 |
2. Plato. 3. Aristotle
|
|
|
|
2. Plato
Plato (428? –347 BC) was one of the most creative and influential thinkers in Western philosophy. The chief student of Socrates, he founded the Academy in Athens in 387 BC, beginning an institution that continued for almost a thousand years and came to be known as the first European university. There are some striking similarities between Plato's ideal state and the one Kṛ ṣ ṇ a outlines in the Bhagavad-gī tā. But, as Ś rī la Prabhupā da points out, Plato erred in his conception of the soul and of the goal of education.
Disciple: In the Republic, Plato's major work on political theory, Plato wrote that society can enjoy prosperity and harmony only if it places people in working categories or classes according to their natural abilities. He thought people should find out their natural abilities and use those abilities to their fullest capacity - as administrators, as military men, or as craftsmen. Most important, the head of state should not be an average or mediocre man. Instead, society should be led by a very wise and good man - a " philosopher king" - or a group of very wise and good men.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: This idea appears to be taken from the Bhagavad-gī tā, where Kṛ ṣ ṇ a says that the ideal society has four divisions: brā hmaṇ as, kṣ atriyas, vaiś yas, and ś ū dras. These divisions come about by the influence of the modes of nature. Everyone, both in human society and in animal society, is influenced by the modes of material nature (sattva-guṇ a, rajo-guṇ a, and tamo-guṇ a, or goodness, passion, and ignorance). By scientifically classifying men according to these qualities, society can become perfect. But if we place a man in the mode of ignorance in a philosopher's post, or put a philosopher to work as an ordinary laborer, havoc will result.
In the Bhagavad-gī tā Kṛ ṣ ṇ a says that the brā hmaṇ as - the most intelligent men, who are interested in transcendental knowledge and philosophy - should be given the topmost posts, and under their instructions the kṣ atriyas should work. The administrators should see that there is law and order and that everyone is doing his duty. The next section is the productive class, the vaiś yas, who engage in agriculture and cow protection. And finally there are the ś ū dras, common laborers who help the other sections. This is Vedic civilization - people living simply, on agriculture and cow protection. If you have enough milk, grain, fruits, and vegetables, you can live very nicely.
The Ś rī mad-Bhā gavatam compares the four divisions of society to the different parts of the body - the head, the arms, the belly, and the legs. Just as all parts of the body cooperate to keep the body fit, in the ideal state all sections of society cooperate under the leadership of the brā hmaṇ as. Comparatively, the head is the most important part of the body, since it gives directions to the other parts. Similarly, the ideal state functions under the directions of the brā hmaṇ as, who are not personally interested in political affairs or administration because they have a higher duty. At present this Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness movement is training brā hmaṇ as. If the administrators take our advice and conduct the state in a Kṛ ṣ ṇ a conscious way, there will be an ideal society throughout the world.
|
|
|
Disciple: How does modern society differ from the Vedic ideal?
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Now there is large-scale industrialization, which means exploitation of one person by another. Such industry was unknown in Vedic civilization - it was unnecessary. In addition, modern civilization has taken to slaughtering and eating animals, which is barbarous. It is not even human.
In Vedic civilization, when a person was unfit to rule he was deposed. For instance, King Vena proved to be an unfit king. He was simply interested in hunting. Of course, kṣ atriyas are allowed to hunt, but not whimsically. They are not allowed to kill many birds and beasts unnecessarily, as King Vena was doing and as people do today. At that time the intelligent brā hmaṇ as objected and immediately killed him with a curse. Formerly, the brā hmaṇ as had so much power that they could kill simply by cursing; weapons were unnecessary.
