Why do you belive in hinduism?

April 30, 2005

Why do you belive in hinduism and not some other religion?

April 30, 2005

hinduism? why hinduism?

Gauracandra · April 30, 2005

Which is more reasonable, the atheist view that everything came out of nothing, or the theistic view that everything came out of something (something we readily acknowledge we don't fully understand as it is incomprehensible). At some point, both sides come to the same problem, what is before everything? Atheists can't answer this. If everything is material, the material must have an origin outside itself. Theists come to the conclusion that the material world does not explain itself and so there must be an outside material explanation.

theist · April 30, 2005

The question will not to be a little more precise for most people here. As is being discussed on another thread hinduism is to vauge a term to be useful, although some here do accept it.

Here there are mainly Vaisnavas, or worshipers of Vishnu. Vishnu is the supreme one God above all other gods. The one God from whom everything and everyone has received their being.

Not to be confused with what is most often termed hinduism with it's collection and worship of various demi-gods. While no being adverse to these other demi-gods Vaisnavas are satisfied by focusing all their thoughts, words, deeds and love on the God of gods whom they call Vishnu or Krishna. The Supreme God has innumerable names which may vary from culture to culture.

I have become attracted to hearing about God or krishna from this source as opposed to others because here His beauty and other personally attractive features are emphasised and revealed. One naturally becomes drawn towards the Lord simply by hearing about Him from the right source as He is by nature All-Attractive.

There is also a depth of knowledge concerning the true nature of the material world that we are living in presently as well as our true spiritual home our eventual destination. That and specifics about the nature of the soul and of the Supersoul (God) and what our relationship is to Him and this world.

This depth is unrivaled anywhere and one can see that by any honesty comparison study of various religions or philosphical systems with Krishna conscious teaching.

But beyond that there is just a certain sweetness here that the soul craves. Like asking a hummingbird why they seek the nectar in a flower. Natural attraction.

Having said all that let me add that I am also a born again penecostal who bows and prays to Lord Jesus Christ.

What is taught here is completely non-sectarian.

theist · April 30, 2005

Why do atheists not believe in God? They can offer no rational reason.

Gauracandra · April 30, 2005

An atheist must not believe in anything they can not physically see or experience. This is their limitation. They believe solely in a material world, which can't explain itself. They must never leave even the smallest room for belief in the smallest little sprite. Leaving that door open would eliminate their argument against the belief in God.

Now as a theist I can leave open the possibility of angels, fairies, ghosts and all sorts of things I can't see. The deeper we look at the world the more uncanny it becomes.

We've discussed this before, but that program on string theory was fascinating. String theory believes there are layers of reality all around us. An atheist can't experience this. An atheist can't see these other layers of reality. Thus an atheist MUST not accept that there are multiple layers of reality, that there are other stories being told on higher layers of existence. If he says he believes there are, then why can't there be a highest order of reality - God. As a theist I have the room and expansiveness to believe there may be 11 dimensions in this universe. Perhaps there are angels right at my side that can see me but I can't see them (because they are on a higher order of reality). An atheist can never leave room for that belief. He must forever shut the door to all things but those he can experience.

May 6, 2005

Why do atheists not believe in God? They can offer no rational reason.

My dear Theist,

It is the other way around. The theist cannot offer logic and relies on faith instead. The Bible does not say ""have logic"...it says "have faith".

You place faith in the books, the gurus, the religious organizations, the stories of talking animals and so on. How do you know your Guru is for real? The answer is you can never really know. He could after all be a very good actor or may just be kidding himself. You can never know and here is where faith comes in.You choose to believe in his authenticity and create your own belief system around it.

For an atheist, it is all about rationale and very little about faith. To use my pet example, I have never been to Tokyo, but I have no problem accepting it's existence as I cannot think of a reason for doubting it. On the other hand, if I hear stories of water magically turned into Bollinger RD then I have every reason to doubt it as this claim goes against the rules of nature as we know them. Plus, as you will agree, alleged miracles are always set in the past or happen somewhere else, but never around us. The same logic applies to God; I do not trust the source of the information and so the information is not true. To explain further, I know I can die anytime, ranging from the next moment to the next few years and I have no problems with that. I am not looking for permanence beyond death, reincarnation or a heaven with dancing beauties. I have no restrictions imposed by religion and am enjoying my life as I can. This philosophy is an outcome of our experiences of the ways of the world -- common sense.

You on the other hand are more interested in what will happen to you after death. Placing belief in the religious stories, you are denying yourself a lot of things in the hope that this will result in some extra bliss after death. If I want to eat choeese cake, I just go ahead. If you want to, you think it contains eggs and so you deny yourself. In other words, to me, this is life and I am living it now. For you, life begins after death and you are waiting to live. Think it over...

Example - Out of body experience: Someone claims to have floated out of his body when he saw his own body from outside

The theist says - Why not? It is all about magic, souls, etc.

The atheist says - It is so obviously a false story. Assuming for a moment, that there is a soul and it went out of the body, it could not have seen anything as it has no eyes and cannot remember anything as it has no brain (memory) to record anything. If the soul can see magically without eyes, then it should be able to do so even when it is inside a body. Why then can it not see when the eyes are closed?

This is how reasoning goes and it should be clear which side is being logical.

Cheers

krsna · May 6, 2005

Atheism: Frequently Asked Questions

by Jon Nelson

What is atheism?

Atheism is the non-belief in a god or gods. Although some have defined atheism in other ways, this is the definitional essence.

How is atheism different from agnosticism?

An atheist does not believe in a god or gods. An agnostic does not know if such things exist. Therefore, it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.

Is atheism a religion?

Of course not! Since supernaturalism is at the base of all religious systems atheism, by not believing in the supernatural cannot, by definition, be a religious viewpoint. Saying that atheists are religious because they deal with religion is like saying doctors are sick because they deal with illness.

Why don't atheists believe in God?

Atheists do not believe in any of the gods that have been offered throughout history, recognizing them to be nothing more than idealizations of humanity's wishes and fears. This is true whether we are talking about Zeus, Osiris, Quetzlcoatl, or the god of the Bible. Since no believer in a god can tell us exactly what a god actually is, we recognize that, as a consequence, such creatures can exist only in the imaginations of the people who believe in them.

What about the Bible?

The bible fails on all counts. As a book of history, it contains innumerable factual errors. As evidence for a god, the Bible no more proves the existence of Jehovah or Yahweh than the Book of Mormon proves the existence of the angel Moroni. Finally, as a book of moral behavior, the Bible fails most alarmingly of all; the historical track record of Crusades, Inquisitions, torture, and other evils makes a mockery of the notion that the Bible is a good moral guide.

Do atheists want to abolish all religions?

Certainly not. People are entitled to go to any church, synagogue, mosque, or other building that they desire. They may believe in anything they choose, no matter how absurd it may be. What we atheists do want to abolish is the promotion of religious absurdity by our paid government officials who, by their actions, help to promote and sustain ignorance, superstition, and mythologies that should have properly died out at the end of the Upper Bronze Age.

How can you be moral if you don't believe in God?

Why is believing in a non-existent deity evidence of moral superiority? Why is gullibility rather than respect for objective truth a guarantee that the believer will behave morally? When you consider the countless millions of people who have suffered and died because god-believing moral idealists have made their lives a hell on earth, a better question might be: How can you be moral if you do believe in god?

Doesn't religion do a lot of good?

No. Individual religious people can and often do perform good deeds, but so do atheists. Consider this: Which person is more fundamentally moral, the person who does good deeds because he or she thinks their god wants them to, or the person who performs them without a belief in a god but with a love of humanity as a standard of value?

If atheism is true, doesn't that mean that life has no purpose?

No. Atheists recognize that if a person's life is to have a purpose, it is up to that person to set it. No god will perform this function for us. Many religionists insist that the only "purpose" in life is to prepare one for the alleged life to come. However, if there is no such future existence, the believer has thrown away all that he has in the futile hope of an afterlife.

Doesn't the origin of the universe require a creator?

The origin of the universe requires an explanation, not a creator; it is a scientific, not a religious question. Since the universe, by definition, includes everything in existence, it is existence itself that is at the root of all causal change. One does not need reference to a supernatural "cause" for any change in the material universe. Atheists also recognize the silliness of the "creator" idea: The believer wants us to believe in an unknowable, indescribable, invisible being (itself a contradiction in terms) who has somehow created everything in existence by some unknowable means, at an unknowable time. How does this nonsensical double-talk "explain" anything?

Doesn't the perfect order of the universe show the stamp of a brilliant designing mind?

Once again, no. One must be careful in the use of words such as "order." All this really means is that things are as they are, and can only act in accordance with their nature. These two facts are known as the Law of Identity and the Law of Causality. A radish seed is what it is, and, under the right conditions, will grow into a radish. Is this the mysterious "order" the believer needs a god to explain? The laws of identity and causality are sufficient in and of themselves. What alternative to an "ordered" universe could a believer possibly imagine? A world in which the radish seed sprouts into a microchip and where tables suddenly sprout wings and fly? Such a universe cannot exist, except perhaps in the mind of a believer who stubbornly refuses to accept the fact that things are what they are because they cannot be anything else.

How is atheism different from Humanism?

The two are separable but related. An atheist does not believe in a god. A humanist does not rely on the intervention of gods in human affairs. We are responsible for our own affairs; if a child disappears, it is up to us humans to search for and hopefully find it. Prayers uttered heavenward may make the believer feel better, but will not deliver the child.

Why are so many atheists Democrats?

Atheists can and do belong to any political party. In the United States, the Religious Right has exerted a dominating influence on the politics of the Republican Party; this is no doubt one of the leading factors why many atheists are Democrats.

May 6, 2005

Fire burns. You believe it when someone says so. You dont go around and touch it and THEN believe it is so, in the name of free thinking or open-mindedness et al. At some point, you need to stop doubting and have faith. there is no choice. Logic is not the instrument. In a civil society, logic says, "dont kill." in the taliban society, logic dictates them to kill. So which logic do I trust? In this case, it may be easy but in others, it isn't. Using limited instruments such as logic, we're trying to understand the very source of logic. It won't work. One has to surrender everything and learn, as one goes along.

theist · May 6, 2005

T:Why do atheists not believe in God? They can offer no rational reason.

My dear Theist,

It is the other way around. The theist cannot offer logic and relies on faith instead. The Bible does not say ""have logic"...it says "have faith".

Hare Krsna Shiv, long time gone, welcome back. First, I don't care what the Bible may or may not say. I don't accept blind faith not even in GV books. Nor do I think that is even asked of me although I know many would disagee. I do believe in *sighted faith* however.

You place faith in the books, the gurus, the religious organizations, the stories of talking animals and so on.

Again I speak only for myself. I have faith in the books because in them I recognize superior logic at work. What is allegory and what is meant to be taken at face value I am not often sure. But either way what I consider the essence of the teaching contained in those books blows away anything I have ever read. There is not even room for a second place. Material scientists are very intelligent. I honor their intelligence but from these books I have also learned that their intelligence is on loan from Krsna and when expertly displayed represents Krsna. So I can honor their intelligence and simultaneously honor Krsna in doing so. Where in their books do they express the intelligence to understand that? No where. They try to take the credit themselves and thus display themselves as fools. I give credit where credit is due both positive and negative. I have made a decision that while the knowledge of chemical interactions is had in abundance by mundane scientists it is all a uselless waste and a distraction unless it can reveal something of God. Whereas these old books make God, Who is the essence of all knowledge, the knower, the known and even the process of knowing, known right from page one.

Why are these accomplished scientists not able to understand even theorhetically that they are not the body? They don't even know who they are so why should I take deep instruction from them?

Talking animals does not surprise me. I see talking humans. Animal communication is a known fact even among atheists. Or do you mean they don't speak Hindi or English?

Some say they used to talk in human terms, some say they talk in other dimensions and that is what is described in the books. I take those stories most often as allegories that contain lessons for us, the child-like inhabitants of kali-yuga. In any way I am not disturbed by it. I am only after the essence of what is being said.

Faith in religious organizations? Puleeeze....? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

How do you know your Guru is for real? The answer is you can never really know.

No here you are very wrong, fatally so. I accept that the self has the capacity for recognizing all aspects of the Absolute Truth as indeed we are composed of absolute truth ourselves. But I do accept that we don't really *know* until the Supreme Absolute Truth Himself awakens that recognition of Himself in the form of guru to the individual soul.

Until then we will always be plauged with doubts and may even be wrong about someone in particular. Or even if we we are grouped around a realized soul we won't fully realize it until we ourselves are realized. Which is kinda obvious when we think about it. So much of this guru stuff is just an imitation for us at our present level but at some point we will fully know 100% and beyond all doubting.

