Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

"The only cure for non-belief is the mystical experience." - Thomas Merton

spiritual life: scientifc process in which you are the object of experimentation

"The proof is in the pudding"...you have to know how to make the pudding and you also need to produce the pudding to prove that the recipe works...both theoretical and practical are neccessary.

[quote][cite] rasa108:[/cite]"The proof is in the pudding"...snip .both theoretical and practical are neccessary.[/quote]

What out of the two (practical/experiential vs logical/theoretical) is more important?

Sabda (direct spiritual perception) is higher than anumana (logic). Pratyaksa (virtual/material perception) has four defects.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Sabda (direct spiritual perception) is higher than anumana (logic). Pratyaksa (virtual/material perception) has four defects.[/quote]
isnt it that all of the above are different valid ways to prove something? Where is experience then? Is it a valid pramana?

They are but pratyaksa and anumana are qualitatively different from sabda. Sabda means spiritual experience.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Sabda means spiritual experience.[/quote]
What im getting at is that Normally sabda will mean scriptural evidence, ie evidence from apaurusheya source. However our own experience (even if spiritual) is not a valid pramana, say you have an experience that Saibaba is god. That is not a proof is it?

Sabda means primarily spiritual sound, which can be either heard from guru or written in sastra. To be in touch with sabda means a direct experience of spiritual reality which is realized according to ones purity.

Our spiritual experience must be also confirmed by guru-sastra-sadhu to be valid. Interestingly, Manu samhita gives another pramana, "atmanas tusnih" (self-satisfaction). See http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sastras-studies2.htm#6 and
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/change.htm#9

pratyaksvagamam - "understood by direct experience" Bhagavad-gita 9.2.

Krishna defines this as "the perfection of religion". Ultimately your own experience is the ultimate pramana. You do not interact with sabda, but with your experience of sabda.

You can understand something because the scripture tells you, your guru tells you, all the saints agree. However, until you have direct experience of it yourself, it remains only a theoretical possibility. There is no substitute for experience.

At the same time, if you experience it, but it is against scripture, the guru tells you no, and the saints are against it, the odds are that you are in illusion.

The role of logical / theoretical is that it provides a coherent conceptual framework that pacifies your mind and reason and makes your spiritual practice a not-unreasonable proposition, even though it will take you beyond the realm of reason. As mentioned above, it also provides a check and balance system to help you sort out valid / invalid perception. Ultimately pratyaksa is at the center of guru-sadhu-sastra: guru-sadhu-sastra vakya, tinete koriya aikya (Prabhupada quoted it like this and its somewhere in the vedabase). "The words of guru, sadhu, and sastra become one in your heart".

A while ago we saw the video of the Christians debating the atheists with the theme: "How to prove Gods existence without reference to scripture". They got demolished. You can only prove Gods existence (to yourself) by experiencing Him. You can only do that by submitting to his process. For that you need to follow the scriptures he and his representatives have given.

They should never have accepted the debate on those terms.

So the conclusion is as Krishna says in Bg. 9.2: Practical is the perfection of religion. However, without theoretical you cannot get to practical realization. Thats why the scripture exists - "sastra yonitvat" - to point the way to reality.

uc0u346 ru299 Caitanya Caritu257 mrita Madhya 9.49

PURPORT

No one can attain the Absolute Truth by argument. One may be very expert in logic, and another person may be even more expert in the art of argument. Because there is so much word jugglery in logic, one can never come to the real conclusion about the Absolute Truth by argument. The followers of the Vedic principles understand this. However, it is seen here that u346 ru299 Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu defeated the Buddhist philosophy by argument. Those who are preachers in ISKCON will certainly meet many people who believe in intellectual arguments. Most of these people do not believe in the authority of the Vedas. Nevertheless, they accept intellectual speculation and argument. Therefore the preachers of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a consciousness should be prepared to defeat others by argument, just as u346 ru299 Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu did. In this verse it is clearly said, tarkei khau7751 u7693 ila prabhu. Lord u346 ru299 Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu put forward such a strong argument that the Buddhists could not counter Him to establish their cult.

u346 ru299 Caitanya Caritu257 mrita Madhya 9.51

TRANSLATION

All mental speculators and learned scholars were defeated by u346 ru299 Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu, and when the people began to laugh, the Buddhist philosophers felt both shame and fear.

