Gauranga Kishore Dasa's Blog

Syndicate content
O Govardhan, I am a cheater and a criminal, but nevertheless the unlimitedly merciful son of Mother Saci has given me to you, please do not consider whether I am fit or unfit, and simply grant me residence near you.
Updated: 1 day 11 hours ago

Humans evolved in Asia?

Wed, 07/01/2009 - 13:06

Fossil Suggests Human, Ape Ancestor Hails From Asia Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
June 30, 2009
-- A new Myanmar fossil primate, Ganlea megacanina, suggests the common ancestor of humans, monkeys and apes evolved from large-toothed primates in Asia and not Africa, according to new research published in the latest Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

If Myanmar, formerly called Burma, is confirmed as being the ancestral homeland of higher primates, or close to it, the discovery points to a circuitous migration route for some early primates, which must have gone to Africa and then come back to Asia. . . . Beard still believes modern humans descended from an African population that lived around 200,000 years ago. "But," he said, "some extinct species of humans, such as the 'hobbit' Homo floresiensis, almost certainly evolved in Asia." (Read the article thing here.)

This is interesting on a couple of levels, the first is that it shows the idea of evolution as a scientific theory is almost a joke. The whole thing can be turned on its head. At the very least it still evolving. The admittance that Homo floresiensis "almost certainly evolved in Asia" has huge implications. One of the big holes in the Vedic narative was India being the center of everything, when genetic evidence seemed to indicate that people migrated out of Africa. But it looks like the same evidence could also be used to show that people migrated to Africa from Asia. This is important for anyone who accepts the Vedic paradigm, whether we except the Vedas literally or whether we accept some type of guided theistic evolution.

Categories: Personal Blogs

The Brothers Karamazov by Fydor Dostoevsky

Tue, 06/30/2009 - 22:36
Wow! I just recently finished reading the most amazing book, The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

I am always a little vexed by the question, "What is your favorite book." I want to say Bhagavatam but that is not what people are looking for and it never satisfies people, and it is not really a book anyway, but now I have an answer, "The Brothers Karamazov is my favorite book."

The back of the jacket say, "The last greatest of Dostoevsky's novels, The Brothers Karamazov is a towering masterpiece of literature, philosophy, psychology, and religion." This is not an exaggeration, it really is a towering masterpiece.

It is hard for me to say anything about it because there is so much to say, the book is 700 pages. But I'll just say that it address all the most important questions.

Again from the jacket, "Into the framework of the story Dostoevsky poured all of his deepest concerns-the origin of evil, the nature of freedom, the craving for meaning, and most importantly whether or not God exists."

Many people consider Dostoevsky's work a precursor to existentialism, for in his books he lays bare the human condition. He looks into the inner recesses of the human soul and reveals all that evil but ultimately all that is good.

"Ultimately Dostoevsky believes that Christ-like love prevails. But does he prove it?"

It was really interesting for me reading this after my recent readings/writings/discussions/thoughts on atheism.

I see atheism as more of a existential issue than an intellectual issue. This is the only book I've come across that really address the issues on that level.

In the Brothers Karamazov Dostoevsky address the core issues without getting distracted in philosophical red herrings. How can the existence of God be justified in light of the suffering we see? Is there any such thing as morality without a conception of God? Is there a possibility for the redemption of humanity or are we doomed to kill each ot

I highly recommend everyone, atheists and theists, to read this book. It is well worth it. I was worried it would be boring and hard to finish, but it was actually hard to put down. The plot is very exciting, full of intrigue and sordid love affairs, and the issues address are even more fascinating.

Just one excerpt, this is from father Zossima, the revered guru and saint speaking about the importance of the monastic order, or more broadly devotion to God, in regards to creating peace and happiness in society (what Srila Prabhupada called "spiritual communism"):

"They have science; but in science there is nothing but what is the object of sense. The spiritual world, the higher part of man's being is rejected altogether, dismissed with a sort of triumph, even with hatred. The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs? Nothing but slavery and self destruction! For the world says:

"You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don't be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires." That is the doctrine of the modern world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? Int eh rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder; for they have been given rights but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. They maintain that the world is getting more and more united, more and more bound together in brotherly community, as it overcomes distance and sets thoughts flying through the air.

Alas, put no faith in such a bond of union. Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous fancies are fostered in them. They live on for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation. to have dinners, visits, carriages, rank and slaves to wait on one is looked upon as a necessity, for which life, honour and human feeling are sacrificed, and men even commit suicide if they are unable to satisfy it. We see the same thing among those who are not rich, while the poor drown their unsatisfied need and their envy in drunkenness. But soon they will drink blood instead of wine, they are being led on to it. I ask you is such a man free? I knew one "champion of freedom" who told me himself that, when he was deprived of tobacco in prison, he was so wretched at eh privation that he almost went and betrayed his cause for the sake of getting tobacco again! And such a man says, "I am fighting for the cause of humanity."

How can such a one fight, what is he fit for? He is capable perhaps of some action quickly over, but he cannot hold out long. And it;s no wonder that instead of gaining freedom they have sunk into slavery, and instead of serving the cause of brotherly love and the union of humanity have fallen, on the contrary into dissension and isolation, a my mysterious visitor and teacher said to me in my youth. And therefore the idea of the service of humanity, of brotherly love and the solidarity of mankind, is more an more dying out in the world, and indeed this ideas is sometimes treated with derision. For how can a man shake off his habits, what can become of him if he is in such bondage to the habit of satisfying the innumerable desires he has created for himself? He is isolated, and what concern has he with the rest of humanity? they have succeeded
in accumulating a greater mass of objects, but the joy in the world has grown less.

The monastic way is very different. Obedience, fasting, and prayer are laughed at, yet only through the lies the way to real, true freedom. I cut off my superfluous and unnecessary desires, I subdue my proud and wanton will an chastise it with obedience, and with God's help I attain freedom of spirit and with it spiritual joy. Which is most capable of conceiving a great idea and serving it-the rich man in his isolation or the man who has feed himself from the tyranny of material things and habits? The monk is reproached for his solitude, "You have secluded yourself within the walls of the monastery for your own salvation,k, and have forgotten the brotherly service of humanity!" but we shall see which will be most zealous in the cause of brotherly love. For it s not we, but they, who are in isolation, though they don't see that."

Here are a few more random quotes off the inter net (although these isolated quotes do not at all do the book justice):

"I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness."

"People talk sometimes of a bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it."

"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral; everything would be lawful, even cannibalism."

"What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love."

"There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all. Whereas by shifting your own laziness and powerlessness onto others, you will end by sharing in Satan's pride and murmuring against God."


"Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering."

"Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."

"I'm a Karamazov... when I fall into the abyss, I go straight into it, head down and heels up, and I'm even pleased that I'm falling in such a humiliating position, and for me I find it beautiful. And so in that very shame I suddenly begin a hymn. Let me be cursed, let me be base and vile, but let me also kiss the hem of that garment in which my God is clothed; let me be following the devil at the same time, but still I am also your son, Lord, and I love you, and I feel a joy without which the world cannot stand and be."

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end... but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth!"

"The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself."

"By the experience of active love. Strive to love your neighbour actively and indefatigably. In as far as you advance in love you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of your soul. If you attain to perfect self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbour, then you will believe without doubt, and no doubt can possibly enter your soul. This has been tried. This is certain."

"His whole theory is a fraud! Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity. "

"Beauty! I can't endure the thought that a man of lofty mind and heart begins with the ideal of the Madonna and ends with the ideal of Sodom. What's still more awful is that a man with the ideal of Sodom in his soul does not renounce the ideal of the Madonna, and his heart may be on fire with that ideal, genuinely on fire, just as in his days of youth and innocence. Yes, man is broad, too broad, indeed. I'd have him narrower. The devil only knows what to make of it! What to the mind is shameful is beauty and nothing else to the heart. Is there beauty in Sodom? Believe me, that for the immense mass of mankind beauty is found in Sodom. Did you know that secret? The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man."


Categories: Personal Blogs

www.radhanathmaharaj.net

Mon, 06/29/2009 - 00:32



Check out www.radhanathmaharaj.net for transcriptions of lectures by Srila Radhanath Swami Maharaj.
Categories: Personal Blogs

Love by Eckhart Tolle

Wed, 06/24/2009 - 12:14

"What is conventionally called "love" is an ego strategy to avoid surrender. You are looking to someone to give you that which can only come to you in the state of surrender. The ego uses that person as a substitute to avoid having to surrender. The Spanish language is the most honest in this respect. It uses the same verb, te quiero, for "I love you" and "I want you." To the ego, loving and wanting are the same, whereas true love has no wanting in it, no desire to possess or for your partner to change. The ego singles someone out and makes them special. It uses that person to cover up the constant underlying feeling of discontent, of "not enough," of anger and hate, which are closely related. These are facets of an underlying deep seated feeling in human beings that is inseparable from the egoic state.