For an atheist, it is all about rationale and very little about faith. To use my pet example, I have never been to Tokyo, but I have no problem accepting it's existence as I cannot think of a reason for doubting it.

I have yet to hear a rational reason that God does not exist. If someone tells me they are an agnostic I can respect that honesty but if someone says they are an atheist and *knows* there is no God I know he is a fool. I think it was an argument of Descarte that if someone says there is no God they are really saying they are God themselves. Who but God can claim to have properly analyzed all knowledge (omniscience) and have come to a conclusion of any kind?

On the other hand, if I hear stories of water magically turned into Bollinger RD then I have every reason to doubt it as this claim goes against the rules of nature as we know them. Plus, as you will agree, alleged miracles are always set in the past or happen somewhere else, but never around us.

Yes there are many fake stories. But don't you view the sun hanging in the sky as a daily miracle? If not you must have extraordinarily high standards on what makes a miracle. How about the very fact that you are a conscious living entity with your own ability to love or hate? You cannot even explain your own existence and you dare to pass judgement on God's existence? Big time hubrus brah. Einstein said to the effect that there are two ways of viewing everything. "One is that there are no miracles and the other is that EVERYTHING IS A MIRACLE." Every ant and every galaxy says "God" to the theist.

The same logic applies to God; I do not trust the source of the information and so the information is not true.

You do not even know who you are so why have faith in your ability to evaluate and place your trust in the proper source? Something may indeed be true but we fail to recognize it. You say not to have faith in God yet you have faith in your own tiny conditoned mind? The theist says you have misplaced your faith. And *that* logic is more convincing than the so-called logic of the atheist.

To explain further, I know I can die anytime, ranging from the next moment to the next few years and I have no problems with that. I am not looking for permanence beyond death, reincarnation...

You don't need to look. At death your body will just drop off and you will be duly placed in another one. Our believing or disbelieving is immaterial.

I am surprised you are still at this point. Even material science shows nicely how you have already had a multitude of different bodies just in this one birth. You say you don't accept reincarnation even though you obviously have reincarnated so many times right before your eyes. You say you only believe what you can see so why can't you see that?

or a heaven with dancing beauties.

Well the higher heavens don't admit atheists anyway but even demonic realms can have dancing beauties.

I have no restrictions imposed by religion and am enjoying my life as I can. This philosophy is an outcome of our experiences of the ways of the world -- common sense.

I have no restrictions placed on me by religion. There are certain actions which bind us to matter and some that bind us to Krsna. Each soul is always free to choose. What you call restrictions are the basic regulative principles of freedom to the spiritualist. We are restricitng ourselves from self destructive behavior.

We all are motivated in seeking our self interest. I have come in some measure to understand that material life is not in my self interest. just like I at one point came to understand that LSD and heroin injections were not really in my self interest and so chose a different direction. No religion involved just a peek at higher knowledge. That is logical to me.

If you see even theorhetically that you are not the material body but rather spiritsoul wouldn't you also change certain behaviors for your own good? We have to start at aham brahmasmi.

You on the other hand are more interested in what will happen to you after death.

Yes I am interested in what will happen in my future as well as in my present. Do you have tommorrow's food in you cabinet? Do you pay your rent in advance so you will have shelter in the immediate future. Well death is in our immediate future also so why not consider where one will be living then as well?

Placing belief in the religious stories, you are denying yourself a lot of things in the hope that this will result in some extra bliss after death.

I see the wealthy committing suicide and suffering old age disease and death just like the homeless. The only thing they are denying themselves in most cases is a relationship with God. So a simple cost benefit analysis will reveal that chasing wealth is not very intelligent. So I see that path as a distraction. While those conditioned desires surely remain I chose to try and restrict *myself* from fullfilling them as by teaching and observation I have learned that they only return in greater force while providing no satisfaction. I am tired of being made a chump of by maya and a slave to sense gratification that never works. Somebody defined hell "as continually doing the same thing expecting a different result." We all want bliss and it is what is promised by the material senses but it never comes and is always just in the future a little out of reach. But the spiriualist wants bliss now AND after bodily release.

If I want to eat choeese cake, I just go ahead. If you want to, you think it contains eggs and so you deny yourself.

Yes, eggs because they are the product of a chickens menses and I don't find that appetizing. Also because I do not want to support the violence that goes into egg and dairy production. A devotee would not want it because Krsna does not accept eggs.

But have you traced out the source of "your" desire for cheescake. You think it came from you but actually it comes from the type of body you are conditioned to. The stool eating hog loves his stool as much as you love your cheesecake.

Your freedom looks like slavery to me. I want to be free.

In other words, to me, this is life and I am living it now. For you, life begins after death and you are waiting to live. Think it over...

I have and do. For me life begins with Krsna realization. Death of the ahankara is the death the theist seeks.

Example - Out of body experience: Someone claims to have floated out of his body when he saw his own body from outside

The theist says - Why not? It is all about magic, souls, etc.

OBE's are now beyond you? Are you the same Shiv? I find OBE's in the realm of the ordinary. I have had my own as many million's have had also. So have you but you don't remember them. Anyway we all have one scheduled that we won't come back from so just wait awhile and you will be kicked out into the subtle astral in due course. The you will believe in OBE's

Remember that Donovan song? "You've your facts figures and logic and I've my lore legend and magic"? Anyway the Krsna conscious soul can extract absolute knowledge from all those sources. There are no barriars because Krsna is everywhere and all that is.

The atheist says - It is so obviously a false story. Assuming for a moment, that there is a soul and it went out of the body, it could not have seen anything as it has no eyes and cannot remember anything as it has no brain (memory) to record anything. If the soul can see magically without eyes, then it should be able to do so even when it is inside a body. Why then can it not see when the eyes are closed?

Stare at something on the computer screen before you. Really look hard and closely. Now shut your eyes right now and tell me what you see.

What sees? The retina? The optic nerve? The neurons in the brain proper? None of them see or they would still be able to see after bodily death as they lay there all intact.

The self inside the body sees. The soul is the perceiver. When the soul leaves all perception stops. So why is it so hard to think that the soul who is the perceiver took the power of perception with him when he left his body behind?

This is how reasoning goes and it should be clear which side is being logical.

On that we agree.

Cheers

Bottoms up. (carnaritam that is) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

May 6, 2005

Ya knocked that outa the park! /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

http://tinypic.com/fwfwo

May 6, 2005

of superhuman feats and miracles are untrue?

"Yes they are many fake stories. But don't you view the sun hanging in the sky as a daily miracle? If not you must have extraordinarily high standards on what makes a miracle. How about the very fact that you are a conscious living entity with your own ability to love or hate? You cannot even explain your own existence and you dare to pass judgement on God's existence? Big time hubrus brah. Einstein said to the effect that there are two ways of viewing everything. "One is that there are no miracles and the other is that EVERYTHING IS A MIRACLE." Every ant and every galaxy says "God" to the theist."

How do you KNOW those stories are fake? Just because you can't do it, or you've never seen anyone do it doesn't mean that the stories are fake.

Our experiences are limited. Whenever we hear something "miraculous" happen to someone, we believe they're under a false impression, they're either just fools who deluded themselves into believing a miracle happened, or whatever when it really could have been that a miracle took place, and God directly intervened in that person's life.

How about the theory that nothing can travel faster than light? People would find it hard to believe according to their everyday experiences,according to logic, yet it is true. There are many things that we do not know about nature, fundamental principles that are taken for granted. Scientists are always on the quest to uncover the foundations of the things they already know.

The tales of miracles don't have to be disbelieved simply because you've never experienced them. It's about faith. There are a lot of things scientists have observed, and a lot of things scientists claim that are possible, and impossible. Taking their word is also a matter of faith. Sometimes scientists are right, sometimes they are wrong. But everything takes a measure of faith, because our experiences are so limited.

Gauracandra · May 7, 2005

Shvu,

I am curious if you believe there is a 6th dimension?

theist · May 7, 2005

How do you KNOW those stories are fake? Just because you can't do it, or you've never seen anyone do it doesn't mean that the stories are fake.

You neglected the context. I was responded to his statement. I also used the word 'they' when I meant 'there'.

Anyway read it again in context and it may make more sense to you.

shvu · May 9, 2005

Theist,

At this point , I would like to remind you & myself that the reason we are having this discussion is your opinion that atheists lack reasons for not believing in God. My argument is that it is the other way around. Even if atheists offer no reasons for their position that is fine, as the believer needs to supply reasons to support his belief, not the non-believer. For example, if X claims that he believes in the existence of Santa Claus or talking Dolphins, he needs to justify his claims, if he wishes to be taken seriously. It is not the case that others have to provide reasons to X for not believing in Santa. The exact same logic applies in the case of God.

1. The universe is self sustaining and needs no creator/controller. The idea of a creator creates the infinite regression problem & is superfluous.

2. The information I get about God is from dubious sources, who are in no way better qualified than myself to have seen/known something that cannot be peceived by me and on close scrutiny, these sources themselves differ and are in conflict with one another (Compare the ex nihilo creation of the Jewish God who creates souls with the Indian God who does not create souls).

1 and 2 are sufficient reasons (each independently) to justify atheism. Note that it is not the intent to convince theists that they are wrong. The intent here is simply to show that atheists have sufficient reasons to support their position with almost no dependance on faith (blind or otherwise), unlike your claim.

To comment on some of your points,

1. Material scientists are very intelligent. I honor their intelligence but from these books I have also learned that their intelligence is on loan from Krsna and when expertly displayed represents Krsna. 2. Why are these accomplished scientists not able to understand even theorhetically that they are not the body?

One indicates your faith in religious books. You believe in the existence of a higher power and have formulated an opinion on the limitations of science based on faith. The reason for 2 is I do not think I am not the body because I am the body and so is the case with the accomplished scientists and everyone else. Put a bullet into someone and that the end of that person. The only way anyone would even think of the possiblity of not being the body is if they read or listen to religious material about souls & afterlife which again goes back to speculation, conjecture & faith.

3. So much of this guru stuff is just an imitation for us at our present level but at some point we will fully know 100% and beyond all doubting.

Since you accept that at our present level there exists the possiblity that the Guru may ultimately turn out to be a dud, on what ground are you willing to throw away your life in pursuit of something that at this point is only a belief and has no grounds in reality? It is faith again.

4. I have yet to hear a rational reason that God does not exist. If someone tells me they are an agnostic I can respect that honesty but if someone says they are an atheist and *knows* there is no God I know he is a fool. I think it was an argument of Descarte that if someone says there is no God they are really saying they are God themselves. Who but God can claim to have properly analyzed all knowledge (omniscience) and have come to a conclusion of any kind?

I have to disagree with both you & Descartes ( if he did say that). Please refer to my example of Santa above. I am sure you will agree that people who deny the existence of Santa or talking dolphins are not fools nor are they all dishonest. The same logic applies to God. Only God being able to claim "proper analysis", is an incorrect argument against an atheist as there is no God and therefore the ultimate analysis can only be by man.

5. Yes there are many fake stories. But don't you view the sun hanging in the sky as a daily miracle? If not you must have extraordinarily high standards on what makes a miracle.

By your definition, all events are miracles, causing the word to lose it's significance. A virgin giving birth is a miracle, but a woman giving birth by the regular process is not a miracle. It then becomes clear that miracles -- as I define them -- are not real. Even if I were to see someone create an apple out of thin air, I would not be satisfied until I can test the event to my satisfaction as such an event would seriously violate simple laws of physics.

6. You do not even know who you are so why have faith in your ability to evaluate and place your trust in the proper source? Something may indeed be true but we fail to recognize it. You say not to have faith in God yet you have faith in your own tiny conditoned mind? The theist says you have misplaced your faith. And *that* logic is more convincing than the so-called logic of the atheist.

Only a demented person or one with amnesia will not know who he/she is All normal & sane people know who they are. I do not consider my mind tiny as Homo Sapiens, till date, has had the best brains ever and based on my own experience, my brain is at least average-sized. You pre-assume the existence of a creator and then say the human brain is tiny, which is faith once again. I fail to see any logic here. It is similar to the child who has faith in Santa and believes that Santa has more toys than Toys-r-us.

Incidentally, you have faith in your tiny mind too. It is your tiny mind you are using all the time to learn and make choices. How can you have less faith in your mind than something (God) that you learnt about using your mind?

It should be clear to you that you have accepted the existence of a God as an article of faith and then you say anyone who does not think on your lines are foolish & illogical. I do not have a problem with that. The point I am making is the "foolish" atheist has his reasons for being foolish and is certainly not wanting in reasons to justify his position, foolish as it may be, which goes against your original claim that atheists have no reasons.

