ethos

God's energy is so subtle that it works simply by His will.

Sysmasundara dasa: Kant maintains that the mental speculators try to reconstruct ultimate reality by applying mundance categories to it. They attempt through the mind to create what Srila Prabhupada: For mental speculators, the real world is nothing more than the negation of this world. This is voidism. In this world, we experience that everything is material. The mental speculator's materialistic thinking induces him to conclude taht the spiritual must be the opposite of the material. Since the material has form, the spiritual must be formless, or void. This is typical materialistic thinking. He thinks, "Since this is not truth, the opposite must be truth." Sysmasundara dasa: Kant says that "the world is my representation." That is, this real world becomes an ideal construction in the mind of man. Srila Prabhupada: We try to construct an ideal world, but we are frustrated here because everything is temporary; therefore we can understand that the ideal must be eternal. No one wants to die; we all want to live. However, this is hopeless because the body is not eternal. Therefore, we understand that in the ideal world, the body is eternal. Hayagriva dasa: Kant acknowledges that there is a design in nature but that man, not being able to know the total design, cannot know for certain whether there is a designer. The design, as man sees it, does not necessarily prove the existence of the designer. His existence can only be intuited. Srila Prabhupada: As soon a we see pottery, we immediately understand that there is a potter. It is impossible for pottery to be made any other way. Hayagriva dasa: Kant would say that the design can be intuited but not known. Sila Prabhupada: To a foolish man, everything is unknown, but a man in knowledge knows everything from authority, or from direct perception. Some way or other, the knowledge is there. Something is unknown when one doesn't care to know, or doesn't want to receive the knowledge.

Here are two Lecture excerpts from the Vedabase. In the first one, I would agree that love and service are equated. In the second, service is explained without love in a material context. 1st Srimad Bhagavatam Lecture 2.2.5 L.A., Dec 2, 68 This life of spiritual execution cannot be hampered by any material condition. From Srimad-Bhagavatam we understand that sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokøaje [sB 1.2.6]. That is the highest type of religious performances by which one can achieve the perfection of loving God. Yato bhaktir adhoksaje. Bhakti means to offer transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord. Bhakti. Bhaj-dhatu sevaya(?). Bhaj. Bhaj-dhatu, it is a verb, bhaj. Bhaj means to render service just like servant renders service to the master, friend renders service to the friend, wife renders service to the husband, husband renders service to the wife. This service-rendering process is going on everywhere. Nobody is absolute that he does not render service to anyone. That is not possible. I have repeatedly explained that if somebody has no master to serve, he voluntarily accepts a cat or dog as his master to serve. The nice name is pet dog, but it is serving. The mother serves the child. So one who has no child, he takes the cat as her child and serves. So the service mood is going on everywhere. But the highest perfection of service is when we learn to serve the Supreme Absolute Lord. That is called bhakti. And that bhakti execution of service to the Lord is ahaituki. Just like we have got some little examples. This mother is serving the child not with any expectation. She loves to serve the child. She wants to see the child is in comfort, the child does not feel any discomfiture. That is her pleasure. There is no reason why she is loving. That is natural. Similarly, when we invoke our natural love for God, that is the highest perfection of religious principle. Ahaituky apratihata. Apratihata means it cannot be checked by any material condition. Just like we want to chant Hare Krsna; this is service. This is the beginning of service, chanting the glories of the Lord, or praying the Lord, ?Hare, O the energy of the Lord, Krsna, O Lord, please engage me in Your service.? This is the prayer. Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare, repeatedly, ?Please engage me. Please engage me.? But God can give you many things. Whatever you want, He is giving. Ye yatha mam prapadyante. He can give you even salvation, but very rarely He gives you the chance of serving Him. 2nd Srimad Bhagavatam Lecture 2.9.16, Tokyo, April 30, 72 So this service... Here in this material world, service means neither master or servant. Service means to the senses. That?s all. We are servant of our senses. We give service to the master?not to the master. I give service to the money?he pays me?not to the master. I have no love for the master. Here anyone goes to the office or goes to service, he does not... He has no business to give service to a certain man, but because he will pay, that means he gives to the, service to the money. And why he gives service to the money? Because it is required for my sense gratification. Therefore ultimately I give service to my senses. The so-called service to the society, friendship, love, country, nation?all bogus. I do service to my senses, sense gratification. That?s all. Therefore here service means service to my sensuous kama, lust. Kamadmam, kama. First of all I am lusty; therefore anyone who is not, who does not require money, he does not go to give service. So because I am lusty?I require some money to fulfill my lusty desires?I go to serve. So therefore kamadmam kati na katidha. And I give service to a man. If he proposes that ?I will give you $5,000. You go and kill that man,? oh, I will do immediately. I will go because I want money. As it happened. Even the president is killed. Why the president is killed? You can hire anyone and kill anyone, especially in Western countries. So I want money, so even something which I should not have done, if it is ordered, ?You do this. I will give you this money,? I will do because I want money. Without money I cannot satisfy my senses. Now if service always accompanies the soul and can't be avoided, which is more fundamental, love or service? Isn't it usually conceived that a more fundamental thing is the more essential thing? Isn't it probable that love is advanced service? Love can transcend rules and regulations, be spontaneous and unique and answer to no one or nothing but itself. I'm thinking now of Radharani criticizing Krsna with the bumblebee. Yet, can we ever philosophically let go of the service perspective? Isn't that the underbelly of existence (even for Radharani)? I think it is. Therefore I must expound that spiritual life simply means "I am a servant of God." Thanks for your comments transient and leyh.