When the ego singles something out and says "I love" this or that, it’s an unconscious attempt to cover up or remove the deep-seated feelings that always accompany the ego: the discontent, the unhappiness, the sense of insufficiency that is so familiar. For a little while, the illusion actually works. Then inevitably, at some point, the person you singled out, or made special in your eyes, fails to function as a cover up for your pain, hate, discontent or unhappiness which all have their origin in that sense of insufficiency and incompleteness. Then, out comes the feeling that was covered up, and it gets projected onto the person that had been singled out and made special – who you thought would ultimately "save you." Suddenly love turns to hate. The ego doesn’t realize that the hatred is a projection of the universal pain that you feel inside. The ego believes that this person is causing the pain. It doesn’t realize that the pain is the universal feeling of not being connected with the deeper level of your being - not being at one with yourself.

The object of love is interchangeable, as interchangeable as the object of egoic wanting. Some people go through many relationships. They fall in love and out of love many times. They love a person for a while until it doesn’t work anymore, because no person can permanently cover up that pain.

Only surrender can give you what you were looking for in the object of your love. The ego says surrender is not necessary because I love this person. It’s an unconscious process of course. The moment you accept completely what is, something inside you emerges that had been covered up by egoic wanting. It is an innate, indwelling peace, stillness, aliveness. It is the unconditioned, who you are in your essence. It is what you had been looking for in the love object. It is yourself. When that happens, a completely different kind of love is present which is not subject to love / hate. It doesn’t single out one thing or person as special. It’s absurd to even use the same word for it."
Categories: Personal Blogs

Sri Gauranga-stava-kalpa-vrksa by Srila Raghunatha das Gosvami

Wed, 06/24/2009 - 00:51
When anyone sees His graceful motions they revile the graceful mad elephant and when they see His face they spit at the moon. He is as splendid as a gold mountain and the waves of His words are nectar. The appearance of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, awakening in my heart, maddens me.

Decorating Himself with the jewels of paleness, becoming stunned, stuttering, trembling, shedding tears, and bodily hairs erect with joy, and laughing and perspiring, as He danced for the pleasure of Lord Jagannath, may Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu rise in my heart and make me mad with love.

Staggering about in ecstasy, sprinkling everyone with water from the reddish syringes of His eyes, joyfully biting His charming lips with His teeth, and trembling as he dances, may Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu rise in my heart and make me mad with love.

Sometimes Sri Caitanya would go to the house of Kasi Misra. There would be greatly aggrieved, feeling separation from Krishna. The joints of His transcendental body would slacken, and His arms and legs would become elongated. Rolling on the ground, the Lord would cry out in distress in a faltering voice and weep very sorrowfully. The appearance of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, awakening in my heart, maddens me.

How wonderful it is! Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu left His residence without opening the three strongly bolted doors. Then He crossed over three high walls, and later, because of strong feelings of separation from Krishna, He fell down amidst the cows of the Tailanga district and retracted all the limbs of His body like a tortoise. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who appeared in that way, rises in my heart and maddens me.

Because of separation from His many friends in Vrindavana, who were like His own life, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu spoke like a madman. His intelligence was transformed. Day and night He rubbed His moonlike face against the walls, and blood flowed from the injuries. May that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu rise in my heart and make me mad with love.

"My dear friend the doorkeeper, where is Krishna, the Lord of my heart? Kindly show Him to Me quickly." With these words Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu addressed the doorkeeper like a madman. The doorkeeper grasped His hand and replied very hastily, "Come, see Your beloved!" May that Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu rise within my heart and thus make me mad also.

Near Jagannath Puri was a great sand dune known as Cataka-parvata. Seeing that hill, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Oh, I shall go to the land of Vraja to see Govardhana Hill." Then He began running madly to it, and all the Vaisnavas ran after Him. This scene awakens in my heart and maddens me.

Under a charming pavilion at the swing festival, with Svarupa Damodara and the other devotees He sweetly sang the holy names of Lord Krishna. May Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu rise in my heart and make me mad with love.

As Lord Narayana is kind to Garuda, He is kind to Govinda dasa. As Lord Krishna is devoted to His guru, He is devoted to Isvara Puri. As Lord Giridhari loves Subala, He loves Svarupa Damodara. May that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu rise in my heart and make me mad with love.

Although I am a fallen soul, the lowest of men, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu delivered me from the blazing forest fire of great material opulence by His mercy. He landed me over in great pleasure to Svarupa Damodara, His personal associate. The Lord also gave me the garland of small conch shells that He wore on His chest and a stone from Govardhana Hill, although they were very dear to Him. That same Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu awakens within my heart and makes me mad after Him.

One who, with the water of careful reading mixed with the medicine of strong faith, waters this celestial tree, its charming branches the verses of this poem, and the splendor of its flowers pure love for Lord Gauranga, will reap that tree's heavy fruit: the sight of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Categories: Personal Blogs

The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology

Mon, 06/22/2009 - 01:07

The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology was written By Srila Bhaktivinode and delivered as a lecture to the most prestigious members of the cultural elite of his time in Bengal, which was at the time the headquarters of the British empire and a powerful center of religious and culture development. In this essay Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur makes a compelling case for Vaisnavism, he presents the essence of Vaisnavism and addresses many of the issues that the intellectuals of his time were grappling with. Although a few names are unfamiliar the basic presentation is as relevant as ever. It could have been prepared as a response to the religious critics of our time. In addition to being full of profound spiritual insight, like the Bhagavat itself, it reads like the most beautiful poetry.

The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology
By Kedarnath Dutta Bhaktivinode

"O Ye, who are deeply merged in the knowledge of the love of God and also in deep thought about it, constantly drink, even after your emancipation, the most tasteful juice of the Srimad- Bhagavatam, come on earth through Sukadeva Gosvami's
mouth carrying the liquid nectar out of the fallen and, as such, very ripe fruit of the Vedic tree which supplies all with their desired objects." (Srimad-BhŒgavatam, 1/1/3)

We love to read a book which we never read before. We are anxious to gather whatever information is contained in it and with such acquirement our curiosity stops. This mode of study prevails amongst a great number of readers, who are great men in their own estimation as well as in the estimation of those, who are of their own stamp. In fact, most readers are mere repositories of facts and statements made by other people. But this is not study. The student is to read the facts with a view to create, and not with the object of fruitless retention. Students like satellites should reflect whatever light they receive from authors and not imprison the facts and thoughts just as the Magistrates imprison the convicts in the jail! Thought is progressive. The author's thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development. He is the best critic, who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere
denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of Nature. Begin anew, says the critic, because the old masonry does not answer at present. Let the old author be buried because his time is gone. These are shallow expressions. Progress certainly is the law of nature and there must be correction and developments with the progress of time. But progress means going further or rising higher. Now, if we are to follow our foolish critic, we are to go back to
our former terminus and make a new race, and when we have run half the race, another critic of his stamp will cry out: Begin anew, because the wrong road has been taken!Ó In this way our stupid critics will never allow us to go over the whole road and see what is in the other terminus. Thus the shallow critic and the fruitless reader are the two great enemies of progress. We must
shun them.

The true critic, on the other hand, advises us to preserve what we have already obtained, and to adjust our race from that point where we have arrived in the heat of our progress. He will never advise us to go back to the point whence we started, as he fully knows that in that case there will be a fruitless loss of our valuable time and labor. He will direct the adjustment of the angle of
the race at the point where we are. This is also the characteristic of the useful student. He will read an old author and will find out his exact position in the progress of thought. He will never propose to burn the book on the grounds that it contains thoughts which are useless. No thought is useless. Thoughts are means by which we attain out objects. The reader who denounces a bad
thought does not know that a bad road is even capable of improvement and conversion into a good one. One thought is a road leading to another. Thus the reader will find that one thought which is the object to-day will be the means of a further object to-morrow. Thoughts will necessarily continue to be an endless series of means and objects in the progresses of humanity. The great reformers will always assert that they have come out not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it. Valmiki, Vyasa, Plato, Jesus, Mohammed, Confucius and Caitanya Mahaprabhu assert the fact either expressly or by their conduct.

The Bhagavata like all religious works and philosophical performances and writings of great men has suffered from the imprudent conduct of useless readers and stupid critics. The former have done so much injury to the work that they have surpassed the latter in their evil consequence. Men of brilliant thought have passed by the work in quest of truth and philosophy, but the
prejudice which they imbibed from its useless readers and their conduct, prevented them from making a candid investigation. Not to say of other people, the great genius of Raja Rammohun Roy, the founder of the sect of Brahmoism, did not think it worth his while to study this ornament of the religious library. He crossed the gate of the Vedanta, as set up by the mayavada
construction of the designing Sankaracarya, the chosen enemy of the Jains, and chalked his way out to the Unitarian form of the Christian faith, converted into an Indian appearance. Rammohun Roy was an able man. He could not be satisfied with the theory of illusion contained in the mayavada philosophy of Sankara. His heart was full of love to Nature. He saw through the eye of his mind that he could not believe in his identity with God. He ran furious from the bounds of Sankara to those of the Koran. There even he was not satisfied. He then studied the pre-eminently beautiful precepts and history of Jesus, first in the English translation and at last in the original Greek, and took shelter under the holy banners of the Jewish Reformer. But Rammohun Roy was also a patriot. He wanted to reform his country in the same way as he reformed himself. He knew it fully that truth does not belong exclusively to any individual man or to any nation of particular race. It belongs to God, and man whether in the poles or on the equator, has a right to claim it as the property of his Father. On these grounds he claimed the truths inculcated by the Western Savior as also the property of himself and his countrymen, and thus he established the samaja of the Brahmos independently of what was in his own country in the beautiful Bhagavata. His noble deeds will certainly procure him a high position in the history of reformers. But then, to speak the truth, he would have done more if he had commenced his work of reformation from the point where the last reformer in India left it. It is not our business to go further on this subject. Suffice it to say, that the Bhagavata did not attract the genius of
Rammohun Roy. His thought, mighty though it was, unfortunately branched like the Ranigunj line of the Railway, from the barren station of Sankaracarya, and did not attempt to be an extension from the Delhi Terminus of the great Bhagavata expounder of Nadia. We do not doubt that the progress of time will correct the error, and by a further extension the branch line will lose itself somewhere in the main line of progress. We expect these attempts in a abler
reformer of the followers of Rammohun Roy.

