Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

My Freind Bhaktine Baker ,please accept my kind wishes.......The initial spiritual awareness..... is manifest in the conditioned soul simply as God.He seeks faith or a belief system to forfil a need naturally present...... of a centrally aware, collective and omniscient being or simply the source of everything.This rather hazy term god refers to usually an individuals personal conception,which is not necessarily based on substance or sastra....usually it is based on how he or she might feel! Understanding and fortunately being able to appreciate and comfortably accept such simple sublime truths is usually an extension of previous spiritual practices from past lifetimes!....,however when one accepts krishna conciousness this is quickly elevated by chanting which quickly eradicates unwanted things from within the region of the heart and mind!The chanting also when performed sincerely allows one the understand these spiritual mysteries even if one has not performed bonafide spiritual practices previously.
Thus one becomes further fixed in desire.....The inherent need to ask questions manifests naturally. .When this process is performed and one gives up the association of ungodly persons or the demoniac..... he quickly progresses.
However after associating with those who are signifigantly more convinced than we are,who are more stable in their personal realisation with god ,ones brittle faith becomes fixed and firm.....There is an incredible natural relationship which re-awakens in ones heart,when one accepts the mercy of the guru and takes the potent mantra.....,if you are sincere the initiating spiritual master can appear previously to formal initiation.However i was a very slow learner so it took me a full nine months till i was accepted for diksa initiation!

>What exactly does it mean to "believe in God"?

Can someone explain to a deaf person what music is? Somethings are beyond explanation, experience is the only explanation.

If you ask people on the street youll get many ideas since they have various concepts of God. Most theists would probably agree that God is someone in charge of this world and to be aware of that is to believe in Him. Next level is following His instructions, etc. Thus the belief gets gradually replaced by conviction.

What is "There could be God who is in charge of the world", is this a belief, is it a belief in God?

Could means being unsure. Neither belief, nor disbelief.

Is it faith then?
How is faith put into words?

Faith isnt certainty. So shouldnt this be reflected in the way one speaks?

First, you have to come to believe that there is more to all of us than physical matter. Just like with ghosts. Initially you may not believe in them, but when one night you REALLY experience their presence, it is no longer a matter of belief... you KNOW they exist. First you need to experience the spirit - then, it is reasonable to expect you will believe that there is a Supreme Spirit, which is the source of all existence.

You obviously have some initial faith otherwise you wouldnt be here. But its so far clouded by uncertainty due to lack of realizations coming from service.

The Role of Faith
The subject of bhakti-yoga involves many detailed considerations that lie beyond the scope of this article. Here we shall simply conclude by making a few observations about the role of faith in sanatana-dharma, in modern science, and in the theory of evolution. Since sanatana-dharma is based on verifiable observations, it does not depend on either blind faith or speculative argumentation. But faith is required in any difficult undertaking, and sanatana-dharma is no exception.
For example, before studying modern chemistry the prospective student must have faith that the many experiments upon which the subject is based actually work. He cannot know this in advance, and without such faith he would not be motivated to carry out the arduous work needed to master the subject. Normally, the student will begin with a certain amount of initial faith, and this faith will grow as he acquires more and more practical experience. The same process works in sanatana-dharma. (Sadaputa das, BTG 16-05, 1981)

Therefore, we should understand both what faith is and what our own faith is. Besides the three types of faith listed above, the scriptures define faith as initial (sraddha) and fixed (nistha). Sraddha, according to Prabhup'e4da, is shown by a person who is willing to wander into the temple and who is able to feel good about what is going on there. It sounds almost like a kind of favorable curiosity. That initial faith is enough to bring us into the association of devotees.
Nistha means conviction that cannot be changed. Prabhup'e4da writes that a devotee with such faith feels that if he can attain Krsna consciousness, all his desires will be fulfilled. There is nothing more important than the development of Krsna consciousness. A devotee with nistha may not have attained the goal but is fixed on its importance and value.
The dictionary defines faith as '93unquestioning belief in God; unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.'94 Faith is trust in God'97in His actions and promises. This is the kind of faith required for a devotee. Although we can provide scriptural evidence to support our Krsna conscious conclusions about the nature of the soul, the nature of God, transmigration, and so on, we have little empirical proof that any of it is true. Somehow or other, however, we have become willing to accept the authority of guru and scripture on faith, and we have molded our life'92s principles around their teachings.
(Satsvarupa d. G., BTG 36-3, 2002)

There seems to be a contradiction between what the two articles say.

The first one says:

"Since sanatana-dharma is based on verifiable observations, it does not depend on either blind faith or speculative argumentation."

and the second one says:

"Although we can provide scriptural evidence to support our Krsna conscious conclusions about the nature of the soul, the nature of God, transmigration, and so on, we have little empirical proof that any of it is true."

"based on verifiable observations" vs. "little empirical proof that any of it is true"

??

The first refers to the experience of the practitioner, whose spiritual growth is observable.
The second refers to the inadequacy of anumana. Therefore it suggests to adopt the first approach.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]The subject of bhakti-yoga involves many detailed considerations that lie beyond the scope of this article. Here we shall simply conclude by making a few observations about the role of faith in sanatana-dharma, in modern science, and in the theory of evolution. Since sanatana-dharma is based on verifiable observations, it does not depend on either blind faith or speculative argumentation. But faith is required in any difficult undertaking, and sanatana-dharma is no exception.
For example, before studying modern chemistry the prospective student must have faith that the many experiments upon which the subject is based actually work. He cannot know this in advance, and without such faith he would not be motivated to carry out the arduous work needed to master the subject. Normally, the student will begin with a certain amount of initial faith, and this faith will grow as he acquires more and more practical experience. The same process works in sanatana-dharma. (Sadaputa das, BTG 16-05, 1981)
[/quote]

I have trouble understanding why the same principle (ie. having faith -> acting on it -> obtaining results) that works for mundane knowledge would also work for spiritual knowledge.[br]

[br]If there is such a crucial difference between the mundane/material and the spiritual (the latter pertaining to our true identity, and the former not), then how come the same principle of knowledge acquisition would apply?[br]

[br]Saying that the two work by the same principle seems almost as downplaying the importance and intricacy of spiritual knowledge.

What would you suggest?
I dont see any problem. We underwent a process of entangling ourselves in matter and now we need to undergo a reverse process, getting attracted to spiritual level.

Im not suggesting anything at this point.

If I would be told "In order to align yourself with your true identity and purpose of your life, just chant such and such mantra. Dont ask why or how, ever. Just do it. Just grit your teeth and bear it. Dont try to understand, dont think, just chant." - I think that would intuitively sound more like the correct answer to me. Although I consciously dont agree with it.

Somehow, a sentimental, blind-faithed approach seems more correct than a relatively elaborate, specific, systematic methodology.

Its as if the moment one starts to analyze or deconstruct something like faith or the sense of self, there comes the fear of losing that faith or sense of self.

How come this is so?

It is because of the lack of good association and influence of modes of passion and ignorance. As you get free from the modes by sadhana and in good association, you will notice that God is a concrete reality. We all need that (not just you baker).

Sri sampradaya stresses a type of immediate surrender called prapatti (mentioned in BG 7.14). Thats the closest to what you seem to have on your mind. But prapatti requires mahavisvasa, "unassailable faith in the saviourship of God" (M. Narasimhachary, ICJ 8.2, 2000) Otherwise methodology is there in BG, NOD, etc.
I dont analyze or deconstruct faith. Ive only posted texts about two types of faith.
There are also two types of sense of self - real (atma) and unreal (ahankara). The real cant be lost, the unreal has to be lost thru the method of bhakti yoga.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]I dont analyze or deconstruct faith. Ive only posted texts about two types of faith.[/quote]

I wasnt aiming my comment about analysis or deconstruction specifically at you.[br]

[br]But now that we speak of it - Personally, do you or did you analyze how your own faith comes about, what state is it in?[br]

[br]I know some people avoid such analyses on principle - "I just dont go there, I just dont think about such things".[br]
Others seem more analytical types. They also seem to be more stressed out than the former.[br]

[br][quote]There are also two types of sense of self - real (atma) and unreal (ahankara). The real cant be lost, the unreal has to be lost thru the method of bhakti yoga.[/quote]

If the real sense of self cannot be lost, then whence the fear of losing it when one analyzes ones sense of self (at least some people have this fear)?[br]

What you say above could be taken to imply that this fear exists when ones sense of self is actually unreal (impermanent, subject to change - such as identifying with the body, emotions, thoughts, possessions) - and analyzing or deconstructing that which is impermanent leads to its destruction or reveals its insufficiency. - And nobody wishes to end up destructed or revealed as insufficient. (If one wishes to maintain a worldly ego, one must be careful not to think about it too much.)[br]

[br]Although mere analysis and deconstruction seem to lead to madness, unless one accompanies them with some positive activity. Hence it is instructed in some spiritual traditions "Abandon the bad, and cultivate the good" or similar. This is where bhakti yoga comes in, right?

Faith and belief implies uncertainty. Yes bhakti-yoga is not just faith, it is like a puzzle, you add one element to another and it starts looking good.

> Personally, do you or did you analyze how your own faith comes about, what state is it in?

When I joined Beliefnet I took the belief evaluation test and scored 83 while:
80 - 89
Confident Believer ? You have little doubt youve found the right path
90 - 100
Candidate for Clergy

I didnt take it again since but my later realizations significantly enhanced my faith.

> If the real sense of self cannot be lost, then whence the fear of losing it when one analyzes ones sense of self (at least some people have this fear)?

From maya. We lose our gross body and when we consider it our self, were afraid.

> "Abandon the bad, and cultivate the good" or similar. This is where bhakti yoga comes in, right?

This is already the level of material dharma.

Veda prabhu,please accept my humble obeisances.....,i new you were the right siksa guru for bhaktine baker!After reading this thread,i realise the importance of having performed devotional service previously and ajnata-sukriti plays in allowing us to see krishna and his service as sublime!Naturally when i jioned i understood it was genuine.....even though it was still differcult for me to actually day by day attempt to surrender.One comment which seems essential is that everything is dependent on krishna and gurus mercy to advance,...... initially especially .Hare krishna.

Come to think of it, the biggest part of my problem with belief in God is when it comes to communicating with others about it.

Other person: Do you believe in God?
I: What do you mean? What do you mean by "believe" and "God"?

From here on, the other persons response has usually been one or more of the following:

Other person:
- Its a simple question: Do you believe in God? This is all I am asking you.
- There is no need to get all mental about this.
- You are apparently an atheist, since you refuse to simply answer this simple question.
- God is easy to believe in for the simple, but hard for the crooked.

Such non-communicative attempts at communication are very frustrating for me. Perhaps its just my karma - perhaps in a previous lifetime, I was a member of the Holy Inquisition, quizzing people on heavy religious topics while there were pulled up by the arms tied behind their back.

The question Do you believe in God? stems from the mainstream cultural-religious conditioning in Europe and North America. To believe is understood as to accept the existence of and God as the God of the Bible. The answer divides people into two groups - theists and atheists. Most people arent ready to go beyond this. The existence of other traditions isnt taken into account by them.

There really was an almost funny moment some few months ago. A newcomer came to our Thursday BG readings in the temple. He was posing interesting questions, and in the process of answering them, one devotee challenged him, "Do you believe in God?" I was feeling uneasy, maybe also because it sounded like a demand to take one side or another and it sounded so simplistic or even irrational. The guy actually answered: "I really can not rationally put this question into a framework. You see I just finished two years Masters in Philosophy in Trinity College, and this question really does seems to be making very little sense to me." (By that time Ananda, who confronted him with the "Do you believe" seemed disappointed..) The guy proceeded: "I am may understand it and take it how you can experience God or whatever you have under that name." And after a pause he added: "I guess I am looking for this experience, on what is this supernatural for me, many people would speak of it, but is it like a..." and than he appeared to be suggesting an impersonal concept or realization. I honestly felt that it is a better start, than someone saying "I believe in God" as if he knows what God means to him in full or his faith is that developed to realize Him personally.

When I hear the question, "Do you believe in God" I interpret it as "do you accept that everything existing emanates from a supreme intelligent and creative being (as opposed to the belief that everything came from nothing).

The word belief does not imply experience, however before one can experience god it is necessary to believe. What is also interesting is that one has to accept the possibility of the existence of god before one can deny the existence of god just as you cannot argue a negative against a positive without acknowledging the possibility that the positive maybe true.

> however before one can experience god it is necessary to believe.

Not necessary. To experience God in full you need full faith or developed sraddha. But to start with you can experience god even without a belief. In fact fear of death is one such experience that even an atheist would have, it is a side of God.

>>Not necessary. To experience God in full you need full faith or developed sraddha

One wont have full faith or Sraddha if you dont believe or accept the possibility of god which is the same as belief or in other words you cannot have Sraddha and be an atheist at the same time and to experience god in FULL as defined in the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhuh needs more than Sraddha, that is the very first stage and Sraddha is gained by association of saintly persons and listening to the injuctures of the Scriptures. To experience god in FULL one has to achieve Prem that has been defined in Rupa Goswamis Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhuh.

Fear of death is not an experience of God its simply an experience in your own fears. Near death experience is an actual experience in leaving your body momentarily and many (not all) people who have had these do at minimum believe in an after life.

