Hare Krishna

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
45
#21
Again though, our differing perspectives disallow any agreement with the aforementioned topic of 'God', or 'Absolute'.

My intelligence allows me to understand what is self and what is absolute and the relationship between the two, true. However, my definition of absolute is merely the constituents of nature - matter and energy, both purely physical phenomena. The self is composed of the absolute - particles and energy, both intertwined in such a complex network that it results in what we call consciousness.

Such things which give me happiness are indeed transient, and if they were to be taken away from me then I would simply not be happy. I would not feel justified in appealing to any absolute to grant me happiness again based on your definition as my absolute doesn't allow for this.

Again, I agree - we are not self sustaining beings - we require nourishment, oxygen, water etc. If that is what constitutes the ultimate, then my 'God' or absolute is strictly nature, of that which I am a part. This could be considered a theistic religion, one of pantheism.

Also, following on from that logic - when we serve nature, we service the supreme. Separating ourselves from nature is paying service to illusion. Is it in our nature to believe in 'God'? Animals are part of nature, and as you've alluded to, they do not feel the need to believe in a supreme being - why should we?

Conclusion: Based on your definition, I indeed have an absolute. However, it has nothing to do with any definition of a God. It is comprised solely of the particulate matter which forms the galaxies, planet Earth and every living creature on Earth. It is purely physical and doesn't incorporate any higher intelligence, mystical universal ether, heaven, hell or purgatory, ghosts, spirits and souls etc. Therefore, when I pay service to my absolute, I am paying service to what I can directly observe with my own senses and what can rationally and logically be justified as existing.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#22
Hutch said:
I suppose what it means to be a christian nowadays is slightly different from what it used to mean. As I'm sure you're aware, the bible contains numerous references of the day of judgement, where the dead will rise from their graves and Jesus will reappear on Earth to decide on the fates of all men based on the good and evil they've done. I don't mind the literal translation of this statement because it suggests that if you are a good person, regardless of your religious predisposition, you will go to heaven.

However, heresy (actual heresy, not your namesake) was considered one of the biggest evils in the christianity of old. Thus, if you didn't believe in God, you were evil and thus you would be judged and go to hell. In Revelation Chapter 21 it is written that "...cowards who turn away from me, and unbelievers, and the corrupt, and murderers, and the immoral, and those who practice witchcraft, and idol worshipers, and all liars - their doom is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur", Thessalonians Chapter 1; "...Lord Jesus appears from heaven with his mighty angels, with a flaming fire, to punish those who reject God and who do not obey the Good News about our Lord Jesus" and John, Chapters 3 & 5; "All who believe in God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't obey the Son will never experience eternal life, but the wrath of God remains upon them... And I assure you that the time is coming, in fact it is here, when the dead will hear my voice - the voice of the Son of God. And those who listen will live". i.e. either believe in God or experience the wrath of God and die/be sent to hell.

Some christians may believe in the literal translation, that people who do evil will go to hell whereas people who do good will go to heaven, regardless of what religion they ascribe to. I also understand that there are numerous Christian sects who all like to interpret the bible differently based on what suits them, but the bible clearly wants to scare people into believing in God or else they will spend all eternity in hell / be judged and die.
The bible is a collection of books that were written over a period of time, and the bible itself is not a sentient being nor does it posses sapience. Therefore, how can one logically say, "the bible clearly wants to scare people into believing in God or else they will spend all eternity in hell/be judged and die"? The bible does NOT have wants, so your statement is in need of clarification.
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
45
#23
Fair enough - people who wrote and compiled the bible clearly wanted to scare people into believing in God or else they will spend all eternity in hell/be judged and killed.

If the bible is merely a collection of books that was written by several people over time, then why do people believe that it includes words direct from the mouth of Jesus/God? It's as though some guy, several hundred years after Jesus supposedly existed, sat down and thought 'No worries, I'll write a chapter for your little book. Um, lets see - how about God says "And he who believes in me will be judged and ascend to heaven, whilst the wicked will perish"'... Where does this intimate connection between man and God/Jesus take place? The belief in such a connection requires significant faith in itself.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#24
Fair enough - people who wrote and compiled the bible clearly wanted to scare people into believing in God or else they will spend all eternity in hell/be judged and killed.
Where is the proof that the bible was written and compiled to scare people? You arrive at this conclusion based on the fact that a place of torment is mentioned and recorded in various canon? Have you considered the political climate at the time several of the books were written?

If the bible is merely a collection of books that was written by several people over time, then why do people believe that it includes words direct from the mouth of Jesus/God?
People believe that the bible includes the words direct from the mouth of Jesus/God because those words have been attributed to them, and because they speak in first person. Only people who have not read the bible in its entirety or have done little to no research believe that the entire bible is direct from the mouth of Jesus/God.

