ancient_paztriot

Hridyananda… In the case of being faithful, let us say one should respect one's parents or one should be faithful in one's marriage and so on. These are certainly important moral principles. And ultimately they derive their meaning from God because these are religious injunctions. But does God derive His meaning from something else? Then how is He God? In other words, if we say we should serve God as an act of obedience to some higher principle… but is there some higher principle than God? So the point I'm getting at here is we should give all of our love to God because He actually deserves it and He's actually the natural repository of that love… because in fact He's all-attractive. He possesses ALL opulences of strength, wealth, beauty, fame, etc. Therefore, He's God. Therefore the injunction to love Him with all our heart, soul and might is based on something very real. .......................... I think a good meditation is to think of Krsna's opulence of renunciation. Who can be more renounced? He doesn't aspire for anything. I go nuts thinking how His other unlimited opulences don't make Him some power-mad tyrant.

But now here is another point. You say, “Show me. Prove it to me.” Our common experience is that whenever a proof takes place, there must be three elements. Someone must be there to demonstrate, there is the demonstration itself, and there must be someone qualified to evaluate the demonstration. If a scientist claims he has discovered a new mathematical formula which will solve any theoretical problem, who will evaluate that? There must be evaluation. Who will evaluate it? What if some uneducated low-class person (low-class in a cultural sense) who can’t write his own name says, “Let me judge.” Well, he’s not qualified to judge. So when you request proof, implicit are all these conditions. So therefore when you say, “Prove it to me. Show me,” the person who makes that statement is asserting I am qualified to evaluate. Guest: I agree, I’m qualified. Hridy: Well, what is your qualification? Guest: I have all the qualifications… Hridy: Now what are the qualifications to know God? Then we’ll see how you have them. Guest: You say God can do anything, so I want to see that entity or personal power who can do anything. Hridy: You’re avoiding my question. My question is specifically (I’ve become addicted to this) what is the qualification to see God? And second of all (I’m going to give you two at once like two barrels of a shotgun), unless you already know what God is, how could you understand what the qualification would be? Because certainly, the qualification to know something is intimately connected to the nature of that which we are trying to understand. To say I have the qualification means you already know what God is. If you already know what God is, why are you so skeptical? You have faith in the doctor, you don’t know what the medicine is. Your faith is then transferred to the medicine through the doctor. My point is that first of all what is the qualification to know God? And second, how could you know that unless you already know what God is? If you already know what God is, why are you claiming that we have to show Him to you? So you can begin now your answer. Guest: Ok. First of all, I have never found a person who has seen God. Hridy: That’s not an answer to my question. I’m sorry to hear that, but that’s not the answer I asked you for. You have to answer my question, not tell me the sad story of your life. I’m asking specific questions involving logic. If your request is unreasonable, it’s rejected. Now, I can say to you, “Jump ten feet in the air and whistle.” But if my request is unreasonable, it’s meaningless. If someone comes up and says jump ten feet in the air and whistle, you’ll tell them to go away. You have no right to demand a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question. Guest: My question is very reasonable. Hridy: No, that we are going to find out. We are going to find out if and when you answer my questions. You see, I’ve given you some questions because at this point we first want to find out if your question is reasonable. So answer my question. What is the qualification to know God and how do you know that qualification unless you already know what God is? How can you know what God is unless you know what God is? And if you do know what God is, you’ve already experienced Him? So my question is, how do you say you’re qualified? And what is the qualification and how do you know that’s the qualification? Guest: I’m educated, so I know most things. Hridy: I am very educated is not the answer to my question. Because even though you may be an educated scientists, you may know nothing about Shakespeare. An educated poet may not be able to fix the motor in his car or even change the tire. So therefore to say, I’m very educated is a statement which is so ambiguous, it’s practically irrelevant to the discussion. Specifically I want to know, What are the qualifications to know God and how do you know those are the qualifications? If you cannot answer that question, then your statement is meaningless. As I’ve already pointed out, the statement ‘show it to me’ makes sense only if you are actually qualified to evaluate the proof. And you can reasonably consider yourself qualified to evaluate the proof if you have prior knowledge of that which is to be demonstrated. For example,I know Sanskrit. Let us say you claim to also know Sanskrit. I say, “Here’s a sloka, now you tell me what that means.” You see? You prove to me you know Sanskrit. Now, it’s reasonable for me to challenge, “Prove Sanskrit to me,” because I know it. Therefore I can tell whether you’re bluffing or not. Similarly, let us say you know something about Bombay. I claim I know Bombay. So you say, “Prove it to me.” In other words, a person that says “prove it to me” is the person who already has the knowledge in that case. Now in the case where someone does not have the knowledge what he means to say is, “Prove to me you can actually teach this.” You see? Now what is the nature of that request? For example, you wouldn’t go to the college if you already know medicine. And if you don’t know medicine, how do you know who does know? You see? This is the same dilemma you’ll find in any process where we have to transmit knowledge. If you already know, you don’t have to learn and if you don’t know, how do you know who does know? That’s the problem. Therefore, there must be some other method by which we build our saddha or faith. There must be saddha in the person. So how do you get that faith? Guest: By seeing it demonstrated. Hridy: No, the student is going to the medical college and the family is paying money. It cost a small fortune in America. Now, if the goal of the process is to get the knowledge, how can you have it before you go through the process? You have to go through the medical college. When you graduate, then you’ll know if you got the knowledge. But the point is that you have to have your faith. You can’t go to the medical profession and say, “You first prove to me that you can teach me, then I’ll learn from you.” In any process of education, you begin with a little faith. And then at the end, your faith becomes stronger. So how do you answer the question ??? The first thing I said was, “What is the qualification?” The second point I made was, “How do we know?” The qualification to know God is you surrender. Now I began my discussion by saying if you take the empirical method, it only functions with entities you can manipulate or have access to. Now that eliminates all superior entities. I’ve had many famous scholars make this point to me. Therefore, if you make your initial assumption that you’ll only accept empirical knowledge, you are condemning yourself to live in a world of inferior entities based on the egomaniacal assumption that the only real things are myself and those things I can manipulate. Now imagine the emotional immaturity or the insanity of someone who’s initial assumption - not the conclusion of objective investigation - begins with the assumption that nothing is real except me and things I can manipulate. I mean he should see a psychiatrists. Isn’t it? I mean that person has emotional problems. And that is the pathological mentality behind this fanatical empiricism. Now if you want to study superior entities that by definition manipulate you, the approach is different. You deal one way with your servants and another with your master. Isn’t it? It’s a different psychology. So if you want to understand that which is greater than you, it’s a different psychological approach. Then you have to surrender. Some things you understand by controlling them and some things you understand by surrender. Just like the police capture a man. So because his status is criminal, he’s in a lower position. Now they want information from him so they beat him until he – as they say – sings. Isn’t it? By manipulating him they get the information. But now let us say that same criminal wants to find out from the police about his status, “Excuse me sir… ” He goes with folded hands, isn’t it? ??? And he’s begging, Could you please tell me? Because when you are in a higher position you can find out something by manipulating a lower thing. But when you want to understand the higher thing, you surrender. Just like in the university, the professor has the knowledge. If you want the knowledge, you have to please the professor. If he tells you “Jump!” you say, “How high?” Isn’t it?

