That a group of subjective beings have agreed that modern science is objective, doesn't make it objective.
Where is the proof that science can raise a subjective living entity to objectivity? Surely. by the aid of technology the human race has fabricated so many objects, but the ones regarding the objects are still subjective beings. The human race has not become more wise, existentially now than they were in the stone -ages. Nobody has understood why and how we exist better now than since the industrial revolution.
Who has determined technological advancement is synonymous with having understood reality of life? Nothing indicates that modern man is more sane, peaceful, content, satisfied, happy, and balanced than those who came before him.
Krishna offers a process by which He can be realized and made that process of knowledge available to all. Of course, He establishes some conditions. One condition is that to realize the truth about God, you cannot be envious of Him. Another condition is that one cannot approach God with an atheistic mindset. It's all thoroughly explained in the Bhagavad Gita.
If one insists on that God should be available on MY conditions, then, of course, you will never understand God. Is that God's fault? Nope. Krishna has already explained the process by which to contact Him, so it's up to oneself to take advantage of that and engage in the process. That's the truth, and anyone who is truthful will accept it.
How is it rational to believe that all things have come about by itself, without any intelligent direction? Everything in our purview only exists because of intelligent planning. How does a Mercedes arise, a house, a garden?
Why believe that nature is the only exception to that? Where is the rationality? The construction of a single, organic cell suggests it was designed. To believe that it would arise through some mindless, chemical reactions over long time and trough millions of gradual changes - it just doesn't make rational sense. But this is the explanation that is being pushed down eve4ryone's throat in modern society.
There is no convincing reason that should propel us to think that all religions are false and without support. Most religion have surely been subjected to distortions and falsities over time, but the intention of all religions are the same - to unite a people through a common adherence to a superior set of principles of life.
And the Vedas constitute those higher, superior principles and knowledge of life. It is a direct, observable fact. Also, if there is a God, like logic tells us there is, is it not reasonable to assume He would reveal Himself via the right process, and tell us what He wants with us, and why He has placed on in a world of duality? This is all being explained in the Vedic philosophy and religion.
If one wants to approach te true religion, of course one would have to employ it scientifically with an open mind free from prejudice. One must envestigate the religions and find which one gives the best explanations and answers to the problems of life and God and nature. If you are not willing to do that, one should not expect to find the true religion.
It's funny, how those who claim to be scientifically oriented are so little scientifically oriented when it comes to religion and God. The myth has been created in modern society, that religion is myth and science is real. But it's just a dogma. No rational reason for it, at all. Famous atheists like Dawkins, don't argue against God. They argue against Christianity. How silly is that?... as if Christianity is the only legitimate religion in the world.
Is that a scientific approach to religion and God?
I can understand if one is an agnostic, ie. ignorant about God, but to downright deny the existence of a Supreme being is irrational and signifies a stunted intellect. There is nothing healty or openminded by being an atheist, and the proof of that is, that at the same rate society throws out its religious values, at the same rate the consumer culture becomes destructive and indifferent towards nature and her inhabitants.
Besides, one should note, that whether one calls himself a Christian, Hindu, or Mohammedan, or whatever, one can still be possessed by an atheistic mentality. It is not the designations we put on ourselves, that determines our identity. Our mindsets and actions, and the knowledge we cultivate, define who we are.
There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is judged by its result.
Jesus said, you judge a tree by its fruits. So things are not judged and understood not by their names, but by their effects and influence.
Krishna says:
I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down. (Bg. 9.24)
No comments:
Post a Comment