Gauracandra

I thought it was very well made. Unlike most Christian films that suffer from poor production values, this film looks great. Great sets, great costumes, great photography, good special effects, terrific acting. Its a classy, simple, and straight-forward production. The funny thing is the film is not controversial in the least. I think many critics don't understand what it is. They are judging it as a movie, when in fact it is a filmed recreation of The Stations of the Cross. In Catholicism there are various devotional meditations (for instance, in The Joyful Mysteries, the devotee contemplates a story where Mary loses her son in the temple and concludes by finding him). This is a filmic version of The Sorrowful Mysteries. There was also a lot of good symbolism in the film. For instance, in the beginning Jesus stomps on a snake representing Satan's temptations. This isn't just a random scene to show Jesus defeating the devil. It refers to a specific verse in Genesis. Genesis 3:15 "And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel." In Christianity, Adam was the first man who begat Eve, the first spotless woman. In the Garden of Eden, Eve is tempted by the devil and makes Adam fall. There is a certain syncronicity in the story with Jesus. Now it is Mary (the new Eve) who gives birth to Jesus (the new Adam). Jesus enters into the Garden of Gethsemane (instead of the Garden of Eden) and while being tempted by the snake, smashes it. The verse in Genesis is the first mention of a coming Messiah who would correct Adam's fall. The film is violent, but more realistic in what a scourging by the Romans actually meant. It would have been great if Gibson could have filmed all The Joyous Mysteries, The Luminous Mysteries & The Mysteries of Light, and The Sorrowful Mysteries as distinct films.

This week's episode is a repeat of this lecture.

This week’s Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program is a question and answer session on reincarnation. Audience Member: I have a question about predestination. Can this be changed? Srila Siddhaswarupananda: There is predestination but it can be changed by your activities. Your destiny is like a train track that you have laid down based on your karma. Your actions create your consciousness and your destiny. Right now you are creating your future. What you experience today is based upon what you have done before. As such your present actions set forth your future destiny. If you understand this then you can change your destiny. I can decide by making my consciousness a certain kind of consciousness what type of body I will take on in my next life. If you want to go to Hellish planets then engage in actions that are demoniac. If you want to go to heavenly destinations then open hospitals, treat people well. And if you want God, then make God the center of your consciousness. You go where you want to go based on the kind of consciousness you have cultivated in life. There are some Christians who will say there are only 500,000 names that will go to God. It is already chosen. This is nonsense. You can go to God, but if you live your life like a dog, then in your next life you will take birth as a dog. Audience Member: I saw this movie called Audrey Rose. In it a woman dies, and then 10 minutes later she takes birth. Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Yes, yes. I once did a movie review of this film [tone suggests it was not a flattering review]. People think they know reincarnation from this film. It is not that you die and then one minute later you are reborn. The soul enters at conception not at birth. There is a distinction of a body with a soul and one without. There are characteristics. For instance, have you ever seen a dead cat? What characteristics does it have that a living cat does not? Does it grow? Does it meow? It does start to decay and stink. Metabolism only occurs where a spirit soul is present. If it is growing it means there is someone in that body. They take food and air and elements and it becomes part of the body. The life force has a presence in the body. So from the time of conception there is growth. If there is a child in the womb there is movement. Moving hands, legs, heart. Analyze this distinction. Audience Member: Doesn’t that mean that abortion means you are killing someone? Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Of course. Abort means to stop the growth. Why is it growing? Because there is life. And without the soul there is no life. Audience Member: What about those individuals who are “born” musicians or artists? Srila Siddhaswarupananda: They are simply bringing forth their talents from their previous lives. What was that guy’s name? He was a famous conductor. He was a natural musician. Anyways, often times that is the reason. Audience Member: You said that at the time of death some experience hellish and heavenly sights. But people who have clinical death usually experience heavenly… Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Clinical death is not leaving their body completely. They may experience a white light. But first understand that they have not completely left their body, though what they experience may in fact be a taste of what is to come. There is a Dr. Rollings who is a heart specialist. He says that 50% of those he knows about who have out of body experiences, experience hellish conditions. However, often they suppress these thoughts. It becomes selective perception. You want to remember heavenly sights, but suppress those that scared you. Audience Member: Is there any value to hypnotism to regress to past lives? Srila Siddhaswarupananda: There is no value. Maybe some scientific value if you can document your findings. But notice how they are always humans in their last lives? Not some dog family? Why would you want to do it anyways? Audience Member: Curiousity? Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Perhaps. Some people think it helps to clean up their current existence. That is if I go back in time, to my last life, and relive a traumatic experience, that this should help me in this life. I’m not sure why reliving trauma is supposed to be good. I don’t understand this. But suppose you could do this. Suppose you could go back, and separate one life from the next. You have had countless numbers of bodies in your past lives. So first, who is qualified to do this. And second, what are you going to do with it afterwards. You are going to go back to when you were a baby bird being fed a worm, and didn’t get enough attention from your mother? Even if it were possible, still there is no solution. Why? Because now, today, you are creating new karmic reactions. You fall in love, get kicked in the face, have material desires. You are still suffering birth, disease, old age, and ultimately death. You need to transcend this wheel of death by developing your love for God. These folks are just coffee table reincarnationists. They like to talk about who they were rather than who they will be. And notice how they were always Cleopatra or Caesar. All romantic figures. So few were dogs. I did meet one psychologist in New Zealand who studies these past lives. I told him his studies were a waste of time [laughter]. He said that the majority of his patients he has treated have had animal bodies in previous lives. Actually he was more honest than most.