Hridyananda… Now the rascals will say, “Alright we’ll concede that. But, ultimately everyone is Krsna.” So this is very strongly refuted in the 15th chapter. Actually it’s refuted everywhere. But in the 15th chapter, Krsna takes the trouble to specifically finnish this argument. I liked the 15th chapter very much. If you take the direct meaning of the Bhagavad-gita, there’s no question that He’s the Isvara and we are servants. Isvara ??? and so on. And we have to surrender. But still, some people are such rascals, still they’ll try and cheat Krsna. So even in the 12th chapter, Arjuna directly asks, ??? Yes, Arjuna directly asks. And he distinguishes between Your devotees and those who are worshiping ???. ???, the indestructible or ??? And of course, Lord Krsna answers, Sri Bhagavan Uvaca, ??? Then he says, ??? it is beyond designation. And ??? They also come to Me eventually. So this word ??? is there. So, the distinction is made, ??? Now in the 15th chapter, this word ??? again appears. Lord Krsna says that ??? In this world there are two kinds of persons ??? and ???. So again He brings in this word. ??? and the word ??? also is brought over from the 12th chapter. You may remember when Lord Krsna is describing the impersonalists in the 12th chapter, He used both these words, ???. So therefore, by analysis we can understand that although Lord Krsna’s saying that a liberated soul, ??? and also conditioned soul. But He has specifically brought back the language of the 12th chapter to indicate He’s going to finnish, again bury, pour even more dirt on the grave of this impersonal argument. So then He says, ???. So it’s very clear. Uttuma in English, a word that sounds the same as ultimate. So He says, ???, that the uttuma-purusa is another here. ??? He is called Paramatma. That means whenever the word Paramatma occurs in the Gita, it must understood to be Krsna and not the jiva. You see? That’s significant because in the 13th chapter, this word Paramatma is used. But the mayavadis will try to claim that Paramatma refers to the jiva. But here Paramatma is defined as ??? Not the ??? nor the ???. Not the liberated soul. ??? Then Lord Krsna says, ??? Because I am beyond the ???… Now this word ??? is also very significant. You see? He’s emphasizing very strongly ???, even. Even I’m above the ???. You see? It’s very emphatic. ??? Therefore ??? Therefore I’m glorified in the world and in the Vedas. ??? That means because everyone knows God. Just like even all these scientists are talking about God. So ??? Even those who don’t understand shastra, but in their own way they talk about God. So Krsna says ??? Then ???, celebrated. Then the final statement is ??? So one who knows Me in this way. The whole mayavadi point is that you may take Krsna in the beginning, but then you have to go beyond Krsna to the ???-brahma, or some impersonal idea – moksha. But Krsna says, If you know Me this way, ??? You take this understanding that I’m Purrusottoma, ???. So this bogus argument that you have to go beyond this Purrusottoma to some other idea is finished. ??? He does not reserve any feeling for some other idea of God. ??? So it’s very clear. Then, He’s so emphatic that these people are certain mudhas, they have thick heads, they can’t understand it. Sometimes in the Upanisads you’ll find someindirect or esoteric language. But here He’s beating them on the head with it, but still they can’t understand. Then Krsna says, ??? This is ???-shastra, most confidential shastra. ??? So I very much appreciate this section of Bhagavad-gita. Now a famous American scholar, Houston Smith, has written a famous book comparing all the religions of the world; a standard textbook in America. So I’ve read a summary of his paper. He’s going to make many points which I agree with. One point is that if you take the empirical method you must get certain types of information. Because a message in itself is appropriate for certain types of information only. For example, let’s say you have a scale to weigh things. So if you want to find out what the temperature is with that scale, it’s useless. And similarly, it’s impossible to find out how much you weigh with a thermometer. So a particular process is only appropriate to get certain kinds of information. If you take the empirical method, you cannot study things unless you somehow observe or manipulate them. You can make your initial observation. But then you have to do something. You have to see if the behavior of this entity – whether it’s a planet or a squirrel – is becoming modified as the environment is being changed. Even observation means you’re acting upon it. Otherwise, why does a rich man build a wall? Because he wants his privacy, he doesn’t want other people to act upon him. Because seeing is also acting. It’s just like there is a man more important than you. So what do we mean when we say more important? It means that he can see you if he likes, but you cannot see him unless he wants you to. That’s the idea. Therefore, even to have access that I can see you when I like means my position is better or at least equal. You see? Now if I have to request you, “Can you give me an appointment? Can I see you?” Well that means you’re in the higher position. Empiricism means you must have access and be able to manipulate the object you are studying in some way. Now obviously, you can only do that with inferior entities. You can’t manipulate something which is greater than you. The access is not there. So if you take the empirical method, you are limited––a priori––to inferior entities because of the nature of your investigation. Just like a thermometer will give you certain types of information like heat and cold. Or a scale or a microphone or an electrocardiogram; each instrument gives a certain type of information. So if you declare that only the information derived from this particular process is valid, it is a stupid thing to say. First of all it’s stupid because it’s self-contradictory. I can say it’s stupid not only subjectively, but objectively things that contradict themselves are stupid. Let’s say I make the claim only empirical knowledge is valid––as scientists say. Now if my statement is true, then it’s not true because that statement cannot be empirically verified. You see? I have to make a leap of faith. You cannot prove your senses, indria, are giving you objective information about an outside world. You cannot prove that empirically because empiricism is valid only after that assumption. In other words, let us say someone takes a skeptical position and says, “There is no world out there. In fact, my senses are simply hallucinating. There’s no actual world out there. I’m just seeing the reflections of my mind, that’s all.” Now someone can take that skeptical position if he likes. So if you assume that’s not true, there is a world out there, I am seeing it and under rigorous conditions I can get reliable information about it, you assume that by your faith. Then you can begin your empiricism. And you can say this particular observation is valid or not. But to make that initial assumption is your faith. Therefore Lord Krsna says that ??? according to your nature. ??? for everyone; scientists, philosopher, businessman, lunatic – for everyone. ???, that faith arises, ??? for everyone, but according to his nature. Then He says, ??? This living entity is ??? He is made of faith, constituted of faith. Because what do we mean when we try to define a person? You can say that he’s physically is a certain way, he performs certain activities or he has certain associations. But all those things are coming from his faith in the sense that he has created a certain karma. Why have you tried to enjoy in a certain way so that now you’ve taken this body? That was by your faith. Your ??? lead you to act in a certain way. Now you’ve taken this body. ??? Lord Krsna says, ??? Just like why do you try to enjoy this world in a certain way? You believe that it’ll make you happy. Therefore, you accept a particular guna-sanga. So therefore Lord Krsna says that everyone is ??? By your faith you create your existence. So whatever faith you have, that’s what you are. Isn’t it? Just like you’re a business man. What does it mean? That means you believe you should act that way. Otherwise, why are you acting in that way? Why are you living in a certain way, associating with certain family, friends or associates? Because you have faith. Therefore, Lord Krsna says, ??? A very significant point in Bhagavad-gita’s philosophy is that you cannot say, “Oh, you’re a faithful man, but he’s not faithful.” No! The variable is the object of faith. But faith is constant. Guest: Faith is constant? Hridy: Yes, the variable is the object of the faith. As soon as you don’t accept this, you’re accepting something else. Just like you say, “I don’t believe in Krsna.” “Oh, you really believe there’s no Krsna?” Then you have to believe there’s no Krsna. Now you may say I am not sure. Then the question is, “Do you really think you’re not sure?” In other words, maybe you really know what you think, but you won’t admit it to yourself. So even to take a position that I don’t know, you have to believe that because you can be challenged, “You really do know, but you don’t admit it.” No, I really believe I don’t know”. You see? Either you say, I accept God, I don’t accept God, or I’m not sure. In either case, you have to believe that. So ??? Consciousness must always take some object. To be conscious means to be conscious of something. Perception must always have it’s object. So you must also have some attitude toward that object. That’s the consequence of your previous faith. Let us say you get on an airplane, then halfway to your destination you ring your button and tell the stewardess, “I changed my mind. I don’t want to go to that city.” “Well, I’m very sorry… ” You see? You believed it would be good for you to travel on that flight. But after take-off, you decide my faith is now changed. Still, your previous decision has it’s consequences. If you jump off a building and then one second before you crash, “Augh I didn’t really want to jump.” You won’t fly back up. So decisions are consequences of faith. And you often have to wait until the consequences are exhausted before you can make another decision. Now I’m making my argument for this reason. Because many scientists or materialists will falsely say, “Oh your life is based on faith. Our life is based on reason.” So first of all, I’m clearing away that false argument. We can demonstrate to scientists you also base everything on faith. You also have your leap of faith. Your leap of faith is that you accept your senses give you reliable information about a real world which is actually out there. That’s your leap. So the scientists cannot truthfully argue that his life is based on reason, his life is also based on faith. Once you make your faith, once you make your initial assumption, then within those assumptions what you’re doing is reasonable. Let us say a man is crazy. So he assumes there are little green people floating in the air everywhere who have ray guns and the only way to avoid being shot by them is to put plastic on your head. So he walks around with plastic on his head. Now this man is crazy. How do you say ??? But if you grant him his initial assumption, then what he’s doing is reasonable. So therefore, everyone is reasonable if you grant them their initial assumptions. What has to be examined is whether the initial assumptions are reasonable or true. Let us say we’re speaking. Now, from the physiological point of view everyone is doing the same thing. If a physiologist is studying the physical process of speaking, he doesn’t care about the content (whether your speaking the truth and I’m speaking a lie. Let us say it is now 8:15. So someone asks, “What time is it?” You say 8:15, I say 12:30. Now the content of your statement is correct, the content of my statement is incorrect. But physiologically speaking, we’re doing the same thing––talking. Yes. But if you take the truth content it’s different. So therefore, in a sense everyone is doing the same thing – making some initial assumptions and then doing what they think is reasonable within those assumptions – although some people are so crazy they contradict themselves. So the important thing is where you put your faith. Now if your initial assumption is Krsna, you get everything because He is God. Whereas, if your initial assumption is nothing more than that some physical world, those initial assumptions are so limited they can’t give very much. There’s very little fruit. Now his statement about the hare nama is actually correct. First of all, why does someone become conditioned? Just like someone takes some drug and becomes addicted. Then again, he’ll have to take that drug. Or he becomes addicted to sex. Just like it is sometimes said “he’s a slave of wine” or “he’s a slave of women.” Isn’t it? Or one can be a slave of money. Why does this conditioning take place? You see? Socrates made this point. He said people ask “how” but the real question is “why?” It is one dialogue I’m doing now for my book that’s called ??? in which Socrates is saying if someone asks, “Why is Socrates sitting here?” Someone will answer “because his body is constructed in this way with joints in his legs that allow them to bend and he’s sitting down.” He said that’s stupid. “I’m sitting here because I want to be here.” The real answer to “Why is Socrates sitting here?” has to explain in terms of a purpose. Why? Because I have some purpose. In the same way if we say “Why do we become conditioned?” and you answer because you engaged in some sinful activity and become addicted. No, that is how. The question is why? You may say, Because I desire it. That’s alright. But now applying this question why, “Why should the laws of nature react to you in that way?” You see? Just like you try to enjoy something sinful. Why does nature respond to you in such a way that it catches you? You see? Don’t say “how?” The question is not “how?” The question is “why?” The why question is because it’s Krsna’s plan that you are such nonsense, he catches you.

