Jahnava Nitai Das

The timing can be ascertained by a number of methods, one being the alignment of constellations mentioned in the Puranas at the time.

The timing can be ascertained by a number of methods, one being the alignment of constellations mentioned in the Puranas at the time.

Can love of God develop gradually by cultivation? There is an interesting story in the Puranas that tells of a previous life of Bhakta Prahlada. Of course everyone knows that Bhakta Prahlada is a great devotee of the Lord. He is one of the twelve mahajanas, or great authorities on devotion, as mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam. But there is a history as to how he developed love of God, for he wasn't always of that nature. In summary, the Purana tells us there once was a man who was attached to sinful activities. He was especially fond of a particular lady whom he lived with. Due to his great anger, he would always be fighting and arguing with this lady. One day he started fighting from the first moment he woke up, before the sunrise. They argued back and forth, yelling and throwing things at each other. Their anger was so great that they continued arguing non-stop until the next morning, not even taking a break to eat. By chance that day had been Nrisimha Chaturdashi (the appearance day of Sri Nrisimha Avatara). Since this man did not eat that day, it was considered that he had performed the austerity of fasting on the appearance of Sri Nrisimha. By this ajnata-sukriti he began his service to the Lord, and eventually he became the great devotee Bhakta Prahlada. The Purana does not mention how many lives occured between this one and the birth of Prahlada, nor what other processes of service to the Lord he later performed. But it shows us the power of devotional service. Even by unknowingly engaging in service one begins his journey towards liberation. Like this we have many stories which show us the process of cultivating or developing devotion. Mrigari the hunter was the most evil person, yet Narada instructed him to chant the name of Rama. Being unable to appreciate the name of Rama, Mrigari was not able to chant. Seeing this, Narada told him to instead chant the word "mara" which means "death". Mrigari was expert at killing animals, and he would especially enjoy to half kill animals and watch them suffer. We can imagine such a cruel person. So when Narada told him to chant "death" (mara), Mrigari found it very easy and natural. Mrigari sat and chanted over and over again this word - mara, mara, mara. As he chanted over and over again, the gap between the words disappeared and instead of chanting "mara", he was chanting "rama". The name of Sri Rama is so powerful that it developed love of God even in the heart of the cruel hunter Mrigari. Mrigari did not know he was chanting the name of Lord Rama, but even accidentally if one chants it purifies one's heart. This same Mrigari, by chanting again and again this name of Sri Rama, transformed into the sage Valmiki. Valmiki, the great saint glorified by all, was originally the most cruel hunter who had no trace of love for God. The cultivation of devotion by chanting the name of Rama was so effective that Valmiki was entrusted with the service of composing the great epic Ramayana. It is not amazing that, by chanting, such personalities have become purified and attained perfection. The names of Lord Krishna are not material sound. On the level of spiritual sound there is no difference between the name and the object. By chanting the Lord's sacred name we can associate directly with the Lord. Such purifying association definitely helps us develop love of God, even if performed unknowingly. The Srimad Bhagavatam confirms this as follows: shrinvatam sva-kathah krishnah punya-shravana-kirtanah hridy antah stho hy abhadrani vidhunoti suhrit satam "Sri Krishna, who is the Paramatma in everyone's heart and the benefactor of the truthful devotee, cleanses the desire for material enjoyment from the heart of one who has developed the urge to hear His messages, which are in themselves virtuous when properly heard and chanted." By engaging in shravanam (hearing) and kirtanam (chanting) about Lord Krishna, one's heart is purified. The word used in this verse is "abhadra", or that which is not auspicious within one's heart. This refers to lust, anger, greed, envy, etc. By chanting the Lord's names, and by hearing of His divine activities, one becomes purified of these bad qualities. This is the gradual process of cultivating love for God. The process of transformation within the heart is described beautifully in the following five verses of Srimad Bhagavatam. This is actually the complete summary of Bhagavata philosophy. The corresponding translation is a spontaneous translation given by Sri Prabhupada in his Gita commentary which allows the subjects to flow smoothly and perfectly. shrinvatam sva-kathah krishnah punya-shravana-kirtanah hridy antah-stho hy abhadrani vidhunoti suhrit satam nashta-prayeshv abhadreshu nityam bhagavata-sevaya bhagavaty uttama-shloke bhaktir bhavati naishthiki tada rajas-tamo-bhavah kama-lobhadayas ca ye ceta etair anaviddham sthitam sattve prasidati evam prasanna-manaso bhagavad-bhakti-yogatah bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam mukta-sangasya jayate bhidyate hridaya-granthish chidyante sarva-samshayah kshiyante casya karmani drishta evatmanishvare "To hear about Krsna from Vedic literatures, or to hear from Him directly through the Bhagavad-gita, is itself righteous activity. And for one who hears about Krsna, Lord Krsna who is dwelling in everyone's heart, acts as a best-wishing friend and purifies the devotee who constantly engages in hearing of Him. In this way, a devotee naturally develops his dormant transcendental knowledge. As he hears more about Krsna from the Bhagavatam and from the devotees, he becomes fixed in the devotional service of the Lord. By development of devotional service one becomes freed from the modes of passion and ignorance, and thus material lusts and avarice are diminished. When these impurities are wiped away, the candidate remains steady in his position of pure goodness, becomes enlivened by devotional service and understands the science of God perfectly. Thus bhakti-yoga severs the hard knot of material affection and enables one to come at once to the stage of 'asamsayam-samagram,' understanding of the Supreme Absolute Truth Personality of Godhead."

