Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Hayagrīva: And, uh, we can go on to Hegel?
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: He did quite a bit of reading in Indian philosophy, but it seems to be confined to impersonal...,
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: ...the Upaniṣads...
Prabhupāda: It is simply, Upaniṣads is just the opposite-spirit is not matter. That is the instruction of Upaniṣads.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "Spirit, in so far as it is the spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits. God is a living God who is acting and working. Religion is a product of the divine spirit. It is not a discovery of man but a work of divine operation."
Prabhupāda: This is very important thing, that a man cannot manufacture religion. That is very important point. Therefore we say religion means the words, the order given by God. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya: (BG 18.66) "You have manufactured so many religious systems. You give up, kick it out. It has no value. Here is religion." And in the beginning He said, dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya: "I have appeared to re-establish the principle of religion." And He says at last that "Give up. Kick out all this so-called religion. Here is religion." What is that? Mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ...: "You just surrender to Me." This is religion. And Bhāgavata says, dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam: (SB 6.3.19) "The order given by God, that is religion." Otherwise, everything is bogus. It has no meaning. The same example: law means which is given by the government. You cannot say, "I have prepared the law." Who will care for you? Even the small law, "Keep to the right," that is religion. If you say, "What is the law? If they keep to the left..." No. That will not be accepted. "Keep to the right" is religion, and "Keep to the left" is criminal. So religion is pious and impious—everything on the order of Kṛṣṇa, or God. If you follow strictly the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, then you are religious, pious, transcendental, devotee, everything. And if you defy Kṛṣṇa, you manufacture your own way, then you are rascal, asura. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). He is narādhamāḥ. This is the way. Less than the mankind, narādhamāḥ, who do not follow the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, or God.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "The lifting of the spirit to God occurs in the innermost regions of spirit upon the basis of thought. Religion as the innermost affair of man has here its center and the root of its life. God is in his very essence thought and thinking, however His image and configuration be determined otherwise."
Prabhupāda: His image, if God is absolute, His image is also God. If God is absolute, then His words are also God. That is absolute conception. That iw not different. So the image which we worship in the temple, if it is actually image of God, then it is as good as God. God is absolute. God says that "This earth, water..., so everything is My energy." So even if you say, "This image is made of stone," but the stone is God's energy, bhūmi, earth. So there is a regulative principle, just like a wire, a copper wire, it is carrying electricity. Although the copper wire is not electricity, but it is carrying electricity. Similarly, if you take even material-otherwise spiritually everything is God, that is another thing—but materially if we distinguish that the copper wire, it appears as copper wire, but if you touch, "Oh, there is electricity." So it is manipulated. Similarly, by the rules and regulation as enunciated by the experienced spiritual master and guru, then even if you think it is stone, it is God. The same example, you see it is electric wire, but it is electricity. Similarly, arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhir guruṣu nara-matiḥ. It is..., this has been warned: don't think that this śilā, stone. Is God. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as soon as saw Jagannātha, immediately fainted. So we have to be trained up by the instruction of God how to realize God everywhere.
Hayagrīva: Hegel considered history and theodicy to be integral. He looks on history as a justification of God, and he rejects the Vedic conception of history because he doesn't see it unfolding any particular meaning. That is, universes are created, maintained and annihilated in an apparently meaningless way. For Hegel, history has to tell the story of man's elevation to God. Apart from the history of man, God would be alone and lifeless. God seems to depend on human history. God is not transcendental but is manifest in the world.
Prabhupāda: But if He is dependent on history, how He is God? This is nonsense proposal. (laughing) He is dependent on history!
Hayagrīva: Doesn't the history of mankind necessarily...
Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be, God is independent, satandhara (?). Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ (SB 1.1.1). Svarāṭ, independent. He does not depend on anything; still He is God. That is God. If He is dependent on anything, then He is not God.
Hayagrīva: But does the history of man necessarily make any sense? He saw it as progressing, as man, here again is evolution...