It's as though some guy, several hundred years after Jesus supposedly existed, sat down and thought 'No worries, I'll write a chapter for your little book. Um, lets see - how about God says "And he who believes in me will be judged and ascend to heaven, whilst the wicked will perish"'... Where does this intimate connection between man and God/Jesus take place?
The connection is actually mentioned in the bible, and not just in the passages that mention men being moved or inspired by God to write. Also, some guy (s) didn't just sit down and all of a sudden decide to write the bible, and only people who have not read the bible in its entirety or have done little to no research would imply such. You have to consider oral tradition, stories, cultural significance and the current political climates.

The belief in such a connection requires significant faith in itself.
A lot of things require a significant amount of faith. The bible itself is based on faith and this is a MAJOR part of Yeshi's teachings. Haven't you ever read the bible?
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
45
#25
I've read most of the bible, some of it is interesting but for the most part it's boring as hell, like Darwins on the origin of species by means of natural selection. I'm not suggesting that the bible exists only to create fear, it's just one small part, but it's there nonetheless. If you consider the sporadic anarchy during the dark ages, such fear would have prevented many crimes for fear of retribution after ones death.

I never said that every word in the bible is from the mouth of Jesus/God but I find it hard to believe that a single word can rightly be attributed to Jesus/God. Oral tradition and stories are just that - if they did have a foothold on reality at any stage, theres an extremely high probability that they've been taken way out of context, a centuries old chinese whispers experiment.

Sure, I may have oversimplified the development of the bible, but some guy sitting down and writing a chapter off the top of his head isn't far off. I know that there were many variables involved, but in essence it was written by humans, from the minds of humans and for the minds of humans, whether they claim to have received divine guidance or not. Mention of the connection between what is written in the bible and what God 'said' shouldn't be taken seriously just because it's referenced in the bible. That would be equivalent to me writing a book about Wesley Snipes and you believing the content because a paragraph within it claims 'Information contained within this book was obtained by oral and written communication between the author and Wesley Snipes' (again, oversimplified, but you get the picture).
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
43
www.facebook.com
#27
Hutch said:
Again though, our differing perspectives disallow any agreement with the aforementioned topic of 'God', or 'Absolute'.

My intelligence allows me to understand what is self and what is absolute and the relationship between the two, true. However, my definition of absolute is merely the constituents of nature - matter and energy, both purely physical phenomena. The self is composed of the absolute - particles and energy, both intertwined in such a complex network that it results in what we call consciousness.
Your philosophy is akin to Buddhism because the essential nature of the constituents of this material universe is void (evidenced by the fact that these constituents are non-enduring, i.e. temporal). So basically, your position is that you accept that an absolute exists but that it is itself essentially devoid of quality. Our line of reasoning is that any quality which exists in this relative world only exists here because it originates in the Absolute. In this way we reason beyond a mere void. We also recognize cognizance as a fundamental quality and not merely a fluke chance emergence in a body of dull matter. All these conceptions are based on the idea that the higher produces the lower, not that the lower magically evolves into the higher. Even if in the case that it appears as the lower evolving into the higher, that 'higher' potency already existed, otherwise such an "evolution" would not be possible. We take the qualities found in the relative world and assume that they have value in so much that they have their actual substance in the absolute. That's all. It is like a mirage in the desert. One may see water in the desert. Why? Because real water exists elsewhere. Similarly, these material constituents are like mirages of the spiritual substance.


Hutch said:
Such things which give me happiness are indeed transient, and if they were to be taken away from me then I would simply not be happy. I would not feel justified in appealing to any absolute to grant me happiness again based on your definition as my absolute doesn't allow for this.
Well, that is because your absolute is ultimately self-negating, as I have shown above. You accept an absolute that is fundamentally void. How is it practical to appeal to a void? What kind of sentiment can one have toward a void?


Hutch said:
Again, I agree - we are not self sustaining beings - we require nourishment, oxygen, water etc. If that is what constitutes the ultimate, then my 'God' or absolute is strictly nature, of that which I am a part. This could be considered a theistic religion, one of pantheism.
Here is our position on that:

Bhagavad-Gita 9.15, purport (emphasis added):

This verse is the summary of the previous verses. The Lord tells Arjuna that those who are purely in Krsna consciousness and do not know anything other than Krsna are called mahatma; yet there are other persons who are not exactly in the position of mahatma but who worship Krsna also, in different ways. Some of them are already described as the distressed, the financially destitute, the inquisitive, and those who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge. But there are others who are still lower, and these are divided into three: 1) he who worships himself as one with the Supreme Lord, 2) he who concocts some form of the Supreme Lord and worships that, and 3) he who accepts the universal form, the visvarupa of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and worships that. Out of the above three, the lowest, those who worship themselves as the Supreme Lord, thinking themselves to be monists, are most predominant. Such people think themselves to be the Supreme Lord, and in this mentality they worship themselves. This is also a type of God worship, for they can understand that they are not the material body but are actually spiritual soul; at least, such a sense is prominent. Generally the impersonalists worship the Supreme Lord in this way. The second class includes the worshipers of the demigods, those who by imagination consider any form to be the form of the Supreme Lord. And the third class includes those who cannot conceive of anything beyond the manifestation of this material universe. They consider the universe to be the supreme organism or entity and worship that. The universe is also a form of the Lord.

