EVERYONE Has Faith

[ancient_paztriot]

Hridyananda…

 

Now the rascals will say, “Alright we’ll concede that. But, ultimately everyone is Krsna.” So this is very strongly refuted in the 15th chapter. Actually it’s refuted everywhere. But in the 15th chapter, Krsna takes the trouble to specifically finnish this argument. I liked the 15th chapter very much. If you take the direct meaning of the Bhagavad-gita, there’s no question that He’s the Isvara and we are servants. Isvara ??? and so on. And we have to surrender. But still, some people are such rascals, still they’ll try and cheat Krsna. So even in the 12th chapter, Arjuna directly asks, ??? Yes, Arjuna directly asks. And he distinguishes between Your devotees and those who are worshiping ???. ???, the indestructible or ??? And of course, Lord Krsna answers, Sri Bhagavan Uvaca, ??? Then he says, ??? it is beyond designation. And ??? They also come to Me eventually. So this word ??? is there. So, the distinction is made, ??? Now in the 15th chapter, this word ??? again appears. Lord Krsna says that ??? In this world there are two kinds of persons ??? and ???. So again He brings in this word. ??? and the word ??? also is brought over from the 12th chapter. You may remember when Lord Krsna is describing the impersonalists in the 12th chapter, He used both these words, ???. So therefore, by analysis we can understand that although Lord Krsna’s saying that a liberated soul, ??? and also conditioned soul.

 

But He has specifically brought back the language of the 12th chapter to indicate He’s going to finnish, again bury, pour even more dirt on the grave of this impersonal argument. So then He says, ???. So it’s very clear. Uttuma in English, a word that sounds the same as ultimate. So He says, ???, that the uttuma-purusa is another here. ??? He is called Paramatma. That means whenever the word Paramatma occurs in the Gita, it must understood to be Krsna and not the jiva. You see? That’s significant because in the 13th chapter, this word Paramatma is used. But the mayavadis will try to claim that Paramatma refers to the jiva. But here Paramatma is defined as ??? Not the ??? nor the ???. Not the liberated soul. ??? Then Lord Krsna says, ??? Because I am beyond the ???… Now this word ??? is also very significant. You see? He’s emphasizing very strongly ???, even. Even I’m above the ???. You see? It’s very emphatic. ??? Therefore ??? Therefore I’m glorified in the world and in the Vedas. ??? That means because everyone knows God. Just like even all these scientists are talking about God. So ??? Even those who don’t understand shastra, but in their own way they talk about God. So Krsna says ??? Then ???, celebrated. Then the final statement is ??? So one who knows Me in this way. The whole mayavadi point is that you may take Krsna in the beginning, but then you have to go beyond Krsna to the ???-brahma, or some impersonal idea – moksha. But Krsna says, If you know Me this way, ??? You take this understanding that I’m Purrusottoma, ???. So this bogus argument that you have to go beyond this Purrusottoma to some other idea is finished. ??? He does not reserve any feeling for some other idea of God. ??? So it’s very clear. Then, He’s so emphatic that these people are certain mudhas, they have thick heads, they can’t understand it. Sometimes in the Upanisads you’ll find someindirect or esoteric language. But here He’s beating them on the head with it, but still they can’t understand. Then Krsna says, ??? This is ???-shastra, most confidential shastra. ??? So I very much appreciate this section of Bhagavad-gita.

 

Now a famous American scholar, Houston Smith, has written a famous book comparing all the religions of the world; a standard textbook in America. So I’ve read a summary of his paper. He’s going to make many points which I agree with. One point is that if you take the empirical method you must get certain types of information. Because a message in itself is appropriate for certain types of information only. For example, let’s say you have a scale to weigh things. So if you want to find out what the temperature is with that scale, it’s useless. And similarly, it’s impossible to find out how much you weigh with a thermometer. So a particular process is only appropriate to get certain kinds of information. If you take the empirical method, you cannot study things unless you somehow observe or manipulate them. You can make your initial observation. But then you have to do something. You have to see if the behavior of this entity – whether it’s a planet or a squirrel – is becoming modified as the environment is being changed.