At present, however - because the head of the social body is missing - it is a dead body. The head is very important, and our Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness movement is attempting to create some brā hmaṇ as who will form the head of society. Then the administrators will be able to rule very nicely under the instructions of the philosophers and theologians - that is, under the instructions of God-conscious people. A God-conscious brā hmaṇ a would never advise opening slaughterhouses. But now, the many rascals heading the government allow animal slaughter. When Mahā rā ja Parī kṣ it saw a degraded man trying to kill a cow, he immediately drew his sword and said, " Who are you? Why are you trying to kill this cow? " He was a real king. Nowadays, unqualified men have taken the presidential post. And although they may pose themselves as very religious, they are simply rascals. Why? Because under their noses thousands of cows are being killed, while they collect a good salary. Any leader who is at all religious should resign his post in protest if cow slaughter goes on under his rule. Since people do not know that these administrators are rascals, they are suffering. And the people are also rascals because they are voting for these bigger rascals. It is Plato's view that the government should be ideal, and this is the ideal: The saintly philosophers should be at the head of the state; according to their advice the politicians should rule; under the protection of the politicians, the productive class should protect the cows and provide the necessities of life; and the laborer class should help. This is the scientific division of society that Kṛ ṣ ṇ a advocates in the Bhagavad-gī tā (4. 13): cā tur-varṇ yaṁ mayā sṛ ṣ ṭ aṁ guṇ a-karma-vibhā gaś aḥ. " According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me. "
|
|
|
Disciple: Plato also observed social divisions. However, he advocated three divisions. One class consisted of the guardians, men of wisdom who governed society. Another class consisted of the warriors, who were courageous and who protected the rest of society. And the third class consisted of the artisans, who performed their services obediently and worked only to satisfy their appetites.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Yes, human society does have this threefold division, also. The first-class man is in the mode of goodness, the second-class man is in the mode of passion, and the third-class man is in the mode of ignorance.
Disciple: Plato's understanding of the social order was based on his observation that man has a threefold division of intelligence, courage, and appetite. He said that the soul has these three qualities.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: That is a mistake. The soul does not have any material qualities. The soul is pure, but because of his contact with the different qualities of material nature, he is " dressed" in various bodies. This Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness movement aims at removing this material dress. Our first instruction is " You are not this body. " It appears that in his practical understanding Plato identified the soul with the bodily dress, and that does not show very good intelligence.
Disciple: Plato believed that man's position is marginal - between matter and spirit - and therefore he also stressed the development of the body. He thought that everyone should be educated from an early age, and that part of that education should be gymnastics - to keep the body fit.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: This means that in practice Plato very strongly identified the self as the body. What was Plato's idea of education?
Disciple: To awaken the student to his natural position - whatever his natural abilities or talents are.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: And what is that natural position?
Disciple: The position of moral goodness. In other words, Plato thought everyone should be educated to work in whatever way is best suited to awaken his natural moral goodness.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: But moral goodness is not enough, because simple morality will not satisfy the soul. One has to go above morality - to Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness. Of course, in this material world morality is taken as the highest principle, but there is another platform, which is called the transcendental (vā sudeva) platform. Man's highest perfection is on that platform, and this is confirmed in Ś rī mad-Bhā gavatam. However, because Western philosophers have no information of the vā sudeva platform, they consider the material mode of goodness to be the highest perfection and the end of morality. But in this world even moral goodness is infected by the lower modes of ignorance and passion. You cannot find pure goodness (ś uddha-sattva) in this material world, because pure goodness is the transcendental platform. To come to the platform of pure goodness, which is the ideal, one has to undergo austerities (tapasā brahmacaryeṇ a ś amena ca damena ca). One has to practice celibacy and control the mind and senses. If one has money, one should distribute it in charity. Also, one should always be very clean. In this way one can rise to the platform of pure goodness.
