The Goal of Life is Laziness

8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness

1/49

The goal of life is laziness

Simple living

a morning walk with His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

(edited for clarity)

19 October 1975, Johannesburg, South Africa

Indian man: Don't you think the people (in South Africa) are lazy?

Prabhupada: Why aren't you lazy here? It is the government's policy or government's

management. You see? To become lazy is the recommendation of the shastra. "Lazy"

has become a bad word, but actually real life means to not work very hard. Working

hard (only) for eating means animal life, not human life. Human life should be very

peaceful - without any hard work - for cultivating spiritual knowledge. Not working hard

like hogs and dogs all day just to find some stool. That isn't human life. People are

being educated to work very hard. That isn't human life. Therefore those who have

money build a nice bungalow in a secluded place to live peacefully - to become lazy. Is

it not?

Indian man: Yes.

Prabhupada: Perfection of life means ultimately you become lazy; you haven't got to

work. That is perfection, they say. Otherwise why live in a cottage in a secluded place?On weekends, Americans leave aside all working. They become tired from all their hard

working, and they go. The intention is to live a peaceful life, and not work very hard.

That is human life. Otherwise, why go outside the city on the weekend? Why?

Indian man: They want rest, I suppose. They want rest.

Prabhupada: That means lazy.

Indian man: No. . .

Prabhupada: Yes. Rest means lazy; you don't work.

Indian man: If one works five days a week, you rest for two...

Prabhupada: That is another thing. You have to work to become lazy. (laughter) That is

another thing. But the goalis to become lazy. You work five days very hard just to
http://www.krishna.com/simple-living/simple-living/63http://www.krishna.com/simple-living/simple-living/63


2/49

become lazy for two days. That's all. But if you have the means to become lazy seven

days a week, you'll prefer it.

Pusta Krishna: But I think most people would go crazy if they didn't have any work.

Prabhupada: No, that means their life is not properly conducted. Therefore the word"laziness" has come (into use). "Laziness" is not actually the word. Laziness means

minimizing bodily labor and engaging in spiritual work. If you ask people, "Please come

to our temple," who is coming? Most people say, "I have no time." But we're not working

hard.

There are (four) classifications: "Lazy intelligent, busy intelligent, lazy fool, and busy

fool." So at the present moment (laughs) the whole world is full of busy fools. But the

first-class man is "lazy intelligent." The second-class man is "busy intelligent." Third

class means "lazy fool" and fourth class means "busy fool."

Nowadays people are busy but they're fools - like monkeys. A monkey is very busy. You

see? People prefer to be a generation of monkeys, busy fools. A fool, when he is busy,

is simply creating havoc. A lazy fool is better because he will not create so much harm,

but a busy fool will simply create harm. And a first class-man is lazy intelligent. He

knows the value of life. He's thinking soberly. Just like, you will find, all our great saintly

persons. They were living in the forest, (performing) meditation, tapasya (austerity), and

writing books. All lazy intelligent. They are first-class men.

Indian man: Not like the monkey, jumping from one ...

Prabhupada: What is the value of a busy fool? He is a fool, and he is busy. Nowadays,education is for making busy fools. That's all.

Indian man: What about the busy intelligent? How does he behave?

Prabhupada: Busy intelligent means at least there is some meaning to whatever he is

doing. Lazy intelligent means to be doing higher things. Lazy intelligent means

brahmana, and busy intelligent means kshatriya.

chatur-varnyam maya srstam

[Bg. 4.13].

The society should be divided into four classes. The shudrasare busy fools, therefore

they are to be guided. For every hundred workers, one leader must be there to give the

direction: "Why are you doing this? Why you don't do this?" Otherwise they'll create

havoc - busy fools. Now the whole world is full of busy fools. That's all.
http://vedabase.net/bg/4/13http://vedabase.net/bg/4/13


3/49

For brahmanas, the Bhagavad-gita doesn't recommend, "You work hard day and night."

Brahminical qualifications are controlling the senses, controlling the mind, being truthful,

clean, knowing everything nicely, practical applying the knowledge, and having full faith

in shastraand Bhagavan (God). [Bg. 18.42]. These things are recommended, not that a

brahmanashould become very busy all day and night for getting food.

Shastrasays, "There is no use of becoming busy for your food. Food is there already."

Food is already there. He'll get his food. That is arranged by God. But (most people) are

busy fools. They don't understand God's arrangement. They're busy, day and night, like

cats and dogs, only for food.

So much land is there. Everyone, if he works for two months, can grow his whole year's

foodstuff. There is so much land. But no, they'll not grow food. They will grow hammers.

They will manufacture tire tubes, atom bombs, then this and that. They are busy fools.

They are fools, and they are very busy. Everyone is busy. There are so many parts in

the motorcar, three thousand parts, and they're busy manufacturing three thousandmotorcar parts. Everyone is busy producing unwanted things, and they've created a

society in such a way that they have to do that.

Indian man: Otherwise they think that they not economically progressing.

Prabhupada: What is that "economical progressing?" That means busy fool. Fools don't

know how to satisfy the economic problem. That is recommended in the Bhagavad-gita,

annad bhavanti bhutani: [Bg. 3.14] "You grow food grains." Then all economic questions

(are answered). But why aren't you producing food grains? Why you are producing iron

stools and instruments and motors and tires and collecting petrol far away from Arabia?

Krishna never says, "You do all this nonsense." He said, "Grow food grains." Why don't

you do that? That means fools. After all, you have to eat. But you're not busy growing

your food; you're busy producing tire tubes, motor cars, stools and instruments. So how

you will get your food? Where is your "economic progressing?" Your first economic

necessity is that you must eat.

What is the purpose of life? Krishna Consciousness

If everything was really haphazard and pointless, then asking What is the purpose of

life? would itself be meaningless. But practical experience tells us theres a reason for

everything, even though sometimes its not obvious:
http://vedabase.net/bg/18/42http://vedabase.net/bg/3/14http://www.krishna.com/krishna-consciousness/krishna-consciousness/10http://vedabase.net/bg/18/42http://vedabase.net/bg/3/14http://www.krishna.com/krishna-consciousness/krishna-consciousness/10


4/49

Who left a mess in the kitchen? (somebodydid)

I dunno. (I dont want to admit it was me)

To ask why? shows were willing to accept there is a purpose behind something, and a

consciousness (or person) behind that purpose.

A reporter once asked Srila Prabhupada about the purpose of life. His quick reply: The

purpose of life is to enjoy.

anandamayo bhyasat

(Vedanta-sutra1.1.12, quoted in Srimad-Bhagavatam9.24.58, Purport)

Our real, spiritual nature is to seek enjoyment. That's what everybody does. The Vedas

talk about the purpose of life in great detail: Krishna is the cause of all causes, the

Supreme Enjoyer, and He expands Himself unlimitedly to make unlimited enjoyable

relationships possible. That's what He does.
http://vedabase.net/sb/9/24/58/en1http://vedabase.net/sb/9/24/58/en1http://vedabase.net/sb/9/24/58/en1


5/49

If we want to enjoy, there are basically two ways to go about it:

1) the self-centered approach, and

2) the Absolute Truth-centered approach.

Way #2to act in harmony with the ultimate purpose, with reference to an ultimate

creator and controlleris called bhakti-yogareal spiritual life. This results in actual

(permanent) enjoyment.

Way #1 assumes "no God, no ultimate purpose," or "it's all about me," and hopes

"everything will turn out the way Iwant." This results in hit-or-miss, short-lived

"happiness" (and depression when its all over). This is materialistic life.

ReincarnationScience or Superstition?

Reincarnation

Kundali dasa

In 1977, a television station in England broadcast a live program that viewers are likely

to remember for a long time. Millions watched in amazement as Joe Keeton, a

hypnotherapist, put a volunteer into a hypnotic trance and ran her backwards in time

back to a previous life in sixteenth-century England.
http://www.krishna.com/reincarnation/reincarnation/90http://www.krishna.com/reincarnation/reincarnation/90


6/49

Twenty-three-year-old Jan (not her real name) became eighteen-year-old Joan

Waterhouse, on trial for witchcraft in a Chelmsford courthouse. In her trance, Jan

became almost hysterical as she repeatedly clenched her fists and grimaced in such

apparent pain that Keeton felt obliged to bring her out of hypnosis after only a few

minutes of questioning.