Sri Radha's name is not mentioned directly in Srimad Bhagavatam because Sri Shuka Muni, being the topmost rasika bhakta, would enter nirvikalpa samadhi by just once hearing the divine name of Radha. Such a state of unconscious bliss would last for many days. Parikshit maharaj had just seven days before his death, thus Shuka Muni avoided directly uttering the name of Radha, and instead hinted about Her by the word "aradhana". In other Puranas the descriptions of Radha are given directy, especially in Sri Brahma-vaivarta Purana. For those who have a preset conception, it is useless to cite evidence. Any text that has the name Radha will be disregarded in favour of one's own opinion. One will conclude that such texts are either of recent time periods (without actually having any proof in this regards), or the particular verse will be called an interpolation (again without having proof in this regards either). We have seen how such people react when evidence is cited. For example, if an Upanishad has the name Krishna in it, they conclude that the Upanishad must therefore be a recent text, or that it must be refering to another Krishna whom no one knows about. Or to quote another example: "Any book talking about Radha and Krishna's romance is no older than 700 ad." Thus such discussion is trully a waste of time. This is where we get the famous statement "One who knows, knows not. And one who does not know, truly knows." As far as the rasa-lila, it occurred when Lord Krishna was eight years of age, but to the gopis the Lord appears as a youth of sixteen years old. The Lord manifests His form according to the desire of the devotee. We find in Srimad Bhagavatam a description of the rasa dance. There it is mentioned that it lasted for the period of one kalpa, which in our calculations would be millions of years. The activities of the omnipotent Lord are inconceivable and beyond mundane logic. For the Lord it is not difficult to manipulate time and space, for they are His energies. Lord Krishna also expanded into numerous forms during the rasa lila as well as in Dwaraka. Such topics cannot be understood by one who tries to judge Krishna in terms of material history. Those who accept Krishna as an ordinary person will naturally have difficulty in accepting His supernatural activities. Whether it be Krishna's marrying 16,108 wives, or Krishna's lifting of Govardhana hill, neither can be accomodated in terms of material experience. All of the great bhakti schools in India accept the transcendental existence of Radha and Krishna. Some schools may not give special significance to these forms of the Lord, but they certainly accept such worship as authorized. Vishnuswami, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabhacharya, and Chaitanya all accept the transcendental position of Sri Radha. Though some think the worship of Radha is of recent origins, this is not the case. But it is true that in recent times the importance of Radha worship has been especially stressed by Sri Chaitanya. It is interesting that the "radha kalyana" festival is most common in South India, where there is little influence of Sri Chaitanya's teachings. The madhurya-rasa (conjugal relationship with the Lord) is nothing new or sectarian. The Azhvar Sri Andal sung extensively about the madhurya-rasa. About the Puranas: Many people here refer to earlier Puranas and later Puranas. The concept that the Puranas were written over a period of several hundred years in the recent history has its origin from the British indologists. If we accept such a conclusion, that would mean the Puranas are lies, as they state their origin differently. According to the Puranas, Sri Vyasa Muni was the author, and he authored the last and most recent Purana over 5,000 years ago. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this regard. I personally accept the statements of the sadhus and the scriptures over the statements of the British indologists. The indologists had a not so hidden agenda of establishing Christianity as the original religion of the world. Thus all of their writings were an attempt to prove that the Hindu religion was of recent origins. They did a great job if we judge it by its effectiveness. Most Indians nowadays accept what ever the indologists stated without question. In that sense the British were really able to conquer India because they managed to destroy its culture and history. Today those born in Brahmana families are wearing pant and shirt and working as engineers in New Jersey. Nothing wrong with that - but the Moghuls were never able to accomplish such a feat, nor the French, nor the Portuguese. Hats off to the British. About Krishna: After rereading this thread I think I finally found out where the problem in discussion is occuring. The devoted are speaking of a Krishna who is the absolute truth. The non-devoted are speaking of a "Krishna" who was a historical person that lived and died. Unfortunately this two people are quite opposite. Thus there is a break in communication. If someone were to ask me to prove that the second "Krishna" existed (one who was born and died like a common man), I cannot do it because I don't believe there was such a person. In the same way, if I write something super-natural about Krishna, a non-devoted person will think I am attributing it to the second Krishna (the common man who died), and thus it becomes a stupid statement. How can a common man do that? In this way we have each defined a word (in this case "Krishna") differently and are trying to converse with each other. If I think the word "car" refers to a green potato, no matter how much you describe and glorify your car, I will still think your insane. Thats the situation we are in. Regarding Vyasa not knowing: Vyasa is a tri-kala-jnani who knows past, present, and future. Furthermore he is an empowered incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The statement that Vyasa may or may not know was originally made by Lord Shiva, but it seems to have been misunderstood. I have not read the article linked previously, so I cannot say whether the author is mistaken or the interpretation of the article is mistaken. The point is that (according to Padma Purana) Shuka heard Srimad Bhagavatam directly from Lord Shiva in a previous age. Shukadeva was present as a parrot, and he overheard Lord Shiva recite Srimad Bhagavatam to Devi. Thus Shuka is a disciple of Lord Shiva in this regards. As such, Lord Shiva makes the statement that "I know Srimad Bhagavatam, and Shuka (who has heard from me) also knows Srimad Bhagavatam, but Vyasa may or may not know." Since Vyasa was not a disciple of Lord Shiva, Lord Shiva chose not to comment on whether Vyasa knew or not. Of course he did know, and Lord Shiva, being omniscient, knew that Vyasa was a knower of Bhagavatam. Lord Shiva simple chose not to confirm whether or not Vyasa knew. Foolish people will conclude that therefore Vyasa didn't know. Anyone who says Vyasa did not know the meaning of Bhagavatam is mistaken, regardless of which school of philosophy he belongs to. If the above linked article does state that Vyasa didn't know Bhagavatam, I would have to disagree with it. Even Lord Shiva did not say Vyasa did not know. Therefore an intelligent person will not be so bold. Vyasa did know Radha when it came to Brahma Vaivarta Purana. About scriptures: Srimad Bhagavatam is considered as an authentic and spotless text by all Vaishnavas. Other recent texts written by gurus and acharyas may also be authentic in the sense that their conclusions are in line with the scriptures, but still they receive their authenticity from the scriptures. No one would reject the scripture by which one's own text receives authoritativeness.

Sometime back there was a mention of the sons of Brahma, who are born independent of goddess Sarasvati. The following is interesting in this regards. It is from Sri Prabhupada's commentary to Srimad Bhagavatam: "Atri Muni was a great brahmana sage and was one of the mental sons of Brahmaji. Brahmaji is so powerful that simply by thinking of a son he can have it. These sons are known as manasa-putras [mental sons]. Out of seven manasa-putras of Brahmaji and out of the seven great brahmana sages, Atri was one."

I will try to answer that question in tomorrow (no time immediately), but just a point to ponder. The category of books such as manu-samhita and parashara-samhita are technically called "dharma-shastras". I think most people would accept "religion" as a very rough and crude translation for "dharma". And "shastra" could be translated as "scripture". Thus this category of book (dharma-shastras) would be as literally close as you could get to the english phrase "religious books". They may not be as philosophical as other books, such as the Upanishads, the Gita, etc., but that is another topic. Why does it really matter what we consider as religious books? Many people (though I havent heard it here in these forums yet) like to say Hinduism is a do whatever you like religion, and that there is no right or wrong in Hinduism, and there is no such thing as "sin". They like to cliam that sin is a Christian concept. But in reality there are more rules in Hinduism than in most other (probably all) religions in the world. The concept that everyone can just do whatever they like, and ultimately we all end in the same place is not very philosophical, nor is such a concept accepted in the scriptures. For that reason I feel it is important to show that books such as Manu-samhita are indeed Hindu religious texts.

I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "hindu religious book", as I took these words at their literal meaning. Hindu Religious books, if we go by the literal meanings, refer to all books found in the Hindu religion. This would include Shruti, Smriti and Nyaya categories of texts. As such, books such as Puranas, the Gita, the Mahabharata, and the Manu Samhita, etc., could be called as Hindu religious books. We could even ask ourself a simple question like: Is the Bhagavad Gita a Hindu religious book? According to your definition it isn't, as it is not a part of the Shruti texts. But according to 99.99% of the Hindus in the world it is a Hindu Religious book. Even the encyclopedias and school text books accept it as such. The same is the case for the other categories of books mentioned above. So if we take words to mean what words mean, then the meanings become commonly understandable. If not, there can be no such thing as communication or language, just noise.

I really can't figure out what people here consider as Hinduism. For example to say "Hindu religious books deal only with religion" just doesn't make any sense at all. The dharma shastras such as manu-samhita and parashara-samhita deal with every aspect of daily life. Perhaps these books aren't considered as Hindu religious books by some, go figure. The reality is Hindu religious books do set out what is right to do and what is wrong to do. It is known technically as yama and niyama - or rules and regulations. Positive and negative activities are delineated clearly.

Actually there is no need to limit this type of question to demigods. The same question can and should then be applied to God Himself. If everything is happening due to our karma, what's the need for a God? If I am good, God will give me only good, and if I am bad, He will give me only bad. He is therefore under the control of karma (as He is forced to act as a dispenser based on my actions). For example, if I do good He won't give me bad. Thus the ultimate absolute truth is in reality karma, or so the karma-mimamsa philosphy states. One should refer to the Vedanta-sutra for Vyasa's refutation of this doctrine. I won't get into details here as it will be long and divergent.

