Tattva-viveka
Experiences of higher realities
Zvonimir Tosic - March 18, 2008 12:06 am
Experiences of higher realities
(Thanks for the suggestion Nanda-Tanuja, to start an all new thread).
Some 10 years before the start of war in the Balkans, in the little village in Herzegovina (southern part of Bosnia & Herzegovina), Virgin Mary apparently appeared in the front of few children. They were up in the hills and suddenly they've heard someone calling them. In their vicinity they've seen one effulgent and beautiful, mysterious lady, dressed all in white, talking to them silently, with palms and arms stretched towards them like she wanted to embrace them warmly.
News spread quickly around and in just few weeks there were many people coming form all parts of the country (B&H was still part of former Yugoslavia then). My family also heard the good news and our uncle took us all for the trip. I was a little boy. Medjugorje, that little village, wasn't too far from our town, maybe some 100 kms. There we've talked with many people gathered, and also went to a mass, where those children were present.
Namely, what I want to relate to, is that their seeing and communication with Mary was non-verbal. No one else could perceive it. Children were all staring at the same point in the mid air, praying silently with eyes wide open, and all of them repeated the same message she's transferred, with just a few added nuances, specific to every child. All messages were about striving for peace, the importance of prayer, act for togetherness, importance of forgiveness and non-violence. But the stress was on individual prayer, individual change. From individual change society will start changing too.
It seemed Mary was in some way controlling, focusing and guiding their thoughts, because children could stay like that for hours. When asked why she communicates in a non-verbal way, they've said it is better like that because she can express her feelings better, and also quicker and more condensed, more suitable for our perception of time. Their personal prayers were silent, but yet they were engaged in a mass too, and encouraged other people to join. But for them, they couldn't wait to experience Mary personally, again and again, because such sensation they've described as exhilarating and overwhelmingly beautiful.
That was obviously a very nice overture to remedy the outreach and terror of the war which erupted exactly 10 years from then. But people couldn't know anything about the war then, because people's thoughts usually don't reach so far in the future. Waist deep buried in the crops of seizable opportunities, they don't think about the consequences of their actions.
In his book "Alien Identities", Sadaputa Prabhu was writing about similar subjects, covering seeing in Lourdes and many others, from Europe to India. When communicating with beings from "another dimension" of reality, it seems that non-verbal communication usually takes place, and the exchange of feelings seems to be very important.
If possible, I'd like others to contribute with examples from our Gaudiya tradition, which we can correlate with this one. Let us dwell into the higher realities of our dearmost predecessors so we can expand our realities and understandings of prayer with their precious experiences.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 2, 2008 6:16 am
Experiences of higher realities, communication with beings from "another dimension" might be quite fascinating, but the question is how useful such interaction is for your progress on the path of bhakti? Trust an old occultist (hehe) don’t play with matches. This is a nice overview of how our tradition thinks of such things, give it a listen.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 5, 2008 11:36 am
Experiences of higher realities, communication with beings from "another dimension" might be quite fascinating, but the question is how useful such interaction is for your progress on the path of bhakti? ...
I'm asking this just as a curiosity. And also to gather your opinions which may prove valuable in cross-religious dialogues. Every day I meet many different people from different traditions (for example, I work in the area amidst Jewish and Christian communities) and I'd like to relate with them better and in an inspiring way.
Virgin Mary in Christianity is an object of ultimate worship, and is considered to be very merciful and protective. The Christian rosary (from rosarium -- rose garden), a form of japa, also represents her spirit: usually five decades of Hail Marys are repeated followed by an Our Father. So Christians basically pray to her. Mary is sometime called Rosa Mundi in sacred literature. Many traditions within Christianity recommend approaching Mary and praying to her, so she can take us gently into her service and under her protection. This is encouraged much more so than worshiping the God directly (in fact, that's considered impossible).
Through history, people believed and witnessed Mary saving them and communities from catastrophes, and also announcing greater changes within human society. Seeing in Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorje are examples.
Pope John Paul II, for example, was a worshipper of Mary. It seems the attempt of his assassination was prophesied by her (in Fatima). His emblem had "Totus tuus" or "Totally Yours" words inscribed. By these words, John Paul II reminds us of Mary’s total gift of herself to God. In Christianity, she's the way to reach Christ and Christ will accept everyone recommended by Mary.
People who worshipped Mary fully through history reached the zenith of Christian revelation. Such saints were beautiful examples of both human and divine compassion, surrender, utmost service to God, friendliness to all creatures -- some could talk to animals or to people speaking different languages (at the same time) and everyone could understand them well. They were touching and melting people's hearts.
Now, please, don't erupt at me; but this is so reminiscent of Vaisnavism to me. We can find so many similarities, on all levels, starting from chant, worship, personal service, inner vision, self-sacrifice, self-forgetfulness, surrender to God through his agent (the impossibility to reach him directly).
Could anyone achieve such realisations (as mentioned above) by worshipping ghosts or bhutas? Can Christ or Mary be attributed as such, so the level of their worship corresponds to the worship of ghosts? I doubt it. But on the other hand, are those realisations similar to those of people who worship God in Vaisnavism fully? I think they are very similar (I'm not saying they are same), but I'm not aware of any study which has examined that subject matter closely. Does anyone knows anything about it?
I think that subject is well worth studying, much more so than just dismissing everything and saying that Christians just reach heavenly planets, the world of Ghandarvas, Devas or some higher planets (Brahmaloka being at the top of their horizon).
When comparing all different religious approaches, I find Christianity to resemble (Gaudiya) Vaisnavsm to the highest degree, even more so than traditions coming from India itself, from across the road of Vaisnavism (like the philosophies of Sankara's advaita or Buddhism).
Srila Prabhupada was very inspired in his communication with different religious groups and he succeeded in finding similarities and augmenting them. He managed to bridge differences between people and started building understanding and closer relationships. I was especially touched with how he compared the Holy Trinity with the realisations of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.
Such attempts inspire me, because they allow me to relate and communicate with different people, so I can understand them better and so they can understand me. Hope you don't mind my enquiry and that someone won't blame me for observing Gaudiya Vaisnavism from some cemented or obscure perspective, daring to compare it with other traditions.
Syamasundara - April 5, 2008 6:14 pm
Hope you don't mind my enquiry and that someone won't blame me for observing Gaudiya Vaisnavism from some cemented or obscure perspective, daring to compare it with other traditions.
Interesting to see how you perceive the people and the climate of this forum.
BG 4.11
ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah
TRANSLATION
All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.
The main flaw with Christianity is in their "disciplic succession" and the distorted or lacking knowledge. It's not a chance that you mentioned the most mystical expressions of Christianity in order to compare it to our outlook.
Other than that, if someone within Christianity is willing to filter through a lot of its mundaneness, and manages to attain the peaks of self-sacrifice, devotion, love, surrender, humility, compassion, etc that are possible within that path, that would be very good for them and humanity.
I don't quite know what their destination will be. It really depends. Some of them are impersonalists, some of them are karma-kandis, some of them are santa-bhaktas.
Incidentally, notice how we are able to have this kind of conversation and analysis, whereas they wouldn't have much ground to stand on.
Rasa-tattva is really the greatest legacy of Mahaprabhu's movement.
From the Absolute point of view, one's religion is not important, but rather one's capacity as a soul to be reprogrammed, from exploitation to dedication, by means of accepting guidance, acknowledging
one's position in relation to the Absolute, and our relationship.
Rasa means the taste, or juice, of a relationhip.
In Christianity there may be a lot of devotion, but it doesn't go any further than santa or dasya at best.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - April 5, 2008 9:01 pm
Dear Zvonimir,
Although I respect your desire to compare different religious traditions to render universal spiritual principles, I'm uncomfortable with some of the ideas you have expressed and since you are gathering opinion I should add mine.
I too often discuss spirituality with different kinds of practitioners and seekers, and within my own lifetime, I was initiated into more than a couple. I know well that it is not possible to fully appreciate or understand any tradition or it's final goal without initiation into it. By initiation I mean that process by which the living current of the tradition (whatever it is) transforms us by completely destroying our original conception of ourself and our world and establishes us in an entirely new conception. In other words, initiation is death and rebirth into a completely new (and let's assume spiritual) reality. I find as I mature I'm becoming more of a traditionalist. I don't think real initiation (there is also false initiation) is possible outside traditional spiritual/religious systems. Therefore, the measure I apply to assessing the spiritual validity of others' ideas (since it is impossible for me to know the spiritual content of their spiritual life with any certainty) is the degree to which thy can articulate the "spiritual reasoning" behind their practice and ideas in light of the tradition they follow. Often, this kind of discussion is very satisfying because it illuminates different principles that hold true for all paths. It also reveals the depth of our work because we have to do our work to attain valid spiritual knowledge. For me, this is where respect (or lack thereof) for other religious people derives from.
And so, I have problems with some of your statements because they do not seem in keeping with Christianity as I understand it and also because they do not appear in keeping with the reasoning of my our practice (Gaudiya Vaisnavism).
You say that Mary is "an ultimate object of worship" and presumably this supports your faith in Marian apparitions and their spiritual validity. Protestant Christians would find this heretical, but that aside, isn't it true that Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth, and the light?" I thought Christians approach The Father through His Son Jesus Christ. I thought Christ was for Chrstians the adi-guru as Caitanya Mahaprabhu is for us. Just as we follow the teachings and example of Mahaprabhu and pray to him directly for our "redemption," is this not the case for Christ? As I understand (please correct me otherwise), with one exception, there is no mediator necessary between us and Caitanya Mahaprabhu. That exception is Sri Guru in manifest form -our Gurudeva- who gives initiation, provides example and teaching and encouragement like a friend, directs our service, and connects us to the community of devotees both here and in the spiritual domain. But even then, he or she is still an extension of Mahaprabhu and not a separate party. I believe this role is taken up by the church in Christianity.
