Reality is the only guru we need

After many years of searching for spiritual truth, about forty, most of which were spent following the teachings of a supposedly God-realized guru,  I finally feel like I know what this truth is.

Reality.

Which isn't spiritual at all. Nor otherworldly. Or supernatural, mystical, mysterious, secret, hidden from the unitiated.

In other words, the big "spiritual truth" is that there isn't any.

Everything we need to understand how we relate to the cosmos is right before our eyes: everyday life. Whatever you did today, and whatever you're doing right now, contains the wisdom of the ages.

We just need to set aside our blinders and see what reality is all about. Freshly, clearly, scientifically.

Recently I came across a You Tube video, "Science Saved My Soul," which offers one way of looking at what is real, and what isn't. The whole fifteen minutes of it is terrific, but after the eight minute mark we hear the most inspiring part.

 

Understanding what science knows about the immense scale of the universe should make us feel exceedingly small and insignificant. What are we compared to the several hundred billion stars in our galaxy, which is but one of a hundred billion or so galaxies in the universe?

Yet science also tells us that we are all of this.

The matter of which we are formed can be traced back 13.7 billion years to the big bang. Primordial elements, helium and hydrogen, evolved into stars. These stars eventually exploded, casting heavy elements into the far reaches of space.

So the truth is that we are all made of stardust.

There is no difference between us and the cosmos, hence no reason to bow down before a supernatural creator. The universe is our home, our reality, our sustainer.

Now, I realize that even rather poetic paeans to science such as this video leave some people wanting another way to grasp the message that what we seek is right in front of us, not in some distant heaven or level of consciousness.

I fly both ways myself, being attracted almost equally to solid scientific facts and inspiring philosophical/psychological insights.

For me the two converge pleasingly in Zen, at least when the religious aspects of Buddhism are purged from the reality-seeking side of Zen. My favorite Zen book of this sort is Hubert Benoit's "The Supreme Doctrine: Psychological Studies in Zen Thought."

(See here and here; it looks like the book has been republished under a different name.)

Every time I re-read "The Supreme Doctrine" I'm blown away by how brilliant and insightful Benoit is. And as quite a few reader reviews on Amazon say, it takes multiple readings of Benoit's masterpiece to grasp what he's getting at.

(You can get some glimmers, though, from my previous blog posts about this book: here, here, here, and here.)

Below is an excerpt from the last post, which was about humility -- a subject I touched upon again a few days ago. (The last two paragraphs are Benoit quotes.)

Benoit says that our efforts to rise up spiritually are doomed to failure. As are our efforts to sink down. Any effort at all is counter-productive, though we have no choice but to attempt such futility until the light of satori dawns.

What we should seek is equality, not higher or lower. But that’s too damn scary for an ego that depends upon separateness in order to keep feeling that “I” am something distinct. “I am humble; I am nothing” and “I am proud; I am everything” are both preferable to the equitable obliteration of “I am, along with everything else.”

"I believe that I am separated from my own ‘being’ and I am looking for it in order to reunite myself with it. Only knowing myself as a distinct individual, I seek for the Absolute in an individual manner, I wish to affirm myself absolutely as a distinct being. This effort creates and maintains in me my divine fiction, my fundamental pretension that I am all-powerful as an individual, on the plane of phenomena.

…I train myself never to recognise the equality between the outside world and myself; I affirm myself to be different from the outside world, on a different level, above whenever I can, below when I cannot….I see myself as conditioning the outer world, or I see myself as not succeeding in conditioning it, but never can I recognise myself as conditioned by it on a footing of equality."

Does life always give us what we want? No. Do our actions and efforts make a difference in what we get from life? Yes.

This is reality. Pretty damn simple.

We are part of life, of the world, of the universe. Yet we are not the central part that our egos consider ourselves to be. Religions proclaim that we can rise beyond our purely human nature, soar to heaven, ascend past mortal limitations and failings.

This feeds into our reality-denying inclinations. Everyday life tells us you're nothing special. Religiosity says, you are meant to be God (or at least sit in his/her/it's presence).

Zen points us toward the marvelousness of simply doing and being what is right here, right now. Chop wood. Carry water. Drive car. Operate cell phone. Whatever.

Our wanting something more and different is the problem, not the solution. Benoit:

The penetrating thought of Zen cuts through all our phenomena without stopping to consider their particularities. It knows that in reality nothing is wrong with us and that we suffer because we do not undertand that everything works perfectly, because in consequence we believe that all is not well and that it is necessary to put something right.

...To the question "What must I do to save myself?" Zen replies: "There is nothing you need do since you have never been enslaved and since there is nothing in reality from which you can free yourself."

Comments

[jon weiss]

to elbow you a bit --;-)

You offer: "Reality"
"Which isn't spiritual at all".

Maybe it is.

also: "Everything we need to understand how we relate to the cosmos is right before our eyes"

Unless your name was Helen Keller. In Helen's case it wasn't right before her ears either.

"Understanding what science knows about the immense scale of the universe should make us feel exceedingly small and insignificant"

To quote my girlfriend: "don't worry honey, size isn't everything".

[jon weiss]

You wrote: "Does life always give us what we want? No. Do our actions and efforts make a difference in what we get from life?"

you answered: "Yes."

"This is reality. Pretty damn simple."

---

Our actions make a difference, if, of course, we remember what we did. If one goes senile and forgets what they wanted before it even arrives?? We might look at what we get and be confused-- it arrives and we might ask: "who the heck sent this?"

And anyhow maybe what "we want" is not so simple--- how we happen on that. We generate meaning(s) and judgments mostly without choosing --tis oft a chain-link, unconscious process (in the raw).

I found the implications of this very interesting:

http://changingminds.org/explanations/sift/infer.htm

jon

[GFB]

Wow. This vid takes me back to when I was a kid, mayby 9 or 10 years old, when on a starry night I would swing on the swing in my back yard and wonder, for a short time, about words like infinity and eternity.

THANKS Much for finding and posting this vid.

[Suzanne Foxton]

There's always a lot of flexibility on definitions and labels..."spirituality" and "reality" can surely be one and the same. We are all the same thing, that's for sure, and the apprehension of "what we are" and "all that is" seems pretty iffy at best. Everything is just a little bit of energy, firing away as neurones...apparently. And that's what's so breathtaking. GREAT post Brian!

[Bharat Bhushan]

I have many questions. However, present reality is that it is a great post. Thanks Brian.

[George]

If you are an atheist why are you hedging your bets by trying to marry science and spirituality (whatever guise it may take)?

Zen, taoism, advaita nonduality - the fundamental philosophical premise of all of these and all other mystical traditions is that everything is one, i.e. all is interconnected.

There is no scientific law or equation of interconnectedness. Its a broad, vague and unprovable statement.

The difference is a matter of conditioning. Those who have grown up in a scientific background consider zen to be ridiculous and innane cos it says nothing about the world which is verifiable. I am not saying their view is correct, but that is a scientific worldview.

Human beings appear to have an inherent psychological predisposition to look for 'meaning' in the universe. This is why religions seem to span just about every age and people. However, the question is whether in reality the universe has 'meaning' or is meaningless.

An atheist does not hedge his/her bets, they are comfortable with a universe full of variety, disorded, unconnected and unexplainable.

In short, the atheist has truly reconciled himself to the fact that there is no meaning.

[Tony]

Nice post.

George:

>In short, the atheist has truly reconciled >himself to the fact that there is no >meaning.

Depends on your definition of 'meaning'. Is it 'purpose'? Or is it 'cause'?

Eg. when I ask the question 'Is there any meaning to the universe' I am actually asking 'What caused the universe to be as it is now?'

From my experience, everything has a cause (or rather, multiple causes interacting).

Eg. A baby is caused to exist from a sperm and egg meeting, and a whole range of causes/effects from then on, until it comes out of the womb.

If we could somehow follow all the causes and effects, back to the origins of the universe, we may find what caused our universe to exist... assuming the cause/effect theory applies in all areas of existence.

Now, I can't imagine this will ever be possible. But... if everything has a cause, maybe the universe/existence also has a cause. Whether we'll find out what caused it to exist, I don't know.

Brian:

If we, and everything around us, are made of the same 'stuff', then does that mean we are all connected?

If we are connected to everything, we don't realise the connection consciously. I can't experience existence as the tree I am now staring at through my window.

If everything is made of the same 'stuff', then our mind, consciousness, all our faculties are made of this 'stuff'...

...then may be there is a way to ride that connection, to become consciously aware of more than what we are currently aware of.

May be not.

If there is a way, I don't know how.

[Blogger Brian]

George, we make our own meanings, so the universe certainly isn't meaningless. Part of that meaning-making is arriving at what we could call a "philosophical" understanding of the cosmos, or at least of life.

Einstein certainly had this sort of understanding. He wasn't a "just the facts" sort of guy, as were many of his colleagues (which is still true today, as witnessed by the fairly numerous physicists who delve into the meaning of quantum physics).

The essence of Zen and Buddhism is meditation, understanding of how the mind/brain operates and makes sense of the world. Meditation is being studied by neuroscientists and physicians, leading to new insights about how we can change the structure and functioning of the brain through the "mind" (i.e., the brain feeds back upon itself, in a form of neuroplasticity).

In his new book, Sam Harris (a leading atheist) speaks about how Western science hasn't paid much attention to greater than normal human functioning. The East has, as witnessed by Hindu yogis, Zen masters, Buddhist monks, Taoist sages and the like.

This isn't, or doesn't have to be, anything supernatural. It is just training the mind and body in certain directions. Research has shown that long-time Buddhist meditators can reach brain states that are inaccessible to "normal" people.

Hope this explains why I find Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism so interesting. They've explored human consciousness in ways that Western philosophy and science haven't up till now. Yes, some followers edge way into religiosity. But it's possible to separate meditation and mind exercises from religion. (Zen essentially is atheistic.)

[George]

Brian
Sure we can make our own meaning, just as the religious make their own meaning. However, your post eschews such subjective meaning and replaces it with science, edvidence-based knowledge.

Einstein may well have had metaphysical leanings, he was German afterall, and he mat have also been a great scientist - but science as you espouse it in this post of no gods, spirituality, etc - is evidence based.

My point is there is a lack of consistency - either you only accept evidence-based knowledge or not - but if you do not then you are being inconsistent and hedging your bets unlike the atheists you herald.

Tony
interesting, but I am not sure everthing has a cause and effect, indeed what then caused the universe? How do we know if god caused the universe or the universe is self-caused and eternal? What causes virtual particles to spontaneously create and dissapear? What caused the handful of physical constants to be so finely tuned for our universe and life as we know it to exist?

[yoshi]

Brian,
You are extremely dogmatic in your skeptism yet you critise the foundation of spititulity for its ultimate dogmatics.

Also why do you dismiss the notion of spirit and love and devotion and illusion and longing, but rather cling onto formulaic methodologies of thought?

Have you ever truly understood a word of satsang given by babaji?
After reading life is fair I'm slightly dissapointed that an authoric voice of your stature has collapsed into his own shell. Please give time to your meditation.