Yet in those few minutes Jan had revealed that in her alleged past life she had been

tortured with pins and forced to undergo trial by firean ordeal in which a suspected

witch had to grasp a hot iron bar. In her regression, Jan seemed to relive all the anguish

of a real torture victim. Jans performance, if we may call it that, was very convincing. It

surpassed anything an actress could have done. In her normal consciousness Jan had

never heard of the Chelmsford witch trial. Joe Keeton, and no doubt the television

audience, were especially impressed by the detailed corroboration of Jans recollections

found in the Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, which contained an account

of the actual trial. The book happened to be in the studio library. Later, Jans experience

was further corroborated by a record of the trial found in the library of the Archbishop ofCanterbury.

Jans hypnotic regression to an apparent past life is one of thousands that have been

conducted over the past thirty years. Joe Keeton has done more than nine thousand

such regressions. Researchers in Canada, Europe, Russia, and Australia are busy

studying the past life phenomenon. Libraries and bookstores abound with literature on

the subject. And although for those who require ironclad scientific proof none of these

accounts confirm reincarnation, the phenomenon of past-life regression is in large

measure responsible for the growing popular belief in rebirth. A 1969 Gallup poll

showed that twenty percent of all Americans believed in reincarnation, while a similar

poll in 1981 showed an increase to twenty-three percent,

Still, many questions remain: Are past lives, recalled under hypnosis, fact or fantasy?

Can reincarnation be scientifically proven? If so, what is it that reincarnates? And if I do

reincarnate, what will I be in my next life? Do I have any choice in the matter? Can I

come back as an animal? Does reincarnation ever end? What happens then?

Belief in Reincarnation: A Brief History

The idea of reincarnation is intriguing. Nearly everyone at some time in his life wonders

what happens at death, and rebirth is one interesting possibility. Throughout history,some of the most thoughtful minds have advocated this idea. In the Western world,

followers of the Orphic religion in ancient Greece were the first known exponents of

reincarnation. They were succeeded by Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and a host of

other philosophers, right up to the present day. Several early Christian church fathers

also supported the notion, as did many Jewish and Islamic theologians.


7/49

While no version of the reincarnation doctrine ever achieved popular acceptance in the

West, it has fared quite well among philosophers. Even the prince of empirical skeptics,

David Hume, agreed that if the soul were indeed immortal, metempsychosis

[reincarnation] is the only system philosophy can hearken to.

Scholars have traced the very earliest records of the reincarnation doctrine to India,where the worlds most ancient cultural and philosophical tradition, the Vedic culture,

still survives. Western scholars are not exactly sure when the Vedic culture originated.

Some surmise that it began as early as the fourth millennium B.C. But according to the

Vedic literature itself, the culture is considerably older. Western scholars find such a

claim hard to entertain. Five thousand years ago Europe was in uncivilized prehistory,

and historians assume everyone else must have been equally primitive. At any rate, the

Vedic literature contains the earliest narratives of persons who reincarnated, along with

a systematic philosophical explanation of transmigration of the soul.

Serious researchers, and even the mildly curious, would do well to examine the Vedicaccount of reincarnation. The Vedic teachings emphasize the future rather than the past

lives. After all, our past lives are already spent and can never be revived. Thus

researching them has no practical valueexcept, perhaps, to prove reincarnation. But

the Vedic literature offers both proof of reincarnation and a practical method whereby

we can affect our future life positively.

These teachings tell us in exact detail how we should live so that we can attain a

specific destination and a specific body in our future life, just as we might purchase a

ticket and board a plane to fly to New York. Better still, they tell us how we can go to the

supreme destination and become completely liberated from the cycle of repeated birth

and death. The Vedic version of the reincarnation doctrine is, therefore, a far moreuseful subject for investigation than past-life regression.

The Vedic Version in a Nutshell

The essence of the Vedic teachings on reincarnation is contained in the Bhagavad-gita,

Indias unexcelled treatise on metaphysics. In the Gita, Krishna, the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, enlightens His friend and devotee Arjuna about the distinction

between the material body and the spiritual soul:

For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being,does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-

existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain . The soul can never be

cut into pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered

by the wind . It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, and immutable.

Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body. (Bg. 2.20, 23, 25)


8/49

The soul, the true self of a living being, is an antimaterial particle. When covered by a

material body, the soul forgets his real spiritual identity and becomes conditioned by

material nature so that he identifies with the material body as his true self.

Nature, Krishna explains, consists of three modesgoodness, passion, and ignorance.

(Each mode has its particular symptoms, which Krishna describes at length in thefourteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth chapters. When the living entity is under the

influence of one of the modes or a combination of them, he is compelled to act in

various ways for the pursuit of happiness. In this way he becomes more and more

implicated in natures complex, subtle laws of action and reaction. These three modes

constantly vie for dominance over the conditioned soul, and at the time of death the

dominant mode determines the kind of body the soul will be awarded in his next life.

Lord Krishna describes the souls general destination according to each mode as

follows:

When one dies in the mode of goodness, he attains to the pure, higher planets of thegreat sages. When one dies in the mode of passion, he takes birth among those

engaged in fruitive activities; and when one dies in the mode of ignorance, he takes

birth in the animal kingdom. (Bg. 14.14, 15)

Lord Krishna also describes how the soul travels from one body to another:

The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one

body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again

quits it to take another. The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a

certain type of ear, eye, tongue, nose, and sense of touch, which are grouped about the

mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects. (Bg. 15.8-9)

The conditioned soul is sheathed in two bodies. One is the gross body, made of earth,

water, fire, air, and ether, and the other is the subtle body, composed of mind,

intelligence, and false ego. The soul occupies the same subtle body throughout all the

changes of gross bodies. Thus all his memories and conceptions from previous lives

travel with him, stored within his mind, from one body to the next. (According to the

Vedic teachings, past lives recalled in hypnotic sleep are quite possible, at least

theoretically. However, the Srimad-Bhagavatam explains that the mind also concocts

experiences based on factual past lives. It is almost impossible, therefore, to discern

authentic recollections from concocted ones.)

In strict accordance with natures law of karma, the soul receives a gross body that

exactly conforms to the subtle conceptions and desires stored in his mind. A hog, for

example, is a conditioned soul who developed the mentality and desires of a hog and

thus received from nature a hogs body, with suitable senses of sight, taste, smell, and

so on, with which he could pursue his hoggish desires. The same holds true for a fly, a


9/49

worm, a whale, and so forth. Thus, through the inexorable law of karma, nature rewards

or punishes the conditioned soul, who must accept various gross bodies that, according

to his previous activities, allow him to enjoy or force him to suffer.

Since time immemorial, philosophers have been baffled by the apparent injustice of

natures ways. Why is one race, nation, family, or individual singled out for suffering,while another is awarded abundant health, wealth, and good fortune? The law of karma

wonderfully explains natures seeming capriciousness. In this life, we are all reaping the

individual or collective just deserts of our previous good or bad deeds. At the same time,

we are creating a new stock of reactions to be meted out in the future. W. R. Alger, a

Unitarian minister and author of A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life,

considers karma to be marvelously adapted to explain the seeming chaos of moral

inequality, injustice, and manifold evil presented in the world of human life. Once admit

the theory to be true, and all difficulties in regard to moral justice vanish; and the total

experience of humanity becomes a magnificent picture of perfect poetic justice.

In the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna declares that the soul does not have to undergo repeated

birth and death in the material world; he can escape and attain eternal life in the spiritual

world, in the company of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Unfortunately,

many persons who believe in karma and reincarnation are unaware of the path of

liberation. Some think the goal is to accrue good karma life after life, while others think

the goal is to be liberated from the cycle of rebirth by merging into an amorphous ocean

of spiritual consciousness, completely devoid of any personal features whatsoever. Both

these proposals are denied in the Gita. The ultimate goal, says Lord Krishna, is to return

to Him in the spiritual world. This is clearly His intent when He tells Arjuna,

After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogis in devotion, never return to thistemporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest

perfection. From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are

places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to

My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again . That which the Vedantists

describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination,

that place from which one, having attained it, never returnsthat is My supreme abode.

