View source for Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz

[[Category:Conversations - USA]]
[[Category:Conversations - Philosophy Discussions]]
[[Category:Conversations - Philosophy Discussions with Syamasundara dasa]]
<div class="code">LEIBNITZ.SYA</div>
[[File:Gottfried von Leibnitz.jpg|250px|thumb|left|alt=Gottfried von Leibnitz|link=|<div class="center">'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz Gottfried von Leibnitz] (1646 - 1716)'''</div>]]
'''Śyāmasundara''': Today we are discussing Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Leibnitz was a great mathematician. He invented the calculus. But he was also a philosopher. He said that in the universe every act is purposeful; that the purpose of the universe is to realize the goals set forth by God.

'''Prabhupāda''': Very nice. I see that he's first-class. Yes. Actually the aim is to reach God. That is the Bhāgavata version: na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum ([[SB 7.5.31|SB 7.5.31]]). These rascals, fools, they do not know that the goal is to reach God. This version, na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ ([[SB 7.5.31|SB 7.5.31]]). Durāśayā means they are hoping something which is never to be realized. All these people... (break) Actually this is the point: surrender. But they are so rascal they will not do it; therefore māyā is giving them trouble in every way, ultimately. Just like my Guru Mahārāja's plan was that I should come and preach. That was his first instruction. But I wanted that I will not take sannyāsa and remain as a gṛhastha, and then I shall do it. That is special favor. Kṛṣṇa says, yasya anugṛhnī harisye... "Especially if I am very much anxious to get one reformed, by My mercy, the first thing is that I take away all his money."

'''Śyāmasundara''': Where is this stated?

'''Prabhupāda''': It is in Bhāgavata. This question was raised by Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja. So sometimes that is special favor. By force the whole plan is like that, but everyone wants to delay. By special favor he draws by force, "Come on. This time." Because that is explained in Caitanya-caritāmṛta that a rascal, he wants Kṛṣṇa, or he wants God, but at the same time he wants to enjoy this material world, because to want God means finish with material world. But sometimes he is both ways. When Kṛṣṇa sees the other way is hampering, He breaks his profit by force, so that in helpless condition. Everything is explained in the Bhāgavata. "I take away his all money. He may try to get money - again I take. So in this way, when he becomes hopeless and there is no money, then he surrenders to Me." And as soon as he has no money, his so-called relatives, friends, wife, children, they neglect, "Oh, what is this man? He is useless." So he is bereft of money, he is bereft of friends, bereft of any love from wife and children, then hopelessly he surrenders to Kṛṣṇa. So the plan is that: all these rascal living entities, those who are trying to be happy in this material world, nature's plan is to give him trouble - every attempt shall be frustrated, every attempt shall fail - so that he may come, after many, many births. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyante ([[BG 7.19|BG 7.19]]). So He has pointed out that there is a plan, and this is the plan: to bring you back to home, back to Godhead. It is not partial, that somebody may remain here and somebody may go to Godhead. No. The whole plan is that everyone must come back. But he is obstinate, he is obstinate. Just like a bad boy, father says, "Come on," he's not. He's crying, "No, I'll not go." But the father's only business is to drag him. Therefore the final, after speaking all the proposals in the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa says finally, "I am giving you final, very confidential instructions," sarva guhyatamam. "You give up all this rascaldom, arguing with Me. Just surrender unto Me." Arjuna was arguing. "Just surrender unto Me. That is your business. If you think you will be sinful by killing your... I will give you protection." Therefore, before citing this verse  He says, "I am speaking to you most confidentially." That means unless one is very sincere to God, he does not heed the final confidential instruction. "All right, you go on with your own work." But to show Arjuna special favor, He says that "I am talking to you now the most confidential instruction. I have talked to you about karma, jñāna, yoga, and so many things, but the most confidential thing is this: that you fully surrender to Me. I will give you all protection."

'''Śyāmasundara''': He explains the mechanistic phenomena, like the laws of nature. He explains that that is the only effective means of fulfilling God's purpose.

'''Prabhupāda''': That's it. Yes. All the laws of nature are working (indistinct). The body is durgā, the superintendent of the fort. This is called durgā. Just like fort is very much fortified; you cannot go; they say nobody can enter, nobody can leave, like that. This is called durgā. And the superintendent is called Durgā. From durgā it has come to Durgā. She is also confidential maidservant of Kṛṣṇa, but she has got (indistinct) to punish these demons. Demon is (indistinct), that I worship his mother, but mother is engaged to punish him because (indistinct). She is giving whatever the demon wants. "Give me money. Give me good wife. Give me reputation. Give me strength." "All right," but at the same time everything is frustrated with this (indistinct). Two things are going on. One thing, that whatever he wants he is given: "I will get it." On the other side, punishment. This is nature's flow, and she is doing this under the instruction of Kṛṣṇa. "This living entity, he has, or he wants immediately to become an enjoyer, so give him all sources of material enjoyment, but at the same time go on punishing him." Just like sometimes politicians give them everything (indistinct) military force. So that is going on. And this nature is working under the direction of Kṛṣṇa. That is confirmed in the Brahma-saṁhitā, (Sanskrit). Durgā, the goddess of the fortress of the material world, she is so powerful that she can create such things, she can maintain cities, (indistinct) she has got all the power. (indistinct), she is so powerful. Her name is Durgā. But (indistinct), but she is working just like a shadow. Shadow is called not independent-moving. Here is shadow; I move this hand, then it is moving. She is called (indistinct). But the movement is from Kṛṣṇa. Sṛṣṭi-sthiti (Sanskrit). All our activities are just like shadows. Icchānurūpam (Sanskrit). She is working under the direction of Govinda. Therefore, "I worship Govinda, the cause of all causes." This is stated in Brahma-saṁhitā.