There is another process for coming to the platform of pure goodness - and that is Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness. If one becomes Kṛ ṣ ṇ a conscious, all good qualities automatically develop in him. Automatically he leads a life of celibacy, controls his mind and senses, and has a charitable disposition. In this Age of Kali, people cannot possibly be trained to engage in austerity. Formerly, a brahmacā rī would undergo austere training. Even though he might be from a royal or learned family, a brahmacā rī would humble himself and serve the spiritual master as a menial servant. He would immediately do whatever the spiritual master ordered. The brahmacā rī would beg alms from door to door and bring them to the spiritual master, claiming nothing for himself. Whatever he earned he would give to the spiritual master, because the spiritual master would not spoil the money by spending it for sense gratification - he would use it for Kṛ ṣ ṇ a. This is austerity. The brahmacā rī would also observe celibacy, and because he followed the directions of the spiritual master, his mind and senses were controlled.
|
|
|
Today, however, this austerity is very difficult to follow, so Ś rī Caitanya Mahā prabhu has given the process of taking to Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness directly. In this case, one need simply chant Hare Kṛ ṣ ṇ a, Hare Kṛ ṣ ṇ a, Kṛ ṣ ṇ a Kṛ ṣ ṇ a, Hare Hare/ Hare Rā ma, Hare Rā ma, Rā ma Rā ma, Hare Hare and follow the regulative principles given by the spiritual master. Then one immediately rises to the platform of pure goodness.
Disciple: Plato thought the state should train citizens to be virtuous. His system of education went like this: For the first three years of life, the child should play and strengthen his body. From three to six, the child should learn religious stories. From seven to ten, he should learn gymnastics; from ten to thirteen, reading and writing; from fourteen to sixteen, poetry and music; from sixteen to eighteen, mathematics. And from eighteen to twenty, he should undergo military drill. From twenty to thirty-five, those who are scientific and philosophical should remain in school and continue learning, and the warriors should engage in military exercises.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Is this educational program for all men, or are there different types of education for different men?
Disciple: No, this is for everyone.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: This is not very good. If a boy is intelligent and inclined to philosophy and theology, why should he be forced to undergo military training?
Disciple: Well, Plato said that everyone should undergo two years of military drill.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: But why should someone waste two years? No one should waste even two days. This is nonsense - imperfect ideas.
Disciple: Plato said this type of education reveals what category a person belongs to. He did have the right idea that one belongs to a particular class according to his qualification.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Yes, that we also say, but we disagree that everyone should go through the same training. The spiritual master should judge the tendency or disposition of the student at the start of his education. He should be able to see whether a boy is fit for military training, administration, or philosophy, and then he should fully train the boy according to his particular tendency. If one is naturally inclined to philosophical study, why should he waste his time in the military? And if one is naturally inclined to military training, why should he waste his time with other things? Arjuna belonged to a kṣ atriya family. He and his brothers were never trained as philosophers. Droṇ ā cā rya was their master and teacher, and although he was a brā hmaṇ a, he taught them Dhanur Veda, not brahma-vidyā. Brahma-vidyā is theistic philosophy. No one should be trained in everything; that is a waste of time. If one is inclined toward production, business, or agriculture, he should be trained in those fields. If one is philosophical, he should be trained as a philosopher. If one is militaristic, he should be trained as a warrior. And if one has ordinary ability, he should remain a ś ū dra, or laborer. This is stated by Nā rada Muni in Ś rī mad-Bhā gavatam: yasya yal-lakṣ aṇ aṁ proktam. The four classes of society are recognized by their symptoms and qualifications. Nā rada Muni also says that one should be selected for training according to his qualifications. Even if one is born in a brā hmaṇ a family, he should be considered a ś ū dra if his qualifications are those of a ś ū dra. And if one is born in a ś ū dra family, he should be accepted as a brā hmaṇ a if his symptoms are brahminical. The spiritual master should be expert enough to recognize the tendencies of the student and immediately train him in that line. This is perfect education.
|
|
|
Disciple: Plato believed that the student's natural tendency wouldn’t come out unless he practiced everything.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: No, that is wrong - because the soul is continuous, and therefore everyone has some tendency from his previous birth. I think Plato didn’t realize this continuity of the soul from body to body. According to the Vedic culture, immediately after a boy's birth astrologers should calculate what category he belongs to. Astrology can help if there is a first-class astrologer. Such an astrologer can tell what line a boy is coming from and how he should be trained. Plato's method of education was imperfect because it was based on speculation.
Disciple: Plato observed that a particular combination of the three modes of nature is acting in each individual.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Then why did he say that everyone should be trained in the same way?