I think Viji was saying that since originally Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma) was the ancient world religion, everyone regardless of where they are born now, are connected to Hinduism by their roots.

We just put online a screen saver that displays pictures of the Dashavatara. To download it on the front page.

In reference to Animesh's second paragraph, it is interesting that Lord Krishna presented the same arguments (known technically as the Karma Mimamsa Darshana) to His father in order to convince Him that it wasn't necesssary to worship Indra. Basically He said since all reactions are due to our past activities, whether or not we worship Indra, rain will still come or not come based on our karma. Therefore it is better not to worship Indra, and instead to worship the Govardhana Hill which is providing grass for our cows. The exact conversation occurs in Srimad Bhagavatam. Lord Krishna utilizes this philosophy to establish the worship of Govardhana Hill, but later He defeats this exact same philosophy. It is kind of a philosophical game of the Lord.

"If some of these stories are allegories so it means everything is not to be taken litteraly." Even in the Puranas there are stories that are allegorical, such as the story of Puranjana in Srimad Bhagavatam. A city with nine gates is described that is symbolic of the body and its nine holes. When the scriptures speak in an allegorical manner, they always directly state this fact (that it is an allegory) either before or after the story. Thus we cannot consider other stories in the Puranas to be only symbolic. Another point is that when we have a statement in scriptures that apparently contradicts another statement in the scriptures, we need to look closely to see if there is a secondary meaning to one of the statements that may harmonize both views. This point is explained nicely in the sanskrit text "Mayavada-shata Dushani", which can be read online here in the library section. In that text it explains under what circumstances it is appropriate to accept a secondary meaning over the primary meaning. When one Vedic text says the lunar eclipse is the shadow of the earth, and another says it is the floating head of an immortal demon that tries to swallow the moon, we should keep the above point in mind to harmonize the contradiction. A third point is that some statements in the scripture are poetic and not literal. Just because the poetic description may be symbolic, it does not mean the person being described by the poetry is symbolic. Even in modern language we find this practice. Also, there are other statements that are indirect and coded. This is stated by Lord Krishna in the 11th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam. Finally, the most important point is that the vedic descriptions are multi dimensional, and sometimes higher dimensions contradict our lower experience. For example the earth is described as a flat plane, and its geography is described in detail. At the same time we find references to the earth as being a globe, and if we see any ancient Varaha temple, we can find carvings of Varaha holding a round earth on His tusks. From these stone carvings we can see that even thousands of years ago the indian scholars knew the earth was round despite finding opposite descriptions in the cosmology portions of Vedic texts. It requires internal vision to harmonize differing multi-dimensional statements in the scriptures. Thus it is not possible for people to just read the scriptures as books and understand the conclusions. "It seems to me that the expanding mouvement of our universe and the billions of billions of light years between each galaxies will have a hard time to fit in the stem of a lotus flower (due to his shape). " Unless the stem is simultaneously expanding (or growing) with the universe. Or unless there is huge vacant space within the stem yet to be occupied. There are countless possibilities that would all be speculative. All bodies go through six transformations, including the universal body. These transformations of bodies, as mentioned by Sri Prabhupada in his Bhagavad gita commentary, are: They are manifested (born), they grow, they maintain for sometime, they produce effects, they gradually dwindles, and then the vanish. In the Bhagavad Gita the soul is called kuta-stha, or steady, becuase it does not undergo these six transformations which the body is subjected to. This refers both to the individual soul, and Vishnu, who is the soul of the universe. The universe's expansion, and later it's retraction are products of these six transformations of matter. "I absolutely do not know what is the absolute truth, but the fact is I have a hard time to meditate or serve in pure devotion an allegory. Infortunately I need to have something concrete to meditate upon, even if it is the sign of this age of Kali." I find it interesting that as we progress from one age to the next, the object of worship becomes more and more perceivable. For example, in the Satya-yuga, the process for self-realization involved meditation on the Lord in the heart. In the Treta-yuga the process for self-realization involved offering ingredients into the sacrificial fire, which was more perceivable than the Lord in the heart. In the Dvapara yuga, the process for self-realization involved worship of the deity in the temple, which again was more perceivable or "solid" than the sacrificial fire. But in the Kali yuga, the process for self-realization is chanting the names of Hari and the object again becomes subtle - non-visible. It is understandable that as one's qualities degrade over the ages, and as one's inner awareness becomes less, one would need to take shelter in a more perceivable object. Of course the actual object is the same Supreme Lord in all cases, but the ability to perceive Him becomes easier for more conditioned entities. Yet in the Kali yuga, when all good qualities are lost, the object of worship again becomes intermediately subtle (as sound), almost like a wave to again bridge the gap between the previous process and that of the next Satya-yuga, meditation. From mental, to visual, to solid, to sound, and again to mental. But despite being more subtle than the solid and visible objects of worship, still it remains more perceivable by its direct results. This is something that is amazing even to the rishis of Naimisharanya forest. Thus while externally the object of worship may be less perceivable, internally it is the most perceivable of all.

"What is the need for Deities philosophically, when Prakti (Nature) is operating on a set of predetermined scientific laws being controlled by a Supreme Controller?" Philosophically one may say there is no need for deities, but one could carry this argument endlessly in any direction. It is just a fact of existence. Philosophically what is the need for planets? Why can't we all just float in empty space? Philosophically what is the need for eating? Why can't we just be self-sufficient energy sources? Philosophically what is the need for Krishna to be blue? One can doubt anything based on the logic that it could have worked just as well another way, but (according to the Vedas) this is the particular manner in which God decided to create the material manifestation. He created three levels of control for every object: The Adhibhuta - elemental level (the matter). The Adhyatma - perceiving level (the self). The Adhidaiva - controlling level (the deities). God is defined as one situated beyond these three in the Bhagavatam as follows: yo 'dhyatmiko 'yam purushah so 'sav evadhidaivikah yas tatrobhaya-vicchedah purusho hy adhibhautikah ekam ekatarabhave yada nopalabhamahe tritayam tatra yo veda sa atma svashrayashrayah "The individual person possessing different instruments of senses is called the adhyatmic person, and the individual controlling deity of the senses is called adhidaivic. The embodiment seen on the eyeballs is called the adhibhautic person. All three of the above mentioned stages of different living entities are interdependent. In the absence of one, another is not understood. But the Supreme Being who sees every one of them as the shelter of the shelter is independent of all, and therefore He is the supreme shelter." Each of the three is sheltered by another of the three, and thus they are all interdependent. God is the shelter of the shelter of the adhibhuta, adhyatma and adhidaiva. Back to your question, these three levels of control are the scientific laws you hint at. I fail to understand why there should be so many departments in a government. Why can't there just be one government office that controls everything. But for some reason everywhere there is delegation of powers. In nature it is no different. The power of prakriti is delegated to various individuals, including us. For example, the power to see has been delegated to each of us. But since we are only the adhibhuta seerer, our control is quite limited over our sight. If there was no fire (or light), despite our having the instrument to see, still we would not be able to see. Thus we become dependent on another level of control. But fire itself is controlled by a personality, and thus the fire also becomes dependent on another level of control. Ultimately the dependence goes all the way back to the prakriti, who has been empowered by Vishnu. For anything to function, it requires these three levels of control. If you remove one, it will not function. Instead of questioning the need for deities (adhidaiva), why not question the need for our self, the perceiver (adhyatma). If you remove the perceiver, the question becomes quite meaningless. Same is the case if you remove the deity.

