Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

transient

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by transient

  1. Dear Guest, Here is a response to your post. The example of the sunrays as jivas to the sun globe as God (or sunshine molecules to the sunshine) and a drop of water to the ocean as analogies to the relationship between jivas and God are not perfect examples as these are material objects. A drop of water merges into the ocean as the sunshine particles to the sun globe AND THEY LOSES THEIR INDIVIDUALITY. On the other hand, the jivas and God are all enternally individuals and DOES NOT LOSE THEIR INDIVIDUALITY AT ANY TIME. When the jiva attains perfection and goes back to Vaikuntha, he retains his own individuality and continues his loving relationship with God. This is the Vaishnava perspective. Therefore the individual jiva will not ever become God (the Supreme Soul). However because the jiva has the same quality (spiritual) as with God, he can be considered as god in that sense only -- same quality with God. But not the all powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Soul, Krishna. We have all the tendencies as God's but these are all infinitesimal compared with God's. This our problem, realising our godly tendencies, we aim for the ultimate. This is an illusion; thinking that we can become God. Successful impersonalists who had achieved merging into the brahmajoyti, the white light coming from the spiritual world, thinks that what they had achieved is the highest reality and they think they had become God by merging into this great ocean of light. But why is it that they cannot remain there forever? Why is it that they come down again into this material world and spread the "good news" that we too can become God? It is because the eternally individual jiva cannot remain inactive forever. He needs activities, he needs relationships. This is a very strong evidence that we're all unique individuals. Impersonalists may think that these individualities are all dreams and illusions and they may be correct. Because surely, they are only dreaming... and they are all in illusion...
  2. The problem here is the way to supposedly recognize her as guru, is flawed; since to vote someone to become a guru has never been supported by shastra. She isn't voted yet isn't it? What if the GBC will vote against her becoming a guru? Notwithstanding all the recommendations? Does it mean she isn't a guru after all? She is or she isn't a guru (a pure devotee). But the selection / voting process will have nothing to do with it. Let the Lord Paramatma confirm or deny this. Let us hear from shastra whether she has symptoms of a person who is a pure devotee. Let us listen to the words of the recognized sadhus whether her position is being supported. It will be an individual challenge, an individual responsibility to find out -- to those who really want to find out anyway. But the problem with many of us is we are too lazy to dig deeper and only need an imprimatur by someone or group to do the job for us. But this is a very risky business because we are supposed to give our life to a person who we accept as our guru. What if in the future we realized we made a mistake as what happened to many people within Iskcon the past many number of years? I greatly symphatized to many of them and hope their devotional lives were not totally destroyed. However, in the end, we only have ourselves to blame because spiritual life is always a life of individual responsibility.
  3. The problem here is the way to supposedly recognize her as guru, is flawed; since to vote someone to become a guru has never been supported by shastra. She isn't voted yet isn't it? What if the GBC will vote against her becoming a guru? Notwithstanding all the recommendations? Does it mean she isn't a guru after all? She is or she isn't a guru (a pure devotee). But the selection / voting process will have nothing to do with it. Let the Lord Paramatma confirm or deny this. Let us hear from shastra whether she has symptoms of a person who is a pure devotee. Let us listen to the words of the recognized sadhus whether her position is being supported. It will be an individual challenge, an individual responsibility to find out -- to those who really want to find out anyway. But the problem with many of us is we are too lazy to dig deeper and only need an imprimatur by someone or group to do the job for us. But this is a very risky business because we are supposed to give our life to a person who we accept as our guru. What if in the future we realized we made a mistake as what happened to many people within Iskcon the past many number of years? I greatly symphatized to many of them and hope their devotional lives were not totally destroyed. However, in the end, we only have ourselves to blame because spiritual life is always a life of individual responsibility.