Certainly Mary is a very significant "parisad" of Jesus Christ, along with others such as John the Baptist, the apostles, and many other saints, but, why if you are following Christ, would Mary become a separate object of worship? I find this suspicious. We do not worship Saci-mata or Yashoda-ma in their own right but only in their supporting relationship to the descent of God Himself, our adi-guru. Although the worship of Mary has been part of the Roman church for a long time, it is only within the last century and a half that she appears to have inspired her own cult complete with apparitions, prophesy, alien abductions and whatever else. Could this be the effect of Kali yuga?
I know this is getting long, but one last point. Apparitions. Why? Prophesy involving political events. Why? Miracle working. Why? Why would the divine need to involve itself with us in these mundane ways? To build faith? What kind of faith does this build? Why would God want to encourage our attachment to psychic, paranormal, or even physical phenomenon? (And of course this creates attachment to an inferior order of experience -if you see one "miracle" you'll be looking for the next.) Why, if God dwells within the heart of everyone, would he/she need to make flickering lights in the sky? This is not how spiritual life works, and I will be audacious enough to say boldly that if we doubt this we need to devote more time to our sadhana. Of course miracles happen. In the lila of our adi-guru Caitanya Mahaprabhu there are many miraculous events. And yet it's worth noting, and noting again, that these are never given precedence over his teaching, example, or claim to the only relevant miracle (the lila aside): his capacity and willingness to save the lost living beings from the fearful ocean of birth, old age, sickness, and death and make him or her understand their true intrinsic position as a devotee and servant of God. That is the miracle. The others, like the mango tree, or Vasudeva the leper, or making the animal dance and sing, are mentioned to add color. Practically, you could take these things or leave them. We ground our faith in coherent siddhanta. Contemporary acaryas rarely bring these to the foreground. Personally, when I think of Krsna Caitanya, who is the living God (Caitanya), and his influence in our lives, the carnival of paranormal phenomenon look like pure trickery, subversion, a trap. This is Kali Yuga.
My intention in writing these things is not to attack your faith in the saints, spiritual life, and the rest, but to only offer my thoughts, my feelings. I have gotten in trouble before from expressing myself strongly and so this is a risk for me as well. If my points are off base someone should address them. I wish that both of us make great advancement in spiritual life. In my life I have been confronted with many philosophical problems, conflicts, and choices. Ultimately these have only fueled my own progress and deepened my faith. I think you will also be successful.
Swami - April 5, 2008 11:51 pm
Recently I was asked the following, which is somewhat related to this topic:
My question is about experience in bhakti yoga. Few days ago I spoke
with my boyfriend about what experience of God is. He is follower of cult
called Wicca (they practice magic and worship deities of nature). He
claimes that during their rituals their deities appear and are so close
that one can touch them, they are alive and real. Viccans perform also some
magic and I can see that brings real effects. For my boyfriend this is
undeniable experience of his deities. When he asked me whether I had seen
Krishna my answer was of course- No. He became very surprised then that I
practice process relies mostly on faith not on experience. I do not agree
with that but I had to admit that my experience with Lord is not as
spectacular as his with his gods. Of course I have some relation with Nam
Prabhu and Deities in the temple but I mean contact with Lord in His
original form. One thing is- that I am very jealous of his experience but
on the other side I know in my heart that Krishna is uncomparably greater
then any deity of nature. Could you tell me why is it so difficult for
devotees to see God? To experience Him really? In Wicca and similar
religions this experience is immediate.
To which I answered:
As for seeing Krsna, our goal is not to see him but to serve him. If he chooses to appear before us, that is his prerogative. Nothing can force him to appear, whereas other minor gods and goddesses must appear before one if one performs the appropriate rituals. Such deities are not independent of law, but Krsna is above law. Thus he is contacted not by law or ritual but by love, and love is not cheap. When you love Krsna unconditionally, he will appear before you. Such love is devoid of any selfish motive and thus it transcends the bodily identification that is the very basis of selfishness. As long as we identify ourselves with a material body and mind--as long as our sense of "I" is determined by our sense of "my"--there is no question of selflessness—no love, for love is selfless.
When we love Krsna as expressed in selfless service we will see him everywhere. Why? Because unlike other minor gods who cater to the ignorance of material desire, he is everywhere. For that matter, whatever we see is but him improperly understood, misperceived through the distorted lens of material desire. The natural world and other souls are not for us to exploit for the satisfaction of our present senses. To think so is the height of absurdity. Does the natural world exist for the satisfaction of any particular set of senses, all of which are an arrangement of its own that will be dismantled in due course never to appear again? Or is there a higher order to the world around us that upon realizing one can live in harmony and love with others? Indeed there is, and this is what we call Krsna consciousness. This consciousness is the culture of selflessness in love, the perfect object of which is what is referred to as "Krsna." To see him involves ceasing from seeing the world as something to exploit for the satisfaction of our senses, and this is accomplished by employing our present senses in his service as revealed by his representative in sri guru parampara.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 6, 2008 1:35 am
Interesting to see how you perceive the people and the climate of this forum.
My dear Syamasundara,
I have to say that because it's hard to develop relationship through words only. I just wanted to let you know I'm trying not to make statements, minimise misunderstanding, and that I'm not provoking. I'm enquiring, and I'm curious. And I believe in your abilities to bless me with inspiring answers, and that's why I ask such questions here. Hope this helps.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 6, 2008 2:08 am
My intention in writing these things is not to attack your faith in the saints, spiritual life, and the rest, but to only offer my thoughts, my feelings. I have gotten in trouble before from expressing myself strongly and so this is a risk for me as well. If my points are off base someone should address them. I wish that both of us make great advancement in spiritual life. In my life I have been confronted with many philosophical problems, conflicts, and choices. Ultimately these have only fueled my own progress and deepened my faith. I think you will also be successful.
Dear Gaura Kṛṣṇa,
thank you for your reply. I probably feel the same as you, but in all honesty, I have no one else to ask. So sometime we all share the same risk. I remember once, when I was talking to my friends about how Srila Prabhupada inspiringly compared the Holy Trinity with the threefold realisation of the Absolute (Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan). The conclusion was, that if some of us did the same, for example, he or she may well be ridiculed or seriously objected because everyone would be asking us where is the reference point to make such a statement?
Thank you for correcting me. I agree with what you say about worshipping Mary. It's found in Catholicism mainly, and yet not all Catholics are same. So in some countries and traditions it's pronounced more than in others. However, I took her example because when she's involved in the Christian idea, then it reminds me of Gaudiya Vaisnavism to some extent. I'm not saying it's same, but something is reminiscent, bearing more resemblance than many neighboring traditions in India. If I can say, it looks like an abstract image, a vague idea of Gaudiya Vasinavism to me.
I also ask myself, could it all be for a reason? So that people form the west can recognise those abstract elements and connect them together and pursue the idea of personal loving God further? I leave that to your inputs.
Next to me there's a painitng, 'Rest on the Flight into Egypt' (Caravaggio). I received it as a gift from uncle, when I moved in the new house. When I'm thinking about the story, I cannot but to connect it with Krishna's birth. An evil king wanted to kill baby Christ and his family had to rescue him, take him somewhere else ... There's so many reminiscent things between the two traditions. Or it's just silly me, seeing connections when there's none? 
As per my faith in saints, I respect them, yes. But I've found my thoughts during the last several years dwelling more about the life of Ragunatha das Goswami, or about Sridhara Maharaja, than about St Francis for example. Only when I'm in contact with people who practice Christian faith more than usual (usual today usually means not at all 
, then I try to think about similarities between the traditions much more.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 6, 2008 3:12 am
Or is there a higher order to the world around us that upon realizing one can live in harmony and love with others? Indeed there is, and this is what we call Krsna consciousness. This consciousness is the culture of selflessness in love, the perfect object of which is what is referred to as "Krsna." To see him involves ceasing from seeing the world as something to exploit for the satisfaction of our senses, and this is accomplished by employing our present senses in his service as revealed by his representative in sri guru parampara.
Dear Swami,
This is so wonderful. Thank you for sharing with us.
Swami - April 15, 2008 8:32 pm
Objectively speaking I do not think that Christianity resembles Gaudiya Vaisnavism more than other Easter spiritual traditions. It does posit a Supreme Person, as does Gaudiya Vaisnavism, yet even while the two have this in common each tradition’s conception of the Supreme Person is very different. Indeed, in the very real sense that Gaudiya Vaisnavism posits a duad of Radha and Krsna as the Supreme Person and unlike Christianity it may not be considered entirely monotheistic because of this.
A few points off the top of my head to consider:
1. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a theistic monism very different from the monotheism of Christianity.
2. Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowleges the metaphysical difference between the body and soul, Christianity does not.
3. Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges rebirth, Christianity does not.
4. Gaudiya Vaisnavism does not acknowledge a creation, Christianity does.
5. Gaudiya Vaisnavism’s notion of salvation does not revolve around the resurrection of Christ as salvation does in Christianity.
6. Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges a different body of revelation/scripture from that of Christianity.
7. Gaudiya Vaisnavism decries serving God for material gain calling such “a cheating religion” (kaitava dharma), unlike Christianity.
8. Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges devas, whereas Christianity does not.
At the same time Gaudiya Vaisnavism has much in common with other Eastern spiritual traditions.
1.Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges the same body of revelation as the rest of Hinduism (all schools of Vedanta in the least).
2. Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges rebirth as does all of Hinduism and Buddhism.
3. Like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taosim, etc., Gaudiya Vaisnavism does not acknowledge a creation.
4. Like the rest of Hindism, Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges the difference between body and soul.
