Belief & Reason

[Guest guest]

I would like to start a discussion on the topic of belief and reason.

 

Physics, and Science in general, it seems does not require belief. Everything is proven to us. There are few types of proofs in science - technological, mathematical and circumstantial. Jet engines is an example of technological proof of Newton's third law. Einstein's theory of relativity is proved mathematically. Law of Thermodynamics is proved based on the fact there is no known exception. But no proof is flawless. A technological proof does not validate completeness of a theoretical model. That is why Newton's model of the universe had to be modified with additional observation. The same can be said of circumstantial proof. If we find that total energy level of the universe is not really a constant, then these laws would fail. In fact, I think it is possible with a lot of research to show that law of thermodynamics is not mathematically correct. It assumes that constancy of infinity, the properties of which are not fully understood. One may say that a mathematical proof is flawless because mathematical laws do not change. But it is possible to show that mathematical models are abstractions of the real world and are subject to similar problems of insufficiency of observation. The recourse of the scientists is that a proven model of the universe is transient and is a step towards a more accurate model. While this is good for practical life, it is mathematically impossible to completely model the universe incrementally. All scientific laws break when the assumptions are questioned or when the definitions are scrutinized under a microscope. Examples abound. So the scientific models would constantly change.

 

On the other hands most religions are based on faith. They proclaim that there is an omniscient God and only He knows everything. So any knowledge has to come from Him alone. As any information about Absolute Truth is known from either God or His representative, it becomes important to identify the true God(s) and true representatives of God. The problem with that is that you can know about God only from Him and ultimately there is no way to test it. As you can never be sure about who is God, you have to believe based on certain factors and these factors are all questionable.

 

Thus one cannot attain truth with certitude through either truth or belief. Pl. mark my words, I did not say that you cannot attain truth through belief but that you cannot do with certitude. That is because belief precedes exploration of truth and one cannot even define what is truth that we are seeking. Basically, search for truth is like seeking nothing by nobody who is nowhere.

 

Any thoughts ??? After hearing from you, I would like to share my ideas on how Vedas resolve these paradoxes.

 

 

[theist]

I don't see the paradox ram.You have pointed to revelation from God Himself as a means of knowing.Isn't that the solurtion to the limits inherent in simple belief or reason?

[Guest guest]

For us who are devotees of Krishna, the answer is simple - Krishna is God. Now for the modern day Christians Jesus is God. For muslims it is Allah. The revelations from these "Gods" is different although we identify fundamental commonalities. Which God you choose to follow is a product of your faith.

[theist]

...faith and reason mixed with some revelatory guidance from Supersoul.

 

You say for you who are devotees of Krsna it is simple, Krsna is God.It does appear simple at first until we realize that when we are still at the level of belief in Krsna,then we are actually worshiping our own particular conceptions of Krsna.A form of idolatry.Once the revelations of Krsna,from Krsna,become firm and dominant then we are worshipping Krsna as He is.

 

Same with the Christians and Muslims.

[gHari]

Clever boys reject great saints on the grounds of their speculative purusal of the Vedic scriptures and commentaries. For such offensive rejection of Krsna's pure devotees their minds are swept away in deep but hellish thoughts, the heart never awakening, overpowered by the clever mind and the attachment to being clever. They become one of the four types of persons mentioned in the Bhagavad-gita as those who do not surrender to Krsna.

 

Reason is dangerous in a world where the finite can never reach the infinite. The infinite will always trick the builder of the Tower of Babel, for indeed the key for release from bondage is not kept in the mind, but rather in the heart. It is the heart that must be perfected in order to achieve the goal. Arrogant reason will vainly try to capture Krsna in its bucket of synapses, but by all accounts, He can only be captured by love.

 

"To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the intelligence by which they can come to Me." - Sri Krsna, in His incarnation of Lord Krsna, Prince of Devarka, at the end of the previous Yuga.

 

Humility will eventually tame arrogant reason who must by definition discount Sri Krsna to vainly toss His shadow about in its labyrinth of syllogisms. When we begin to even slightly realize just how great He is, humility cannot help but overpower foolish reason. That is the beginning of knowing how little we can really know - the beginning of knowing the Truth, the Absolute Truth, of knowing Sri Krsna, the Supreme Lord and Friend.