Hutch said:
Also, following on from that logic - when we serve nature, we service the supreme. Separating ourselves from nature is paying service to illusion. Is it in our nature to believe in 'God'? Animals are part of nature, and as you've alluded to, they do not feel the need to believe in a supreme being - why should we?
Except that service toward material nature means serving something that is essentially void, which in turn means to serve illusion. As I said in my previous post, the ideal of service is to render it unto that which is supreme and absolute. Absolute means non-changing. Sometimes this material nature is manifest, sometimes it is not. Essentially you are worshipping a transience under the designation of it being 'absolute'. Therefore you are serving illusion. You are simply manufacturing the idea that the rope is really a snake.

Is it in our nature to believe in God? We say yes, absolutely. We claim that we (Krsna devotees) are not imposing anything artificial onto anyone's mind, but are simply awakening the dormant God consciousness of the soul. Animals typically don't feel the need to even conceive of a supreme being, for reasons we already went over. Why should we? Because we have that capacity. The real question is, why should we waste it? Let us utilize this potential and come to a higher platform of life. Even from a social and economic viewpoint, taking to these spiritual principles will create peace and prosperity. Currently our consciousness is contaminated with the prospect of lording it over the material nature. As long as we think ourselves to be masters, we will suffer. Why? Because we are not masters. We are servants, eternally. Therefore this is the illusion of the material energy. In Sanskrit it is called maya. 'Ma' means 'not' and 'ya' means 'this'. So maya refers to how the material nature has us misidentify it as something that it is not. You demonstrated this by considering service toward material nature to be supreme.


Hutch said:
Conclusion: Based on your definition, I indeed have an absolute. However, it has nothing to do with any definition of a God. It is comprised solely of the particulate matter which forms the galaxies, planet Earth and every living creature on Earth. It is purely physical and doesn't incorporate any higher intelligence, mystical universal ether, heaven, hell or purgatory, ghosts, spirits and souls etc. Therefore, when I pay service to my absolute, I am paying service to what I can directly observe with my own senses and what can rationally and logically be justified as existing.
To recap: What you consider as absolute is essentially void given that any manifestations that arise are transient, and therefore isn't really absolute. Secondly, even your senses are fleeting. Therefore you have the evidence doubled. Your "absolute" is fleeting and your senses (the tools you use to experience this "absolute") are fleeting. I don't think this issue could be put any clearer.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#28
I've read most of the bible, some of it is interesting but for the most part it's boring as hell, like Darwins on the origin of species by means of natural selection.
So, in other words you are speaking on a subject that you have little knowledge of and actually find boring.

I'm not suggesting that the bible exists only to create fear, it's just one small part, but it's there nonetheless.
Since you introduced "chriatianity" into the topic the ONLY thing you have linked it to IS fear. Therefore, I believe that you feel it is MORE than "just one small piece".

If you consider the sporadic anarchy during the dark ages, such fear would have prevented many crimes for fear of retribution after ones death.
Where is your proof to support this claim? How are we to know that the bible would have deterred crime? Also, what if what you are implying is true, why is it that america (which has been considered a "christian nation) have a high incarceration rate, murder rate, robbery rate, rape rate, drug rate etc?

I never said that every word in the bible is from the mouth of Jesus/God
No one ever said you did.

but I find it hard to believe that a single word can rightly be attributed to Jesus/God.
You are entitled to believe this, and you believe this without any reserach or consideration on the words were attributed to him in teh first place. I find it equally hard to believe that the world simply appeared because something exploded, but I understand why people believe it (because I've read about it in detail.)

Oral tradition and stories are just that - if they did have a foothold on reality at any stage, theres an extremely high probability that they've been taken way out of context, a centuries old chinese whispers experiment
There is a high probability that the words have been taken out of context, but what words have been taken out of context or what words would NEED to be taken out of context? Also, oral traditions and stories are not just that, because some cultures who had no written language used oral traditions and stories to pass on history.

Sure, I may have oversimplified the development of the bible, but some guy sitting down and writing a chapter off the top of his head isn't far off.
How can you logically say this when you have not read the bible and have no idea about what the bible says about the bible? If you have done no research into the organization of the bible, or why certain books were written, how can you logically make the claim?