So these rascals, foolish, they are thinking material nature is for our enjoyment. That is the materialistic view. There is a flower. "Nature has produced this flower for me. Everything is for me." Just like in the Bible, Jesus Christ says the animals are given under the protection of man. So they are thinking, "They are given to us for eating. God has given." Suppose I entrust Brahmānanda Swami that you give him protection, but if you think, "He's in my protection. I can eat him..." How intelligent! How magnanimous! They are giving protection by eating. And the Māyāvādī philosophers support them, that when they eat animals, Vivekananda's philosophy, "So what is there? I am Brahman, he is Brahman, so we become united." What is that? And I ask him, "Why don't you go to the tiger Brahman?" Because they are thinking that he is Brahman, the goat is Brahman, so when the man Brahman eats the goat Brahman, they unite. So why don't you unite with the tiger Brahman? This is rascaldom. They are all rascals. Anyone who has no trace of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is a  rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be great philosopher, religionist - he is a rascal, degree only. Cent percent rascal, or maybe ninety percent rascal, or seventy percent rascal, but they're all rascals. The same example: stool, this side and that side. Because the upside of stool is dried up, you cannot say, "It is very nice." And they're all stool. Anyone who is not Kṛṣṇa conscious, who does not know the science of Kṛṣṇa, he's useless.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Leibnitz believed that truth could be represented by symbols and made into an exact science, a mathematical science of symbols. He founded the school of symbolic logic.

'''Prabhupāda''': What is that, symbol? What is the symbol of a good man, and what is the symbol of a bad man? We have got the symbol. If one is Kṛṣṇa conscious, he is good man. If he is not, he is bad man. That is our symbolic representation.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He is talking more about mechanistic truths, scientific truths, laws of nature...

'''Prabhupāda''': But this is also scientific truth. Just like, according to Vedic scripture, this black body is a sign of sinful life. Therefore brāhmaṇas are called śukla. Brāhmaṇas are fair complexioned. Still it is said if a brāhmaṇa is black, then he is not a real brāhmaṇa born. Kalu-ban means black man. Black brāhmaṇa is to be understood that his father is not real brāhmaṇa. He is born of somebody else, but he is known as brāhmaṇa. Similarly a śūdra, if he is fair-complected, he is also not real. Kalba kata śūdra bete mussulman. Muslim, if he is a dwarf, he is not real Muslim, because Muslims from Afghanistan are very tall. And kaṅki chale, the son of a prostitute, and puṣṭi putra, adopted son, all of them are rascals. Puṣṭi putra, adopted son, he gets money because a rich man, when he hasn't got a son, he takes somebody else, adopted son, and he gets money for nothing and spends like anything. We have seen it in London. One Mr. Sil, he got immense money, and he died a penniless street beggar. And he was an adopted son. I have seen it. His only business was how to spoil his adopted father's money. And we have seen, he was such a rich man, died a street beggar. This I have seen.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Leibnitz says that there are two classes of truth.

'''Prabhupāda''': What are the symptoms of truth? That he has not explained.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Yes. He divides it into two classes. One is there are logically necessary principles, the truths of reason as innate knowledge, just like the three sides of a triangle equal 180 degrees. That is innate knowledge, or logically necessary truth. This is also called a priori knowledge, or knowledge that exists independently. Then he says that there is knowledge acquired by experience, or a posteriori, accidental knowledge - just like snow is white, but it could be red; it's possible that it could be red - this type of truth which comes from our experience but it's accidental and it is not necessary.

'''Prabhupāda''': So real truth is that God has got a plan, and one who knows it, that is real truth. One who hasn't got to be taught by another man but by nature, he knows it; that by nature he knows it, that is a symptom of his life, true life. And one who does not know it, that is not. That is explained in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, nitya siddha kṛṣṇa bhakta. That truth is there already, but he has forgotten it. Therefore by this propaganda of devotional service, chanting and hearing, he simply revives the truth. The truth is there, that I am eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore the conclusion should be anyone who is cognizant of  this truth that I am eternal servant, that is symptom of this truth. There is no other symptom. That is the symptom of truth, that is the symptom of goodness, all good qualities, everything good. He is good by nature. The living entity, he is part and parcel of the supreme good. But by his material association he has become bad. So again he has to draw it to goodness by this propaganda, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is our business.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says there are two types of truth. One is just like the principle of a triangle, there are three angles equal to 180 degrees, and the other type of truth is gathered by experience. For instance, we see that snow is white, but it is also possible that snow may be red.

'''Prabhupāda''': But this is also experienced, that the three angles of a triangle make 180 degrees.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But this truth exists independently, without any...

'''Prabhupāda''': How independently? Not everyone knows what is a triangle, what is an angle, and what is a degree. When one comes to study geometry, then he understands. You cannot ask any child or any man who has no knowledge of geometry that these three angles of a triangle makes 180 degrees...

'''Śyāmasundara''': But this truth exists, whether the man knows it or not. This truth exists, that three sides of a triangle equals 180 degrees.

'''Prabhupāda''': But truth means it exists. Not this truth or that truth. Truth means that. That you may know or not know, but it exists. That is truth. So why is he making this example?

'''Śyāmasundara''': Because there is also a truth that snow is white, they say snow is white, but that truth is not absolute because snow could be red also. But a triangle must always equal 180 degrees. That is an absolute truth, a necessary truth.

'''Prabhupāda''': So any mathematical calculation is like that. Why this example? Mathematical means this: Two plus two equals four. That is always the truth.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He is trying to prove that there are certain truths that we cannot deny they exist independent of our knowledge. Fundamental. And there are other truths that people say, like snow is white, which may not be true because our senses deceive us.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is your defective senses. But snow is white, that's a fact. Why should it be red? At least we have no experience with red snow.

'''Śyāmasundara''': I've seen red snow.

'''Prabhupāda''': How it is?

'''Śyāmasundara''': Particles of lava dust gathered in the snow and in the air...

'''Prabhupāda''': That is not pure snow. That is another thing. Pure snow is white. Just like water. Water, by nature, it is crystal. But when it comes in touch with the earth, it becomes muddy. So that muddiness is due to contact with something external. Snow is white by nature, but in contact with something else it looks red. But the truth that snow is white, that is truth. Not that snow becoming red... You are making, or by some other contact it is looking like that. But snow is white, that's a truth.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But he says that there are two types of truth. There's innate truth...

