Philosophy Discussion on David Hume (HAY)
Hayagrīva: These are notations on David Hume. Abstract objects, relations, space, matter and time are all considered by Hume to be mind-dependent perceptions. In other words, perceptions are all there is. He rejects revealed religion, that is, the religion of the śāstras, and embraces natural religion, that is, a religion wherein the existence of God can be proved or even shown to be probable by argument and reason. According to Hume we really know nothing of God, for at the most we can only know are peoples' ideas of God, and these are but perceptions. It would thus seem that it is impossible to know God according to Hume's natural religion because the senses are admittedly imperfect, and these are the only instruments of certainty Hume admits in his natural religion.
Prabhupāda: What is that natural religion?
Hayagrīva: Well, he says the self is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement. So he says there's nothing but perception. He rejects revealed scriptures as such, but he says, "The heavens and the earth join in the same testimony. The whole course of nature raises one hymn to the praises of its creator. I have found a Deity and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go further who are wiser or more enterprising."
Prabhupāda: First point is that our senses are imperfect. That is admitted. And God is perception. But whether he believes actually in the existence of God?
Hayagrīva: He believes in the existence of God.
Prabhupāda: And what is his perception of God? If he believes in God, then he must give some idea what is God.
Hayagrīva: He has no idea other than the fact that...
Prabhupāda: Anyway, if he believes in God, a fact, then instead of so-called perception, why not understand from God what He is?
Hayagrīva: Well, he, um...
Prabhupāda: Our senses are imperfect. We, we admit that there is God. Now, if our senses are imperfect, how we can imagine "God is like this," "God is like that"? That actually if God explains Himself, why should we not accept that?
Hayagrīva: In his, uh... Hume appears opposed to the search for God in the ideal world. He writes, "Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum, forever. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.
Prabhupāda: Material world means full of miseries. Therefore those who are advanced, they are searching after another world where there is no misery. This is the idea. And this searching after happy world, that is permanent. Everyone is searching after that. That is not unnatural. But actually there is such world, and if there is, why should you not hanker after that world?
Hayagrīva: He appears opposed...
Prabhupāda: Two things: that this world is experienced, nobody is happy, unless he is an animal. Animal, they do not know what is happiness or distress. In any condition they remain satisfied. But a man, he feels pain. Just like our Hari-śauri was speaking that there were reports that because the children cry, sometimes parents kill them. This is the world. And actually there have been many cases. So from practical point of view, this world is not happy. That is a fact. Now if there is a happy world, why one should not try for that?
Hayagrīva: He says the sooner we arrive at that divine being—the sooner we arrive at God—so much the better.
Prabhupāda: We become God?
Hayagrīva: No. In the search for God...
Prabhupāda: Oh.
Hayagrīva: ...the sooner we find God, the better. He says when you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy.
Prabhupāda: What..., I do not follow what you mean. What is the meaning of this?
Hayagrīva: He appear... He is opposed to the search for God in the other world.
Prabhupāda: No. You cannot search out God in your present condition. You have got some glimpse of idea that there is God. What is that mean—"There is God, then you are advanced"? At least you are better than the atheist. But by speculation you cannot understand what is God. Revelation is there to fortunate person, one who is very seriously searching after God. God is within himself. He reveals. And the other process is that if you are searching after God, then you know it from the person who has already known God, or directly from God. So the Bhagavad-gītā is direct perception from God, so with our all reasons, all logic, if we try to understand Bhagavad-gītā, then we understand what is God.
Hayagrīva: Hume is a famous skeptic, and he would reject a revealed scripture. He looks toward science. He says all the new discoveries in astronomy...
Prabhupāda: Then if he is skeptic, that why one should believe his words and take his instruction? He is skeptic, so others skeptically reject his statement also. So there is no use of his talking.
Hayagrīva: Well, he felt that...
Prabhupāda: Now you said that he is skeptic.
Hayagrīva: Oh, yes. He felt...
Prabhupāda: So he is also skeptic. So why people should be induced to believe him and hear him? He is immediately rejected.
Hayagrīva: He felt that instead of basing belief in God...
Prabhupāda: No, he should not think, because nobody will take his instruction. He does not believe others, does not take others' statement—why his statement should be accepted?
Hayagrīva: Well, well he believes at least in the material senses.
Prabhupāda: Everyone believes that. Materially everyone believes. But if he says none of them are correct, so why he is so..., pose himself as correct? He is rejected immediately.
Hayagrīva: He says, "All the new discoveries in astronomy which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of nature are so many additional arguments for a Deity according to the true system of theism," that is his natural, what he calls natural religion. In this way Hume rejects the necessity or desirability of miracles as well as the conception of a God transcendental to his creation. He says it's not the being of God that is in question but God's nature. This nature cannot be ascertained through study of the universe itself. However, if the universe can only be studied by imperfect senses, what is the value of our conclusion? How can we ever come to know the nature of God?