 

Even observation means you’re acting upon it. Otherwise, why does a rich man build a wall? Because he wants his privacy, he doesn’t want other people to act upon him. Because seeing is also acting. It’s just like there is a man more important than you. So what do we mean when we say more important? It means that he can see you if he likes, but you cannot see him unless he wants you to. That’s the idea. Therefore, even to have access that I can see you when I like means my position is better or at least equal. You see? Now if I have to request you, “Can you give me an appointment? Can I see you?” Well that means you’re in the higher position.

 

Empiricism means you must have access and be able to manipulate the object you are studying in some way. Now obviously, you can only do that with inferior entities. You can’t manipulate something which is greater than you. The access is not there. So if you take the empirical method, you are limited––a priori––to inferior entities because of the nature of your investigation. Just like a thermometer will give you certain types of information like heat and cold. Or a scale or a microphone or an electrocardiogram; each instrument gives a certain type of information. So if you declare that only the information derived from this particular process is valid, it is a stupid thing to say.

 

First of all it’s stupid because it’s self-contradictory. I can say it’s stupid not only subjectively, but objectively things that contradict themselves are stupid. Let’s say I make the claim only empirical knowledge is valid––as scientists say. Now if my statement is true, then it’s not true because that statement cannot be empirically verified. You see? I have to make a leap of faith. You cannot prove your senses, indria, are giving you objective information about an outside world. You cannot prove that empirically because empiricism is valid only after that assumption.

 

In other words, let us say someone takes a skeptical position and says, “There is no world out there. In fact, my senses are simply hallucinating. There’s no actual world out there. I’m just seeing the reflections of my mind, that’s all.” Now someone can take that skeptical position if he likes. So if you assume that’s not true, there is a world out there, I am seeing it and under rigorous conditions I can get reliable information about it, you assume that by your faith. Then you can begin your empiricism. And you can say this particular observation is valid or not. But to make that initial assumption is your faith.

 

Therefore Lord Krsna says that ??? according to your nature. ??? for everyone; scientists, philosopher, businessman, lunatic – for everyone. ???, that faith arises, ??? for everyone, but according to his nature. Then He says, ??? This living entity is ??? He is made of faith, constituted of faith. Because what do we mean when we try to define a person? You can say that he’s physically is a certain way, he performs certain activities or he has certain associations. But all those things are coming from his faith in the sense that he has created a certain karma. Why have you tried to enjoy in a certain way so that now you’ve taken this body? That was by your faith. Your ??? lead you to act in a certain way. Now you’ve taken this body. ??? Lord Krsna says, ??? Just like why do you try to enjoy this world in a certain way? You believe that it’ll make you happy. Therefore, you accept a particular guna-sanga. So therefore Lord Krsna says that everyone is ??? By your faith you create your existence.

 

So whatever faith you have, that’s what you are. Isn’t it? Just like you’re a business man. What does it mean? That means you believe you should act that way. Otherwise, why are you acting in that way? Why are you living in a certain way, associating with certain family, friends or associates? Because you have faith. Therefore, Lord Krsna says, ??? A very significant point in Bhagavad-gita’s philosophy is that you cannot say, “Oh, you’re a faithful man, but he’s not faithful.” No! The variable is the object of faith. But faith is constant.

Guest: Faith is constant?

Hridy: Yes, the variable is the object of the faith. As soon as you don’t accept this, you’re accepting something else. Just like you say, “I don’t believe in Krsna.” “Oh, you really believe there’s no Krsna?” Then you have to believe there’s no Krsna. Now you may say I am not sure. Then the question is, “Do you really think you’re not sure?” In other words, maybe you really know what you think, but you won’t admit it to yourself. So even to take a position that I don’t know, you have to believe that because you can be challenged, “You really do know, but you don’t admit it.” No, I really believe I don’t know”. You see? Either you say, I accept God, I don’t accept God, or I’m not sure. In either case, you have to believe that.