'''Prabhupāda''': This is innate truth: as three angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees, similarly snow is white. Snow is white, water is liquid, stone is hard, chili is hot, sugar is sweet. These are eternal truths, fundamental truths. Similarly, a living  entity is eternal servant of God. This is eternal truth. It cannot be changed. Water is liquid. That is the natural position, but when water becomes hard, it is due to temperature, under certain conditions, but as soon as the temperature reduces, the water becomes liquid. So liquidity of water is truth. Similarly, whiteness of snow is truth. Similarly, servitude of the living entity is truth. But he is serving māyā. That is untruth. If we take that there are two types of truth, there cannot be two kinds of truth. Truth is one. What we take as truth, that is māyā.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Oh, there's only one truth.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. There can't be two truths.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But due to our imperfect senses...

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That is what is called māyā. Māyā has no existence, but it appears like truth. The same example: the shadow has no existence, but it also looks like my finger, and everything exactly. In the mirror you see your face exactly the same, but it is untruth. The truth is one. Truth cannot be two types of truth. What is taken as truth for the present moment, and by experience he comes to the right truth, that is called māyā.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that these two types of truth are governed by two different principles: the truth of reason or the logically necessary proof, like the triangle...

'''Prabhupāda''': This is reason, that truth is one. When we find another competitor truth, that is māyā. Truth cannot be two.

'''Śyāmasundara''': This is what he says, that these innate truths are governed by the principle of contradiction. That is, the opposite of the truth is impossible to conceive. If something is true, the opposite of that truth is impossible to conceive.

'''Prabhupāda''': The opposite is māyā. Opposite to truth is māyā.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Just like the sum of the angles of a triangle must equal 180 degrees. It is impossible to conceive of the opposite.

'''Prabhupāda''': Similarly, the other example that snow is white. To think of snow not white, that cannot be conceived.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that "snow is white" is not one of these eternal truths; that it is possible to conceive that snow could be red.

'''Prabhupāda''': Why? You say that redness of snow is possible under certain circumstances?

'''Śyāmasundara''': Yes.

'''Prabhupāda''': So that is possible in every case. Therefore the real feature of snow is not red. It appears to be red under certain conditions, but that is not truth; that is untruth.

'''Śyāmasundara''': What about two plus two equals four?

'''Prabhupāda''': That is true.

'''Śyāmasundara''': It's impossible to conceive of the opposite of that truth. So that is what he would call logically necessary proof, proved by the law of contradiction.

'''Prabhupāda''': My point is that he says that there are two types of truth. No. There cannot be two types of truth. That is my protest. I say there is only one truth. When you think two types of truth, then you are mistaken. Then same thing: when you think that two plus two equals five, then you are mistaken. Two plus two is always four. That is truth. Similarly, snow is white always. That is truth. When you think it is red, it is untruth. But you cannot say it is another type of truth. Mistake cannot be accepted as another type of truth. Mistake is mistake. 

'''Śyāmasundara''': I think he says the same things, but the language is different.

'''Prabhupāda''': There are two types of truth - what is that language? One truth is real truth, another truth is shadow truth. It is not truth, it is shadow. That is the exact language. The same example we can give: you see your face in the mirror as exactly the same, but it is shadow; therefore it is untruth. You cannot say that this reflection of your face on the mirror is another type of truth. Can you say like that? You cannot say that.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Well, he would say that if I saw the shadow of myself in the mirror...

'''Prabhupāda''': No. Whatever he may say, we cannot accept that there are two types of truth. That is not possible.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He calls this type of truth conditional truth.

'''Prabhupāda''': The conditional truth is the untruth.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Just like if I saw by my senses some snow that was red.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is due to your defect of seeing a condition and not knowing the condition.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But I can explain by sufficient reasons why that snow is red.

'''Prabhupāda''': Just like a living entity is trying to become master - "I am the monarch of all I survey." That is untruth. The truth is that he is eternal servant. You cannot say that because one is trying to be imitation God, that that is another truth. You cannot say that. That is māyā. There cannot be a second God. God is one. That is truth, absolute truth. Our point is that we do not accept this proposition, that there are two types of truth. That is not at all acceptable. Truth is one.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Supposing you saw some ice, and you said, "Due to there being cold, this water has turned hard and become ice."

'''Prabhupāda''': That is another proposition. Water is liquid, but when water becomes hard, that is artificial. But that hardness... Snow is white, that is truth. Otherwise nothing is truth except Kṛṣṇa. Relative truth. Kṛṣṇa is absolute truth. There are relative truths. So this is relative truth. Kṛṣṇa is substance. Now, from Kṛṣṇa everything is emanating by His energy. Water is also one of the energies, but that energy is not absolute truth, that water. But in that relativeness, the water's liquidity is truth. But it is relative truth.

'''Śyāmasundara''': This is what he is saying, that there's absolute truth and relative truth.

'''Prabhupāda''': Absolute truth is one. Then he can say that absolute truth and relative truth, not that two types of truth.

'''Śyāmasundara''': That's what he says: there are relative truths and absolute truths.

'''Prabhupāda''': That we accept. There are truths, relative and absolute.

'''Śyāmasundara''': And he says that the test for both types - of absolute truth and relative truth - is that for absolute truth, it is impossible to conceive of the opposite.

'''Prabhupāda''': Opposite is māyā. Māyā is not truth. Māyā is illusion.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Relative truths are governed by the law of sufficient reason. In other words, they can be most reasonably explained by reference to all of the conditions in which they are found.

'''Prabhupāda''': Just like you can explain how the snow is formed-the molecular structure of the water, and how they become compact by temperature...

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that everything goes by steps in nature, and not by leaps. In other words, there is a law of continuity,  like there are no gaps in nature. Everything is gradual. There is a gradual differentiation.