5.Like Hinsduism and Buddhism, Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges devas.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 16, 2008 12:37 am
...4. Gaudiya Vaisnavism does not acknowledge a creation, Christianity does.
...
3. Like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taosim, etc., Gaudiya Vaisnavism does not acknowledge a creation.
Dear Swami,
Can you please tell more about these two differences about creation?
What did you mean by this?
Thank you very much.
Swami - April 16, 2008 2:41 am
Dear Swami,Can you please tell more about these two differences about creation?
What did you mean by this?
Thank you very much.
Yes. As far as I know Christians believe that the world was created at some point out of nothing, whereas for the Eastern traditions do not. As far as I know, Eastern traditions believe that whatever exists has always existed and will always exist. As for our tradition, we believe this and also that the material world has no beginning or end. It becomes manifest and then becomes unmanifest in a series of a beginningless and endless cycles.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 16, 2008 5:58 am
Yes. As far as I know Christians believe that the world was created at some point out of nothing, whereas for the Eastern traditions do not. As far as I know, Eastern traditions believe that whatever exists has always existed and will always exist. As for our tradition, we believe this and also that the material world has no beginning or end. It becomes manifest and then becomes unmanifest in a series of a beginningless and endless cycles.
Dear Swami,
Thank you for this clarification.
Christian thought developed through centuries and what we hear today coming from different Christian traditions may reflect some of these various thoughts, or some common beliefs, but we cannot call them always universal Christian or thoroughly supported by Christian philosophers. Often they're just colloquial.
Similar example we have in Hinduism; there are many philosophies and nuances about same subject matter, many different interpretations of the same scripture (Bhagavad-gita, Vedanta sutra, etc.). For example, Gaudiya Vedanta is quite different from Sanakara's Advaita Vedanta, etc.
Although Christianity looks to be more homogenous and unified in its varied observations on nature of God and creation, often it just appears so.
For Thomas Aquinas (whom I'd refer to as a Jiva Goswami of Christianity), for example, creation is not so much an action that begins and ends; it is an ongoing relationship between God and what He creates. Nature does nothing in vain through its regularity and purpose. Thomas Aquinas affirms very clearly that creation did not come out nothing. Creation is never an intermediary; God and the emanation of creation from Him are one as an effect is dependent on its cause.
Creation is thus an extension of God, not an event, not an action in time or a coming to be. Creation is all that is sustained in being by God who is pure act, pure existence, with no essence other than His existence. (Let's compare this with Bg 7.7: .. There is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.) The world is nothing other than God's handiwork continually sustained by divine love.
How far this thought goes? In the first book of the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas says, for example, that God is never the author of sin, but he is always the author of the act of sin. And again, Thomas Aquinas affirms succinctly, "God is virtually everything."*
For Thomas Aquinas, reality is dualistic, never monistic. In plain language, life for Thomas Aquinas is always a two-way street, never a one-way street. We are surrounded by essence and existence, the natural and the supernatural, faith and reason, matter and form, potency and act, the physical and the metaphysical, etc. (Let's relate this with B.g. 7.2: I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge both phenomenal and noumenal, by knowing which there shall remain nothing further to be known.) And above all, God and creation. All multiplicity and diversity are the gift of God in the creation of being, emanating from Himself.**
* & ** (Result: An acintya-bhedabheda equivalent thought in Christianity?)
Thomas Aquinas affirms the radical metaphysical beauty of all being. In blunt terms, Thomas Aquinas says that even the devil is metaphysically beautiful though morally evil, and it is better to exist in hell than not to exist at all because being, existence is in and of itself a perfection. In the tradition of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas affirms that all being is good, true, beautiful and one.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - April 16, 2008 7:13 pm
I read these interesting posts this morning and thought of a few other differences between Vaisnavism and Christianity on my drive to work. Some are elaborations on the differences Guru Maharaja already pointed out, but they're significant enough to note. I'll use the abbreviation GV for Gaudiya Vaisnavism and Ch for Christianity.
9. Ch does not have mantra diksa.
10. Ch does not emphasize guru parampara if it exists at all.
11. Ch does not emphasize or encourage philosophical understanding or reasoning for all followers.
12. In GV, although one path is endorsed, we acknowledge there are other paths to the transcendent. CH does not.
13. Ch does not attempt to harmonize or accomidate other philosophies.
14. GV recognizes more than one "spiritual world"
15. GV recognizes more than one "physical world" within the material cosmos.
16. GV recognizes an unending succession of ages (yuga) and articulates the implications.
17. In addition to the devas, GV recognizes other extra-human and infra-human orders of beings.
18. GV recognizes that animals and plants have souls.
19. In applying 18, GV has a vastly more expanded concept of ahimsa. GV are forbidden to eat animals.
20. GV does not recognize Satan or in fact any kind of enemy or antithesis of God.
21. GV does not recognize fallen angels or any kind of "fall" for that matter. In GV, one cannot fall from transcendence.
22. GV recognizes constitutional differences among different kinds of people (varna).
23. Ch does not recognize a "life force," sakti, or the different types of sakti.
24. Ch does not have anything which resembles the Pancaratra (Tantric) current of revelation and sadhana
25. Ch does not emphasize daily sadhana as the basis for a follower's identity.
26. CH views astrology and other sacred sciences as demonic.
27. GV recognizes God as capable of directly manifesting himself personally in the world. Again and again.
28. GV recognizes God's spiritual abode -it's features and personalities- as capable of manifesting on the earth.
29. GV recognizes God as capable of manifesting in the form of the deity. Ch views this as idolatry.
30. Ch acknowledges retribution and divine punishment.
31. GV sees suffering as the result of karma. It articulates and expands upon the doctrine of karma.
32. GV does not recognize covenants and pacts with God or a sense of "obligation" directly to God.
33. GV does not recognize eternal damnation, an eternal existence in Hell, or an eternal existence in any one form of life.
34. GV does not recognize a "second coming" as Ch does.
35. GV does not idealize, aspire for, or glorify martyrdom in any form. (Haridas Thakur was NOT a martyr.)
36. GV recognizes different kinds of initiation for practitioners at different stages of qualification.
37. GV very clearly distinguishes between "heaven" and the transcendental worlds.
38. Ch does not recognize a jagad-guru (Sadashiva) to gradually qualify souls through their life experiences over many births until they can enter religious life.
39. Gv emphasizes progressive spiritual culture to attain the goal. One cannot simple "accept" and be saved.
Syamasundara - April 16, 2008 9:07 pm
Very well, I could never pin down all those points. I might have noticed some differences here and there in passing.
Only, 18 is not semantically correct. I'd say that GV starts from the premise that the living being is a soul that takes shelter in different bodily forms, whereas CH thinks the person is the body with its soul, and that only humans have a soul.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 16, 2008 11:09 pm
Very well, I could never pin down all those points. I might have noticed some differences here and there in passing.Only, 18 is not semantically correct. I'd say that GV starts from the premise that the living being is a soul that takes shelter in different bodily forms, whereas CH thinks the person is the body with its soul, and that only humans have a soul.
To continue Syama's thought, I'd underscore that we must be attentive in examining and comparing terms between traditions and between different times. Soul, anima and atma we may call same today, and to simplify communication we often integrate them in the same code line of our "universal translator device". However, we must dwell deep into their origins and exact context in which terms were used through time. We also need to examine their evolution.
In Sanskrit dictionaries, seemingly simple word atma has sometimes mind-boggling explanations and different meanings, even dissimilar, and yet we try to harmonise them, or find a new one, or emphasise one above another (when we're supporting a peculiar part of philosophy). Why? Because we try to follow the spirit of texts, ideas, etc.
However, someone may say we (and other traditions from India) take a fairly liberal approach in interpretation, an approach we (and other traditions from India) don't grant others so readily (in order to preserve enough points of distinction). I'm afraid that it may be perceived (as per Sankara's warning hint) as mere word jugglery. So we need to be careful.
Let's apply same to anima, and to other terms, see how they've evolved through centuries and only then we may compare them to some extent. It's not just terms but understanding of times and circumstances. It's quite a science. But even the word science -- today it has many additional and different meanings (and initiates different though patterns) than it had 800 years ago.
Syamasundara - April 17, 2008 12:08 am
That's not a very fair analysis, though, or at least not accurate or supported.
Are you referring to the fact that atma can be translated as soul, mind and body? That's not a convenient translation according to the context, in order to always be right. Atma means self, and the self can be identified in any of the above. The parallel to anima is jiva, that which animates the body. It's curious that in Italian and Spanish you also have the word "animo" which means mood, so you can also see there a correlation between that which gives life to the body, and the state of mind.
However, as much as I am not an expert in Christian philosophy over time, they always seem to talk about "my body" or "my soul" and the idea never comes across from their words that the soul is the person, the individual.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 17, 2008 2:54 am
. . .
10. Ch does not emphasize guru parampara if it exists at all.
We cannot dismiss this so easily. The succession is visible, but it depends on our interpretation and will to recognise it as such. Papal succession, for example, can be perceived as a direct succession (an analogy of diksa parampara) from Christ. Siksa is also visible; one philosopher or priest of today may take examples and words from St Augustine, St Francis and Mother Theresa to find new inspiration. In a similar way, Protestants may also appear as those who cancelled the whole idea of papism and bodily succession in favour of siksa approach.
11. Ch does not emphasize or encourage philosophical understanding or reasoning for all followers.
Uh, but who said that? For example, the whole above mentioned Summa Theologica was written for beginners, as Thomas Aquinas remarked. Today many can't even grasp its complexity and scope and and surely it's not an easy read at all (spanning from thoughts of Aristotle, early and medieval Christianity, Judaism, Arabian scholars, etc.). But yet, it was written for better understanding of faith and as an introduction for beginners in those days.