Disciple: Because he claimed that the person's natural abilities will not manifest unless he is given a chance to try everything. He saw that some people listen primarily to their intelligence, and he said they are governed by the head. He saw that some people have an aggressive disposition, and he said such courageous types are governed by the heart - by passion. And he saw that some people, who are inferior, simply want to feed their appetites. He said these people are animalistic, and he believed they are governed by the liver.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: That is not a perfect description. Everyone has a liver, a heart, and all the bodily limbs. Whether one is in the mode of goodness, passion, or ignorance depends on one's training and on the qualities he acquired during his previous life. According to the Vedic process, at birth one is immediately given a classification. Psychological and physical symptoms are considered, and generally it is ascertained from birth that a child has a particular tendency. However, this tendency may change according to circumstances, and if one does not fulfill his assigned role, he can be transferred to another class. One may have had brahminical training in a previous life, and he may exhibit brahminical symptoms in this life, but one should not think that because he has taken birth in a brā hmaṇ a family he is automatically a brā hmaṇ a. A person may be born in a brā hmaṇ a family and be a ś ū dra. It is a question not of birth but of qualification.
Disciple: Plato also believed that one must qualify for his post. His system of government was very democratic. He thought everyone should be given a chance to occupy the different posts.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Actually, we are the most democratic because we are giving everyone a chance to become a first-class brā hmaṇ a. The Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness movement is giving even the lowest member of society a chance to become a brā hmaṇ a by becoming Kṛ ṣ ṇ a conscious. Caṇ ḍ ā lo ’pi dvija-ś reṣ ṭ ho hari-bhakti-parā yaṇ aḥ: Although one may be born in a family of caṇ ḍ ā las, as soon as he becomes God conscious, Kṛ ṣ ṇ a conscious, he can be elevated to the highest position. Kṛ ṣ ṇ a says that everyone can go back home, back to Godhead. Samo ’haṁ sarva-bhū teṣ u: " I am equal to everyone. Everyone can come to Me. There is no hindrance. "
|
|
|
Disciple: What is the purpose of the social orders and the state government?
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: The ultimate purpose is to make everyone Kṛ ṣ ṇ a conscious. That is the perfection of life, and the entire social structure should be molded with this aim in view. Of course, not everyone can become fully Kṛ ṣ ṇ a conscious in one lifetime, just as not all students in a university can attain the Ph. D. degree in one attempt. But the idea of perfection is to pass the Ph. D. examination, and therefore the Ph. D. courses should be maintained. Similarly, an institution like this Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness movement should be maintained so that at least some people can attain and everyone can approach the ultimate goal - Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness.
Disciple: So the goal of the state government is to help everyone become Kṛ ṣ ṇ a conscious?
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Yes, Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness is the highest goal. Therefore, everyone should help this movement and take advantage of it. Regardless of his work, everyone can come to the temple. The instructions are for everyone, and prasā dam is distributed to everyone. Therefore, there is no difficulty. Everyone can contribute to this Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness movement. The brā hmaṇ as can contribute their intelligence, the kṣ atriyas their charity, the vaiś yas their grain, milk, fruits, and flowers, and the ś ū dras their bodily service. By such joint effort, everyone can reach the same goal - Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness, the perfection of life.
Disciple: In a very famous allegory in the Republic, Plato describes representatives of humanity chained in a dark cave and able to see only shadows cast by the light of a fire. One person breaks free and sees the outside world, and he returns to the cave to tell the people there that they are living in darkness. But the cave-dwellers consider him crazy.
Prabhupā da: This is just like our story of Dr. Frog. He had never gone out of his dark well, so he thought, " Here is everything. " When he was informed about the vast Atlantic Ocean, he could not conceive of a body of water so expansive.