If you have full faith you will be a prema-bhakta. Even on the level of bhava your faith still grows.

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite]The word belief does not imply experience, however before one can experience god it is necessary to believe. [/quote]

... believe what?[br]

[br]The formula of "first believe it is true, then you will know it is true" seems backwards to me. Do the Vedas actually ever propose such a formula?[br]

[br]Can the exact process of how sabda affects the hearer be analyzed?[br]

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]There really was an almost funny moment some few months ago. A newcomer came to our Thursday BG readings in the temple. ...[/quote]

Glorious! Thanks for this. I could use some of this mans confidence.

Baker: Me thinks you might be anal(ytical) retentive.

Baker >>The formula of "first believe it is true, then you will know it is true" seems backwards to me. Do the Vedas actually ever propose such a formula?

Look in most dictionaries and it equates belief and faith to be the same thing, I did not say by believing in God then you will know its true, this is not some automatic process. I said before you can experience God you firstly have to believe or have faith, faith is called Sraddha this is the very first step in the ladder of Bhakti.

This is all described in the Bhakti Rasamrta Sinduh all different stages and sub-stages are all described in exquisite detail and how to achieve each stage.

Stage 1) Sraddha is Faith in the Supreme Being Sri Krishna, that by serving him alone everything else is served wholly and completely. Sraddha is aroused in the heart of an individual being in bondage/ignorance, by association with saintly persons (devotees) and by listening to the injunctions of the Scriptures.

Stage 2) Sadhu Sanga: The company of Sadhus and Saints. This means an individuals eager desire to be in the company of a Sadhu in order to learn the methods of spiritual practices for God-realization alone and for no other purpose.

These stages continue on up to the final Stage of Prema which is the full experience of God and this stage is unlimited in itself.

Bhakti Yoga is an exact science that is defined very accurately in the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhuh, there comes a time after hearing the science you have to commit yourself to action and practicing the science, then you will get the results which will mean far more than words thrown back and forth in a forum.

manasi seva - experience God you firstly have to believe or have faith, faith is called Sraddha this is the very first step in the ladder of Bhakti.

But before believe or faith should not there first be a cause or a provocation
within the mind followed by the heart then inquire followed by some realization
then believe develops followed by faith and as the faith becomes stronger and
firm, surrender to god takes place. Experience of god should come sometime
after that.

In the case of those born in a God conscious family the child is to taught to
believe followed by inquire followed by strong believe , firm faith ,surrender to
God and experience.

Generally ,is this not how it takes place.

Sg you are right! This is the strength of vedic culture...as you have offered!Mother is first guru....all which is supplied by krishna and your karma.Baker simply needs the mercy of a vaisnava!

We may all think this and we may all think that, but at the end of the day this is a science, and it has been carefully delineated in the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhuh, if you accept the teachings and follow Rupa Goswamis instructions you will be taken from Sraddha to Prema, Srila Prabhupada and all the previous acharyas are all preaching the teachings of Rupa Goswami.

How each individual comes to the point of faith is usually quite unique and different, we can all look back and think about our own personal journey and how we came to Krishna Consciousness and it serves to remind us of the causeless mercy of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and for those of us in the west we are all in eternal debt to Srila Prabhupada our saviour and guiding light in these times of darkness.

Seek out the mercy of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, it is by service and surrender to the Gaudiya Vaisnavas that the key is turned in the lock, they hold all the secrets to the hidden treasure of the sweet absolute.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite][br]The formula of "first believe it is true, then you will know it is true" seems backwards to me. Do the Vedas actually ever propose such a formula?[br]

[br]Can the exact process of how sabda affects the hearer be analyzed?[br][/quote]

If we say that people act according to the different modes of material nature they have acquired, could we not also extrapolate that when people talk about and explain religious topics (such as faith, how they have arrived at faith, what is necessary for faith, what belief in God is etc.), these explanations are also according to the particular combination of the modes of nature?[br]

[br]So, for example, a statement like "You have to believe in Gods mercy" could be analyzed as a combination of passion ("you have to believe" - justifying ones actions by ones own strength) and goodness ("in Gods mercy" - discrimination, faith in the spiritual master, simplicity, humbleness).[br]

[br]This seems to explain how it is so difficult to understand or accept an explanation from a person who operates under a different combination of modes than oneself.[br]

[br]- I am bringing this up because it seems that many times, devotees engage in discussion about religious topics on the assumption that such discussions are beyond the modes, unaffected by them.

We can see people of all kinds of gunas, jnana and vijnana among devotees.

> Can the exact process of how sabda affects the hearer be analyzed?

Imho, it works like sowing. Some seeds fall on hard ground, etc. and the result wont come. Others fall on fertile ground (result of ajnata sukriti) and produce sraddha, etc. We discussed this earlier.

> devotees engage in discussion about religious topics on the assumption that such discussions are beyond the modes, unaffected by them.

Krsna katha topics are beyond the modes but the speakers may not be. Therefore its recommended to listen to as pure devotees as available. To give a material analogy, a mahabhagavata is like a hifi sound system while a beginner is like an ordinary tape recorder. Difference in sound quality is obvious.

> because it seems that many times, devotees engage in discussion about religious topics on the assumption that such discussions are beyond the modes

Madhvacarya has written an enlightneing piece on the modes of philosphical discussion (Katha Lakshana). Based on that I would broadly summarise the different approaches as:

Sattvic - debates openly to determine the actual truth.
Rajasic - debates just to be right or for fame; selectively uses sastra to justify their position and ignores any contrary evidence.
Tamasic - engages mostly in deriding the other sides position without properly establishing/justifying their own position.

By analyzing the exact process of how sabda affects the hearer I meant whether it can be (or should be) explained or described in terms of "first one believe it is true, and then one gets knowledge" or something like that. Whether there is (or should be) a meta-analysis of the process, whereby the concepts and terms of this meta-analysis are neutral, objective, non-specific to the particular religious or spiritual path - as if there existed an objective epistemology that could be applied in the process of attaining any ontology.[br]
I have mentioned this before.[br]
[br]
I listen in when people talk about how they came to their spiritual path and the instructions they give for choosing a path and developing it. And in this, there sometimes does seem to be the assumption that there exists such a neutral, objective meta-analytical process on the grounds of which one then chooses between Christianity, Hinduism, humanism, atheism or whichever.[br]

[br]On the one hand, the existence of such an objective epistemology is appealing because it gives one a sense of self-sufficiency, an assurance that one has chosen their path freely and objectively, exclusively by ones own effort.[br]
[br]On the other hand, the existence of such an objective epistemology would mean we are capable of being fully independent of God or everyone and everything else, which is an absurd proposition, as anyone can witness it is blatantly untrue.[br][br][quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]
Krsna katha topics are beyond the modes but the speakers may not be. Therefore its recommended to listen to as pure devotees as available. To give a material analogy, a mahabhagavata is like a hifi sound system while a beginner is like an ordinary tape recorder. Difference in sound quality is obvious.[/quote]

How do I stop feeling guilty for being choosy?

[img]http://27.media.tumblr.com/D9QEnuQFohtq2h6wKRg4WeLRo1_500.png[/img]

- See attached image. Not sure how appropriate that was ...

Baker .... I havent followed closely the progression of questions that you have asked here but I had a thought this morning and its that when it comes to faith --- I CHOOSE to believe in God; whereas another may CHOOSE not to believe in God. So I think that faith is something that we choose or choose not to have -- just as I may choose to wear a watch or choose not to.

I remember one time seeing devotees chanting in the street and as I watched I noticed that some people looked over at them with disgust and even crossed over to the other side of the street, walking quickly to avoid them, whereas others reacted to the sight and sound of the small band of chanters with smiles and slowed down to get a better look and listen more closely to what they were chanting. In that situation different individuals were making spontaneous yet conscious decisions. The whole "believe or not believe in God" is based on independent and individual free will.

I dont know if I shed any new light on this subject --- probably not. But for what its worth or not worth ......

> a neutral, objective meta-analytical process on the grounds of which one then chooses between Christianity, Hinduism, humanism, atheism or whichever.

One can evaluate any philosophy acc to:

1. sambandha/abhidheya/prayojana content
2. prevailing guna(s)
3. karma-jnana-bhakti content (used by Ravindra Svarupa P. in some of his theological papers)

Maybe others will suggest more ways.

> How do I stop feeling guilty for being choosy?

Do you feel guilty? Listening to various people (prospective gurus included) and choosing to whom to listen preferably is a normal way.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]> a neutral, objective meta-analytical process on the grounds of which one then chooses between Christianity, Hinduism, humanism, atheism or whichever.[br]

One can evaluate any philosophy acc to:[br]

1. sambandha/abhidheya/prayojana content[br]
2. prevailing guna(s)[br]
3. karma-jnana-bhakti content (used by Ravindra Svarupa P. in some of his theological papers)[/quote]

But from the Christian, humanist, atheist and possibly other perspectives, such criteria are already part of a specific philosophy/religion/worldview, they are not universally considered neutral or objective.[br]

[br]There is a paradox inherent in the instructions one often receives as to which religion/philosophy to choose: on the one hand, one gets told one should apply "objective, neutral citeria", and then when one proposes some criteria, they can always get dismissed as already biased and part of a religion/philosophy.[br]Isnt this strange![br]

[br]That this paradox exists, could suggest that "choosing a religion/philosophy" is at least to some extent an artificial proposition, based on the assumption that human choices take place in a momentuous, all-or-nothing, black-or-white, life-and-death manner. Perhaps the "choice between Christianity and Hinduism" exists only as an abstraction in the field of psychology, sociology, anthropology and perhaps religiology - but whereas in the life of an actual person, there can be observed no single moment where a person would momentuously decide for one path to the exclusion of all others and instantly become a completed practitioner of said path.[br]
[br]Which would then also imply that trying to instantly carry out such a decision between paths is artificial, and even impossible, wherefore one shouldnt attempt it.[br]

(Which ties in with the Vedic notion that there is only one religion, one the path of which one gradually progresses.)[br]

[br][quote]
Do you feel guilty? Listening to various people (prospective gurus included) and choosing to whom to listen preferably is a normal way.[/quote]

Yes, I feel guilty for being selective. Some people are very eager that I would "finally decide" one way or the other, and I feel very pressured by them, to the point of paralysis.

> such criteria are already part of a specific philosophy/religion/worldview, they are not universally considered neutral or objective.

I disagree. Maybe the sanskrit terms make you think so but when translated its clear that these criteria (maybe with exception of k-j-b which _could_ be understood as specifically Vedic) are applicable universally. E.g. gunas are reflected in three primary colors (blue, red, yellow), triple classification of human physiognomy in classical Greek medicine, etc.

> I CHOOSE to believe in God; whereas another may CHOOSE not to believe in God.

I have been searching desperately for a Srila Prabhupada quote I read recently which addresses some of the questions here. Unfortunately I but cant seem to find it at the momnet. Paraphrasing, the gist of what Prabhupada was saying is that both one who believes in God and one who doesnt believe dont really know the truth either way. But is prefereable to believe.

> Perhaps the "choice between Christianity and Hinduism" exists only as an abstraction in the field of psychology, sociology, anthropology and perhaps religiology

You could probably add to that list fanatic adherants of said religions.

> but whereas in the life of an actual person, there can be observed no single moment where a person would momentuously decide for one path to the exclusion of all others and
> instantly become a completed practitioner of said path.

Thats my personal experience. I was your average bewildered non-practicing Christian until 15, then decided to start a serious study of the Bible focusing exclusively on the sections about Jesus and his teachings and soon after was introduced to Srila Prabhupadas books and Bhagavad-gita. The teachings of Srila Prabhupada and the Gita were to my mind a simple, natural continuation and elaboration of the teachings of Jesus. I have not ever considered that I gave up Christianity but rather it was nourished and enriched.

[quote][cite] Hashama:[/cite]Baker .... I havent followed closely the progression of questions that you have asked here but I had a thought this morning and its that when it comes to faith --- I CHOOSE to believe in God; whereas another may CHOOSE not to believe in God. So I think that faith is something that we choose or choose not to have -- just as I may choose to wear a watch or choose not to.[/quote]

How do you think you have arrived at the point of seeing the issue of belief in God as so non-complex, as a simple either-or decision?

[br]I have always thought one would need to be enlightened first to become capable of such clarity and decisiveness.

deena, many devotees have a similar experience, myself included (although my path took me thru other traditions as well). Three stories:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Christianity.php#8

Vaisnava, Saiva (theistic) and Sakta marga are compatible with various aspects of Christian marga. Theres no compatibility of the latter, at least in its mainstream forms, with such widely spread hindu aspects as henotheism and monism. This is what Bhaktiananda M. always stressed and I could confirm it by my research at his encouragement.

> How do you think you have arrived at the point of seeing the issue of belief in God as so non-complex, as a simple either-or decision?
> I have always thought one would need to be enlightened first to become capable of such clarity and decisiveness.

Its simple in the sense that there are only three logical choices you have: 1) you believe, theist; 2) you dont believe, atheist; 3) youre not sure, agnostic. There is a fourth category - those who have never thought about it. Every person in the world is in one of these four positions.

