George Berkeley (1685-1753)

Hayagrīva dāsa: Berkeley seems to argue against objective reality. For instance, three men standing in a field looking at a tree could all have different impressions or ideas of the tree. The problem is that although there are three different impressions of the tree, there is no tree as such. Now, how does the tree as such exist? In the mind of God? Is it possible for a conditioned living entity to perceive the suchness or essence of anything?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Since everything is God, or an expansion of God's energy, how can a tree or anything else exist independent of God? A clay pot is not different from earth. Since there is nothing but God's energy, how can we avoid God? Since nothing can exist independent of God, whatever we see must refer to God. As soon as we see a clay pot, we remember the potter. God is not only the original creator; He is the ingredient, the category, and the original substance as well. According to the Vedic conception, God is everything. That is a nondual conception. If you separate anything from God, you cannot say, sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1). "Everything is Brahman." Everything refers to God, and everything is God's property; therefore whatever exists should be utilized for God's service, and that is the object of our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley maintained that nothing exists outside perception. Matter is simply perceived. For instance, this table is only an immaterial substance which enters my mind. It is not made of matter.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then what is your mind? Is the mind also immaterial? This is the Śūnyavādī position. They believe that everything is zero.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley says that everything is spiritual, not zero.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: The spiritual is not an idea but a fact. The Śūnyavādīs cannot understand how spirit has form. They have no idea of sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, our spiritual form of bliss. They really have no idea of spiritual existence.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley says that everything has form, but that it is not made of matter.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is nice. Everything has form. It is not necessary that the form be material. We say that God has a spiritual form.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: But Berkeley goes so far as to say that everything is made of spirit.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, in the higher sense, everything is spirit. We always say that materialism means forgetfulness of Kṛṣṇa. As soon as we dovetail everything to Kṛṣṇa, nothing is material but spiritual.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley uses the example of a book on a table. The only way the book exists is through the idea or sense impression in the mind. It doesn't enter the mind as matter but as spirit, something immaterial.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: If it is not matter, it is spirit. If everything is spirit, why distinguish between the idea of the book and the book?

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Well, for him there is no difference.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But he explains that the book is not material. If everything is spiritual, the idea is spiritual as well 'as the book. Why make the distinction? Sarvaṁ khalv idam brahma (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1). If everything is Brahman, why make these distinctions between the idea of the book and the book? Why is he trying so hard to attempt to explain?

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He also states that God creates all objects.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, that's right, and because God creates all objects, there is no object that is not true. We cannot say that something false comes from something true. If God is truth, then whatever emanates from God is also truth. It is Māyāvādī philosophy to say that everything that we are seeing is false. Brahma satyaṁjagan mithyā.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: No, he says it is real because God perceives it.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: If it is real, and my idea of it is real, then everything is real. Why make these distinctions? Our philosophy is that there cannot be these distinctions. If the world emanates from God, can it be false? If everything is spiritual, why does he make the distinction in saying that it is not matter, that it is something else? As soon as we bring up the subject of matter, we imply that matter is something separately existing. In other words, there is duality. As soon as you say that this is not matter, you are making matter into something that is not true. If everything emanates from God and is true, there is no question of there being anything that is not true. If everything is spiritual, we cannot make these distinctions. When he says, "This is not matter," he implies that there is matter somewhere. If everything is spirit, there is no question of material existence.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He says that there are two types of objects: those which we actively sense, perceive, and experience, and those which are passively sensed, perceived, and experienced. Both are basically the same because they are equally spiritual.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But two types means duality. How does he distinguish between this type and that type? He distinguishes between the senses and the objects of the senses. If everything is spiritual, we can say that there is spiritual variety. But the senses and the objects of the senses are all real.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: No, he says that they are real and made of spirit. They are not real in the sense that they are made of matter.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: I do not understand this logic. If everything is spirit, why is he making these distinctions? There is no need to make such distinctions if you are spiritually realized. Rather, you can say that these are spiritual varieties. For instance, you can say that stone is not water, that air is not stone, that water is not air, and so on. These are all spiritual varieties. The exact Sanskrit word is saviśeṣa, which indicates that everything is spirit but that there is variety.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley says that if no one experiences a thing, not even God, then it cannot exist. Things can exist only when they are perceived by God.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: This means in one word that there is no existence except God, that nothing exists but God.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He uses the example of the far side of the North Star. We will never be able to perceive it from our viewpoint, but because God can perceive it, it must exist.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That's nice. The idea that something does not exist because I cannot perceive it is not very logical. I may not perceive many things, but that does not mean that they do not exist. In the beginning, this is what I understood you to say Berkeley was saying. That kind of logic is contradictory. God's perception is different. He is unlimited, and we are limited. Since He is unlimited, His perception is unlimited; therefore there are unlimited varieties of existence that we have not even perceived. We cannot say that objects do not exist just because we cannot perceive them.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He says that objects exist because of perception, whether it is God's perception or ours.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: God's perception is another thing. Perception means cetana. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). The word cetana means "living." We are living, and God is also living, but He is the supreme living entity. We are the subordinate entities. Our perception is limited, and God's perception is unlimited. It is admitted that everything exists due to God's perception. Many objects exist that are not within our experience or perception. However, God experiences everything. In Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa says that He knows everything, past, present, and future (Bg. 7.26). Nothing is beyond His experience.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He says that because God experiences all objects, objects are rendered potentially perceptible to human minds.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That's all right, because as we advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we experience objects through God, not directly. That is stated in the Vedas: yasmin vijñāte sarvam evaṁ vijñātam bhavanti. God experiences all things, and if we receive our experience from God, we are advanced. We are preaching that people should receive their experience, their perception, through Kṛṣṇa. We shouldn't try to speculate because speculation is always imperfect. We are searching after the original source of everything, and Kṛṣṇa says: ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (Bg. 10.8). Kṛṣṇa is the root of all emanations, of all creation. The conclusion should be that we should receive our experience through God; therefore we accept the experience of the Vedas. The Vedas were spoken by God, and they contain knowledge given by God. The word veda means knowledge, and the knowledge of the Vedas is perfect. The Vedic system is śruti-pramānam. As soon as an experience is corroborated or verified by Vedic statement, it is perfect. There is no need to philosophize. If we can receive perfect knowledge directly from the Vedas, why should we speculate? Why should we take so much unnecessary trouble?

