Sharanagati

(continues from previous Monday)

Yamuna: Maharaj, I have a continuation of the question. So from preachers’ point of view, how can one in such a situation defend the truth? For example the other person is opposing and saying: “Well, Vyasa was not even a real person, it is a mythical combined image.”

Tirtha Maharaj: Ah, it is very easy: “Maybe he is not a real person for you, but he is a very real person for me!”

Yamuna: For example I would answer that so many books are written from real persons, but does it make them more valuable? But can you give me some ideas about what from preachers’ point of view one can do in such situations when science opposes some aspects of our scriptures?

Tirtha Maharaj: Well, from the results you can judge the tree. That is true, hundreds and millions of people write books, but what is the result of those books? Any change, any spiritual change in the lives of people who read those books? Those who read the inspired books – and actually these are called in Christianity also “the inspired books” – there is a change, substantial change.

So this is one thing: judge by the results. The second is: “We accept that you have a different vision. But please, you also accept that we also have a different vision. Because that is the neutral scientific approach. I have one version, I have one angle of vision, you have a different one.” The preacher should be informed, well informed. But it is not necessary that we know all the details on all the questions, because the mind of human beings is endless. They will come up with endless questions. So there is nothing wrong if sometimes we have to say: “I don’t know!” Why?! God knows everything. But we have to be informed.

Yet you can see that this so called preaching is usually a fight. Because people want to prove their versions against each-other. Just like religions fight on these principles: whose God is stronger. And before it was easier to decide, because armies were fighting under different Gods and who wins the war, that God was stronger. Now we are more “cultured” a little bit sometimes, so we fight on philosophical debates, trying to prove whose version and whose God is stronger.

But there is a good advice. The fool ones go on fighting and debating, while the wise go on with their sadhana. “If you have that version, very nice! But I have a little job to do.” Because there is no end of argumentation.

Still we have one more chance – wait until the death of the other person. Then he will crush: “Ah, I was mistaken! Now Vyasa is coming to me in one person, not in twenty eight.” So the ultimate answer is with us. Debate means when there is a chance that I might lose; when there is no chance that I will lose, there is no debate.

Yamuna: But usually one is debating when he has some hope to win.

Tirtha Maharaj: It’s a hopeless case.

Yamuna: Because, Maharaj, this win and lose thing is also relative. For example, Socrates lost the case in front of the Athens court.

Tirtha Maharaj: Still everybody is talking about Socrates and not about the court. So…! If you lose, you win.

Yamuna: If you lose for a glorious purpose.

Tirtha Maharaj: Of course! If you lose, you win. The loser is always a winner.