(Bg. 8.15, 16, 21)

If the conditioned soul uses his present body to purify his consciousness of material

contamination, he becomes free of the distresses of birth, old age, disease, and death.He is then reinstated in his original spiritual body and relishes eternal blissful life in the

association of Krishna and all His devotees.

In the eleventh chapter of the Gita, Krishna explains that this perfection is attained only

by those who execute the process of bhakti-yoga, the path of pure devotion to Him. In

the ninth chapter He declares that bhakti-yoga leads to direct perception of the self by


10/49

realization. By direct perception Krishna does not mean perception with our material

senses, as He explains in the Gita:

In the stage of perfection called trance, or samadhi, ones mind is completely restrained

from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by

ones ability to see the Self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the Self. In thatjoyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through

transcendental senses. (Bg. 6.20-21)

Such transcendental perception awakens only by the purifying process of bhakti, Our

material senses are not the final authority on the transcendental platform. Nevertheless,

because bhakti-yoga leads to predictable results every timenamely, liberation from

karmic reactions and full self-realizationit is a perfect scientific process.

Dogmatism vs. Science

A discussion of reincarnation would be incomplete if we failed to address the opposing

view, that of the empiricists, who hold that whatever cannot be perceived by at least one

of the five senses cannot be proved to exist. Being materialists, empiricists look upon

Vedic metaphysics as a nonsensical, wishful attempt for immortality. Can you show us

the soul? they demand. Can you give us scientific proof that the soul exists? Since

their demand for scientific proof has never been met to their satisfaction, empiricists

have little sympathy for the lofty views of the Vedic transcendentalists.

We should bear in mind, however, that when empiricists call for scientific proof, they

really mean empirical proof. The reason they say scientific proof is only because they

assume that gross matter is all that exists and that empiricism is the only valid scientificmethod for investigating reality.

Neither of these assumptions is true. The Vedic literature repeatedly asserts that the

soul is a nonmaterial substance. How, then, can materialists expect anyone to prove the

existence of the soul by empirical methods? Furthermore, Krishna describes the soul as

acintya, inconceivable, and avyakta, invisible. Again, how can something inconceivable

and invisible be presented for sensory inspection?

Materialists perennially insist that their empirical standards be applied by the

transcendentalists. Such a proposal is patently absurd. Suppose we transcendentalistswere to demand that the empiricists give us a complete description of the molecular

composition of a nerve cell without employing any empirical proceduresjust chant

Hare Krishna, be celibate, give up meat and intoxicants, and study philosophy with us.

Such a demand would be taken as outlandish, and rightly so, because studying cell

structure is a material science and thus requires an empirical methodology. Similarly,


11/49

the process of self-realization, which results in direct perception of the soul, is a spiritual

science and thus requires a spiritual methodology.

Still, although it is impossible to perceive the soul directly except by practicing bhakti-

yoga and acquiring spiritual vision, it is possible to perceive the soul indirectly by

inference, even before one perfects the process of bhakti. In fact, understanding thesouls existence by inference may give you the impetus you need to pursue self-

realization to the point of full maturity.

In the thirteenth chapter of the Gita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna how the souls existence

is inferred:

O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity,

one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness. (Bg. 13.34)

In other words, the mere fact that a person is conscious implies that the soul is present

in the body, even if we cannot see the soul directly, just as the presence of the sunlight

implies that the sun is present in the sky, even when the sun isnt directly visible.

In the second chapter of the Gita, Lord Krishna gives another inferential argument for

the soul and reincarnation:

As the embodied soul continuously passes. in this body, from boyhood to youth to old

age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not

bewildered by such a change. (Bg. 2.13)

Everyone has experienced the subtle and continuous changes of body from boyhood toyouth to old age, but most people are unaware of just how literal the change of body is.

In The Human Brain, John Pfeiffer states, Your body does not contain a single one of

the molecules it contained seven years ago. This means that if you are thirty years old,

you have completely changed your body roughly four times. But throughout these

changes of body, you subjectively perceive that your individual identity is not changing.

You wouldnt doubt fora moment, for example, that the I who demanded a cookie from

Mommy at age five is the same I who is now reading this article, regardless of how

many bodies you may have changed in the interim. The logical inference is that the I,

or the self, is different from all these changing bodies. That unchanging self is the spirit

soul.

At this point the empiricists will shake their heads disapprovingly, or smile tolerantly,

charmed to see the lengths to which transcendentalists will go to uphold their fantasies,

for empiricists supposedly reject inference as a valid argument. But the inherent flaw in

their so-called scientific neutrality has been aptly pointed out by Professor J. Paul

Williams of Mt. Holyoke College in his essay Belief in a Future Life:


12/49

The fact that we have no direct experience of souls which do not exist apart from the

bodies need not force us to the conclusion that [the soul] does not exist. The typical

reaction of the materialists to this kind of reasoning is an appeal to stick to the known

facts. But the materialistic scientist certainly does not limit himself to immediately

experienced data. The limits of our experience are so narrow that if we did not permit

our thinking to go beyond them, human thought would be puny indeed. Whoeverexperienced an atom or an electron? The whole conception of the atomic structure is an

inference; it is believed because it is consistent with the way in which elements

combine, because it explains why under certain conditions peculiar markings appear on

photographic plates. Yet we do not accuse the physicist of irrationality when he says

that solid matter, such as rock, is really composed of tiny solar systems in which

electrons revolve at incredible speeds around protons. Let no one think he has reached

perfection in his habits of thought if he accepts inferential logic in physics but rejects it in

theology.

In other words, transcendentalists are just as entitled to present inferred evidence asempiricists. It is certainly inconceivable that a swirling cloud of atomic particles can

appear as a solid rock, or that the electron can act sometimes as a particle and

sometimes as a wave. But these are gospel truths to empirical scientists. Therefore, to

argue from inference for the existence of the soul and for its inconceivable qualities is

not as farfetched as some adamant materialists would have us think.

As we have seen, reality can be viewed from different perspectives. A transcendentalist

has to apply the methodology of the physicist to understand subatomic reality. By the

same token, the physicist has to apply the methodology of the transcendentalist to

understand the soul. As in any other science, those who abide by the hypothesis and

conduct the experiment carefully will get the predicted result. As Lord Krishna assures

us,

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they

understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one

whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this. (Bg. 15.10)

Technological success has awarded the empiricists a great deal of prestige. But science

is not synonymous with empiricism. Science means the systematic execution of

procedures that yield observable and predictable results. Empirical methods, therefore,

are not the only ones that qualify as scientific. Such an assumption is pure dogma.

In truth, empiricism limits us to an understanding of only those features of reality that

can be described physically, chemically, or mathematically. Consciousness, the most

essential part of reality (and the inseparable quality of the soul), is left out by this

approach. If empiricism cannot account for such a basic feature of reality as

consciousness, how can we possibly rely on it to prove the existence of the soul, which


13/49

underlies consciousness? And what to speak of other subtle natural phenomena, such

as the principles of karma and reincarnation?

The Bhagavad-gita, unlike empirical science, presents a model of reality that takes all

phenomena into account. It therefore deserves full consideration. For those who reject

the teachings of the Gita out-of-hand, Dr. Michael Sabom of Emory University, in hisbook Recollections of Death, reminds us of the true meaning of scientific method:

To say that an idea has not been accepted in a scientific sense does not mean that

such an idea should not at least be scientifically considered as a possible explanation

for unexplained phenomena. For it is the premise of objective neutrality which has made

scientific method such as a useful investigative process: all available hypothesis must

be carefully examined before a conclusion can be reached.

Thus, whether one wants to prove or disprove reincarnation or the existence of the soul,

an in-depth study of the Bhagavad-gita is indispensable, for the Gita is an availablehypothesis with an explanation for unexplained phenomena that must be carefully

examined before a conclusion can be reached.