Guest: ??? Hridy: Yea because Krsna says that for example ???. You see, it’s not that this equality was invented by Thomas Jefferson or this man or that man or some guy in France. Actually… Or by the Greeks. The point is Krsna says ???. And Krsna is not a prejudiced humanist that slaughters animals and then ??? human beings. He’s not just a small-minded fool. He says that ???. It doesn’t matter, brahmana or cow or elephant, ???. Why soma-dharsana? Because in every body whether it’s mosquito or the prime minister, in every body there is a soul and in every body there is God. So on that basis yes, it is very easy to understand why we have to give everyone their dignity. But if you say So what am I? I am a physical organism, you’re another physical organism. Then don’t bring in these words dignity because they make no sense. They are talking about a world in which there are only physical things and morality is something people imagine. Because if ultimately reality is just physical organisms, then all these equality and justice and blah morality… These are just words that human beings invent just to manipulate each other. Or to create a certain situation… Guest: ??? Hridy: I say if you reject God and the soul, then all of this morality and ethics and justice and equality, there’s no philosophical… What does it mean? Because then if there’s no God, then if I say the opposite, then what I say is equally authoritative. If I say No, if I can kill you or I can rape this woman or if I can steal his property or burn your house down or invade that country, then that’s alright. But that’s my philosophy, that’s my morality. And you say No, everyone should be good. But I say Well you’re not God and I’m not God so why is your statement better than my statement. What will you say? Guest: I think you should ??? Hridy: Individual? Guest: When discussing about morality, you should take it ??? Hridy: Ok, let’s take a society like let’s say Hitler’s Germany or Churchill’s England. Let’s take a society that is imperialistic where all the people in the society support a policy to invade other nations, rape the women, kill the men, steal all the property. And that’s their societal policy. That’s what… Guest: ??? Hridy: They may say whatever they like. But let’s take a society like that. And they think that’s good. And that’s their social view and the professors teach it in the universities, there’s books about it, everyone believes it, they’re sincere about their belief and they go and do it. Now is that alright? In other words, are you prepared to accept the philosophical consequences of a world view without God? If you actually want to take out God and the soul, you have to realize what kind of world you’re gonna get – and I mean by logical implications. Because if there is no God, then ultimately if you say that we should be good and I say to be good means to cut off everyone’s head that doesn’t belong to my religion and wasn’t born in my community, is not the same race as I am. Anyone that is in a different category, racially or ethnically or socially or whatever should be killed and you say something else it’s just… You know you’re not God, I’m not God. There are no absolutes. There are just different opinions. I mean do you really believe in that? That that’s the way the world should be? Do you believe that might makes right? Guest: ??? Hridy: But if might doesn’t make right, what does make right? That’s my question. Now apart from your… Let us say you are asserting a particular moral view. Let’s step aside from that for a moment. To be more objective let us just talk about the general principles. In general, what establishes the authority of a particular moral view… whatever it may be, mine or yours or any moral view? What do we mean when we say that a particular view is correct? Now in this context there is no God. So when we say in English that this moral view is correct, what do we mean by that? Guest: Now to bring in the example of market forces and things like that. Well every person who goes, he goes to the market to sell his goods, another person goes to buy those goods. On the ??? level, the ??? are contradictory. ??? Hridy: When you go where? Guest: ??? Hridy: But again you’re saying that nature is sort of a balancing mechanism in nature, whatever. But you see again I would say that you are simply making an appeal to what you consider to be reasonableness. This is a typical liberal appeal. It says look it everybody, let’s just be reasonable. Let’s understand that actually although we apparently have conflicting interest, all these can be reconciled. So what if I just say nonsense, I don’t believe it. And I take out a gun. So my point is that this appeal to reasonableness I think is… What if someone says No, I don’t believe in letting things balance naturally. Everyone be nice and friendly and you know… What if I’m actually a very violent and aggressive person and just completely selfish. My question is this therefore. In general what do we mean? Now you may argue. It’s one thing for you to say that if people follow my view (you know using the marketing analogy)… It’s one thing to say that listen everybody, if you do things this way then most people will be happy. You see if you convince everyone. That’s one thing. But it’s another thing to say that it’s actually right. In other words, what if I say Well you’re just propagating a mass hallucination. Everyone will be happy that way because they’re just all in ignorance. So in other words, my question is not just an appeal on the basis that this will make the largest number of people reasonably happy. But rather my question is is it right? Because what if I had a policy where I give everyone is the state let’s say cocaine, you know or heroin and then everyone feels… So my question is what about a society that is suicidal? In a suicidal society they would consider reasonable policy which provided for the greatest possible destruction of the most people. Or in a society which is very imperialistic, they would feel frustrated unless they could conquer someone. So therefore an appeal to say Well everyone should become a secular, humanistic liberal and that’s how the world would be a nice place to live in. Guest: ??? that concept is impossible. Hridy: No, but what I’m saying is what if I’m not only a wicked person, but I’m a very philosophical wicked person? And I say that if you can show me philosophically that what you’re saying is not only alot of fun for the most people, but actually it’s correct, that there’s some proof, there’s some demonstration that I should do it, that this is actually good. Not only pleasant but good. Because you’re saying more or less that it’s pleasant, everyone will have a pleasant life that way. But what if I say is it right? Is it true? Is it objective that we should do this? You would have to demonstrate that an individual must be concerned about society in general. What if I deny even that responsibility? What if I say that I don’t recognize any moral compulsion to care about other people? I don’t empathize with other people. I don’t identify with them. Physically I’m a separate organism. I simply don’t recognize any obligation. Now this is a very wicked position to take. So what would your argument be? Would you just say don’t think that way? What would you say philosophically to show such a person… Don’t say to him Well you’re causing suffering to others because he could say Well that I don’t care about that. But how would you prove to him that he is actually wrong? That there’s something wrong with that objectively? Not only that it’s unpleasant, but that it’s wrong, it’s bad. And he could say what does the word bad mean? Guest: ??? Hridy: Alright, but then… Fine. Yes, you come back to might makes right. Then he says if I can get more guns… Guest: ??? Hridy: Therefore if you accept that the basis of moral philosophy is might makes right… Guest: ??? Hridy: But when you say the law demands… The law doesn’t do anything. The law is just a piece of paper. People demand. So therefore if I can get more power than you and throw you in jail, then that means my wicked policy is right. Guest: ??? Hridy: You see my… You don’t understand what I’m getting at. I’m trying to expose… I’ll tell you exactly what I’m doing in this discussion. Guest: No what I’m saying that these ??? possible. Society, the law, the morality ??? Hridy: No, only if you accept might makes right. And if you accept might makes right, there are certain applications of that which are unacceptable to you because your final conclusion was I’ll throw you in jail. But then I could just say… Guest: ??? Hridy: No, but what if I have my other society. In other words what if there’s a war going on and I win and I put you in jail? In other words there are different kinds of society. Hitler had his society, Churchill had his society, ??? had his society, Reagan had his society. What if the Americans decide that they’re going to throw nuclear bombs at India and let’s say they actually do it and then they become the society. So what I’m saying is do you really believe that right and wrong should be judicated or ultimately decided simply on the basis of who can throw who in jail? Obviously… I mean you don’t accept that. And if you don’t accept that, then without bringing in God what does it mean… What does it actually mean when you say something is right or wrong? What do those words mean if there is no God. Since there is no God anyone can say whatever he likes and no ones God… So no ones God so he can say whatever he likes. Guest: ??? Hridy: Yes, so my question is if there is not a Supreme God… if there is a Supreme God with the Absolute Truth and who is good and who desires that everyone be good, then we… And actually if He says that I’ve created the world in such a way that actually people are supposed to be good and that by being good they are realizing their own nature, they’re realizing themselves, then you can talk about that. But if there is not God who is an absolute authority whom we are part of and whom we belong to and under who’s control we are, then my question is what does it mean to say that something is right or wrong? Guest: ??? Hridy: But people decide in different ways. So who is the judge? Guest: ??? Hridy: But frankly speaking that utilitarian philosophy in my opinion is a bunch of garbage. It never works, it never has worked. You can talk till your blue in the face – utilitarian philosophy – and then some tyrant, some dictator comes along and he’ll bomb your utilitarian head. And that’s actually the reality of it. To think that just by… I mean that’s the whole European you know humanistic secular idea. If we just talk to each other, if we just communicate, if we just have public schools and educate people, everyone will become rational. And when everyone becomes rational, they’ll become a secular humanist. But actually what’s happening is in the public schools they’re turning into drug addicts and sex mongers. Because when you take out God what happens is not that everyone becomes a nice secular humanist who opens the doors for the ladies and stops at the red light and would never declare a war against anyone. But what you get is a bunch of animals, violent animals. Because in fact it’s very interesting to see that this secular humanism arose out of a European Christian society and actually the secular humanists were going on the moral momentum of the Christian period. So when the saecular humanists arose because people in general were Christians, if you said things like we should be good, we should be tolerant, we shouldn’t exploit others, those things were given. In other words you didn’t have to prove those things, they were just given. Yea, Ok. We’ll give you that. We’ll grant that, we’ll grant this, we’ll grant that. So actually they used the foundation… And even Marx did that. You see, if you say to a Christian Europe Well, we shouldn’t exploit each other. Yea, that makes sense. No one’s gonna question that because they still had all the momentum, the ethical momentum from Christianity. But then you see, when you kill the goose that laid the golden egg, which is religion which actually is the basis of morality and then people are no longer Christians or Hindus or anything, then suddenly morality isn’t axiomatic anymore. And therefore you have a society of people who are not willing to grant you all these moral views. They say Well I won’t grant it. I don’t believe it. So actually this secular humanism is built on the ethical strength of the religions. So they want to take all that ethical goodness and then cut it off from it’s source which is God. And the result is you get a situation in America where people… You know where they spend trillions of dollars on public education to make people reasonable, ethical people. The result is that all the children have become like little animals. They take drugs, they fornicate like pigs and they don’t care about… They think it might even be pleasant to have a nuclear war if you could win it. I mean these are the kind of people that are being produced. So my point is both philosophically and in practice, if people become godless you will not maintain this enlightened utilitarian ethical society. It’s all just a big dream.

