ethos

Brajamandala, I thought I detected a bit of spite in your last reply, but not enough to offend me. I'm happy you took my snide remark in stride. I'm personally not to worried about people using their emotions––favorable or not––when they believe they are supporting dharma or the common interest and not just some egotistic indulgence. Let me say up front that I liked this response of yours the most of all––you seem to have your heart in it. And you are persuasive. What's so hard to cmprehend?... I think the damage to the bigger picture is hard for me to sign-off-on. What does anyone's word mean if he can just "change his mind"? What does that do to promises? And how that can reinforce the whole cheating program! That's all. I'm not trying to take pleasure in the failure of a superior or anything like that (at least I don't admit that to myself). The Mahabharata as well as other spiritual pastimes rather impressed me with it's characters being true to their word and commitment––even at the cost of their lives sometimes. Look at the vow of celibacy Bhisma took and the circumstances that followed. Still, he did not waver. Arjuna wanted to throw himself in a suicidal fire for failing to return the brahmana's sons for which he was not at fault. He tried his best but God personally frustrated him, so he decided "let me die." Then again, he was saved by Krsna personally. Surely, we have all learned that the resolve of these and other characters to their vows and duties were their shinning glory. These duties and principles are integral with pleasing the Gods, advancing in life, and fulfilling our spiritual purpose. Arjuna argued in the Bhagavad-gita against the destruction of the eternal family tradition just for reasons which we are discussing. We are trained to pursue intense sense gratification and therefore we find it difficult if not impossible to do something else. Yet, if we don't turn things around, despite ourselves, who will do it? Who will save the world? Society is heading full speed towards destruction by forsaking duty and pursuing selfish pleasures. In my naive beginnings in Krsna consciousness, I too made promises personally to Krsna which I haven't kept and they didn't even last long. I understand the eagerness and resolve that fades away into harsher realities. But my failure really didn't effect anyone but myself. We are discussing a much larger issue here with critical ramifications. If our leaders and pillars of the community can't be trusted and are allowed to cheat the public, the citizens simply take that as evidence and act accordingly. The result is little more than a society of cheaters and the cheated. This is the first time I've heard of Sripad Bhavananda; don't know anything about him. Perhaps I've heard of him from years back and just can't remember his name. Sounds here like one of the rascals I've heard about. I also am not familiar with Vipramukhya Swami's circumstance. There have been so many fallen gurus. But there are successes also. What about the ones that haven't fallen? How do they succeed where others fail? They obviously make better choices. You talk about fallen gurus misrepresenting their position when the "dhara" doesn't flow, but I can't help think that's the accrued result of many previous choices and actions directly relating to Krsna and their commitment to Him. In other words, they compromise their duty. I mean we all experience this. This sounds like Rtvik stuff because their whole issue surrounds these same arguments. Well anyway, you are alluding to alot of sensitive issues surrounding this spectacle including the spiritual master being God incarnate on earth, he is not a common man, he is our link to Krsna, I could never equal or surpass him, and so on just by the nature of the topic under discussion. And then you are contrasting all this with human frailty and weakness. All I can say about all this is that there is the real thing, and then there is the false thing; the cheap imitation. He made his choice. Marriage is another commitment you don't renig on. It can also involve alot of people. Prahupada would not approve it but ultimately had to concede to two people not being able to live together. That happened several times. Yes, you make good points. And what can be done? But then are these things realized by our victimization, things beyond our control, or is it we really just don't care? Who knows? Only God knows for sure. I do know that we cannot convince people and change the world if our sacrifice is no better than theirs. I also know that if we cannot objectively understand and practice the distinctive qualities and characteristics of the varnas and ashramas, such differences become irrelevant to us. Practically, the divisions become compromised to satisfy the lowest common demoninator. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Prabhupada didn't call us all sudras for nothing. Who are we to judge? Obviously, we can't avoid it. We all know what is expected from us by Krsna and Prabhupada. Unfortunately, we have our own ideas. We have accepted these higher standards for ourselves and others in our community, and that is the criterion by which we judge–– and that is our authority. I have some empathy for your case against human frailty. I'd be a fool not to see it in myself. Still, even though I may personally agree with your speculations, I cannot "officially" commend them as that would undermine everything Krsna and Prabhupada are trying to do for us. The standards of the parampara are principles of liberation. Our standards are tragically self-defeating. My uncompromising position remains firm.

Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza believes that the more we understand reality, the more we understand God. Srila Prabhupada: This is because God is reality, and forgetfulness of God is illusion. Illusion is also God, but in illusion we forget God; therefore it is not real. Sunshine and darkness are both reality because they exist side by side. Wherever there is light, there is also shadow. How can we say that the shadow is not reality? It is maya, but because maya attacks the individual soul, Krsna is forgotten. In that sense, illusion or the unreal is also reality. Syamasundara dasa: But in illusion we forget the reality, the light. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, but this is so-called illusion. It is darkness, the atmosphere in which Krsna is forgotten. Maya is the shadow of darkness, yet even if we come under the shadow of darkness, reality remains. That atmosphere of the unreal is existing side by side with the real. Krsna states, “Maya is Mine.” (Bg. 9.10) It is created by God; therefore how can it be unreal? Krsna is reality, and everything dovetailed to Krsna is reality. Therefore maya, or the unreal, is also Krsna. However, when we are in Krsna consciousness, we are situated in reality. This material world is called the unreal, but if we are Krsna conscious, there is nothing unreal. Syamasundara dasa: Because there is no forgetfulness? Srila Prabhupada: Yes. As long as you are engaged in the service of Krsna, there is nothing unreal for you.

Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza states that man should act for his own self-preservation because this is a natural law. Srila Prabhupada: All preservation depends on God; therefore self-preservation means surrendering to God. A child can preserve himself by surrendering to his parent’s will, but if he acts independently, he may be in trouble. If we do not surrender to God, there is no question of preservation. In Bhagavad-gita, Krsna says: “Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My pure devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace.” (Bg. 18.56) Krsna tells Arjuna to surrender unto Him. “I will give you all protection.” Without Krsna, we can not protect ourselves. When Lord Ramacandra wanted to kill Ravana, no one could preserve him, not even Lord Siva or Goddess Durga. Although there was a guge arrangement for the slaughter of the Pandavas, no ne could kill them because they were protected by Krsna. Self-preservation means taking shelter of Krsna and depending on Him. Rakhe krsna mareke mare krsna rakheke. “If Krsna protects one, who can kill him? And if Krsna wants to kill one, who can protect him?” Just surrender unto Krsna, and you will never be destroyed. That is self-preservation. Krsna tells Arjuna: kaunteya pratijanihi na me bhaktah pranasyati. “O son of Kunti, declare it boldly that My devotee never perishes.” (Bg. 9.31) Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza believes that the more we understand reality, the more we understand God. Srila Prabhupada: this is because God is reality, and forgetfulness of God is illusion. Illusion is also God, but in illusion we forget God; therefore it is not real.

Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza stresses the importance of the intellect, which allows a man to understand the laws of his own personality and thereby control his emotions. Srila Prabhupada: What does he mean by the emotions? Syamasundara dasa: Acting emotionally means acting instinctively by one’s senses without intelligent consideration. Srila Prabhupada: A madman acts according to his emotions. But what is the source of these emotions? Unless there are emotions in the whole substance, how can emotions exist? There must be emotions in the whole. the substance is the origin, and therefore emotin is a category. Unless emotions are already there in the substance, how can they be manifest? How can you neglect your emotions? If emotions exist in the substance, they have some purpose. Why is he trying to negate his emotions? Syamasundara dasa: He thinks that emotions will only lead one to error. Srila Prabhupada: Whatever the case, emotions are concomitant factors in the substance. Every madman also has a mind just as a sane man, but the sane man does not commit mistakes because his mind is in order. Similarly, when emotions are not in order, they lead to trouble, but when emotins are in order, they serve a purpose and are proper. Spinoza does not know this? Syamasundara dasa: He claims that the intelligence can direct the emotions. Srila Prabhupada: Love of God is an emotion. One may cry in the perfectional stage of devotinal service. When Caitanya Mahaprabhu threw Himself into the ocean, that was an emotional act, but that was also a perfect act. According to his emotions, Caitanya Mahaprabhu was considering one moment to be like a yuga, like forty-three million years. This was because He was feeling separation from Krsna. When we feel separation from Govinda, Krsna, our emotions are in perfect order. that is the perfection of life. However, when the emotions are misused, that is maya. Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza believes that by nourishing our intelligence, we can will things accordingly. First of all, our will should be subordinate to our intelligence. Srila Prabhupada: It is already subordinate to our intelligence. Syamasundara dasa: But in a madman, is it not reversed? Srila Prabhupada: A madman actually looses his intelligence. He thinks wildly. This is due to derangement, to a loss of intelligence. Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza says that God’s intelligence controls His will. Srila Prabhupada: That is a different thing. In God, there is no such distinction. There is no distinction between God’s body, soul, mind, and intelligence. In Him, everything is absolute. You cannot say that this is God’s intelligence, or that this is God’s mind. If you make these distinctions, how can you say that God is absolute? In the relative material world, there are such distinctions. We say that this is the intelligence, this is the mind, this is the soul, and so on, but in the spiritual world, there are no such distinctions. Everything is spirit.