For anyone interested in past or future lives, the Gita will reveal how weve come to our

present situation and, more importantly, how we can act to break free of the cycle of

reincarnation forever. Knowledge of our past lives may lead to some vain reminiscences

if we do not unearth some horrifying memories like Jansbut the Bhagavad-gitas

scientific teachings for attaining the liberated status are far more in our self- interest.

Questions and Answers About

Reincarnation

Reincarnation

Pavanesana dasa
http://www.krishna.com/reincarnation/reincarnation/90http://www.krishna.com/reincarnation/reincarnation/90


14/49

The word reincarnation is becoming more and more popular. For most people it

conveys a sense of the mystic and exotic. Everyone from hippies to Indian yogis and

swamis to progressive thinkers have promoted the idea. Although belief in reincarnation

is rejected by most Christian churches, recent polls show that tens of millions of persons

in the United States alone accept reincarnation as a fact.

Despite the popularity of the idea of reincarnation, it has remained a vague concept for

most people, with little bearing on even the believers lives. The common understanding

that reincarnation means being born again as someone elselacks clarity and lends

itself to a number of false notions.

It is not possible to grasp the real meaning of reincarnation without understanding our

real identity and the difference between matter and spirit. In lesson one of this series, in

last months issue, we concluded that every living entity is a spirit soul, distinct from his

body. The relationship between soul and body is similar to the relationship between a

driver and his car. The car is a tool to accomplish a mission determined by the driver.The driver exists independent of the car, but the car without the driver is just an inert

piece of metal.

This conclusion is the first understanding of spiritual life. Building from this we can

examine reincarnation. Here well address some frequently asked questions about

reincarnation.

Q: Can I be born again as another person?

A:That depends on what you mean by I. The real I is the soul. Hes the real person,

and he never changes. The soul does change bodies, however, and because the soulidentifies with these bodies, he becomes, in the material sense, a new person.

Q:How is it determined what my next life will be?

A:You determine it yourself by your own actions. This is clearly explained in Bhagavad-

gita (8.6):

Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kunti, that

state he will attain without fail.

What you remember at death results from the actions, thoughts, and desires of your

entire lifetime. According to the Vedic literature there are 8,400,000 species of life, and

you, the spirit soul, have to accept the body of a particular species according to the

activities and desires of your present life.

Q:But I couldnt take an animal body!


15/49

A:Why not? Reincarnation is not limited to the human species. The difference between

an animal and a human being is only the body. There is no difference between a soul in

a human body and a soul in a dogs body.

According to Darwin, physical bodies evolved until they reached the human form. The

Vedic literature, however, states that all forms of life have always existed, and that thesoul is evolving, or migrating, from the lower forms of life up to the higher forms until it

reaches the human form.

So the same soul, or the same person, who hundreds of thousands of years ago was

living in the body of a reptile, fish, or bird, is now living in the body of a human being

you or me.

On the bodily platform there is very little difference between animals and human beings:

The animal eats; we eat. They sleep: we sleep. They mate; we mate. They defend: we

defend.

If someone behaves like a dog or a pig, he can certainly take the body of such an

animal in his next life.

Q:How exactly does the soul transmigrate from one body to another?

A:There are three levels of existence: the soul, the subtle body, and the gross body.

The subtle body is inside the physical body like a hand within a glove. At the time of

death, the soul and the subtle body (composed of mind. intelligence, and false ego)

leave the gross body (composed of earth, water, fire, air, and ether, or space). The

physical elements that had been temporarily assembled into a gross body thendisassemble.

After leaving the body, the soul, carried by the subtle body, enters a particle of male

semen by which he is placed within the womb of his next mother.

Q:So when does this new life actually begin? I specifically refer to the abortion

controversy.

A:Since the soul didnt die in the first place, there is no question of beginning. But in

this case the Vedas explain clearly that the new life or the development of the newphysical covering of the soul begins at the time of conception. It is impossible to kill the

soul, but in the material world killing refers to the slaying of the material body. So

abortion at any stage is certainly murder.

Q:Would I take my next birth in the same environment as the one I leave at death?


16/49

A:You can take a body on any planet.

Q:But theres no life on other planets!

A:That may be what youve been taught, but consider this: You cant live in the water,

but a fish certainly can. You cant live in the earth, but a worm can. And you cant live inthe air, but a bird can. To say that there is no life on other planets because we cannot

live there is like saying there is no life in the water or in the earth because we cannot

live there.

The Vedas explain that life exists everywhereon all planets, in all universes. Whoever

lives on a particular planet is obviously suited for the conditions there. Nature provides

the appropriate body.

Q:So, how many times do I have to reincarnate?

A:Thats up to you. You can reincarnate in an endless cycleup and down in this

material worldif you want to. But human life gives you a chance to stop that

troublesome business.

Q:What happens when someone becomes an animal again?

A:The soul evolves gradually through higher and higher species until he reaches the

human form. An animal is not responsible for its activities. It cannot degrade itself to a

lower birth. In other words, if a tiger kills you, he does not get a reaction for this killing,

because it is his nature.

But as soon as the soul reaches the human form of life, he becomes responsible for all

his activities. In other words, if you kill that tiger needlessly, you will get the reaction for

killing. So the human being can degrade himself through his actions, whereas the

animal progresses automatically.

Q:But it seems unfair that the human being is held responsible for all his actions. Most

people dont even know these universal laws that determine the reactions to their

activities.

A:For this reason an enlightened or educated society has to know the laws of God.Complete knowledge is given to human society in the form of scripture. The Vedas are

meant to guide the human being so that he does not violate the universal laws that

govern us all.


17/49

Unfortunately, today human society is rejecting all spiritual knowledge and is priding

itself on so-called advancement in science and technology. What kind of advancement

is it that degrades people to animal existence in their next life?

In Vedic society the leaders had the responsibility to make sure that people were

educated in spiritual science. But modern leaders dont even know that there is such ascience. Therefore, the Krishna consciousness movement through the publication of

Vedic literature is stressing the spiritual education.

Q:But if people dont know the laws that determine their next life, isnt it wrong that they

are affected anyway?

A:Ignorance is no excuse, just as, for example, when a child touches fire. The fire wont

think, Oh, this child doesnt know that Im hot. I wont burn him. No. Fire burns

regardless of whether or not you are aware of its burning power. Therefore the only way

to avoid suffering is by spiritual education.

Q:Still, this whole system seems cruel to me. Besides, I dont see any sense in this

endless cycle of reincarnation.

A:No, it is not cruel. Suffering is an impetus for the living entity to find a solution to his

problems. The material world is a place of misery.

From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest all are places of misery

wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of

Kunti, never takes birth again. (Bhagavad-gita 8.16)

This verse explains that the material world is by nature not a pleasant place. Even if

there is happiness, it is temporary: it will not last. And we cause our own suffering. Many

people like to blame God for their suffering. But God wants us to return to the spiritual

world, where there is no suffering.

This material world is not our home. Our situation is like that of a fish on the land. You

can give the fish a TV, a Cadillac, a fancy house, but all the fish needs is the water. He

doesnt care for all facilities on the land. So in the same way, temporary happiness in

the material world will never satisfy us. Suffering provides the motivation to attain the

goal of lifeto go back to Godhead.

If someone is enjoying material happiness, generally he wont see any reason to turn to

God. Unfortunately, he doesnt know that his enjoyment cant last. When the results of

his pious activities are exhausted, suffering will come again, although he doesnt w ant

it, Real enjoyment cannot be achieved through material senses. It can only be achieved

in a spiritual way.


18/49

Q:How did we get into this cycle of reincarnation in the first place?

A:Originally all living entities are residents of the spiritual world. But they have a certain

independence, and if they decide to try to enjoy without God, they are given the material

world as a place to try this.

Q:But if God is all-powerful, couldnt He prevent them from doing this? Why does He let

them go and suffer?

A: The natural relationship between Krishna and the living entities is love. And love

cannot be forced: it must be given voluntarily. So if Krishna could force the living entities

to love Him, the word love would have no meaning.

Or take another example: The parents love their child. But sometimes the child wants to

touch the fire out of ignorance. If he persists despite good advice, the parents may let

him touch the fire once. After that experience, the child will be convinced. The parentsdont do this because they want to see their child suffer, but because sometimes it is the

only way to learn.