Prabhupāda: As soon as there is creation there is history, from the very beginning, that this is the point of creation and it will go on, history, until it is ended. Just like as soon as you are born, your horoscope is made, the history. Now throughout your whole life there are so many activities, and after, we also believe next life the history continues. But superficially we make history from the beginning to the end of this body, that's all. But God is not subject to such rule that "God is created at a certain point and He is ended at a certain point." Then where is the question of history? There is no history. History is for the small things. For me there is past, present, future. For God there is no such thing as past, present, future. So where is the history? History means past, present, future.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: But God has no past, present, future. So where is history? It is all nonsense. He does not know what is the meaning of God.
Hayagrīva: Hegel placed a great deal of emphasis on human freedom.
Prabhupāda: There is no freedom. That is another nonsense.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: (laughs) He is subjected to birth, death, old age. Where is his freedom? That is another nonsense.
Hayagrīva: He accuses the Orientals, mainly the Indians... He says, "The Orientals do not know that the spirit is free in itself or that man is free in himself. Because they do not know it, they are not free."
Prabhupāda: But is he free? Why he died? The Orientals he is accusing. Why he died? This is their nonsense speculation.
Hayagrīva: He says, "They only know that the one"—that is, the one Brahman—"is free; therefore such freedom is only arbitrary."
Prabhupāda: Then why he says that the human being should be free?
Hayagrīva: He says this one, supreme one, is therefore a despot, not a free man, not a man. Only the Germanic nations have in and through Christianity achieved the consciousness that man as man is free and that freedom of the spirit constitutes his very nature. This consciousness arose first in religion and the innermost region of spirit.
Prabhupāda: Christian religion is that the man either goes to heaven or goes to hell. So he has got the freedom either go to hell or go to heaven. This freedom he has got. But who gives him hell or heaven? He has got the freedom to make choice, but when he is going to hell, then where is his freedom? That where is the distinction between hell and heaven? These are... If he is Christian he should answer that the man is given chance, once, either to go to hell or go to heaven. So all right, if he goes to heaven it is all right. Then if he goes to hell, where is freedom? This common sense also, that every citizen has got the freedom to live as free citizen or to go to the jail, but one who goes to the jail, where is freedom? And who gives him the chance of free citizenship or prisoner's life? Therefore his freedom is dependent on somebody, higher principle, who gives him chance to remain free or go to prison. That God is the supreme controller. He gives the living entity freedom to make his choice, either go to hell or go to heaven, but he is not completely free as God is free.
Hayagrīva: He says the grandeur of Indian religion and poetry as well as Indian philosophy have been acknowledged especially in their rejection and sacrifice of the senses. Now his conception is typical nineteenth century...
Prabhupāda: He has no study of the Vedic literature; still he poses himself to remark on the Vedic literature. That is his ignorance.
Hayagrīva: He considers the goal of Indian philosophy to be spiritual as well as physical extinction. Nirvāṇa.
Prabhupāda: Physical extinction, everyone says that—even Christian religion says—you go to hell, go to heaven. So who goes to heaven? Who goes to heaven? What is the qualification? Reasonably, one who has given up this physical.
Hayagrīva: He says spiritual extinction as well as physical, nirvāṇa.
Prabhupāda: But then he has no idea what is spiritual. Spiritual is eternal, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). How does it, spiritually... Spirit is also annihilated, then where is the difference between matter and spirit? Imperfect knowledge. And still they are big philosopher. Scanty knowledge.
Hayagrīva: He sees the religion of India as a religion in which man is handed laws from a God who is exterior to man, from a will that is entirely foreign to man. And he sees this to be opposed to what he considers to be a more advanced religion, in which the individual soul is lifted to the supernatural through the use of reason, internal sanction or subjective confirmation. In other words, he sees the Indian religion as being blind following of an exterior will. He says that man can only attain God through the exercise of his own free will.
Prabhupāda: Then why the animals cannot? Animal is given complete free will.
Hayagrīva: He says animals have no will.
Prabhupāda: That is another foolishness. If he has no will, why he goes to different direction?
Hayagrīva: He says that animals have no right to life because they have no will.
Prabhupāda: Just see. What is the symptom of life? First of all settle up, how do you know? We can distinguish that this table has no life, that a small ant on the table there is life. How you distinguish, that here is life, there is no life? Then what is the symptom of life? If the symptom of life is there in animal, there is life. Why they will say there is no life? What is the philosophy? There is life. He is eating; you are eating. He is sleeping; you are sleeping. He is having sex; you are having sex. He is also afraid of enemy; you are also afraid. Then why do you say that you have life, he has no life? What is the symptom of life? This is the primary symptom of life. So if he has got these primary symptoms of life, how do you say he has no life? That means you have no intelligence even.
