Foreword

The idea for this book first emerged in 1973, when Śrīla Prabhupāda began asking his secretary, Śyāmasundara dāsa adhikārī (Sam Speerstra), about Western philosophy. Śyāmasundara would try to state succinctly the major ideas of certain philosophers, and Prabhupāda would give the Vedic view. As Prabhupāda traveled throughout the world preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness, this process continued, until finally, in 1976, Prabhupāda's editor, Hayagrīva dāsa adhikārī (Professor Howard Wheeler), supplied further questions for Prabhupāda and completed the editing. Then Śrīla Prabhupāda gave the book its title: Dialectic Spiritualism: A Vedic View of Western Philosophy, and said, "Print it."

Almost immediately some people objected that since professional scholars had not presented the material to Śrīla Prabhupāda, there might be some discrepancies. When the manuscript was shown to a philosophy professor, he called it "a treatise against philosophy," and "an unscholarly punch in the nose." Then, when Śrīla Prabhupāda left this mortal world in November, 1977, the book's future became uncertain. One student tried to restate the questions. Then another tried, only to conclude that it would be better to start all over. But Śrīla Prabhupāda was no longer present, and the extensive work, on which he had spent so much time, remained unavailable to the world. Finally, in 1984, Hayagrīva resolved to print Śrīla Prabhupāda's last great opus as it is, and for this we are all greatly indebted.

Whatever the criticisms, they are rendered insignificant in the light of Śrīla Prabhupāda's brilliant insights into the problems of Western philosophy and his lucid expositories of the Vedic view. Much of the confusion arises from a difference in methodology and perspective. For many Westerners, philosophy is a kind of armchair speculation, an intellectual game, but for the follower of the Vedas, it is a matter of life and death. Or, more precisely, it is the recognition of the absolute need to stop the repetition of birth and death. For Śrīla Prabhupāda, real philosophy deals with applying Absolute Knowledge in our daily lives, consciously, moment by moment. "We should act in such a way that we have to think of Kṛṣṇa all the time," he said. "For instance, we are discussing the philosophy of Socrates in order to strengthen our Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore the ultimate goal is Kṛṣṇa. Otherwise we are not interested in criticizing or accepting anyone's philosophy. We are neutral."

Obviously, this is not the goal of Western philosophy, which tends to see man as "the measure of all things" in a physical, humanistic universe. Western thought has always encouraged self-reliance and individualism, which are reflected even in today's street philosophy: "Do your own thing."

The Vedic view clashes fiercely with such relativistic thinking. Far from celebrating the authority of the individual mind, or the autonomy and ascendence of reason, the Vedas point out the four fundamental defects of conditioned souls. Śrīla Prabhupāda made this point clear:

Of course, in European philosophy there is an attempt at more independent thought, but such independent thinking is not approved by the followers of the Vedas. The Vedic followers receive knowledge directly from authorities. They do not peculate. We cannot attain knowledge through speculation because everyone is imperfect .... According to the Vedic system, we receive knowledge from Vyāsadeva, Nārada, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. This knowledge is perfect because these personalities are not subjected to the four defects of all conditioned living entities: the tendency to commit mistakes, to be illusioned, to have imperfect senses, and to cheat. ... We therefore have to receive knowledge from those who are liberated. This is the Vedic process. If we receive knowledge from Kṛṣṇa, there cannot be any mistake, nor any question of illusion. Our senses may be imperfect, but Kṛṣṇa's senses are perfect; therefore whatever Kṛṣṇa says, we accept, and that acceptance is our perfection.

With these defects, a conditioned human being, cannot possibly present perfect knowledge. Therefore he is reduced to wrangling. As Śrīla Prabhupāda often observed, "Being a big philosopher, a muni, means refuting the theories of others and setting up your own conclusions as supreme." There is no end to this process, nor is there perfection. "It is said that a philosopher is not a philosopher unless he differs from other philosophers," Śrīla Prabhupāda said when discussing Descartes. "If one is to be a great philosopher, he has to defy all his predecessors. Scientists also work in the same way. If we try to find out whose statement is true, we have a great deal of difficulty. Therefore the Vedic śāstras enjoin that we follow the personalities who have realized God ... If we follow the ācāryas in the disciplic succession, our path is clear."

Perfect knowledge can come only from a perfect source, the reservoir of knowledge, God Himself. Such knowledge is imparted by the Supreme and comes down by the paramparā process, the line of true disciplic succession, from one realized soul to another.