[Guest guest]

As Theist Prabhu pointed out no one really knows Him in truth. Compared to one who sees wood, metal and stone, it seems like an advanement to see the deity. But the Lord is never fully understood. As Krishna states in BG, no one really knows Him in truth.

 

Devout Christians and Muslims may also realize God in their own way - some of His infinite aspects. Allah or Jehovah is non-different from Krishna.

 

Unfortunately, vaishnava philosophy historically does not show the same kind of tolerance towards worshippers of "demi gods" even though Vedas claim these "demi gods" like Ganesh or Siva is Supreme. All major acharyas like Caitanya, Raghavendra and even Ramanuja worshipped Lord Shiva as did the gopis, pandavas etc. But it is the neophyte

followers who dont.

[Guest guest]

gHAri Prabhu, I fully understand your concern out of which you are making these statements.

 

There is no question of rejecting Srila Prabhupada. He is so exalted and is worthy of service. But so is Sankara, if not more, who is Lord Shiva Himself and who gave an wonderful philosophy of devotion and knowledge.

 

I am sure that Srila Prabhu is continuing to be merciful to me inspite of my defects.If I do not speak what I believe to be true, I will be unworthy of any mercy.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Preaching against the doctrine propounded by Sankara and his followers does not mean disrespecting Sankara. If you read Caitanya Charitamrta you will find that Krsnadasa Kaviraja cites numerous examples of how Lord Chaitanya converted Mayavadi sanyasis and spoke out against the bhasya of Sankara acharya.

 

The conclusions of our Sampradaya are different than those presented by Adi Sankara and we will continue to stress and present the teaching of Mahaprabhu in this regard. We accept what the Padma Purana has to say about Siva's incarnation as Sankara and the reason for his interpretation of Vedanta. As Gaudiya's we don't follow that interpretation, we follow the natural commentary of Vedanta given by the author himself titled Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Still, I do agree with you Ram that devotees spend too much time and effort emphasizing the difference and they tend to forget the oneness part. We have much in common with Advaitavadis and that is often time forgotten. It is altogether more appealing to present our differences in a positive light while respecting and acknowledging our oneness. Who will not be attracted to the sweet pastimes of Govinda?

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[theist]

ram:Unfortunately, vaishnava philosophy historically does not show the same kind of tolerance towards worshippers of "demi gods" even though Vedas claim these "demi gods" like Ganesh or Siva is Supreme. All major acharyas like Caitanya, Raghavendra and even Ramanuja worshipped Lord Shiva as did the gopis, pandavas etc. But it is the neophyte

followers who dont.

 

 

Of course we should tolerate others in all ways.But Krsna consciousness does have its preaching side.So tolerance doesn't mean to sit by idlely.How to politely disagree without disturbing others is an essential art.

 

Vaisnavas' do worship the demigods.They are included when worshiping Krsna.No need for 32 million separate altars.

 

If a vaisnava is attracted to Lord Shiva then he should worship Lord Shiva and beg for pure devotional service from him.Why not?

 

But isn't it an offense to the Holy Name to consider Krsna's name on par with that of the demigods?So we see Shiva as subordinate to Sri Krsna.That is not a slight to Shiva.he would have it no other way.

 

Obeisances also to Sankara.But should his bhasya on vedanta sutra be taught along side Srimad Bhagavatam?Haven't acaryas from other sampradayas' also challenged the conclusions found there.

 

Or another example within vaisnavism.We can worship Jesus but his desire is that we worship him in connection to Krsna not separately.And we still must evaluate where the higher more complete teachings lay, the Bible of Gita.I say Gita.That is not an offense to Christ.I can separate Christ from Christianity without any problem.But I can't separate Christ from Krsna.

 

So the question is really why are these people trying to worship Siva without Krsna?Siva is never apart from Krsna.

[Avinash]

Preaching against the doctrine propounded by Sankara and his followers does not mean disrespecting Sankara.

 

How do you feel if somebody preaches against what Sri Prabhupada said? Do you find it OK or do you find it bad?

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Yesterday one devotee jocularly threatened me for offending the devotees and said that he will use his intelligence to defeat me. He reminded me of the glories of Srila Prabhupada and his effect on the lives of all of us.