I know that there were many variables involved, but in essence it was written by humans, from the minds of humans and for the minds of humans, whether they claim to have received divine guidance or not.
See above.

Mention of the connection between what is written in the bible and what God 'said' shouldn't be taken seriously just because it's referenced in the bible.
You have no grounds to say what should and shouldn't be taken serious. Why? You have not read the bible. You don't know the history of the bible, how it was compiled, what it was used for etc. Also, if it shouldn't be taken serious as you suggest, neither should your questions or statements pertaining to such matters.

That would be equivalent to me writing a book about Wesley Snipes and you believing the content because a paragraph within it claims 'Information contained within this book was obtained by oral and written communication between the author and Wesley Snipes' (again, oversimplified, but you get the picture).
I am REALLY trying not to send you to the butchers house Hutch, and I'm going to leave this alone because I want you to actually read what you wrote. Not only is it oversimplified, but you are comparing apples to oranges.

In closing, I am going to leave this thread before I take it over, but Hutch you need to SERIOUSLY look at the last statement and make sure you never post something as idiotic as that again.

Enjoy people!!!!
 

Hemp

Sicc OG
Sep 5, 2005
1,248
2
0
#29
n9newunsixx5150 said:
Why should we? Because we have that capacity. The real question is, why should we waste it? Let us utilize this potential and come to a higher platform of life. Even from a social and economic viewpoint, taking to these spiritual principles will create peace and prosperity.
i know this is for Hutch but ill tell u that to Hutch, the physical world is all that exists. He doesnt believe in anything else so to him doing what you said up there would also be serving illusion.

heres something i will try to explain to athiests.
remember that all of our decisions are purely based on our standards. They only seem normal because they are OUR standards.
what athiests are doing is simply looking at the physical "level" of things and not looking at the bigger/deeper picture.
an example would be if you were to listen to some tupac.
what an athiest person would say is "this isnt tupac, this is merely sound bits of info etc.."
and thats only because thats the physical level/standard of it.
what spiritualists do is try to look at the BIGGER picture and DEEPER meaning and say "even tho in the physical world this is merely sound bits, this is still tupac"
would the last statement be incorrect? nope.

i know n9newunsixx5150 understands me, but i hope all of you athiests do too.
dont hold yourselves back to a whole another part to life and to the human experience. Im not sayin to believe in God, but look for the bigger picture or deeper meaning in things. There are many.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
43
www.facebook.com
#30
Hemp said:
i know this is for Hutch but ill tell u that to Hutch, the physical world is all that exists. He doesnt believe in anything else so to him doing what you said up there would also be serving illusion.
The difference though is that at least what I am proposing we focus our service on is theoretically absolute. I may say, "serve Krsna because he is the Supreme Absolute Truth", and then there may be the question, "how do you know?" But at least theoretically I am referring to the Absolute, whereas Hutch's object of service is not even theoretically absolute. We know for a fact that the constituents of this universe are fleeting in nature. So immediately that option is ruled out. Now, the difficulty is that we really cannot determine when an entity is in fact absolute since we make the judgment through our fleeting senses. So some faith is required. I put forth that this faith be considered as a scientific hypothesis. Take to Krsna consciousness by chanting Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare ~ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare for a few minutes a day and consider the results for yourself.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
43
www.facebook.com
#32
"(...) Arjuna tells Krsna that he accepts whatever He says to be completely perfect. Sarvam etad rtam manye: "I accept everything You say to be true." Arjuna also says that the personality of the Lord is very difficult to understand and that He cannot be known even by the great demigods. This means that the Lord cannot even be known by personalities greater than human beings. So how can a human being understand Sri Krsna without becoming His devotee?
Therefore Bhagavad-gita should be taken up in a spirit of devotion. One should not think that he is equal to Krsna, nor should he think that Krsna is an ordinary personality or even a very great personality. Lord Sri Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, at least theoretically, according to the statements of Bhagavad-gita or the statements of Arjuna, the person who is trying to understand the Bhagavad-gita. We should therefore at least theoretically accept Sri Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and with that submissive spirit we can understand the Bhagavad-gita. Unless one reads the Bhagavad-gita in a submissive spirit, it is very difficult to understand Bhagavad-gita because it is a great mystery." -A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, introduction)
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
45
#33
HERESY said:
So, in other words you are speaking on a subject that you have little knowledge of and actually find boring.
Of course I find it boring. I would rather read a book on linux operating systems, atleast that contains some useful information.

HERESY said:
Since you introduced "chriatianity" into the topic the ONLY thing you have linked it to IS fear. Therefore, I believe that you feel it is MORE than "just one small piece".
More evidence demonstrating that your beliefs are flawed. Just because I suggested that christianity attempts to instill fear on non-believers, that is far from saying that I consider it anything more than "just one small piece". If I posted a topic about Carl Lewis and his ability to jump long distances, would you suggest that I implied that this is what constitutes Carl Lewis and that his life, his mind and beliefs, his family and all other achievements mean little? No.