'''Prabhupāda''': No. There are two ways-gradual and immediate also. Of course, in one sense... (break) ...little force, it goes quickly. The ball has no power. So wonderful things are happening in the material nature due to the will of the Supreme. Everything happening is the same process; it is undergoing the process, but the method, pushed by God, it takes automatically. Just like He created this material nature. It is in the beginning nonmanifest, then gradually it grows three qualities, and by the interaction of qualities so many things come out - the sky comes, and as soon as the sky comes out, there is sound; sound comes, as soon as sound has come out, the ear comes; the controller of the ear comes..., so many things - one after another, one after another, one after another. So the pushing is so perfect that all other things come automatically in perfect order. But foolish people, they are thinking that things are coming automatically out of it, without any background. They don't think there is God. They think that nature, there was a chunk, and the creation was there. And wherefrom the chunk came? That is imperfect observation. Perfect knowledge is you take Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ: ([[BG 9.10|BG 9.10]]) "under My superintendence." And that is our practical experience. When I manufacture this table, the raw materials, matter, is there, but it has not automatically become table. I have made it by instrument, by my brain. Similarly, this cosmic manifestation has not come out automatically; it is the brain of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore He is the creator. That is nature. Nature is instrumental. Just like the potter: his wheel is going around and the clay is making a pot, but the original cause is the potter. He has given force to the wheel. After the wheel is running, then so many pots are coming out. So nature... Foolish people are seeing that the wheel is moving. They do not see that behind the movement of the wheel there is a potter who has given force. So there is no question of nature. Everything is God, Kṛṣṇa. This is imperfect vision, that the wheel is moving without any direction. So this kind of knowledge is imperfect. Real knowledge is, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, you take it from Bhagavad-gītā that mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ: ([[BG 9.10|BG 9.10]]) "Under My direction the material energy is working." So the wonderful working of the material nature is not perfect observation. Behind the wonderful work of the material nature there is Kṛṣṇa, God.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He also believes that God is behind it, but he is trying to analyze. He says that there is no gaps or sudden changes, great changes in nature; that everything is gradual.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. As soon as there is a process, there is a link of everything, one after another, one after another. That is nature's way. Just like in the creation, the first creation is mind. We have got it in the Bhagavad-gītā, first creation is mahat-tattva, the sum total of material energy. Then there is interaction of the three guṇas, qualities, and then mind comes out, ego comes out, intelligence comes out, in this way, one after another. That is explained in the Second Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, how creation takes place. So the Veda says, sa aikṣata. Sa aikṣata. The Supreme Lord, simply by glancing over... In Bhagavad-gītā also it is said that. But just like we impregnate a woman by sex behavior, but here it is said that He simply glanced over the material nature, total material energy, and the creation begins. Sa aikṣata. So because He is omnipotent, He can impregnate the material nature not by  sex behavior but simply by glancing, and the material nature immediately becomes agitated, and things begin to happen. So the original cause is glancing over material nature by God. But we materialists, we cannot think how by simply glancing, the material nature is set into motion. That is material conception.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that space and time are mere appearances, but the ultimate or genuine reality is different.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is Kṛṣṇa, sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1), cause of all causes.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He calls these ultimate entities monads. Monad means unity, or oneness. He says that the ultimate stuff out of which even the atoms are made are called monads, small particles.

'''Prabhupāda''': And within those small particles there is Kṛṣṇa. That small particle is not final. Aṇḍāntara-stha paramāṇu... That is also superficial.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that these monads are individual, conscious, alive and active, and they range in quality from the lowest type, or matter, through the higher of types, such as soul, to the highest, which is God.

'''Prabhupāda''': So whether within the atom there is soul or not?

'''Śyāmasundara''': His theory is that even the atoms are made out of these monads.

'''Prabhupāda''': What is a monad?

'''Śyāmasundara''': It's difficult to understand, but a monad means a tiny particle of force which is...

'''Prabhupāda''': And we say that is Kṛṣṇa

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that it has activity, consciousness, etc. But each monad is individual, and its inherent qualities are produced from that monad.

'''Prabhupāda''': That monad, as we say, Kṛṣṇa, as we understand from Brahma-saṁhitā, that Kṛṣṇa is within the atom also.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that a monad is the force or activity which constitutes the essence of a substance.

'''Prabhupāda''': But Kṛṣṇa is the substance, summum bonum. Aṇḍāntara-stha paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham (Bs. 5.35). He is within everything. That is His all-pervasive nature.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Then how are the individualities accounted for?

'''Prabhupāda''': Every individual soul is awarded a little portion of independence, because every individual soul is part and parcel of God, so he has got the quality of independence, in minute quantity. That is individuality.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Just like, for instance, say, this particulate substance, he would say that there is a force or activity which constitutes the essence of this substance, and that is the monad of this substance. He is attributing it to everything, matter.

'''Prabhupāda''': So we take the atom. Atom is the smallest. So we say within the atom the force is Kṛṣṇa. He is simply suggesting there is some enforcing power. We are giving directly that that is Kṛṣṇa.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But he says that in that enforcing power each atom is individual, separate, different.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Kṛṣṇa, by His omnipotency, can expand Himself in innumerable forms. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Ananta, unlimited. As it is clearly said, aṇḍāntara-stham. He is within the atom.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Is He between each atom as an individual entity, different from each other entity?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. If Kṛṣṇa is there, Kṛṣṇa is individual. And atoms also, there are varieties of atoms. Sometimes they are  combined together, six atoms, five atoms, three atoms.

'''Śyāmasundara''': How is Kṛṣṇa different?

'''Prabhupāda''': Kṛṣṇa is there in every atom.

'''Śyāmasundara''': How is He individual in each one of the atoms?

'''Prabhupāda''': Why not He is individual? Kṛṣṇa is individual. How is He not individual? Kṛṣṇa is always individual.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He is a person.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Kṛṣṇa is always person, Supreme Person. But He can expand innumerably.

'''Śyāmasundara''': And Paramātmā - is Paramātmā a person?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Paramātmā is a person. Every expansion - just like we are also expansion, atomic expansion of Kṛṣṇa. So we are persons. Every individual soul is a person. But we are expansion of Kṛṣṇa. Paramātmā is another expansion, viṣṇu-tattva. Rāmādi mūrtiṣu. That is another expansion, different kinds of expansions.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Jīva ātmā is also a person?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. If not person, then why the difference? You may not agree with my opinion, but if we agree voluntarily, not that exactly what I think you think, but because you have accepted me as your guru, as superior, therefore we agree. You are individual; you may not agree. You are individual and I am individual, Kṛṣṇa is individual. That is stated, nityo nityānām. Plural number. There are many individual souls, but He is the Supreme Individual Person.

'''Śyāmasundara''': This idea of a monad means that...

'''Prabhupāda''': You call it by any name, but within the atom there is the force - that is Kṛṣṇa. You call it monad or something else.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says the lowest type of monad is in matter, material forms, and then it proceeds up through higher monads, which are souls.