"I was wondering if anyone knew if the tiger was associated with immortality and if it is, why?" In Hinduism there isn't much associated with the tiger, but we do find in the Gita that Arjuna is addresses as purusa-vyaghra, or "tiger among men", to indicate his super-excellent qualifications in regards to courage, strength, etc. Here is the exact verse: niscayam srnu me tatra tyage bharata-sattama tyago hi purusa-vyaghra tri-vidhah samprakirtitah "O best of the Bharatas, now hear My judgment about renunciation. O tiger among men, renunciation is declared in the scriptures to be of three kinds." (Bhagavad Gita 18.4)

Some of these descriptions are allegorical or higher dimensional descriptions or both. If we see texts like surya-siddhanta, the eclipse is described in more practical terms as the shadow of another planet, etc. It is possible for several events to occur simultaneous on different dimensions and be described as one. For example, the eclipse may occur on our dimension due to the shadow of another planet, and the asuras like rahu, etc., may utilize this time period to attack their enemies to take advantage of the subtle effects caused by an eclipse. In the overall description the two events may be described as a single event occuring apparently on a single dimension.

In the last issue of Tattva Prakasha there was something that might answer your quetions. Here is the excerpt: The first transformation that one will experience on the path of self-realization is purification of the mind. The influence of lust, anger and greed will be overcome and one will be able to control his mind with spiritual intelligence. As the dust covering the mirror of the mind is removed, the natural qualities of the self (atma) begin to shine forth. One gives up false identification with the body and its possessions and realizes the spiritual qualitative oneness of everything and everyone. The eternality of the self and the temporal nature of matter are established within oneself as irrevocable facts. All that is troublesome within the heart will be removed, and one will be situated above material desire. One's external nature will change as one's natural qualities begin to manifest: Humility; pridelessness; nonviolence; tolerance; simplicity; cleanliness; steadiness; self-control; renunciation of the objects of sense gratification; absence of false ego; detachment; freedom from entanglement; even-mindedness amid pleasant and unpleasant events; and constant unalloyed devotion to God. The second transformation that occurs is described as "bhava-maha-davagni-nirvapanam", or extinguishing the great forest fire of birth and death. Sometimes in the forest a fire will start when the wind causes two bamboo trees to rub against each other. Simply by the rubbing of two small bamboo trees hundreds of miles of forest are burnt to ash. In such a huge forest fire, it is impossible to trace out the original cause of the fire. It almost seems as though it has no cause. The origin of our conditioned existence is similar in that it is impossible to trace out what was the cause. And just as in the forest fire, we are constantly being burnt by the various sufferings inherent in matter. Birth, death, old age and disease are our constant enemies in life, and they are insurmountable. The scriptures describe this world as dukhalayam, or "the abode of suffering". Why such a negative description? Because the soul is constitutionally eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. To have our natural spiritual qualities covered by illusion, and replaced with a temporal body full of ignorance and suffering is certainly a negative change. As one purifies his consciousness, the false identification with the body is removed, and the true qualities of the soul become visible internally. The sufferings of the external body are caste aside as nothing more than the interaction of material elements, the nature. Due to false identification with the body we identify with the sufferings of the body. If we become free from bodily identification, the sufferings of that body are also left. Thus this great forest fire of birth, death, old age and disease - and all the sufferings inherent in a matterial body - are extinguished. The example is given that the spiritual master is like a cloud who receives water from the ocean of mercy and pours this mercy on the forest fire of samsara, the cycle of birth and death, to extinguish our sufferings. The third transformation that takes place for one on the path of self-realization is described as "anandambudhi-vardhanam prati-padam". There is an ocean, not of water but of bliss (ananda). The liberated soul is able to always experience this ocean of bliss, for it is inherent within the soul. And this ocean of bliss is not static, it is constantly increasing (vardhanam) at every moment (prati-padam). This unlimited bliss experienced by the liberated soul is the aim of all living entities. It is the driving force behind the entire manifestation. The conditioned souls are looking for this same unlimited happiness, but they look externally towards matter for it. They fail in their search because happiness is not something external to us, it is our very nature, which is now covered by illusion. One who has attained to this state of purified consciousness has nothing else to attain, for he has everything. He is living on the spiritual realm of existence even while being situated within the external body. Such a saint is constantly seeing God face to face: premanjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santah sadaiva hridayeshu vilokayanti.

"All the evidence uncovered to date, are in favor of the theory of evolution, that Homo Sapiens came out of Apes. Homo Sapiens has been traced back to 100,000 years of existence. Beyond that, while other fossils are available, no human fossils have been found. " This is too big of a topic to get into right now, but the book "The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael A. Cremo does a good job of documenting archeological finds that prove humans have existed on earth for millions of years. Basically, any archeological find that doesn't fit into the modern conception of man's origin is ignored. Only those archeological finds that support the present view are accepted by the scientific establishment. Rather than write something about the book myself, which will be considered biased anyway, I will take the easy way out and attach some impartial reviews from the public which I saw on Amazon.com: Thorough, Couragous and Balanced, November 25, 2000 Reviewer: poliver@ci2.com from Texas Cremo and Thompson have done a tremendous job of exposing the high degree of subjectivity that is involved in screening and evaluating evidence of Homo Sapien presence and lineage. The open-minded nature of their approach is unusually refreshing in a field typically defined by hard opinions and condescension. The authors exhibit tremendous courage in including all reports from the past two centuries that can be considered credible based on eye-witness accounts. When it exists, they also present contrary opinion. Rigid conclusions are generally avoided and the readers are left to decide for themselves how to interpret the evidence. Criticism of this book ironically follows the same sort of strategy that the authors discredit - namely that full attention is given to the weakest evidence, while the stronger is ignored. In the past science has always made its most embarrassing mistakes after decades, or centuries, of strict adherence to theoretical preconceptions. The last 50 years of shuffling human ancestors in and out of the family tree (while general textbooks give no evidence of the controversy) is proof in and of itself that we should always try and remain humble to the possibility of our being wrong. It's called open-mindedness and it's a common characteristic of every great scientist. Scary thoughts, September 26, 2000 Reviewer: Scott Snyder from Danbury, CT In a sentence: If even a small part of this is true it turns evolution on its ear. I was given this book by a friend for no particular reason and immediately scoffed at it. As a geologist, I had learned quite a bit about evolution and the filtered information regarding the "accepted" evidence. I eventually started reading it and what I read in this book makes my hair stand on end. The lack of documentation regarding "true" discoveries of human antiquity by the elite of archeology and anthropology is as astounding as the categorical dismissal of other evidence is deplorable. To dismiss evidence of greater antiquity of man because it doesn't fit existing data and "just can't be" is a tragedy of the ages. Makes me wonder how much of this goes on in my own profession. Read this with and open mind and you be amazed at what you see. "The eye seldom sees what the mind does not anticipate."

[is there proof that there is no common purpose to life ?] Commenting on: "In a way, we know for sure that there is no common goal which is being pursued by all People. That way, we can be sure that there is no common purpose to life, that is known to us." There is a difference between a goal, and one's endeavour to achieve a goal. Simply because someone is not endeavouring to achieve a goal, it does not mean the goal does not exist. The goal of school is to graduate. Some student may not be interested in this goal, and thus he may choose to fail. This does not prove there is no common goal in the school system. There is a difference between a purpose in life (which perhaps would have been set by a creator), and what individuals are trying to achieve in their lives (maybe money, peace, power, fame, eternality, etc.). If there is no common goal being pursued by all people, that simply indicates that they are either ignorant of the goal, or do not wish to achieve that goal. It in no way proves their is no purpose set for life.

