BY : Jahnu Das
Descartes said - I think, therefore I am.
I know, right? Western philosophy tends to be quite shallow and inconclusive. Someone might as well say - I say Pepsi, therefore I am - and make as much sense as Descartes.
In fact, I could say or do anything - I take a dump, therefore I am - and it would be no less profound than what Descartes managed to come up with.
If you think you exist, that proves you exist, obviously. So it’s an irrelevant question, to begin with - how do I know, I exist? You know you exist because you exist. That’s a given. If you didn’t exist, you wouldn’t know it.
So it’s a fact we exist. No doubt about it. A more relevant question we should be asking, is - why do I exist?
In the modern world you’ll basically get two answers - God did it, or evolution did it.
In any case, it begs another and more pertinent question - is there an objective reality of existence?
And the answer to that question is, there is no such thing as an objective reality, unless it’s defined by God. If God does not define reality for us, what we are left with, the only other possible alternative, is human speculation. Note, I’m stating and opinion here, I’m merely stating a fact.
Why? Because it is only an absolute, almighty being that can establish reality as it is. It is not possible for a human to discern reality as it is, for the simple reason that all humans are subjective and limited beings. According to atheism everything is relative, and if everything is indeed relative, one opinion can be as good as the other.
In a modern democrazy, however, objectivity has become a matter of vote. What most people think, that’s how it is.
Modern science, for instance, is being hailed, with something like religious fervor, as highly objective.
But science cannot be objective, because it is being conducted by subjective beings, who evaluate everything with their subjective minds. Where and how does objectivity enter the equation?
Someone may object (pun intended) - I know two plus two is four. That's objective. Everyone knows the numbers. We learned about it in school.
The thing is, though, that the only reason we know 2+2=4, is because someone taught us. And who taught us? Someone who was taught by someone, and he was taught by someone, and so on.
It is an indisputable fact that the only reason we know anything, at all, is because someone has informed us about it.
The question then is, who was the first one? Who said it the first time?
For instance, in Darwin’s famous theory, we learn that what taught us was a natural process called evolution. This is what is being taught in all educational institutions of the world. Note that this explanation is being propagated, for the last five decades or so, as a completely sane, rational, and scientific explanation of reality - the natural process called evolution not only produced the first human being, but it also taught him how to speak.
Of course, in public education, they never spell out the specifics of evolution. Evolution, by now, has become a like a magical word, no need of any details. Just accept it on faith.
But lets take a look at the obvious ramifications of evolution - first there were some chemicals. Then, by the interactions of those chemicals over long, long time, an amoeba-like creature was formed. Then this amoeba gradually, through countless intermediates, and over long, long time, grew legs and learned to talk.
So how did the first human learn to talk? Remember, the first human had just popped out of evolution, and lets not confuse the matter even more by asking if it was a he or a she, the point is that this first human was completely alone. No one to tell him or her anything.
So how did the first human, who had just evolved through millions of transformations in different species, how did this being acquire the ability to talk?
--but, but, it happened by the law of necessity. There was a necessity, survival of the fittest, and that's how the first human learned to formulate himself rationally.
Really? And how do you imagine that works? Did he go from grunt, grunt, huh, huh, to - hey honey, how was your day? How exactly do you imagine that the human went from ape-like grunting to English?
See the fun? And this theory is believed by highly educated people trained in science and what not.
What makes this theory even more idiotic is that the first known language is Sanskrit, the most perfect and sophisticated language. In fact, to compare Sanskrit to English is like comparing English to the grunting of an ape. So while humans evolved from primitive to more advanced, his language devolved from advanced to primitive.
But, hey, these questions are not encouraged in universities. In fact, you might annoy the hell out of your professor if you ask such questions.
In the academic world, evolution has become a religious belief which must be accepted on faith, and don’t you dare ask any questions about it. If you do, they are going to haul your ass out of your professor position quicker than you can count to five.
But this is what they want us to believe - originally there were only chemicals, and then these chemicals, over vast spans of time, transformed into a human being. It doesn't matter how many transformations this human had to evolve through, the question still remains - how did the first human learn to talk?
—but, but it was evolution. Ah seen it on Animal Planet and Discovery.
Note, in contrast, the logical, coherent, and comprehensive explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition - human culture has always been going on, humans have always been around, and so have all other living entities. Humanity didn’t evolve from an amoeba, rather, it has devolved from an original advanced, God-centered civilization. At least that explanation makes sense.
The modern, so-called scientific explanation of creation is not only highly improbable, it is also subjective. Still, it is being taught in all universities as an objective, scientific fact. And don’t you worry yourself that science contradicts its own scientific theories.
"The probability that life arose by a coincidence can be likened to the probability that a voluminous encyclopedia be the result of an explosion in a print shop." - Biologist Edwin Conklin
But this is what modern, so-called education does to the population. It makes it into a mindless and non-thinking mass of people. The vast majority of the population only think and believe what they are being told by the society they happen to grow up in.
In fact, modern mainstream people don’t have so much as one single independent thought in their brains. If they didn’t have TV, newspapers and magazines to tell them what to think and believe, they’d be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Obviously, science has not managed to produce any kind of objectivity.
Nothing indicates that modern man is more objective, peaceful, content, satisfied, and balanced than those who came before him. Rather to the contrary. It’s a statistic fact, that the general mass of people are more disturbed and dissatisfied than ever before. Anti-depressants are selling like never before.
Some years ago WHO reported that the biggest health problem facing the modern world is that more and more people will be born with mental problems. Is that the symptoms of a healthy, enlightened civilization?
Krishna, on the other hand, offers a process by which a human being can transcend his limitation of subjectivity, and understand reality as it is, and in Bhagavad Gita He has made that process of knowledge available to all.
Of course, He establishes some conditions. One condition is that in order to realize the truth about God and the world, one must surrender to God and His representatives. It’s like, if you want to learn anything, at all - mathematics, bricklaying, car-mechanics, or whatever - one must surrender to an authorized teacher, and learn from him.
And that’s an objective fact of existence.
My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (Bg. 11.54)