Arjuna’s sense of justice here impels him to ask this question. He says My dear Lord Krsna, please cut away this doubt. In other words, Arjuna feels that this must not be true that a fallen yogi ends up a complete looser, no spiritual achievement, no material achievement. So Arjuna feels that this must not be true, so please take away this doubt. Tvad-anyah samsayasyasya chetta na hy upapadyate. He says there is no one besides you who can destroy this doubt. Only you can destroy this doubt. Why only Krsna? Because Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is a supreme person. Just as we are persons, we are living in this world full of desires, ambitions, purposes, feelings, relationships, our life is personal. And because we are conscious and because we desire knowledge, therefore naturally we try to discover the history of our own existence. Scientists for example… Of course many scientists are simply puppets of the military/industrial interests. As you may know, up to 50 percent of the scientists in the United States are directly engaged in research related to military objectives and probably most of the other ones are engaged for industry, commerce, figuring out a better fingernail polish or children’s toy or something like that… some other noble endeavor like that. So almost as an accidental by-product of western business and military interest sometimes we learn something about the world. So those scientists who are in fact trying to understand the nature of reality, what is the world really, what are we really? Naturally they are trying to understand the origin of life. Somehow we know that the origin of life is very much related to it’s purpose. When we find out where life came from, when we find out where we have come from, we presume that we will know a good deal about what we should be doing now and where we are going. That’s our presumption. Therefore for example in the western culture and actually all over the world, the thesis of Darwin had tremendous impact. Because it was a new theory, a new proposal as to the origin of our existence as personal conscious human beings. And in fact we see in this ongoing debate between the Darwinists and usually the Christians who are usually their opponents, we see this debate on the origin of life. And presumably whoever wins has scored a major victory because to know where things come from is suppose to be a very important question to answer. Anyway, the fact is that all of us come from God just as the sun rays come from the sun. For example we feel heat in the sunshine. In general sunshine is warm or hot. Therefore we feel safe in presuming that the sun itself is hot and not cold. Now of course, theoretically it could be possible that the sun is cold and that we’ve simply jumped to conclusions thinking the sun is hot. That somehow the sun rays pass through some type of energy field and become hot. But the sun itself is cold. That’s theoretically possible but no one would believe it. It’s very implausible because… We assume the sun is hot. Why? Why do we assume the sun is hot when we could say theoretically the sun is cold? We all presume the sun is hot because of a simple type of logic that all of us employ knowingly or unknowingly. And that logic is that somehow an effect tells us something about the cause. We all assume that. Therefore, the sunshine which is the effect of whatever the sun does… The sun is doing something up there. And whatever it does the result is sunshine. The scientists are still trying to understand exactly what it is the sun does. They don’t know that yet. But it does something and as a result of that, it shines. Any way, because the sunshine is warm, we assume the sun is also warm or hot. Similarly, for example if there’s an automobile accident –– at least in America. I suppose also in Fiji –– you’re not suppose to move the cars after the accident. Is that the system here also? Why? Because in order to understand who was the cause of the accident and therefore who was responsible, we begin with the effect. The effect is there is a couple of smashed automobiles and broken glass and so on. That’s the effect. But the insurance companies can’t settle anything until they find out the cause. So the start with the effect and go back to the cause… hopefully. Similarly, when you go to a doctor. The doctor asks you… He wants information about you. Do you smoke? Do you drink? What are your habits? When did you start feeling this? Do you have any previous diseases? Because the doctor tries to find out what’s wrong with you by studying the history of your case. He begins with the effect which is a particular condition you’re in and he tries to go back to the cause. Similarly, if we want to understand God we do have something to begin with. That is we have a big effect called the material world. After all, what is this universe if not a big effect? Now what is the cause of that? That’s the problem. So just as we are… It is reasonable for us to presume that the sunshine being warm must emanate from a hot sun and not a cold sun. Similarly because all of us, we are all effects of God, because all of us are conscious and we are persons, therefore it is completely reasonable to presume that God is somehow conscious and personal. Because if God were not conscious and personal, how could he account for so many billions of conscious persons? That’s the point.