Though the comment was way up there on the list, and I am a little late commenting on it, the motivation for most religion is actually nothing but expectation and fear. Someone worships god in hopes of receiving something, another personworships god in hopes that God won't punish him. If we look at some of the main world religions, it is quite clear they are focused on one of these two points. Someone is asking for daily bread, and the other is praying Allah won't finish us. Hinduism is no different, if anything it is a little worse. First we go to one god and give our list of desires. If they aren't supplied in a sufficient and timely manner, we go on to the next god. Some are too imnpatient so they just ask all the gods at once, and unfortunatelt most of the gods think the other god will supply it and thus no one fulfills the desire of the Hindu. This is known in sanskrit as arthika-dharma, or religion for material purposes. There is another form of dharma known as paramarthika-dharma, or religion for the ultimate welfare. Arthika-dharma will increase our bondage in the material world, it is the process of pravritti. Paramarthika-dharma is performed without material motive, and thus it will free us from material bondage. This is the nivritti marga. As long as our religion is based on expectation and fear, it will increase our bondage. Perhaps someone can post the eighth verse of Sri Chaitanya's Sikshashtakam with the transalation. It is a beautiful example of selfless devotion.

Everything depends on one's degree of faith in a source. If one has absolute faith in a source, then regardless of how unbelievable the statement may be, one will still accept it as true. But if one has relative faith in a source, then the belief will depend on the degree of faith one has. Sometimes we hear unbelievable statements, or hard to believe statements from someone, but because the degree of faith in the source is very high, we accept the statement as true. If someone else had made the exact same statement to us, we would have rejected it as false. Not because the statement is hard to believe, but because the degree of faith in the source is less. When my neighbor tells me he saw a lion on his roof, I don't believe him because the degree of faith I have in him is moderate. And a moderate amount of faith is relative, or measured and judged by being compared to something else. In the case of faith, we generally judge it against our direct perception, and past experiences. If instead of my neighbor, it was my father who said he saw a lion on his roof, I would believe him, despite the fact that it is a hard to believe occurence. It is the degree of faith we have in an individual or source that decides whether or not we believe the statement. We know from our common sense that most people have defects. The scriptures have classified these defects into four main categories: One is sure to commit mistakes. One is invariably illusioned. One has the tendency to cheat others. One is limited by imperfect senses. With these four imperfections, one cannot deliver perfect information. Thus faith in an individual will vary according to our perception of that person according to these four defects. We may not consciously measure people against these four defects, but it is a spontaneous internal process that always occurs. If we think someone may be trying to cheat us, we won't have faith in their statements. If we think someone has committed a mistake in their own judgement, then we won't have faith in their judgement. If we think someone's judgement was affected by his imperfect and defective senses, we won't accept it as truth. If we think someone's judgement was affected by his subjectability to illusion, then we won't trust his statement as absolute. In order for someone to have absolute faith in a source, he must be fully convinced that the source is situated beyond these four defects of the common man. Only such a source would be considered as infallible, and absolutely perfect. Some people consider the guru, the sadhus, and Lord Krishna to be situated beyond these four defects, and thus they accept their statements as absolute truth. In other words, some people do not think the guru, the sadhus, and Lord Krishna commit mistakes. They do not think the guru, the sadhus, and Lord Krishna are covered by illusion. They do not think the guru, the sadhus, and Lord Krishna have a tendency to cheat others. And they do not think the guru, the sadhus, and Lord Krishna are limited by imperfect senses. How they develop such faith in a source is another topic, so I will not go into it at this time. The main point that we should all understand is that everything in existence is based on faith in some form or another. Some statements match our past experiences better than other statements, and so we consider some statements as more believable and others as less believable. One flaw of this method is that it limits the belief in reality to what we have already experienced. I am sure we all would admit that we have not experienced the entire existence of reality in full. It seems that unconsciously we have all accepted the limitation of experience, and thus we have accepted as truth many things which we have not experienced. A simple example would be the atom. Nearly everyone accepts it as a reality. We even have drawings of it in text books which we are forced to memorize. But as far as I know, no one has seen an atom yet - at least it hasn't been proven to anyone I know. Some people may claim to have seen atoms through electron microscopes, but the computer image produced is based on the programming of the designer. He tells it to interpret sets of data into a visual image. We are not seeing the atom, we are seeing a visual representation of data according to the understanding of the programmer. Quite subjective in my opinion. They may claim that they have even split atoms, and in the process produced huge explosions. But are they actually splitting an atom, or are they just producing an effect. Maybe there is no such thing as an atom. Maybe an atom is just a dimensionless point in Euclidean space - more of a concept than a reality. Such a discussion would be for a different time and place. For now, we can just focus on the fact that we do believe in things that are not directly experienced. It is not that God is the only thing that we have not experienced which we put faith in. There are countless things, which if we compared them to our own experience would be "hard to believe", yet we still accept them as truth. There is a reason for this, which I will try to mention next time.