For me, I followed my conscience for many years declaring myself an agnostic, but the uncertainty in such a fundamental question was driving me crazy so I studied, researched, completed a degree in Philosophy and Religion and eventually decided that based on the comparative arguments for and against the existence of God, I could in good conscience accept the existence of God.

"For me, I followed my conscience for many years declaring myself an agnostic, but the uncertainty in such a fundamental question was driving me crazy so I studied, researched, completed a degree in Philosophy and Religion and eventually decided that based on the comparative arguments for and against the existence of God, I could in good conscience accept the existence of God." (deena)

deena: Such integrity, honesty and introspection is very rare, as well as exemplary and refreshing. Thanks.

[img]http://www.atmayogi.com/files/129126343153668501-1.jpg[/img] They do not know what means free.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]For me, I followed my conscience for many years declaring myself an agnostic, but the uncertainty in such a fundamental question was driving me crazy so I studied, researched, completed a degree in Philosophy and Religion and eventually decided that based on the comparative arguments for and against the existence of God, I could in good conscience accept the existence of God.[/quote]

I imagine it has taken you several years of study, research and work before you completed your degree and before you eventually decided in favor of Gods existence.[br]
Id like to ask you some questions, about that period of your life, please:[br]

[br]In those years when you were in effect an agnostic, what was your daily life like?[br]
Did you chant, vist the temple, offer food?
[br]When periods of severe, depressing doubt came, what was your attitude toward those doubts, what did you tell yourself why is it worth it to push forward in your search for certainty?[br]
With what thoughts did you begin and end your day?[br]
What did you think about the people who you perceived as "certain" (either the theists or the atheists)?[br]
How did you feel about your own agnosticism - were you ashamed of it, hated it, loved it, were proud of it ...?
[br]
If other people scolded you because of your agnosticism, how did you respond to them? How did you feel about their criticism? What did you think of yourself, being scolded like that?[br]
Did you pray, and if yes, to whom and for what?

[youtube]HvhGeNzdRZA[/youtube][br][/br]The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldnt respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"

The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... havent you ever been cold?"

The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we dont have body heat or we are not hot."

"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again youre wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when theres lack of light."

Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of Gods presence in the hearts of man."

A dictionary definition of "believe in" is to have a firm conviction as to the goodness of something. I have no difficulty with this conviction about God, by definition God is good.

Hare Krishna, Ill try to answer your questions to the best of my memory.

> In those years when you were in effect an agnostic, what was your daily life like?

The same as any athiest. Having no real purpose or understanding, I could only live to please my material senses by various ways and means, subtle and gross.

> Did you chant, vist the temple, offer food?

Irregularly. I was associating with devotees.

> When periods of severe, depressing doubt came, what was your attitude toward those doubts, what did you tell yourself why is it worth it to push forward in your search for certainty?

Because I was convinced I would go crazy if I didnt push forward. I was literally pulling my hair out in desperation.

> With what thoughts did you begin and end your day?

I cannot say for sure, but certainly nothing special.

> What did you think about the people who you perceived as "certain" (either the theists or the atheists)?

I am no different than them, and I have been them at certain times in my life. They have their reasons, just like I have mine.

>How did you feel about your own agnosticism - were you ashamed of it, hated it, loved it, were proud of it ...?

My agnosticism was dictated by my conscience. I hated it because of the associated uncertainty, but was also comfortable with it in that it was the only position I could honestly hold. At that time I could not in good conscience say I was a theist or an athiest.

> If other people scolded you because of your agnosticism, how did you respond to them? How did you feel about their criticism? What did you think of yourself, being scolded like that?

I cant recall this ever occuring.

> Did you pray, and if yes, to whom and for what?

As an agnostic, I did not discount the possibilty of there being God. So I did pray, but this was infrequent and the mood was generally motivated by desperation; "If there is anyone out there, please let me know what is going on because I will go crazy otherwise." I remember often wondering if was actually going insane because of being so preoccupied in the whole question of existance. The other prayer I rememebr saying more than several times was in the mood of, "Please let me find someone who can explain these things to me."

My faith in god is a conviction based on firmly held beliefs tempered by practice.

Actually one can sit around postulating and trying to acquire faith or belief all they like, or without any faith or belief one can simply conduct the experiment like a scientist. A scientific process was given very nicely by Srila Prabhupada. If one lacks any faith or belief but still is interested in Krishna Consciousness then why not try the experiment?

As Srila Prabhupada has said, the intelligence is covered over by the modes of nature and until one comes to the mode of goodness this philosophy cannot even be understood.

Snippets from Srila Prabhupadas purport from BG 17.3

[One has to become cleansed of the material contamination that he has acquired, in order to regain his relationship with the Supreme Lord. That is the only path back without fear: Kruc0u803 su803 nu803 a consciousness. If one is situated in Kru803 su803 nu803 a consciousness, then that path is guaranteed for his elevation to the perfectional stage. If one does not take to this path of self-realization, then he is surely to be conducted by the influence of the modes of nature.

Therefore according to the position of the heart in contact with a particular mode of material nature, ones faith is established. It should be understood that if ones heart is in the mode of goodness his faith is also in the mode of goodness. If his heart is in the mode of passion, his faith is also in the mode of passion. And if his heart is in the mode of darkness, illusion, his faith is also thus contaminated.]

Try the experiment it will elevate you to the mode of pure goodness and from there the intelligence and the heart becomes clear.

I always saw this aspect of Krishna consciousness as similar to Zen in that the more the student tries to understand the Truth with his/her mental faculties and the ascending process of reasoning -- the more elusive and unattainable the Truth becomes for the seeker. Trying to understand the Absolute Truth through intellectual pursuit is the path of frustration and a dead end. Is that not what Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati Thakur meant in his forward to Brahma Samhita: "The materialistic demeanor cannot possibly stretch to the transcendental autocrat who is ever inviting the fallen conditioned souls to associate with Him through devotion, the eternal serving mood." So how does it work? Only through love can one know Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead -- the Absolute Truth -- and only through faith can one begin on the path to attain that love. Adau sraddha ... to sravanam kirtanam vishnu ...smaranam pada sevanam ....

So when it comes to the question of "to believe or not to believe .. in God" .... whichever way one goes --- the decision is based on an initial leap of faith because theres no question of proof either way. Arguments may be presented on both sides and when hearing them the listener/reader might think, "oh, that makes sense ... but that also makes sense ... well, thats possible ... but so is that" and it can go on like that forever.

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite]Actually one can sit around postulating and trying to acquire faith or belief all they like, or[b] without any faith or belief one can simply conduct the experiment[/b] like a scientist. A scientific process was given very nicely by Srila Prabhupada. If one lacks any faith or belief but still is interested in Krishna Consciousness then why not try the experiment?[/quote]

Have you yourself tried to act on the above instruction, and succeeded? Or do you know anyone who has tried and and succeeded?

Baker: Madan Mohan Malaviya in the story linked earlier. It works for children and simple folks - you tell them chant Hare Krsna - they chant and like it, do this for Krsna - they do it and feel happy. Iow, Paramatma directly confirms the validity of bhaktiyoga.

>Have you yourself tried to act on the above instruction, and succeeded? Or do you know anyone who has tried and and succeeded?

If the answer to this question is yes,how will that help you? or another possibility if the answer to this question is no, how will that help you? You can borrow things from other people but how can you borrow their experiences?

"..... and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization it is everlasting and joyfully performed."
(Bg.9.2)

Baker>>Have you yourself tried to act on the above instruction, and succeeded? Or do you know anyone who has tried and and succeeded?

Absolutely I took that instruction, I was seventeen at the time, I had been going through out of body experiences for some years so I knew from direct perception that I was not the body but I had no faith in Krishna because I had no knowledge of Krishna. Most of my religious conditioning was of a Christian nature. The devotees at the time became very tired of me debating everything and questioning everything, most gave up on me except one devotee. What I found interesting about that one devotee was that he seemed to have more intense faith in Krishna than anyone else in the temple.

I was in a position of non belief, I couldnt except everything that was being said, it was just too out of this world. So it was put to me it is a science and it is transcendental it does not depend on the power of my belief. I thought I would put it to the test so I started chanting sixteen rounds a day, became pure vegetarian, I attended the morning program in the temple then went to work, spent my spare time reading and also doing some service for the local Iskcon temple. Acheiving the mode of goodness is an interesting state in itself because your intuition becomes so much sharper and when you hear the transcendental science from an advanced devotee it has a much greater effect on your conciousness. My faith started to build not in Krishna but in the process, faith in Krishna came later after much reading, hearing, association with other devotees and travelling to India and visiting the places of his transcendental pastimes.

It is not the mood for any Gaudiya Vaisnava devotee to claim success on this path, they always see themselves as fallen and they attribute eveything to their Guru and other devotees.

[quote][cite] dweller-in-peace:[/cite]If the answer to this question is yes,how will that help you? or another possibility if the answer to this question is no, how will that help you? You can borrow things from other people but how can you borrow their experiences?[/quote]

The answer to that question helps me assess what sort of person I am dealing with.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]A dictionary definition of "believe in" is to have a firm conviction as to the goodness of something. I have no difficulty with this conviction about God, by definition God is good.[/quote]

Nor do I have any problems with such a definition. However, when it comes to social interactions around this topic, things are often difficult.

>Baker: (ccd:A dictionary definition of "believe in" is to have a firm conviction as to the goodness of something. I have no difficulty with this conviction about God, by definition God is good.) Nor do I have any problems with such a definition. However, when it comes to social interactions around this topic, things are often difficult.

The difficulty in a debate is that the basics or definitions and rules of the argument are not set. If someone takes a different understanding of what means believe and what he mean by God you are basically arguing about different things altogether. Also if you define believe as an irrational faith and God as a sectarian deity you will get a lot of confusing arguments, especially by irrational members of different sects (including atheists). You can (if you are lucky) using proper logic establish existence of God, but you will not be able to use logic to arrive at exactly how He is or His specific characteristics (that is a view of the acharyas).

uc0u299 u347 varas tena su257 dhyatu257 u7745 nu257 ma. na khalu tat tattvau7745 su257 dhayituu7745 u347 akyate. tat tu tad-anugraha-janya-j'f1u257 nenaiva tasya prakarau7751 atvu257 t

u299 u347 varau7717 '97the Supreme Lord; tena'97by that; su257 dhyatu257 u7745 '97may be known; nu257 ma'97indeed; na'97not; khalu'97indeed; tat'97of Him; tattvam'97the truth; su257 dhayituu7745 u347 akyate'97may be known; tat'97that; tu'97certainly; tad-anugraha'97by His mercy; janya'97manifested; j'f1u257 nena'97by knowledge; eva'97indeed; tasya'97of Him; prakarau7751 atvu257 t'97because of the explanation.

By logic one may be able to understand that the Supreme Personality of Godhead exists, but one cannot understand what He is like. Only by His mercy can one understand Him. (there is another translation of that)

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]The difficulty in a debate is that the basics or definitions and rules of the argument are not set. If someone takes a different understanding of what means believe and what he mean by God you are basically arguing about different things altogether. Also if you define believe as an irrational faith and God as a sectarian deity you will get a lot of confusing arguments, especially by irrational members of different sects (including atheists).[/quote]

I know, and by now, I know better than to bring up heavy topics when casually talking to people, including devotees. It has been my experience that people generally resent if one wishes to be clear as to the meaning of terms, and attempts at such clarification tend to earn the response "Youre ungrateful", "God cannot be understood by philosophizing" and such. Online _discussion_ forums and other situations where _discussion_ or debate is specifically called for, are no exception, though, and attempts at discussion and clarification are often met with ad hominems.[br]

[br]Anyway, I am not bothered by this per se - after all, what else can one expect in samsara. But what troubles me is that the people I am supposed to unconditionally trust and respect and depend upon for my spiritual progress are like that as well. Ill post a thread on this.[br][br]

[quote]You can (if you are lucky) using proper logic establish existence of God, but you will not be able to use logic to arrive at exactly how He is or His specific characteristics (that is a view of the acharyas).[/quote]

I agree, and have experience of the first part.

>The answer to that question helps me assess what sort of person I am dealing with.

"Judge Be Not" - Lord Jesus Christ.

You are not careful whom you associate with? Do you just unconditionally trust and believe everyone?

> "Judge Be Not" - Lord Jesus Christ.

Dont forget the other half of the equation: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." To me this says, dont judge people unfairly or you will be judged with the same unfair considerations. Be balanced and cool headed. Not judging is impossible; what about: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Do you just unconditionally trust and believe everyone?

I would prefer not to lose trust in trust.

>I know better than to bring up heavy topics when casually talking to people, including devotees.

Well you can. Absolutely, you just need a very good joke with a rather instant punchline. Humor can dismiss any heavy topic. But you would not engage in a debate with people you do not know. Even in a regular disciple and guru relationship you are recommended to test each other for at least a year, before commitment to trust (it is practical).

Just because one is a devotee, it does not mean you can skip the testing period, you need to go through it, for your own sake. After that you will be able to take things unconditionally (but even then even if you are a pure devotee and your guru is a pure devotee, you may have hesitation about taking radical steps with your life based on your gurus instruction.)

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]Anyway, I am not bothered by this per se - after all, what else can one expect in samsara. But what troubles me is that the people I am supposed to unconditionally trust and respect and depend upon for my spiritual progress are like that as well. [/quote]

Nowhere in Bhagavad Gita does Krsna tell us we should unconditionally trust our guru. And any guru who says such a thing should be promptly rejected.

