good and bad are in the eye of the beholder

[Guest guest]

> At 07:27 PM 1/25/02 +1000, Madhusudani-radha wrote:

 

> The problem is that although lots of people may agree that they

> don't mind authoritarianism when it's in the hands of someone whose

> philosophy/politics they like, we don't exactly have a consensus in

> the world about who is "good" and "bad".

 

Well, if you don't accept Krishna's definitions in the Bhagavad Gita

of who is good and who is bad, what is to be desired and what is to be

rejected, then what can I say? If you don't accept absolute values

from Krishna, you'll invariably be left with your own whimsical

definitions based on your own faulty perceptions.

 

In Bhagavad gita Krishna explains in such great detail and clarity and

with such deep psychology what the symptoms of knowledge are and what

kind of persons we should listen to. If you want to reject that and

think you can come up with something better yourself, you are of

course in your full right, but don't propose that that invalidates the

absolute truth.

 

It seems to me that the real issue here is that you simply don't

accept an absolute truth and have taken the position that everything

is relative. If you say that we don't actually have a consensus about

what is good and what is bad in the world, I can't understand it in

any other way than you are taking a philosophically relativistic

position. Do you actually think that there is no absolute truth, that

any opinion is as good as another one?

 

> Even Saddam Hussein, Hitler

> and the Taliban had/have people who agreed with their views and

> thought it was good that they were/are authoritarian. Unfortunately,

> your views about "good" and "bad" would probably count among a very

> small minority in this world.

 

If a person is guided by the absolute truth, if one is guided by

Krishna consciousness, one doesn't have the problem of trying to

discern who or what is right and wrong. One already knows because

Krishna clearly explains it. It actually sounds to me as if you are

saying that I cannot be sure about Krishna consciousness, that I have

no way of knowing if Srila Prabhupada's teachings are the absolute

truth.

 

The point is, though, that a relativistic position in no way

invalidates the knowledge and experience I have of, nor has any

bearing on, the absolute truth.

 

It is not that I have to sit and work my mind over in order to believe

in Krishna. I know Krishna is God, by following the process of bhakti,

and that process is available to everyone. Otherwise I have chanted my

rounds every day without fail for 20 years, and studied Srila

Prabhupada's books intensely, all for nothing. If someone wants to say

that bhakti is impractical in solving the problems of the world and in

ISKCON, like child abuse and so on, then that is plainly wrong, for

bhakti is the _only_ solution to these problems, or any other problem

you can think of that exists in the material realm.

 

I don't have to be in doubt about that. I can directly perceive

Krishna's reality when I follow the process. I become enlightened and

happy, and when I don't I become miserable. There is a famous verse in

that connection from the Bg.

 

"This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all

secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct

perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of

religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed."

 

Note that it is stated that the process gives direct perception of the

self. Krishna also says in the Gita that He can be known beyond doubt

by the right method. If you don't want to surrender to that method

that is your choice, but then you have to accept that the knowledge

and experience of Krishna consciousness will not become available to

you. But then again you probably think this is just another lecture

from me you don't want to hear.

 

Ys, Jahnu das