Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre

SARTRE.SYA

Śyāmasundara: Today's philosopher is called Jean-Paul Sartre. He is a contemporary French philosopher, and he is the father of this existentialism philosophy, which deals with the fundamental problem of dualism—that is, subject and object. He calls the object, the things of this world, he calls them "beings" because they exist, and he calls the subject, or the consciousness, individual consciousness, "nothingness," "no-thingness." This is a thing, but the individual entity is no thing, because it is constantly changing.

Prabhupāda: Why it is not thing?

Śyāmasundara: Because the structure is not determinant. It is always changing. On both sides there is nothing.

Prabhupāda: Changing is the mind, not the person. Changing positions is of the mind. So he is identifying the person with the mind; therefore he is not a perfect philosopher.

Śyāmasundara: He says that this objective being, like these objects, he calls it "being in itself," and only these concrete phenomena are real. But he says these concrete phenomena are more than their phenomenal appearances. Just like this thing is more than what it appears to be, but it is no more than the sum total of all its appearances. In other words, this thing may appear like this, but it is more than this; it is all of its possible appearances, from the time it was clay, to the time the paint was applied, different things, in all its appearances, that is the reality of this thing. It is not just this thing; it is all of its appearances. But that is all. There is nothing more than that. It doesn't have any reality beyond its phenomenal appearances.

Prabhupāda: From where the material came, first of all? Beyond the material, the source of material?

Śyāmasundara: He says that "Material in itself is nonconscious, inert, fixed, opaque, uncreated, devoid of potency, lacking becoming, and without any reason for existing; therefore it is superfluous." In other words, existence doesn't have any meaning.

Prabhupāda: So what is the substance?

Śyāmasundara: Well, there is no meaning to anything. It's just here. There is no tracing out. It's not created; it's just here.

Prabhupāda: This kind of philosophy is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā as asuric philosophy, demonic philosophy, because the demons, they do not believe in any superior cause. They everything take as accidental. Just like a man and woman unite accidentally and a child is born. It is like that. There is no actually purpose. The Śaṅkara philosophy, atheistic Śaṅkara philosophy is also like that. Prakṛti and puruṣa meets. All of a sudden there is lust and they meet, and there is some product; otherwise there is no other cause. This sort of theory is called asuric.

Śyāmasundara: He says that these things have no reason for existing. There is no purpose.

Prabhupāda: No. That is nonsense. Everything has its purpose. Without purpose, nothing is created. And there is a supreme cause. So they have no brain to go farther. That is their defect. So what they superficially see, they take it. They do not find out the farther cause. That is less intelligent. Many modern scientists also say that simply explain "It is nature, nature." But we do not believe in such theory. We understand that the background of nature is God. Nature is not independent. Nature is phenomena; but the noumena is God, Kṛṣṇa.

Śyāmasundara: He says that the phenomena and the noumena are the same. Phenomena are noumena. There is no separation.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Same in this sense: just like the sun and the sunshine is the same. The sunshine is light and the sun is also light. The sun is hot and sunshine is also hot. But still, you cannot say that the sunshine and the sun are the same. Therefore Lord Caitanya's philosophy, simultaneously one and different, that is perfect. He is taking only the oneness, but there is still difference. Just like the fire and the heat. You cannot separate heat from fire, but still heat is not fire. That is perfect knowledge. So therefore heat is simultaneously one and different from fire. That is perfect. You are getting heat, but that does not mean that you are touching the fire. So this is perfect theory. One and different, both.

Śyāmasundara: He says that opposite to this objective being is the subjective individual, which he calls "being for itself." And he says that the nature of this subjective individual is that it is incomplete, it has potency, but the structure is indeterminant. There is no mass or no density. These things all have density and mass—they are heavy, gross—but the "being for itself," or the subjective individual, has no mass or density.

Prabhupāda: This is like the sense and sense objects. Just like we have got the senses smelling. This is concrete. But the smell is not concrete.

Śyāmasundara: Subtle.

Prabhupāda: Subtle in this sense, that I cannot... Because we are so materialistic that our senses cannot perceive anything which is not concrete. But the highest philosophy, Vedic philosophy, the sense of smelling and the sense object, smell, simultaneously created. Unless there is smell, the nose has no value. Therefore the sense and the sense object, they are simultaneously created. Tan-mātrā. In Sanskrit word it is called tan-mātrā. Just like eyes and beauty, simultaneously. If there is no beauty, then there is no value of eyes. If there is no music, the ear has no value. If there is no soft thing, the touch has no value. Similarly, everything is created—the sense and the sense object and the controller of the senses—and that is... (guests come in) Aiye, please come in. [break]

Śyāmasundara: Last time we didn't quite finish the last philosopher we're going to do in the modern times, namely Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher. He is living now. His philosophy briefly is called existentialism. And last time we...

Prabhupāda: What does it actually mean, "existential"?

Śyāmasundara: It means that existence is prior to essence. In other words, the fact that I am first of all existing, living here, is the important thing, and that I determine what I am, my essence, as I unfold my life. Existence is the most important thing, prior to essence, what I am, my nature.

Prabhupāda: What is the essence and what is existence?

Śyāmasundara: Well, according to Sartre, existence... All I know when I am analyzing what I am, all I know is that I exist.

Prabhupāda: Everyone knows that.

Śyāmasundara: "I am." This is the first fact. What I am more than that is determined as I live my life, as I grow older...

Prabhupāda: That is no standard of why living. The dog is living. He also exists. The cat is living. He also exists. And man is also living, exists. So different types of living beings are existing in different consciousness. So what is the standard consciousness?

Śyāmasundara: There is no standard. He says that man's essence is nothingness or no-thingness. There is no-thingness about me. I am always changing. There is nothing determinant about my subjectivity.

Prabhupāda: If you are changing, I am changing, then the changing is existence. But I am different from that existence because I am changing. I am changing. Suppose I have just now changed my dress. So I am the same. Actually, I am existing the same, but I am changing different dress or different body. So this changing is not very important because it will be changed. I am important. I am changing.

Śyāmasundara: He says that there are two types of being. There is "being in itself," like this table, which is solid, massive, and then he's saying it doesn't have..., it has a phenomenal...

Prabhupāda: So that we say—the one is matter, another is spirit.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He says "being in itself" and "being for itself." "Being for itself" means the living entity, because by choosing things he does things for himself; he makes decisions and creates things for himself.

Prabhupāda: That we admit. Therefore, the living being who decides to change or to accept something, he is important. Actually, he is existing, whereas the bodily changes or circumstantial changes, that is temporary. But the person who is changing, he is eternal.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that because a man or a living entity has no "thingness," no solid mass, he is always changing one thing to another.