Cheers

shvu · May 9, 2005

I have no idea what the 6th dimension is. I will have to read about it, when I find time.

Cheers

May 9, 2005

"Since you accept that at our present level there exists the possiblity that the Guru may ultimately turn out to be a dud, on what ground are you willing to throw away your life in pursuit of something that at this point is only a belief and has no grounds in reality?"

USING YOUR LOGIC: So i pray to God for just ONE minute at the end of each day. That's 1 minute in every 24 hours of my whole life - not that much you might say if God doesn't exist. If he does exist howvever at least i am dedictaing that 1 minute - it is YOU who is throwing away your ENTIRE life.

Gauracandra · May 9, 2005

Shvu,

Right now you operate in 4 dimensions (3 spatial + time). I think you are trying to side step the question as I can’t believe an educated man hasn’t at least heard of other dimensions (its been speculated about since the 19th Century). Anyways, below I’ve copied an article that should help get you up to date on this theory. After reading it, I’d be curious about your answer. Do you believe there is a 5th, 6th, 7th, or Nth dimension (the number is not particularly important to me)? Yes, No, Maybe. Here is a quick blurb from the complete article:

“The reason: We can't see anything outside our brane, because light can't escape or enter it. We can't hear anything outside, because sound travels through matter, and matter is stuck to our brane. We can't use radioactivity to sense what's beyond, or even break through with nuclear bombs, because nuclear forces are also firmly nailed to our brane. There could be a big blue elephant sitting not a millimeter away in another dimension, but we wouldn't know it's there because everything we use to "see" is stuck to our brane.”

A New Slice on Physics

Is the world we see trapped on a thin membrane separating us from vast other realms? Some scientists say that would explain a lot.

Plato considered it first.

What if everything we hold dear is but a thin slice of some larger, unreachable reality, like a flickering shadow cast on the craggy wall of a cave? What if the moon and stars, your home, your thoughts, your cat, are but projections on this wall -- mere suggestions of unfathomable realms beyond?

In the last few years, a mathematically rigorous version of Plato's 2,000-year-old thought experiment has been refashioning the way physicists think about everything from subatomic particles to the Big Bang. The universe we see, according to this scenario, is stuck on a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, wiggle, connect and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions. Physicists call this new frontier the "brane world."

The idea could help solve a long list of outstanding mysteries. Among them: What is the "dark matter" that seems to make up 90% of the universe? And why is gravity trillions of times weaker than electromagnetism?

The revolution was set off in the mid-1990s when UC Santa Barbara physicist Joe Polchinski determined through mathematics that branes were a surface to which things attach, like hair to skin -- except the "things" in this case were the minuscule "strings" that may well be the fundamental ingredients of the universe.

"I was just fiddling around with mathematics.... Within a week or two [other physicists] had done things with it I hadn't envisioned. It was like taking the stopper out of the dam. Things poured through." Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, creator of the currently accepted version of the Big Bang, said recently he felt a little like Rip Van Winkle -- picking up his head from a long sleep only to notice that the landscape of physics he thought he knew had suddenly, drastically, changed.

Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, among others, envisions brane worlds bubbling up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes. He ends his latest book, "The Universe in a Nutshell," with a call to explore this "brane new world."

One might well wonder why such a seemingly bizarre concept has attracted so many well-established physicists. The short answer is: desperation.

The laws of nature that describe the large-scale universe to an astonishing degree of precision (Einstein's general relativity) are incompatible with the laws that describe the small-scale universe with the same astonishing exactness (quantum theory). This means either that one of these well-tested theories is wrong (all but inconceivable) or that there is some larger, more encompassing theory that somehow accommodates both.

To date, the only theory that comes close to marrying the two is "string theory" -- a mathematically elegant set of ideas that has swept the world of physics over the last few decades. According to string theory, the basic ingredients of the universe are not point-like particles, but tiny strings vibrating in 10-dimensional space. Although still untested, string theory has scored a spectacular series of theoretical successes, earning it an ever-widening circle of admirers.

And yet string theory remains a realm apart from day-to-day physics -- lovely to behold but innately aloof.

For one thing, the strings are so small that it would take a particle accelerator larger than the solar system to create the energies needed to "see" them. This means, in effect, that strings can never be detected.

For another, the complex mathematics required to deal with the tortured 10-dimensional landscape is beyond the reach of most physicists.

Brane models change all that: Unlike in string theory, the extra dimensions in brane worlds can be big, infinitely big. "It led to a whole new bunch of possibilities that could be experimentally tested," said physicist Jim Cline of McGill University in Montreal.

What's more, branes don't require the full range of mathematical tools required for string theory, opening the door to new groups of scientists. "You can use methods that are part and parcel of more traditional physics," said Columbia University physicist Brian Greene. "So a person who's not a string theorist can jump into the field and make contributions."

This sense of promise was palpable last summer at the Aspen Center for Physics, where string theorists and cosmologists -- the scientists who study the origin and structure of the universe -- gathered for a workshop to explore links between the smallest scales in the universe and the largest. Brane scenarios popped up everywhere, enveloped in the thick fog of uncertainty that clouds the birth of new worlds.

The setting was strangely church-like. The faithful sat in rows under spires of white-barked aspens, their round leaves fluttering in the wind.

In front, a maestro in sneakers tapped out symbols on a blackboard, chalk flying like fairy dust, black jeans covered in white handprints. There was lots of talk about the infinite. Lots of recitation and response. Everyone strained to channel some larger reality through equations.

"Your bulk could contain many 3-branes," one physicist said.

"The 9-branes could still annihilate."

"I'm lost."

This was not your grandmother's physics. There were no objects in the usual sense. No matter, no particles. Not even numbers. Only "instantons,alpha vacua" and multidimensional membranes wrapping around one another, traveling down throats of black holes and bouncing back, transformed.

Even to physicists, much of this seems unbearably strange. But in physics, strangeness comes with the territory. "When I first learned about quantum physics as an undergraduate, it just about destroyed my mind," said Stanford post-doctoral fellow Stephon Alexander. "And now, 12 years later, it's just a tool."

There's actually nothing particularly new about the idea that space may extend into unseen dimensions, or even that the world we know is somehow trapped on a membrane.

Extra dimensions were such a hot topic in the 19th century that Victorian schoolmaster Edwin Abbott wrote a famous science fiction novel, "Flatland," based on the notion that our limited perceptions prevented us from seeing worlds existing right in front of our three-dimensional noses. Albert Einstein made extra dimensions an integral part of physics when he used a fourth dimension, time, in his theory of relativity in 1905. Ten years later, he showed that this interwoven fabric of space-time could warp under the influence of massive objects -- "causing" the force we know as gravity.

Extra-dimensional membranes were kicking around in string theory since at least the mid-1980s, but no one took them very seriously. One of the first suggestions that the world we know might be stuck to such a membrane appeared in a 1985 paper that was a parody of string theory titled "The Super G-String" by V. Gates, et al., from the University of Cauliflower (actually, physicist Warren Siegel of State University of New York, Stony Brook). "It was based on a serious paper that was totally overlooked because it was before its time," Polchinski said.

The branes playing such a large role in physics today are richer and more mathematically rigorous than early versions.

Essentially, a brane is a discontinuity in space-time, a boundary where things meet, like the surface of a pond where the water meets the sky.

"It's a defect in the quantum fabric," said Ruth Gregory of the University of Durham in Britain. On one side of the defect would be the vacuum of empty space. A vacuum with somewhat different properties might exist on the other side.

Imagine our brane as pond scum -- a thin film that divides the air above from a deep (perhaps infinitely deep) body of water below. Most of what we experience is trapped in the scum. But beyond is a whole other world of currents swirling beneath the surface. Their motion might tug on our scum. We'd feel it as nothing but a gentle disturbance, never dreaming of what lurks below.

A brane doesn't always divide one thing from another. It may just be a condensation of stuff, "a localized lump of energy and curvature that likes to hang together," Stanford University physicist Steve Shenker said.

Either way, it's a place where things get stuck -- like the scum on the pond. "That was the revolution," said Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall. "To realize that branes were honest-to-goodness objects."

Randall played a pivotal role in the revolution when she and Johns Hopkins University physicist Raman Sundrum realized that branes could be infinitely large and yet remain invisible.

The reason: We can't see anything outside our brane, because light can't escape or enter it. We can't hear anything outside, because sound travels through matter, and matter is stuck to our brane. We can't use radioactivity to sense what's beyond, or even break through with nuclear bombs, because nuclear forces are also firmly nailed to our brane. There could be a big blue elephant sitting not a millimeter away in another dimension, but we wouldn't know it's there because everything we use to "see" is stuck to our brane.

Only gravity can't be glued to a particular brane. Gravity, as Einstein revealed, is the curving of space-time itself, so it wanders willy-nilly where it will, leaking off our brane into what physicists call "the bulk" -- the rest of space-time.

Brane scenarios offer an elegant explanation for why gravity is such a weakling: Maybe it's not any weaker than the other forces. Maybe it's just concentrated somewhere else in the bulk, or on another brane.

Explaining the wimpiness of gravity is but a taste of what this Brane New World might do.

Consider another embarrassing problem that has stumped astronomers for decades. At least 90% of the matter in the universe is AWOL. Or more precisely, it is known to exist because of its gravitational pull (without it, galaxies wouldn't hold together) but can't be detected by any other means. The standard approach has been to populate the universe with exotic new forms of matter, too elusive to be readily seen.

If our brane is but a small slice of a much larger cosmos, however, the "dark matter" might be nothing but ordinary matter trapped on another brane.

Such a shadow world, Hawking speculates, might contain "shadow human beings wondering about the mass that seems to be missing from their world."

Or take the mystery of why elementary particles always appear in triplets, each set heavier than the next.

One possibility is that each triplet is the same particle repeating itself on three layers of branes. They would have different masses on our brane for the same reason as shadows on a wall can be different sizes depending on the distance of the object that casts them.

"One of the neat things about the whole extra-dimensional idea," Polchinski said, "is that all the physics that we see -- all the kinds of particles and their detailed properties -- are reflections of some inner geometry."

As in real estate, value depends on location, location, location.

The physicists most entranced with brane worlds are cosmologists. Over the last decade, a new array of telescopes and satellites has provided them with sophisticated tools for taking the measure of the universe. What was once little more than navel gazing is fast becoming a data-drenched science.

But cosmologists need string theory to understand the origin of the universe, because laws of physics break down at the tiny distances and immense gravity at play in the Big Bang. For now, cosmologists can see back in time only so far, and no farther.

Consider the Big Bang. According to current theory, the universe sprang from an infinitely small speck of space-time known as a "singularity" -- a paradox in the accepted laws of physics, which hold that nothing can be infinitely small.

"A singularity is a euphemism for: 'Things have gone haywire.... Things make no sense,' " said Greene, one of the coordinators of the Aspen workshop. "The Big Bang singularity is an 'It doesn't make sense' on the most important problem -- namely, how did it all begin."

Branes can enclose the Big Bang singularity like a sheet of cellophane -- avoiding the problem of the infinitely small by giving the singularity some dimension.

Not surprisingly, the string-cosmology connection that brane worlds brought about is also producing something of a culture clash. Until recently, string theorists have remained skeptical of the grand theories of cosmologists. String theory is mathematically rigorous. Cosmologists are a wilder bunch, willing to try out almost any model of the universe and see where it leads.

"We know how branes work," said string theorist Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. "We know what are properties of branes, and what are not properties of branes. [Cosmologists] violate all the rules. Is this good or bad? I'm not sure. Because if they come up with something which violates the rules of string theory but does all sorts of other wonderful things, then maybe we in string theory will have a motivation to look into it."

Branes already have brought a whole new zoo of exotic species into the world of physics. There are skinny branes and fat branes; empty branes and full; active and still.

"A brane which is wiggling a lot would translate to a brane that has excitations on it, particles on it," said McGill's Cline. That would be a brane with atoms, forces, us. "But I could also have a cold brane," he said. "That would be like a cold, empty universe. The brane still has some energy density, but there's no particles living there."

And while the term brane derives from membrane -- a two-dimensional surface -- branes could also exist in every possible dimension. A string is a "1-brane," for one-dimensional object. Brane worlds (like the one we might live in) must by necessity be "3 plus 1" branes -- three dimensions of space plus one of time. But you can just as easily have a pair of 10-dimensional branes bounding an 11-dimensional universe.

For now, no one knows whether the building blocks of the ultimate theory will be strings or branes. "You can't really say," Polchinski said. "It's kind of Zen-like, but in a very precise way."