13. Ch does not attempt to harmonize or accomidate other philosophies.
Not entirely correct. Although it may appear so in everyday life, as I warned above, when you come to attend theological classes you'd be surprised to see how deeply Christianity is permeated with classical Greek philosophy, with ideas and thoughts from all Western traditions.
23. Ch does not recognize a "life force," sakti, or the different types of sakti.
Well, it depends. But we need to translate those terms firstly. A further reading of Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine and their contemporary followers may shed some light onto this and other similar subjects.
29. GV recognizes God as capable of manifesting in the form of the deity. Ch views this as idolatry.
Not entirely. Many great artists have spent all their lives creating works of sacred art and sculpture for the Church. In Roman Catholic tradition, it is common to see statues, crosses and paintings in churches, decorated with flowers. People kneel in front of them, meditate and pray. During festivals lamps are burning in front of them, chants and prayers are uttered, and procession also takes place. Some paintings are also believed to be self-manifested, and are treasured and adored. There's also some form of carana, in remembrance of Chris whose feet were washed (with water and tears) on several occasions.
Etc, etc. Indeed, we can go about many points here, but it wasn't my intention. I aplogise. I respect your thoughts though, but I believe there are enough similarities between traditions worth exploring than just dismissing them. If people from different traditions can encourage and understand others, the world may turn into a better place for everyone. Otherwise, we can argue forever about everything but I see no point in that.
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 17, 2008 5:13 am
Recognizing differences doesn't mean argumentation, nor does trying to find similarities mean finding unity. We can have a healthy respect for others and their traditions and we can have unity in diversity. BTW, my wife is Catholic and your examples of venerating images is not at all the same as the concept of the Archa Vigraha form of the Lord.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 17, 2008 6:43 am
BTW, my wife is Catholic and your examples of venerating images is not at all the same as the concept of the Archa Vigraha form of the Lord.
And I believe that's one of the charming reasons why we all love Gaudiya Vaisnavism, because it's so warm and personal.
Thank you very much for your reply.
Swami - April 17, 2008 11:06 am
And I believe that's one of the charming reasons why we all love Gaudiya Vaisnavism, because it's so warm and personal.Thank you very much for your reply.
GV is as much about dismantling one's present personality as it is about establishing a relationship with God, and that's not so "warm and personal," or fuzzy. But the point here is that the arcana of GV is not found in Christianity. It is better to acknowledge a good point when it is made by the person you are discussing with, rather than ignoring the point and going on to say something else in a way that seeks to detract from the point , as if to dismiss it. Your response here takes the appearance of a refutation of the point made--"exactly my point," when in fact it has nothing to do with the point made or the entire discussion. We all love GV, but what does that have to do with the discussion?
Syamasundara - April 17, 2008 1:35 pm
As much as there may be writings and tough philosophy, the average Christian doesn't even know of their existence.
It is a fact that Srila Prabhupada created a "society of brahmanas." In India, GV may be more of a tradition and religion, and even now, after a few generations in the West, many devotees are more religious than religionists. Still, the average "Hare Krsna" will have some sort or daily practice, knowledge of scriptures, feeling of relationship with God, etc.
Srila Prabhupada taught everyone to take Mahaprabhu's movement to heart and seriously, and everyone is more or less well plugged into that hive that hums with the Holy Name.
Now, I understand that Christianity is a reality that involves billions of people of all sorts, but if we consider the U.S. population as a sample, their being Christian is something that surfaces on their minds only when they're asked what their religion is, or in special occasions.
During the festival, I was noticing with Nandatanuja how there were some gurukulis who outside looked like total social misfits, but all of a sudden they could make a mrdanga sing, they knew stuff, etc. They may have had the weirdest past, even a faith crisis, but for those people Krsna seems to be like one vein in their bodies, no matter what. So, we have things like the garbhadhana samskara on our side, too.
Still, Krsna Consciousness is such a pristine thing and not for everybody. We are a very privileged bunch. As the movement spreads, there will be more and more varieties of devotees, as far as their practice, understanding, devotion. Think of the first Christians in Rome. They were hard core, and then...
Having said this, the best interfaith exercise for me is to see Bhakti devi and the expressions of bhakti in everyone and everything, like BVT says.
Bhakti is just inherent to the living being, no matter what the differences in practice, or even the object of bhakti. And I don't mean just in a religious context. It's just everywhere: people's dealings, nature.
I am fascinated to see the famous "predominating moiety and predominated moiety" at work.
Radha and Krsna are dancing, and if we know that, even if we don't know the dialog of that dance, or the how, when, and where of it, with sincerity and grace we can see that dance reflected even in the dirtiest of mirrors, and there is a big need of Windex in this world.
I remember in Eugene, GM would listen to the stupidest or senseless question from the most clueless hippy on Sundays, and always bring it home to Mahaprabhu and Radha-Krsna, pretty much without fail.
Otherwise, analyzing similarities and differences is a good exercise, but that doesn't seem to take us any further than Devi-dhama (Bs 43)
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 17, 2008 2:27 pm
I think the point of Christainity not encouraging reasoning is certainly incorrect. It may have been the case now because of all Luthers etc( faith alone is required) but earlier christians have used almost as much reasoning as GV but in Vedanta we have the hierachy of soul, intellect, mind and senses and hence we can keep our intellect in check if it becomes just word jugglery. Even V.S says that argument is inconclusive in reaching the Absolute. Some christains like Descartes had in face emphasized reason over even scripture. Many people will find the current presentation of GV to be one without reason and purely on faith in scripture. And even according to GV, we are our faith and the nature of our faith depends on the extent of our surrender and realization.
The ideals set by Christ seem to be pretty close to selfless devotion, but Paul through his resurrection theory has certainly made it easy to mistake devotion to God as a mere business transaction. But even in GV the understanding of spiritual world is projected as being an eternal heavenly planet where you can enjoy as much as possible. The ideal of pure devotion with no demand even for liberation of material anxieties is not really in fashion now, as the 16-4 formula guarantees the ticket to goloka if one believes in prabhupada.
Syamasundara - April 17, 2008 2:47 pm
But even in GV the understanding of spiritual world is projected as being an eternal heavenly planet where you can enjoy as much as possible.
Come again? 
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 17, 2008 2:55 pm
I mean many times devotees project the spiritual world as full of kalpavriksha and surabhi cows and state how they can enjoy there and leave this material world, forgetting that the main purpose to be there is not to enjoy but to serve and enjoyment comes a by-product of that service.
Swami - April 17, 2008 5:21 pm
Audarya-lila has already touched on the points I raise below. I just wanted to emphasize them and bring out a little more, especially because they seem to have gone over Z's head. The quotes below are from Z.
Yes, but that is very different from asserting that GV and Ch are more closely related that GV and other Eastern traditions, as you have done. In this you have gone so far as to say that perhaps there is a divine plan behind your perceived resemblance of the two traditions, a plan in which Ch was intended to help the Western world eventually come to GV. This seems quite a stretch to me. Furthermore, no one is dismissing other traditions in this thread.Etc, etc. Indeed, we can go about many points here, but it wasn't my intention. I aplogise. I respect your thoughts though, but I believe there are enough similarities between traditions worth exploring than just dismissing them.
If people from different traditions can encourage and understand others, the world may turn into a better place for everyone. Otherwise, we can argue forever about everything but I see no point in that.
But the argument, as you put it, involves others who apparently disagree with your idea that Ch more resembles GV than other Easter traditions do, and they have cited evidence to that affect. So your task is to show them that Ch is as closely related to GV as you have asserted, rather than implying that others who offer information that does not support your premise are argumentative in ways that are counterproductive to making the world a better place.
It appears to me that you are loosing ground in the discussion of the premise you put forward, but instead of acknowledging that you are trying to change the argument to cast others in a less than favorable light, implying that they are sectarian, argumentative, and so on. I think you are wrong on this. Some of your replies are rooted in an attachment to your premise or the need to be right that distorts the reasoning of others allowing you to hear things that they have not actually said and then reply to positions that have not been taken. People do this all the time. Hopefully this will be seen as an opportunity for you to recognize this tendency in yourself and begin to uproot it.
As for the actual discussion, I believe that the resurrection doctrine of Ch separates it from other traditions as no other tradition separates itself from others. In other words this central doctrine of Ch tends to naturally foster sectarianism. Hinduism on the other hand seems designed to foster pluralism.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Like GM points out there is objectively speaking as much similarity between Christianity and GV as there is between other eastern traditions and GV. But due to preaching of our contemporary acaryas like SP or BVT we may perceive that they feel that Christianity and Islam are closer to GV than other Eastern traditions. This point was made by BVT in the introduction to krsna samhita where he characterises Islam and Chrisitianity as lower forms of Vaisnava Dharma and Buddhism and Jainism being similar to Saiva Dharma. For example the emphasis of Christ on "loving God with all your body, mind and soul and loving thy neighbour as your own self(he qualified this statement to say love thy neighbour as I have loved you, showing the example by washing his disciples' feet) is similar to BVT "jiva daya krsna nama sarva dharma sara". There are gnostic sects with influence from Platonic traditions who believe in reincarnation and may have more similarity with GV but they are not orthodox christian traditions. I think in western philosophy Plato is closer to Eastern or even Vedic traditions than most versions of Christian doctrine as his hierachy of soul, intellect and the senses is similar to vedanta. And the gnostic sects do give new twists to statements of Christ like "Kingdom of God is within your heart" and his missing years from 15-25, his belief in reincarnation etc but these are not acceptable to mainstream Christians. Many Buddhists feel that Christ was more like a devotional Buddhist and he is wrongly presented by today's Christians but that is another debate.