Similarly, those who are in the dark well of this material world cannot conceive of the light outside, in the spiritual world. But that world is a fact. Suppose someone has fallen into a well and he cries out, " I have fallen into this well! Please save me! " Then a man outside drops down a rope and calls, " Just catch hold of this rope and I will pull you out! " But no, the fallen man has no faith in the man outside and does not catch hold of the rope. Similarly, we are telling everyone in the material world, " You are suffering. Just take up this Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness and all your suffering will be relieved. " Unfortunately, people refuse to catch hold of the rope, or they do not even admit they are suffering.
But one who is fortunate will catch hold of the rope of Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness, and then the spiritual master will help him out of this dark world of suffering and bring him to the illuminated, happy world of Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness.
3. Aristotle
Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's leading student and the teacher of Alexander the Great. Although he was one of the most brilliant minds of ancient Greece, pioneering in such fields as astronomy, meteorology, biology, and zoology, Aristotle could still only guess about the nature of God. As Ś rī la Prabhupā da says here, " By speculation Aristotle may have known something about God, but our point is that we can know everything about God from God Himself. "
Disciple: Aristotle constructed a system of abstract notions and principles - " matter, " " form, " and " privation"; " potency" and " act"; the ten categories; the four kinds of causes; and so on - which he tried to show were universal in scope, capable of explicating reality on all levels. He wanted to show how all of reality is thus intelligible.
Aristotle thought of the cosmos as a hierarchy. At the bottom is prime or pure matter, which possesses no intelligible essence, or " form"; it is pure potency, without actuality. And at the top is God, the unmoved mover of the whole system, who is pure actuality (He is all that He could ever be), sheer form, pure intelligible, intellectual essence, with no tinge of matter or potentiality. In between are the changing substances compounded of matter and form - the elements, minerals, plants, animals, humans, and the ethereal intelligences that move the stars. The higher up the scale you go, the more form predominates over matter. In this way, Aristotle rejected the separation between the world of forms and the world of matter that characterized the philosophy of his teacher, Plato.
One modern philosopher has observed that Aristotle's conception of God was motivated entirely by dispassionate rational concerns - no extraneous ethical or religious interests influenced his idea - and that this did not go far toward producing an idea of God available for religious purposes.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: By speculation Aristotle may have known something about God, but our point is that we can know everything about God from God Himself. This is not a question of " religion. " It is simply a matter of the best process to know God. When we learn about God from God Himself, then our knowledge is perfect. In the Bhagavad-gī tā (7. 1) Kṛ ṣ ṇ a says,
mayy ā sakta-manā ḥ pā rtha yogaṁ yuñ jan mad-ā ś rayaḥ
asaṁ ś ayaṁ samagraṁ mā ṁ yathā jñ ā syasi tac chṛ ṇ u
" Now hear, O son of Pṛ thā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt. " This is the process of Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness. Of course, we may speculate about God, and if we simply think of God that will help us to some extent. If we are in darkness, we may speculate and concoct ideas about the sun. This is one kind of knowledge. But if we actually come to the light, our knowledge is complete. We may contemplate the sun in darkness, but the best process is to come into the sunshine and see for ourselves.
Disciple: Aristotle understood substance to be a composite of " form" and " matter. " " Form" is the essence of a substance, that by which it is what it is, its actuality. " Matter, " for Aristotle, is not a kind of stuff; rather it designates the failure of a substance to be fully informed. In other words, matter is a substance's potentiality for development toward form, or its disintegration away from form. God is perfect: He is pure form, without potentiality or matter. But man is a combination of matter and form. Since man is form and matter, he is imperfect, less than fully real or realized. This imperfection is inherent, being located in matter or potentiality.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: That is nonsense. Man is not made of matter but is covered by matter. Man is made of spirit. If God is spirit, man is also spirit. In the Bible it is also said that " man is made in the image of God"; therefore man is originally perfect. A person is generally healthy, but if he falls into a diseased condition, it is not his inherent imperfection. It is something external that has attacked a healthy man. According to his original nature, the living entity is healthy, or in other words, pure spirit.
