Tattva-viveka
Karma
Swami - August 30, 2008 7:33 pm
Karma is central to Hinduism.
1. Karma explains the perpetuation of the material universe by identifying its metaphysical cause—the volitional acts
of the jivas and the subsequent reactions.
2. It functions as an explanatory hypothesis for the varied states and conditions of the jivas. In other words, it
serves as a “theodicy,” a vindication of God in view of the existence of evil.
3. It acts as a means of social control in as much as a proper reading of it says much about the nature of right livelihood for different jivas, and in conjunction with this it explains the negative impetus for spiritual practice and the cultivation of selflessness and love of God.
As it is tied to Hinduism and is thus a pre-modern concept, perhaps we could discuss it in light of present times. Is it something we have to accept on faith? Is there empirical evidence for or against it? It is also central to Buddhism, and thus it may be possible to explain it without recourse to God. Any thoughts?
Prahlad Das - August 30, 2008 8:55 pm
Based on Shabda Praman there appears to be evidence for it since it is addressed by Sri Krsna Himself. I think your publication of Tattva Sandarbha deals easily with the post-modern notions of evidence. Karma constitutionally explains mankind's inequalities. Without a notion of Karma it remains difficult to accept these inequalities. Karma seems similar to Time, in the sense that one need not refer to God when discussing either of these two subjects. Both Time and Karma are unstoppable currents and in mundane existence one is forced to "go with the flow". From the point of nirvana on to spiritual existence, however, one is able to navigate the currents. This is due to one's being able to disassociate one's self from the mundane rewards and miseries due from Karma and Time ie. healthy body, tasty consumables etc... It seems more a function of Brahman which is one facet of the Absolute. I've understood the Buddhists are more focused on the Brahman aspect.
I have a great interest in this discussion. I look forward to seeing what the qualified devotees have to say. My statements are more-or-less gut feelings.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 30, 2008 10:05 pm
The most important factor of karma people argue about is that it makes people fatalistic and it leads to the problem of infinite regress. Infinite regress problem can be addressed by looking at a cyclical view of the universe instead of a linear one.
As far as the charge that karma makes people fatalistic, science itself to some extent talks about karma implicitly. There is a new revolution in science to identify the gene which makes one susceptible to certain diseases, the chemical secretions responsible for the psychological disorders which makes one prone to fall into depression and commit certain actions even without willing and determining what exactly constitutes sex using chromosome, brain and other information . So within the scientific reductionist framework a lot of our behavior is determined by factors we have at birth which we don't have control on: for instance homosexuality. Homosexuality was thought to be a conscious choice of an individual but it is seen that it is not a choice of an individual but a predisposition as must as heterosexuality is. The concept prevalent during SP's time that animals don't exhibit homosexuality has also been proven wrong. The same scientific people who attack karma as fatalistic by their research are trying to prove "karma" itself in one sense. Actually they are even going to the extent of finding genes for lying, manipulative behaviour; genes for promiscuous behaviour; gene for faith in God; gene for murder. Maybe they will remove free will from the scene without realizing it and support Madhva's theory. GV provides the balance of karma and minute free will which can be accommodated in the present model. Genetic predisposition may be parallel to the anadi karma influencing the jiva and can be called the nature component and the external help from a spiritual guide and God can be called the nurture component which can overrule nature if the nurturing agent is special.
Mass is also not considered fundamental anymore in physics and energy which is more subtle is considered the fundamental thing that is preserved. Hence karma can be thought to act as some kind of a energy balance in the universe.
These are some of my thoughts on this matter which come to my mind.
Swami - August 31, 2008 12:46 am
The most important factor of karma people argue about is that it makes people fatalistic and it leads to the problem of infinite regress. Infinite regress problem can be addressed by looking at a cyclical view of the universe instead of a linear one.
As far as the charge that karma makes people fatalistic, science itself to some extent talks about karma implicitly. There is a new revolution in science to identify the gene which makes one susceptible to certain diseases, the chemical secretions responsible for the psychological disorders which makes one prone to fall into depression and commit certain actions even without willing and determining what exactly constitutes sex using chromosome, brain and other information . So within the scientific reductionist framework a lot of our behavior is determined by factors we have at birth which we don't have control on: for instance homosexuality. Homosexuality was thought to be a conscious choice of an individual but it is seen that it is not a choice of an individual but a predisposition as must as heterosexuality is. The concept prevalent during SP's time that animals don't exhibit homosexuality has also been proven wrong. The same scientific people who attack karma as fatalistic by their research are trying to prove "karma" itself in one sense. Actually they are even going to the extent of finding genes for lying, manipulative behaviour; genes for promiscuous behaviour; gene for faith in God; gene for murder. Maybe they will remove free will from the scene without realizing it and support Madhva's theory. GV provides the balance of karma and minute free will which can be accommodated in the present model. Genetic predisposition may be parallel to the anadi karma influencing the jiva and can be called the nature component and the external help from a spiritual guide and God can be called the nurture component which can overrule nature if the nurturing agent is special.
Mass is also not considered fundamental anymore in physics and energy which is more subtle is considered the fundamental thing that is preserved. Hence karma can be thought to act as some kind of a energy balance in the universe.
These are some of my thoughts on this matter which come to my mind.
This is a good direction to go in. You have offered a kind of naturalistic (material) explanation of karma. Even without a supernatural atma, sentient beings (whatever they are) drive the world and the world drives them. Dale Wright writes in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics,
"A naturalistic theory of karma would treat choice and character as mutually
determining—each arising dependent on the other. It would show how the
choices you make, one by one, shape your character, and how the
character that you have constructed, choice by choice, sets limits on the
range of possibilities that you will be able to consider in each future
decision. Karma implies that once you have made a choice and acted on it,
it will always be with you, and you will always be the one who at that
moment and under those conditions embraced that path of action. The past,
on this view, is never something that once happened to you and is now
over; instead, it is the network of causes and conditions that has already
shaped you and that is right now setting conditions for every choice and
move you make. From the very moment of an act on, you are that choice,
which has been appropriated into your character along with countless
others. In this light human freedom becomes highly visible, and awesome
in its gravity, but is noticeable only to one who has realized the farreaching
and irreversible impact on oneself and others of choices made, of
karma."
The nurture side of the argument is not developed in his explanation. As I understand it, in Buddhism good karma leads to nirvana. So the necessity of a special nurturing agent from outside the karmic web is not essential, although there is certainly a guru emphasis in Buddhism.
It is hard to get away from the idea that repeated choice forms habit, which in turn reinforces choice. Habitual choice no doubt has physical ramifications. God aside, the doctrine of karma says this much. There is a correspondence between physical order and our choices. As we see it, the will of the jiva drives the world and the world drives the jiva.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 31, 2008 12:53 am
This is a good direction to go in. You have offered a kind of naturalistic (material) explanation of karma. Even without a supernatural atma, sentient beings (whatever they are) drive the world and the world drives them. Dale Wright writes in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics,"A naturalistic theory of karma would treat choice and character as mutually
determining—each arising dependent on the other. It would show how the
choices you make, one by one, shape your character, and how the
character that you have constructed, choice by choice, sets limits on the
range of possibilities that you will be able to consider in each future
decision. Karma implies that once you have made a choice and acted on it,
it will always be with you, and you will always be the one who at that
moment and under those conditions embraced that path of action. The past,
on this view, is never something that once happened to you and is now
over; instead, it is the network of causes and conditions that has already
shaped you and that is right now setting conditions for every choice and
move you make. From the very moment of an act on, you are that choice,
which has been appropriated into your character along with countless
others. In this light human freedom becomes highly visible, and awesome
in its gravity, but is noticeable only to one who has realized the farreaching
and irreversible impact on oneself and others of choices made, of
karma."
The nurture side of the argument is not developed in his explanation. As I understand it, in Buddhism good karma leads to nirvana. So the necessity of a special nurturing agent from outside the karmic web is not essential, although there is certainly a guru emphasis in Buddhism.
It is hard to get away from the idea that repeated choice forms habit, which in turn reinforces choice. Habitual choice no doubt has physical ramifications. God aside, the doctrine of karma says this much. There is a correspondence between physical order and our choices. As we see it, the will of the jiva drives the world and the world drives the jiva.
I think Buddhists talk about desirelessness so it may not sufficient to perform pious acts to get out.
Swami - August 31, 2008 1:27 am
I think Buddhists talk about desirelessness so it may not sufficient to perform pious acts to get out.
My understanding is that this desirelessness is arrived at in Buddhism by "right livelihood." Something like karma yoga that leads to desierlessness in Hinduism. So good kamra such as compassionate acts leads to ending personal desire, perhaps by identifying with the needs of others. But I am not a Buddhist.
Nitaisundara Das - August 31, 2008 1:57 am
But I am not a Buddhist.
+
I am both a Daumist ad Bhuttist. As it should be.
=
faith crisis
:Batting Eyelashes: :Just Kidding: 
Swami - August 31, 2008 2:06 am
+
=
faith crisis
:Batting Eyelashes: :Just Kidding:
spelling error nothning more 
Swami - August 31, 2008 4:31 am
Here is something from Deepak Chopra on genes and karma.
To date, genetics has been acclaimed for discovering “the code of life,” and by taking significant steps like mapping the human genome, every detail of the code will inevitably come into view. However, one crucial link remains almost completely unexplained. That link connects the material and the intangible.
On one plane of exploration science can delve into the molecular and sub-molecular structure of DNA. But life proceeds on another plane, marked by intelligence, beauty inspiration, art, love, and truth — things impalpable and invisible, seemingly disconnected from DNA. To claim that genes are the controllers of everything, which amounts to meta-materialism, is willy-nilly, crude reasoning.
Consider the invisible connections between twins. Recently a TV news magazine told the story of two women, identical twins separated at birth, who found each other decades later. They felt an immediate kinship at the emotional level, which isn’t a surprise. But how do you account for the fact that both had gone to graduate school in film? In other twin studies it’s common to find that twins separated at birth wind up marrying women with the same name, have the same number of children, and pass through various life stages, such as graduation from college or getting married, on the very same day? Getting down to tiny details, how can two people with the same genes have different fingerprints, a trait that twins never share? Separated twins show enough similarities in likes and dislikes to indicate that genes are involved, but which of us thinks we like baseball as opposed to football because our genes pre-ordained it?
Right now the connections between the visible and invisible domain remain sealed inside the black box. I doubt that anyone will seriously investigate this mystery until there is a practical application. For centuries in India the contents of the black box have gone under the label of karma. Karma is an invisible explanation for why things happen the way they do. In many ways the doctrine of Karma has been of practical use. It maintains that the universe exists in a balanced state, that every action leads to a reaction, and that cause and effect come under human control. As you sow, so shall you reap is elevated to a spiritual law. In addition, karma holds that your present actions are guided by actions from the past and that memory plays a huge part in your construct of reality. Almost all of these things are attributed to genes in the Western scientific model.
Yet for all that, karma hasn’t emerged from the black box any more than genes have. Karma is individual, unpredictable, seemingly mechanical in its operation yet radically uncertain when thousands of karmic influences are mixed together. As with genes, some aspects of karma seem totally fixed (predeterminism); other aspects are changeable (free will and choice), while a final portion is so hidden and uncertain that nothing reliable can be said about it (accident and chance). Whatever the final tale turns out to be, genetics is going to have to enter the field of karma, each explanation learning form the other, because the need to explain free will, determinism, and chance won’t go away. To claim that invisible connections don’t exist is unacceptable. To claim that life cannot be fundamentally understood violates the human urge to know who we really are. For the moment, excitement over genes is justified in that the urge for self-understanding has found a new source of satisfaction. But the urge isn’t quenched, and one can predict that genes must merge with mind before the next great leap is made. Our source in consciousness and our source in genes must find a common ground.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 31, 2008 5:39 am
My understanding is that this desirelessness is arrived at in Buddhism by "right livelihood." Something like karma yoga that leads to desierlessness in Hinduism. So good kamra such as compassionate acts leads to ending personal desire, perhaps by identifying with the needs of others. But I am not a Buddhist.
Yes Tibetian Buddhism and the Theravada Buddhism have this above notion but many Mahayana schools especially in China and Far East focus a lot on the grace of Buddha, previous enlightened ones etc and they resemble impersonalist philosophy very strongly with a notion of both transcendent and immanent Buddha. Many schools don't even deny the world as unreal so now I have to be careful when I talk to a Buddhist to know what exactly they believe in.As I read more about Buddhism I am surprised to find how many different philosophies there are in Buddhism itself and it is impossible unify them under one Flag much the same way as any other religion. Islam must be the most united religion I have seen.
Citta Hari Dasa - August 31, 2008 4:25 pm
It seems that science wants to attribute everything to genetics (and material causes in general), but with the idea of karma in the picture it makes more sense to say that genetics are merely a part of the physical vehicle for the jiva's karma to find its expression. Certain genes may be shown by science to have some causal link with certain karmic situations (diseases, etc.) but I think Chopra's point about the twins is a good one: how could two people who share the same genetics be so different? I'm not knowledgeable in the science of it and they probably have their answer for this, but karma seems like a very good answer to me: each individual has made choices in the past and the infinitely complex web of choice/consequence that the individual is enmeshed in will express itself in ways that a material, reductionist viewpoint cannot account for.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - August 31, 2008 6:45 pm
rves as a “theodicy,” a vindication of God in view of the existence of evil.
3. It acts as a means of social control in as much as a proper reading of it says much about the nature of right livelihood for different jivas, and in conjunction with this it explains the negative impetus for spiritual practice and the cultivation of selflessness and love of God.
As it is tied to Hinduism and is thus a pre-modern concept, perhaps we could discuss it in light of present times. Is it something we have to accept on faith? Is there empirical evidence for or against it? It is also central to Buddhism, and thus it may be possible to explain it without recourse to God. Any thoughts?
Karma is not hard to understand in a "modern" context. The concept is already built into Western traditions and people understand it once it's pointed out.
Karma is simply cause and effect. That's all it is: cause and effect. Not fate, not luck, not Hindu or Buddhist, not New Age or old age. It can be restated as the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have then do unto you." Or in other ways: "You reap what you sow." Or: "You get back what you put out."
You can take it in a metaphysical direction in explaining how our current situation and state of consciousness is a result of our past thoughts, words, and actions or you can take it to the moral by explaining how our current thoughts, words, and actions will create good and bad futures for ourselves.
The value of the concept of karma for most people seems to be as a moral teaching. Nobody can escape the law of cause and effect. It's an infallible, impersonal mechanism built into the machine (or computer...take that) of the universe. That means whatever you think, say, or do will return to you, the author of the thought, word, or deed. That means we are accountable for our actions. We are responsible for our own future (which a lot of people like because they view themselves as individuals and "co-creators with the universe"), even our futures in future lives. Indeed, karma is also the basis for understanding reincarnation. I don't think you can explain reincarnation without explaining karma first.
Understanding the eternality and impersonalness of karma also provides us with negative impetus for spiritual and not just moral life. If we are stuck on the endless wheel of samsara, then we need help getting off it. In fact, it may be hard for us to see that the world is an endless spinning wheel without the idea of karma, let alone that our future could hold endless suffering. All of this taken together, as the Buddhists teach, helps us to cultivate loving compassion for others. Everyone else is stuck on the wheel with us. Moreover, since we are ultimately responsible for our own condition we cannot blame anyone else. If everything comes to us as the fruition of our karma, than who can we call evil? We must see others as what they are: spirit-souls. This may be my idea alone, but I think that we cannot have real spiritual love until this separation of reality from our projection of good or bad occurs.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - August 31, 2008 6:55 pm
One thought I neglected to drop. You don't have proof karma to most people any more you would than what it means to be a good or bad person. Since it is a function of mundane existence and not simply an idea its reality becomes self-evident once one reflects a little on one's own life.
Premanandini - August 31, 2008 7:30 pm
One thought I neglected to drop. You don't have proof karma to most people any more you would than what it means to be a good or bad person. Since it is a function of mundane existence and not simply an idea its reality becomes self-evident once one reflects a little on one's own life.
one might argue to this: " Where is your proof?? i lived a good my whole life - did not cheat or knowingly hurt others, did my work, maintained my family etc - and: i have cancer, my wife left me -and i lost my job.....
and look at that man: he is ´treating bad all people around him and still the most beautiful ladies are running behind him, he has a great job, a big house and much wealth and seems to be very happy whereas I who tried to be a good person through my whole life - just got suffering - so it is obviously not self evident to me at all . so in order to convince me - there has to be some PROOF!
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 31, 2008 9:12 pm
Karma is central to Hinduism.
1. Karma explains the perpetuation of the material universe by identifying its metaphysical cause—the volitional acts
of the jivas and the subsequent reactions.
2. It functions as an explanatory hypothesis for the varied states and conditions of the jivas. In other words, it
serves as a “theodicy,” a vindication of God in view of the existence of evil.
3. It acts as a means of social control in as much as a proper reading of it says much about the nature of right livelihood for different jivas, and in conjunction with this it explains the negative impetus for spiritual practice and the cultivation of selflessness and love of God.
As it is tied to Hinduism and is thus a pre-modern concept, perhaps we could discuss it in light of present times. Is it something we have to accept on faith? Is there empirical evidence for or against it? It is also central to Buddhism, and thus it may be possible to explain it without recourse to God. Any thoughts?
I think that it is ultimately no more possible to prove the existence of karma with logic and empirical evidence than it is possible to prove the existence of God.
The evidence provided thus far does not prove the existence of karma. Furthermore, as for a cyclical view of the universe solving the problem of an infinite regress, it seems to me that it does just the opposite.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 31, 2008 9:38 pm
This is a good direction to go in. You have offered a kind of naturalistic (material) explanation of karma. Even without a supernatural atma, sentient beings (whatever they are) drive the world and the world drives them. Dale Wright writes in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics,"A naturalistic theory of karma would treat choice and character as mutually
determining—each arising dependent on the other. It would show how the
choices you make, one by one, shape your character, and how the
character that you have constructed, choice by choice, sets limits on the
range of possibilities that you will be able to consider in each future
decision. Karma implies that once you have made a choice and acted on it,
it will always be with you, and you will always be the one who at that
moment and under those conditions embraced that path of action. The past,
on this view, is never something that once happened to you and is now
over; instead, it is the network of causes and conditions that has already
shaped you and that is right now setting conditions for every choice and
move you make. From the very moment of an act on, you are that choice,
which has been appropriated into your character along with countless
others. In this light human freedom becomes highly visible, and awesome
in its gravity, but is noticeable only to one who has realized the farreaching
and irreversible impact on oneself and others of choices made, of
karma."
The nurture side of the argument is not developed in his explanation. As I understand it, in Buddhism good karma leads to nirvana. So the necessity of a special nurturing agent from outside the karmic web is not essential, although there is certainly a guru emphasis in Buddhism.
It is hard to get away from the idea that repeated choice forms habit, which in turn reinforces choice. Habitual choice no doubt has physical ramifications. God aside, the doctrine of karma says this much. There is a correspondence between physical order and our choices. As we see it, the will of the jiva drives the world and the world drives the jiva.
This excerpt is quite interesting. If I'm reading it correctly, it is saying that karma determines your character and choices--in other words how you respond to the environment--but it doesn't determine the environment itself, that is, what happens to you. [Although everyone can to some extent influence the environment.] So in other words, karma influences how you respond to, say, the death of a child, but not necessarily to the fact that your child died.
Prahlad Das - September 1, 2008 12:32 am
This excerpt is quite interesting. If I'm reading it correctly, it is saying that karma determines your character and choices--in other words how you respond to the environment--but it doesn't determine the environment itself, that is, what happens to you. [Although everyone can to some extent influence the environment.] So in other words, karma influences how you respond to, say, the death of a child, but not necessarily to the fact that your child died.
I've felt it to be the other way, where karma influences what happens to you and you are in control of how you respond. That it is in this response which determines the future flows of karma. :Batting Eyelashes:
later edit.....
But preconditioning makes sense with how we respond and I can see this as being governed by Karma.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 2:30 am
I think that it is ultimately no more possible to prove the existence of karma with logic and empirical evidence than it is possible to prove the existence of God.
The evidence provided thus far does not prove the existence of karma. Furthermore, as for a cyclical view of the universe solving the problem of an infinite regress, it seems to me that it does just the opposite.
Nothing can be proved; we are just interested in giving some pointers and intuition for the concept of karma. Cyclical view is just trying to help live with the problem of infinite regress by modifying our linear thinking to a cylcial thinking. In the current time you just can give pointers for concepts not complete proofs.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2008 3:01 am
Cyclical view is just trying to help live with the problem of infinite regress by modifying our linear thinking to a cylcial thinking.
I don't see how it helps.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2008 3:47 am
Here's the infinite regress problem (from http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/130217...blem_of_evil/):
"In order to explain an individual's circumstances in the present life, karma refers to the events of his prior life. But in order to explain the circumstances of that prior life, we need to invoke the events of his previous life-and so on, ad infinitum. The problem is quite general: how did the karmic process begin? What was the first wrong? Who was the original sufferer? This familiar objection points out that rebirth provides no solution at all, but simply pushes the problem back.19 And the response typically given by defenders of rebirth is quite inadequate: they claim that the process is simply beginningless (anadi), that the karmic process extends back infinitely in time.20 But this is no answer at all; indeed, it violates a basic canon of rationality, that the "explanation" not be equally as problematic as the problem being explained.21 Thus, explains Wendy O'Flaherty: "Karma 'solves' the problem of the origin of evil by saying that there is no origin.... But this ignores rather than solves the problem" (p. 1 7).
"Roy Perrett has responded to this criticism by arguing that the doctrine of karma satisfactorily explains each individual instance of suffering, and it is unreasonable to demand that it give an "ultimate explanation" of the origin of suffering. After all, he says, "explanation has to come to an end somewhere" (Perrett 1985, p. 7). However, the fallacy in this argument can be illustrated by analogy. Consider the "theory" that the world is supported on the back of an elephant, which in turn rests on the back of a tortoise. Now if this is to be an explanatory account of what supports the world, it only begs the question: what supports the tortoise? A famous (probably apocryphal) exchange between Bertrand Russell and an anonymous woman goes as follows:
WOMAN: The world rests on the back of a giant turtle.
RUSSELL: What does the turtle rest on?
WOMAN: Another turtle.
RUSSELL: What does it rest on?
WOMAN: Another turtle.
RUSSELL: What does it rest on?
"The discussion goes on this way for quite some time, until the woman becomes exasperated and blurts out: "Don't you see, Professor Russell, it's turtles all the way downl"22 It will hardly do for the woman to claim that, as her solution explains how the world is supported in each individual instance, she need not worry about the infinite regress. This solution is the equivalent of borrowing money in order to pay off a debt: a solution that merely postpones the problem is no solution at all.23
"It is also noteworthy that the denial of a beginning to the process sidesteps the question of divine responsibility for the beginning of evil in the world. If there is a creator, then why is he not responsible for the misdeeds of his creations? There is no easy answer to this question, but neither can it be avoided altogether. Christianity has long been criticized for its doctrine of the Fall of Man and Original Sin for these same reasons. I do not claim here that the Christian solution succeeds, but only that the Indian solution does not evade these difficulties, either."
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 4:49 am
There is nothing new about the arguments you raise here.
That is already known as even in mathematical logic Godel's incompleteness theorem makes it impossible to have a system which is complete and consistent at the same time. Similarly at the subatomic level quantum experiments lead to 4 different interpretations and no one can claim which one is absolutely true. In science whenever two competing explanations occur for a phenomenon an easier explanation is chosen. But then this choice of choosing alternatives itself leads us to the statement that science is not what nature is but how nature is exposed to our method of questioning. The philosophical problem of thing in itself still remains.
VS had talked about the seed and tree analogy which maybe too naive but it does try to explain anadi karma.
As far as your Christian doctrine problem BVT and SP made the attempt to get out of this cyclical riddle to posit a beginning for this conditioning and then you may say that is a better explanation. All the arguments by Russell I had already posted before in "Why I am not a Christian" and it is known fact that if you are just objective like a robot you have to be agnostic. It is the feeling which makes you feel the music(instead of just the mathematical frequencies). So Plato posits that we approach the Absolute truth with same eagerness as a lover for his beloved. A sincere feeling of an open agnostic is a best bet for his receptivity. We are just here to open a person's receptivity in different ways to GV.
Prahlad Das - September 1, 2008 7:46 am
This is a good direction to go in. You have offered a kind of naturalistic (material) explanation of karma. Even without a supernatural atma, sentient beings (whatever they are) drive the world and the world drives them. Dale Wright writes in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics,"A naturalistic theory of karma would treat choice and character as mutually
determining—each arising dependent on the other. It would show how the
choices you make, one by one, shape your character, and how the
character that you have constructed, choice by choice, sets limits on the
range of possibilities that you will be able to consider in each future
decision. Karma implies that once you have made a choice and acted on it,
it will always be with you, and you will always be the one who at that
moment and under those conditions embraced that path of action. The past,
on this view, is never something that once happened to you and is now
over; instead, it is the network of causes and conditions that has already
shaped you and that is right now setting conditions for every choice and
move you make. From the very moment of an act on, you are that choice,
which has been appropriated into your character along with countless
others. In this light human freedom becomes highly visible, and awesome
in its gravity, but is noticeable only to one who has realized the farreaching
and irreversible impact on oneself and others of choices made, of
karma."
The nurture side of the argument is not developed in his explanation. As I understand it, in Buddhism good karma leads to nirvana. So the necessity of a special nurturing agent from outside the karmic web is not essential, although there is certainly a guru emphasis in Buddhism.
It is hard to get away from the idea that repeated choice forms habit, which in turn reinforces choice. Habitual choice no doubt has physical ramifications. God aside, the doctrine of karma says this much. There is a correspondence between physical order and our choices. As we see it, the will of the jiva drives the world and the world drives the jiva.
I'm not so sure we can eliminate the supernatural atma while trying to define karma. Even the buddhists have an idea of existence separate from this earthly illusion (this is in itself supernatural).
The problem of infinite regress can probably be cleared up with a clear presentation of our position as tatastha shakti.
The nurture side of the argument is not developed in his explanation. As I understand it, in Buddhism good karma leads to nirvana. So the necessity of a special nurturing agent from outside the karmic web is not essential, although there is certainly a guru emphasis in Buddhism.
Does the attainment of nirvana necessitate a guru in GVism?
I think "predispositioned" is necessary to include along with choice and character. This brings up the issue of "eternity", something that is difficult to fit into the current spectrum of scientific empirical evidences. The question of when we made our seminal act which put our sequential existence in play will be suggested.
Cyclical and Linear are both issues that perhaps can be cleared by positing a Functional Element. That is, we are tatastha as an element of the whole. We have the qualitative relation with the whole but with a quantitative weakness that allows us to be influenced by harboring separate interests from the whole thereby acting unconstitutionally. The realm where we can enact our unconstitutional desires (the realm of separate interest) is governed by the elements of time and karma. We are our Own sparks, just as infinitesimal as each other in relation to the whole... We are familiar with this, but I think that even in present GVism there is some disagreement of what exactly the tatastha potency really is. The position I'm stressing is that Jiva, and Karma are elements similar to the periodic elements of our junior high science class, only primordial. The Jiva is only governed by time and karma when in the realm of separate interest. This is the only extent time can be factored in.
Time and Karma are both dynamic to the degree of a soul's relation to them. One cannot prove the reality of a dream but dreams do occur. In a dream there is no sense of the time outside of the dream. How can I relate my dreams to you in the exact fashion I experience them in yet you should be able to have some understanding of what occurs. We all can allow for the idea of dreams when we are awake in "reality". In a dream one experiences feelings, pain, anxiety, pleasure, fulfillment, and is under the laws of the dream and thereby must navigate according to the dream's allowance (in some circumstances this allowance is greater than "reality"). When we wake from our dreams we can navigate our plane of reality confidently and look at our dream as an illusion all the while knowing the existence of the illusion.
Time and karma deliver our dream-like body to and from to accommodate our souls unconstitutional whims. Karma is a function which seeks to harmonize our whimsical desires with the realm of separate interest and the rest of tatastha, The internal pure realm is not affected by karma.