Ultimately, brane worlds will stand or fall, like all science, on the twin tests of consistency and experiment. Whatever bizarre brane worlds may exist in some larger dimensional landscape, they can't change what we perceive. The stars can't slip off into hyperspace. The cat can't be disturbed from the couch. Physics has to answer to nature as we know it.

Experimental evidence could come in the next decade from two very different realms. A new particle collider under construction in Europe could reach high-enough energies to produce, say, a five-dimensional "particle" of gravity -- a telltale sign of brane worlds beyond. This particle might be detected as energy missing from a collision because it "leaks" into an extra dimension.

At the same time, cosmologists are figuring out ways to read the signature of extra dimensions in the microwaves that pervade space as the afterglow of the Big Bang; the effects would be subtle but detectable, with a new generation of satellites.

"We just have to keep hoping that nature will be kind," Cline said.

In the end, there's always the chance that all these ideas will turn out to be too, well, off-the-wall. "Who knows?" said University of Chicago physicist Sean Carroll. But even if brane worlds aren't real, Carroll said, "they will have taught us a useful lesson that we should have known all along, which is that we don't have a clue to what's going on."

Polchinski, for one, believes that branes are probably real, even though he isn't sure where the idea will lead. "It's possible that nature doesn't work that way," he said. "But it's so rich with possibilities, if it's not good for this, it's probably good for something else."

theist · May 9, 2005

At this point , I would like to remind you & myself that the reason we are having this discussion is your opinion that atheists lack reasons for not believing in God. My argument is that it is the other way around. Even if atheists offer no reasons for their position that is fine, as the believer needs to supply reasons to support his belief, not the non-believer.

Wrong. It is the agnostic that needs offer no proof because he is not positively stating a position. The atheist is stating what he considers to be a reasoned conclusion. So either be honest and admit you are a agnostic or prove your atheist position. In which case I refer you to the example from Descarte above which you apparently did not follow.

Of course the bluffing atheist while claiming to have analyzed all knowledge and having come to the "proper" conclusion that there is no God would like to claim he need not offer any of that proof to back up his outlandish claims. Such bluffing cheating nonsense. It is laughable. Atheists can remain such as far as I care. They will never accept the proof I or any theist would offer as they are attached to another vision and it is Krsna Himself from within their heart that is allowing them to maintain that vision.

I have made my statements above and so the matter rests for me.

I do find it interesting that for someone who doesn't believe in God you sure like to talk about Him alot. That is a good thing. So please continue.

May 9, 2005

Theist,

If you did not understand my analogy of Santa, then you will not understand my position. Anyway, I think I have made my case clear (to my satisfaction at least) & do not have anything new to add.

Gauracandra,

Unbelievable as it may sound to you, it is true that I had no idea of the 6th dimension till now. I have a German colleague who spent several years at the university studying physics. I will have a chat with him on this topic and try to understand it better before I form an opinion on it.

Cheers

Gauracandra · May 10, 2005

Fair enough.

I have often found brief moments in my life where the world appeared rather strange. I couldn’t quite place my finger on it. There was something eerie, something uncanny about everything. Was a tree just a tree? The closest I could describe it is that at times it felt like I was moving through a three dimensional painting. There was something a bit odd. These moments would come in a flash and leave. I think this is something most people experience at some point in their life. Something doesn’t quite feel right about the world. Something is being masked, something isn’t apparent. Primitive people sensed this but couldn’t quite place it either. They attributed it to nature and worshipped trees, mountains etc…. As they developed culturally, that same uncanniness existed in the form of daemonic dread (fear of ghosts, daemons). In time it became more and more refined as the “awefulness” of God (think Arjuna seeing the universal form if you wonder what I mean by aweful).

What all religions (certainly the major ones) have all suggested from the beginning is that this feeling is correct. There is indeed more than meets the eye. There is what we see and then there is something else, what we sense but can’t quite adequately describe. Why can’t we describe it?

I watched a program on String Theory and Brane theory on NOVA (PBS – public television) a few months back. It was fascinating, not because it confirmed my specific religious allegiance, but because it showed how truly strange the world might be. There could be layers of reality all around us. Multiple dimensions, parallel universes etc… As the article above points out there might be a big blue elephant a millimeter away from me right now, and I couldn’t see it.

In this sense, science has caught up with religion – is there something we can’t see all around us. Is there another world beyond our sense perception. Are there other stories being told on higher levels of reality? It can’t be proved. In a sense it would be a matter of faith. Even the best physicists who theorize about this, the most they can give us would be volumes of formulas they would insist “prove” an unseen reality.

If all we do is look at the world as it is then all is fine. But the deeper we go, the more bizarre the world becomes. The world becomes inexplicable.

Now for a moment imagine if we could enter a higher dimension. Imagine as a 4 dimensional being, we entered the 7th dimension. What would we see? Truthfully I have no idea. Even the physicists who theorize about this can’t tell you what is in there. But I suspect I know what I would feel. I’m guessing I would be dumbstruck and incapable of describing what I was seeing. I would be in awe. I would have to invent a whole new vocabulary simply because something 7 dimensional has no descriptive reference point for a person who lives as we do in 4 dimensions. I think it would be beyond words. Think of how difficult it is to say “Describe the color green.” We’ve all seen green and yet it is difficult to describe it unless we reference something else we know about. Now try doing this with realms that we have no point of reference. Again, I think this must have been what Arjuna would feel encountering the universal form of the Lord. How do you describe something beyond anything you’ve ever seen?

Can there be higher realities we can’t see? And if we acknowledge this, can there not then be potentially a highest reality above all the others? I think these are a few things to consider.

krsna · May 10, 2005

RELATIVE WORLDS

by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada

Chapter One

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE

My Friends,

With profound respect I come to offer a few words on Relativity and Absolute, which may prove to be conflicting with each other at first sight. But the harmony wanted by both of them should be secured to reach the unique position of the Truth Who has no deviation. The negative idea of our present day experience, through inadequate senses on the temporal plane, does not include the full description of the Absolute Truth, in Whom some other phases cannot have lien to co-share. The synthetic method need not be confused with the analytic process; neither the darkness should be accepted as light to explain our observing stand.

The activities of our present senses over phenomenal representations have impressed us with a particular designation which should in no case be abscribed to the manifested region of Absolute, where our deformed senses and their objects should not be thrust with equal vehemence as we are apt to apply in our present sphere.The transcendental specification does not submit to any limited sense of an enjoyer, but the cogent energy of the transcendence always exhibits a supernatural predominating and justifying aspect, to regulate the shortsighted views entertained in the temporal region. A close attention will, I am sure, convince every recipient if he is amenable to see things from different positions; so I take the liberty of asking everybody not to submit to the current views of many bearing an enjoying mood. A real enquiry, with submission for utilising the same, will ensure the safety of Truth. In cases of non-absolute subjects, an opposing party can have full claim to contradict or challenge, whereas in the Absolute no such second part is possible.

Among the considerate who were watching the career of the Supreme Lord Shri Krishna Chaitanya, on His return to Nadia from Gaya, the people of Shri Mayapur noticed His marked deviation from the former character of the Lord. They observed Him to discourage the impersonalism of the ascetic Prakashananda, who was alleged to have been inculcating an unassorted epistemology which went to show the dragging of the conception of the Absolute to a region devoid of manifestive sentiency. So the Supreme Lord compared the ascetic's ways and methods to those of a villain wanting to sever asunder the all-charming eternal limbs of the Personality of Godhead.

The discouraging tone and positive nullification of the theory of the ascetic from the lips of the Fountainhead of the theistic thesaurus, brought a revolutionary effect on the pedantic mentality of the members of the then centre of learning. These discouraging remarks of the Supreme Lord caused them to hold a poorer conception of the Lord, Whom they found to have been belittling the mental acme of pedantic insinuation. The pedagogic function of Lord Vishvambhar was changed into that of a platform speaker, as the World Teacher closely demonstrating His instructions in practice. This simple and illustrated version gave a clear understanding to those who had a scope of honest reading of the Absolute Eternal Blissful Knowledge. They understood that it was a part and parcel of blasphemy to do away with the different parts of the Transcendental Structural Entity of the Fountainhead, Who is instrumental, ablative and locative of all Immanence, Transcendence and phenomena.

The disclaiming of the Spiritual Aspect of the Absolute had done a great mischief in the cosmological enterprise of tracing the genesis of phenomenal existence. The sensuous speculation of the phenomena made them confident of their advancement in the search of knowledge in their alleged thesaurus. The impersonalists have found facilities to explain by a suicidal commission the amalgamating of the three manifestive positions. The relativity observed among sentient and insentient phenomenal things shows qualitative difference among them; whereas among the sentients the distinctions are traced by the rhetoricians in five different connections. The esoteric interpretations of sentiency are more or less associated with the insentient, as their conceptions are drawn from the mundane concrete. So they cannot be strictly relied upon as being free from the contamination of a foreign opposite element. The quantitative as well as qualitative features have participated a good deal in the discourse on relativity of knowledge.

The Supreme Lord, during His association with the members of theistic society, planned an idea of proceeding to the den of impersonalists at Benares, where He could meet all who had proselytised themselves as subscribing to the erroneous views insisted by Prakashananda, at that time the head of the so-called monistic community. In order to do so, He also thought that He should pose as an ascetic of their order, who could influence the members of that pedantic society, despite their hollow arrogance.

The fourth order of life was considered as the civic guardian of society. The Lord wanted to show Himself as an ascetic to attract the attention of all, instead of being received as one of them or less, in their comparative vision. Though the Supreme Lord underwent the different stages of life, He exhibited the highest position of the fourth order, by not adhering to the rigorous regulations and privations, and by not abstaining from dancing, singing and playing with musical instruments, which are essential relativities of the transcendence.

Chapter Two

PERPLEXING QUESTIONS

In all the manifestive stages, distinction and difference have the upper hand in distinguishing from the rest and differentiating from the unique conception of the Integer. In other words, the quantitative and qualitative relations are established where there is a converging reference of all the diverse courses. In the theme of relation we find the necessity of numerical difference, as well as the distinctive features, when the conception of the Integer Whole is held prominent. In both cases relation is the essential factor which can never be avoided by a knower in his activities on other two planes.

The word 'difference' is taken up in our synthetical view of qualities, and the word 'distinction' in the analytical view of tabula rasa. If we require to get rid of examining the distinctive and differentiative view of a particular subject we can get rid of the relativity of knowledge. The three distinctive locations are ignored to dismiss the idea of space; and differentiative mood, when neglected, would drive out the factor of time in the Entity, as differentiation presupposes the relativity of time. The synthetic method, adopted to eliminate the relativity or to remain indolent to view the perspective Absolute, may, to some angle of vision, appear to he successful, and it will hover afterwards to fix its position in indistinctive or undifferentiated monism. These perplexing questions were asked of the Supreme Lord Shri Krishna Chaitanya at Benares by one of the retired principal ministers of the King of Bengal.

When there was a quest to know the true position of relativity, the renunciating attitude of the monist was exposed by the instructive reply of the Unlimited Thesaurus. The delineation by Full Knowledge of the scope of non co-operation with mundane relativity, gave us the occasion to survey the true manifestive plane of transcendence, apart from the impression of degraded mundane sty, though the indolent mentality posed its stuporous standpoint of getting rid of relative Blissful Knowledge.

There is a qualitative relational difference between the transcendence and phenomena, so relativity cannot be ignored. If such temper is maintained of establishing the undifferenced and non-distinctive Unit, the rationalist school would not set much value to their posit. The undesirable imperfection observed in the temporal relativity of Nature should not be carried to an unknown region where there is no such anthropomorphic, ephemeral, defective welcoming. The weight of such measuring temperament, and to ascribe the same shortcomings in the transcendence, would prove too heavy to be carried by the feeble porter with mundane relative reasons. Moreover, there is no warranty of exact dovetailing in the Transcendental Vacuum.

Our imperfect knowledge is now captivated within the mundane horizon, and we earnestly crave a release trom the prison-walls of unwholesome relativity. That experience will necessarily lead us to conclude the desirability of non-cooperation with finitudinal relativity. But when infinite relativity is talked of, we should not ascribe any defects of finitudinal reference as per our experience here. To curtail the extension of mundane relativity we may proceed to Immanence by minimising our sensuous activities, which are the measuring instruments to dispel our ignorance, by removing the opaque barrier. If we trace out the cause of renouncing mundane relativity, we will prefer non-relative hallucination to give us the facility of vanishing such function. The measuring instruments or, in other words, senses, require to be stopped artificially to remove our inspection of temporal or phenomenal existence. But this would not preclude us to remove the Transcendental irremovable Elernal Existence from our inspection.