Disciple: Although Aristotle criticized the Platonic separation between matter and form, his evaluation of these two was much like that of his teacher. Matter for Aristotle is unknowable and unintelligible, of no intrinsic worth; it is the cause of imperfection, change, and destruction. Form alone is the object of knowledge, the really real, the unchangeable and enduring; it alone endows the world with meaning, intelligibility, and intrinsic purpose.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: This means that the Supreme Absolute must have form. Ī ś varaḥ paramaḥ kṛ ṣ ṇ aḥ sac-cid-ā nanda-vigrahaḥ. The word vigrahaḥ indicates form. That form is not dead but is the activating spirit. Kṛ ṣ ṇ a's form is sac-cid-ā nanda: eternal, fully cognizant, and blissful. Our bodies are neither fully cognizant nor fully blissful, but Kṛ ṣ ṇ a's body is. He knows past, present, and future, and He is always happy. Our knowledge is limited, and we are always full of anxieties.
Disciple: For Aristotle, form gives changing things an immanent goal or purpose - entelechy. Therefore all matter has some form for its actualization. The world is an unfolding of phenomena realizing themselves. In other words, nature is driven by purpose.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: We agree with this. According to the Padma Purā ṇ a, there are 8, 400, 000 varieties of living forms, and none of them are accidental. According to one's karma, one receives a particular form. Lord Brahmā receives his form according to his karma, and the dog or cat receives its form according to its karma. There is no question of accident. Nature unfolds in accordance with a plan, by virtue of which these various forms are existing. Yas ’tv indra-gopam athavendram aho sva-karma-bandhā nurū pa-phala-bhā janam ā tanoti. From Indra down to the indra-gopa, a microscopic germ, all living entities are working out the results of their karma. If one's karma is good, he attains a higher form; if it is not good, he attains a lower form.
There is a process of evolution. The living entity passes from one species to another, from fish to trees to vegetables to insects to birds, beasts, and humans. In the human form, the result of evolution is fully manifest. It is like a flower unfolding from a bud. When the living entity attains the human form, his proper duty is to understand his lost relationship with God. If he misses this opportunity, he may regress. Aristotle is correct, therefore, when he says that everything has a purpose. The whole creative process aims at bringing the living entity back home, back to Godhead.
Disciple: Does every living entity eventually come to that point?
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: As a human being, you can properly utilize your consciousness, or you can misuse it. That is up to you. Kṛ ṣ ṇ a gives Arjuna instructions and then tells him that the decision is up to him. Under the orders of Kṛ ṣ ṇ a, nature has brought you through so many species. Now, as a human, you can choose whether to return to God or again endure the cycle of birth and death. If you are fortunate, you make the proper choice according to the instructions of the spiritual master and Kṛ ṣ ṇ a. Then your life is successful.
Disciple: Aristotle sees a hierarchy of forms extending from minerals, vegetables, and animals up to human beings and ultimately God, who is pure form and pure act. God is devoid of all potentiality or materiality.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Of course there is a hierarchy. And the individual soul transmigrates from one form to another. That is a fact. But who is to say that the next form you attain is closer to perfection? If you have a human form this life, there is no guarantee that you will get a higher form in the next. You accept another form just as you accept another suit of clothes. Those clothes may be valuable, or of no value whatsoever. You get your clothes according to the price you pay, and you accept a form according to your work. Similarly, you bring about your own form, and you enjoy or suffer according to your work.
In any case, a material form is never perfect, because it undergoes six changes. It is born, it grows, it stays for a while, it leaves some by-products, it dwindles, and then it vanishes. When your form vanishes, you have to take on another form, which also undergoes the same processes. When a form vanishes, it decomposes, and its various elements return to nature. Water returns to water, earth returns to earth, air returns to air, and so forth.
Disciple: Aristotle's God is the unmoved mover. He is perfect, and He wants nothing. He does not have to actualize Himself, because He is completely actualized.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: We also agree that God is all-perfect. Parā ś ara Muni defines God as the totality of wisdom, strength, wealth, fame, beauty, and renunciation. Kṛ ṣ ṇ a possesses all these qualities in full, and when He was present everyone could see that He was all-perfect. One who is perfect can rule others, and we accept the leadership of a person according to his degree of perfection. If one is not somewhat wise, beautiful, wealthy, and so forth, why should we accept him as a leader? And one who is supremely perfect in all these qualities is the supreme leader. That is natural. Since Kṛ ṣ ṇ a is supremely perfect, we should accept Him as our leader.
