Upload
jagadeesan-yes
View
231
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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/638/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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/4/138/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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/108/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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/en18/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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/908/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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.
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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)
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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,
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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:
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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/908/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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!
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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?
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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.
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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.
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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?
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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/898/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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.
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/89http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/898/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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?
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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?
http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/89http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/898/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/89http://www.krishna.com/existence-god/existence-god/898/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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.
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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.
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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.
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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
8/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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 in- finite 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/948/6/2019 The Goal of Life is Laziness
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,