Re^6: The Flat Earth? - Conclusion

Marcus C. Gottwald (professor@assi.s-link.de)
Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:27:00 +0200

Good Morning!

I quote...
('shelter@peg.apc.org' (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) wrote this
on the topic of "Re: Re^4: The Flat Earth? - Conclusion".)

s> >s> ...There are many things beyond our ability to see (for
s> >s> example what's outside the universe). We can never find out by the
s> >s> ascending process of science. The ONLY way we can know is if we can find
s> >s> an authority...
s>
s> >I think that you can understand that I have trouble accepting
s> >this authority. As explained earlier, for the information in a
s> >telephone book, there is an easy explanation where it comes from.
s> >In a case like this, there isn't.
s>
s> In a case like what? I am describing the principle, that is all...
Allright, but in this case, the one I am talking about, it is
about very unreal, unusual, religious topics. These topics are so
unnormal, because there are no explanations given for them in
"normal" life. But even that shouldn't cause any trouble.

You are right with your principle, but we have to look at the
contents of the knowledge that is given down and at the topics,
too.
I am interested in the source of the knowledge. With a telephone
book it's simple, but I can't remember you giving a _source_, NOT
an authority.

s> It is not possible. The only way is to find an authority...
But who or what authorised this authority? And who checks it and
where does it get its knowledge from?

s> >So what I should try, is to find someone who has an answer to
s> >everything that I want to know. That certainly causes trouble, if
s> >a scientific and a non-scientific person try to follow the same
s> >"master". And - what I personally don't like about it, is that
s> >there is no proof at all.
s>
s> There is no such problem. A real spiritual master speaks the absolute
s> truth. It is equally valid and acceptable by scientific and non-scientific
s> persons. And the "proof of the pudding is in the eating." You can look at
s> the pudding from the outside as much as you like but you will never be
s> able to prove what the taste is like by this method. You have to eat it
s> first. So the proof of Krishna consciousness is practically experienced
s> when you actually put it into practice in your life.
And then you say, there is no difference with scientific and non-
scientific persons? You have described how you think, scientists
work. They wouldn't just do it without an explanation. And that's
one thing I'm after.

s> >This master would have to be all-knowing.
s>
s> NO. Only Krishna, God is all-knowing. You have to listen carefully. The
s> spiritual master does not present his own ideas or interpretations. He
s> presents the same knowledge his spiritual master presented to him...
Now, tell me, if A is all-knowing and gives all his knowledge to
B and B gives all his knowledge to C, how much less knowledge
does C have compared to A?

s> ...The spiritual
s> master presents the perfect knowledge coming to him from Krishna through
s> the disciplic succession.
So let's see this practically. If the "master" only presents the
ideas and has no knowledge at all, he's a real dumbo, and I ask
him a question, he asks his "master" who asks his "master" and
eventually, someone will ask Krishna and if I'm not bored to
death (well, I could meditate) until the answer comes back, I'll
hear about what Krishna thinks.
Well.

s> >What I am asking myself
s> >here is why there are different views, different things taught by
s> >different, BUT ALL-KNOWING persons.
s>
s> The real spiritual master doesn't present a different message, but he has
s> to speak in such a way that his audience can understand him and put his
s> teachings into practice. So you can see differences in the presentation
s> but the essence is the same.
So now he's teaching, is he? Can you just make a statement, about
what a "master" does? Is he a repeater station or a teacher, does
he have a brain, is he just a person who can make things up very
well or what???

s> >There has to be something,
s> >that is not known. And in a case like that, it is up to me to
s> >believe someone. And in exactly that position, I could be told
s> >basically anything...
s>
s> No. The spiritual master presents a scientific process, an experiment if
s> you like, he describes how to perform the experiment and what the outcomes
s> will be. It is perfectly scientific...
And if you know from such an experiment, what's at the other end
of the universe, why don't you go into a university and show and
prove to all the students and lecturers whatever is happening?

s> >s> ...But intelligent,
s> >s> thoughtful people also surrender to a bona fide spiritual master to get
s> >s> real knowledge...
s> >Well, I wouldn't.
...
s> >O.k., just one thing: If you know the absolute truth, why haven't
s> >you told it to your friends and they have told it to someone else
s> >etc.? Where do _you_ (or the "master" you got it from) know it
s> >from, that this world's scientists don't know it?
s>
s> Because most people have a reaction much like yours! "Well, I
s> wouldn't...". Mostly people are not interested but still it is the most
s> important thing.
They say it, and I include myself, because they are not
convinced, that the knowledge is real. And there instincts tell
them not to just follow a leader (that's how you fight a war),
but to find reasons first.
I am interested to know what's happening in this universe, oh
yes, I am! And as soon as Krishna performs an experiment, writes
an article about it that gets published in scientific magzines,
tested and approved by all scientists, I will have to believe it
unless I know something, nobody else knows. But until then I will
have serious doubts.

s> >One more question I am interested in: Have you ever questioned
s> >anything you were told? I do not mean asking "But why?", but
s> >saying "No, that's wrong because...". And if yes, were you able
s> >to speak to your "master" about it?
s>
s> Yes. You can ask any question. The answers are all there. It is not a
s> problem. There is no "blind following" it is a completely scientific
s> process. You just have to be prepared to try the experiment... that's all.
"There is no `blind following'?" What is is then? Trust? Into
something I don't know where it comes from. Hehe...

See ya, Professor

--



       "What is the best way to accelerate a Macintosh?"

                         "9.8m/(s*s)"



   *Marcus C. Gottwald*                *Professor@assi.s-link.de*



## CrossPoint v3.0 ##