  4. Audarya-lila das said: My own personal view is that until women are seen as men's equals with the same rights and privledges and the same ability to advance their own Krsna consciousness and help others in their march toward divinity, Krsna consciousness will be viewed not for what it is or can be, but for what it is not - a sexually bigoted religion that views women not only as subordinate but as inferior and incapable of fully representing God on earth. Of course, presently there is a lot of company in that particlar fold - for example the Catholic Church seems to hold dearly to similar views in terms of keeping the heirachy firmly in the hands of the 'good old boys'. I think you're missing entirely the goal of life here. The goal of life is to love Krishna and by Krishna's grace, stop the cycle of birth and death and return back home back to Godhead. There is no need for women to attain equality with men to achieve this. In fact there is NO material qualification whatsover that is required to achieve this. Anyone can achieve love of God regardless of his or her material position. Having said that, there is no neccessity whatsover to re-arrange the material situation to achieve this spiritual goal. Women doesn't need equality with men -- which by the way, is just not possible. They don't need to have "the same ability to advance their own Krsna consciousness and help others in their march toward divinity". As a housewife and mother, they can cultivate their love towards Krishna and they can bring up their children to love Krishna. It's quite simple. With all the noise and advances the women's lib movement had created, it ended up with women suffering more because of the so-called "freedom" they had achieved. Generations of unwanted children are now populating the world because of this "women's lib" influence and which largely contributed to the world's degradation. As enjoined in the Bhagavad-Gita (1.40), I believe the protection of women is still the solution for the betterment of society. I can see that you want to give this up in the name of your so-called "progressive" philosophy. If you are too worried about what other people will say against the Krishna consciousness movement, that is only you prabhu and others with the same mentality as you have. But in the context of the absolute, it doesn't matter very much. Because God always arranges for the sincere souls to come to Him no matter what the situation is. In other words, it is always God's ballgame, not ours.
  5. There is no contradiction because the first: The Lord can similarly initiate everyone who is inclined to have it. speaks of the inherent power of God to do anything. and the second: One should not, however, think himself on the level of Brahmä to be initiated directly by the Lord from inside because in the present age no one can be accepted to be as pure as Brahmä. refers to the proper attitude of the devotee. So a bona fide disciple, who is most humble, would never be inclined to be initiated directly by the Lord. Lord Chaitanya's statement: "I am the servant of the servant of the servant of Krishna" teaches all of us how we should behave. When a person is sincere and desires to know or serve God, Lord Paramatma arranges it so that that person will be able to meet His confidential servant, His external manifestation, who then gives that person an opportunity to be linked up to God by becoming his disciple. This is called Parampara.
  6. Nice one their theist. Many people have erroneously think or blindly accept that Jesus is the only son of God. However there is nothing in the Bible that says that. It says (5 times in the New Testament) that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN son of God. I've read from my old Glorier Dictionary the meaning of the word begotten as "an offspring coming from one's own body" which is of course exactly the position of Brahmaji coming out from the lotus the sprang from the navel of Lord Vishnu. Here are a couple more verses that confirm that Lord Jesus is Lord Brahma: Collosians 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. John 17:4-5 "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." Haribol.
  7. The "religion" referred to above is the religion of the Catholics. Protestants do not adhere to the doctrine of the "original sin". Both Catholics and Protestants doesn't have a clear concept of what the soul is and sometimes debate among themselves as to its reality. But Christianity as taught by Lord Jesus Christ is different than what is being taught by the Catholics and Protestants. Jesus is teaching bhakti, love for God. Jesus is also teaching the eternality of the soul and that we are not the material body.
  8. "... To permanently build manned lunar base to provide a springboard for the stars... "Our Universe contains over a billion galaxies; star cities each with a hundred billion inhabitants. Around these stars must exist planets and perhaps life. The temptation to explore these new realms is too great." -- Damon Wright, Science.com
  9. The question on whether American ever went to the Moon have been passionately debated all over the Internet in different forums. As far as I can see the pro have never been able to convincingly refute the evidences and arguments presented by the anti-Moon landing evangelists like Bill Kaysing, author of "We Never Went to the Moon", Ralph Rene, author of "NASA Mooned America", James Collier, who produced a video documentary entitled "Was It Only a Paper Moon?" and David Percy, award winning film and TV producer who zeroed in on the questionable "Moon landing" photographs. To me the strongest argument that we never went to the Moon is, as ethos pointed out, common sense. With the tremendous progress in technology, it is unbelievable that America or Japan or any other country did not pursue going back to the moon. It is said the computer that controlled the lunar module that supposedly landed on the moon had a staggering memory of 64k!!! (Remember this was 1969; Bill Gates was quoted later saying that 64k memory was enough for everyone). So why? Why not go back to the moon? The answer is quite simple: Not possible. You do your own research. Here is an interesting article written by Ameyatma das on the subject: Moon Shadows
  10. Haribol, this is Narada Muni speaking on Krishna's enemies: SB 7.1.26: Therefore by enmity or by devotional service, by fear, by affection or by lusty desire--by all of these or any one of them--if a conditioned soul somehow or other concentrates his mind upon the Lord, the result is the same, for the Lord, because of His blissful position, is never affected by enmity or friendship. 27: Narada Muni continued: By devotional service one cannot achieve such intense absorption in thought of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as one can through enmity toward Him. That is my opinion. So in these verses, we learned that yes it is possible to achieve the goal of life, achieve Krishna's association by means other than devotional service. Narada Muni even opined that enmity is better than devotional service because this results in a more intense absorption in thought on Krishna. However in the present situation, even in India, I could not imagine how one can develop such high level of enmity or lust towards Krishna. I think it is doubly more difficult to achieve that than by developing love towards Him! The bottom line however is this: developing an attitude of enmity or lust or by any other means other than bhakti to gain the favor of or purportedly as a form of service towards Krishna has not been encouraged by our sampradaya. The scriptures are awash with long discourses of the glories of devotional service and how we should look upon pure love of God as the ultimate goal of life. My spiritual master has instructed me to chant a certain number of rounds Krishna's names everyday with the hope that I would eventually develop loving affection towards Krishna. I should have faith in his words and that should all I want to hear.
