(October 16, 2012 at 6:50 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: I think the original comment makes a valid point about the limit of human knowledge. Both sensual perception and theoretical reasoning, while valuable to a point, cannot ultimately help us achieve absolute knowledge. The human capacity for truth and knowledge is inherently limited.
I think better than being outraged by these points, you should be humble to them. Aren't good scientists supposed to be humble by things they don't know? You may have some ideas about dinosaurs, and they may be reasonable and based on evidence, but they're certainly not sure the way your day-to-day experience is. Why not admit that? Does it make you insecure that your point of view is not absolutely and ultimately provable?
Modern science accepts sensory perception and theoretical reasoning as the most reliable means of knowledge. But how do we know these means produce actual knowledge? To argue based on those means is circular reasoning. To accept these means of knowledge as "self-evident" puts you in the same class as the religionists you violently reject.
I accept Veda, transcendental knowledge, as the highest authority for absolute knowledge. If I want evidence about the nature of existence, I consider the "evidence" of modern science inferior to the evidence of veda.
Shut the fuck up.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