I see what you mean… Very intense.

Hridy: You agree. So we’re different. So now we also observe that in the animal species and insects, they don’t exactly have the same reverence for dharma. In other words, they’re not so much concerned about ethics. For example one animal may kill another animal. There’s not that there’s like a dog police that comes and then a dog trial and a dog judge and dog witnesses come in. Guest: ??? Hridy: So therefore what is… In other words, why does it follow logically that because we belong to the same species we are equal? Why could I say we belong to the same species… Guest: ??? Hridy: I’ll tell you why! Because if… I’ll tell you why! I’ll answer… Excuse me! I’ll answer your question. Because the whole point of dharma, ethics and all this, is it provides a restraining force. In other words, what if you have some property? Let’s go to a real situation. You have some property. I want that property. And let’s say I’m physically stronger than you. Or you’re physically stronger than me and you want my property. Now at that point… That’s a real human situation… you come and say Wait a second. Even though you may be physically stronger than me, this is my property and I have my rights. Or let’s say some country wants to invade India and you say this is unethical. In other words, all of us have certain ethical views. So therefore in terms of physical fact, maybe this person actually could dominate you or you could dominate him. So therefore the question becomes why shouldn’t we do that? If you say why I should do it, I could say because I desire it. In other words human beings do desire to exploit each other. Guest: Because everyone has equal right to live. Hridy: No, no. But you’re just saying that again. Don’t just enunciate it. Explain it. Let us say in the real world human beings do have desires to exploit each other. And other human beings say Hold on, calm down, you know everyone has their rights. So actually we find that equal rights are asserted in the face of attempts at exploitation and cruelty and so on and so forth. That’s why they’re enunciated, to stop that kind of thing. Therefore, my question is if someone says to you I want to invade that country or I want to steal that man’s property and you say we have equal rights and I say Why? Why not just say but if I can successfully steal then it’s mine? In fact I’ve taken his property. If someone can invade India or if India can invade some other country and they get away with it, then the fact is they now have that property. So when you say even though you’ve got it, you took it it’s yours, it should not be yours, it’s like that distinction you made between what is and what should be. What do you mean when you make a statement like it should be or it should not be? What does that mean? Because if you say we should have equal rights even though we don’t or… What does that mean we should have? Why? If I say why? If you say it’s a law of nature… It’s a law of nature that people in the same species have same rights. I could say where is it written as a law of nature? Who said it’s a law of nature? I could say it’s a law of nature survival of the fittest. Now why is your law of nature more authoritative than my law of nature which is survival of the fittest? If I can beat you over the head with a club and steal your property, then I’ve got it. So why is that law (which seems to be very pragmatic)… Why is that law less authoritative than yours? And don’t just say it again, tell me why it’s true. Why is it true? Because it’s not in nature. For example we see in an ant colony or a bee colony, there are worker bees and worker ants and there are the royalty. So therefore, it’s not that in nature everyone in a certain species is the same. It’s not true in nature. For example that black widow spider, it mates with a male, they have sex, then it kills the father. So that’s not very ethical. So it’s not that it’s self-evident. In other words if something is not self-evident you have to give an argument for it. So it’s not self-evident in nature that everyone in the same species has the same rights. Guest: Logically, material nature ??? Hridy: But what if someone said… But it turns out that many people have a different nature. Like that… People, different leaders, politicians, their nature is to exploit and to take things. So what is your argument? Without God and the soul… If you accept God and the soul, I think you can make a very good argument. But my point… What I’m arguing against now is not equality – because I believe in equal rights – but what I’m arguing against is what I consider to be a ridiculous attempt to establish equality and all these things in a secular humanistic context. That’s what I’m attacking. Guest: No, unfortunately sir, ??? Hridy: But why equal opportunity? If there is no God, if you don’t want to bring in God and the soul, then my argument is very simple. If you try to reject God and reject the soul, you cannot actually sustain a moral philosophy. That’s my point. Now personally I say there is God and there is a soul and therefore moral philosophy can be successfully presented. But if you want… But why reject God and the soul? And the same time you think through some type of humanistic word juggelry that you’re going to establish a moral philosophy or a moral social… I say it’s artificial and bogus.

Wonderful. I really relished that. This foolish Guest also has faith, but he ignores that.

There's a photo album on the site too.

The Dark Side of the Moon (album on the charts for 14 years) Produced by Pink Floyd Released March, 1973 Recorded in Abbey Road Studios between June 1972 and Junary 1973 Cover Design by Hipgnosis Speak to Me "I've been mad for . years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks, been working me buns off for bands..." "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..." (Instrumental) Breathe Breathe, breathe in the air. Don't be afraid to care. Leave but don't leave me. Look around and choose your own ground. Long you live and high you fly And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry And all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be. Run, rabbit run. Dig that hole, forget the sun, And when at last the work is done Don't sit down it's time to dig another one. For long you live and high you fly But only if you ride the tide And balanced on the biggest wave You race towards an early grave. On The Run [female announcer, announcing flights at airport, including 'Rome'] "Live for today, gone tomorrow, that's me, HaHaHaaaaaa!" (Instrumental) Time Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way. Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town Waiting for someone or something to show you the way. Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain. You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you. No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun. So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older, Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. Every year is getting shorter never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way The time is gone, the song is over, Thought I'd something more to say. Breathe Home, home again. I like to be here when I can. When I come home cold and tired It's good to warm my bones beside the fire. Far away across the field The tolling of the iron bell Calls the faithful to their knees To hear the softly spoken magic spells. The Great Gig in the Sky "And I am not frightened of dying, any time will do, I don't mind. Why should I be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it, you've gotta go sometime." "If you can hear this whispering you are dying." "I never said I was frightened of dying." (Instrumental) Money Money, get away. Get a good job with good pay and you're okay. Money, it's a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team. Money, get back. I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack. Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good .. I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet. Money, it's a crime. Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie. Money, so they say Is the root of all evil today. But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're giving none away. "HuHuh! I was in the right!" "Yes, absolutely in the right!" "I certainly was in the right!" "You was definitely in the right. That geezer was cruising for a bruising!" "Yeah!" "Why does anyone do anything?" "I don't know, I was really drunk at the time!" "I was just telling him, he couldn't get into number 2. He was asking why he wasn't coming up on freely, after I was yelling and screaming and telling him why he wasn't coming up on freely. It came as a heavy blow, but we sorted the matter out" Us and Them Us, and them And after all we're only ordinary men. Me, and you. God only knows it's noz what we would choose to do. Forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died. And the general sat and the lines on the map moved from side to side. Black and blue And who knows which is which and who is who. Up and down. But in the end it's only round and round. Haven't you heard it's a battle of words The poster bearer cried. Listen son, said the man with the gun There's room for you inside. "I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give 'em a quick short, sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? I mean he get off lightly, 'cos I would've given him a thrashing - I only hit him once! It was only a difference of opinion, but really...I mean good manners don't cost nothing do they, eh?" Down and out It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about. With, without. And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about? Out of the way, it's a busy day I've got things on my mind. For the want of the price of tea and a slice The old man died. Any Colour You Like (Instrumental) Brain Damage The lunatic is on the grass. The lunatic is on the grass. Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs. Got to keep the loonies on the path. The lunatic is in the hall. The lunatics are in my hall. The paper holds their folded faces to the floor And every day the paper boy brings more. And if the dam breaks open many years too soon And if there is no room upon the hill And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. The lunatic is in my head. The lunatic is in my head You raise the blade, you make the change You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane. You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me. And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear. And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. "I can't think of anything to say except... I think it's marvelous! HaHaHa!" Eclipse All that you touch All that you see All that you taste All you feel. All that you love All that you hate All you distrust All you save. All that you give All that you deal All that you buy, beg, borrow or steal. All you create All you destroy All that you do All that you say. All that you eat And everyone you meet All that you slight And everyone you fight. All that is now All that is gone All that's to come and everything under the sun is in tune but the sun is eclipsed by the moon. "There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."

