Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur writes about the Bible

[Guest guest]

<h2>Living in a material world </h2>

(from Sri Tattva Viveka)

by Sri Bhaktivinode Thakur

kecid vadanti visvam vai paresa-nirmitam kila

jivanam sukha-bhogaya dharmaya ca visesatah (24)

 

Some philosophers say God created this world in order to make a place where souls have an opportunity to enjoy happiness or become pious. (24)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

Some philosophers say God created this world to give us an opportunity to enjoy pleasures. They think that after sinlessly enjoying different luxuries and pleasures, people will praise God and perform pious deeds, praising God for his mercy towards them. However, if God really had wanted to create this material world for the soul’s pleasure then surely He would not have created it as it is. This world is a place full of problems, troubles and disasters. If we consider whether or not this world is a place of enjoyment, we cannot but think this world is filled with many horrible defects. God is all-powerful and whatever he wishes to happen is done at once, so surely he would have created the material world as something that functions in a better way if he was making a world where souls will enjoy pleasures. He would have made it as something faultless. And if he created the material world as a place for souls to perform pious deeds, then surely He would have made it very different from the way it is. Of this there is no doubt. Why is there no doubt of this? Because in the material world pious deeds are not easily performed by every soul.

adi-jivaparadhad vai sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam

tathanya-jiva-bhutasya vibhor dandena niskritih (25)

 

Some philosophers say that because of the first human being’s sin all the other human beings are imprisoned in the material world. Then, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities from sin.(25)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralist monotheists have concluded that this material world is not a place of unalloyed pleasures. Indeed, the sufferings greatly outweigh the pleasures. They have decided that the material world is a prison created for the punishment of humankind. If there is a punishment, then there must be a crime that has been committed. Indeed if there were no crime then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living creatures commit, that they are born into a world of suffering? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this.

janmato jiva-sambhavo maranante na janma vai

yat-kritam samsritau tena jivasya caramam phalam (26)

 

These philosophers say that the soul comes into existence at birth. After death, he is not born again on earth. After death he attains either heaven or hell as a result of his actions in that one lifetime. (26)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

To accept this concocted religion one must first believe in some rather implausible things. The living entity's life begins at birth - before birth the living entity did not exist. After death, the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material activities. Only human beings have souls - other creatures have no soul. But only extremely unintelligent persons believe in this religion. In this religion the living entity is not an eternal, spirit being by nature. God has created the living entities out of matter.

 

Why are the living entities born into very different situations? Some are rich and healthy, some are poor and sickly. The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one person born into a house filled with sufferings while another takes birth in a house filled with joys? One is born into the house of people devoted to God while another is born in a wicked atheist's family. Why is one person born in a household where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he then goes and performs pious deeds. But another person is born in a family of atheists and is placed in a situation where he is encouraged to sin? He sins and becomes bad, because of his circumstances. The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational, for it is God who decides what sort of life someone will have.

 

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why don’t birds and beasts have souls like the human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life? Bcause of their actions in that one life people are rewarded with eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell. Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable.

atra sthitasya jivasya karma-jnananusilanat

visvonnati-vidhanena kartavyam isa-tosanam (27)

 

These people say that by doing work and by accumulating knowledge humankind can make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. (27)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

The followers of this religion have no tendency to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by doing work and by gaining knowledge one should work to improve the material world, and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good in the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing work (karma) and by engaging in studies and learning (jnana) is very important to them. They show no capacity to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation.

 

Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him anymore." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future.

 

If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<blockquote>

What crime did the living creatures commit, that they are born into a world of suffering? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this.

</blockquote>

 

You could hardly put it more clearly than that, could you?

 

The story of Adam and Eve, and the serpent in the garden, and the story that God needs to be crucified to remove our "sins", are all just stories that men of small intelligence have imagined

[Guest guest]

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why don’t birds and beasts have souls like the human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life? Bcause of their actions in that one life people are rewarded with eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell. Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Quote:

 

…concocted religion…The followers of this religion have no tendency to worship God selflessly…

 

Reply:

 

If “the follower” is in the mode of ignorance - there is sure to be concocted religion. – no matter the background - just see He says - “the followers” - that is in keeping with what I say Prabhupada has said:

 

Prabhupada was most often critical of the followers - not the path.