"Duties [dharma] executed by men, regardless of occupation, are only so much labor if they do not provoke attraction for the message of the Supreme Lord." (Bhāg. 1.2.8) My speculation is always imperfect because I am imperfect.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: There is an inherent tendency in men to want to experience something first hand rather than through someone else.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: From the beginning of our lives, we are experiencing things through authority. A child receives experience by asking his parents. A child knows nothing about fire, and he wants to touch it because it is red. However, he receives knowledge from his parents that he shouldn't touch fire. In this way, he comes to understand certain basic laws of nature. The Vedas tell us that in order to know the transcendental science of Kṛṣṇa, we must approach a guru. We cannot speculate about God, the spiritual world, and spiritual life.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley says that the world is real because if it were not real, we could not experience it.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is also our version. The world is real because it was created by God. But the Māyāvādīs say that the world is unreal. Brahma satyaṁjagan mithyā.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He states that the only way we can know that this table exists is through our senses, but these sense impressions are subtle, not material.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Instead of saying that they are not material, he should say that they are abstract. Abstract is the original position. The Śūnyavādīs cannot understand the abstract; therefore they say that the abstract is zero, nothing. But the abstract is not nothing.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley says that if this table were composed of matter, we would not be able to experience it because the only objects capable of entering our experience must be sensitive substances.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is nondifferent from everything because everything is Kṛṣṇa. Fools look at the Deity and say, "This is not Kṛṣṇa, this is stone." Because a fool cannot see anything but stone, God appears to him as stone. Unfortunate atheists make these distinctions. They will say, "Everything is Brahman, but not this stone Deity." Or, they will say, "Why go to the temple to worship when God is everywhere?" What they are saying is that God is everywhere, but not in the temple. This means that they have no clear idea. We see that everything has form. Are we to assume that we have form and God hasn't? Impersonalists have no conception of Kṛṣṇa's original form. Kṛṣṇa very kindly and mercifully appears before us so that we can experience Him. Ultimately, there is no distinction between matter and spirit, but because at the present moment I cannot conceive of spiritual form, God appears in the form of the Deity. Kṛṣṇa says:

"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied." (Bg. 12.5) People are going through unnecessary labor in order to meditate on something impersonal. Because they have no idea of God, they superficially say, "Everything is God." Still, they cannot see God in the temple in His arca-vigraha form. They cannot understand why all the ācāryas like Rāmānujācārya and Madhvācārya have established these temples. Are these ācāryas simply fools? There has been Deity worship since time immemorial. Are all the people who have participated in Deity worship fools?

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley says that spirit is the only genuine substance, that there is no substance that exists without thinking. In other words, there is thinking involved even in objects like this table. This table is made of spirit, and spirit is thinking and thoughtful.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That's nice. His conclusion is that everything is Brahman because thinking is also Brahman. At the present moment, we cannot perceive the spiritual; therefore God, out of His unlimited kindness, comes to us in a small, tangible, concrete form that we can dress, feed, and handle. We cannot say that this form is different from God.

"One who considers the arca-mūrti or worshipable Deity of Lord Viṣṇu to be stone, the spiritual master to be an ordinary human being, and a Vaiṣṇava to belong to a particular caste or creed, is possessed of hellish intelligence and is doomed." (Padma Purāṇa) It is horrible to think of these spiritual things in a material way. We should always offer respect and consider that Kṛṣṇa is present. We should not think that the Deity is simply stone and cannot hear or see. There are sixty-four items mentioned in Nectar of Devotion (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu) that guide us in Deity worship.