Prabhupāda: Solid... We should not be misled simply by a solid mass. The principle which is changing, it may not be a very big solid mass, but it is the active principle which is changing. It doesn't matter it is not like a big hill or mountain, but that is the active principle which is changing.

Śyāmasundara: He says that this no-thingness, nothingness...

Prabhupāda: This is not nothing. This is substance. He cannot say nothingness. He has no eyes to see. The principle which is changing, that is important. He cannot say it is nothing.

Śyāmasundara: But it doesn't have qualities of being a thing, of mass...

Prabhupāda: No. The idea... Actually he has the quality of becoming massive. The same thing we can... Just like the active principle which develops the body within the womb. He may not accept it as soul or something, but without that active principle, simply cohabit of the male and female and combination of secretion does not develop the body. The active principle must be there. So as soon as the active principle is there, the combination of male and female secretion acts, and it develops into body, mass body. You can develop into an ant or you can develop into a big hill. That is the difference. Just like a seed, a small seed, that is active principle. So from that seed a big tree develops. So this existence of the big tree depends on that small seed. That is the active principle. Why it is nothing? That is nonsense.

Śyāmasundara: Because it's one thing now, and then it will change.

Prabhupāda: It will change. That's all right. I am here, I may be next moment down. But I am the same, either here or down, and therefore I am important, and the active principle is important. The changing existence has no importance. At one time the external feature of the active principle may be a mountain, and next, the external feature of the active principle may be a small ant, but the active principle which is becoming sometimes mountain life and the ant life, that is important.

Śyāmasundara: So he is seeing the external features and he is saying...

Prabhupāda: Therefore he is imperfect. He has no perfect vision. His philosophy is not very sound. He can be classified, according to Bhāgavata, bahir-artha-māninaḥ: one who gives importance to the external features; one who has no eyes to see the internal potency.

Śyāmasundara: So because the living entity is so much changing that he doesn't have any one thingness, therefore, he says the living entity is nothingness.

Prabhupāda: No. He has his identity, but in the present circumstances, because he is conditioned by the matter, therefore he is changing, and when he becomes free from the condition, he will have no change.

Śyāmasundara: Is he in fact a thing?

Prabhupāda: Certainly. Otherwise how it is changing? Unless we have got some basic principle, how we can account for the change, on which platform the change is taking place?

Śyāmasundara: So the nature of a living being is that he is actually a thing.

Prabhupāda: He is the actual thing. The changing feature is not actual, because it is changing. But the principle on which the change is taking place, he is actual fact, so he cannot be nothing. These imperfect philosophers, they have no eyes to see. They have no eyes to see, and they are not very intelligent; therefore they conclude like that.

Śyāmasundara: He says that the structure of man's essence, his consciousness, is freedom. He is continually free to change as he chooses.

Prabhupāda: As soon as you say freedom, it is freedom of some living being. Matter has no freedom. So as soon as you speak of freedom, that freedom must be a living being. A huge mountain, dead mountain, or any dead body, it has no freedom. It is lying down. You keep it with some chemical process and the body will remain lying down, just like the Egyptian mummies, there are so many. So it has lost its freedom because the active principle is not there. As soon as you say of freedom, the freedom is only applicable to a living being, not to the matter. Matter has no freedom.

Śyāmasundara: He says that matter is something and that the living being is nothing.

Prabhupāda: No. That is his nonsense. He has no perfect knowledge. If matter is something and the basic principle on which the matter stands, it is nothing, that is the most imperfect statement. These are all nonsense philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we are condemned to be free.

Prabhupāda: Who has condemned you? (indistinct)

Śyāmasundara: He denies the existence of God.

Prabhupāda: Then who has condemned you? As soon as you say you are condemned, there must be somebody who has condemned you.

Śyāmasundara: He says it's an accident.

Prabhupāda: That is nonsense. By accident somebody is condemned and somebody is blessed. This is all nonsense. By accident somebody is put into jail and by accident somebody is hanged? Is there any experience like that? That is a judgment. When a man is condemned, that means it is done by some living judgment. So how is this accident? These are all imperfect knowledge, misleading. There is nothing an accident.

Śyāmasundara: He says that all living entities are condemned to be free, everything.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we can admit. Anyone who is in this material world, he is condemned. But the next question will be, if one is condemned, then he can be blessed also. The other side of condemnation is blessing. So what is the blessing side? Has he got any knowledge of the blessing side? Then he is imperfect. As soon as you say condemned, there must be blessing. So he does not know what is the blessing side. That he takes as nothing. That is nonsense.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we cannot escape this situation of freedom, that somehow or other we are therefore responsible for our activities. We cannot escape the situation of being free. Everyone is free to determine what is his future.

Prabhupāda: Then why do you speak of accident? If you are irresponsible, then why do you say accident? The two things cannot go. If he was responsible, he must be responsible to something else, who is condemning you or blessing you. How it can be accident? These are contradictions.

Śyāmasundara: This situation that we find ourselves in, choosing our future, everyone has to choose his future, what is the next step...

Prabhupāda: Then why do you say accident? First of all you withdraw the word accident, then you can talk all this.

Śyāmasundara: There are certain events that we cannot control. They simply happen to us.

Prabhupāda: Cannot control, that can be accepted. But it is supposed that we have controlling power. Nothing is accident. Sometimes, when you are miscontrolling, that is accident. But actually that is not accident; that is your miscontrol, not accident. The reason is miscontrol.

Śyāmasundara: Ah, miscontrol.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Because you are responsible, as soon as you act irresponsibly something happens which you take as accident. It is miscontrol. It is not accident. The same thing, just like I am shaving with control, and as soon as I am inattentive, it may cut my cheek. But it is not accident. It is due to my inattention. Nothing is accident. I am responsible for shaving, but as soon as I become inattentive, my cheek is cut. That is not accident. That is due to my inattention. So there is nothing like accident.

Śyāmasundara: Even if I open the front door and something hits me on the head, falling on the head.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Inattention. We should be always very attentive. Therefore the military laws, first they say, "Attention!" As soon as there is no attention, you meet with so many so-called accidents.

Śyāmasundara: He says that man's nature is an indefinite state of freedom. There is no definite nature that a man has, that it is continually created as he...

Prabhupāda: That means he is eternal. He has to accept it that he is eternal.

Śyāmasundara: Because he has no definite nature?

Prabhupāda: No. Indefinite. What is that indefinite?

Śyāmasundara: That means he is constantly changing. Just like tomorrow my body will be slightly different, my mind may change, I may decide...