Many people like to speak about the proof of God's existence, or lack there of. There is a tendency to think there is no proof for God's existence, and thus belief in Him is simply a matter of blind faith. Though at this time I will not debate whether or not there is proof of the existence of God, I will mention a few points which are important when speaking about proof and faith. First of all, we should think very deeply as to what is proof. We like to throw this word around, and say there is some of it, or there isn't any of it, but what is it? What constitutes proof or evidence? We think that the world around us is concrete and real, or in other words, it has been proven to us. We speak of famous personalities like Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. Some people here claim their existence has been proven, whereas Lord Krishna's has not. I would have to disagree. What proof is there for the existence of Bill Gates? We have seen an image on a television set. We have read his name in the papers. How do we know we are not just seeing an actor playing the role of a Bill Gates? How do we know the newspapers are not a fabrication to keep society complacent and satisfied? What people claim to be proof is nothing more than a written statement or a visual image, not too different from a book like Mahabharata or Bhagavad Gita. Behind every image and statement there are countless personalities involved in creating that media whom we don't know and don't see. Why do we accept one media as truth and reject another as false? Not because one has been "proven" to us. It is simply that we have faith in the source. I accept the existence of Bill Gates because I have faith in the various medias that present his image to me. Now another media comes out saying there is some guy called the Grinch, and recently he stole Christmas, but I don't believe it. Not because someone has proven to me that it didn't occur. I just don't accept the source as authoritative. I don't have faith in the source. How do you know there are zebras in Africa? How do you even know there is an Africa? The existence of Africa hasn't been proven to me. I see a drawing of it on a map, but then I must have faith in the artist. I see a satelite image on the TV, but I could draw a similar image on this computer without too much difficulty, and say it was a satelite image of Atlantis. Maybe if I was able to show it on CNN with a daily weather report people may actually believe it existed. Even if you flew to Africa, what is the proof that where you landed is related to what we see in maps? There is no proof. It all depends on who you accept as an authority. Should we call our belief in Africa as blind faith? Some fellows claim to have flown to the moon, and we believe them. Has it been proven to us? There are books that say it was a lie. Obviously not everyone accepts that source of history as an authority - yet it is systematically propagated as truth by powerful governments. I personally believe that there is a person named Vajpayee who is the Prime Minister of India, but I have no proof of his existence. There is evidence, but not proof. I believe there is a country called India. I even think I am here. But I have no proof that this place is related to what I see on maps. There is no such thing as proof as we commonly think of it. Nothing is proven, it is all a matter of faith. Even the things we directly perceive rely on faith in our own perceptive ability. Yesterday I met someone named Mr. X. There are various claims surrounding this personality. I saw him face to face... Or did I? What is the proof that this person was who he claimed to be? Could he have been an actor? I believe he was actually Mr. X because my friend introduced me to him and told me he was Mr. X. I had faith in my friend's statements... was it blind faith? Every moment of the day we are acting based on faith - an unproven reality - yet we fool ourselves into thinking it is proven truth. In the school we read "history" books which we some how accept as truth, despite having absolutely no proof at all. I learned the book from my teacher without being given any proof. My teacher was never proven any of the lessons either! He learnt it from his teacher. And that teacher learned it from his teacher. All the way back to Alexander the Great we have been blindly accepting something as truth - despite the fact that absolutely no one ever had it proven to them. That seems pretty blind to me. Why do we accept these histories as truth? Is it because they are logical? Absolutely not! It is just as logical to say that Fred Flintstone was the first president of the United States - why does it have to be George Washington? What makes the name George Washington any more logical than the name Fred Flintstone? Why we accept the history presented to us is not because it is logical. The only reason we accept it as "truth" is due to fear. We are scared that if we believe something else, we will fail the exam. If we fail the exam we will not get admitted into a university. If we aren't admitted to a university we won't get a job. If we don't get a job we won't be materially successful! Even stupider people accept something because it is believed by a large number of people - they are kind of like lemmings. Unfortunately this is the most common way that we get our modern view of reality. It all depends on which opinion has the greater number of followers, the richer followers, and more the powerful followers. Most people just don't want to go against the flow of the crowd. Why stand out when you can simply comply with the majority. Most of these things make no difference in our lives anyway, so why complicate things by thinking independently. It is interesting to note that many country's histories disagree with other countries' histories. The French history says one thing, whereas the English history says something else. Which to believe? Many people like to speak about western history as though it is factual, whereas Indian history is fabricated by primitive people. We even give Indian history a special name - mythology. Of course the very name mythology means that which is not true. Why isn't it true? Maybe because it hasn't been proven? Well, we are all still waiting for western "history" to be proven to us as well. In reality, Indian history is called as mythology because fewer people believe it compared to western history. It is all based on public opinion - that's what makes truth in our society. Such statements as, "the existence of Krishna has not been proven," show the lack of understanding of the individual. I would use the word foolishness, but I wouldn't want to offend anyone, so let's not say it. When someone says Krishna's existence hasn't been proven, he is trying to present the false notion that other existences have been proven. Otherwise, if absolutely no existences have been proven, the statement refering particularly to Krishna is meaningless! If nothing has been proven, then it becomes meaningless to say Krishna's existence hasn't been proven also - He is included in "everything". The only reason to refer to Krishna in particular is to mislead the public into thinking other things _have_ been proven. It may simply be due to ignorance. It's not easy to judge the motive behind such statements. Regardless, such statements are misleading and childish. So what does it mean to ask for proof? This is the question that we should think about - but it requires some sincerity and intelligence to come up with an honest answer. When we ask for proof, we are not actually questioning the existence of the object - we are questioning the source of the information. This is a very key point to understand. When we disbelieve something, it has nothing to do with having seen the object or experienced the object. We are simply doubting the source from where we have received the information. We hear Saddam Hussain's report that he shot down 35 U.S. airplanes in a single night - but we don't believe it. We hear reports from the U.S. military that not a single plane was shot down - and we believe it. We hear reports from Saddam Hussain that the U.S. military bombed a children's hospital - but we don't believe it. We hear reports from the U.S. military that they sent missiles through the heating vent of Saddam Hussains kitchen - and we believe them. Both sides show videotaped "proof". It all depends on who we accept as an authority. Some people choose to accept people such as Lord Krishna, the guru, the saints and the sadhus as authorities. Others choose to accept Mark Twain, Shakespeare and Churchill as authorities. Those who accept the later list like to make their blind belief sound very authoritative and scientific by adding meaningless numbers and figures to their conclusions. "This book was written in 831 A.D... That book was authored over a period of several hundred years by various authors... Those books were later written by one sect to glorify their deity as supreme..." The list of quotes goes on and on. That's quite a leap of faith to believe all their statements - we could use the word blind to qualify it. While they love to question the very existence of a personality like Lord Krishna, they provide such detailed reports of dates and occurences that only Lord Krishna's grandfather could have known. Where did these figures come from? What makes them "true"? Why should we reject the authorship claims written within a book like Bhagavad Gita in favour of some manufactured facts and figures from the mental factory of missionaries? It all just depends on whom you accept as your authority.

If a person 500 years ago wanted to determine our existence now, it would be based on speculatation, and thus there would remain a pretty good chance that we actually don't exist at present. [in the absence of any concrete evidence at that time]. Furthermore, me and you (or you and I) are not part of tomorrow's history which we don't know today. The fact that we don't know that we are part of tomorrow's history proves we are not part of tomorrows history. No one can prove that we will be part of tomorrow's history, thus the odds are we actually don't exist at present. [in the absence of any concrete evidence of tomorrow's history.] Even if tomorrow, archeologically they find proof that we existed today, how can we be sure that the evidence points to us today and not us yesterday? Since there is no factual proof that the evidence points to us today, we can conclude that today we don't exist, even if we did exist yesterday. But there is always the chance that the evidence which we think points to us yesterday actually points to us tomorrow, Then it is all just a matter of faith - and faith does not necessarily make reality. Also we should take into consideration the fact that chinology and indonesiology haven't found any evidence of our existence - neither in the present nor in the past. Furthermore breadology and chemistrology also don't record any mention of us existing. Thus the odds point to the fact that we actually do not exist - neither in the past nor in the present. What to speak of breadology not speaking about us, we don't even find proof of the existence of breadology itself! Thus to prove our existence we would first need to prove that breadology exists, and that breadology indeed does speak about our own existence. But to prove that breadology exists, we would need to exist ourselves, which we haven't yet proven. The non-existent certainly can't prove the existence of something else. This is common sense. Thus the odds are certainly against all this occuring. Another important information that we need to take into account is the statistics on death. If we were to count the number of people who lived over the last million years, and then compare it to the number of people who died, we would find that hardly 0.0000000000000001% of the population didn't die. If my numbers are correct, aproximately 5 billion or so people in the last million years haven't died - out of countless trillions of people. Are we to believe that you and I, who both "claim" to be alive, belong to the 0.0000000000000001%? This is statistically impossible! The odds of this being true are so slim, that only a fool would believe such a statement. It would be like winning a lottery while at the exact same moment being struck by lighting and simultaneously being elected president of the united states - one thousand times in a row! Thus all scientific evidence points to our non-existence, unless of course we were to die. Then statistically there are better odds that we in fact did exist. There is one last very important evidence we need to look at. Lacking any solid proof, the existence of each and everyone of us is likely to be cooked up. If we even give a 50% chance that each of us exists, the chance that we all exist together is infinitesimal. The odds that both myself and ggohil exist is only 25% (.5 x .5). The odds that myself, ggohil and shvu exist are only 12.5% (.5 x .5 x .5). The odds that myself, ggohil, shivu and animesh actually exist are 6.25%. If we were to take 30 or so members of this forum, the odds that we all actually exist would be: 0.00000004656612873077392578125% Or roughly 4 hundred-millionths of a percent. Would anyone DARE to take such odds? All of these points very firmly prove that none of us actually exist - neither in the present, nor in the past. There is no other logical conclusion that one could come to. Foolish people may quote from some "holy" books to prove that we all exist, but scientifically and logically we can see it is not at all possible.

