"Show Me. Prove It to Me"

[ancient_paztriot]

But now here is another point. You say, “Show me. Prove it to me.” Our common experience is that whenever a proof takes place, there must be three elements. Someone must be there to demonstrate, there is the demonstration itself, and there must be someone qualified to evaluate the demonstration. If a scientist claims he has discovered a new mathematical formula which will solve any theoretical problem, who will evaluate that? There must be evaluation. Who will evaluate it? What if some uneducated low-class person (low-class in a cultural sense) who can’t write his own name says, “Let me judge.” Well, he’s not qualified to judge. So when you request proof, implicit are all these conditions. So therefore when you say, “Prove it to me. Show me,” the person who makes that statement is asserting I am qualified to evaluate.

Guest: I agree, I’m qualified.

Hridy: Well, what is your qualification?

Guest: I have all the qualifications…

Hridy: Now what are the qualifications to know God? Then we’ll see how you have them.

Guest: You say God can do anything, so I want to see that entity or personal power who can do anything.

Hridy: You’re avoiding my question. My question is specifically (I’ve become addicted to this) what is the qualification to see God? And second of all (I’m going to give you two at once like two barrels of a shotgun), unless you already know what God is, how could you understand what the qualification would be? Because certainly, the qualification to know something is intimately connected to the nature of that which we are trying to understand. To say I have the qualification means you already know what God is. If you already know what God is, why are you so skeptical? You have faith in the doctor, you don’t know what the medicine is. Your faith is then transferred to the medicine through the doctor. My point is that first of all what is the qualification to know God? And second, how could you know that unless you already know what God is? If you already know what God is, why are you claiming that we have to show Him to you? So you can begin now your answer.

Guest: Ok. First of all, I have never found a person who has seen God.

Hridy: That’s not an answer to my question. I’m sorry to hear that, but that’s not the answer I asked you for. You have to answer my question, not tell me the sad story of your life. I’m asking specific questions involving logic. If your request is unreasonable, it’s rejected. Now, I can say to you, “Jump ten feet in the air and whistle.” But if my request is unreasonable, it’s meaningless. If someone comes up and says jump ten feet in the air and whistle, you’ll tell them to go away. You have no right to demand a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question.

Guest: My question is very reasonable.

Hridy: No, that we are going to find out. We are going to find out if and when you answer my questions. You see, I’ve given you some questions because at this point we first want to find out if your question is reasonable. So answer my question. What is the qualification to know God and how do you know that qualification unless you already know what God is? How can you know what God is unless you know what God is? And if you do know what God is, you’ve already experienced Him? So my question is, how do you say you’re qualified? And what is the qualification and how do you know that’s the qualification?

Guest: I’m educated, so I know most things.

Hridy: I am very educated is not the answer to my question. Because even though you may be an educated scientists, you may know nothing about Shakespeare. An educated poet may not be able to fix the motor in his car or even change the tire. So therefore to say, I’m very educated is a statement which is so ambiguous, it’s practically irrelevant to the discussion. Specifically I want to know, What are the qualifications to know God and how do you know those are the qualifications? If you cannot answer that question, then your statement is meaningless.

As I’ve already pointed out, the statement ‘show it to me’ makes sense only if you are actually qualified to evaluate the proof. And you can reasonably consider yourself qualified to evaluate the proof if you have prior knowledge of that which is to be demonstrated. For example,I know Sanskrit. Let us say you claim to also know Sanskrit. I say, “Here’s a sloka, now you tell me what that means.” You see? You prove to me you know Sanskrit. Now, it’s reasonable for me to challenge, “Prove Sanskrit to me,” because I know it. Therefore I can tell whether you’re bluffing or not. Similarly, let us say you know something about Bombay. I claim I know Bombay. So you say, “Prove it to me.” In other words, a person that says “prove it to me” is the person who already has the knowledge in that case.