Theist, it's not so much you. Actually, I enjoy your insights. It's just the board experience in general. To fall from the spiritual world is definitely an interuption in favorable service. But you could conceivably love Krsna, the person, and still mess up and fall. I have experienced simultaneous love and hate for the same object even on the mundance level. Who's to say we simply had no love for Krsna when we fell? I haven't heard that preached anywhere - only that we had an attitude problem. There are innumerable examples of wonderful devotees like Mother Yasoda or Radharani who serve with love and indeed that's what we're taught. I can't imagine personally trying to serve another way as a process of advancement or realization. Yet, the examples of devotes achieving perfection through service are also there. Jaya and Vijaya served by taking birth as demons three times. Putana served by trying to kill Krsna. Arjuna was a friend, but his service to Krsna at Kuruksetra was specifically through violence. There are cases of Kamsa and other demons who achieved perfection in the end simply through contact (service) with Krsna. Therefore it is philosophically sound to say that the essence of love or spiritual life is service, since it is the basic principle for any relationship. Theist wrote: Without the love is it spiritual life? I can also ask you: "Without the service is it spiritual life?" Or perhaps "Without the service, is it love?"

Thankyou theist for your clarification. I don't know what I'm talking about now and I missed the "love" concept. Being thoroughly defeated and ridiculed for my bad philosophy and cowboy attitude, I will now desist from this mesage board and waste my life with personal frivalties which I can do quite well. It's been an experience. Keep good thoughts! Hare Krsna!