I don't know who has written this. It has been going around in the email. It does offer some interesting points to ponder. [begin message] A thanksgiving thought The following is something to ponder: If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep ... you are richer than 75% of this world. If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace ... you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy. If you woke up this morning with more health than illness ... you are more blessed than the million who will not survive this week. If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation... you are ahead of 500 million people in the world. If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death ... you are more blessed than three billion people in the world. If your parents are still alive and still married ... you are very rare, even in the United States. If you hold up your head with a smile on your face and are truly thankful ... you are blessed because the majority can, but most do not. If you can hold someone's hand, hug them or even touch them on the shoulder ... you are blessed because you can offer healing touch. If you can read this message, you just received a double blessing in that someone was thinking of you, and furthermore, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all. Have a good day, count your blessings, and pass this along to remind everyone else how blessed we all are. God bless you and your family this day and always.

I am sorry for not making this very clear. I was actually describing a similar type of experience which one may have by performing a particular type of meditation known as Trataka. Trataka is a form of staring at a point or a flame without blinking for a period of time, and then closing one's eyes and seeing the same object internally. In this particular form of meditation one will experience a transition from normal vision, to misty vision (smokey), then everything will become black, and pulsing colored lights will appear as I described before. Each form of meditation will produce slightly different effects, but the basic occurences are the same. In your case the experiences are not due to meditation, at least not in this life. They are the residual effects from previous sadhana. If one does not continue the same sadhana (or a similar sadhana), then these experiences will slowly fade away and then stop completely. The sadhana that we perform as devotional service is the highest sadhana, and as such most of the time it shoots way over these "mystical" experiences. Basically what I mean is that bhakti will generally not bring one to experiences of the subtle realm. The subtle realm and its experiences are no more spiritual then a can of pepsi. One is gross matter, the other is subtle matter. Of course most people who do meditation and have a small glimpse of this realm think they have seen something divine and spiritual. This is just due to ignorance of what is the true self. They have managed to raise their identification from that of the body to that of the mind. They climbed out of one illusion just to fall into another. In the Yoga Sutras, Patanjali warns us about the subtle realm and the "invisible beings" we will see in meditation. He says: sthanyupanimantrane sangasmayakaranam punaranishta-prasangat "When tempted by the invisible beings in high places, let the yogi feel neither allured nor flattered; for he is in danger of being caught once more by ignorance." These invisible beings Patanjali is describing are the fallen yogis who previously gave in to the temptations of the subtle realm, siddhis, etc. Having themselves fallen from the path of yoga, they attempt to make other yogis also fail in their meditation. Sri Vyasa Muni has commented on this verse by describing the allurements offered by these "invisible beings" to the yogi. They ask you, "Please sit here and take rest. Drink this heavenly nectar which will put an end to old age and death. Take this vimana which allows you to fly throughout the universe. Here we have desire-fulfilling trees which grant your every wish. Come enjoy with these attractive heavenly damsels. There are rishis here who know everything. Come take these siddhis by which your senses will become powerful. You are entitled to all of this, for you have succeeded in your endeavour for self-realization." In this way they attempt to trick you into leaving your journey towards self realization. It is for this reason that Patanjali warns us against becoming attracted to the subtle realm of existence. It may appear amazing and heavenly, but it is still matter, attraction to which is the cause of our bondage. The mechanical process of meditational yoga is a step by step process of elevation. It is a slow and difficult process, as Lord Krishna himself states: kleso ’dhikataras tesam avyaktasakta-cetasam avyakta hi gatir duhkham dehavadbhir avapyate "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied." We start by meditating on the unmanifested feature of the Lord through various mechanical processes of sadhana. We meditate on candle flames, on our own shadow, on the moon, on the space between our sight and the object of sight... Simultaneously we reject the world as false and illusory... Then we learn to be detached from the objects of the senses, and to renounce the world... And after all of that we are revealed a world a thousand times more attractive than this! "Oh, you renounced those worldly pleasures? Very good. Now you deserve to enjoy in this heavenly realm." te tam bhuktva svarga-lokam vishalam This heavenly abode is described as vishalam, or vast, because the sensual experience or enjoyment there is thousands of times greater than it is here. When we smell a flower here, practically speaking we are not actually smelling the scent of the flower. Our senses are so limited here, that we hardly experience the environment around us. But on higher planes the senses can perceive an experience thousands of times more intensely. This is why it is described as vishalam, or vast. This is the "reward" for the yogi, that he is tempted with something even more attractive. He was able to renounce this realm of dry existence, but can he renounce the higher sensual experiences of the subtle plane? And for those who, after all of this temptation, remain strong, they are given mystical perfections, siddhis, by which they can manipulate the laws of nature. And if they become attracted by their new powers over nature, they fall from their path of sadhana. "Here, take these supernatural powers by which you can go against the laws of nature... but don't use them." Many people follow laws because they fear they will be caught. Imagine for a minute there is a situation where there is a bundle of money (big notes... no 1's and 5's...) and this money was somewhere in a city. For some reason you are the only person in this city, everyone else went off for vacation. And look! This money is sitting right there next to you! It almost looks like God wants you to take this money. You can live comfortably for the rest of your life. You can just dedicate yourself to self-realization and helping humanity (like all the lotto winners say they will do). Maybe it is actually your karma to have this money. But wait just one minute... It's wrong to steal... Isn't it? How many of us will take the money and how many will leave the money, knowing that it belongs to someone else? I would _definitely_ leave the money. (Pretty easy to say now, isn't it!) In reality I would probably grab the money and build an air conditioned cave in Rishikesh so that I could meditate in peace... and comfort. All of this sounds too far fetched, so let's bring it down to reality. You go to the corner grocery store and buy some vegetables, a bottle of pepsi, and a can of beans. There is a really stupid looking guy at the counter who is probably around 17 years old. (You can tell he is really stupid because he has one of those "latest" hair styles that all the cool kids have.) He can't figure out how to get that scanning thing to work so he enters the prices by hand. You notice that he somehow entered the wrong price for your can of beans, and the bill is going to be less than it should be. Alright! But just then he changes his mind and decides to call for a price check. Apparently he feels it is important that the entire store know what is the price of a 16 ounce can of Lady Lee Vegetarian Refried Beans, because he chooses to use the intercom to speak to the lady in the next counter. Anyway, he gets the right price, and you loose your discount. But wait... this guy is really dumb. The bill is for $3.20 and you gave him a five. This guy gets confused while carrying the one, aligning the decimal points, and what ever else it is he did... and ends up giving you $2.80 change. (He must be _really_ dumb to carry a one while subtracting.) Now you have an extra $1.00. Do you quickly walk out of the store thinking, "Yeah! I got me a free 16 ounce can of Lady Lee Vegetarian Refried Beans!" Or do you return $1.00 and tell him that he accidentally gave you one dollar too much. (Maybe it would be more proper if you told him he gave you $1 too many, not $1 too much... I wish I had one of those price check things for my spelling and grammar while I typed letters. "John, Can you give me a grammar check on '$1.00 too much'?") Anyway, just think about this hypothetical situation. Do you take the money and leave, or do you return the money. No one will know that you took the money, and it is that stupid guy's fault for giving you the wrong change. This has happened to me at least a dozen times (except without the part about the 16 ounce can of Lady Lee Vegetarian Refried Beans). To be honest, some times I returned