You yourself write "to exist is to simply be". Then why don't you practise this to the utmost. It certainly doesnt seem that way by this entire website. You wanted feedback right? You want to stir the minds of others? Well here you go.

[tAo]

yoshi: "You are extremely dogmatic in your skeptism"

-- how is it possible to be skeptical and also dogmatic? its not possible. so apparently you do not understand what skepticism is... skepticism is to question all dogma.

yoshi: "why do you dismiss the notion of spirit and love and devotion and illusion and longing, but rather cling onto formulaic methodologies of thought?"

where exactly did he (Brian) dismiss spirit, love, devotion and longing? i haven't seen that. so i think you are mistaken.

yoshi: "Have you ever truly understood a word of satsang given by babaji?"

-- but who cares what that karmi fool (your so-called "babaji") says? false gurus and imposters say many different things. its all worthless nonsense and maya. its the blind leading the blind.

yoshi: "I'm slightly dissapointed that an authoric voice of your stature has collapsed into his own shell. Please give time to your meditation."

-- "collapsed"?? where is the evidence of that? your position is so weak, that all you can do is to belittle, and then lamely suggest meditation. meditation is not the answer to anything. meditation is entirely a private personal endeavor, and so its none of your concern. you have offered nothing constructive that is of any substance. so i doubt that you have any clue as to who & what you are, and why you are here.

yoshi: "You yourself write "to exist is to simply be". Then why don't you practise this to the utmost."

-- how can one "practice" existing or being?? thats absurd nonsense. existence is already existing, and being is already being. moreover, the entire universe (as well as every living being) is active, not static. that fact should give you a clue.

yoshi: "You want to stir the minds of others? Well here you go."

-- i would advise you to abandon all your various acquired assumptions about spirituality and your material-minded consciousness and conditioning, and just simply begin to surrender to the supreme personality of godhead, Sri Sri Radha Krsna... who is the ultimate source and origin of your very existence, your consciousness, your intelligence, as well as your material body and energy.

if you would simply think and say (and keep saying) the name "Krsna", then immediately your consciousness will shift onto the transcendental plane - that is Krsna consciousness.

so simply chant Hare Krsna, and your life will become truly sublime, and you will gradually understand your true position and the goal and purpose of your human life.

Hare Krsna

[George]

tAo

You cannot be serious. How is hare krishna different from sant mat?

[tucson]

tAo,

Why is Krsna spelled Krsna and not Krishna? Is it OK for a Krsna devotee to spell it Krishna?

Where is the transcendental plane in your opinion? Is it our present reality perceived differently? Does it superimpose our present reality, or is it located somewhere else? Or?

Why is Krsna blue?

Why is chanting Hare Krsna more efficacious than chanting, say, Om Namah Shivayah or nam myo horhenge kyo, or whatever? I don't repeat mantras much but Om Namah Shivayah comes naturally to me, and I used to chant it alot. Some Buddhists think chanting "nam myo horhenge kyo" is the short cut to realization. I also tried that one for awile.

The five "holy" names given by RSSB gurus never flowed very well for me. They always seemed to have an awkward cadence even though I have repeated them many thousands of times. The chants I mentioned above flow much easier for me.

I find that Om Namah Shivaya is my default mantra when on a rough plane flight or being approached by an IRS agent.

I was given a personalized mantra by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1966. I was told that this particular mantra was specially attuned to my vibration and would be the most efficacious in aligning my consciousness with the Divine, and all I had to do was give a piece of fruit in exchange. Good deal. Do you think chanting Hare Krsna would be better? Why? (I was instructed not to reveal this mantra like they do in Sant Mat. For all I know everybody got the same mantra from Maharishi. Or not.)

These days I prefer just to sit quietly somewhere and "grok fullness". (You have to read "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein to know what that means.)

[George]

I don't undertsand how you guys can advocate nonduality without religion or ritual and yet Hare Krishna or chanting is ok? Also if gurus are not to be followed, why do you follow the instructions of Maharishi for example.

[tucson]

George,

You misunderstood. My involvement with Maharishi was, as I said, in 1966. I do not currently follow the instructions of any path, religion, philosophy, teacher, prophet, shaman, chanting, ritual, or spiritual group. Over the years I have "dabbled" with a variety of these things, but not now.

[tAo]

tucson: "Why is Krsna spelled Krsna and not Krishna? Is it OK for a Krsna devotee to spell it Krishna?"

tAo: you can spell it either way. and there is no rule as to spelling.

tucson: "Where is the transcendental plane in your opinion?"

tAo: the transcendental plane is beyond the gunas, which are the three modes of material nature... namely tamas (ignorance), rajas (passion), and sattva (goodness).

tucson: "Is it our present reality perceived differently?"

tAo: what is "our present reality"?? if you mean how is the material world seen from the transcendental plane, it is seen as Krsna's inferior energy. the living entities are Krsna's marginal potency. and Krsna is the superior energy. everything belongs to Krsna. it is all His energy, both the material energy, and also the living entities. even consciousness is from Krsna. so when we think, say, and remember Krsna, that is Krsna consciousness. Krsna consciousness is simply being aware and conscious of your relationship to the supreme personality of godhead, Krsna. we are all part and parcel of Krsna. we are all merely infintesimal rays or sparks of Krsna, and Krsna is like the entire Sun. Krsna is 'achinta bheda abheda tattva' - simultaneously one and different.

tucson: "Does it superimpose our present reality, or is it located somewhere else?"

tAo: again... the transcendental plane is situated beyond the gunas. the gunas are the three modes of material nature - namely tamas (ignorance), rajas (passion), and sattva (goodness). Krsna consciousness is situated on the transcendental platform. so therefore, whenever we simply think of and say the name of Krsna -- because Krsna is present in His name and is non-different from His name -- then we become immediately situated upon the transcendental plane, beyond the three gunas or modes of the material plane. Krsna consciousness is to become aware of and to know our true position and relationship to Krsna. Krsna is the supreme personlity of godhead.

Brahman is Krsna's impersonal aspect; Paramatma is Krsna in the form of the Super-Soul within the heart; and Bhagavan is Krsna as the supreme personality of godhead.

tucson: "Why is chanting Hare Krsna more efficacious than chanting, say, Om Namah Shivayah or nam myo horhenge kyo, or whatever?"

tAo: again... Krsna is present in his name, so whenever we simply think of or say the name of Krsna -- because Krsna is present in His name and is non-different from His name -- then we immediately become conscious of Krsna and therefore situated upon the transcendental plane, beyond the three gunas or modes of the material plane. Krsna consciousness is to become aware of, and to know our true position and relationship to Krsna. we are the living entities, and Krsna is the supreme personlity of godhead, the origin of all.

the name Krsna is far more potent and direct and therefore awakens our Krsna consciousness, than chanting other names such as the names of the demigods like Shiva or impersonal buddhist chants. so simply chanting the name of Krsna immediately awakens our Krsna consciousness.

Listen here:
http://www.hansadutta.com/MP3MUSIC/Happening_Album/Address.mp3

Read here:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2010/10/open-thread-8.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20133f511a3b9970b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20133f511a3b9970b

tucson: "I don't repeat mantras much"

tAo: Hare Krsna is called the maha-mantra, but in reality it is Krsna in the form of sound vibration. so it is not just some mantra. the Hare Krsna mahamantra is actually mercy, as it is the names of the supreme personality of godhead Sri Krsna, and it immediatly connects our consciousness to Krsna, and elevates us beyond the modes of material nature (the gunas).

tucson: "The five "holy" names given by RSSB gurus never flowed very well for me. They always seemed to have an awkward cadence even though I have repeated them many thousands of times. The chants I mentioned above flow much easier for me."

tAo: the point of chanting the name of Krsna is that it is non-different from Krsna, and it immediately engages us in Krsna consciousness. it is not done for one's own pleasure or gain, but rather, it is a supplication to Krsna to engage one in Krsna's service... although in that way it does then bring us transcendental bliss, since Sri Krsna is the all-attractive supreme personality of godhead, and the resevoir of all pleasure.

tucson: "I find that Om Namah Shivaya is my default mantra when on a rough plane flight or being approached by an IRS agent."

tAo: Krsna is the only real source of protection. Krsna consciousness is transcendental.

tucson: "I was given a personalized mantra by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1966. I was told that this particular mantra was specially attuned..."

tAo: again, the Hare Krsna mahamantra is not just any ordinary mantra. the Hare Krsna mahamantra immediatley places one on the plane of Krsna consciousness. experience will prove this to be true, beyond any doubt.

tucson: "Do you think chanting Hare Krsna would be better? Why?"

tAo: yes, infinitely better. as for why, please refer to what i said above. or better yet, listen to (or read) Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's address about chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra.

Hare Krsna

[tAo]

George: "How is hare krishna different from sant mat?"

tAo: Hare Krsna (actually called Vaishanvism) is very different from sant mat. sant mat is vague and has no clear conception of the supreme personality of godhead. sant mat mentions nothing about the form, the attributes, and the pastimes of the supreme personality of godhead Sri Sri Radha Krsna, nor concerning the relationship between the jivatma, and Krsna the paramatma. and moreover, sant mat is mayavadi, and it also tends to impersonalism. also, sant mat views the guru as being the same as God (gihf), which is totally opposed to the vaishanava Krsna conception. in vaishavism, no person is equal to, or one with, or the same as Krsna. Krsna is "achintya bheda abheda tattva". there are also several other relatively important differences as well, but the above are the main ones.

George: "I don't undertsand how you guys can advocate nonduality without religion or ritual and yet Hare Krishna or chanting is ok?"

tAo: i don't "advocate" nonduality. i am Vaishnava, a devotee of the supreme personality of godhead Sri Krsna. and the chanting of the transcendental sound vibration of...

Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna
Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama
Rama Rama, Hare Hare

...is not ritual or religion. it is Krsna consciousness.

George: "Also if gurus are not to be followed, why do you follow the instructions of Maharishi for example."

tAo: i too had some [personal contact with the Maharishi back in the late 1960s, but i don't follow his instructions (i don't think tucson does either). however, i do try to follow the instuctions and the example of my guru Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. if it were not for his divine grace, i would not have come to know Sri Krsna as the supreme personality of godhead, as well as understand Sri Krsna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's mission and awaken Krsna consciousness.

[tucson]

tAo,

Thanks for addressing my questions, but I still don't know why Krishna is spelled "Krsna" by devotees such as yourself? I have seen this many times but never understood it.

I have decided I don't need to know why Krishna is blue in color as depicted in pictures I have seen. Could get complicated.

Since Krishna is 'Source' aren't we part and parcel of Krishna consciousness already whether we say the Hare Krishna mantra or not, in the same way some say we are "enlightened" whether we know it or not?

Let's say someone is deaf and mute. Would they derive the same benefit from chanting Hare Krishna mentally in silence as they would vocally out loud? How would they know what Hare Krishna sounds like? This would seem to be a great disadvantage. Should they attempt to chant Hare Krishna out loud anyway even if it comes out garbled and distorted? I mean, what they say may not sound like Hare Krishna at all. It might sound really weird. I am not trying to be funny or a wise guy here. This could be a serious issue for some people.

