Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite]Baker, what would be more academic and useful would be to quote the philosopher and give a reference to their rmocking of happiness and suffering.[/quote]

Fair enough, I shall post some pointy quotes when I find them.[br]
But other than that, many people who went through the Western educational system, esp. university, will know first-hand of the belligerent attitude toward happiness prominent at our institutions of higher learning ...

First impressions are very important. But Krishna in the heart may have to change negative into positive. I had a negative impression of devotees at first. But by meeting those who gave me a positive impression my impression changed, and by Krishnas grace the negative that I saw I see as positive.

How did you meet those who gave you a positive impression?
What made you persist in seeking and accepting devotee association despite the bad first impression?

It all happens without a particular endeavour from my side, just by being around when nice devotees are around, this is the only endeavour I have ever made.

How do you know who is a "nice" devotee?
How did you come to trust your discernment of who is a "nice" devotee?

(Because one thing that keeps happening to me is that I seem to have quite different ideas about who is a "nice devotee" than (some) others, and then dont know how to deal with this difference.)

You need to read books to find out the qualities of the devotees. Srila Prabhupadas books. Yes your ideas of who is "nice" will differ and will change as your progress or understand more, but the sastra should be the guide and developing humility and other qualities of a sadhu while practising chanting and hearing should be criteria.

> Should devotees try to make up for peoples bad first impressions of KC/devotees?

As a general rule, no. You will spend lifetimes running after people apologizing for things that have nothing to do with you.The best way to make up for a bad impression is to be a proper devotee.

> How did you come to trust your discernment of who is a "nice" devotee?

The first thing to do is to understand yourself and what your own methodology of discernment is. What is your methodology? What is you methodology based on? Do you have a balanced approach? Does your methodology allow you to assimilate apparently contrasting information with a cool head? If you dont have self-confidence in this, then you will be confused at every step. You cannot make consistent, level headed judgements without a consistent, level headed methodology. The rshis and even Krishna outline a consistent methodology you may want to adopt - understanding the modes of nature. Srila Prabhupada compares this methodology to chemistry i.e. you have a particular chemical and by laboratory analysis of the symptoms of that chemical, one can identify what it is.

Deena -

Those are excellent points!

Obviously, I lack a consistent, level-headed methodology.

What troubles me about the very act of adopting a methodology is that this adoption is necessarily based on some other methodology - and isnt the adopted methodology then only as strong as the substrate based on which it was adopted?

For me, the substrate would be something like "I suffer, and I dont want to suffer. The methodology of understanding the modes of material nature seems to be a way out of this suffering; therefore, I shall adopt this methodology." (Such reasoning would, of course, not be allowed in Western philosophy.)

> isnt the adopted methodology then only as strong as the substrate based on which it was adopted?

Whether it is or isnt doesnt matter. That it is adopted is the important point. Anyway, the substrate you mention i.e. I want to avoid suffering and be happy. is really the base substrate of all substrates in all their varied manifestiations and appearances.

> (Such reasoning would, of course, not be allowed in Western philosophy.)

Why not?

Baker>>Should devotees try to make up for peoples bad first impressions of KC/devotees?

Firstly dont make the mistake and think that everyone who wears dhoti/kirta/sari & tilak and presents themselves externally as a devotee is a devotee. I realize this is difficult for new comers but its a point worth keeping in mind. Who could possibly make up for the fall down of most of the so called chosen gurus after Srila Prabhupada? But if a new comer is sincere they will find the truth and have their realizations that all is not what it appears to be.

The best way to make up is to simply behave like a real devotee which starts by learning what the qualities of a Vaisnava are:

"Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja, the author of Caitanya-caritamrta, says that all good qualities become manifest in the body of a Vaisnava and that only by the presence of these good qualities can one distinguish a Vaisnava form a non-Vaisnava. Krsnadasa Kaviraja lists the twenty-six good qualities of a Vaisnava: "(1) He is very kind to everyone. (2) He does not make anyone his enemy. (3) He is truthful. (4) He is equal to everyone. (5) No one can find any fault in him. (6) He is magnanimous. (7) He is mild. (8) He is always clean. (9) He is without possessions. (10) He works for everyones benefit. (11) He is very peaceful. (12) He is always surrendered to Krsna. (13) He has no material desires. (14) He is very meek. (15) He is steady. (16) He controls his senses. (17) He does not eat more than required. (18) He is not influenced by the Lords illusory energy. (19) He offers respect to everyone. (20) He does not desire any respect for himself. (21) He is very grave. (22) He is merciful. (23) He is friendly. (24) He is poetic. (25) He is expert. (26) He is silent."

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]
> (Such reasoning would, of course, not be allowed in Western philosophy.) [br]

Why not?[/quote]

I suppose because Western philosophy is essentially impersonalist, while happiness and suffering are relevant only in a personalist conception.[br][br]
However, some devotees will use those scriptural passages that say that one ought to be equanimous about both happiness as well as unhappiness to undermine the notion that it is valid to base ones spiritual efforts on the desire not to suffer. (Despite what BG 7.16 and the Introduction to the BG say - "Unless one is awakened to this position of questioning his suffering, unless he realizes that he doesnt want suffering but rather wants to make a solution to all suffering, then one is not to be considered a perfect human being.")

> I suppose because Western philosophy is essentially impersonalist, while happiness and suffering are relevant only in a personalist conception.