I think dismantling of one's present conditioning and destruction of this material self is the basis for all eastern traditions including GV and Buddhism. But GV talks about post-liberated state of a spiritual self which is completly aligned with the will of the Supreme and voluntarily participates in his play. GV is unique and there is no comparable philosophy which talks about such intimacy between the finite and infinite but as GM pointed out we can identify some similarities with other traditions and give due respect to them. At the same time we have to recognize the differences very clearly or else our tattva may be distorted.
Swami - April 17, 2008 7:03 pm
GV is unique and there is no comparable philosophy which talks about such intimacy between the finite and infinite but as GM pointed out we can identify some similarities with other traditions and give due respect to them. At the same time we have to recognize the differences very clearly or else our tattva may be distorted.
My emphasis in the quote above, but well said. This is important. While discussing other traditions we come to find out more about or own, and this may be more beneficial for the spiritual progress of a sadhaka than sentimentally waxing uttama, if you will, and decrying discrimination. An authentic embrace of all spiritual traditions is only really possible for an uttama adhikari Vaisnava. Cultivating such a realization is important for the neophyte and intermediate Vaisnavas, but it must be done such that passion for one's own path is not sacrificed. This is so because it is this passion that fuels one's practice and ultimately leads one to the realized position of the uttama Vaisnava.
It is also important to note that discrimination does not amount to the absence of sentiment, but rather good reasoning as to where to place one's sentiment, one's heart. Well reasoned sentiment is the idea.
Shreekrishna - April 18, 2008 3:14 am
I always thought the Christian idolatry prohibition was ridiculous in some sense, because the Orthodox, and Catholics permit images.... which they don't consider idols because they represent the likeness of the personality being worshipped or reverenced. For the GV (and other Vedic traditions), our deity worship is probably a bit more involved, with so many rituals directly revolving around the deities (ie: bathing, dressing, putting Them to rest, etc) that it strikes the Christians as being idol worship...
If I'm not mistaken, "idol worship" connotes offering worship to something/one that is not worthy of it 
, or done in place of worship that should be offered to God (in our case, the deities ARE God!)
Syamasundara - April 18, 2008 8:16 am
I mean many times devotees project the spiritual world as full of kalpavriksha and surabhi cows and state how they can enjoy there and leave this material world, forgetting that the main purpose to be there is not to enjoy but to serve and enjoyment comes a by-product of that service.
Is that your feeling and perception, or you actually heard those words and insinuations?
What devotees are you talking about? Iskcon Sunday feasters? Some other group? I have a hard time believing that anyone who has been exposed to SP could even remotely develop that attitude. I guess things have changed a lot since 1996.
Are you sure they didn't say something like: "We are supposed to go back home, back to Godhead, and play with Krsna in Vrndavana, where the trees...., the cows...., the dust... not to suffer in this material world."?
Shreekrishna - April 18, 2008 10:46 am
It's interesting to see this issue mentioned. I've also had devotees mention that Vaikunta is more opulent, and Goloka Vrindavan is more sweet. Actually the Goswamis indicate that in Vaikunta, the opulence predominates, and in Goloka, even though it's opulence surpasses Vaikunta, it's sweetness predominates. The gopis tread over wish-fulfilling jewels, and ask the desire-trees where Krsna is, not giving these entities any special attention (or diverting their minds from one-pointed service to Krsna)...
Just try to say at a sunday feast "I just want to die and go to heaven, prabhu!" and see the reaction you get! You'll get clobbered with a second lecture, and a ton of books.
Moksha is a material pursuit (the mentality of escaping the material world, and it's immense suffering, for something better, and eternal), and is one of the purusharthas- like artha, dharma and kama. Bhakti- we endeavor to always serve Krsna in whatever form/birth we take, and in whatever conditions arise in the present and the future (so basically, no escaping... we serve in the here and now, much as we would in the hereafter, except that we gradually get purified, and our service to Krsna gets perfected)...
Sorry for the digression though!
Swami - April 18, 2008 1:16 pm
Dear Swami,Thank you for this clarification.
Christian thought developed through centuries and what we hear today coming from different Christian traditions may reflect some of these various thoughts, or some common beliefs, but we cannot call them always universal Christian or thoroughly supported by Christian philosophers. Often they're just colloquial.
Similar example we have in Hinduism; there are many philosophies and nuances about same subject matter, many different interpretations of the same scripture (Bhagavad-gita, Vedanta sutra, etc.). For example, Gaudiya Vedanta is quite different from Sanakara's Advaita Vedanta, etc.
Although Christianity looks to be more homogenous and unified in its varied observations on nature of God and creation, often it just appears so.
For Thomas Aquinas (whom I'd refer to as a Jiva Goswami of Christianity), for example, creation is not so much an action that begins and ends; it is an ongoing relationship between God and what He creates. Nature does nothing in vain through its regularity and purpose. Thomas Aquinas affirms very clearly that creation did not come out nothing. Creation is never an intermediary; God and the emanation of creation from Him are one as an effect is dependent on its cause.
Creation is thus an extension of God, not an event, not an action in time or a coming to be. Creation is all that is sustained in being by God who is pure act, pure existence, with no essence other than His existence. (Let's compare this with Bg 7.7: .. There is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.) The world is nothing other than God's handiwork continually sustained by divine love.
How far this thought goes? In the first book of the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas says, for example, that God is never the author of sin, but he is always the author of the act of sin. And again, Thomas Aquinas affirms succinctly, "God is virtually everything."*
For Thomas Aquinas, reality is dualistic, never monistic. In plain language, life for Thomas Aquinas is always a two-way street, never a one-way street. We are surrounded by essence and existence, the natural and the supernatural, faith and reason, matter and form, potency and act, the physical and the metaphysical, etc. (Let's relate this with B.g. 7.2: I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge both phenomenal and noumenal, by knowing which there shall remain nothing further to be known.) And above all, God and creation. All multiplicity and diversity are the gift of God in the creation of being, emanating from Himself.**
* & ** (Result: An acintya-bhedabheda equivalent thought in Christianity?)
Thomas Aquinas affirms the radical metaphysical beauty of all being. In blunt terms, Thomas Aquinas says that even the devil is metaphysically beautiful though morally evil, and it is better to exist in hell than not to exist at all because being, existence is in and of itself a perfection. In the tradition of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas affirms that all being is good, true, beautiful and one.
Aquinas was certainly a deep thinker, such that were he to appear amongst us today he would likely repudiate some of his own views--a remarkable person. Several years ago I read some of his work and I was stuck by the resemblance between his metaphysical views and those of Jiva Goswami. However, the similarities only go so far. As stated above, Aquinas was a dualist, not a monist, in spite of his notion that "God is virtually everything." Whereas the Bhagavatam posits a monistic reality, advaya-jnana tattva--theistic monism.
Aquinas was a "Creationist," in that he believed that God created a new soul for each individual human during conception. However, it is not clear to me the extent to which his views regarding the creation of the world as represented above have filtered down into present day Christianity or Catholicism. The doctrine of creation seems central to Christianity, and this doctrine is different from that of emanation as found in Hinduism.
Does anyone have more insight into the Christian Creationist notion with regard to the the origin of the world? Is the view of Aquinas represented above one that permeates Christianity?
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 18, 2008 2:44 pm
I'd like to see some actual text of Thomas Aquinas demonstrating from his own pen what exactly his views on creation were. Whatever they may have been, it is my understanding from my wife who is pretty much a daily communicant and well versed in Catholic doctrine that creation is thought of as a specific event in time and as Maharaja has said, souls are created upon the conception of the body in the womb. Further, Catholic doctrine holds that the person is the body and soul - they do not see a difference. The body isn't considered sacred only when a person is fully engaged in God's service, rather the body is eternal and sacred as created.
I am not aware of any mainrystream Christian thought on creation that even remotely resembles GV doctrine. Everything I have seen has been the standard doctrine of creation, Adam and Eve, original sin ....judgement day - souls go one of two places eternally. There may be many nuanced ways of saying that, but I haven't seen any significant diversion from that.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 18, 2008 2:56 pm
I think Bhrigu will be a good person to answer given his extensive background in Christianity. GM pointed out GV is theistic monism but many teachers in our line appear to have stressed the dualism to the extreme in order to distinguish it from advaita vedanta. In fact if you just mention the word monism and its relation to GV many people practising GV will cringe at the thought as they identify the world monism exclusively with advaita. Actually BVT said that real idealist must be a dualist in his essay on the Bhagavat though his use of the term "dualism" is kind of different. We find that Madhava school is as dualistic as you can get and maybe it is closer to Christian doctrine than our school. It also supports the notion of eternal damnation.
Also when we speak of krsna being original purusha and explain how balarama and other expansions follow, anybody hearing about this will think that krsna alone was present before and then he is expanding afterwards: hence it looks like a kind of creation. So as soon as something is put into language, you can't but avoid such diificulties. In the book on dialectic spiritualism prabhupada actually criticises Aquinas as he feels Aquinas is intrepreting the Bible and not taking it literally but I thought Aquinas helped in deepening the Christian tradition. BVT when talking about souls manifesting from tatastha region with a beginning outside time kind of uses a creation like tool for preaching.
I had a brief correspondence with Garuda prabhu(Graham Schweig) some time back and he had the following words to say-
In BhP verse 8.7.31, the phrase nirasta-bhedam is used, meaning
that there is no distinction that can be made between the various divinities and
divine manifestations. And at one level that cannot; yet at another level a
distinction can be made. In our western minds, we need the typical Kantian
categories, which strictly compartmentalize. In the Indian system, although
later Indian philosophers do establish metaphysical categories, in reality,
the original texts such as the Bhagavata describe or express a kind of fluidity
between beings and stages of being that is not always accounted for in later
doctrinal traditions. It it never an absolute oneness, but never an absolute
dualism either.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 18, 2008 3:00 pm
I'd like to see some actual text of Thomas Aquinas demonstrating from his own pen what exactly his views on creation were. Whatever they may have been, it is my understanding from my wife who is pretty much a daily communicant and well versed in Catholic doctrine that creation is thought of as a specific event in time and as Maharaja has said, souls are created upon the conception of the body in the womb. Further, Catholic doctrine holds that the person is the body and soul - they do not see a difference. The body isn't considered sacred only when a person is fully engaged in God's service, rather the body is eternal and sacred as created.