It is your nature Theist. You can't resist. Actually, I have already given my reasons above and they suffice for me. I really don't disagree with your point in the context it's presented. And I think any attempt to elucidate on my part is just symantics. Still, in the spirit of rhetoric I will ramble on a little more. Krsna is asked by Uddhava about the validity of different systems of knowlede and Krsna basically replied that many can be valid. They're just different ways of understanding or organization. There is also the perspective of duality and simultaneous oneness and difference to consider. But besides these, aren't we spiritual souls in a material world that is material only by it's purpose of design? It is like a prison house. But even the prison is a part of a higher reality - it is of the nature of that reality. Just like the nature of our prisons in America reflect the industrial society we have. So people here, myself included, mostly opt to serve Maya. Service is still there with or without love. You "serve" directly or indirectly; willingly or by force. You choose to cooperate with society and that has it's field of activites. Or you are forced to still serve society in unfavorable ways based on your removal. You are obligated to serve the greater good, favorably or not. Service "is" the soul. We are forced or choose to leave the spiritual world due to the inappropriateness of our attitude. But even in our attempt at selfishness here in the material world, we are ultimately serving Krsna because we are all destined to resolve our temperment and return home - and this world facilitates that. Therefore there is underlying spiritual purpose that certainly includes disposition and yet transcends it. And then Krsna has time and again demonstrated his transcendental nature to our concepts of favoratism: Look at Putana, the witch. A baby killer! Isn''t her pastimes with Krsna completely spiritual simply because Krsna reciprocated with her? On the other hand, haven't the gopis become proud and Krsna left them? These are just my opiniions as an armchair philosopher. "Without the love is it spiritual life?" I can't say there is spiritual life without love. Nor would I want to. that perspective doesn't interest me. I guess we'd have to have more experience of the spiritual world to say - or else remember it. In a philosophical or existential sense, spiritual or material, I have understood that "service" is the basis, it is the process and the goal. Therefore "I am a servant of God." To me this is more concise of spiritual life than even love. But I ultimately don't pretend it is anything more than my opinion. I am perhaps extrapolating authoritive statements and screwing up. I have no problem with your views.

Hare Bol Theist! I agree with your "loving service" perspective. I think the world as a whole is not making it, including myself. But that's also why I think this sentence is perfect. It doesn't necessarily allude to a relationship like love. It doesn't envolve someone else like a spiritual master or the divine couple. These concepts and realities are certainly necessary, but they don't get to "the essence" as you like to say. Short and sweet, "I am a servant of God" is simply the most fundamental existential reality for us as parts and parcels of the supreme. It is the basis for the soul or consciousness, duty or love. I think any other similar definition is just a more complicated way of saying the same thing. Again, I agree with your observation and I dont think we do very well with understanding ourselves in a world of competing egos. I am not talking about just me personally. And I am not alluding to my constitutional qualifications. It is a simple thing, really.

Thankyou so much Jndas and Raga.

Syamasundara dasa: According to Catholicism, at the time of death, a priest can absolve you of your sins. Srila Prabhupada: Provided you have the consciousness to understand the words of the priest. Syamasundara dasa: Even though one has committed many sins throughout his life, he can be absolved of his sins on his deathbed. Srila Prabhupada: That is quite possible because a priest can remind you of God at the time of death. Your thoughts at the time of death are very important. There are so many examples: Ajamila, and Bharata Maharaja. Therefore King Kulasekhara prays, ?Let me die immediately while I am thinking of Krsna.? Of course, unless we are practiced, it is not possible to think of Krsna at the time of death, because at that time there are many bodily disturbances. Therefore, from the beginning, austerities are required.

Prabhupada said: "When God comes as an incarnation, He also gives references to the scriptures, just as Krsna referred to the Brahma-sütra in Bhagavad-gita. Although Krsna is God, and His word is final, He still gives honor to the Brahma-sütra because in that work spiritual knowledge is set forth logically and philosophically." Can anyone tell me more about this Brahma-sutra and where it can be found? Is there one standard or several versions - that people have done - like the Gita? Is it on-line?

There are some great answers here, almost what I was looking for. Actually leyh was most exacting. "it is quite difficult for one to come up with a sentence that summarizes spiritual life that every transcendentalist is satisfied with" For me, nothing can quite say it as well as this - I hope you are all satisfied. Spiritual life summed up in 1 sentence: I am a servant of God.

Jndas, I think this will work out alot better after all. I have provided you with the following list to delete at your conveinence. I have backed them up into the "Dialectic Spiritualism Highlights" file. Almost all are on 1st page with 1 or 2 on 2nd page. Hare bol! Return to the Material World MInd Occupies Space Developing bodies on Earth? Enjoyment, Progress and Everyone Everyone Benefits Evolution and Promotion Experience of Response from God Freedom and Force No One Likes the Truth Nature Itself is Not Rational Death of Christ - Emphasized Accidentally Responsible On the Waves of Maya Being a Hero Faith and Decisions Man Requires a Guru Religious Suffering (DS) Points on Moral Choices