Syamasundara dasa: Spinoza’s idea of understanding God is understanding nature. This is because he believes that God reveals Himself in nature. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, just as in order to understand the sun, we have to understand the sunshine. If we study nature, daiva-sakti, we can get some idea of God. Those who are just beginning to understand God are nature worshippers. They cannot go directly to God. The study of nature is the first stage of understanding God.

Hayagriva dasa: What about the contention that no one can hate God? What of Kaàsa and others? Srila Prabhupada: Hatred of God is demoniac. Naturally, the living entity is in love with God, and he certainly should love God, but when he is in Maya, he considers himself sparate from God. Instead of loving Him, he begins to consider God a competitor and hindrance to sense gratification. It is then that he thinks of avoiding God, or killing Him. The living entity then thinks, “I will become an absolute sense gratifier.” In this way, he becomes demoniac.

Sri Krishna Kathamrita Bindu is published every ekadasi in PDF format... Is there a downloadable link for this?

Now this is what I participate on this board for. I learned alot with this one. I'm convinced the author "knows something".

This sounds like someone on drugs... not saying you are. What's sincere about forsaking your duty and then justifying it because you've changed your mind? Are we talking Christian or Vaisnava standards here?

Guest, because you replied to me with a title of "Read Srila Prabhupada books", I'm a bit confused as to your point. Your references seem to support my statements but the title you chose makes me think you could be contrary. Please clarify. Brajamandala, I am unmoved and still in disagreement with everything you said.

I recognize that I'm a naive bhakta whose words are held in disrepute. Therefore, I went looking for some evidence to substantiate my unfavored opinions expounded above. I stopped when I found the last one; it says it all. One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, “Do not kill,” but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned in this verse. One should be happy to see others happy, and one should be unhappy to see others unhappy. This is the principle to be followed. Unfortunately, at the present moment so-called philanthropists and humanitarians advocate the happiness of humanity at the cost of the lives of poor animals. (SB 6.10.9 Purport) The members of some religious sects, especially Christians, do not believe in the reactions of karma. (SB 6.1.42 Purport) It is also sometimes found that people are very much addicted to a particular type of religious faith. Hindus, Muslims and Christians are faithful in their particular type of religion, and they go to the church, temple or mosque, but unfortunately they cannot give up the association of persons who are too much addicted to sex life and satisfaction of the palate. Here it is clearly said that one may officially be a very religious man, but if he associates with such persons, then he is sure to slide down to the darkest region of hell. (SB 3.31.32 Purport) This Pulinda province was also one of the provinces of Bharata, and the inhabitants were classified amongst the ksatriya kings. But later on, due to their giving up the brahminical culture, they were mentioned as mlecchas (just as those who are not followers of the Islamic culture are called kafirs and those who are not followers of the Christian culture are called heathens). (SB 2.4.18 Purport) ...Anybody know what "kafirs" means? If one is actually Krsna conscious, he cannot have any enemies. Since his only engagement is to induce others to surrender to Krsna, or God, how can he have enemies? If one advocates the Hindu religion, the Muslim religion, the Christian religion, this religion or that religion, there will be conflicts. History shows that the followers of religious systems without a clear conception of God have fought with one another. There are many instances of this in human history, but systems of religion that do not concentrate upon service to the Supreme are temporary and cannot last for long because they are full of envy. There are many activities directed against such religious systems, and therefore one must give up the idea of “my belief” and “your belief.” Everyone should believe in God and surrender unto Him. That is bhagavata-dharma. Bhagavata-dharma is not a concocted sectarian belief, for it entails research to find how everything is connected with Krsna (isavasyam idam sarvam). (SB 6.16.41 Purport)

