Download this episode (right click and save)
इन्द्रियाणि पराण्य् आहुर्
इन्द्रियेभ्यः परं मनः
मनसस् तु परा बुद्धिर्
|यो बुद्धेः परतस् तु सः
indriyāṇi parāṇy āhur
indriyebhyaḥ paraṁ manaḥ
manasas tu parā buddhir
yo buddheḥ paratas tu saḥ
Friend1: I saw an interesting internet video the other day.
Friend2: Dogs jumping through hoops?
Friend1: No.
Friend2: Babies being kissed by their dad?
Friend1: No, but I did see that one a few weeks ago. Hilarious and adorable at the same time.
Friend2: That is a great one.
Friend1: It’s religion related. These kids are sitting on the front porch of a house. An adult comes by asking about something. The kids end up saying, “Thank God,” or something to that effect, because of an event culminating with a proper outcome.
Friend2: I see.
Friend1: The adult then presents a challenge. He wants to know why they are thanking God. He asks if God can be seen.
Friend2: And the children’s response?
Friend1: They are a little taken aback. The adult then asks if you can touch or feel God. The same response from the children.
Friend2: Have to love it. Reviving the tactics of the old Communist regimes.
Friend1: Yes, but as the adult is walking away, thinking he is victorious, the children come back with their own questions.
Friend2: Oh?
Friend1: The adult had claimed that he uses his sense instead of trusting in God. One of the children asks if that sense can be seen or touched.
Friend2: That’s a good one. I like it.
Friend1: The adult responds in the negative. The child then delivers the punch line: “Then, you have no sense.”
Friend2: Haha. That is great.
Friend1: It’s one of those viral videos that really got me to thinking. The impression stayed with me for a while.
Friend2: Why? Because of the arguments presented?
Friend1: You always hear that challenge.
“Show me God. Prove to me that He exists. I rely only on empirical evidence.”
Friend2: Oh, for sure. Modern science is based on the principle. Unless I can see it, I won’t believe it. Meanwhile, there are four other senses which are used to establish authenticity.
Friend1: Like taste for food and smell for fragrance.
Friend1: Right. Anyway, what do you think of this counterargument of asking if the mind can be seen?
Friend2: Well, what do you think the scientist would say in response?
Friend1: Probably something along the lines of, “Well, we can’t see the mind, but we can prove it is there based on symptoms.”
Friend2: They could point to the physical object known as the brain. Actually, that gets me to thinking. How can you prove that thinking occurs within the brain?
Friend1: Where else would it occur?
Friend2: No, I understand the truth, but give me some empirical evidence of the mind, of thinking ability, and the location at which it takes place?
Friend1: I see what you are saying. The response would likely be the same. The evidence is based on external symptoms, which can be perceived. Experiments with control groups.
Friend2: Basically, see what happens when the brain is there and when it is not?
Friend1: Yes. Exactly. You don’t really need a test. It’s common sense. I know, I know, if I can’t touch it, I have no sense, haha.
Friend2: We use the same principle to prove the existence of spirit.
Friend1: How so?
Friend2: When it is there, the body is considered alive. Death is the exit of the soul from the body. Shri Krishna provides the necessary clarity. He says that there are three subtle elements at the individual level: mind, intelligence and ego. With each step, the subtle nature increases.
Friend1: What do you mean?
In Closing:
Only by visual confirmation to receive,
In the concept of something to believe.
Atheist this way to argue against,
On God-less concept bent.
But then issue with the mind,
Since never in hand to find.
Only through symptoms knowing,
Same principle with spirit showing.