I am not aware of any mainrystream Christian thought on creation that even remotely resembles GV doctrine. Everything I have seen has been the standard doctrine of creation, Adam and Eve, original sin ....judgement day - souls go one of two places eternally. There may be many nuanced ways of saying that, but I haven't seen any significant diversion from that.
Yes mainstream Christianity is pretty much like what you say but instead to 2 places they maybe have some intermediate places(i think 9 or 10 in number). Aquinas is very much a person who interpreted the bible in a symbolic way also trying to draw deeper meaning from the text and he was influenced heavily by Aristotle.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 18, 2008 4:04 pm
Nature of God
Aquinas believed that the existence of God is neither self-evident nor beyond proof. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five rational proofs for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinquae viae, or the "Five Ways."
Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five positive statements about the divine qualities:[16]
God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."
Aquinas argued that God, while perfectly united, also is perfectly described by three interrelated persons. These three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are constituted by their relations within the essence of God. The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit "who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word."
This Trinity exists independently from the world. It transcends the created world, but the Trinity also decided to communicate God's self and God's goodness to human beings.
Here we can see how Aquinas is positing how God transcends created world and as GM pointed out, many similarities are posited between Aquinas and Vaisnava tradition. Svarupa sakti is more intermingled with God than maya sakti the created world, and I think this point resembles GV. Later saints like Ockham and Luther blunted the use of reason in Christianity and now mainstream Christians do not have the need to go into details of their philosophical lineage. But then that is true of any tradition big in numbers: it loses it essence pretty fast.
Bhrigu - April 18, 2008 4:07 pm
I'm not really that knowledgeable about Christianity, Gaura Vijay, especially its higher theological or philosophical side. However, I feel that I should point out in its defence that we devotees sometimes compare apples and oranges by saying that GV (Jiva Goswami) is very philosophical while Christianity (ordinary congregational member) is not.
Anyway, here is a quote from Aquinas on creation ex nihilo (from St. Thomas Aquinas, Philosophical Texts. Selected & trans. Thomas Gilby. London: Oxford University Press, 1952):
"In saying that a thing is produced from nothing, the preposition from does not denote material stuff, but precedence, as when we say, noon comes from forenoon, that is it follows after. Note that the preposition can either include or be included in the negation expressed by the term nothing: in the former case a priority of previous non-being to what exists now is stated; whereas in the latter case the sequence is disclaimed, and the sense of produced from nothing is not produced out of anything, as when we say, he speaks of nothing, meaning that he does not speak of anything." (Summa Theologica, 1a xlv. 1, ad 3)
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 18, 2008 4:11 pm
However, I feel that I should point out in its defence that we devotees sometimes compare apples and oranges by saying that GV (Jiva Goswami) is very philosophical while Christianity (ordinary congregational member) is not.
I agree with you Bhrigu.
Swami - April 18, 2008 4:50 pm
Aquinas believed in original sin, a doctrine unique to Ch. But he was liberal minded and made sense out of the conflict between religion and science as it appeared during his time. He did not, for example, feel the views of Aristotle were necessarily incongruent with the Bible, while most Christians did.
It is interesting to think about the conflict between science and religion during the time of Aquinas. Many Christians thought of Aristotle then as many of them do today about Darwin. Aquinas to a large extent "christened" the insights of Aristotle. What is interesting is that the rift between science/secular and religion/Christianity then involved scientific ideas that are now outdated, and probably, from a Christian point of view, outdated religious ideas to some extent as well. Of course when we refer to the science of Aristotle we are referring to that which at that time most closely resembled the scientific and secular influences of our time.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 18, 2008 6:04 pm
All the time things turn the full circle like the conflict between science/religion. Certainly like theses, antithesis, sythesis and then another theses.
Liberal people don't make it black and white points and that creats unease with the masses who want clear cut answers on everything.
Plato's emphasis on the transcendant and Aristotle's emphasis on the immanent and some intermingling of the two ideas has captured most of western philosophical thoughts till the materialism made a comeback and we came back to Sophists's skepticism again.
Gita in the third chapter says that only the foolish think of sankhya(analytical study) and yoga(direct illumination) as different. krsna believes with correct application one should progress towards self realization using either process- in fact the two processes can work complementarily. Now we see that Aristotle is going more through the sankhya route and Plato more through direct illumination. According to krsna obviously direct illumination is superior as then we can see the world as a energy of the lord and employ it in service without getting bewildered. Plato is similar in the sense he negates sense perception and focuses ultimately on direct illumination of universal ideas and being thus established can see the particulars in this world for their connection with universals. But Aristotle goes the opposite route: from particular to universal.
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 18, 2008 7:10 pm
Here's an article by a present day 'Thomist' where he outlines the historical background and the basic concepts that Thomas Aquinas used to express his ideas about creaton. Fairly interesting read:
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/...quinasvsID.html
Swami - April 18, 2008 8:35 pm
Here's an article by a present day 'Thomist' where he outlines the historical background and the basic concepts that Thomas Aquinas used to express his ideas about creaton. Fairly interesting read:http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/...quinasvsID.html
Yes, interesting and informative. It is interesting to find such a division on fundamental issues among not only Christians, but Catholics as well. In the past the Franciscans were not allowed to read the writings of the Thomists, but the Catholic Church has harmonized their diverse views under one banner.
It is a shame that Catholic scholasticism is so far removed from the church's every day practitioner, but in India there are millions of "Vaisnavas" that are also far removed from their sects philosophical foundation. This is why BVT so emphasized the need for sambandha jnana and siksa to support the diksa, without which he stressed chanting will not bear much fruit. For the same reason Prabhupada stressed books as the basis. Here we are doing the same.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 18, 2008 8:53 pm
You have hit the nail in the head remarkably GM. All glories to GV and GM!
I think when we trace the entire history of Christian scholasticism( any summary study of western philosophy will illustrate that), we see that things became so heavy on intellectual analysis and the studies became so cumbersome that
people moved more to lay monasticism, and direct illumination and connection with God.
Most ISKCON leaders and people condemn Darwin without understanding even the basics of evolution correctly. They side with Creationists and I never could understand how they represent GV like that. Though it looks like they are following SP more strictly by toeing this line!
Gandiva Dasi - April 19, 2008 12:03 am
You have hit the nail in the head remarkably GM. All glories to GV and GM!I think when we trace the entire history of Christian scholasticism( any summary study of western philosophy will illustrate that), we see that things became so heavy on intellectual analysis and the studies became so cumbersome that
people moved more to lay monasticism, and direct illumination and connection with God.
Most ISKCON leaders and people condemn Darwin without understanding even the basics of evolution correctly. They side with Creationists and I never could understand how they represent GV like that. Though it looks like they are following SP more strictly by toeing this line!
Very helpful, if anyone needs to read more about our Gaudiya understanding of evolution and creation like I do, I found this helpful in the archives 03/10/04 Creation, Evolution, and the Big Bang
Babhru Das - April 19, 2008 12:10 am
Most ISKCON leaders and people condemn Darwin without understanding even the basics of evolution correctly. They side with Creationists and I never could understand how they represent GV like that. Though it looks like they are following SP more strictly by toeing this line!
I think the core of your statement is that it looks as though they're following Srila Prabhupada more closely. They miss, as Swami has often pointed out, the essential argument Srila Prabhupada made. We're not against science, but against what some have called scientism--the idea that anything worth knowing can be known only through empiric methods. We're not against the idea of evolution or Darwin, but the assumption by many followers of that line who conclude that life is nothing more than a reaction to certain chemical combinations. As Swami also often says, that leap from chemistry to biology is something the scientists have yet to explain. That's our problem with them: that they make claims they can't support (very unscientific!). That, and the propaganda that moves the masses to accept positivistic scientists as society's priesthood.
The phenomenon of a great number of ISKCON leaders and followers lining up with creationists isn't new. My old friend Siddhasvarupananda and his followers, especially those involved in politics, have associated themselves with a lot of right-wing Christian groups, especially in Hawaii, apparently to make themselves seem more mainstream and less cultish. He has become vehemently anti-gay, and his folks were at the forefront of a move some years ago to overturn legislation that gave thoes in same-sex domestic partnerships rights analogous to those of married couples. The consequence of their doing so, though, is that they've been further marginalized as a deeply closeted cult. (Anyone interested could just Google "Mike Gabbard.") So ISKCON folks who want to ally ISKCON in some ways with flat-earthers, women haters, , etc., or who want to spend millions building a temple in Mayapura showing how the moon is farther away from the earth than the sun, will end up marginalizing ISKCON as a cultish offshoot of Gaudiya vaishnavism, which is certainly not what Srila Prabhupada wants, in my experience.
Swami - April 19, 2008 12:32 am
It should be mentioned that Bhaktivinode Thakura preached that Christianity more closely resembled Gaudiya Vaisnavism than Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and other nontheistic Eastern traditions. He considered faith in a personal God and devotion to that God to be something that arises naturally in human consciousness and that these were universal truths—God is personal and is to be loved. He preached that Christianity was a less complex/developed form of the universal truth tht was most completely represented in Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
However, the context in which he did this is notable. Christian England was at that time ruling India, and Christianity, the religion of modernity, was being presented as the one true religion to materially backward Hindus. The task of BVT, as he saw it, was to convince white Protestant intellectuals and the Hindus they had influenced that Gaudiya Vaisnavism was another expression, and more, a more developed form of the universal truth represented by Christianity. At the same time we find many places in his writing where he clearly does not think that a number of tenants central to Christianity have any validity whatsoever. A thorough reading of BVT leaves on with the sense that he embraces Christianity as much as he dismisses it.