Similarly, Krishna is infallible, and the living entities are fallible. Therefore some souls

choose this w ay of learning. For us it appears a long time to spend millions of births in

the material world, but from the spiritual viewpoint, our stay here is just like a passing

cloud.

Krishna does not cast us down here to suffer eternally. There is no such thing as eternal

damnation. On the contrary, there are always great devotees, prophets, and sons of

God to guide us, and Krishna Himself appears regularly to try to bring us back to Him.

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice. O son of Bharata, and a

predominant rise of irreligionat that time I manifest Myself. In order to deliver the

pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of

religion. I advent Myself millennium after millennium. (Bhagavad- gita 4.7-8)

Although Krishna Himself is not always here. He leaves us the Vedic scriptures and

other genuine scriptures to guide us. The Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.3.43) states:

This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after thedeparture of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc.

Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of

Kali shall get light from this Purana.

Q: Can you explain the end of this cycle of reincarnation in more detail?


19/49

A:The human body is the only form of life that enables us to end this cycle. Only in this

form is the consciousness developed enough to understand the difference between

matter and spirit. Animals cant understand this. Their only business is eating, sleeping,

mating, and defending. They cant understand what the goal of life is.

But if the human being does not take advantage of this opportunity and simply engageshimself in sophisticated ways of eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, then he is

nothing more than a sophisticated animal. The only purpose of human life is to develop

ones original God consciousness, break free from the cycle of birth and death, and go

back home, back to Godhead.

The process to accomplish this is called bhakti-yoga, or devotional service, which

entails acting in a spiritual way according to the injunctions of the Vedic scriptures and

the bona fide spiritual master. By doing so, one is no longer bound by the laws of

material nature, which force one to transmigrate in the material world.

The Logic of the Absolute

Existence of God

Hridayananda dasa Goswami

Given proof of God, would a materialist know how to read it?

People often ask us, Can you prove the existence of God? Proof indicates a

conclusive demonstration that establishes the validity of an assertion, in this case the

assertion that God exists.
http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/89http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/89


20/49

But as soon as we speak of a demonstration, the next question is To whom shall we

demonstrate? If we speak of evidence or data, we must know who will see and hear it.

In other words, who will judge the results of a particular experiment, test, or trial.

Consider a hypothetical example. Doctor Waterport, the famous scientist, has just

discovered a sophisticated formula that solves a technical mathematical problem. Heproudly calls his colleagues together and presents them with thirty pages of ultra-

technical symbols. His fellow scientists pore over the pages and conclude, Yes, this is

the answer were looking for. If Dr. Waterport were to show the proof to an ordinary

person on the street, the person wouldnt even know how to hold the pages right side

up. Because hes not trained in mathematics, the proof would be meaningless to him.

Conclusion: Proof demands a qualified audience.

Certainly, any valid proof must be logical. But how we apply logic depends on our

previous experience. For example, suppose an apple tree is growing outside your

window. One morning you hear a sound like that of an apple hitting the ground, andwhen you look outside you see a ripe apple lying beneath the tree. Logically, you

conclude, the apple has just fallen from the tree.

Your logical statement rests on your previous observation that the apple tree produces

apples, that the apples fall to the ground, and that they make a certain sound when this

occurs. And your statement appears logical to those with similar experience.

So we apply logic in terms of our experience. Therefore, how can we expect to make

God logical to a person who has had no spiritual experience? How can God appear

logical to a person to whom the very terminology of the science of God is unintelligible?

Thus it is ludicrous when those who are spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb demand thatGod be made logical to them and that His existence be proved.

In general, it is illogical for a person untrained in some field of knowledge to demand

that a particular fact pertaining to that field of knowledge be logically demonstrated to

him. For example, if someone who has no idea what a number is demands that I

logically demonstrate that two plus two equals four, I cant do it. Similarly, if a spiritual

ignoramus demands that God be logically demonstrated to him, his very request is

illogical. So how can the illogical demands of atheists be met?

We can easily provide innumerable proofs of Godprovided we are free to stipulatethat the judge of the data be a person who is spiritually trained. Devotees of the Lord

who are advanced in Krishna consciousness can logically, evidentially, and

demonstratively deal with the reality of the soul and God. But materialistic fools demand

that God, a nonmaterial being, be reduced to a material formula.


21/49

It is patently absurd to demand material proof for a nonmaterial entity. Mathematical or

physical laws describe predictable ways in which material things interact. God and the

soul are not material and thus cannot be reduced to material descriptions.

This does not mean, however, that the soul is outside the jurisdiction of logical

discussion. Consciousness itself is spiritual, not material, and thus the study ofconsciousness, or spirit, is not beyond the scope of human beings.

In fact, all fields of knowledge depend on tangible perception of the soul, since all

sciences depend on a conscious scientist who works with consciousness, which is

spiritual, not material. In other words, spiritual awareness is intrinsic to all types of

awareness, although materialistic people do not recognize that consciousness is

spiritual.

So there is no lack of data to prove the existence of spirit, since consciousness itself is

spiritual. The problem is that foolish intellectuals whimsically designate consciousness amaterial, not a spiritual, entity. But as soon as we accept the simple truth that

consciousness itself is spiritual, we find that in every stage of awareness and in every

field of knowledge our perception of all manner of data is resting on a spiritual

experiencethe experience of being conscious. And when consciousness studies itself,

it reaches the stage called spiritual consciousness, or self- realization. Ultimately, when

the self-realized person fixes his consciousness on the source of all consciousness, he

reaches the realization of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

For one who has not perceived the superior pleasure of Krishna consciousness, it will

seem illogical to restrict his material enjoyment. A Krishna conscious person, however,

perceives that spiritual consciousness is far more pleasurable and satisfying thanmaterial consciousness. He further perceives that sinful activitiesactivities against the

laws of Godharm that consciousness. Thus it is entirely logical for a Krishna

conscious person to obey the laws of God, just as it is logical for an ordinary citizen to

obey the laws of the state.

Ultimately, we must come to the stage of absolute logic, which refers to absolute

perception, a perception of things with eternally recognizable properties and eternally

established relationships. For example, God is the supreme master and enjoyer and we

are His eternal servants. Thus it is absolutely logical for us to serve Him, for we are then

situated in our natural, constitutional position. To serve a mundane employer may belogical, but it is not absolutely logical, since after the employers death, or upon his

bankruptcy, serving him is illogical.

In conclusion, logic is a secondary process that follows the primary process of

consciousness. We are conscious, for example, that numbers have particular values

and properties, and based on this perception, we can state that a particular


22/49

mathematical equation is either logical or illogical. Similarly, by purifying our existence

through the practice of Krishna consciousness, we can perceive the values and

properties of God, and thus we can discern that a particular statement about God is

either logical or illogical. By confirming our analysis with the Vedic literatures, which are

standard reference works of spiritual science compiled by realized devotees, we can

perfectly understand the science of God in Krishna consciousness.

GodAn Objective Fact?

Existence of God

Dhananjaya Pandita Dasa

God can be seen, but, as in seeing the atom, we must be trained to interpret the

relevant data.

Many intellectuals seem to agree with Karl Marxs statement that religion is the opium of

the people. A common misconception in these times is that God is an anthropomorphic

projection, a psychological crutch for those who are helplessly bewildered by the

problems of life and who havent the guts to face reality. This unfortunate misconception

prevents people from learning that Gods existence is an objective fact.

To demonstrate that Gods existence is every bit as objective as a brick wall, we will

have to define what we mean by objective. According to Websters dictionary, the word

objective means of or having to do with a known or perceived object, as distinguishedfrom something existing only in the mind of the subject. To say that something

objectively exists means that it has its own independent existence and is not the product

of someones imagination. So how do we demonstrate that Gods existence is not the

product of our imagination?

Show me God, many people say. I hear this all the time. OK, if God exists, prove it.

Show me God right nowas if seeing something were the only test of its existence. All


23/49

right, you can see God, but seeing God is not a cheap thing. The problem is that people

expect to instantly see God on demand. You can see God as directly as you are seeing

this page, but it takes time. You have to become qualified.