$40 million Raphael 'a fake' LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A Raphael painting bought by Britain's National Gallery this month for 22 million pounds ($41.7 million) is a fake, a U.S. art professor says. The gallery secured the "Madonna of the Pinks," which it called the most significant Old Master in any British collection, after a fight to keep it in the country. But James Beck, Professor of Art History at Columbia University in New York and the President of ArtWatch International, told Friday's edition of the Times the gallery had paid "a record price for a fake." "They haven't done their homework," Beck said. "It's a disgrace. The National Gallery never checked any of them physically. "When you're spending government money, or anyone's money it's an omission. Frankly, it's a kind of arrogance of the Establishment." The picture, so called because it depicts the Virgin Mary with a sprig of pink flowers, was bought from the Duke of Northumberland. An ancestor of the Duke bought the 1507-8 picture in 1853 but it was long considered a copy until 1991 when Nicholas Penny, the Gallery's curator, examined the picture and hailed it as the rediscovered masterpiece. Beck told the paper his research led him to believe the painting was in fact made in 1827 by Vincenzo Camuccini, a frequent copyist of Raphael and a recognized faker. "I think he did this not only for money, but to compete with the Great Masters and fool the public," he said. The Gallery has listed 40 versions of the painting around the world, while Beck said he had found at least five more. Beck said he believed none of the surviving versions was by Raphael. The Gallery has said the picture, which measures just 11.4 by nine inches ((29 by 23 cm), had a different finish and coloring to other Raphael's but added it followed the advice of 25 Raphael experts who all confirmed the attribution. The gallery's 22 million pounds was raised jointly by Britain's National Lottery and donations from the public.

I just figure its motivated and so not pure. I suppose motivation, even if impure, if it moves one in the right direction is better than nothing /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Doesn't the Bhagavatam say that each universe is filled half way with "water"? Could this be the so called Dark Matter? These pictures are always pretty amazing to behold and to think about.

I understand Plato had a similar idea. That the horses we see in this world are a shadow of a perfect horse in the "world of ideas" or some such. That is, this world is a reflection of eternal forms that do exist in the spiritual world.

I always liked the idea of tulsi beads as protecting one from the messengers of death. But mine was always a selfish motivation - I don't want to go to hell /images/graemlins/smile.gif It gives some ease of mind, but I know I'm doing it for the wrong reasons. Can't the Yamaduttas see when a person is bluffing spiritually and just take them anyways? Hopefully not /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sorry I don't have any quotes. I'd be interested too. I know muslims prohibit interest. But the idea of usury is the basis of our entire economic system (time=money). Perhaps no usury would mean less economic exploitation, but I honestly can't see how such a system could work.

I like how Srila Prabhupada would always shoot for the top hoping to spread Krsna Consciousnes. I've heard stories a number of times where he would propose something that had no chance of getting through. But still he would try. And then every so often it would hit and Krsna Consciousness would spread. I think he once sent a letter to Richard Nixon as well.

