ethos

Syamasundara dasa: During Alexander's day, people were very optimistic about man's future, thinking that everyone would be benefitted by scientific discoveries. Srila Prabhupada: People think that by nature's way, they will be promoted, that once they ahve attained the status of man, they cannot be degraded. But if one can go up, he can also go down. The rich can become poor again. theosophists and others think that everything goes up, progresses. They don't even have the common sense to look around them.

Syamasundara dasa: According to Alexander, on the mental level, we are capable of enjoying objects and receiving pleasure from them, but cannot understand them as they are. On the higher level, we can contemplate objects and understand them as they are, as well as enjoy them. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that is our philosophy. A common man may see a rose and think, "Oh,, I will offer this nice flower to my girl friend." But when a devotee sees a rose, he thinks, "How wonderfully God's energy is acting!" he understands that it is through Krsna's energy that such a wonderful flower exists, and therefore he knows that the flower should be offered to Krsna. After all, since Krsna produced it, it is Krsna's property. After offering the rose to Krsna, the devotee smells it. Then it is prasadam, the Lord's mercy. This is higher consciousness. Lower consciousness thinks, "Let me pick it and enjoy it!" That is mere enjoyment without understanding. And animal eats just as man eats, but a man should have sufficiently developed consciousness to understand that what he is eating is given by Krsna. The Vedas state: ?The Supreme Lord is supplying all neccessities of life to everyone.? (Katha Upanisad 2.2.13) When one understands that Krsna is supplying everything, he thinks, ?First, let me offer this to Krsna.? If evcerything is not offered in sacrifice to the Supreme Lord, we will be entangled. Higher consciousness is mature consciousness. It is like a flower that has blossomed and is emitting a fragrance. That full blossom of consciousness is Krsna consciousness. Syamasundara dasa: Alexander believes that the entire world is moving to that point. Srila Prabhupada: Well, nature is giving us the chance, but because we have independence, we may or may not take the opportunity. Syamasundara dasa: Will only certain individuals attain that higher consciousness, or will the whole world attain it? Srila Prabhupada: That is a nonsensical question. sometimes rascals inquire, "Swamaji, if everyone becomes God conscious and goes back to Godhead, then who will remain here?" What is the meaning of such a nonsensical question? Why is a fool anxious for everyone? Why is he not anxious for himself? It is the same to ask, ?If everyone is honest, then who will go to jail?? As if maintaining the jail is a very important business!

Sysmasundara dasa: Alexander felt that in the future, the race of man will evolve into super-conscious beings, into demigods. Srila Prabhupada: No, we have no information of this. Why is he so anxious about the planet earth? These super-conscious beings are already existing on Siddha-loka, Gandharva-loka, and many other higher planets. there are millions of planets with supre-human beings. From the sastras we learn that the inhabitants of Siddha-loka can fly from one planet to another without the aid of a space vehicle. Syamasundara dasa: Alexander proposes that nature develops bodies to that point. Srila Prabhupada: No. Bodies never develop in that way. There are different types of bodies, and the soul takes shelter of a particular type, selecting bodies just as a person selects clothes in a store. When we are within a suit, the suit moves. Bodies are selected according to the soul's desires. By your karma, you get a particular type of body. We have already discussed this. Sysmasundara dasa: Then demigods will not evolve on this planet in the natural course of things? Srila Prabhupada: No.

Syamasundara dasa: The mind also occupies space and works in time. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, we are occupying space, and since the mind is within us, the mind also occupies space. From practical experience we can understand that the mind can immediately travel thousands of miles with no difficulties. Syamasundara dasa: But is that distance within me, or does my mind actually travel there? Srila Prabhupada: It travels. It actually occupies space. Unless it occupies space, how could it travel? It travels so fast that you can't exactly remember how it is going, but as soon as it reaches its destination, you can apprehend it. In any case, it occupies space. Syamasundara dasa: The mind can leave the body and go somewhere? Srila Prabhupada: Not leave. It is just like a shoot: it extends. At night, when we are dreaming, the subtle body also extends and comes back again. In fact, we may take the subtle bodies in dreams to be very important at the time.