On the contrary, even the goal of impersonalist philosophy is how to become happy and reach ananda.

> some devotees will use those scriptural passages that say that one ought to be equanimous about both happiness as well as unhappiness

Yes the goal is clearly documented. For the majority of us avoidance of suffering is the primary motivation in the beginning. Srila Prabhupada aimed most of his preaching at this level and therefore we see in almost every class, conversation and chapter he asks: How to avoid the suffering of birth, old age, death and disease? It is a foundational theme of his preaching.

deena>>On the contrary, even the goal of impersonalist philosophy is how to become happy and reach ananda.

Yes I agree with deena, happiness and suffering are the prime motivators, that is what is experienced by all jivas even enlightened ones, we cannot stop the day and the night or the happiness and distress. Happiness and distress are experienced by all regardless of whether we are personalist or impersonalist, the only difference is the solution, how we deal with it.

Impersonalists wish to go back to sleep, merge with brahman, for the personalist this is spiritual suicide, we want ras, nectar, relationship with Krishna, ecstasy we are greedy for for it. Both are seeking perfect bliss. We are eager to awaken our loving relationship with the devine couple. We even hanker for spiritual happiness and distress, the spritual distress draws out our maximum love for the devine couple. In separation a Vaisnava cries out for re-union with the supreme, it is this tension that draws out and re-awakens the spiritual relationship.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]On the contrary, even the goal of impersonalist philosophy is how to become happy and reach ananda.
[/quote]

AFAIK, not for Western philosophy. Around here, philosophers mock both happiness as well as suffering.

Baker>>AFAIK, not for Western philosophy. Around here, philosophers mock both happiness as well as suffering.

Not for Western Philosohpy? that is way too general, there are many different Philosophers in the western tradition, all with differing philosophies, exactly which western philosopher are you talking about?

The academic ones, obviously.

I disagree, the search for happiness, freedom from suffering and peace of mind is at the core of most philosophies, western and eastern. The seat of western philosophy dates back to ancient Greece and further. Epicurus is one of the early western philosophers and is always discussed and studied in academia. One of his major concerns was discovering how to achieve happiness. He contended that nothing in life has any value except that which can bring us pleasure. If we focus on maximizing our potential for happiness, then ultimately well reap the rewards of this focus. But Epicurus warned against overindulgence, because it often leads to negative consequences & suffering..lol

He extended his philosophy to say that fear of death is silly. He believed death was simply oblivion with no feelings. Because there was no pain involved, as you cant feel anything he said: "death is nothing to us".

So central to his core philosopy was reducing the needs and wants to a bare minimum so they can be easily achieved, but he was all about achieving happiness in this life and reducing the suffering to a minimum level.

He certainly did not mock happiness or suffering, he was all about providing a practical solution to both. Modern western culture is very closely aligned with Epicurus philosophy.

Baker, what would be more academic and useful would be to quote the philosopher and give a reference to their rmocking of happiness and suffering.

Yes please do. I also find that anyone who is seen normal (not insane) or academic (not a hippy), must not subscribe to "be happy" and "bliss" concept as the guide of philosophy, specifically western. Brahmanandis talk about anything (moksa, illusion etc) but ananda,... only devotees talk about true ananda (and that is rare these days too). People in general do not associate ananda with philosophy, unless they are members of some "bhavanam kevalam" or another misrabhakti group.

Flaubert: "To be stupid, and selfish, and to have good health are the three requirements for happiness; though if stupidity is lacking, the others are useless."

Eric Hoffer: '93The search for happiness is one of the chief sources of unhappiness.'94

John Buchan: What would you call the highest happiness? Wratislaw was asked. The sense of competence, was the answer, given without hesitation.

Charles Baudelaire: "A multitude of small delights constitute happiness."

Alexander Smith: '93We are never happy; we can only remember that we were so once.'94

John Stuart Mill: '93Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so.'94

Bernard de Fontenelle: "A great obstacle to happiness is to expect too much happiness."

Jean-Paul Sartre: "Happiness has to be installed in each person as a state of affairs completely cut off from the process that brought it about and, in particular, from the real situation. Man has to be affected with happiness. It is a tonality given to him. Contradiction: if one does take care to give him happiness, it is because he is a free creature--but in order to give it to him, one turns him into an object."

Johann von Goethe: "A reasonable man needs only to practice moderation to find happiness."

Alexander Pope: "Amusement is the happiness of those who cannot think."

Thomas Carlyle: "Blessed is he who has found his work; let him ask no other blessedness. He has a work, a life-purpose. ... Get your happiness out of your work or you will never know what real happiness is. ... Even in the meanest sorts of labor, the whole soul of a man is composed into a kind of real harmony the instant he sets himself to work."

Joseph Farrell: "Enjoy your happiness while you have it, and while you have it do not too closely scrutinize its foundation."

Arthur Schopenhauer: "Every possession and every happiness is but lent by chance for an uncertain time, and may therefore be demanded back the next hour."

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]only devotees talk about true ananda (and that is rare these days too). People in general do not associate ananda with philosophy, unless they are members of some "bhavanam kevalam" or another misrabhakti group.[/quote]

Some Buddhists do too. The Buddha even standardized the question "What, when I do it, will be for my long-term welfare and happiness?" (Just search http://www.accesstoinsight.org for "long-term welfare and happiness" for examples.)