This week’s Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program is about televangelists. Today I am reading an article from the Los Angeles Times titled “Evangelists cashing in on the mail.” A letter is sent out to people saying “Greetings in Jesus’s name. Someone at this address needs prayer. We have mailed you a golden prosperity cross…” The article is about so-called Christians trying to get money. I won’t talk about the trinkets. The main thing continues… This guy named Ewing is a real master and he helps other preachers raise money. He understands the consciousness of people. He has discovered that when he mails trinkets and promise to get the person rich or healed that they will send him money. The letter continues “I’m loaning you my green and white hankerchief to print your name in the center and return to me in the morning. On Christmas day I’ll hold this hankerchief and pray for you. I’m asking you to send $5, $10, or $20 for these prayers. I’m waiting for this hankerchief back from you.” Its funny, so let me laugh a little longer. You know Oral Roberts brings in $50-$70 million per year. Ewing saved Roberts from financial disaster by having all of his followers send in prayers to his prayer tower. Donations doubled in 1 year. It increased his mailing list dramatically. This is a very important contradiction to spiritual laws. Contradiction is not the right word. Duplicity or dishonesty. The dishonesty is not in asking for money. We are not against donations. What makes it cheap, prayer cheap, God cheap… can someone turn down the air conditioner?… they are not asking people to send in a prayer request because he actually wants to pray. He knows it is a technique. In his mind he just wants to increase his mailing list. “I the intimate one with God, I am going to place my holy hands on these letters. And because I am so close to God, He’ll hear your prayers, since God won’t otherwise listen to you.” That’s what he is saying. He already has something else in mind. It was a method he used because his empire was falling apart. Ewing taught him this technique. Send them something and you’ll “pray” for them. This is called cheating. This is very serious business. Cheating gurus. Phoney gurus. He doesn’t care for those people. It’s a method. What is the primary motivating force for a bonafide servant of God? Audience member: His concern for others… Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Yes. Compassion. He is feeling sad. The transcendentalist is very happy but unhappy that the children of God are suffering. I don’t just want to pray for you in general. Otherwise it is just a technique and is repugnant. Therefore this person is not a bonafide representative of God. “I really love you and I really want to help you get it. I’ll try to get God to help you out. Just send me your money.” He doesn’t care if your horse wins. It’s the cheaters and the cheated. They really are having a dance together. Pray for this for me. Pray for that for me. He won’t sincerely pray. He just gets thousands of names on his computer and puts his hands on it. Why do they have to send a letter if he doesn’t read them all? Shouldn’t he read for each specific person? That’s the only reason to have them send the letter. Unless maybe he is just in it for getting a mailing list. The whole thing is a scam. How can you say this on tv? Isn’t this libelous? That guy’s on tv more than me and he has more money. Its just equal time here. There are certain spiritual characteristics of bonafide representatives of God. I mean really, this is not acceptable. Money is not bad. Mail order isn’t bad. Television isn’t bad. Donations are not bad. We are pointing to a specific contradiction. He is doing it not out of compassion. It is a method to raise money. This is a very sad thing. What is a real representative of God? What is his real character? We’ll talk more in the future on this subject.

This program was repeated again.