  11. Haribol. By the grace of Krishna one gets Guru and by the grace of Guru one gets Krishna. "... Out of many millions of wandering living entities, one who is very fortunate gets an opportunity to associate with a bona fide spiritual master by the grace of Krsna." -- Caitanya Caritamrta Madya-lila 19.151 The impetus of spiritual life happens when one sincerely desires to know or to take shelter on God then God arranges it so this person comes in contact with His bona fide representative. By all intent and purposes, this is the beginning of this person's spiritual life. His advancing or not advancing (or his quest to know or love God) depends on how he is pleasing or not pleasing to God's representative.
  12. thiest: The order IS to love Krsna."Just love Krsna." This is correct. Unfortunately, I cannot just love Krishna out of the blue nor I am attracted to His holy name. In the beginning I don't even have faith that He actually exist. However, carrying out my spiritual master's desire, who is the embodiment of pure love of Krishna, on a very regular basis, either by serving him personally if this is possible, or by helping in his mission to give Krishna to people, makes it possible for me to actually experience the reality of this love. First by having faith that God actually exist and then by actually tasting this nectar of love of God myself which pacifies my heart and mind. All this is only made possible by the grace of my spiritual master. Real spiritual life then is to enter into that realm of love that exist between my spiritual master and Krishna.
  13. leyh said: "Spiritual life is to love and serve God." Yes, but how? Spiritual life is to follow the order of your spiritual master. ... is more specific.
  14. I use Broadway Pro Video capture card for video capture. It has an option to capture directly as MPEG (compressed version - about 640mb, 30 minutes) or as AVI (uncompressed - about 2.5gb, 30 minutes). After capture you can then opt to convert it to a streaming media using the Real Video encoder software. Setting this up for the first time requires a bit of patience what with all the wires (video and sound cables) that have to be connected to your TV and computer. After you've successfully created your Real Video streaming media, the next question is where to host it because streaming media bandwidth is a bit expensive. Not all hosting companies provide media streaming capability.
  15. Dear maran11, In your initial post you said that you have been wandering aimlessly and floating in a state of confusion and loss by trying to figure out the realm of the spiritual world and scientific facts. Judging from your response to the people who have tried to help you, I'm afraid you will remain in that condition for some time more. Your problem is your philosophy is "I don't accept any philosophy" and in effect you're very much confused. Even if faced with very convincing evidence and argument (empirical evidence of reincarnation), you still treat it as a mystery. You promoted some Biblical ideas, are you a follower of the Bible? You brought up some Islamic and Bhuddhist beliefs, are you a Muslim or Bhuddist believer? Of course you're not any one of these but you just try to bang ideas against each other. If it's the Bible guy who will bring the Adam and Eve beginning of the world idea to you, in all likelihood, you will respond, "Well, according the the Vedas..." (LOL). Sorry, I'm not going to answer anymore any of your questions as I think you are hit hard by the disease of dry mental speculation. Maybe other people on the board can still help you. Good luck. However for other people's benefit, I will respond to just one. You said: "According to biblical literature, Adam and Eve were the first two humans created by God and they multiplied to produce others." Let's see. Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden. Later they begot two sons, Abel and Cain to make it 4 humans. Cain killed Abel so 4 minus 1 should only have 3 humans at that point. In Genesis 4:14, after Cain was cursed by God, Cain said: "And it shall come to pass that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." Who will find him that will slay him? Animals? Genesis 4:15: And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. 4:16: And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwell in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. READ THIS: 4:17: AND CAIN KNEW HIS WIFE, and she conceived and bare Enoch, and builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. How in the world could Cain marry someone if there were no other humans that existed at that point? How can he built a city if there were no large population that existed at that point? People who promote and who accept the idea that Adam and Eve were the parent of all humans are all in ignorance and didn't read carefully or didn't read at all the book of Genesis.
