water

I just tested if I could post a long post -- and I could post it here. While not at some other forum!

Strange.

Love and attachment

We are told to love, but not to become attached.

But isn't (some) attachment inherent to love?

god does not need me, he's complete in itself... so if there's a relationship, this relationship can be only love

 

 

How do you know?

A stone may not need you either -- so if there's a relationship between you and that stone, it can be only love?

How do you know God loves you?

Some philosophers say that because of the first human being’s sin all the other human beings are imprisoned in the material world. Then, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities from sin.(25)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralist monotheists have concluded that this material world is not a place of unalloyed pleasures. Indeed, the sufferings greatly outweigh the pleasures. They have decided that the material world is a prison created for the punishment of humankind. If there is a punishment, then there must be a crime that has been committed. Indeed if there were no crime then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living creatures commit, that they are born into a world of suffering? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth.

 

 

There is a lot of dissent among Christians regarding this topic.

Some say that Adam and Eve, and then later on, everyone else commits cosmic treason against God.

Others have very different explanations for the happenings in Eden, the guiding line being man's disobedience and God's mercy: Man, being blinded by the wonders of the world, thinks he can live without God, and disregards Him. In this, man sins. God, loving His creatures, redeemed man and atoned for man's sins.

The sin transcends the sinner in the sense that children are born into a sinful world -- with people around them sinning, children learn to sin. Thus, there are two sources for sin: one is the inherent disobedience to God (thinking one can live without God), the other is the sin people have learned to commit by seeing other people do it.

Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

 

Yes, such is a particular Western idea of God. It mirrors man's fear of God and repulsion by service to Him. In this view, God is merely an absolution from evil, not a source of good.

This article deals with these matters very well.

These philosophers say that the soul comes into existence at birth. After death, he is not born again on earth. After death he attains either heaven or hell as a result of his actions in that one lifetime. (26)

 

 

This is so by a strict works-based understanding.

There are basically two groups within Christian churches/denominations: works-based and grace-based. The works-based concentrate on the works, while grace is a mere, abstract, unimportant extra.

The grace-based churches teach that we depend on God's grace for our salvation. Even though we have sinned, or not performed a lot of good works, we can still be saved since if God finds a true love for Him in our hearts, He will save us.

Why are the living entities born into very different situations? Some are rich and healthy, some are poor and sickly. The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one person born into a house filled with sufferings while another takes birth in a house filled with joys? One is born into the house of people devoted to God while another is born in a wicked atheist's family. Why is one person born in a household where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he then goes and performs pious deeds. But another person is born in a family of atheists and is placed in a situation where he is encouraged to sin? He sins and becomes bad, because of his circumstances. The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational, for it is God who decides what sort of life someone will have.

 

 

Again, there is a lot of dissent on this issue.

My understanding of Christianity is the things of the world should not confuse one. The things of the world are many, from good health to bad health, from rich to poor. If one is to define oneself by the things of the world, then one will be slave to it. But to God, worldly measures do not determine what a person will mean to Him, and how He will judge this person.

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why don’t birds and beasts have souls like the human beings?

 

 

Again, there is dissent on this. Some claim that only humans have souls. Some other Christians refrain from making claims about this -- the general instruction being that humans must treat *all* Creation with respect, and this also covers the way humans treat animals.

Why do the human beings have only one life?

 

 

This is one of the points where I am a bit troubled. It seems that Christianity presumes that a living entity can be ultimately hateful towards God.

I'm not sure whether this is possible. But if humans are to have free will in whether they will serve God or not, then the possibility of ultimately rejecting God is open.

God, in His omniscience, knows who will eventually reject Him and who will accept Him, so there is no need for second and third chances.

Personally, I also think the one-life concept is more immediate, the threat of hell is there to shake people from their complacency and laxness. It says "Love God NOW, serve God NOW, don't put it off, don't hope that some other time you will get it right. Don't try to buy yourself time for indulging worldly pleasures, they only remove you further from God. NOW is the time to serve God."

Most cats love cow milk, but not all cats can digest it. Kittens have the necessary enzymes to digest milk, but grown-up cats don't have those enzymes anymore, and milk may give them diarrhea or cramps.

Mabye some cats, who have been regularly fed milk retain those enyzmes.

Next to cheese of many kinds, a good thing to feed cats is sour cream. I'm not sure it can be bought everywhere; it seems to be more of an European thing.

Also, some only mildly salted vegetable soup or such with noodles also seems tasty to some cats.

Ideally, cats shouldn't eat the same cooked food as humans, as there is too much salt in that.