With regards to buddhism and karma the Buddhists do encourage "right action" or noble deeds, and the noblest deed of all for them is to relieve the suffering of people by letting them know that the cause of their suffering is through untrue relations with their surroundings;associating themselves with matter etc... After that it would be kindness, not step on toes, etc... This is my understanding of Mahayan.
:Batting Eyelashes:
Swami - September 1, 2008 1:56 pm
I was Baladeva Vidyabhusana who gave the seed/tree argument to refute the charge of infinite regression. So he was aware of the problem. I think what he is saying is that regardless of this charge such is the nature of the world. It defies reason. Which comes first, the tree or the seed?
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2008 2:08 pm
There is nothing new about the arguments you raise here.That is already known as even in mathematical logic Godel's incompleteness theorem makes it impossible to have a system which is complete and consistent at the same time. Similarly at the subatomic level quantum experiments lead to 4 different interpretations and no one can claim which one is absolutely true. In science whenever two competing explanations occur for a phenomenon an easier explanation is chosen. But then this choice of choosing alternatives itself leads us to the statement that science is not what nature is but how nature is exposed to our method of questioning. The philosophical problem of thing in itself still remains.
VS had talked about the seed and tree analogy which maybe too naive but it does try to explain anadi karma.
As far as your Christian doctrine problem BVT and SP made the attempt to get out of this cyclical riddle to posit a beginning for this conditioning and then you may say that is a better explanation. All the arguments by Russell I had already posted before in "Why I am not a Christian" and it is known fact that if you are just objective like a robot you have to be agnostic. It is the feeling which makes you feel the music(instead of just the mathematical frequencies). So Plato posits that we approach the Absolute truth with same eagerness as a lover for his beloved. A sincere feeling of an open agnostic is a best bet for his receptivity. We are just here to open a person's receptivity in different ways to GV.
I wasn't trying to bring up new arguments. I was asking how your proposed solution solves the problem. I also posted the argument you were referring to for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with it. I'm still waiting for your explanation....
As for the seed and tree analogy (or the chicken and the egg), I think that its a much stronger argument than cyclical universe explanation (which I still don't see how it solves the problem). Basically the seed and tree argument says, yes, we have an infinite regression with anadi karma, but you already accept other infinite regressions. I imagine that they would answer this argument with something about evolution. Have you heard a reply to this argument?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 3:20 pm
I wasn't trying to bring up new arguments. I was asking how your proposed solution solves the problem. I also posted the argument you were referring to for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with it. I'm still waiting for your explanation....
As for the seed and tree analogy (or the chicken and the egg), I think that its a much stronger argument than cyclical universe explanation (which I still don't see how it solves the problem). Basically the seed and tree argument says, yes, we have an infinite regression with anadi karma, but you already accept other infinite regressions. I imagine that they would answer this argument with something about evolution. Have you heard a reply to this argument?
In evolution this problem is about RNA,DNA and protein. They have already made amino acids from inorganic lifeless chemicals but to generate proteins of the type present in living organisms they still need to use DNA. So now this regress of DNA and protein is there currently. But they believe that first protein came then the RNA world and then the DNA. Atleast they have a linear model which they want to validate in future.
Now Audarya Lila will be able to throw more light on this matter.
Also cylical universe is something which some physicists have proposed to fit current data: Paul Stienhart in Princeton is one of them. If you want you can search about him. So I said cyclical mathematical models also can be made to fit current data but it is hard to prove anything empirically. In cosmology right now empirical evidence is scarce is 95% of the substance out there cannot be detected: dark energy and dark matter. Similarly the String Theory and M-theory models explaining phenomenon before big bang use 10 dimensions of which humans cannot have direct experience in general and empirical testing is too far out right now. In this darkness of existential crisis we can point them towards some GV concepts and hope they build sukriti to practice GV and experience the change for themselves.
Yamuna Dasi - September 1, 2008 5:16 pm
Islam must be the most united religion I have seen.
Forget it! Just the same diversity is found there as well - 72 main streams each having enough differences from the others in order to deny them.
Even regarding morals and ethics in a question as for how many wives a muslim can have they differ, even though Mohammed stated that a muslim can have up to 4 wives but what most often forget is that he said "up to 4" and put quite strong conditions upon it, which hardly a mortal can fulfill. One of these conditions is to love them equally and show no preference. 
This is why in Egypt which is a strictly muslim country the law permits only one wife, saying that one should not cheat himself and God that he is capable of loving two women equally.
But even though Mohammed had stated that a muslim can have "up to 4 wives", he himself had much more, but ok, he is a special person and let's accept that for him it was allowed. But the shayis today (as contrary to the sunis) accept that except those 4 wives, a muslim can have as many as he wants so called "temporary wives", while the sunis find this absurd and contradicting directly to Mohammed's rule "up to 4".
So Islam is not at all the most united religion even though it had been constructed and thought to be such. Seems that life's diversity and human mind's diviations cannot permit any long term unity to any religion.
Sorry for this remark, I know it's out of the main stream of the topic.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2008 5:18 pm
In evolution this problem is about RNA,DNA and protein. They have already made amino acids from inorganic lifeless chemicals but to generate proteins of the type present in living organisms they still need to use DNA. So now this regress of DNA and protein is there currently. But they believe that first protein came then the RNA world and then the DNA. Atleast they have a linear model which they want to validate in future.Now Audarya Lila will be able to throw more light on this matter.
Interesting.
Also cylical universe is something which some physicists have proposed to fit current data: Paul Stienhart in Princeton is one of them. If you want you can search about him. So I said cyclical mathematical models also can be made to fit current data but it is hard to prove anything empirically. In cosmology right now empirical evidence is scarce is 95% of the substance out there cannot be detected: dark energy and dark matter. Similarly the String Theory and M-theory models explaining phenomenon before big bang use 10 dimensions of which humans cannot have direct experience in general and empirical testing is too far out right now. In this darkness of existential crisis we can point them towards some GV concepts and hope they build sukriti to practice GV and experience the change for themselves.
I understand how cyclical universe theory relates to the theories of some physicists. But I don't see how that solves the infinite regress. It's more like the tree and seed analogy in that it points out that infinite regresses exist in nature. But perhaps you never meant that it solves the infinite regress.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 10:29 pm
Interesting.I understand how cyclical universe theory relates to the theories of some physicists. But I don't see how that solves the infinite regress. It's more like the tree and seed analogy in that it points out that infinite regresses exist in nature. But perhaps you never meant that it solves the infinite regress.
Yes, it doesn't solve it. You just have to live with it.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2008 10:34 pm
I'm not so sure we can eliminate the supernatural atma while trying to define karma. Even the buddhists have an idea of existence separate from this earthly illusion (this is in itself supernatural).
Could someone clarify how Buddhists explain reincarnation if they don't believe in the soul and also whether they say that karma is anadi or if individual identities (what is their term for souls?) are created at some point in time.
Yamuna Dasi - September 1, 2008 10:53 pm
Here's the infinite regress problem (from http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/130217...blem_of_evil/):
The link as given above did not work, so here is the exact link for this article:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/130217...evil/index.html
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 11:19 pm
Could someone clarify how Buddhists explain reincarnation if they don't believe in the soul and also whether they say that karma is anadi or if individual identities (what is their term for souls?) are created at some point in time.
Also clarify which section of buddhists you are talking about. Some Buddhists talk about eternity of Bodhisattvas who are always available to give their grace. This is especially true for the Mahayana Buddhists in China and Japan.
Zen, Tibetian Buddhism and Hinayana school believe in anadi karma according to my knowledge but they just believe in reincarnation of the mental system which needs to be abandoned eventually. I think if I have time I will go through my notes on buddhism and search through this issue.
Swami - September 1, 2008 11:40 pm
Could someone clarify how Buddhists explain reincarnation if they don't believe in the soul and also whether they say that karma is anadi or if individual identities (what is their term for souls?) are created at some point in time.
Here is someone trying to answer a similar question. From Tricycle Magazine, a premier contemporary Buddhist journal.
If there is no I, what does karma affect?
I believed I understood karma, both good and bad and how it affects our lives and futures. I thought I understood how it carries over and affects us beyond our death, until recently. Now I am a bit confused. If ultimately in Buddhism, there is no "I", "me" or eternal soul, and none of these carry forward after death, then what does karma affect? If we are just sort of plugged into a 'life force' or the Buddha-nature, and then our bodiess die with no soul to move on to the next life, then how or what does the karma we gather during life affect? Thank you.
Nagapriya responds:
The problems you indicate have been problems for Buddhist philosophers for centuries and I am not sure they have ever been fully resolved. Buddhists have offered various answers down the ages, the most frustrating of which is to say that the workings of karma are beyond human understanding.
Buddhist philosophy sees existence in terms of dependent origination; things arise in dependence upon conditions which, in turn, give rise to other things. Rather than fixed entities that endure through time, there is instead an endless flux of conditions. That goes for us too. We tend to think of ourselves as having a ‘self’ because we have a sense of continuity; we can remember things that happened yesterday, last year, even in our childhood. However, the fact that there is continuity does not imply identity. In what way are we ‘the same’ as our childhood selves?
I sometimes use a genetic model to explain how karmic continuity could potentially continue across lives. Children are the product of their parents’ genes, with consequent family resemblances, but they are not identical with them. While it is often loosely said that ‘we’ will reap our karma in future lives, it would probably be more accurate to say that our ‘karmic genes’ (to coin a phrase) will be passed on to a future being who will inherit some of our patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior.
But I also think of karmic consequences as transindividual; our acts have implications not just for some future descendant but also for our family, friends, co-workers, and even the world in general. Our actions reverberate not just across space through our social network but through time as well. In this way, what we do now may have consequences not just for ‘our’ future self but for many other beings. Such reflections may help us to take more care about the choices we make in the present.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 2, 2008 12:25 am
Forget it! Just the same diversity is found there as well - 72 main streams each having enough differences from the others in order to deny them.Even regarding morals and ethics in a question as for how many wives a muslim can have they differ, even though Mohammed stated that a muslim can have up to 4 wives but what most often forget is that he said "up to 4" and put quite strong conditions upon it, which hardly a mortal can fulfill. One of these conditions is to love them equally and show no preference.
But even though Mohammed had stated that a muslim can have "up to 4 wives", he himself had much more, but ok, he is a special person and let's accept that for him it was allowed. But the shayis today (as contrary to the sunis) accept that except those 4 wives, a muslim can have as many as he wants so called "temporary wives", while the sunis find this absurd and contradicting directly to Mohammed's rule "up to 4".
So Islam is not at all the most united religion even though it had been constructed and thought to be such. Seems that life's diversity and human mind's diviations cannot permit any long term unity to any religion.
Sorry for this remark, I know it's out of the main stream of the topic.
Not quite. I have stayed in Muslim dominated place for some time and most of the differences are between Shia And Sunni. One other sect is there called Ahmedia, but is not even considered Muslim. They are more united than any other religion on earth today. This is accepted by Dawkins, Rushdie and everybody. Other denominations don't have drastic differences like different schools of Vedic thought or Buddhism. It doesn't mean that is the greatest thing obviously.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 2, 2008 12:40 am
Here is someone trying to answer a similar question. From Tricycle Magazine, a premier contemporary Buddhist journal.
If there is no I, what does karma affect?
I believed I understood karma, both good and bad and how it affects our lives and futures. I thought I understood how it carries over and affects us beyond our death, until recently. Now I am a bit confused. If ultimately in Buddhism, there is no "I", "me" or eternal soul, and none of these carry forward after death, then what does karma affect? If we are just sort of plugged into a 'life force' or the Buddha-nature, and then our bodiess die with no soul to move on to the next life, then how or what does the karma we gather during life affect? Thank you.
Nagapriya responds:
The problems you indicate have been problems for Buddhist philosophers for centuries and I am not sure they have ever been fully resolved. Buddhists have offered various answers down the ages, the most frustrating of which is to say that the workings of karma are beyond human understanding.
Buddhist philosophy sees existence in terms of dependent origination; things arise in dependence upon conditions which, in turn, give rise to other things. Rather than fixed entities that endure through time, there is instead an endless flux of conditions. That goes for us too. We tend to think of ourselves as having a ‘self’ because we have a sense of continuity; we can remember things that happened yesterday, last year, even in our childhood. However, the fact that there is continuity does not imply identity. In what way are we ‘the same’ as our childhood selves?
I sometimes use a genetic model to explain how karmic continuity could potentially continue across lives. Children are the product of their parents’ genes, with consequent family resemblances, but they are not identical with them. While it is often loosely said that ‘we’ will reap our karma in future lives, it would probably be more accurate to say that our ‘karmic genes’ (to coin a phrase) will be passed on to a future being who will inherit some of our patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior.
But I also think of karmic consequences as transindividual; our acts have implications not just for some future descendant but also for our family, friends, co-workers, and even the world in general. Our actions reverberate not just across space through our social network but through time as well. In this way, what we do now may have consequences not just for ‘our’ future self but for many other beings. Such reflections may help us to take more care about the choices we make in the present.
He doesn't speak about the solutions offered by Buddhist philosophers in the past. I think most popular version of Buddhism in US is Zen or Tibetian Buddhism so I guess it is safe to take GM's position on what Buddhism is about unless one is confronted with somebody practicing some other version.
Yamuna Dasi - September 2, 2008 12:52 am
As I've mentioned already in another thread of the forum, one of my favorite definitions of faith is "subjective sufficiency of proofs". It fits very well with the personalistic view and approach of GV and also gives us the hint that when we want to “prove” something to somebody, first we have to “pace the client”. What is a “proof” for someone depends completely on who is this someone and what predominates his views about the world and his own self, what does he/she already accept as “proven”, so that we can start building our proof on this (his own) basis. In order to “prove” something to a person, we either have to fit our claim into the picture of his puzzle, or we shall have to rearrange his puzzle in order that our piece fits it. The person would accept our claim as “proven” when it “clicks” fitting perfectly all the rest.
For a strictly empirical person a “proof” would be to test it as many times as possible and every time the result to be the same. Even then it would not be completely proven, because the principal of full mathematical induction would be used and it makes a qualitative jump in the process of proving - that if in “n” in number tests the same result is achieved, then in “n+1”-st test when “n” tends to infinity, we can ASSUME and ACCEPT that the result would still be the same. But as you can see it is a supernatural jump, not a pure reality. In this way in mathematics induction is still accepted as a “proof”, but not always and not completely. Why? Because still it is possible that in “n+1”-st case the outcome of the experiment to be surprisingly different.
But let me come back to my thought - for an empirical person a “proof” would be if a practical test can prove it. For an emotional and intuitional person a “proof” would be to feel it. For a logical person a “proof” would be if the claim in question could be drawn (by following some logical sequence) out of some other claim, which he/she already considers proven or accepts as an axiomatic truth. For someone who believes in the Bible as an Absolute Truth, it would be a “proof” if I can quote the Bible to support my claim. For someone who believes to his Guru, a proof would be if his Guru says so. For a hedonist a proof would be if he can enjoy the claim. As we can see “proof” is quite a relative notion depending completely on the subject to whom we are trying to prove something. In this way the process of “proving” has to be built according to the subject's nature.
When we speak of proving the karma theory, we have to accept that there is no such thing as absolute proof in the strict sense of the word - i.e. a proof, which can pin down the topic and no one to have any objection about it. Rather I can say how I would try to impart some FAITH in karma theory into different kinds of people to who I can happen to preach. In this way I would give few quite different kinds of “proofs” regarding karma and each of them has its value since it can be accepted as a “proof” by different kind of people and as a result change their views and life direction.
This was the introduction The different kinds of proofs regarding karma... to be continued. (it's 3:30 am here and my body “humbly” begs my soul for some sleep and if not supplied threatens it with strong karmic reactions, from which we can see how superficial its subordination to my atma actually is).
Yamuna Dasi - September 2, 2008 1:00 am
Not quite. I have stayed in Muslim dominated place for some time and most of the differences are between Shia And Sunni. One other sect is there called Ahmedia, but is not even considered Muslim. They are more united than any other religion on earth today. This is accepted by Dawkins, Rushdie and everybody. Other denominations don't have drastic differences like different schools of Vedic thought or Buddhism. It doesn't mean that is the greatest thing obviously.
Yes, Shia and Sunni are the two main streams, but inside each of them there are so many denominations. My friend who is a faithful muslim practitioner mentioned 72 different denominations denying each other and the number impressed me, especially when given from an insider, who was defending in front of me the "unity" of the Muslims
Still it's possible that other religions beat this number, I never really counted the different Christian, Budistic or Hindu denominations.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 2, 2008 3:49 am
Here is someone trying to answer a similar question. From Tricycle Magazine, a premier contemporary Buddhist journal.
If there is no I, what does karma affect?
I believed I understood karma, both good and bad and how it affects our lives and futures. I thought I understood how it carries over and affects us beyond our death, until recently. Now I am a bit confused. If ultimately in Buddhism, there is no "I", "me" or eternal soul, and none of these carry forward after death, then what does karma affect? If we are just sort of plugged into a 'life force' or the Buddha-nature, and then our bodiess die with no soul to move on to the next life, then how or what does the karma we gather during life affect? Thank you.
Nagapriya responds:
The problems you indicate have been problems for Buddhist philosophers for centuries and I am not sure they have ever been fully resolved. Buddhists have offered various answers down the ages, the most frustrating of which is to say that the workings of karma are beyond human understanding.
Buddhist philosophy sees existence in terms of dependent origination; things arise in dependence upon conditions which, in turn, give rise to other things. Rather than fixed entities that endure through time, there is instead an endless flux of conditions. That goes for us too. We tend to think of ourselves as having a ‘self’ because we have a sense of continuity; we can remember things that happened yesterday, last year, even in our childhood. However, the fact that there is continuity does not imply identity. In what way are we ‘the same’ as our childhood selves?
I sometimes use a genetic model to explain how karmic continuity could potentially continue across lives. Children are the product of their parents’ genes, with consequent family resemblances, but they are not identical with them. While it is often loosely said that ‘we’ will reap our karma in future lives, it would probably be more accurate to say that our ‘karmic genes’ (to coin a phrase) will be passed on to a future being who will inherit some of our patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior.
But I also think of karmic consequences as transindividual; our acts have implications not just for some future descendant but also for our family, friends, co-workers, and even the world in general. Our actions reverberate not just across space through our social network but through time as well. In this way, what we do now may have consequences not just for ‘our’ future self but for many other beings. Such reflections may help us to take more care about the choices we make in the present.
What can I say? I'm shocked by this explanation. After saying that "our 'karmic genes' will be passed on to a future being..." it says that "what we do now may have consequences not just for 'our' future self but for many other beings." Does anyone else find this absurd? After saying that we basically won't exist after death, the writer cheerfully implies that some extra benefit has just been unearthed.
This explanation is one half-step away from thinking that everything is over when you die. Why bother with enlightenment? And how is one's experience after death different if one dies enlightened or not?
Prahlad Das - September 2, 2008 4:03 am
What can I say? I'm shocked by this explanation. After saying that "our 'karmic genes' will be passed on to a future being..." it says that "what we do now may have consequences not just for 'our' future self but for many other beings." Does anyone else find this absurd? After saying that we basically won't exist after death, the writer cheerfully implies that some extra benefit has just been unearthed.
This explanation is one half-step away from thinking that everything is over when you die. Why bother with enlightenment? And how is one's experience after death different if one dies enlightened or not?
Isn't Buddhist enlightenment simply about negation of distress? As I've understood it, they are content with no afterlife, in fact their enlightenment would be to see themselves as not having an individual life (sense of distress causing ego) but to actually attain NIRvana.
I can see their idea of ones karma affecting others' karma. When someone comes in contact with a previously unknown way their existential fabric changes.
I think Buddhism hopes to make everything over not when you die but even before you die.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 2, 2008 4:09 am
Isn't Buddhist enlightenment simply about negation of distress? As I've understood it, they are content with no afterlife, in fact their enlightenment would be to see themselves as not having an individual life (sense of distress causing ego) but to actually attain NIRvana.I can see their idea of ones karma affecting others' karma. When someone comes in contact with a previously unknown way their existential fabric changes.
I think Buddhism hopes to make everything over not when you die but even before you die.
The Tricycle quote really drove it home for me. I assumed that there must be more to it than this. This is bleak!
Prahlad Das - September 2, 2008 4:30 am
Could someone clarify how Buddhists explain reincarnation if they don't believe in the soul and also whether they say that karma is anadi or if individual identities (what is their term for souls?) are created at some point in time.
What I meant when I said, " Even the buddhists have an idea of existence separate from this earthly illusion (this is in itself supernatural)" is that their "non-existence" is separate.
The tigers and their monks calling them reincarnated brother monks are a particular form of Buddhism (Theravada?). This is more in lines with Hinduism. Thailand is a special place. Although Ashoka spread Buddhism deeply into Thailand, Thailand still has deeper roots to Hinduism (Vaishnavism in particular) with their stresses on Hanuman, Rama, Garuda. Buddhism has clearly adapted their to suit the local customs. This has been the case with almost every philosophical transplant. It happened to Christianity when the Spaniards tried to spread it to the Americas. The locals accepted it but made adjustments to suit their needs.
I believe Karma and the soul are related. Karma only comes into play when there is an issue of an immortal, permanent soul. If we didn't preach about the permanence of the soul we wouldn't have to discuss karma. Just look how strange Nagapriya's position on karma was without alluding to a permanent existence.
Prahlad Das - September 2, 2008 4:38 am
The Tricycle quote really drove it home for me. I assumed that there must be more to it than this. This is bleak!
This is a very bleak picture of nirvana. I once picked up a nice presentation of Buddhism from a hotel in Japan. It was simply called the "Teachings of Buddha". It served as the hotel's counterpart to U.S. hotel's Bible. I read it and they had a much more dynamic interpretation of what happens in the "afterlife" than what I've heard other Buddhists render. They believe that after death we attain to Buddha's realm. In this context it is not so far from the idea of heaven. Good deeds and accumulation of good karma credits are a necessity for these Buddhists.
So maybe for Nagapriya there isn't much more, but for many Buddhists there is. Nirvana has been defined in ranges from cessation of misery to cessation of existence.
Prahlad Das - September 2, 2008 4:55 am
Here is a link to a brief description of Theravada Buddhism (the meditative Tigers one) and in it you will see reference to reincarnation and cessation of it. Theravada Buddhism
Yamuna Dasi - September 2, 2008 11:20 am
Subjective (personally) oriented proving process...
In other words before targeting something that a person does not accept as a valid claim, we have to put all our intelligence and intuition to find out what is that person accepting. Everybody does accept something and we have to find this personal subjective stable basis and to start building the castle of our proofs based on this if we want it to stand in the subjective view of that specific person.
As G.K.Chesterton says: “Any one setting out to dispute anything ought always to begin by saying what he does not dispute. Beyond stating what he proposes to prove he should always state what he does not propose to prove.” But Chesterton is a deep philosopher and a great thinker so he has this idea very clear, but most of the common people don’t have such a clear view when they start an argument or when they demand something to be proven to them. In this way if we have (and want to) prove something to somebody, we have to DISCOVER what is this idea which that person does not need any proof for i.e. what he believes in and accepts without questioning it, what is for him that, which is “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Most people would not give it to us, they would not tell it, since they are not completely conscious that they should, so an intelligent preacher should find it himself and then build all his argumentation on this common stable basis – that which is common in belief for both him and the opponent. And if he does not want to go into the deepest shadows and contradictions of what the person in front of him accepts, he can do something very simple – take some common and quite obvious truth which is acceptable for every reasonable human being and build his argument based on it.
Also even though we might be trying to prove a specific idea, we should never lose from sight our final goal… we are not just proving something to somebody, we are preaching to that person. And why we are preaching to him – because we have some sympathy for his soul and want to give it happiness that lasts. And the only reason why we are trying to prove him some statement is because this statement is part of the way we are building to lead this person to krsanusilanam (as a devotee from the forum kindly translated the term to me as “cultivation of oneself favorably towards Krsna Consciousness”). We are first of all preachers, and as a subordinate to this we can sometimes have to prove and defend some truths, but all of these minute (subordinate) truths should always be leading towards the Big Truth, the Highest Truth of krsanusilanam. We should not lose the sight of the whole while entering into a small battle, we should not forget what the whole war is about. And sometimes we will have to remember also the proverb “lose a battle, win the war!” Our goal is not to win any single battle on our way. Our struggle is for krsanusilanam – to bring ourselves there and everybody with whom we come in touch with.
Into his welcoming message to this forum Maharaj had written "My sincere hope is that all of my disciples will take part in Tattva-viveka and take advantage of this facility to advance in krsanusilanam." It seems to me that by this he is reminding us that while having all our discussions here in Tattva-viveka deliberating (viveka) on truth (tattva), we don’t have to forget our flag and final goal… krsanusilanam. And when by exercising our minds and hearts here we go on the real preaching field, we have to keep the same flag high.
Back to our topic here, to defend the karma theory. Why would or should I ever try to prove the karma theory to a person? How this contributes to my final goal?
1/ I would have to prove the karma theory in order to defend the Lord of my heart from people, who blame Him that He is the original reason and cause for all the suffering which the souls in this world have to experience.
2/ I would have to prove the karma theory in order to explain the different situations of the different souls into this world and thus prove that it is not unjust, but completely just.
3/ I would have to prove the karma theory in order to direct peoples’ vision inwardly and thus save them from the suffering caused of feeling themselves as victims (of chance, bland fate or sircumstances) and lead them into the happiness of feeling themselves as volunteers for a noble cause.
4/ I would have to prove the karma theory to set people free from the prison of karma, but one cannot develop desire and plan how to leave a prison if he/she has no idea that is currently into a prison. I will have to explain and defend the karma theory in order to depict the prison and draw its chart, so that on the basis of it we can schedule and plan our escape… or legitimate release.
5/ I would have to prove the karma theory in order to make people see why we are put into this prison and how it was simultaneously our own desire and a divine arrangement to fulfill it. In this way they will develop desire to leave the prison without being rebellious against the current arrangement of being there. If the picture of a prison is too disturbing for someone, I can be flexible and substitute it with… hospital as our acharias do sometimes.
6/ I would have to prove the karma theory in order to be able to go to the next much more interesting for me (and I hope for the people as well) topic – liberation… and the great variety of adventurous activities which we can have after leaving the prison/hospital. Such a bright future planning can be even made in advance and serve as a stronger motivation for leaving the prison/hospital ASAP. We need positive inspiration and motivation for doing so, not just the negative one.
We have to be conscious for the final goal always – the happiness of the jiva, while arguing or proving while preaching. The people have to always feel that this is our final goal, not just to win over them with arguments, but to make them happy finally. If such a positive approach from our side will be felt by the person, he/she will be much more open to listen to us than if they take the argument just as a personal mental fight issue.
Also why do we try to conquer the mind (and its argumentations) of a person? There is just one reason for it – in order to reach his heart and soul and give them happiness. This view can help us a lot when we start any argument, because it gives us much broader range of ways to achieve it. Usually we think that we have to conquer and smash the mind in order to reach the heart and the soul, but it’s not always so! We can charm the heart and thus just eliminate the mind without entering into a direct fight with it. We can be poets and thus win the heart, not just advocates fighting to win over the opposing advocate. Instead of having a talk over the frequency of mind-to-mind, we can switch to the much more refined frequency and speak heart-to-heart. Of course it will not always be possible, most of the times the mind will step forward to defend the heart from the intruder, but if we could somehow, anyhow touch the heart, it can discharge the mind from its “duty” to defend, just as a bodyguard can be stopped from striking if the person he is guarding smiles and embraces the newcomer. Then the bodyguard’s duty to “fight and defend” will be transformed into “stay and be quietly present into the sweet meeting without interrupting”.
We have to be rather poets than advocates…
As Chesterton says: “Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite… The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who
seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.”
Gita is a poem and so are Bhagavatam and Chaitanya Charitamrita... practicaly all our Scriptures are poetical by form. This is the frame in which the highest philosophy is presented as a a mastepiece - deepest philosophy revealed through a poem, highest thoughts sang as a song, deepest intellectual conclusions placed into the frame of a finest emotional resemblance. We have never to forget it! And even if we are not able to translate the Scriptures in a poetical form, we should try to represent them in a poetical mood. Thus we shall keep their spirit and beauty and spread it... charming and being charmed ourselves.