PURPORT

These philosophers were all atheists, for they did not believe in the existence of God. Atheists may be very expert in mental speculation and may be so-called great philosophers, but they can be defeated by a Vaiu7779 u7751 ava firmly situated in his conviction and God consciousness. Following in the footsteps of u346 ru299 Caitanya Mahu257 prabhu, all the preachers engaged in the service of ISKCON should be very expert in putting forward strong arguments and defeating all types of atheists.
----

What theoretical or logical arguments can be used for such proofs? I agree with all of you, but dont see how it helps in practical terms. ys ccd

Our scientific preaching (Bhaktivedanta Institute) uses anumana to establish the authority of sastra.

Just my kind of question ...

[br][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]What type of proof of Gods existence is the best? Practical or theoretical.[/quote]

A theoretical proof has the advantage that (ideally) it can be carried out within a foreseeable time. A disadvantage of theoretical proofs is that accepting them can feel like blind faith, and people generally do not seem to be fond of taking things (that feel like) in blind faith (even though they may be cognitively convinced).[br]

[br]A practical proof has the advantage that is inherent in direct experience. The disadvantage of practical proofs is that they may take an unforeseeably long time to be realized, and people generally are not fond of setting themselves up for unforeseeably long journeys.[br]

[br]It would be nice if there would be some ideal medium between the two, but I dont know of it.[br]

Simple explanation for the simple hearted.....Veda Prabhu once again you shine.....Sabhda ....spiritual sound....according to ones purity.In which we are personally involved in the spiritual experiment......Mishra Prabhu.....and have direct experience which is verifiable according to guru,sadhu and sastra.......interesting comment from start of chaitanya caratamrita.....introduction...from Srila Prabhupada....Unfortunately, no one knows what love of Godhead actually is. The Vedic scriptures, however, are different in that they can direct the individual in the proper way to love God. Other scriptures do not give information on how one can love God, nor do they actually define or describe what or who the Godhead actually is. Although they officially promote love of Godhead, they have no idea how to execute it. But Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives a practical demonstration of how to love God in a conjugal relationship. .....Go on sankirtan ....try and envoke krishnas mercy....Bhaktine baker and you will naturally experience when you chant and dance enthusiastically.So simple fpr the simple hearted....

So simple for the simple hearted....hare krishna.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]Just my kind of question ...

[br][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]What type of proof of Gods existence is the best? Practical or theoretical.[/quote]

A theoretical proof has the advantage that (ideally) it can be carried out within a foreseeable time. A disadvantage of theoretical proofs is that accepting them can feel like blind faith, and people generally do not seem to be fond of taking things (that feel like) in blind faith (even though they may be cognitively convinced).[br]

[br]A practical proof has the advantage that is inherent in direct experience. The disadvantage of practical proofs is that they may take an unforeseeably long time to be realized, and people generally are not fond of setting themselves up for unforeseeably long journeys.[br] Thanks Baker, lately get more and more annoyed with self-righteousness.

[br]It would be nice if there would be some ideal medium between the two, but I dont know of it.[br][/quote]

A poem written by a godbrother:

My Dear Atheist

You say its a matter of blind faith
That I believe in God
I ask you is your faith not also blind
When you declare His existence void?

I choose to be a believer
That is my free will
Your choice is to be an atheist
And decry God with eloquent skill

Why do you foolishly claim
That devotion to God is naive
By the same blind trust and faith
Your choice is not to believe

My dear atheist please consider this
Everything in this world is created
To say that creation comes from nothing at all
The Creator you have negated

The law of physics tells us in fact
That every effect has a cause
Something cant come from nothing
Matter then must have a source.

I come from my father, the tree from a seed
The invention had an inventor
Give credit then where credit is due
Have faith and let God be your mentor

You have nothing to lose and so much to gain
To believe in a Supreme Person above
Hes within your heart, youre never apart
Accept Him and rejoice in His love.