 

Original sin isn’t a Hebrew teaching – that is a later teaching one that comes from the zealot Saul turned St. Paul.

 

The truth is karma and transmigration ARE accepted and taught in the pages of Talmud – and were accepted by early Christians.

 

So I wonder when we read this:

 

“…They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this…”

 

Do we not thus consider that these various garden of Eden points are not accepted as literal by Hebrews.

 

In fact there is a growing movement within Christianity to restore the ‘allegorical interpretation’ to its proper place – as we see a long time extroverted use of literalism with many Christians.

 

That is not dealt with in Bhaktivinode’s essay – are you building your entire case on this one essay? Are there more statements from him on this? This mentions Christianity not Judaism – why is that?

[Guest guest]

Quote:

 

…concocted religion…The followers of this religion have no tendency to worship God selflessly…

 

These words are the direct words of Thakur Bhaktivinode, in Sri Tattva Viveka.

 

Don, understand that Thakur Bhaktivinode stated in black and white, in print, that their religion is a "concocted religion".

[Guest guest]

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami:

 

<blockquote>

In the Semitic thought we do not find any metensomatosistic speculation; so they are prone to consider the spirit as a composition of chanced incident, and this material combination as the starting point of the souls. So these thoughts are opposed to the theory inculcated by the conception of seelanwanderung or metempsychosis. The spiritistic view is quite different from the idea of material congregation which is wrongly considered as the composition of the eternal soul. On the other hand, the non-Semitic thoughts make a departure from the Semitic ideas of non-transmigrating accidental composition.

</blockquote>

 

That is to say, the prophets of the Semitic religions did not believe in metempsychosis(reincarnation) and instead they "wrongly considered" that the eternal soul was created via "material congregation".

 

The Semitic people believe in a formless, impersonal Absolute:

"You may not see the glory of my face, for man may not see me and live".

- Exodus 33, vs 20

 

<blockquote>Both the Semitic and the non-Semitic people live in the impersonality of the Absolute; whereas, the clear eyes of the devotees can see the personality of Godhead as the Fountainhead of many conflicting and contending energies that foster the whims of different parties. Proneness to forgetfulness is afforded by the free will of non-devotees who are found to adopt wrong processes as their guiding principles.</blockquote>

 

Don, where in the Talmud or Bible is there any reference to the personal form of God? Indeed it is a fact that they promote the idea that we cannot see God. They imagine an invisible, formless God.

[Guest guest]

The quotes above, in black are the words of Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati, written in English, in his own style of prose.

http://www.vaisnava.com/sbp_forg.html

[Guest guest]

Don, the quotes above are by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

Please understand, they are Acharyas, with a depth of realization about spiritual issues, and they have not said these things about the Semitic religions without having a proper understanding of the Semitic religions. They know what they are talking about. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur clearly stated that the Semitic religions are concocted religions. Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami said that their religious conception is an impersonalist conception of the Absolute.

 

Hare Krishna.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

I would say that Prabhupada’s statements impart more direct implication - by virtue of the sheer volume of his literary achievements – and that is directed at modern humanity – I think that Prabhupada offers us the practical realization of Bhativinodes teachings.

 

Does your case have other materials as noted – or this one essay?

 

[Guest guest]

There are many more articles by Gaudiya Acharyas in regard to Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

 

Generally we see that the Acharyas are respectful towards those religions, and indeed one of the offences against the Holy Name is to criticize other religions. However, that is not to say that the Gaudiya Acharyas have all said that those religions are good paths to follow for people seeking to know God.