Sysmasundara dasa: Can we ever predict the movements of the life force? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, it is moving in a variety of dresses, but its ultimate future is to return home, back to Godhead. But because the individual soul is acting unintelligently, he has to be kicked in the face very strongly by material nature. then he will come to his senses. That is his position. When he thinks intelligently, he realizes that it is his duty to serve Krsna instead of his own material body. In this material world, we see that everybody is trying to be happy, but everyone is constantly being frustrated. This is because material happiness ultimately means frustration. This is maya's way of kicking. Syamasundara dasa: In any case, the life force will eventually return to Godhead? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, everyone will sooner or later. Some sooner, and some later. Syamasundara dasa: But can we predict that the process of punishment will have some permanent effect? Many prisoners leave the prison, but some come back. Srila Prabhupada: There is nothing permanent. Because we have a little independence, we have the freedom to misuse our independence again and return to the prison; otherwise there is no meaning to independence. Independence means that you can do what you like. Hayagriva dasa: Can we forget Krsna eternally? Srila Prabhupada: No, it is not possible. A son may be separated from his father, but it is not possible for him to forget his father eternally. Sometimes he remembers his father. The father is always remembering the son, and looking forward to the time when the son will obey his orders. So there is no question of forgetting perpetually. Sysmasundara dasa: Becasue the living entity has independence, at one moment he may be liberated, and at another moment, conditioned? Srila Prabhupada: Krsna has given you liberation. When you misuse your liberation, you become entrapped. Sysmasundara dasa: But is this all predictable? Can we know it beforehand? Srila Prabhupada: What is the use of all this predication? The prediction is that the living entity will be kicked, kicked, kicked, and kicked, until someday he will come to Krsna. Sysmasundara dasa: So after falling down many times, the living entity will eventually come to Krsna and remain permanently. Is that right? Srila Prabhupada: No, there is no question of permanence. Because the living entity has independence, he can misuse that independence and fall down again. a man is not permanently free just because he's relieased from prison. He can return to prison agian. There is no guarantee. This is what is meant by eternally conditioned. the living entities in the spiritual sky who are eternally liberated will never be conditioned because they never choose to misuse their independence. They are vey experienced.

My backorder is coming today!

Jndas, Thankyou for your suggestion. I have crated the thread "Dialectic Spiritualism Highlights". I will now look through the board and extract all previously related messages into this one. Then, as I reply back here - you can delete everything else but this "Dialectic Spiritualism Highlights" thread?

I am transcribing "Dialectic Spiritualism" for my own purposes. Below you will find highlights from that book. Check back for additions. I would prefer that no replies be made. It will be a long enough thread without replies. These threads are simply provided for the benefit of those who might benefit from them. Knowledge is where you find it. Hare Krsna!

Ok, sounds good.

Post deleted by ethos

Jagat seems to think his feelings are evidence. Rather than stay on a philosophical platform, he resorts to slander and name-calling. Prabhupada once said, "the problem with a fool is that he thinks everyone is like himself."

Jagat, Hare Krsna. How interesting it is that you understand what Prabhupada couldn't. I am transcribing the whole "Dialectic Spiritualism" book for my own purposes. I am simply sharing some of the highlights I come across. The point of just doing prescribed activities is to "jump start" the soul. Just get the soul doing what it does naturally. Even if one chants offensively or hypocritically follows prescribed "principles of freedom," still any sincere effort will be to his credit. Practice makes perfect. Are you alluding to something like "Why bother running unless you can run like an Olympic champion? One may not become vegetarian "cold turkey," but after many relapses with the will. Even accepting a standard without being able to follow it may be hypocritic, but it's better than not accepting the standard at all. "Leap of faith" and "surrender to Krishna" are not the same. Materialistic scientists make a leap of faith in the other direction. It requires the same type of faith, but without the possibility of verification or any real existential advantage. Surrender to Krishna is far beyond the faith stage, since it involves immediate reciprocal intimacy between two lovers. You're not discerning the difference between dreams and reality.