But because of keeping their teeth healthy and firm, cats must eat some firm food as well, something they can chew on. Pet shops usually have some things precisely for this purpose.

He went to the vet today [Friday] - he had an infection abscess - from a bite in the neck from Kurma - Kurma can be kinda aggressive - but he is doing better now - it was drained and cleaned and he was given meds. He hears the chanting all the time - all these cats do - they find it calming.

 

 

Wonderful!

Yes, cats sharing the same territory can be quite aggressive towards eachother.

But they also have empathy for eachother. If a cat is crying, other cats will come.

When we had two cats, this happened: I was cleaning a wound one of the cats had, and he was very sensitive and cried a lot. The other cat came, meowed angrily at me, and also bit me in the leg.

Or the other day, I was cleaning Spelca's mouth with camomille tea (she has inflamed gums), and she cried. Soon, the two neighbour's cats came.

Thank you for your prayers - I TOOK HIM TO THE VET [due to Krishna's mercy today] he is ok now - I am so happy to hear you rescued a stray from the street - God bless you!

 

The Lord surely was listening when you prayed to him - I can see that his quick come back is due to this concern others have for him - enough so to pray for him.

 

Thank you! I am looking forward to hearing how Spelca the kitty found herself in the house of such a grand devotee!

 

 

Spelca came to our house thus: This spring, on the afternoon of March 29th, I prayed to God to give me a sign of His presence, and a sign I would understand to be from Him. It rained, and I thought a rainbow would be such a sign. But there was no rainbow. And nothing happened that day.

The next morning, father brought home a cat -- a stray that one of his students found at their home, but didn't want to keep.

So this is how Spelca came to our house.

I believe God makes signs -- and they are such that people can understand them in accordance with their abilities, and those signs are such that require to be acted upon.

May God grant me the wisdom and strength to be a good servant to Him.

As for women's brains: They might on average be smaller than the average male brain, but size hardly matters. What matters is the type of brain and the way it works.

There are some characteristic differences between male and female brains -- this article about brains sums it up very well.

Bhakta Don Muntean,

I ask - could you please pray to Lord Dhanvantari for my one cat - his name is Narasingha - he has devloped some tumor like infection under his jaw and near his throat - just over the last four days - please pray that he gets well soon - he is such a sweet soul and he is in pain - I cannot afford to take him to vet. I am going to try concentrated soy powder in [offered to Prabhupada] lactose free milk - that may help.

 

 

Can you describe this tumor-like infection?

Is it under the skin, the size and shape of an almond?

Or is it on the surface of the skin -- a wound?

If it is under the skin, under his jaw and near his throat, and symetrically on both sides of the throat, then it is likely to be his glands (those same kind of glands are also

placed in the armpits and in the groin, like in humans).

If it is the glands, then such a swelling is possible; but for it to lessen, may take months.

Can you observe the cat having other unusual signs? (Teary eyes, hair without shine, inflamed gums, fever ...?)

How old is the cat? Do you know what breed it is?

How do you know he is in pain? Does he cry more, is he more sensitive?

(This last cat we got is a stray, and she came with several diseases, so I'm now quite familiar with these things ...)

I know quite a few things about cats, and also some tricks (like how to give them pills). Just let me know and I'll do everything I can to help!

Do you have another "fluffy thing" living next to you now - I do hope so.

 

So in any case - may Krishna bless you and yours!

 

 

I have prayed for Narasingha. May he get well soon, and not suffer. And if his time is nigh, to depart peacefully.

* * *

I have a cat now too, Spelca [shpel-tsa]. She is a stray who came to our house this spring. I once must tell you the story around her arrival ...

I will be praying for your cat and you.

Thank you for your replies.

I must say that in a strange way, I feel attracted to atheists. That is, there seems to be something in them crying for help, but it is covered with the coat of hatred and anger, and "reason".

So I try to get to that crying something. So far, I could tell that most of the more militant atheists I have spoken to, are unhappy and feel they live empty lives (they have said so themselves).

The issue of women being less intelligent than men is not just about the differences between the genders.

It is connected to one of the central pleasures of the material -- sex. It is in the interest of atheistic men to keep women stupid (literally!), so that they can get from them whatever they want. And in an atheistic society, women are raised to believe they are nothing without a man -- so women willfully engage in illicit sexual relations, as this, per their conditioning, makes them feel worthy. A woman who is chaste (be she atheistic or not), is looked down upon and ridiculed by atheists of both genders.

Note the underlying cognitive dissonance: It is usually claimed that women are not less intelligent than men. But if (material) women were indeed equally intelligent to (material) men, then why do they let themselves be sexually exploited, and why do they depend on men so much?