 

For instance, in Bhaktivinode Thakur's novel Jaiva Dharma we read where Babaji Mahasaya says:

<blockquote>“Some time ago, in Sri Vraja-dhama, I submitted a question at the lotus feet of Sriman Mahaprabhu’s confidential associate, Sri Sanatana Gosvami. I asked him whether the word ishqh in the Islamic religious tradition means unadulterated love of God, or something else. Sanatana Gosvami was a learned scholar of all the sastras, and his erudition in the Arabic and Farsi languages in particular knew no bounds. Sri Rupa Gosvami, Sri Jiva Gosvami, and other exalted spiritual preceptors were present in that assembly. Sri Sanatana Gosvami kindly answered my question as follows:

 

“ ‘Yes, the word ishqh means love. Adherents of Islam do use the word ishqh in relation to the worship of Isvara, but the word generally means love in the ordinary worldly sense. Islamic religious teachers have not been able to understand the true conception of the pure spiritual entity, or suddha-cid-vastu. This is evident from the poetical account of the devoted lovers Laila and Majnun and from the literary descriptions of ishqh by the great poet Hafiz. They have referred to ishqh either as physical love pertaining to the gross body, or as emotional love in relation to the subtle body. Thus they cannot have had any experience of unadulterated divine love or prema towards Bhagavan. I have never seen this type of prema described in any religious texts of the Muslim teachers; I have only seen it in the Vaishnava sastras. The same is true of the Muslim word ruh, which means soul or spirit. It does not seem that Muslim teachers have used the word ruh to mean the suddha-jiva (the liberated soul); rather, they have used the word ruh in the sense of the baddha-jiva, the soul bound by matter.

 

“ ‘I have not seen unadulterated love for Krishna taught in any other religion, whereas descriptions of krsna-prema are common throughout the teachings of vaisnava-dharma. In the second cloak of Srimad-Bhagavatam, krsna-prema has been lucidly described in the statement, projjhita-kaitava-dharma: ‘This Srimad-Bhagavatam propounds the highest truth from which all pretentious religiosity has been rejected.’ Nonetheless, I have full faith that Sri Krsna Caitanya was the first to give full instructions on the religion of unalloyed krsna-prema. If you have faith in my words, you may accept this conclusion.’

Having heard these instructions, I offered prostrated obeisances to Sanatana Gosvami again and again.”

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

I would say that Prabhupada’s statements impart more direct implication - by virtue of the sheer volume of his literary achievements – and that is directed at modern humanity – I think that Prabhupada offers us the practical realization of Bhativinodes teachings.

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Quote:

 

the prophets of the Semitic religions did not believe in metempsychosis(reincarnation) and instead they "wrongly considered" that the eternal soul was created via "material congregation".

 

Reply:

 

Well I take this information:

 

"The whole world once believed that the souls of men were perishable, and that man had no pre-eminence above a beast, till Abraham came and preached the doctrine of immortality and transmigration." [Talmud, Ibid., fol. 171, col. 1.]

 

"The Holy One--blessed be He!--often brings affliction on the righteous though they have not sinned, in order that they may learn to keep aloof from the allurements of the world and eschew temptation to sin. From this it is plain that afflictions are good for man, and therefore our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said, "As men bless with joy and a sincere heart for a benefit received, so likewise ought they joyfully to bless God when He afflicts them, as, though the special blessing be hidden from the children of men, such affliction is surely intended for good. . . . Or most souls being at present in a state of transmigration, God requites a man now for what his soul merited in a bypast time in another body, by having broken some of the 613 precepts." [Talmud, Kitzur Sh'lu, p. 6, col. 1.]

 

"Rabbi Isaac Luria was once passing the great academy of Rabbi Yochanan in Tiberias, where he showed his disciples a stone in the wall, remarking, "In this stone there is a transmigrated soul, and it cries that I should pray on its behalf. And this is the mystic meaning of (Hab. ii. 11), 'The stone shall cry out of the wall.'" [Talmud, Ibid., fol. 11, col. 2.]

 

Clearly that is what the hebrew teaching is.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

quote:

"The whole world once believed that the souls of men were perishable, and that man had no pre-eminence above a beast, till Abraham came and preached the doctrine of immortality and transmigration." [Talmud, Ibid., fol. 171, col. 1.]

<hr>

 

The whole world did not believe that the souls of men were perishable. In India, and in Egypt, and elsewhere, people believed in reincarnation before Abraham was born.