Śrīla Prabhupāda explains the Vedic method in this way:

Every word we hear has a meaning behind it. As soon as we hear the word "water," there is a substance—water—behind the word. Similarly, as soon as we hear the word "God," there is a meaning to it. If we receive that meaning and explanation of "God" from God Himself, then it is perfect. But if we speculate about the meaning of "God," it is imperfect. Bhagavad-gītā, which is the science of God, is spoken by the Personality of Godhead Himself. This is perfect knowledge. Mental speculators, or so-called philosophers who are researching for what is actually God, will never understand the nature of God. The science of God has to be understood in disciplic succession from Brahmā, who was first instructed about knowledge of God from God Himself. (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Purport, 3.26.33)

This does not mean, however, that the human mind is reduced to that of a robot. The mind is useful for acceptance and rejection, and one's intelligence is measured by his power of discrimination. But in the presence of the Supreme Absolute Truth, nothing is to be rejected, and discrimination has no meaning. Therefore perfect knowledge must be accepted from a perfect source. Still, history shows that thought is dynamic and progressive, and the great reformers—Vālmīki, Vyāsadeva, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammed, and Caitanya Mahāprabhu—all declare, directly or indirectly, that they have come not to destroy the Law of God, but to fulfill it such great souls are not content to accept something simply because it is handed down by tradition. Indeed, tradition has often proved untrustworthy, for in the course of time, and influenced by common men, its purity is lost. "This supreme science was thus received through the chain, of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way," Lord Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna. "But in course of time, the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost." (Bg. 4.2) For this reason, Lord Kṛṣṇa again spoke Bhagavad-gītā, reestablishing the true disciplic succession (paramparā).

Some have charged that this approach is more theosophic than philosophic. But why arbitrarily force an either/or situation? Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the happy marriage of theology and philosophy. As Śrīla Prabhupāda often said, "Religion without philosophy is sentimental and therefore fanatical; and philosophy without religion is mental speculation." However, the rejection of mental speculation does not extend to sincere philosophical speculation, which is a legitimate activity of the mind. The difference is like that between pure, fresh milk and milk contaminated by the poisonous fangs of a serpent. Philosophical speculation is the attempt to understand the Lord and His energies by using all the faculties which God has so kindly given us, whereas mental speculation is the proud attempt to use those faculties, which rightly belong to the Lord, against the Lord. Philosophical speculation leads to greater and greater awareness and appreciation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whereas mental speculation always comes to the atheistic conclusion of the voidists: God is void and we are void, therefore let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

For example, trying to understand how the Supreme Personality of Godhead enters into the creation, maintains it, and destroys it, is proper philosophical speculation. In this sincere attempt, the previous ācāryas and the holy scriptures can guide us. But trying to figure out the origin of everything solely by the power of the tiny human brain, without referring to God or His representatives (guru-sādhu-śāstra), is useless mental speculation. We may speculate in this fashion for billions of years and still not arrive at the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who lies beyond the purview of finite thought.

It is precisely on this point of the centrality of the Personality of Godhead that the Vedic observer differs radically from his Western counterpart. Both Eastern and Western philosophy wrestle with the same problems: birth, death, reincarnation, liberation, the nature of God and the soul, the creation, good and evil, human responsibility, free will, karma, material vs. spiritual, and so on. By and large, We tern thinkers are pantheistic and impersonalistic. Even great theist like Aquinas and Augustine have ultimately considered the personal aspect to be a manifestation of the impersonal principle. The impersonalism of Plato and Aristotle are indeed deeply engrained in Western thought. This is not some strange coincidence, but the result of a basic difference in methodology. Only when a sincere devotee surrenders to God does God agree to reveal Himself. "One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service," Lord Kṛṣṇa says (Bg. 18.55). Surrender to God is a prerequisite for knowing God. Śrīla Prabhupāda often remarked that when we speak of surrender, we necessarily predicate a person. According to the Vedas, the attributes and nature of that person can be known only through the person Himself. There is no room for imagination, myth, human reasoning, speculation, anthropomorphism, or whatever. In knowledge of the Personality of Godhead, Western philosophy has proved sadly deficient, as Carl Jung observed:

Hayagrīva dāsa: Seeing that philosophies and theologies could not give him a clear picture of God's personality, Jung concludes: "What is wrong with these philosophers? I wondered. Evidently they know of God only by hearsay."
Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, that is also our complaint. None of the philosophers we have discussed has given us any clear idea of God. Because they are speculating, they cannot give concrete, clear information. As far as we are concerned, our understanding of God is clear because we receive the information given by God Himself to the world.

In Western philosophy, personalism is an unknown territory, approached only in Socrates's instructions from Diotima in The Symposium, wherein Socrates was enjoined to contemplate and converse with beauty absolute, beauty simple, divine, true, unpolluted, real and wondrous. It is the same territory before which Jung stood longing for a guru. It is the borderline of the finite individual soul awaiting revelation. Personalism necessitates revelation, for the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be affirmed only by the personal descent of the Divine.