So as soon as female intelligence is addressed, indirectly, sex is addressed as well. Hence the fierceness of such debates.

Some atheists are eager to ask all sorts of questions about God, wherever they can.

While they might start out politely, they end up being extremely hateful, resentful and resort to swearing and calling names. But they won't leave on their own accord.

How can a theist act meaningfully and responsibly in such a situation?

Oh yeah and the idea that God tortures people eternally in hell is blasphemy.

 

 

Here's an interesting article on some common misconceptions in Christianity (ie. in a particular, but popular Western theology):

http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

It explains how it happened that God has become to be viewed as wicked, merciless, bound by necessity. Also, that hell is eternal torture for those who hate God -- namely

This is hell: the negation of love; the return of hate for love; bitterness at seeing innocent joy; to be surrounded by love and to have hate in one's heart. This is the eternal condition of all the damned. They are all dearly loved. They are all invited to the joyous banquet. They are all living in God's Kingdom, in the New Earth and the New Heavens. No one expels them. Even if they wanted to go away they could not flee from God's New Creation, nor hide from God's tenderly loving omnipresence. Their only alternative would be, perhaps, to go away from their brothers and search for a bitter isolation from them, but they could never depart from God and His love. And what is more terrible is that in this eternal life, in this New Creation, God is everything to His creatures. As Saint Gregory of Nyssa says, "In the present life the things we have relations with are numerous, for instance: time, air, locality, food and drink, clothing, sunlight, lamplight, and other necessities of life, none of which, many though they be, are God; that blessed state which we hope for is in need of none of these things, but the Divine Being will become all, and in the stead of all to us, distributing Himself proportionately to every need of that existence. It is plain, too, from the Holy Scriptures that God becomes to those who deserve it, locality and home and clothing and food and drink and light and riches and kingdom, and everything that can be thought of and named that goes to make our life happy" (On the Soul and the Resurrection).

 

In the new eternal life, God will be everything to His creatures, not only to the good but also to the wicked, not only to those who love Him, but likewise to those who hate Him. But how will those who hate Him endure to have everything from the hands of Him Whom they detest? Oh, what an eternal torment is this, what an eternal fire, what a gnashing of teeth!

 

 

Theist,

First of all, I am glad I came here to this forum. I like the brevity and the conciseness of thought that I am finding here. It's good.

Supported?

 

Get out of his way and let him be in front. I just would have to question if I wanted to hear him speak on topics of Krsna.

 

 

Yes, I thought so too, intuitively. I was wondering though how to put it in words. Maybe that is not necessary, but said person may honestly wonder why you are ignoring them.

It's natural to want to belong and fit in somewhere. But that place is only love for the Lord.

 

Perhaps Krsna will continually bless you in this same way and not allow you to become comfortable and filled with that false sense of belonging and saftey that comes with being secured inside such an accepted position.

 

 

It seems so, and no worldly comfort is in sight!

theist,

Since we know people will assume that when we quote something we should go out of our way to let them know of our beginner status and avoid all mannerisms that signal our "authority" on the issue.

 

 

And this can backfire -- "If you aren't speaking with authority, then you aren't worth listening to at all."

What do you suggest to handle such a situation?

What you call barriers I prefer to call lines of distinction and these make themselves apparent naturally. The great example is that in the beginning of Prabhupada's western ministry he used to just take place in line for the shower in the morning and take his turn. Can you imagine? As people gained knowledge they saw their mistake. No need for Prabhupada to shove his way to the front.

 

 

How exactly is this to be supported?

What do you say, do, if someone shoves his way to the front?

What do you mean by an outsider? Outside of what? Acceptance into a religious group of some kind. And others as being insiders in that religious group.

 

 

Yes. I have great troubles shaking off the sense of elitism.

(In elementary school, all children in my class were Catholic, and I was the only one that was not. They would shun me for that. And later too, I've made some bad experiences with elitism -- I am quite conditioned into it.)

First of all, having an animal is a great responsibility, in many ways.

Providing proper food and space for them is not always easy.

Esp. if you adopt a stray animal, consider that it my be carrying a dangerous disease, and that by keeping such an animal you may be endangering yourself and other people around you.

Also, animals do not want to be left alone for longer periods of time. If there is nobody to keep it company during the day, consider to get two animals. They don't have to be of the same kind. Cats and dogs can get along well; and so do birds and cats (but first get the bird, then the cat; cats tend to not seriously attack those that have been in the house before them; the same goes for hamsters, mice or fish).