From Dialectic Spiritualism: Hayagriva dasa: The emphasis in Spinoza is on intellectual knowledge of God through self-knowledge. He writes: “He who knows himself and knows his affections clearly and distinctly––and that with the accompaniment of the idea of God––is joyous, for he knows and loves God.” Through knowledge of the self, we can come to know something of God. In this way, man can be happy and love God. There is no mention of service, however. Srila Prabhupada: Love means service. When a mother loves her child, she renders him service. “Offering gifts in charity, accepting charitable gifts, revealing one’s mind in confidence, inquiring confidentially, accepting prasadam and offering prasadam are the six symptoms of love shared by one devotee and another.” (Sri Upadesamrta 4) Love means giving to one’s beloved and also accepting some gift from him. Dadati pratigrhnati. Love means feeding one’s beloved and also taking food from him. It means disclosing one’s mind to him, and understanding his mind also. There are six reciprocal relationships in love. Love includes service.

Mahak, you appear to want the pissing prize: the context of your remark wasn't even accurate. Unfortunately, it's not much of an accomplishment nor really good for anything; least of all understanding or advice. This is a good example of how people are guilty of the very things they criticise.

Leyh, I appreciate your efforts here. But if I may be so bold, I'd like to pass on some advice learned from a very qualified art director I'm married to: don't type entire paragraphs or passages in bold. It is hard on the eyes to read. Rather, rely on grammatical marks to present and emphasize your points.

JNdas, thankyou for allowing me to share this joy with karthik_v. The words of the masters are illuminating and transparent as Krsna's Himself. I am very respectful of the philosophical mastery of Bhaktivinoda's commentary. And I hold with absolute awe the lucid psychoanalysis with which he discerns the mental underpinnings of Christianity.

Shiva, I disagree with two points. the western religions do have a cultural and disciplic quality,i.e. disciplic succession of Popes, The culture of judasim,islam... It's superficial, corrupt, etc. You could write volumes of books about how the processes and doctrines have been corrupted by politics. Why argue if they are bogus or not,they exist by the desire of God. Poison also exists by the power of God. We have to see the merits of His various manifestations within a discriminatory context favorable to performing absolute service. They attract followers by the steering power of God(paramatma)... Prabhupada pointed out that it is the duty of Indians and his ISKCON movement to provide people with the best, to facilitate people actually being God conscious. At one time Prabhupada pointed out that Christianity is just like a dead body that sometimes twitches. It may have been useful in the past and even now to some degree, but it is not the eternal religion. It is an inferior process, not the goal which will fully satisfy the soul. I am willing to cool it. I am resigned to the opinion that my question will not be answered... as no one has attempted to do so.

If your language is properly representing the authorities without deviation, it is transcendental to the modes. (My personal qualitfications are something else.) Prabhupada was very critical at times––even to the point of blasting the opposition. Can't resist a pissing contest Theist? Just answer my question that started this thread and stop trying to fake me out.

Tsaneladi, What you replied is not even an argument. Rather, it's just a weak assertion of your feelings. Not supportive of your title at all. Anyway, truth is not subjective. Please provide the necessary substance to your allusions that the Christians have more than faith. And don't just expound their supportive philosopy which we all know. That simply establishes their faith. I knew I'd be rocking the boat with this. I'm tiring of this exchange which is little more than yes it is, not it isn't sentimentalism. Please refrain from this pissing contest and just answer the philosophical question above.