[tAo]

tucson: "but I still don't know why Krishna is spelled "Krsna" by devotees such as yourself? I have seen this many times but never understood it."

tAo: either way is acceptable. i just prefer more concise spelling.

"I have decided I don't need to know why Krishna is blue in color as depicted in pictures I have seen. Could get complicated."

i have a fairly good short video for you that explains why Krsna appears blue, and also many other things about Krsna.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iazBLgoD_YY

tucson: "Since Krishna is 'Source' aren't we part and parcel of Krishna consciousness already whether we say the Hare Krishna mantra or not"

tAo: each of us is part and parcel of Krishna. however... Krishna is the source of consciousness, but Krsna consciousness is to become 'conscious' of Krishna. there is the material consciousness, and then there is Krishna consciousness. we are not always Krishna conscious, but we can become Krishna conscious. still, we are always part and parcel of Krishna, regardless of whether we are conscious of Krishna, or not. but Krsna consciousness or being conscious of Krsna, takes us beyond the gunas - the modes of material nature.

tucson: "Let's say someone is deaf and mute. Would they derive the same benefit from chanting Hare Krishna mentally in silence as they would vocally out loud?"

tAo: Yes, same benefit. the important thing is simply to engage in Krishna consciousness.

tucson: "How would they know what Hare Krishna sounds like? This would seem to be a great disadvantage."

tAo: i don't know enough about deafness, etc. to tell.

tucson: "Should they attempt to chant Hare Krishna out loud anyway even if it comes out garbled and distorted?"

tAo: yes, and it doesn't matter. the important thing is to have some Krsna consciousness. via hearing, or seeing, or chanting. it doesn't matter if they cannot speak well.

tucson: "what they say may not sound like Hare Krishna at all."

tAo: it doesn't matter as long as they are thinking of Krishna or hearing Krishna.

tucson: "I am not trying to be funny or a wise guy here."

tAo: yes, i know.

tucson: "This could be a serious issue for some people."

tAo: to even hear the name Krishna, or to hear about Krishna, or to see an image of Krishna, or even say Krishna's name... is entirely Krishna's mercy. so anyone can enter into Krishna consciousness, no matter what, even if they are blind.

the moment you say (or chant or sing) or hear the Hare Krsna mahamantra, you enter the plane of Krishna consciousness. as long as you continue to chant or hear, you will remain in Krishna consciousness -- on the transcendental platform. the more one hears and says the name of Krishna, the deeper one enters into the transcendental plane of Krishna consciousness.

Hare Krsna

[David]

"Be still and know that i am God"

- doesn't seem to involve chanting.

[Roger]

Tucson,

As with the other Buddhist discussion, I can see 'duality' in much of this Krishna consciousness discussion. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with duality, however, what happen to non-duality? I wonder if non-duality is ever hinted upon in the Lord Krishna literature.

Do you see the same?

And, the 'remaining' in Krishna consciousness, with chanting and saying and hearing requirement. I wonder if 'looking' the part, is a requirement too. It would appear that all the followers of Lord Krishna look the same in dress, shaved head, and other outward visuals.

I'm not finding fault with the Krishna movement. It's just an interesting observation.

[tucson]

Roger,

I have thought the same.

Upon superficial examination it would appear that there is a lot of duality in the Krshna movement. However, maybe tAo would be more qualified to comment here to explain why it isn't.

In chanting Hare Krshna I have not detected any evidence of being attuned to a unique transcendental realm of consciousness. Years ago I did some Hare Krishna chanting at the temple in L.A. I was a RSSB devotee at the time under Charan Singh, but I was not opposed to having a good time and eating lots of free vegetarian food even though most of it was very sweet and made my teeth ache.

The Hare Krishna kirtans (chanting, dancing, music, etc.) were a fun party atmosphere. But at the same time all the pictues and statues of Krishna and his devotees, sacred cows, gopis, flowers, incense, the "gilded" atmosphere, shaved heads, orange garb, the guru-like figure Prahbupad, etc. just were not my thing.

IMO, in line with what Blogger Brian has written about in his latest post, chanting does tend to focus you in the now and thus you tend to feel more at peace, content and "elevated". But I don't think this is exclusive to Krishna chanting. I have experienced the same when chanting with other spiritual groups including native american chanting and drumming or even playing music by myself or with others.

The key seems to be focus and total immersion in Now.

[tAo]

David,

why "Be still and know that i am God"??

how will trying to be still cause you to know God, to know who is God??

furthermore, you can not be still. you will be still only when you die. until then, you will not, and can not, ever be still. life is constant movement and activity. life is never still. so trying to be still is futile, and it will not cause God to become revealed. only surrender and love will invite God. you are wasting your time in thinking that by being still, you will know God. knowing God is not something that is within your power or control to bring about, as it depends soley upon God - Krsna's mercy. Krsna can only be approached through surrender and love, not otherwise. neither attempting to be still, nor dry philosophical speculation, will cause God to be revealed. you cannot know Krsna by any means of your own. only if it be Krsna's will and desire and mercy. only through humilty and surrender and love and devotion will you come to know God. you cannot approach God otherwise. trying to be still will not work. you must surrender all strategy. God does not care about be still. God is moved only by love and surrender.

--------------------------------------------

Roger: "I can see 'duality' in much of this Krishna consciousness discussion. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with duality, however, what happen to non-duality? I wonder if non-duality is ever hinted upon in the Lord Krishna literature."

tAo: Krishna is 'achinta bheda abheda tattva', or (inconcievable) simultaneous oneness and difference. that means Krishna is both non-dual and dual. which means everything and everyone is Krishna's energies, but Krishna also remains separate and independent.

Roger: "the 'remaining' in Krishna consciousness, with chanting and saying and hearing requirement."

tAo: there is no such "requirement". in order to understand Krsna consciousness fully, you must become Krsna conscious. otherwise you are under the influence and sway of maya.

Roger: "I wonder if 'looking' the part, is a requirement too."

tAo: no, there aren't any such requirements. there is no particular outer appearance or dress that is required. however, personal cleanliness is important. but it is Krsna consciousness that is the all-important factor. you will miss that if you get caught up in extraneous and irrelevant superficialities and mental speculations. Krsna consciousness is a gift, it is Krsna's causeless mercy. it is not bound by any limitations.

[tAo]

tucson: "Upon superficial examination it would appear that there is a lot of duality in the Krshna movement."

tAo: in what sense? also, this so-called "movement" (which was begun by Sri Krsna Chaitanya Mahprabhu), is composed of human beings and their activities and devotion. neither duality nor non-duality has anything to do with it. so i don't see what you mean. so perhaps you may be referring to the ralationship between Krsna and the living entities and the material world, and not the "movement" ie the society of devotees.

tucson: "In chanting Hare Krshna I have not detected any evidence of being attuned to a unique transcendental realm of consciousness."

tAo: what exactly were you expecting? or trying to "detect"? the idea is not so much trying to be "attuned". Krsna is trancendental to maya and the modes of material nature. but also, Krsna is present in Krsna's name. so simply hearing and chanting the name of Krsna, in a humble state of mind, one is immediately and automatically situated directly upon the transcendental platform, beyond the modes of material nature.

tucson: "Years ago I did some Hare Krishna chanting at the temple in L.A."

tAo: "years" is a rather long time. but simply hearing and chanting the name of Krsna, immediately one can be situated on the plane of Krsna consciousness.

tucson: "The Hare Krishna kirtans (chanting, dancing, music, etc.) were a fun party atmosphere."

tAo: but the point is to develop Krsna consciousness and love of God, not merely to party.

tucson: IMO, [...] chanting does tend to focus you in the now and thus you tend to feel more at peace, content and "elevated". But I don't think this is exclusive to Krishna chanting."

tAo: thats not the point of chanting Hare Krsna. that is the wrong orientation. it is not for oneself, for one's own personal advantage. it is simply to surrender.

tucson: "I have experienced the same when chanting with other spiritual groups"

tAo: i don't know about your experience. but the point is not to "focus you in the now", or to "feel more at peace, content and elevated". the point is to surrender to Krsna, and to become aware of our actual relationship to Krsna, to become Krsna conscious and develop love of God.

tucson: "The key seems to be focus and total immersion in Now."

tAo: if thats what you want, thats what you will get, but it will not free you from maya and the modes of material nature.

however, if you desire to come to Krsna,
to know about Krsna and to develop love of God and become free of the spell of maya, then simply surrender to Krsna by hearing and chanting the name of Krsna, the mahamantra.

if you desire Krsna, then Krsna will undoubtedly fulfill your desire. if you desire something else, then Krsna will kindly arrange that too... but you will not become free from nescience and maya.

Krsna consciousness is a gift. you can take it or leave it. it is Krsna's causeless mercy. it is not a burden. it is not mundane. it is not impersonal. it is above the modes of material nature. it is transcendental. and everytime you think, hear, or say the name of Krsna, you advance in Krsna consciousness - you come one increment closer to Krsna. so what are you waiting for?

you can't have already "been there and done that"... because either you are Krsna conscious now, or you are not. if you are not presently Krsna conscious, then you are (automatically) in maya. when one is under the power and sway of maya, one cannot understand the transcendental nature of the supreme personality of godhead Sri Krsna.

simply by chanting the transcendental sound vibration of the Hare Krsna mahamantra, one will rise to the transcendental platform, and develop love of God.

just remember, the more you hear, say, chant, or sing Hare Krsna, the more you will develop and deepen your Krsna consciouness.

Hare Krsna

[Roger]

"... because either you are Krsna conscious now, or you are not. if you are not presently Krsna conscious, then you are (automatically) in maya. when one is under the power and sway of maya, one cannot understand the transcendental nature of the supreme personality of godhead Sri Krsna."

"simply by chanting the transcendental sound vibration of the Hare Krsna mahamantra, one will rise to the transcendental platform, and develop love of God."

"just remember, the more you hear, say, chant, or sing Hare Krsna, the more you will develop and deepen your Krsna consciouness."

---Just more teasing. Do more of this, then you get more of that. You didn't get more because you didn't surrender enough. But, I did surrender and I chanted more and more. Nope, you didn't, you spend too much time in maya, that's your problem Roger. But, but, I did all that I was told to do, and now after 20 years of chanting and surrendering, I feel rather silly and stupid. Roger, you are becoming a problem, you will never receive the Love of God. Lord Krishna is not pleased, you are now going to get some 'rough' handling. I suggest you get back to your chanting and keep your mouth shut!!!!! Ok, ok, I will do as you say, I desparately need to rise to the transcendental platform and deepen my Krsna consciouness. Well better, but I warn you, don't express your feelings like this again. Don't do anything negative, and especially, don't go on the internet. End of story.

[George]

tAo

I am actually amazed that you entertain the hare krishma movement, i thought they were cult personified and were the happy-clappy soap dodgers that accosted one at airports?

surrender, devotion, maya, transcendental immaterial planes, god consciousness, sun, sparks, sound vibrations, chanting holy names - sounds like many other mystical traditions.