  16. Dear Gaurachandra, When I said I'd be willing to accept karmic reactions by killing that rat (rat the aggressor, not indiscrimate killing), I could have acted out of courage or out of ignorance, you be the judge. Please quote anything that I've said that was opposed to the teaching of Srila Prabhupada. That was rather a heavy accusation there what you did. As far as you're saying "If your karma is that you will be killed by rats, then that is what will happen" and by saying this you mean that I will then welcome the company of rats in my house (in line with jndas's suggestions), I don't buy that line of reasoning because it is akin to someone saying: "If it's my karma to die with lung cancer, so be it" and he continue to go on smoking. Thanks anyway for suggesting that we should be willing to accept some inconvenience for the sake of these little creatures. I will keep that in mind. Haribol.
  17. Dear Gaurachandra, When I said I'd be willing to accept karmic reactions by killing that rat (rat the aggressor, not indiscrimate killing), I could have acted out of courage or out of ignorance, you be the judge. Please quote anything that I've said that was opposed to the teaching of Srila Prabhupada. That was rather a heavy accusation there what you did. As far as you're saying "If your karma is that you will be killed by rats, then that is what will happen" and by saying this you mean that I will then welcome the company of rats in my house (in line with jndas's suggestions), I don't buy that line of reasoning because it is akin to someone saying: "If it's my karma to die with lung cancer, so be it" and he continue to go on smoking. Thanks anyway for suggesting that we should be willing to accept some inconvenience for the sake of these little creatures. I will keep that in mind. Haribol.
  18. Dear jndas prabhu, Thanks for the quotes. It is true that a devotee is always compassionate to all living entities and treat everyone, including animals, as his brother. Please do not misunderstand my stand as if I am campaigning for the killing of rats or other insects which is far from the truth. I feed the birds that come to my house everyday with prasadam and always very careful not to kill an ant. The point being made was if a rat or an insect becomes the aggressor, then they may be killed if they cannot be removed by non-lethal means. But by your not addressing this particular issue, you tend to impress me that even this, the killing an aggressor, is wrong. You also seem to tell us that we should welcome rats and other insects to our house with open arms. In a more favorable setting, maybe in a rustic village with a less congested population and where nature naturally takes its course, this may be ideal. However when you live in cities where there is filth everywhere and rats scurry through the city's sewerage system which serves as the breeding ground for all kinds of diseases, communion with rats, mosquitoes and cockroaches are sometimes fatal. So you examine your priorities. If you live in a place where Vaishanavas can only be counted in one's fingers, better to have a dead rat than a dead preacher. It is Kali yuga and many methods and spiritual practices are getting very difficult to implement or altogether no longer applicable including the feeding of insects and animals within one's house. In the later part of Kali yuga, it is said that rats will grow in size and will feed on humans, what will you do? This is precisely the reason why Lord Chaitanya has come down and inaugurated the Sankirtan movement and has given us the Holy Names as the only method of purification in this day and age. We do what we can to follow the Vedic setup where it is practicable because it is the most ideal. However if it is no longer applicable and favorable, you have to give it up and stick to the essentials of trying to give the Holy Names and Krishna-prasad to people. In places outside India, in most cases, this is the only thing you can do.
  19. Dear jndas prabhu, Thanks for the quotes. It is true that a devotee is always compassionate to all living entities and treat everyone, including animals, as his brother. Please do not misunderstand my stand as if I am campaigning for the killing of rats or other insects which is far from the truth. I feed the birds that come to my house everyday with prasadam and always very careful not to kill an ant. The point being made was if a rat or an insect becomes the aggressor, then they may be killed if they cannot be removed by non-lethal means. But by your not addressing this particular issue, you tend to impress me that even this, the killing an aggressor, is wrong. You also seem to tell us that we should welcome rats and other insects to our house with open arms. In a more favorable setting, maybe in a rustic village with a less congested population and where nature naturally takes its course, this may be ideal. However when you live in cities where there is filth everywhere and rats scurry through the city's sewerage system which serves as the breeding ground for all kinds of diseases, communion with rats, mosquitoes and cockroaches are sometimes fatal. So you examine your priorities. If you live in a place where Vaishanavas can only be counted in one's fingers, better to have a dead rat than a dead preacher. It is Kali yuga and many methods and spiritual practices are getting very difficult to implement or altogether no longer applicable including the feeding of insects and animals within one's house. In the later part of Kali yuga, it is said that rats will grow in size and will feed on humans, what will you do? This is precisely the reason why Lord Chaitanya has come down and inaugurated the Sankirtan movement and has given us the Holy Names as the only method of purification in this day and age. We do what we can to follow the Vedic setup where it is practicable because it is the most ideal. However if it is no longer applicable and favorable, you have to give it up and stick to the essentials of trying to give the Holy Names and Krishna-prasad to people. In places outside India, in most cases, this is the only thing you can do.