Hayagrīva: He associates religion with...
Prabhupāda: As this table has no life, because the table does not require to eat, the table does not require to sleep... But another thing, a small ant, he is hankering after "Where is a little sugar?" hankering, eating. That is life.
Hayagrīva: He would see that as instinct.
Prabhupāda: So what is nonsense instinct? The man has got these symptoms and the small ant has got these symptoms. That is life. That vague description, and still they are big philosopher. No perfect knowledge.
Hayagrīva: He associates religion with art. He says religion represents or pictures the absolute, whereas philosophy conceives or thinks of it.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So religion without philosophical basis is sentiment. It has no value.
Hayagrīva: And for him, God is necessarily manifest in the finite; therefore he places the incarnation of Christ, the incarnation of God, as central in the Christian religion. That is, in order to be manifest, God has to become finite. God has to become man.
Prabhupāda: Then if God is man, if He is taken as man, then why His instruction should be followed?
Hayagrīva: Excuse me? Why His instructions...?
Prabhupāda: Should be followed? You are man, I am man. Why should you follow my instructions?
Hayagrīva: Well he says..., he says you shouldn't, because there's no exterior will to be followed. This is Hegel's philosophy.
Prabhupāda: Then if he is godless, God has no use, will. Either he is godless or God has no will. Is it not? Then he is animal, and if he says animal has no will, then God becomes exactly like animal.
Hayagrīva: Speaking of the body and the soul, he says "The body, insofar as it is an uncultivated piece of external existence, is inadequate to the spirit. The spirit must first take possession of it in order to make it its animated tool. But in reference to other people, I am essentially free even as to my body. It is but a vain sophistry that says that the real person, the soul, cannot be injured by maltreatment offered to one's body. Violence done to the body is really done to me." Since the body, he says, is the tool of the soul...
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: ...if you injure the body of a person, you are actually injuring the person...
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: ...because you are injuring his property.
Prabhupāda: Yes. But why the Christians killing?
Hayagrīva: How is that?
Prabhupāda: Why the Christians are killing animals?
Hayagrīva: Yes. If that's the case, why mistreat the animals, animal bodies?
Prabhupāda: Hm?
Hayagrīva: The animals have no right to life, he says, because they have no will.
Prabhupāda: That is his foolishness. He has got will. When you take to the slaughterhouse, he protests.
Hayagrīva: He says, "Mankind has the right of absolute proprietorship. A thing belongs to the accidental first-comer who gets it."
Prabhupāda: What accident?
Hayagrīva: To... A thing belongs... Or whoever comes first. Say there's a gold mine. If I get there first, it's mine, because I'm the first-comer.
Prabhupāda: That means that, then, "Might is right."
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: But gold, they say, if he says gold is there, whose gold it is?
Hayagrīva: He says the first-comer...
Prabhupāda: No, no. First of all you go and say... First of all you become proprietor. But who is the actual proprietor of the gold, when you did not go? You may go first and claim proprietorship, but the gold was there. So whose property it is? Gold was there. Who made that gold? Who kept that gold? This question must be there.
Hayagrīva: He says it's mine because I put my will into it.
Prabhupāda: That's all right. It is mine, you have first gone there, accept it. But who kept the gold there? Who made the gold there? And if somebody else made the gold and kept the gold, you go first and capture it, then you are a thief. Is it not? I have kept something there, and somebody comes by says, "It is mine," then he is a thief, because the gold is already there, it's kept by somebody. You did not take his permission; you simply claimed, "Because I have come first, I am the proprietor." You are not proprietor. But if the gold was kept there for taking part of it to enjoy it by everyone, and you take it by might—"I have come here first"—then you are a thief; you are not a philosopher. You have no sense who kept that gold, who manufactured that gold—you do not take his permission. Because you have come first, therefore you become proprietor—then you are not a philosopher; you are thief, ordinary thief. "Might is right," "I have come" philosophy. "Therefore I am proprietor."