[George]

the hare krishnas also have guru lineages, believe in god (krishna) and are evangelical in spreading their Truth.

they were the subject of anti-cult scrutiny in the 70s and 80s and had several abuse cases launched against them.

cant really how you can criticise sant mat for evangelical dogma or being cults, when their seems to be very little seperating these mystical traditions.

[tAo]

Roger: "Do more of this, then you get more of that."

tAo: no, not quite. "this" and "that" are the same the same thing. the "this" is the "that". in other words, when you are conscious of Krsna, then you are on the plane of Krsna consciousness.

Roger: "You didn't get more because you didn't surrender enough."

tAo: no, that's not the way it is either. no one is judging as to whether someone "didn't surrender enough" or didn't chant enough etc. surrender is simply a natural outcome of developing Krsna consciousness. no one is judging or making you do anything.

Roger: "but, I did all that I was told to do, and now after 20 years of chanting and surrendering, I feel rather silly and stupid."

tAo: why would you feel silly? no one is telling you to do anything. Bhakti yoga and Krsna consciousness is blissful. and chanting Hare Krsna brings one immediate Krsna conciousness. so there's no need for 20 years.

Roger: "you are becoming a problem, you will never receive the Love of God."

tAo: that is nonsense. Krsna consciousness results in love for God.

Roger: "Lord Krishna is not pleased, you are now going to get some 'rough' handling. I suggest you get back to your chanting and keep your mouth shut"

tAo: that is also nonsense. it is using distortion to ridicule.

Roger: "ok, I will do as you say, I desparately need to rise to the transcendental platform and deepen my Krsna consciouness."

tao: there is no need to feel "desparately". by chanting the Hare Krsna mahamantra, one is automatically situated on the transcendental platform.

Roger: "don't express your feelings like this again. Don't do anything negative, and especially, don't go on the internet."

tAo: that is also nonsense. Krsna consciousness has nothing to do with such notions.

[tAo]

George: "I am actually amazed that you entertain the hare krishma movement, i thought they were cult personified and were the happy-clappy soap dodgers that accosted one at airports?"

tAo: that is all nonsense. first, i have simply spoken about bhakti yoga, Krsna consciousness, and the Hare Krsna mahamantra. i have not promoted any "movement" or cult. second, your ideas are totally incorrect. Krsna devotees practice extreme cleanliness.

George: "surrender, devotion, maya, transcendental immaterial planes, god consciousness, sun, sparks, sound vibrations, chanting holy names - sounds like many other mystical traditions."

tAo: Krsna consciousness is not mysticism at all, it is bhakti yoga. bhakti yoga is devotion to the supreme personality of godhead, Krsna. that is the difference.

George: "the hare krishnas also have guru lineages believe in god (krishna) and are evangelical"

tAo: yes, that is correct.

[tucson]

tAo,

As I understand Dzogchen, the 'intrinsic natural state' is everpresent and only needs to be recognized as such. It is a simple teaching although recognition of the 'already present natural state' may appear elusive to the seeker.

There is no need for a maha mantra, bhakti and that sort of thing in Dzogchen. The concept of a divine being, supreme personality of Godhead (Krishna) or a transcendental plane (Krisha consciousness) are foreign concepts in Dzogchen. Correct me if I am wrong.

Since you have indicated your personal affinity with Dzogchen and Krishna Consciousness, I wonder how you reconcile the two as they seem to have different and seemingly conflictive approaches to reality.

[George]

tAo

"Krsna consciousness is not mysticism at all, it is bhakti yoga. bhakti yoga is devotion to the supreme personality of godhead, Krsna. that is the difference."

But 'bhakti yoga' means total surrender or devotion? The HK (hare krishnas) surrender to krishna, whereas Sant Mat surrender to the Shabd. Both have gods, guru lineages, chanting rites, aesthetic rules of abstinence and surrender to an obscured (maya) transcendental realm.

You say RS believes in GIHF, but I thought krishna was a manifestation of vishnu? I understand that Hinduism, of which the HK sect split fairly recently around 15th century, was packed full of various avatars or descended incarnations of krishna.

So the differences appear largely superficial, and it seems HK is even more evangelical than SM and has received far more scrutiny as a cult over the years?

Do the HK believe in reincarnation or karma? Or have they only selected the idea of a mystical universal consciousness?

[Roger]

Yes, regarding Dzogchen and Krishna Consciousness, I wonder(as with Tucson) how to reconcile the two different and seemingly conflictive approaches to reality.

--This is now where this conversation becomes interesting. Hopefully, some educational issues can be discussed.
--George, do you have any info as to why the HK sect split(from Hinduism?) around the 15th century? This would be interesting conversation, too.

[David]

Every Hare Krishna sounds the same - they are like victriola puppets. Go to any HK place on the web and see the way they speak - tAo sounds like a carbon copy.

"rascals" "cheaters" "transcendental platform" and so on. It's imitation of Prabhupada.

The HK believe that the moon landing was a hoax and that evolution is incorrect. Prabhupada couldn't understand how humans have evolved from apes and used the oft heard question, "if we evolved from monkeys then why are the monkeys still here?" especially not knowing that we didn't evolve from monkeys but from apes.

There has been plenty of bad behvaiour from some Hare Krishnas, such as murder, rape, pedophilia and so on. Even Prabupada was supposed to have been poisoned to death by his own disciples.

"The fifth largest army in the world is the Hare Krishnas. Would you get me out of here please, Mr onion head in terminal C is scaring the shit out of me"

Prahupada liked to pervert his sanskrit texts by distorting and adding things that weren't originally there. Such as "the supreme personality of Godhead". He also claims a lineage that goes back to Krishna himself which he lauds to the high heavens as being extremely important but in the next breath he is saying that Jesus Christ was a legitimate guru.

He thought there were people on the moon and on the other planets in the solar system, which no spaceship could reach.

And the worst thing of all is that the HK mahamantra is not even in the Bhagavad Gita! And what is even worse than this is that in Iskcon the HK mantra is reversed! It's too bad that Krishna didn't mention any mantra chanting the first time he spoke to Arjuna. That might have saved a lot of people for thousands of years until Sri Chaitanya.

In fact, Prabhupada said that in this age of Kali (it is not the age of kali by the way) the ONLY way to be saved is by chanting the mahamantra as opposed to any other form of spiritual practice, including Yoga. Whereas in the Gita Krishna advocates sitting meditation. Prabhupada is so wrong about this it is unbelievable.

And yes, all orthodox Hindus know that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. Only the HK think it is the other way around. So you won't find any other Gita commentary in the entire world that says that Krishna is the "supreme personality of Godhead" or God himself aside from Iskcon, the founder of which thinks that the Gita contains no metaphor, especially with regards to the inner battle waged on kurukshetra between the ego and the spirit, which krishna represents.

Iskcon is a cult and so is RSSB.

Surrender and devotion to God are not the monopoly of any cult, guru or leader or lineage. Most of the founders of the major religions were mystics, and yogis are mystics. Look at the catholic saints for example. Their devotion to God brought them spiritual experiences, the mystic union and so forth, through their devotion to the inner conception of Jesus, who was obviously not alive when they chose him as a "guru". Iskcon is just another "i have the only true path" cult which we have all seen of and known of in its many guises.

And last but not least, chanting this mahamantra is torture and boredom to the enth degree.

[tAo]

tucson,

dzogchen has only to do with the primal nature of awareness, nothing more. awareness in the conditioned souls or living entities (jivatma), is Krsna's marginal potency. Krsna is the superior potency. Krsna is the supreme cognitive principle, the origin of all awareness. and bhakti is devotion to Krsna.

--------------------------------------------

George: "But 'bhakti yoga' means total surrender or devotion?"

tAo: surrender and devotion go hand in hand. bhakti yoga is devotion to Krsna. and surrendering to Krsna is part of devotion.

"The HK (hare krishnas) surrender to krishna, whereas Sant Mat surrender to the Shabd."

tAo: no, not really. sant mat practices meditation on the shabda, not surrender. surrender in sant mat, is surrender to the sant guru.

George: "Both have gods, guru lineages, chanting rites, aesthetic rules of abstinence and surrender to an obscured (maya) transcendental realm."

tAo: chanting the name of Krsna, the mahamantra, is not a mere "rite", it is a transcendental activity. it is Krsna's mercy. it is Krsna consciousness, and devotional service to Krsna.

George: "I thought krishna was a manifestation of vishnu?"

tAo: no, Vishnu (and Maha Vishnu) are expansions of the supreme personality of godhead Sri Krsna.

George: "I understand that Hinduism, of which the HK sect split fairly recently around 15th century"

tAo: that is totally incorrect. Hinduism is a very broad category. The "HK" are in the Brahma-Mahava-Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. Vaishnavas are Hindu. Hinduism and Vaisnavism comes from from the Vedic. there was/is no such "spilt" away from Hinduism. that information is absolutely wrong.

George: "it seems HK is even more evangelical than SM"

tAo: the Hare Krsna devotees are simply following in the mission of Sri Krsna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, which is to spread love of God through the chanting (sankirtan) of the names of Krsna, and taking prasadam.

George: "Do the HK believe in reincarnation or karma?"

tAo: yes, both.

George: "Or have they only selected the idea of a mystical universal consciousness?"

tAo: no, Krsna consciousness really has nothing to do with any "mystical universal consciousness".

--------------------------------------------
Roger,

"George, do you have any info as to why the HK sect split(from Hinduism?) around the 15th century? This would be interesting"

tAo: as i said Roger, that idea is totally incorrect. i don't know where that idea came from, but its not correct. perhaps George misinterpreted something that he read somewhere. there was never any split from Hinduism. Krsna devotees are Vaishnavas, and Vaishnavas definitely come under the category of Hindu. so don't believe something just because someone says it.

Note: btw, as for David's lengthy collection of distortions and disinformation, i will address that in another separate comment.

[tAo]

David: "It's imitation of Prabhupada."

-- i am not imitating anyone. you obviously don't know me very well. i speak from my own heart, mind, and views. i donlt imitate anyone. but i do consider Srila Prabhupada to be someone that aspire to be like.

"The HK believe that the moon landing was a hoax and that evolution is incorrect."

-- can you prove the moon landing? if so, then please provide that unquestionable proof. can you also prove evolution conclusively, without any doubt whatsoever? you cannot. so don't act like such a smart-ass.

"Prabhupada couldn't understand"

-- He understood a great deal more than you do. You cannot even remotely approach the depth of his spiritual understanding.

"Prahupada liked to pervert his sanskrit texts by distorting and adding things that weren't originally there."

-- that is totally incorrect. Prabhupada was a sanskrit scholar. His translations were literal. have you read the sanskrit? i have, and Prabhupada's translations are exact.

"Such as "the supreme personality of Godhead"."

-- wrong again. fyi, 'param-purusha' means 'supreme personality' (of godhead).

"He also claims a lineage that goes back to Krishna himself"

-- because the lineage does go back to Sri Krsna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and from there back to Krsna.

"the worst thing of all is that the HK mahamantra is not even in the Bhagavad Gita!"

-- but who said that it is? no one has claimed that the mahamantra is in the Bhagavad Gita. the transcendental mahamantra is composed of three words: Hare, Krsna, and Rama... and it is an entreaty to Krsna to engage oneself in devotional service.