> the people I am supposed to unconditionally trust and respect and depend upon for my spiritual progress

Not so. Viveka (discrimination) is needed. Aviveka is counted as one of the roots of entanglement in the material world. (SB 5.13.22)

> any guru who says such a thing should be promptly rejected.

Actually one needs to trust unconditionally gurus presentation of sastra and parampara in the nutshell. Somewhere in acahryas commentaries to the Gita Krishna says: "I am driving your chariot without question, now you should do what I tell you without question.;)" There are very strict notions in actual sastra (not tikas and tipanies) why a guru can be rejected (ie he is a demon, mayavadi materialist a-vaisnava) not because he told you to cut off your tumb;-) or was seduced by Menaki.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Somewhere in acahryas commentaries to the Gita Krishna says: "I am driving your chariot without question, now you should do what I tell you without question.[/quote]

Well, seems like some gurus pretend they know better than Krsna what should and should not be done. Krsna does not actually tell Arjuna to blindly or unconditionally do what He tells him - and He is a Supreme Personality of Godhead standing right there in front of Arjuna. It is the abuse of power by the gurus and other religionists that is causing people to turn away from God.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]There are very strict notions in actual sastra (not tikas and tipanies) why a guru can be rejected (ie he is a demon, mayavadi materialist a-vaisnava) not because he told you to cut off your tumb;-) or was seduced by Menaki.[/quote]

Yeah, sure... K-swamis disciples were wrong to reject their guru... ;) ----------- In the modern context you have to use some common sense AND shastra.

Combination of the disciple who trusts guru and guru does not abuse this power is a healthy combination. I agree with you otherwise, a good guru would rather see his disciples making choices for himself, but represent parampara without deviation at the same time.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Combination of the disciple who trusts guru and guru does not abuse this power is a healthy combination. [/quote]
Trust comes from positive experience. Jet lag swamis vacationing in Thailand, which you see only twice a year when they come for your donation, do not inspire confidence in any sane person. In the past, gurus lived out in the open all their life and were completely accessible to their disciples - that was a normal, healthy relationship based on real love and trust. The rock-star-guru paradigm popularized by Iskcon is doomed to fail in the long run, as we can see rather plainly already.

Eventually sannyasis (swamis) should provide guidance, but not be gurus, because they can not provide consistent guidance. It is vanaprasthas and grihasthas who should be gurus, local gurus (provided they are not motivated by management). I find that this diverts from the topic at hand, but trust is something you build over time, and the minimum period is one year; if someone pushes you into any form of guru-trust relationship based on thee days visit to a temple (be it swami or not) he is not following the sastra (and they know it!). Trust is like a china plate... and it is not cheap and yes, not possible to repair once broken (any push to enforce a form of trust is ... and the same goes for rubber-stamp approval of gurus or forceful conversion of the infidels by some very specific religious groups).

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Well you can. Absolutely, you just need a very good joke with a rather instant punchline. Humor can dismiss any heavy topic.[/quote]

Yes ... perhaps I should listen to HDG a bit more, just to get the feel for it ...[br][br]

[quote]Just because one is a devotee, it does not mean you can skip the testing period, you need to go through it, for your own sake.[/quote]

But how come there seems to be so much resentment for that among devotees? How do I deal with it?[br]

[br]I used to greet devotees with "Hare Krishna", but eventually deliberately gave it up, because it appeared it made the devotees assume and expect a number of things about me - which I would prefer would not be assumed and expected. I felt I was suffocating from those assumptions and expectations.[br]

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Not so. Viveka (discrimination) is needed. Aviveka is counted as one of the roots of entanglement in the material world. (SB 5.13.22)[/quote]

When I am met with an attitude like this:[br][br]

"Youre a newcomer, you dont have a clue. You cannot tell what is good for you and what isnt. You have no discernment. You have to do as we tell you, or you will not succeed and will go down as an offender."[br]

[br]- how do I deal with it?[br]

[br]I mean, the person who talks to me in such a manner could be right, after all.

> But how come there seems to be so much resentment for that among devotees? How do I deal with it?

I am sorry, without details of place, time and people involved my advice will be useless. My email is ccd at pamho.net -- but what may help is a story of how Prabhupada was approached by a devotee (south USA) who just could not stand another devotee, there was a serious conflict, and the situation was intolerable. Prabhupada asked this devotee to see at least one quality that the other side has, that this devotee can appreciate. Maybe you can do the same... even if devotees are expecting too much of you? I myself would take it as a compliment if based on my saying a Hare Krishna greeting they would accept me as a devotee, I kind of like when devotees do have "those assumptions and expectations" about me, it makes me feel better about myself, even if I know I can not meet the expectations.

Baker, I second ccd. Weve discussed this before. Although I can presume having some idea about whats going on, I cant be certain.

If one can handle it, one can ask for gss for every instruction provided. Kanistha devotees have problem to do that, feel uncomfortable and
become defensive. Therefore I say if one can handle it.
You need association of madhyama devotees, those who dont have a problem with substantiating everything by gss without getting offended, belittling you, etc.

You can say, I may not be able to discern therefore I need to consult with more devotees.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]You need association of madhyama devotees, those who dont have a problem with substantiating everything by gss without getting offended, belittling you, etc.
[/quote]

I think this very much what she really needs.
Being around mature devotees can be a very pleasant experience - enlivening, stimulating, and purifying. That is real sadhu-sanga.

I apologize for reitrerating.

Thank you for your patience.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite] but what may help is a story of how Prabhupada was approached by a devotee (south USA) who just could not stand another devotee, there was a serious conflict, and the situation was intolerable. Prabhupada asked this devotee to see at least one quality that the other side has, that this devotee can appreciate. Maybe you can do the same... even if devotees are expecting too much of you? I myself would take it as a compliment if based on my saying a Hare Krishna greeting they would accept me as a devotee, I kind of like when devotees do have "those assumptions and expectations" about me, it makes me feel better about myself, even if I know I can not meet the expectations.[/quote]

To me, the problem is not in finding something positive about the person - because finding something positive is not difficult. [br]

[br]It is more that I do not understand devotee etiquette well enough, nor do devotees seem willing to discuss those issues openly - and I imagine this reluctance has to do with etiquette as well.[br]
There seems to be a number of things that I am supposed to know without asking anyone or without them being written anywhere.[br][br]

Besides, the approach with finding something positive about the other person works only among equals, for strangers, or when one isnt concerned about ones position. [br][br]

But anyone aiming for spiritual progress has to be concerned about their position, given that in order to make spiritual progress, one needs to receive initiation, and in order to become eligible for initiation, one needs a recommendation - and one will not receive a recommendation unless one has a good enough standing among devotees (among other requirements).[br][br]

And from what I have seen, being in good standing among the devotees is extremely difficult, since almost everything I say or do displeases them, and trying to please them often means I would have to do things that I find impossible to do.[br][br]

Nor am I equals with the devotees, in fact, from what I understood, I should always consider mysefl less than them. [br]But I dont understand how I am to keep any resemblance of sanity and proper action, if I am supposed to constantly question my sanity and subject myself to whatever the devotees tell me. Because if I dont do and believe as they tell, me, I am probably committing offenses, or otherwise endangering ever receiving a recommendation, and thus endangering ever making spiritual progress.[br]

[br] So for example, all in all, if in a casual conversation on a city bus, a devotee doesnt let me finish a sentence, and I have a problem with that, or if there is anything he or she doesnt like about me, this could cost me ever becoming Krishna conscious.
[br] - With prospects like that, who wouldnt want to stay away from devotees altogether.

To be honest, what you have described shows that you are perfectly capable of making decisions yourself. You desire to have an independent point of view, and that is a sign of intelligence.

You should not fear an offence where no offence intended. In short you should just become less self-conscious and rather concentrate on a particular service at hand (be it kirtan, service to the prasadam or just washing the pots). In fact a simple practical solution to what you have described is doing one thing -- always taking part in serving prasadam to devotees, just grab that spoon and serve it out, you will be amazed how it will change your outlook if you do it always.

There is no solution that will apply easily to any form of relationship strain, but if you ARE actually able to see positive in others, you can actually start expressing it in the way you can, and then you will for certain not commit any offences, do not worry. I honestly dont think youre factually offensive to slightest, you are just challenging. What I suspect is that devotees will try to control you one way or another, and that will be very hard for them, and the resulting frustration you will interpret as your own disqualification (which is not a true disqualification).

You should not worry about the recommendation as yet. The reality is that if you follow the four rules, chant your rounds and do some service, they will be obliged to give you recommendation even if they can not control you. It will happen, dont worry...

Intellectual independence is punishable in a kanistha world, but you can soften the blow by just being nice to others at the start and at the finish of every conversation, that will help you more than you think. (You have a tendency to express hopelessness and desire to just quit or to giveup, even if your heart is full of hope and you actually never give up, we have seen it here;). But do not let those who want to control you or be seen as your seniors get to you, one smile/joke and an actual expression of a positive outlook (rather than negative) will make all the difference. And yes you can and should feel that you are an equal, it also makes others more relaxed. We are all equals, we are all souls, forget the senior-junior for a couple of years.

ccd --- Wow! That was amazing! Thank you!!!!

You are too kind, CCD. Thank you.

I have to admit I dont actually know how to be nice. I was never raised to be nice. I never had any nice, fluffy, girly things. I am plain and unattractive, and in the culture where I come from, such girls are viewed negatively if they try to be nice or dress up - its seen as hypocrisy. "If a girl is plain or ugly, she should act and dress accordingly, for nothing is more pathetic than a plain or ugly girl trying to be something she is not." This is one of the main reasons I dont wear make-up, jewelery, fancy clothes (and why I wouldnt wear a sari), or say nice things to people. And yes, there is an unbridgable rift between pretty and ugly girls/women. It seems women endorse this rift even more than men.

Not all female devotees are exactly pretty, and Im puzzled how they came to dress up the way they do.

So trying to be nicer will require for me a complete paradigm and lifestyle shift.

And as for the senior-junior - it just occured to me that I am too immature, too inadvanced, to meaningfully understand and act on the category of seniority to begin with. But what is my status, and how to I think and act accordingly?

just be natural and look for the person/s you connect with and can help/share with you. The others just be polite and nice but do not reveal your mind to them.

there is a verse by the of the gosvamis that tells us how to act. I will try to remember here but if someone has the exact text, better :)

To the senior devotees serve them and learn from them
the equal, share and do service together
the less advanced, teach them with compassion, the only difference between them and you is knowledge.

gunadhikan mudam lipsed anukrosam gunadhamat
maitrim samanad anvicchen na tapair abhibhuyate

It does not say senior it just says gunadhikam (one who has better qualifications). In the same way gunadahamat is one who has less qualification. Baker has plenty of qualifications!

"If you cannot purify yourself by any endeavor whatsoever, then just go sit with the Vaisnavas and you will achieve all auspiciousness."

(Sri Ramanujacarya quoted in Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakuras Bhaktyaloka)

I suppose I am looking for a familiar paradigm through which I could meaningfully approach interactions with devotees.
The only paradigm I am really familiar with is that of being a college student. But perhaps that is not so bad, I could make it work with some adjustment.

On a brighter note - The other morning, I was walking through town, chanting on beads. I saw a Catholic priest. And for the first time in as long as I can remember I did not panic. Otherwise, I would always feel very very upset, panicky if I would see a priest, monk or nun, pass by a Christian bookstore, see a born-again, a Mormon, Jehovas Witness, or someone whom I know to be a devout Christian (strangely, church buildings and Jesus on the cross dont make me panic).
But the other morning I did not panic. I noticed only later on, as I remembered - oh, I saw a priest and I didnt panic.

Unfortunately to properly deal with devotees you need to forgo the familiar paradigms;-) but you are right, that being a college student is not that bad, the only thing is that paradigm is ultimately analitical, whereas devotees act (or supposed to act) on the spiritual holistic platform. I like your brighter notes! I have had similar experiences about (scary) clergy, it took me longer... I think it is very neat how you bring up doubts and ask difficult questions and do not give up.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]> any guru who says such a thing should be promptly rejected.

Actually one needs to trust unconditionally gurus presentation of sastra and parampara in the nutshell. Somewhere in acahryas commentaries to the Gita Krishna says: "I am driving your chariot without question, now you should do what I tell you without question.;)" There are very strict notions in actual sastra (not tikas and tipanies) why a guru can be rejected (ie he is a demon, mayavadi materialist a-vaisnava) not because he told you to cut off your tumb;-) or was seduced by Menaki.[/quote]

I think the term unconditional could probably only used in relation to the principle and persons that are Sri Guru Archarya,not to ordinary brahmana Guru,kanistha Guru or the like. .......
....
...

In this verse uc0u346 ru299 la Ru363 pa Gosvu257 mu299 advises the devotee to be INTELLIGENT enough to distinguish between the kaniu7779 u7789 ha-adhiku257 ru299 , madhyama-adhiku257 ru299 and uttama-adhiku257 ru299 . The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform......A neophyte Vaiu7779 u7751 ava or a Vaiu7779 u7751 ava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his INSUFFICIENT GUIDANCE.... Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhiku257 ru299 as a spiritual master.