Now in the case where someone does not have the knowledge what he means to say is, “Prove to me you can actually teach this.” You see? Now what is the nature of that request? For example, you wouldn’t go to the college if you already know medicine. And if you don’t know medicine, how do you know who does know? You see? This is the same dilemma you’ll find in any process where we have to transmit knowledge. If you already know, you don’t have to learn and if you don’t know, how do you know who does know? That’s the problem. Therefore, there must be some other method by which we build our saddha or faith. There must be saddha in the person. So how do you get that faith?

Guest: By seeing it demonstrated.

Hridy: No, the student is going to the medical college and the family is paying money. It cost a small fortune in America. Now, if the goal of the process is to get the knowledge, how can you have it before you go through the process? You have to go through the medical college. When you graduate, then you’ll know if you got the knowledge. But the point is that you have to have your faith. You can’t go to the medical profession and say, “You first prove to me that you can teach me, then I’ll learn from you.” In any process of education, you begin with a little faith. And then at the end, your faith becomes stronger. So how do you answer the question ??? The first thing I said was, “What is the qualification?” The second point I made was, “How do we know?” The qualification to know God is you surrender. Now I began my discussion by saying if you take the empirical method, it only functions with entities you can manipulate or have access to. Now that eliminates all superior entities. I’ve had many famous scholars make this point to me. Therefore, if you make your initial assumption that you’ll only accept empirical knowledge, you are condemning yourself to live in a world of inferior entities based on the egomaniacal assumption that the only real things are myself and those things I can manipulate. Now imagine the emotional immaturity or the insanity of someone who’s initial assumption - not the conclusion of objective investigation - begins with the assumption that nothing is real except me and things I can manipulate. I mean he should see a psychiatrists. Isn’t it? I mean that person has emotional problems. And that is the pathological mentality behind this fanatical empiricism. Now if you want to study superior entities that by definition manipulate you, the approach is different. You deal one way with your servants and another with your master. Isn’t it? It’s a different psychology. So if you want to understand that which is greater than you, it’s a different psychological approach. Then you have to surrender. Some things you understand by controlling them and some things you understand by surrender. Just like the police capture a man. So because his status is criminal, he’s in a lower position. Now they want information from him so they beat him until he – as they say – sings. Isn’t it? By manipulating him they get the information. But now let us say that same criminal wants to find out from the police about his status, “Excuse me sir… ” He goes with folded hands, isn’t it? ??? And he’s begging, Could you please tell me? Because when you are in a higher position you can find out something by manipulating a lower thing. But when you want to understand the higher thing, you surrender. Just like in the university, the professor has the knowledge. If you want the knowledge, you have to please the professor. If he tells you “Jump!” you say, “How high?” Isn’t it?

[Govindaram]

 

Hridya Swami your Guru Maharaja? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Ps. This is not so much of a gripe, but when you posts these conversations, its difficult to read, how about spacing it out a little? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ancient_paztriot]

"Hridya Swami your Guru Maharaja?"

 

I responded similarly to you in an earlier thread.

 

I post Hridayananda's tape transcripts because I think he has alot of interesting and important comments. I certainly think his successful activities as a worldwide KC preacher for many years are reflective of his comprehension and communication skills. He is also very popular with many devotees. I think Hridayanada is original. A pure devotee… a self-realized soul? NO. I think his effort in completing the Bhagavatam was a monumental effort… successful (very good) in my view.

 

Personally, I usually find his comments - as I do Prabhupada's - alot more interesting that those I generally hear on this board… including you and me… although everyone seems to have their moments. (Ya'll may not like that honesty).

 

But if your complaint is suggesting a problem and other people agree with you, then I'll stop posting his dialogue here.

 

So to all of you out there in Krsna consciousness, just let me know what to do.

 

"when you posts these conversations, its difficult to read, how about spacing it out a little?"

 

The only thing I can assume you mean is the spacing between Hridy: and Guest: text… an extra carriage return.