The soul is a poet, a dancer and an artist because such is its nature. The soul is not an advocate. And if we ever wish to reach anybody’s soul we also have to be and act as such. Because as my Gurudeva loved to quote one of his favorite proverbs: “Birds of a feather flop (fly) together.” We all finally wish to fly and do so in a good company (flop), not to argue about direction, speed or height of a flight which never happens. Even if he are put to argue, we shall do it only with the bright prospect of the future flight in mind… thus it will be not much of a fight, but rather a passionate but friendly scheduling for the direction and terms of this great new flying adventure in order to increase the mutual pleasure of taking it…
To be continued.
Citta Hari Dasa - September 2, 2008 5:51 pm
This is a very bleak picture of nirvana. I once picked up a nice presentation of Buddhism from a hotel in Japan. It was simply called the "Teachings of Buddha". It served as the hotel's counterpart to U.S. hotel's Bible. I read it and they had a much more dynamic interpretation of what happens in the "afterlife" than what I've heard other Buddhists render. They believe that after death we attain to Buddha's realm. In this context it is not so far from the idea of heaven. Good deeds and accumulation of good karma credits are a necessity for these Buddhists.
So maybe for Nagapriya there isn't much more, but for many Buddhists there is. Nirvana has been defined in ranges from cessation of misery to cessation of existence.
If I'm not mistaken the strain of Buddhism wherein the goal is to attain a realm of one of the Buddhas is called "Pure Land" Buddhism, which as I understand it originated in China. Regarding the range of conceptions of nirvana within Buddhism, I once read a description by Zen practitioners (Mountains and Rivers Order) that used terms like "light" and so forth and sounded very similar how Brahmavadins describe Brahman. This would clearly fall more on the "cessation of misery" end of the spectrum.
Grant Upson - September 2, 2008 7:08 pm
He doesn't speak about the solutions offered by Buddhist philosophers in the past. I think most popular version of Buddhism in US is Zen or Tibetian Buddhism so I guess it is safe to take GM's position on what Buddhism is about unless one is confronted with somebody practicing some other version.
As far as I can tell, Nagapriya is affiliated with the "Friends of the Western Buddhist Order." The group occupies interesting (and probably philosophically comprised) ground in modern Buddhism. Their teachings seem to be highly syncretic, insofar as they strive to harmonize (and modernize) a plurality of Buddhistic schools of thought.
Thus I think you'll hear from Nagapriya mainly generic explanations of philosophical problems in Buddhism without -- as Gaura-vijaya indicates -- reference to the way certain schools/thinkers have grappled with the issue of karma. As Buddhism fanned out from South Asia, it generally melded with rather than eclipsed indigenous traditions. I am pretty sure that the nuances of how karma and self-hood (or lack therefore) are understood has taken on a different character everywhere the tradition has taken root. When you put together a western Buddhist synthesis like FWBO, I don't know where that leaves you.
He makes a serious understatement in saying that the problem of karma in relation to non-selfhood has been around for centuries. It has been around basically since the historical Buddha, if I recall correctly. Interesting to see it surface in a very sleek magazine, however. This is a great lens into how the masses of generally sophisticated western coverts are grappling (however ineffectively, as per this sample . . .) with the issue.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 2, 2008 8:18 pm
If I'm not mistaken the strain of Buddhism wherein the goal is to attain a realm of one of the Buddhas is called "Pure Land" Buddhism, which as I understand it originated in China. Regarding the range of conceptions of nirvana within Buddhism, I once read a description by Zen practitioners (Mountains and Rivers Order) that used terms like "light" and so forth and sounded very similar how Brahmavadins describe Brahman. This would clearly fall more on the "cessation of misery" end of the spectrum.
Yes Pure Land Buddhism is the one where you have more emphasis on the path of grace coming down from Buddha and other enlightened souls. They have a devotional side to them also.
Swami - September 2, 2008 10:41 pm
The other night we watched Robert Thurman and Deepak Chopra, contemporary advocates of Tibetan Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta respectively, discuss their paths for 1.5 hours at the Tibet House in Manhattan (movie night here at Audarya). I thought they were going to discuss the similarities and differences of their paths and I was particularly interested to hear the Buddhist notion of no self as compared to Vedanta's brahman. However, to my surprise they said the differences were only a matter of semantics! Then they went make a somewhat compelling case for a new consciousness movement/revolution of sorts. Deepak was more interesting and noticeably more controlled.
Babhru Das - September 2, 2008 11:59 pm
The other night we watched Robert Thurman and Deepak Chopra, contemporary advocates of Tibetan Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta respectively, discuss their paths for 1.5 hours at the Tibet House in Manhattan (movie night here at Audarya). I thought they were going to discuss the similarities and differences of their paths and I was particularly interested to hear the Buddhist notion of no self as compared to Vedanta's brahman. However, to my surprise they said the differences were only a matter of semantics!
B. P. Keshava Maharaja wrote a book explaining exactly how Advaita Vedanta is simply disguised Buddhism.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 3, 2008 12:53 am
One more gene identified.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthS...how/3438225.cms
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 3, 2008 7:04 pm
One more gene for infidelity today. Atleast people can blame their infidelity on the gene but when we speak about karma then it is considered fatalistic.lol!
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 4, 2008 3:44 am
Karma is central to Hinduism.
1. Karma explains the perpetuation of the material universe by identifying its metaphysical cause—the volitional acts
of the jivas and the subsequent reactions.
2. It functions as an explanatory hypothesis for the varied states and conditions of the jivas. In other words, it
serves as a “theodicy,” a vindication of God in view of the existence of evil.
3. It acts as a means of social control in as much as a proper reading of it says much about the nature of right livelihood for different jivas, and in conjunction with this it explains the negative impetus for spiritual practice and the cultivation of selflessness and love of God.
As it is tied to Hinduism and is thus a pre-modern concept, perhaps we could discuss it in light of present times. Is it something we have to accept on faith? Is there empirical evidence for or against it? It is also central to Buddhism, and thus it may be possible to explain it without recourse to God. Any thoughts?
Thank you Guru Maharaja for bringing this topic up.
I recently wrote this to Guru Maharaja expressing my doubts about one general idea the is commonly espressed regarding karma:
"I wanted to speak up during last weekend's conference call but I thought that I'd rather bring up my doubt with you via e-mail first and if you think it is warranted we can discuss it further in the conf. call format. My doubt has to do with the idea of illness and karma. It seems that we look at illness as the effect of our parabdha karma until such a time as the sadhaka 'completes the sadhana stage' and at that time illness magically becomes lila. I think this is a rather simplistic and even superstitious or backwards way of thinking about this. Maybe we need to rethink what karma really means. In the bible you find reference to illnesses being caused by demonic possession and stories of Jesus 'casting the demons out' and thereby healing a person. These stories would definitely be looked upon as stories based on an incomplete understanding of nature and illness in general. It seems to me that being in a body regardless of what stage of spiritual development one has attained puts one in a situation where the body will be subjected to the influences of adhiatmika, adibodika and adidevaka. A pure devotee will be bitten by bugs just as much as a fallen jiva in the same environment. A pure devotee who is subjected to disease causing microbes will beome 'ill' just as often as a less developed soul. Purity and spiritual development does not confer some sort of immunity to the pangs of the body and the bodily predicament - only in the sense that the mind and heart are purified and such predicaments are not a 'problem' for one who is pure as much as they are for others. Of course, being of impure mind and heart I cannot speak about how one who is pure experiences illness and other bodily discomforts, but I find illness to create a more difficult environment for me to concentrate and also my ability to function properly is also impaired.
Anway - to try to be more concise - my doubt has to do with the nature of karma and it's relation to our present bodily state and the actions and reactions that cause material discomfort within the body - it seems altogether too simplistic the way we talk about it and describe it and try to differentiate those actions as they pertain to people of different devotional standing. Does that make sense?"
I tried to clarify and artiuclate my doubt a little more clearly in a subsequent e-mail thusly:
"I guess I didn’t articulate my doubt very well – probably because it is still in very rudimentary form in my own consciousness. What started me down the path of thinking about rethinking karma and what it means was the discussion on the conference call. I felt that the explanations regarding illness and karma were too simplistic and bordering on superstition. That is why I referenced the Biblical idea that illness is caused by demonic possession – it’s a similar idea in the sense that illness is due to sin, or bad action – depending on the vocabulary used by the specific tradition. In fact, illness occurs for a myriad of reasons all related to the physical world. Some illnesses are caused by ‘defects’ in a persons DNA. Autoimmune diseases, various mental health problems and all sorts of other diseases fall into this general category. Disease occurs due to exposure to pathogens – Flu, cold, Aids, measles, mumps, staph infections, malaria etc. and many others fall into this category. While it is certainly be possible for Krsna to intervene directly in the physical world to keep individuals disease free, practically I don’t see it happening. I know we have the examples in Chaitanya and Krsna lila of the Lord healing disease and we also see that in the stories of Jesus, but one would have to admit that such occurances are extreme exceptions, not the rule. So much so, that we have no valid proof of such occurrences in the contemporary world although there are many claims of such.
I was thinking that Karma may be more based on consciousness as opposed to specific action and that it is much more general as opposed to being specific about every single action and reaction within the material field of activity. What I mean to say by that is that individuals are born into bodies with a general background or stratum that matches their consciousness – the specifics and details vary based on free will and the ongoing interaction of matter with consciousness. We do make conscious choices in life and those choices have a direct impact on physical events in our lives. We may choose to eat something, or not, that unknown to us is contaminated and will cause a bacterial infection and diarrhea for some period of time. The choice to eat or not is conscious. We may choose to go on a trip or not and that choice can be life or death in the case, for instance, of a plane going down or a car accident etc.
These ‘choices’ occur for everyone regardless of level or purity of consciousness. Also, a body that has a genetic ‘fault’ that will lead to coronary disease or diabetes or any other such disease will act regardless of whether the person has become perfect by practice of bhakti sadhana and the action or mercy or not. Why should we think of such as karma for the ‘conditioned person’ and lila for the ‘perfected person’? This seems to fly in the face of logic and reason and goes against common sense and knowledge of basic science.
So what I am getting at and my doubt really has to do with our interpretation of what karma is and how it plays itself out in the material sphere.
Again, these are just seeds of doubt and I am just voicing them to you. I’m wondering if a better interpretation wouldn’t be that our karma affords us a particular body with a myriad of different opportunities based on the development of our consciousness.
Those are my initial thoughts. I know they are not completely consistent or coherent at this point, but I’m am really thinking that a more nuanced way of thinking about this would lend itself better to conscious experience based on the knowledge we have at our disposal today. "
Since Guru Maharaja brought this topic up here I thought I would share my thoughs/doubts here and give others a chance to think about this as well.
Prahlad Das - September 4, 2008 6:08 am
Prabhu,
The way I see it, while illness can be a product of Karma, it is also a product of material nature. It has been said that this material creation is fraught with janma, mrthyuh, jara, and vyadhi, it has non-permanence as a quality along with a fickle presentation. These "miseries" are elements of material nature. Bad karma can bring about onsets of any of these symptoms, but to place the blame solely on karma would be wrong. It is the nature of material creation to harbor these "miseries". As long as we identify with material nature we will succumb to these miseries. Karma can be accounted for in Newtonian way so to speak whereas every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Steal from someone you'll be stolen from. But the misery of thievery is also part of material nature in that material nature is unsteady and non-permanent.
A part of Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa Puja offering to his spiritual master Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati went as follows:
Personally, I have no hope for any direct service of the coming crores of births in the sojourn of my life, but I am confident that some day or other I shall be delivered from this mire of delusion in which I am at present so deeply sunk. Therefore let me with all my earnestness pray at the lotus feet of my divine master to allow me to suffer the lot for which I am destined due to my past misdoings, but to let me have this power of recollection: that I am nothing but a tiny servant of the Almighty Absolute Godhead, realized through the unflinching mercy of my divine master. Let me therefore bow down at his lotus feet with all the humility at my command.
This statement has some of its basis from the verse in SB 10.14.8
tat te ’nukampam su-samikshamano
bhunjana evatma-kritam vipakam
It seems a function of Gaudiya Vaishnavism to encourage one to accept one's responsibility in the matters of their material encasement or identification. To go a little further in to discussion of what miserable karma is I'd like to bring up what Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur writes in his Madhurya Kadambini re: anarthas. He points out that anarthas are of 4 types, sukrtottha, duskrtottha, aparadhottha, and bhaktyuttha. Anarthas can be born out of piety, impiety, aparadha, and bhakti. I'd like to focus on the anartha from piety just to contrast impiety (of which often brings to mind karma). The piety/sukrti can come from karma, jnana, or bhakti. Piety awards certain designations. It may make one a wealthy person, or a high-class person, or an intellectual person or of perfect health. The drawback from this piety or sukrti is that it may make one too proud of their designation or occupy too much of one's time to take to the service of Sri Hari. Thus even sukrti can be seen as "bad Karma" in that it can cause one to forget Sri Hari.
Liberated souls appear in order to show by example. We would all love a miracle and what would be a better miracle than navayauvana (eternal youth). If only we can practice Krsna Consciousness and be rewarded with keeping our bodies the way they are/or bringing them back to the way they should be. But Liberated souls say that these bodies are material. We need become detached from them and shed them when the time is right. The nature of material is transient, chanchal/fickle, and temporary, fraught with miseries of birth, death, old age, and disease. Why try to keep this body eternally? Why not find our true body.
Srila Prabhupada mentions accepting the suffering from the lot of his misdoings. We can be happy with that knowing that he is saying that he is suffering bad karma just like all of us and that it wont magically dodge him.
However, according to the post of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Assuming the Responsibility of Being Guru he shows us why we don't say the Guru or Advanced Vaishnava is "suffering". He gives the example of how junior Vaishnavas are to see the Advanced Vaishnavas.
Srila Shridhar Maharaj encourages one to alter their perspective on the environment. If we knew how to use our true vision then maybe we'd see something different, but till then while using our material vision we'll see things from a material perspective.
I guess one way to see the apparent inconsistency of how karma affects whom is that we are encouraged to view certain things in a sanctified way. The cow is Holy and like our mother, the Name and Murti are non other than Hari. From a mundane gross viewpoint the cow being like our mother seems ludicrous. I know my mother has no hooves and only two legs. But we are encouraged to try to see deeper than mundane or gross. It is this attempt at seeing deeper that urges one to accept that although Sri Guru or an Eternal Associate (appearing before us in the form of a Maha Bhagavata) may seem to die, they actually go into samadhi.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 4, 2008 3:29 pm
Thank you Guru Maharaja for bringing this topic up.
I recently wrote this to Guru Maharaja expressing my doubts about one general idea the is commonly espressed regarding karma:
"I wanted to speak up during last weekend's conference call but I thought that I'd rather bring up my doubt with you via e-mail first and if you think it is warranted we can discuss it further in the conf. call format. My doubt has to do with the idea of illness and karma. It seems that we look at illness as the effect of our parabdha karma until such a time as the sadhaka 'completes the sadhana stage' and at that time illness magically becomes lila. I think this is a rather simplistic and even superstitious or backwards way of thinking about this. Maybe we need to rethink what karma really means. In the bible you find reference to illnesses being caused by demonic possession and stories of Jesus 'casting the demons out' and thereby healing a person. These stories would definitely be looked upon as stories based on an incomplete understanding of nature and illness in general. It seems to me that being in a body regardless of what stage of spiritual development one has attained puts one in a situation where the body will be subjected to the influences of adhiatmika, adibodika and adidevaka. A pure devotee will be bitten by bugs just as much as a fallen jiva in the same environment. A pure devotee who is subjected to disease causing microbes will beome 'ill' just as often as a less developed soul. Purity and spiritual development does not confer some sort of immunity to the pangs of the body and the bodily predicament - only in the sense that the mind and heart are purified and such predicaments are not a 'problem' for one who is pure as much as they are for others. Of course, being of impure mind and heart I cannot speak about how one who is pure experiences illness and other bodily discomforts, but I find illness to create a more difficult environment for me to concentrate and also my ability to function properly is also impaired.
Anway - to try to be more concise - my doubt has to do with the nature of karma and it's relation to our present bodily state and the actions and reactions that cause material discomfort within the body - it seems altogether too simplistic the way we talk about it and describe it and try to differentiate those actions as they pertain to people of different devotional standing. Does that make sense?"
I tried to clarify and artiuclate my doubt a little more clearly in a subsequent e-mail thusly:
"I guess I didn’t articulate my doubt very well – probably because it is still in very rudimentary form in my own consciousness. What started me down the path of thinking about rethinking karma and what it means was the discussion on the conference call. I felt that the explanations regarding illness and karma were too simplistic and bordering on superstition. That is why I referenced the Biblical idea that illness is caused by demonic possession – it’s a similar idea in the sense that illness is due to sin, or bad action – depending on the vocabulary used by the specific tradition. In fact, illness occurs for a myriad of reasons all related to the physical world. Some illnesses are caused by ‘defects’ in a persons DNA. Autoimmune diseases, various mental health problems and all sorts of other diseases fall into this general category. Disease occurs due to exposure to pathogens – Flu, cold, Aids, measles, mumps, staph infections, malaria etc. and many others fall into this category. While it is certainly be possible for Krsna to intervene directly in the physical world to keep individuals disease free, practically I don’t see it happening. I know we have the examples in Chaitanya and Krsna lila of the Lord healing disease and we also see that in the stories of Jesus, but one would have to admit that such occurances are extreme exceptions, not the rule. So much so, that we have no valid proof of such occurrences in the contemporary world although there are many claims of such.
I was thinking that Karma may be more based on consciousness as opposed to specific action and that it is much more general as opposed to being specific about every single action and reaction within the material field of activity. What I mean to say by that is that individuals are born into bodies with a general background or stratum that matches their consciousness – the specifics and details vary based on free will and the ongoing interaction of matter with consciousness. We do make conscious choices in life and those choices have a direct impact on physical events in our lives. We may choose to eat something, or not, that unknown to us is contaminated and will cause a bacterial infection and diarrhea for some period of time. The choice to eat or not is conscious. We may choose to go on a trip or not and that choice can be life or death in the case, for instance, of a plane going down or a car accident etc.
These ‘choices’ occur for everyone regardless of level or purity of consciousness. Also, a body that has a genetic ‘fault’ that will lead to coronary disease or diabetes or any other such disease will act regardless of whether the person has become perfect by practice of bhakti sadhana and the action or mercy or not. Why should we think of such as karma for the ‘conditioned person’ and lila for the ‘perfected person’? This seems to fly in the face of logic and reason and goes against common sense and knowledge of basic science.
So what I am getting at and my doubt really has to do with our interpretation of what karma is and how it plays itself out in the material sphere.
Again, these are just seeds of doubt and I am just voicing them to you. I’m wondering if a better interpretation wouldn’t be that our karma affords us a particular body with a myriad of different opportunities based on the development of our consciousness.
Those are my initial thoughts. I know they are not completely consistent or coherent at this point, but I’m am really thinking that a more nuanced way of thinking about this would lend itself better to conscious experience based on the knowledge we have at our disposal today. "
Since Guru Maharaja brought this topic up here I thought I would share my thoughs/doubts here and give others a chance to think about this as well.
Basically we need people to exhibit mystic powers to turn around illnesses which is more possible for yogis. But even if you study ramana Maharishi's life when his body was in super diseased conditioned he didn't exhibit any signs of pain externally and was very calm and peaceful. So certainly it is possible to reach a consciousness where you are disconnected from bodily pain but for devotees it happens very rarely as compared to yogis or jnanis. Devotees generally do feel pain and suffer but some yogis seem to be more accomplished in disconnecting from the pain due to their mystic power. I don't see how preachers which most devotees are can develop mystic powers; you need to go into intense moments of samadhi to exhibit those. But anyway the goal of the devotee is not to develop these mystic powers so it doesn't matter. I think people generally are tuned into spiritual life by individuals who have had more and more moments of samadhi and not just some theoretical knowledge. Both are needed so I think in the present environment very few people are qualified to preach to open-minded intelligent people as it requires both good theory and moments of deep experience to be effective and hardly any devotees have both though they will be effective in other places like mass propogation.So it is very necessary to preach only as far as one's realization is and be honest about it.
Prahlad Das - September 4, 2008 4:36 pm
Once, Bodhayan Maharaj told a story: (I am not sure of its source but it is basically as follows)...
(I recall now that I heard Bodhayan Maharaj give this story when a devotee in Eugene, asked what the stage of advancement could have been for Sripad Tamal Krsna Maharaj to leave this world in the chaotic fashion he did.)
"There was once a faultless brahmin who desired so much to see Jagannath during His Ratha Yatra. Until this point in his life he never had the chance to leave his village, so when he arrived at an opportunity to travel to Ratha Yatra he jumped at it. It was a long journey and being poor he had to do his travels on foot.
As he neared Puri (with one more day to travel) he stopped in a village to ask for lodging. He met a nice man who offered him lodging and the talked for some time amicably till it was time to go to bed. While the brahmin was sleeping, he was approached by the wife of his host. She asked him, pleaded with him to take her with him to see Jagannath. No matter how hard she begged he insisted that all his life he remained pure in his deeds so as to be able to serve the Lord and his hope was to remain pure to continue his service. He in return begged her to desist in asking about it, saying people will likely accuse him of having an affair and stealing another man's wife and his reputation will be destroyed in the community.
She became furious and told him that if he doesn't do it then she will blackmail him by murdering her own husband, blaming it on him. He was confident in his Lord's protection and remained fixed in his determination. She followed up with her promise and slit her husbands throat while he slept, bundled up her jewelry, threw them near the brahmin's cot, and began to scream for help.
The villagers at once arrived and after hearing the wife's story that the brahmin killed her husband tried to take her jewelry, they arrested the brahmin. The next day, they held trial, found him guilty of murder and robbery, and upon the wife's suggestion, decided to cut the brahmin's arms off near the shoulders. All along the brahmin maintained his innocence but to no avail. After cutting his arms off the villagers sent him on his way to meet his destiny.
The brahmin was distraught and yet ever more determined to meet with Jagannath since he felt he was leaving his mortal frame. He walked with as much strength as he could but no matter how hard he tried to keep going, he collapsed at the gate of the city of Puri. He lamented his condition at not having been able to see the Lord and prepared to leave his body.
Meanwhile, the Ratha Yatra was starting and all the attendees were beginning to pull on the ropes of the cart. The cart would not budge for any amount of pulling and the priests began to pray to Jagannath. Jagannath told the head priest that His very dear servant, is waiting, in a difficult condition, outside the gate of His city and he should be promptly escorted with all respect, and brought to His presence with a palanquin and servants.
The escort was arranged and the brahmin, in a bewildered state, was brought before his Lord without hesitation. The brahmin lamented before the Lord, not being able to fold his hands. He expressed his joy at being able to see this beautiful pastime of his Lord, and he also expressed his confusion at the recent sequence of events.
He asked Lord Jagannath how it is that He is called dina bandhu. The brahmin practiced his whole life to be an unhesitating devotee, pure in practice, because he understood that the Lord desired purity. Why then did this affair happen to him without being saved by the Lord?
The Lord, being merciful, replied that in a previous life, the brahmin was also a very pious brahmin and served Him with great love. One day, as the brahmin was crossing a rice field during planting season (there are very thin pathways surrounded by small individual fields of rice submerged in water), he noticed a cow coming at him at a hurried pace. The cow was being chased by a man who begged him to catch hold of the cow in order that he may bring it back home. The brahmin did favor the man. He caught hold of the cows horns, subdued it, and returned the man's cow and went on his way.
The Lord told the brahmin that the man was a slaughterer and that unknowingly the brahmin returned the cow to a disastrous fate. The slaughterer brought the cow home and cut its neck, killing it.
Jagannath explained to the brahmin that the husband who was murdered in his sleep was none other than the cow slaughterer, and the wife was none other than the cow. The cow took birth again as the wife of the slaughterer in order to return the slaughterer's deeds and because the brahmin used his two powerful arms to catch the cow by the horns and return the cow to the slaughterer he had to have his deeds returned by the wife who arranged to have his arms cut off.
This explanation satisfied the brahmin who offered prayers to the Lord saying that only He could know the answers to all the confusions of this world and offered his pranam. The Lord, being extremely pleased with the brahmin, then accepted him into his abode."
Prahlad Das - September 4, 2008 4:46 pm
I'm sure this story has variants (noteably, the brahmin receives his arms back rather than goes to the Lord's abode). After I wrote it, I googled it and found a reference to a drama troupe performing the story of Sadan Kasai and the armless pilgrim here. The references for the story are also posted on that page at the bottom and I'll post them as follows:
[2] The story of Sadan Kasai is told also in Max Arthur Macauliffe, The Sikh Religion (6 vols. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1909), 6, 84-88; Horact Hyman Wilson, Essays and Lectures, chiefly on the Religion of the Hindus, ed. Reinhold Rost (2 vols. London, Trubner & Co., 1961-62), I, 1281 f.; Rev. M.A. Sherring, Hindu Tribes and Castes as Represented at Benares, pp. 266 f.; Balesvar Prasad, Santbani-sangraha (2 vols. Allahabad, Belvedere Press, 1922), 2, 26; Parasuram Caturvedi, Uttari Bharat ki Sant-parampara (Prayag, Bharati Bhandar, 1951), pp. 99-101.
Prahlad Das - September 4, 2008 5:01 pm
Also I have understood that the purpose of taking up Krsna Bhakti is not to achieve super human strength, health or other siddhis of perfection. While a siddhi can be awarded, (and there are rare instances like Gaura Vijay says) it can also become a stumbling block. The prayers of Queen Kunti were a prescribed reading by Srila Prabhupad. She often appreciates the "troubles" she went through because they brought her nearer to Krsna. One can endeavor to have the perspective; that the apparent difficulties an Acharya displays, (healthwise etc...) can be there to act as an encouragement for us. We can continue to practice serving in the face of all difficulties just like they are. There may be other, more complicated scenarios, and perspectives may need more developing. Perspectives also may not always have to be preached. I like Gaura Vijay's concern that not everyone needs to take up the banner of preaching. First we need the right perspectives and this can be had through service and pleasing of a spiritual master.
I recall now that I heard Bodhayan Maharaj give this story when a devotee in Eugene, asked what the stage of advancement was for Sripad Tamal Krsna Maharaj to have to leave this world in such a chaotic fashion. I will post this recollection in an edit at the top of the story.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 4, 2008 7:31 pm
I think devotees in S.B or C.C did exhibit some mystic power but it is less prominent now even among yogis now. The mystic power of today's yogis who make public appearance is also too less compared to the asta siddhis described by patanjali or to those described for vishwamitra. That is why most modern scientists think all stories of previous display of mystic powers are just childish imaginations.
Prahlad Das - September 4, 2008 7:46 pm
Even the exhibitions of mystic power in contemporary times is met with noted skepticism. Regardless of whether or not the powers have performed miracles, there is always a biological explanation for it. If not available now it'd be available at a future date. This particularly in regards to why diseases such as cancer "miraculously" disappear. The fact that cancer can go into remission has spurred a push to isolate the gene or dna quality responsible for it. They may not know yet what it is "but it has to be there somewhere".
Perhaps due to the rapidly onsetting quarreling symptom of Kali Yuga, Great Saints no longer exhibit mystic siddhi as it will only serve to create skepticism or an intent on acquiring a desirable siddhi. I don't know.
Can one prove the nonexistence of something based on lack of evidence for existence?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 5, 2008 4:02 am
Can one prove the nonexistence of something based on lack of evidence for existence?
Not really but like Russel says for him the Christian God is as real as greek Gods or Azetic God or hindu Gods so he will not want the burden of proof of existence. He is philosophically agnostic( As he cannot prove that God doesn't exist) but for a layperson he is an atheist in his own words. He says that people can always say that there are some characters roaming around near the moon and there are swings and sports going on there which can never be detected through any instruments and then what can he say?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 5, 2008 4:29 am
Even the exhibitions of mystic power in contemporary times is met with noted skepticism. Regardless of whether or not the powers have performed miracles, there is always a biological explanation for it. If not available now it'd be available at a future date. This particularly in regards to why diseases such as cancer "miraculously" disappear. The fact that cancer can go into remission has spurred a push to isolate the gene or dna quality responsible for it. They may not know yet what it is "but it has to be there somewhere".