"And what is even worse than this is that in Iskcon the HK mantra is reversed!"

-- no, the actual proper order is for Krsna to come placed before Rama. so you are ill-informed. some Hindus reverse it, but that is more or less incorrect. the name Krsna has more potency than the name Rama. Krsna is Krsna; but Rama is an avatar of Krsna.

"Prabhupada said that in this age of Kali (it is not the age of kali by the way) the ONLY way to be saved is by chanting the mahamantra as opposed to any other form of spiritual practice, including Yoga."

-- that is incorrect. Prahbupada said that chanting is the "most effective" way, in this age. He did not say the it is the "ONLY way". He never said the "ONLY way". so you are wrong, and you are promoting distortion and falsehood.

"Whereas in the Gita Krishna advocates sitting meditation."

-- that is also incorrect. Krsna's conclusion was to abandon all religion and karma yoga and jnana yoga. Krsna advised surrender and devotion. Krsna never advocated "sitting meditation".

"Prabhupada is so wrong about this it is unbelievable."

-- are you a sanskrit scholar? i doubt it. you clearly know nothing about these matters. on the other hand, Prabhupada was highly versed in sanskrit, as well as Bhagavad gita, the Srimad Bhagavatam, the Brahma samhita, the Puranas, and other important Vedic texts.

"And yes, all orthodox Hindus know that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu."

-- that is incorrect. have you ever been to India? a great many of the common class of Hindus are extremely ignorant of the position of Krsna as the supreme. Sri Krsna is the supreme godhead. Vishnu is but an expansion of Krsna. this is well established in all the authoritative Vedic scriptures. you are obviously quite ill-informed.

"Surrender and devotion to God are not the monopoly of any cult, guru or leader or lineage."

-- no one has said that it is. Krsna devotees do not claim any monopoly of surrender and devotion. so whats your problem? you obviously have some sort of negative attitude towards Krsna, and Krsna devotees.

"Iskcon is just another "i have the only true path" cult"

-- that is absolutely incorrect. but if you had paid attention, you would have seen that i never mentioned about Iskcon. i was talking only about Krsna, and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and the Hare Krsna mahamantra. you are the one who is bringing Iskcon into this, so that you can belittle Lord Krsna and His devotees. fyi, there are many many fine Krsna devotees who are not part of Iskcon in any way whatsoever. not all devotees are part of Iskcon.

"last but not least, chanting this mahamantra is torture and boredom to the enth degree."

-- well yes, for a degraded karmi like yourself. but all you are really telling us here is that you have no taste for chanting the names of the supreme godhead, their lordship Sri Sri Radha Krsna. in fact, you prefer to be offensive, and to propagate nonsense and misinformation.

[David]

"Param Purusha" doesn't mean "supreme personality of Godhead". It means "supreme spirit". So you got that wrong.

Apart from your antagonistic jabs i see you have also cherry picked parts of what i said to make them seem out of context.

There is plenty of EVIDENCE (not proof) of the moon landing. THe burden of proof is on you to show that it didn't happen, not me to dig up the evidence for you. Same with evolution. But you cannot do this because you are wrong.

I am not a "degraded karmi" whatever that means. But i will say that chanting is karma since it is an action, one which is not against devotion but supremely for it.

You sound just like a Prabhupada hand puppet. I know this because of what you have written. It gives me an insight into who you are. Not in detail though - just like you know nothing about me regardless of your assertions to the contrary.

Krishna did advocate sitting meditation in the Gita. All that stuff about deer skins and focusing the gaze at the origin of the nose. Did you forget that part?

Sorry, krishna is considered to be an avatar of vishnu in India, not the "supreme personality of Godhead". And i have it on good authority that the Hare Krishna mahamantra is reversed.

So it looks like you said nothing spectacular in your attempted rebuttle here. Good luck next time.

Speaking of belittling krishna devotees, you should cease engaging in belittling of RSSB devotees if you want to be a mirror to hold up to others.

PS i am not an RSSB initiate or practitioner and never have been.

[George]

Roger,

Its in the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry on 'Hare Krishna'.

It seems all these sects are offshoots of hinduism, borrowing certain principles and discarding others, like any other manmade religion.

I dunno what is or what is not a cult, or whether thats a bad thing, but it seems to me that the defining characteristic of a cult is surrender and devotion.

I also find it slightly rich that disciples of RS are castigated to high heaven for spouting dogma, when the HKs are committed to evangelical dogma and whose beliefs in supernatural spirit worlds, gods, karma and incarnation are exactly the same.

[George]

tAo

"can you prove the moon landing? if so, then please provide that unquestionable proof. can you also prove evolution conclusively, without any doubt whatsoever?"

You cannot be serious. I can only assume you are involved in a piss-take, u big kidder.

[David]

If he is serious, and i don't see why not, judging by one or two posts he made some years ago now, it is not all that bad a thing really. But i certainly don't buy it.

In any case, there is at least something interesting about some of the HK philosophy in the form of the srimad bhagavatam's predictions of future avatars. Apparently, scholars assign the writing down of the bhagavatam to around the 9th century CE (although the stories of krishna contained therein could probably be based on eye witness accounts and handed down by word of mouth transmission). And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was said to be one of the avatars mentioned even though he lived around the 15 th century CE. There are probably more prediction texts too. So clearly, this is an extraordinary coincidence.

I don't have much against the HK really. I think they are along the right track with the devotional approach. I just question whether vocal chanting is as effective as sitting meditation.

[Mike Williams]

" suffer because we do not undertand that everything works perfectly,..."
quote poster

That everything eats everything else, shows
there is no logic to the universe.

Everything is out of control.

Suffering is because the universe happened without a creator.

Only compassion can put things in order
to stop suffering.

Only compassion can make things perfect.

[David]

On the contrary, the expression that life takes is in life and death, cells expending energy and gaining energy.

To say that the existence of things that eat each other proves that there is no fundamental intelligence behind the manifestations of nature is to commit the blunder of being so sure your brains have fallen out. And atheists usually suffer from this defect.

Another point, something you might have missed, is that you state that life eats itself, as does the entire universe, and then you say that it is illogical. The trouble with this conception is that your logic comes from random illogical processes, according to you. So by what rational do you arrive at the idea that a completely random non-intelligent process can give rise to your intelligence?

[George]

David,

may i ask why do you think the devotional path is the right one? also i might pry to find out what your path of choice is?

[David]

Hi George,

I don't have a path or any recognisable belief system. I just see what is on offer out there and if it doesn't tally with my conceptions i reject it.

But at the same time, it seems to me to make sense that you will acknowledge the major portion of your non-free will and therefore come to some kind of conclusion with your own reality.

I do not think or believe that krishna is superior to me because my consciouness is ever pure despite age or contaminents. But i also cannot deny that a blue man with attenas on his head is wholly implausible.

Let me make it clearer. I don't have a path or a choice of a path, because free will is the total contradiction of determinism.

[George]

Hi David,
yes, for me the question is very centrally about whether the universe is deterministic or not. This was the classical mechanical outlook up until the now accepted copenhagen interpretation of quantum indeterminacy - but who knows what is what.

even if there is a more correct alternative QM interpretations such as the MWI or Bohms, and determinism takes favour again, i suspect complexity and/or chaos theory can provide an explanation that accounts for free will.

[tAo]

David: "Param Purusha" doesn't mean "supreme personality of Godhead". It means "supreme spirit". So you got that wrong."

tAo: no, again you are incorrect. 'purusha' does not mean "spirit". your translation is incorrect. 'param' literally means 'supreme', and 'purusha' means person or personality. so the 'param purusha' means the supreme person, or the divine person. it is typically used to refer to the divine as a person, the supreme godhead. you obviously do not know sanskrit.

David: "There is plenty of EVIDENCE (not proof) of the moon landing. THe burden of proof is on you to show that it didn't happen, not me to dig up the evidence for you."

tAo: no, i am not the one who made the claim. the burden of proof is entirely upon you, if you claim that it (the moon landing) is so. i did not claim anything. i simply said that if you have some proof, then please produce it. i don't have to produce anything, as i did not make any claim either way. i simply asked for proof. if you cannot show solid proof, then you cannot establish that it (the moon landing) is a fact. i don't know if it is true or not. because i have not seen any solid proof yet. you may want believe that it is true, and thats your choice, but i have yet to see any solid and conclusive proof.

David: "Same with evolution. But you cannot do this because you are wrong."

tAo: how am i wrong? i never made any claim. i simply asked if you have proof. if you cannot prove, then simply admit that. i don't believe either way. because i have not seen any proof either way. there are theories, thats all. so again, if you claim that evolution is true, then produce the proof. i don't have to prove anyting, because i have not claimed that evolution (specifically regarding humans) is either false or true. i simply do not know. if you are so sure, then where is the proof? if you don't have proof, then simply admit that it is just an opinion and not a proven fact. this is all very elementary. as i said, i don't know if it is true or not. that remains to be seen. and so i make no claims.

David: "I am not a "degraded karmi" whatever that means."

tAo: a "karmi" means someone who is attached to the fruits of their actions. someone who is sef-centered and self-serving, instead of acting in service to God.

David: "You sound just like a Prabhupada hand puppet."

tAo: i simply speak from my own personal views, opinions, experience, and beliefs. but i also respect the wisdom and views of my guru. your deliberate offensive and derogatory attitude towards Srila Prabhupada and Sri Krsna indicates a negative and ignorant mentality.

David: "just like you know nothing about me regardless of your assertions to the contrary."

tAo: i don't claim to know anything about you. mine are obsevations only. but at this point, i really don't care to know you. you are a person of ill will, and you have made a number of misrepresentations about Krsna, about Krsna consciouness, and about Srila Prabhupada.

David: "Krishna did advocate sitting meditation in the Gita. All that stuff about deer skins and focusing the gaze at the origin of the nose. Did you forget that part?"

tAo: that is not whjat Krsna advocated. read the Bhagavad gita. Krsna says "abandon all varieties of religion (and philosophy) and simply surrender unto Me". that is what Krsna advocates. that is the over-all conclusion of the Bhagavad gita. that is what Krsna tells Arjuna.

David: "krishna is considered to be an avatar of vishnu in India, not the "supreme personality of Godhead"."

tAo: as i have said, there are some in India who say that in ignorance, but that is not in accord with the authoritative scriptures.

David: "i have it on good authority that the Hare Krishna mahamantra is reversed."

tAo: as i said, some people have choosen place Rama first, but Rama was an incarnation of Krsna, so Rama comes after Krsna. but it doesn't matter how you chant it. you are quibbling over nothing.

David: "Speaking of belittling krishna devotees, you should cease engaging in belittling of RSSB devotees if you want to be a mirror to hold up to others."

tAo: not so fast. i have not belittled RSSB devotees in any of the comments i have made to you. and most RSSB devotees seem to make thewmselves look bad enough anyway.