[Govindaram]

 

Thank you for explaining again prabhu, sorry I have a really bad memory, you did explain before, also my motto is: presentation is next to godliness, to be truthful I like your posts and I think if they were set out better they would be read by more ppls, contrary to popular belief, just cause you might get 15 'hits'on a post doesn't mean ppls actually read them /images/graemlins/smirk.gif, anyway, hope you didn't mind me saying this, hare krishna!

[ancient_paztriot]

"my motto is: presentation is next to godliness"

 

This doesn't make alot of sense to me.

 

Oh, the 'hits' on a post… that hadn't occurred to me.

 

Can't see what relevance that is anyway except for some competition I'm not aware of.

 

You still didn't detail your art direction. What specifically would improve the post?

[Govindaram]

(how i would set it out) from above

 

(no date/place provided) /images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

But now here is another point. You say, "Show me. Prove it to me." Our common experience is that whenever a proof takes place, there must be three elements. Someone must be there to demonstrate, there is the demonstration itself, and there must be someone qualified to evaluate the demonstration. If a scientist claims he has discovered a new mathematical formula which will solve any theoretical problem, who will evaluate that? There must be evaluation. Who will evaluate it? What if some uneducated low-class person (low-class in a cultural sense) who can't write his own name says, "Let me judge." Well, he's not qualified to judge. So when you request proof, implicit are all these conditions. So therefore when you say, "Prove it to me. Show me," the person who makes that statement is asserting I am qualified to evaluate.

 

Guest: I agree, I'm qualified.

 

Hridy: Well, what is your qualification?

 

Guest: I have all the qualifications...

 

Hridy: Now what are the qualifications to know God? Then we'll see how you have them.

 

Guest: You say God can do anything, so I want to see that entity or personal power who can do anything.

 

Hridy: You're avoiding my question. My question is specifically (I've become addicted to this) what is the qualification to see God? And second of all (I'm going to give you two at once like two barrels of a shotgun), unless you already know what God is, how could you understand what the qualification would be? Because certainly, the qualification to know something is intimately connected to the nature of that which we are trying to understand. To say I have the qualification means you already know what God is. If you already know what God is, why are you so skeptical? You have faith in the doctor, you don't know what the medicine is. Your faith is then transferred to the medicine through the doctor. My point is that first of all what is the qualification to know God? And second, how could you know that unless you already know what God is? If you already know what God is, why are you claiming that we have to show Him to you? So you can begin now your answer.

 

Guest: Ok. First of all, I have never found a person who has seen God.

 

Hridy: That's not an answer to my question. I'm sorry to hear that, but that's not the answer I asked you for. You have to answer my question, not tell me the sad story of your life. I'm asking specific questions involving logic. If your request is unreasonable, it's rejected. Now, I can say to you, "Jump ten feet in the air and whistle." But if my request is unreasonable, it's meaningless. If someone comes up and says jump ten feet in the air and whistle, you'll tell them to go away. You have no right to demand a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question.

 

Guest: My question is very reasonable.

 

Hridy: No, that we are going to find out. We are going to find out if and when you answer my questions. You see, I've given you some questions because at this point we first want to find out if your question is reasonable. So answer my question. What is the qualification to know God and how do you know that qualification unless you already know what God is? How can you know what God is unless you know what God is? And if you do know what God is, you've already experienced Him? So my question is, how do you say you're qualified? And what is the qualification and how do you know that's the qualification?

 

Guest: I'm educated, so I know most things.

 

Hridy: I am very educated is not the answer to my question. Because even though you may be an educated scientists, you may know nothing about Shakespeare. An educated poet may not be able to fix the motor in his car or even change the tire. So therefore to say, I'm very educated is a statement which is so ambiguous, it's practically irrelevant to the discussion. Specifically I want to know, What are the qualifications to know God and how do you know those are the qualifications? If you cannot answer that question,

then your statement is meaningless.