Heresy said:
Where is your proof to support this claim? How are we to know that the bible would have deterred crime? Also, what if what you are implying is true, why is it that america (which has been considered a "christian nation) have a high incarceration rate, murder rate, robbery rate, rape rate, drug rate etc?
The media is constantly trying to scare the crap out of the American people - I agree with Michael Moores Bowling for Columbine when he showed that one of the significant differences between America and Canada is the medias portrayal of current events. Worldwide news focuses on what actually happened and doesn't focus purely on violence in a deliberate attempt to scare the shit out of the people like the US. Also, Americans are like the spoilt children of the world, 'I want, I want I WANT!!!, so fuck it, I'll just take'.

Heresy said:
You are entitled to believe this, and you believe this without any reserach or consideration on the words were attributed to him in teh first place. I find it equally hard to believe that the world simply appeared because something exploded, but I understand why people believe it (because I've read about it in detail.)
Fair enough

Heresy said:
There is a high probability that the words have been taken out of context, but what words have been taken out of context or what words would NEED to be taken out of context? Also, oral traditions and stories are not just that, because some cultures who had no written language used oral traditions and stories to pass on history.
So your saying that these stories passed on through the histories of ancient cultures are factual? I believe that some are, such as when Africans from the 11th century told stories about their encounters with white people. However, Many such stories are fictional, and although they may have had their roots in reality some time in the past, they've been taken way out of context. Consider the Aboriginal Arnem Land stories, how a fish fell from the sky and broke up into several pieces to form islands - do you think that happened? The wedding of the Norse God Thor? King Arthur and Merlin, did they exist? Dragons, Mermaids, Kraken, Unicorns - do, or did, they all exist? They are found in numerous stories handed down over the centuries and yet no-one really takes them seriously. Why do we cling to those stories involving Moses and a few stone plaques, The plagues of Egypt occuring as a result of the wrath of OUR God, Jesus dying for our sins and then coming back to life etc.?

Heresy said:
How can you logically say this when you have not read the bible and have no idea about what the bible says about the bible? If you have done no research into the organization of the bible, or why certain books were written, how can you logically make the claim?
I don't need to read the bible in order to say this, and that IS being logical. I require independent evidence corroborating the so-called evidence contained within the bible in order to think theres even a chance of it being true. I know you hate my metaphor re: Wesley Snipes, and you think you've got me a good one on it, but that is not the case because it is still an apt analogy. Apples and oranges are both tasty.

Heresy said:
You have no grounds to say what should and shouldn't be taken serious. Why? You have not read the bible. You don't know the history of the bible, how it was compiled, what it was used for etc. Also, if it shouldn't be taken serious as you suggest, neither should your questions or statements pertaining to such matters.
Don't take my comments seriously, no-one here ever does and I don't expect them too. If my comments were taken seriously, then you'd all be athiests. LOGICALLY, the bible contains mythical beings such as God and Jesus, and thus IMO it loses all credibility and shouldn't be taken seriously. If I told you that I found a gene which creates a red pigment in skin cells, decreases the rate at which you sweat during intensive exercise and gives you the ability to fly to venus on the wings of a gryphon - would you believe me? Would you believe the skin pigment and sweat comments considering the last impossibly inplausible statement? You shouldn't.

Heresy said:
I am REALLY trying not to send you to the butchers house Hutch... In closing, I am going to leave this thread before I take it over
You seriously overestimate yourself Heresy.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
43
www.facebook.com
#36
So are there any other questions? I'm an open book here. Not to mention that I have everything written and recorded by our spiritual master, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, in text form. This ranges from personal letters to discussions on various philosophers (Socrates, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Jung, Marx, etc.) and lectures on Bhagavad-Gita & Srimad Bhagavatam. I can simply search for key words or phrases and find every instance where that word is used.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
43
www.facebook.com
#39
Philosophy Discussions: Karl Marx