Leyh, Not knowing anything about the characters you mentioned, I theoretically agree with everything you've said. Mahak, Your reply is not a rebuttal. You simply make wild, subjective claims you cannot defend. In your liberal eagerness, you jump the gun. Your not even presenting the Vedic philosophy correctly. I agree with your last statement only.

I'm tired. I was lying down with my head swimming through so many different thoughts. Couldn't sleep. So I thought I might find peace if I could get this out. I still want ya'll to answer my question above and not just respond only to what I'm gonna say now. I'm trying here to shed some light on my motive and philosophical basis for this dialogue, but it can be found between the lines of the many words I've said before. To be true to my heretical nature and cut to the chase I'll say that Christians, after all is said and done, simply have and teach the faith that God exist. That's it––in a nutshell. Even the commandments and histories enunciating such principles as do not covet your neighbors wife are simple. It's like hitting the barn door. You know, you can't miss... like humanitarians saying you shouldn't exploit the blacks in South Africa. Their philosophies and practices are somewhat primitive. And... still they miss the barn door with things like "do not kill" because they generally justify eating meat! Now I'm not gonna preach what they don't know again, you're aware of these things. But basically they have and preach faith. But they don't know very well how to practice it! I think what I find sad––and even offensive––is promoting both religious cultures as somehow equal (or acceptable) besides the obvious disparaties between the two. Eastern religions have knowledge and philosophy and science and arts and every aspect of life permeated with religious doctrine. Western theology begins and ends with "I believe." I could go on contrasting the two, but what for? Most all of us here know these things. And I guess this is also a part of my perspective: I find it offensive to simply compare undisciplined, free-wheeling theist (not you "Theist") with scientific adherents to the truth. If find it demeaning and insulting to Prabhupada, Krsna, and the whole Vedic tradition. Hare Krsna.

Tsaneladi, I appreciated your first response alot better than your second; it sounded as your own and I actually found myself agreeing with you. But it did not answer my question. Concerning the response of Theist and yourself, I was content to let sleeping dogs lie because I understand the sentimental tunnel vision of those thinking they're very broad-minded and nonsectarian and so on. But your second response convinced me of what I just said and "reminded me" that you and Theist have not answered my question. Tsaneladi and Theist, If you two would stop playing God and telling me what He (Krsna) would or wouldn't like, you could answer my question. All this sentimental rhetoric and liberalism isn't anything that hasn't recently been said before. I've already acknowledged other religions and their practicioners in the "Can a Christian attain God?" thread. I also went to great lenghts to present their shortcomings and pitfalls. Don't simply repeat the same propaganda as if you're making a point. Please review the question above specifically contained within the fourth paragraph and try again. Theist, It is not helpful to see past the external trappings of religious social culture with a view to creating your own religious process. Nor does a combination of the better points of each help. ...May make you feel good. ...But it's not very practical for a conditioned soul who needs something that works. This stuff is for the liberated souls who are experiencing Krsna everywhere. We have to select and follow an authorized processes and not concoct our own. It is exactly with this in mind that I ask you to respond in terms of "religious processes" and "your perception of them". Don't just respond with the same thing you have above. That's actually irrelevant to my question. I'm not asking for your position concerning the long shot of Krsna bestowing his mercy on whomever he pleases. I'm asking you to resolve the philosophical conflict of opposing religious practices, especially as they are percieved and hypocritically propagated by those on this board. I'm trying not to get personal. At an ecumenical converence it is considered bad manners to say that I may be right, but that you are less right. However, it may be the truth. Sometimes it's necessary to get personal to make a point. If it's necessary to say you or I are wrong to pursue our philosophical points and get at the truth, then I'm game. Let the truth be known! Now excuse me while I put my armour on. I think I may need it.

Hayagriva dasa: Although Pascal was considered a great philosopher, he concluded that philosophy in itself only leads to skepticism. Faith is needed. “Hear God” was his favorite motto. Srila Prabhupada: Philosophy means understanding the truth. Sometimes philosophers spend their time speculating about sex and thus become degraded. Sex is present in animals as well as man. Sex is not life itself; it is only a symptom of life. If we emphasize only this symptom, the results are not philosophy. Philosophy means finding out the Absolute Truth. The real subject of philosophy is Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan.