[Voiceover] What are you worth? Are you handsome, strong, sexy? Do you have a prestigious degree? Are you young, attractive, cool? Do people look up to you? In our modern materialistic society a person’s value is based on their ability to engage in material acquisition. In this episode, Srila Siddhaswarupananda discusses the real value of each of us. Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Who in this room can identify with what we were talking about in the first part of this lecture? Anyone? Ok, Pete. Where’s the microphone. Ok, Pete, you’re a college graduate and all you do is surf [laughter] Audience Member [Pete] – I have a college degree in biology but can’t make a great living with it. Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Why did you study all of those bugs and amoebas if you can’t make money? You could go into genetic engineering and make lots of money. Sit down, you’re a loser [laughter] Anyone else? Audience Member [Female] – Oh, my story. I’m an amputee. People will look at my missing foot and ask “Are you ok?” Like I’m 3/4th of a person. Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Who are you? Are you an amputee? It’s a mechanistic philosophy that you are a machine. So since you are missing part of your body, you are an incomplete person. Let’s here some more stories. Anyone else? You, you sit down. You’re successful. We want losers. Anyone else? Audience Member [Female] – In high school I got good grades and my parents thought I’d do really well. But then I got married and had a baby. Now my parents are always asking if I have any money. Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Oh, you’re a malfunctioning daughter. When I was a kid there was a show called “Queen for a day”. It was a contest to get the person who was the lowest in value. Then the audience would cheer “I hope she wins. Then she’ll have self-esteem.” But it only lasts for one day. No winners here? From the other angle? Lets hear the story. Audience Member [Female] – I barely made it through high school. Now I’m a nutritionist and am doing well. I have 4 great children, and have been married for years. Srila Siddhaswarupananda: So who thinks you are a success? Audience Member [Female] – I guess I do. Srila Siddhaswarupananda: You’re an outstanding member of the community. What are you doing here? Did you walk into the wrong room? [laughter] This show is only for losers. [laughter] You can be a success. You may think you are a big lawyer, or a successful actor. But this is not your real identity. This may give you some feeling of value but it pales in comparison to the value you’ll really feel when you realize you are not your body. There is no big problem in feeling valuable. But ultimately it is insignificant when put in perspective. Everyone knows they are trying to conjure up an image. They are trying to project a certain image. But you know your limits, you can’t control everything. Even for those who are successful, all this false pride. “I’m a good man. I please society”. Such people are headed for a breakdown. Maybe it won’t come till the time of death, when all that stuff goes out the window. What do you mean you’re a lawyer? You body is dead, and the false identity leaves with you. If you don’t know your real value as an eternal spirit soul, this will all leave you. I’m eternal not temporary. You will experience humbleness. Caitanya Mahaprabhu said you can experience the highest bliss by chanting the Holy Name and feeling lower than straw in the street. Never expecting or desiring respect. Then you link up in union with the Supreme Lord. This is more happiness than sensual pleasure, mystic powers, or merging into the Brahman. Don’t be hung up on a lack of bodily successes. “I’m so ugly” This is not humility. Humbleness in ignorance is of no value. Humility must be in knowledge, spiritual humility. The humbleness being referred to is based on the wisdom that you are spirit not matter. You are eternal. No one can cut you, or burn you. You are a child of God. You can’t be moaning and groaning. This is not humility. Humbleness is based on wisdom. It is combined in knowing I’m a spark in this material world with no love for God. I’m still caught by lust, greed, no love and no shelter. Therefore I fall down and cry out “My dear Lord, please give me shelter. I only have shelter in you.” You crawl on the ground with straw in your teeth asking the Lord to please accept you as His servant. With the greatest self-esteem simultaneously he experiences great humility. He feels he has no love for God and no love for others. This is one who is spiritually perfect. So we’ll leave it there.

I wonder if humility means understanding the proper weight of various situations. I'm not sure it means you must let people walk all over you, though that may be humble as straw. I've always thought that the key is cultural rules. When you have rules, you know when someone breaks them, and what your reaction should be. In such circumstances, its not hard to be humble, because so long as everyone agrees to the rules, you know what your reaction should be. So there are certain rules for greeting guests, certain rules of courtship, rules for loaning money etc.... So culture would make being humble easy without getting bullied. Not to get off topic, but I think this break down of rules is important. In Western culture, when a man would take off his hat in front of a woman, or stand up at a table when the woman stood up, or open the door for a woman, these were all rules to keep men in line. Feminists seemed to think it was about keeping women in line. There were rules also for women to follow and it kept them in line. But people decided rules were too restricting and so now everyone does what ever they want. The problem with that is there are no more cultural signals as to what is good and proper behavior and what is bad behavior. This gives a greater leeway to boorishness. Thats my impression. I don't know if we can ever get back to these rules. They seem so restricting, but they served a very valuable purpose.

If you are Sikh and it is required that you not shave your beard, what do you do? This is ridiculous.

If you ban religious symbols because they are divisive, then you are weighing in on the culture. Its like if you go to school and say "You can wear your Britney Spears t-shirt, but you over there you can't wear a headscarf", in essence you are siding with teeny-bopper pop culture against religious chastity. This will push people towards certain directions. All of a sudden chastity becomes taboo.