  20. Gaurachandra wrote: In any case, you have to choose to do what you want. If you choose to kill the rats, fine. But don't think because it is "practical" that this will absolve you of reactions for killing the rats. Every single action you take will have a reaction. So with that in mind, make your decision. This is correct. However the goal of life is not to avoid commiting any sinful activity at all cost, which is impossible. Even if we're vegetarians, we're also engage in the killing business by uprooting plants and vegetables for food. By the simple act of breathing we kill other living entities floating on air and by walking we kill other living entities on the ground. So killing cannot be avoided and this world is not called mrityaloka for nothing. So the question shoud be: when is killing necessary and when it is not? One time a rat messed up our altar and polluted the plates used for offering. We're out for the hunt to kill the culprit. If by killing that rat was sinful, no problem, I'll take the karma anytime. If a rat attack my child, I'll kill that rat immediately. I think I have enough power and jurisdiction in my own house to punish the aggressors. So in the course of our life, we engage in many so-called nefarious activities like killing, cheating, lying, etc. and some of these cannot be avoided and sometimes to avoid doing the same is not good for your own health. Kausika the brahmana, who is now roasting in Hell, set his heart on Virtue, and in all his life never told a lie, even in jest. Once having seen their helpless victim run past him and hide, Kausika, sitting where the rivers meet, answered the thieves: "That way." So be as the swan, who drinks from milk and water mixed together, whichever one he choose, leaving the other behind." -- from William Buck's rendition of The Mahabharata The issue I want to raise here is we should not be like the pacifists who try to avoid violence at all cost. Or to make piety as the supreme goal in life. Actually no one is saved by engaging in these activities. Arjuna at one time wanted to become like the pacifists but Lord Krishna reprimanded him. Lord Krishna Himself engaged in the pastime of killing the demons. The only way to get out of this wretched world is by pleasing Gurudeva and Krishna and if They're pleased with us and have mercy upon us, They'll pick us up -- even if we're the most sinful of all sinners. One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Don't you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." -- Luke 23:39 - 43 (NIV).
  21. Gaurachandra wrote: In any case, you have to choose to do what you want. If you choose to kill the rats, fine. But don't think because it is "practical" that this will absolve you of reactions for killing the rats. Every single action you take will have a reaction. So with that in mind, make your decision. This is correct. However the goal of life is not to avoid commiting any sinful activity at all cost, which is impossible. Even if we're vegetarians, we're also engage in the killing business by uprooting plants and vegetables for food. By the simple act of breathing we kill other living entities floating on air and by walking we kill other living entities on the ground. So killing cannot be avoided and this world is not called mrityaloka for nothing. So the question shoud be: when is killing necessary and when it is not? One time a rat messed up our altar and polluted the plates used for offering. We're out for the hunt to kill the culprit. If by killing that rat was sinful, no problem, I'll take the karma anytime. If a rat attack my child, I'll kill that rat immediately. I think I have enough power and jurisdiction in my own house to punish the aggressors. So in the course of our life, we engage in many so-called nefarious activities like killing, cheating, lying, etc. and some of these cannot be avoided and sometimes to avoid doing the same is not good for your own health. Kausika the brahmana, who is now roasting in Hell, set his heart on Virtue, and in all his life never told a lie, even in jest. Once having seen their helpless victim run past him and hide, Kausika, sitting where the rivers meet, answered the thieves: "That way." So be as the swan, who drinks from milk and water mixed together, whichever one he choose, leaving the other behind." -- from William Buck's rendition of The Mahabharata The issue I want to raise here is we should not be like the pacifists who try to avoid violence at all cost. Or to make piety as the supreme goal in life. Actually no one is saved by engaging in these activities. Arjuna at one time wanted to become like the pacifists but Lord Krishna reprimanded him. Lord Krishna Himself engaged in the pastime of killing the demons. The only way to get out of this wretched world is by pleasing Gurudeva and Krishna and if They're pleased with us and have mercy upon us, They'll pick us up -- even if we're the most sinful of all sinners. One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Don't you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." -- Luke 23:39 - 43 (NIV).