Sysmasundara dasa: At the ethical stage, man may perform pious works or humanitarian deeds, and Kierkegaard sees this as a step in the right direction toward authentic selfhood. By making the proper ethical decisions, we can approach self-awareness and the religious stage. Srila Prabhupada: But what is the ultimate decision? Why do people become moral? Simply to feed the poor and become humanitarians? Sysmasundara dasa: For Kierkegaard, it does not much matter what we choose, but the fact that we make the choice. Through choosing, we discover our own integrity. Srila Prabhupada: But it is not clear how a person makes the right decisions. One man may choose to slaughter, and another may choose to help others. A man may give charity to others, and at the same time encourage killing animals. What are the ethics involved? On the one hand, Vivekananda was advocating feeding the poor, but on the other hand he was suggesting feeding them with Mother Kali?s prasadam, with bulls. So what kind of ethics are these? What is the value of ethics if they are based on imperfect knowlege? Sysmasundara dasa: Kierkegaard would say that by turning inward, we would make the proper decision. This entails self-knowledge and self-commitment. Srila Prabhupada: But what is that inwardness? One may simply think, ?I will protect my brother by killing another.? What are the ethics involved? We must have some standard by which to make the right decision. Sysmasundara dasa: His standard would be "Choose thyself." Srila Prabhupada: But without knowing yourself, how can you make a choice? And how can you know yourself unless you go to one who knows things as they are? Most people think that they are the body. What kind of self-knowledge is this? If one identifies with the body, he is no better than an ass. Then what is the value of his philosophy? A human being who identifies this body make of three elements with his self, who considers the by-products of the body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of birth worshipable, and who goes to the places of pilgrimage simply to take a bath rather than meet men of transcendental knowledge there, is to be considered like an ass or cow. (Bhag. 10.84.13) Sysmasundara dasa: Kierkegaard emphasizes the very act of deciding, not the decision. Srila Prabhupada: But unless we know the aim of life, how can we make the right decision? It is childish to say that we become enlightened by choosing either this or that. A child chooses to play sometimes with one toy and sometimes with another, but where is his enlightenment? Animals also make their decisions. The ass decides to eat a morsel of grass and work all day carrying loads. If the decision is not important, why not decide for unrestricted sense gratification?

Syamasundara dasa: Kierkegaard believed that in the religious stage, there is intense suffering, comparable to the suffering of Job. Srila Prabhupada: Why is this? If one is Krsna conscious, why should he suffer? Syamasundara dasa: Well, Kierkegaard was a Christian. Christ suffered for our sins, and the process of overcoming sin is a kind of suffering. Srila Prabhupada: But that is a wrong theory. If Christ is God, or the son of God, why should he suffer? What kind of God is subjected to suffering? Why should either God or man suffer? The whole point is that if there is suffering, you must put an end to it. Many so-called Christians think that because they have some contract with Christ, because Christ suffered for their sins, they can go on sinning. Is this a very good philosophy? Syamasundara dasa: For Kierkegaard, the culmination of commitment is religious life, which is epitomized in the inwardness of suffering. Srila Prabhupada: Suffering arises because we identify with the body. When a person has an automobile accident, he may not actually suffer, but because he identifies himself with matter, with the body, he suffers. Because God is always in full knowledge and is always transcendental to the material world, God never suffers. It is a question of knowledge whether there is suffering or not. Syamasundara dasa: But don't pennance and austerity involve suffering? Srila Prabhupada: No. For those who are advanced in knowledge, there is no suffering. Of course, there may be some bodily pain, but a person in knowledge understands that he is not the body; therefore, why should he suffer? He thinks, "Let me do my duty, Hare Krsna." That is the advanced stage. Suffering is due to ignorance. Syamasundara dasa: But doesn't one forsake bodily comforts by serving God? Srila Prabhupada: Rupa and Sanatana Gosvami were high government ministers, but they abandoned their material opulence in order to bestow mercy upon the common people. Thus they accepted a mere loincloth and slept under a different tree every night. Of course, foolish people might say that they were suffering, but they were meerged in the ocean of transcendental bliss writing about Krsna?s pastimes with the gopis. they engaged their minds in thoughts of Krsna and the gopis, and they wrote books from day to day. There was no question of their suffering, although a fool may think, "Oh, these men were ministers, high government officials, and they were so comfortable with their families and homes. Now they ahve no home, and are going about in loinclothes, and eating very little." A materialist would think that they were suffering, but they were no suffering. they were enjoying. Syamasundara dasa: Some Christians emphasize the value of suffering, thinking that to abandon worldly life is to abandon pleasure and to suffer. Srila Prabhupada: this is due to a poor fund of knowledge. They have developed this philosophy after the demise of Jesus Christ. It is more or less concocted.