Perhaps due to the rapidly onsetting quarreling symptom of Kali Yuga, Great Saints no longer exhibit mystic siddhi as it will only serve to create skepticism or an intent on acquiring a desirable siddhi. I don't know.
Can one prove the nonexistence of something based on lack of evidence for existence?
Also note that the mystic powers exhibited today are not like creating planetary systems like Vishwamitra did and also not even like Durvasa muni generating a demon so they are easier to explain through current science. Hence the other listed mystic powers are listed as imaginations by modern people
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 8, 2008 2:59 am
Thank you Guru Maharaja for bringing this topic up.
I recently wrote this to Guru Maharaja expressing my doubts about one general idea the is commonly espressed regarding karma:
"I wanted to speak up during last weekend's conference call but I thought that I'd rather bring up my doubt with you via e-mail first and if you think it is warranted we can discuss it further in the conf. call format. My doubt has to do with the idea of illness and karma. It seems that we look at illness as the effect of our parabdha karma until such a time as the sadhaka 'completes the sadhana stage' and at that time illness magically becomes lila. I think this is a rather simplistic and even superstitious or backwards way of thinking about this. Maybe we need to rethink what karma really means. In the bible you find reference to illnesses being caused by demonic possession and stories of Jesus 'casting the demons out' and thereby healing a person. These stories would definitely be looked upon as stories based on an incomplete understanding of nature and illness in general. It seems to me that being in a body regardless of what stage of spiritual development one has attained puts one in a situation where the body will be subjected to the influences of adhiatmika, adibodika and adidevaka. A pure devotee will be bitten by bugs just as much as a fallen jiva in the same environment. A pure devotee who is subjected to disease causing microbes will beome 'ill' just as often as a less developed soul. Purity and spiritual development does not confer some sort of immunity to the pangs of the body and the bodily predicament - only in the sense that the mind and heart are purified and such predicaments are not a 'problem' for one who is pure as much as they are for others. Of course, being of impure mind and heart I cannot speak about how one who is pure experiences illness and other bodily discomforts, but I find illness to create a more difficult environment for me to concentrate and also my ability to function properly is also impaired.
Anway - to try to be more concise - my doubt has to do with the nature of karma and it's relation to our present bodily state and the actions and reactions that cause material discomfort within the body - it seems altogether too simplistic the way we talk about it and describe it and try to differentiate those actions as they pertain to people of different devotional standing. Does that make sense?"
I tried to clarify and artiuclate my doubt a little more clearly in a subsequent e-mail thusly:
"I guess I didn’t articulate my doubt very well – probably because it is still in very rudimentary form in my own consciousness. What started me down the path of thinking about rethinking karma and what it means was the discussion on the conference call. I felt that the explanations regarding illness and karma were too simplistic and bordering on superstition. That is why I referenced the Biblical idea that illness is caused by demonic possession – it’s a similar idea in the sense that illness is due to sin, or bad action – depending on the vocabulary used by the specific tradition. In fact, illness occurs for a myriad of reasons all related to the physical world. Some illnesses are caused by ‘defects’ in a persons DNA. Autoimmune diseases, various mental health problems and all sorts of other diseases fall into this general category. Disease occurs due to exposure to pathogens – Flu, cold, Aids, measles, mumps, staph infections, malaria etc. and many others fall into this category. While it is certainly be possible for Krsna to intervene directly in the physical world to keep individuals disease free, practically I don’t see it happening. I know we have the examples in Chaitanya and Krsna lila of the Lord healing disease and we also see that in the stories of Jesus, but one would have to admit that such occurances are extreme exceptions, not the rule. So much so, that we have no valid proof of such occurrences in the contemporary world although there are many claims of such.
I was thinking that Karma may be more based on consciousness as opposed to specific action and that it is much more general as opposed to being specific about every single action and reaction within the material field of activity. What I mean to say by that is that individuals are born into bodies with a general background or stratum that matches their consciousness – the specifics and details vary based on free will and the ongoing interaction of matter with consciousness. We do make conscious choices in life and those choices have a direct impact on physical events in our lives. We may choose to eat something, or not, that unknown to us is contaminated and will cause a bacterial infection and diarrhea for some period of time. The choice to eat or not is conscious. We may choose to go on a trip or not and that choice can be life or death in the case, for instance, of a plane going down or a car accident etc.
These ‘choices’ occur for everyone regardless of level or purity of consciousness. Also, a body that has a genetic ‘fault’ that will lead to coronary disease or diabetes or any other such disease will act regardless of whether the person has become perfect by practice of bhakti sadhana and the action or mercy or not. Why should we think of such as karma for the ‘conditioned person’ and lila for the ‘perfected person’? This seems to fly in the face of logic and reason and goes against common sense and knowledge of basic science.
So what I am getting at and my doubt really has to do with our interpretation of what karma is and how it plays itself out in the material sphere.
Again, these are just seeds of doubt and I am just voicing them to you. I’m wondering if a better interpretation wouldn’t be that our karma affords us a particular body with a myriad of different opportunities based on the development of our consciousness.
Those are my initial thoughts. I know they are not completely consistent or coherent at this point, but I’m am really thinking that a more nuanced way of thinking about this would lend itself better to conscious experience based on the knowledge we have at our disposal today. "
Since Guru Maharaja brought this topic up here I thought I would share my thoughs/doubts here and give others a chance to think about this as well.
Thanks for posting this. I've also felt that the general conception of karma is too simplistic. In some ways I appreciated the Buddhist perspective given at the beginning of this thread that basically equated karma with disposition. Yet that seems too limited. Nevertheless, the "you have this disease/problem, you must have done this bad action" seems too simplistic to me. And I agree that what you pointed out about the common conception of karma and illness--"It seems that we look at illness as the effect of our parabdha karma until such a time as the sadhaka 'completes the sadhana stage' and at that time illness magically becomes lila"--is not altogether satisfying.
One thing that I always wondered about is "bad karma" and development of virtue. Obviously "negative" events can often have very positive transformative effects. Since these negative events can be favorable for developing virtue or dependency on God, it has seemed to me that in some cases something other than "bad karma"--i.e. some sinful activity--may be the "cause" of the apparently negative event. This could be one explanation of advanced devotees and illness. At what stage of bhakti this might happen--or whether this might happen to anyone--is another question.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 8, 2008 12:56 pm
Somebody told me yogiraj gurunath about this person who speaks about kriya yoga and has a good scientific background. He claims kriya yoga can destroy karma and he is pretty to the point and not a teddy bear guru. His claims are as if even prarabhda can be removed through kriya yoga.
He had sent me this video which was pretty interesting.
mixes sophisticated science with his technique.Yogis they focus on head chakra but devotees focus on the heart; I don't know why.
Citta Hari Dasa - September 8, 2008 6:14 pm
Somebody told me yogiraj gurunath about this person who speaks about kriya yoga and has a good scientific background. He claims kriya yoga can destroy karma and he is pretty to the point and not a teddy bear guru. His claims are as if even prarabhda can be removed through kriya yoga.He had sent me this video which was pretty interesting.
mixes sophisticated science with his technique. But for yogis they focus on head chakra but devotees focus on the heart; I don't know why.
Kriya yoga is clearly not a path of grace, except perhaps indirectly in the fact that one needs a guru. I say that because his claim is that our karma is destroyed by focussing our attention (intent) in the sushumna and doing specific breathing exercises (kriyas), that the pranayama is a spiritual process. He said "breath is our only prayer." Okay, good luck with that.
He also talked about the DNA, that on each DNA molecule there are what are called "nitrogen nubs" and this is where our karma is stored, like a DVD. He basically said the DNA is the storage medium for karma. He then said that pranayama creates a "friction" that wipes the DNA clean of karma. He also mentioned that when the kundalini awakens then the yogi realizes the correlation between the 100 billion brain cells and the 100 billion stars in the sky. There is more that could be said, but overall I didn't find it particularly convincing.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 8, 2008 8:19 pm
Kriya yoga is clearly not a path of grace, except perhaps indirectly in the fact that one needs a guru. I say that because his claim is that our karma is destroyed by focussing our attention (intent) in the sushumna and doing specific breathing exercises (kriyas), that the pranayama is a spiritual process. He said "breath is our only prayer." Okay, good luck with that.
He also talked about the DNA, that on each DNA molecule there are what are called "nitrogen nubs" and this is where our karma is stored, like a DVD. He basically said the DNA is the storage medium for karma. He then said that pranayama creates a "friction" that wipes the DNA clean of karma. He also mentioned that when the kundalini awakens then the yogi realizes the correlation between the 100 billion brain cells and the 100 billion stars in the sky. There is more that could be said, but overall I didn't find it particularly convincing.
That is very nice of you to go through the videos and give your analysis.
Swami - September 8, 2008 9:01 pm
-"It seems that we look at illness as the effect of our parabdha karma until such a time as the sadhaka 'completes the sadhana stage' and at that time illness magically becomes lila"--is not altogether satisfying.
It could also be said that bhakti has the power to remove one's prarabdha, but instead of allowing that to happen Bhagavan preserves his devotee's prarabdha while becoming active in his devotee's life via his svarupa-sakti. In this scenario the devotee is really not moving by the force of his or her karma because it has come under the control of the svarupa-sakti. Bhava involves the svarupa sakti taking over one's mind while keeping it in place.
Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his Govinda-bhasya to Vs 3.4.16 that vidya (bhakti, the highest knowledge) has the power to destroy prarabdha. But in the life of a sage who has brought his will in line with that of Bhagavan, his prarabdha may be preserved so that the devotee can remain in this world and carry out the will of Bhagavan, and I might add, cultivate prema. In this case the prarabdha is singed like a cloth burned by fire. When the cloth is burned, a semblance of it remains in place unless one touches it. The idea is that the singed cloth looks like the original cloth and has some connection with it, but for all intents and purposes it has been burnt up. So it is said that the realized soul is dressed in this semblance of prarabdha and moved within by the force of the svaruap-sakti. If Bhagavan did not choose to override the power of bhakti to completely destroy a great devotee's prarabdha, there woul never be any realized souls in our midsts, for once one's prarabdha is completely destroyed in all respects he or she would have no body to conduct preaching or set an example.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 9, 2008 1:08 am
It could also be said that bhakti has the power to remove one's prarabdha, but instead of allowing that to happen Bhagavan preserves his devotee's prarabdha while becoming active in his devotee's life via his svarupa-sakti. In this scenario the devotee is really not moving by the force of his or her karma because it has come under the control of the svarupa-sakti. Bhava involves the svarupa sakti taking over one's mind while keeping it in place.
Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his Govinda-bhasya to Vs 3.4.16 that vidya (bhakti, the highest knowledge) has the power to destroy prarabdha. But in the life of a sage who has brought his will in line with that of Bhagavan, his prarabdha may be preserved so that the devotee can remain in this world and carry out the will of Bhagavan, and I might add, cultivate prema. In this case the prarabdha is singed like a cloth burned by fire. When the cloth is burned, a semblance of it remains in place unless one touches it. The idea is that the singed cloth looks like the original cloth and has some connection with it, but for all intents and purposes it has been burnt up. So it is said that the realized soul is dressed in this semblance of prarabdha and moved within by the force of the svaruap-sakti. If Bhagavan did not choose to override the power of bhakti to completely destroy a great devotee's prarabdha, there woul never be any realized souls in our midsts, for once one's prarabdha is completely destroyed in all respects he or she would have no body to conduct preaching or set an example.
This yogi in the above video said that as it is well documented that the body of yogananda did not decompose a long time after he left his body, he had negated his prarabhada to a large extent even for empiricists to see the evidence. But for a devotee I think it is harder for their body to behave like this as they don't care for it.
Prahlad Das - September 9, 2008 3:21 am
It could also be said that bhakti has the power to remove one's prarabdha, but instead of allowing that to happen Bhagavan preserves his devotee's prarabdha while becoming active in his devotee's life via his svarupa-sakti. In this scenario the devotee is really not moving by the force of his or her karma because it has come under the control of the svarupa-sakti. Bhava involves the svarupa sakti taking over one's mind while keeping it in place.
Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his Govinda-bhasya to Vs 3.4.16 that vidya (bhakti, the highest knowledge) has the power to destroy prarabdha. But in the life of a sage who has brought his will in line with that of Bhagavan, his prarabdha may be preserved so that the devotee can remain in this world and carry out the will of Bhagavan, and I might add, cultivate prema. In this case the prarabdha is singed like a cloth burned by fire. When the cloth is burned, a semblance of it remains in place unless one touches it. The idea is that the singed cloth looks like the original cloth and has some connection with it, but for all intents and purposes it has been burnt up. So it is said that the realized soul is dressed in this semblance of prarabdha and moved within by the force of the svaruap-sakti. If Bhagavan did not choose to override the power of bhakti to completely destroy a great devotee's prarabdha, there woul never be any realized souls in our midsts, for once one's prarabdha is completely destroyed in all respects he or she would have no body to conduct preaching or set an example.
I like this analogy. It seems regardless of how easy or hard it would be to accept this miraculous shift of mundane suffering to apparent suffering, it still needs to be accepted. Thank you for providing Bhagavat evidence for this "shift". It will certainly help me to hold the Vaishnava as being sacred.
I have recently been involved in discussing with some atheist evolutionary scientists whether there is empirical evidence for God's existence...At some point religion was deemed illogical in the context that if we hold the compilers of scriptural texts to be an intelligent class why then would they say things in an allegorical way which can be misconstrued. ie... If God were to have created the universe in a "relative" seven days then why wouldn't it have just been written as such rather than done so in the literal "7" days. It seems our scriptures have the same sort of questionable statements which can be read as either literal or allegorical.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 10, 2008 1:34 pm
It is beside the point but another step in understanding the universe for the scientists was the recent experiment on Big bang particle accelerator. Who knows what kind of evolution of universe it will support.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/CERN_Bi...how/3465729.cms
Prahlad Das - September 11, 2008 2:48 am
"In the Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is the perfect commentary on Vedänta-sütra, the Supreme Isvara and His potencies are described in the following words:
bhakti-yogena manasi
samyak pranihite 'male
apasyat purusham purnam
mayam ca tad-apasrayam
"Thus he fixed his mind, perfectly engaging it by linking it in devotional service [bhakti-yoga] without any tinge of materialism, and thus he saw the Absolute Personality of Godhead along with His external energy, which was under full control.*
yaya sammohito jiva
atmanam tri-gunatmakam
paro 'pi manute 'nartham
tat-kritam cabhipadyate
"Due to this external energy, the living entitiy, although transcendental to the three modes of material nature, thinks of himself as a material product and thus undergoes the reactions of material miseries.*
anarthopasamam sakshad
bhakti-yogam adhokshaje
lokasyajanato vidvams
cakre satvata-samhitam
"The material miseries of the living entity, which are superfluous to him, can be directly mitigated by the linking process of devotional service. But the mass of people do not know this, and therefore the learned Vyäsadeva compiled this Vedic literature, which is in relation to the Supreme Truth."*
—1.7.4-6"
(from Sri Baladev Vidyabhusan's Sri Vedanta Sutra Ch 1, Pada 1, Adhikarana 1)
Yamuna Dasi - September 11, 2008 9:04 am
"Non-intelligent believe in chance, intelligent believe in karma, while wise believe in Divine arrangement."
According to this seems that one positions himself under the influence of karma or lila by the way he sees, and he sees according to his realization. So our vision (realization) is what puts us under the law of karma or under the mercy of the Divine arrangement.
I have some (serious) suspicion that they can also act simultaneously in an achintya way, since there is no exact border line between karma and lila... I suspect... there must be some "twilight zone" in which karma releases it's grasp of the soul so that the soul can embrace the Divine. All our efforts in spiritual direction somehow as a side effect lose the grasp of karma on us, which is a necessary step, since we need some broader level of freedom in order to be able to embrace the Divine and a complete freedom (liberation) so that our embrace to be tight and without any limitation. Our only reason for desiring liberation is to have our hands free for this embrace and our feet free to make the steps towards. We achieve this freedom (liberation) not by directly targeting it, but rather as a side effect of our strong desire to embrace Krishna.
Just a feeling.
Yamuna Dasi - September 11, 2008 11:13 am
Karma is central to Hinduism.
1. Karma explains the perpetuation of the material universe by identifying its metaphysical cause—the volitional acts
of the jivas and the subsequent reactions.
2. It functions as an explanatory hypothesis for the varied states and conditions of the jivas. In other words, it
serves as a “theodicy,” a vindication of God in view of the existence of evil.
3. It acts as a means of social control in as much as a proper reading of it says much about the nature of right livelihood for different jivas, and in conjunction with this it explains the negative impetus for spiritual practice and the cultivation of selflessness and love of God.
As it is tied to Hinduism and is thus a pre-modern concept, perhaps we could discuss it in light of present times. Is it something we have to accept on faith? Is there empirical evidence for or against it? It is also central to Buddhism, and thus it may be possible to explain it without recourse to God. Any thoughts?
Regarding your question to us Maharaj if karma has to be accepted on faith or there is empirical evidence for or against it... As I quoted in another post of mine, my favorite definition of faith is "subjective sufficiency of proofs". As we know "proof" has proven to be something quite subjective since what is an obvious proof for someone is non-obvious for others. As one of the shlokas in Vedanta Sutra says "it is obvious!", but WHAT is that which is "obvious" and to whom is it "obvious"? 
Obviously it is obvious for those who have that vision and completely non-obvious for the rest.
For me this is the real mystical achievement of any spiritual process - to make deeper truths become obvious for its practitioners while they were completely non-obvious before. This transformation of the vision is the real mystics! In order something to become "obvious" to somebody, it means that that person had already reached his own personal level of "subjective sufficiency of proofs" and from that moment on it is "obvious" for him, no matter that for the others it can seem as a “blind faith”.
I was thinking for example that already nobody doubts that the Earth is a globe. Well... but not at all! I was shocked to find forums where many people give "proofs" for the thesis of the "flat Earth" and many of these people are quite educated, not just a bunch of exotic strange guys... and serious arguments are going on in these forums. Can you imagine?
None of the tons of modern science proofs have been sufficient for these people to make it "obvious" for them that the Earth is not flat, but round.
For me this definition of faith as "subjective sufficiency of proofs" melts the border between "accepted on faith" and "proven". It also explains situations as the one mentioned above.
In this light Maharaj, my answer to your question is that it depends from the point (level) of view (realization) of the subject if he/she sees karma as a non-proven theory or as an obvious truth.
Empirical proofs of karma and reincarnation are all the huge amounts of well documented stories when somebody had revealed memories and facts from his/her previous lives which have been proven to correspond completely with the reality. I've read once a documented case of a very small girl which was in the nights getting up as in an a sleep and writing in ancient French language the letters of a French princess who lived few centuries before. The handwriting and the letters were matching! The small girl was not French and didn't even know that language, what to speak about old French, the handwriting and the content of those letters!
And there are many empirical proofs in this line.
Many people can accept the karma and reincarnation theory if they read such well documented cases, but still many will not.
Modern psychology often has to deal with and heal the quite spread problem of feeling a victim - victim of the parents in the childhood, victim of an abuse, victim of the society, victim of some blind circumstances etc. But this is a problem of the "healthy" people as well, just somehow psychology draws some unclear invisible line between those who need to be treated and healed from this "decease" and those who don't need such treatment If we look deeper into the essence of this problem, i.e. feeling to be a victim, it is a direct result of the mind not being able to trace any reasonable, logical or obvious connection between what we do and what had happen to us. Not being able to trace any logical chain, and if no such chain can be traced, then one naturally would feel a victim and will not only suffer from this extremely, but also will see no way out and respectively no hope for happiness. From this deadline I can see only two ways out - to make the person forget it and go on with his life or... to embrace the karma theory as a more valid and lasting solution. The choice of the modern psychology is making the person (patient) forget the past and move further, but it is just a temporary solution because he/she will feel again as a victim and as a sequence desperately unhappy the very next time when something bad happens to him/her where he/she would not be able to trace it's roots in anything he/she did. So this is actually not a real solution, it's very temporary and unstable. How can one live happily or even search for happiness if at every step on his/her head are dropping stones from heaven and nobody can tell him why or how to stop it? If one has to live in such a surprising, insecure, unjust and non-logical world, what could possibly motivate him to go on with his life? Just the blind hope that maybe on the next step he makes the stone will not drop on his head but on the head of the person next to him and he has to be "happy" for this surprising "luck"?
As opposing to this the karma theory can give a more stable solution to the problem of the victim. This solution is - you are not a victim of any blind chance or unjust punishment. You are the author of your faith through all of your past actions and choices, but it cannot be traced back completely since there are so many lives behind you. Action-reaction is obvious only in simple cases as hitting your head against the wall, but it's not so in the much more complicated chains of actions-reactions which happen in life. But if you can somehow see or accept that there is such a chain between action and reaction, which is not always so easy to track back completely, you can go on with your life without feeling to be a victim any more and start being more careful about your present actions taking full responsibility about them. And anytime a problem comes to you, you can see it either as a result of some past wrong action of yours or as a test and opportunity for your vision to grow. There is no growth in blaming, but there certainly is growth in changing both your vision and the quality of your actions.
This example shows that a Guru who can teach his disciple the karma theory is a better psychologist (one who deals with the soul - "psychi" of the patient/disciple) than any professional psychologist (who does not even accept the existence of the soul), who can only make the patient forget the problem, but not give a real and long lasting solution. OK, "forget about it and go on" can practically be a long-lasting practice, but is not a solution. Living in forgetfulness certainly is a practice, but not a solution.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 13, 2008 12:26 am
Another thing which is hard to explain as lila is laksmipriya leaving the world out of snakebite. I find it hard to explain to people how the controller of all material worlds will die of snake bite.
It is bewildering for most people. So karma and lila are certainly hard to explain.
Because in a higher sense even the concept of karma is for the purpose of sristi lila.
Is there any other way to understand the above incident?
Rathi Krishna Dasa - September 14, 2008 2:53 am
At the request of Prema, I am posting what I think relates to the Karma thread. I wasn't sure whether or not to add it to that thread, so I have taken the liberty to post it here. Admins, feel free to merge the threads.
On Saturday, September 6th, Dhanurdhara Maharaja gave a talk called The Psychology of Karma at the Arlington Center in Arlington, MA. The Arlington Center was founded by Chip Hartranft, who translated the Yoga-Sutras of Pantajali with commentary for Shambala Press. The lecture was organized by Boston Brahmins, a club organized by Parama Karuna and Lisa Marchand here in Boston.
The lecture was attended by about 50-60 people and was very well received. Those in attendance were amazed at the accuracy of the astrological reading by Dina Sharana and how then Maharaja tied those readings into thoughts of karma, destiny and freewill. Everyone was so respectful of Maharaja and genuinely interested in what he had to say, with many of them furiously scribbling notes during the presentation. In attendance were many professionals and highly educated people, with deep, thoughtful questions for Maharaja. Maharaja thoughtfully and carefully answered every question to the satisfaction of the questioner and true to form, found a way to sneak a joke in here and there.
At the end of the class, Maharaja casually mentioned his book Greetings From Vrindavana was available and that people could take one for whatever donation they wished to leave. We brought only 10 copies, however, every copy was gone at the end of the event. Many people came up to Maharaja thanking him for the lecture and asked for his email address for correspondence.
Here are some pictures of the event from the Boston Brahmins site.
Part of the audience.
This woman came up to Maharaja thanking him for the talk. She told Maharaja, "You may know my brother. His name is Niranjana Swami."
Boston Brahmins organizer Lisa Marchand and her boyfriend Mark talk with my godsister, Nitya Seva.
On the Boston Brahmins site, there was good feedback on the lecture, where Maharaja's presentation has received 4.5 out of 5 stars.
http://peace.meetup.com/249/calendar/8509953/
One of the comments:
What an amazing opportunity. Dhanurdhara Swami was wonderful to listen to and having my chart reading was a great experience. I learned a great deal and I'm eager for more exploration. Can't wait for the next event! Thank you.
For those interested, I filmed the event. While it is adequate at best, I won't be winning any awards.
176x144 - Good for mobile devices like cell phones, iPhones, etc. Click on the image to download (~66 MB). You may want to right-click and "save as."
480x272 - Good for computers, iPods, etc. Click on the image to download (~744 MB). You may want to right-click and "save as" as this is a big file.
Latest version of Quicktime or iTunes should open them fine. If all else fails, VLC - http://www.videolan.org/vlc/.
At the end, you will see Maharaja gesturing for me to come over. He told me I should have got a shot of the crowd, which I neglected to do. See? No awards. :Batting Eyelashes:
Swami - September 14, 2008 7:34 pm
At the request of Prema, I am posting what I think relates to the Karma thread.
I watched this. Anyone else?
Strictly speaking the "proof" suffers from a priori assumptions of reincarnation, etc. However, any proof of karma will involve finding incontrovertible evidence from research into the paranormal. So Maharaja is pointing people in the right direction by pointing them to astrology, for example. However inconsistent as evidence in support of astrology is, such evidence is nonetheless hard to turn away from unless one is biased. One could make a compelling case for astrology, as philosopher Richard Tarnas has done in his Cosmos and Psyche. Tarnas has sidestepped predictive Vedic astrology and focused on Western archetypal astrology instead, and he does not address karma per se. What he does do is make a convincing argument for a relationship between the heavens and the human psyche and thus for an intelligent universe. He's no physicalist.
Swami - September 15, 2008 2:35 am
I have recently been involved in discussing with some atheist evolutionary scientists whether there is empirical evidence for God's existence...At some point religion was deemed illogical in the context that if we hold the compilers of scriptural texts to be an intelligent class why then would they say things in an allegorical way which can be misconstrued. ie... If God were to have created the universe in a "relative" seven days then why wouldn't it have just been written as such rather than done so in the literal "7" days. It seems our scriptures have the same sort of questionable statements which can be read as either literal or allegorical.
The existence of God has not been proved empirically, nor is it reasonable to insist that it be proved empirically. As for the language of sacred texts, I do not think it fair to expect that books written centuries ago should conform to our present way of explaining anything. Furthermore poetic symbolic language may be a better medium to explain the nature of reality than logic, especially if one holds that reality transcends logic.
Swami - September 15, 2008 2:48 am
Empirical proofs of karma and reincarnation are all the huge amounts of well documented stories when somebody had revealed memories and facts from his/her previous lives which have been proven to correspond completely with the reality. I've read once a documented case of a very small girl which was in the nights getting up as in an a sleep and writing in ancient French language the letters of a French princess who lived few centuries before. The handwriting and the letters were matching! The small girl was not French and didn't even know that language, what to speak about old French, the handwriting and the content of those letters!And there are many empirical proofs in this line.
Many people can accept the karma and reincarnation theory if they read such well documented cases, but still many will not.
I think it would be an error to think that empirical proof of reincarnation amounts to proof of the doctrine of karma.
But the notion that the universe is fair runs deeply within the human psyche. While reality may not always square with that which is intuitive, it is hard to dismiss something that is so universally intuitive. I think this warrants more philosophical (not empirical) weight then some people are willing to give it.
The sense that there is meaning and purpose to life is denied by atheists, who consider those who think otherwise irrationally and emotionally needy. Dawkins cynically criticizes religious people as those capable of juggling two incompatible world-views in their daily lives: the reality of science that tells us there is no purpose to life and their religious belief that the universe has a purpose. They live, in other words, in a scientific world but deny it at the same time. Now I do not agree with that assessment and I think that atheism is only one interpretation of scientific evidence, but for the sake of argument if I agree with him, I can accuse him of more or less the same. As a an atheist Dawkins claims to have perfectly objective proof of how insignificant each of our lives is, how meaningless they are, and how the world has no purpose, yet he nonetheless invests his relationships and endeavours with a great sense of importance, which would seem to indicate that we live in a universe where we count for something. With so called overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that his life individually and humanity as a species count for next to absolutely nothing, how can he consider himself anymore rational that the religious whom he claims suffer from a cognitive dissonance in the form of believing in purposeful universe that empirical evidence denies (again, his interpretation)?