{NOI verse 5 (purport)}

Ysvt,
'a0'a0 'a0 'a0 Bk.Nrsingha D.'a0

'a0'a0 'a0 'a0 Hare Krishna!'a0

Even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there.

- Will Rogers

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]There really was an almost funny moment some few months ago. A newcomer came to our Thursday BG readings in the temple. He was posing interesting questions, and in the process of answering them, one devotee challenged him, "Do you believe in God?" I was feeling uneasy, maybe also because it sounded like a demand to take one side or another and it sounded so simplistic or even irrational. The guy actually answered: "I really can not rationally put this question into a framework. You see I just finished two years Masters in Philosophy in Trinity College, and this question really does seems to be making very little sense to me." (By that time Ananda, who confronted him with the "Do you believe" seemed disappointed..) The guy proceeded: "I am may understand it and take it how you can experience God or whatever you have under that name." And after a pause he added: "I guess I am looking for this experience, on what is this supernatural for me, many people would speak of it, but is it like a..." and than he appeared to be suggesting an impersonal concept or realization. I honestly felt that it is a better start, than someone saying "I believe in God" as if he knows what God means to him in full or his faith is that developed to realize Him personally.[/quote]

Has this man come to the meetings again?[br]
What did you say to him?

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]There really was an almost funny moment some few months ago. A newcomer came to our Thursday BG readings in the temple. He was posing interesting questions, and in the process of answering them, one devotee challenged him, "Do you believe in God?" I was feeling uneasy, maybe also because it sounded like a demand to take one side or another and it sounded so simplistic or even irrational. The guy actually answered: "I really can not rationally put this question into a framework. You see I just finished two years Masters in Philosophy in Trinity College, and this question really does seems to be making very little sense to me." (By that time Ananda, who confronted him with the "Do you believe" seemed disappointed..) The guy proceeded: "I am may understand it and take it how you can experience God or whatever you have under that name." And after a pause he added: "I guess I am looking for this experience, on what is this supernatural for me, many people would speak of it, but is it like a..." and than he appeared to be suggesting an impersonal concept or realization. I honestly felt that it is a better start, than someone saying "I believe in God" as if he knows what God means to him in full or his faith is that developed to realize Him personally.[/quote]

Has this man come to the meetings again?[br]
What did you say to him?[/quote]

Haribol baker it is nice that you are asking this or bringing it up. I was just reading a quote from Krsna book:[br][br]

"Mah'e4r'e4ja Pariksit continued by saying that the function of the ear can be perfected simply by engagement in hearing the transcendental activities of the Lord, and the function of the head can be fully utilized when the head is engaged in bowing down before the Lord and His representative. That the Lord is represented in everyone'92s heart is a fact, and therefore the highly advanced devotee offers his respects to every living entity, considering that the body is the temple of the Lord. But it is not possible for all men to come to that stage of life immediately, because that stage is for the first-class devotee. The second-class devotee can consider the Vaisnavas, or the devotees of the Lord, to be representatives of Krishna, and the devotee who is just beginning, the neophyte or third-class devotee, can bow his head before the Deity in the temple and before the spiritual master, who is the direct manifestation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, in the neophyte stage, in the intermediate stage or in the fully advanced, perfected stage, one can make the function of the head perfect by bowing down before the Lord or His representative."[br][br]

I have realized that I can only try to see all the Vaisnavas to be representative of the Lord. The man who came was interested in a jnana or knowledge, not in bhakti or devotional service. We did not succeed in making him appreciate the beauty of humility in devotional service. The devotees are special souls, with all the faults and being imperfect ourselves we should try to see the Vaisnavas to be representative of the Lord. Ideally we should see all living beings as representative of the Lord, but we should not imitate such position. Seeing a representation of the Lord in the words of devotees is my goal, and if I can inspire you in that -- that would be wonderful, but at the same time I can only aspire to get to it myself. I remember what I told that man, and it was about the beauty and intimacy of personalistic knowledge of God, but he was only interested in impersonal aspect or in other words he was not aspiring for anything more than jnana.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakuras dealings with his diksa guru were always exemplary, even though Vipin Bihari Goswami was not very advanced, being a kanistha adhikari guru, whereas the Thakura was an uttama adhikari, paramahamsa of the highest order. Still Bhaktivinoda always played the humble disciple. On one such occassion in the presence of young Siddhanta Saraswati, Bhaktivinoda Thakura paid his respectful obeisances to his guru. Vipin Bihari Goswami replied by placing his feet on the Thakuras head. For the young firey Siddhanta Saraswati this was too much! It was one thing that his father had accepted him as his formal initiating spiritual master, but this was going too far. Srila Siddhanta Saraswati was only seven years old at the time, but when Bhaktivinoda Thakura left the room leaving the two of them alone, Siddhanta Saraswati decided to set things straight:

"You are acting like a big, big guru and you place your feet on the heads of those who you dont know. If you knew who the Thakura is you would not do it. But you do not know! My father is a great exhalted nitya siddha, eternal associate of Sri Radha and Krsna who has come here to fulfill Their mission. Do you think that you are so advanced that you can place your feet on the head of such a person? I think not. You have proven yourself to be a kanistha adhikari (neophyte) by not being able to distinguish between those who are advanced and those who are less advanced, therefore I suggest that you desist from this practice any further." Bhaktivinoda Thakura then re-entered the room and the conversation changed. Later that day Vipin Bihari Goswami mentioned to Bhaktivnoda, "Your son is bold to the point of being rude."

"Reflecting on this incident we can see that even if ones spiritual master is not an uttama adhikari, mahabhagavat devotee of the Lord still one should be satisfied, and serve him anyway. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who himself was certainly a mahabhagavat, set the example how to serve and show respects. On the other side of the transcendental coin, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati showed a nice lesson to us. We should not show ourselves to be more advanced than we really are, lest we commit offences against those who are actually advanced. "

ccd - re above ,

Wonderful example very to nice read. If i may ask could you
kindly explain how one can practice the above example with present day
iskcon devotees.

> I remember what I told that man, and it was about the beauty and intimacy of personalistic knowledge of God, but he was only interested in impersonal aspect or in other words he was not aspiring for anything more than jnana.

This I now use as my email sig:

dvaitaM bandhAya mokSAt prAk prApte bodhe manISayA
bhaktyarthaM kalpitam dvaitaM advaitAd api sundaram

"Duality is bondage before moksa and wisdom after realization. The duality accepted for the purpose of bhakti is sweeter than even non-duality." (from mangalacarana to Advaitasiddhi sara sangraha by Madhusudana Sarasvati, former advaitin)

[quote][cite] sg:[/cite]ccd - re above ,

Wonderful example very to nice read. If i may ask could you
kindly explain how one can practice the above example with present day
iskcon devotees.[/quote]

Good point. When I first came to the nama-hatta, I thought people would bow to the altar and to eachother. But only a few bowed to the altar, and none bowed to eachother. I was a bit confused about that, thinking that perhaps they "tone down" their etiquette since this is merely a nama-hatta, that is, a kind of "intermediate" situation between "proper" devotional activities and worldly ones. So I didnt bow either, but felt very uneasy.[br]

[br]I am finding it really difficult to have an attitude of respect and humility if they are not accompanied by external signs.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]The man who came was interested in a jnana or knowledge, not in bhakti or devotional service. We did not succeed in making him appreciate the beauty of humility in devotional service.[/quote]

Of course I dont know in detail what was going on there. But if that man was anything like me, then he could be using his interest in jnana as a smokescreen, especially if he was any kind of British. I cant say I am fully interested in devotional service, but I invest enormous amounts of energy into hiding my emotions. I get teary eyes and my heart rate goes up just from hearing a note from the harmonium or seeing a brahmacari or a devotee in traditional attire. I suppose that makes me sentimental. I certaintly do not think I can freely show my emotions and appreciation (often, I myself dont know what to do with those feelings). So I, like mental people usually do in such situations, resort to the ivory tower ...[br][br]

But after ones main strategy for dealing with emotions has become to hide them and to throw up rationalistic smokescreens, it becomes more and more difficult to actually show emotions at all, and any expression that manages to come through is a sentimentalist gush that one is ashamed of.[br]

[br][quote]Seeing a representation of the Lord in the words of devotees is my goal, and if I can inspire you in that -- that would be wonderful, but at the same time I can only aspire to get to it myself.[/quote]

If it is any consolation - I have printed out "Great Hope" and placed in the middle of my "quick guide to spirituality album", so I can easily find it and read it over and over again.[br]

[br][quote]I remember what I told that man, and it was about the beauty and intimacy of personalistic knowledge of God, but he was only interested in impersonal aspect or in other words he was not aspiring for anything more than jnana.[/quote]

Perhaps he was just under stress and defensive. I know I would be.[br]
[br]When someone is used to impersonal conceptions, being faced with a personal can be overwhelming. "Oh, I am a person? But I have nothing to show for for being a person ...!"

Interesting -- a smokescreen confession ;-)

No. He did not want to take Bg we wanted to give him (even for free). It would be nice to see your "Great Hope". It is common to actually separate emotions and intelligence, so I do not think he (being male) actually was hiding anything or was defensive, also I am not a great preacher, and I was not a speaker there too. I do not think it is easy to convert to personalism anyone interested in philosophy. In fact I do not think it is to be expected in a debate, rather we should appear nice and give something more than just a debate to others, a personal touch and an opportunity to interact with Krishna and His name.

I like that quote that Jan had posted, it is nice. Well I do not think that jump can be anything but a miracle, there is a huge gap between the two perspectives of tattva-vits

Its just an entry in my Green Book, nothing special so far.

By Kent Keith-

"People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have and it may just never be enough;
Give the world the best you have anyway.

You see, in the final analysis, its all between you and God;
It was never between you and them anyway."

I once saw this poem attributed to Bhakti Tirtha Swami.

He was involved with th0se circles;-) (this one is rather famous, written in 1969).

Know this,when Lord Chaitanyas moon again arises they will be stuck with the shadow Gurus much like Ravana with shadow Sita. They will come last. :o(

The reason one is not liberated;envy of the Spiritual Master.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
..................................................................

Seeming ramblings of a ABSOLUTE LUNATIC.

......................................................

...and out of the many such Hare Krishnas,hardly one knows me in truth.

Jaya Nitai! :o)

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite] It is common to actually separate emotions and intelligence[/quote]

And sentimentality is when one cannot separate emotions and intelligence?[br]

[br][quote]I do not think it is easy to convert to personalism anyone interested in philosophy.[/quote]

I am optimistic! But I think I am also very fortunate, because I think I mostly have only a vested or ulterior interest in philosophy - I see philosophy merely as a means to an end. In my case, this end means loosening or even breaking the grip that mainstream Christianity has on me.
It occured to me a while back that mainstream Christianity is in many ways impersonalist, and that what binds me to it is my own impersonalism. So if I somehow managed to come out of impersonalism, I possibly wouldnt be troubled by notions of eternal damnation anymore either. (Although my encounters with Christian clergy have been going nicely too - I have seen several nuns and priests lately, without detecting any upset in myself.)[br]

[br]Someone suggested that the key to the door of personalism is to take an interest in ones own needs, interests and concerns, and in other peoples needs, interests and concerns.
So I have deliberately thought how to do that, and remembered your mention of the man with the degree in philosophy - this is why I posted again in this thread.[br]

[br][quote] In fact I do not think it is to be expected in a debate, rather we should appear nice and give something more than just a debate to others, a personal touch and an opportunity to interact with Krishna and His name.[/quote]

You have been very nice to me. I am much obliged.

I do not think that the key to the door of personalism is "is to take an interest in ones own needs, interests and concerns, and in other peoples needs, interests and concerns". Prabhupada was very critical of an attitude of altruistic work (opening hospitals etc) or any self centered work in the name of true religion. This is exactly what impersonalists do, we offer everything we have to Krishna. I kind of agree that many religious paths in the general known form are at least externally impersonal. Eternal damnation is a myth, obviously for a devotee. However Madhvacarya maintained there is eternal hell for creatures of tama-yogis category, pishachiays, danavas, raksasas (to translate it to English -- vampires, demons and demoniac man-eaters). You are a saintly person (sura) not an asura, so you are completely safe. For you the danger is going to heaven;-) instead of continuing the service to the person. Actual personalism (not a theoretical one) starts at the path of raga-marga, but our basic sadhana is satiated with raga-marga from the very start, so when we say vaidhi-sadhana it is not pure vaidhi it has a lot of raga in it, if you follow Prabhupada nicely, just read a translation of gurvastakam and tulasikirtananm -- a huge component of raga in it. I find for myself -- the best practical ways to turn from impersonalist realization to personal is worship of tulasi, personal prayers and opening your mind to the deity, menial service to the guru and vaisnavas and abstaining from purely intellectual argument. You see even in Gaudiya Vasnavism there is a concept of eternal hell.... that is why we are so much set against the sayujja mukti;-) the danger is that unlike anything material (that is always temporary) that hell is actually eternal=) I hope I did not scare you or anything, but you are firmly on the personalists path

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I do not think that the key to the door of personalism is "is to take an interest in ones own needs, interests and concerns, and in other peoples needs, interests and concerns". Prabhupada was very critical of an attitude of altruistic work (opening hospitals etc) or any self centered work in the name of true religion. This is exactly what impersonalists do, we offer everything we have to Krishna.[/quote]

I am afraid I was being too brief. The focus on ones own and other peoples needs, interests and concerns was meant in comparison to the impersonalists lack of such interest. It can be readily seen that people with a heavy interest in philosophy, for example, seem to have no interest in themselves or other people, but only in ideas. From the impersonalists perspective, needs, interests and concerns are superficial somethings that are not to be taken seriously.[br]

[br]For me, for example, it is very difficult to understand the notion of "pleasing someone", as I would normally not use such words. Although even mundane personalists will describe my behavior as "trying to please myself" or "trying to please someone", I myself am not very familiar with thinking about things in such a way with such words.[br]
When I am told or read "Do such and such with the desire to please guru and Krishna", this usually draws a blank in my mind. I find soap operas, for example, to be quite amazing and difficult to follow - given that the characters there do almost nothing else but care about their own and other peoples needs, interests and concerns. It is mostly mundane personalism, but it is an example of thinking of oneself and others as persons, instead of conceving of everything in terms of[br]
P1[br]
P2[br]
____[br]
C[br]
("P" standing for premise and "C" for conclusion.)[br]

[br][quote]However Madhvacarya maintained there is eternal hell for creatures of tama-yogis category, pishachiays, danavas, raksasas (to translate it to English -- vampires, demons and demoniac man-eaters).[/quote]

But "vampire", "demon" and "demoniac man-eater" are material designations, not that some souls would by their nature be such (as opposed to being eternally full of bliss and knowledge)?[br]

[br](I will come back later.)