 

So ??? Consciousness must always take some object. To be conscious means to be conscious of something. Perception must always have it’s object. So you must also have some attitude toward that object. That’s the consequence of your previous faith. Let us say you get on an airplane, then halfway to your destination you ring your button and tell the stewardess, “I changed my mind. I don’t want to go to that city.” “Well, I’m very sorry… ” You see? You believed it would be good for you to travel on that flight. But after take-off, you decide my faith is now changed. Still, your previous decision has it’s consequences. If you jump off a building and then one second before you crash, “Augh I didn’t really want to jump.” You won’t fly back up. So decisions are consequences of faith. And you often have to wait until the consequences are exhausted before you can make another decision.

 

Now I’m making my argument for this reason. Because many scientists or materialists will falsely say, “Oh your life is based on faith. Our life is based on reason.” So first of all, I’m clearing away that false argument. We can demonstrate to scientists you also base everything on faith. You also have your leap of faith. Your leap of faith is that you accept your senses give you reliable information about a real world which is actually out there. That’s your leap. So the scientists cannot truthfully argue that his life is based on reason, his life is also based on faith. Once you make your faith, once you make your initial assumption, then within those assumptions what you’re doing is reasonable. Let us say a man is crazy. So he assumes there are little green people floating in the air everywhere who have ray guns and the only way to avoid being shot by them is to put plastic on your head. So he walks around with plastic on his head. Now this man is crazy. How do you say ??? But if you grant him his initial assumption, then what he’s doing is reasonable. So therefore, everyone is reasonable if you grant them their initial assumptions. What has to be examined is whether the initial assumptions are reasonable or true.

 

Let us say we’re speaking. Now, from the physiological point of view everyone is doing the same thing. If a physiologist is studying the physical process of speaking, he doesn’t care about the content (whether your speaking the truth and I’m speaking a lie. Let us say it is now 8:15. So someone asks, “What time is it?” You say 8:15, I say 12:30. Now the content of your statement is correct, the content of my statement is incorrect. But physiologically speaking, we’re doing the same thing––talking. Yes. But if you take the truth content it’s different. So therefore, in a sense everyone is doing the same thing – making some initial assumptions and then doing what they think is reasonable within those assumptions – although some people are so crazy they contradict themselves. So the important thing is where you put your faith. Now if your initial assumption is Krsna, you get everything because He is God. Whereas, if your initial assumption is nothing more than that some physical world, those initial assumptions are so limited they can’t give very much. There’s very little fruit.

 

Now his statement about the hare nama is actually correct. First of all, why does someone become conditioned? Just like someone takes some drug and becomes addicted. Then again, he’ll have to take that drug. Or he becomes addicted to sex. Just like it is sometimes said “he’s a slave of wine” or “he’s a slave of women.” Isn’t it? Or one can be a slave of money. Why does this conditioning take place? You see? Socrates made this point. He said people ask “how” but the real question is “why?” It is one dialogue I’m doing now for my book that’s called ??? in which Socrates is saying if someone asks, “Why is Socrates sitting here?” Someone will answer “because his body is constructed in this way with joints in his legs that allow them to bend and he’s sitting down.” He said that’s stupid. “I’m sitting here because I want to be here.” The real answer to “Why is Socrates sitting here?” has to explain in terms of a purpose. Why? Because I have some purpose. In the same way if we say “Why do we become conditioned?” and you answer because you engaged in some sinful activity and become addicted. No, that is how. The question is why? You may say, Because I desire it. That’s alright. But now applying this question why, “Why should the laws of nature react to you in that way?” You see? Just like you try to enjoy something sinful. Why does nature respond to you in such a way that it catches you? You see? Don’t say “how?” The question is not “how?” The question is “why?” The why question is because it’s Krsna’s plan that you are such nonsense, he catches you.