Hridayananda… At what age is one considered a moral agent? So we are responsible for what we do. And according to the Bhagavad-gita, it is because of that responsibility that we are in the present situation that we're in. This is called the law of karma. In the Bible I think you have the idea that "as you sow, so you shall reap". The problem is when you try to force this logic principle within the framework of one lifetime, it doesn't seem to fit. If you reap what you sow just within this life, it's very hard to pull it off 'cause as we know, everyone's not born in the same situation. Also, many people appear to escape crimes. ....................... Whatever you think you know, death is gonna change your mind somehow. ....................... Hridayananda… In other words, according to the law of karma, it is not because we deserve what ultimately happens to us, therefore you are justified in doing anything, You can go and injure someone and say, "Well, I couldn't have done it unto you unless you deserved it." You see that principle… there is an economy of action in the sense that things are organized in a certain way, but it does not justify atrocities. There are still laws of nature. But anyway, the situation I am born into is because of my own activities. Therefore, in this Vedic view the universe is rational. We have a (material) universe which is basically irrational. This is one of the ironies of the so-called modern scientific world view. Although they pride themselves on being the masters of causaility and proof and this and that, in fact they have created for us a totally irrational universe in which we can explain why things interact, but we can give no reasonable explanation for the existential situation.

Many spies have standard issue: a map or paper AND a CELL PHONE. I personally think if they get brain cancer from needlessly monitoring our activities for a paycheck, then they deserve it. They don't have much of a brain anyway. They need to supress this one (see below). This is not good for moral. ..................... Neuroscience: A Swedish study links mobile phones to brain damage. In rats, anyway. by Elizabeth Svoboda February 2004 The safety of cellphones has been called into question, again. This time the scientific community is paying very close attention. Last summer neurosurgeon Leif Salford and colleagues at Lund University in Sweden published data showing for the first time an unambiguous link between microwave radiation emitted by GSM mobile phones (the most common type worldwide) and brain damage in rats. If Salford's results are confirmed by follow-up studies in the works at research facilities worldwide, including one run by the U.S. Air Force, the data could have serious implications for the one billion?plus people glued to their cellphones. The findings have re-ignited a longstanding debate among scientists and cellphone manufacturers over cellphone safety. Many of the hundreds of studies performed during the past decade suggest cellphone use may cause a host of adverse effects, including headaches and memory loss. Other studies, however, have shown no such effects, and no scientific consensus exists about the effect of long-term, low-level radiation on the brain and other organs. A comprehensive $12 million federal investigation of cellphone safety is currently under way but will take at least five years to complete. Meanwhile, the research world is scrambling to replicate Salford's surprising results. His team exposed 32 rats to 2 hours of microwave radiation from GSM cellphones. Researchers attached the phones to the sides of the rats' small cages using coaxial cables -- allowing for intermittent direct exposure -- and varied the intensity of radiation in each treatment group to reflect the range of exposures a human cellphone user might experience over the same time period. Fifty days after the 2-hour exposure, the rat brains showed significant blood vessel leakage, as well as areas of shrunken, damaged neurons. The higher the radiation exposure level, the more damage was apparent. The controls, by contrast, showed little to no damage. If human brains are similarly affected, Salford says, the damage could produce measurable, long-term mental deficits. The cellphone industry so far has been quick to dismiss the data, saying emissions from current mobiles fall well within the range of radiation levels the FCC deems safe (body-tissue absorption rates of under 1.6 watts per kilogram). "Expert reviews of studies done over the past 30 years have found no reason to believe that there are any health hazards whatsoever," says Mays Swicord, scientific director of Motorola's Electromagnetic Energy Programs. Dr. Marvin Ziskin, chair of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' Committee on Man and Radiation, is similarly skeptical. "The levels of radiation they used seem way too low to be producing the kinds of effects they're claiming." Salford is the first to admit that it's too early to draw any conclusions, but contends the unusual results deserve a closer look. "The cellphone is a marvelous invention; it has probably saved thousands of lives," he says. "But governments and suppliers should be supporting more autonomous research." Meanwhile, Salford advises users to invest in hands-free headsets to reduce radiation exposure to the brain.

