primate

Perhaps if we had a better (formal) understanding of the origin of the soul, we would also be able to better understand the nature of material illusion. Such (scientific) knowledge may then generally aid religion and increase public spiritual awareness..<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>

An 'illusion' is a distortion of the senses. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion is a misinterpretation of a real sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water would be an illusion. (from Wikipedia) I don’t think our material percept of the universe is unreal. However, it may be a (very) limited - or distorted 'projection' of reality. Thus, the term 'illusion' seems appropriate..

What do you mean by ‘torturing humanity’? Mass death in some WW3 scenario and/or a complete social-economic meltdown? Will that generally improve spirituality? Or do you have something more moderate in mind?

More precisely: God is everywhere. And God is present in the heart of every living entity as Supersoul..

A Hindu 'constellation' or a nakshatra or lunar mansion is one of the 27 or 28 divisions of the sky, identified by the prominent star(s) in them, that the Moon passes through during its monthly cycle, as used in Hindu astronomy and astrology. Therefore, each represents a division of the ecliptic similar to the zodiac (13°20’ each instead of the 30° for each zodiac sign). The orbit of the moon is 27.3 days, so the Moon takes approximately one day to pass through each nakshatra. (From Wikipedia)

BHAGAVAD-GITA VERSE 10:21 adityanam aham visnur jyotisam ravir amsuman maricir marutam asmi naksatranam aham sasi There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the word 'naksatranam'. Figure it out yourself : According to BHAGAVAD-GITA AS IT IS, naksatranam means: 'of the stars' or 'among the stars' WORD FOR WORD: adityanam--of the Adityas; aham--I am; visnuh--the Supreme Lord; jyotisam--of all luminaries; ravih--the sun; amsu-man--radiant; maricih--Marici; marutam--of the Maruts; asmi--I am; naksatranam--of the stars; aham--I am; sasi--the moon. TRANSLATION: Of the Adityas I am Visnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts I am Marici, and among the stars I am the moon. PURPORT There are twelve Adityas, of which Krsna is the principal. Among all the luminaries twinkling in the sky, the sun is the chief, and in the Brahma-samhita the sun is accepted as the glowing eye of the Supreme Lord. There are fifty varieties of wind blowing in space, and of these winds the controlling deity, Marici, represents Krsna. Among the stars, the moon is the most prominent at night, and thus the moon represents Krsna. It appears from this verse that the moon is one of the stars; therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns within the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature. The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. Since Bhagavad-gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to the moon. According to WWW.BHAGAVAD-GITA.ORG, naksatranam means: 'of the constellations' or 'among asterisms' TRANSLATION: Of the twelve Adityas I am Visnu, of all luminaries the radiant sun, of the seven Maruts I am Marici and of the constellations I am the moon. Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary: From now until the end of the chapter the Supreme Lord Krishna enumerates His vibhuti or divine, transcendental opulence. He reveals He is Vishnu of the 12 Adityas, All solar orbs whose rays illuminates unlimited galaxies and universes. He is the Parivaha wind which precedes all the others throughout space bearing the name Marici and among naksatranams or different constellations exercising their sphere of influence Lord Krishna is the moon which is superior to all of them in influence. Sridhara Swami's Commentary: Commencing with this verse until the conclusion of this chapter Lord Krishna reveals His prominent vibhuti or divine, transcendental opulence beginning with of the 12 Adityas He manifests Himself as Visnu incarnation manifesting in the form of the brahmin dwarf Vamana. Of luminaries He is the solar orbs, the radiant suns whose shining rays illuminate the darkness of unlimited, innumerable universes. Of the Maruts the seven groups of winds which flow throughout all space atmosphere, Lord Krishna is the wind known as Parivaha which precedes all the others and bears the name Marici. It should not be misconstrued that Lord Krishna is talking about one of the six great sages who were mind born by Brahma also with the same name as that is not correct. The words naksatranam aham sasi means that as the moon He is Lord over the 27 constellations beginning with Ashvini and ending with Revati due to the moon having a stronger influence.

Can you say that in Sanskrit? Either the original meaning is lost in the many translations and purports, or the original authors didn’t quite understand the original information. Don’t worry about it. It will be figured out..

Agreed.. Karma is the most basic set of cosmic rules, that connects all cause and effect in gross - subtle - and soul affairs. The miracle of Karma is that it is very strictly implemented by the Super soul, without limiting our apparent free will. Dharma is the absolute (sacred/Vedic) law (God's law). The four qualities of dharma are described in Bhagavata Purana (1.17.24): - mercy (refusal of violence, meat-eating, etc.) - renunciation/sense control (refusal of intoxicants) - truthfulness (refusal of gambling and speculations) - purity (refusal of sex forbidden in scriptures) Thus it is absolutely established which human activities are good or bad and bring positive – or negative karmic reactions.

Action = reaction, according to basic karmic law. And although we don’t know the deeds we have done in previous lives, a guiding principle in our current life could be: Do not create negative karma and enjoy reactions from positive karma..

Beggar, can you say that in French?

Then it seems the question still remains: What is the primary principle? Knowledge of Karma or Dharma?

