primate

Most people would agree that violence is justified to defend the innocent, provided that it is used only after nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted (as time and circumstances permit) and the violence used is not excessive; in other words, the amount or kind of violence employed is not more than is needed to achieve the objective: the defence of the innocent. However, it seems impossible to use non-excessive violence to defend the innocent against terrorism. In fact, anti-terrorism or 'war on terrorism' seems to be far more dangerous than terrorism. Thousands of innocent people may be killed as a result of large scale military operations. In the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, Israeli forces killed over a thousand innocent people in Gaza, whereas only a few Israeli citizens are ever killed as a result of Hamas terrorism (not to be confused with Hezbolla and Fatah). Terrorism is a political instrument. It is violence (or the threat of violence) calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. From a terrorist’s point of view, a terrorist act may not even be excessively violent, although the victims are generally innocent and the objective may be to support himself (if he is still alive after the act) or to support his family that receives a financial compensation if the act was suicidal (in which case he himself will be rewarded in heaven) and/or to enforce his personal ideology upon a society. As long as a terrorist organization remains hidden, it cannot be harmed without excessive violence, but it cannot do too much harm itself either. Large scale organized terrorism will be visible and can be exposed and dealt with, without an excessive amount of violence (although this might sound paradoxical). Thus far, however, we can see terrorism more or less as a normal risk of life, like the risk we take when we drive a car, or smoke a cigarette, or overeat. Moreover, when we would be able to stop being scared of terrorism, the whole method will become pointless and vanish..

Can you describe these flags? What do they look like? For example, Hanuman is associated with a red triangular flag, if I'm correct..

Hi Jeffster, Of course I didn’t intend to interfere with any personal realization you might have. I just gave the obvious Krsna conscious answer to your question. Actually I’m asking myself the same question. What can we do? But no matter how you look at 'terrorism', there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do, either with – or without violence. I guess the world must change itself. And it appears to do so violently.. Regards

Probably, Krishna’s desire is for you to chant your rounds. The fundamentalists and terrorists will join you, eventually..

From a material perspective the soul leaves the body. From a spiritual perspective the body leaves the soul. If someone dies, we see things from a material perspective. When we ourselves die, we might see things from a spiritual perspective. Logically, both perspectives seem to be equivalent and they may both be valid. The ignorance comes from the material realization that, apart from the fact that someone died, the whole material world remains unchanged. Thus it seems the spirit soul leaves the body and not vice versa. However, since everything is One, and since the spiritual world is 3 times larger than the material world, it might ultimately be more accurate to say that the body leaves the soul..

I guess a pure devotee would say that it is an error to think that we can do anything at all. Krishna is the only doer and everything that appears to occur in this so called 'material world' is ultimately His plan unfolding. So just chant your rounds and observe the show..

So I guess they pulled it off.. So what can we do..?

Bhagavad-Gita, according to Hare-Krishna.org: According to this, the soul cannot leave the body, because the soul is not a spacial and material entity (although it has spacial and material awareness).. Thus, the body leaves the soul..

Your quote states: 'one who leaves this body'. It doesn’t state: 'the soul that leaves this body'. So who is one? Apart from this, the whole matter is of course relative. Logically, the soul leaving the body seems to be equivalent to the body leaving the soul..

I hope you are alright after that heart attack.. Do you think one could say that if one dies the material illusion simply 'disappears' and is no longer consciously experienced (like waking up from a dream), while all the rest stays the same? Did you consciously experience something like that?

Well, there is a fundamental difference between fascism and (religious) Truth..

So just chant "Hare Krishna" when you die.

I think the details are not known. Somehow memories of the actual conception process are thoroughly erased. Even if memories are material stuff, you can’t remember that you were just a lump of cells in the womb. And before that, the process is probably entirely regulated through karma. I don’t think you will have much of a say in the whole matter. So basically, such knowledge would be useless. The only thing that seems relevant, is your life on Earth after material birth and until you die. I guess that’s why Vedic texts only give explicit instructions for that..

Because ordinary human perception is limited to the material world, and since human consciousness is basically ignorant of any spiritual dimension of reality, it seems that in order to be seen and heard by (other) human beings, Krishna must have had a material body. When we can perceive anything with our sense organs, it has to be of a material nature. The original question was: Did Krishna die? It isn’t explicitly stated anywhere that Krishna did not die a material death. If Krishna did not die, I’m sure the Vedas would contain a clear statement about this remarkable fact. Isn’t it self-evident that Krishna died? Why would Krishna break his own rule: "that which is born shall die"? Another question must be: Is the material world (including organic life) real, or is it a sensory illusion? If it is all an illusion, then material life and death are non-existent categories in reality, and the question "did Krishna die?" is irrelevant. Ultimately, we are all immortal Souls. No conscious entity actually dies. We are not our body.

