What if.....?

[FaithlessDevotee]

What if Krsna Consciousness, all the scriptures, everything they meant (and I guess all religions about God throughout the world) were just some type of secondary Maya/Illusion keeping us from another type on inconceiveable truth that has completely been forgotten?

 

What if the idea of God etc. has been purposely put in our way. Not that I'm trying to deny him - but what I'm saying is, what if this so called KC is just a obstacle of some sort for us.

 

I'm really crappy at explaining things - sorry guys.

 

Any ideas??

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

What if Krsna Consciousness, all the scriptures, everything they meant (and I guess all religions about God throughout the world) were just some type of secondary Maya/Illusion keeping us from another type on inconceiveable truth that has completely been forgotten?

And what if that new forgotten inconceivable truth was also just a third level of maya, and the next truth was a fourth level of maya, and what if the moon was made out of blue cheese, and the clouds were nothing but cotton candy?

 

Speculation without foundation can be endless and it leads us no where.

[shvu]

 

What if Krsna Consciousness, all the scriptures, everything they meant (and I guess all religions about God throughout the world) were just some type of secondary Maya/Illusion keeping us from another type on inconceiveable truth that has completely been forgotten?

If it is inconceiveable, it can never be conceived and so there is no such thing to be found. And further since it is "completely" forgotten, it is lost forever and so don't speculate about it. Focus yourself on conceiveable truths which have not been forgotten yet.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

My point is that inquiries must be based on evidences (or pramanas). Otherwise one may ask anything, and the answer will be mostly meaningless or unknowable.

 

For example, I can question, "Maybe Krishna is actually Red color, and all the books have been changed to hide this supreme truth."

 

Now, how useful is this question. First, there is no evidence that such a thing is true. Second, even if it was true, it is not something we can conclude - as there is no evidence in the first place.

 

Thus one is left with one's own speculations which are meaningless since they are without foundation.

 

One should rely on pratyaksha (direct perception), anumana (logical inference), and shabda (authoritative scriptures or realization) to establish one's belief. Shabda, when refering to spiritual authority can be judged based on the personality delivering it to you. On the level of realization, there is no need to judge, as it is direct experience of truth.

 

I would suggest one relies on such evidences, rather than meaningless speculative hypothesis which are endless in number.

 

Otherwise one can just as well ask, "Maybe Bill Clinton was actually the Supreme God, and he incarnated on Mars before descending to earth on a moon beam." The point being there is no evidence for such a hypothesis, so why waste time on it. Rather, use logic to focus on those hypotheses that have ample evidence and support.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 10-20-2001).]

[stonehearted]

Originally posted by FaithlessDevotee:

Doesn;t anyone have mercy in this thread?

Stonehearted (which would indicate that I'm obviously excluded): That would depend on how you define mercy. You should be aware that the culture in which most participants here perceives both blind following and absurd inquiry are perceived as essentially useless. I don't use "absurd" to insult you, but to point out that the questions you've asked in this thread seem incongruous, even unreasonable. To many here, they sound like, "What if water were stone?"

 

As far as a lack of mercy here, I remember that a couple of weeks ago many posted messages meant to encourage you. You certainly seem to have become emboldened, and your posts seem to have taken a turn we may not have expected earlier this month.

 

If your intention in asking these questions is to challenge our faith, please note that many of us have endured challenges beyond anything you can probably imagine right now. If it's to confide your misgivings, this may not be the right place. If you want to know whether Krishna consciousness is genuine, you need to make the experiment yourself. Ultimately, it's a subjective experience. The proper way to perform the experiment, according to Lord Krishna, is to find a vaishnava in whom you have confidence and practice sahdana bhakti under his (or her) guidance. It's quite practical; if someone wants a good education, the standard practice is to find a good teacher and study under his or her guidance. The teacher will help you when you run into difficulty. The formula Krishna gives in Chapter 4, verse 34 of Bhagavad-gita is submission and service. Why not give it a try?

 

Babhru das

 

[FaithlessDevotee]

So you would just be content accepting. What if love of God is just sense gratification.

[FaithlessDevotee]

SOMEONE: And what if that new forgotten inconceivable truth was also just a third level of maya, and the next truth was a fourth level of maya, and what if the moon was made out of blue cheese, and the clouds were nothing but cotton candy?

 

Speculation without foundation can be endless and it leads us no where.

 

ME: So you wouldn't care? Isn't that stupid (and unintelligent). It could be possible. Some people weren't born into hindu families who knew of Krsna first. Some were born into Christian families. So the latter came to know about Krsna secondly - so are you advising them to forget about it, and stick with 'whats what' firstly?

 

[FaithlessDevotee]

Doesn;t anyone have mercy in this thread?

[Sirona]

1 Corinthians 13

 

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 

 

 

[stonehearted]

I hope my comments above didn't sound cruel or merciless. I was trying to explain why some devotees may have seemed to respond impatiently to Sanjay's "What if . . . ?" inquiries. I also did not intend to excuse any rudeness, but to share an insight into possible motives.

[karthik_v]

Faithless devotee:

 

How do you know you are for real? You may perceive yourself..but that only confirms that the perception is real. That doesn't mean you are for real.

 

When you can't even be sure that are for real, why should you bother so much about realization?

 

When you can't even be sure that you are for real why should you bother about posting stupid questions?

 

When you can't even be sure that you are for real why should you expend so much time breathing and eating to sustain a probable self.

 

I guess you should stop breathing and eating for a while. After all why bother to do so much to sustain yourself when you can't be sure that you are for real.