Tadiya Dasi - September 15, 2008 3:27 pm
Here's something I read and what came to my mind when I read Guru Maharaja's thoughts about Dawkins. It is a quote by Dr. Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel prize winner and "a founding father of modern quantum science") regarding the scientific world view and the meaningfulness of life:
"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 15, 2008 3:29 pm
I watched this. Anyone else?
Strictly speaking the "proof" suffers from a priori assumptions of reincarnation, etc. However, any proof of karma will involve finding incontrovertible evidence from research into the paranormal. So Maharaja is pointing people in the right direction by pointing them to astrology, for example. However inconsistent as evidence in support of astrology is, such evidence is nonetheless hard to turn away from unless one is biased. One could make a compelling case for astrology, as philosopher Richard Tarnas has done in his Cosmos and Psyche. Tarnas has sidestepped predictive Vedic astrology and focused on Western archetypal astrology instead, and he does not address karma per se. What he does do is make a convincing argument for a relationship between the heavens and the human psyche and thus for an intelligent universe. He's no physicalist.
Actually I am a skeptic with respect to astrology for the most part but sometimes they can make good guesses about your personality and that can be bewildering(as my recent experience showed). But today the problem is that there is a sea of astrologers who have very superficial knowledge of the subject. Hence it is very risky to preach using astrology exclusively unless you are sure about the astrologers credentials. Atleast in vedic astrology which is described in detail by Parasar muni the lifestyle of the astrologer has to be very brahmanical for him to make good judgments and predictions through astrology.
But Tarnas does make a good attempt in his book to link the events in the cosmos to the events in human mind.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 15, 2008 3:32 pm
Here's something I read and what came to my mind when I read Guru Maharaja's thoughts about Dawkins. It is a quote by Dr. Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel prize winner and "a founding father of modern quantum science") regarding the scientific world view and the meaningfulness of life:
"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."
Schrodinger was strongly influenced by the aphorism "tat tvam asi" and he really liked the Upanishads. Unfortunately his personal character is hardly anything to write about but still if you want you can read his book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Life%...%B6dinger)(What is life?) . It dwells on the issues about organic life.
Citta Hari Dasa - September 15, 2008 3:36 pm
They live, in other words, in a scientific world but deny it at the same time.
It seems that his assessment of the religious mindset is referring more to fundamentalists, since there are plenty of religious people who accept science while holding the belief that there is more to life than science is able to prove using the instruments it has available to it. I suppose though that Dawkins would argue that such a position is just one step removed from his original assessment and thus applies to all theists, not just fundies.
Citta Hari Dasa - September 15, 2008 3:45 pm
Furthermore poetic symbolic language may be a better medium to explain the nature of reality than logic, especially if one holds that reality transcends logic.
And the scientists who are at the forefront do hold that reality transcends logic--Einstein did (maybe that's why he read the Gita), and I'm sure others today do. After all, how is it logically possible that light can be a wave and a particle at the same time? And yet this reality is widely accepted in the scientific community. And there are, I'm sure, many more paradoxes that have been "discovered" since Einstein's day. Paradox is something every scientist has to live with, whether their logical minds like it or not.
Swami - September 15, 2008 11:53 pm
Schrodinger was strongly influenced by the aphorism "tat tvam asi" and he really liked the Upanishads. Unfortunately his personal character is hardly anything to write about but still if you want you can read his book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Life%...%B6dinger)(What is life?) . It dwells on the issues about organic life.
That's interesting. I did not know he was familiar with the Upanisads. And character is important. As I have said, are our guides animals, rational animals, or rational? Animals are not concerned with consciousness. Rational animals look for it in the brain, but true rationalists look for it in the heart. Of course some overlapping will be there.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 16, 2008 2:11 am
That's interesting. I did not know he was familiar with the Upanisads. And character is important. As I have said, are our guides animals, rational animals, or rational? Animals are not concerned with consciousness. Rational animals look for it in the brain, but true rationalists look for it in the heart. Of course some overlapping will be there.
To Schrödinger, the idea of plurality of consciousness (so clearly opposed in the Upanishads), which is widely accepted by the Western philosophers, is not meaningful. He wrote, "It leads almost immediately to the invention of souls, as many as there are bodies, and to the question whether they are mortal... Much sillier questions have been asked: Do animals also have souls? It has even been questioned whether women, or only men, have souls." He preferred to consider the so-called plurality as being a series of different aspects of one consciousness. In a subsequent note to the epilogue, Schrödinger found some comfort in similar views expressed in a book by Aldous HUXLEY 1946 Down called The Perennial Philosophy, which was published shortly afterward.
So as usual advaita appeals to a scientist
Gandiva Dasi - September 16, 2008 6:10 pm
If anyone would like to peruse this essay by Rudolph Steiner on Reincarnation and How Karma Works , I would appreciate any comments.
Swami - September 16, 2008 11:06 pm
If anyone would like to peruse this essay by Rudolph Steiner on Reincarnation and How Karma Works , I would appreciate any comments.
I think the article makes some interesting good sense points about the nature of action and reaction that are useful. I also found the sleep analogy interesting becasue Vedanta makes use of a similar argument.
The author writes, "it has been shown that the present natural-scientific mode of thought, if it but understands itself properly, leads to the ancient teaching of the evolution of the eternal human spirit through many lives." I would like to read that chapter, but from this article it is clear that the author's understanding of science is very dated, with citations of scientists dating back to 1870.
Memory is a big topic and I am not up to date on what neuroscience says about it, but it would probably have a fair amount to say in response to the author's references to memory.
It fell apart for me when he made the case for an ongoing progression of learning incarnation after incarnation and carrying of worldly wisdom into the supernatural realm.
He is obviously influenced by Vedanta and tried to make sense out of the law of karma in terms of the 20th century, as we should today within the parameters of Gaudiya siddhanta.
Prahlad Das - September 17, 2008 12:26 am
It fell apart for me when he made the case for an ongoing progression of learning incarnation after incarnation and carrying of worldly wisdom into the supernatural realm.
He is obviously influenced by Vedanta and tried to make sense out of the law of karma in terms of the 20th century, as we should today within the parameters of Gaudiya siddhanta.
It is a very nice use of the analogy of sleep.
The discussion of the sleeper in a dreamless state put forward by Du Bois-Reymond showing different levels of existence was noteable. I wonder what science does say contemporarily about the dreamless and dream state.
Perhaps we can expand on the progressive nature of our appearance. B.G. 2.40 does assert that on one certain level there is a progression of our existence, although this level is far different than worldly wisdom.
His statement, "As such he is the Eternal within the manifold incarnations. Body and Spirit confront one another. Between these two there must lie something just as memory lies between my deeds of yesterday and those of today. And this something is the soul." should read karma (?), not soul in the end. It seems he broke down soul, spirit, and body to a redundant state.
Swami - September 17, 2008 2:52 am
As to the question of bad karma being a result of a bad past or good karma being a result a good past there is a delightful Zen story.
“A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how wonderful.” But a Zen master who lives in the village says, “we shall see.” The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how awful.” The Zen master says, “We shall see.” The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, “Oh, how wonderful.” The Zen master says, “We shall see. . . .”
So it is possible that the detainees Maharaja was asked about were not suffering because of a bad past, as the questioner suggested was a possibility. Bad thing may happen to good people for good reasons. Buddha said that the law of karma could not be understood in detail.
One of the stronger scientific arguments for theism and a purposeful universe concerns the fact that our universe is very finely tuned to foster life. If it were altered by only a fraction of a fraction, life would not be here. Dawkins considered this the most formidable argument raised against atheism. With regard to karma then such a fine tuned universe would be capable, one could conjecture, of the kind of mind boggling recording of actions nuanced by degrees of intention and appropriate responses that the law of karma involves.
Of course some would call the idea that just as physical actions have physical reactions so too do moral actions have moral consequences a category error, since moral actions and physical actions are categorically different.
They would say that the law of cause-and-effect applies only to physical entities, not to abstract ethical principles and that it is a category error to think that bad actions have bad consequences just because physical actions have physical consequences.
But reframing this one could ask if it is actually a category error to equate ethics or moral principles/laws with physical laws?
Madan Gopal Das - September 17, 2008 2:59 am
I would like to read that chapter, but from this article it is clear that the author's understanding of science is very dated, with citations of scientists dating back to 1870.
This is because Rudolph Steiner himself is quite dated: 1861-1925. From a generation of very interesting people, thinking, discovery... Here is more info on him - link
Swami - September 17, 2008 3:17 am
Perhaps from inside the brain one could see karma in that fact that the neural nets of our brains are habit machines with high persistence. If you think angry thoughts for a long time you will be an angry man and color the world angry. Indeed, it will treat you angrily. We are highly connected forever with the choices we make in life.
Yamuna Dasi - September 17, 2008 11:33 am
As to the question of bad karma being a result of a bad past or good karma being a result a good past there is a delightful Zen story.
“A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how wonderful.” But a Zen master who lives in the village says, “we shall see.” The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how awful.” The Zen master says, “We shall see.” The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, “Oh, how wonderful.” The Zen master says, “We shall see. . . .”
So it is possible that the detainees Maharaja was asked about were not suffering because of a bad past, as the questioner suggested was a possibility. Bad thing may happen to good people for good reasons. Buddha said that the law of karma could not be understood in detail.
Actually it is interesting that in the Bible even though it's given a vague idea and support about karma on the simple level of action-reaction ("who draws a sward will die form a sward", "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" etc.), there is presented also a deeper understanding about karma, that not everything that happens to a person is necessarily his bad karma. There can be also other broader reasons. In other words the Bible also discusses the problem which Maharaj put "why bad things happen to good people" and that a good religious philosphy should have a good answer for it.
In the Bible this topic is clearly put in the book "Job". The conclusion after showing how bad things could happen to a good person, is that what happens to a person is not always a punishment for his previous sins or misdoings (since the book starts with "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil", so it is clearly put that he was a righteous and pios person and even though a many bad things had happen to him. The final conclusion is that there are 3 possible reasons for something (what can seem so to our vision) bad to happen - punishment, probation or for the glory of God. It seems to me that this broader vision is very close to the vasihava vision - that not everything what we see as bad is nesessary a direct consequence of the bad karma of the person, it can be also a positive test to provoke his spiritual growth or it can be part of the divine lila.
Yamuna Dasi - September 17, 2008 12:02 pm
The sense that there is meaning and purpose to life is denied by atheists, who consider those who think otherwise irrationally and emotionally needy. Dawkins cynically criticizes religious people as those capable of juggling two incompatible world-views in their daily lives: the reality of science that tells us there is no purpose to life and their religious belief that the universe has a purpose. They live, in other words, in a scientific world but deny it at the same time. Now I do not agree with that assessment and I think that atheism is only one interpretation of scientific evidence,
If we assume that Dawkins is right that the world is meaningless, then what could possibly cause the people to live meaningful lives if living in a meaningless Universe? That would be a kind of very irrational act from their side, isn't it? Such a view of the Universe (as being meaningless) is in no way motivating neither for better human life nor for maintaing the life at all.
In this way following a "rational" path Dawkins reaches a paradox - rational creatures (the human rase) living in a menaningless Universe are trying to live meaningfully by finding an irrational solution (God's existense) and this is actually their greatest achivement which distinguishes them from the animals. The paradox to which Dawkins reaches is even deeper from psychological point of view - these "irrational" for him humans who find meaning in the world's existence are able to live happily having this vision, while what happiness could possibly find a person in being put to live in a meaningless world if all his inner voice cries for meaning? This is our nature finally and Dawkins theory stands against our very nature, not being able to provide the humanity with what is its final search both as individuals and as a whole - happiness.
Yamuna Dasi - September 17, 2008 1:03 pm
Of course some would call the idea that just as physical actions have physical reactions so too do moral actions have moral consequences a category error, since moral actions and physical actions are categorically different.They would say that the law of cause-and-effect applies only to physical entities, not to abstract ethical principles and that it is a category error to think that bad actions have bad consequences just because physical actions have physical consequences.
But reframing this one could ask if it is actually a category error to equate ethics or moral principles/laws with physical laws?
We can observe in the world and get some first-hand experiences and conclusion of the validity of the claim that moral actions have moral consequences. But we need to consider also the level of the intelligence of the observer and his/her ability to draw valid conclusions.
For example if a man would leave his wife and kids because of "falling in love" with another, this other woman can either take this as a compliment for her qualities (physical, intellectual, emotional or spiritual) or she can question the qualities of the man - is he an emotionally stable person, is he responsible for the others (his wife and kids) or is he just running after his own pleasure and interests by making comparisons - who is prettier, younger, smarter, better... If a person would make such comparisons, he would never be able to be happy, because no matter what amounts of great qualities has his life partner, there will always be others who exceed her in any possible quality.
In this situation the other woman in who he had "fell in love" can either take his action as a compliment for her qualities or rather question his qualities, visions, stability and loyalty. She can also think that if he is ready to leave his wife and kids now in her favor, tomorrow he will most probably be ready to leave her for another woman.
Another example is if a person betrays the company for which he works by selling some confidential information, which he is supposed to protect, to another company, it is very little the possibility that the second company would hire such a person and give him access to confidential information since he has already proven his disposition to betraying a company and selling confidential information to competitors.
Another example: if a politician gives political promises and standards which he will follow, but when elected does not do so, the more intelligent electors would draw their conclusions and most probably will not vote for him next time.
In all the 3 examples which I gave (the woman, the second company or the electors) the other party can dismiss the validity of the performance of the person, but they will certainly assume the risk of having to suffer for this.
In this way we can see how moral actions have moral consequences, which if chosen not to be taken into direct consideration can lead to moral suffering, which from karmic point of view would be completely fair.
Even in eBay one has an open history and there exists a rating feedback system, which I am observing for years how it evolutes and gets somehow closer and closer to the idea of the perfect automatically working karma theory system :Batting Eyelashes: Every transaction between a buyer and a seller is giving the opportunity to each of them to contribute to the feedback history of the other with a verbal comment and to his rating with +1 (for positive appreciation), 0 (for neutral or none) and -1 (for negative). In case either seller or the buyer is not happy with the performance of the other party and leaves negative feedback and rating, even the act of one sided mercy or mutual forgivingness is included in this system, by giving to both the option to either one sided withdrawal of a negative feedback, or of sending a mutual withdrawal offer to the other party and if accepted then the system automatically withdraws both ratings, but leaves the verbal commentary and a note that the negative feedback has been mutually withdrawn. In this way the memory/history is kept, that it happened so it's not equal to nil, but still both parties were able to solve the problem and "forgive" each other. 
Even though till this moment the system is made to function automatically providing the close to perfect options for fairness, still it's known that such a perfection cannot be reached without an option for "higher" intervention, so behind the system there are impartial professionals... persons - mediators. If a problem cannot be solved and any of the two parties feels that the feedback received is unfair, they can refer to a mediator giving proofs and explanations and this mediator has the power to withdraw unfair feedbacks.
Also the eBay community as a whole has its very good system to protect itself by having the right to exclude unfair persons. If a seller gets 3 % negative feedback, he gets a notification and can be excluded from the community. Non serious buyers also get indefinitely suspended if making 3 times a "purchase" but not sending the payment for it to the seller. Then the seller can just file a "non-paying buyer" claim, the system returns him the selling fee which has been charged automatically and sends a note to the buyer that for 3 "non-paying buyer" claims he will be indefinitely suspended by eBay community and this will be an act of the community to protect the sellers from loses of time, money and efforts with unserious clients. Also every next seller can see the “non-paying buyer” mark at the feedback page of the client and by his decision without any explanation can dismiss him from the bidding for his item.
All this seems to me very much as a glorious effort to use the perfectly working model of the karma theory in business in regards to moral and ethics and it seems to be the best and most perfectly working business feedback model till now! Congratulations to eBay for being able to visualize and construct such a good human-made model of the karma system!
Swami - September 17, 2008 1:04 pm
The final conclusion is that there are 3 possible reasons for something (what can seem so to our vision) bad to happen - punishment, probation or for the glory of God. It seems to me that this broader vision is very close to the vasihava vision - that not everything what we see as bad is nesessary a direct consequence of the bad karma of the person, it can be also a positive test to provoke his spiritual growth or it can be part of the divine lila.
Interesting. What do you mean by "probation." Can you give an example.
Yamuna Dasi - September 17, 2008 1:37 pm
Interesting. What do you mean by "probation." Can you give an example.
Yes - probation is for example when the Devil is permitted to test the pious Job - God himself permitted the Devil to test Job's love and loyalty and his patience by causing him problems. Each time Devil was acting with the personal permission of God. These problems passed on different levels - first the Devil deprived Job of his properties, then of his dear ones (wife, sons and daughters) and finally of his own health causing him a very painful contageous decease. As especially mentioned there Job was pious so none of what happened to him was a result of his previous bad actions, but was given as a probation for his faith in God and finally set as an example for the others, as one whose faith in God is so strong that even if something “unfairly” bad comes to him, he is not fast in his conclusions that God is not merciful, but still believes that God has permitted to happen what happens for some other higher reason, which might be out of his vision as a human. And this is actually a valid conclusion for each of us, because as you mentioned Maharaj, Buddha has said that the law of karma could not be understood in detail. I understand this claim in the sense that no one can possibly trace the karma in all of its complication dating back to… anadi.
Another example of probation is when the Devil was tempting Jesus in the desert. It’s not that Jesus had some bad karma, but that the glory of the Son had to be revealed to the world, that’s why the Devil was permitted to test Him in the desert, even by quoting the Scripture – in this way it has been shown that even the Devil can quote the Scripture, but understanding it is more than just quoting it.
And an example for a decease given for "the glory of God" is the case when one man was cured by Jesus and others asked why he had this terrible decease, what sins did he commit to get it and Jesus responded to them that not always a decease is caused by a sin, it can be given as a probation or also as an opportunity to reveal God's glory as in this case - by being cured by the Son in the name of God to reveal God's power and glory.
In this way Jesus himself gave the broader explanation of why bad things sometimes happen to good people - not only as a direct punishment for some sin, but that it can be other reasons as well or a combination of these 3 reasons. And another further conclusion which one can draw out of this is that is better not to try to guess or speculate why something had happen, because we may get a wrong conclusion. Even if we cannot see the reason for something to happen, we can still believe that there is a good reason for it, even if we are not able to see it right now. This faith will help us not to revoke against God every time when we are unable to see the reason for something, but to be humble and stable in our vision that such a reason certainly exists even if hidden for me for now. Such a vision can provoke God’s mercy to us to reveal the whole situation.
Prema-bhakti - September 17, 2008 3:44 pm
I think the article makes some interesting good sense points about the nature of action and reaction that are useful. I also found the sleep analogy interesting becasue Vedanta makes use of a similar argument.
The author writes, "it has been shown that the present natural-scientific mode of thought, if it but understands itself properly, leads to the ancient teaching of the evolution of the eternal human spirit through many lives." I would like to read that chapter, but from this article it is clear that the author's understanding of science is very dated, with citations of scientists dating back to 1870.
Memory is a big topic and I am not up to date on what neuroscience says about it, but it would probably have a fair amount to say in response to the author's references to memory.
It fell apart for me when he made the case for an ongoing progression of learning incarnation after incarnation and carrying of worldly wisdom into the supernatural realm.
He is obviously influenced by Vedanta and tried to make sense out of the law of karma in terms of the 20th century, as we should today within the parameters of Gaudiya siddhanta.
Thanks Gandiva for posting Steiner. :Batting Eyelashes:
Yes, Steiner was influenced by Vedanta and had some deep spiritual insights into child development and the soul. Although he is dated and rather archaic in some of his ideas, his education theory is very holstic and therefore influential in progressive communities as well as influencing mainstream education as there are now Waldorf inspired charter schools, which are federally funded schools. His proponents have of course grappled with adjusting some of his ideas to reflect modern times.I find Waldorf education to be very compatible with our view in terms of providing children with a worldview that supports basic tenets of our philosphy like the existence of the soul, karma, etc.
BTW, Guruseva runs two Waldorf pre-schools, Gandiva is a Waldorf teacher, Madan and Gaurangi's children attend a Waldorf school, and Hari-bhakti calls Portland the "Waldorf Capital".
Gandiva Dasi - September 17, 2008 4:09 pm
I think the article makes some interesting good sense points about the nature of action and reaction that are useful. I also found the sleep analogy interesting becasue Vedanta makes use of a similar argument.
The author writes, "it has been shown that the present natural-scientific mode of thought, if it but understands itself properly, leads to the ancient teaching of the evolution of the eternal human spirit through many lives." I would like to read that chapter, but from this article it is clear that the author's understanding of science is very dated, with citations of scientists dating back to 1870.
Memory is a big topic and I am not up to date on what neuroscience says about it, but it would probably have a fair amount to say in response to the author's references to memory.
It fell apart for me when he made the case for an ongoing progression of learning incarnation after incarnation and carrying of worldly wisdom into the supernatural realm.
He is obviously influenced by Vedanta and tried to make sense out of the law of karma in terms of the 20th century, as we should today within the parameters of Gaudiya siddhanta.
Thank you Maharaj and others for your comments. It's interesting, this essay is from 1903.
This is my second year teaching in a Steiner Kindergarten, and I'll be studying his writings and methodolgy for the next 2 years doing my Waldorf Training so I really appreciate the feedback. His emphasis on science always reminds me of Srila Prabhupada's emphasis on the Science of Bhakti Yoga. Yes when he starts talking about remembering past incarnations and progressing through human forms it gets fuzzy for me, and in other writings things he attributes to angels or celestial beings for me seem more to refer to Supersoul.
This is what he says in the appendix about making this knowlegde relevant;
©: There may be many people today who wish to inform themselves quickly about the teachings of spiritual science. They will find it very bothersome if we first present to them explicitly the natural-scientific facts in a light that will make them serve as the basis upon which an anthroposophical view may be erected. They say: we wish to hear something about spiritual science, but you give us natural-scientific facts which every educated person knows. This is an objection which shows very clearly how little our contemporaries are inclined to think seriously. In reality, those who make the above statement know nothing at all about the far-reaching consequences of their knowledge. The astronomer knows nothing about the consequences of astronomy, the chemist nothing about those of chemistry, and so forth. There is no salvation for them but to be modest and to listen quietly when they are shown that, because of the superficiality of their thinking, they know nothing at all about that which in their conceit they believe they have completely exhausted. — And even anthroposophists often believe that it is unnecessary to prove the convictions of karma and reincarnation by means of the findings of natural science. They do not know that this is the task of the human groups to which the inhabitants of Europe and America belong; and that without this basis the members of these groups cannot truly attain to spiritual-scientific insight. Whoever wishes merely to repeat what he hears from the great Teachers of the East, cannot become an anthroposophist within the European-American culture.
Prema-bhakti - September 17, 2008 4:22 pm
Here is a link to a book of lectures of Steiner called, Reincarnationa and Karma published in 2001. Herbert Hagen's introduction is very relevant addressing questions like, "To what extent can the truth of reincarnation and karma actually penetrate modern culture? Will people conduct themselves as though they were convinced that they lived on earth before and that they will be born again into a human body in the future? Such critical issues as birth control, abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia ignite the hottest political passions, but the debate excludes any mention of karmic consequences. What if poets and priests, scientists and philosophers, artists and doctors were to examine these burning questions in the light of reincarnation and karma? Can we begin to imagine how the resulting insights would affect the course of human history."
http://books.google.com/books?id=HUkwheEHa...rnation#PPP1,M1
Reincarnation and Karma By Rudolf Steiner, Herbert Hagens, D.S. Osmond, C. Davy, E. F. Derry
Rudolf Steiner introduced detailed, scientific knowledge of reincarnation and karma to the West. He gave concrete descriptions of the metamorphoses of individuals in the course of successive incarnations and specific examples of the working of karma, as well as practical exercises for experiencing the reality of reincarnation. He believed that experiencing the reality of successive earth lives would form the basis for true spiritual knowledge of the relationship of human beings and the cosmos.
These talks contain some of Steiner's most important teachings on reincarnation and karma. He gives examples and exercises that can lead to direct knowledge of the laws of reincarnation and karma. Included are:
-- How to get direct perception of the part of our being that passes through many lives on earth
-- How to develop a "feeling memory", which is necessary before direct experience of reincarnation is possible
-- Thought exercises for gaining knowledge of reincarnation and karma
-- Examples of the working of karma between two incarnations
-- How knowledge of reincarnation and karma affects our moral life
Yamuna Dasi - September 17, 2008 9:40 pm
Here is a link to a book of lectures of Steiner called, Reincarnationa and Karma published in 2001.
-- How to get direct perception of the part of our being that passes through many lives on earth
Interesting. Did somebody personally try these exercises and experienced the results of getting direct perception of the part of our being that passes through many lives on earth?
Premanandini - September 18, 2008 10:49 pm
I remember to have heard (dont recall exactly from whom - but vaisnava) that as kali - yuga is so degraded there is bad karma only to actions and not to thoughts.
then again i heard that there is karma to thoughts -words - and actions
as explaination why at Ajamils death bed 3 yamadutas appeared it is said, that they came because he committed sinful acts in thoughts, words and actions.
anyone can clarify on this?
what would be a karmic reaction of bad thoughts?
will karmic reactions of bad/good thoughts always come back as thoughts?
karmic reactions of words always come back as words?
and karmic reactions of actions always come back as actions?
or are and if/how are they interacting with each other?
Swami - September 24, 2008 4:21 am
I remember to have heard (dont recall exactly from whom - but vaisnava) that as kali - yuga is so degraded there is bad karma only to actions and not to thoughts.
then again i heard that there is karma to thoughts -words - and actions
as explaination why at Ajamils death bed 3 yamadutas appeared it is said, that they came because he committed sinful acts in thoughts, words and actions.
anyone can clarify on this?
what would be a karmic reaction of bad thoughts?
will karmic reactions of bad/good thoughts always come back as thoughts?
karmic reactions of words always come back as words?
and karmic reactions of actions always come back as actions?
or are and if/how are they interacting with each other?
The law of karma is considered a natural but subtle law of cause and effect that governs the moral realm (psychic) and in turn causes the cosmos (physical) to act. Thus karma makes the world go round and round.
You ask about the intricacies of this moral law. Earlier I mentioned that Buddha said that it is difficult to sort out the details. Sri Krsna says pretty much the same thing, kim karma kim akarmeti kavayo ‘py atra mohitah, “What is karma and what is not karma is bewildering.” (also translated what is action and what is inaction. . .). But the fact is that in the Gita the doctrine of karma is explained only in the broadest yet essential terms: action based on attachment to the results is binding; detached action is liberating. As Vedantists, this is our concern. More detailed knowledge of the intricacies of karma are spoken of in the Dharma sastras, and as Vedantists, and more so devotees, we are not particularly concerned with these details, sarva dharman parityaja mam eakm saranam . . .
This is not to say that we are unconcerned with moral life but that we understand that moral life has value only in as much as it serves to promote inner spiritual life. This then is a dynamic idea of ethical living, which is so desirable since morals principles translate into moral practice or moral laws in consideration of time and circumstance. What was once moral may be immoral in the future. This does not mean that morality is entirely relative. No, in principle it is essential to the culture of inner life, but what it constitutes in terms of details may change as the world changes. As new circumstances and information present themselves the principle of ethical living will be dynamically interpreted to fulfill the spirit of moral law.
As devotees our main concern is not with karma. We accept that it functions in some precise way that is incomprehensible. As I mentioned earlier, material nature is so fine tuned that it can compute every nuance of intention tied to action and then respond accordingly. Who could possibly explain in detail how the world-mind will respond in each and every instance? Moralist of Dharma sastra have spoken about its details and we are free to go with those statements or to be skeptical about them, for we know that Dharma sastra is concerned with controlling people and speaks acordingly, whereas Vedanta is concerned with freedom, and freedom from moral constraints by way of removing attachment from the heart. The Vedantist is moral only for the sake of creating a favorable environment for spiritual practice or for the sake of setting an example for others, and the same holds true for the devotee, who’s moral life has little to do with karma. The devotee’s morality is determined by that which is favorable or unfavorable for bhakti. Saranagatas rise above karma.