  22. My respects to all. dna said: What if a burglar breaks into my house? Am I obligated to provide him with a place to sleep in my guest room, free meals, etc.? Better yet, why don't I let his entire family move in with me. Of course in this situation, I would call the police to remove the burglar from my house. But with mice, insects, pests, etc., the process is not that easy. What if my house turns into a zoo, making it unsafe to live in? Of course I will try all non-lethal means to remove them first, but there is a point where killing is necessary. jndas answered: By what means is it your house or my house? Human society has created an agreement between people that designates property as belonging to you or me. It is ultimately meaningless... I hope jndas do not bring the principle of ahimsa to the point of being a pacifist as he has not addressed squarely the issue raised by dna. "What if a burglar breaks into my house?" What if someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me and my family? Your answer? I cannot invoke self-defense because killing is a sin and this is not my house anyway! Under the universal law all of these: my family and possessions, are meaningless! Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada writes in the Gita: According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another's land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. So clearly there is a law that deals with aggressors. One may argue that this law is applicable only to humans. That we should not kill an animal by all means because they are ignorant anyway and do not engage in sinful acts. I wish I could get hold of a definitive scriptural injunction on this matter either in favor or against. However, as with dna, I am in the opinion that at some point, killing an animal may be necessary. That point is reached when an animal becomes an AGGRESSOR: threatening one's life or creating havoc in one's property or by engaging in any of the six kinds of offessive acts enumarated above. Rodents, especially are very intelligent species who uses all kinds of tricks to create havoc in one's household. They bring poison to your food and threatens your own life. I would deal with them in this way: 1) Try to not let them enter your house in anyway. 2) If they're able to enter, try to remove them by non-lethal means 3) If number 2 fails, kill them. Killing however is only engaged to a last resort but certainly an option -- the final option.
  23. My respects to all. dna said: What if a burglar breaks into my house? Am I obligated to provide him with a place to sleep in my guest room, free meals, etc.? Better yet, why don't I let his entire family move in with me. Of course in this situation, I would call the police to remove the burglar from my house. But with mice, insects, pests, etc., the process is not that easy. What if my house turns into a zoo, making it unsafe to live in? Of course I will try all non-lethal means to remove them first, but there is a point where killing is necessary. jndas answered: By what means is it your house or my house? Human society has created an agreement between people that designates property as belonging to you or me. It is ultimately meaningless... I hope jndas do not bring the principle of ahimsa to the point of being a pacifist as he has not addressed squarely the issue raised by dna. "What if a burglar breaks into my house?" What if someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me and my family? Your answer? I cannot invoke self-defense because killing is a sin and this is not my house anyway! Under the universal law all of these: my family and possessions, are meaningless! Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada writes in the Gita: According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another's land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. So clearly there is a law that deals with aggressors. One may argue that this law is applicable only to humans. That we should not kill an animal by all means because they are ignorant anyway and do not engage in sinful acts. I wish I could get hold of a definitive scriptural injunction on this matter either in favor or against. However, as with dna, I am in the opinion that at some point, killing an animal may be necessary. That point is reached when an animal becomes an AGGRESSOR: threatening one's life or creating havoc in one's property or by engaging in any of the six kinds of offessive acts enumarated above. Rodents, especially are very intelligent species who uses all kinds of tricks to create havoc in one's household. They bring poison to your food and threatens your own life. I would deal with them in this way: 1) Try to not let them enter your house in anyway. 2) If they're able to enter, try to remove them by non-lethal means 3) If number 2 fails, kill them. Killing however is only engaged to a last resort but certainly an option -- the final option.