 

As I've already pointed out, the statement 'show it to me' makes sense only if you are actually qualified to evaluate the proof. And you can reasonably consider yourself qualified to evaluate the proof if you have prior knowledge of that which is to be demonstrated. For example,I know Sanskrit. Let us say you claim to also know Sanskrit. I say, "Here's a sloka, now you tell me what that means." You see? You prove to me you know Sanskrit. Now, it's reasonable for me to challenge, "Prove Sanskrit to me," because I know it. Therefore I can tell whether you're bluffing or not. Similarly, let us say you know something about Bombay. I claim I know Bombay. So you say, "Prove it to me." In other words, a person that says "prove it to me" is the person who already has the knowledge in that case.

 

Now in the case where someone does not have the knowledge what he means to say is, "Prove to me you can actually teach this." You see? Now what is the nature of that request? For example, you wouldn't go to the college if you already know medicine. And if you don't know medicine, how do you know who does know? You see? This is the same dilemma you'll find in any process where we have to transmit knowledge. If you already know, you don't have to learn and if you don't know, how do you know who does know? That's the problem. Therefore, there must be some other method by which we build our saddha or faith. There must be saddha in the person. So how do you get that faith?

 

Guest: By seeing it demonstrated.

 

Hridy: No, the student is going to the medical college and the family is paying money. It cost a small fortune in America. Now, if the goal of the process is to get the knowledge, how can you have it before you go through the process? You have to go through the medical college. When you graduate, then you'll know if you got the knowledge. But the point is that you have to have your faith. You can't go to the medical profession and say, "You first prove to me that you can teach me, then I'll learn from you." In any process of education, you begin with a little faith. And then at the end, your faith becomes stronger. So how do you answer the question ??? The first thing I said was, "What is the qualification?" The second point I made was, "How do we know?" The qualification to know God is you surrender. Now I began my discussion by saying if you take the empirical method, it only functions with entities you can manipulate or have access to. Now that eliminates all superior entities. I've had many famous scholars make this point to me. Therefore, if you make your initial assumption that you'll only accept empirical knowledge, you are condemning yourself to live in a world of inferior entities based on the egomaniacal assumption that the only real things are myself and those things I can manipulate. Now imagine the emotional immaturity or the insanity of someone who's initial assumption - not the conclusion of objective investigation - begins with the assumption that nothing is real except me and things I can manipulate. I mean he should see a psychiatrists. Isn't it? I mean that person has emotional problems. And that is the pathological mentality behind this fanatical empiricism. Now if you want to study superior entities that by definition manipulate you, the approach is different. You deal one way with your servants and another with your master. Isn't it? It's a different psychology. So if you want to understand that which is greater than you, it's a different psychological approach. Then you have to surrender.

 

Some things you understand by controlling them and some things you understand by surrender. Just like the police capture a man. So because his status is criminal, he's in a lower position. Now they want information from him so they beat him until he - as they say - sings. Isn't it? By manipulating him they get the information. But now let us say that same criminal wants to find out from the police about his status, "Excuse me sir... " He goes with folded hands, isn't it? ??? And he's begging, Could you please tell me? Because when you are in a higher position you can find out something by manipulating a lower thing. But when you want to understand the higher thing, you surrender. Just like in the university, the professor has the knowledge. If you want the knowledge, you have to please the professor. If he tells you "Jump!" you say, "How high?" Isn't it?

-----

 

so what do you think..oh forget it, eh..me and my big mouth..haribol!

[ancient_paztriot]

Yeah, it would've taken me another minute to put those line breaks in. It looks much better for sure. I think I can do better.

 

In any case, it is as fine as any standard textbook text. They don't double-space there. I try to minimize my time and effort to tell you the truth.

 

I'm busy with other things. My full attention is not here.

[Govindaram]

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

I searched the Folio Infobase for

 

Hridya Swami

Hridayananda

 

and I came up with no searches!, I'm sure I saw swamiji's name before, while looking throught the folio, can anybody help?

 

ahhhh, its bugging me, haribol

 

[gHari]

The 'i' is included in the "R".

[ancient_paztriot]

I think only Prabhupada is on the folio besides compilations and general ISKCON materials.

 

My postings come from transcripts I did of his tapes.