Hayagrīva: Because I will it to be mine... He says because I come first and will it to be mine, it is mine.
Prabhupāda: That's all right. By force you can do that, you are doing that.
Hayagrīva: And I can relinquish it because I can will to relinquish it.
Prabhupāda: But first thing is that if you have got will, but reasonable will, first of all you have to think, "Who has kept this gold here? I am claiming proprietorship simply by coming here, but who has kept this gold here?" Why don't you think like that? What kind of human being you are?
Hayagrīva: A final point: he believed that man should have the freedom to choose his occupation. He writes, "In the Platonic state, subjective freedom was of no account. Since the..."
Prabhupāda: That means there are already different occupations, and you have freedom to select one of them. But the occupation is already there, created by somebody else. You have the freedom to make a choice. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam: (BG 4.13) "I have created these four principles of occupational duties." Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). Now, if according to your qualification you can make a selection, "I, I like this occupation." But the occupation is already there. Just like a shopkeeper, he has got varieties of goods. The customer goes, he can say, "I like this." "All right, you can take it. This is the price." Similarly, the occupational duties are already there. The (indistinct) are already there. That is created by God. Now you can select one of them according to the price you can pay. That is the...
Hayagrīva: Not according..., not according to birth?
Prabhupāda: Huh?
Hayagrīva: Not according to birth?
Prabhupāda: No.
Hayagrīva: He thinks... He says in many Oriental states this assignment... He says, Hegel, in tle Platonic state, in Plato's Republic, the government assigns each individual his occupation. In Oriental states, in..., for instance in India, he says this assignment results from birth. The subjective choice, which ought to be respected, requires free choice by individuals, and he considers this the basic right.
Prabhupāda: No. The thing is just like Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa said, cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). This is going on all over the world. The occupation is that just like engineering occupation. So who can become engineer? Guṇa-karma, one who has acquired the qualification of engineering profession and is actually acting as engineer. That is wanted. Guṇa-karma. Kṛṣṇa never says, "Birth" But later on, because an engineer trains his boy as engineer, so naturally he becomes also engineer. Formerly, as we understand from the history of Ajāmila... He was a son of a brāhmaṇa, and he was being trained up as a brāhmaṇa. That was the system. Not that because he has born in the brāhmaṇa family he becomes brāhmaṇa. No. He has got the chance of being trained up as brāhmaṇa by the brāhmaṇa father. So it became later on as caste, by birth, because naturally a brāhmaṇa father trains his son to become brāhmaṇa. But when the brāhmaṇa's son becomes a cobbler, that does not mean he is still brāhmaṇa. That we find from the... Tadīya lakṣaṇaṁ dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet (SB 7.11.35). If a brāhmaṇa's son has become a cobbler, he should be called a cobbler, or a cobbler's son has become a brāhmaṇa, he should be called a brāhmaṇa. Not by the birth. But it became a qualification of birth because formerly it was easy, because he is dealing with his father and father is brāhmaṇa, so automatically, fifty percent he becomes brāhmaṇa, and fifty percent by training, then he becomes complete brāhmaṇa—by association, by family. So it is not that a cobbler cannot become brāhmaṇa if he also acquires the qualification of a brāhmaṇa. Nārada said, tat tenaiva vinirdiśet (SB 7.11.35). If he has already acquired the qualification of brāhmaṇa then he should be called a brāhmaṇa. Not that a brāhmaṇa's sons becomes qualified as a cobbler, tannery expert, and he remains brāhmaṇa. That is not. He has no knowledge. That means if you have studied all the Vedic literature, he could not say like that. The injunction is tadīya lakṣaṇaṁ dṛśyeta. The qualification, if you find elsewhere, then he should be designated by the qualification. A doctor's son, instead of taking up the life of medical life, if he becomes engineer, so he should be called engineer, not doctor. Tat tenaiva vinirdiśet (SB 7.11.35), it is clearly said. So the, Kṛṣṇa's plan, that "I have created four divisions according to quality and work," cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma (BG 4.13), that is final. One must have the qualification and he must work. If... He must have the brahminical qualification and he must act as a brāhmaṇa. Simply theoretical will not do. Just like we are giving sacred thread to a person who is born in low family, but we are training him also to act as a brāhmaṇa. Not that you take the sacred thread and go be..., work as cobbler. No. You must be engaged in Deity worship, brāhmaṇa's work, business, then you are a brāhmaṇa. Otherwise you are not a brāhmaṇa.