The Supreme Lord did not confirm the impersonal phase of the Fountainhead of Nature and Eternal Supernature, but targetted a long track which we should adopt in our sojourn in this temporal world, as well as in proceeding to the Transcendence. He did not prescribe the short-sighted policy of non-cooperation with perishable limited things of this world, but instructed to utilise them in the proper direction to get our desired end.

Our reliance on petty reasonings of mundane relativity would show a stuporous temperament to receive the Transcendental Truth unexplored hitherto by our defective aural reception but a lucky moment would give us an accidental opportunity for paying a little more attention to the remedy volunteered to serve as the greatest relishing sauce for a thirsty soul.

Too much attachment for any limited thing will deny us the facility of extensional gains, though the policy of concentration is talked of very highly for our amelioration. Too much affinity for a thing has produced marvellous results in a research scholar, whose object is to bring out hidden knowledge inherent in the outward object. The question of time has set up the function of acquired durability, thereby resembling the existence of an ephemera. As the research scholar, or the lover of a transitory object, is observed to be shifted elsewhere from the object of his quest, and as the object has a temporary existence with the susceptibility of transformation, such exertions are meant to be analagous to time-serving exploits.

The question of inadequacy, and the quantity of exuberance, will also prove the nondesirability of such temporary fruitive acts. In the emporium of phenomena, our senses are found to engage themselves with all earnestness. When the senses are gratified from the ample service of their need, the satiative sequel does not later on suit their purpose.

The problem comes to be solved, "Where to keep those objects of the senses if we require any relief from their exploiting invasions? Are we to stop the actuating of our senses, or destroy the objects of our senses by devising some means?"

ChapterThree

THE ANSWERS REVEALED

The enjoyer of the objects, as well as the enjoyed objects, are both situated in a tentative position of time. As the provisional existence and activities are captivated in a part of time, these discrepancies should be redressed to have a proper solution of these puzzling questions. We deal with shaky non-absolute things. So we should have an inner desire to know the direction of the Absolute. We have had an irrepressible function of handling the phenomena by our senses, and also the objects of manipulation of the senses are found to be transformable. Because we are compelled to select our position at a place where there is no trouble, we therefore seek for deserting ourselves from all limited platforms.

Association with the phenomenal objects has given vent to disruption, so dissociation is picked up as a remedy. How to handle this function should be the next question. By dissociation we mean to get rid of the relativity of knowledge - to sacrifice our cognitive principle, as is inculcated by a certain school. Maximisation of knowledge might swallow up the two different positions of observed and observer, and will proselytise to singular observation. In that case the uninterrupted knowledge cannot fly rationally without the two wings of Eternity and Bliss, although this seems to be secured by laboured dissociation of manifestation.

When we ascertain that non-cooperation will give us what we have sought, do we mean to make ourselves abstain from all necessities of life, in order to gain perfect dissociation from the imperfected objects? The answer will be 'no'. We need not put a stop to receiving the necessities of life, but we accept those functional activities necessary for our definite purpose. We will welcome the manifestive aspect and finite inadequate things to serve as ingredients facilitating the Eternal Blissful Knowledge, without any reference to our dislocated enjoying mood. If they form to be of any use to the Absolute, the temporal and faulty phases are indirectly removed from the conception of such things. So we need not have any apprehension as to their unsuitability and will discern the immaculated aspect of those things, which otherwise prove snares to us if they are monopolised for our impure purpose.

The insipid situation of an impersonal conception need not predominate over us as a settled fact. At the removal of our enjoying aspiration in Connection with our temporal entities, we would naturally associate such things as elements incorporated with the Absolute.

Then comes the question, "What are the salient features of the Absolute and what should be the nomenclature of the Absolute?" The Absolute is evidently to welcome all sorts of manifestive nature, instead of lurking Himself as the unknown in a region beyond our sensuous scope. Our sensuos activities are hitherto confined in non-absolute, and when we care most for the immutable situation of the Absolute, no mutability should dissuade us from our targetted object. If we can clear our position from serving transformable objects, and when we have only singular motive of serving the immutable Absolute, we must trace the connection of all manifestive things with Him. This will give us the much coveted situation of continuing our living adivities in His service in this world too, without an undesirable attitude of enjoying the same.

The burden of enjoyment is now shifted to the Absolute, and we, being His irregular subservients, help Him in serving by these ingredients, which are His imperishables, though they were acknowledged by us to have been meant for our use. So the greatest facility is accorded by our serving temper, in place of our wrong enjoying mood which proves fruitless in the long run.

Dissociation from undesirable things, when we have a view of the Eternal Blissfull Knowledge, will be exactly dovetailed if we can trace out their connection with the Absolute, having no bearing of co-sharing with them, but simply to welcome them with a consideration that they have only Eternal association.

We meet men who cherish the view of dissociating themselves from all manifestive features of phenomena in their would-be emancipation, and who want to deprive them of their utility in order to gain the full scope of impersonation. They are found to non-cooperate with the earthly phenomena under the apprehension of having been entangled with such association. As they have no knowledge of their self, or have misguided conception of self - like a cow mistaking under an old apprehension the red clouds as flames of burning fire - they want to flee from the very nature of the transitory perspective aspects of the phenomena.

A failure of true detection compels them to exhibit their diffidence of accepting the wholesale manifestive nature of even the Transcendence. They want to carry their defective impression to the Transcendence, considering the Transcendental Region to be identical with the prison of mundane phenomena. So it should be a matter of grave consideration whether to show our back to all aspects, by turning ourselves to follow the undifferenced monistic phase of the Absolute.

The view of the Transcendental subjectivity in our present activity is more or less misunderstood. So to get relief from such erroneous impression we must not neglect to utilise everything, as far as possible, for the service of the Absolute; and must not participate in the views of miscarried decision of the impersonalists. If we do not do so, we will class ourselves among the imprudent.

Four years after His meeting with Raya Ramananda, in the early part of 1516, the Supreme Lord as an ascetic met Sanatana Goswami for the second time. The latter asked his Master to enlighten him regarding his own self and the threefold troubles he has to meet during his journey of life. The Lord taught him that human souls are eternal karsnas: they have originated from the borderland energy of Absolute, Shri Krishna, with the neighbouring dominions of phenomena and transcendence on two sides.

The subservient souls, being simultaneously associated with and dissociated from the Absolute, are themselves no positive substratum, but merely distinguished from the Absolute by their quantitative designation of energy. Forgetful of their true situation, they are susceptible to isolate themselves by enwrapping with foreign quality from the Absolute, whereas they have the same quality as the Absolute, with a magnitudinal variegated position.

This very Transcendental Absolute Truth has disclosed the two-fold aspects of relativity, reigning in the temporal mundane sphere, as well as in the Transcendental Eternal Plane. So the question of relativity is to be treated in these two aspects independently, without subscribing to opinions of impersonalists who have no other treasure to explain away the phenomena in derogatory situation.

On the western banks of the Ganges, close to the Panchanada Bathing Ghat, the retired administrative authority welcomed the Transcendental description of Full Knowledge, Who was never confined to the empirical activities of the learned renunciators, including Prakashananda Saraswati, who was inculcating avoidance of mundane relativity of knowledge. His high-sounding pedantic feats were properly cowed down by the Master, Who posed to be a member of the impersonalistic school. The band of impersonalists, who were known to have gained the civic guardianship of India from time immemorial, got the true impression of the Ever-Immutable Undeviated Relative Knowledge.

Sanatana showed himself as if busy with philosophic discourses by his external activities, and was posing in securing knowledge by participating in the views of empiricists. Not only did he exhibit the opportunity of audiencing the Transcendental Narratives of the different manifestations of the Transcendence Himself, but the positive view can also be secured by all honest followers of that great sage who will show a sincere aptitude to be associated by following Absolute delineations.

Chapter Four

MUNDANE RELATIVITIES

Here, friends, I shall consider mundane relativities. Words are different sounds to indicate different impressions of things and they have qualitative value to prove their entity. When there is a singular significance and no variation, the language would determine the particular conception by the word 'Absolute', Who has differentiating aspects from relations which carry a deviated idea of the Absolute.

When numerals form to bring out differenced realisation, we are obliged to go astray from the Absolute. The very application of relation can only be possible when these different items are introduced. Relation is the connection between two or more objects, whereas there is no lien of introduction of relation of One Integer. Relation is comparative value; but in the case of the Absolute, the varieties of the objects are not traceable. The relation between the two or more has two aspects: they have either harmonious position among them or are at loggerheads with one another.

The scrutiniser has the function of determination; but in the case where there is no observer the different numerals have no occasion to establish their existence, though they may have a subjectivity of their own. It depends on the predilection of the observer to decide whether the tie of observation between the sight and the seer is acceptable or renunciable. Only as a third person are relations between two other seeable objects traced. Sometimes relations are not truly conceived by the observer through his differenced senses from the particular species of community. When the majority of the members differ from the particular view of one of them, they brand such affairs as an outcome of vitiation and error. At this time we observe the different predilective moods of different observers. This has given rise to contending solutions of relative observations. In order to pacify these conflicting conceptions we adopt insipid exploitations for the purpose. Elimination of different attributional conceptions sometimes compels us to resort to the substratum where no relation is wanted to delineate the particular positions of differentiated objects.

We have heard of different potencies that enlighten our conception of differentiating things. If we require to eliminate the potential quality of a particular thing, we make inert all the objects where there is no occasion of determining the relation between them. We cannot conceive an object without its colour, attributes and functions. So the qualities are the significant elements to see the relativity between the objects. The observer has got a power innate in him to pose himself as an observer, owner or possessor of such functions. This sort of owning or temporarily possessing can have a pacified position which may cease in the worker if he is enforced as stuporous.

The mind is the conductor of the senses. The senses get their field of work in limited objects of phenomena. Our stock of physiological knowledge has not yet furnished us the location of a physical entity of the mind which acts upon the senses. The mind has been considered as the telegraphic centre of one's senses; so the senses are analysed to have a material bearing, they will seek their material community as their relatives.

All informations received through the senses are drawn from matter or motion through such stuffs. We cannot avoid the subtle impressions of figured objects which are made up of matter. So, in our attempts to secure knowledge a contamination of grossness or subtlety of phenomena is inevitable. The knowledge of limited things, as picked up by our senses, should bear along the impression of relativity with other things. So empirical knowledge should have no propriety to pose as unalloyed impression of the non-shaky Object.

The indolent mentality often encourages us not to meddle with perishable positions of different objects, but to keep ourselves quite free from such associations. Our senses are often found to welcome things according to their own predilection, and such taste is imbibed by the association of their nearer friends. As we are endowed with the head of senses with all paraphernalia, we have no other alternative but to stick to the relatives of the knowledge of the world, though we might have a promising prospect before us to reach the Absolute. Mental speculation will give us the facility of deciding that the cessation of mental work, with the dismissal of the phenomena, may facilitate a suicidal commission, and that the final goal should be discerned as the Absolute, without any tinge of relativity experienced through the senses.

The relations of this world can be ascertained by multifarious mediums which are reciprocal securities in the laboratory of inspection. Our ocular activity would take the help between our previous and present convictions, size, colour, distance; the difference between our previous convictions and present presentiment; comparative varieties, taste, etc. Those will serve as ingredients facilitating to trace out the relative merits of our seeable objects. The ear will determine the magnitude of vibrations of sonorous or harsh, discordant, gradation of sounds. The nose has similar activity of receiving odours and stenches and different degrees of scents. Similarly the tongue serves to vocalise sounds and have different tastes of pungent, saline, astringent, bitter, sour and sweet articles of food. The skin feels different degrees of heat, catches infection, invigorates physique and serves many purposes. The worldly relativity creates pain as well as pleasures in sentient beings.

The relations between the two or more things show a compatibility with each other, or one another, and in some cases they are incompatible. The relation between the observed and observer proves to be inharmonious or exactly in conformity - which is, in other words, known as serving the predilection of the observer by such association.

In the atmosphere of measurement, both quality and quantity are inevitable factors. They also prove their efficacy in distinguishing and differentiating the very conception of relations. The observer's association with the observed produces a condition of taste which is enjoyed by the observer and observed in the case when they are sentient beings. A peace-loving solution of the different disruptive situations will necessarily eliminate the factors of Time and Space, and Entity. This will simply annihilate the temporal relativity of the mundane sphere. So, the question of selection or rejection ceases when annihilation is effected, and this could necessarily reconcile the unpleasant sensation of relativity. This is in short, dear friends, the position of earthly relativity.