David: "i am not an RSSB initiate or practitioner and never have been."

tAo: but so what? frankly, i don't care whether you are or you aren't an RSSB. even if you were an RSSB, i still wouldn't care. i am simply not interested in RSSB. i am interested in Krsna consciouness. i don't care what other people do, or what they are into.

Hare Krsna

[tAo]

Hare Krsna

David, i would like to suggest to you that you try to learn a tiny bit about the real Srila Prabhupada. listening to and viewing these four short videos may help:

Srila Prabhupadas Beautiful Transcendental Qualities (1 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHcHSYvQ4zE

Srila Prabhupadas Beautiful Transcendental Qualities (2 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTx6QL_QCck

Srila Prabhupadas Beautiful Transcendental Qualities (3 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1koly2veujY

Srila Prabhupadas Beautiful Transcendental Qualities (4 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7akB5GOjDU

Hare Krsna

[Roger]

"dzogchen has only to do with the primal nature of awareness, nothing more. awareness in the conditioned souls or living entities (jivatma), is Krsna's marginal potency. Krsna is the superior potency. Krsna is the supreme cognitive principle, the origin of all awareness. and bhakti is devotion to Krsna."

---What would be the supreme cognitive principle? Describe this principle.

---Describe, in your words, what the origin of 'awareness' is. Please be specific.

---I'm not interested in devotion, so no need to describe this.

[tAo]

Roger,
i kind of doubt that you are really interested in this. i think you are just questioning, but for no real purpose. i was already quite clear in my explanations. but i will try one more time...

Roger: "What would be the supreme cognitive principle? Describe this principle."

tAo: KRSNA is the supreme cognitive principle. i already made that pretty clear. so i don't really understand why you are asking.

Roger: "Describe, in your words, what the origin of 'awareness' is. Please be specific."

tAo: i already stated that as well. KRSNA is the origin and source of both the material energy, the living entities (which are Krsna's marginal potency), and the spiritual potency. Krsna is origin of all, including awareness. everything emanates from Krsna. the living entities (including their awareness) are all part and parcel of Krsna.

Roger: "I'm not interested in devotion, so no need to describe this."

tAo: yes, as i said, you really aren't much interested in bhakti yoga and Krsna consciousness. so why pretend otherwise? its alright Roger, as everyone comes to Krsna in their own time. when Krsna becomes sufficiently important to you, then you will.

it really all depends on Krsna's mercy, but also one's own sincerity and desire. if one truly desires to know Krsna and attaoin love of God, then Krsna fulfills that desire.

the more one simply tries to remember Krsna and humbly serve Krsna, the more one advances in Krsna consciousness.

[George]

tAo
i can't quite believe what ive been reading on here, after all those fights with the RS folk, and here you are a confirmed mad hatter hare krishna.

do you have the orange robe and shaved pip?

just kidding, ill probably inflame your karmi or something. must say tho i find those HKs about as irritating as the jehovas witnesses with their evangelical pushiness, but i was reading the iskon website, and they thankfully been banned from airports.

[tucson]

tAo:

If we are part and parcel of Krishna, how then would we come to him if we already are part and parcel of him?. How does Krisha come to Krisha?

You say: "it really all depends on Krsna's mercy,"

--Why is Krisha merciful to some and not to others if all are part and parcel of him? It would seem he favors some parts of himself to others.

Part of your answer to the above would be what you say here: "if one truly desires to know Krsna and attain love of God, then Krsna fulfills that desire."

--But if Krishna is truly merciful why does he not simply cast away the maya by which they are influenced/deluded and simply liberate them from their suffering?

Isn't love OF god dualistic? That is, lover and beloved?

You say: "the more one simply tries to remember Krsna and humbly serve Krsna, the more one advances in Krsna consciousness."

--How can one advance in Krishna consciousness if all consciousness is Krishna?

I guess from the perspective of Krishna Consciousness teachings it is for our own good to serve Krishna, but the implication is that Krishna prefers being served so that he can give his grace. Why does Krisha, who I assume is complete in himself, require anything such as service from anybody?

At the basis of this, I see little difference from Sant Mat.

[Account Deleted]

so this is the real face of TAO,he was a slave of Krishna consciousness,so at last the culprit is out,this is what Krishna thought to blame and criticize others,this is what Krishna consciousness mean,you use so bad language and abusive language for present spiritual masters,this is what Krishna thought you,
hare Krishna itself is an illusion
hare Krishna mantra has no power in it
its absolutely waste,garbage.

this is all just rubbish tao,
complete bullshit..

you are no follower of no one.
if you are a follower of krishna learn ethics,learn to be humble,learn to be respectful.

[Roger]

My purpose, in coming to this blog, is to ask questions and interact with other bloggers. There are many great bloggers here. I would not come to this blog, because I have an interest in joining or following KrshnaConsc, SantMat, and any of the other various religions. Blogging here, is a hobby of mine.

[tAo]

Tucson: "If we are part and parcel of Krishna, how then would we come to him if we already are part and parcel of him?. How does Krisha come to Krisha?"

-- Krsna does not come to Krsna. by 'come to Krsna', i meant coming to Krsna consciousness and devotion to Krsna.

"Why is Krisha merciful to some and not to others if all are part and parcel of him?"

-- not true. Krsna's mercy extends to all. everything is sustained by Krsna. even hearing or chanting Krsna's name is Krsna's mercy.

"It would seem he favors some parts of himself to others."

-- we are merely part and parcel of Krsna, we are not Krsna. Krsna is both one with us, and different from us. we are like eternal sparks or rays of Krsna. Krsna is the origin and absolute center. we are the same as Krsna in quality, but we are like minute sparks. we don't become one with Krsna. we are always separate from Krsna.

[ i said: "If one truly desires to know Krsna and attain love of God, then Krsna fulfills that desire." ]

"But if Krishna is truly merciful why does he not simply cast away the maya by which they are influenced/deluded and simply liberate them from their suffering?"

-- maya is Krsna's illusory energy. maya serves Krsna. Krsna fulfills our desires. if we desire to enjoy, then Krsna fulfills that desire by allowing us to pursue enjoyment via the material world. that is being in maya. but eventually, somehow we will come to realize that this desire for material enjoyment leads to suffering. then we may begin to desire Krsna. then Krsna fulfills that desire and we begin to enter the transcendental plane beyond the modes of material nature. Krsna fulfils whatever we desire. if we desire material enjoyment, then Krsna gives us facility for that. but if we desire Krsna, then we come back to Krsna, back to godhead. we are in the material world because we desired to enjoy for ourselves, instead of serving Krsna and Krsna's enjoyment. Krsna is the supreme enjoyer. as soon as we turn toward Krsna, and begin to have devotion to Krsna in Krsna consciousness, then Krsna provides all facility. if we begin to desire association with Krsna, and to serve Krsna, and to love Krsna... then Krsna (who is supremely intelligent and merciful) brings us back to Krsna.

"Isn't love OF god dualistic? That is, lover and beloved?"

-- from the material point of view of one who is in maya... but because Krsna is the supreme godhead, then our feelings of separation and love for Krsna frees us from the illusion of maya. then we know our true relationship to Krsna.

[ i said: "the more one simply tries to remember Krsna and humbly serve Krsna, the more one advances in Krsna consciousness." ]

"How can one advance in Krishna consciousness if all consciousness is Krishna?"

-- Krsna is the origin of our consciousness... but that consciousness is now polluted by the material atmosphere. however, the more one becomes aware of Krsna, and the more one turns toward Krsna, the more one becomes established in Krsna consciousness, and thus one realizes one's true relationship to Krsna.

"I guess from the perspective of Krishna Consciousness teachings it is for our own good to serve Krishna, but the implication is that Krishna prefers being served so that he can give his grace. Why does Krisha, who I assume is complete in himself, require anything such as service from anybody?"

-- no, that is an incorrect view. Krsna does not "prefer being served". Krsna is the supreme enjoyer, but also the supreme giver. everything is due to Krsna. everything is from Krsna. everything belongs to Krsna. we are not forced to serve Krsna. Krsna does not need anything from us. Krsna has given everything. but our relationshgip to Krsna is such that our enjoyment comes from serving Krsna and loving Krsna, rather than being self-serving. Krsna is not simply some ordinary person. Krsna is the supreme godhead. so surrendering to Krsna frees us from maya and the modes of material nature. it is our natural position to feel love for Krsna. but as long as we try to enjoy the material world, we become entangled in the modes of material nature (the three gunas). the moment we step into Krsna consciousness, by remembering Krsna or simply by chanting Krsna's name... then we enter onto the trancendental (spiritual) platform.

"At the basis of this, I see little difference from Sant Mat."

-- then you do not understand Krsna consciousness. there is a vast difference. sant mat is predicated upon our own efforts - ie meditation. sant mat has nothing similar with devotional service to Krsna. sant mat is also rather impersonal and mayavadi in its doctrine. the only similarity is that sant mat regards the soul (jiva) as a drop of the supreme. and the sant mat guru being a gihf thing - that is totally opposed to Vaishnavism and Krsna bhakti yoga. it is actually blasphemy to regard the guru as being the same or one with or equal to Krsna. sant mat is extremely different from Krsna consciousness.

you can learn more about the differences if you search online. to think that they are similar is a big mistake. you will not understand Krsna or Krsna conciousness if you hold to that notion. good luck.

if you simply chant Hare Krsna in a humble srte of mind, you will gradually come to the plane of genuine understanding, and you will develop Krsna consciousness and therefore love of god.

[George]

why is Krishna referred to as godhead, as opposed to God?

This is just another religion with a belief in an omniscient and omnipresent God.

What proof is there for the existence of Krishna or any other God? Why should we believe in Krishna as opposed to the abrahmic God or Vishnu or Wodan or Zeus?

Maya, reincarnation and karma are all purely religious concepts, they represent hidden mystical supernatural qualities that have not a single iota of evidence in support of them in reality, which is what i thought this post was originally about.

[tAo]

because "godhead" implies or refers to god as an actual person, and not merely some impersonal absolute (brahman), or oneness, or void, etc. and regardless of whether you say god or godhead, Krsna is still the same.

also, chanting the transcendental Hare Krsna mahamantra does not require any belief in "an omniscient and omnipresent God". it requires no belief, and the spiritual benefit is derived regardless of what one may or may not believe. chanting Hare Krsna has no requirement.

if one sincerely desires "proof" (of the existence of god), then one must approach Krsna in order to fulfill that desire.

also, maya, karma, and reincarnation are not "qualities".

(a) karma: there is nothing "hidden" or "mystical" or " supernatural" about karma. karma is cause and effect, action and re-action. it is an apparent fact of the universe.

(b) reincarnation: if you believe that you are not an eternal spirit-soul (jivatma), then you will deny that there is reincarnation. but if you understand that you are an eternal spirit-soul (jivatma), which is part and parcel of the supreme godhead Krsna, then you will be able to understand that reincarnation is a reality.

(c) maya: maya is simply the illusion, the nescience (ignorance) that makes us think and believe that we are nothing more than material bodies, and/or or that there is no god, and/or that Krsna was/is just an ordinary person or a myth. maya is that which appears to be real, but which is actually not real. maya is the condition of being under the influence of the three gunas -- the three modes of material nature -- which are ignorance, passion, and goodness.

simply chant Hare Krsna mahamantra, and your life will become happy and sublime.

Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna
Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama
Rama Rama, Hare Hare

[George]

why would chanting 'hare krishna' derive any spiritual benefit as opposed to chanting 'watcha tutu' (from the excellent movie Ace Ventura)?

why are these pariticular hindu words and syllables somehow divinely charged as opposed to the countless other religious mantras and chants that abound?

If Krisha is a person, what is so different from the GIHF? Is he not also a godhead?

[George]

in the case of reincarnation, I do not believe for the very simple reason that there is no evidence for it or for a soul of any spiritual kind, just as there is no evidence for Krishna or any of the other many Gods that abound in the worlds varied religions.

Believing in reincarnation is not a case of understanding, rather it is one of pure religious belief (i.e. faith).

[Blogger Brian]

tAo, whenever I read one of your Hare Krishna posts I think, "One day tAo is going to say, FOOLED YOU!"

But maybe not. Perhaps the current Krishna devotee tAo is a permanent and sincere replacement for the past skeptical religion-bashing tAo.

The change is taking me a while to get used to, though.

[tAo]

George: "If Krisha is a person, what is so different from the GIHF? Is he not also a godhead?"

tAo: the "gihf" acronym has been used in reference to the sant mat sant-guru or master, who is but an ordinary human being. Sri Krsna is not a human being. Krsna is the divine person, the supreme personality of godhead, who is situated in His supreme abode of vaikuntha, the spiritual world.

George: "I do not believe for the very simple reason that there is no evidence"

tAo: the evidence is manifest everywhere, in all things.

George: "reincarnation is not a case of understanding"

tAo: if one fails to understand their true position and relationship to the syupreme personality of godhead Krsna, then one cannot understand reincarnation.

Brian: "tAo, whenever I read one of your Hare Krishna posts I think, "One day tAo is going to say, FOOLED YOU!" But maybe not. Perhaps the current Krishna devotee tAo is a permanent and sincere replacement for the past skeptical religion-bashing tAo."

tAo: i am not any different than what i have already plainly indicated... i am aspiring to be a sincere and humble servant of my spiritual master and of the mission of Sri Krsna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and a sincere devotee of Sri Sri Radha Krsna. so i am not interested in religion, or skepticism, or bashing... nor am i trying to fool anyone.

please simply chant the Hare Krsna mahamantra, and see for yourself. thank you.

[tAo]

[tAo, no more Hare Krishna preaching, please. I'll let this comment pass, but if you want to allude to Hare Krishna stuff in the future, speak in your own words and in reference to the subject of a blog post -- Blogger Brian]

The Hare Krishna mantra is called the maha-mantra. Maha means great. It is the greatest mantra. The shastras state that all the conclusions of Vedic knowledge are compressed into these 16 syllables: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare / Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu taught in this verse:

harer nama harer nama
harer namaiva kevalam

"In this age, no process of self-realization will be effective except harinama, or chanting the holy name of the Lord." (Brihan-naradiya Purana)

The Bhagavata Purana also states:

kaler dosa-nidhe rajan
asti hy-eko mahan-gunah
kirtanad eva krishnasya
mukta-sangah param vrajet

"This age of Kali is an ocean of faults, but one thing in this age is very good: simply by chanting the holy name of Krishna, one can become purified of all sinful reactions and enter the spiritual world." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 12.3.51)

There are hundreds and thousands of mantras. But most importantly, there is the maha-mantra, the great mantra for deliverance. That is Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare / Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.

The power of all other mantras is included in the maha-mantra. This mantra is an eternal, transcendental sound vibration. We shall find this mantra in different shastras, and therefore it is said that all the conclusions of Vedic wisdom are compressed into these sixteen syllables:

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama
Rama Rama, Hare Hare

[tAo]

Brian,

thats not what i was doing.

George had specifically asked (me) these two questions:

"why would chanting 'hare krishna' derive any spiritual benefit as opposed to chanting 'watcha tutu' (from the excellent movie Ace Ventura)?"

"why are these pariticular hindu words and syllables somehow divinely charged as opposed to the countless other religious mantras and chants that abound?"

[ Posted by: George | November 24, 2010 at 04:42 PM ]

so my last comment was only posted in direct response to George's questions, and not for any purposes of preaching etc. if George had not asked those questions, i would not have posted my response.

in other words, if you do not wish any further discussions of chanting Hare Krsna or Krsna consciousness, thats fine with me, but then that should also apply to George as well.

therefore, if George or anyone else asks me any more questions about Krsna consciousness or about chanting Hare Krsna... either i will not answer, or else i will say that i have been requested to not discuss the subject of Krsna consciousness.

[tucson]

An alternative to Krishna Consciousness and chanting Hare Krishna...

The Practice of Nichiren Shoshu !!

At the completion of His training as a priest, Nichiren Daishonin revealed that the fundamental Law of the universe was Myoho Renge Kyo, the title of the Lotus Sutra translated from Sanskrit into Chinese. At the same time He established the invocation of His Buddhism as Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. "Nam" means devotion; "Myo" means perfection, mystical, wondrous, and beyond conception; "ho" is Dharma or Law; "Renge" is lotus flower; and "Kyo" is sutra or teaching.

By chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, therefore, one is essentially repeating the phrase: "I express my devotion to the perfectly endowed Mystic Law of the Lotus Sutra." The lotus is the most fitting of symbols, for one, because at the time of full bloom both the seed and flower are readily apparent, thus signifying the merging of cause and effect, and the immediate attainment of Buddhahood. And also, since a lotus blooms in muddy water, it is commonly recognized as a metaphor for the attainment of enlightenment while immersed in the realities of existence.

Later, at the pinnacle of His life, the Daishonin inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon as the supreme object of worship for all humanity. The Dai-Gohonzon is revered as the entity of the Mystic Law, which is the eternal fusion of Myoho Renge Kyo and the life of Nichiren Daishonin. Boldly inscribed in Chinese characters down the center of the Dai-Gohonzon is the phrase, "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Nichiren." In the background, also in Chinese characters, are the names of Shakyamuni and Taho Buddha, many other Buddhas and bodhisattvas, the great teacher T'ien T'ai, Dengyo, those representing life conditions from the most evil to most compassionate, and others. Along the borders are the names of the protective deities, who vowed to protect those who propagate the Lotus Sutra in the Latter Day. In the Daishonin's treatise entitled "The True Object of Worship," the Dai-Gohonzon is described as follows:

Now is when the Bodhisattvas of the Earth will appear in this country and establish the supreme object of worship on the earth which depicts Shakyamuni Buddha of the essential teaching attending the true Buddha. (13) (MWND, vol. one, p. 81)

Practitioners of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to the Gohonzon, a spiritually endowed likeness of the Dai-Gohonzon, enshrined in their homes. This is done every morning and evening in a ceremony called Gongyo that involves the recitation of core sections of the second and sixteenth chapters of the Lotus Sutra, along with chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Although streams of thought and the churning of subconscious repositories tend to obscure the Buddha nature when performing Gongyo, one may nevertheless, by focusing on the Gohonzon and wholeheartedly chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, fuse one's innate Buddhahood with the life condition of the original Buddha. In this way and at that moment, the followers of Nichiren Daishonin attain enlightenment in their present form and current existence, without prior lifetimes of practice.

The experience of enlightenment being referred to here, however, is not that profound realization attributed earlier to Shakyamuni outside the city of Gaya. Rather, with the help of a consistent practice based on a sincere understanding of the faith, one should expect to see a steady improvement in their life from embracing a force that offers 1) protection from undue harm, 2) an eventual solution to every form of suffering, 3) the gradual improvement of one's immediate environment, and 4) a growing sense of compassion for the profound well-being of others. One should also consider the effects of this practice in the more profound context of improved conditions through the eternal cycle of birth, aging, sickness and death.

Everbody please just chant:

NAM MYOHO RENGE KYO

and see your life transform.

;) ?

[Blogger Brian]

tAo, you misunderstood me. Read again what I said. I'm not opposed to talking about Krishna consciousness. I'm simply against preaching it.

If someone brings up the subject -- challenges the usefulness of chanting Hare Krishna, for example -- you can talk about why you think repeating certain supposedly holy names is better than repeating other supposedly holy names (such as the ones repeated by Sant Mat devotees).

But simply posting some preachy "scriptures" isn't edifying or interesting, just as someone continually saying "Jesus saves" isn't. Give reasons for why you believe what you do; talk about what you've personally experienced, and let others ask questions about the experiences.

After all, this is a "church for the churchless." Those who are convinced they've found a spiritual truth need to defend their conviction, not just keep repeating it.

[George]

tAo,

i suspect you are well and truly out to lunch, but good luck with the HKs old boy.

i have not managed to get your legendary anger aflame so something must be working.

[tAo]

Brian, you said:

"I'm not opposed to talking about Krishna consciousness. I'm simply against preaching it."

-- again, i wasn't preaching it, i was simply answering George (and your) comments in my own best way.

"you can talk about why you think repeating certain supposedly holy names is better than repeating other supposedly holy names"

-- i had already done that many times.

"simply posting some preachy "scriptures" isn't edifying or interesting"

-- it may not have been "interesting", but it was my answer to George's queries, as best as i could explain. also, there are many comments on this blog posted by other commenters that are not particularly interesting to me, but i am sure they mean something to someone.

"Give reasons for why you believe what you do; talk about what you've personally experienced, and let others ask questions about the experiences."

-- but thats exactly what i have done. as i said, its pretty clear to me that i have already said enough about Krsna consciousness, and at this point there is little or no interest. so there's really no point in my continuing.

"After all, this is a "church for the churchless. Those who are convinced they've found a spiritual truth need to defend their conviction"

-- well thats more or less what i did. but mainly i simply answered George's questions about the potency and uniqueness of the Hare Krsna mahamantra.

"not just keep repeating it."

-- again, as i said before, i would not have posted anything further about Hare Krsna, if George had not asked me questions. i had already said more than enough previously... however i did not wish to ignore George, so i answered him in the best way i could.

let me make it clear: i am not here to debate or preach about Krsna consciousness. however, if i can't answer questions that are put to me in my own way when someone asks me questions, then there is no point to "talking about Krishna consciousness" at all. and others here have more or less indicated that they are really not interested. and finally, i have already said more than i ever wanted to say anyway.

Hare Krsna and Happy Thanksgiving

[tAo]

George,

i think its very unfair for you to say that i am "out to lunch" (ie: crazy). i did not demean or belittle you in any way. and i sincerely tried to answer your questions (but got criticised for doing that).

if all you want to do is ask me questions, and then when i try to answer you, you come back and ridicule me, then our conversatiuon is over and i will gladly withdraw.

so many people nowadays seem want to criticise and put others down, instead of looking at their own faults and negativity.

nevertheless, cheerio and have a nice day.

Hare Krsna

[tAo]

PS (post script):

i will end it with this, by wishing everyone to have a happy thanksgiving - Hare Krsna style.

please be sure to enjoy the whole video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3507990536383342051#

Hare Krsna!!! Hari bol!!!