  24. Dear maran11, It would be easier for you to appreciate the philosophy if you understand some basic concepts, to wit: 1. There are two kinds of energy: spirit and matter. The nature of the spirit is alive and the nature of matter is dead. The spiritual energy consists of individual spirit souls (individual persons) and whose number is static. The individual spirit soul has no beginning, middle or end. Matter in its unmanifested form are individual atoms. God is the source of these two energies and Himself is the Supreme Spirit Soul. God is compared to that of the sun globe and the individual living entities as the sun rays. 2. Our true identity is spirit soul not matter. We are not the body. The body is dead matter. It is the spirit soul who is alive and who makes the body appear to be alive. As soon as the spirit soul (the person) leaves, the body returns to its natural state, ie. it breaks down into individual atoms. 3. The individual spirit soul is dominated by nature. He is not the dominator. Therefore he has no independent existence just like the sun rays who depend its existence on the sun globe. He is always under the influence either by matter (material nature) or spirit (God). 4. Having no independent existence and being dominated, his natural function then is that of a servant. Being servant is a quality that is always there with the everyone. Although we try to play master (God) in the material world, we are defeated time and again and ultimately everyone is subjected to die. 5. God is the real master and it is our natural function to serve Him. However, God does not force anyone to render service to Him and He does not need anyone's service because He is self-sufficient. What God wants from us is our love. Because we are individual persons and God is also an individual person, there is relationship and there is reciprocation. Yes, there is also hatred and anger and the audacity to deny God's existence. 6. The perfection of our life is to reinstate ourselves back to our natural role as a loving servant of God. It is only in this condition where we can achieve perfect happiness, wisdom and eternality. All the inhabitants of the spiritual world (the Kingdom of God) are in this condition. 7. Because we are not loving God, we are born (and reborn perpetually) into this material world where everything has a beginning and an end and is not our real home. Here we struggle, suffer, subdued, confused and experience fleeting amount of material happiness and enjoyment. Here we are subjected to the very intricate and very exacting law of karma where everything we touches reacts and perpetually binds us to suffer or enjoy our every action. With the above backdrop, it would be easier for you to understand as we dwell on your questions. Why does the Supreme Personality of Godhead need to be served when He is omnipotent and therefore capable of fulfilling all needs? Normally, one serves others who are in need and helpless. As stated, God does not need our service but He wants our love. A father wants his child to love him more than the service. God is the father of everyone. The term 'all living entities' encompasses too many living creatures that include micro-organisms, viruses, tapeworms, nematodes, cyclops, corals etc. Are they all parts and parces of God? I find it difficult to accept this fact because some of the living entities do not seem to serve any purpose but merely harm humans, e.g. the e-coli bacterium. The number of living entities is static. Does not increase nor decrease. However they are innumerable. Because of their volume, it is impossible to count all of them. In our universe, there are innumerable number of planetary systems and they are populated by different living entities. There are 8,400,000 species of life. The 400,000 are human species and we find only several of the species on earth. Outside our universe, there are innumerable number of other universes with innumerable number of galaxies and planetary systems which are populated by innumerable number of living entities. So the spirit soul, because of his karma that binds him, sometimes goes upwards to live in the planets of the demigods or sometimes goes down to the abominable bodies of insects and microbes. However, in the perspective of eternity, the different bodily existences of the spirit soul is considered fleeting. Does the term 'evolution' has the same meaning as the term used in science books, that is, life forms changed over long periods of time by natural selection? Has there been any serious study done to verify that the soul actually transmigrates from one body to another? Any references to such study? The theory of evolution espoused by modern science is just that -- a theory and is a fallacy. The evolution referred to by Srila Bhaktivedanda Swami Prabhupada is the transmigration of the soul from one body to another. For example, the changing of bodies of the soul from microbes to human being. In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Third Canto Chapter 31, Lord Kapiladeva has vividly described the movement of the living entity from one body to another. However scriptural evidence is not very much appreciated by one who wants hard evidence. In this case there are many impirical works by different people from different disciplines which produced irrefutable evidence on reincarnation. One such work is by the hypnonist Helen Wambauch who hypnotized more than 10,000 people of their previous lives. Later she checked the places, names, events and objects described by her patients in their past lives to the actual places, names, events and objects and majority of those checked were confirmed to be true. There were also many documented cases of people (mostly children) who remembered their past life and their past homes, places, relatives and friends were checked to be real. The American seer Edgar Cayce has also left a big body readings supporting the reality of reincarnation. The laws of nature also brought sufferings to many, such as earthquakes, draught, floods, hurricane. How can we say that human being is given all facilities for leading a comfortable life by the laws of nature? There are many people suffering due to the laws of nature, even now due to flood in parts of Russia, Germany and China. The sufferings brought by nature are natural consequences caused by the actions of the population. The human being is given all facilities to lead a comfortable life as compared to animals and other lower species. This is a fact. But a human being also suffer material discomfort because of his bad karma. Nothing wrong with that. When we compare the starving children in Somalia and the dog lying on a couch after a sumptuous meal in an Englishman's house, it is difficult to accept the fact that life of humans is always better than animals. Some humans even do no have the freedom that the birds have. Other creatures, like the rattlesnake has the ability to sense variation of the earths's magnetic field and move to a safer location before