So we accept in principle what the moralists of Hinduism have said about karma. We take the essence of this: our morality is ontologically anchored in the Absolute and in relation to our approach to the Godhead. And we believe that actions and the thoughts and intentions that precede them have consequences that can follow immediately in their entirety, or partially now and partially later, or in their entirety at later date, even after long periods of time (lifetimes). We believe it intuitively and we believe it because revelation has stated it. We also believe it based upon our experience and by logical extension of that experience.
Our experience is that, just as sastra says, sattva begets happiness, etc. In other words our experience is that virtue brings good results in that it fosters inner fulfillment and clarity regardless of the outer result, and that vice leaves one unfulfilled and hollow within and deluded regardless of the outer result; the former causes consciousness to expand and the latter causes it to contract. By extension, because we know from our experience of sadhana that we are eternal, we know that the consequences of one’s actions that do not appear to bear fruit in this life have time catch up to one—to follow one into the next life and thereby inform that life.
Can we prove the existence of karma empirically? It seems not to date. But the larger issue here is the extent to which we think it is necessary to do so in order for karma to exist. This is the huge mistake Western civilization has burdened us with: the deification of reason to the extent that reason itself is not allowed to be used to question its own veracity and jurisdiction; the dogma of reason. We must rise in Yeats's words, to the "revolt of the soul against the intellect," without which life has no meaning at all and there is really no point in demanding proof for anything.
What grounds do we have for accepting reason as ultimate arbiter, if not blind faith in reason itself? If, as we should, we apply the method of doubt to reason itself, the whole edifice of a reason based reality collapses. How can we justify a commitment to reason in the name of reason? The import here is that however we proceed in the direction of comprehensive knowledge we will have to accept on faith at least one thing as an unquestioned assumption, a metaphysical presupposition, a fundamental foundation; and if this is not God, then it will have to be reason or something else. Albert Einstein put it thus:
“During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. ... The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. ... mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate fundamental ends. [ These ends] come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities.”
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 24, 2008 3:01 pm
Something more about evolution and God.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html
What do devotees think about his arguments?
Swami - September 24, 2008 4:51 pm
Something more about evolution and God.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html
What do devotees think about his arguments?
The gentleman said, "Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,” he writes in the new book. “It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical."
This is true.
I think the idea that an intelligence behind the world that brings design and order to it is responsible for what may be perceived as design flaws and thereby not divine or perfect is itself a flawed notion. Hitchens has said something like "What kind of designer is it hat creates a world in which the sun burns out and everyone goes up in flames?." From our perspective this world is fatally flawed but it works perfectly in terms of what it is designed to do. There is no machine that remotely compares to nature in complexity or working order, but it is a machine with limitations. Above all perhaps she keeps people guessing as to how she works and seems to always be several steps ahead of those bent on catching her for their own purposes.
Yamuna Dasi - September 24, 2008 5:23 pm
Regarding the topic of evolution versus creation, my favourite remains Chesterton and his great book "The Everlasting Man". His profoundness and fresh sence of humour are unbeatable in dealing with the topic of Evolution.
Enjoy! 
"So long as you begin with a long word like evolution the rest will roll harmlessly past... Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution... There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.
But this notion of something smooth and slow, like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air, in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided, or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things... the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman travelling for the first time in a motor-car."
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 24, 2008 8:05 pm
The gentleman said, "Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,” he writes in the new book. “It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical."
This is true.
I think the idea that an intelligence behind the world that brings design and order to it is responsible for what may be perceived as design flaws and thereby not divine or perfect is itself a flawed notion. Hitchens has said something like "What kind of designer is it hat creates a world in which the sun burns out and everyone goes up in flames?." From our perspective this world is fatally flawed but it works perfectly in terms of what it is designed to do. There is no machine that remotely compares to nature in complexity or working order, but it is a machine with limitations. Above all perhaps she keeps people guessing as to how she works and seems to always be several steps ahead of those bent on catching her for their own purposes.
I would like to say something against his assertion that science and religion are completely nonoverlapping as there is philosophy behind a lot of science too which is reductionistic in its assertion. Also I have problems with the claim of some scientists that there was no information existent in the universe and things randomly emerge in it through trial and error. I think like information of the tree is contained in the seed there should be some information about the emergence of nature present in nature in the first place. I think data interpretation in science crosses the legitimate boundaries. The imperfection here is needed as an impetus for a conscious living entity to question and rise towards perfection: perfection in his consciousness. But scientists like Dawkins strongly assert that there is no information inherent in nature or the universe but everything is randomly emerging out of it.
Citta Hari Dasa - September 24, 2008 9:25 pm
But scientists like Dawkins strongly assert that there is no information inherent in nature or the universe but everything is randomly emerging out of it.
This seems completely illogical to me: how can order arise out of randomness? To my way of thinking there has to be information inherent in nature for complex forms that consistently follow predictable patterns (like trees) to exist. But that's just me.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 24, 2008 9:40 pm
This seems completely illogical to me: how can order arise out of randomness? To my way of thinking there has to be information inherent in nature for complex forms that consistently follow predictable patterns (like trees) to exist. But that's just me.
dawkins will say that random possibility is low but it has happened on earth which is super small fraction of the universe so the probability stays low.
Yamuna Dasi - September 24, 2008 11:37 pm
Something more about evolution and God.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html
What do devotees think about his arguments?
I think that he contradicts himself.
He speaks against the arguments of creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design, and at the same time that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. But this contradicts the very idea of what God is, because I know no religion which does not define God as the Creator and the Designer of the world. In this way he gives a new definition of God, depriving Him of His role of Creator and Designer of the world, so his "god" is something that no religion in this world would recognize as God.
His logic is quite superficial, populistic and uses quite many formal logic arguments and double standards.
For example saying that "If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for". He has a lot to account for to who? To humanity? What did humanity do to prove that God owes it an account? Someone superior does not owe account to someone inferior. What kind of an immense pride must one have to say this statement?
Another example: He says that at least 20 % of the pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion and if that results from divinely inspired anatomy, then God is the greatest abortionist of them all.
If the anatomy could be divinely inspired, this does not mean that the way humans use it is also divinely inspired. All main religions believe in the free will.
Also if the fall of the hair, the growth and cutting of the nails or the menstrual cycle is not seen as something bad, why should the spontaneous abortion be seen as something bad or unnatural and God to be blamed for it? The word “abortion” bears a negative meaning and sounding only in regards to humans performing it deliberately for some wrong reasons. So professor Ayala uses in very tendentious and manipulative way the negative sounding of the word “abortion” when trying to accuse God for a natural process, without touching the real topic, that abortion is broadly practiced by the human race and only by it as a way to cheat the nature and avoid the natural result of sexual activity – birth giving and child racing. This makes not God the biggest abortionist, but the humanity, giving it one more price – “The Only One”. No other specie of life uses any kind of contraception or any other way of avoiding pregnancy or interrupting pregnancy by abortion than the humans.
Another example: He sees as "sadism" of God that some parasites live by devouring their hosts or the female midges fertilizing their eggs by consuming their mates' genitals along with their other parts, but does not see the same way the followers of the evolutionist theory consuming genitals and other parts of nearly any kind of living entity, considering it "delicacy". Quite a double standard of judging and quite a manipulative use of the sentiments of the broad public. If one settles as a moral standard that eating other living creatures is unmoral, he should apply this same moral standard to human beings as well and especially to them, since being of the highest level of intelligence it is more expected by them to follow it than of any other living entity of a lower intelligence.
He says that if we accept God as a Creator, "then he is a sadist, he certainly does odd things and he is a lousy engineer". I would say that if professor Francisco Ayala or any evolutionist theory supporter eats meat, he is a sadist, does odd things and is a lousy engineer for participating in engineering a frame for God's morality in which they themselves don't fit. Consider also that it’s not God who eats living entities.
Also if he considers the human being as the highest pick of evolution, what makes him highest if he does not have morals higher than those of the parasites?
And the final contradiction or rather to say a trick to avoid obvious contradictions is that professor Ayala would not say whether he remains a religious believer by explaining "I don't want to be tagged by one side or by other". Interesting that he personally very readily tags himself as "evolutionist", "scientist", "non-denying God", "professor", "married person" and "wine lover", but is so carefully avoiding to tag himself as a believer or non-believer. Again quite a double standard regarding tagging disposition.
These are my remarks regarding the way he defends his theses.
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 25, 2008 6:05 am
We've had a few discussions regarding evolutionary theory on this board previously so I won't repeat what has already been said. My opinion of Dr. Ayala is that he is a good scientist and that his basic premise that science and religion are dealing with different 'non-overlapping' subjects is correct. While both seek truth and discovery, one does so by means of hypothesis, experimentation and observation while the other does so by means of a descending process whereby the practicioners are informed of basic truths and the means of knowing them beyond logic reason and argument.
I agree with Dr. Ayala that evolutionary theory is far and away the only explanation of how life appeared in all it's diversity on earth with sound scientific backing and as such the only one worthy of being taught in science classes. If one goes deeper into scientific study then they can pursue the nuances and they will be well aware of the fact that there are many mysteries that science has yet to answer within the physical world - but that doesn't negate the large body of evidence that supports evolutionary theory, it simply means that not all evidence is available, but that what evidence is available overwhelmingly supports the theory.
He is also quite correct that one can accept evolutionary theory and be well informed regarding the evidence and still be a spiritualist. From what I have read, most Catholics accept evolutionary theory and see it merely as the way God chose to create. We have already discussed the fact that evolutionary theory isn't inconsistent with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
Yamuna Dasi - September 25, 2008 9:00 am
As a continuation to my previous post, which was a response to the question of Gaura-Vijaya Prabhu how do we find the arguments of Dr Ayala, I would like to add that great scientists like Einstein and others had no problem to “tag” themselves as “believers” and “religious” and this makes them even greater personalities and no lesser scientists. Because their arguments and ways to defend their scientific discoveries are not based on blaming God that if He has to be accepted as The Designer and The Creator of the material world, then he is the biggest criminal (being “the greatest abortionist”) , “lousy engineer” and has a “lot to account for” and then “generously” vindicating Him, presenting the “only truly scientific theory” which could possibly vindicate God - i.e. the evolutionary theory, but the condition for this vindication is that God has to voluntarily denounce His position of being The Designer and The Creator. In this way Dr. Ayala is directly accusing religions in not giving the right picture of the reality - who God is and what has He done.
This is exactly what I don't like and accept in Dr Ayala's way and style of defending his belief in the evolutionary theory and I am glad that he calls it “belief” because this maybe shows that he is aware and admits that there are a lot of missing links in it as well. This is rather a populistic and political way of using eloquence and formal logic, not a really scientific way to defend a scientific theory. One does not have to blame God and vindicate Him after in order to prove that he is a good scientist or that the evolutionary theory is a serious scientific theory which does not necessarily exclude God. One does not need to deprive God of His role as The Designer and The Creator of the Universe in order to leave place for the evolutionary theory to be a valid one. One just has to place each of them at their right place - God as the Designer and the Creator who has given the free space and free will to his creations so that they can also evolve, both biologically and spiritually. It's that simple. But such simplicity is rather a humble one and not as glorious and “revolutionary” as it is to accuse God and then vindicate and “save” Him from your own accusations.
I can understand that Dr. Ayala's idea was to win the believers for the idea of evolution (by the way Einstein did so by “tagging” himself as a “believer”), but I think that he would better achieve this goal by the simple way mentioned above - leave God's position as The Designer and The Creator untouched and just show that there is still a good space for the evolution and those who believe in it in this picture. What seems to be the problem of the evolutionists is that they cannot breathe without the idea of “complete independence”, which means by necessity - no God in the picture. They just cannot swallow the idea of somebody else starting this process (of evolution), maintaining it and observing it. They feel much more comfortable if the process had started somehow “by itself”, gets maintained “automatically”, “naturally” and “by itself” and nobody is observing it except them.
This sounds so childish.
But for the sake of the personal comfort God provides this option as well, introducing into the picture only one more feature/personality - Maha Maya, the Great Illusion, who gives the souls the illusionary comfort which they desire rejecting the validity of the true comfort of a reality which includes God. Free will, free consciousness and free space for it to evolve...
One day they can discover that the kind of comfort they desired and had chosen is not as comfortable as it seemed and they can go on with their search for a more comfortable comfort... discovering that apart from the mental comfort there is also a need for emotional comfort and that a better comfort should serve both aspects... till one day eventually they may reach the shore of the real one... this is indeed evolutionary, involving also the presupposed speed of the process of evolution - i.e. as slow as being practically invisible for the eye.
We all do support the evolutionist theory by inevitably or voluntarily participating and acting on the divinely designed and created stage for the evolution to happen...
If I have to choose between being a victim or being a volunteer, I prefer the volunteer. At least it feels better as a sentiment, as space given and as an act of free will executed.
Yamuna Dasi - September 25, 2008 11:33 am
My opinion of Dr. Ayala is that he is a good scientist and that his basic premise that science and religion are dealing with different 'non-overlapping' subjects is correct.
It seems to me that Dr. Ayala is only stating that science and religion are dealing with different 'non-overlapping' subjects, but what he does practically is constantly overlapping the main thesis of all religions - that God is The Designer and The Creator of the world. If he has to be sincere follower of what he said regarding different 'non-overlapping' subjects, he should not have touched the topic of God since God is neither an object nor a subject of the evolutionist theory. This would have made it fair. But Dr. Ayala is basing most of his evolutionist statements and proofs involving God and playing the action game of accusing Him and then vindicating Him by using the evolutionist theory. In this way he is the one who contradicts himself - if indeed his basic premise is that science and religion are dealing with different 'non-overlapping' subjects, then why is he all the time using God into his presentations of "proofs" for the evolutionist theory and why is he constantly discussing actually religious, not scientific topics?
Actually there is nothing wrong if the different sciences are overlapping each other because the object of all the sciences’ research is a common one - the reality as it is. Actually they are by necessity overlapping each other in their strive to give a more complete picture of the world. The same way are the different Hindu Scriptures overlapping each other (narrating for multiple times the same story in different ways and from different angles, narrating it more briefly or in a more detailed way) in order to describe the whole story more completely. The same way are the 4 Gospels overlapping each other depicting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from 4 different subjective points of view. There is nothing wrong in sincere overlapping. What is wrong is if someone claims non-overlapping while constantly doing the opposite.
Dr. Alaya is not only overlapping while claiming the opposite, he reaches much further. He acts as a smart and tricky politician in pursuing his goals - using God in his play in order to make his performance and presentations popular since God is a popular Personality, while denying the opportunity for even presentation of the other side along with his own presentation, not necessarily as a part of it. As the article says “usually he preaches to the converted”. Why? Because they are the broader public. He wants the stage only for himself and for his performance of defense of the evolutionist theory. If he is really leaving room for God in his support of the evolutionist theory, why wouldn't he leave place for a presentation of God along with his own presentation of the evolutionist theory? He wants the evolutionist theory to be taught and preached, but he rejects the option of religious aspect being taught and preached in a parallel way to the evolutionist theory by giving eloquent reasons as “We don’t teach alchemy along with chemistry. We don’t teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don’t teach astrology with astronomy.” What is the underlying message and parallel? That religion compared to evolutionist theory relays as alchemy to chemistry, witchcraft to medicine and astrology to astronomy. This is the idea of such a statement. What an amazing allegory in favor of course of evolutionist theory over religion.
Yes, he does not want religion to overlap his presentations and speeches, but he constantly overlaps religion and tries to put on their knees both God and religion to bow down to his great presentation of evolutionist theory. He claims that he had yet to encounter a challenge he could not meet, but he is challenged by the sincerity and reality - that he acts rather as a politic than as a scientist and all over contradicts himself on every step.
He always uses “God” and “religion” as a powerful presentation for himself, his lectures and the titles of his books or even the title of the article in NY Times - "Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God", in which he involves God but only for the purpose of using His popularity for his own populistic purposes. I cannot see Dr Ayala as a “Defender of Room for God” if he is not ready to allow any room for presentation of God even as parallel to his own presentations of the evolutionist theory. If he indeed considers them “non-overlapping” what would be the problem for a parallel presentation? In this way he would have all the moral rights to have the religious public as his public as well, not as he is doing now – promoting that he is a “defender of room for God” and then leaving no room for Him at all at this presentations, except of using His name for his own purposes.
He announces that in June he will give a talk on wine and health, but then smilingly says "I will not be talking much about health". So he just used the word "health" in promoting his public speech, but then says that he will actually not speak about health.
Charming, isn't it? What a fresh sense of humor... to invite public by stating that he will speak on two topics, but then jokingly informing that he would actually speak on one. Obviously he considers the topic of the wine more important for the evolution of humanity than the topic of health, but still he uses the more broad public interest in health rather than in wine in order to gather public for his presentation… actually on wine and the grapes for it which he is producing as a family business.
In the very same way he uses God and religion into the titles for his presentations, but then rather speaks against God and religion, using their name and fame only for the purpose of marketing and gathering public.
He also says that equating science with the abandonment of religion “fits the prejudices” of advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas. What does he actually say with this statement is that the "advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas" i.e. those who believe in God and follow religion, actually have "prejudices". In other words that they are deluded prejudiced people. But still they form the majority of the humanity and he wants this majority as his public.
But who actually is equating science with the abandonment of religion? All religious people are just using most of the inventions of science and technology and don't consider them contrary to their religious beliefs. Also many scientists publicly declare themselves as religious people who believe in God and follow certain religion or spiritual practice and this does not make them either enemies of science. So who then puts equation between science and abandonment of religion? Seems that this is again a marketing trick of Dr. Ayala for sounding more eloquent when defending science from the attacks of the religion... just the same glorious action strategy which he uses in defending God against his own blames towards Him being "sadist", "greatest abortionist" and a "lousy engineer". Invent a war, bravely fight in it and gloriously win it... What an amazing marketing Superman promoting strategy!
Yes, people who believe in God and follow religion do have prejudices towards those who run after name and fame using any kind of tricks, or to put it more scientifically "marketing strategy", to get it. Unfortunately by all written above Dr. Ayala inevitably fits this description completely.
And in order to end in a positive way I would refer to the written before:
One does not need to deprive God of His role as The Designer and The Creator of the Universe in order to leave place for the evolutionary theory to be a valid one. One just has to place each of them at their right place - God as the Designer and the Creator who has given the free space and free will to his creations so that they can also evolve in any aspect – biologically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 25, 2008 1:51 pm
It seems to me that Dr. Ayala is only stating that science and religion are dealing with different 'non-overlapping' subjects, but what he does practically is constantly overlapping the main thesis of all religions - that God is The Designer and The Creator of the world. If he has to be sincere follower of what he said regarding different 'non-overlapping' subjects, he should not have touched the topic of God since God is neither an object nor a subject of the evolutionist theory. This would have made it fair. But Dr. Ayala is basing most of his evolutionist statements and proofs involving God and playing the action game of accusing Him and then vindicating Him by using the evolutionist theory. In this way he is the one who contradicts himself - if indeed his basic premise is that science and religion are dealing with different 'non-overlapping' subjects, then why is he all the time using God into his presentations of "proofs" for the evolutionist theory and why is he constantly discussing actually religious, not scientific topics?
Actually there is nothing wrong if the different sciences are overlapping each other because the object of all the sciences’ research is a common one - the reality as it is. Actually they are by necessity overlapping each other in their strive to give a more complete picture of the world. The same way are the different Hindu Scriptures overlapping each other (narrating for multiple times the same story in different ways and from different angles, narrating it more briefly or in a more detailed way) in order to describe the whole story more completely. The same way are the 4 Gospels overlapping each other depicting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from 4 different subjective points of view. There is nothing wrong in sincere overlapping. What is wrong is if someone claims non-overlapping while constantly doing the opposite.
Dr. Alaya is not only overlapping while claiming the opposite, he reaches much further. He acts as a smart and tricky politician in pursuing his goals - using God in his play in order to make his performance and presentations popular since God is a popular Personality, while denying the opportunity for even presentation of the other side along with his own presentation, not necessarily as a part of it. As the article says “usually he preaches to the converted”. Why? Because they are the broader public. He wants the stage only for himself and for his performance of defense of the evolutionist theory. If he is really leaving room for God in his support of the evolutionist theory, why wouldn't he leave place for a presentation of God along with his own presentation of the evolutionist theory? He wants the evolutionist theory to be taught and preached, but he rejects the option of religious aspect being taught and preached in a parallel way to the evolutionist theory by giving eloquent reasons as “We don’t teach alchemy along with chemistry. We don’t teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don’t teach astrology with astronomy.” What is the underlying message and parallel? That religion compared to evolutionist theory relays as alchemy to chemistry, witchcraft to medicine and astrology to astronomy. This is the idea of such a statement. What an amazing allegory in favor of course of evolutionist theory over religion.
Yes, he does not want religion to overlap his presentations and speeches, but he constantly overlaps religion and tries to put on their knees both God and religion to bow down to his great presentation of evolutionist theory. He claims that he had yet to encounter a challenge he could not meet, but he is challenged by the sincerity and reality - that he acts rather as a politic than as a scientist and all over contradicts himself on every step.
He always uses “God” and “religion” as a powerful presentation for himself, his lectures and the titles of his books or even the title of the article in NY Times - "Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God", in which he involves God but only for the purpose of using His popularity for his own populistic purposes. I cannot see Dr Ayala as a “Defender of Room for God” if he is not ready to allow any room for presentation of God even as parallel to his own presentations of the evolutionist theory. If he indeed considers them “non-overlapping” what would be the problem for a parallel presentation? In this way he would have all the moral rights to have the religious public as his public as well, not as he is doing now – promoting that he is a “defender of room for God” and then leaving no room for Him at all at this presentations, except of using His name for his own purposes.
He announces that in June he will give a talk on wine and health, but then smilingly says "I will not be talking much about health". So he just used the word "health" in promoting his public speech, but then says that he will actually not speak about health.
Charming, isn't it?
In the very same way he uses God and religion into the titles for his presentations, but then rather speaks against God and religion, using their name and fame only for the purpose of marketing and gathering public.
He also says that equating science with the abandonment of religion “fits the prejudices” of advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas. What does he actually say with this statement is that the "advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas" i.e. those who believe in God and follow religion, actually have "prejudices". In other words that they are deluded prejudiced people. But still they form the majority of the humanity and he wants this majority as his public.
But who actually is equating science with the abandonment of religion? All religious people are just using most of the inventions of science and technology and don't consider them contrary to their religious beliefs. Also many scientists publicly declare themselves as religious people who believe in God and follow certain religion or spiritual practice and this does not make them either enemies of science. So who then puts equation between science and abandonment of religion? Seems that this is again a marketing trick of Dr. Ayala for sounding more eloquent when defending science from the attacks of the religion... just the same glorious action strategy which he uses in defending God against his own blames towards Him being "sadist", "greatest abortionist" and a "lousy engineer". Invent a war, bravely fight in it and gloriously win it... What an amazing marketing Superman promoting strategy!
Yes, people who believe in God and follow religion do have prejudices towards those who run after name and fame using any kind of tricks, or to put it more scientifically "marketing strategy", to get it. Unfortunately by all written above Dr. Ayala inevitably fits this description completely.
And in order to end in a positive way I would refer to the written before:
One does not need to deprive God of His role as The Designer and The Creator of the Universe in order to leave place for the evolutionary theory to be a valid one. One just has to place each of them at their right place - God as the Designer and the Creator who has given the free space and free will to his creations so that they can also evolve in any aspect – biologically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually.
I think people should know that Einstein rejected the belief in the Judeo Christian personal god strongly. He was pantheist like Sphinoza so it is good not to make him a tool to prove some point unnecessarily. Also his personal life is also not exceptional though he was not proud of that
Yamuna Dasi - September 25, 2008 1:54 pm
How could someone write sincerely books about evolution and at the same time not deny that speaking or writing about God or other topics could still be more important for humanity than the theory of evolution which he is defending? By following the example set by the author of “Kama Sutra”, who starts his writing with “Glorified to be the four goals of human life – dharma, artha, kama and moksha” and then explaining them in their descending order, stating that actually kama is the lowest and most insignificant of all these four topics, being subordinate to all of them, but still it will be the topic of his writing because it exists and people should know about it.
This is really a sincere and humble approach to a relatively insignificant topic!
Dr. Alaya can learn a lot from the author of Kama Sutra regarding true humility and sincerity, even when one dedicates his life to a research of a relatively minor importance. This balanced view of what is what and where it is in the scale of life and reality is what makes an author and a researcher really glorious, no matter how small his contribution would be or how small and insignificant from global point of view the topic or the realm of his research is.
“Kama Sutra” remains a great book through the centuries and stands its position as Sutra among the rest of Holy Scriptures, because its author never tried to present the topic of his work as more important than it really is in comparison to all the other Scriptures and the topics dealt in them.
If Dr. Ayala could show such a deep vision and could present the evolution theory in its correct context and relation to God and religion, he can gain more sincere and lasting fame than the one which he strives for now.
Yamuna Dasi - September 25, 2008 2:36 pm
I think people should know that Einstein rejected the belief in the Judeo Christian personal god strongly. He was pantheist like Sphinoza so it is good not to make him a tool to prove some point unnecessarily. Also his personal life is also not exceptional though he was not proud of that
Thank you for this information! I really did not know these facts and was quoting his name just as a name of scientist who (as I thought due to his name being present in a strange way at the back cover of “BG As It Is”) was not denying his religious inclinations and still is a famous scientist, as many others also do. But indeed if the facts are so I have to be more careful in quoting his name in this respect.
Actually it always seemed to me quite strange, and even a kind of absurd, why had the disciples of Shrila Prabhupad printed his "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" with a quote from Einstein at its back cover, exactly below the quote from Shrila Prabhupad, if the essence of Einstein’s quote is actually not supportive for Gita in any way except the mere fact that he had read it and is a famous person. This does not seem enough for me for his name and quote being there.
I don't have in English "BG As It Is" here with me, so I will translate the quote from Bulgarian to English. (If someone has the book please post the exact quote in its original sounding in English.)
"While reading Bhagavad-Gita, the only question which remains is how God is creating the universe. All the rest seems not that important."
Am I the only one who sees this as funny, ridiculous and not supportive neither for Gita nor for Einstein's level of understanding of Gita? Or is it a bad translation into Bulgarian?
If after reading Gita one would say this, he did not get any idea of what Gita is all about. If one after reading Gita remains with the only curiosity of how the world was created and considers all the rest unimportant, his reading of Gita seems just a miracle to me.
Actually the answer to Einstein's question of how God creates the universe could be either a longer or a shorter version, the shortest one being "miraculously" or maybe “achintya” if he would speak Sanskrit. (even though as I know that “achintya” means “inconceivable”, I decided to use it rather than a direct and more precise translation of “miraculous” in Sanskrit… actually the truth is that I have no idea how is “miraculous” in Sanskrit…)
The shortest version is the only version which targets the very core of Einstein’s question – “how”. The broader versions of this reply would involve a succession of events none of each following the previous one in a logical (I mean humanly logical) or caused by pure necessity order, so they will just depict the process more or less allegorically, but without responding the deepest core of Einstein’s question – “why”. Most probably they would have left him deeply unsatisfied, which makes it a real good luck that he did not read Bhagavatam, where his question of “how” is described in more details for those who had been so fortunate to be able to accept the shortest version of “miraculous” or “achintya” first.
It’s maybe really a good luck that Einstein didn’t read Bhagavatam (both for Einstein and for Bhagavatam), because I am afraid even to think of what could he comment after reading it if he commented Gita like this.