Yes, more 'in the name of' stuff. The workers and CITIZENS can be expected to give up their privacy and peace in the name of efficiency and security. But that should also work for the leaders - even more so since their abuse can be much worse than the underlings. But oh no, that would be overintelligent. I'm warning you people with all sincerity. The powers that be want to make you responsive machines that serves their interests. Your value lies in THAT! …And the New World Order roles on. It is later than it seems! ("New World Order" sounds very German to me). The powers that be have been controlling the media and information that flows to you for years. The decimation wrought by the Europeans or Americans around the world has been filtered, placated and hidden by unscrupulous manipulators from the start. And we as citizens have been slowly paying for our own social subjugation by the tolerance of living of the sins of the capitalist rich. We were happy to share the spoils and be blind to the consequences as long as our gratification was met. The entire Euro-American history has been based on the technological advantage and exploitation of peoples and the Earth in general. Now we are beginning to taste what a bitter fruit it is. "Powers that be" have been spying on people with technology from the beginning. It has served them well. In principle, this access to you and concealment from me gives one great tactical advantages. The danger is having super senses (extended by technology) and sh*t for brains. Maybe they think their influence will exist unimpeeded in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange. This world situation is growing monsterous by the influence of the capitalist monsters who have corrupted their way to the top of the biggest animal list. I suspect people here on this board engage in dissention and hidden identities and agendas and even surviellance. What if you can cloak your identity under ip address changes? What if a quest's knowledge even extends to private information of board members because the tentacles of repression and exploitation are in full swing? WHAT IF it's all so LOGICAL? Surveillance is meant to be an early warning to those who want to stand unempeded and unopposed. Isn't that the idea of the ambush? The future is now! It's late for the people. It's early for the capitalist monsters. Prabhupada saw all this. It's evident in his writings. He taught US to see ambition and desires - both material and spiritual. He taught us everything. If we do not spread HIS SAKTI as he requested, then our bright future lay in the flames of a nuclear sacrifice. I can see how nature might find more balance in that. (Yeah… I feel carried away. Back to music. The metronome is magic.) THE MODERN PRINCIPLE OF MANAGEMENT IS SUBSUMED UNDER THE HIGHER GOALS OF GRATIFICATION AND EXPLOITATION. .............................. Watch Out -- Your Boss May Know More Than You Think By Colleen DeBaise, Special to the Tribune Arundhati Parmar, a Chicago writer, knows what it's like to be spied on. He worked last year at a consumer magazine in San Francisco where the managers installed a camera to monitor small talk between employees. "I did not even notice it until the art director pointed it out," Parmar said of the camera, located in the far corner of the office. To deal with the situation, he and co-workers started passing notes instead of talking. "Even before the camera was installed, it was an ugly place," he added. "It just got worse." Workplace surveillance, while not exactly new, has become more common place as technology has improved, gadgets have become cheaper, and security concerns--prompted by terrorism--have risen. Gadgets galore now track workers. ID badges that emit infrared signals and allow nursing and store supervisors to instantly locate staff on the floor. At banks, workers are identified via retinal scans or fingerprints. Employees at high-security government buildings must step on a mat that recognizes their height or weight before gaining clearance. Advances in global positioning system (GPS) tracking make it possible for companies to track their vehicles--and their drivers' movements--in precise detail. And even the bathroom isn't safe from scrutiny: Sensors on soap dispensers and faucets can record each time food-service and health-care workers wash their hands. As the economy has soured, employers worried that unlimited Internet access slashes workplace productivity have turned to software packages such as SurfControl Web Filter and Elron's Message Inspector and Web Inspector, which track e-mail and even create an archive of all on-screen activity. All of this has prompted concerns among privacy and workplace experts, who worry such monitoring devices represent an intrusion in workers' lives. A May study by the American Management Association found that more than half of employers monitor e-mail, and 22 percent have terminated an employee for violating e-mail policy. An earlier study by the group found that 82 percent of major U.S. corporations keep tabs on employees though some form of monitoring, including videotaping them at work or reviewing voicemails. Frederick S. Lane III, a Burlington, Vt., lawyer, was so troubled by the idea that Americans are working under constant surveillance he has written a new book, "The Naked Employee" (AMACOM, $24.95). Lane sees conflict ahead, as advances in technology are making it possible for companies to collect an unprecedented amount of information about the people who work for them. "We're simply getting more and more used to it," he said. "With a bunch of workers coming into the workplace each year, they're taking surveillance for granted, which has a corrosive effect on civil liberties generally." But even those workers who feel their privacy is invaded may not have many options. The courts have generally held that companies are entitled to keep an eye on the resources they provide--whether it's a box of pens or a high-speed connection to the Internet. Among other things, corporations want to avoid legal liabilities that could result from offensive e-mails that are transmitted on their networks. Many companies have long used video cameras and closed-circuit television to monitor employees and entrances. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, however, heightened security concerns, particularly among food manufacturers and medical-supply makers who worry their products could be tainted by unscrupulous employees or intruders. Craig Lawrence, vice president of Aurico Investigations in Arlington Heights, works with firms across the nation to install security systems and provide investigative services. "When you hire someone, you are giving them a road map to your operations," he said. "It's absolutely crazy to give them the keys to your place and say `go ahead.'" His company routinely installs pinhole cameras, usually when a manager is suspicious that an employee may be engaging in improper behavior such as theft, fraud, drug use or sexual harassment. Employees usually have no idea the camera, often hidden by a clock or painting, is trained on them. Sometimes managers can be quite surprised to find out what's really going on in the workplace. "You expect to see the cleaning crew swiping things off the desk--instead you see the vice president," Lawrence said. "You expect to see people putting things in their pocket--and you see people having sex in the office. We've seen just about the gamut." But while corporations can have valid reasons for spying, some employees spot an ulterior motive. A former marketing employee at a Chicago health-care business, who doesn't wish to reveal his name, says the company was open about its surveillance in order to scare employees. At weekly staff meetings, his former boss would show pie charts detailing staff members' visits to unapproved Web sites. The company installed surveillance cameras in the hallway and routinely read workers' e-mails. "Big brother is watching? You bet," he said. "And scores of companies will tell you that their `legitimate' business purpose is to protect company assets and information. Unfortunately, they grossly abuse that, in my opinion." Most employees when they take a job usually sign paperwork indicating they agree to various surveillance policies, including the monitoring of computer usage, says Bradley J. Alge, a Purdue University human resources expert. "That said, if you ask most employees, they are not aware of such policies." Employees who type in a password before logging onto company e-mail or use work computers to check their or Hotmail e-mail accounts may have a false sense of privacy. "In actuality, a company can monitor and track all e-mail," Alge said. He recommends that companies involve employees in decisions about what will be monitored to prevent them from feeling like their personal privacy has been violated. Dean Harold Krent of Chicago-Kent College of Law, a personal privacy expert, says most employees "don't have a very clear sense of where their rights end and where employers' begin." Although numerous bills have been introduced in Congress regarding workplace surveillance, the legislative efforts have moved at a much slower pace than technology. Krent believes the topic will become a collective bargaining issue, or companies may promise workplace privacy in an effort to lure employees. For now, "Naked Employee" author Lane advises employees to use their common sense. "If they don't want companies to know something, then don't use the companies' systems," he said.

Dervish and gHari said it better than I could. Anyway, I'm tiring of all these questions. There is a malicious guest that only seems interested in tearing down KC while feigning devotion. Could be politically motivated. It's like the politics of raping the public in the name of serving them. It's a very manipulative one-way conversation of double-talk and deception. I'm not gonna waste my time. I have the intelligence to manifest that argumentative energy in a way that will destroy mnaterial dogma across the board; political, economic, scientific and religious. Guest is small fish. I'm interested in the BIG ones. But I will continue to be humored at Guest's schezophrenia.

Anyone know what happened to Theist?

I am not interested in the conversation. You don't address my points, I don't care for yours. If someone wants to debate it with you. Fine. I won't cause trouble.

As far as my name calling, you've earned it with your duplicitious behavior. II've been honestly stating your postion - or lack of one. You say, I say. The evidence is here. People can turn back and look for their own summation. I'm not going to get sucked into this argument on a personal level. It is useless to do so and I don't feel threatened enough to bother. Besides, when the dialogue degenerates, no one learns anything and ultimately one is satisfied beyond the cheap thrill of watching a fight. We all know the position of this impersonal gibberish and the hypocrites who expouse it. I personally don't care much what envious snakes think. To persist in this is simply to indulge in the false-ego. When these battles become personal, it is about ego and not the knowledge or positions. By the way, I'm not intimidated by impersonal phylosophy at all. I simply discarded that option many years ago. It is the useless philosophy of fools. You're not gonna change me or any Krsna devotee here with an impersonal agenda. But you already know that. After all, most of us are just those arrogant Hare Krsnas I feel you have not been earnest in really preaching your philosophy. You don't have the passion to preach such philosophy. I suspect you don't even know it. So what are you doing here? …Just another pretext to play your foolish game. Right or wrong, I'll keep my faith and attitudes I can better explain. Now that doesn't really matter to you, does it?

"And similarly, they make strange arguments like, "well, how do you know this world is real and not a dream?" Just see the "How do I know all this is true?" thread. No doubt there are some basic misconceptions they have with respect to epistemology and logic. " Well, what are the basic misconceptions? And "why" is it blind faith? You can't say. You have ignored my many posts before. You don't directly debate. All you do is name call and chant you're right. Obviously, you're perfecting this Vedic prediction: one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful (SB 12.2.6)… or trying too. I think that political trash works with the ignorant public. It doesn't work here. You're like a blind man telling us there's no sun. You've been invited to offer a 'sober' view. Instead, you opt to act like a child under the cloak of adult language, albiet superficial with no substance. You can't really say why you know, just that I'm so "Knooooowwwinnngg". I mean we don't brainwash so easy. I personally think your consciousness is no better than a dog's visiting a church. You're blindly serving a useless agenda. I am going to expose such lowly creatures as you with a website full of spiritual perspectives. And I'm going to do it with deadly precision. Stop me if you can. What did Prabhupada say? …The problem with a fool is he thinks everyone is like himself.

Nice to hear. But then politicians obviously tell people what they want to hear. After awhile, they all sound the same to me. I think less than half the people even bother to vote these days. We don't know who these political figures are… They sell us the President, the same way, they sell us our clothes and our cars - Jackson Browne Is the candidate rich? Is he involved in business? The government cannot be run like a business… which is what they conspire to do. Now this is common sense… The Bush gang didn't start this without the intention of seeing it through. The political figures are the front men. The real economic misers are the old-boy network of capitalist thieves. Do you think their program has changed because of a new candidate? I say they are intrinched and near impossible to remove without the citizens understanding what is right and wrong. There is also the effort to keep the citizens ignorant.