The Bhagavata has suffered alike from shallow critics both Indian and outlandish. That book has been accursed and denounced by a great number of our young countrymen, who have scarcely read its contents and pondered over the philosophy on which it is founded. It is owing mostly to their imbibing an unfounded prejudice against it when they were in school. The Bhagavata, as a
a matter of course, has been held in derision by those teachers, who are generally of an inferior mind and intellect. This prejudice is not easily shaken when the student grows up unless he candidly studies the book and ruminates on the doctrines of Vaishnavaism. We are ourselves witness of the fact. When we were in college, reading the philosophical works of the West and
exchanging thoughts with the thinkers of the day, we had a real hatred towards the Bhagavata. That great work looked like a repository of wicked and stupid ideas, scarcely adapted to the nineteenth century, and we hated to hear any arguments in its favor. With us then a volume of Channing, Parker, Emerson or Newman had more weight than the whole lots of Vaishnava works. Greedily we poured over the various commentations of the Holy Bible and of the labors of
the Tattwa Bodhini Sabha, containing extracts from the Upanisads and the Vedanta, but no work of the Vaishnavas had any favor with us. But when we advanced in age and our religious sentiment received development, we turned out in a manner Unitarian in our belief and prayed as Jesus prayed in the Garden. Accidentally, we fell in with a work about the Great Caitanya, and on reading it with some attention in order to settle the historical position of that Mighty Genius of Nadia, we had the opportunity of gathering His explanations of Bhagavata, given to the wrangling Vedantist of the Benares School. The accidental study created in us a love for all the works which we find about our Eastern Savior. We gathered with difficulties the famous karcŒs in Sanskrit, written by the disciples of Caitanya. The explanations that we got of the Bhagavata from these sources, were of such a charming character that we procured a copy of the Bhagavata complete and studied its texts (difficult of course to those who are not trained up in philosophical thoughts) with the assistance of the famous commentaries of ür”dhŒra SvŒm”. From such study it is that we have at least gathered the real doctrines of the Vaishnavas. Oh! What a
trouble to get rid of prejudices gathered in unripe years!

As far as we can understand, no enemy of Vaishnavaism will find any beauty in the BhŒgavata. The true critic is a generous judge, void of prejudices and party-spirit. One, who is at heart the follower of Mohammed will certainly find the doctrines of the New Testament to be a forgery by the fallen angel. A Trinitarian Christian, on the other hand, will denounce the precepts of
Mohammed as those of an ambitious reformer. The reason simply is, that the critic should be of the same disposition of mind as that of the author, whose merit he is required to judge. Thoughts have different ways. One, who is trained up in the thoughts of the Unitarian Society or of the Vedanta of the Benares School, will scarcely find piety in the faith the Vaishnavas. An
ignorant Vaishnava, on the other hand, whose business it is to beg from door to door in the name of NityŒnanda will find no piety in the Christian. This is because, the Vaishnava does not think in the way which the Christian thinks of his own religion. It may be, that both the Christian and the Vaishnava will utter the same sentiment, but they will never stop their fight with each other
only because they have arrived at their common conclusion by different ways of thoughts. Thus it is, that a great deal of ungenerousness enters into the arguments of the pious Christians when they pass their imperfect opinion on the religion of the Vaishnavas.

Subjects of philosophy and theology are like the peaks of large towering and inaccessible mountains standing in the midst of our planet inviting attention and investigation. Thinkers and men of deep speculation take their observations through the instruments of reason and consciousness. But they take different points when they carry on their work. These points are positions chalked out by the circumstances of their social and philosophical life, different
as they are in the different parts of the world. Plato looked at the peak of the Spiritual question from the West and Vyasa made the observation from the East; so Confucius did it from further East, and Schlegel, Spinoza, Kant, Goethe from further West. These observations were made at different times and by different means, but the conclusion is all the same in as much as the object of observation was one and the same. They all hunted after the Great Spirit, the unconditioned Soul of the Universe. They could not but get an insight into it. Their words and expressions are different, but their import is the same. They tried to find out the absolute religion and their labors were crowned with success, for God gives all that He has to His children if they want to have it. It requires a candid, generous, pious and holy heart to feel the beauties of their
conclusions. Party-spirit --- that great enemy of truth --- will always baffle the attempt of the inquirer, who tries to gather truth from religious works of their nations, and will make him believe that absolute truth is nowhere except in his old religious book. What better example could be adduced than the fact that the great philosopher of Benares will find no truth in the universal brotherhood of man and the common fatherhood of God? The philosopher, thinking in his own way of thought, can never see the beauty of the Christian faith. The way, in which Christ thought of his own father, was love absolute and so long as the philosopher will not adopt that way of thinking he will ever remain deprived of the absolute faith preached by the western Savior. In a similar manner the Christian needs adopt the way of thought which the Vedantist pursued, before he can love the conclusions of the philosopher. The critic, therefore, should
have a comprehensive, good, generous, candid, impartial and a sympathetic soul.

What sort of a thing is the Bhagavata, asks the European gentlemen newly arrived in India. His companion tells him with a serene look, that the Bhagavata is a book, which his Oriya bearer daily reads in the evening to a number of hearers. It contains a jargon of unintelligible and savage literature of those men who paint their noses with some sort of earth or sandal, and wear beads all over their bodies in order to procure salvation for themselves. Another of his companions, who has traveled a little in the interior, would immediately contradict him and say that the Bhagavata is a Sanskrit work claimed by a sect of men, the Goswamis, who give mantras, like the Pope of Italy, to the common people of Bengal, and pardon their sins on payment of gold enough to defray their social expenses. A third gentlemen will repeat a third explanation. Young Bengal, chained up in English thoughts and ideas, and wholly ignorant of the Pre-Mohammed history of his own country, will add one more explanation by saying that the Bhagavata is a book, containing an account of the life of Krishna, who was an ambitious and an immoral man! This is all that he could gather from his grandmother while yet he did not go to school! Thus the Great Bhagavata ever remains unknown to the foreigners like the elephant of the six blind who caught hold of the several parts of the body of the beast! But Truth is
eternal and is never injured but for a while by ignorance.

The Bhagavata itself tells us what it is:
nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalaµ
suka-mukhat amrta-drava-saµyutam/
pibata bhŒgavataµ rasam Œlayaµ
muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah//

It is the fruit of the tree of thought (Vedas) mixed with the nectar
of the speech of Sukadeva. It is the temple of spiritual love! O! Men
of Piety! Drink deep this nectar of BhŒgavata repeatedly till you are
taken from this mortal frame.

The Garuda-purana says, again:
granthoÕ§ a-da½a-sahasra-½r”mad-bhŒgavatŒbhidhŒ
sarva-vedetihŒsŒnŒµ sŒraµ sŒraµ samuddh¨taµ/
sarva-vedŒnta-sŒraµ hi ½r”-bhŒgavatam i½yate
tad rasŒm¨ta-triptasya nŒnyatra syŒd rati-kvacit//

The Bhagavata is composed of 18,000 slokas. It contains the best parts of the Vedas and the Vedanta. Whoever has tasted its sweet nectar, will never like to read any other religious book.

Every thoughtful reader will certainly repeat this eulogy. The Bhagavata is preeminently the Book in India. Once enter into it, and you are transplanted, as it were, into the spiritual world where gross matter has no existence. The true follower of the Bhagavata is a spiritual man who has already cut his temporary connection with phenomenal nature, and has made himself the inhabitant of that region where God eternally exists and loves. This mighty work is founded
upon inspiration and its superstructure is upon reflection. To the common reader it has no charms and is full of difficulty. We are, therefore, obliged to study it deeply through the assistance of such great commentators as Sridhar Svami and the divine Caitanya and His contemporary followers.