Dialectic Spiritualism should not be seen as an academic attempt at comparative philosophy, but as a devotee's informal, spontaneous response to various Western philosophers. Each philosopher is viewed in his own existential loneliness, without reference to historical influences. Each face the eternal Vedas alone. Sometimes we may imagine the court of the Last Judgement. By his own words, each man stands praised or condemned. There is no consideration for personality, no allowance for time or place. For the academician bent on the historicity of a thought, this doubtlessly seems unfair and arbitrary, but it is typically Vedic. Our thoughts and deeds are fixed in eternal time. We are responsible for even our most random, idle, or uncharacteristic statements.

Far from being detrimental, Śrīla Prabhupāda's unfamiliarity with formal Western philosophy evoked the most genuine and candid responses. Of all the philosophers, he agreed most with Socrates, whom he considered Brahman realized. He often quoted Socrates's answer to the question of what should be done with him after his death: "Well, you have to catch me first. But as for my body, you can dispose of that as you like." Still, Prabhupāda considered Socrates an impersonalist because he had no specific information of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, despite his speaking of the form of Absolute Beauty. Plato, being Socrate's disciple, also ranked high in Prabhupāda's Vedic eyes, particularly for his view of the soul and reincarnation. But Prabhupāda disagreed with his recommendation of uniform education and universal military training.

Aristotle was severely criticized for his view that the souls of animals are not immortal. There are not two types of souls, mortal and immortal, as Aristotle contends. This pernicious doctrine was carried even further by Augustine, who argued that since animals do not possess an immortal soul, "they are meant for our use, dead or alive. It only remains for us to apply the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to man alone, oneself and others." Strange words from a so-called saint! Unfortunately, this became the standard Christian doctrine: since animals have no souls, it is all right to kill and eat them.

Śrīla Prabhupāda felt that Plotinus, following Plato's footsteps, presented a basically sound philosophy of the soul, particularly of the jīvātmā's relation with the One, but, of course, Plotinus's "One" was impersonal. Prabhupāda disagreed with Origen's theory that souls are created. If they are created, how can they be immortal? "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings," Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna. "Nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." (Bg. 2.12) The theory of the creation of a "human soul" at the moment of conception was also accepted by Aquinas, and thus became official Catholic doctrine. The belief that each individual human soul is created at a point in time, lives his life, and thereafter is saved or damned eternally, excludes the possibility of reincarnation.

By denying reincarnation, Augustine and Aquinas broke with the Platonic tradition, and made it difficult for subsequent philosophers to understand evil in the world. If there is no transmigration of souls, where is Divine Justice? How can we account for fortune and misfortune? Why is one man pious, knowledgeable, beautiful, or opulent, and an other man impious, ignorant, deformed, or poor? Why, on the basis of one finite lifetime, is one man eternally saved and another eternally damned? Why is God so arbitrary, so unmerciful? Having rejected the possibilities of transmigration and karma, Western philosophers have been troubled all the way down to Mill, Dewey, and Sartre. Because evil exists, they argue, either God's power is limited, or He is not all good, or He does not exist at all.

In their confrontation with the Vedic version, some of the philosophers scored high, some low, some in between. Ranking high as first-class philosophers were Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Origen, Scotus, Descartes, Pascal, and Bergson. Śrīla Prabhupāda also liked the psychologist Carl Jung ("He seems the most sensible."). After these, ranked Aquinas, Locke, Berkeley, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Schopenhauer, Alexander, Nietzsche, James, and Kierkegaard. In low regard, for various reasons, were Aristotle, Augustine, Fichte, Bacon, and Huxley. Conflicting most with Vedic thought were Machiavelli, Hume, Hegel, Hobbes, Darwin, Mill, Comte, Marx, Dewey, Sartre, and Freud.

Ultimately, no Western philosopher can measure up to the high standard of the Vedic ideal. In contrast, Śrīla Prabhupāda emerges as the emissary of a higher source, for he is Lord Kṛṣṇa's pure devotee. It is not as though he alone were speaking; rather, an unbroken line of disciplic succession speaks through him, delivering the pure knowledge of the Vedas intact. When he called the book "A Vedic view of Western philosophy," Śrīla Prabhupāda humbly said, "Yes, Vedic view. After all, what is my personal view worth?"

Although Dialectic Spiritualism marks a clashing of different knowledge-acquiring processes, the inductive and deductive, we reach the mutual understanding that arises from all fruitful confrontations: a clarification of positions, from which points of agreement and contention can be discerned. Thus the book is valuable to students of all schools of philosophy and theology. If the reader chooses to accept Śrīla Prabhupāda's conclusion that God has manifested Himself in sound (śabdāvatāra)—that is, in the Vedas, of which Bhagavad-gītā is the essence—he will have a standard by which every thought can be judged. Viewed thus, the book takes on new and profound perspectives. It is Dialectic Spiritualism read in the spirit of the dialectic itself.