Hayagrīva: In a very often-quoted passage Hegel writes, "God is only God insofar as He knows Himself. His self-knowledge is more over His consciousness of Himself in man and man's knowledge of God, a knowledge that extends itself into the self-knowledge of man in God."
Prabhupāda: That, if he accepts that, then why not man takes knowledge of God from God? Then his knowledge is perfect. Why he should speculate?
Hayagrīva: He considers man to be essential to God.
Prabhupāda: But he, he has accepted God as man...
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: So to possess the knowledge of God, the best duty of man is to take knowledge from God about God. I know myself, that he says, that God knows Himself. So if God knows, that is natural. I know what I am. So if you take knowledge of me from me instead of speculating, that is perfect knowledge. So here, in the Bhagavad-gītā, the God is explaining Himself. So if you simply take the knowledge given by God, that is your perfected knowledge of God. Why you are speculating? You are wasting time. Take the knowledge from God about Him, and then you have perfect knowledge. Why should you speculate? Suppose I am studying you, I am speculating, "Well, Hayagrīva may be like this, he might have so much money, he might have so much bank balance, he is living like that," this is speculation. But if I say, "Hayagrīva, what you are?" you say, "I have got this, I do like this," that is my perfect knowledge. Why shall I speculate?
Hayagrīva: Well then you wouldn't be able to write so many books.
Prabhupāda: Huh? No. When I have got perfect knowledge, then I can write.
Hayagrīva: Then.
Prabhupāda: Without perfect, whatever I write, that is nonsense. That is nonsense. That is the difference-paramparā system. All these philosophers, they are simply talking nonsense, and whatever we are writing, there is meaning. Why? Because we are studying God from God. This is our perfection. We are not speculating about God. That is the difference. Now we are expanding my knowledge so that you can understand. That is my writing. But my basic principle is that I have understood God from God, not by speculation. That is my qualification. If I know God from God, then my knowledge about God is perfect. Then whatever I write, that is perfect. Therefore Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says, sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstrair **, that therefore all scriptures accept the guru, spiritual master, as directly the Supreme Lord. Why? He does not speak anything nonsense. That is; therefore he is called servitor God. He is serving God, giving the same knowledge as God has given to him; therefore he is perfect. Sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstrair uktas tathā bhāvyata eva **. So knowledge, if we, if we take God, what is God, if we understand from God, then our knowledge of God is perfect. Simply by speculating you cannot become perfect. That is not possible. So if Mr. Hegel...?
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: He is Hegel now, what? What is his...?
Devotee: Hegel.
Hayagrīva: Hegel.
Prabhupāda: Ah. So if he accepts God and he inducts a man, the man should take knowledge from God about God. The his knowledge of God is perfect. He should not speculate. And if he has no such source of taking knowledge from God, then his conception of God is also false. If he has got actually the conception of God, then he should take knowledge from God what He is. That is perfect knowledge. He was talking of Oriental knowledge. This is Oriental knowledge: they know who is God and they take knowledge from God about God. But here, Occidental, they speculate about God. What they will know about God? Whatever they speculate, that is imperfect, because he is imperfect.
Hayagrīva: He equates idea, reason, God, and the Absolute very much like the Greeks.
Prabhupāda: Everything is there, but if you take knowledge from God, then that is perfect, and if you make your own ideas—you do not take the ideas of God—that is imperfect.
Hayagrīva: He does say reason is also infinite form, that which sets this material in motion...
Prabhupāda: This is, this is, this is real reasoning, that "I am imperfect or limited. How I can speculate on the unlimited? So better let me learn from the unlimited about the unlimited." That is perfect knowledge.
Hayagrīva: One final point is that he sees the worship of animals and plants to be a form of pantheism. He refers to Indian religion...
Prabhupāda: No. But Indian, that he does not know; still he speaks. That is the most regretful situation.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: If God says that "Amongst the plants I am this plant..."
Hayagrīva: Tulasī, Tulasī.
Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: So the Hindus, they worship, follow God's instruction. That is they have got in a certain sense. God has said that "Amongst the plants, I am this plant, so worship." They are not worshiping all, every plant.