Disciple: God is pure form or actuality, without matter or potentiality. But for Aristotle, form without matter means thought. Therefore, he considered God to be entirely mind or intellect (nous) and the divine life to be the life of the mind. God's perfection requires this.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: When he said that God is mind, what did he mean? Did he have some conception of God's personality? God must be a person; otherwise how could He think?
Disciple: Aristotle said that God's activity was thought, and that His thought had itself as its sole object: God's thinking is noesis noeseos, thinking of thinking. Thus His nature is self-contemplation.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Does this mean that when one is perfect he engages in no activity? Does God simply sit down and meditate? If so, what is the difference between God and a stone? A stone simply sits; it has no activity. How is inactivity perfection? Kṛ ṣ ṇ a never meditates, yet when He speaks He delivers perfect knowledge. Kṛ ṣ ṇ a enacts various pastimes: He fights with demons, protects His devotees, dances with the gopī s, and delivers words of enlightenment. There is no question of sitting down like a stone and engaging in " self-contemplation. "
Disciple: But is it not possible to meditate while acting?
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Certainly, but God doesn’t have to meditate. Why should He meditate? He is perfect. One meditates to come from the imperfect stage to the perfect stage. Since God is perfect to begin with, what business does He have meditating? Everything is simply actualized by His will alone.
Aristotle recommends that a man should meditate to become perfect. This meditation presupposes imperfection. Contemplation is recommended for conditioned living entities, but we should understand that God is never conditioned or imperfect. He is so powerful that whatever He desires or wills immediately comes into being. This information is given in the Vedas. Parā sya ś aktir vividhaiva ś rū yate. God's multi-energies are so powerful that everything is immediately actualized as soon as He desires.
Disciple: But what about the meditations of the Buddha?
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Buddha's mission was different. He was setting an example for miscreants who were engaged in mischievous activities. He was recommending that they sit down and meditate, just as you tell a mischievous child to sit in a corner and be quiet.
Disciple: Aristotle never really says that we should end our activities. But he does say that we should contemplate God.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: That is our process. Ś ravaṇ aṁ kī rtanaṁ viṣ ṇ oḥ smaraṇ am. One should always think of Kṛ ṣ ṇ a. Kṛ ṣ ṇ a consciousness means remembering Kṛ ṣ ṇ a and acting for Him. When you sweep Kṛ ṣ ṇ a's temple, you remember Kṛ ṣ ṇ a. When you cook for Kṛ ṣ ṇ a, you remember Kṛ ṣ ṇ a. When you talk about Kṛ ṣ ṇ a, you remember Kṛ ṣ ṇ a. This is the process Kṛ ṣ ṇ a Himself recommends in the Bhagavad-gī tā (6. 47):
yoginā m api sarveṣ ā ṁ mad-gatenā ntar-ā tmanā
ś raddhā vā n bhajate yo mā ṁ sa me yuktatamo mataḥ
" Of all yogis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me - he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion. "
Disciple: Aristotle reasons that if God were to know changing things, it would entail change in God Himself. Thus it seems that Aristotle's God has no knowledge of the world. This means that He cannot return the love He receives. He neither loves nor cares for mankind.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: What kind of God is this? If one knows nothing of God, one should not speak of God. God certainly reciprocates with His devotees. As we offer our love to God, He responds and cooperates accordingly. In the Bhagavad-gī tā (4. 11) Kṛ ṣ ṇ a says,
ye yathā mā ṁ prapadyante tā ṁ s tathaiva bhajā my aham
mama vartmā nuvartante manuṣ yā ḥ pā rtha sarvaś aḥ
" As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛ thā. " When we fully surrender to God in loving service, we can actually understand God's nature.