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 25, 2008 2:47 pm
I think it is a stretch to characterize Dr. Ayala's goal as being fame in his endeavor. He is a scientist and he is defending science against non-scientific ideas that are being pushed as scientific and being championed by 'believers' as science and worthy of being taught to students in a purely academic setting. It should be obvious why he brings God into his presentation. It is not because the theory of evolution needs to be proven by such examples - on the contrary, the only reason for this way of speaking is that he is simply trying to show how simplistic and un-scientific the ideas of creationism or intelligent design are. You can nit pick his examples but I believe the overall idea is quite valid and needs to be expressed. Humanity must move away from superstition or 'belief' when it isn't supported by facts. Believers had to deal with moving away from the flat earth idea and most have moved on from creation happening some six thousand years ago or whatever the christian fundamentalists 'believe' because it is in the bible. I think most have moved on long ago from the idea that disease is caused by demonic possession as well.
I don't see anywhere in the short article that Dr. Ayala gives science or evolutionary theory such great importance. Again, his goal in going on the speaking tour is obvious - to educate people and get them to move from superstition based on books written thousands of years ago to the present time. He is not trying to break anyone's faith in God, rather he is putting science where it belongs and trying to get people to put religion where it belongs. His presentation is not over-lapping at all in my opinion.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 25, 2008 3:32 pm
I think it is a stretch to characterize Dr. Ayala's goal as being fame in his endeavor. He is a scientist and he is defending science against non-scientific ideas that are being pushed as scientific and being championed by 'believers' as science and worthy of being taught to students in a purely academic setting. It should be obvious why he brings God into his presentation. It is not because the theory of evolution needs to be proven by such examples - on the contrary, the only reason for this way of speaking is that he is simply trying to show how simplistic and un-scientific the ideas of creationism or intelligent design are. You can nit pick his examples but I believe the overall idea is quite valid and needs to be expressed. Humanity must move away from superstition or 'belief' when it isn't supported by facts. Believers had to deal with moving away from the flat earth idea and most have moved on from creation happening some six thousand years ago or whatever the christian fundamentalists 'believe' because it is in the bible. I think most have moved on long ago from the idea that disease is caused by demonic possession as well.
I don't see anywhere in the short article that Dr. Ayala gives science or evolutionary theory such great importance. Again, his goal in going on the speaking tour is obvious - to educate people and get them to move from superstition based on books written thousands of years ago to the present time. He is not trying to break anyone's faith in God, rather he is putting science where it belongs and trying to get people to put religion where it belongs. His presentation is not over-lapping at all in my opinion.
I agree but I just said how the same are used by scientists like Dawkins to claim more than what is proved by science.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 25, 2008 3:35 pm
Thank you for this information! I really did not know these facts and was quoting his name just as a name of scientist who (as I thought due to his name being present in a strange way at the back cover of “BG As It Is”) was not denying his religious inclinations and still is a famous scientist, as many others also do. But indeed if the facts are so I have to be more careful in quoting his name in this respect.
Actually it always seemed to me quite strange, and even a kind of absurd, why had the disciples of Shrila Prabhupad printed his "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" with a quote from Einstein at its back cover, exactly below the quote from Shrila Prabhupad, if the essence of Einstein’s quote is actually not supportive for Gita in any way except the mere fact that he had read it and is a famous person. This does not seem enough for me for his name and quote being there.
I don't have in English "BG As It Is" here with me, so I will translate the quote from Bulgarian to English. (If someone has the book please post the exact quote in its original sounding in English.)
"While reading Bhagavad-Gita, the only question which remains is how God is creating the universe. All the rest seems not that important."
Am I the only one who sees this as funny, ridiculous and not supportive neither for Gita nor for Einstein's level of understanding of Gita? Or is it a bad translation into Bulgarian?
If after reading Gita one would say this, he did not get any idea of what Gita is all about. If one after reading Gita remains with the only curiosity of how the world was created and considers all the rest unimportant, his reading of Gita seems just a miracle to me.
Actually the answer to Einstein's question of how God creates the universe could be either a longer or a shorter version, the shortest one being "miraculously" or maybe “achintya” if he would speak Sanskrit.
The shortest version is the only version which targets the very core of Einstein’s question – “how”. The broader versions of this reply would involve a succession of events none of each following the previous one in a logical (I mean humanly logical) or caused by pure necessity order, so they will just depict the process more or less allegorically, but without responding the deepest core of Einstein’s question – “why”. Most probably they would have left him deeply unsatisfied, which makes it a real good luck that he did not read Bhagavatam, where his question of “how” is described in more details for those who had been so fortunate to be able to accept the shortest version of “miraculous” or “achintya” first.
It’s maybe really a good luck that Einstein didn’t read Bhagavatam (both for Einstein and for Bhagavatam), because I am afraid even to think of what could he comment after reading it if he commented Gita like this.
I like his humility of acknowledging higher intelligence present in the universe and his lack of pride about his personal life.
Swami - September 25, 2008 5:02 pm
I think people should know that Einstein rejected the belief in the Judeo Christian personal god strongly. He was pantheist like Sphinoza so it is good not to make him a tool to prove some point unnecessarily. Also his personal life is also not exceptional though he was not proud of that
Yes but Spinoza was a bit of a mystic himself and a man of exceptional character. There have been comparisons of his philosophy with Vedanta. It seem sufficient to say that Einstein acknowledged a transcendent reality.
Yamuna Dasi - September 25, 2008 5:12 pm
I think it is a stretch to characterize Dr. Ayala's goal as being fame in his endeavor. He is a scientist and he is defending science against non-scientific ideas that are being pushed as scientific and being championed by 'believers' as science and worthy of being taught to students in a purely academic setting. It should be obvious why he brings God into his presentation. It is not because the theory of evolution needs to be proven by such examples - on the contrary, the only reason for this way of speaking is that he is simply trying to show how simplistic and un-scientific the ideas of creationism or intelligent design are. You can nit pick his examples but I believe the overall idea is quite valid and needs to be expressed. Humanity must move away from superstition or 'belief' when it isn't supported by facts.
In my eyes he is a scientist who is defending science against religion (not just against non-scientific ideas) using non-scientific ideas and methods, for example making jokes on God's account. For him God being a Creator and a Designer is a non-scientific idea. Yes, I agree, it is a non-scientific idea, it is a religious idea, so why is he dealing at all with it then instead of sticking to strictly scientific ideas?"He is a scientist and he is defending science against non-scientific ideas"
As Chesterton says "evolution" is mistaken with "explanation". What does it really explain? How does life come to exist out of non-living matter and then slowly evolved into the most complicated organisms and finally into human? The speed of the process has no relevance for being an explanation of it. It only creates the illusion of explaining it but without really doing so. How does the evolutionist theory explain that life started to exist from non-life? Gradually? How did the human start to exist from the ant? Gradually? For them this is the core of their explanation - "gradually"! Sorry, this does not sound serious to me. Indeed this sounds to me as a very non-scientific "proof". Also let's remember that science speaks a lot about the experiment as a final proof, but no experiment is given to be able to prove the evolutionist theory or any of its basic claims.
"against non-scientific ideas that are being pushed as scientific and being championed by 'believers' as science and worthy of being taught to students in a purely academic setting."
Shrila Prabhupad wanted Gita and Bhagavatam to be taught to students in a purely academic setting, but strictly looked his ideals are religios and fall into the paragraph of "non-scientific ideas", even though we like to speak about "the science of bhakti-yoga". Let's be realistic and face the truth - modern science, represented by people like Dr. Ayala, is NOT accepting religion or bhakti-yoga as a science. So we have to be careful in defending science because along with it we are also defending the completely rational approach as the only valid approach. It just goes along with science. And also let's not forget from WHOM are we defending it? From the religious people who refuse to accept that God is not the Designer and the Creator, and this is exactly what Dr. Ayala claims. In this way we are actualy defending someone who says something true but among many untrue and unaxeptable for us things. Why? To show how broadly minded we are? By defending a milk mixed with poison we are offfering it to others to drink it. Dr. Ayala would not share his tribune or time for preaching with Maharaj for example, so why do we have to share our tribune and time for preaching with someone like him? Just because there were few true claims in his books?
His overall idea is that God is neither the Designer nor the Creator of the universe. Is this a valid idea? And yes he expressed it with a loud voice and supported it with "examples" and "proofs". All his support of the evolutionist theory is leading to this conclusion - that God is NOT the Designer and the Creator. Why do we have to be so "open minded" and support him in his "valid overall idea"? His "valid overall idea" is also that human came from the ameba, because this is what the evolutionist theory finally claims, isn't it? Do we support it?"You can nit pick his examples but I believe the overall idea is quite valid and needs to be expressed.¨
You wrote that
"Humanity must move away from superstition or 'belief' when it isn't supported by facts."
Neither the historicity nor the existence of Krishna can be proven as a fact and this automatically places it in the paragraphs of "belief" and "superstition".
If we support scientists as Dr. Alaya and give them the tribune to speak, believing that they are really "leaving room for God", very soon we shall find how wrong and naive we were.
I would support a scientist if he supports his scientific ideas by scientific proofs and does not enter with brutal jokes and accusations in the realm of religion, as Dr. Ayala does. So I see no reason to support him. Sorry, I am partial and maybe my only excuse for it would be my love for Krishna (and my Gurudevas due to whom I might know something about Him), who as He admits in Gita is also partial. He is partial to those, who are partial to Him and He is impartial to those who are impartial to Him (BG 9.29). Dr. Ayala is impartial, I am partial, we are just not in the same team. How could I possibly play for his team then?
Dr. Ayala wants to propagate evolutionist theory and publish his books and he is pursuing his desire.
But what I want is Krishna to be partial to me! And I am pursuing my desire! To get this desire of mine fulfilled is by being partial to Krishna and only to Him, not to Dr. Ayala or anybody else, who is impartial to Krishna.
So somehow either my path does not cross that of Dr. Ayala (and then I don't have to be much interested in him anyway), or it crosses it but then we are definitely in the opposing teams so I will have to fight against him.
Sorry if this sounds to you naive or simplistic. Partiality is a kind of simple thing. Impartiality is more complicated and hardly possible. Arjuna tried to be impartial and avoid fighting in the war. Krishna explained him that this would not be possible. I believe Krishna because so it happened.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 25, 2008 5:26 pm
Yes but Spinoza was a bit of a mystic himself and a man of exceptional character. There have been comparisons of his philosophy with Vedanta. It seem sufficient to say that Einstein acknowledged a transcendent reality.
Yes but Yamuna's take is more like a Judeo-Christian idea so I just wanted to ask her not to use Einstein there.
She is strongly opposed to evolution in the same way as SP was-- I guess.
I am not in her boat but I just don't like when the claims of science go beyond the data we observe: like dismissing the idea even of an intelligent, emergent universe as absurd is not acceptable through objective science but some scientist use evolution to do just that.
Swami - September 25, 2008 6:53 pm
In my eyes he is a scientist who is defending science against religion (not just against non-scientific ideas) using non-scientific ideas and methods, for example making jokes on God's account. For him God being a Creator and a Designer is a non-scientific idea. Yes, I agree, it is a non-scientific idea, it is a religious idea, so why is he dealing at all with it then instead of sticking to strictly scientific ideas?
As Chesterton says "evolution" is mistaken with "explanation". What does it really explain? How does life come to exist out of non-living matter and then slowly evolved into the most complicated organisms and finally into human? The speed of the process has no relevance for being an explanation of it. It only creates the illusion of explaining it but without really doing so. How does the evolutionist theory explain that life started to exist from non-life? Gradually? How did the human start to exist from the ant? Gradually? For them this is the core of their explanation - "gradually"! Sorry, this does not sound serious to me.
Shrila Prabhupad wanted Gita and Bhagavatam to be taught to students in a purely academic setting, but strictly looked his ideals are religios and fall into the paragraph of "non-scientific ideas", even though we like to speak about "the science of bhakti-yoga". Let's be realistic and face the truth - modern science, represented by people like Dr. Ayala, is NOT accepting religion or bhakti-yoga as a science. So we have to be careful in defending science because along with it we are also defending the completely rational approach as the only valid approach. It just goes along with science. And also let's not forget from WHOM are we defending it? From the religious people who refuse to accept that God is not the Designer and the Creator, and this is exactly what Dr. Ayala claims. In this way we are actualy defending someone who says something true but among many untrue and unaxeptable for us things. Why? To show how broadly minded we are? By defending a milk mixed with poison we are offfering it to others to drink it. Dr. Ayala would not share his tribune or time for preaching with Maharaj for example, so why do we have to share our tribune and time for preaching with someone like him? Just because there were few true claims in his books?
His overall idea is that God is neither the Designer nor the Creator of the universe. Is this a valid idea? And yes he expressed it with a loud voice and supported it with "examples" and "proofs". All his support of the evolutionist theory is leading to this conclusion - that God is NOT the Designer and the Creator. Why do we have to be so "open minded" and support him in his "valid overall idea"? His "valid overall idea" is also that human came from the ameba, because this is what the evolutionist theory finally claims, isn't it? Do we support it?
You wrote that
Neither the historicity nor the existence of Krishna can be proven as a fact and this automatically places it in the paragraphs of "belief" and "superstition".
If we support scientists as Dr. Alaya and give them the tribune to speak, believing that they are really "leaving room for God", very soon we shall find how wrong and naive we were.
I would support a scientist if he supports his scientific ideas by scientific proofs and does not enter with brutal jokes and accusations in the realm of religion, as Dr. Ayala does. So I see no reason to support him. Sorry, I am partial and maybe my only excuse for it would be my love for Krishna (and my Gurudevas due to whom I might know something about Him), who as He admits in Gita is also partial. He is partial to those, who are partial to Him and He is impartial to those who are impartial to Him (BG 9.29). Dr. Ayala is impartial, I am partial, we are just not in the same team. How could I possibly play for his team then?
Dr. Ayala wants to propagate evolutionist theory and publish his books and he is pursuing his desire.
But what I want is Krishna to be partial to me! And I am pursuing my desire! To get this desire of mine fulfilled is by being partial to Krishna and only to Him, not to Dr. Ayala or anybody else, who is impartial to Krishna.
So somehow either my path does not cross that of Dr. Ayala (and then I don't have to be much interested in him anyway), or it crosses it but then we are definitely in the opposing teams so I will have to fight against him.
Sorry if this sounds to you naive or simplistic. Partiality is a kind of simple thing. Impartiality is more complicated and hardly possible. Arjuna tried to be impartial and avoid fighting in the war. Krishna explained him that this would not be possible. I believe Krishna because so it happened.
I will just say one thing in response to the many points you have raised above. The idea that bhakti is a science is simply a way of saying that it has a method to it that produces results in the here and now and in this sense is kind of observable/falsifiable. To frame bhakti in this way is a preaching strategy developed in consideration of the state of modernism at the time. While I still think it has some merit, faith in modernity is waning and this has opened people to alternative ways of knowing, some of them premodern.
I will leave it to others to comment on your extremely conservative religious take on science/evolution. It does, as Gaura Vijaya said, sound reminiscent of Srila Prabhupada, but then again SP was eager to hear the actual arguments of atheistic scientists, few of which were provided by his students and many of which have developed in complexity and number based on thirty years of research since his passing.
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 25, 2008 9:16 pm
I am certainly not enamored with Dr. Ayala and I also am in the mercy line begging for the attention of Sri Guru and Gauranga. The very simple point is that science class is no place to push religiion. Religion and philosophy are certainly part of the curriculum in Universities, as they should be, but let's be honest here - the agenda of the creation and intelligent design 'scientists' is to put God into the science class room. They are afraid that an explanation of life and how it began and evovled over time that isn't based on scripture, but rather observable facts, will lead the world to athiesm. Certainly fundamentalists and those who push out- dated concepts based on their interpretation of religion do more to promote atheism than scientists do. Scientists are like any other group of people - their are many personalities and beliefs regarding meaning in life.
It is quite incorrect to state that there are no experiments to support evolutionary theory. Yamuna, there are volumes and volumes of experimental data based on rationally deisgned experiements that do support the basic concepts of evolutionary theory. Much work has gone into genetics and similarities between species to show how the species are related and how genes are conserved through the evolutionary process for instance. Plenty of work has been done on simple single cell organisms to show that selective pressure does indeed make species adapt and evolve. I am not an evolutionary biologist but I do know enough about the discipline to categorically refute your claim.
The only reason a devotee should be somewhat interested in people like Dr. Ayala is that in order to be relevant to people in general we have to adjust our preaching and understanding such that we can present Gaudiya Siddhanta in a modern context.
Nitaisundara Das - September 25, 2008 9:33 pm
I am not in her boat but I just don't like when the claims of science go beyond the data we observe: like dismissing the idea even of an intelligent, emergent universe as absurd is not acceptable through objective science but some scientist use evolution to do just that.
For movie night at Audarya we recently watch "The Case for a Creator", I recommend everyone give it a look, it is quite interesting. Of course atheists have a counter on all fronts I'm sure.
Yamuna Dasi - September 26, 2008 11:59 am
OK, I understand, nobody is in my boat.
I had to ask myself then what is actually my boat?
1. I don’t like the arguments of Dr. Ayala and explained in detail why. I found none of the arguments in that article really scientific. They were apologetics involving God. It is possible that there are scientific proofs in his books, but in his presentation in NY Times I’ve seen none.
2. I believe in evolution – in personal evolution, in social evolution, in emotional evolution, is spiritual evolution, also in biological evolution. But I don’t believe that life started from dead matter by “evolving”. And I don’t believe that human came from the ameba by “evolving”. Neither that there is no intelligent design in universe and life. These 3 are practically the siddhanta of the evolutionary theory and I just don’t believe in this siddhanta. I can believe in some claims they place and in some of the evidences they present for supporting these claims, but for me they are proving only some statements, but not that final siddhanta which they present. I find extremely large leaps from some claims that they had proven towards the final conclusions which they claim. As a result of observing such large leaps, for me their final siddhanta is not proven.
What is my boat? Not liking the arguments of Dr. Ayala and not accepting the final siddhanta of the evolutionary theory. Does this really qualify me for having extremely conservative religious take on science/evolution?
If so then my only hope can be if Krishna could possibly have some place in his broad heart also for extremely conservative on science/evolution religionists… like this poor me.
Swami - September 26, 2008 4:04 pm
OK, I understand, nobody is in my boat.I had to ask myself then what is actually my boat?
1. I don’t like the arguments of Dr. Ayala and explained in detail why. I found none of the arguments in that article really scientific. They were apologetics involving God. It is possible that there are scientific proofs in his books, but in his presentation in NY Times I’ve seen none.
2. I believe in evolution – in personal evolution, in social evolution, in emotional evolution, is spiritual evolution, also in biological evolution. But I don’t believe that life started from dead matter by “evolving”. And I don’t believe that human came from the ameba by “evolving”. Neither that there is no intelligent design in universe and life. These 3 are practically the siddhanta of the evolutionary theory and I just don’t believe in this siddhanta. I can believe in some claims they place and in some of the evidences they present for supporting these claims, but for me they are proving only some statements, but not that final siddhanta which they present. I find extremely large leaps from some claims that they had proven towards the final conclusions which they claim. As a result of observing such large leaps, for me their final siddhanta is not proven.
What is my boat? Not liking the arguments of Dr. Ayala and not accepting the final siddhanta of the evolutionary theory. Does this really qualify me for having extremely conservative religious take on science/evolution?
If so then my only hope can be if Krishna could possibly have some place in his broad heart also for extremely conservative on science/evolution religionists… like this poor me.
Look up other threads on this forum dealing with "evolution." Your understanding of the theory of evolution as it was conceived of by Darwin and as it is understood today is not well informed.
Yamuna Dasi - September 26, 2008 8:41 pm
How can this quote be understood according to karma theory?
SB 1.17.22 - The King said: O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and you are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion.
Prahlad Das - September 27, 2008 3:53 am
How can this quote be understood according to karma theory?
SB 1.17.22 - The King said: O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and you are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion.
The statements of the Maharaja indicate; it is integral to Dharma to see one's own responsibility in their sorrowful situation, and not to place the blame on others. It is up to others to make the judgement and sentence regarding the perpetration of irreligious acts towards one's self.
It is akin to the saying,"Great devotees (maha-bhagavatas) do not take offense because they are indifferent to honor and dishonor." If one considers themselves a das das anudas of the Lotus Feet of the Vaishnavas, however, then they may act in a way reminiscent of Maharaja Pariksit to defend the position of the devotee.
This verse must be taken in the context of the situation where Kali Yuga was destroying the legs of Dharma and Maharaja Pariksit intervened and wanted to hear from Dharma who did the terrible act of crippling Dharma. Dharma would not implicate anyone in particular and wanted Maharaja to pass judgement and sentence as it was Maharaja's duty. It, in no way, justifies the hurting of others, (look at how Maharaja Pariksit threatened Kali Yuga) but suggests that one not become personally vindictive toward others who have hurt them.
Any other input, please?
Bhrigu - September 27, 2008 9:28 am
Srila Prabhupada's purport to the verse is very clear and among the same lines as what Prahlad Prabhu has said. Perhaps one could also add that examining the misdeeds of others may also degrade an apparently innocent bystander, as the endless internet debates about who was guilty in the murder of Sulocana so amply illustrates.
Yamuna Dasi - September 27, 2008 11:05 am
Thank you, Prabhu!
Sounds good and deep, but somehow not completely practical.
I would like to examine the applicability of this idea both in practical life and in scripture.
An extreme example - if a woman got raped and knows who did it, but when the police would ask her to indicate the person and she would say "it's Kali Yuga" rather than to say the name of the rapist but leave it to them to investigate, find and punish, this is just not practical. Why should she delay them instead of help them? Just not to become equal to the rapist by pointing at him?
And now let's see how is this principle applied in Scripture for example in the life of the Pandavas and Draupadi.
They entered into the gambling game with their cousins (I am not sure if all of them were playing or only Maharaja Yudhisthir) and they lost. For many years I was wondering why should the Pandavas enter into a gambling game if they were pious persons as stated in the Scripture. This seems contradictory. Then for many years I was hearing devotees saying either that actually it was one of the duties of the kshatrias to sit and play if they were challenged to gamble or that kshatrias are allowed to gamble. Both of these claims came out to be wrong, since Mahabharata actually says: "hunting, drinking, gambling, and too much enjoyment of women, are the four vices of kings. The man, that is addicted to these, liveth forsaking virtue. And people do not regard the acts done by a person who is thus improperly engaged, as of any authority." So actually Pandavas made a mistake accepting to participate in a gambling game. Maharaja Yudhisthira went extremely far into the game finally staking the whole kingdom, his own brothers and after losing them staking their own wife (she was not only his wife, but also the wife of his other 4 brothers) Draupadi. So as it seems it was their fault as a whole and should blame themselves for the unfortunate situation to which all this brought. Their cousins is said to have used tricks in the game but was not specified what tricks (or at least I didn't see), but still the one who accepted to participate in the proposed game were the Pandavas (or Yudhisthir Maharaj). All the exile and the war in which they had to participate afterwards came out from this wrong decision - to accept to gamble with their cousins and stake the kingdom and Draupadi. Practically by staking his brothers Maharaja Parikshit betrayed them, by staking the kingdom he betrayed the citizens (since he knew that his cousins would not take good care of them) and by staking Draupadi he betrayed his love for her (and also his brothers' love since she was not only his wife). It seems that the son of Dharma had betrayed dharma in so many aspects.
Let's see now how did each of them see the whole situation.
Pandavas:
Only Bhima blamed Yudhisthir Maharaj for staking Draupadi. Nobody blamed him for accepting the gambling game and staking. Later all blamed the Kauravas for being so cruel to Draupadi, dragging her by the hair half naked into the castle hall in front of everybody and Pandavas did nothing to protect her. So the real core of the problem remained undiscovered - accepting to participate in the gambling game. In this situation they were blind and biased.
Draupadi:
She didn't blame any of her husbands for staking her and not even for not protecting her afterwards. When she had the opportunity later to have two boons from the old king Dhritarashtra, she used them to ask for the freedom of Yudhisthir and for her other 4 husbands. But later on she also blamed the Kauravas for being cruel to act like as they did with her. And when Bhishma was dying on the battlefield of Kurukshetra all pierced by arrows and lying on them as on a bed, glorifying Krishna and dharma... everybody listening to him with deeply touched hearts... she was the one who interrupted the words of the dying man blaming him "Who are you to speak about dharma?! Where was your sense for dharma when I was dragged by your brothers through the castle hall by the hair half naked in front of everybody!?" Why didn't she ask this question to her 5 husbands? She continued to see them as very pious persons and real defenders of dharma, but she blamed all the rest for not being dharmic if allowing this unfair humiliating act to happen to her. According to the kaimutya nyaya logic (the principle of how much more or what to speak of) if the Kauravas were faulty in not protecting her, how much more faulty were her husbands by not doing so, since their duty as husbands to protect her is much higher than that of their cousins? By not seeing this she also failed to see the real core and where did it all start from - her beloved husbands accepting to gamble. She was pure, but also blind and biased.
It seems that also the principle of "destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator" was not followed neither by Draupadi nor by the Pandavas. All blamed the Kauravas for being cruel and greedy (which is a fact), but failed to see the real original fault - Pandavas accepting to gamble.
For the sake of the truth it seems that still the principle of "destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator" was applied, because after they died it's said in Mahabharata that Yudhishthir Maharaj met in heaven the Kauravas and strongly objected this fact - how can the pious be together with the impious. Seems that according to the divine judgment Pandavas were as faulty as the Kauravas, if reaching the same destination.
I am not touching the point of “divine arrangement” because then it would be impossible to say anything anyway.
How to be simultaneously truthful and non-biased?...
Draupadi and the Pandavas were truthful that Kauravas were cruel, but they were not truthful that they were the core of the problem. They were all biased.
Still Krishna took their side in the battle... but finally they reached the same destination as the Kauravas...
Reality and final vision about it indeed seem not to be a simple thing at all... As Krishna says in Gita "what is karma and what is not karma is not an easy thing to be understood"...
Bhrigu - September 27, 2008 2:10 pm
Yamuna, your analysis of the dice-game in the Mahabharata is not strictly correct. Gambling is as you mentioned (like hunting) considered a vice for ksatriyas, but only in excess. According the kshatriya codes, Yudhisthira had to accept to take part in the game (or games, since it was repeated afterward), but he was caught up by the spirit of the game and refused to stop before it was too late (thinking he would win back what he had lost). Sakuni had a pair of cheating dice, and Yudhisthira was even otherwise a poor gambler. Draupadi's reaction to Yudhisthira's behaviour is very complex, she questions the propriety of what he did, and Arjuna almost comes out saying that Yudhisthira has done wrong by gambling her after he had lost himself, before they are saved (for the time being!) by an ill omen. Duryodhana would gladly have given up Draupadi to hear that Dharmaraja Yudhisthira had broken his dharma. Draupadi applies for help to Bhisma etc, but they can do nothing, since the Kauravas have strictly speaking done nothing wrong, even though it is in bad taste to deprive your relatives of everything, strip your slave naked in front of other people etc. To me, this episode speaks strongly about how one sometimes has to transcend dharma.
This is how the acharyas paraphrase the above verse in their commentaries.
Sridhara Swami: "'You must be dharma, since you propound the law (dharma) that one should not reveal the offender even if one knows him, but rather speak as if he was unknown.' Now, what is the fault of revealing the offender? This he reveals with 'the destination intended...'. 'The destination' refers to hell and so on."
Vamsidhara (following Visvanatha, Jiva Goswami does not comment on this verse): "'O knower of dharma! By not mentioning the name of your tormenter, that wicked fellow, you show yourself as knowledgeable of a very subtle truth of dharma.' This is the implied meaning, following this adage of dharma propounded in the Smriti, "One who speaks about the adharma of evil-doers attains half of it himself." 'Even though you could have told me, the king, that "He beat me, though I am faultless", and even though I asked you, you did not say so. By this, you have propounded the dharma that also the one who points out the evildoer attains the same destination as the evildoer. What then can one say of the evildoer himself? In this way, I have figured out that you are Dharma himself.'"
In other words, Dharma is here showing a very high standard of dharma, one that ordinary people can hardly be expected to follow. Otherwise, why would Parikshit have recognised Dharma by this very behaviour?
Prahlad Das - September 27, 2008 6:43 pm
Thank you, Prabhu!Sounds good and deep, but somehow not completely practical.
I would like to examine the applicability of this idea both in practical life and in scripture.