Prabhupāda: No. Change, but that changing is taking place under certain regulations, not that by accident. Just like if I become educated, then I get a change in my position, a very nice post, but this is not accident. Because I am educated, I am getting a nice post. And because I am not educated, so I am getting another post.

Śyāmasundara: Just like moods. For instance, today I may be happy, tomorrow I may be unhappy. So I'm not definite. There is no definite nature that I have.

Prabhupāda: That can be admitted to some extent, that it has not cause. Just like if you are put into the sea, so there you have no control and you are moving according to the waves. That means you have controlling power, but you are put in a certain condition where you lose your controlling power. So it is to be admitted that you are in an awkward position; therefore you cannot ascertain what change is going to take place next. That means you are not in a good situation. Just like a man, when he is on the land, he has got control. If a car is coming, he can take care. He can save from the accident. But when he is put into the ocean, the waves are floating him. So it is circumstantial, not accidental.

Śyāmasundara: Oh, circumstantial but not accidental.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So if you put yourself in better circumstances, then this uncontrolling feature will not be there. He cannot control himself. Everything is accident for him, because he is mad. But if he is cured to a sane man, there is no question of accident.

Śyāmasundara: Supposing today I am happy and my tomorrow is completely within my hands to choose.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Because you are under different conditions. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ BG 3.27 . You have put yourself under the control of material nature; therefore, according to the modes of the material nature, your position is there. You cannot... When you shall be happy or unhappy, you cannot control.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that we have the freedom to control it.

Prabhupāda: Yes. You have the freedom, but your freedom is now choked up, being conditioned. Just like you have freedom to move, but if you are thrown into the ocean, your freedom is choked up. Therefore your duty is how to get yourself released from the condition where your freedom is choked up.

Śyāmasundara: Ah, I see. This is one reason why he says that we are nothing, because...

Prabhupāda: Because he cannot explain, he has no such knowledge; therefore it is very easy to say nothing.

Śyāmasundara: Because today we are one thing, tomorrow we are another thing. So therefore we are nothing.

Prabhupāda: Nothing, of course, nothing in this sense, that you are under the full control of a superior power, carried away by the waves. The ocean is a superior power, and if you put yourself under the superior power, you are carried away by the waves. Therefore you say "I am nothing." But you are something. Your something will be very much exhibited when you are put on the land. So this nothingness conclusion is out of despair.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. That's his whole philosophy.

Prabhupāda: It is out of despair. So that is not intelligence. That is not intelligence.

Śyāmasundara: Intelligence doesn't come from despair.

Prabhupāda: No.

Śyāmasundara: He says that a man chooses himself. He creates his own nature.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's a fact. That we admit. He creates his nature. So now you have created your nature as nothing, but you can create your nature as something. But a poor fund of knowledge cannot do that. Therefore he has to take lessons from a higher personality. Before philosophizing, he should have taken some lessons from persons who are in the knowledge. That is the Vedic injunction: tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet [MU 1.2.12] . In order to learn that transcendental science one must approach a bona fide spiritual master.

Śyāmasundara: He says that our essence, or our nature, is always in the making. It is continually becoming...

Prabhupāda: It is not in the making. It is changing. He is thinking it is making. But in the sense making, it can be taken, when he comes to his senses, that "I don't want change. Why the change is taking place?" So when this inquiry comes to him, and if he inquires, "What is the reason of this changing although I do not want?" that is the point where making takes place.

Śyāmasundara: Then he is able to really mold his nature.

Prabhupāda: Yes. But he is dismissing. Being confused and disappointed, he is dismissing the whole case, that "There is nothing. Make it zero." That is poor fund of knowledge.

Śyāmasundara: He says that as we make our life continually, but it all ends at death. Everything is finished.

Prabhupāda: Death means change, another body. But the active principle on which the body is standing, he does not die. The changing is accepted as death, changing. Just like I am in this apartment; I change this apartment, I go three miles away. So that does not mean I am dead. Similarly, the active principle which is changing when he takes another, because he cannot see where he has gone, we say it is death. But a sane man who knows that "Although I cannot see him, he must have taken another apartment..." That's all.

Śyāmasundara: He says, "Once I have the thought that I am free, and that my choices will cause changes in the world, therefore I become overwhelmed with the responsibility, and I become full of anguish and anxiety."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: This, he says, is the modern man's condition of existence, that he is overwhelmed with the anxiety of having to choose.

Prabhupāda: That means he is in an awkward position. He wants to be in a peaceful position, but he does not know how to get that position. So because he does not know, that does not mean that there is no peaceful position. Suppose some... It is something like that, that a man in the market, he has been cheated simply by counterfeit currency. He is disappointed that there is no real money. But actually that is not a fact. The government is there, and the currency is there, the real currency.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that once I understand that whatever I choose, I have to be responsible for that, then I become full of anxiety because I am always thinking I have to choose right in order to enjoy something. If I choose wrongly, I must suffer. I am responsible both ways. So he says this feeling of responsibility makes me always dreading and anxious about the future.

Prabhupāda: Yes. The responsibility is there, certainly, but why you do not take the responsibility of transferring yourself in a safety place where you will have no anxiety? It may be you do not know where is a safety place. But why don't you ask somebody who knows it? Why you are becoming disappointed? As you say that we have got responsibility, why, as a responsible man, so search out somebody who can say you about the safety place where there is no anxiety. We can give. That is called Vaikuṇṭha: no anxiety. Vaikuṇṭha means no anxiety. There is a place.

Śyāmasundara: His claim is that we are tossed into the world and we are abandoned by God; that God is dead.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Abandoned by God does not mean God is dead. You are condemned, that we have admitted, so your condemnation does not mean God is also condemned. God is always, who has condemned you, He is always safe. So He cannot be dead.

Śyāmasundara: He says because we have been abandoned by God, therefore we must rely on ourselves alone.

Prabhupāda: No. Abandoned by God—why? God is not partial, that He is accepting somebody and abandoning somebody. You have done something for which you are abandoned. So if you rectify your position, you will be accepted again. (aside as someone enters:) Yes?

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that because we have to choose for ourselves, everything is in our hands. That for instance we can become in a situation either a coward or a hero. This is in our hands, some situation that we must confront.

Prabhupāda: Then what you can do? If you say that you are being tossed by some superior power, how you can become a hero? If you become a hero, then you will be more kicked, because you are under superior power. Therefore a man who is culprit, he is under police custody, so if he becomes hero he will be simply beaten and punished, that's all.

Śyāmasundara: I remember one example he gave was that supposing there is wartime, and you are called upon to go to war. He said it wouldn't matter if you went or didn't go. If you went, then you must choose to be a hero; you must fight very bravely, and not a coward. But if you don't go, then you must choose to be a hero to resist the war. You must choose to be a hero resisting the war. One way or the other, you have to choose to be a hero and not a coward.