the money, sometimes I kept the money. I guess it depended on the philosophical thoughts in my mind at the time - Did I take only that which was necessary for existence and leave the rest to others, knowing that to reap the results of karma would increase my bondage and conditioning within matter - or did I see these people as illusioned souls who would misuse the money for sense gratificatory purposes and thereby increase their own entanglement within maya. You can flip a coin. I am sure all of us have had a similar experience, and some of us kept the extra money. All of this just for a single dollar. Now imagine if when you gave $5 to that stupid guy at the check out counter, he accidentally gave you 7 million dollars change. Then we are back to my air conditioned cave in Rishikesh scenario, with marble floors and special indoor slippers to keep my feet warn as I meditate. Anyway, why am I talking about refried beans, pepsi bottles, and check out counters? Because I mentioned about the yogis who are given siddhis that they are not supposed to use... "Here, take these supernatural powers by which you can go against the laws of nature... but don't use them." These yogis have attained mystical perfections that allow them to defy the laws of nature as we know them. In other words they can do anything they like, and they cannot be caught, stopped or held accountable by the common world. They can get away with any "crime" they want, either physical or subtle. This is the same temptation we face at the check out counter when that dumb guy gives us the wrong change. No one can stop us, know one even knows! These yogis have no one to be accountable to on the worldly level, and as such they are faced with the biggest tempations of all. I could just imagine the situation. I have all of these mystic powers by which I can manipulate the laws of nature and do "spectacular" things. Some foolish people come up and ask me for blessings to get their son married. I get angry that these foolish people are disturbing my meditation to ask for some worldly result which is already destined according to their karma, so I look for a stone to throw at them. Not seeing any stone nearby, I mystically make some ash appear in my hand and throw it on them, hoping it will scare them off. Amazingly these people go off and bring more such people with similar problems. One person has lost his chicken, one person wants to pass a school exam, one person has a property dispute. I am sure they could solve these problems in a more practical manner, but they are lazy and hope some crazy swami guy will just bless all their bad karma away. Anyway, I start throwing this mystical ash on all of these people to shoo them away, but they start collecting the ash, rubbing it on their forhead, and swallowing it. Then a big fat lady in the crowd comes forward and says I must be some sort of incarnation of God to be performing such miracles. Next thing you know these people are greeting each other with my name, building temples for me, and singing songs about me. At first I try to tell them that we are all actually God. But then I start to like the worship and fame, so I change my message. "Yes, we are all God, but I am the Supreme God. The really, really big God." Then I have my disciples make a plastic bed in the shape of a snake (since I can't get the real ananta-sesha snake bed of Vishnu). In the Srimad Bhagavatam we find the story of the demon Paundraka who taped two extra arms on his back so that he would look like four-armed Narayana... well he didn't actually look like him, but his envy made him try his best. Anyway, I could imagine that I would have my disciples build a plastic snake bed for me, so that I could claim I was Vishnu. All the while I would keep throwing the ash on the people, after all that's how I made it here in the first place. The next thing you know I would have fallen from my sadhana, taken up sinful habits, and the newspapers would be publishng bad articles about me with allegations of abuse from sudents at my schools. (Did I forget to tell you that I would open a lot of schools and hospitals after becoming God?) Gosh. After years and years (maybe lives) of meditation and renunciation this is where I end up? I guess that's why Krishna said this path was troublesome and difficult. I kind of feel like Vishvamitra, who performed meditation for thousands of years, only to waste all his accumulated power in burning a disturbing bird to ashes! The yogis, after renouncing and moving forward on their path, are faced with new obstacles one after the other which they must cross on their own strength. Why do they get mystical experiences, whereas bhaktas (devotees) generally don't? Because the yogis must gradually move up towards transcendence, from gross matter to subtle, and finally to pure consciousness. The devotees on the other hand are not following a mechanical process of self realization. Bhakti goes directly to the soul. This is what makes bhakti yoga the simplest and quickest of all yogas. It establishes the link between the soul and the Supreme Lord in the most direct manner, jumping over all levels of matter. The devotee's advancement is dependent on the Lord's mercy, not on his own mechanical excercises in matter. Whereas the yogi tries to seperate himself from the coverings of matter one layer at a time, from gross to subtle, the devotee uses everything in the service of the Lord, including the matter. Thus for the devotee there is no need to raise oneself to the subtle realm of existence. There are many species of living entities who are naturally born existing on these higher realms of material existence. They are no closer to liberation than the common trees and animals from our realm. Advancement is only based on the focus of one's consciousness. The devotee has focused his consciousness on the supremely transcendental Lord. He has taken the most direct method to fix his consciousness on the spiritual platform. For the yogi it is a step by step process, moving through various subtler and sutler levels of matter, aiming ultimately towards the Lord's less personal features. And if he gets attracted to some aspect of subtle matter on the way, then his journey is over, at least for a long time. Why I am saying all of this? Maybe because the discussion forums have been a little dull lately and need some more content. Maybe because I need something to use for our next newsletter and I didn't feel like doing the work of "writing" something. Or maybe because I wanted to show that the experiences of devotees and the experiences of yogis differ due to their differing paths of advancement. Probably all of these reasons are true. Devotees generally will not have mystical experiences of the subtle realm because they do not need to go through that realm for perfection. The devotees aim straight at Lord Krishna and don't have to worry about merging the elements of their body with the universal elements, merging their mind with the universal mind, merging their intelligence with the universal intelligence, and merging their ahankara with the universal ahankara. Krishna says one who remembers Him at the time of death attains Him. That's enough for the devotees. Always think of Krishna and go back to Godhead. Who cares about merging elemental principles with their cosmic counter parts? It is so simple. Unfortunately it is too simple for the yogis. "Wait a minute... Chant Hare Krishna? What about the elemental principles of existence? What about the 10 pranas surrounding the soul? What about the chakras and nadis? What about the connection between the human body and the universal form? I got a lot of work to do! No time to chant Hare Krishna." So basically this (some vague point up there) is why despite performing sadhana, your experiences have not increased, but have decreased in some manner. Devotional sadhana aims in a completely different direction. It is possible to have mystical experiences through devotional sadhana, but they are experiences of the spiritual realm, not the subtle material realm. As such they are much more difficult to attain and generally require one to be on the liberated stage. There is nothing wrong with trying to cultivate experiences of the subtle realm. They can serve to increase one's faith in the spiritual existence by establishing a reality beyond common sensual perception. Also there are many practical things one can learn to utilize from the subtle existence. Great acharyas both in the vaishnava and advaita lines utilized mystic siddhis for the purpose of their sadhana. Ishvara Muni and Natha Muni, two great acharyas in the Sri Sampradaya, would travel from South India to Vrindavana every day by the power of their mystic siddhis. In those days it would take 6 months to cover the journey by ox cart. But in a moment they were able to travel there to do service at a particular temple. Both the subtle realm and physical realm are planes of matter. Thus we need to deal with both of them in a practical manner. By going to the store and buying toothpaste I am not going to go back to the spiritual world, but still I do it for practical reasons. In the same way, sometimes we can interact with the subtle plane for practical purposes. It will not make us advance spiritually, but it may help us in some other more practical way. I will send you more details of what you can do to increase your experiences. If there is some talent in a person, it should be utilized in Krishna's service. This was always Srila Prabhupada's instruction. If for some reason in your previous life you have performed sadhana, and still there are remnants of it, it is certainly a talent that must be utilized in Lord Krishna's service. It is up to you to learn how to utilize it.