View source for If there is no conception of God, there is no direction of God, that is not religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith. Religion is factual

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"If there is no conception of God, there is no direction of God, that is not religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith. Religion is factual"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|14Oct12}}
{{last|14Oct12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:If There Is No]]
[[Category:Conception of God]]
[[Category:There Is No]]
[[Category:Direction]]
[[Category:God]]
[[Category:That is not Religion]]
[[Category:Kind Of]]
[[Category:Blind Faith]]
[[Category:religion]]
[[Category:Factual]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononDavidHume_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="2" link="Philosophy Discussion on David Hume" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on David Hume">
<div class="heading">If there is no conception of God, there is no direction of God, that is not religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith. Religion is factual. That factual religion can be given by God Himself, and if we know God and what is His instruction, then we are religious.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on David Hume|Philosophy Discussion on David Hume]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Everyone believes that. Materially everyone believes. But if he says none of them are correct, so why he is so..., pose himself as correct? He is rejected immediately.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He says, "All the new discoveries in astronomy which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of nature are so many additional arguments for a Deity according to the true system of theism," that is his natural, what he calls natural religion. In this way Hume rejects the necessity or desirability of miracles as well as the conception of a God transcendental to his creation. He says it's not the being of God that is in question but God's nature. This nature cannot be ascertained through study of the universe itself. However, if the universe can only be studied by imperfect senses, what is the value of our conclusion? How can we ever come to know the nature of God?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Nature of God, it can be explained by God Himself. That is our Vedic process. We know who is God, and He explains,  "My nature is this." Just like He says, "I am the greatest principle," mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7|BG 7.7]]). "There is no more higher principle than Me." This is fact. If something is greater than God, then how one can become God? That is not possible. So greatest means He is great in everything. He is great in richness, He is great in reputation, He is great in influence, He is great in bodily power, He is great in beauty and He is great in renunciation. If we can find out somebody that He tallies with this greatness, then He is God. So that we find in Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord, and what He says in the Bhagavad-gītā we accept as fact. And if we analyze His statements intelligently, pruriently, then we will find that what Kṛṣṇa says, that is fact.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Concerning different religions, he says, "All religious systems, it is confessed, are subject to great and insuperable difficulties. Each..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: "Each disputant triumphs in his turn while he carries on an offensive war and exposes the absurdities, barbarities and pernicious tenets of his antagonists. But all of them," that is, all of the religions, "on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the skeptic who tells them that no system ought ever to be embraced. A total suspense of judgment is here our only reasonable recourse."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Our principle is to know God from God, and religion means the principles given by God. Just like the law means the principle given by the state, similarly the principles given by God, that is religion. Otherwise it is pseudoreligion. If there is no conception of God, there is no direction of God, that is not religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith. Religion is factual. That factual religion can be given by God Himself, and if we know God and what is His instruction, then we are religious.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: Well, he believes that religion is necessary. He says religion, however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That we also agree. But religion without philosophy, logic, it is sentiment. That will not help us. So just like religion given by Kṛṣṇa, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65|BG 18.65]]) "Always think of Me." So if you think of God always, so that is good for us, we become purified. So this is religion. We have to meditate upon God, think about God. Therefore temple worship, Deity worship is necessary so that we can constantly think of God. But if we do not know what is God, what is the form of God, how we can offer Him worship, how we can think of Him, then it is pseudoreligion. His type of religion will not help the follower. One must be definitely in understanding what is God and what does He speak and how to abide by His order. That is real religion.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: His conception of religion is utilitarian and social.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: He says, "The proper office of religion is to regulate the heart of man, humanize their conduct, infuse the spirit of temperance, order and obedience."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is our system. We say, the social service, that "No illicit sex." If people indulge in illicit sex, society will be in chaotic condition. "No meat-eating." If we go on eating meat, then we revolt against the will of God, because God is the father of all living entities; He does not like that one of His son unnecessarily killed by another son on  the plea that he is advanced son. The father cannot agree that the advanced son kill the ignorant or foolish son, the father will not agree. Therefore we say no meat-eating. When other foods are available, why one should eat meat? When there is wife, why there should be illicit sex? So religion means one should be good character. That is religion. This is one of the qualification becoming, that one who is actually religious, God conscious, that all the good qualities, either socially, politically, everything, even politician religious. Just like Arjuna, he was on the battlefield. This is politics. But because he was devotee he was hesitating to kill his enemies all. So this is the character of a devotee, that he can sacrifice his own interest because he has become a devotee. Others cannot do. (break)</p>
<p>Hayagrīva: This is the conclusion of Hume. He felt that one must first be a philosophical skeptic before accepting the revealed truths of religion. Ultimately Hume maintains that these truths can only be accepted on faith, not experience or reason.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, and why not reason? If we think that everything has some proprietor, owner, so it is quite reasonable to think that this vast land, vast sky, vast water, nature, they must have some proprietor. What is the fault in this logic? Why they conclude that there was a chunk, there was some gas, there was something like that? So why they think like that? Is that very reasonable? Wherefrom the chunk came? Wherefrom the gas came? Wherefrom the fire came? So this is reasonable. So there is a proprietor, as it is described in this Bhagavad-gītā, mayādhyakṣeṇa ([[Vanisource:BG 9.10|BG 9.10]]), aham ādir hi sarveṣām. So there must be some proprietor. That is logical. That is, that is philosophy. How one can..., one thing can exist without the owner or proprietor? So this is not like, that there is no proprietor. This is illogical, or without any philosophy. But think that there is a proprietor, this is completely logical.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>