It is not just a case of reading a book and believing.
You certainly have been presenting it like that so far.
When I first got the BG, it made absolutely no sense to me.
What happened was during those years I learned things that put me in a position so I could access BG.
This is new.
To believe something is true on the basis of someone telling you is very unstable. It not only ends in confusion but also resentment, drawing one further away from the target.
Sure.
The term ''natural theology'' has been coined, so now that's what it is?
You've allowed that term to be the be all end all.
Not at all. For a person on the level of jnana, natural theology and scripture are the same.
Jnana is my level. One cannot grit one's teeth and get to vijnana.
As for me, I see nothing wrong with the way I think.
I am quite sure about that one!
Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss what is being said, I just don't accept it
as truth right off the bat.
What do you not accept as truth right away?
I will try, but time is of the essence.
Is this link related to the book? If so I tend to agree with the speaker.
No, this link is not related to the book I suggested. In fact, it's quite different.
I really dislike the speaker's attitude there. I would not be surprised if he started a crusade, with swords and fire.
Question is, how long you will remember this point.
I don't understand the question.
Looks like you've forgotten it already. We are talking about the difference between jnana and vijnana, ie. the difference between theoretical or book knowledge and realization.
You don't need to watch or read ''Lord of the Rings'' for that.
Maybe I don't need, but those are the benefits it has brought me.
The scriptures are beyond our mundane sensory aparatus. You have to be
of a certain character to really understand them. As human beings we are qualified to change our characteristics if we choose.
As human beings, we are also prone to delusions of grandeur.
It is through religion that we get scripture at all. It is religion that compiles, translates, comments on, publishes, sells scripture.
There is no independent institution that would publish scriptures.
Similiar thing can be said about water.
Yet water still remains pure and necessary.
Surely the water may be pure, but the poisons in it can kill you.
That's not the point.
The scripture is the source of information regardless of religious institutes.
And your contention is that regardless of what a wrong or distorted interpretation a religious institute may provide of scripture, the actual scriptural message will shine through nonetheless?
That even if a demon were to talk about scripture to you, you would still benefit all the same?
Note: The standard argument that SP's BG As It Is is authoritative is that it was translated and commented on by a pure devotee, someone who has actually practiced the path of bhakti and obtained its fruits - as opposed to so many other people who have translated and commented on it, while themselves not being practitioners.
Which is why his commentary is particularly important.
Only if we
take for granted that he is what he claims to be.
Because you have put limits on the concept of God.
And you are the one to judge that?
I'm merely interested in why you make these limitations, hence my question to you.
Jnana. If I had vijnana, it would show.
Intellectually I understand the divisions between atheist/theist/agnostic, and so on. But I don't regard these divisions as reality anymore than I regard music as being genre related.
Because you're an inclusivist.