Prabhupada: "And let me know what is the weight. Take this elephant. Weigh him." So they went to... All market, they went to find out a scale, how to weigh this. Where is the scale for weighing an elephant? So they could not do anything. They came back. "What happened?" "Sir, we could not get such a scale." "Oh, you could not weight? All right. Minister, will you kindly weigh this elephant?" "Yes, sir." "All right, take it." So within six minutes he said, "It is twenty mounds," and like that. You see? So they were standing. They were surprised: "How is that? Within some minutes he came back and he said the exact weight." So king asked that "How did you weight? Did you get some very big scale?" "No sir. It is not possible to weight the elephant in the scale. Very difficult." "Then how did you weigh?" "Yes, I took it in a boat. I got it on the boat. I saw the water mark, and I marked it, and then, after getting down the elephant, I put weight on it. So when it came to that water mark, I understood." So the king said, "Now you see the difference?" They agreed, "Yes." Buddhir yasya balam tasya nirbuddhes tu kuto balam: "One who has got intelligence, he has got strength, and one who has got no intelligence, rascal fool, what strength there is?" These people are like that, rascal fools. We don't take advice from them. We take advice from Krsna or His representative.
Syamasundara: So religion is not just a police force for keeping people in illusion.
Prabhupada: He does not know what is religion. He does not know, and he is trying to define religion. He does not know. I have defined already religion. Religion is the service spirit. That is religion. Now, real religion is the service. Everyone is engaged in giving service, but he does not know where his service will be successful. That he does not know. Therefore Krsna gives us indication that "You serve Me and your service spirit will be successful." That is religion.
Indian man: Sir, we see that Dr. Stanley Johnson... He is my friend. He said he was traveling in Moscow. One lady got in the plane, and she told him, "You look religious. You must very rich also." No. "Sir, you look religious, so you must be very rich." He said, "Why? Why do I look rich?" Because they have the idea that only rich men can think of religion.
Syamasundara: Yes. That's their whole idea.
Prabhupada: That means foolish, all set of foolish rascals, that's all. From his talking we can understand. He is the leader. So he is a big foolish man, and his followers must be all fools. That's all.
Syamasundara: Yes. He said that religion is made up by the capitalists to keep the...
Prabhupada: That means he does not know religion, what is religion, and he wants to define religion. What a foolish man he is. He does not know what is the meaning of religion. Religion means which you cannot change. That is religion. Dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Yes. Even up to this day, because India is standing on religion, although it is all broken, still, all over the world--I have traveled--they are adoring India.
Syamasundara: But their explanation is that because everyone is so poor in India that they rely on religion for condolence.
Prabhupada: But still, people come from other countries to learn religion here. And one Chinese writer, I have seen his book. He plainly writes that "If you want to study religion, it is India."
Syamasundara: But more people go from India there to learn science.
Indian man: No, no.
Prabhupada: No. That is another thing, material science. Material science. But when people come from West to India, they do not come here to learn material science. They come here to understand what is God, these things.
Indian man: Not only that, you know. Gandhi told the same thing. He said when Kanjulatem(?) went to London, he was told that "Your religion is ancient. Why did you not come to teach us?" He said, "Whom to teach? Your fathers and grandfathers were jumping off trees."
Prabhupada: That's it. Darwin's theory.
Indian man: He said, "Whom to come and teach? You were not there."
Prabhupada: (laughs) Very good answer. Yes, Darwin says that all monkeys. "So you are monkey. How to teach you?" It is a very good answer, yes.
Syamasundara: So he said that God does not create man, that man creates God.
Prabhupada: That is another nonsense. He is a nonsense rascal. That is being proved by his talks. Tavac ca sobhate murkho yavat kincin na bhasate. You cannot understand a rascal fool unless he talks. Now he is talking. And sooner I did not know that he is so fool, but I can understand now he is a great fool. This is the test. Tavac ca sobhate murkho yavat kincin na bhasate. Murkha, you can... A murkha can dress himself very nicely, like gentleman sitting amongst the gentlemen, but a learned man and a fool will be understood as soon as he speaks. As soon as talks like a foolish man, one can understand, "Oh, he is a rascal." And as soon as one speaks great subject matter, then one can understand, "Oh, he is learned." So by his talking, now we can understand he is a great fool.
Syamasundara: So his follower was Nikolai Lenin. Mostly he reinforced all of Marx's ideas, but he added a few touches of his own. One is that revolution is fundamental, that history...
Prabhupada: There were so many revolutions. It is not that they have made revolution. There were other revolutions, especially in Europe, the French Revolution. There were so many revolutions.
Syamasundara: He studied the revolutions, and he said that history moves in leaps and progresses toward the Communist leap. So he wants to make a leap into the dictatorship of the proletariat, and this he calls the final stage of development of history.