Srila Prabhupada: Sartre may be a useless passion, but we are not. No sane man is useless. A sane man will follow a superior authority. That is Vedic civilization. If one approaches a bona fide spiritual master, he will not be bewildered. Sartre believes that the universe is without a purpose becasue he is blind. He has no power to see that there is a plan. Therefore, according to Bhagavad-gita, his philosophy is asuric, demoniac. Everything in the universe functions according to some plan. the sun and moon rise, and the seasons change according to plan. Syamasundara dasa: For Sartre, man stands alone in the world, yet he is not alone if he is a being-for-others. Man needs others for his own self-realization. Srila Prabhupada: This means that man requires a guru. Syamasundara dasa: Sartre does not speak of a guru but of interaction with others for self-understanding. Srila Prabhupada: If this is required, why not interact with the best man? If we require others to understand ourselves, why should we not seek the best man for our own understanding? We should receive help from the man who knows. If you take the advice of one who can give you the right direction, your end will be glorious. That is the Vedic injunction.Tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet (Mundaka Upanisad 1.2.12). Syamasundara dasa: Sartre feels that in the presence of others, man is ashamed. Srila Prabhupada: Man is ashamed if he is not guided by a superior. If you are guided by a superior, you will be glorious, not ashamed. Your superior is that person who can lead you to the glory of Krsna consciousness.

Syamasundara dasa: Being free, man is subject to what Sartre calls "bad faith," a kind of self-deception. Through bad faith, man looses his freedom and responsibility. Srila Prabhupada: You certainly have limited freedom to choose, but if you choose improperly, you have to suffer. Responsibility and freedom go hand in hand. At the same time, there must be descrimination. Without it, our freedom is blind. We cannot understand right from wrong. Syamasundara dasa: A man in bad faith drifts along from day to day without being involved, avoiding responnsible decisions. Srila Prabhupada: This means that he has decided to drift. His drifting is a decision. Syamasundara dasa: Sartre believes that bad faith must be replaced by a solid choosing, and by faith in that choice. Srila Prabhupada: But if he makes the wrong decision, what is the value of his action? Moths fly very valiantly and courageously into the fire. Is that a very good decision? Syamasundara dasa: Due to bad faith, people treat others as objects instead of prersons. Sartre advocates rectifying this situation. Srila Prabhupada: He speaks about bad faith, but what about good faith? Syamasundara dasa: If bad faith is the avoidance of decisions, good faith would mean making decisions courageously and following them out, regardless of what these decisions might are. Srila Prabhupada: But what if your decision is wrong? Syamasundara dasa: For Sartre, it is not a question of right or wrong. Srila Prabhupada: Then whatever decision I make is final and absolute? This means that the insect's decision to enter the fire is a proper decision. This is the philosophy of insects. If man can do as he pleases, where is his responsibility? Syamasundara dasa: Sartre believes that the fate of the world depends on man's decisions. Obviously, if man decides properly, the world would be a better place. Srila Prabhupada: Therefore we are trying to introduce this Krsna consciousness in order to make the world into Vaikuëöha, into a place where there is no anxiety. But this is not a blind decision. It is the decision of a higher authority; therefore it is perfect.