Prabhupāda: Coward... You are neither coward nor hero. You are simply an instrument. You are... Just like a child plays with a doll. A doll is placed sometimes on this side, that side, sometimes so, sometimes on his breast. So you are just like a doll. You can neither become hero nor become coward. You are completely under the control of somebody who is superior.

Śyāmasundara: Suppose someone is attacking you, ready to kill you. You have the power to choose whether to be a hero and defend or whether to run.

Prabhupāda: It is not hero to defend. It is a natural action. Even a dog can become hero when he is attacked by somebody. Even an ant can become hero. One ant is walking on the table, so if you check his way, he also becomes hero. So there is no use of becoming hero like that. That heroism and cowardice are the same. It is simply mental concoction. Because after, all you are under the control of somebody. He can do as he likes with you. So what is the use of your becoming hero or coward?

Śyāmasundara: Supposing someone else is in danger and you go and rescue them. Isn't that being a hero? Or you decide not to and you go away.

Prabhupāda: But you cannot rescue. You rescue... Just like one man is drowning, and you become hero and jump over the water and take out his shirt and coat, and you come on the shore that "I've saved him." (laughter) This is not saving him. Similarly, you have no eyes to see whom to save. You are simply seeing the dress. So saving the dress, that is not heroism, neither it is protection.

Śyāmasundara: So the real heroes are the devotees, who save actually.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that in any situation you have to be the hero. If you're a businessman you have to valiantly do your business and make a good business, and then you are a hero.

Prabhupāda: So a real hero, one can be, when he is fully empowered or he is fully protected. So that hero is a devotee, who is fully protected by Kṛṣṇa.

Śyāmasundara: Sometimes when they portray heroes in different ways...

Prabhupāda: That kind of hero you find in the insect also, that very heroically following on the path: " Put, put, put, put. " That is foolishness.

Śyāmasundara: It always appears that the hero is protected, that nothing can stop him. He is so heroic nothing can stop him.

Prabhupāda: That heroism is just like insect heroism. There is blazing fire, and all kinds of ants and insects are falling in. So what is the use of such heroism? He has no sound knowledge. He is talking speculation. [break]

(next meeting)

Śyāmasundara: Yesterday we were discussing Jean-Paul Sartre. His point was that man finds himself responsible for his own actions—not only individually, but he finds that the world is in his own choosing so that he has a social responsibility as well.

Prabhupāda: As soon as we speak of responsibility, there is no question of chance. We cannot say sometimes by chance, sometimes by responsi... Where is the question of chance, if there is responsibility?

Śyāmasundara: He says that by making decisions and choosing this or that, that one becomes responsible for his actions. But ultimately it doesn't really matter what he chooses. The choosing is the important thing.

Prabhupāda: That is whimsical. And still he is responsible.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Whatever I choose, I must be responsible for it. But it doesn't matter so much what...

Prabhupāda: But if the beginning is irresponsibility, then where is the question of responsibility? This is nonsense philosophy. If the beginning is irresponsibility... Just like there is a story, some thieves stolen some gold, and there were many, four, five thieves, so they were dividing the stolen property, and one them said, "Now let us divide it honestly." (laughter) The whole thing is stolen property, and they are speaking of honesty. Just like you Americans, you came from Europe and other countries, and you have stolen the property. Now you make immigration, "You cannot come, you cannot come." It is like this philosophy. The whole thing is stolen property, and they are talking of honesty; they are citing scripture. So where is the responsibility, if the beginning is irresponsibility, chance?

Śyāmasundara: One of his examples, I remember, is there is a war, so I have to choose whether to fight in the war for my country or resist the war as unethical. His idea is it doesn't matter. Whatever you choose, you must be a hero or do it very responsibly, either resist war or fight in war. But it doesn't matter ultimately which side you choose.

Prabhupāda: That means if you go to hell you must go like a hero.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. (laughs)

Prabhupāda: Just like one man was fighting with another man, and he could not fight, he was going away, going away. The other man challenged, "Why are you going away?" So, "Why not shall I go away? Am I afraid of you? Why should I not go away? Am I afraid of you?" He is going away, he is defeated, still he said that "Why shall I not go? Am I afraid of you?" So this is childish philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: He says that because I have freedom to choose, that makes me susceptible to bad faith, to a condition which he calls bad faith, irresponsibility.

Prabhupāda: You have freedom of choice—that's nice—but if you do not make your choice nicely, then you have to suffer. That is responsibility.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that because we have freedom, this makes us tend to be irresponsible, to shy away from taking responsibility.

Prabhupāda: No. Responsibility is there, and still freedom is there. Just like ordinarily, in our dealing, out of responsibility the direction is "Stick to the right." Or there is a red light, "Stop." So if I do not care about the red light, then I become criminal. That is responsibility. You have responsibility, but at the same time you have got the discrimination. Without discrimination there cannot be any responsibility. So responsibility is not blind. That means you should discriminate. You should know what is right and wrong. That is responsibility. If we do wrongly, then we will have to suffer. That is responsibility.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his idea is that because we are free, we tend to avoid responsibility.

Prabhupāda: That is freedom, that you can make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom. Freedom does not mean you are dull.

Śyāmasundara: But what if you avoid even choosing right or wrong, you simply drift without any decision of right or wrong?

Prabhupāda: No. That is irresponsibility.

Śyāmasundara: That's what he is saying, that because we are free, we are susceptible.

Prabhupāda: We are free means you have to make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his idea is that because we are free, sometimes we neglect to even choose between right and wrong.

Prabhupāda: That is wrong decision. Then you should suffer. That is responsibility. Why you have done wrong?

Devotee: That is choice.

Prabhupāda: Eh?

Devotee: He is not recognizing that that is a choice. You could not choose that way unless you had this freedom.

Śyāmasundara: No. It's not like that. Supposing there is a war, a country goes to war. There is the choice whether to say, to choose whether it is right or wrong, but I avoid the choice altogether. I don't enter into it. Apathetic.

Prabhupāda: No. You cannot avoid the choice. At the present age there is democratic government. When we agree to fight with another, that means you have got your assent. Why should you not fight?

Śyāmasundara: I haven't made this very clear, but because we have freedom, we become susceptible to bad faith. Bad faith means that we avoid making any decisions at all, good or bad. We simply drift. He calls it drift. We go day to day without entering and becoming involved with any responsible decision-making.

Prabhupāda: That drift means that is decision. Yes. That is decision. When you drift, that is decision.

