jinglebells

I know you're posting these with good intentions, but please stop. It could hurt sensitive people, especially the Sudan photos. We don't have to advertise other people's sorrow to feel compassion in our hearts.

Are you saying that Krsna is a fairy tale? I have a 'modern mind' and I have no problem believing God is a person, because personhood is synonomous with consciousness. Somebody is conscious. There is no such thing as disembodied consciousness. There can be unconsciousness of one's individuality as in a dream state, or insanity, and that is a form of consciousness. But pure consciousness is active and personal. The static state of impersonal awareness is the endpoint of the ascending process or of jnana yoga, the sayuja-mukti. But it is not stable and subject to fall down. To say it is appealing is a contradiction in terms , because there can be no bliss no ananda in an impersonal state.

I meant to say it's not easy for educated people to believe in a blue-skinned peron playing the flute. As to 'somebody' is conscious, the advaitin will argue that 'somebody' is just an illusion. As proof, he'll ask you to search for this 'somebody' either within or without. In doing so, you will realize that what you call "I" is never restricted to a certain individual, and therefore this consciousness must be impersonal. Hence the conclusion of advaita: Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

All this isn't my view, because I am vaishnava. I am just giving a good idea of what advaita is about, and why it appeals to the modern mind. And it's no coincidence that vaishnavism in the west always attracts hippies/dropouts more than it does intellectuals. Isn't that odd?

Not everybody has the intelligence or money to buy a diamond.

This proves that Advaita is for people who are too cheap and too dumb to recieve the diamond of Krishna bhakti. They are pleasing themselves by trying to merge into Brahman. They are satisfied with glass, and do not wish to recieve the diamond.

What can I say. Most of them will fall down from the brahmajyoti back into the material pool.

Enlightened jnanis are another matter. If they have firm determination they will not fall from the brahmajyoti. Still, they will have no seperate existence. They will not get a chance to show love for Krishna. I think that is a great misfortune in itself. But then again, to each his own. Some people rather remain void then have a personal loving relationship with the Lord.

I admire your enthusiasm in following vaishnavism, but it's not polite to speak ill of such a sacred tradition. Advaitins are great Krishna Bhaktas.

Yes it is more popular in the west still (it seems). An agnostic can accept impersonal more easily is one example. And if faith is small...it is easier to accept impersonal. Consciousness is felt easily by the human...so an all-expansive consciousness is understood much quicker. That is my experience anyhow. Brahman realization came after some goodness for me. It is enticing, amazing, and wonderful for oneness. I still relish it.

 

By my faith (since a child) is I accept God as a person. But still my realization as a middle age man, of that Person is still small. That is how great He is. Diversity on a spiritual plane centred on bhakti is not so easily realized.

 

Sudarlaba is the term used by Sri Rupa I think. Very rare to accept bhakti to a Supreme Person.

Bija, you seem to be experienced in this sort of thing. Can you tell me more on your experiences of the Brahman Consciousness? It will help me understand better.

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator, so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person (and yes, he's got a name!), they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind, so much so several movies have been made on this fascinating theme.

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

This is my observation, and I feel it will remain this way for some time to come.

Thank God us western boys got to hear of Krsna (not just Krsna as a demigod or stepping stone to the void or impersonal brahman which pervades the west thx to Vivekananda, Yogananda and the likes).

You make it sound as if the impersonal view is a horrible thing? There are many who believe that belief in personal god is childish, it's for small minds that can't realize nirguna Brahman. Not that I believe this (I am Vaishnava), but it's better not to take sides on account of these differences.

Obama seems to be quite liberal, he isn't a religious bigot opposing abortion, science, and pretty much everything else under the sun.

Per popuation, ISKCON hs a very high suicide rate among its Gurukuli youth in America, yet not one has taken their own life in Australia, what is your answer to that ?

That's easy. Very few Iskconites in Australia as compared to USA.

Well, technically, Jesus's story is pretty tragic, and evokes emotion. Besides, Moses belongs to the Old Testament angry god, whereas Jesus apparently was a 'pure devotee' of a loving God.

 

'Course, I can sympathise with Jesus, he was a peaceful, compassionate bloke, but then, so was Mahavira the Jain. Jnana has nothing to do with this. Neither of them are Vaishnavas.

 

However, I do not know what they find in Mohammed, seriously. And 'Faith in God' is not the quality of a Vaishnava. 'Faith in Vishnu, Lord of Devas' is the quality of a Vaishnava.

'Faith in God' seems to be sufficient to classify Jesus/Mohammed as Vaishnava. So why not Moses? Maybe, it's because of the number?

Most advaitins worship Krishna, so I don't see anything wrong with listening to an advaitin. Advaitins are staunch Krishna Bhaktas.

I don't think hatred against one of the greatest thinkers is necessary. It's always the religious people who attack scientists, all the while utilizing the comforts that science gives. Why is that?

Out of curiosity, why do Vaishnava acharyas never mention Moses as a pure or empowered vaishnava? He has all the qualities of a vaishnava-doesn't he?-such as faith in God (Krishna), austerity (after all, he gave the ten commandments), and so forth.

So why is it he's always left out of the pure vaishnava category, whereas Jesus and Mohammed always find a place therein?