Prabhupada: No. We can say, and they may note it also, that after this, the Bolshevik Revolution, there will be many other revolutions, many other revolutions, because so long people will live on the mental plane there will be only revolution. That's all. Our proposition is, "Give up this mental concoction. Come to the right point. And that is spiritual platform." If one comes to that spiritual platform, that is... Just like Dhruva Maharaja said, svamin krtartho 'smi varam na yace: "No more revolution. I am completely satisfied because I have now seen You." So unless one comes to God, the revolution will go on. Rather, this is final revolution. We don't say final revolution, but... We don't expect that Krsna consciousness will be taken by everyone, but within this material world the revolution will repeat unless one comes to God consciousness.
Syamasundara: The Hare Krsna revolution.
Prabhupada: Yes.
Syamasundara: He said that...
Prabhupada: Yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavanti. That is the Vedic injunction, that people are searching after knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, so when one understands the Absolute Truth, then he understands everything. Yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavanti. And Bhagavata says, na te viduh svartha-gatim hi visnum: "They are trying to approach the objective, but they do not know the objective is Visnu." Durasaya ye bahir-artha-maninah: "They are simply trying to adjust by so many revolutions, these material things." But he has no knowledge that he is spiritual being. Unless he goes back to the spiritual world and associates with the supreme spirit, God, there is no question of happiness. Exactly, if you have taken a fish from the water, there is no question of happiness of this fish unless it is again thrown into the water. So we have come... We are part and parcel of the supreme spirit. We have come from the spiritual world with the mentality of enjoying this material world. So unless we divert, reverse ourself to that spiritual conclusion, we understand our spiritual position and go back to home, we go to back... Yad gatva na nivartante tad dhama paramam. When you come to this position, that is happiness. Otherwise you go on theorizing, but one revolution will be... That is the world. "Yielding place to new. Old order changes, yielding place to new." This is revolution. So this will go on. What he is thinking now new, it will be old after some days, and another new thing will come, will be changed. So this is the order. "Old order changes, yielding place to new." Or, in other words, "History repeats itself."
Syamasundara: He says that this is purely the nature of matter, that there are always two conflicting properties, and that this inner impulse, this inner pulsation of opposite forces, will cause history to take leaps like you just said, from one revolution to another. But the Communist revolution he calls the final revolution because it is the perfect answer.
Prabhupada: Yes. I can take it in this sense. If the Communist idea is spiritualized. So long the Communist idea will remain materialized, it is not final. We have got Communistic idea. Just like we believe... They believe that the state is the owner; we believe God is the owner. So this state is a small state, Russian state. They can be satisfied, but because it is wrong application... State is not the owner. Real owner is God. So from state, when they come to the conclusion, "Not the state but God is owner," then their Communistic idea will be fulfilled. And as they say that everything must be done for the state, we are actually teaching perfect Communism. We are teaching that Krsna is the owner. Bhoktaram yajna-tapasam sarva-loka-mahesvaram. Krsna says, "I am the supreme enjoyer. Everything is..." Just like in our society we are doing everything for Krsna because we know Krsna is the enjoyer. Sarva-loka-mahes... He is the proprietor. So this Communistic idea is vague, but it can be perfected when they come to the conclusion, according to the Bhagavad-gita, that Krsna is the supreme proprietor; He is the supreme enjoyer; He is the supreme friend of everyone. Then the people will be happy: "Oh, we have got a friend like Krsna." Just like Arjuna was certain that "Krsna is my charioteer. Oh, I am victorious." And it is confirmed, yatra yogesvarah krsnah: "Where Yogesvara, Krsna, is there," yatra partho dhanur-dharah, tatra srir vijayo, "there victory and everything is there." So this is an idea. This idea can be welcomed provided they are prepared to replace the so-called state by God. Then it is...
Syamasundara: Well, that's pretty unlikely because they consider that reality is composed of what appears to our senses.
Prabhupada: That is not reality. Then why there is revolution? If it is reality, then why it is being changed? So in this material world there is a vague idea, reality. Nothing reality. Everything false. Sankaracarya therefore says, jagat mithya: "It is false." There is no reality. What is reality? What is definition of reality?
Syamasundara: What appears to our senses.
Prabhupada: Huh?
Syamasundara: What appears to our senses.
Prabhupada: Well, your senses are not reality.
Syamasundara: And economic determination.
Prabhupada: That's all right. You are sensually thinking, but your senses are not reality. They are imperfect. Your eyes... You are thinking "I am seeing reality," but you are not seeing reality. Just like you see, daily seeing the sun. Really you are seeing. But you do not know what is sun. Then what is the benefit of that seeing?
Syamasundara: He says whatever is useful...
Prabhupada: Useful, useful... So far you are seeing the sun, you know the sunshine is useful, the sun heat is useful. That does not mean that you have understood sun as reality. The superficial benefit you are getting. That does not mean that you know reality. Do you know? You are getting sunshine; you are utilizing it. Sun's heat, you are utilizing. Does it mean that you know really what is sun?
Syamasundara: He would say that the only reality instead of the sun is that the crops would grow, feed everyone.