'''Prabhupāda''': So we directly say (indistinct) Kṛṣṇa, that is (indistinct) spiritual.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that each monad has an inner or mental activity, a spiritual life.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is explained in everything, that as soon as we say there is Kṛṣṇa, so there is everything.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So even between the atoms of matter there is a spiritual life, spiritual force?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That force means spiritual force.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that all bodies are ultimate quantums of force, that the essential nature of all bodies is force.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Force is the spirit soul. Without the spirit soul, the body has no force. It is a dead body.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But just as there is a dead body of a man lying there, still there is force going on in that body. There are worms coming out...

'''Prabhupāda''': But that individual soul, force, is not perfect. As Kṛṣṇa is within the atom, the body is combination of so many atoms, so therefore the force for creating another living entity is there.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So just the decomposing is a force, turning to gasses. So there is force in every body.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That individual soul's force is stopped. That we call dead body. But Kṛṣṇa's force is still there, because it is combination of atoms.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that which is manifested to our senses, which occupy space and exists in time, is only an effect of the basic nature, which is transcendental to the physical nature. The  physical nature is just an effect of a higher nature.

'''Prabhupāda''': Physical nature is a by-product. Just like I explained that you create your body. The physical nature is subservient to the soul. Therefore, according to my desire, I get a body. I create a body.

'''Śyāmasundara''': His idea is that these monads, they create bodies.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That I say. So yaṁ yaṁ vāpi smaran bhāvaṁ tyajaty ante kalevaram ([[BG 8.6|BG 8.6]]). At the time of death, as you are thinking, your next body is created. Therefore you create the body.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But does the monad of a, say, a hydrogen molecule, does that also create its own body? Does it only accidentally become part of a water molecule, or does it...

'''Prabhupāda''': Nothing is accidental.

'''Śyāmasundara''': It also desires to become a water molecule? Does the atom of hydrogen desire to combine with oxygen and become a water molecule?

'''Prabhupāda''': He... The ultimate desire is of Kṛṣṇa.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But does each atom, even of matter...

'''Prabhupāda''': If you take it that way, Kṛṣṇa is within every atom. So Kṛṣṇa wants to be it; therefore He is willing to let these two things become one, and there is some creation, and again another creation, and another creation. The ultimate brain is Kṛṣṇa.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Does the hydrogen molecule have an independent desire?

'''Prabhupāda''': No, but within the hydrogen atom, there is Kṛṣṇa; therefore it is combining. Not this hydrogen atom as matter is combining, but because Kṛṣṇa is within that hydrogen atom existing. He knows that by combination this thing will come about, that will come out, that will come out...

'''Śyāmasundara''': But the individual soul has a little independence to choose?

'''Prabhupāda''': No, no.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Has no independence?

'''Prabhupāda''': No. The individual soul does not. In Bhagavad-gītā it says that anumantā, individual soul, wants to do something and Kṛṣṇa gives orders. Man proposes and God disposes.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So we have no free will?

'''Prabhupāda''': No. Without sanction of Kṛṣṇa we cannot do anything. Therefore He is the ultimate cause.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But I thought you had been saying that we have a little independence.

'''Prabhupāda''': That independence that Kṛṣṇa wants me to do something but I want to deny it. But unless Kṛṣṇa sanctions, you cannot do that also.

'''Śyāmasundara''': What I'm trying to get at is that if we desire something and we take a body because of that desire, can a hydrogen molecule desire to become part of water and be given that body? Does it have the independence to desire something and take a body accordingly? The hydrogen molecule, does it have a life?

'''Prabhupāda''': So far as we get information, our knowledge is from the Vedic information, aṇḍāntara-stha paramāṇu: Kṛṣṇa is within, the Paramātmā. It does not say the soul is within, the Paramātmā.

'''Śyāmasundara''': It doesn't say that an individual soul is present within the atom?

'''Prabhupāda''': No. Kṛṣṇa is present.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So then this philosophy of Leibnitz is not correct.

'''Prabhupāda''': No.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Because he says in matter there is also this kind of individuality.

'''Prabhupāda''': That individual is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa knows that so many atoms will be combined, then another thing will be formed. It is not the individual soul but Kṛṣṇa directly.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But when you come to the living entities, then the individual soul is also there.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Within the body. Both of them - Kṛṣṇa is also there, and the individual soul is also there.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that the definition of substance is a being capable of action. Substance means to be capable of action, and that existence means action.

'''Prabhupāda''': Substance is original. Other things are categories.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So being capable of action, is that a good definition of substance?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Substance means the original cause, so He is completely able to act.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says to be is to be active.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes, to be means to be active. Without activity, what does it mean to be?

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that these monads change in their appearances because the inner desire impels it to pass from one phenomenal representation to another.

'''Prabhupāda''': The monad does not change, but his mind has changed. But I do not know what this means, monads. He is complicating. He cannot express what is this monad.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Monad is very vague. It means a small unit of oneness or unity, which is the substance behind everything else, even the atom.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is fully independent.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says, for instance, that a monad changes its appearance according to its desires.

'''Prabhupāda''': That indication is for the soul. But Kṛṣṇa is not that. Kṛṣṇa is kuta; means he does not change.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says just like this thing, (holding up an object) it will change to another thing, to another thing, to another thing, depending on its desire, which impels it to change. He says that even behind some object there is some ability to change.

'''Prabhupāda''': That I have already said. Just like Kṛṣṇa, first of all He created the whole total cosmic energy, and then, by His plan, by His devices, He divides into so many things, changes, parts and parts and parts. It can be taken in that way. The material changes are going on according to the will of God, or Kṛṣṇa. Is that clear?

'''Śyāmasundara''': Yes. He says that each monad is like all of the others. They are identical, so that to know one is to know all, to know the whole world.

'''Prabhupāda''': This individual monads can be taken as soul?

'''Śyāmasundara''': Yes. And he sees soul even in matter.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. If Kṛṣṇa is there, there is Supersoul.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So he would say that each particle of Supersoul or each monad is self-contained, that there is no loss of gain of force.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Eternal.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that even though these monads are always active, they do not contact each other, neither do they affect each other. For example, if a bat hit a ball, in reality the bat  did not really affect the ball.

'''Prabhupāda''': But some individual soul has taken the bat, he has hit it, not the bat has hit it.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that the bat and the ball are independent.