Now the great preacher of Nadia, who has been deified by His talented followers, tells us that the Bhagavata is founded upon the four slokas which Vyasa received from Narada, the most learned of the created beings. He tells us further that Brahma pierced through the whole universe of matter for years and years in quest of the final cause of the world but when he failed to find it
abroad, he looked into the construction of his own spiritual nature, and there he heard the Universal Spirit speaking unto him, the following words:

j–Œnaµ parama-guhyaµ me yad vij–Œna-samanvitam/
sarahasyaµ tad-a›gam ca g¨hŒna gaditaµ mayŒ//
yŒvŒn aham yathŒ-bhŒvo yad-rŸpa-guºa-karmakaú/
tathaiva tattva-vij–Œnam astu te mad-anugrahŒt//
aham evŒsam evŒgre nŒnyat yat sad-asat param/
pa½cad ahaµ yad etac ca yo Õva½i§yeta so Õsmy aham//
¨te Õrthaµ yat prat”yeta na prat”yeta cŒtmani/
tad vidyŒt Œtmano mŒyŒµ yathŒbhŒso yathŒ tamah//(BhŒg. 2/9/31-34)

Take, O Brahma! I am giving you the knowledge of my own self and of my relations and phases which is in itself difficult of access. You are a created being, so it is not easy for you to accept what I give you, but then I kindly give you the power to accept, so you are at liberty to understand my essence, my ideas, my form, my property and my action together with their various relations with imperfect knowledge. I was in the beginning before all spiritual
and temporal things were created, and after they have been created I am in them all in the shape of their existence and truthfulness, and when they will be all gone I shall remain full as I was and as I am. Whatever appears to be true without being a real fact itself, and whatever is not perceived though it is true in itself are subjects of my illusory energy of creation, such as, light and darkness in the material world.

It is difficult to explain the above in a short compass. You must read the whole Bhagavata for its explanation. When the great Vyasa had effected the arrangements of the Vedas and the Upanisads, the completion of the eighteen Puranas with facts gathered from the recorded and unrecorded tradition of ages, and the composition of the Vedanta and the large Mahabharata, an epic poem of great celebrity, he began to ruminate over his own theories and precepts, and
found like Fauste of Goethe that he had up to that time gathered no real truth. He fell back into his own self and searched his own spiritual nature and then it was that the above truth was communicated to him for his own good and the good of the world. The sage immediately perceived that his former works required supercession in as much as they did not contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In his new idea he got the development of his former idea
of religion. He commenced the BhŒgavata in pursuance of this change. From this fact, our readers are expected to find out the position which the Bhagavata enjoys in the library of Hindu theological works.

The whole of this incomparable work teaches us, according to our Great Caitanya, the three great truths which compose the absolute religion of man. Our Nadia preacher calls them sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana, i.e., the relation between the Creator and the created, the duty of man to God and the prospects of humanity. In these three words is summed up the whole ocean of human knowledge as far as it has been explored up to this era of human progress. These are the cardinal points of religion and the whole Bhagavata is, as we are taught by Caitanya, an explanation both by precepts and example, of these three great points.

In all its twelve skandhas or divisions the Bhagavata teaches us that there is only one God without a second, Who was full in Himself and is and will remain the same. Time and space, which prescribe conditions to created objects are much below His Supreme Spiritual nature, which is unconditioned and absolute. Created objects are subject to the influence of time and space, which form the chief ingredients of that principle in creation which passes by the
name of maya. Maya is a thing which is not easily understood by us who are subject to it, but God explains, as much as we can understand in our present constitution, this principle through our spiritual perception. The hasty critic starts like an unbroken horse at the name of maya and denounces it as a theory identical with that of Bishop Berkeley. Be patient in your inquiry, is our
immediate reply. In the mind of God there were ideas of all that we perceive in eternal existence with him, or else God loses the epithet of omniscient so learnedly applied to Him. The imperfect part of nature implying want proceeded also from certain of those ideas, and what, but a principle of maya, eternally existing in God subject to His Omnipotence, could have a hand in the
creation of the world as it is? This is styled as the maya sakti of the omnipresent God. Cavil as much as you can. This is a truth in relation to the created universe.

This maya intervenes between us and God as long as we are not spiritual, and when we are able to break off her bonds, we, even in this mortal frame, learn to commune in our spiritual nature with the unconditioned and the absolute. No, maya does not mean a false thing only, but it means concealment of eternal truth as well. The creation is not mŒyŒ itself but is subject to that
principle. Certainly, the theory is idealistic but it has been degraded into foolishness by wrong explanations. The materialist laughs at the ideal theory saying, how could his body, water, air and earth be mere ideas without entity, and he laughs rightly when he takes üa›karŒcŒryaÕs book in his hand at the butt end of his ridicule. The true idealist must be a dualist also. He must believe all that he perceives as nature created by God full of spiritual essence and
relations, but he must not believe that the outward appearance is the truth. The Bhagavata teaches that all that we healthily perceive is true, but its material appearance is transient and illusory. The scandal of the ideal theory consists in its tendency to falsify nature, but the theory as explained in the Bhagavata makes nature true, if not eternally true as God and His ideas.
What harm there can be if man believes in nature as spiritually true and that the physical
relations and phases of society are purely spiritual?

No, it is not merely changing a name but it is a change in nature also. Nature is eternally spiritual but the intervention of maya makes her gross and material. Man, in his progress attempts to shake off this gross idea, childish and foolish in its nature and by subduing the intervening principle of maya, lives in continual union with God in his spiritual nature. The shaking off this bond is salvation of the human nature. The man who has got salvation will freely tell
his brother that If you want to see God, see me, and if you want to be one with God, you must follow me. The Bhagavata teaches us this relation between man and God, and we must all attain this knowledge. This sublime truth is the point where the materialist and the idealist must meet like brothers of the same school and this is the point to which all philosophy tends.

This is called sambandha-jnana of the Bhagavata, or, in other words, the knowledge of relations between the conditioned and the Absolute. We must now attempt to explain the second great principle inculcated by the Bhagavata, i.e., the principle of duty. Man must spiritually worship his God. There are three ways, in which the Creator is worshipped by the created.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaµ yaj j–Œnam advyayam/
brahmeti paramŒtmeti bhagavŒn iti ½abdyate//

All theologists agree in maintaining that there is only one God without a second, but they disagree in giving a name to that God owing to the different modes of worship, which they adopt according to the constitution of their mind. Some call Him by the name of brahman, same by the name of paramatma and others by the name of bhagavan. Those who worship God as infinitely great in the principle of admiration call him by the name of brahman. This mode is called jnana or knowledge. Those who worship God as the Universal Soul in the principle of spiritual union with him give him the name of paramatma. This is yoga. Those who worship God as all in all with all their heart, body and strength style Him as bhagavan. This last principle is bhakti. The book that prescribes the relation and worship of bhagavan, procures for itself the name of Bhagavata and the worshipper is also called by the same name.

Such is Bhagavata which is decidedly the Book for all classes of theists. If we worship God spiritually as all in all with our heart, mind, body and strength, we are all Bhagavatas and we lead a life of spiritualism, which neither the worshiper of brahman, nor the yogi uniting his soul with paramatma the universal soul can obtain. The superiority of the BhŒgavata consists in the uniting of all sorts of theistic worship into one excellent principle in human nature, which passes by the name of bhakti. This word has no equivalent in the English language. Piety, devotion, resignation and spiritual love unalloyed with any sort of petition except in the way of repentance, compose the highest principle of bhakti. The Bhagavata tells us to worship God in that great and
invaluable principle, which is infinitely superior to human knowledge and the principle of yoga.

Our short compass will not admit of an explanation of the principle of bhakti beautifully rising from its first stage of application in the form of Brahmic worship in the shape of admiration which is styled the santa-rasa, to the fifth or the highest stage of absolute union in love with God, sweetly styled the madhurarasa of prema-bhakti. A full explanation will take a big volume which is not our object here to compose. Suffice it to say that the principle of bhakti passes five distinct stages in the course of its development into its highest and purest form. Then again when it reaches the last form, it is susceptible of further progress from the stage of prema (love) to that of mahabhava which is in fact a complete transition into the spiritual universe where God alone is the bride-groom of our soul.

The voluminous Bhagavata is nothing more than a full illustration of this principle of continual development and progress of the soul from gross matter to the all-perfect Universal Spirit who is distinguished as personal, eternal, absolutely free, all powerful and all intelligent. There is nothing gross or material in it. The whole affair is spiritual. In order to impress this spiritual
picture upon the student who attempts to learn it, comparisons have been made with the material world, which cannot but convince the ignorant and the impractical. Material examples are absolutely necessary for the explanation of spiritual ideas. The Bhagavata believes that the spirit of nature is the truth in nature and is the only practical part of it. The phenomenal appearance of nature is truly theoretical, although it has had the greatest claim upon our belief from the days of our infancy. The outward appearance of nature is nothing more than a sure index of its spiritual face. Comparisons are therefore necessary. Nature as it is before our eyes, must explain the spirit, or else the truth will ever remain concealed, and man will never rise from his boyhood though his whiskers and beard grow white as the snows of the Himalayas. The whole intellectual and moral philosophy is explained by matter itself. Emerson beautifully shows how all the words in moral philosophy originally came from the names of material objects. The
words heart, head, spirit, thought, courage, bravery, were originally the common names of some corresponding objects in the material world. All spiritual ideas are similarly pictures from the material world, because matter is the dictionary of spirit, and material pictures are but the shadows of the spiritual affairs which our material eye carries back to our spiritual perception. God in his infinite goodness and kindness has established this unfailing connection between the truth and the shadow in order to impress upon us the eternal truth which he has reserved for us. The clock explains the time, the alphabet points to the gathered store of knowledge, the beautiful song of a harmonium gives the idea of eternal harmony in the spirit world, to-day and to-morrow and dayafter-to-morrow thrust into us the ungrasped idea of eternity and similarly
material pictures impress upon our spiritual nature the truly spiritual idea of religion. It is on these reasonable grounds that Vyasa adopted the mode of explaining our spiritual worship with some sorts of material phenomena, which correspond with the spiritual truth. Our object is not to go into details, so we are unable to quote some of the illustrations within this short compass.