Syamasundara dasa: Since man's essential nature is an undetermined nothingness, Sartre believes that man is free to choose to be either a coward or a hero. Our situation is in our own hands. Srila Prabhupada: If you claim that you were tossed into the world by some superior power, or by accident, what can you do? How can you become a hero? If you try to become a hero, you will be kicked all the more because you are placed here by a superior power. If a culprit under police custody attempts to become a hero, he will be beaten and punished. Actually, you are neither a coward nor a hero. You are an instrument. You are completely under the control of a superior power. Syamasundara dasa: Well, if someone is attacking you, you have the power to choose to be a hero and defend yourself, or to run. Srila Prabhupada: It is not heroic to defend oneself. That is natural. If that is the case, even a dog can be a hero when he is attacked. Even an ant can be a hero. heroism and cowardice are simply mental concoctions. After all, you are under the control of a power that can do what He likes with you. Therefore there is no question of your becoming a hero or a coward. Syamasundara dasa: Suppose someone is in danger, and you rescue him. Isn't that being heroic? Srila Prabhupadaa: All you can rescue is the exterior dress. Saving that dress is not heroism. It is not even protection. One can be a real hero only when he is fully empowered or fully protected. Such a person can only be a devotee, because only Krsna can fully protect or empower.

Syamasundara dasa: But we have no fixed nature in the sense that today I may be happy and tomorrow unhappy. Srila Prabhupada: That is true to some extent. When you are placed into the sea, you have no control. You move according to the waves. This means that there is a power that is controlling you. However, if you put yourself in better circumstances, you will be able to control. Because you have placed yourself under the control of material nature, you act according to the modes of material nature. "The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which in actuality are carried out by nature." (Bg. 3.27) Because you are conditioned, your freedom is checked. When you are thrown intot he ocean of material existence, you essentially lose your freedom. Therefore it is your duty to get yourself liberated. Syamasundara dasa: Because we are one thing today and something else tomorrow, Sartre says that our essential nature is "no-thingness." Srila Prabhupada: You are nothing in the sense that you are under the full control of a superior power, being carried away by the waves of maya. In the ocean of maya you say, "I am nothing," but actually you are something. Your something-ness will be very much exhibited to you when you are put on land. Out of despair, you conclude that your nature is that of nothingness. Sartre's philosophy is a philosophy of despair, and we say that it is unintelligent because despair is not the result of intelligence.

Syamasundara dasa: Regardless of the form of government, Sartre believes that man is basically free. Srila Prabhupada: As soon as you speak of freedom, you refer to some living being. Matter itself has no freedom. It is the active principle that is free. Syamasundara dasa: Sartre maintains that man is condemned to be free, that this is a fate from which man cannot escape. Srila Prabhupada: If man is condemned, who has condemned him? Syamasundara dasa: Man is condemned by accident, thrown into the world. Srila Prabhupada: Is it simply by accident that one person is condemned and another blessed? Is it an accident that one man is in jail and another is not? What kind of philosophy is this? Such so-called philosophy simply misleads people. Nothing is accidental. We agree that the living entity is condemned to this maerial world, but when we speak of condemnation, we also speak of blessedness. So what is that blessedness? Syamasundara dasa: Sartre argues that man is condemned in the sense that he cannot escape this freedom. Since man is free, his is responsible for his activities. Srila Prabhupada: If you are responsible, then your freedom is not accidental. How is it you are accidentally responsible? If there is responsibility, there must be someone you are responsible to. There must be someone who is condemening you or blessing you. These things cannot happen accidentally. His philosophy is contradictory.

Hayagriva dasa: Concerning religion, Nietzsche felt that because Christ's own disciples misunderstood him, Christianity as such never existed. "The last Christian died on the cross," he wrote. Although Christ was totally pure and free from all resentment and envy, Christianity has had envy and resentment as its focal point from its very beginning, even though it calls itself the religion of love. Thus Nietzsche proclaimed, "God is dead," in the sense that the God of the Christian religion is dead. Srila Prabhupada: If you create an artificial god, it is better that he is dead so that he cannot inflict more injuries. Hayagriva dasa: Then it is better to have no conception of God than a bad conception? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, better. But Christ was the embodiment of tolerance. There is no doubt about this. Hayagriva dasa: It is not that Nietzsche criticizes Christ himself, but his followers. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, actually we can see that the Christians hate the Jews because the Jews crucified Christ. They even utilize the symbol of the cross to remind people that the Jews crucified him. Even in the churches there are pictures of Lord Jesus, with thorns on his head, being forced to carry his cross. In this way, the people are reminded of all the troubles that the Jews gave to Christ. emphasizing Christ on the cross is a way of prolonging resentment against the Jews. But the fact is that Christ had many other activities, which are not brought into prominence. Actually, it is very painful for a devotee to see his master being crucified. Even though Christ was crucified, that scene in his life should not be emphasized.