 

And there is certainly no doubt that the Semites believe in an invisible, impersonal Absolute. As Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur said.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Yes that is true - but I think they meant their contemporary world - the Semitic world.

 

On and on it goes - the point is?

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Quote:

 

The Semitic people believe in a formless, impersonal Absolute:

"You may not see the glory of my face, for man may not see me and live".

- Exodus 33, vs 20

 

Reply:

 

I know what is now taught - but these texts are clear - like this one you've quoted - "the glory of my face" - 'formless' means no face.

 

I am of the opinion that these types of texts do have a literal interpretation - Torah and Talmud teach that God is a person with a literal form.

 

BDM

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Quote:

 

souls of men were perishable

 

Reply:

 

Just like the rights of men...

 

Here is something nice from Talmud:

 

A man should always desire that his neighbor may profit by him, and let him not strive to profit by his neighbor. Let his words be pleasant with the children of men if they shame him, and let him not shame them in return. If they deceive him, let him not deceive them in return, and let him take the yoke of the public upon his shoulders, and not impose it heavily on them in return.

 

If--which God forbid--thy neighbor has done thee an evil, pardon him at once for thou shouldst love him as thyself. If one hand is accidentally hurt by the other, should the wounded hand revenge its injury on the other? And, as urged before, thou shouldst rather say in thine heart, "It is from the Lord that it came to thee; it came as a messenger from the Holy One--blessed be He!--as a punishment for some sin." [Kitzur Sh'lh, fol. 9. col. 2.]

 

The empire of Rome was, some think, so designated, because it strove with all its might to drag down the worship of God to the worship of man, and resolve the cause of God into the cause of the Empire.

 

During the time of the second Temple Persia domineered over Israel for thirty-four years and the Greeks held sway a hundred and eighty. [Avodah Zarah, fol. 9, col. 1.]

[gHari 0]

So here will I post two paragraphs that reached my ears tonight. They come from the moonlight of the Sri Caitanya Bhagavata (Antya Khanda 4):<blockquote>If one sees two Vaisnavas quarreling, then one should never think that something is amiss, or that there is enmity and malice between them. Such quarreling is in fact pleasing to the Lord and is transcendental. The arguments and abuses exchanged between Rukminidevi and Satyabhamadevi although sounding like serious fights, are factually not so, because they are forever united in their service to their common Lord and master. There is no enmity between Vaisnavas. The Supreme Lord Himself induces these fights due to His frolicsome nature. But if anyone foolishly sides with one Vaisnava against another, then he is doomed due to offending a Vaisnava.

 

The Vaisnavas are the extensions of the Lord's limbs, so how can one benefit by serving Him with one hand and inflicting pain on Him with the other? One who has developed such vision becomes steady in devotional service. One who understands that Lord Krsna and His devotees, the Vaisnavas, are nondifferent, and with this knowledge serves the Lord, can easily cross the ocean of nescience. One who glorifies, hears and understands these transcendental subject matters can always avoid Vaisnava aparadha.

</blockquote>

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Dear gHari:

 

Quote:

 

I Assume This is a Continuation of the Locked Thread

 

Reply:

 

Apparently.

 

Quote:

 

two paragraphs that reached my ears tonight

 

Reply:

 

It certainly was that at some level - and I hope all invloved in the events leading to the lock can appreciate these important nectarian words you've posted.

 

I know I do...

 

My humble dhandhavants!

 

yer servant,

[water 0]

 

 

Some philosophers say that because of the first human being&#8217;s sin all the other human beings are imprisoned in the material world. Then, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities from sin.(25)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralist monotheists have concluded that this material world is not a place of unalloyed pleasures. Indeed, the sufferings greatly outweigh the pleasures. They have decided that the material world is a prison created for the punishment of humankind. If there is a punishment, then there must be a crime that has been committed. Indeed if there were no crime then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living creatures commit, that they are born into a world of suffering? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth.

 

 

There is a lot of dissent among Christians regarding this topic.

 

Some say that Adam and Eve, and then later on, everyone else commits cosmic treason against God.