Śyāmasundara: People, especially these days, they want to avoid making any kind of decisions, especially hippies.

Prabhupāda: Therefore you must take others' decisions, superiors' decisions.

Śyāmasundara: So he says that this condition...

Prabhupāda: Just like a child cannot make any decision. He should take decision from the parents. That is the position.

Śyāmasundara: Just like these hippies, whenever they wake up, they wake up; whenever they want food, they eat. Like that.

Prabhupāda: So who cares for them? They are reject.

Śyāmasundara: Well, he says this is the condition of...

Prabhupāda: Urchins. No. This is the condition of the hippies, not for a gentleman.

Śyāmasundara: He says that because we are free, that we are susceptible to this condition. That's all. But he says that this condition...

Prabhupāda: Free means to make right or wrong decision. That is free. Freedom does not mean dullness or passive.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But because we are free we become susceptible to being dull.

Prabhupāda: Just like a dog. A dog is free. He can go to the right or the wrong side, and nobody cares for it. That is for the dog. But if a human being, if he decides instead of going to the right, to the left, then he is criminal, because he has got responsibility. So either you take dog's philosophy or man's philosophy. Dog's philosophy, he has no decision. He is an animal. He can go this side or that side. But we cannot do that. So whether he is man or dog. If he is a man, he must decide right and wrong. He is responsible. That is a man.

Śyāmasundara: He says that this condition of bad faith must be replaced by solid choosing and faith in our choosing. For instance, if one chooses a certain path of action, that he must have faith that by carrying out this action valiantly, heroically, that he will be doing the right thing.

Prabhupāda: But if his decision is wrong, then what is the use of such heroism?

Śyāmasundara: He says there's no such scale of right and wrong. There is no absolute right and wrong, that everything depends upon how...

Prabhupāda: Then where is the question of responsibility if there is no right and wrong?

Śyāmasundara: Whatever I do, I must do it...

Prabhupāda: Whimsically. Whimsically. Whatever you do, you do it whimsically. Does he mean to say like that?

Śyāmasundara: No. Whatever you do, you do courageously.

Prabhupāda: Courageously... Just like the example I gave, the insect goes very courageously into the fire. Is that a very nice decision, to go forward courageously into the fire? He'll go courageously.

Śyāmasundara: He has another definition of this bad faith, that bad faith means treating oneself as an object instead of a person; that I feel myself like a thing, or an object, instead of a person. This a bad faith.

Prabhupāda: Bad faith means?

Śyāmasundara: Treating myself as an object instead of a person.

Prabhupāda: But you are a person. How can you become an object?

Śyāmasundara: Because we are susceptible to bad faith, that this condition exists in the world, people are treating each other as objects—"He is black," "He is white," "He is old," "He is rich"—objects instead of persons. This called bad faith, and he wants to rectify that condition.

Prabhupāda: Then what is good faith? That is also object?

Śyāmasundara: Good faith is dealing with someone else genuinely as a person, despite whatever that person is doing. That doesn't matter so much, what he is doing, but how he is doing it.

Prabhupāda: You have not been clear. What is it?

Śyāmasundara: A person is doing something, it doesn't matter so much what he is doing but how he is doing it, that he is doing it genuinely, with full integrity.

Prabhupāda: Then if a man is stealing, and he is doing it very scientifically, is that all right?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. The existentialists...

Prabhupāda: There are many, many thieves, they know how to go into the bank treasury scientifically. Is that all right?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. He is an existential hero, the good thief or the good killer.

Prabhupāda: Then the same hero, just like the insect hero. The same hero. The insect hero very boldly goes to the fire. (laughter) The same. He is no better than an insect, without any knowledge or discrimination.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we treat ourselves as things, as objects, because we are afraid to accept ourselves for being such unsavory characters. In other words, if I look at myself, I do not like what I see, because I am so full of sinful activity, I am such an unsavory character, so therefore I objectify myself. I begin to think that "I am an engineer," "I am a scientist," "I am this," "I am that," so many designations, but I don't see myself as a person because I don't like to see myself.

Prabhupāda: What does he say about this?

Śyāmasundara: So he says that existential psychoanalysis is required. Existential psychoanalysis, he calls it.

Prabhupāda: Then why does he pose himself as a philosopher? The same thing—as engineer, as scientist.

Śyāmasundara: He doesn't say "I am a philosopher."

Prabhupāda: Then what does he say?

Śyāmasundara: Other people are saying he is a philosopher.

Prabhupāda: Other... We don't say he's a philosopher. He says. He wants to pose himself as a philosopher; therefore he is talking all this nonsense. That's all.

Śyāmasundara: This existential psychoanalysis is supposed to get down to the root of a man's existence.

Prabhupāda: Has he seen that? Has he gone up to there?

Śyāmasundara: The level that he takes it to is that man is basically a "being for himself."

Prabhupāda: That's all right, that individuality.

Śyāmasundara: And that his decision-making power, his freedom to make decisions, is his real essence, his real nature.

Prabhupāda: So he agrees also at the same time, responsibility.

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: So that means he must have the power to make decisions, right and wrong. That is responsible.

Śyāmasundara: The main thing, though, is that he must abide by his decision. Whatever he chooses, that he must live it.

Prabhupāda: Not necessarily. If I decide to steal, it is better to avoid it. Not that because I have to decided to steal, I must do it just like a hero and then go to prison.

Śyāmasundara: For Sartre there is no absolute right and wrong. Some of his main heroes are great thieves and debauchers, like there's one... What is his name?

Prabhupāda: Alexander. Alexander and the robber. There is a story that a robber was arrested by Alexander and there was talk between Alexander and the robber: "You proved that you are big robber, that's all. Why you are going to punish me?" And he was released: "Yes. I'm a big robber. I have no difference between you and me."

Śyāmasundara: So he says that we can remedy the whole situation of bad faith and being an unsavory character and treating myself as an object instead of a person by choosing for myself the person I ought to become.

Prabhupāda: Ideal person.

Śyāmasundara: An ideal person. And become that ideal person.

Prabhupāda: So what is the definition of that ideal person?

Śyāmasundara: Well, in some of his books it would be the very heroic type person who sees things as they are.

Prabhupāda: A big robber is also heroic.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Many of his heroes are robbers and...

Prabhupāda: So these robbers are ideal persons? Big, big thieves.

Śyāmasundara: In that they portray an integrity, self-integrity.

Prabhupāda: Then a tiger is also...

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: So why do you fight with the tiger? Why you are afraid of tiger?

Śyāmasundara: His idea of a hero would be someone who meets the tiger face-to-face and courageously deals with him instead of running away. Whenever the challenge in life is there, the hero is the one who takes it up.