Secondly, animals can get parasites. Fleas, ticks, worms, mites, some of them also carrying other parasites, bacterial and viral. Some of them are species-specific, some don't mind getting at you as well. If you don't take care of them, the parasites can become a serious health-threat both for the animal and the owner as well as other people it comes in contact with.

* * *

As for attachment:

I grew up as an only child in a very dysfunctional family. At age 8, I got myself a cat. I was practically raised by this cat, as my parents didn't have much time for me, and we didn't have a very positive relationship with the people around here.

My cat and I lived together for 20 years, all his life. When he died, I cried, but I felt no pain, and I needed no consolation.

One could say I was very attached to my cat. But looking back, it was far more than that. I was attached, and still am, to the way we were together -- but this was nothing that had specifically to do with him being a cat.

There is much more to having an animal than just liking to have a fluffy living thing next to you.

So I don't really understand this fear of attachment.

Thank you for your thoughts.

theist,

The problem always comes for me if I try to position myself as some kind of "knower of the truth" or an authority of some kind.

 

 

But isn't it, so often, that the other person puts you in this position?

Like, "If you quote source XY, then I take you must be proficient in XY."

Many people are eager to label a person, and if you quote the Bible, "then it must be that you are a Christian". (And then one can spend a while explaining that one is not a Christian, and then the other wonders why then quote the Bible at all.)

* * *

gHari,

You asked what I think. I think that talking about religion is a waste of time. When we have realization of the truth behind the scripture then we have something to say to anyone, but until then we simply waste our time playing with the words of each religion's idiom.

 

I consider myself very fortunate to have discovered this long ago. I did not have to deal with everyone's doubts and weaknesses - just my own.

 

If we are honest with ourselves about why we talk about it we will see it is merely ego maintenance, solidifying the illusion that the body and its senses are the be-all and end-all. But in actuality, it is the soul that is the be-all and end-all. The mind and the senses are not the route to the soul; they are the shackles of the little world. They keep the mirror of the heart foggy and stand between you and God.

 

Well, that's what I think. But then, if you're gonna talk and debate, it might as well be about Krsna and scripture.

 

Somewhere along the way you may become serious.

 

 

Thank you for saying this! I copied it into my notes, I hope you don't mind.

I have only lately begun to realize why I was debating and discussing religion so much: It was my way of fighting my own atheism.

I had so many theories piled up in my head, and was far from knowing what it is that *I* think. Somehow, all those theories seemed to have very little to do with me. I started out in those discussions as an atheist, but something always seemed wrong. I went at reason with reason -- and found it cannot stand its own rigour. Soon, I had no argument against theists anymore, plenty against atheists, and the landscape cleared to make room for a decision.

* * *

theist,

I notice that the tendancy is to form a clear barrier between 'us' and 'them.' "I am the devotee" and "you are the karmi". This dynamic is not very helpful when trying to share the Most Beautiful with our fellow souls in this world. Qoutes offered from this platform often come across as weapons of intellectual warfare rather than the life preservers of rescue that they are.

 

 

As an outsider, I see that such a barrier is necessary and useful though. Not in the sense of one person against the other, or the one inside against the one outside, but in the sense of spiritual thoroughness.

Perceiving these barriers and dealing with them is a good challenge to my vanity.

What is the problem here?

Quoting Scripture

Greetings.

A very dear person has referred me here.

I have recently started to read the Bhagavad-gita -- As It Is, by A.C. Prabhupada.

Many times when I read something, I am all "Yes, exactly! This is how it is!"

I discuss religion and philosophy a lot, and so I find myself urged to support my arguments with what I have read in scripture.

Yet as it occured to me, I am not in the position to knowledgeably and responsibly quote scripture. I may agree with a verse, think that it captures best what I am trying to say.

But my understanding of said verse is not necessarily that that is approved by the authorities and members of the religion to which the scripture I am attempting to quote is basic.

If I'd be quoting scripture in my arguments, and also give my source, I would thereby overstep my competence -- as I would present my understanding as if it were indeed that of a knowledgeable and responsible member of said religion.

Which I am not.

So I think that an outsider, who wishes to support his arguments with what he has read in various scriptures, does best if he:

-- rephrases the verse and gives no source,

-- quotes the verse verbatim but gives no source.

(This goes of course for arguments that deal with more general matters, like why are people prone to sin or why they avoid God. In arguments that deal with particular religious history, like Abraham's ancestors or where a battle took place, the source and the verse should by all means be named.)

I understand such quoting or rephrasing may be a violation of scripture. But I think that is important that one doesn't overstep one's competences, and always keep to his understanding, without assuming more competence than one actually has.

What do you think?