Trophy for It's Own Sake

[ancient_paztriot]

Guest: Um so being an atheist and tell him that Well you can't know more than a pinpoint size piece of land that uh… next to reality, um when we say that law… God uh gives knowledge of Himself through scripture, how do we prove that the scripture is actually from God?

 

Hridy: First of all, one little point. Eh just like if you ask how fast can you go? If you put the condition that you can't go on an airplane, you can't take any help, you have to just use your own body, then we can run like you know 20 miles an hour. Or if it's long distance you know maybe like 2 miles an hour. But if you take away that condition you can go thousands of miles an hour. Like if you want to go let's say from here to Dallas for a meeting, then if you go in an airplane you can get there in a couple of hours. But what if you say well no you can't use airplanes? You can't use cars. You gotta just… you know whatever you got yourself. That's all. And what if you make it even more difficult and say and you can't use the ground either for traction? In other words, what kind of arbitrary conditions we want to put on it? Similarly, if you say how much can you know, if you dogmatically and stupidly put the condition no revelations, no scriptures, you can't take help from anyone. You gotta just speculate yourself. Well, then the question becomes how do you justify that condition? That's the… that's simply whimsical. If you say well you from language from other people, maybe you can't use language either. Maybe you can just grunt or… In other words, what can you do? Why… And who decides these conditions that you say alright…

 

These people, it's not knowledge for it's own sake as they proudly claim… that philosophy means knowledge. It's actually just methodology for it's own sake. What they really want to be is king of the hill. It's just like someone's reading… you know trying to do something, and you say here I can show you. No, no, no. Don't show me. Don't show me, don't tell me. I wanta figure it out myself. So this attitude I want to figure it out myself means that the search for knowledge is not pure. It's not a pure desire for knowledge, rather a desire to establish one's own glory and prestige, a desire to have a false sensation of conquering the universe or that the truth is just like some passive object lying there that you just go and grab it and… You know, that's their concept of the truth. It's just an intellectual trophy and I'm gonna go bag it. I'm gonna go bag the truth. It's just like if you go hunting let's say, if you go hunting and rhinoceros comes and you just throw a handgranade at him. You know that wouldn't be a challenge. Or because… you know fly over in a helicopter and drop some you know bombs on it. You say well… you know the idea's there that it has to be a challenge. So similarly… So these people, the truth is just an intellectual trophy. That want to bag it, you know. You say well Krsna says in the Bhag… Don't tell me. Don't tell me. I don't want to know. I don't want to here. I gotta figure it out for myself. So this attitude is not pure. It means that their highest priority is not just knowledge, it's not that they just want knowledge. But rather they want to flex their intellectual muscles, they want a trophy. They want to bring it home and show everyone, Look everybody! Here's the absolute truth. I got it, I bagged it. Look! And you know put it on their wall like a moose head. So therefore although they talk so much about knowledge for it's own sake, they don't want knowledge for it's own sake. They want a trophy for it's own sake.

 

But as the saying goes, gold is where you find it. So if knowledge is there in the Bhagavad-gita, why not accept it? It's just due to their false pride; don't tell me, I have to figure it out myse… That's not a mature or serious approach to knowledge. It's just a childish type of vanity. So as far as how can you know the scriptures, how do you prove it?

 

Guest: ??? that you might recognize well this is scripture and that is scripture, but how do you know that it's actually the word of God. You know one person said to me the other day well you know a couple of friends and myself when we get together and write something like this too.

Hridy: Hm… What?

 

Guest: ???

 

Hridy: Well so are all the science books. But when you follow the words on the paper something happens. So first of all there's a few things I would say to that. First of all I'm unquestionably you know according to the strategy of divide and conquer, there are many people who completely exaggerate the degree of disparity between different scriptures. Now there is some… there are some scriptures like the Buddhist doctrine which are atheistic… which are atheistic. But among the people that accept God, there is a surprising degree of agreement. So the difference has been exaggerated.