According to Prabhupada, Christ Jesus was an avatar of God, i.e., God’s representative, or one of His human manifestations on Earth. He regarded Jesus as his guru and stated that Krishna (Krista) and Christ (Kristos) are two of the many different names of the same supreme personal God. Prabhupada saw no difference between Christ and Krishna. God is one, portrayed differently in different cultures by his different names and pastimes. It can now be speculated that the Christian account of the appearance of Christ on Earth, bears relevance to understanding the appearance of Krishna as Vishnu’s avatar on Earth as described in the Vedic literature. Importantly, Christ assured his followers that He had a body of flesh and blood, just like them. And in the end, he suffered and died on the cross. Although his body resurrected three days later, Jesus died like an ordinary human being. Moreover, it’s a central theme in Christianity that through His suffering and death, Christ took upon himself the sins of the world. And as a result of this sacrifice, humanity is freed from the bondage of care, strife and sin. This Christian believe is highly reminiscent of the Vedic notion of karma and karmic reactions, according to which the overall balance between positive and negative karma is subject to change as a consequence of collective material suffering and enjoyment experienced by all human beings. In conclusion: Christ had a material body and died a material death on Earth (although His spirit ultimately reunited with God the Father). His material suffering even may have caused a strong positive karmic reaction to free all of humanity. So if Krishna and Christ are both avatars of the same God (Vishnu), then it seems most likely that Krishna also had a material body and died a material death..

It’s really quite simple. This 'reflection' (Maya) is both real and unreal; just like dreams - and illusions are simultaneously real and unreal, depending on your perspective. When you are awake, dreams appear to be unreal. Yet memory of dreams proves that the experience in itself was real. When you hear voices in the sound of running water, the experience again is real. But when you realise there is 'only' the static noise of running water, the voices will disappear and become unreal. Likewise, everything we consciously experience is real, until we realise it’s all 'an illusion'..

What are "proven principles of responsible and successful management"?

I believe the human 'spiritual position' is special. Of all living organisms on Earth, we may actually have the potential (intelligence) to change or improve our own consciousness, and to experience Oneness and Absolute Truth first hand. It seems to be just a matter of finding a personal spiritual path to liberation..

Some 3000 years ago, when the original Vedic texts were written, astrology and astronomy were equivalent, i.e., they were a single science. People observed the sun, the moon and the stars, as well as the other planets in our solar system. They effectively used the regular movement of star constellations as a calendar, and their relative position to the planets was thought to influence all events on Earth. Nevertheless, they couldn’t have suspected that the distant stars where actually suns! They most likely thought that there is only one sun and that the stars are like planets, and that the Moon is also like a planet. So it seems Prabhupada may have a point here after all. However, why would Krishna describe himself as 'the Moon among the stars', if there is no fundamental difference? He did so, because at that time people considered the Moon to be the primary planet which has the largest influence on life on Earth. This is an astrological notion and not an astronomical one. Therefore, I think that the term 'nakshatranam' in the original verse should have been translated: 'among constellations', and not: 'among stars'. But even if I am correct, it would be a very marginal error..

It’s evident from posts #10, #11, #12, and #13, that the meaning (definition) of the Sanskrit term 'nakshatranam' in the original verse must be: 'among constellations', and not: 'among stars'. The phrase: "I am the moon among the constellations", makes perfect sense in Hindu (Vedic) astrological context (see post #12), whereas the phrase: "I am the moon among the stars", really makes no sense at all..

My only affiliation with formal religion used to be my Christian background. And, indeed, I still respect the basic values of Christianity. However, Christian (biblical) knowledge is largely metaphorical: God is almighty, Christ is His child, and so are you. It doesn’t even begin to describe in any detail the actual nature of God, the universe, and everything. Consequently, like any sane person, I more or less accepted that religion isn’t science. Some time ago, however, I read an Iskcon book, The Science of Self-realisation, that contains a selection of Prabhupada’s conversations, lectures, assays and letters on the general subject of Krishna consciousness. I found Prabhupada’s idea’s to be quite consistent overall, and many of his citations and explanations of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam made sense to me intuitively, as well as in terms of certain mathematical – and quantum physical models. I even began to suspect that some key notions of Vedic knowledge could be validated by modern scientific knowledge and/or vice versa. And I’m still not convinced that this is entirely impossible. Anyway, I believe Prabhupada saw the overall spiritual picture correctly. The fact that he made some (minor) mistakes in his many translations of the original Vedic texts doesn’t diminish that.

Then he should give them the link to this thread: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/451613-astronomical-query-relating-gita.html

Well, Prabhupada didn't have internet..