An extreme example - if a woman got raped and knows who did it, but when the police would ask her to indicate the person and she would say "it's Kali Yuga" rather than to say the name of the rapist but leave it to them to investigate, find and punish, this is just not practical. Why should she delay them instead of help them? Just not to be become equal to the rapist by pointing at him?
Would you condemn the person if they declined to implicate the perpetrator while they were on the path of self-realization? It is the internal reasoning behind the action which justifies or condemns the action.
The Pandavas did visit hell.And now let's see how is this principle applied in Scripture for example in the life of the Pandavas and Draupadi...
How to be simultaneously truthful and non-bias?...
This is indeed a difficult endeavor, yet integral to Dharma
Reality and final vision about it indeed seem not to be a simple thing at all... As Krishna says in Gita "what is karma and what is not karma is not an easy thing to be understood"...
True
It is a false dichotomy to say this stanza suggest that one not understand proper judgement. It is also a false dichotomy to say that this stanza is suggesting to enforce upon others to keep quiet. The Bhagavatam is a personal journey in which we realize ourselves. Not everyone moves at the same rate in the same direction, and as Bhrigu Prabhu stated, "Dharma is here showing a very high standard of dharma". While Dharma displays the ultimate behavior of righteousness, Maharaja displays the ultimate behavior of justice. To put it simply, Maharaja Pariksit put the fear of Death in Kali for what he had done.
As the popular urban saying goes..."Hate the game, not the player."
Yamuna Dasi - September 27, 2008 10:36 pm
Thank you, Bhrigu Prabhu, for correcting me in the details of the Mahabharata story for the gambling game of Maharaja Yudhishthira. But these details don't change I think the overall idea - that even though the core reason for the problem was the acceptance of Maharaja Yudhishthira to gamble and his further stakes, neither the Pandavas nor Draupadi were able to see that as the real problem, but blamed it all on the Kauravas. The only one who blamed Yudhishthir Maharaj, but just for a moment, was Bhima, but then he also joined the others in blaming Kauravas.
This was my point. Biased vision which did not let them see the real problem core.
Can you support with Shastra what you said that gambling and hunting are considered as vice for kshatriyas, but only in excess? I met in Mahabharata the following verses discussing this topic and none of them speaks in this direction, but rather clearly states the point:
"hunting, drinking, gambling, and too much enjoyment of women, are the
four vices of kings. The man, that is addicted to these, liveth forsaking
virtue. And people do not regard the acts done by a person who is thus
improperly engaged, as of any authority."
Here it was clearly said “vices of kings” – as Yudhisthira Maharaj.
"Women, dice, hunting and drinking to which people become
addicted in consequence of temptation, have been regarded as the four
evils that deprive a man of prosperity. And those versed in the Sastras
are of opinion that evils attend upon all these."
This gambling game of Maharaj Yudhisthir did deprive the Pandavas of prosperity.
Even more clear it is said in this verse, regarding the king (who is a kshatriya), that he "should renounce" it, and Yudhishthir Maharaj was a king:
"A king should renounce these seven faults that are productive
of calamity, inasmuch as they are able to effect the ruin of even
monarchs firmly established; these are women, dice, hunting, drinking,
harshness of speech, severity of punishment, and misuse of wealth."
And one last quote:
"Hunting, dice, women, wine, brawls, these are censured by the wise."
It seems to me quite confirmed and I see here no exception given even for a king from these rules of moral code, even in two of the verses it is directly spoken of the king.
Can we say then that Pandavas did make a mistake? Once in partaking in the gambling game and staking Draupadi, and then in blaming for all what came after the Kauravas, even though they were not the core of the problem?
I know that we prefer to say that they were perfect, but we have to be sincere also in the face of true evidence, right?
For so many years so many devotees were repeating "Shrila Prabhupad is perfect!" without responding to questions like "how was he perfect if he said many wrong things?"... Then with the time passing they realized that this cannot be any more the response for this question, so as I've read in Hare Krishna Women blog, that some leading devotee responded that Shrila Prabhupad was not perfect, but only regarding material knowledge, but he was always perfect regarding siddhanta... then the devotee who writes that blog was proving that this was also not so because he was saying also enough things which were directly contradicting each other and the words of Krishna in Gita and those of vaishnava acharias...
Finally it seems to me that we have to admit that he was not perfect in many statements even regarding siddhanta. He made some vaisnava aparadhas also towards some of his Godbrothers, but was able to apologize at the end of his life to them. Maybe we can say that what he was perfect in is that he was pure in purpose to preach love of Krishna.
Now it seems that the same kind of a problem is faced regarding Scriptural heroes. We wish to say they were perfect, but for the sake of the truth we cannot say this.
Can we say that the Pandavas and Draupadi were wrong in some of their actions and visions, but still by heart were pure devotees? Or because of trying to follow as you mentioned the highest standard of dharma we shall not point out the fault, because of not acquiring half of it? But Mahabharata also says that if somebody knows the truth and is asked, but does not say it, he will acquire half of the blame if lying about the truth.
I think that we should be able to say the truth, before some devotees like the author of Hare Krishna Women blog say it in an angry and frustrated way because so many years it was denied and the questions were not responded or responded in a non-satisfactory way. When clear questions are put we should be able also to face them and respond clearly. If we don’t do so the time will force us to do it one day.
Yamuna Dasi - September 27, 2008 10:50 pm
In other words, Dharma is here showing a very high standard of dharma, one that ordinary people can hardly be expected to follow. Otherwise, why would Parikshit have recognised Dharma by this very behaviour?
Was anybody ever able to follow this so high standard? Even Yudhishthir Maharaj, the son of Yamaradja, was not able to do it. He saw as faulty and blamed the Kauravas, but not the direct doer - himself. It seemed that Draupadi followed this highest standard because she didn't blame Yudhishthir, but she blamed the Kauravas, doing the same biased mistake.
So who was able to follow this standard?
Maybe only Jesus, because he didn't blame those who crucified him and even was able to see them as innocent when praying to God for them "forgive them Father, for they don't know what they are doing!" But He still blamed the sellers in the temple and destroyed their stands and he was also blaming the Pharisees for their hypocrisy.
So was anybody ever really able to follow this standard? And is this the standard which we are trying to follow?
Yamuna Dasi - September 27, 2008 11:03 pm
Would you condemn the person if they declined to implicate the perpetrator while they were on the path of self-realization? It is the internal reasoning behind the action which justifies or condemns the action.
Those on the path of self-realization are not egoistic persons who don't care about the others but only about their own self-realization. They also feel responsible to protect others and defend the truth, so most probably they would not leave a perpetrator who can harm others. By implicating the perpetrator they will protect the others even at the cost of their own self-realization. One who is egoistic and does not think of others cannot reach self-realization anyway. Any egoistic consideration would prevent him to reach self-realization.
Answering directly your question - I would not condemn that person, but he will condemn himself if acting leaded by egoistic motivation and would not reach it in this way.
Yamuna Dasi - September 27, 2008 11:14 pm
The Pandavas did visit hell.
Yes, but the Kauravas were not there, they were in heaven. This is why I didn't mention the visit to hell of the Pandavas, because it is not fulfilling "the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator".
Also it is mentioned that the reason for which the Pandavas went to hell is that lie about the Ashvattama, which was Krishna's idea, which they followed. Actually the one who was mainly responsible for this lie was Yudhisthira Maharaj if I remember correctly, but still he went to heaven, but his brothers and Draupadi were sent to hell. Yudhishthira Maharaj went to hell because he wanted to be taken where his brothers were, it was his choice, not his obligation to go there. And at the end it came out that all this visit to hell was some kind of a divine arrangement to show the loyalty of Yudhishthir Maharaj to his brothers, since he chose to remain with them in hell rather than return to heaven, where the Kauravas were. In this way even after death he was still continuing to blame them, not himself, for all that happened.
Yamuna Dasi - September 27, 2008 11:19 pm
Would you condemn the person if they declined to implicate the perpetrator while they were on the path of self-realization? It is the internal reasoning behind the action which justifies or condemns the action.
Many persons reached self-realization and implicating a perpetrator of an irreligious action was not at all a problem or an obstacle for their reaching of self-realization.
But it is hard for me to find an example from Scripture when someone did follow this ideal and reached self-realization as a result of doing so.
In this way it seems to me not obligatory to follow this standard in order to reach self-realization.
Yamuna Dasi - September 27, 2008 11:37 pm
Look up other threads on this forum dealing with "evolution." Your understanding of the theory of evolution as it was conceived of by Darwin and as it is understood today is not well informed.
Thank you, Maharaj for pointing me out this, I was really not aware of it.
I thought that since the book of Dr. Ayala is named "Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion" he is a Darwinist and I was reasoning with this presumption.
I will certainly do my best to inform myself better what is the siddhanta of the evolutionist theory today in difference to Darwin's. I completely agree that we have to be very careful that what we say not to contradict the reality or the discoveries, because people can reject what we say on the basis of even a small mistake or unpunctuality. Some claims which Shrila Prabhupad made and were not true are so severely criticized nowadays. Human mind has the ability to selectively focus on even one mistake, disregarding thousands of great actions... unfortunately.
Prahlad Das - September 28, 2008 5:50 am
Many persons reached self-realization and implicating a perpetrator of an irreligious action was not at all a problem or an obstacle for their reaching of self-realization.But it is hard for me to find an example from Scripture when someone did follow this ideal and reached self-realization as a result of doing so.
In this way it seems to me not obligatory to follow this standard in order to reach self-realization.
Krishna speaks to Uddhava in the 11th Canto (S.B.) of an Avadhuta who meets with Krishna's forefather King Yadu. This Avadhuta states that he has 24 gurus, and he begins to describe each guru and what he learned from each one. You might find it to be an example of someone following this ideal.
As you said, there is apparent blame conducted by Krishna's associates. In the end, it is action performed in relation to the degree of devotion and love one has for Krishna and His devotees, not how renounced one is, which will determine what it noteworthy.
Prahlad Das - September 28, 2008 6:02 am
I might also add Nitai and Gauranga; Nityananda Prabhu's tolerance of Jagai and Madai's attacks are noteable, and Gauranga Mahaprabhu instructed us to adopt this frame of mind to be able to chant Hari Nama effectively... CC Adi Lila 17.20-32 especially 27 and 28.
Bhrigu - September 28, 2008 1:02 pm
But these details don't change I think the overall idea - that even though the core reason for the problem was the acceptance of Maharaja Yudhishthira to gamble and his further stakes, neither the Pandavas nor Draupadi were able to see that as the real problem, but blamed it all on the Kauravas. The only one who blamed Yudhishthir Maharaj, but just for a moment, was Bhima, but then he also joined the others in blaming Kauravas.This was my point. Biased vision which did not let them see the real problem core.
I see what you mean, but I still disagree on this being the point of this episode of the Mahabharata. You know that at the end of the story, when Yudhisthira falls down last of the Pandavas on the way north, he did so because he had committed one sin. Was that his gambling? None of the Pandavas are perfect (and none of the Kauravas perfectly evil), that is what makes the Mbh so compelling reading. Still, Yudhisthira was not really at fault here, but neither really the Kauravas. Unrelenting fate (in the form of so many mundane promises and laws) was driving them all forward to their destruction. Seeing this is the main point, as it is the point of the verse we are discussing (that gambling is a dangerous pastime for even good men is of course also a point). The superlative devotee sees no sin and certainly no sinner, but the modes of nature working behind everything.
(Both this verse and the Mbh episode illustrate another point as well -- dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam/ mahayano yena gatah sa panthah// ...The truth of Dharma is hidden in the heart, so the real path to follow is that of the Mahajanas)
As for gambling, Manu forbids it strictly (9.221-222, 224-227), as does some other Smritkaras. Usually, however, it is regulated so that the king gets some revenue of it (Yajnavalkya 2.199, Narada 19.8, Kautilya 3.20, etc), and just like hunting and so on, it is considered bad for Ksatriyas to engage in it, but everyone does so. The Pandavas of course hunt as well. In the Mbh, Yudhisthira twice says that his vow is never to refuse a challenge to dice play (Sabha 58.16, Udyoga 128.6).
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 28, 2008 4:13 pm
Also prabhupada says
Prabhupada writes:
“Kings are … sometimes employed to kill animals in hunting because they have
to practice the killing art, otherwise it is very difficult for them to fight their enemies.
Such things are not auspicious. Four kinds of sinful activities—associating with woman
for illicit sex, eating meat, intoxication and gambling—are allowed for the kñatriyas. For
political reasons, sometimes they have to take to these sinful activities…”
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 28, 2008 4:20 pm
I see what you mean, but I still disagree on this being the point of this episode of the Mahabharata. You know that at the end of the story, when Yudhisthira falls down last of the Pandavas on the way north, he did so because he had committed one sin. Was that his gambling? None of the Pandavas are perfect (and none of the Kauravas perfectly evil), that is what makes the Mbh so compelling reading. Still, Yudhisthira was not really at fault here, but neither really the Kauravas. Unrelenting fate (in the form of so many mundane promises and laws) was driving them all forward to their destruction. Seeing this is the main point, as it is the point of the verse we are discussing (that gambling is a dangerous pastime for even good men is of course also a point). The superlative devotee sees no sin and certainly no sinner, but the modes of nature working behind everything.
(Both this verse and the Mbh episode illustrate another point as well -- dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam/ mahayano yena gatah sa panthah// ...The truth of Dharma is hidden in the heart, so the real path to follow is that of the Mahajanas)
As for gambling, Manu forbids it strictly (9.221-222, 224-227), as does some other Smritkaras. Usually, however, it is regulated so that the king gets some revenue of it (Yajnavalkya 2.199, Narada 19.8, Kautilya 3.20, etc), and just like hunting and so on, it is considered bad for Ksatriyas to engage in it, but everyone does so. The Pandavas of course hunt as well. In the Mbh, Yudhisthira twice says that his vow is never to refuse a challenge to dice play (Sabha 58.16, Udyoga 128.6).
But what is the chance for sadhakas like us not to go to hell if pandavas just go to hell and heaven and all their faults are brought out elaborately in Mahabharata? Prabhupada says that yudhistara went to hell for hesitating to speak the lie rather than speaking the lie. How do we understand that? I guess there is no hope for anybody in kali yuga to achieve more than heaven if pandavas also can't follow these ideals.
Obviously I like to stick to Gaura Lila or Prahlad Maharaja or Ambarisha Maharaja or Rama Lila to set my ideals rather than from Mahabharata.
Yamuna Dasi - September 28, 2008 11:26 pm
Prabhupada says that yudhistara went to hell for hesitating to speak the lie rather than speaking the lie. How do we understand that?
Really how to understand that?
Also Yudhisthira was sent to heaven, not to hell. His brothers were sent to hell, but they had followed him without any hesitation in using this Ashwattama lie. If no hesitation from theis side - so why hell for them if indeed hesitation is the real reason for being sent to hell? Yudhishthira chose hell to be with them, but they had no choice - they were sent there.
Arjuna hesitated in the advices of Krishna in Gita many times, but was not sent to hell for it. Why then should Yudhishthir go to hell for just a single hesitation?
Prabhupada writes:"Four kinds of sinful activities—associating with woman
for illicit sex, eating meat, intoxication and gambling—are allowed for the kñatriyas. For
political reasons, sometimes they have to take to these sinful activities…”
Here he practically says that kshatriyas take to these sinful activities for political reasons and only in this aspect they are "alowed to them" in the sense that they are practicing them anyway, not in the sense that this is OK or that Shastra allows it for the kshatriyas. Shastra forbids it multiple times even for the kings as I quoted before.
I am confused by the reasons for the Pandavas’ going to hell. Yudhishthira lied, but he went to heaven, while the other 4 Pandavas just followed him as he is their senior and the king, and they went to hell for this. In Mahabharata it is said that it's for the "Aswattama is dead" lie, but it was an advice from Krishna, so why should one be punished with hell if following God's advice and why not Yudhishthir but those who followed him? Also it's strange that they were not sent to hell for gambling, illicit sex (which they also practiced) and hunting, or for having wrong vision regarding who is guilty, as if all those actions were nill, even though constantly they are depicted as sinful actions. That lie seems indeed a very minor issue compared to gambling, hunting and illicit sex. Also a lie is supposed to be acceptable in a war as a strategy. Very confusing...
Madan Gopal Das - September 29, 2008 2:54 am
But what is the chance for sadhakas like us not to go to hell if pandavas just go to hell and heaven and all their faults are brought out elaborately in Mahabharata? Prabhupada says that yudhistara went to hell for hesitating to speak the lie rather than speaking the lie. How do we understand that? I guess there is no hope for anybody in kali yuga to achieve more than heaven if pandavas also can't follow these ideals.Obviously I like to stick to Gaura Lila or Prahlad Maharaja or Ambarisha Maharaja or Rama Lila to set my ideals rather than from Mahabharata.
I get a different conclusion from the teachings of Mahabharat and some of these examples of Yudhistira/Pandavas. Don't forget about the all important aspect of bhakti superceding morality. Remember, our opportunity is to become suddha bhakta's, not pukka moralists. I think the lesson Prabhupada is giving is that Yudhistira Maharaj had some conflict between morality versus Krsna seva. Yudhistira had some reputation for morality (son of Dharmaraj, never spoke a lie, etc.) and this distinction between dharma and bhakti is drawn out numerous times throughout the scripture and our acaryas make clear our goal. Think Brhad Bhagavatamrta gradations of bhakti, Rukmini vs. the gopi's, sarva dharman parityaja, etc.
Better to stick with Gaura Lila; more applicable process for our time. In regards to morality, Gaura Lila, Ambarish Maharaj and Rama Lila don't belong in the same sentence or certainly not the same mindset. Worlds of difference. I'm sure you know all this. AND, Mahabharat has a different purpose than the bhakti sastras. Look to it's purpose and this all makes sense. Catch my drift?
Prahlad Das - September 29, 2008 6:10 am
I get a different conclusion from the teachings of Mahabharat and some of these examples of Yudhistira/Pandavas. Don't forget about the all important aspect of bhakti superceding morality. Remember, our opportunity is to become suddha bhakta's, not pukka moralists. I think the lesson Prabhupada is giving is that Yudhistira Maharaj had some conflict between morality versus Krsna seva. Yudhistira had some reputation for morality (son of Dharmaraj, never spoke a lie, etc.) and this distinction between dharma and bhakti is drawn out numerous times throughout the scripture and our acaryas make clear our goal. Think Brhad Bhagavatamrta gradations of bhakti, Rukmini vs. the gopi's, sarva dharman parityaja, etc.
Better to stick with Gaura Lila; more applicable process for our time. In regards to morality, Gaura Lila, Ambarish Maharaj and Rama Lila don't belong in the same sentence or certainly not the same mindset. Worlds of difference. I'm sure you know all this. AND, Mahabharat has a different purpose than the bhakti sastras. Look to it's purpose and this all makes sense. Catch my drift?
Yes, it seems that although it is mentioned that karma is burned away or one attains all perfection by taking up the process of Bhakti these things are by products of the desired goal, suddha Bhakti, Prema Bhakti.
Perhaps if we go to hell we can bring a little bit of what we've learned from our Gurus there. Who knows we might be able to do some service.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 29, 2008 4:46 pm
Yes, it seems that although it is mentioned that karma is burned away or one attains all perfection by taking up the process of Bhakti these things are by products of the desired goal, suddha Bhakti, Prema Bhakti.Perhaps if we go to hell we can bring a little bit of what we've learned from our Gurus there.
Yes but we need to go hell obviously if pandavas have to also as their bhakti also could not prevent their going hell though in this case it is just lila.
Karnamrita Das - September 29, 2008 7:15 pm
Pranams to all the thoughtful Vaishnavas! I consider myself philosophical, though after reading the whole thread at my slow day at the store, I may have to reconsider how much I am.
I don't have anything particular to add to this very fascinating discussion, though I would like to share something my wife said after yesterday's Swami call. She told me how much having Swami in our life and hosting him over the years has changed our lives for the better. "He didn't teach me what to think but how to think". Our whole concept of what KC has changed radically. She referred to ways she has tried to understand Krishna lila in different ways---philosophical speculation---whereas before she would have never gone there.
The whole thread started by GM is an example to me, of his wanting us to have faith in GV in a dynamic way that can take into consideration the currents of the day and use them to explain KC. I thought of an expression (which is perhaps already out there in cyberland)on a blog on Krishna.com--Pragmatic Idealism ----that doesn't exactly apply to this discussion, though it does to me give an appreciation of how KC harmonizes what might be seen as contradictory aspects of life. Each generation of GV revitalizes the tradition to make it more accessible to the time, and that is how KC remains alive, instead of dogmatic. I do a lot of writing, but it is very elementary stuff. I also help run a New Age store, so I am very broad to accommodate many belief systems. I have my little universal rap that I give, though not in such a laser focused discussion as this.
It seems to me that it would be helpful (for me, devotees, and the spiritually minded public) that after a discussion such as this a book could come out of it. Perhaps in time devotees like Gaura-Vijaya, Nitai-Sundari etc could under GMs guidance author books about these important topics. That way GM's preaching can be magnified many fold.
Swami - September 29, 2008 8:52 pm
Yes but we need to go hell obviously if pandavas have to also as their bhakti also could not prevent their going hell though in this case it is just lila.
Through the lila they are teaching ordinary people different lessons on dharma. Devotees do not go to hell except under extraordinary circumstances, such as in the case of the Pandavas for the sake to teaching others.
Yamuna Dasi - September 30, 2008 10:40 am
We usually consider the realm of lila and the realm of karma to be separated and one acting on either platform, but not on both simultaneously. In Pandavas case it seems that they were part of the lila and still acquired some karma which they had to pay for later by going to hell and heaven. We usually consider that one should be karma free in order to enter lila, but here it seems not to be so, because if we accept that Pandavas were karma free but during their participation in the lila acquired some karma, this would contradict the non-fallible state of jiva from the spiritual realm. Is it meant that the spiritual realm is Vaikuntha and Goloka but Pandavas had not reached there yet? Or maybe the realms of lila and karma are not separated by a blazer cut border line… and there is a transition zone… and Pandavas were acting in the realm of that transition zone?
Madan Gopal Das - September 30, 2008 11:32 am
We usually consider the realm of lila and the realm of karma to be separated and one acting on either platform, but not on both simultaneously.
I think you are making this too complicated. Scriptural stories are meant for those who are not in the lila (except in the case of increasing one's meditation on the lila). The author of the scriptures has an audience in mind and often the lesson taught can apply to a wide variety of seekers. Analyzing the position of the Pandava's is not the point here, the point (from the bhakta's vision) is bhakti's supremacy over dharma/karma marga. From a dharma/karma vision the point of the story may be the importance of telling the truth, upholding dharma and the ideal society structure.
In short, we should be thinking of what the story means for us, not what it means for the Pandavas.
Yamuna Dasi - September 30, 2008 2:44 pm
I don’t think I am making it too complicated – the reality in general and the Pandavas’ story are much more complicated than my question here. Scriptural stories indeed are meant for those who are not in the lila, but with the purpose to bring them closer to it, and this process of bringing closer involves some level of understanding it. As Maharaj had written in the welcoming message for this forum:
“Let them study the philosophical canvass on which the art of Krsna is drawn with a view to fuel their practice with the appropriate conceptual orientation to their ideal. The attempt to realize the truth can be aided considerably by theoretical knowledge of the same.”
Karma is quite a serious part of the philosophical canvas and being very complicated itself I don’t find that my question is making it more complicated than it is. You have mentioned
but exactly this supremacy is not so obvious in this case, if Pandavas’ devotion to Krishna was not enough to save them from going to hell and heaven because of crossing some laws of karma. So maybe the karma issue is not as simple as you think about it, if it can sanction even those who are in the lila (as it seems from this story).“bhakti’s supremacy over dharma/karma marga”,
“In short, we should be thinking of what the story means for us, not what it means for the Pandavas.”
This is exactly what I put as a question and questioning further the transition zone on the path leading from karma to lila since such a transition zone seems to exist as opposing to the view of a spiritual leap from karma to lila.
Bhrigu - September 30, 2008 4:17 pm
I think it is important to note, again, that the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata are speaking to different audiences. In the Mahabharata, Krishna's nityalila is only vaguely hinted at, and prema is not described as the ultimate goal of life (at least not in an overt way). In the Mahabharata context, Yudhisthira's lie was his big "sin", despite of being asked to do so by Krishna, because he had built his life on truthfulness and being "dharmaraja". In the Bhagavata context, his sin was hesitating to follow Krishna's advice. These are all complex stories, and they are analysed in different ways depending on the audience.
Bhakti's supremacy over karma is very rarely brought out in Mbh, because even though it is obvious to us, it is in the classical context a very radical, even dangerous concept. How many devotees even now do not have difficulties understanding the "api cet..." verse? The Bhagavata is a book for pure devotees (nirmatsaranam satam, 1.1.2), the Mahabharata is not.
(And the Pandavas going to hell and the Kauravas to heaven in the Mbh is of course just Yudhisthira's last test, as Dharma himself reveals right at the end of the text)
Madan Gopal Das - September 30, 2008 4:18 pm
Our conceptual orientation from which we study the sastra is that of bhakta, not as jnani, information gathering, trying to figure it out with our intellect. My simple point is that you seem to be trying to look at this lila from both perspectives. As Gaura Vijaya noted, Prabhupada says that Yudhistira had to see hell because of hesitating to speak the lie as Krsna suggested (an act of surrender - bhakti), rather than actually speaking the lie. This is a bhakta's perspective. A perspective of karma/dharma would see this lila as Yudhistira went to hell for telling a lie, nobody is perfect, try to be a moral person because even Yudhistira went to hell for transgressing dharma. One perspective sees dharma as supreme, the other sees Krsna's will as the supreme dharma. One perspective sees karma as supreme; this is not our faith(!), that a devotee has to suffer hell because of following Krsna.
So maybe the karma issue is not as simple as you think about it, if it can sanction even those who are in the lila (as it seems from this story).
Here you take the perspective of one who's faith lies not in bhakti but in karma. It is against our siddhanta to suggest that karma rules over the life of the devotee. This is why I say you are trying to look at this from two angles. The reasons for the "reactions" Yudhistira had to undergo would be dependent upon which vision you are viewing the lila from. I am suggesting that if you take the bhakta's vision, the story is not about any "transition zone" between karma and bhakti.
More importantly, I think what our lesson is that the author of the scriptures uses the stories as a tool, and sometimes even the lives of great devotees are used for the author's purpose. We should not get caught up in downplaying a great devotees level of devotion, rather see the essence of the teaching - BHAKTI IS SUPREME!
Om Tat Sat - in other words, 'nuf said.
Swami - September 30, 2008 4:32 pm
Our conceptual orientation from which we study the sastra is that of bhakta, not as jnani, information gathering, trying to figure it out with our intellect. My simple point is that you seem to be trying to look at this lila from both perspectives. As Gaura Vijaya noted, Prabhupada says that Yudhistira had to see hell because of hesitating to speak the lie as Krsna suggested (an act of surrender - bhakti), rather than actually speaking the lie. This is a bhakta's perspective. A perspective of karma/dharma would see this lila as Yudhistira went to hell for telling a lie, nobody is perfect, try to be a moral person because even Yudhistira went to hell for transgressing dharma. One perspective sees dharma as supreme, the other sees Krsna's will as the supreme dharma. One perspective sees karma as supreme; this is not our faith(!), that a devotee has to suffer hell because of following Krsna.
Here you take the perspective of one who's faith lies not in bhakti but in karma. It is against our siddhanta to suggest that karma rules over the life of the devotee. This is why I say you are trying to look at this from two angles. The reasons for the "reactions" Yudhistira had to undergo would be dependent upon which vision you are viewing the lila from. I am suggesting that if you take the bhakta's vision, the story is not about any "transition zone" between karma and bhakti.
More importantly, I think what our lesson is that the author of the scriptures uses the stories as a tool, and sometimes even the lives of great devotees are used for the author's purpose. We should not get caught up in downplaying a great devotees level of devotion, rather see the essence of the teaching - BHAKTI IS SUPREME!
Om Tat Sat - in other words, 'nuf said.
Yes, well said, Madan Gopala