Hayagriva dasa: Pascal believed that it is impossible for man to understand the universe or his position in it. We cannot look for certainty or stability in the material world because our reasoning powers are always being deceived. Therefore man must surrender to the dictates of his heart and to God. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that is our position. We are not depending on the heart, however, because the dictations of the heart are not appreciated by nondevotees. Distinct instructions are given in Bhagavad-gita and explained by the spiritual master. If we take the advice of God and His representative, we will not be misled. Hayagriva dasa: Of all things in the world, Pascal considered this to be the strangest: “A man spends many days and nights in rage and despair over the loss of his job or for some imaginary insult to his honor, yet he does not consider with anxiety and emotion that he will lose everything by death. It is a monstrous thing to see in the same heart and at the same time this sensibility to trifles and this strange insensibility to the greatest object (death). It is an incomprehensible enchantment, and a supernatural slumber, which indicates as its cause an all-powerful force.” Srila Prabhupada: Yes, according to Bhagavad-gita, when one does not believe in God, or when one disobeys God’s orders, God comes as death. Then all power, pride, imagination, and plans are broken. After this, one may attain the body of an animal because in his life he acted like an animal. This is the process of transmigration. This is suffering. Hayagriva dasa: Pascal writes: “If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.” Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that is a fact. The orders of God constitute religion, and if we carry out these orders, we are religious. Paeudo-religions, religions that cheat, are condemned in Srimad-Bhagavatam. Any religious system which has no conception of God and which annually changes its resolutions is not a religion but a farce. Hayagriva dasa: Pascal seems to be saying that we should not accept our faith blindly, but at the same time we should not expect everything to be comprehensible to our understanding. Srila Prabhupada: Yes. A father may tell his child to do something, although the child may nt comprehend it. In any case, we understand that the fatehrs’s plans are complete and good for the son. If the son says, “No, I don’t wish to do this,” he may fall down. God’s orders constitute religion, but there is no question of blind following. We must understand God’s nature and realize that He is all perfect. In this way, we can understand that whatever He says is also perfect and that we should therefore accept it. If we apply our finite reasoning and try to change God’s instructions according to our whims, we will suffer. Syamasundara dasa: Pascal claims that by faith we have to make a forced opinion, or what he calls a religious wager. We either have to cast our lot on the side of God––in which case we have nothing to loose in this life and everything to gain in the next––or we deny God and jeopardize our eternal position. Srila Prabhupada: That is our argument. If there are two people, and neither has experience of God, one may say that there is no God, and the other may say the there is God. So both must be given a chance. The one who says that there is no God dismisses the whole case, but the one who says that there is a God must become cautious. He cannot work irresponsibly. If there is a God, he cannot run risks. Actually, both are taking risks because neither knows fro certain that there is a God. However, it is preferable that one believe. Syamasundara dasa: Pascal says that there is a fifty-fifty chance. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, so take the fifty percent chance in favor. Syamasundara dasa: Pascal also advocated that. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Srila Prabhupada: Yes. We also advise people to chant Hare Krsna. Since you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, why not chant?

Hayagriva dasa: Pascal ascribed to the doctrine of original sin, which holds that at one time man fell from grace by committing some sin or other, and this fall from grace accounts for his present position between the angels and the beasts. In other words, original sin accounts for man’s encagement in matter. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, this is also our philosophy. Hayagriva dasa: What was this original sin? Srila Prabhupada: Disobedience––refusing to serve Krsna. Sometimes a servant thinks, “Why am I serving this master? I myself must become a master.” The living entity is eternally part and parcel of God, and his duty is to serve God. When he thinks, “Why should I serve God? I shall enjoy myself instead,” he brings about his downfall. Original sin means refusing to serve God and attempting instead to become God. Mayavadis, for instance, are still attempting to become God, despite their knowledge and philosophy. If by meditation or some material effort, we can become God, what is the meaning of God? It is not possible for man to become God. The attempt to become God is the original sin, the beginning of sinful life.

Ah, I see! I used a private message a few days ago and assumed they still work. Now I see they don't. JNdas, what gives?