Howard Dean is going to have a big problem, because once comedians can get a take on you, then you are finished. I mean I can only imagine what Saturday Night Live is going to do with this. Its just too easy. Here is my breakdown of the candidates: John Kerry - Respectable politician. Looks like what a President should look like. I think he is the only one with the presence to stand next to the current President (whoever the President is always has a certain extra something just by being President). John Edwards - Too inexperienced. Seems like a nice guy. Looks too young but is actually 50. He should do a reverse Grecian formula, and put some grey in his hair. Howard Dean - Runty little scrapper. He's a fighter. But he's angry, and people don't like anger. Guaranteed Bush was wishing Dean hadn't blown Iowa because he'd be an easy beat. Dick Gephart - I genuinely like this guy. Small town kind of guy. He is an honest, respectable public servant from a working class family. He is a rarity as a pro-life Democrat. Doesn't have charisma and good looks in this television age. Joe Lieberman - Good guy. Moderate. Could never be elected because he is Jewish. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying its true. If he was President there would be no credibility in the Middle East with the U.S. Everyone else - has no chance. Its easy now after Kerry has had a surge to say he will win it all. He looks the part. But you never know with the volatility of politics. I think he'll get it.

This it seems to me is clearly an infringement upon the religious rights of individuals in France. Its not completely foolish, just mostly. I some schools in the U.S. they ban certain gang colors, and bandanas, because they don't want turf battles. But if a religious Muslim girl wants to wear a head scarf then who is to stop her? If all Muslims decided to wear green shoelaces, they'd ban that too, just because it identifies them as Muslim. Of course they are also banning yarmulkas, and Christian crosses. I'm sure they think they are being neutral, but if you ban these things, but allow secular symbols, then you are biasing already.

I like this. I suppose devotees might say that to be patriotic is a material designation (like I'm black, I'm white, I'm a woman, I'm a man etc...). But I think it would be great to show practically how this philosophy can be translated into political and practical terms. Right now there is gearing up to an election process in the U.S. Wouldn't it be great to be able to explain how this philosophy can make this country better?

The way I see it, you will never have material proof. You will either experience happiness or not. If by following a religious process you become truly happy, then you are doing something right. There won't be any definitive proof that will convince you. It either works or it doesn't.

It should be noted that just because something has military applications, doesn't mean it is a bad idea. For instance, our entire national freeway system was built specifically for military purposes. If we needed to move materials, weapons, people because of Hitler, or Stalin, we would need an appropriate infrastructure. Today our roads are seen as purely passive intent. The same may be true with space. The Internet was developed by D.A.R.P.A which is a military organization with the intent of destroying the ability of fascist governments from keeping information out. China is having a helluva time controlling the information flow. But the Internet is viewed not as military, but public and passive. The same may be true with space exploration. If a strong infrastructure were built in space, private industry might be able to take over, and it will be used for moving goods and services, and having quick transporation. Its possible.

Man, I don't think I've seen such a political meltdown before. John Kerry was like 3% in the polls 3 weeks before and came back to win it. Dean after losing goes on a pumped up tirade, and at one point makes some sort of animal screeeeeechhhhhh.... Its hilarious but he clearly doesn't realize he looks like a fool. Too much of a hothead. I think Kerry will get the nomination. He's respectable, established, good looking, and looks presidential. Thats my prediction.

I think a fish is an auspicious symbol. Christianity has the symbol of a fish, and I may be wrong, but I think fish carvings decorate some temples. Not sure what the dream means, but I think it was likely an auspicious sign.

The killing of any life including plant life is a sin. So even as vegetarians we are engaged in sinful conduct. The activities are not as bad as killing more sentient life, but it is still the taking of life. So unless we only do what is necessary for survival, and do that in order to become self-realized, then we are commiting sin. Thats my understanding atleast.

The military issue aside, I did find the Helium 3 Isotope as an energy source to be rather fasinating. If true, I see nothing wrong with trying to process and extract this. If you could free up the energy costs of the world there would be literally trillions of dollars freed up which potentially could be used to eradicate poverty. It would only depend on if we would do it. Plus the energy would be very clean if what they say is true.