Awesome!

Post deleted by ethos

Please refer to the "life summed up in 2 sentences" thread. Now who can sum up spiritual life in one sentence? Surely someone can do it. Actually you all can. Now think!

From Dialectic Spiritualism: Syamasundara dasa: Since man?s essential nature is an undetermined nothingness, Sartre believes that man is free to choose to be either a coward or a hero. Our situation is in our own hands. Srila Prabhupada: If you claim that you were tossed into the world by some superior power, or by accident, what can you do? How can you become a hero? If you try to become a hero, you will be kicked all the more because you are placed here by a superior power. If a culprit under police custody attempts to become a hero, he will be beaten and punished. Actually, you are neither a coward nor a hero. You are an instrument. You are completely under the control of a superior power. Syamasundara dasa: Well, if someone is attacking you, you have the power to choose to be a hero and defend yourself, or to run. Srila Prabhupada: It is not heroic to defend oneself. That is natural. If that is the case, even a dog can be a hero when he is attacked. Even an ant can be a hero. heroism and cowardice are simply mental concoctions. After all, you are under the control of a power that can do what He likes with you. Therefore there is no question of your becoming a hero or a coward. Syamasundara dasa: Suppose someone is in danger, and you rescue him. Isn't that being heroic? Srila Prabhupadaa: All you can rescue is the exterior dress. Saving that dress is not heroism. It is not even protection. One can be a real hero only when he is fully empowered or fully protected. Such a person can only be a devotee, because only Krsna can fully protect or empower.

I suspect that shiva has nailed it. Krsna says "from Me come memory and forgetfulness." Mind, intelligence, and false ego are subtle material elements that are perceived from refined intelligence. The scientists use of empirical observations are useless in understanding these and other things beyond matter. Their limited methods can't perceive ghosts or psychic phenomenon, etc. Nor can they see the prescence of the Lord in the deities. There are many attempts to acquire information these days in varied fields. Unfortunately, information is too often mistaken for knowledge. if your method or approach is not suitable for the object being studied, then it is irrational. A thermometer will not tell you the time. Scientists are relentlessly engaged in pursuing the answers to your question and many others - including life itself. However, if life and its concomitant symptoms are not grossly material, then a gross explanation is nothing but a bluff-which Prabhupada so expertly revealed. I think you can pretty much categorize memory with love or honesty or fear or any other numerous emotions and feelings symptomatic of consciousnss and experience. It just is. And the field for understanding these things is spiritual and not material. It's unlikely the material aspect will ever come in.I perceive your question to be similar in nature to one I once posed about the verses in Bg. 2.62 & 63: While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises. From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool. I wanted to know why from lust anger "necessarily" arises (as in the verse). It seems to me the rest of the verses were self-evident, but that one correlation was ambiguous at best since it is the exact opposite of the enjoying propensity in the material world. So I wanted to know the "mechanics of it." Basically, I got some attitudes from devotees who wondered if I was "all together" I think. It was explained to me 3 or 4 times by different persons (because I kept asking) that everything belongs to Krsna and a thief cannot find peace or happiness in transgressing the property of others. Over time, I have come to accept this as an explanation wholly consistent with the doctrines and processes of a religious, spiritual discipline and have given up on my methodology of more mundane proof. Anyway, I just felt "motivated" to suddenly reveal my mind and what I see as a similar experience. I will be wholly surprised if you get the answers in the format you requested. Humbly yours - ethos.