Hayagrīva: This isn't..., then this difference from the pantheists, who would worship, say, everything.
Prabhupāda: They, they will worship any nonsense, but here it is God consciousness. God has said that "I am this," so "I am...," I will worship. That is God, God consciousness. God has said. He has complete faith in God. Just like praṇavaḥ sarva-vedeṣu: "Of Vedic knowledge I am the oṁkāra." Therefore they follow: oṁ tad viṣṇu paramaṁ para..., every mantra is followed by. How he has known oṁkāra is God? That God has said: praṇavaḥ sarva-vedeṣu. So God is giving instruction how He should be realized. So they are following that. They are realized; they realize actually. And what is the use of speculating? He will never understand God because he is speculating with his limited knowledge. God is unlimited.
Hayagrīva: So although God is all animals and all plants...
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is...
Hayagrīva: Although God is everything, we concentrate on these particular...
Prabhupāda: No. That is especially prohibited. Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni: (BG 9.4) "Everything is in Me, but I am not there." Just like the body of a dog. The body is on the soul; the platform is the soul. Otherwise there is no meaning of the body. So the body of the dog is depending on the soul of the body. But that does not mean the dog's body is God. Nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ. Find out this verse, mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ. They are taking just as Vivekananda, they, the body of a daridra, poor man, is resting on God, Nārāyaṇa...
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: ...but he is taking the body as Nārāyaṇa. That is his knowledge, imperfect. He is saying daridra-nārāyaṇa. God has become daridra. And he is taking the consideration of the body; therefore he is thinking God has become daridra. The body of a daridra, poor man, is depending on Nārāyaṇa, but he is taking the body as Nārāyaṇa. He is such a fool, and he is going on. Ah. Find out...
Devotee:
- mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ
- jagad avyakta-mūrtinā
- mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni
- na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ
- (BG 9.4)
Prabhupāda: Read the purport.
Devotee: Translation. "By Me in My unmanifested form this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them."
Prabhupāda: "On service of his origin." What is? On His Majesty's service. What is that slogan?
Devotee: "On His Majesty's service."
Prabhupāda: Ah. (indistinct) That does not mean the..., Her Majesty is there. The Majesty, Her Majesty's power, order, is everywhere. Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni. The government is acting with the seed on Majesty's service, but that does not mean Her Majesty is there. This is simultaneously one and different, acintya-bhedābheda. Majesty is there because the order is there, but still personally he is not there. So the, another, that begun already, is that daridra, in daridra Nārāyaṇa is there, but not that daridra is Nārāyaṇa. But he has no vision. He is talking of this daridra-nārāyaṇa. This is mistake. Nārāyaṇa is there undoubtedly, but not that daridra is Nārāyaṇa. This is impersonalism, Māyāvāda mistake. That is pantheism.
Hayagrīva: Pantheism. So when Kṛṣṇa says, "I am sex life according to dharma," then this means that He can be perceived in this way.
Prabhupāda: Yes. If you, just like garbhādhāna ceremony. That is not a secret thing. That garbhādhāna ceremony is that "I am going to beget a child. I am going to have sex with my wife for begetting a Kṛṣṇa conscious child," so that Kṛṣṇa is remembered. While having sex, if he remembers, "Kṛṣṇa, give me a child who will be Your devotee," that is the duty of the father. So this kind of sex is Kṛṣṇa. And if we have sex for enjoyment, that is not. That is demonic. That is the, Kṛṣṇa says...
Hayagrīva: But Kṛṣṇa is present nonetheless.
Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is always present, but if when you hold a ceremony, garbhādhāna ceremony, that "I am going to have sex with my wife for begetting a Kṛṣṇa conscious child," then you remember Kṛṣṇa. And at the time of sex, the mentality of the father and mother, that is acquired by the child. There is rules and regulation for garbhādhāna ceremony, and in the Bhāgavata you will find that as soon as a..., the..., one gives up the garbhādhāna ceremony, he is a śūdra. So who is observing this garbhādhāna ceremony at the present moment? Therefore everyone is śūdra. Kalau śūdra-sambhavāḥ. Everyone is born as śūdra. The father and mother gave birth as śūdra. So this birthright of brāhmaṇa is no longer in this day. Even they falsely claim, "Because I am born of a brāhmaṇa father I am brāhmaṇa," that śāstra will not support. Whether garbhādhāna ceremony was performed? And nowadays, especially, who knows that he is son of a brāhmaṇa? The woman is intermingling with everyone, and who has given birth of the child? Whether he is actually a brāhmaṇa's son, a śūdra's son, who knows it? So how he can claim, by birthright, a brāhmaṇa? That is not possible. Therefore everyone is śūdra. But he can be trained as a brāhmaṇa. That is pāñcarātrikī-vidhi. We are following this pāñcarātrikī-vidhi, not Vedic vidhi. Vedic vidhi is different. Pāñcarātrikī. By training. He has got little tendency, little fire, to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. All right, fan it, make the fire bigger than this. But if he gives up the firing process, he remains fire, but he will go unfinished. (Sanskrit), that a small seed, you sow it and regularly pour water... Just like Govinda dāsī introduced this Tulasī. She is responsible for introducing Tulasī in the Western countries.
Hayagrīva: So the Tulasī, the actual... To get back to the original point, the actual philosophy behind reverence for the Tulasī plant or the cow or the sexual ceremony, the basis then would be remembrance of Kṛṣṇa, that these can bring remembrance of Kṛṣṇa.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: Because Kṛṣṇa says so, but...
Prabhupāda: Just like Kṛṣṇa says satataṁ cintayantaṁ mām: "Always thinking of Me," that is the process of consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ yatantaś ca dṛḍha-vratāḥ (BG 9.14). Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto (BG 18.65). "Always think of Me." So somehow or other you think of Kṛṣṇa, then you will become Kṛṣṇa conscious, purified.
Hayagrīva: But you shouldn't think of Kṛṣṇa in any..., in another way, for instance a palm tree or...
Prabhupāda: (indistinct) Then He is giving indication that "Amongst the trees I am this." So you take it.
Hayagrīva: Yes.
Prabhupāda: Just like Kṛṣṇa said, raso 'ham apsu kaunteya (BG 7.8). He said that "I am the taste of the water." So you are drinking water always. The taste which quenches your thirst and you feel satisfaction, that is Kṛṣṇa. Now if you follow Kṛṣṇa's instruction, "Now I am drinking water. Now I am feeling satisfaction. Now this satisfaction is Kṛṣṇa," then you remember Him.
Hayagrīva: Hegel mistook this for pantheism.
Prabhupāda: Hm?
Hayagrīva: Hegel mistook this for pantheism.
Prabhupāda: He has mistaken in so many ways. (Sanskrit) Just like our... Not Pradyumna. If somebody has boils all over the body, then where it will be operated? Better kill this body. (laughing) So he has got so many boils, this Hegel and Segel, all, because they are speculators. They have no definite knowledge. Speculators cannot have definite knowledge. Therefore our Professor Dimmock has said, "Here is definite definition of Gītā." What is that? Just see. Then it is so. He has appreciated it. You cannot see, of the...
Devotee: They only put two lines of what he said in there. He says this...
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is his word.
Devotee: Oh.
Prabhupāda: Read it all.
Devotee: "Definitive English edition of Bhagavad-gītā. By bringing us a new and living interpretation of the text already known to many, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda has increased our own understanding manyfold."
Prabhupāda: That is a definite, not vague, speculative. That is the difference between my translation and others. Therefore I have given the name "As It Is." So we will be no spoke or speculation. As soon as you speculate, you are rejected. Therefore others are seeing some danger that "This Bhaktivedanta's..., this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is accepted, then where we are?"
Hayagrīva: Everybody wants to speculate.
Prabhupāda: That's all. We are, I have stopped it. They cannot speculate on the words of Bhagavad-gītā. That is our mission. Won't allow you to speculate. You are finite, imperfect. How you can by speculation give the unlimited, infinite? How it is possible? That is reasonable. Waste of time, misleading others. Aṇḍhā yathāndair upanīyamānāḥ. You are blind; how you can show others, blind men? They are already blind. You open your eyes, then take the leadership of the blind. Ajñāna-timirāndhasya jñānāñjana-śalākayā. That is our process. That's all right. (end)