We have also the practical part of the question in the 11th book of Bhagavata. All the modes by which a man can train himself up to prema-bhakti as explained above, have been described at great length. We have been advised first of all, to convert ourselves into most grateful servants of God as regards our relation to our fellow brethren. Our nature has been described as bearing three different phases in all our bearings of the world. Those phases are named sattva,
rajas, tamas. Sattva-guna is that property in our nature, which is purely good as far as it can be pure in our present state. Rajo-guna is neither good nor bad. Tamoguna is evil. Our pravrttis or tendencies and affections are described as the mainspring of all our actions, and it is our object to train up those affections and tendencies to the standard of sattva-guºa, as decided by the moral principle. This is not easily done. All the springs or our actions should be carefully protected
from tamo-guna, the evil principle, by adopting the rajo-guna at first, and when that is effected, man should subdue his rajo-guna by means of the natural sattvaguna which is the most powerful of them cultivated. Lust, idleness, wicked deeds and degradation of human nature by intoxicating principles are described as exclusively belonging to tamo-guºa, the evil phase of nature. These are to be checked by marriage, useful work and abstinence from intoxication
and trouble to our neighbors and inferior animals. Thus when rajo-guna has obtained supremacy in the heart, it is our duty to convert that rajo-guna into sattva-guna which is pre-eminently good. That married love, which is first cultivated, must now be sublimated into holy, good and spiritual love, i.e., love between soul and soul. Useful work will now be converted into work of love and not of disgust or obligation. Abstinence from wicked work will be made to lose
its negative appearance and converted into positive good work. Then we are to look to all living beings in the same light in which we look to ourselves, i.e., we must convert our selfishness into all possible disinterested activity towards all around us. Love, charity, good deeds and devotion to God will be our only aim. We then become the servants of God by obeying his High and Holy wishes. Here we begin to be bhaktas and we are susceptible of further improvement in
our spiritual nature, as we have described above. All this is covered by the term abhidheya, the second cardinal point in the supreme religious work, the Bhagavata . We have now before us, the first two cardinal points in our religion, explained somehow or other in the terms and thoughts expressed by our savior who lived only four and a half centuries ago in the beautiful town of Nadia, situated on the banks of the Bhagirathi. We must now proceed to the last
cardinal point termed by the great Re-establisher, prayojana or prospects.

What is the object of our spiritual development, our prayer, our devotion and our union with God? The Bhagavata tells that the object is not enjoyment or sorrow, but continual progress in spiritual holiness and harmony.

In the common-place books of the Hindu religion in which the rajo and tamo-guna have been described as the ways of religion, we have descriptions of a local heaven and a local hell; the Heaven as beautiful as anything on earth and the Hell as ghastly as any picture of evil. Besides this Heaven we have many more places, where good souls are sent up in the way of promotion! There are 84 divisions of the hell itself, some more dreadful than the one which Milton has described in his Paradise Lost. These are certainly poetical and were originally created by the rulers of the country in order to check evil deeds of the ignorant people, who are not able to understand the conclusions of philosophy. The religion of the Bhagavata is free from such a poetry. Indeed, in some of the chapters we meet with descriptions of these hells and heavens, and accounts of curious tales, but we have been warned somewhere in the book, not to accept them as real facts, but as inventions to overawe the wicked and to improve the simple and the ignorant. The Bhagavata , certainly tells us a state of reward and punishment in future according to deeds in our present situation. All poetic inventions, besides this spiritual fact, have been described as statements borrowed from other works in the way of preservation of old
traditions in the book which superseded them and put an end to the necessity of their storage. If the whole stock of Hindu theological works which preceded the Bhagavata were burnt like the Alexandrian library and the sacred Bhagavata preserved as it is, not a part of the philosophy of the Hindus except that of the atheistic sects, would be lost. The Bhagavata therefore, may be styled both as a religious work and a compendium of all Hindu history and philosophy.

The Bhagavata does not allow its followers to ask anything from God except eternal love towards Him. The kingdom of the world, the beauties of the local heavens and the sovereignty over the material world are never the subjects of Vaishnava prayer. The Vaishnava meekly and humbly says, Father, Master, God, Friend and Husband of my soul! Hallowed be Thy name! I do not
approach You for anything which You have already given me. I have sinned against You and I now repent and solicit Your pardon. Let Thy holiness touch my soul and make me free from grossness. Let my spirit be devoted meekly to Your Holy service in absolute love towards Thee. I have called You my God, and let my soul be wrapped up in admiration at Your greatness! I have addressed You as my Master and let my soul be strongly devoted to your service. I have called You my friend, and let my soul be in reverential love towards You and not in dread or fear! I have called you my husband and let my spiritual nature be in eternal union with You, for ever loving and never dreading, or feeling disgust. Father! let me have strength enough to go up to You as the consort of my soul, so that we may be one in eternal love! Peace to
the world!

Of such a nature is the prayer of the Bhagavata. One who can read the book will find the highest form of prayer in the expressions of PrahlŒda towards the universal and omnipresent Soul with powers to convert all unholy strength into meek submission or entire annihilation. This prayer will show what is the end and object of Vaishnavas life. He does not expect to be the king of a certain part of the universe after his death, nor does he dread a local fiery and turbulent
hell, the idea of which would make the hairs of young Hamlet stand erect like the forks of a porcupine! His idea of salvation is not total annihilation of personal existence as the Buddhists and the twenty-four gods of the Jains procured for themselves! The Vaishnava the meekest of all creatures devoid of all ambition. He wants to serve God spiritually after death as he has served Him both in spirit and matter while here. His constitution is a spirit and his highest object of life is divine and holy love.

There may be a philosophical doubt. How the human soul could have a distinct existence from the universal Soul when the gross part of the human constitution will be, no more? The Vaishnava cannot answer it, nor can any man on earth explain it. The Vaishnava meekly answers, he feels the truth but he cannot understand it. The Bhagavata merely affirms that the Vaishnava soul when freed from the gross matter will distinctly exist not in time and space but
spiritually in the eternal spiritual kingdom of God where love is life, and hope and charity and continual ecstasy without change are its various manifestations.

In considering about the essence of the Deity, two great errors stare before us and frighten us back to ignorance and its satisfaction. One of them is the idea that God is above all attributes both material and spiritual and is consequently above all conception. This is a noble idea but useless. If God is above conception and without any sympathy with the world, how is then this creation? This Universe compose of properties? the distinctions and phases of existence? the
differences of value? Man, woman, beast, trees, magnetism, animal magnetism, electricity, landscape, water and fire. In that case Sankaracaryas
mayavada theory would be absolute philosophy.

The other error is that God is all attribute, i.e. intelligence, truth, goodness and power. This is also a ludicrous idea. Scattered properties can never constitute a Being. It is more impossible in the case of belligerent principles, such as justice and mercy and fullness and creative power. Both ideas are imperfect. The truth, as stated in the Bhagavata is that properties, though many
of them belligerent, are united in a spiritual Being where they have full sympathy and harmony. Certainly this is beyond our comprehension. It is so owing to our nature being finite and God being infinite. Our ideas are constrained by the idea of space and time, but God is above that constraint. This is a glimpse of Truth and we must regard it as Truth itself: often, says Emerson,
a glimpse of truth is better than an arranged system and he is right.

The Bhagavata has, therefore, a personal, all-intelligent, active, absolutely free, holy, good, all-powerful, omnipresent, just and merciful and supremely spiritual deity without a second, creating, preserving all that is in the universe. The highest object of the Vaishnava is to serve that Infinite Being for ever spiritually in the activity of Absolute Love.

These are the main principles of the religion inculcated by the work, called the Bhagavata, and Vyasa, in his great wisdom, tried his best to explain all these principles with the aid of pictures in the material world. The shallow critic summarily rejects this great philosopher as a man-worshipper. He would go so far as to scandalize him as a teacher of material love and lust and the injurious principles of exclusive asceticism. The critic should first read deeply the pages
of the Bhagavata and train his mind up to the best eclectic philosophy which the world has ever obtained, and then we are sure he will pour panegyrics upon the principal of the College of Theology at Badrikashram which existed about 4,000 years ago. The shallow critics mind will undoubtedly be changed, if he but reflects upon one great point, i.e., how is it possible that a spiritualist of the school of Vyasa teaching the best principles of theism in the whole of the
Bhagavata and making the four texts quoted in the beginning as the foundation of his mighty work, could have forced upon the belief of men that the sensual connection between men with certain females is the highest object of worship!

This is impossible, dear critic! Vyasa could not have taught the common vairagi to set up an akhanda (a place worship) with a number of females! Vyasa, who could teach us repeatedly in the whole of Bhagavata that sensual pleasures are momentary like the pleasures of rubbing the itching hand and that man's highest duty is to have spiritual love with God, could never have prescribed the worship of sensual pleasures. His descriptions are spiritual and you must not
connect matter with it. With this advice, dear critic, go through the Bhagavata and I doubt not you will, in three months, weep and repent to God for despising this revelation through the heart and brain of the great Badarayan.