From Dialectic Spiritualism: Syamasundara dasa: But we have no fixed nature in the sense that today I may be happy and tomorrow unhappy. Srila Prabhupada: That is true to some extent. When you are placed into the sea, you have no control. You move according to the waves. This means that there is a power that is controlling you. However, if you put yourself in better circumstances, you will be able to control. Because you have placed yourself under the control of material nature, you act according to the modes of material nature. ?The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which in actuality are carried out by nature.? (Bg. 3.27) Becasue you are conditioned, your freedom is checked. When you are thrown intot he ocean of material existence, you essentially lose your freedom. Therefore it is your duty to get yourself liberated. Syamasundara dasa: Because we are one thing today and something else tomorrow, Sartre says that our essential nature is ?no-thingness.? Srila Prabhupada: You are nothing in the sense that you are under the full control of a superior power, being carried away by the waves of maya. In the ocean of maya you say, ?I am nothing,? but actually you are something. Your something-ness will be very much exhibited to you when you are put on land. Out of despair, you conclude that your nature is that of nothingness. Sartre?s philosophy is a philosophy of despair, and we say that it is unintelligent because despair is not the result of intelligence.

A little clarification of my original post: If you look at all the activities in the world; science, recreation or "making money" - they all basically are meant to provide facilities for the home or the "family unit". And that arrangement is based on sex! Now spiritual life can be summed up in one sentence. Who can do it?

Yes, there are exceptions to everything. But the exceptions here are so few - given the universal population - that you don't even need to talk about them. First establish the principles and then talk about the exceptions - these are just principles.

From Dialectic Spiritualism: Syamasundara dasa: Regardless of the form of government, Sartre believes that man is basically free. Srila Prabhupada: As soon as you speak of freedom, you refer to some living being. Matter itself has no freedom. It is the active principle that is free. Syamasundara dasa: Sartre maintains that man is condemned to be free, that this is a fate from which man cannot escape. Srila Prabhupada: If man is condemned, who has condemned him? Syamasundara dasa: Man is condemned by accident, thrown into the world. Srila Prabhupada: Is it simply by accident that one person is condemned and another blessed? Is it an accident that one man is in jail and another is not? What kind of philosophy is this? Such so-called philosophy simply misleads people. Nothing is accidental. We agree that the living entity is condemned to this maerial world, but when we speak of condemnation, we also speak of blessedness. So what is that blessedness? Syamasundara dasa: Sartre argues that man is condemned in the sense that he cannot escape this freedom. Since man is free, his is responsible for his activities. Srila Prabhupada: If you are responsible, then your freedom is not accidental. How is it you are accidentally responsible? If there is responsibility, there must be someone you are responsible to. There must be someone who is condemening you or blessing you. These things cannot happen accidentally. His philosophy is contradictory.

This first one is truly "material life" on a bumper sticker: The man is thinking, let me enjoy this beautiful woman. The woman is thinking, let me control this man. This second one is very descriptive of our freedom: A dog's master is he who feeds him. In the present age, a person's master is he who gives him a paycheck.

I'm sorry about the confusing posts and replies. I have had trouble with site recognition. I also posted the response "Re: Mistake" which adressed your dialogue point by point. Shvu, I am now responding to your "Re" above. You posted: There is a difference. Advaitins and iskconites share many common scriptures and hence there is room for debate, room for discussing correct interpretations, etc. On the contrary, no such common ground exists between christians and Indian religions. How can there be a debate? It can only end in criticism and abuse. There is always common ground for discussion because we have more in common than differences. The differences are superficial and temporary such as being an American. Different subjective tastes and faiths one manifest in accordance with the body are symptomatic of karma and the soul's sojourn of experience and not representative of eternal truths. The common ground that we are souls abandoned in the material world because of selfishness is one of many common truths found in various bona-fide religions. So is the universal aspect of what material nature is comprised of including the field of activity and our senses. Now Prabhupada transplanted all of this deeply self-evident pohilosophy in the West where it was non-existent in the minds of men. And he also brought the rich "tapestry" of both the spiritual and material realities to light in remarkable ways relating to modern experience and dogma. I wonder if you have ever been to the West. Many devotees here knew "zilch" of spiritual life as you call it before the arrival of the irresistable personality of Prabhupada. Moreover, according to Ethos, no western personality should even be compared to what he calls 'Vedic personalities', Western religions are dogmatic, ignorant, etc. Not what I call as debating. This is just being condescending and is the wrong attitude for a devotee. Now the evidence for my statements are basically the writings of Prabhupada. I don't know all the names of the various Vedic parts or even if the Gita and Bhagavatam are part of the Vedas. What I do know is the philsophy and scientific approach to religion which "India" offers is unparalleled in the world -- as evidenced by Prabhupada. Prabhupada said religion without philosophy is sentiment, and philosophy without religion is mental speculation. Now not only did Prabhupada reveal the rich knowledge of "Indian culture," but he was a perfect example. He was a pure devotee who could easily see through the offerings of Maya in the form of modern philosophy, science and religion -- what to speak of social and government commentary. Prabhupada, the man, was made with the ancient knowledge of Vedic tradition - existing nowhere else in the world - and gave us the unprecidented concept that we also could know the quality and purpose of everything by our devotional life. Now if you want to argue as a westerner about anything including religion, you'd better get some help because sentiment won't carry you. Prabhupada gave so much knowledge. Most - if not all - of his disciples can easily defeat the faulty logic of modern dogmas existing around the world. Now it is this wonderful transcendental information that can help us avoid the pitfalls and keep focused on the goal to attain. Why claim that others have the same when they don't?