Chapter Five

TRANSCENDENTAL RELATIVITIES

We now proceed to say a few words on transcendental relativity. Hitherto we were noticing the question of relativity in phenomena, which has the intermediate position between Immanence and Transcendence. The usual tendency of rubbing out the relativity in the Immanence or in the Transcendence is observed to gain the supremacy in the two positions. The Immanence and the Transcendence would have no manifestation which is considered as the conspicuous feature of an insensate observer. The imperfect manifestive world does not want to supplement the inadequacy by the extension of appropriate relativity.

The phenomenal observation has decided to eliminate the relativity, on the basis of imperfection, in the two wings of Immanence and Transcendence. The solution of the extension and unusual curtailing tend to verge on relativity, which should be no factor in the conception of different situation from phenomena. So transcendental relativity is quite unintelligible at the very outset, but we are out to deal with the same. Is transcendental relativity irreconcilable by the apparent contradiction, or can these two have harmonious affinity?

The Absolute craves for a singular situation where no relation could find place in our mundane reason. We need not be disturbing the Absolute by accompanying anthropomorphic suggestions when we talk of the Absolute, Who is quite different from the views entertained by mundane relativity. In the mundane sphere we are the judge to accept a particular view, though we are sometimes forced to change our views by unexpected revelation of hidden Truths.

Our analytic exertion may give us some hope of entering into the particular details of the Absolute by the synthetical method. The synthetic method has been observed to suit best in the inspection of phenomena. But in the Absolute no synthetic method can work out its way, as the word 'Absolute' has monopolised as an autocrat not to allow any plurality which would have a conflicting situation. However, the Absolute may show us some delineative manifestations which will permit analysis of the Absolute.

Why should we deprive the Absolute of His eternal manifestation by our approaching? The rationalist would shudder at the very thought of an Inspector of the Absolute. He will then pass a quarantine to the observer when the Absolute becomes a part of the whole which is going to locate the three distinctive positions, as are often found in the phenomena. The objector will not allow us to transcend the phenomena, keeping his existence which, in his view, is one of the components of phenomenal existence.

Our present conception is so concretised with perishable materials that we cannot differentiate the Absolute from mundane pieces of perishable matters. The Absolute, in our present view, cannot have manifested entities, and we are prone to confuse the interpretation of the Absolute with non-absolute to the elimination of plurality. The plural phases of Absolute should not have any reference to mundane manifestation, except by a resemblance of the seeming features we observe through our senses. The Absolute entities should never be identified with the mundane transformable enjoying position through our errable senses; but entities who only have engagement with the Absolute are inerrable, even in this mundane world, having connection with the Absolute.

Though the seeming conceptions have similarity, both in mundane and transcendental worlds, still they have a distinctive reference of the question of temporal and eternity. All mundane conceptions have a differentiative aspect between the exoteric and esoteric comprehension of the thing; the factor of Immanence is involved. In the Absolute there cannot be any trace of this bifurcate position. The Immanence and the phenomenal conceptions are identical in the Absolute, though possessing different phases and different units, peacefully conglomerated without any disruptive situation of the mundane atmosphere.

The unspeakable extension of the Transcendence, though observed in the phenomenal view to have stopped all sorts of variegated positions, still maintains a resemblance of manifestive nature, and this Transcendence has analogous relation, just as phenomena to Immanence. The seeming feature which is considered as exoteric inspection of phenomena becomes a subconscious element of things; whereas, Transcendence has the full conscientious eternal conception by a spark of Absolute, an unconditioned soul, who is free from the phenomenal clutch.

The factors of matter and spans of time serve as infinitessimally small esoteric reference when we speak of the full-fledged Eternal Transcendence. The Transcendence has scaled up this time from the cubical expansion to the entities of higher dimensions. Persons who are inured to talk much of matter and entangled with the physical liabilities may, by their limited conception, impede their course of investigation, and would naturally tell us that such a view of Transcendence has come out from the factory of phenomena in enjoying mood. But we would not encourage them to be so audacious as to exercise their crippled senses for decisions of viewing higher things.

The certitudinal gnostics may rely on their mundane senses like the agnostics, and would like to exploit all healthy eternal feelings associated with the Absolute Harmony. The working of these two entities has played agreeable and disagreeable parts in the present land of transformation; but in the Transcendence there is no question of disagreement between the eternal entities, who have no susceptibility of being inharmonious to one another, and so the transcendental plane has got an Absolute value which cannot admit the deformities of an anthropomorphist.

There is no occasion of a black and undesirable sight as we can prefer the admissibility of a challenge. No foreign hallucinative ideas could be ushered into the manifestive phases of the Absolute. Our present senses require regulation by the transcendental association which will give real value of the Absolute instead of a contradictory value from the deformed perishable relativities.

The question comes then that the impediments of opaque quality of vision, of the inaudible sounds of our aural reception, of the insipidious tastes, or unpleasant smells, and of the defective dermal conception of external things, can have no trace in the Transcendental Absolute. He has a distinctive character of transparence, continued auricular reception, exceptionally fine inebriating fragrance, tasteful dishes for ingressing purposes without any defects of egressive easements. He has soothing without burning sensation or any sort of unpleasantness of any mundane sense, but has senses that are made up of Transcendental Absolute. So, there in Transcendence, all sorts of incongruent phases are continually crammed in whenever such entrance is pressed through the mouthpiece of gnostic exertions.

The nature of phenomena has a similar nature of Transcendence, save in the eclipsed view of the Eternal Manifestive Blissful Emporium of extended gnosticism. The impoverished phase of the excellent aesthetic culture cannot have a comparison with the Transcendental Sublime Beauty of the Acme of the Absolute. But the most welcoming different values of the reciprocity of our transcendental senses cannot come to our mundane situation.

Our mundane empiricist would consider to break his limbs in his long jump to the Transcendence, but he can have such a long jump only if the Transcendental Agent injects him with the super-excellent, cogent, nonshaky qualities of comprehending the entities of higher dimension, which are above all worldly material range. There we find inconceivable majesty, cogent potency, acme of prestige, fame and honour, beauty; allsided prudence and dissociative faculty from perishable existence are concentrated in the Absolute with a Manifestive Nature devoid of undesirable sensual experience. This super-beautiful gnosticism will be found identical with the Transcendental Love, and the Absolute Entity should have the unalloyed Eternal Blissful Existence of Pure Knowledge, Who can accommodate all undesirable conflicting situations in the most coveted Eternal Harmony.

No negative situation of the Transcendental Absolute, possessing all eclectic features, can be entertained in the Transcendence. The relativities of the sentient world have a very strong footing in the Transcendence, besides an eternal treasure house from which mundane eclecticism could emanate and stand.

No pneumatologic exertion can give us relief from the association of enjoyable things, which in their turn trouble us in our present sensorial play. But this has shown a similar feature of the Manifestive Absolute, though in a crippled form. Our rhetoricians intercede at this stage to reconciliate more or less the conflicting nature of the two manifested planes. The relations here tend to bring in transitory love, but whenever any undesirable feeling disturbs us, we hasten to resort to an immaculated position. The innate impulse in us always seeks for a desirability, and when this taste is troubled we are found to hallucinate for an insipid situation, checking all the manifestive phases.

Chapter Six

SERVICE TO THE ABSOLUTE

In the Absolute we cannot have any undesirability, owing to the defective existence of varieties. The predominating aspect is to enjoy from the objects under his jurisdiction. In the mundane world we have endless numbers of entities known as predominating aspects to suit the purpose of endless numbers of such predominated aspects. This relationship, both in the relative manifestation as well as in the Absolute manifestation, has resemblance to enable us to trace the original position in the Absolute where Knower, Knowledge and Known are not to transform, neither to shift, their position by some other outward agency.

Space and time, as well as individual activities, prove detriments, whereas we have not carried any such defective and undesirable nature to the Region of Transcendence by our anthropomorphic exploits. The dissimilar feature is only traced in the singular position of the predominating part of the Transcendental Manifestation, without any interruption of the different manifestive entities of the predominated aspect, except the rupturous position that emanates out of the conflicting situation among them.

The Absolute is the Consort of the Spouse. He is the Son of the subservients known as parents. He is the only object of friendship of all friendly entities. He is the Master of all the dependants and is the only manifestation of all neutrality. The Absolute exercises His prerogative influence over all the manifestations, who are but reciprocally emanated for His Pastimes. There is no occasion of any dissension that could create any disturbance not in conformity with the Absolute Volition. None of the entities could lurk from His visual range; none of the sonorous sound can keep itself away from His aural reception; no pleasant scent can resist His nasal enjoyment; no relishing feature could impede His tongue, and no heat or cold could claim to stand against Him, as our position has assured us of our subservient situation.

No monistic method can lead us to shake off our innate eternal service to the Absolute, if we can target our position as an infinitesimal part of the same. The ethnic method will never be justified in lapsing ourselves in the Absolute with a hallucinative cognition of identifying ourselves fully with the Absolute. Could we do so, we might not have been captivated by our senses. The suicidal commission of annihilating our differentive cognition, volition and emotion, would not relieve us from the realistic pangs, unless we are helped by the association of the manifested Absolute.

Inebriated with our sensual comforts we may swell like a frog, if we want to inflate by the pedantic exploits of our impoverished gnosticism. Our prudence will never be immaculated if we pose any phenomenal position. So the Supreme Lord has told us to minimise our selfish entity in this world, instead of maximising ourselves fruitlessly to become identical with the entire Absolute, which is never our own position. We are a transcendental, different, atomic phase of the Absolute, so we need not be masqueraded by worldly transitory garments of limited space, time and non-absolute individuality.

Our mental speculation has been found to discern the two positions of the planes where relativities could be fledged or checked. But when we speak of unvitiated knowledge, free from the mundane sensorial world, we need not carry this zoomorphic or anthropomorphic imprudence to manufacture things, instead of approaching the Eternal Manifestations. Mutilation or mutation may have some lien in the worldly phenomena, but there is no possibility of offering a jerk so as to shake the Absolute position of the Transcendence; hence we need not confuse mind with the soul. The soul is never disturbed by phenomenal invitation which has incremental or decremental associated value.

The Absolute reserves the right not to come under the jurisdiction of the sensual world. So the rigours of phenomenal experience would not be imposed in the eternal manifestation. The Hellenic and Hebraic dispositions should not occupy the transcendental atmosphere, as they are serviceable for our purposes here. In the Personality of the Absolute, mention of conflicting thoughts, which are the outcome of mental exploits, would not predominate over the Absolute, as was the case within our mental scope. Savants of different ages and different countries have formulated by their exploits many a scholastic view, to set right according to their whims the epistemological and cosmological question, which have very little value when realisation of the Absolute finds its play in unalloyed souls.

The Transcendental Pastimes of the Absolute with the human souls are eternally to clear their positions from the mundane atmosphere, and no amount of the temporal and local objective reference could stand as a check to regain the eternal functions of their senses. When mundane relativities are associated in the Transcendental Manifested Absolute, we get a very ugly figure, if we estimate from this level. Of course, all the secular branches of knowledge can have some propriety to help the devotees, but they cannot boast of their superior instructive chair above their recipients, who have got some other stuff, not exactly dovetailing the purpose of the enjoying mental exploitations. All secular branches of knowledge should have a serving mood to those who have the only aptitude for serving the Absolute. If these objects of the phenomenal museum are meant for the enjoying purpose of some angular vision, it would be quite useless to apply them for such undeserving, local, selfish interest.

The Supreme Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya, Who is known as the very Fountainhead of All Love, has chiselled all high and low conceptions of temporal things by His Eternal Transcendental Chisel, in order to have a loving eternal plane, free from all sorts of crutches and their irregular rationalistic exploitations; although exploitation possesses a notoriety and the rationale has some propriety to combat with his opponents by branding them to be less tactful. Still such ratiocination must have the common object of the Loving Absolute and not rupturous irregularities.

Chapter Seven

INCONCEIVABLE ONENESS AND DIFFERENCE

The intercession of the Supreme Lord Krishna Chaitanya among the members of the crowded rationalistic . has done incomparable eternal good to the gnostic world, as well as to the silly congregation of the so-called pedantic schools of mental speculation. The impersonal and personal conceptions of the Absolute were at loggerheads with each other. This has been pacified by His offering the interpretation of acintya bhedabheda [inconceivable oneness and difference].

The conventional social conflicting views also had a proper place in the Hands of the Supreme Lord, when He taught Sri Sanatana not to renunciate from the manifestive phase of natural emanations, but to use them in quite a different way, so as not to be captivated by the glaring features of the sensorial plane of an individual averse to submit to the manifested Absolute with a devout demeanour.