[Mungos]

so many people nowadays seem want to criticise and put others down, instead of looking at their own faults and negativity.

Mungos:
It seems you are describing yourself.

But i am not attacking you or judge you, only the fact is that you are known as kind of the biggest critic here. I am sure that you left the same feeling (as i quoted you above) to many of other people and you were very rude at times. And please know that i am not judging that and i really respect you. Peace brother!

[George]

tAo
yes, quite correct, it is true i am largely to blame, but i just cannot reconcile all the past rhetoric aimed at the RS folk, when your beliefs are so similar.

Its almost like you've taken a complete turnaround, most of us are still convinced you are pulling a fast one its all so bizzare.

i guess the thing with ALL spiritual believers is their single-minded minds, which to me at times seem to be so inconsistent and a sort of temporary blind-spot in their thinking mind, but who knows perhaps their particular path is the Truth.

anyways, HK doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, but if its your thing, thats your business and thanks for answering my questions albeit in a justified manner.

[tAo]

George,

i understand how you feel. i do. and i wasn't trying to blame you. i was honestly trying to answer your questions, thats all. i had assumed that your queries were genuine. but when i responded to your questions, you came back at me with some bit of ridicule. i just have no interest in that sort of exchange. i prefer to keep a positive vibe.

you also say that my beliefs are similar to RS. i am not quite sure why you think so, but its just not the case. Krsna bhakti or Krsna consciousness is very very different from RS, in a number of significant ways. and its also not a matter of belief. chanting the Hare Krsna mahamantra does not require any belief at all.

as for my seeming to have "taken a complete turnaround", thats not really the case. i initially became associated with Krsna consciousness and Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prahbupada in 1969 (that was even before i went to India). subsequently i checked out many other and different spiritual paths and philosophies. but i never abandoned Krsna consciousness. imo, there is nothing that can compare or come anywhere near the sublime transcendental spirituality of Krsna consciousness.

so no, i assure you, i am not "pulling a fast one". not at all. the only reason i have mentioned Krsna consciousness (and chanting the Hare Krsna mahamantra) here, is because it is something that i feel i should share with anybody who is searching for higher truth. Krsna consciousness and Krsna bhakti (devotional service to Krsna) is not "bizarre" at all. for a great many people, it is most sublime and wonderful.

one suggestion... before you completely close the door and conclude that Krsna consciousness is not for you, i would hope that you would gain a sufficiently deep understanding by reading some of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prbhupada's excellent and scholarly books, and/or listen to some of his lectures that were recorded. all his books are available online, and a great many of his lectures as well.

also, thanks for reading my comments, and the very best of luck to you. and if you ever need any advice or clarification or whatever about Krsna consciousness etc etc, don't hesitate to email me.

Hare Krsna

[Roger]

"anybody who is searching for higher truth."

---Would this be a relative truth? The 'higher' truth compared to the 'lower' truth? I wonder if the searcher is missing out on the possible treasures that may reside in the 'lower' truth.

[Roger]

"... imo, there is nothing that can compare or come anywhere near the sublime transcendental spirituality of Krsna consciousness."

---Nothing wrong with this opinion, or the many persons that love Krsna consciousness.
However, what is it, that has a 'need' for the sublime trancendental spirituality of K. consciousness? Does this 'need' come from the Mind? If so, how does the Mind create this need? Will the Mind require, more and more need? Does this need, ever end?

[tAo]

"... imo, there is nothing that can compare or come anywhere near the sublime transcendental spirituality of Krsna consciousness."

"Nothing wrong with this opinion, or the many persons that love Krsna consciousness. However, what is it, that has a 'need' for the sublime trancendental spirituality of K. consciousness?"

-- what? i never ever said that there was or is "a need".

"Does this 'need' come from the Mind?"

-- again, i never ever said anything about ther being "a need".

"If so, how does the Mind create this need? Will the Mind require, more and more need? Does this need, ever end?"

-- what "need"?? there is no need, not as far as i know. this supposed "need" is entirely your own idea which you are inserting into this. i never said anything about there being "a need".

[Roger]

OK,

So there is no 'need' to 'compare' or 'come anywhere near' the sublime transcendental spirituality of Krsna consciousness.

In addition, there would be no 'need' to chant, and engage in various outward visual expressions.

[tAo]

Roger: "So there is no 'need' to 'compare' or 'come anywhere near' the sublime transcendental spirituality of Krsna consciousness."

-- that is not what i said either. you are still twisting and misinterpreting my statements and comments. what i did say is that (imo), there is nothing that can compare with the sublime transcendental spirituality of Krsna consciousness. to say "there is nothing that can compare", is simply a figure of speech. i did not say "there is no need to compare". i didn't mention "need" at all.

"In addition, there would be no 'need' to chant, and engage in various outward visual expressions."

-- i did not say or imply that either. that is only your conclusion. i did not say anything about any "need" in relation to chanting. again, its not about "need" at all. whether one chants the Hare Krsna mahamantra is entirely up to the individual. it has nothing to do with "need". why do you keep inserting the idea of "need" into this? thats like creating an unecessary straw-man. what i have said about Krsna consciousness and chanting was all quite clear and to the point. so i just don't get why you continue distorting and misinterpreting it.

[Unknown]

The difference between Sant Mat and the Hare Krishna movement is very little.

Although, these are the differences;
1. Many Sects of Sant Mat(such as the Radha Soami Beas movement)believe in a living Satguru. The Hare Krishna movement believe in Lord Chaitanya and Lord Krishna, as there Satgurus. These two Masters are gone. The Hare Krishna, actually denies the existence of a living Satguru/Avatar of God. Although only a living Satguru can guide one to Moksha/Enlightenment. No religion works if it believes does not believe in a Living Satguru. Therefore Sant Mat is much more modernized then the Hare Krishna movement and actually works.

TODAY a person who is ill cannot have the benefit of medical advice from Dhanwantri (the progenitor of medical science), nor can a litigant ask Solomon to decide his case, nor can a lady marry Adonis and bring forth children. Similarly, Saints who appeared in the past from time to time and conferred spiritual benefit on those who came into contact with them, cannot do anything for the present generation. Each had his commission, and on completing it, entrusted the work of regeneration to his successor. Man can learn only from man, and God works His ways through living Saints. (Kirpal Singh)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Master

2.The Hare Krishna movement believes alot in unneeded ceremonies,rituals plus the belief in pilgrimages and temples. Sant Mat, is simply just about pure Bhakti plus Guru Bhakti. The path does not believe in silly ceremonies and rituals nor does it believe that God is found in temples, places of worship plus pilgrimages.

Where do you search me? I am with you
Not in pilgrimage, nor in icons, Neither in solitudes
Not in temples, nor in mosques Neither in Kaba nor in Kailash
I am with you o man, I am with you
Not in prayers, nor in meditation, Neither in fasting
Not in yogic exercises, Neither in renunciation
Neither in the vital force nor in the body, Not even in the ethereal space
Neither in the womb of Nature, Not in the breath of the breath
Seek earnestly and discover, In but a moment of search
Says Kabir, Listen with care, Where your faith is, I am there.

[Gaz]

Brian and everyone,

Its February 2013, I left Radha Soami in December 2012, I have to say I feel good, I never felt this good when I was a RS.

Why? Well, I feel that I can achieve anything, when i was an RS, i always thought about karmas,destiny etc. I'm not denying the karma notion but i believe it doesn't dictate our life to great extents as preached by Sant Mat.
If i want to achieve a goal, i say I CAN achieve it, i feel more positive.
In addition, I've always had digestive problems, i've been a lacto veg since day 1, i've abstained from alcohol, drugs etc. I wrote to an RS rep regarding this, and he said deal with it, here is the reply he sent me. Bear in mind in guys, this is from a top RS rep, he is only one of a few who have been elected by Gurinder to answer q&a.

Dear Gaz

I can relate to your circumstances in my youth. I had indifferent health, poor digestion and to this day I have on-going health issues, acid reflux, serious heart condition etc. etc. and had weight problems. Like you I have been quite thin – I am 6 foot tall and weighed 115 pounds when I got married at the age of 24.

Our life circumstances and health issues are entirely in line with our karma and it is better that we deal with it as positively as we can since it is pay off time – for our own good. It is our own attitude to life circumstances that makes all the difference. We should continue with the normal treatment, looking at alternative medicines such as homeopathic treatments, acupuncture etc (if you can afford them).
Medicines will work but only to the extent of underlying karmic realities. But we must take a sensible and proactive approach to solve health problems.

Life does not run to our expectations and desires get the better of us. Sant Mat teachings acknowledge karma theory and if we know what we have done in our past, we might even be grateful even in these circumstances. There is little point in taking issues with life situations – the remedy lies in doing our best but do not take issues over the outcome.

Finally, life should be lived simply in the knowledge that there is a reason behind life situations that is aimed at lightening our karmic debt. Circumstance and situations merely reflect karmic realities and these cannot be put aside – such is life.

Travel light, give thanks for all you have and write off what you cannot have – that is outside of your control. Put that to destiny.

Best Wishes,

NS

Brian what is your perspective on this?

I think its a load of rubbish, although this guy has had health problems, he hasn't suffered health problems to the same extent as me.
Personally, I think its very easy to preach, look at Christian preachers, they preach x,y,z yet do the opposite and molest children. Even these RS speakers, they preach all these karmic theories and that we should do meditation, but do they do it? No.

I'm sure you can understand what I'm saying Brian as you were once a preacher and have ample amounts of knowledge regarding this.

I'll give you an example, one well known speaker who goes by the name of Babani Sahib, this guy was Charan's right hand man. He used to meditate extensively, he was an excellent preacher. But unfortunately, he now has a mental condition, his family said he is close to getting alzkhemier.
He doesn't believe in RS and doesn't believe in the karmic/destiny theory.
My point is that its easy to preach others, but when one is put in a horrible position, one is against the karmic theory.

Here is the link regarding this ex speaker.

http://www.unp.me/f16/radha-swami-satsang-beas-expose-business-dealings-65652/

You need to read this Brian, let me know what you think about this.

[Brian Hines]

Gaz, what I think is: almost certainly this guy who wrote you is just repeating Sant Mat dogma, because that's what his duty is. He doesn't know what life is all about any more than you do. Or I do. Or anyone does.

Like you said, I've been there and done that. I've believed that when I was late to give a satsang talk, and all the traffic lights were green as I rushed along in my car, that was God's will or good karma. Also, when I found a parking space right where I wanted one to be.

We can imagine that the cosmos is causing things to happen just because of us, but this now seems highly self-centered to me. Why not simply assume that stuff is happening, and we have to deal with it, and leave it at that.

I don't a problem with viewing "karma" as the sum total of causes and effects acting upon us at the moment. That's just common sense. And scientific. However, assuming that what happens in this life is coming about because of what happened in previous incarnations, I no longer believe that.

If I ever did. I was good at reading Sant Mat books and talking about what was taught in them. But like everybody else, so far as I know (including the guru), I didn't have any special mystical first hand knowledge of soul, spirit, karma, God, or anything else metaphysical.