Besides, why do we have to see something to believe it? Seeing is believing, we say,

but actually we believe in many things we dont see. Its only when we dont want tobelieve something that we make the rules more difficult and say we have to see it to

believe it.

If we hear on the radio that there is a raging fire in a chemical factory on the other side

of town, we accept it. We dont say, Show me the fire. We accept it because we trust

the radio announcer. Besides, we havent got time to drive all over town verifying

everything for ourselves. The fire is an objective fact even though we didnt see it

ourselves.

Death is also an objective fact. Would anyone dare to propose that death is a product ofour imagination? I dont think so. But on the other hand, none of us has yet seen our

own death. So how can we know that our death is certain, if we havent seen it? We can

know by extrapolation. Everyone in the past has died, without exception. So it is

reasonable to conclude that for us, too, death is an undeniable fact.

What about the existence of the atom? Surely nobody would complain that knowledge

of the atom is merely one persons subjective belief. But can we show someone an

atom? Well, we can demonstrate that atoms exist, but it takes time. You cant just walk

into a particle accelerator laboratory and right up to a bunch of scientists who are busily

adjusting knobs and staring into computer screens and demand that they instantly prove

to you the existence of atoms simply by showing them to you.

First of all, atoms are too small to see, even with an electron microscope, so there is no

possibility that anyone can show you an atom. And even if the scientists of whom you

impudently demanded immediate proof of the atom were to actually give you the proof,

which might be some bewildering equations and numbers on a computer printout, you

wouldnt even be able to understand it. Youd say, Wheres the atom? I dont see any

atom. You dont see the atom because you havent been trained to interpret the data

that demonstrate the existence of the atom. You have some childish idea that for

something to exist factually and objectively, you have to be able to see it.

We can perceive the atom only by inference. Because of the behavior of matter under

precisely controlled conditions, we can understand that the atom must exist. But without

these conditions and without having studied chemistry and physics, we can never

understand the proof of the existence of an atom.

So why pull out a double standard when it comes to proving the existence of God? We

accept as a fact the fire on the other side of town without having seen it. We accept that


24/49

we are going to die, even though we havent seen our death. We accept the scientists

declaration that there are atoms, even though the scientists themselves have not seen

them. Why then turn around and say that anyone who accepts the existence of God is

groping for a psychological crutch because of a weakness of character?

There is a process for understanding everything, and there is an appropriate process forunderstanding God. You must enroll in an authorized course of study. Use the

textbooks that have proven to be the most effective manuals for spiritual education and

are recommended by the experts in the field. Follow the proper procedures under

controlled conditions, if you want direct perception of God Himself. It is as systematic

and predictable as any science.

Yet there is a difference between the process by which we can understand God and the

process of understanding matterbecause God, Krishna, is a person.

Because matter is not alive, we can shove it around any way we want without difficulty.But who says controlled manipulation is the only process for getting knowledge? Is it

even reasonable to assume we can apply to our search for the Supreme Lord the same

methods we use to investigate matter? After all, Krishna, God, is a person who thinks

and feels and desires just like us. But unlike us, He is unlimited. He knows everything.

He is eternal. He controls everything. But He is a conscious person nonetheless.

Now, if you want to know something about a person, the best way to find out is to ask

him. If you want to know, say, why a person is wearing a locket around his neck, youd

probably be well advised not to take the same approach we use for examining matter.

You probably wouldnt do well to walk up to the person, and without saying anything to

him, grab the locket and start examining it, trying to pry it open. Youd probably get aknee in the ribs if you tried that. With persons, it helps to be personal. You try to please

them, and if they want they can tell you all about themselves.

Lord Krishna is a person, and Hes our superior. Why should He immediately respond to

our demand that He appear on the spot? If I were to call you up on the phone and say,

I command you to immediately come to my home, would you feel obliged to do it? I

doubt it.

Krishna Himself tells us how to know Him in Bhagavad- gita (18.55), bhaktya mam

abhijanati yavan yash casmi tattvatah:One can understand Me as I am, as theSupreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. The process for

understanding Krishna is to please Him. Then, if He wants to, He can give us

knowledge of Himself. But how exactly do we go about pleasing Krishna? What do we

do? What do we say? How do we know if we are doing the right thing?


25/49

As in any field, to learn quickly without getting lost or sidetracked we need a teacher.

We need someone who knows the science of God, someone who can guide us through

our studies. Dont just pick any person who looks spiritual. We want someone who has

been practicing the process for a long time and is an expert. He should know all the

standard spiritual texts. And most important, he should love Krishna above all else. A

person obsessed with love for Krishna will have no interest in catering to the demandsof his body. He is not looking for pleasure from his tongue, his eyes, his ears, or his

genitals, because he is absorbed in a higher pleasure. A spiritual teacher must also be

free from anger and attachmentno fits of rage because someone dented his fender in

the parking lot. And even if his house burns down, his wife runs off with another man,

and he inherits a million dollarsall in one daystill he should be calm and peaceful,

because one who knows Krishna is with Krishna, beyond this world. A tall order for you

or me. But these are the qualifications of a genuine spiritual master.

Yet even if you find such a spiritual master, you as a student also have to be qualified.

You have to follow the instructions of the teacher. If you do so, then you will seeKrishna. If you dont, you wont.

Then you too will be able to honestly say, Krishna is an objective fact. I know, because

I have seen Him, as many have said before. People who will not accept God unless we

can immediately show them God are just like blindfolded men demanding to see the sun

without removing their blindfolds. Unfortunately, with such an attitude, such persons will

never know that God is an objective fact.

Evidence for Krishna

Existence of God

Nagaraja dasa

People who doubt theres life after death sometimes say, No one has ever come back

to tell us about it.

But what if someone claimed to have come back? Would we believe him? What kind of

proof would we want?

Trying to prove that Krishna is God presents a similar challenge.

Someone might ask, If Krishna is God, why doesnt He come and prove it?


26/49

Well, theres evidence that He does come. For example, when He came five thousand

years ago, millions of eyewitnesses saw Him, He did things only God can do, and

Vyasadeva, a reporter with impeccable credentials, kept track of it all.

Vyasadeva recorded not only Krishnas matchless deeds but also the testimonials of the

greatest spiritual authorities of the time, a time when large numbers of people pursued

spiritual realization with every ounce of their being. The consensus of these saints and

sagesmasters of spiritual learning and disciplinewas that Krishna is God.

People today tend to doubt the credibility of Vyasadevas writings, thanks in large part to

a smear campaign started by the British during their takeover of India. Yet despite their

efforts, the light of the Srimad- Bhagavatam and other books from Vyasadevas prolific

pen keeps shining. Great Western thinkers who received the Vedas without prejudice

were astounded. Vyasadevas writings were superior to anything they had ever come

across.

But what about the stories Vyasadeva wrote? Was there really a boy named Krishna

who lifted mountains and killed monsters? Scholars for whom Vyasadevas mythology

seems incompatible with his erudite philosophical works might propose that Vyasadeva

didnt write both things. But that argument fails if we look at just one example of his

work: Srimad-Bhagavatam. There Vyasadeva has written both profound philosophy and

as the climax, no lesscharming stories about Krishna.

The great leaders of Indias spiritual lineages since Krishnas time have concluded that

a great philosopher like Vyasadeva wouldnt frivolously insert fanciful stories into histreatise on the Absolute Truth. Vyasadevas gravity alone is solid evidence that his

stories of Krishnas exploits tell of actual events.

Like many nineteenth-century scholars, anyone who reads the Vedic literature with an

open mind is sure to be awed. But readers need help, too. Traditionally, a student of the

Vedas gets guidance from a self-realized person coming in a line of authorized


27/49

teachers. Four main lines have directed Indias spiritual culture for hundreds of years,

and each of them asserts that Krishna, or His expansion Vishnu, is God.

I find it disturbing to read media coverage of Krishna conscious events that refers to

devotees as worshipers of the god Krishna. For the average person in the West, the

writer might as well be saying we worship the god Zeus. Why would anyone takeseriously a group of people who have arbitrarily chosen to worship one god out of a

whole stable of contenders?