 

Others have very different explanations for the happenings in Eden, the guiding line being man's disobedience and God's mercy: Man, being blinded by the wonders of the world, thinks he can live without God, and disregards Him. In this, man sins. God, loving His creatures, redeemed man and atoned for man's sins.

The sin transcends the sinner in the sense that children are born into a sinful world -- with people around them sinning, children learn to sin. Thus, there are two sources for sin: one is the inherent disobedience to God (thinking one can live without God), the other is the sin people have learned to commit by seeing other people do it.

 

 

 

Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

 

Yes, such is a particular Western idea of God. It mirrors man's fear of God and repulsion by service to Him. In this view, God is merely an absolution from evil, not a source of good.

This article deals with these matters very well.

 

 

 

These philosophers say that the soul comes into existence at birth. After death, he is not born again on earth. After death he attains either heaven or hell as a result of his actions in that one lifetime. (26)

 

 

This is so by a strict works-based understanding.

 

There are basically two groups within Christian churches/denominations: works-based and grace-based. The works-based concentrate on the works, while grace is a mere, abstract, unimportant extra.

The grace-based churches teach that we depend on God's grace for our salvation. Even though we have sinned, or not performed a lot of good works, we can still be saved since if God finds a true love for Him in our hearts, He will save us.

 

 

 

Why are the living entities born into very different situations? Some are rich and healthy, some are poor and sickly. The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one person born into a house filled with sufferings while another takes birth in a house filled with joys? One is born into the house of people devoted to God while another is born in a wicked atheist's family. Why is one person born in a household where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he then goes and performs pious deeds. But another person is born in a family of atheists and is placed in a situation where he is encouraged to sin? He sins and becomes bad, because of his circumstances. The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational, for it is God who decides what sort of life someone will have.

 

 

Again, there is a lot of dissent on this issue.

My understanding of Christianity is the things of the world should not confuse one. The things of the world are many, from good health to bad health, from rich to poor. If one is to define oneself by the things of the world, then one will be slave to it. But to God, worldly measures do not determine what a person will mean to Him, and how He will judge this person.

 

 

 

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why don&#8217;t birds and beasts have souls like the human beings?

 

 

Again, there is dissent on this. Some claim that only humans have souls. Some other Christians refrain from making claims about this -- the general instruction being that humans must treat *all* Creation with respect, and this also covers the way humans treat animals.

 

 

 

Why do the human beings have only one life?

 

 

This is one of the points where I am a bit troubled. It seems that Christianity presumes that a living entity can be ultimately hateful towards God.

I'm not sure whether this is possible. But if humans are to have free will in whether they will serve God or not, then the possibility of ultimately rejecting God is open.

God, in His omniscience, knows who will eventually reject Him and who will accept Him, so there is no need for second and third chances.

 

 

Personally, I also think the one-life concept is more immediate, the threat of hell is there to shake people from their complacency and laxness. It says "Love God NOW, serve God NOW, don't put it off, don't hope that some other time you will get it right. Don't try to buy yourself time for indulging worldly pleasures, they only remove you further from God. NOW is the time to serve God."

[gHari 0]

I can't see this story being accepted as anything but metaphor. All characters and props are within the jiva soul whose original nature is heavenly like the Garden of Eden.

 

Just how they fit, I haven't quite figured out. From the rib comes Eve. So it seems the soul has a pleasure-seeking potency named Eve. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (accept/reject) surely sounds like the mind. The serpent who sells the tree and its apples might be ahankara - the false ego.

 

Once fallen from grace and entrapped by ahankara and mind, many many other false egos/personalities/desires manifest from the combination of the fallen soul and its misguided pleasure-seeking potency, and these egos all contend to lord it over the domain of the earthly garden (ME).

 

Now the poor soul has all these false personalities vying for top spot, all vying to be him for the moment. Adam must be like Arjuna and follow God's lead to slay all false personalities, thereby returning to the original heavenly state of sac-cid-ananda in the Garden of Eden.

 

 

from BACK TO EDEN magazine

 

by Reverend Harry Krishna