The Supreme Lord wanted all His apparently dissenting audience to take a line where they could make eternal progress of functioning their unalloyed souls, instead of keeping themselves under the prison bars of temporal senses. The Supreme Lord did not ask anybody to confine themselves in the short sighted policy of altruism, where mundane relativity proves to be the emperor of the mental and physical empire. He advised everyone, right and left, high and low, not to be so sanguine to the temporal acquisitions formed by mundane relativities, but to extend their views to the Transcendental Museum, where they can have a comparative conception of their objects in view.

People of this world are all shelved up in their secular enterprises, and thereby accuse themselves to be captivated by their own respective whims. And this association is meant for their transitory purposes. Everyone is vitally interested with the Absolute and cannot possibly evade to associate Himself with the question of the Absolute, except for the time being.

All the attempts for any mundane acquisition cannot be retained, all things of other places cannot be had at a time; so a big gulf is to be crossed over to get the absolute knowledge. The partial gnostic attempts of the empiricists would never permit them to come in touch with the Absolute, unless they have a submissive mood, a conciliatory habit of audiencing the transcendental sounds invoked to their ears. In the Absolute there is no occasion of material space to accommodate forms and their extensions.

The infinitesimal absolute does not require any such space. The intercession is so close that no material conception of space is to be intruded in His location. The relativity of the Absolute does not require an equality like that of mundane relativity. The question of extension does not vex a soul proper like that of a speculationist. So, impersonal propaganda to get rid of the defective views of mundane relativity has no lien in dealing with the theme of absolute relativity. The Absolute individuation should not be placed under the rigours of vitiated space and notoriety of time. The relation in the Absolute Region should not be classed in the same category of heterogenous afflictive situations, for His manifestive phases have no undesirability, hunger, thirst, pain and sorrow, etc.

The human soul need not be put within a corporal body, as he is evidently an incorporeal to the strictest sense. The soul need not be put inside this tabernacle, or this subtle corporal bearing. We do not identify a reflection with the original entity, neither do we consider a spark of fire to be different from the flame itself; but we need not think that a reflection or a spark has diminished the total value of the Absolute by their different situation. We need not think that the infinitesimal absolute is only an outer case of the body, or that it is interwoven with molecules of the frame. The individuality is related to the Whole and no addition or substraction can be effected by the intercession of anything between them, either space or form. This has given rise to amalgamation or annihilation the two perspective individualities, or personalities, instead of an eternal relative position. So the relation and the two sides of personalities should have no undesirable instigation of mental speculation.

The Supreme Lord has pacified these conflicting conceptions forwarded by the bands of rationalists, who base their arguments on their sensuous acquisitions. The Absolute substratum has Absolute energy from which infinitesimal absolutes, as well as infinitesimal conditioned lives, are emanated or created.

The relation between mind and body need not be confused with the transcendental tie of relativity between the two quantitative phases of the Absolute, as quantitative relation there has not lost the position of the Absolute; or, in other words, we need not carry non-absolute being or a non-being thought of Entity to the Region of the Absolute. The prohibition of encroachments by the limited entities to the Region of the Absolute should in no case be neglected.

In conclusion, I would thank you all, my friends, for the splendid response you have made to our humble call, and the patient hearing you have so kindly given me this afternoon. We had too vast a theme before us and short is the time you can spare. So tonight I shall be satisfied with this short dissertation and close for the time being the crater of the volcano of thoughts on the Transcendental Relativities, which once had their most forcible and soul-stirring outburst before Sri Sanatana Goswami.

Gauracandra · May 11, 2005

For anyone interested the following site is for “The Elegant Universe” which was the program I mentioned from NOVA:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

It has a lot of different sections. They have actually taken the radical step of putting the entire program online here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

You can watch each segment in 7 to 8 minute pieces. The total program is 3 hours long each with 8 chapters. Believe me its well worth it if you have a high speed internet connection. Start in the upper left hand corner and go down for the 1st hour, then start at the top for the second hour and down etc…

You can also watch a sort of promo/preview on that front page to get an idea of what will come.

In addition, if you’d like to purchase the video series you can go to:

http://shop.wgbh.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CatalogSearchResultView?storeId=11051&catalogId=10051&langId=-1&pageSize=20&searchText=elegant+universe

They have the program in VHS or DVD as well as Brian Greene’s companion book if you want a combo purchase. Its really well worth it. But again, if you have high speed internet you can watch the program for free.

Finally, I thought I’d just clip a few quotes from various sections on that page to give a sense of what they are saying.

“NOVA: Well, for example, most people have trouble envisioning a fourth spatial dimension. Can you?

Greene: No. I cannot envision anything beyond three dimensions. What I can do is I can make use of mathematics that describe those extra dimensions, and then I can try to translate what the mathematics tells me into lower dimensional analogies that help me gain a picture of what the math has told me. But the picture is certainly inadequate to the task of fully describing what's going on, because it's in lower dimensions, and in higher dimensions, things are definitely different.

To tell you the truth, I've never met anybody who can envision more than three dimensions. There are some who claim they can, and maybe they can; it's hard to say. But it's very hard, when your brain is involved in a world that appears to have three dimensions and is well suited to envisioning that world, to go beyond that and imagine more dimensions.”

“If superstring theory turns out to be correct, the idea of a world consisting of 10 or more dimensions is one that we'll need to become comfortable with. But will there ever be an explanation or a visual representation of higher dimensions that will truly satisfy the human mind? The answer to this question may forever be no. Not unless some four-dimensional life-form pulls us from our three-dimensional Spaceland and gives us a view of the world from its perspective.”

May 11, 2005

I believe in Bhagavat Dharma, Not Hinduism.

The Dharma which is presented by Krsna as it is.

krsna · May 11, 2005

Conversation on Reincarnation

In 1974, at the ISKCON center in the countryside near Frankfurt, West Germany, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada had the following dialogue with Professor Karlfried Graf von Durckheim. Professor Durckheim, a noted religious psychologist and author of Daily Life as Spiritual Exercise, holds a Ph. D. in analytic psychology and is renowned for establishing a therapeutic school in Bavaria that incorporates both Western and Eastern approaches to the psychology of consciousness. In this conversation Shrila Prabhupada explains the first and most basic principle of reincarnation-that the spiritual living entity is different from the material body. After establishing that the conscious self and the body are separate entities. Shrila Prabhupada describes how the conscious self, or soul, perpetually transmigrates to another body at the time of death.

Professor Durckheim: In my work, I've found that the natural ego doesn't like to die. But if you go through it [a near-death experience], you seem to cross the threshold of death to quite a different reality.

Shrila Prabhupada: Yes, it is different. The experience is like that of a diseased person regaining his health.

Prof. Durckheim: So the person who is dead experiences a higher level of reality?

Shrila Prabhupada: It's not the person who has died, but the body. According to Vedic knowledge, the body is always dead. For example, a microphone is made of metal. When electric energy passes through the microphone, it responds by converting sound into electrical impulses, which are amplified and broadcast over loudspeakers. But when there is no electricity in the system, nothing happens. Whether the microphone is working or not, it remains nothing more than an assembly of metal, plastic, etc. Similarly, the human body works because of the living force within. When this living force leaves the body, it is said that the body is dead. But actually it is always dead. The living force is the important element; its presence alone makes the body appear to be alive. But "alive" or "dead," the physical body is nothing more than a collection of dead matter. The first teaching of Bhagavad-gita reveals that the condition of the material body is ultimately not very important.

ashocyan anvashocas tvam

prajna-vadamsh ca bhashase

gatasun agatasumsh ca

nanushocanti panditah

"The Blessed Lord said: While speaking learned words you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead." [bg. 2.11]

The dead body is not the real subject for philosophical inquiry. Rather, we should concern ourselves with the active principle-that principle which makes the dead body move-the soul.

Prof. Durckheim: How do you teach your disciples to become aware of this force which is not matter, but which makes matter appear alive? I can intellectually appreciate that you're speaking a philosophy which contains the truth. I don't doubt it. But how do you make a person feel it?

How to Perceive the Soul

Shrila Prabhupada: It's a very simple matter. There is an active principle which makes the body move; when it is absent, the body no longer moves. So the real question is, "What is that active principle?" This inquiry lies at the heart of Vedanta philosophy. In fact, the Vedanta-sutra begins with the aphorism athato brahma-jijnasa-"What is the nature of the self within the body?" Therefore, the student of Vedic philosophy is first taught to distinguish the difference between a living body and a dead one. If he is unable to grasp this principle, we then ask him to consider the problem from the standpoint of logic. Anyone can see that the body is changing and moving because of the presence of the active principle, the soul. In the absence of the active principle, the body neither changes nor moves. So there must be something within the body that makes it move. It is not a very difficult concept.

The body is always dead. It is like a big machine. A tape recorder is made of dead matter, but as soon as you, the living person, push a button, it works. Similarly, the body is also dead matter. But within the body is the life force. As long as this active principle remains within the body, the body responds and appears alive. For instance, we all have the power to speak. If I ask one of my students to come here, he will come. But if the active principle leaves his body, I may call him for thousands of years, but he will not come. This is very simple to understand.

But what exactly is that active principle? That is a separate subject matter, and the answer to that question is the real beginning of spiritual knowledge.

Prof. Durckheim: I can understand the point you made about the dead body-that there must be something within to make it alive. The only proper conclusion is that we are talking about two things-the body and the active principle. But my real question is, how do we become aware of the active principle within ourselves as a direct experience and not simply as an intellectual conclusion? On the inner path isn't it important to actually experience this deeper reality?

"I Am Brahman, Spirit"

Shrila Prabhupada: You yourself are that active principle. The living body and the dead body are different. The only difference is the presence of the active principle. When it is not there, the body is called dead. So the real self is identical with the active principle. In the Vedas we find the maxim so 'ham-"I am the active principle." It is also said, aham brahmasmi: "l am not this material body. I am Brahman, spirit." That is self-realization. The self-realized person is described in Bhagavad-gita. Brahma-bhutah prasannatma na shocati na kankshati: when one is self-realized, he neither hankers nor laments. Samah sarveshu bhuteshu: he is equal to everyone-men, animals, all living beings.

Prof. Durckheim: Consider this. One of your students might say, "I am spirit," but he might not be able to experience it.

Shrila Prabhupada: How can he not experience it? He knows that he is the active principle. Everyone ultimately knows that they are not the body. Even a child knows it. We can observe this by examining the way we speak. We say, "This is my finger." We never say, "I finger." So what is that "I"? This is self-realization-"I am not this body."

And this realization can be extended to other living beings. Why does man kill animals? Why give trouble to others? One who is self-realized can see, "Here is another self. He simply has a different body, but the same active principle that exists within my body is operating within his body." The self-realized person sees all living entities with equal vision, knowing that the active principle, the self, is present not only in human beings, but within the bodies of animals, birds, fish, insects, trees, and plants as well.

Reincarnation in This Life

The active principle is the soul, and the soul transmigrates from one body to another at the time of death. The body may be different, but the self remains the same. We can observe this change of body even within our own lifetime. We have transmigrated from babyhood to childhood, from childhood to youth, and from youth to adulthood. Yet all the while, the conscious self, or soul, has remained the same. The body is material, and the actual self is spiritual. When one comes to this understanding, he is called self-realized.

Prof. Durckheim: I think we are now arriving at a very decisive moment in the Western world, because for the first time in our history, people in Europe and America are starting to take seriously the inner experiences by which truth is revealed. Of course, in the East there have always been philosophers who have known the experiences by which death loses its terrifying character and becomes the threshold to a more complete life.

People need this experience of overcoming their usual bodily habits. And if they can break through that bodily experience, they suddenly realize that quite a different principle is operating within themselves. They become aware of the "inner life."

Shrila Prabhupada: A devotee of Lord Krishna automatically realizes that different principle, because he never thinks, "I am this body." He thinks, aham brahmasmi-"I am spirit soul." The first instruction given by Lord Krishna to Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita is this: "My dear Arjuna, you are very seriously considering the condition of the body, but a learned man does not take this material body, either dead or alive, very seriously." This is the first realization on the path of spiritual progress. Everyone in this world is very much concerned with the body, and when it is alive, they take care of it in so many ways. When it is dead, they erect grand statues and monuments over it. This is body consciousness. But no one understands that active principle which gives the body beauty and life. And at the time of death, no one knows where the real self, the active principle, has gone. That is ignorance.