Yes, you nobly tell us that such philosophical comparisons produced injury in the ignorant and the thoughtless. You nobly point to the immoral deeds of the common vairagis, who call themselves. The followers of the Bhagavata and the great CaitanyaÓ. You nobly tell us that Vyasa, unless purely explained, may lead thousands of men into great trouble in time to come. But dear critic! Study the history of ages and countries! Where have you found the philosopher and the reformer fully understood by the people? The popular religion is fear of God and not the pure spiritual love which Plato, VyŒsa, Jesus, and Caitanya taught to their respective peoples! Whether you give the absolute religion in figures or simple expressions, or teach them by means of books or oral speeches, the ignorant and the thoughtless must degrade it. It is indeed very easy to tell and swift to hear that absolute truth has such an affinity with the human soul that it
comes through it as if intuitively. No exertion is necessary to teach the precepts of true religion. This is a deceptive idea. It may be true of ethics and of the alphabet of religion but not of the highest form of faith which requires an exalted soul to understand. It certainly requires previous training of the soul in the elements of religion just as the student of the fractions must have a previous attainment in the elemental numbers and figures in arithmetic and geometry.
Truth is good, is an elemental truth, which is easily grasped by the common people. But if you tell a common patient, that God is infinitely intelligent and powerful in His spiritual nature, He will conceive a different idea from what you entertain of the expression. All higher truths, though intuitive, require previous education in the simpler ones. That religion is the purest, which gives
you the purest idea of God, and the absolute religion requires an absolute conception by man of his own spiritual nature. How then is it possible that the ignorant will ever obtain the absolute religion as long as they are ignorant? When thought awakens, the thinker is no more ignorant and is capable of obtaining an absolute idea of religion. This is a truth and God has made it such
in His infinite goodness, impartiality and mercy. Labor has its wages and the idle must never be rewarded. Higher is the work, greater is the reward is an useful truth. The thoughtless must be satisfied with superstition till he wakes and opens his eyes to the God of love. The reformers, out of their universal love and anxiety for good endeavor by some means or other to make the thoughtless drink the cup of salvation, but the latter drink it with wine and fall into the
ground under the influence of intoxication for the imagination has also the power of making a thing what it never was. Thus it is that the evils of nunneries and the corruptions of the akhanda proceeded. No, we are not to scandalize the Savior of Jerusalem or the Savior of Nadia for these subsequent evils. Luthers, instead of critics, are what we want for the correction of those
evils by the true interpretation of the original precepts.

Two more principles characterize the Bhagavata, viz., liberty and progress of the soul throughout eternity. The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth and He gave it to VyŒsa, when we earnestly seek for it. Truth is eternal and unexchausted. The soul receives a revelation when it is anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the by-gone ages, who now live spiritually, often
approach our inquiring spirit and assist it in its development. Thus VyŒsa was assisted by Narada and Brahma. Our Sastras, or in other words, books of thought do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be. Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from inside, No, Vyasa! you cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of by-gone days! You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store
of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the Fountain-head of truth where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of anykind. Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so. Liberty then is the principle, which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived
and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the 23rd text 21st Chapter 11th skandha of the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the sastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love.

The other characteristic is progress. Liberty certainly is the father of all progress. Holy liberty is the cause of progress upwards and upwards in eternity and endless activity of love. Liberty abused causes degradation and the Vaishnava must always carefully use this high and beautiful gift of God. The progress of the BhŒgavata described as the rise of the soul from Nature up to
Nature's God, from maya, the absolute and the infinite. Hence the Bhagavata
says of itself:

nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalaµ
suka-mukhad amrta-drava-saµyutam/
pibata-bhagavataµ rasam alayam
muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah//

It is the fruit of the tree of thought, mixed with the nectar of the
speech of üukadeva. It is the temple of spiritual love! O! Men of
piety! Drink deep this nectar of BhŒgavata repeatedly till you are
taken from this mortal frame!

Then the saragrahi or the progressive Vaishnava adds:
surasa-sŒra-yutaµ phalam atra yat
virasŒt Œdi-viruddha-guºaµ ca tat/
tyŒga-viragamito madhu-payinaú
rasika-sŒra-rasaµ piba bhavukaú//

That fruit of the tree of thought is a composition, as a matter of
course of the sweet and the opposite principles. O! Men of piety,
like the bee taking honey from the flower, drink the sweet
principle and reject that which is not so.

The Bhagavata is undoubtedly a difficult work and where it does not relate to picturesque description of traditional and poetical life, its literature is stiff and its branches are covered in the garb of an unusual form of Sanskrit poetry. Works on philosophy must necessarily be of this character. Commentaries and notes are therefore required to assist us in our study of the book. The best commentator is Sridhara Svami and the truest interpreter is our great and noble
Caitanyadeva. God bless the spirit of our noble guides.

These great souls were not like comets appearing in the firmament for a while and disappearing as soon as their mission is over. They are like so many suns shining all along to give light and heat to the succeeding generations. Long time yet they will be succeeded by others of their mind, beauty and caliber. The texts of VyŒsa are still ringing in the ears of all theists as if some great spirit is singing them from a distance! Badrikashram! The seat of Vyaasa and the selected religion of thought! What a powerful name ! The pilgrim tells us that the land is cold! How mightily did the genius of Vyasa generate the heat of philosophy in such cold region! Not only did he heat the locality but sent its ray far to the shores of the sea! Like the great Napoleon in the political world, he knocked down empires and kingdoms of old and bygone philosophy the mighty stroke of his transcendental thoughts! This is real power! Atheist, philosophy of Sankha, Caravaka, the Jains and the Buddhists shuddered with fear at the approach of the spiritual sentiments and creations of the Bhagavata philosopher! The army of atheists was composed of gross and impotent creatures like the legions that stood under the banner of the fallen Lucifer; but the pure, holy and spiritual soldiers of Vyasa, sent by his Almighty Father were invincibly fierce to the enemy and destructive of the unholy and the unfounded. He that works in the light of God, sees the minutest things in creation, he that works the power of God is invincible and great, and he thatworks with God's Holiness in his heart, finds no difficulty against unholy things and thoughts. God works through his agents and these agents are styled by Vyasa himself as the Incarnation of the power of God. All great souls were incarnations of this class and we have the authority of this fact in the Bhagavata itself:

avatŒaraŒ hy asa›khyeyŒ hareh sattva-nidher dvijŒah/
yathŒvidŒsinah kulyŒah sarasah syuh sahasrasha//

O Brahmins! God is the soul of the principle of goodness! The incarnations of that principle are innumerable! As thousands of watercourses come out of one inexhaustible fountain of water, so these incarnations are but emanations of that infinitely good energy of God which is full at all times.

The Bhagavata, therefore, allows us to call Vyasa and Narada, as saktyavesh avataras of the infinite energy of God, and the spirit of this text goes far to honor all great reformers and teachers who lived and will live in other countries. The Vaishnava is ready to honor all great men without distinction ofncaste, because they are filled with the energy of God. See how universal is the religion of BhŒgavata. It is not intended for a certain class of the Hindus alone but it is a gift to man at large in whatever country he is born and whatever society is bred.

In short Vaishnavaism is the Absolute Love binding all men together into the infinities unconditioned and absolute God. May it, peace reign for ever in the whole universe in the continual development of its purity by the exertion of the future heroes, who will be blessed according to the promise of the BhŒgavata with powers from the Almighty Father, the Creator, Preserver, and the Annihilator of all things in Heaven and Earth.
Categories: Personal Blogs

Everyday should be Father's and Mother's day

Sun, 06/21/2009 - 17:47
I was thinking how funny the idea of a father's day and a mothers day is to someone from a traditional culture, like traditional Indian culture, which is based on the Vedic culture.

In traditional cultures everyday is father's day and everyday is mother's day.

Upon getting up the children would go and greet their parents, touching their feet or offering obeisance out of respect. That is traditional culture.

In the western hemisphere, the ten commandments are ideals that have very powerfully shaped culture over the past 2,000 years and one of the commandments is to "Honor thy father and mother."

It's amazing that we need God to tell us honor our parents. Sad but true.

One of the many instructions that Radhanath Maharaj has given me that I have failed to execute properly is to offer obeisances to my parents everyday.

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." Mark Twain
Categories: Personal Blogs

Get Ready, The American Empire is Bankrupt by Chris Hedges

Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:08

"This week marks the end of the dollar’s reign as the world’s reserve currency. It marks the start of a terrible period of economic and political decline in the United States. And it signals the last gasp of the American imperium. That’s over. It is not coming back. And what is to come will be very, very painful.

Barack Obama, and the criminal class on Wall Street, aided by a corporate media that continues to peddle fatuous gossip and trash talk as news while we endure the greatest economic crisis in our history, may have fooled us, but the rest of the world knows we are bankrupt. And these nations are damned if they are going to continue to prop up an inflated dollar and sustain the massive federal budget deficits, swollen to over $2 trillion, which fund America’s imperial expansion in Eurasia and our system of casino capitalism. They have us by the throat. They are about to squeeze."