Prabhupāda: Nature of God, it can be explained by God Himself. That is our Vedic process. We know who is God, and He explains, "My nature is this." Just like He says, "I am the greatest principle," mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). "There is no more higher principle than Me." This is fact. If something is greater than God, then how one can become God? That is not possible. So greatest means He is great in everything. He is great in richness, He is great in reputation, He is great in influence, He is great in bodily power, He is great in beauty and He is great in renunciation. If we can find out somebody that He tallies with this greatness, then He is God. So that we find in Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, and what He says in the Bhagavad-gītā we accept as fact. And if we analyze His statements intelligently, pruriently, then we will find that what Kṛṣṇa says, that is fact.
Hayagrīva: Concerning different religions, he says, "All religious systems, it is confessed, are subject to great and insuperable difficulties. Each..."
Prabhupāda: (indistinct)
Hayagrīva: "Each disputant triumphs in his turn while he carries on an offensive war and exposes the absurdities, barbarities and pernicious tenets of his antagonists. But all of them," that is, all of the religions, "on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the skeptic who tells them that no system ought ever to be embraced. A total suspense of judgment is here our only reasonable recourse."
Prabhupāda: No. Our principle is to know God from God, and religion means the principles given by God. Just like the law means the principle given by the state, similarly the principles given by God, that is religion. Otherwise it is pseudoreligion. If there is no conception of God, there is no direction of God, that is not religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith. Religion is factual. That factual religion can be given by God Himself, and if we know God and what is His instruction, then we are religious.
Hayagrīva: Well, he believes that religion is necessary. He says religion, however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That we also agree. But religion without philosophy, logic, it is sentiment. That will not help us. So just like religion given by Kṛṣṇa, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Always think of Me." So if you think of God always, so that is good for us, we become purified. So this is religion. We have to meditate upon God, think about God. Therefore temple worship, Deity worship is necessary so that we can constantly think of God. But if we do not know what is God, what is the form of God, how we can offer Him worship, how we can think of Him, then it is pseudoreligion. His type of religion will not help the follower. One must be definitely in understanding what is God and what does He speak and how to abide by His order. That is real religion.
Hayagrīva: His conception of religion is utilitarian and social.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: He says, "The proper office of religion is to regulate the heart of man, humanize their conduct, infuse the spirit of temperance, order and obedience."
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is our system. We say, the social service, that "No illicit sex." If people indulge in illicit sex, society will be in chaotic condition. "No meat-eating." If we go on eating meat, then we revolt against the will of God, because God is the father of all living entities; He does not like that one of His son unnecessarily killed by another son on the plea that he is advanced son. The father cannot agree that the advanced son kill the ignorant or foolish son, the father will not agree. Therefore we say no meat-eating. When other foods are available, why one should eat meat? When there is wife, why there should be illicit sex? So religion means one should be good character. That is religion. This is one of the qualification becoming, that one who is actually religious, God conscious, that all the good qualities, either socially, politically, everything, even politician religious. Just like Arjuna, he was on the battlefield. This is politics. But because he was devotee he was hesitating to kill his enemies all. So this is the character of a devotee, that he can sacrifice his own interest because he has become a devotee. Others cannot do. (break)
Hayagrīva: This is the conclusion of Hume. He felt that one must first be a philosophical skeptic before accepting the revealed truths of religion. Ultimately Hume maintains that these truths can only be accepted on faith, not experience or reason.
Prabhupāda: No, and why not reason? If we think that everything has some proprietor, owner, so it is quite reasonable to think that this vast land, vast sky, vast water, nature, they must have some proprietor. What is the fault in this logic? Why they conclude that there was a chunk, there was some gas, there was something like that? So why they think like that? Is that very reasonable? Wherefrom the chunk came? Wherefrom the gas came? Wherefrom the fire came? So this is reasonable. So there is a proprietor, as it is described in this Bhagavad-gītā, mayādhyakṣeṇa (BG 9.10), aham ādir hi sarveṣām. So there must be some proprietor. That is logical. That is, that is philosophy. How one can..., one thing can exist without the owner or proprietor? So this is not like, that there is no proprietor. This is illogical, or without any philosophy. But think that there is a proprietor, this is completely logical.
Hayagrīva: As far as we can ascertain, Hume personally had no religion, no faith in the Christian or any other God. He also rejected that argument or reason could justify a faith. Thus Hume is a complete skeptic who denies the possibility of ascertaining certainty outside of a mere sequence of perceptions or ideas.
Prabhupāda: This, then the argument comes. If he does not believe in anyone's statement, why he is thinking his statement will be accepted? Then he is foolish. He is a child. Instead of becoming a philosopher, he is a child, talking all nonsense.
Hayagrīva: He maintains that man cannot know ultimate reality or possess knowledge of anything beyond a mere awareness of phenomenal sensory images.
Prabhupāda: That is sufficient. But if man cannot have any knowledge, so who is going to take your knowledge? Better you stop, don't talk. Is it not?
Hayagrīva: So much for Hume. (laughs) That's the end of Hume.
Prabhupāda: No, no, I mean is not that the conclusion? If he is skeptic, he does not take other's statement why he expects that his statement will be taken? Why does he propose any statement? Does he think that he is the greatest of all? Then everyone can think like that. That skeptic has no ground. He cannot say. If he is skeptic he should stop, he should not stand.
Hayagrīva: Why write so many books?
Prabhupāda: What?
Hayagrīva: Why write so many books?
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: He was a Scotchman. (end)