 

I am one not threatened by debate. But it is a matter of fact that I neither have knowledge or devotion. When devotees here are respectful towards Sri Sankara, I am foolishly fighting them stopping the spreading of the glories of Krishna and sankirtan. I forgot that behind the names on this message board there are great persons - people who worship the Lord and sacrifice so many things for doing His service. Even if I exhaust their arguments, it will not benefit the association of devotees on this forum. It is better for all us to hear their realization. So I request you all to forgive me for disturbing the devotional mood of the forum.

 

Also, we will return to the core topic "Belief and Reason" later. I am starting a new thread "Applied Gita 48". I request devotees like Audarya, gHari, theist, Karthik, Shvu, Avinash etc., to actively participate in offering their suggestions on applying Gita. Every day, I will post one sloka for which we may show an example of practical application based on real life experience.

[Avinash]

Ever so often discussion goes completely out of topic even though none of us intentionally wants that. It is good that you have brought the discussion back to the original topic.

[tsaneladi]

I think as th saying goes, that science is the new religion of the masses. In Kali age it is easy to formulate theories and dissertations on the whys and wheres of creation and life.

 

As a distration to the scripture, these platform,become more acceptable as man continues to form a world based around himself rather than Krsna

[shvu]

 

 

So the question is really why are these people trying to worship Siva without Krsna?

 

 

Not sure who is meant here, but if you are referring to Shaivas, Krishna has little or no role in their beliefs. Shiva is worshipped as the Supreme being and therefore everyone else come next.

 

As far as Advaita goes, there is no difference between worshipping Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Ganapathi, Ambaal, etc. Everyone is worshipped as the Supreme Brahman.

 

Cheers

[Avinash]

When I call something unscientific, then many people think that I am calling it as incorrect. But it is not necessary for something to be scientific in order to be correct. It can be unscientific and correct at the same time. I am using commonly accepted meaning of the word "scientific" by science community here.

 

I would like Ram to say why he thinks that the law of thermodynamics is not mathematically correct and which of the laws of thermodynamics is he talking about?

[Guest guest]

The law of conservation of energy - that total energy of a closed system is a constant and any addition would cause the entropy to increase. This is applied to the whole Universe by treating the whole universe as a closed system. But as the Universe has infinite dimensions, the total energy of the universe is also infinite. Now,constancy is a propoerty that can be applied to variables that take finite set of values. We cannot apply that to variables that take infinite set of values because the property of numbers is different at inifinity. For example, we can add to a constant variable that has infinite value without affecting it. This means that it is possible to delta x to total energy of the Universe without increasing its energy. That means Law Of Conservation of Energy is not Universal.

[xxvvii]

Let's talk reason at 1st. Scientists like to divide the world into 2 parts, objective & subjective, because of 2m2, but in research they alway bring their subj. notions into all steps, & don't forget they are no essential difference from other people who need money, honor, status, etc.. Absolutely obj. proof & Absolute pure land for science is not existed, for which it's not diff. for you to find some instances. Moreover, no one can deny the develo. of science, that's to say, science is not eternal truth. Today's big bang is tomorrow's big fun.

 

Now let's talk belief. Belief needn't the proof of God because it comes from your heart. Ask yourself 3 q.s, "Whence did I come?", "Why am I here?", "Where will I go?", & more or less you will believe in God in a flash. However, belief does have cause - karman.

 

Worshippers of the demigods go to the demigods, the worshippers of the ancestors go to the ancestors, and the worshippers of the ghosts go to the ghosts, but My devotees come to Me (and are not born again). (See also 8.16) (9.25)

 

And these Bodhisattvas, Subhuti, will not be such as have honoured only one single Buddha, nor such as have planted their roots of merit under one single Buddha only. On the contrary, Subhuti, those Bodhisattvas who, when these words of the Sutra are being taught, will find even one single thought of serene faith, they will be such as have honoured many hundreds of thousands of Buddhas, such as have planted their roots of merit under many hundreds of thousands of Buddhas.

 

 

[Avinash]

What you have written is not law of conservation of energy. The law says, "The energy of a system does not change unless there is work done on the system." How is this law not universal according to this definition?