(Read the rest of the article here.)
Categories: Personal Blogs

Burn Out

Wed, 06/10/2009 - 09:50

"Burnout is a psychological response to “long-term exhaustion and diminished interest,” and may take months or years to bubble to the surface. First defined by American psychoanalyst Herbert J. Freudenberger in 1972, burnout is “a demon born of the society and times we live in and our ongoing struggle to invest our lives with meaning.” [1] He goes on to say that burnout “is not a condition that gets better by being ignored. Nor is it any kind of disgrace. On the contrary, it’s a problem born of good intentions.” Another description in New York Magazine calls burnout "a problem that's both physical and existential, an untidy conglomeration of external symptoms and personal frustrations." (read the rest here).

Here's another interesting article. You can also check out the ever useful wikipedia for a good overview of burnt out.

Wondering if you're burnt out, take the test. I think I scored a something like a 63, ie. at severe risk of burnout.

Interestingly being "burned out" is such a common phenomenon in Iskcon that it is part of the standard Iskcon lingo.
Categories: Personal Blogs

Darwin's letter to Asa Gray

Mon, 06/08/2009 - 13:58


Here is a really interesting letter that Charles Darwin wrote to his friend Asa Gray. A couple interesting things to note, the first is that Darwin is not exactly an atheist. His position is that the whole issue is beyond comprehension, like a dog trying to understand the mind of Newton.

He is more of a confused theist and he is specifically confused by the existence of suffering in the world. If he does at times doubt the existence of God it is not a rational line of reasoning that has brought him to this conclusion, but it is an emotional response to suffering. Although he doesn't mention it here, a big turning point in his life was when his ten year old daughter died of Cholera. Again we find that atheism is more of an emotional response than a rational or scientific conclusion based on evidence.

My dear Gray,

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae (wasp) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force.

I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope and believe what he can.

Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,—a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,—and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

Yours sincerely and cordially,
Charles Darwin
Categories: Personal Blogs

What is Philosophy?

Sat, 06/06/2009 - 03:09


"Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir; also that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constituted the real germ of life from which the whole plant has grown."

Friedrich Nietzsche
Categories: Personal Blogs

The Stories We Tell Ourselves

Sat, 06/06/2009 - 01:54
We all tell ourselves stories. We build an elaborate story that encompasses the whole universe and our place within the universe, and this story gives our life a sense of meaning and purpose which protects us from the terror of isolation, meaninglessness, and ultimately death.

The stories we tell ourselves help us to makes sense out of an apparently senseless world. A cold an uncaring world, full of misery and death. Even the stories about the meaningless of the world are a kind of explanation that provide some degree of comfort.

We spend the majority of lives trying escape the brute realities of existence. Nothing is more terrifying than coming face to face with these existential issues. When we are confronted with death it often times forces us face our own mortality, if only for a very brief time.

Another way that we are often forced to deal with existential issues is when our story is no longer adequate, when it no longer works as an explanation for the universe and our place in it. Often times when this happens one will succumb to an existential despair. If our story doesn't work, then we are forced to confront that fact that there may not be any ultimate meaning in the world, that it is a chaotic mess of suffering. Usually what happens is we quickly find a new story, or modify the old one.

Stories, like most illusions, provide some pleasure or comfort but they are a double edged sword. If our sense of meaning, fulfillment, and happiness are based on a story of how our life is supposed to be then we are on shaky ground, and we run the risk of finding ourselves in a very difficult situation.

My recent life change has forced me to re-evaluate the story I've been telling myself for quite a while now. At times I've experienced that ultimate existential terror, that there is no meaning to life, that all the stories we tell ourselves are just illusions and at other times I've been tempted to tell myself a new story to make sense of new situation in life.

The truth lies in between these extremes. There is an ultimate meaning and purpose to the universe, but that much of the meaning and purpose that we ascribe to our life is illusory.

Krishna consciousness is a little different from Western religions in that it acknowledges the true nature of material existence. The Bhagavad gita says that knowledge is to see the suffering caused by birth death, old age, and disease. It sums up the whole material world as temporary and miserable.

It tells us that calamities will come, and they will come often. The major epics that most influenced India culture for thousands of years are the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. These are books full of tragedy. The main characters undergo one difficulty after another. A culture based on these stories would not have a rosy view of life.

The Vedic literature gives us a perspective of the suffering of the material world and of transcendence. Although the world is full of suffering there is an ultimate meaning and purpose. They honestly address existential issues without succumbing to the despair of atheism.

Atheism is what happens when a person fails to find meaning in the world. When someone says "I don't believe in God." What they are really saying is "I can't see how there is any ultimate purpose to creation." When someone says "I believe in God." What they are really saying is that I trust there is an ultimate meaning and purpose in the world."

If you talk to most atheists eventually it always comes to the fact of suffering.
Categories: Personal Blogs

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (To Serve)

Thu, 06/04/2009 - 03:30
Categories: Personal Blogs

The End of an Era

Tue, 06/02/2009 - 21:00
I just returned from a visit with to Columbus and Athens Ohio. In Columbus there was a very beautiful initiation ceremony, many wonderful devotees who I have known for long time, and many since the very beginning of their connection to Krishna in this lifetime, received initiation.

It was wonderful to be able to witness how these devotees have grown up in Krishna consciousness. Life will now carry these different devotees in different directions, but I feel privileged to have shared this special time with them and to have been able to serve them in some way.

It is also the end of an era for me personally. On this trip I had a couple of conversations with my spiritual master, Srila Radhanath Swami, and we concluded that at this point in my life the best way for me to move forward in my Krishna consciousness is to change ashrams. I will officially do tomorrow on Pandava Nirjala Ekadasi.

I will be applying to Stanford and possibly some other graduate schools, most probably in the area, to pursue a PHD, in Philosophy. I am hoping to continue my service at Stanford, beyond that I’m not sure about any other details.

I apologize for misrepresenting myself as something I wasn’t.

I sincerely beg the forgiveness of all the vaisnavas, I know that out of false pride I have offended many of you and and I beg your blessings for the next step in my journey.

Your Servant,
Gauranga Kishore Das
Categories: Personal Blogs

Russell Brand and Radhanath Swami

Tue, 06/02/2009 - 18:48
Russell Brand consults spiritual guru

You could never accuse Russell Brand of being conventional, so after seeking enlightenment in drink, drugs and women, the comic is giving his spiritual side a go.

He is apparently paying visits to a guru called Radhanath Swami.

Russell said: "I’m a spiritual gent. Increasingly that’s the level I want to vibrate on, were it not for my crazed lust for sex and glamour."

Speaking of Swami, who is a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Russell said: "He’s a beautiful fellow. He’s got the answer."

If he takes this as seriously as he does his pursuit of women then he'll be a monk before the week is out!

Check out the original article here.
Categories: Personal Blogs

Liberal Apologists for Empire

Sun, 05/31/2009 - 10:43
"SINCE THE end of the Cold War, the U.S. has justified the expansion of its informal empire with humanitarian rhetoric, claiming that it was protecting victims from despotic governments, from Yugoslavia to Iraq today. Such claims are as old as imperialism itself.

What has been shocking is the host of liberals--and ex-leftists like Christopher Hitchens--who have rallied to cause of empire, swallowing hook, line and sinker U.S. claims of humanitarian motives for imperial war. . ."

Although this article is about socialism, not atheism, it is interesting that the author mentions Christopher Hitchens, as her example of a liberal who supports the imperialism of the United States. (Check out the rest of the article here.)

As Chris Hedges points out, that is why there isn't any fundamental difference between the atheists fundamentalists and the Christian fundamentalists.

"The secular utopians, like Christian Fundamentalists, are stunted products of a self-satisfied, materialistic middle class. They seek in their philosophical systems a moral justification for their own comfort, self-absorption, and power. They do not question the imperial projects of the nation, globalization or the vast disparities in wealth and security between themselves, as members of the world's industrialized elite, and the rest of the human race."


Categories: Personal Blogs

Journey Home Book Review: A Hare Krishna Swami Tells All by Franics Clooney

Fri, 05/22/2009 - 23:01

My dream is coming true, soon the whole world will know about the most incredible amazing person in the world, who I feel unimaginably blessed to know, Srila Radhanath Swami.

His new book, The Journey Home, was just reviewed by Francis X. Clooney S.J. in America: The National Catholic Weekly's.

"There is much to be said about Christ and Krishna, of course; books on the topic have been written for centuries, and this book does not resolve the theological questions that arise when two great monotheistic traditions meet; we who are Christian still have tough questions to ask (ourselves in particular). But it should help us all to hear each other’s stories, how God was found, how God finds us when we are young and keeps after us for a lifetime. We should imagine a kind of dialogue — not of religions or theologies this time — but of women and men of different traditions who, upon reaching a certain age, tell their stories with a certain wisdom and humor and in that way speak to one another across religious boundaries. In particular, Radhanath’s account invites us baby-boomers — readers of this blog included — to look a little deeper into how we found, lost, kept, gave away, were given (back) the faith — how we managed to find the 1960s a time of grace and wonder. For this invitation, we can all be grateful to Swami Radhanath. But judge for yourself; take a look at the book, see what you think."