But our choice is far from arbitrary. Its founded in the Vedic scriptures, the credibility of

saints of respected spiritual lines, and the realized conviction, persuasive writings, and

pure character of Krishnas emissary His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada.

A Personal Look at the Nature of God

Existence of God

Satyaraja dasa

Why impersonalist philosophers dont see the whole picture.

God exists, and God is light

For those poor souls who dwell in night.But doth a human form display

To those who dwell in realms of day.

William Blake (1757-1827)

A major publisher recently approached me to write a book that would compare the more

than one thousand existing English translations of the Bhagavad-gita. I replied to say I


28/49

would consider their offer, and within a week I received, by special delivery, a box full of

the decades most prominent Gita translations. Looking through each one carefully, I

noticed that most translators misunderstood the basic teaching: that God is a person,

Krishna, and that the goal of life is to develop love for Him. Instead, these Gitas

claimed that God is an abstract force, an impersonal entity that lies beyond the purview

of the senses. The commentators squeezed this out of the Sanskrit itself and oftenmade it the focus of their analyses.

The impersonal or monistic conception of the Supremewherein one envisions God as

an inconceivable force, without formis clearly a legitimate part of what the Bhagavad-

gita teaches. But that part is eclipsed by the idea of God as the Supreme Person. As

Krishna Himself says in the Gita (7.24), Unintelligent people, who do not know Me

perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal

before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do

not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

And yet, despite the Gitas emphasis on Gods personhood, the impersonalistic

dimension of the Gita has become more popular. Teachers in the Krishna conscious

tradition suggest that the desire to depersonalize God comes, on a subliminal level,

from the desire to avoid surrender. After all, if God is a person, then questions of

submission and subservience come into play. If God is a formless abstraction, we can

philosophize about it without a sense of commitment, without the fear of having to

acknowledge our duty to a higher being. Then again, maybe the popularity of the

impersonal conception, at least in relation to the Gita, can be traced, plain and simple,

to inadequate knowledge of Sanskrit.

Impersonalism really doesnt even make sense. Form is everywhere, from mountain tosnowflake. Everything has form. Even invisible things have shape. Consider the atom:

Though we dont see it, we know it occupies definite space, and with the proper

equipment we can perceive it. Deep down we know that in this world a thing and its

form are inseparable.

And this, of course, is where the theory of impersonalism comes in. Impersonalists

reason that if everything in this world has form, everything in that world must be

formless, for matter and spirit are seen as diametrically opposed. While the premise

here may be true, the conclusion is illogical. The reasoning is like the thinking of a cow

that has once run from a burning barn: whenever it sees red, it runs. Similarly, everyonein this world knows that material forms are temporary and limited. This truth is

embedded in our consciousness, and we naturally (if sometimes subliminally) apply it to

all form, never imagining that spiritual form may have different characteristics

altogether. So we foist formlessness on God and on all spiritual phenomena,

inadvertently following a tradition of impersonalism with the enthusiasm of a fire-fearing

cow running from red.


29/49

If one studies the Gita in Krishna consciousness, however, one sees clearly that the

person Krishna, also known as Bhagavan (the Lord), reigns Supreme. Nearly every

verse stresses service to Him. There is much evidence that the Gita supports the

personalistic doctrine. Krishna says, I am at the basis of the impersonal Brahman [the

formless Absolute]. (14.27) And when discussing the comparative value of the

impersonal and the personal, He says, Those who focus their minds on My personal

form, always engaged in worshiping Me with intense spiritual faith, are considered byMe to be most perfect. (12.2) In other words, according to the Gita the conception of

God as a person, to whom one may become devoted, is prior to and superior to the

conception of God as an impersonal force, into which one may merge.

And what exactly is meant by merging? Vaishnavas, worshipers of Krishna, shun this

idea of becoming one with God, saying it is almost as repulsive as gross materialism.

Srila Prabhupada says the idea is motivated by fear. In his purport to Bhagavad-gita

4.10 he writes:

It is difficult for a person who is too materially affected to understand the personal

nature of the Supreme Absolute Truth . Consequently, they consider the Supreme tobe impersonal. And because they are too materially absorbed, the conception of

retaining their personality after liberation from matter frightens them. When they are

informed that spiritual life is also individual and personal, they become afraid of

becoming persons again, and so they naturally prefer a kind of merging into the

impersonal void.


30/49

So just as impersonalism stems from the fear that one will have to submit to a higher

entity, as stated earlier, we now see that its concomitant merging is also a product of

fearthe fear that ones individual existence, with all its imperfections, will continue into

eternity. But Vaishnavas promote a philosophy of fearlessness, for they know that

spiritual personality is not beleaguered by the limitations of matter. Some scholars are

wise to this too. Professor Huston Smith, a prominent author and teacher in the field ofcomparative religion, eloquently expresses the Vaishnavas distaste for merging with

the Supreme. He does this with the help of a traditional bhakti poem written in sixteenth-

century India:

As healthy love is out-going, the bhakta [devotee] will reject all suggestions that the

God one loves is oneself, even ones deepest Self, and insist on Gods otherness. As a

devotional classic puts the point, I want to taste sugar; I dont want to be sugar.

Can water quaff itself?Can trees taste of the fruit they bear?

He who worships God must stand distinct from Him,

So only shall he know the joyful love of God;

For if he say that God and he are one,

That joy, that love, shall vanish instantly away.

Pray no more for utter oneness with God:

Where were the beauty if jewel and setting were one?

The heat and the shade are two,

If not, where were the comfort of shade?

Mother and child are two,

If not, where were the love?

When after being sundered, they meet,

What joy do they feel, the mother and child!

Where were joy, if the two were one?

Pray, then, no more for utter oneness with God.

poem by Tukaram

Is God Really A Person?

Seeing the many impersonal translations and commentaries got my fire. God is, firstand foremost, a person. Prabhupada is clear on this in his Gita commentary,

incredulous that anyone could accept the impersonal idea of the Absolute:

We cannot understand how the Supreme Personality of Godhead could be impersonal;

the imposition theory* of the impersonalist monist is false as far as the statements of the


31/49

Gita are concerned. It is clear herein that the Supreme Absolute Truth, Lord Krishna,

has both form and personality. (Bg. 7.24, Purport)

Even the findings of modern scientists support this personalistic view. Here is a

particularly powerful statement by Dr. John C. Cotran, who before he retired was

Professor of Chemistry and the Chairman of the Science and Mathematics Departmentat the University of Minnesota:

Chemistry discloses that matter is ceasing to exist, some varieties exceedingly slowly,

others exceedingly swiftly. Therefore, the existence of matter is not eternal.

Consequently, matter must have had a beginning. Evidence from Chemistry and other

sciences indicates that this beginning was not slow and gradual; on the contrary, it was

sudden, and the evidence even indicates the approximate time when it occurred. Thus

at some rather definite time the material world was created and ever since has been

obeying law, not the dictates of chance. Now, the material realm not being able to

create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed bysome nonmaterial agent. The stupendous marvels accomplished in that act show that

this agent must possess superlative intelligence, an attribute of mind. But to bring mind

into action in the material realm as, for example, in the practice of medicine and the field

of parapsychology, the exercise of will is required, and this can be exerted only by a

person. Hence our logical and inescapable conclusion is not only that creation occurred

but that it was brought about according to the plan and will of a person endowed with

supreme intelligence and knowledge (omniscience), and the power to bring it about and

keep it running according to plan (omnipotence) always and everywhere throughout the

universe (omnipresence). That is to say, we accept unhesitatingly the fact of the

existence of the supreme spiritual being, God, the creator and director of the universe.

It Gets Personal

Vaishnava devotees feel offended when their beautiful Lord is described as having no

eyes, no mouth, no hair, no form, and as a result, no love. To deny God these distinct

personal characteristics is the height of arrogance. Do humans have something that

God does not? Would this not make us greater than He isespecially when it comes to

loving exchanges? We can love, but God cannot?

To say that God is unlimited and then to say that He cannot have a form is

contradictory. If He is unlimited, He can do whatever He likes. And if loving exchange isthe highest thing in creation, as most will admit, then God would most definitely deign to

be a person, for loving exchange loses meaning without personhood; it can exist only

between people.