In today's world Christianity does not hold the same degree of influence. It is nowhere near as popular among intellectuals. However science is, and Vedanta and Buddhism appear to many to be more closely aligned with the findings of modern science than Christianity is. These traditions have much to say about consciousness, especially Vedanta, and it is in the direction of consciousness that science must turn if it is to remain vital. Without turning in this direction it may provide all and more than man could desire yet leave him and his better half unsatisfied. Thus it may be prudent today in the spirit of BVT to align oneself more with these traditions, demonstrating in one's preaching that the universal truths found in them and more are present in Caitanya Vaisnavism.
There are of course very intelligent, broadminded Christians in today's world, but in my opinion if Christianity is to be a vital force in the thinking world it must they need to find room to make th resurrection a relative aspect of Christianity.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 19, 2008 12:42 am
Aquinas was certainly a deep thinker, such that were he to appear amongst us today he would likely repudiate some of his own views--a remarkable person. Several years ago I read some of his work and I was stuck by the resemblance between his metaphysical views and those of Jiva Goswami. However, the similarities only go so far. As stated above, Aquinas was a dualist, not a monist, in spite of his notion that "God is virtually everything." Whereas the Bhagavatam posits a monistic reality, advaya-jnana tattva--theistic monism.
Dear Swami,
thank you for all notions in this thread.
As people can see from my profile, I came from Catholic tradition and at one stage in my life, just before the war, I wanted to join the monastery and thus was enquiring more about the faith. At that time I was also reading Srila Prabhupada. It was a journey of self-discovery. A very intelligent and remarkable priest who was in charge of the cathedral in Split talked a lot with me and touched many different topics, from Bible, Thomas Aquinas to modern day religion, science etc.
He embraced lots of young fellows like myself and help them deal with many difficult topics, including inter-religious understanding. In my remembrance, he was most afraid of those who deliberately advertise political ideas, economical goals and self proclamation in the name of faith, doing it in a most zealous and fundamental way and thus belittling everything -- even our humanity. War in the name of egotism and personal greed. It is pure materialism and ignorance under the banner of faith. We see that everywhere today. So it's not Christianity or Islam or Buddhism any more -- the world's religion is materialism under all those banners.
Same as you, I was stuck with many similarities between deep thinkers in both traditions and have always used my best understanding to talk to people and build friendships. I've found that lots of misunderstanding between people comes from fear:
- a fear to accept something new,
- a fear from losing the own ground, own identity,
- a fear from accidental assimilation,
- a fear to go deeper and discover unsettling unity between diversity because many people like to accept diversity as reality and as an excuse for new conquests and quarreling.
I think Thomas Aquinas did the best under the circumstances. When we examine his other work, we can see that he was obsessed, touched, moved and charmed with such ideas as beauty, harmony, aesthetics. Love. He was harmoniser. There's also a book on his aesthetics, by Umberto Eco.
So I'm glad we are exploring this interesting subject matter further and deeper and I thank you wholeheartedly for your support. We surely need more beautiful books, more understanding, yes, that's so important and I'll and others here certainly do our best to help you and your disciples in your efforts.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 19, 2008 3:08 am
It should be mentioned that Bhaktivinode Thakura preached that Christianity more closely resembled Gaudiya Vaisnavism than Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and other nontheistic Eastern traditions. He considered faith in a personal God and devotion to that God to be something that arises naturally in human consciousness and that these were universal truths—God is personal and is to be loved. He preached that Christianity was a less complex/developed form of the universal truth tht was most completely represented in Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
However, the context in which he did this is notable. Christian England was at that time ruling India, and Christianity, the religion of modernity, was being presented as the one true religion to materially backward Hindus. The task of BVT, as he saw it, was to convince white Protestant intellectuals and the Hindus they had influenced that Gaudiya Vaisnavism was another expression, and more, a more developed form of the universal truth represented by Christianity. At the same time we find many places in his writing where he clearly does not think that a number of tenants central to Christianity have any validity whatsoever. A thorough reading of BVT leaves on with the sense that he embraces Christianity as much as he dismisses it.
In today's world Christianity does not hold the same degree of influence. It is nowhere near as popular among intellectuals. However science is, and Vedanta and Buddhism appear to many to be more closely aligned with the findings of modern science than Christianity is. These traditions have much to say about consciousness, especially Vedanta, and it is in the direction of consciousness that science must turn if it is to remain vital. Without turning in this direction it may provide all and more than man could desire yet leave him and his better half unsatisfied. Thus it may be prudent today in the spirit of BVT to align oneself more with these traditions, demonstrating in one's preaching that the universal truths found in them and more are present in Caitanya Vaisnavism.
There are of course very intelligent, broadminded Christians in today's world, but in my opinion if Christianity is to be a vital force in the thinking world it must they need to find room to make th resurrection a relative aspect of Christianity.
Certainly this is window of opportunity for GV which you are opening up GM.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 19, 2008 3:10 am
I think the core of your statement is that it looks as though they're following Srila Prabhupada more closely. They miss, as Swami has often pointed out, the essential argument Srila Prabhupada made. We're not against science, but against what some have called scientism--the idea that anything worth knowing can be known only through empiric methods. We're not against the idea of evolution or Darwin, but the assumption by many followers of that line who conclude that life is nothing more than a reaction to certain chemical combinations. As Swami also often says, that leap from chemistry to biology is something the scientists have yet to explain. That's our problem with them: that they make claims they can't support (very unscientific!). That, and the propaganda that moves the masses to accept positivistic scientists as society's priesthood.
The phenomenon of a great number of ISKCON leaders and followers lining up with creationists isn't new. My old friend Siddhasvarupananda and his followers, especially those involved in politics, have associated themselves with a lot of right-wing Christian groups, especially in Hawaii, apparently to make themselves seem more mainstream and less cultish. He has become vehemently anti-gay, and his folks were at the forefront of a move some years ago to overturn legislation that gave thoes in same-sex domestic partnerships rights analogous to those of married couples. The consequence of their doing so, though, is that they've been further marginalized as a deeply closeted cult. (Anyone interested could just Google "Mike Gabbard.") So ISKCON folks who want to ally ISKCON in some ways with flat-earthers, women haters, , etc., or who want to spend millions building a temple in Mayapura showing how the moon is farther away from the earth than the sun, will end up marginalizing ISKCON as a cultish offshoot of Gaudiya vaishnavism, which is certainly not what Srila Prabhupada wants, in my experience.
Yes you have touched the correct chord Babhru prabhu.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 19, 2008 4:18 am
In today's world Christianity does not hold the same degree of influence. It is nowhere near as popular among intellectuals. However science is, and Vedanta and Buddhism appear to many to be more closely aligned with the findings of modern science than Christianity is.
This is very understandable.
In his bestselling book 'The Atheist Manifesto', modern day French philosopher Michel Onfray makes an alluring case against three Western monotheistic religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- for their disdain for reason, intelligence, individual freedom, sexuality and for science. Shooting from the same roots, those three religions developed one from another, in the same socio-cultural and geographical landscape: a bare and vaste lands that dream of a paradise but with their days and lives enslaved in rigid patriarchy, litany of taboos, the obsession with purity, the tyranny of the rigid God and the afterlife, hatred of science, negation of matter, inconsistent bakeshop ontology, etc.
And today there's more fundamentalism in the name of God than anytime else in history. Modern days crusaders and kamikazes are armed with multi-million dollar accounts, explosives, biological weapons and are prepared to die not only for their beliefs, but to take with them many innocent people's lives. So, no wonder that a scientific mind pledge for a non-God abstract and semi-abstract ideas, much more nourishing for the wounded society tormented with God wars.
Indeed, rare is the example of caring, forgiving, all-encompassing God, whose second name is the reason and first name love.
A scientist seem to be more caring about the future, ecosystem, individual person and society, much more than any theologist or politician and anyone can feel that clearly. In fact, many people perceive theologists as just another kind of politicians, who advocate their terms and favour first. Everyday people always come last, in any of their equations.
But science negates that. It's a really difficult and diverse landscape in this modern world, but scientists seem to cope better than others and are crossing the borders with ease. And are collaborating, from medical science to anthropology to physics. How's that possible? In CERN, for example, you'll find scientists from Italy, Poland, Germany, Croatia, Israel, Russia, USA, Iran, India, Chile, etc. working together on the new LHC (Large Hadron Collider) project. They are all so excited and are looking for a God's particle (Higgs bozon). But what about their theologists and politicians? You can't put them together on the same globe, and what to talk about the same room ...
Allow me now to jump to Bhagavad-gita and one observation; in his final and beautiful words, Krishna encourages Arjuna by saying to him, "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me." If there was a world below these stars best suited to experience and live Krishna Consciousness, wouldn't that be a world without religion, without dharma, without rules and taboos? Isn't actually that what Krishna wants for our benefit? And with the help of science (or however we call that endeavour) maybe we can finally cross into such a world ... Any thoughts?
Syamasundara - April 19, 2008 6:20 am
The consequence of their doing so, though, is that they've been further marginalized as a deeply closeted cult.
So ISKCON folks who want to ally ISKCON in some ways with flat-earthers, women haters, , etc., or who want to spend millions building a temple in Mayapura showing how the moon is farther away from the earth than the sun, will end up marginalizing ISKCON as a cultish offshoot of Gaudiya vaishnavism, which is certainly not what Srila Prabhupada wants, in my experience.