Try asking an impersonalist to give you all his money since were all one and what does it matter anyway who is holding the cash? Suddenly they become very much a personalist as in "Me, Myself and I ... and MINE."

Yes, I am familiar with this example. A devotee told me that a devotee once actually asked an impersonalist teacher at some event where the impersonalist was speaking, to give him his wallet - since all is one and all that. The impersonalist first gave him his wallet, but eventually wanted it back.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]You are a saintly person (sura) not an asura, so you are completely safe. For you the danger is going to heaven;-) instead of continuing the service to the person.[/quote]

You are most kind![br]

[br][quote]Actual personalism (not a theoretical one) starts at the path of raga-marga, but our basic sadhana is satiated with raga-marga from the very start, so when we say vaidhi-sadhana it is not pure vaidhi it has a lot of raga in it, if you follow Prabhupada nicely, just read a translation of gurvastakam and tulasikirtananm -- a huge component of raga in it.[/quote]

If I understood correctly, then "raga" can mean passion, but also spontaneous. It seems you mean passion here?[br]
I am not sure how to understand the two songs you mention as having elements of passion.[br][br]

For example, is this passion -[br]
"Just as a cloud pours water on a forest fire to extinguish it, so the spiritual master delivers the materially afflicted world by extinguishing the blazing fire of material existence." [br]
or[br]
"My desire is to obtain the service of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna."[br]
-?[br][br]

I would imagine it takes bold, energetic action to extinguish a blazing fire - so this could be an act of passion.[br]
And if someone considers themselves a fallen and lowly servant, but still desires to obtain high privileges - I would think this is passion too.[br][br]

Is this what you meant?[br][br]

[quote]I find for myself -- the best practical ways to turn from impersonalist realization to personal is worship of tulasi, personal prayers and opening your mind to the deity, menial service to the guru and vaisnavas and abstaining from purely intellectual argument. [/quote]

I have actually thought the other day that perhaps I should begin my personal prayers with "Dear Sir". At least this is a title I understand. I have never heard that anyone would refer to God with "Dear Sir", though, but somehow it seems fitting.[br][br]

[quote]You see even in Gaudiya Vasnavism there is a concept of eternal hell.... that is why we are so much set against the sayujja mukti;-) the danger is that unlike anything material (that is always temporary) that hell is actually eternal=) I hope I did not scare you or anything, but you are firmly on the personalists path[/quote]

In what sense is hell eternal? Is it that once a souls comes into hell, he can never get out?

> However Madhvacarya maintained there is eternal hell for creatures of tama-yogis category, pishachiays, danavas, raksasas (to translate it to English -- vampires, demons and demoniac man-eaters).

Tamo yogyas, not yogis.

SB 11.12.3 http://vedabase.net/sb/11/12/3/en explicitly lists "rajah-tamah-prakrtayah" jivas among those being liberated to "mat padam", Lords abode.

> You see even in Gaudiya Vasnavism there is a concept of eternal hell.... that is why we are so much set against the sayujja mukti;-)

Brahma says in SB 10.2.32 its not actually eternal.

> In what sense is hell eternal? Is it that once a souls comes into hell, he can never get out?

In the Bible the hell is not eternal but lasting "aeons" (i.e. cosmic ages). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon

Thats also Puranic version, if aeons are translated as yugas or kalpas. After all, hell is within material world which lasts only for one day of Brahma (kalpa). Then its destroyed and again created, etc., until the end of Brahmas life, over 311 trillion years.

more here: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm

Yes Baker, there are elements of passion even in the basics, but I meant different. It is a good idea for you to talk to God starting "Dear Sir", he may answer you with an order! Actually they spell them tama-yogins in madhvas studies, but whatever, he claims they are in the pit forewer, but our concept of nitya-baddha is different, Madhva is using Bg to support his claims. There is nothing eternal in this world, except for a lack of love in my heart, but we are lucky to have sankirtana yajna. I would not start preaching it to pishachiyas or raksasas.... they may eat me for breakfast...

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]> In what sense is hell eternal? Is it that once a souls comes into hell, he can never get out?[br]

In the Bible the hell is not eternal but lasting "aeons" (i.e. cosmic ages). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon[br]

Thats also Puranic version, if aeons are translated as yugas or kalpas. After all, hell is within material world which lasts only for one day of Brahma (kalpa). Then its destroyed and again created, etc., until the end of Brahmas life, over 311 trillion years.[br]

more here: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm[/quote]

I am by now well-familiar with your references to this topic, thank you. :)[br]

[br]The official doctrines of many Christian churches, however, do state that there is eternal damnation from which there is no return.[br]

[br]What amazes me is the confidence or certainty with which (some) devotees make claims about what the Bible actually says, and how they seem to think they know the Bible better than Christians.[br]
Christians generally make it quite clear that the Bible is theirs and that they are the authorities on how the Bible is supposed to be understood properly. But those bold devotees seem to be saying that such is not necessarily the case!

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Brahma says in SB 10.2.32 its not actually eternal.[/quote]

I am sorry, but I dont see it said there - ?[br]

[br]Anyway, my problem with "eternal damnation" is in relation to a popular Christian teaching that "one has to get it right in this one lifetime or be damned forever". I tend to approach problems by the principle of finding the worst case scenario and then finding a solution to it - and that Christian one qualifies for such a worst case scenario, hence my interest in it.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Yes Baker, there are elements of passion even in the basics, but I meant different.[/quote]

How did you mean it?[br][br]

[quote] he claims they are in the pit forewer[/quote]

Perhaps it is meant that the residents of hell are demons, vampires etc. - that hell is where thus embodied beings reside (like "New Yorkers reside in New York, and they are there forever") and not elsewhere?[br][br]

[quote]There is nothing eternal in this world, except for a lack of love in my heart, [/quote]

Oh, you know that this is not to be taken factually, and you dont believe it either. If you would, you wouldnt even try to do any service. :)[br]
Humility and facts dont always match.[br]

> > VEDA:Brahma says in SB 10.2.32 its not actually eternal.

> I am sorry, but I dont see it said there - ?

Either do I.

What about Gita 16.19-20? These verses and various commentaries on these verses appear to me to support the notion that there is perpetual residence and revolution through hellish bodies and destinations without ever being able to attain the Lords mercy or liberation.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]What about Gita 16.19-20? These verses and various commentaries on these verses appear to me to support the notion that there is perpetual residence and revolution through hellish bodies and destinations without ever being able to attain the Lords mercy or liberation.[/quote]

Yes, it seems so. BG 7.15 also makes such points.[br][br]

The purport to 16.20 says:[br][br]

"It is clearly stated that the demoniac people, life after life, are put into the wombs of similar demons, and, not achieving the mercy of the Supreme Lord, they go down and down, so that at last they achieve bodies like those of cats, dogs and hogs. It is clearly stated that such demons have practically no chance of receiving the mercy of God at any stage of later life. In the Vedas also it is stated that such persons gradually sink to become dogs and hogs."[br][br]

But once they become embodied as dogs and hogs, they are bound to reside in animal bodies and progress in the animal species until their karma lasts - until they eventually, according to the evolutionary progression, attain a human birth - do they not?

> But once they become embodied as dogs and hogs, they are bound to reside in animal bodies and progress in the animal species until their karma lasts - until they eventually, according to the evolutionary progression, attain a human birth - do they not?

Yes, naturally they attain a human birth according to the cycle of spiritual evolution. Bhagavan Sri Krishna even tells us what type of human birth they acquire - uc0u257 suru299 su803 v eva yonisu803 u: born in the wombs of asuras or demoniac humans. (16.19) Srila Prabhupada refers to them in the purport: " Such demoniac species of men are held to be always full of lust, always violent and hateful and always unclean." And according to 14.15 such a person is destined for an animal birth, just like Sri Krishna repeats in 16.20. And so the cycle continues....

Srila Baladeva Vidhyabhushanas verse purports in the last half of chapter 16, and the verses themselves, closely link the unfortunate destiny of such people to their continued non-acceptance of scripture or acceptance of religious activites out of pretension only (16.17). for . He further states in his commentary to 16.20 that demons who fought the Lords incarnations were externally enemies but were internally bona-fide Vedic followers and did not oppose the Vedas and therefore were liberated when killed. 16.23 then reinforces and combines all of these ideas, i.e if you dont accept the scriptures and their regulations, then you will never be happy or liberated.

> The official doctrines of many Christian churches, however, do state that there is eternal damnation from which there is no return.

If its against the Bible, then whats its authority?

> What amazes me is the confidence or certainty with which (some) devotees make claims about what the Bible actually says, and how they seem to think they know the Bible better than Christians.
Christians generally make it quite clear that the Bible is theirs and that they are the authorities on how the Bible is supposed to be understood properly. But those bold devotees seem to be saying that such is not necessarily the case!

One such devotee was Srila Prabhupada. When he spoke with Christians he first asked them if they actually follow the Bible. If they didnt he stopped there. This is the test. Without following one cant really understand.

> Anyway, my problem with "eternal damnation" is in relation to a popular Christian teaching that "one has to get it right in this one lifetime or be damned forever". I tend to approach problems by the principle of finding the worst case scenario and then finding a solution to it - and that Christian one qualifies for such a worst case scenario, hence my interest in it.

If I should choose between any popular teaching and the literal meaning of the Bible, Id definitely go with the Bible. Thats the Vaisnava way, mukhya vritti. Moreover, advanced teaching of Kabbala is clear about samsara (Hebr. gilgul). This is analogical to Greek trochos, wheel, in James 3:6.

http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3?do=show_marg_and_gh&b=59&c=3&v=6

SB 10.2.32 describes the impersonal liberation from which one falls back to samsara unless he took shelter in param padam, Vaikuntha.

> But once they become embodied as dogs and hogs, they are bound to reside in animal bodies and progress in the animal species until their karma lasts - until they eventually, according to the evolutionary progression, attain a human birth - do they not?

They may get some mercy even before that. See SB 11.12.3.

True belief is not a theoretical acceptance and not even practical santa-rasa appreciation of the greatness of God. It is ultimately the final love of God. However santa-rasa is the basis on which you have to develop your pure devotional service under Srila Prabhupadas instruction towards higher aspirations of the personal touch. Yes a true guru, who is Srila Prabhupada for all of us, is the person who can impart directly or by the media of his representative initial divya-jnana. As we sing divya-jnana hride prokasito. yes your guru representing Prabhupada and parampara from the very start of sadhana-bhakti gives taste that is the same taste that will develop into the full love of God, raga, IT is not his passion or desire, but by it he is transmitting fruit of love of Godhead passed on in Parampara to you, in a particular mood. The eternal residence in hell is a theory, based on how you calculate time etc., in practice it is only prema-bhakta who can do both: completely perceive that this world is empty, because it is bereft of Govinda, and at the same time see Govinda in his personal form everywhere, in contrast with it there are many hells and many levels of hellish existence. Some forms of life on our level of existence are also hellish, it can be argued that if you rotate from hell to hellish forms of life, you are constantly in hell. there are even worlds that are higher then ours, but still hellish. But that is due to lack of desire to love God, the quality of the soul not of the body that one is remaining in hell. On the other hand the soul that loves God also feels pain, pain in separation, and we aspire for that. It is a painful state, because association with your asraya is interrupted constantly in being strengthened by the pain of separation after separation, but the pain of this state is an aspiration of many great brahmanandis, atmaramas, and saints of all faiths. The only people who do not aspire for this are those who consider body of the Lord and his lila to be illusion, for them hell is eternal, for they will never get a mercy of a devotee.

If someone claims to believe in God, he should at least admit that he does not actually have full faith, because full mature faith is that experience of love of God that does not leave any place for selfishness, what to speak of regular mundane religiosity. Nominal admittance of belief is rather useless. If you claim to love God, and yet you do not constantly cry for the lack of your devotion, what sort of devotee are you? (Forgive me if I sound heavy here.)

