can be without God? Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. Everything is God. Explain.
How can we be sometimes in God and sometimes not in God? When it's not in God, that means it is māyā. The māyā is also God. Māyā, so how can it be without God? That is illusion. Just
like this criminal, he thinks, "I can be independent of the government." No, that is not possible. Either you remain in jail or outside the jail, you are under the law. But he thinks that "I'm free." That is foolishness.
He's not free at any time. Now he analyzes theism, which is the personal aspect, and pantheism, the impersonal aspect, and he finds both defective in themselves. And so what is his position? This is his position:
"If the question is asked whether the speculative conception of God or deity which has been advanced here as part of the empirical treatment of space-time and has appeared to be verified by religious experience belongs to theism or pantheism, the answer must be that it is not strictly referable to either of them, taken by itself."
That the sky is also a reference to God. The sky is explained as the heart of God. And the water is explained as the semen of God. The moon is explained as the mind of God. The sun is explained as the eyes of God.
The land is explained as the foot of God. So everything is a fact to God. So for a person who understands God, there is nothing existing without God. So how can God be separate? That is a fact.
So pantheism or any -ism to take it as a friend to God. What he says? Now this he goes on to say, he says,
"It doesn't belong strictly, strictly belong to theism or pantheism, the answer must be it is not strictly referable to either, taken by itself, that in different respects it belongs to both, and that if a choice must be made, it is theistic, that is personal.
For God, for us, is... And that means when you come to the personal God, you see that everything is with reference to God. There is nothing independent. This viśva is Bhagavān.
But it appears that it is different from Bhagavān to the less intelligent. So there cannot exist anything without Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
But those who have no sufficient knowledge, they think that this is separate from God and God is separate from you.
Individual responsibility and the finite soul
He says God is both body and soul, and His soul is His deity.
Since God's body is the whole of space-time, God in respect of His body is all-inclusive, and all finites are included in Him, and in their continuous connection as pieces of space-time and linked by spatiotemporal continuity, they are fragments of God's body, though their individuality is not lost in it.
This is right. This is right. This experience has God. Very good work. God is an individual being just as man or any other finite is. Okay, now he's coming to that. Only that He is infinite. Yes. He's personal.
But He's not a person like us. But sometimes due to a poor fund of knowledge, that is explained: avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam.
Because I am here talking with Arjuna just like a human being, they're thinking that I am also a human being. No. He is infinite. Arjuna is finite. That is explained in the fourth chapter also, that,
"Arjuna, you are doubtful. How I can remember that I spoke this philosophy to the Sun-god some millions of years ago?" Naturally, a finite man cannot imagine how one can remember. That is the difference between you and Me.
That I know everything, you forget, so although you are a living being, eternal, I am also living, eternal, that is the difference between us. He says God's body is not spaceless nor timeless, for it is space-time itself.
Yes, everything emanates from Him. Oh, that is nothing separate from God. God includes everything. That is the concept of mahat-tattva. Everything has emanated from Him. This is the final point.
He says concerning the existence of evil, the description is right. The description on the... the last description, that last description. That the living entities are fragments of God's body. Everything is not long.
Everything that you see, they are part and parcel of God. The other day I was saying that the wheel, the whole wheel is resting on the axle. So the axle is there. The wheel is moving. So everything is part and parcel of God.
Therefore the Māyāvādī philosophy, "everything is one", yes. But they do not accept the variety. The wheel is one. That's all, I see.
Sometimes it is called spoke, sometimes it is called the ring, sometimes it is called the hub, uh, sometimes it is rolling, sometimes it is stopped, but everything is the wheel, nothing but... we go
through a lot of, a lot of speculation to arrive at the final point. Concerning the existence of evil and suffering in the world, he writes: "God is not responsible for the miseries endured in working out His providence,"
but rather explains. Yes, he says rather we are responsible for our acts. We suffer. That's like the silkworm. He creates a cocoon and becomes entrapped and dies. He's guilty.
This jīva, the jīva, and becomes entrapped. But the silk he creates. But it's called cocoon. Yes, the cocoon. He becomes entrapped. Similarly, mṛtyu-saṁsāra-vartmani.
Because he is acting independently, without caring for God's instruction, then he is entangled. He suffers. Then he is baddha-jīva. God has not created his misery. He has created his own. That's the end of how you've ended.