 

The differences are exaggerated by two classes of people. Two kinds of people exaggerate the differences between scriptures. Number one, atheists who just you know divide and conquer. Well all you guys have different ideas and you all say different things so therefore you all just cancel each other out. They exaggerate the differences and ignore the uh basic point which are all the same. And another group of people that exaggerate the differences are uh fanatic… fanatical born again uh these uh numsk… uh morons… born again morons… that uh… who's approach is simply… it's antiphilosophical. It's not only unphilosophical, it's antiphilosophical. In other words, they feel that good arguments are of the devil. They say that Oh you're giving a good argument, that proves you're of the devil. Yes. So as… they're not only unphilosophical, they're antiphilosophical. So these people uh be… simply because of their own passionate fanaticism, uh want to deny everyone else. Therefore they exaggerate the differences. And also divide and conquer, the materialists, the atheists, that they exaggerate. But among reasonable open-minded people who are not uh rabidly inimical to God's existence, they do say Yeah, there's alot of similarity there.

 

So there is what is called in academic terms, philosophy of perini. There is a perennial philosophy. In other words, there's a certain basic truth which keeps coming up again and again and again, in many different places in the world and in many different times. There are certain basic truths which keeps appearing. And uh that there is a spiritual world, there is some type of eternal realm, that we are not simple the material body but rather eternal souls, that we're in a fallen conditional at the present time, and we have to purify the soul and go back to our eternal position. That basic understanding you'll find all over the world. You'll find it in all different times.

 

So then if you study the Bhagavad-gita, you'll find this is the most reasonable explanation. This is the most informative and reasonable explanation. So it has the most knowledge and it's the most efficient. For example everyone agrees that a spiritual religious person should give up lust, should give up greed, should give up mundane life. Everyone agrees. There's no argument on this point from religious people. But who can actually do this? As Prabhupada said uh my disciples are following these principles. They're giving their whole life to Krsna. So on the grounds of theory and application, Krsna consciousness is just… you know it's number one. It's just number one… we don't say everyone else is a heathen or devil. But uh there is a clear superiority both in the amount of knowledge and the depth of the knowledge and uh the results and application. Krsna consciousness is clearly the uh… you know it's like the Rolls Royce of self-realization processes.

 

So it's uh… You see if someone says prove it… There's two kinds of people that say that. One kind of person really wants to know if what you're saying is true. The other person is totally convinced that what you say is wrong although he may not have a good reason for it and he just says prove it… uh prove it has become like a modern Western device for like uh spitting in…

Side 2

 

… someone's eye or just rejecting what they say. Because obviously without some compliance on the part of the person… If I say to you… If I say to you prove that you really exists. And you say well here I am. Oh guess what? I'm having a hallucination now and I'm just imagining there's a person standing in front of me now saying here I am. Boy, that's interesting. And you start… So the person… You start shaking the person, No I'm really here. Boy, I'm imagining right now that someone is shaking me. In other words, the statement prove it can just be used as a kind of type of impudent way of uh you know just spitting in someone's eye because… you have to prove it to me, that means unless I agree that it's proven, you're a failure. And I'll never agree. So therefore this term prove it is… has become a type of almost like a way of you know of saying I don't believe what you say and I don't want to. If someone says prove it and they are willing to undertake serious investigation, I accept from the beginning that I may have to purify my own consciousness, that if there's a higher truth I may have to submit myself to the higher truth because after all it's only lower things that understand by manipulating them or doing things to them, whereas higher truths require submission on our part, so I'm prepared for that. In other words, I'm prepared to philosophically… in a philosophical and objective way to undertake a serious investigation, therefore prove it to me. I mean is that what they mean? Or do they just mean prove it to me and I can tell you right from the beginning that no matter what you do I won't accept it, so therefore you're wrong. In other words, all… the term prove it is used because… whereas perhaps in former ages people would say you're wrong, you're wrong. Nowadays they try to pretend that their rejection is scientific. So they say prove it! Huh, you can't prove it. You're wrong! So it's a rather childish mechanism which… It's like a way of saying you're wrong but making it sound like I just said that for a good reason, when actually I didn't say it for a good reason. You understand? Yes?