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]If its against the Bible, then whats its authority?[/quote]

At this point, many Christians would say, "Who are you to judge what is in line with the Bible and what isnt, you are not even a Christian!"[br]
But you seem so bold to dare to defy them![br][br]

[quote]One such devotee was Srila Prabhupada. When he spoke with Christians he first asked them if they actually follow the Bible. If they didnt he stopped there. This is the test. Without following one cant really understand.[/quote]

Did Srila Prabhupada actually believe and act accordingly that human salvation lies in Jesus and Jesus only? It doesnt seem so to me ...[br][br]

[quote]If I should choose between any popular teaching and the literal meaning of the Bible, Id definitely go with the Bible. Thats the Vaisnava way, mukhya vritti.[/quote]

But where do you get the authority or confidence to do so? To rely on your own understanding of the Bible more than on the Christian one?[br][br]

If I read the Bible and understand something differently than the Christians do, then I automatically think that I understood wrongly (and I feel bad about that).[br][br]

[quote]SB 10.2.32 describes the impersonal liberation from which one falls back to samsara unless he took shelter in param padam, Vaikuntha.[/quote]

Thus impersonal liberation is a kind of hell?

> At this point, many Christians would say, "Who are you to judge what is in line with the Bible and what isnt, you are not even a Christian!"
But you seem so bold to dare to defy them!

I defy an explanation going against the literal meaning without real good reason. The opponent needs to establish that his understanding is valid.

Theres no essential contradiction:
Therefore I say that the Christians, theyre also Vaisnavas; the Muslims, theyre also Vaisnava, very, mean, lower stage, because theyre offering prayer. (SB 1.8.35 Mayapur Oct 15 1974)

If one simply proclaims being a Christian without following Jesus, Jesus disowns him. (Mark 7:6)

> Did Srila Prabhupada actually believe and act accordingly that human salvation lies in Jesus and Jesus only? It doesnt seem so to me ...

As I said, he didnt get to this point due to above point. He considered these non-following Christians only lipservants unable to understand anything more.

> But where do you get the authority or confidence to do so? To rely on your own understanding of the Bible more than on the Christian one?

From Jiva Gosvami who pronounced mukhya vritti the main meaning of sastra. Its not that I rely only on my understanding but on available genuine commentaries (Catholic and Orthodox).

> If I read the Bible and understand something differently than the Christians do, then I automatically think that I understood wrongly (and I feel bad about that).

Which Christians?

> Thus impersonal liberation is a kind of hell?

For a pure Vaisnava a moment without Krsnas association is like hell.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]I defy an explanation going against the literal meaning without real good reason. The opponent needs to establish that his understanding is valid.[/quote]

I am fascinated about how you (and some others) came to trust a particular set of criteria as to what constitutes "valid". I think that if someone would shout at me "2+2=5", for example, I would actually seriously consider it. Why does this happen to me, and what could I do against it? It is as if when pressured my mind will bend, like pressing down on a circuit plate would make its output all wrong.[br][br]

[quote]> But where do you get the authority or confidence to do so? To rely on your own understanding of the Bible more than on the Christian one?
[br]
From Jiva Gosvami who pronounced mukhya vritti the main meaning of sastra.[/quote]

How did you come to have such confidence in Jiva Goswami?[br][br]

[quote]Its not that I rely only on my understanding but on available genuine commentaries (Catholic and Orthodox).[/quote]

But you do rely that you have a reasonably good understanding of those commentaries.[br][br]

[quote]Which Christians?[/quote]

The Christians I know (and fear). But like I said, it doesnt have so much to do with Christians, but with the worst case scenario - which doesnt have to be scriptural.[br]
But perhaps the principle of the worst case scenario for approaching life and its problems is not good to begin with, since it sets one up for desiring to be omnimax - a hopeless enterprise for a human. But what can one do instead?

Baker, validity is defined by epistemology. If you read Substance and Shadow, you can get an overview. Since you mentioned 2+2, Maharaj gives examples how 1+1 can be 1 or 3.
How come shouting is an argument for you?

By learning about his life and philosophy.

Genuine commentaries make sense, even when arriving at seemingly strange conclusions.

Any specific group? One shouldnt fear Christians, Vaisnavas or any genuine follower of a genuine tradition. Otherwise something is wrong.

Instead one should understand ones own position, position of God and ones relationship with God.

In some countries "Christians" are a dark, demoniac, fearful crowd. Nothing to do with god or goodness.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Baker, validity is defined by epistemology. If you read Substance and Shadow, you can get an overview. Since you mentioned 2+2, Maharaj gives examples how 1+1 can be 1 or 3.[/quote]

But why wont these things stick in my mind? How come they get overpowered so easily?[br]
[br]

[quote]How come shouting is an argument for you?[/quote]

Premises in an argument can be verbalized, or not, but they function as premises all the same. [br]
A person can find themselves in a double bind even if all the premises are not verbalized. For example a mother tells a child "Give me a hug!", but as the child hugs her, she pushes him away, which is sending out the message "Dont hug me!". The child ends up confused and frustrated. (In studies about schizophrenia they found there is a connection between a child being faced with a lot of double binds and the onset of schizophrenia, or at least forms of neurotic states and stress.)[br][br]

To me, shouting means "Might makes right". I suppose though that not everyone understands shouting (or the use of physical force) to mean "Might makes right". It seems I tend to automatically try to believe anyone/anything that exhibits the greater power (whatever the premises are).
[br][br]

[quote]By learning about his life and philosophy.[/quote]

How come I seem to be unable to become convinced by such things? Although I like them and am impressed by them, it all seems to have no hold in me.[br][br]

[quote]Any specific group? One shouldnt fear Christians, Vaisnavas or any genuine follower of a genuine tradition.[/quote]

I fear anyone who eats meat, praises casual sex, drinks alcohol or coffee, hunts and such - and claims to know the truth about God (and that woe is me if I dont obey them).[br][br]

[quote]Otherwise something is wrong.[/quote]

With whom - me or them?[br][br]

[quote]Instead one should understand ones own position, position of God and ones relationship with God.[/quote]

This makes sense, of course.

Yes some people fear Christians and some people fear Hari Krishnas and there is something wrong with them, some of them have been molested by so called religious or spiritual people from those groups.

> But why wont these things stick in my mind? How come they get overpowered so easily?
+
> How come I seem to be unable to become convinced by such things? Although I like them and am impressed by them, it all seems to have no hold in me.

They remain a theory for you. If theyre used in argument and applied in ones life with a success, this leads to realizations.

> It seems I tend to automatically try to believe anyone/anything that exhibits the greater power (whatever the premises are).

Probably a sort of programming.

> With whom - me or them?

You, them or both, depending on a situation. Christians I know arent fearful. Occassional fanatics are rather pitiful.

Of course they dont seem fearsome to you, you are such a fearless devotee! :)

I guess the obvious scary part of the Christianity is the "Fear of God". http://www.feargod.net/verses.php

I think mainly because of your personal connection with Bhakti Ananda Goswami you will not see this element in popular Christianity. Some Christians are obviously scary, Veda, in some countries, like Greece, they almost erased devotees, and they aim at it in many other countries. They also dress in black, have beards and remind me of a particular community in USA, where a lot of really scary things went on, NV. So, yes, scary, if they aspire for the fear of God;-)

Seems that this fear is analogical to aisvarya bhava.

I know what you mean. These people are in ignorance. Theyre closer to Pharisees, esp. due to their frequent material motivations. After all, a monopoly on truth brings many material benefits...

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakuras dealings with his diksa guru were always exemplary, even though Vipin Bihari Goswami was not very advanced, being a kanistha adhikari guru, whereas the Thakura was an uttama adhikari, paramahamsa of the highest order. Still Bhaktivinoda always played the humble disciple. On one such occassion in the presence of young Siddhanta Saraswati, Bhaktivinoda Thakura paid his respectful obeisances to his guru. Vipin Bihari Goswami replied by placing his feet on the Thakuras head. For the young firey Siddhanta Saraswati this was too much! It was one thing that his father had accepted him as his formal initiating spiritual master, but this was going too far. Srila Siddhanta Saraswati was only seven years old at the time, but when Bhaktivinoda Thakura left the room leaving the two of them alone, Siddhanta Saraswati decided to set things straight:

"You are acting like a big, big guru and you place your feet on the heads of those who you dont know. If you knew who the Thakura is you would not do it. But you do not know! My father is a great exhalted nitya siddha, eternal associate of Sri Radha and Krsna who has come here to fulfill Their mission. Do you think that you are so advanced that you can place your feet on the head of such a person? I think not. You have proven yourself to be a kanistha adhikari (neophyte) by not being able to distinguish between those who are advanced and those who are less advanced, therefore I suggest that you desist from this practice any further." Bhaktivinoda Thakura then re-entered the room and the conversation changed. Later that day Vipin Bihari Goswami mentioned to Bhaktivnoda, "Your son is bold to the point of being rude."[/quote]

He left out this section. Typical.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura then re-entered the room and the conversation changed. Later that day Vipin Bihari Goswami mentioned to Bhaktivnoda, "Your son is bold to the point of being rude." Later Thakura Bhaktivinoda found out about the conversation and used to jokingly glorify his exhalted son to his friends, saying how he is fearless, that he even chastised my guru Vipin Bihari Goswami.

Is this what happens when we have an agenda of defending kanistha initiations!? :-/

"Only onto those who are thoroughly honest...."

This is written by conditioned soul;[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]"Reflecting on this incident we can see that even if ones spiritual master is not an uttama adhikari, mahabhagavat devotee of the Lord still one should be satisfied, and serve him anyway. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who himself was certainly a mahabhagavat, set the example how to serve and show respects. On the other side of the transcendental coin, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati showed a nice lesson to us. We should not show ourselves to be more advanced than we really are, lest we commit offences against those who are actually advanced. "[/quote]

I can honestly confirm that you are right and i am a conditioned soul, more than that actually. However the only reason I try not to respond to your texts is because of your very specific mental conditioning, which is clear to others and know well too. I told you I am not going to go into the details of it in the public forum, so i will just leave it at that, you may like to associate with those who have a similar conditioning maybe, but not with me. The devotee who authored the story may be conditioned as well, mainly because he is trying to fit everything in a perspective as to justify the rumors that because VBGoswami was a married man and did not support BSST he was a kanistha. Well BVT liked him a lot and he loved his son too, not an ordinary soul, none of them actually. I do not believe BSST would make such an argument at all, but his disciples would. I also trust Prabhupada was way above those politics, on a number of occasions went to Lalita Prasad too. All of your arguments you make are immature, not something you will dare speaking in front of Srila Prabhupada or his friends or godbrothers. You accuse me, and you can continue to do so and I accept your critique and you can keep twisting things with your cut and pastes and I will take it. But for the benefit of general mental health I will continue to ignore you psyche. I hope you will forgive me when you are off the high.

Baker: I am fascinated about how you (and some others) came to trust a particular set of criteria as to what constitutes "valid". I think that if someone would shout at me "2+2=5", for example, I would actually seriously consider it. Why does this happen to me, and what could I do against it? It is as if when pressured my mind will bend, like pressing down on a circuit plate would make its output all wrong.

I think you have a healthy fascination. There is an element in the externals of our method of scriptural reading that you may have to accept as possibly irrational, but it is not in practice. The epistemology demonstrated by Veda works well. The difficulty I find in an argument, is that not everyone is as rational or as cool as he. You need to Practice what you preach. And I have to say that Veda does that rather well. He is also impressive in his personal dealings, that is his quality that he was born with, and combined with humility it is a handy quality in a debate.

The notion of Christians shouting in your face emotional faith slogans, like "there is no way to the father except through Christ", really puts me off. I would just agree with them and keep walking, just as I would agree with them that yeah I am going into eternal hell and keep chanting. It is actually hellish, the mentality of kaitava-dharma followers, those who take pride in making others humiliated in the name of religion, if they do not accept their idols or the people they made into idols. They expect you to join the club of their irrational ideas, faith-clubs, and not use your intelligence, that is really off-putish to me. (And when fun-clubs open the fire on another fun-club, oh what an energy there). Its really where I can not take ritviks too, irrational faith without even a chance to experience it for yourself in a personal interaction or reciprocation. Or any fun club in Gaudiya Vaisnava little cults. It is interesting that such irrational-ism in religion (you can call it fanaticism, but it is not) is rather what makes atheists/agnostics strong. Thus it is a hidden atheism, you really should stay above that, and I mean for myself.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]True belief is not a theoretical acceptance and not even practical santa-rasa appreciation of the greatness of God. [/quote]

I suppose part of believing in God is also a personal understanding of oneself - ie. thinking of oneself as a person. It takes a conscious, living entity with desires and values (at least that, I presume) to be able to say "I believe in ...".[br][br]

If I think of myself, the most I can think of is a big blank nothing, an empty Venn diagramm at most.[br][br]

I now readily use personal pronouns and speak in the first person singular - but this wasnt always so. It is related to the deliberate effort to improve my communication skills - and professionals in the field advise to make "I-messages". After about ten years of such use, I am still not comfortable with using "I", it doesnt really mean anything to me. Prior to that, my sentences were often objectivistic/objective. Id say "The dishes need to be done" not "I need to do the dishes", for example.[br]
To me, the most difficult question to answer is "How do you do? / How have you been?" This question just draws my mind into a blank. Talking about "my" desires, priorities, preferences, goals, values - that is very abstract to me as well.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite] not something you will dare speaking in front of Srila Prabhupada or his friends or godbrothers. Shigh.[/quote]

Yes,the Aryan Ascendent family. Who is part of this family? You wear arrows on ur uniform! :)

'a0'a0'a0

The last shall become first and first will be last!

This is ABSOLUTE LUNATIC!'a0

...............................

I told u not to give up on your Guru.

We can never get u back!

It will never ever stop! :o(

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think you have a healthy fascination.[/quote]

Certainty is fascinating, isnt it![br][br]

The argument could be made that that which we perceive in others as "certainty" is a quality of Krishna, Krishna being all-cognizant and thus perfectly certain. Krishnas qualities are of course all-attractive, so even if we see them in some small degree in people, we are attracted.[br]
So similarly as a worldly man is taken in by a womans beauty (even though this beauty is actually Krishnas and only Krishna has it in perfection), so I am taken in by peoples certainty - mistaking it to be theirs instead of Krishnas.
[br][br]

[quote]There is an element in the externals of our method of scriptural reading that you may have to accept as possibly irrational, but it is not in practice.[/quote]

Im not sure I understand - what is not in practice? Accepting your method of scriptural reading as irrational?
[br][br]

If the devotional process is a descending one (we have discussed before that it is necessarily so), and we would insist on rationality to be ascending (which is what we usually tend to do), then there is a conflict, otherwise there isnt - is this not so?
[br]Even Western philosophers readily acknowledge that the definition of "rational" is highly problematic. Although it is a word/concept that is often in use, its not clear what exactly it means - other than that it has a component of "humans can ascertain the absolute truth on their own" in it.
[br]Wanting things to be "rational" on our human terms is an attempt to lord it over material nature, so to speak. But giving up on our reason isnt a solution either - as that way, we are left merely with vague emotions, fears, intuitions and base need, and we know that doesnt make for a happy life.[br]
It is the one-lifetime conception ("get it right in this lifetime or burn forever") that makes so many things so difficult.

[br][br][quote]The epistemology demonstrated by Veda works well. The difficulty I find in an argument, is that not everyone is as rational or as cool as he. You need to Practice what you preach. And I have to say that Veda does that rather well. He is also impressive in his personal dealings, that is his quality that he was born with, and combined with humility it is a handy quality in a debate.[/quote]

Why do you think I came to this forum? :)[br]
I was reading Vedas site for quite some time, thinking "I would like to pick this persons brain". Then I eventually stumbled on a page with links there, including the one to here. I had every intention to get his attention.[br]

[br][quote]It is interesting that such irrational-ism in religion (you can call it fanaticism, but it is not)[/quote]

Why isnt it fanaticism?

[quote][cite] Nrsingha d:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite] not something you will dare speaking in front of Srila Prabhupada or his friends or godbrothers. Shigh.[/quote]

Yes,the Aryan Ascendent family. Who is part of this family? You wear arrows on ur uniform! :)

'a0'a0'a0

The last shall become first and first will be last!

This is ABSOLUTE LUNATIC!'a0

...............................

I told u not to give up on your Guru.

We can never get u back!

It will never ever stop! :o([/quote]

Is there something here that I should know?

>Is there something here that I should know?

I will email you. Not to worry.

Not to worry! All will be reavealed in due course of time!

"...even a lame man will cross mountains..."

PROPHECY!

Many who are last...

Sri Nityananda-Rama!!

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]True belief is not a theoretical acceptance and not even practical santa-rasa appreciation of the greatness of God. [/quote]

I suppose part of believing in God is also a personal understanding of oneself - ie. thinking of oneself as a person. It takes a conscious, living entity with desires and values (at least that, I presume) to be able to say "I believe in ...".[br][br]

If I think of myself, the most I can think of is a big blank nothing, an empty Venn diagramm at most.[br][br]

To me, the most difficult question to answer is "How do you do? / How have you been?" This question just draws my mind into a blank. Talking about "my" desires, priorities, preferences, goals, values - that is very abstract to me as well.[/quote]

Well in any form of personal belief, (different from an abstract logical formula that can be represented in the mathematical symbols) there is a person having faith and the object and shelter of that faith, also a person. Actually, completely personal understanding of yourself comes only after you understand the person of God in truth, by the mercy of those who realized the self and the relationship of the Self to the Supreme self. Understanding the true person of God and the nature of your own self in this relationship is Sambhandha, then you practice based on this realization. And only after you became perfect in practice, you will interact with the (former object of faith and now real as you are) God. All the practices of bhakti are specifically for that, sravanam kirtanam, smaranam. dasyam. In fact faith means some form of that relationship already, but it is dormant, when this relationship become active and than factual you achieved full faith in a particular form. Back to Godhead has this as its second meaning (besides going back to a particular planet).

[br]A short excerpt from Substance and Shadow by SS:
[br]
[br]Rationalism as hypothetico-deduction:
[br]
To use the precise terminology, rationalism is a hypothetico-deductive system of thought. Some logicians treat hypothetico-deduction and induction as two aspects of the same reasoning procedure. I share this view, since both systems begin their reasoning with a hypothesis. The difference is that unlike empiricism, rationalism does not strive to confirm with evidence from the senses its basic hypothesis of a priori first principles. The aim is to prove by logic alone that there is an ideal meaning to all things even prior to pratyak'f1a. For instance, rationalists argue that the categories of meaning into which we sort objects of perception This object is a pencil (or a chair, table, and so on)are programmed in our heads by an innate knowledge. Thus categorical meaning is different from the sense data being categorized. A hypothesis of this sort cannot be proved or disproved empirically, even though it explains something we have direct familiarity with. (Rationalists have their own theory of proof that will be looked at shortly.) But though rationalism tries to transcend inductive empiricism, it is not infallible. It remains limited to the field of human experience the experience of the human mind. Now at this point a doubtful reader may interpose, But many prominent rationalists gave logical arguments for the existence of God. Are you saying that just because they used their reason, the deity they defended was only a hypothesis? They did not invent God in their minds. They believed in Him from the scriptures, and then tried to explain Him rationally. No doubt that in the past at least, Western rationalism defended theism. European rationalists tried their best to mentally assemble an infallible deity. But they failed. It is beyond the power of man-made reasons to establish God as isvara, the infallible master of all energies.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think you have a healthy fascination.[/quote]

Certainty is fascinating, isnt it![br][br]

The argument could be made that that which we perceive in others as "certainty" is a quality of Krishna, Krishna being all-cognizant and thus perfectly certain. Krishnas qualities are of course all-attractive, so even if we see them in some small degree in people, we are attracted.[br]
So similarly as a worldly man is taken in by a womans beauty (even though this beauty is actually Krishnas and only Krishna has it in perfection), so I am taken in by peoples certainty - mistaking it to be theirs instead of Krishnas.
[br][br]

[quote]
[br]Wanting things to be "rational" on our human terms is an attempt to lord it over material nature, so to speak. But giving up on our reason isnt a solution either - as that way, we are left merely with vague emotions, fears, intuitions and base need, and we know that doesnt make for a happy life.[br][/quote]
[/quote]

The reason we should "give up" is the destructive reason, the reason that dis-assembles rather than builds, the reason devoid of synthesis and love. Thar reason is not auspicious to bhakti. Just like the idea that there are no more great vaisnavas out there, all gone, finished for good. This is an example of reasoning that is inauspicious to development of bhakti, and as any anartha should be removed. In fact being so much based on envy and pride it can hardly be integrated in the devotional service.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]
I was reading Vedas site for quite some time, thinking "I would like to pick this persons brain". Then I eventually stumbled on a page with links there, including the one to here. I had every intention to get his attention.[br]

[br][quote]It is interesting that such irrational-ism in religion (you can call it fanaticism, but it is not)[/quote]

Why isnt it fanaticism?[/quote]

It is truly the credit of Veda to attract people who have real questions in the discussion to this site. To suggest that he is a Kanistha guru or even a Kanistha vaisnava or anything like that is an obvious offence. He is a good vaisnava. I have to say that one can be fanatical and not be irrational, and one can be rather irrational and be devoid of real faith or zeal. Oxford gives "filled with excessive and single-minded zeal" for fanatical with yet another meaning "obsessively concerned with something". I wish to become obsessively concerned with Krishna:-). It is rather different from "not endowed with the power of reason" or "not logical or reasonable", which also happens as we see. I am not sure if it helps you.

Never imply that Kanistha bhakta is not good Vaisnava. A kanistha is rare and great in this world. For the common mass of person to acieve such in this very lifetime is great success. Prabhupada tells us this is the topmost Brahmana platform.
Very rare,even amongst practicing devotees. Not too difficult to understand!

..................

770214r2.may Conversations

Prabhupada: Kanistha-adhikari means he must be a brahmana.
That is kanistha-adhikari. The spiritual life, kanistha-adhikari,
means he must be a QUALIFIED brahmana. That is kanistha. What is
esteemed as very high position in the material world, brahmana, that
is kanistha-adhikari.

arcayam eva haraye
pujam yah sraddhayehate
na tad-bhaktesu canyesu
sa bhaktah prakrtah smrtah

The brahmana means from the material stage gradually he is
elevated to the spiritual stage. AND BELOW THE BRAHMANA THERE IS NO
QUESTION OF VAISNAVA.

760206mw.may Conversations

Dayananda: Even the jnanis and yogis become...
Prabhupada: What is these jnanis? They are also another
rascal, another edition of rascals. Bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam
prapadyate. Therefore so-called jnanis, after many, many births
practical realization, they surrender to Krsna. Vasudevah sarvam iti
sa mahatma. Then he understands that Krsna is everything. But such
great person is very, very rare. Sa mahatma sudurlabhah, very, very
rare.
Dayananda: But what about the persons who may be a little
bit devoted but who have not achieved that unalloyed devotion?
Prabhupada: Kanistha-adhikari. They are not devotees, but
they are called bhaktabhasa. There is some signs of bhakti. Actually
they are not bhakta. Bhaktabhasa. Abhasa. Abhasa means a simple, a
little light.
Hrdayananda: So devotee really means one who has love for
Krsna.
Prabhupada: Yes, unalloyed, without any condition.
Anyabhilasita-sunyam, zero, all other, that "I am this, I am that, I
am jnani, I am yogi, I am karmi, I am minister, I am king"--all these
are thinking like that, theyre all nonsense. "I am servant of
Krsna"--that is greatness. Jivera svarupa haya nitya-krsna-dasa. That
is self-realization, atma-tattvam.
.....,,.,.......................

In the time of Srila Saraswati Thakur there was one Ramdas Babaji whom the people of Braja Mandal considered to be a siddha-mahatma. He chanted three lakhs of Krishna-nama daily (192 rounds) incessantly engaged in hearing and explaining Goswami literature, strictly observed all of the aspects of Vaishnava sadachar (behavior and practice) and was known to be of impeccable character.

When Srila Saraswati Thakur concluded the Braja Mandal Parikrama he dashed his palm against his forehead lamenting, I have just toured the whole of Vrindavan and I am so unfortunate I could not find a single Vaishnava! His followers were perplexed, What about Ramdas Babaji? His response was even more shocking, He may be considered as a beginner with admission in the infant class. Who is considered unanimously to be a siddha [to have achieved perfection] '85 Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur told he has got admission into the primary class (kanistha-adhikari) '97 and not only at that time but later in Patrika, in writing he told that '97 in Gaudiya Patrika. And we are trained accordingly and consciously '97 not blind faith. He explained to us what is what. And we try to follow his direction. And we have also come to such conclusion. '97 Srila Sridhar Maharaja

If someone chanting three lakhs, absorbed in Goswami literature, strictly observing Vaishnava sadachar and of impeccable character is in the infant class, then what are we? Spiritual embryos '97 at best.

.....

(Taken from ->) http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-06/editorials447.htm

IRRATIONALITY?.......
"Those who had abandoned their responsibility to examine their prospective guru, for among other things, truthfulness in favor of instant gratification, would simply accept any and whatever comforting explanation might be provided to them that would soothe away any momentary pain of doubt and lull them back to sleep, back to the comforting slumber of blind faith belief. Belief is ignorance."
- Bk.George.

"What exactly does it mean to "believe in God"?"

it depends who is God. For christians - it is some God Father or even Jesus, for muslims - it is most probably Allah, for Buddhists maybe Buddha, for impersonalists - they themselves consider that they are gods ( (Para)Brahman = Krishna),
but for devotees, Supreme Personality of Godhead (God) is Krishna, or someone of large list: Vishnu, Narayana, Rama and others in Vishnu-tattva...

"What exactly does it mean to "believe in God"?""
it means one is not materialist, not atheist - he accepts transcendental category "God". But if they are impersonalists and also believe in that kind of God (brahmajyoti, or impersonal Brahman) - that is like spiritual suicide. So probably it might mean - one believes in God - if he accepts personal Brahman, Paramatma and Parabrahman = Bhagavan. After all, these are labels of same Supreme Soul-Person - Krishna