Disciple: According to Aristotle, God causes motion in the world not actively but by being the object of desire. He moves the world the way the beloved moves the lover. In spite of His being the supreme object of thought and desire, there is no mention of His being a person. On the contrary, He seems to be merely a sort of consciousness that has no object save itself.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: It appears that Aristotle is a Mā yā vā dī, an impersonalist. One has to speculate if one does not receive perfect knowledge from God Himself.
Disciple: But at least the idea of God's moving the world by attraction shows some idea of God as the all-attractive.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Unless God is all-attractive, how can He be God? Therefore the word kṛ ṣ ṇ a, which means " all-attractive, " is the perfect name for God.
God attracts everyone. In Vṛ ndā vana He attracts His parents, the cowherd boys and girls, the animals, the fruits and flowers, the trees - everything. Even the water was attracted to Kṛ ṣ ṇ a. The Tenth Canto of Ś rī mad-Bhā gavatam describes how the water of the river Yamunā would become stunned in ecstasy and stop flowing as soon as she saw Kṛ ṣ ṇ a.
Disciple: Aristotle had the idea that God was totally unified, without duality. In what way would you say that God's thought and His activity are one?
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: God need only think of a thing in order for that thing to be created or actualized. God's thinking, feeling, willing, and acting are the same. Because we are imperfect, when we think of something it may or may not happen. But whenever God thinks of something, it takes place. Because Kṛ ṣ ṇ a thought that the Battle of Kurukṣ etra should take place, there was no stopping it. At first Arjuna declined to fight, but Kṛ ṣ ṇ a plainly told him that whether he fought or not, almost all the warriors there were destined to die. He therefore told Arjuna to become His instrument and take the credit for killing them. No one can check what God decides. It doesn’t matter whether you help God or not, but it is in your interest that you become His instrument.
Disciple: Aristotle said that a person is happiest and most like the divine himself when he performs his activities in such a way that he is always contemplating " things divine. "
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: Yes, that is the process of bhakti, devotional service. But unless one is a devotee, how can he constantly think of God? Ś rī la Rū pa Gosvā mī gives the example of a married woman who has a paramour. She performs her household chores very nicely, but she is always thinking, " When will my lover come at night? " So if it is possible to think of an ordinary person all the time, why not God? It is simply a question of practice, of developing your attraction for Him. Then, despite engaging in so many different types of work, you can think of God incessantly.
Now, Aristotle may have some vague conception of God, but he has no clear idea of Kṛ ṣ ṇ a's personality. We can think specifically and concretely of God because we receive information from Vedic literature that God is a person and appears and acts in a certain way. In the Bhagavad-gī tā it is stated that impersonalists experience a great deal of trouble because they have no clear idea of God. If you have no conception of God's form, your attempt to realize God will be very difficult.
Disciple: For Aristotle, God is known by speculative reason, not by revelation.
Ś rī la Prabhupā da: We are all limited, and God is unlimited; therefore we cannot understand God by our limited sensory powers. Consequently, God must be known by revelation. As the Padma Purā ṇ a states, ataḥ ś rī -kṛ ṣ ṇ a-nā mā di na bhaved grā hyam indriyaiḥ. It is not possible to know God by mental speculation. But when we engage in His service, He reveals Himself. And Ś rī Kṛ ṣ ṇ a Himself says in the Bhagavad-gī tā (7. 25),
nā haṁ prakā ś aḥ sarvasya yoga-mā yā -samā vṛ taḥ
mū ḍ ho ’yaṁ nā bhijā nā ti loko mā m ajam avyayam
" I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible. " It is a fact that unless God reveals Himself, He is not known. Therefore He appears, and great authorities like Vyā sadeva, Nā rada, Ś ukadeva Gosvā mī, Rā mā nujā cā rya, Madhvā cā rya, and Caitanya Mahā prabhu - great scholars and transcendentalists - accept Him as He reveals Himself. Arjuna saw God face to face, and he accepted Him. When we are freed of ignorance by our service to God, God reveals Himself.
|
|
|