Abortion: A Thoughtful Opinion There is widespread dissention these days among professionals and laymen alike over a volatile issue as fundamental as life itself ?? abortion. Since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Roe v. Wade case which cleared the way for legalized abortions, there has been relentless opposition from pressure groups contesting the legality of infanticide. These pro-life movements gained the support of the White House in the 80?s and legislation was being considered to alter the current law. But now the ensuing battle intensifies with the election of a pro-choice president in 1993. Abortion activists denote a primitive solution to an unwanted presence; a merciless, easy way out. Pro-lifers sustain their position with an intuitive ethical approach based on a respect for human life. In either case, the vision of the warring sides is obscure at best. Isn?t this sentient issue beyond the concern of individual preference? There are many types of myths propagated to advance the cause of abortion. But when we consciously consider the issues of population control and individual choice, the answer can be made conclusive. Not only does abortion become morally unjustifiable, but there are no legitimate grounds for such tactics. It is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence that ?We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.? In other words, certain rights come from God, the Creator?not others. One birthright we all expect is life itself. For one to say he has the right to perform or engage in abortion is foolish because he has to prove God gives him that right. The conventional arguements advancing abortion are not defensible. Overpopulation is a popular arena in the circus of the abortion issue, but the hard facts suggest that our lack of resources are actually due to mismanagement. It is calculated that ten to twenty times the land is required for the fattening of beef as is necessary for growing crops. Because people want to raise cattle for slaughter, they have to feed an animal so much to kill it and get the meat. If that same land is used simply for grain you get ten times more food. Also, governments regulate food stockpiles by storage or destruction as a means of obtaining feasible prices on the market while environmental pollution is condoned. Why is the presence of innocent children or even illicit sex blamed for the demand on the resources of the world? Abortion is not the answer to environmental control. There are certainly unwanted children who are brought into this world, but is that cause enough to resort to murder? Should we indiscriminately kill children on the pretext that a child is not loved enough? What kind of morality is that? How do we decide the criteria by which a child is loved enough? So why not search out the unwanted at any age and kill them? It?s ridiculous! Who?s to say what any individual?s quality of life will be in the future? And what mentality does a creature have that can sacrifice all others for himself? Many people have the current view that a woman has the choice to do with her body as she pleases. Let?s analyze how she can prove her body belongs to her . That?s the real point. Is it her body because she is inside the body? If that?s the case I can just walk inside any Bank of America building and say, ?This building belongs to me because I?m inside it.? In other words, is it logical to say that because I?m inside of something that it belongs to me? Why is it her body? She can claim it?s her body like I may claim my body is mine, but if I am captured at gunpoint I am powerless. Of course, by physical strength someone can subdue the body. If someone kidnaps a woman and locks her away so that only they feed her, then it is their body. She may say it?s an outrage or whatever. But the facts are they?ve got it. Therefore, if she says, ?My body is mine? it must be a metaphysical claim. She must be referring to some higher principle that it is her body. If she is just talking about physical control it doesn?t belong to her anymore; someone overpowered her. Consider the conditions of war: the government controls the body and sends it to fight. Therefore, how can she prove her body belongs to her? A woman will often argue free choice on the basis that she is independent or has free will, but she is not independent of nature. Nature controls the body, makes it sick, and ultimately kills it. So who actually controls the body? Doesn?t the body actually belong to nature? Can a woman justify abortion because she has free will? Can she fly in the sky with her free will? What if by her free will she decides to commit any crime? Does it mean it?s not a crime because