'''Prabhupāda''': How they are independent? I am holding the bat. I am hitting the ball. So how can the bat is independent?

'''Śyāmasundara''': That this is the function of the bat.

'''Prabhupāda''': No. If I don't hit..., bat in my hand, the bat cannot hit the ball. How is the bat independent?

'''Śyāmasundara''': Let's take another example. Say a rock falls from a cliff into the water and makes the water move. He would say that the rock's falling and the water's moving, that the monad involved in the rock and the monad involved in the water did not really affect each other, that the water parted and the rock went through the water, but that this was the inherent nature of the water and the inherent nature of the rock, so that they did not really affect each other.

'''Prabhupāda''': But one thing is that when rocks were thrown on the sea by Lord Rāmacandra's will, they began to float. Therefore the Supreme Will is the ultimate cause. Supreme Will wants that the rock may go down in the water, then it goes; if He does not wants, then the rock floats. Therefore rock is not independent. The Supreme Will of God is independent. There are so many other examples. The same example as I cited the other day, that the cow eats the dry grass and it gives so nutritious, full of vitamins milk. But the same dry grass, if a woman eats, she will die. Therefore the plan of the Supreme that the cow, by eating dry grass, she can deliver nicely. It is not on the dry grass she is producing milk; it is the will of God that is producing it. Similarly the stone falling. Because the will of God is there, therefore "You stone, go down in the water!" But when God wills that it floats, it will float. So that in that case the monad theory did not act.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He is saying that there is no such thing as cause and effect.

'''Prabhupāda''': No. That is nonsense. The supreme cause is God. Sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1).

'''Śyāmasundara''': Another example, he says that the body has no causal influence on the soul, neither does the soul affect or interact with the body.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is another nonsense. The soul desires something, and to fulfill that desire he gets a certain type of body; therefore soul is the cause of manufacturing a type of body.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He likens the soul and the body to two synchronized clocks, both going at the same speed but separate.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. The soul is separate from the body, but the body is going or the body is being manifested on account of the soul's desire. Just like a young child desires how he will become a youth. He sees the youthful energy, gradually he develops or changes his body to a youthful body.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Then is the body really affecting the soul? Does the body really have a causal influence on the soul?

'''Prabhupāda''': No. The soul is unaffected by the body, but the body is helping the soul to fulfill its desires. Just as I am taking the help of this microphone to serve my purpose, but microphone is not influencing me. It is not that microphone is willing that I shall dictate. It is not like that.

'''Śyāmasundara''': His idea is that the body has a monad and the soul has a monad. They are two different monads.

'''Prabhupāda''': The body is a combination at atoms. If Kṛṣṇa is within the atoms, the monads of the atoms and the monad in the body are different.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So that although the monad of the body is acting...

'''Prabhupāda''': What is the meaning of monad?

'''Śyāmasundara''': The only meaning I know is that it means unity or oneness. A small particle of unity or oneness.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is Supersoul. Supersoul, although it appears many, innumerable, it is one. Ekatvam anupaśyataḥ ([[ISO 7]]). That is Īśopaniṣad. Although we find there are many Supersouls, but there is one. Yo māṁ paśyati sarvatra, in the Bhagavad-gītā, "One who sees in Me everything, and sees everything in Me, he is really seeing." That is oneness. That means they have no clear idea, but trying to theorize something. Clear idea is in the Vedic literature.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that God creates the principle of pre-established harmony. Just like He sets two clocks in motion, both synchronized. One is the body and one is the soul. Even though they are going together...

'''Prabhupāda''': The body is separate, body separate from the soul. We say that.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Just like the body is acting, but the soul is independent. It's not really affected by the body.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That's all right. We agree.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So they are like two clocks going at the same synchronization, but not together. They are separate.

'''Prabhupāda''': But why two clocks? What is the relationship between the body and the soul? You cannot analyze separately. The body and the soul, they are practically combined. That example is not complete. They are two individual clocks. They are not combined. So therefore there is fallacy of analogy. If there is no common point, you cannot have analogy.

'''Śyāmasundara''': The common point is that they say the same time. They have the same time.

'''Prabhupāda''': But the same time, gradually one clock goes slow and the other clock goes fast. This analogy is not perfect. Similar point. Analogy means there must be a majority of similar points. Similar point is lacking because the one clock is moving, you'll start the other one moving, and one may go slow or one may go at higher speed.

'''Śyāmasundara''': I think it's like this, that the monad of the body desires a body like this, and the monad of the soul desires to inhabit a body like this. But they are separate entities, body and soul, and they work independently of each other.

'''Prabhupāda''': It is not exactly the way it is. It says in the Vedic śāstras that the soul is the master of the body. Therefore how can you say that the body is working independently? This body, I am now liking to place my hand here, so I am desiring and the hand is there, not that all of a sudden my hand, by not desiring, it is coming...

'''Śyāmasundara''': He would say the act of your desiring and the act of the hand coming are simultaneous but they are separate.

'''Prabhupāda''': Jugglery of words. It has no meaning.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Just like the example of the rock falling in the water. He would say that the water separating and the rock falling are two separate acts. Neither one affects the other.

'''Prabhupāda''': This is nonsense. This argument is called in Sanskrit kaka-tal-nyāya. There was a tal tree, and one crow came, and immediately the fruit fell down. And there were two  arguers: one said that the crow sat down on the fruit and it was so light it fell down, and the other said no, the crow was trying to sit down on the fruit but in the meantime the fruit fell and he could not sit. It is like that. It may be coincidence, the crow was just trying to sit on the fruit and the fruit fell. But these people's answer is no, the crow first sat down, then is was fallen. Another says no, the fruit has fallen down; therefore the crow could not sit. So this kind of argument has no value. According (indistinct), the water separated and the stone fell - they are nonsensical. Our argument is strong: that if Kṛṣṇa desires, the stone can float on the water, despite the law of gravitation. The law of gravitation is not working. So many huge planets are floating. How they are floating? The law of gravitation is working here. The stone falls down and (indistinct) goes down in the water. But that is one of the ingredients of the planet. But the planet itself is floating in the air. Where is the law of gravitation? Therefore Kṛṣṇa's desire. The cause is Kṛṣṇa's desire. Kṛṣṇa wanted, "Let it be floating." Or He has made some arrangement. By law of gravitation every planet should have gone down, and there is Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and broke His head, because he is lying down in the Garbhodakaśāyī... So all the planets fall on Him and He is dead. But no. By His order they are all floated. That is Kṛṣṇa. Is that all right? Or still more?