Logically, fear of the unknown cannot be based on knowledge of the unknown. Thus, fear of the unknown seems to be caused by premature expectations of the unknown, based on known experience. When previous experience in life has been traumatic or generally frightening, one might be afraid of the unknown (as well as the known) to some degree. Fear of the unknown may even be related to the trauma of birth or prenatal experience..

Isn’t Karma a Dharmic (normative) consideration? For example: you don’t kill another living being because you may consequently have to experience being killed yourself in this - or a next life..

Does this imply that true theory in the scriptures may not be absolutely true?

Isn’t the sand castle a 'higher order' structure than the individual grains of sand? And doesn’t this imply that the material world is a higher order structure than its origin (Brahman)? And isn’t Krishna the highest order structure? Isn’t Advaita true?

Apparently Prabhupada 'figured out' more about the absolute truth than most (if not all) of his followers. Did he compile that knowledge from scripture, or from spiritual experience? Why did he make the effort to explain it, if he felt that absolute truth can’t be explained logically?

Why?

The 'meaning' of these contradictions might be that Absolute Knowledge is extremely difficult to communicate (if at all) through the relatively simple medium of sequential natural language..

You are right of course. I am a 'beginner'. And I am certainly not an expert on samsara/karma. But its action-reaction-like dynamics does make some sense to me, although logically it’s a process that we cannot end by ourselves. Do you think people should be 'afraid' of karmic reactions in the next life, when living a relatively normal life in a Western country, e.g., as a vegitarian and conform Christian values? Is liberation through Krishna consciousness and service the only 'save' option? BTW, I’m not an impersonalist. I’m more or less agnostic on personalism. As I said elsewhere: Impersonal oneness must be true, but simultaneously the absolute Truth may be a person (Krishna). I guess that must be possible..

Somehow I have a problem with the instruction to be very afraid of Samsara/Karma. I feel that religious practice shouldn’t be based on fear. And what is there to be afraid of? Maya/unhappiness/illusion? And how much choice do we actually have, given our minute free will? I would rather say: be aware or be conscious. Be very conscious..

Why?

If abortion is subject to strict Karmic laws, then there must always be abortions..

"The word 'Brahman' indicates the complete Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is Sri Krishna. That is the verdict of all Vedic literature." (Caitanya-caritamrita Madhya-lila, 6.147) Vishnu or Bhagavan Sri Krishna is the supreme personal spirit soul. Brahman is His impersonal energy pervading the entire universe. If Brahman is the body of the universe, then Krishna is the mind and soul of the universe. Human personal spirit souls are simultaneously one with Brahman and different from Krishna. Personality implies individuality and difference. Impersonality implies oneness. Since nothing can be any simpler than 'one', impersonal Brahman must be original. If personal Krishna is the ultimate origin, then Krishna and Brahman must be one and the same God, being both personal and impersonal. Oneness (advaita/monism) must be true, because logically there can be only one origin. But the absolute Truth may be a person that has a transcendental form..

So the fundamental strategy of this ‘global money trust’ is to put citizens (through personal loans) as well as national governments (through initiating wars and financing warfare) in so much debt that we all will become their eternal slaves. News media as well as governments are deliberately controlled and manipulated to cooperate and to hide the truth from the public, and the whole scheme has been going on in relative secrecy for at least a hundred years. Is that possible? Or are the currently unfolding political and economic events the result of largely autonomous, self-organizing dynamics of global modern society? I think this is a very important question here. Is it a deliberate and covertly planned long term operation, or is it all just coincidental, albeit driven by individuals and institutions that are simply motivated by short term self-interest. The fact that many of those supposed to be involved openly talked about global economic control is indicative to the latter possibility. Also, would these people really gamble that the world wide meltdown of the financial system and the social chaos and revolution that will result would leave them in control of it all in the end?

L.S., Computer simulations of genetic algorithms indicate that biological genetics actually might work and that sexual reproduction and 'survival of the fittest' are sufficient to explain all present biodiversity on Earth in terms of a strictly mechanical evolutionary process. Some even argue that 'artificial life' has been created in a computer. In this view, a dead piece of matter (the computer) and a finite set of simple rules (the computer program) can produce life in the form of electrical currents running through the computer’s circuits. Artificial evolution can produce complex artificial organisms, that reproduce and adapt to an artificial environment in an artificial universe. Is that life? And is the computer program the equivalent of God? Personally I don’t agree, but it’s a tough argument to refute. The only quality that may distinguish biological life from artificial life seems to be 'consciousness'. Artificial life proponents, however, will argue that consciousness is only characteristic of highly evolved organisms such as humans and is nothing but the cognitive ability to reflect on ones own thoughts, which may ultimately evolve inside a computer in the form of artificial intelligence. I would like to hear your thoughts on what it actually is that distinguishes biological life and consciousness from artificial life. Or are these basically equivalent phenomena that differ only in their degree of complexity? My own hunch is that the difference must be one of 'origin'. The origin of biological life on Earth is fundamentally different from a machine containing a powerful processor and a simple rule based software program. Nevertheless, philosophically, the similarities are striking. And even if you would immediately dismiss the possibility of artificial life based on religious principles, you may give it some thought and try specify why artificial life is not possible.