Ultimately, Vaishnava philosophy says that all conceptions of God are included in the

personal form of Sri Krishna. The impersonal Brahman, according to the tenets of


32/49

Vaishnavism, is but an aspect of the Absolute, which by its very nature is endlessly

qualified and perfect in unlimited ways. Vaishnavas dismiss as absurd and meaningless

the concept of the Absolute as merely impersonal, beyond all thought and speech. Such

an Absolute cannot stand, for it would cancel itself out. Our very language disallows it:

Even to say that Brahman is inexpressible or unthinkable is to say or think something

about it.

Sankaracharya, an eighth-century Indian philosopher, was among the first to emphasize

the impersonal Absolute. While he accepted the undifferentiated Brahman as the sole

category of existence, he failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the world of

appearance, which implies distinct qualities (vishesha) in Brahman. In other words, how

can a variegated world, with such diverse attributes, come from an undifferentiated

Absolute? Impersonalist philosophers say that all variety in the material world is false

and only the Supreme Brahman, or Spirit, is real. Vaishnavas counter that because the

world emanates from Brahman, if Brahman is real how can the world and its varieties be

false? For example, if a tree bears fruits, can anyone realistically claim that the tree isreal but its fruits are not?

The Logic of Personalism

The notion of personality is not only consistent with the infinite Godhead but essential to

it. The whole impersonalistic enterprise leaves some very basic questions unanswered.

Consider this: Im a person. If my source is impersonal, then where do I come from and

what am I in an ultimate sense? If my source is impersonal, how can I, a person, relate

to it? Moreover, even if some kind of mystical, impersonal experience exists, such an

experience always occurs to a person. Its you and Ipeoplewho have the

impersonal exchange with God. In other words, even if you call the exchange

impersonal, it must be considered a variety of personal experience because it happens

to a person.

When all else fails, impersonalistic philosophers generally grasp at one well-worn

argument: A qualified and personal Absolute must be limited, they say, because to

attribute certain qualities to it is to deny their opposites. But impersonalists must

understand that it is not personification or the attribution of character or qualities to the

infinite that limits it, but its these things not carried to their fullest extent. Chandogya

Upanishad (7.14.4) says that Brahman is not only endowed with characteristics but

displays such characteristics in endless ways. For example, Krishnas form may seemlimited in size, but it is described as inconceivably all-pervading as well. He has

innumerable expansions and incarnations, and He is endlessly beautiful. His wisdom

knows no bounds, and He experiences unending bliss. In short, His form is not like ours

it is entirely spiritual. Countless scriptural verses support this view, showing how He

is, in fact, unlimited.


33/49

Lord Caitanya argued that the impersonalistic view of unqualified Brahman derives

mainly from the indirect meaning of Sanskrit words. He says that the indirect meaning of

words (lakshana vritti) is justified only where the direct meaning (mukhya vritti) doesnt

make sense. Sankaracaryas exclusive emphasis on unqualified Brahman conceals the

direct and real meaning of the scriptures, which more often than not describes Brahman

as qualified.

How, then, can impersonalists who accept the Vedic texts make any case at all for a

formless Absolute? To be fair, we must admit that many texts describe Brahman as

unqualified. Katha Upanishad (1.3.15), for example, describes Brahman as being

without sound, touch, or form. This idea is echoed in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad

(1.4.10), where Brahman is said to be without eyes, ears, speech, mouth, or mind. But

what does this really mean?

The celebrated philosopher Jiva Gosvami, in the line of Lord Caitanya, partly resolves

the question by showing that the word nirvishesha (without distinction or qualities), forexample, is often used by the scriptures to deny all prakrita (material) qualities of

Brahman and not to deny qualities as such. If nirvishesha were used to deny qualities

as such, it would not be possible to attribute to Brahman the qualities of nityatva

(eternity) and vibhutva (all- pervasiveness), which even the followers of Sankaracarya

accept as undeniable qualities of the Absolute. Jiva Gosvami also quotes from the

Vishnu Purana to prove that although Brahman does not have any ordinary, or material,

qualities, it has infinite transcendental qualities.

Thus, Brahman, or God, cannot be described as merely impersonal or unqualified. Jiva

Gosvami writes that such a Brahman is like a subject apart from its predicates or a

substance apart from its attributes. Since the complete (samyak) form of an objectincludes both its substance and its attributes, the unqualified Brahman is only an

incomplete (asamyak) manifestation of the Absolute. Jiva Gosvami insists that the

personal Brahman includes the impersonal Brahman as the formless luster of His divine

form (anga-kanti). In Prabhupadas words, the impersonal Brahman is merely Krishnas

effulgence.

Implicit in these arguments is the understanding that God is inconceivable and,

ultimately, both personal and impersonal. His impersonal aspect depends upon His

personal form, which is prior. The arguments are logical enough, and yet our minds

revolt against the idea of an Absolute being at once personal and impersonal. We wantto choose one or the other, because we are inclined to think of the Absolute in human

terms. Therefore, I should reiterate that the form of the Absolute is different from our

own. We have to be careful not to limit the infinite with our human thoughts and terms

the fallacy that impersonalists attribute to the doctrine of a personal God. When dealing

with any problem relating to the infinite, we have to use the laws of our understanding


34/49

with reservation and caution, not allowing them to impair the perfection of the infinite or

impoverish our notion of divinity.

Henry L. Mansel, a nineteenth-century English philosopher, who was Professor of Moral

and Metaphysical Philosophy at Oxford, expressed the same idea in this way:

It is our duty, then, to think of God as personal; and it is our duty to believe that He is

infinite. It is true that we cannot reconcile these two representations with each other, as

our conception of personality involves attributes apparently contradictory to the notion of

infinity. But it does not follow that this contradiction exists anywhere but in our own

minds; it does not follow that it implies any impossibility in the absolute nature of God.

The apparent contradiction, in this case, as in those previously noticed, is the necessary

consequence of an attempt on the part of the human thinker to transcend the

boundaries of his own consciousness. It proves that there are limits to mans power of

thought, and it proves no more.

Conclusion

To describe the Absolute as merely nirvishesha, or without distinct qualities and

attributes, is to make Him imperfect by amputating His divine limbs. Once we

recognize the absolute, complete, and perfect nature of the Divine Being, we move

beyond the philosophy of impersonalism. We can reconcile conflicting statements of the

Vedas and the Puranas when we understand the Absolute as both personal and

impersonal, or rather, as possessing infinite attributes and forms, including an

impersonal dimension. But according to the primary and general sense of the scriptures,

the Absolute is essentially personal, because only in a personal Absolute, possessing

infinite and inconceivable potencies, can the infinite forms of Godhead, including theimpersonal Brahman, have their place.

Will I write the requested book about the many editions of the Gita? Probably not. Srila

Prabhupadas Bhagavad-gita As It Is is clear enough about what the Gita teaches and

includes the best of all the versions I looked through. In terms of design, clarity,

scholarship, and accessibility, no other Gita comes close. So I may just have to send all

those books back to that publisher. But if they would like me to do a book on

personalism versus impersonalism

Disease

Life's Problems
http://www.krishna.com/lifes-problems/lifes-problems/94http://www.krishna.com/lifes-problems/lifes-problems/94


35/49

by Ravindra Swarupa Dasa

The heroes of my youth were the great healers of humanity. While its true that in those

days I could be seen with other American boys paying homage to the likes of Elvis

Presley and Joe DiMaggio, I rendered them only lip service. My realif somewhat

secretdevotion was reserved for a pantheon of great medical pioneers like WilliamJenner, discoverer of the smallpox vaccination; Robert Koch, who identified the

tuberculosis bacillus; and Ignaz Philipp Semmelweise, who crusaded to save women

from childbirth infection by teaching doctors to disinfect their hands. I avidly studied the

life stories of these saviors and dreamed of becoming like them by slaying some

modern scourgeleukemia, say, or coronary thrombosis. In my eyes there was no

higher calling than to wage war on behalf of humanity against disease and death.

I entered college intent on medical studies, but a little over a year later abandoned that

aim. I had not been fatally disheartened by my encounter with other premed students,

Documents

The Goal of Life is Laziness