This is one but a long list of transgressions by the American capitalists on the people's of the world - including their own. They have to be stopped! These few capitalists monsters are seeking to ENSLAVE THE WORLD under their tyranny. And Bush has shown us how sensitive and fair they can be. Do anything… say anything… hey, it's cheat your way to the top! (I'm on top and you're not. Guess I know what I'm doing). We are already enslaved actually. Without that expensive education to help them exploit the world to get that paycheck to buy products from their stores, we're helpless to survive. Thomas Jefferson saw this coming. He could deduce as much from European examples. Jefferson wanted this to be an agrian nation like China.

Well, God wants everything… His natural right. Surrender basically means to give up one's own selfish volition and act instead for the interest of the supreme proprietor. When our mind is merged in this SERVICE, we are properly situated.

That's it! Sinimat puts that so succinctly. Guest… It is irrational to deman material proof for spiritual things just as it's irrational to show you the time with a thermometer. Krsna is God. My experience tells me you actually have to become expert in dealing with Krsna before you actually get physically close to Him - unless you have the great fortune of seeing Him walk by. We all have that ABILITY to communicate with Him without restriction IF we so desire. Our leaders surround themselves with people serving them. So how might this apply to God? God is actually waiting to see what kind of evidence you give Him. Now who is in the position to demand? If it comes down to your way or God's way, which way will it be?

Who are you to demand 'proof'? Why should confirmation or 'knowing' God be any different for you? You don't consider the Bhagavad-gita proof? Some things can only be proved to qualified observers. There is way more 'proof' and consistency in the Vedic religious world view than all the other thought systems put together––especially and including empirical science. You just have to have the eye to see. That eye comes with effort and experience. It is indeed unfortunate that you can't understand. It implies serious mental problems involving the false ego. It also makes you less than human. ugh… that was a "quote". It means you will waste your human potential without a change of heart. If you are a devotee of any other religion, then just ignore the above.

Hey, look! It's the moon with a red filter applied… (I knew it was gonna look like this}

By Thane Peterson Tax Fairness? Forget About It A new book insists that U.S. tax policy will punish more and more Americans -- except for the rich, as usual If you have any doubt that the U.S. is being run by louts and hypocrites, I suggest you page through the new book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everyone Else (Portfolio, $25.95). In it, David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New York Times, makes a powerful case that since 1980, Congress and successive Presidents -- politicians of every stripe -- have deliberately undermined the fairness of the tax system. It is biased to favor big companies and a few superrich individuals, Johnston claims. The book also offers a warning that should alarm just about every BusinessWeek Online reader: Unless the tax system is rejiggered, any American who makes $50,000 to $500,000 a year is going to get hurt. Remember those huge tax cuts rammed through by the Bush Administration over the last three years? Most -- and in some cases all -- of the benefits are likely to be eaten up by new taxes, Johnston asserts, even if the official tax rate isn't raised. People making less than $50,000 won't be spared, either. Besides, most of them are already being pinched -- especially if they're a member of the working poor or head of a family with heavy medical expenses or many children, he adds. PARALLEL CODE. At the same time, the tax burden on the wealthy has plunged. People in the top fifth of the income scale now pay only 19% in taxes -- and that figure takes into account state, federal, sales, property, and all other levies. The poorest fifth of Americans pay 18%. The people in the middle -- the other three-fifths -- presumably pay considerably more (I certainly do), though Johnston doesn't give a specific number. He points out that the only ones who pay less are scofflaws, whose numbers are soaring. How did America come to this pass? Much of Johnston's tale is familiar. Big cuts in dividend and capital-gains taxes have mainly benefited the wealthy, and powerful corporations have slashed their tax burdens (illegally, in cases like Enron and Tyco). Meanwhile, 90% of the population saw earnings drop 25% from 1970 to 2000. Far more surprising is the pattern Johnston documents in largely overlooked changes in income tax and Social Security rules. Politicians of both parties have consistently stuck it to average taxpayers, usually while loudly proclaiming that they're cutting taxes. SOCIAL INSECURITY. The big bogeyman for middle- and upper-middle-class Americans is going to be the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Added to the tax code in 1969, this is a sort of parallel code with its own rates and tough rules limiting what can be deducted. The AMT was originally intended to make sure the very wealthy didn't avoid paying taxes entirely. The AMT never achieved that goal -- the superrich have clever advisers who are always two or three steps ahead of the IRS -- but it has gradually ensnared more and more average Americans, ratcheting their taxes upward. It's a prime example of how government rarely ever really cuts taxes for anyone but the rich and powerful. Because the Bush tax cuts didn't include any provisions to rein in the AMT, the U.S. Treasury Dept. predicts that the number of households paying it will soar from 1.3 million in 2000 to 35.6 million by 2010. By then, 30.4% of all taxpayers will be paying the alternative tax, estimates the Tax Policy Center, and it will add an average of $3,751 annually to their tax bill. Typically, the wealthy will get the best break: Only 24.3% of people making over $1 million will pay the tax by 2010, the Tax Policy Center estimates. BIGGEST HIT. Politicians -- mainly Democrats in this case -- have similarly gamed the Social Security system. Its taxes have soared because of changes made in the early 1980s that were supposed to keep the system solvent. Johnston calculates that from 1984 to 2002, the government collected $1.7 trillion more in Social Security taxes than it paid out. The extra money was supposed to go into a fund to help pay for baby boomers' retirements but instead was simply dumped into general revenue -- another way of saying it was used to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. As a result, Social Security is now the main tax paid by most average Americans. The maximum tax has soared, from $327 in 1970 to $5,400 in 2003 -- and you have to make only $87,000 to get hit by the maximum. Three-quarters of all households now pay more in Social Security taxes than in income taxes. Worse, the original purpose of the tax -- to protect the poor from destitution in old age -- has been lost. Shamefully, the Democrat-controlled Congress dropped the minimum benefit for the poor in the early 1980s as a cost-saving measure. RAMPANT CHEATING. Equally shameful is the way conservative Republicans have gutted the IRS. No one much likes the IRS, but it's a necessary evil because tax cheats basically just take money out of the pockets of honest people who pay. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress doesn't see it that way. It has repeatedly scored political points by hammering the IRS and slashing its budget. As a result, while the number of tax returns filed increased by nearly 50% from 1988 to 2002, the number of IRS auditors plunged 30%, to 11,500. Little wonder that cheating is rampant. Partly because of mismanagement and partly because of budget cuts, the IRS doesn't have the computers and knowhow to go after the complicated offshore trusts, partnerships, and other scams the wealthy use to avoid taxes. And new rules passed by Congress in the late 1990s require that any IRS employee accused of certain infractions go through an administrative hearing and face mandatory firing if found guilty. This is a good reform in theory, but in practice it has allowed tax cheats to tie auditors up in red tape or intimidate them with threats of a complaint. More and more people are simply refusing to pay income taxes -- and few, if any of them, are being punished. An IRS internal report found that in 2002 "at least 152,000 Americans filed bogus tax returns stating they owed no taxes or even seeking money back from the government under a variety of tax evasions marketed by promoters," Johnston writes. That's 1 in 900 U.S. returns. The General Accounting office estimates that 7,500 U.S. companies now simply don't bother to withhold taxes from employees, probably as a form of tax protest. PERUSE BEFORE VOTING. Powerful as Johnston's indictment of the tax system is, I can't recommend his book as a great read. Like many books cobbled together from newspaper articles, it's poorly organized and full of repetition and familiar material. It's also short on meaningful suggestions for reforming the system. That's too bad, because if Perfectly Legal were better done, it would be one of the most important books of recent years. As it is, every American who wants to be well-informed before voting this fall should at least slog through the key chapters. Flawed as it is, this is a seminal book about some of the most important issues facing the nation.