Prof. Durckheim: During World War I, when I was a young man, I spent four years at the front. I was one of two officers in my regiment who was not wounded. On the battlefield, I saw death again and again. I saw people standing just next to me get hit, and suddenly their life force was gone. All that was left, as you say, was a body without a soul. But when death was near and I accepted that I also might die, I realized that within myself was something that has nothing whatsoever to do with death.

Shrila Prabhupada: Yes. That is self-realization.

Prof. Durckheim: This experience of war marked me very deeply. It was the beginning of my inner path.

Shrila Prabhupada: In the Vedas it is said, narayana-parah sarve na kutashcana bibhyati. If one is a God-realized soul, he is not afraid of anything.

Prof. Durckheim: The process of self-realization is a sequence of inner experiences, isn't it? Here in Europe, the people have gone through such experiences. In fact, I believe this is the real treasure of Europe-that there are so many people who went through the battlefields, through the concentration camps, through the bombing raids. And within their hearts they retain the memories of those moments when death was near, when they were wounded and nearly torn in pieces, and they experienced a glimpse of their eternal nature. But now it's necessary to show people that they don't need a battlefield, a concentration camp, or a bombing raid in order to take seriously those inner experiences when one is suddenly touched by a sense of divine reality and understands that this bodily existence is not the all and all.

The Body Is Like a Dream

Shrila Prabhupada: We can experience that every night. When we dream, our body lies on the bed, but we go somewhere else. In this way we all experience that our real identity is separate from this body. When we dream we forget the body Lying on the bed. We act in different bodies and in different locations. Similarly, during the day we forget our dream bodies in which we travelled to so many places. Perhaps, in our dream bodies, we flew in the sky. At night we forget our waking body, and in the daytime we forget our dream body. But our conscious self, the soul, still exists, and we remain aware of our existence in both bodies. Therefore, we must conclude that we are not any of these bodies. For some time we exist in a certain body, then at death we forget it. So the body is really only a mental structure, somewhat like a dream, but the self is different from all of these mental structures. That is self-realization. In Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna says,

indriyani parany ahur

indriyebhyah param manah

manasas tu para buddhir

yo buddheh paratas tu sah

"The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he (the soul) is even higher than the intelligence." [bg. 3.42]

Prof. Durckheim: Earlier today you spoke about the false ego. Did you mean that the real ego is the soul?

Shrila Prabhupada: Yes, that is the pure ego. For instance, now I have this seventy-eight-year-old Indian body, and I have this false ego that thinks, "I am Indian,I am this body." This is a misconception. Someday this temporary body will vanish and I'll get another temporary body. It's just a temporary illusion. The reality is that the soul, based on its desires and activities, transmigrates from one body to another.

Prof. Durckheim: Can consciousness exist apart from the material body?

Shrila Prabhupada: Yes. Pure consciousness, the soul, does not need a material body. For instance, when you dream, you forget your present body, but you still remain conscious. The soul, the consciousness, is like water: water is pure, but as soon as it falls from the sky and touches the ground, it becomes muddy.

Prof. Durckheim: Yes.

Shrila Prabhupada: Similarly, we are spirit souls, we are pure, but as soon as we leave the spiritual world and come in contact with these material bodies, our consciousness becomes covered. The consciousness remains pure, but now it is covered by mud (this body). And this is why people are fighting. They are wrongly identifying with the body, thinking, "I am German,I am English,I am black,I am white,I am this,I am that"-so many bodily designations. These bodily designations are impurities. This is why artists sculpt or paint nude figures. In France, for example, they regard nakedness as "pure" art. Similarly, when you understand the "nakedness," or true condition, of the spirit soul-without these bodily designations-that is purity.

Prof. Durckheim: Why does it appear to be so difficult to understand that one is different from the body?

Everyone Knows "l Am Not This Body"

Shrila Prabhupada: It is not difficult. You can experience it. It is only because of foolishness that people think differently; but everyone really knows, "I am not this body." This is very easy to experience. I am existing. I understand that I have existed in a baby's body, I have existed in a child's body, and also in a boy's body. I have existed in so many bodies, and now I am in an old man's body. Or, for example, say you have now put on a black coat. The next moment you may put on a white coat. But you are not that black or white coat; you have simply changed coats. If I call you "Mr. Black Coat," that is my foolishness. Similarly, in my lifetime I have changed bodies many times, but I am not any of these bodies. This is real knowledge.

Prof. Durckheim: And yet isn't there a difficulty? For instance, you may have already intellectually understood very well that you are not the body-but you may still have the fear of death. Doesn't that mean you didn't understand it by experience? As soon as you've understood by experience, you should have no fear of death, because you know that you can't really die.

Shrila Prabhupada: Experience is received from a higher authority, from someone who has higher knowledge. Instead of my trying to experience for years and years that I am not this body, I can take the knowledge from God, or Krishna, the perfect source. Then I have experienced my deathlessness by hearing from a bona fide authority. That is perfect.

Prof. Durckheim: Yes, I understand.

Shrila Prabhupada: Therefore, the Vedic instruction is tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet. "In order to get first-class experience of the perfection of life, you must approach a guru." And who is a guru? Whom should I approach? I should approach someone who has heard perfectly from his guru. This is called disciplic succession. I hear from a perfect person, and I distribute the knowledge in the same way, without any change. Lord Krishna gives us knowledge in Bhagavad-gita, and we distribute the same knowledge, without changing it.

Prof. Durckheim: Over the past twenty or thirty years there has been a great awakening of interest in spiritual topics in the Western part of the world. But, on the other hand, if the scientists want to eliminate the human self, they are well on the way to doing it with their atomic bombs and other technical innovations. If they want to guide humanity to some higher goal, however, then they have to stop looking at man in a materialistic way through their scientific spectacles. They must look at us as we are-conscious selves.

The Goal of Human Life

Shrila Prabhupada: The goal of human life is self-realization, or God realization, but the scientists do not know that. Modern society is presently led by blind and foolish men. The so-called technologists, scientists, and philosophers do not know the real aim of life. And the people themselves are blind as well; so we have a situation in which the blind are leading the blind. If a blind man tries to lead another blind man, what type of results can we expect? No, this is not the process. One must approach a self-realized person if he wants to understand the truth.

[More guests enter the room.]

Disciple: Shrila Prabhupada, these gentlemen are professors of theology and philosophy. And this is Doctor Dara. He is the leader of a society for study of yoga and integral philosophy here in Germany.

[shrila Prabhupada greets them and the conversation resumes.]

Prof. Durckheim: May I ask another question? Isn't there another level of experience that opens the door to some deeper consciousness for the common man?

Shrila Prabhupada: Yes. That experience is described by Krishna in Bhagavad-gita [2.13]:

dehino 'smin yatha dehe

kaumaram yauvanam jara

tatha dehantara-praptir

dhiras tatra na muhyati

"As the embodied soul continually passes in this body from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change."

But first one must understand the basic principle of knowledge-that I am not this body. When one understands this basic principle, then he can advance to deeper knowledge.

Prof. Durckheim: It seems to me that there is a big difference between the Eastern and Western approaches to this problem of body and soul. In the teachings of the East, you have to become free of the body, whereas in Western religions, a person tries to realize the spirit within the body.

Shrila Prabhupada: This is very easy to understand. We have heard from Bhagavad-gita that we are spirit, that we are within the body. Our sufferings come about because of our identification with the body. Because I have entered into this body, therefore I am suffering. So, either Eastern or Western, my real business should be how to get out of this body. Is that point clear?

Prof. Durckheim: Yes.

Shrila Prabhupada: The term reincarnation means that I am a spirit soul who has entered a body. But in my next life I can enter another body. It may be a dog's body, it may be a cat's body, or it may be a king's body. But there will be suffering-either in the king's body or in the dog's body. These sufferings include birth, death, old age, and disease. So in order to abolish these four kinds of suffering, we have to get out of the body. That is man's real problem-how to get out of his material body.

Prof. Durckheim: This takes many lives?

Shrila Prabhupada: It can take many lives, or you can do it in one lifetime. If you understand in this life that your sufferings are due to this body, then you should inquire how to get out of the body. And when you get that knowledge, you will know the trick-how to get out of the body immediately.

Prof. Durckheim: But that doesn't mean that I have to kill the body, does it? Doesn't it mean that I realize my spirit is independent from my body?

Shrila Prabhupada: No, it isn't necessary that the body be killed. But whether your body is killed or not, someday you will have to leave your present body and accept another one. That is nature's law, and you cannot avoid it.

Prof. Durckheim: It seems that there are some points here which are in accordance with Christianity as well.

Shrila Prabhupada: It doesn't matter whether you are Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. Knowledge is knowledge. Wherever knowledge is available, you must pick it up. And this is knowledge-every living being is imprisoned within a material body. This knowledge applies equally to Hindus, Muslims, Christians-everyone. The soul is imprisoned within the body and must therefore undergo birth, death, old age, and disease. But we all want to live eternally, we want full knowledge, we want full blissfulness. To attain this goal we must get out of the body. This is the process.

Professor Dara: You stress the point that we must get out of the body. But shouldn't we accept our existence as human beings?

Shrila Prabhupada: You propose accepting our existence as human beings. Do you think that existing within this human body is perfect?

Prof. Dara: No, I don't say it is perfect. But we should accept this and not try to create some ideal situation.

How to Become Perfect

Shrila Prabhupada: You admit that your condition is not perfect. Therefore, the correct idea should be to discover how to become perfect.

Prof. Dara: But why do we have to become perfect as spirit? Why can't we become perfect as humans?

Shrila Prabhupada: You have already admitted that your situation within this human body is not perfect. So why are you so attached to this imperfect situation?

Prof. Dara: This body is an instrument through which I can communicate with other people.

Shrila Prabhupada: That is also possible for the birds and beasts.

Prof. Dara: But there is a big difference between the talking of birds and beasts and our talking.

Shrila Prabhupada: What is the difference? They are talking in their community, and you are talking in your community.

Prof. Durckheim: I believe the real point is that the animal has no self-consciousness. He does not understand what he is in essence.

Rising Above the Beasts

Shrila Prabhupada: Yes, that is the real point. A human being can understand what he is. The birds and beasts cannot understand. So, as humans, we should endeavour for self-realization and not simply act on the level of the birds and beasts. Therefore the Vedanta-sutra begins with the aphorism athato brahma-jijnasa-human life is meant for inquiring about the Absolute Truth. That is the aim of human life, not eating and sleeping like the animals. We possess extra intelligence with which to understand the Absolute Truth. In Shrimad-Bhagavatam [1.2.10] it is said,

kamasya nendriya-pritir

labho jiveta yavata

jivasya tattva jijnasa

nartho yash ceha karmabhih

"Life's desires should never be aimed at gratifying the senses. One should desire to live only because human life enables one to inquire about the Absolute Truth. This should be the goal of all works."

Prof. Dara: But is it just a waste of time to use our bodies to do good to others?

Shrila Prabhupada: You cannot do good to others, because you do not know what good is. You are thinking of good in terms of the body-but the body is false in the sense that you are not the body. For instance, you might occupy an apartment, but you are not that apartment. If you simply decorate the apartment and forget to eat, can that be good?

Prof. Dara: I don't think this comparison of the body with a room is very good…

Shrila Prabhupada: That's because you don't know that you are not the body.

Prof. Dara: But if we go out of a room, the room remains. When we go out of the body, it doesn't remain.

Shrila Prabhupada: Eventually the room will also be destroyed.

Prof. Dara: What I mean to say is that there must be a very intimate connection between the body and the soul, a kind of oneness-at least, as long as we are alive.

Shrila Prabhupada: No; that is not real oneness. There is a difference. For instance, the room we are presently in is important to me only as long as I am alive. Otherwise, it has no importance. When the soul leaves the body, the body is thrown away, even though it was very dear to its owner.

Prof. Dara: But what if you don't want to separate from your body?

Shrila Prabhupada: It is not a question of what you want. You must separate. As soon as your death comes, your relatives will throw out your body.

Prof. Durckheim: Perhaps it makes a difference if a person thinks, "I am the spirit, and I have a body," rather than "I am the body, and I have a soul."

The Secret of Immortality

Shrila Prabhupada: Yes. It is a mistake to think that you are the body and possess a soul. That is not true. You are the soul, and you are covered by a temporary body. The soul is the important thing, not the body. For example, as long as you wear a coat, it is important to you. But if it becomes torn, you throw it away and purchase another coat. The living being constantly experiences the same thing. You separate from this present body and accept another body. That is called death. The body which you previously occupied becomes unimportant, and the body you now occupy becomes important. This is the big problem-people give so much importance to a body that within a few short years will be exchanged for another one.

Sign In

Why do you belive in hinduism?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites