Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

> 1. God is displeased with me, always was, always will be. Nothing I do, have done or will do could ever please God or be enough.
Back: I am so lucky to realise that God is so ungrateful and impossible to satisfy. I can forget trying to please God and move on with my life.

> 2. In this Universe, I can never be safe.
Back: I am so lucky that I know that I can now be truly renounced knowing nothing is certain.

> 3. I have no right to apply the hopeful, positive, assuring scriptures to myself. That is reserved for devotees and the elect, which I am not.
Back: I am so lucky to not have to apply scriptures which will lead me to a God who is so ungrateful and impossible to satisfy.

> 4. I cannot work or move on with my life unless I first find out the whole truth about God.
Back: I have such a wonderful and exciting journey ahead of me.

> 5. Everyone else knows more about God than I do.
Back: I am so lucky to be surrounded by such great souls. I value their association.

> 6. Everyone else is on better terms with God than I am.
Back: I am so lucky to be surrounded by people better than me. I value their association.

> 7. God rules everything and he is a monster.
Back: I can relate so easily to God.

Deena -

Thank you for your suggestions!
I am a bit confused, though. Arent 1 and 3 against theistic philosophy altogether? They seem a bit cynical.

I was inspired by your boldness, though, and also this occured to me to nr. 2:

> 2. In this Universe, I can never be safe.
Back: Thats right: This UNiverse was not made by a lazy, insecure wretch, nor was it made for lazy, insecure wretches. In this Universe, everyone always has to pay attention to what they do, they cannot retreat to a dark corner and feel safe there.

> I am a bit confused, though. Arent 1 and 3 against theistic philosophy altogether? They seem a bit cynical.

Yes, 1 and 3 area against theisitc philosophy.

> This UNiverse was not made by a lazy, insecure wretch, nor was it made for lazy, insecure wretches. In this Universe, everyone always has to pay > attention to what they do, they cannot retreat to a dark corner and feel safe there.

One could also say that the universe WAS made for lazy, insecure wretches, just like a prison house is made for low class characters. We are steeped in illusion, all of them built on the foundation illusion that we are this material body. We are lazy to the extreme in trying to overcome this illusion. We use our various illusions to justify further illusions and this is our dark corner of safety that we retreat to in order to avoid the responsibility of trying to give up sense gratification and becoming a servant. We need, and perpetuate, our own illusions to avoid these conclusions. These illusions form an intricate part of our consciousness that allow us in good conscience to forget about God, and we spend billions of lifetimes in this drama. That sounds pretty lazy, insecure and wretched to me!

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]Yes, 1 and 3 area against theisitc philosophy.[/quote]

Then how come you are suggesting them?

[br][br]
[quote]One could also say that the universe WAS made for lazy, insecure wretches, just like a prison house is made for low class characters. We are steeped in illusion, all of them built on the foundation illusion that we are this material body. We are lazy to the extreme in trying to overcome this illusion. We use our various illusions to justify further illusions and this is our dark corner of safety that we retreat to in order to avoid the responsibility of trying to give up sense gratification and becoming a servant. We need, and perpetuate, our own illusions to avoid these conclusions. These illusions form an intricate part of our consciousness that allow us in good conscience to forget about God, and we spend billions of lifetimes in this drama. That sounds pretty lazy, insecure and wretched to me![/quote]

When you talk about it like that, it makes me think that being a servant of the Lord is something bad, something we would rather not do because it would be to our loss, something we could never be happy in. IOW, it doesnt seem to make devotional service something that one would look forward to.[br]
?

deena:Yes, 1 and 3 area against theisitc philosophy.

> Then how come you are suggesting them?

I was indulging the emotion expressed in the original statements. (1 God is displeased with me, always was, always will be. Nothing I do, have done or will do could ever please God or be enough., 2. I have no right to apply the hopeful, positive, assuring scriptures to myself. That is reserved for devotees and the elect, which I am not.) This type of emotion is generally expressed by two types of people, one in an actual relationship of love with Krishna (see CC Antya 20.28) and the other by someone who is being actually only being self-indulgent but is doing it in the guise of devotion. (Or maybe some devotion is there but percentage wise, the self indulgence far outweighs the devotion.) From what you have revealed about yourself so far, I am pretty sure you are not the first type.

> When you talk about it like that, it makes me think that being a servant of the Lord is something bad, something we would rather not do
> because it would be to our loss, something we could never be happy in. IOW, it doesnt seem to make devotional service something that one
> would look forward to.

But you (we) already think this way. It is our whole modus operandi in the material world. We are utterly under the illusion that giving up sense gratification will be our loss and we could never be happy with out it. We do not look forward to pure, unmotivated devotional service. And yes, we think that the Lord is something bad because He is the reason we have to give up material life which we have worked so hard for, for so long. On so many levels we think that being a servant of the Lord is bad. Other wise why brahmanda bhramite, wandering throughout so many universes for so many lifetimes? We have actively avoided Krishna for so long.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]
I was indulging the emotion expressed in the original statements. (1 God is displeased with me, always was, always will be. Nothing I do, have done or will do could ever please God or be enough., 2. I have no right to apply the hopeful, positive, assuring scriptures to myself. That is reserved for devotees and the elect, which I am not.) This type of emotion is generally expressed by two types of people, one in an actual relationship of love with Krishna (see CC Antya 20.28) and the other by someone who is being actually only being self-indulgent but is doing it in the guise of devotion. (Or maybe some devotion is there but percentage wise, the self indulgence far outweighs the devotion.) From what you have revealed about yourself so far, I am pretty sure you are not the first type.[/quote]

I dont think I am the second type either.[br][br]

Ever since I can remember, the majority of my experiences with theists, of every denomination, have been about them more or less directly telling me that I wasnt good enough (and how my not being good enough justifies all kinds of mistreatment and abuse that those who are good enough do not deserve).[br]
When I get those nagging thoughts of not being good enough and God not liking me, this are often memories of what actually happened, what theists have actually told me. And that I would commit offenses against Gods children if I were to disagree with their statements in any way.
[br][br]
[quote]But you (we) already think this way. It is our whole modus operandi in the material world. We are utterly under the illusion that giving up sense gratification will be our loss and we could never be happy with out it. We do not look forward to pure, unmotivated devotional service. And yes, we think that the Lord is something bad because He is the reason we have to give up material life which we have worked so hard for, for so long. On so many levels we think that being a servant of the Lord is bad. Other wise why brahmanda bhramite, wandering throughout so many universes for so many lifetimes? We have actively avoided Krishna for so long.[/quote]

I dont know what you are trying to acoomplish by talking this way. But devotees often talk that way. When they talk about it this way, it does not seem to me that they like devotional service or that they think it is the right thing to do. It does not inspire me to follow the path of devotional service. Still, I am made to feel guilty if I dont aspire to become a devotee.
[br]?

> I dont think I am the second type either.

We are all the second type, more or less.

>I dont know what you are trying to acoomplish by talking this way.

You said the universe was not made for lazy wretches. I commented that it was made for lazy wretches and illustrated why.

>When they talk about it this way, it does not seem to me that they like devotional service or that they think it is the right thing to do.

Thats correct. We have a serious aversion to pure devotional service. We might by in love with the idea of being in love with Krishna, but the actual practice of renouncing selfish material consciousness is a different story altogether.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]
Thats correct. We have a serious aversion to pure devotional service.[/quote]

Then why do you chant, study scriptures, keep the regulative principles etc. ?

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite][quote][cite] deena:[/cite]
Thats correct. We have a serious aversion to pure devotional service.[/quote]

Then why do you chant, study scriptures, keep the regulative principles etc. ?[/quote] Good point and well spotted Baker. However it is natural to feel some inadequacy and at the same time feel some inspiration to practice with the desire of attaining the higher or pure devotional service. We all know that just following the prescribed rules of religion is far far from what is love of Godhead on a spontaneous or loving platform. Yet we all do it precisely because we want to arrive at this platform that is above the mental and intellectual level. In other words we are all looking for it, and but the only thing that prevents us is the fact that we do have an aversion to being selflessly and purely devoted to God. If only I could transcend this aversion that gives me pain, I could honestly claim to be a devotee, before that it is rather a post dated cheque. You ask difficult questions and that is nice, a good sign of an intelligent person. Who you think you are Baker according to the catur vidha bhajanti mam (BG. 7.16) -- which of the four kinds of people who start to approach Krishna?

deena: Thats correct. We have a serious aversion to pure devotional service.

> Then why do you chant, study scriptures, keep the regulative principles etc. ?

Because I am practicing. For our level, chanting, studying scriptures, keep the regulative principles is called abhyasa-yogena (Gita 12.9) practicing devotional service. Because of our condition we cannot fix our mind on Krishna (cittam samadhatum na shaknoshi; 12.9) we are advised to practice doing through such activities. As Prabhupada writes in the purport, abhyasa-yogena "....is for one who has not developed an attachment for the Supreme Person by transcendental love. For this second class there are different prescribed rules and regulations one can follow to be ultimately elevated to the stage of attachment to Krishna." The purpose of the practice? mam icchaptum (12.9); develop the desire to attain Krishna in transcendental love.

Krishna says so many things in much detail, but how come the regulative principles are not mentioned in the Gita?

And Krishna says time and again that we have to transcend the duality of like dislike, auspicious and inauspicious...how come there is no mention of taking that seriously???

Hari Bol.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]The purpose of the practice? mam icchaptum (12.9); develop the desire to attain Krishna in transcendental love.[/quote]

By practicing, you then acknowledge this purpose, see it as worthy. So whatever aversion you feel toward pure devotional service, it is not genuine aversion.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]However it is natural to feel some inadequacy and at the same time feel some inspiration to practice with the desire of attaining the higher or pure devotional service. We all know that just following the prescribed rules of religion is far far from what is love of Godhead on a spontaneous or loving platform. Yet we all do it precisely because we want to arrive at this platform that is above the mental and intellectual level. In other words we are all looking for it, and but the only thing that prevents us is the fact that we do have an aversion to being selflessly and purely devoted to God.[/quote]

I am not sure how Deena meant "aversion", but if it was meant to imply something to the effect of malicious intent then this could have serious doctrinal implications.[br][br]

[quote]If only I could transcend this aversion that gives me pain, I could honestly claim to be a devotee, before that it is rather a post dated cheque.[/quote]

I think that this difficulty one feels toward either pure devotional service or spiritual practice can be thought of in different ways. It can be called "aversion". But It can be also thought of in terms of "no pain, no gain", "the consequences of ignorance", "transcendence is not cheap", "I can be bigger than these negative feelings, I dont have to be shut down by them" or even "Indulging in being depressed and aversive is a kind of comfort zone" or "Always operate from a productivity system".[br]
I mean, does it help to think of it as "aversion" (with the potential implication of malicious intent)? I just find it hard to subscribe to the view that beating myself up could lead to becoming a good person or a good devotee.
[br][br]

[quote]Who you think you are Baker according to the catur vidha bhajanti mam (BG. 7.16) -- which of the four kinds of people who start to approach Krishna?[/quote]

Of the miserable ones. :)

"aversion" - means dislike or even hate - Prabhupada said that the only reason why we do not fully devote to Krishna, is "because we hate him", the only core reason it seem so difficult to to be a devotee. Here you have something for your CBT, a lot of work. No doctrinal problems, just reality check. Why do you think we end up so much separated from Krishna?

ccd> where Srila Prabhupada said "we hate Krishna" ? can you show the quote please?

> By practicing, you then acknowledge this purpose, see it as worthy. So whatever aversion you feel toward pure devotional service, it is not
> genuine aversion.

Like a smoker who is not actually averse to a healthy lifestyle and goes through phases of trying to quit but just cant give up?

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]"aversion" - means dislike or even hate - Prabhupada said that the only reason why we do not fully devote to Krishna, is "because we hate him", the only core reason it seem so difficult to to be a devotee. Here you have something for your CBT, a lot of work. No doctrinal problems, just reality check. Why do you think we end up so much separated from Krishna?[/quote]

It would help to know the context of that statement "because we hate Him".[br][br]

As far as my realization and reality check go, both the topic of love for God as well as hatred for God are moot for me. I imagine one first has to have a solid sense of self, or be sure of themselves somehow, and be sure of their sense of right and wrong, before they can talk of loving or hating someone or something. Or yearning for them or feeling separated from them.

I heard just once that quote "because we hate Krishna" and was from a devotee that is not specially famous for his philosophical insight.

I am interested to find the actual Srila Prabhupada'b4s quote, if there is one.

To me it seems a free unfortunate adaption of the philosophy, or should I say plain speculation... :)

Veda, are you there? oh Muni....

Heard your calling, just arrived... 8)

Its demons who hate Krsna (SB 10.29.13, 10.54 summary, 10.90.47). Srila Prabhupada says that we hate Krsna only once in Vedabase:

"Now, so far we are concerned, the conditioned soul, nitya-bandha-krsna haite nitya-bahirmukha: our business is to hate Krsna, thats all." (CC Madhya 22.11-15, NY, Jan 9, 1967)

Very often he speaks about envy of Krsna though.

When one is deluded into separation from this pure knowledge, he becomes controlled by the illusory energy and cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The illusory energy is manifested in the duality of desire and hate. Due to desire and hate, the ignorant person wants to become one with the Supreme Lord and envies K'e5'f1'eba as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Pure devotees, who are not deluded or contaminated by desire and hate, can understand that Lord 'c7r'e9 K'e5'f1'eba appears by His internal potencies, but those who are deluded by duality and nescience think that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is created by material energies. This is their misfortune. Gita: 7.27

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]ccd> where Srila Prabhupada said "we hate Krishna" ? can you show the quote please?[/quote] The quote I refer to is not on Vedabase. But the one that Jan showed is.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]To me it seems a free unfortunate adaption of the philosophy, or should I say plain speculation...[/quote]

Devotees can be under the influence of the modes, in different combinations. This can show in the way they explain philosophy.[br]
Conversely, to reach someone, one may have to tailor ones explanation according to that persons modes.

[quote][cite] deena:[/citeLike a smoker who is not actually averse to a healthy lifestyle and goes through phases of trying to quit but just cant give up?[/quote]

I think such an analogy applies sometimes, yes.[br]
There may be an issue of secondary gain - What does the smoker gain by not giving up smoking, even though he is not averse to not smoking? Or - What do we gain by not engaging in devotional service / spiritual practice, even though we are nominally not against them?[br][br]

My point is: How can an entity that is by his nature eternally blissful and full of knowledge, hate or have aversion toward God? This ties in back with the issue of the Fall. Did we fall that first time because we hated God, or do we just hate or are averse to God now, when we are in the conditioned state, covered by illusion?[br]
But lets address this in your new thread.

Dear Baker,

Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Our parents or cargivers in this life are not God, but they taught us our first very imressionable lessons about being under someone elses control. For many westerners it is truly difficult to overcome this early negative emotional conditioning; at least you have found Sri Krishna, many have not. Kudus for trying so hard.

1. God is displeased with me, always was, always will be. Nothing I do, have done or will do could ever please God or be enough.
Truth: Sri Krishna is the ONLY person who only sees the good in us and accepts the little we do or offer with love. He is not affected by our good or bad behavior because He is completely renounced. His injunctions are for our welfare, not His.
2. In this Universe, I can never be safe.
Truth: Fear personified is afraid of Krishna. He promises to protect us. He carries what we lack and preserves what we have. He is the only one who stays with us in our heart life after life due to affection for us and He only will travel with us at the time of our death.
3. I have no right to apply the hopeful, positive, assuring scriptures to myself. That is reserved for devotees and the elect, which I am not.
Truth: The hopeful, positive, assuring scriptures are exclusively meant for those who feel themselves helpless and hopeless.
4. I cannot work or move on with my life unless I first find out the whole truth about God.
Truth: I realize that serving Krishna is better for me than serving maya, i move forward on that. Even great sages and demigods cannot understand Krishna and those who love Him, love Him as an intimate friend or family member, they are not interested in His greatness.
5. Everyone else knows more about God than I do.
Truth: Knowledge does not make one safe, love of Godhead does. Sri Krishna is possessed by His dear devotees, not jnanis.
6. Everyone else is on better terms with God than I am.
Truth: "God has a unique relationship with every soul." Srila Prabhupada is sakyavesh avatar or mercy manifestation of Sri Krishna, He descended here, undergoing so many troubles only for me as well as everyone who is tired of suffering in this world.
7. God rules everything and he is a monster.
Truth: Kali is disturbing everyone. Maya rules in this world and she is one tough teacher, but surrender unto the beautiful lotus feet of Lord Sri Krishna will save me from her clutches; she is a devotee and happily folds her hands to a realized devotee.

Good luck. Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]"aversion" - means dislike or even hate - Prabhupada said that the only reason why we do not fully devote to Krishna, is "because we hate him", the only core reason it seem so difficult to to be a devotee. Here you have something for your CBT, a lot of work. No doctrinal problems, just reality check. Why do you think we end up so much separated from Krishna?[/quote]

So you want me to believe that I [the I that I really am, not the false ego I] hate Krishna?

No, not your real I. Here it means conditional jiva I. If you remove this hate or aversion, you are with Krishna and you never left.