'''Śyāmasundara''': There's another page. This whole idea is so vague, that the water parting and the rock falling are individual.

'''Prabhupāda''': It is childish.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that each monad is given a characteristic nature by the central monad, who is God.

'''Prabhupāda''': That's all right. Then why don't you take to the central monad?

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that God is the supreme monad, or pure activity.

'''Prabhupāda''': I was speaking like that. If God desires, then the other monads have no independence. The same example as I told you: the stone is falling down in the water, and the monads of the water giving way. It is falling down, but if God desires, the water will not give way, it will float. If God is the ultimate monad, that is possible. Therefore there is no reason for disbelieving that when Rāmacandra threw so many stones on the water of the sea, it began to float. You cannot disbelieve. If Rāmacandra is God and He is the ultimate cause, He can check. Whatever He wills will come into effect.

'''Śyāmasundara''': But the point of whether the monad of the rock causes the monads of the water to part.

'''Prabhupāda''': These causes can be changed - by God's will.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Yes, I understand that, but if the monad of the rock causes the monads of the water to part, or whether the monads of the water part independently...?

'''Prabhupāda''': That is all dependent on God's will.

'''Śyāmasundara''': That's a moot question.

'''Prabhupāda''': Therefore ultimate desire is God's.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Just like the bird - whether the bird caused the fruit to fall, or whether the fruit happened to fall coincidentally. It doesn't matter. Is that the point?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. It is simply useless talk. Because it is a fact that the fruit has fallen, and the crow has flown away. Now why should we bother? A waste of time. But both can be possible. These argument - one is saying that the bird sat down, which is  the cause of falling of the fruit, and the other says the falling down is the cause of the bird's not being able to sit on it - both can be possible. But we say therefore the ultimate desire is of God. If God desired that the fruit would not fall, it would not have fallen. That is our proposition.

'''Śyāmasundara''': I think you said once that the devotee picks up the fruit and offers it to Kṛṣṇa and eats it.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. We don't see the cause and effect; we see that ultimate cause is Kṛṣṇa. "By Kṛṣṇa's desire we have got this nice thing. Offer it to Kṛṣṇa and eat it," that's all.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So whether the water's parting allowed the rock to fall in, or whether the rock caused the water to part, it doesn't really matter.

'''Prabhupāda''': It is ultimately depending on God's will. That is the explanation.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that these monads are spiritual in nature; therefore they are immortal.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That we admit, because Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's will, both of them are spiritual.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So even the particle of matter is eternal?

'''Prabhupāda''': Ultimately everything is spiritual, because the matter is Kṛṣṇa's energy and spirit is also Kṛṣṇa's energy. If Kṛṣṇa is the original cause, therefore the matter can be changed into spirit, spirit can be changed into matter. Just as it is the same electric energy acting as heater and as cooler, but the electrician, he can change the cooler to heater and the heater to cooler, because the original cause is electricity. Similarly, the original cause is Kṛṣṇa. So Kṛṣṇa can change matter into spirit, spirit into matter. That is in His power. The rascals and fools, when Kṛṣṇa appears in His own body, ātmamāyā, they think it is just like material body, but they do not know that to Kṛṣṇa there is no such distinction of material and spiritual. Even accepting that He had got a material body, there is no hampering - He has changed into spiritual body. Otherwise how is it possible, Kṛṣṇa, He has got material body, now He was seven-years' boy, Kṛṣṇa is lifting the whole Govardhana Hill? And as much as Kṛṣṇa desires, "Let this big planet sun float in the air," so is it difficult for Him to lift the whole hill? There is no difficulty at all. That is omnipotency. And those who cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā ([[BG 9.11|BG 9.11]]), deride Him, "He is a man, therefore these are all stories," they have no idea of Kṛṣṇa. But we don't take Him as ordinary human being. Therefore He can change anything into anything, matter into spirit, spirit into matter, as He likes. That is His omnipotency. Otherwise what is the meaning of omnipotency?

'''Śyāmasundara''': Because He is the central monad which controls all monads...

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Everything. So taking the theory, the central monad and the other monad, the central monad is the cause of it. But he does not believe in the cause.

'''Śyāmasundara''': No. He believes that God is the cause, the designer of everything.

'''Prabhupāda''': Then why does he say there is no cause?

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that there is no cause and effect relationship between monads.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is not clear. Once he says there is no cause. There is cause. There is no other cause than God. That is definite. The real cause is God.

'''Śyāmasundara''': His idea is that when the bird landed, the fruit coincidentally fell. There is no cause between the bird and the  fruit falling.

'''Prabhupāda''': No. We say if Kṛṣṇa desired, it would not have fallen. Kṛṣṇa desired it. Kṛṣṇa desires "Let it fall down"; therefore it falls. That is the cause. Kṛṣṇa desires that "Let the fruit fall down and the crow fly away."

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that God is absolute necessity because He is governed by the law of contradiction, and it is impossible to conceive of not God.

'''Prabhupāda''': To God there is no contradiction. That is absolute. Whatever He does, whatever He says, that is absolute. There is no contradiction.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Because it is impossible to conceive of not God. In other words, God is absolutely necessary because to conceive not-God is impossible.

'''Prabhupāda''': That is artificial. The atheists say there is no God, so God is there, but he refuses to accept. Otherwise why does he say there is no God? The idea of God is there, but he refuses to accept. And unless God is there, wherefrom the idea is coming? The atheist... God is there, but he is refusing to accept. Just like the impersonalist: unless you have got personal understanding, how will you try to make it impersonal? The first is personal. You try to make it impersonal.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Otherwise where does the impersonal idea come from?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That is out of frustration. We see so many things, personal, varieties, but they are not giving us satisfaction; therefore we are thinking in a negative way, impersonal. But the person is first.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that men, because they are...

'''Prabhupāda''': The atheist demons are like that. If he exists to accept God, then he cannot work irresponsibly. To facilitate his sinful activities he is denying that there is a God.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that God is an absolute necessity because we cannot conceive not-God. But man, individual men, are relative truths because they are not absolutely necessary. Because I can conceive that I am not here, that I may die. So he says that we are conditioned, that men are conditioned. They are governed by the principle of sufficient (indistinct).