How about the transcendental perspective for a change?
Swami - April 19, 2008 5:52 pm
This is very understandable.
In his bestselling book 'The Atheist Manifesto', modern day French philosopher Michel Onfray makes an alluring case against three Western monotheistic religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- for their disdain for reason, intelligence, individual freedom, sexuality and for science. Shooting from the same roots, those three religions developed one from another, in the same socio-cultural and geographical landscape: a bare and vaste lands that dream of a paradise but with their days and lives enslaved in rigid patriarchy, litany of taboos, the obsession with purity, the tyranny of the rigid God and the afterlife, hatred of science, negation of matter, inconsistent bakeshop ontology, etc.
And today there's more fundamentalism in the name of God than anytime else in history. Modern days crusaders and kamikazes are armed with multi-million dollar accounts, explosives, biological weapons and are prepared to die not only for their beliefs, but to take with them many innocent people's lives. So, no wonder that a scientific mind pledge for a non-God abstract and semi-abstract ideas, much more nourishing for the wounded society tormented with God wars.
Indeed, rare is the example of caring, forgiving, all-encompassing God, whose second name is the reason and first name love.
A scientist seem to be more caring about the future, ecosystem, individual person and society, much more than any theologist or politician and anyone can feel that clearly. In fact, many people perceive theologists as just another kind of politicians, who advocate their terms and favour first. Everyday people always come last, in any of their equations.
But science negates that. It's a really difficult and diverse landscape in this modern world, but scientists seem to cope better than others and are crossing the borders with ease. And are collaborating, from medical science to anthropology to physics. How's that possible? In CERN, for example, you'll find scientists from Italy, Poland, Germany, Croatia, Israel, Russia, USA, Iran, India, Chile, etc. working together on the new LHC (Large Hadron Collider) project. They are all so excited and are looking for a God's particle (Higgs bozon). But what about their theologists and politicians? You can't put them together on the same globe, and what to talk about the same room ...
Allow me now to jump to Bhagavad-gita and one observation; in his final and beautiful words, Krishna encourages Arjuna by saying to him, "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me." If there was a world below these stars best suited to experience and live Krishna Consciousness, wouldn't that be a world without religion, without dharma, without rules and taboos? Isn't actually that what Krishna wants for our benefit? And with the help of science (or however we call that endeavour) maybe we can finally cross into such a world ... Any thoughts?
Z, you have a good mind as you demonstrate in the text above. However, here you have demonstrated a lack of sukriti needed to connect your thoughts to Gaudiya siddhanta. The conclusion of your text that I have highlighted above sounds like John Lenon's commentary on the conclusion of the Gita! No religion too . . . imagine!
But we need to do more than imagine. There are in a sense rules to love. The do's and don't's of love consist of doing those things that please one's object of love and not doing those things that displease one's object of love. One thing that does not please Krsna is exploitation, which is an unavoidable fact of materially conditioned life. Thus one must transcend material identification in order to love God. There are things that are favorable to this culture of transcendence and others that are not. So we have to begin here. Influences of tamas and rajas come to mind. Now, imagine Mr. Lenon giving them up. You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day he will join us and the world will live as one and different simulateneously.
Bhrigu - April 19, 2008 6:34 pm
Also, the seeming peaceful unity of the scientists compared to the bickering and warfare between religionists cannot be compared. Science is much like a religion for many people, something they can unite under, just like how people from different backgrounds, social standing etc can unite under the banner of a specific religion.
And of course, getting rid of religion and uniting everyone under the banner of some kind of scientific atheism has been tried, with not the best of results...
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 19, 2008 6:54 pm
Very interesting short video "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer":
I think it would be a great exercise to answer those questions from perspective of our tradition. Anybody up to it?
Swami - April 19, 2008 7:30 pm
Also, the seeming peaceful unity of the scientists compared to the bickering and warfare between religionists cannot be compared.
Science is also not free from quarreling. Take for example the highly charged issue of global warming today.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 20, 2008 4:18 am
Science is also not free from quarreling. Take for example the highly charged issue of global warming today.
Maybe we can observe those quarreling in the light of the political agenda that sponsors scientific research and media coverage.
Now, I'm not here to blame anyone's government, or some people in particular, as my notion can be observed as such and also because I'm not a citizen of the USA, but there's a view in countries outside USA, in may European countries and in Australia, that the apparent quarrel between the scientist is actually government-sponsored, especially in the case of the USA.
Being the most powerful country and with lots of resources to support wide-scale scientific research, many scientists and people outside USA were in disbelief how inert and self-centric USA is when it comes to recognition of global warming problems and that they're caused by humans, and not by some cyclic natural phenomenon (as some would want us to believe). Recognition of such problems will have an enormous impact on the US economy, because of the overwhelming cost (and enormous sacrifices in all walks of life) involved in shift towards cleaner technologies, propulsion, etc. Such recognition also salvages trade agreements between many countries and private interests especially in production of cheap oil (Middle East) and technology (China, India) which is sold in the rest of the world at enormously high margins (America, Europe, Australia).
But once you put politics aside, all scientists seem to agree and are very, very worried and eager to help everyone, not just some political interests alone. Similar things happened here in Australia, but once Australians got rid of the old inert government, many things are already moving much faster. Same we can say for a Japanese marine biologist, and many other scientists, often threatened and forced to comply to the short sighted politicians.
It's all about exploitation. But the exploitation has to stop somewhere, sometime.
Zvonimir Tosic - April 20, 2008 4:36 am
Z, you have a good mind as you demonstrate in the text above. However, here you have demonstrated a lack of sukriti needed to connect your thoughts to Gaudiya siddhanta. The conclusion of your text that I have highlighted above sounds like John Lenon's commentary on the conclusion of the Gita! No religion too . . . imagine!But we need to do more than imagine. There are in a sense rules to love. The do's and don't's of love consist of doing those things that please one's object of love and not doing those things that displease one's object of love. One thing that does not please Krsna is exploitation, which is an unavoidable fact of materially conditioned life. Thus one must transcend material identification in order to love God. There are things that are favorable to this culture of transcendence and others that are not. So we have to begin here. Influences of tamas and rajas come to mind. Now, imagine Mr. Lenon giving them up. You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day he will join us and the world will live as one and different simulateneously.
Dear Swami,
Thank you very much for your answer.
Maybe this may sound like a self-defence, but I was just trying to propose an idea (a theory):
If somewhere in this space there is a place with no apparent religious institutions (which people usually use for their own goals and agendas and not necessarily to pursue God realisation) and thus people are not quarreling about just everything, could such an environment be used to better pursue Krishna Consciousness?
(so it's not just 'ordinary' God consciousness, because Krishna is more than God and because of his human-like nature, he is actually easier to spontaneously understand and embrace by many people. He is a charming, smiling boy attracted to love, who loves sweets and flowers and not some ferocious, angry God from the top of Mt Sinai).
And if it can, is it plausible to think that after so many centuries of religious wars and misery and at the brink of the global ecological catastrophe, society leads itself a way (spontaneously) toward such an environment?
Actually this was a part of a much more complex question I wanted to ask about, but perhaps a new thread would be better suited.
Of course I lack sukriti. And many other things. Once you have mentioned: Sukriti is 'merit', which is gathered knowingly or unknowingly through contact with devotees and devotional service. When it has accumulated to a certain extent, it culminates in 'sraddha'.
So, that's why I'm here, to be with devotees. And I apologise to everyone for disturbance.
Swami - April 20, 2008 12:46 pm
If somewhere in this space there is a place with no apparent religious institutions (which people usually use for their own goals and agendas and not necessarily to pursue God realisation) and thus people are not quarreling about just everything, could such an environment be used to better pursue Krishna Consciousness?
(so it's not just 'ordinary' God consciousness, because Krishna is more than God and because of his human-like nature, he is actually easier to spontaneously understand and embrace by many people. He is a charming, smiling boy attracted to love, who loves sweets and flowers and not some ferocious, angry God from the top of Mt Sinai).
And if it can, is it plausible to think that after so many centuries of religious wars and misery and at the brink of the global ecological catastrophe, society leads itself a way (spontaneously) toward such an environment?
As stated above you question is unintelligible to me. Try starting a new thread and stating it better.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 20, 2008 3:38 pm
Science is also not free from quarreling. Take for example the highly charged issue of global warming today.
That is certainly true. If you read a very concise book " Structures of Scientific Revolution" by Thomas Kuhn, he explains very effectively how science progresses in paradigms and there is emotional attachment shown by scientists to existing theories that they do not consider other theories till the build up too huge to ignore it.
And you have many intrepretations of Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory etc and there is no clear consenses on them. Even in Mathematics there is no clear consenses on fundamental philosophy of mathematics. Many scientists have even objected to Dawkins asserive position in "God delusion" as they acknowledge that he goes beyond the authority of science in his book.
Science is effective only because of progress in medicine and the ability of science to gave gadgets for sense gratification. Relgion for some people gave only witchhunting and hypocrisy.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 20, 2008 3:40 pm
And of course, getting rid of religion and uniting everyone under the banner of some kind of scientific atheism has been tried, with not the best of results...
Scientific atheism is very effective in Sweden, Norway, England and France according to advocates of scientific humanism like Dawkins and relatively speaking they are better materially than rest of the world.
Syama Gopala Dasa - April 20, 2008 7:41 pm
Scientific atheism is very effective in Sweden, Norway, England and France according to advocates of scientific humanism like Dawkins and relatively speaking they are better materially than rest of the world.
Yes but do they take into account the spiritual void that scientific atheism has left? Quantitatively those countries might be better off but how do they explain the happiness surveys in which a country like Bhutan scores almost as well as Sweden?
How do they explain one of the best selling womens magazines in the Netherlands is about spirituality?