an earthquake occurs. Humans don't have this ability. Any comments? The starving children and the dog on a couch are both suffering from their previous karma. However the dog still acts like a dog and the starving child is still in a better situation because he has something that the dog (and other lower species) can never have -- the facility to know and to love God. We should stop seeing things just based on the bodily platform but consider the person's spiritual position. I have personally seen on TV one siamese twin born with her brain outside the skull and the other baby having a stumped arm. One of them died a few days later. How can one explain this and why the sense organs are sometimes not normal? I have seen even a large colony of tiny ants and bees having perfect body parts whereas one or two human baby is born deformed. These facts are real and hard to deny. "Here we are subjected to the very intricate and very exacting law of karma where everything we touches reacts and perpetually binds us to suffer or enjoy our every action." Understanding of the law of gravitation helped scientist to put satellites in orbits, hence allowing us to communicate and predict weather. Understanding the laws of thermodynamics has enabled engineers design power plants, refrigerations and air-conditioners. There are many other examples where scientists and engineers have put the laws of nature into practice. Isn't the last sentence above a sweeping statement undermining the works of scientists and engineers over centuries? That is correct that material science has brought many advancements in material comforts and material progress (of course they also brought many destructions). However they have not solved the real problem of man -- that he is suffering from birth, deseases, old age and death. Therefore all there achievements for material comfort is just a waste of time. Some people deny existence of God because fossil records of pre-historic life forms mislead people to believe that evolution has occurred, that is, life forms change on its own by natural selection and that each creature on this planet came into existence on their own without being created with a purpose. These fossil records provide evidence of many past transitional life forms. They are real and hard to deny their existence. There are also many natural phenomena such as plaques, earthquakes, flood, hurricane, snowstorms etc. that occur so often that people questions the existence of a divine power. Why would God want to confuse people? (I am surprised that His Divine Grace used the word 'rascals') We should understand how the law of karma works otherwise everything you see becomes confusing. The tradgedy of the ignorant is he always act like fool though he thinks he is very knowledgable. A person who deny God's existence is always a rascal. The last sentences says that everthing functions under His order. Does this mean that earthquakes and other natural disasters are the order of God? It is difficult to understand why God would order such distasters that kill thousands of innocent people and even destroy places of worship. Why would God do this to innocent people, including children and helpless animals? (I sincerely hope someone will answer this as I regard the speaker of this sentence as a highly respected and learned individual and this part of the writing conveys a very important message to everyone) "The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance." -- Sri Isopanishad, Invocation This phenomenal world has been set into motion by God as a perfect unit and is equipped with all necessary paraphernalia for its development, maintenance and destruction as the case maybe. So it all depends on the living entities how they manage God's resources and God's resources will react accordingly. As far as "innocent children" dying, back to Karma 101. The underlined portion says that the soul enters through the semen of the father. What I think His Divine Grace meant is that the soul enters the sperm of the father that later fertilizes the egg. But the semen contains millions of sperms that are already alive (up to 500 million in each ejaculation). Since the sperms are already alive, where did each sperm get the soul from? What about the egg, does it have a soul too since it is also alive? (I am sorry for asking such difficult questions, but I need the answers in order to build up my faith in the teachings of His Divine Grace). The movement of the living entities is being managed by higher authorities and everyone is put in its proper place. There is no such thing as accident. You may want to go on studying all these things to its minutest detail to satisfy your curiosity and thirst for the truth and if you have the required intelligence and time and determination there is no doubt that your quest will lead you to appreciate the souvereignty and perfect workings of God on everything. The speculative process that you follow however, is dangerous because you may not have the required intelligence, time and determination to probe everything and this may just lead to your confusion and frustration. There is a better process however and this begins with a humble and sincere heart and a little bit of faith that God has the power to enlighten you and reveal Himself to you and answer your questions from within your heart. The mind is a big wasteland and to dwell in that place only brings thirst and hunger. If we were somethings else less human in our previous life, say a dog, how can the soul transmigrate from dog to human when dogs don't pray or serve God the way humans do? Could this mean that only a human can take the body of another human in his next life? And that humans who reject God will be born as something less human or a less fortunate human but not an animal? Since anything less than human does not pray or serve God it's soul can only be re-born as something lower, say from dog to lizard, and a lizard's soul can enter into the body of something even lower, say a flatworm. In other words, once a soul enters a non-human body it can only go one way, that is further down the animal kingdom. But then, lower down, the number of offsprings produced is much higher that further up. For instance, a dog produces up to 8 puppies whereas a cod produces millions of offspring. Where do all the other souls come from? The numbers don't tie up. Has anyone done any detailed study on this topic? An unfortunate person who misuses the human body transmigrates to lower species of life. The human body is very important because it is the springboard where a person can get out from the cycle of birth and death because he has the facility to develop his loving relationship with God. When one is born in the lower species of life, he doesn't have this facility. However there is no karmic reaction in the lower species of life. A dog cannot be reborn as a lizard. The evolution of the lower species of life is always going up until a person again takes another human form.
×
×
  • Create New...