Hayagriva dasa: As soon as Huxley became a Darwinist, he rejected a supernatural god and the Bible, proclaiming that "argument from design" had "received its death blow." Unlike spinoza, he did not accept a pantheistic God, but believed in "the Divine government of the universe," and felt that the cosmic process is rational and not accidental. Still, he rejected a personal God concerned with morality. Srila Prabhupada: That is a mistake. Nature in itself is not rational; it is simply dead matter. A piece of wood is not rational, but the carpenter who shapes it is. the cosmic process may be rational, but this is only becasue there is a rational being behind it. that rational being is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. nature cannot be rational out of its own accord any more than a piece of wood can become a table without a carpenter.

Sysmasundara dasa: Alexander accepted Plato's three greatest values in life-truth, beauty, and goodness-as values to be accepted by the majority. Srila Prabhupada: Unfortunately, in the material world, no one likes the truth. At least in this age, the majority of people are not truthful. As soon as one becomes truthful, he becomes a br¢hmaëa. Where are the br¢hmaëas in this age? Kalau çüdra sambhava. In Kali-yuga, everyone is a südra. If Alexander thinks that everyone will accept truthfulness as a great value, he is mistaken. Sysmasundara dasa: For Alexander, there is a practical criterion for truth, but he preferred the coherence principle by which the majority opinion determined truth by mutual agreement. Srila Prabhupada: Because he is European, he is thinking in a democratic way. The hard fact is that truth is not accepted by ordinary men. Truth is truth. Either it is in your mind or not; truth is absolute. Only highly elevated persons can understand the truth. Out of many truthful men, perhaps only one can understand Krsna as He is.

Syamasundara dasa: Alexander sees the freedom of the will operating as an activity not subject to extraneous forces. It is the expression of a person acting to serve not only his own interests but those of society as well. Srila Prabhupada: In a state, a citizen also cooperates in two ways. When he does not break the law, he cooperates as a free citizen, and when he breaks the law, he cooperates by going to prison. He either cooperates by free will or by force. Forceful cooperation is inferior. Caitanya Mahaprabhu said: ?It is the living entity?s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna, and a manifestation simultaneously one and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy.? (Caitanya - caritamrta, Madh. 20.108-109) By his constitutional position, the living entity is the eternal servant of Krsna. In the Vaikuntha planets, cooperation is voluntary, and here in this material world, cooperation is forced. In the material world, we are serving maya, working under her force. We can avoid that force only by voluntarily cooperating with Krsna. ?This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.? (Bg. 7.14) Automatic cooperation is bhakti, and forced cooperation is karma. These may appear to be the same, but they are not. The karmi may be typing, and the bhakta may be typing, but the karmi is typing under the force of maya, to earn money for sense gratification, and the bhakta is typing for the glorification of Krsna. The activity is the same, but the consciousness is different.