Prabhupada: That's all... They are simply by-products, simply by-products. But you do not know the reality. If you speak of reality, if you are satisfied only the by-product of the reality, then that is a different thing. But when you speak of reality it does not mean, because it appeals to your senses, therefore it is reality, because your senses are imperfect. You cannot realize anything perfectly with these defective senses.
Syamasundara: He says that if there is anything beyond the appearances, physical world, it is also physical, that everything is physical, everything is material.
Prabhupada: That's all right. Physical... Even physical, you do not know. Even this physical manifestation of this universe, what do you know about this? You do not know. There are so many planets. You cannot go even in the moon planet.
Syamasundara: He says it's only necessary to know what applies to us, what...
Prabhupada: Then don't talk of reality. Don't talk of reality.
Syamasundara: I only need to know that which is useful to me.
Prabhupada: That use, it is for you but because your knowledge is so poor. Just like a low class man, he will think, "This police constable is government." Because he is a low class man, the police constable takes him to the custody, and he is controlled by the police cons..., so he is father and mother. But for a high personality the police constable is nothing. There are so many others. So this reality is relative according to the person. He is a man with poor fund of knowledge. Therefore immediate effective, that is reality. Just like child. He thinks a lozenges which is two cent worth, he thinks it is reality. But to his father that two cents worth lozenges... (aside: ) Thank you very much. Hare Krsna. To his father, he will think, "What is this lozenges?" The child will ap... "Oh, father, it is so nice. It is heaven. It is so sweet." That means reality according to the person... So he is a man with poor fund of knowledge; therefore he is accepting reality which is giving him some immediate profit. That's all.
Syamasundara: Yes. Just like he considers Kant's idea, "the things in themselves," to be "the things for us,"...
Prabhupada: (aside) You can change that.
Syamasundara: ...instead of something existing in itself, that "everything exists for us and everything exists for my use."
Prabhupada: Yes. The animal also thinks that "This is reality." "I have got one goat," a tiger thinks, "to eat. Oh, this is reality."
Syamasundara: This is just for me.
Prabhupada: Yes. That is... These things are discussed in Upanisads. The students asks, "What is reality?" He says that "Think over." Now came, that "Eatables are reality," because he's a small child. So he says, "No, this is not reality. You think over." In this way, this way, one after, one after another, one after another, he finally came to Brahman. So this reality differs according to knowledge. Krsna can... The same example: a child. Two things: one lugdoo and one one-thousand-dollar note--which one he will take? He will take this lugdoo. For him this is reality. He does not know the value of this paper. But for his father, which one of them, he can immediately... So reality means according to your knowledge. So these are poor class of men; therefore they are always talking of economic production and this and that, the immediate... That's all.
Syamasundara: In fact, when he says that what is practical is the criterion for truth, that is also relative, what is practical. Just like for the child the practical thing is the laddu.
Prabhupada: Yes. That's all right. For a child the lugdoo is reality, but that does not mean that is equal to that one thousand dollar note.
Syamasundara: So we have to find out what is really practical.
Prabhupada: Yes. No, practical, both things practical. But according to the person, the value is different.
Syamasundara: Oh. But isn't there an absolute value?
Prabhupada: The absolute value is God. That is division (?). Satyam param dhimahi. That is our objective. We take in the Srimad-Bhagavatam that janmady asya yatah: "The original source of everything." Satyam param dhimahi: "I meditate upon the Supreme Truth, Absolute Truth."
Syamasundara: And that is also practical?
Prabhupada: Yes. Yes. Why not practical? Do you mean to say that you are, all Krsna conscious people, you are after something impractical?
Syamasundara: Well, they will say...
Prabhupada: They may say. What is your position? They may say.
Syamasundara: The practical thing is that it makes us happy.
Prabhupada: Huh?
Syamasundara: The practical result is that we are happy.
Prabhupada: So anyway, unless you feel practical, why you are after it? That is my proposal. They may say whatever nonsense they can say.
Syamasundara: So the practical result should be satisfaction, happiness.
Prabhupada: Yes. You are eating, but somebody says, "What you are doing?" But by eating, if you feel satisfaction of your hunger, that is practical. You haven't got to take certificate from others. You are eating; if you feel satisfaction, if you feel strong, that is the...
Syamasundara: So these men, both of them, they have a great faith that philosophy can change the world.
Prabhupada: And this is the real philosophy. Janmady asya yatah. This is philosophy. Athato brahma-jijnasa. This is real... What is the original source? This is real philosophy. What is that Absolute Truth? Everything is relative truth. What is the Absolute Truth? That is philosophy, Vedanta philosophy.
Syamasundara: That has social effects that could change the world?
Prabhupada: Yes. This, our whole Indian, Vedic civilization, is standing on Vedanta philosophy. And Bhagavata is explanation of Vedanta philosophy.
Syamasundara: So the source of everything is...
Prabhupada: Everything is there, ideal.
Syamasundara: So that's all today. Tomorrow we will discuss Mao Tse Tung, the Chinese Communist.
Prabhupada: Oh, Mao.
Syamasundara: Mao. (end)