Prabhupāda: That is natural. It may be hero or not hero, it doesn't matter. If somebody comes to attack me, I try to fight with him, trying to save me. So I may not be successful, but that is my natural instinct. So everyone is hero.

Śyāmasundara: No. If a person is free of this bad faith, this...

Prabhupāda: What is bad faith and what is good faith, according to him?

Śyāmasundara: Bad faith is that I avoid decision making. I am avoiding decisions. Avoiding making decisions is bad faith.

Prabhupāda: Avoiding making decisions?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. And treating other people as objects. Good faith is to make decisions courageously and follow them out, whatever those decisions are.

Prabhupāda: So who makes the decisions?

Śyāmasundara: I make the decisions.

Prabhupāda: So if your decision is wrong?

Śyāmasundara: There's no question of right or wrong in that case.

Prabhupāda: Whatever decision I make, that is final, absolute?

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: How it is possible? Then the same philosophy comes with the insect's decision. Absolute decision, even if it is wrong, it's all right. That is seen in lower animals also.

Śyāmasundara: One of Sartre's counterparts, one of his colleagues, Albert Camus, he also wrote about this philosophy, and himself he typifies this type of person. He simply died in an automobile accident by driving 130 or -40 miles an hour on a small road.

Prabhupāda: That is insects' philosophy, that's all. This is "I have my decision to run hundred miles an hour, not caring for others." So this is exactly like the insects.

Śyāmasundara: And they say I'm responsible for my actions, but it's a very irresponsible position because it doesn't take into consideration other people, or supposing he would have killed other people too.

Prabhupāda: So that is animal decision. That is not human decision. Human decision that there is signboard, "Speed Limit 35." If he doesn't care, he is not a human being, he is animal. A human being, he will take care, "Why shall I drive 100?"

Śyāmasundara: This philosophy gives rise to so much freedom.

Prabhupāda: This philosophy has given rise to these hippies.

Śyāmasundara: Hippies, yes.

Prabhupāda: So they are without any responsibility. Whatever he likes, he can do. So that is animal. There is no question of human civilization or human beings.

Śyāmasundara: He has an optimistic side to his philosophy in that he says the fate of the world depends upon man's decision. Obviously, if men decide to do things properly, the world would be a better place.

Prabhupāda: Yes. We agree with that. We are trying to do that by introducing this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, to make the world Vaikuṇṭha. That is our philosophy. Anyone can come to this Kṛṣṇa consciousness and become happy. But that is not a blind decision. We take decision from higher authority; therefore it is perfect. We are taking decision from the ācārya, Kṛṣṇa.

Śyāmasundara: There is also a pessimistic side to his philosophy in that he says that man is a useless passion, mainly striving in the universe without purpose.

Prabhupāda: That he is, not us. He is that. His is... What is that? Useless?

Śyāmasundara: Useless passion.

Prabhupāda: So he is that. Useless passion... No sane man is useless passion. A sane man is guided by superior. That is Vedic civilization. Tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12] . One must approach a bona fide spiritual master to guide him. Then he is not useless; then he is full.

Śyāmasundara: But because he doesn't see any purpose in the universe, then he thinks that...

Prabhupāda: That is his blindness. He has no sufficient knowledge; he has no sufficient seeing power. There is a plan. That is stated in the Sixteenth Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā, asatyam apratiṣṭham, that the word is there is no truth, there is no creator. These are the decisions of the demons. We don't say. We say janmādy asya yataḥ: SB 1.1.1 the Supreme. Not that everything that we want to try to understand is the truth. That is our philosophy. This philosophy is demon philosophy—there is no plan, there is no truth, everything is happening accidentally. This is demon's philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: Because he doesn't see any purpose, that he sees all of our efforts...

Prabhupāda: There is purpose, but because he is foolish, therefore he does not see anything as purpose. There is purpose. Just if like I am hungry, this philosopher says accidentally I am hungry, I eat something. No. I am hungry when there is purpose. My bodily limbs are exhausted, they require energy, so therefore I am hungry, I must take some food. The foodstuff will be converted into energy. There is a plan. It is not blank. Everything is going on by plan. The sun is rising under some plan. The moon is rising under some plan. Seasonal changes under plan. Everything is plan. But those demons, they cannot see. They say, "No, there is no plan here."

Śyāmasundara: They see all activity as in vain. All activity is a useless struggle, a vain struggle.

Prabhupāda: That is for him. Because he is confused and without any direction, he thinks like that.

Śyāmasundara: So his emphasis is not on the activity itself—because it's all vain—but how you do it.

Prabhupāda: We don't say how it is all vain. That I have already explained: everything has got a plan. Just like we are moving this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. There is a plan. There is an objective. (indistinct) vainly we are doing that. Nothing is done in that we or you or anyone. There must be some plan. There is a plan. That plan may be right or wrong—there is a plan.

Śyāmasundara: This is actually the major issue with people, especially today, that is there really any purpose to all my work, or anyone's work, or for anyone's activity? Is there any ultimate meaning or purpose to it?

Prabhupāda: It's quite clear. Just like if you make a decision to do something criminal, the plan is already there—you will be arrested and punished. If you make a choice that "I must do it. This is my decision. I must kill that person," you can do that, but there is already a plan that you will be hanged. That is less intelligent. They are not intelligent.

Śyāmasundara: They say that man is nothingness.

Prabhupāda: Why is nothingness? If he is nothingness, why is he speaking so much nonsense?

Śyāmasundara: You said yesterday it was a philosophy of despair.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: That's what they also say.

Prabhupāda: So we are not desperate. We are not followers of despair philosophy. We are hopeful philosophy. We are going back to home, back to Godhead...

Śyāmasundara: Jaya.

Prabhupāda: ...to live eternally blissful life.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we are alone in the world but we can be a "being for others."

Prabhupāda: Why he was alone? Why he would become being for others? He remained alone; let them remain alone.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we require other people for our self-realization, if we want to understand who I am.

Prabhupāda: That means he requires a guru.

Śyāmasundara: That is what he means.

Prabhupāda: Sometimes he means that it is blind, there is no end, there is no plan, again he wants to have a guru?

Śyāmasundara: He doesn't say guru, but he says other people.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Guru is also another man.

Śyāmasundara: We interact with other people in order to understand ourselves.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So why not the best man-guru? If we require other men to understand, then why not take the best man?

Śyāmasundara: He says because there are other people, that in the presence of others we feel ashamed.

Prabhupāda: No. There are many other people, many people, but we have to take help from others, and I must take help from the best man, who knows things.