Hayagriva dasa: At times, Alexander takes the Aristotelian view in maintaining that ?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.? Srila Prabhupada: This means that he does not understand God's omnipotence. God is omnipotent, and He comes before Arjuna to speak Bhagavad-gita. Being all powerful, God can come and speak to His devotee. If He cannot, what is the meaning of His omnipotence? Krsna reciprocates with the advanced devotees. ?To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.? (Bg. 10.10) God talks to His devotee who is fully in love with Him, but He does not talk with ordinary men. ?I worship the primeval Lord, Govinda, who is always seen by the devotee whose eyes are annointed with the pulp of love. He is seen in His eternal form of Syamasundara situated within the heart of the devotee.? (Brahma-samhita 5.38) Just as a king talks with his immeditate officers and ministers and not with the ordinary man in the street, God personally talks to His devotees but not to the nondevotees or atheists. We understand that Krsna talked to the gopis and gopas in Vrndavana and reciprocated with His parents, Mother Yasoda and Maharaja Nanda. The cowherd boys who played with Krsna amassed many pious activities in their previous lives to arrive at a position where they could play with God. This is not an ordinary position. People generally think that such play is inconceivable, but when we come to that platform of devotion, we can play with God, ride on God's shoulders, and talk with Him just as with an ordinary friend. Of course, one comes to that position of perfection after many millions of pious births. Hayagriva dasa: Within the same book, Space, Time and Deity, Alexander contradicts himself on this issue of reciprocation. ?God reciprocates the worship man pays Him and the confidence he reposes in Him,? he writes. ?There is always the double relationship of need. If man wants God and depends upon Him, God wants man, and is so far dependent.? Srila Prabhupada: God is not dependent on anyone. God is independent, but that statement is acceptable in the sense that sometimes God wants to become dependent. That is according to His pleasure. Sometimes He accepts some of His devotees in ways that He can depend on them. He became dependent on Mother Yasoda, just as an ordinary child becomes dependent on his mother. Although everything is dependent on God, and He is not dependent on anyone, He takes pleasure in this kind of relationship.

Syamasundara dasa: Alexander believes that lower organisms strive to emulate higher. Animals strive to become like men, and men strive to become like gods. Srila Prabhupada: There is no question of striving. It is by nature's way that the lower animals come to the platform of men. The living entity evolves from one life form to another, but this is with the help of nature. This law holds, up to the human platform. Having developed cionsciousness, the human being has the power of discrimination. Originally, the soul is given independence. Krsna tells Arjuna, ?Whatever you like, you do.? (Bg. 18.63) God is the supersoul, and we are the jiva souls subordinate to Him. Therefore we are called taöastha, which means we are marginal; we can go either way. We may take God's side, or maya's side. that is our choice. When we don't want to serve God, we are sent to maya to serve her. Man's position as a subordinate remains the same, but in maya he thinks, ?I am the master.? This is just like a child trying to act against his father's wishes. When he is given a chance to do as he likes, the child thinks, ?Oh, I am independent now.? Actually he is never independent, but he thinks that he is. When death comes, no one is independent. Although man continually serves maya life after life, he still thinks of himself as independent. Only when we surrender to Krsna do we enjoy our real independence. Syamasundara dasa: But lower forms try to emulate higher ones? Srila Prabhupada: That is natural. Everyone wants a higher position because everyone is trying to be master. That is the whole problem. One can be a master to some extent: a head clerk in an office, a president, or prime minister. There is much ambition in hte material world because materialistic men are guided by the idea that ?I shall become like Krsna.? When their efforts fail in the material world, they strive to merge into Krsna. This is Mayavadi philosophy. Not knowing that they are already Brahman, spirit soul, they consider themselves the Supreme Brahman, God Himself. therefore they sit and meditate, thinking, ?I am moving the sun. I am moving the moon.? This is simply imagination. This is the last snare of maya. Maya first of all allures us to become a big merchant, a prime minister, a president. Maya is always saying, ?Become this, become that, become, become.? Maya is always telling us to work under her direction. Finally, she says, ?Now you have failed in all these things. It is better now that you become God, and attain your real status again.? So the living entity begins to think, ?I am God,? but maya is still kicking him. As soon as this so-called God gets some toothache, he runs to the doctor. He does not stop to think, ?What kind of God am I?? Syamasundara dasa: But what is that urge for promotion? Srila Prabhupada: It is not the individual's urge. Nature is giving the impetus. For instance, when you were a child, there wa no sex urge, but when you attained adolescence, immediately the sex urge became manifest. Similarly, the perfection of consciousness is there, but unless you come to the platform of human life, it will not develop.