Not in this case though...wouldn't you say life is the best teacher where consciousness is concerned? Or would you rather base your opinions on the ideas of others, who are also merely guessing?

The opposite goes as well...you cannot simply absorb knowledge and take it for the truth...that's just as ignorant.

It's just one truth...one aspect of it...

Well I'm no King of India and I'm sure there's something to be learned from Vedic Knowledge...but the truth...I'd rather find my own truth. And no, I'm not very familiar with the Vedanta...doesn't mean I'm wrong and those people a long time ago were right...it's the question that matters...not the answer. Perhaps there isn't even an answer.

The vedas come from Lord Brahma, creator of the universe, and supreme being, an expansion of God.

If you cannot accept that knowledge comes from God, where else can it come from

What does life have to teach you?

The material world is only full of miseries, there is no happiness in the material world, only illusory happiness.

This is the first thing that is described in the vedas, you are a fool if you will not accept intellectual literature. It is still authoritative to this day and taught in colleges in India, and many advanced scholars and philosophers are astounded by the coherence and consistency of this knowledge.


"Formerly, the Vedas were heard by the student from the spiritual master, and thus the Vedas became known as sruti, meaning "that which is heard." In Bhagavad-gita, for example, we see that Arjuna is listening to Krishna on the battlefield. He is not engaged in the study of Vedanta philosophy. We can hear from the Supreme Authority in any place, even in the battlefield.

The knowledge is received, not manufactured. Some people think, "Why should I listen to Him? I can think for myself. I can manufacture something new." This is not the Vedic process of descending knowledge. By ascending knowledge, one tries to elevate himself by his own effort, but by descending knowledge one receives the knowledge from a superior source. In the Vedic tradition, knowledge is imparted to the student from the spiritual master, as in Bhagavad-gita (evaa parampara-praptam imaa rajarnayo viduu [Bg. 4.2]). Submissive hearing is so powerful that simply by hearing from authoritative sources we can become completely perfect. In becoming submissive, we become aware of our own imperfections. As long as we are conditioned, we are subject to four kinds of imperfections: we are sure to commit mistakes, to become illusioned, to have imperfect senses and to cheat. Therefore our attempt to understand the Absolute Truth by our faulty senses and experience is futile. We must hear from a representative of God who is a devotee of God's. Krishna made Arjuna His representative because Arjuna was His devotee: bhakto 'si me sakha ceti. (Bg. 4.3)

No one can become a representative of God without being a devotee of God's. One who thinks, "I am God," cannot be a representative. Because we are part and parcel of God, our qualities are the same as His, and therefore if we study these qualities in ourselves, we come to learn something of God. This does not mean that we understand the quantity of God. This self-realization process is one way of understanding God, but in no case can we preach, "I am God." We cannot claim to be God without being able to display the powers of God. As far as Krishna is concerned, He proved that He was God by displaying so much power and by revealing His universal form to Arjuna. Krishna showed this awesome form in order to discourage people who would claim to be God. We should not be fooled by one who claims to be God; following in the footsteps of Arjuna, we should request to see the universal form before accepting anyone as God. Only a fool would accept another fool as God."

Krishna is an authoritative, historical figure in the world. Do you deny this? Why not listen to what he has to say and then judge if that is Godlike?