Śyāmasundara: He has observed that if I am acting in bad faith, that I will be ashamed in the presence of others.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore you should take advice from a man who can give you right direction, so at the end you may not be ashamed; you may be glorious. That is the injunction of the Vedas: tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12] . In order to be conversant with that science, transcendental science, one must approach a bona fide guru.

Śyāmasundara: His being ashamed before others...

Prabhupāda: Yes. You will be ashamed. If you are not guided by a superior man, you'll be ashamed. But if you are guided by a proper man you won't be ashamed; you'll be glorious.

Śyāmasundara: He says that if a man considers himself as an object, he is afraid to look inside himself, then he will also consider other people as objects. And that is the cause of the basic sickness of the world, that we treat each other as objects instead as persons.

Prabhupāda: That is a wrong conception. Everybody is a person.

Śyāmasundara: What is your remedy for seeing everyone as persons?

Prabhupāda: That is the real vision: everyone is person.

Śyāmasundara: What is the remedy, what is the cure, for seeing everyone as a person?

Prabhupāda: You see or not see, everyone is a person. So what does it mean?

Śyāmasundara: Supposing I want to observe everyone in their personal manifestation, I want to see everyone as a person.

Prabhupāda: You are not seeing everyone as a person?

Śyāmasundara: Now I am seeing everyone as an object—"He is black," "He is American," "He is white"—but I want to see everyone as a person.

Prabhupāda: That means discrimination. Every individual person has got discrimination. That is discrimination. That is discriminating "This is good," "This is bad," "This is black," "This is white." Duality. So he has got this discriminating power.

Śyāmasundara: But I want to see everyone as a person, not as an object. So how do I do that?

Prabhupāda: Because he is person, therefore he is discriminating.

Śyāmasundara: But how do I perceive someone as a person? How do I do it?

Prabhupāda: Because he has got discriminating power.

Śyāmasundara: What is the method for doing it? What is the method of seeing someone as a person?

Prabhupāda: There is no method. It is directly perceived. As soon as I see you, you have got individuality.

Śyāmasundara: But I don't see your individuality. I see you as an object.

Prabhupāda: Why do you see like that?

Śyāmasundara: I want to know how I can see you as a person. What is the cure? What is the remedy? What is the solution?

Prabhupāda: I don't follow what you are saying. Everyone is seeing. I am seeing you as a person, you are seeing me as a person.

Śyāmasundara: No. I am seeing someone as an object.

Devotee: How can we change our consciousness?

Śyāmasundara: No. I didn't say that. I want to know how I see someone as a person and not as an object. How do I do that? What is... You say that you can tell me how to see someone as a person.

Prabhupāda: Because whomever you see, he has got some individual propensity. Anyone you see, he has got some individual propensity. Therefore he is a person.

Śyāmasundara: So by observing someone's individual propensity, then I can see him as a person?

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: I see. Instead of just seeing black, white, this or that, I look for individual propensities, so I appreciate those individual propensities?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Appreciate or not appreciate, it is there.

Śyāmasundara: He says that the fundamental project of man is his desire to be.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That means he is eternal. Because he is eternal, he has got that desire to be. Unfortunately, he is put under certain conditions that he cannot keep himself eternal. That is his problem. That problem we have solved—how to remain or to keep myself eternal. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Śyāmasundara: He says that this desire to be makes us seek after "thingness," solidity, density. I want to become like this table, because it is something that exists-stable—but because my nature is unstable, that I am always seeking after "thingness," but my real nature is "no-thingness."

Prabhupāda: The table also will not exist. Just like if I see that a tree is existing ten thousand years and I do not exist one hundred years, that does not mean the tree will exist. It will be finished after one thousand years. Because I do not see the duration of time, of its existence, I think that it will go. Similarly, I am thinking the table is existing. Table also will not exist. That is my deficiency in seeing power. Nothing will exist.

Śyāmasundara: Still this does not prevent me from wanting something solid, something dense, some situation of permanency.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That situation is spiritual world. That we are giving information, because everyone is seeking after that, but they do not know where it is. We are giving that information here, paras tasmāt tu bhāvo 'nyo 'vyakto 'vyaktāt sanātanaḥ BG 8.20 , in the Bhagavad-gītā. "There is another nature which is permanent, sanātana. Even after the annihilation of this whole universe it will exist." That information we are giving.

Śyāmasundara: He says that in this unity of myself, the subject, that I desire objectivity, and he says this union of subject and object is called the "being in itself," or God; that man is desiring to be God or "being in himself."

Prabhupāda: This is the position more or less of Māyāvādī philosophy, that when I am completely in knowledge, I become God. It is like that.

Śyāmasundara: He says this is man's fundamental orientation, that he wants to become God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we confirm in this way, that because he is part and parcel of God, so he wants to be united with God. Because he is now detached from God, so therefore, just like a man who is for long, long years out of home, so he wants to go home again.

Śyāmasundara: He says that this desire to be God is bound to fail.

Prabhupāda: Because he is not God. If he is God at all, then how will he fail to become non-God?

Śyāmasundara: What was that?

Prabhupāda: He is desiring to be God, that means he is not God at the present moment. So if he is God, how did he become non-God? Therefore he cannot become God, but he can become godly. That is our philosophy. Just like I am in darkness, I want light, so I can come into the sunshine. That does not mean I become sun. But when I come to the sunshine, I come to the light. Similarly, when you come to perfect knowledge, that is godly. But you cannot become God. If you are God, then there is no question of becoming non-God. Therefore Kṛṣṇa's name is Acyuta. Acyuta means He never becomes non-God. He is God always. When He is three months old on the lap of His mother He is God. When He is seven years old, lifting the hill, He is God. And when He is marrying 16,000 wives He is God. When He is dancing with the gopīs He is God. That is God. God is always God. Not that I am non-God now and I shall become God by some means, mystic factory. No.

Śyāmasundara: I'll just read a quote from one of his books. He says, "To be a man means to reach towards being God; or if you prefer, man, fundamentally, is the desire to be God. Every human reality is a passion in that it projects losing itself so as to found being, and by the same stroke to constitute the..."

Prabhupāda: To desire to become God, that is also passion, because he cannot become God. This is simply passion.

Śyāmasundara: He says that the human being has the capacity to give up or sacrifice something in order to reach for something higher.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is called tapasya, austerity.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we have the ability to lose ourselves to find ourselves, to lose something in order to find something else.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is our process. To find ourself, in our real position, we give up so many material enjoyments. Just like a diseased man is ordered by the doctor, "Do not do this." So he is sacrificing those things, "do not's," accepting "do not's," to become cured from the disease.

