For knowing God, is there any basis other than the Bhagavad-gita?
So is that Bhagavad Gita is the proof of the existence of God or is Bhagavad Gita the basis for us to know God if Bhagavad Gita would not have been there how would we have known God? Before we go into the specifics, let's focus on universals Universals means that we see that for living in this world we need certain things and those things are provided in nature we feel thirst and water is provided in nature we feel hunger and food is there in nature we may have to work to get it but we don't we can't create it from scratch it is already there, we just procure it we need to breathe and air is there so whatever fundamental needs are there for us they are already there in nature how do they come about? one explanation for that could be that they are provided for us by God now if God has provided us for the basic necessities of life then one necessity of living is also knowledge ok, I eat, I breathe, I drink, but what am I meant to live for? so if God has provided me with the things to live with He will also provide me with the knowledge by which to live and that knowledge is the revelation of God so before we go into any specific book of revelation we need to understand the principle of revelation the same God who has provided us the necessities for living in terms of food, water, air that same God will also provide us knowledge for living and that is the revealed scriptures so by observing the world we can broadly infer the existence of God we may not be able to know the specifics about who God is how can we infer the existence of God there are four broad arguments, I won't go into all four of them, the teleological argument there is a cosmological argument there is a moral argument and there is an ontological argument let's give one example of the cosmological argument cosmological argument is that that there are three parts of the argument that the things that exist in this world they have a beginning whatever we see nothing in this world we see is eternal whatever exists in this world has a beginning so if whatever exists in this world has a beginning the world itself must have a beginning and the beginning must have the potential to produce what exists now, the beginning must have the potential to produce what exists now And that starting point with the potential to produce the things that exist now, that starting point is gone.
I'll explain this one by one. See, whatever exists now, it is temporary. It has to have a beginning, some point or the other.
It's like if I have a building, the 100 storey, the 99 storey, 98 storey, there has to be a ground. Otherwise the building itself would not exist. So if everything is temporary, the cause of all temporary things cannot be temporary.
Because then you would have infinite regress. At some point it has to end. And even science tells us the universe has a beginning.
So there has to be a beginning from the point of view of logic. And the starting point has to be there from the point of view of science also. So now what is that starting point? As I said, that starting point should have the potential to produce everything.
So now science talks about a singularity that exploded. That is fine enough, but that is not a complete explanation. Why? Because if there is simply matter at the beginning, all that matter will produce is matter.
That will not produce consciousness. If there is a heap of cement at one place, that heap of cement may just roll over or spread over. That heap of cement, if it is to produce a building, there has to be a construction agent, a person who will do the construction.
So right now in the world, we see things which are unconscious and we see people who are conscious. These two broad realities are there, the matter and there is consciousness. And for the world as it exists now to come from the beginning, at the beginning also there has to be matter and consciousness.
So if that is not there, then atheism, it has to propose that everything has come from nothing. How did everything come from? Ultimately at the beginning everything came from nothing. But there is no logic to that.
How does something produce, how does nothing produce everything? We do not see any type happening. What we see is one thing produces a second thing. Second thing produces a third thing.
So like that if we go back, we need to have, when we say that everything came from nothing, it is completely illogical. It is far more logical to say that the things that exist here, they have come from something originally which has the potential to produce everything. And if we conceive of God as an image in the temple or as a picture or as some person who was here historically at some time, then we may have a question, how can this be God? But before we look at God as a person, we have to understand God as a principle.
God as a principle means that God is the one who is the source of everything. Sarva Karana Karanam, the cause of all causes. The starting point from which everything came about.
That point is God. So everybody has to sooner or later understand this, accept this point that everything has come from something. Now what is that something? What is the most reasonable conception of that something which will produce everything? So if I say nothing produced everything, that's illogical.
If I say there was just a lump of matter that produced everything, that also is not very logical because how did that organize itself? How did everything come about from that? So if I say there is a conscious intelligent being with material energy associated with him, then that, just like if there is a construction, there is a building constructor and he is building material in the building, then the whole building can come about. So there is a supreme conscious being and there is the material energy within. And from that potentiality everything can come about.
So basically the cosmological argument states that the starting point of everything is God. So when somebody asks that does God exist? See, actually it's a valid question at one level. But it is God's existence that makes the existence of everything else possible.
If God did not exist, nothing else would exist. Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 10.13 that nothing could exist without him. So this is a little complex argument.
But another example to say is that to ask whether God exists, if we truly understand the definition of God as the source of everything, then to ask does God exist is like asking is a circle circular? A circle by definition has to be circular, cannot have any other thing. Circle means circular. So God, if you understand the definition of God, God is the source of everything.
So to ask whether God exists means we are asking does the thing which ensures the existence of everything else exist or not? Without it existing, nothing else would exist. So we learn about God, God's existence by logical inference. But about God's specific nature, God's personal nature, who God is, that we learn from revelation.
So in that way, our observation and our revelation, they combine together to give us knowledge of God. By our thoughtful observation, we can come to know basically about God's existence. But by revelation, we can come to know specifically about God.
Does it address your question? So for protection amid pandemics, seek not just a hand sanitizer,.