Hayagrīva dāsa: In his last dialogue, Berkeley writes: "The apprehension of a distant Deity naturally disposes men to be negligent of their moral actions, which they would be more cautious of in case they thought Him immediately present and acting on their minds without the interposition of matter, or unthinking second causes."

Śrīla Prabhupāda: The Vedic śāstras say that God is everywhere; He is not distant. In Queen Kuntī's prayers, it is said that God is both distant and near. God's proximity is manifest in His Paramātmā feature. He is living in everyone's heart. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (Bg. 18.61). If He is within our heart, how can He be distant? At the same time, He is present in His personal feature in Goloka Vṛndāvana, which is far, far beyond this material existence. That is God's all-pervasive quality. Although He is far, far away, He is still very near. The sun may be very far away, but its light is present in my room. Similarly, God is both far away and also within my heart. One who is expert in seeing God sees Him in both ways. Goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūtaḥ (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.37). Although He is living in His own abode, eternally enjoying Himself with His associates, He is still present everywhere. That is God.

Hayagrīva dāsa: In what way is God concerned with the moral or immoral actions of man? Is God indifferent to them, or has He simply set the laws of nature in motion, allowing men to follow their own course and reap the fruits of their own karma?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Because we have disobeyed God, we are thrown into this material world and placed under the supervision of material nature for correction. As long as we are in the material world, there is a distinction between what is moral and immoral. Actually, moral and immoral have no meaning, but in the material world, we have conceptions of them. When we are in the spiritual world, there is no conception of immorality. For instance, the gopīs went to see Kṛṣṇa in the dead of night, and ordinarily this is considered immoral, but because they were going to see Kṛṣṇa, it was not immoral. In one sense, in the spiritual world everything is moral. In the material world there is duality in order for the material creation to work properly.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley gives two arguments for the existence of God: first, the things we perceive in our waking state are more vivid than those things we imagine or dream about, and this is because God's mind is activating these things.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: We accept that. God is the superior mind, and because God sees, we can see. Because God walks, we can walk. This is also admitted in Brahma-saṁhitā: yasya prabhā prabhavato jagadaṇḍa-koṭi (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.40). Due to the bodily effulgence of Kṛṣṇa, many universes have come into being. In these universes, there are many varieties, many planets, and on each of the planets are many different living entities. All these varieties are there because they are emanating from Kṛṣṇa.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Secondly, the things we perceive do not obey our wishes as our imaginations do, but resist them because they obey the will of God. God's will is arbitrary, and we cannot predict it.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Therefore it is better to always obey the orders of God. If we do what God says, we are perfect. In any case, there is no need for all this speculation. The basic proof of God is God. Kṛṣṇa says, "I am God," and Nārada, Vyāsadeva, and Arjuna agree, "Yes, You are God." If we accept Kṛṣṇa as God, we save ourselves much labor. Why speculate? In the causal ocean, the Mahā-viṣṇu is inhaling and exhaling, and many universes are being manifest and then destroyed by His breathing. When He breathes out, all the universes are created, and when He breathes in, they all return to His body. This entire creation is the dream of God, Mahā-viṣṇu.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley would maintain that our dreams are imperfect, and when we open our eyes, we see that everything is perfect; therefore there must be a perfect person, a perfect dreamer.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But when we open our eyes and see perfection, that is also dreaming. But the dreaming of the perfect is perfect also. That is absolute. Unless we accept the absolute, how can we say that His dream is perfect? The dream of the absolute is also perfect.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He also asserts a doctrine of divine arbitrariness. Because God's will is arbitrary, we cannot predict what will happen.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is correct. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava says, "If Kṛṣṇa wills, I will do this." He never says, "I will do this." If Kṛṣṇa so desires, a thing will be done. A Vaiṣṇava always considers himself helpless without God. As far as we are concerned, we are always incapable.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: Berkeley states that our repeated experience will discern the regular activity or will of God, and that by experiencing nature, we can understand that God's will is regular. In other words, we can come to understand the habits of God by observing the laws of nature.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā that nature is working under His direction (Bg. 9.10). Nature is not blind. Because it is working under the direction of God, it is perfect.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: He also states that there is no necessary connection between cause and effect, but that things follow one another in sequence in time.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: If there is no cause, why does he say that effect follows cause in a sequential order? This is contradictory. The supreme cause is Kṛṣṇa, the cause of all causes. In that sense, we cannot say that there is no cause. The ultimate cause is the supreme, and to Kṛṣṇa there is no difference between cause and effect. Since He is the supreme cause, He affects everything. In the absolute sense, there is no difference between cause and effect.

Śyāmasundara dāsa: As an example, he would say that a rock falling in the water will not necessarily splash, but that it regularly follows in sequence that it will splash.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But we say that if God does not will this, it will not happen. It is all dependent on the supreme will. It is not necessary for the rock to splash. It is not compulsory. If God so wills, it will simply float. We admit that everything is affected by the will of God; therefore our best course is to depend totally on His will.