'''Prabhupāda''': That we can see. There are so many politicians, they are very busy. They think that "If I do not remain in the state, everything will collapse." But when he dies, everything goes on nicely without him. That is māyā. So many politicians work so hard, up to the last point of his death he is thinking that "Without me, everything will be topsy turvy." But he dies in spite of his not willing to die. He dies, but things go on without depending on him. Therefore God's will is working, the Supreme Will. You may think so many ways - that is a different thing. Actually God's will is working.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that men are all dependent upon another being for their existence. They are contingent.

'''Prabhupāda''': They are dependent... (break - continues next day)

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that the world could have been otherwise if God desired, but that He chose this particular arrangement, and from the standpoint of its ingredients, this is the best possible world.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. God can do anything He likes, but this world is planned not by God; it is given to the living entities who wanted to imitate God. So actually, the plan is according to the desire of the living entities who wanted to lord it over the material nature. God's plan is not this. It is exactly like the prison house is planned by the government because there are criminals.  God's plan is "Come back home, giving everything up." Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar iti mām eti. His plan is to invite all the conditioned souls back to home, back to Godhead. He doesn't like the living entities to live here. But because they wanted to lord it over the material nature, they have been given that facility.

'''Śyāmasundara''': So from the standpoint of the ingredients of this world, material ingredients, is this the best possible world with those ingredients?

'''Prabhupāda''': No. The spiritual world. There are spiritual ingredients.

'''Śyāmasundara''': I mean this world, just this earth planet. Given the ingredients of the earth planet...

'''Prabhupāda''': This planet is not a very good planet. There are many other planets thousands of times better. The more you go higher planetary systems, the comforts and amenities are a thousand times better, one after another. The next planetary system is a thousand times better than this planetary system, and the next planetary system a thousand times better than that. Similarly, the standard of life, duration of life, they are bigger. Therefore at the end, Brahmaloka, it is stated that twelve hours of the day of Brahmā is incalculable by us. Immediately in the higher planets, suppose if one goes to the moon planet, he gets immediately ten thousand years duration of life, and their year, our six months is equal to their one day. Such years. So there are better, more comfortable situations than here in the higher planetary systems.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Leibnitz, his point of view is that he accepts the conditions of this material world as being all right. They are the best we can hope for, the best of a bad bargain.

'''Prabhupāda''': But Bhagavad-gītā says that it is the place for miseries only. Kṛṣṇa says, duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam ([[BG 8.15|BG 8.15]]). It is a place simply for suffering, and that also we cannot stay for a long time. Even if you agree to stay in this uncomfortable situation of life, still you will not be allowed; you have to change this place, change this body, that may go higher or lower. Therefore this life, the material life, is on the whole miserable. There is no question of any happiness.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that because God has freedom of will, God decided it would be best to give man such freedom of will.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Because every living entity is part and parcel of God, although very minute portion, similarly proportionately, he has minute proportion of freedom of will. Not absolute. That is natural. Every man has got a little freedom of will, but it is not absolute. A man cannot will as he likes. That is not possible. Therefore it is said, "Man proposes; God disposes." Although the freedom of will is there, it is subordinate to the freedom of will of God. You cannot fulfill your desire unless it is sanctioned and approved by God.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that the fact that there is more good than evil in this world justifies its creation.

'''Prabhupāda''': Well, good and evil is according to his angle of vision. A devotee sees in this material world everything is good. Viśva pūrṇaṁ sukhaya. People are complaining they are in distressed condition, but a devotee sees that there is no distressed condition, that it is all happy condition, because he lives with Kṛṣṇa, he dovetails everything with Kṛṣṇa, he dovetails himself also with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore for him there is no misery.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that if it would not have been worth creating, that God would not have created the world. The fact  that He created it makes it worth creating.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That is stated in the Vedas: pūrṇam idam (Īśopaniṣad, Invocation). The creator is complete, and the creation is also complete. Pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate. Nothing can come out incomplete which is created by the complete. So in that sense, everything wanted in this world, the arrangement is there, complete.

'''Śyāmasundara''': He says that although some schools of philosophy, especially in Britain, said that the mind is a blank slate at the time of birth, Leibnitz defended the fact that there are necessary truths which are implanted in the mind before birth. These are innate truths, like mathematical truths. There are certain necessary truths that a person is born with, that he can understand, being implanted in his mind, just like mathematical proofs, "Two plus two is equal to four" - that is a necessary truth with which a person is born.

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. That truth is devotion. Everyone wants to be devoted to somebody else. And because such devotion is misplaced, he becomes unhappy. When that devotional spirit will be rendered to the Supreme Person, then he will be happy. But the devotional spirit is there.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Everyone is born with this?

'''Prabhupāda''': Yes. Just like this child, he was asked to obey, immediately he offered obeisances. So this is devotion. Every politician, everyone has got some followers. That means the devotional spirit is there. Even a rogue, dacoit, plunderer, he has got also some follower, and one could not follow others without devotional spirit. Is it not? Therefore this devotional spirit is innate in everything. That is truth.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Is this the only necessary truth that one is born with, or are there others?

'''Prabhupāda''': This is the prime truth. The method of devotional service and other ideas, they are included, but the basic principle is devotional service.

'''Śyāmasundara''': For instance, Leibnitz says that concepts of mathematics are necessary truths, like "Two plus two is equal to four." Someone is born with that knowledge.

'''Prabhupāda''': So this is also mathematical truth. Because even the aborigines, they also offer obeisances to thunderbolt. As soon as there is some sound of thunderbolt, or as soon as there is earthquake, they offer obeisances - any big natural phenomena. That means the devotion is there, but that devotional service is misplaces so long as one does not reach God.

'''Śyāmasundara''': Leibnitz states that there is nothing in the intellect which was not previously in the senses except the intellect itself. In other words, all of our knowledge comes through our senses except the fact...

'''Prabhupāda''': And it is banked in the intellect. That is a fact. That is permanent. Therefore even if we change our body, still we can find out our means of living by that inherent intellect. That is advertised as intuition. But this intuition is previous experience only. (end)