she has free will? That?s no logic. No one would deny that she has free will. Does that mean there is no right and wrong because she has free will? She is independent. Can she commit any crime? Can she avoid old age and death? What is her independence? What is her free will? Is it the idea of the American Constitutional Republic that whatever you feel is right you can do? As individuals we have little right to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong because if we could decide what is right and wrong, then we could do anything we want. If a woman can decide that it is right to perform an abortion, another person can decide that it?s right to lock her up in a dungeon and... therefore he may say that her body belongs to him. If she has the right to perform an abortion, why doesn?t he have the right to do something to her? That?s also his right. His body belongs to him just like her body belongs to her. So, therefore he wants to use his body to beat her over the head with a big stick. You see, that?s what he wants to do with his right. And since he can decide what is right and wrong, he decides it?s right to beat her over the head with a stick. So why is it wrong? Why is anyone against rape? Why can?t rapists molest women if they think it is right? It?s their body. They think it is right ?? so it is right ?? for them. That?s how pro-abortion advocates argue. Why argue that one can do something if it doesn?t affect others? What if it does affect others? What?s the big deal? A woman affects others by her abortion. Millions can be affected should her child have become a great civil rights leader or a scientist who cures an epidemic disease. And what to speak of how the fetus is affected? If ordinary people without any reference to God can be their own authority, then I can be my own authority. If a female says she can hurt herself as long as it doesn?t hurt others, it?s just her opinion. If she decides her action is true, then I can just decide something else which is also true. Its just a difference of opinion. Why is her opinion any more authoritative than mine? So, then there is no authoritative opinion and things become distorted and manipulated by those who care not for logical issues, but rely on emotional appeal. Whoever can speak well is truthful. Whoever has more physical clout is pious. This is certainly a scary scenario. Abortionists who insist on the right to the fate of their own bodies conveniently overlook the larger existential issue of life. They want to kill and avoid the responsibility that accompanies choice. People break the law and suffer, so therefore take away the law. What kind of logic is that? If someone commits a crime against God, against the state, and they suffer because of that, then of course, nothing can be done. Why not just enforce the law? Things become a farce when self-indulgent (demoniac) interests are passed off as ethical sentiment, i.e. the right to choose. The result is bewildering for the innocent and collectively damaging to us all as society becomes saturated with corruption. It says in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by the Creator. It doesn?t say that we just have rights. We don?t just have rights because without God, if there?s no soul, what are we? We?re just physical organisms. So, therefore, if I come and harm you, it?s just some physical-chemical thing that took place. Its not right or wrong. Where does right and wrong come from? All major religious text and even our own Constitution say ethics come from the Creator. It is our individual responsibility ?? even our purpose ?? to understand and cooperate with Gods laws. In doing so, we cooperate with others and express a basic respect for life! viewpoints presented are taken from lectures given by Hridayanada das Gosvami

Oooo? very cool! I just saw a segment about this on Ancient Mysteries, a satellite TV show. There, they were looking for a "mythological" city in Yemen I think. The satellite imagery had provided evidence of a lost fabled road through the desert. And archeologist were able to follow this to ruins they began excavating. It turns out that sand is transparent to the imagery frequencies as glass is to light. All this sounds just great and there are enormous potential ramifications to our historical past. But I can't help remember Sadaputa's Forbidden Archeology book wherein he illustrated the tendecy of scientists to filter the information to fit their existing theories. What this will do for the past is yet to be seen. I fear such power is already being abused by the powers that be. Remember, modern governments may have super senses that extend their sense perceptions, but they have dog brains.