Śyāmasundara: This is why he calls man a useless passion, because he says in the passion of losing himself or giving up something he will never really find anything else, so that it's a useless passion to give up these things.

Prabhupāda: No. That is his case. But this is the process, to find out, paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate BG 9.59 , to find out the best, I give up something worse. Just like we are teaching our students to give up these habits, so they are giving up, with the aim to get a better thing—Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Śyāmasundara: He said in the act of giving up, you don't find anything any better.

Prabhupāda: No. He does not find because he is blind, but we find. We take vision from superior person. So our vision is not blind.

Śyāmasundara: He says that we are trying to find the state of escaping contingency, or we are trying to reach an absolute state where we are not conditioned by anything. This is what we are striving for. But we will never be able to find that state.

Prabhupāda: If we are not conditioned, then how are we trying to reach the absolute state?

Śyāmasundara: He says that we are conditioned, but we are trying to be unconditioned. But we can never reach that state.

Prabhupāda: No. That is his hopelessness. That is not our (indistinct). We are giving up something paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate. We are giving something for getting higher position, that's all.

Śyāmasundara: He says that this is an impossible project, to become absolute.

Prabhupāda: Not absolute, but to be the right relationship. Just like I am existing now, but not in right relationship. I am trying to exist as the Lord or master. But when I live as servant, that is my right relationship. I am trying to exist as the Lord or master, but when I live as a servant, that is my right relationship.

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that we all want to become God. That is hopeless.

Prabhupāda: No. That is hopeless. That you cannot. That is wrong. We cannot become God. The only answer is that how we can become God? If you are God, then how did you become non-God? God cannot become non-God at any stage.

Śyāmasundara: I think he looks at it that we are not God. We know we are not God, but we are trying to become God.

Prabhupāda: That is Māyāvādī philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: But he says it's impossible to become God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's nice. That is our philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: But because it is impossible to become God, that means everything else is useless.

Prabhupāda: No. That is another foolishness. You are not God; you are God's servant. Now you are posing to be God. So give up this idea and become servant. That is right idea. You are actually servant of God, but you are posing yourself as master. So you give up this wrong idea and become servant of God, then you are happy.

Śyāmasundara: So that's all... [break]

Devotee: That faith is not to choose, but that is a choice, as Kṛṣṇa explains in the Bhagavad-gītā, that there is action and inaction, and one who can see action in so-called inaction, he is intelligent. He is in that category of unintelligent people. They take this form of inaction as being inaction. And so he is thinking this so-called drifting as no choice; it is simply a way to make a choice very easily. You are choosing to go down the river with the current. It's choosing to remain in animal life.

Śyāmasundara: To be controlled completely by external forces.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Devotee: They are surrendering to the material nature.

Prabhupāda: Vikti mamate (?).

Śyāmasundara: This is the whole hippie philosophy.

Devotee: They are making a choice, but the wrong choice.

Śyāmasundara: But he says you shouldn't be like this. Sartre says you shouldn't be like this—this drifting.

Devotee: Right. It makes no difference what you choose.

Śyāmasundara: But you have to do it strongly.

Devotee: No. Just point out they are making a choice. The point is, they are making the wrong choice. Therefore you have to make the right choice. It does make a difference. His philosophy is that it doesn't make any difference what you choose—not even admitting that it does make a difference—you simply have to carry it out that you know what is the right way by the instructions of superior authority.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. We see it like that, but he sees it that it doesn't matter what you choose as long as you make a conscious choice.

Devotee: Then why not just choose to go along consciously?

Śyāmasundara: Because that's bad faith. That's not engaging myself with the world at large.

Devotee: All the other choices are simply illusion.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. It will only be illusory to somebody who sees things like that. But for him, at least there is a situation encountered—he calls that an encounter—then either I can walk away from the situation—which is one way of making a bad choice, but he calls it bad faith—or in good faith I can face the situation and choose to go this way or that way.

Devotee: The philosophy seems contradictory. If you walk away, still you are going to face another situation.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. But that's a situation of bad faith—that I'm not facing; I'm not encountering. His hero, Sartre's hero, is someone who courageously faces the situation and chooses one way or the other. It really doesn't matter, because ultimately all of man's trying is in vain. What matters is that how you do it.

Devotee: Why not courageously drift? You see, that's what I think Śrīla Prabhupāda is saying. If you look, he is arbitrarily making some value judgment, but actually he is...

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Actually we do that. We courageously drift, just like Camus drifted right into a telephone pole.

Devotee: That is our point, that that is the same courageousness of the jñānī.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. Into the fire, insect philosophy.

Devotee: He still must establish values, even if whimsically.

Śyāmasundara: His only value is that he encourages you to do something, just like one of his heroes is.

Devotee: Why not take that trait that is so admirable, that courage, and put it into a right decision? That's our philosophy. Our philosophy is not that we should not be determined...

Śyāmasundara: Our philosophy is based first of all that there is a purpose in the universe. If to begin with, his thesis is that there's no purpose in the universe, then he can't say anything is right or wrong.

Devotee: Then what is the point of any philosophy? If there's no purpose, why should I read his philosophy? His philosophy also is meaningless.

Prabhupāda: Just to say there is no purpose?

Śyāmasundara: No. There is only existence. There is no essence.

Devotee: Then why write?

Śyāmasundara: Because it's something to do. Just like I courageously choose to write, that's all, so I must do it.

Devotee: What is...

Śyāmasundara: Ultimately yes. Even Prabhupāda stated this, too.

Prabhupāda: It is rat philosophy. He has something to do-cut everything into pieces.

Devotee: What is that?

Prabhupāda: Something to do. I have to do something. He is cutting a book into pieces.

Śyāmasundara: Jean-Paul Genet was one of his heroes—a sadist, a homosexual, a criminal. He thought very highly of him, because he said at least he has chosen something he is doing very courageously. So he got him released from jail. Now he has chosen to become a Communist, Sartre. So... [break] He is very much trouble with the government. They want to arrest him, but he is too famous. His life is (indistinct).

Devotee: Śrīla Prabhupāda, what is the actual cause of shame?

Prabhupāda: Higher consciousness.

Śyāmasundara: If I am ashamed to take my clothes off in public, why is that?

Prabhupāda: Higher consciousness. The dog has no such thing; therefore this consciousness is not developed.

Devotee: He says something about..., "You have it resolved in your mind and you don't carry it through."

Devotee (2): Śrīla Prabhupāda gave an example: if I decide to rob a bank and I don't rob the bank and I... [break]

Prabhupāda: What is next?

Śyāmasundara: Next we'll go back to Fichte, a German philosopher, then Hegel, Schopenhauer. (end)