From A Hare Krishna Swami Tells All by Francis X. Clooney S.J.
Categories: Personal Blogs

Chris Hedges "When Athiesm Become Religion" Quotes

Fri, 05/22/2009 - 12:44
I've become a big fan of Chris Hedges, here are some quotes from his book "When Atheism become Religion: Americas New Fundamentalists." Here are few passages that I highlighted in my reading of the book a couple of months ago. Rereading the book recently has reminded me how spot on he was on so many of the issues.

"The secular utopians, like Christian Fundamentalists, are stunted products of a self-satisfied, materialistic middle class. They seek in their philosophical systems a moral justification for their own comfort, self-absorption, and power. They do not question the imperial projects of the nation, globalization or the vast disparities in wealth and security between themselves, as members of the world's industrialized elite, and the rest of the human race."

"An atheist who accepts an irredeemable and flawed human nature, as well as a morally neutral universe, who does not think the world can be perfected by human beings, who is not steeped in cultural arrogance and feelings of superiority, who rejects the violent imperial projects under way in the middle east, is intellectually honest. . .They hold an honored place in the pluralistic and diverse human community. . . Atheists, including those who brought us the Enlightenment, have often been a beneficial force in the history of human though and religion. They have forced societies to examine empty religious platitudes and hollow religious concepts. They have courageously challenged the moral hypocrisy of religious institutions. The humanistic values of the enlightenment were a response to the abuses by organized religion, including the attempt by religious authorities to stifle intellectual and scientific freedom. Religious authorities bought off by the elite, championed a dogmatism that sanctified the privileges and power of the ruling class. But there were always religious figures who defied their own. Many, such as Baruch Spinoza, were branded as heretics and atheists."

"The pain of living has also turned honest and compassionate men an women against God. These atheists do not believe in the collective moral progress or science and reason as our ticket to salvation. They are not trying to perfect the human race. Rather, they cannot reconcile human suffering with the concept of God. This is an honest struggle. This disbelief is a form of despair, not self-exultation."

"Because there is no clear, objective definition of God, the new atheists must choose what God it is they attack. Is it the god of the mystics, the followers of the Social Gospel, the eighteenth-century deists, the Quakers, the liberation theologians, or the stern God of the patriarchs? Are they at war with Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin or Mohandas Gandhi or Thomas Merton or Paul Tillich? These are not questions these atheists answer. They attack a religious belief of their own creation. They blame religion for the worst of human depravity, superstition and ignorance, and call on us to discard it. . . And once we free ourselves from religion we will be able to march forward as a species to their sunlit utopia. This is a simplistic utopian vision of human advancement share by all fundamentalists. . ."

"The blustering televangelists, and the atheists who rant about the evils of religion, are little more than carnival barkers. They are in show business, and those in show business know complexity does not sell, they trade cliches and insults like cartoon characters. They don masks. One wears the mask of religion, the other wears the mask of science. they banter back and forth in predictable sound bites. They promise, like all advertisers, simple and seductive dreams, this debate engages two bizarre subsets who are well suited to the television culture because of the crudeness of their arguments. One distorts the scientific theory of evolution to explain the behavior and rules for complex social, economic and political systems. The other insists that the six-day story of creation in Genesis is fact and Jesus will descend from the sky to create the kingdom of God on Earth. These antagonists each claim to have discovered an absolute truth. They trade absurdity for absurdity. They show that the danger is not religion or science. The danger is fundamentalism."

"The new atheists, who attack a repugnant version of religion use it to condemn all religion. They use it to deny the reality and importance of the religious impulse. They are curiously unable to comprehend those who found through their religious convictions the strength to stand up against injustice. Hitchens writes of Martin Luther King Jr. that 'in no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.' He disparages the faith of Abraham Lincoln an assures us that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whom the Nazis put to death for resistance, was the product of a religious belief that had 'mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism.' He declares Gandhi an obscurantist who distorted and retarded Indian independence, and calls the Dalai Lama a medieval princeling who is the continuation of a parasitic monastic elite. All those religious figures who found the courage to live the moral life must be maligned and dismissed as not authentically religious. Their presence speaks of another kind of religion, one these atheists do not comprehend."

"'The core belief in progress is that human values and goals converge in parallel with our increasing knowledge,' the British Philosopher John Gray wrote. 'The twentieth century shows the contrary. Human beings use the power of scientific knowledge to assert and defend the values and goals they already have. New technologies can be used to alleviate suffering and enhance freedom. They can, and will also be used to wage war and strengthen tyranny. Science made possible the technologies that powered the industrial revolution. In the twentieth century, these technologies were used to implement state terror and genocide on an unprecedented scale. Ethics and politics do not advance in line with the growth of knowledge-not even in the long run.'"

"The atheists and the Christian radicals who cling to this warped vi son of our goodness, nobility, and self-appointed role as the saviors of civilization, urge us forward into imperial projects that are as foolish as they are suicidal."

"Dawkins sees no moral worth in religious faith, just as Christian fundamentalists see no moral worth in those who do not accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior. The millions of human beings who over the ages struggled to live lives of compassion and fought for justice under a religious or secular banner are blithely erased from moral consideration. It no longer matter what people do with their lives, but what they believe. Dawkins, like Christian zealots, reduces the world to a binary formula of good and evil."

"It is impossible to formulate a moral code out of reason and science. As the realm of fact rather than value, science is notoriously unable to generate a basis for moral behavior. Neither science nor reason calls on us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to forgive our enemies, or to sacrifice for the weak, the infirm, and the poor."

"Those who place their faith in a purely rational existence begin from the premise that human being can have a fixed and determined selves governed by reason and knowledge. This is itself an act of faith. . . We can rationalize our actions later, but this does not make them rational. . .We are assaulted with about 14 million bit of information per second. The bandwidth of consciousness is around 18 bits per second. We have conscious access to about a millionth of the information we use to function in life. . .To accept the intractable and irrational forces that drive us, to admit that these forces are as entrenched in us as in all human beings, is to relinquish the fantasy that the human species can have total control over human destiny. It is to accept our limitations, to live with the confines of human nature. Ethical, moral religious, and political systems that do not concede these stark limitations have nothing to say to us. The new atheists, like all Utopians, ask us to live unexamined lives, to believe we can conquer our humanness. Knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge is the domain of scientific inquiry. Wisdom goes beyond self-awareness. It permits us to reinterpret the rational and the non-rational. It is both intellectual and intuitive. And those who remain trapped within the confines of knowledge and pedantry do not commune with the larger world. They cannot see or speak to the deeper truths of life."

"The passages of most sacred texts in all religions are of little real importance. Believers pick and choose what fits. They discard the rest. . .Christian fundamentalists, who seek a justification for their bigotry and hatred, trumpet these passages and rarely speak of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ's call for vows of poverty and his pacificism. Such selective interpretation is no different for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and other believers. It is culture, history, circumstance, tradition, economics and the deep self-interest of the tribe or the nation that more powerfully inform belief systems than the contradictory and often impenetrable pages of the Bible, Koran or any other sacred text. Attempts by these atheists to reduce sacred texts to instructions manuals is not part of the reality of belief. Faith arises out of practice. We find our faith in how we live. The labels we attach to ourselves-Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim or Atheist-are a way to tell stories about ourselves, to create coherent narratives."
"The danger we face does not come from religion. It comes from a growing intellectual bankruptcy that is one of the symptoms of a dying culture. . .We sit for hours alone in front of screens. We are enraptured and diverted by bread and circuses. And while we sit mesmerized, corporations steadily dismantle the democratic state. We are kept ignorant and entertained. . .We increasingly lack the intellectual and self-critical tools to disentangle this net of lies from truth. . .'our politics, religion, news, athletics, education, and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice,' wrote Neil Postman. 'The result is that we are a people on the verge of entertaining ourselves to death.' . . .The new atheists are products of the morally stunted world of entertainment. Despite their insistence that they have cornered the market on rationality, they appeal neither to our reason nor our intellect. . .The simple slogans these atheists repeat about religion do not communicate ideas. They amuse us. They bolster our self-satisfaction, anti-intellectualism and provincialism."

"Many who live the United States, plagued by its consumer culture, waste their energy attempting to satisfy the insatiable demands of an all-consuming self. People have become cut off, engulfed in the fruitless search to find an unachievable happiness in the things they accumulate, the experiences an products they are sold, or the careers they have built. The promised self-fulfillment, of-course, never arrives. Consumers are prodded with even greater urgency to seek solace in newer products, greater opulence an increased status. the frantic search for happiness is endless, 'since' as Proust wrote, 'what one has obtained in ever anything but a new starting-point for further desires.' . . . American democracy has become a consumer fraud. those who practice these techniques are manipulative an cynical. They have robbed us of art, of democratic rights, of education, of respect for the world around us, of the sacred, and they have left us sputtering to each other in the simplified language of television. Television has given us a new image based epistemology. It now subtly defines what is true. It determines what constitutes knowledge. It tells us what is real and unreal. . .The danger we face is not an Orwellian 1984 style dictatorship, but Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where we waste our lives in the vain and impossible pursuit of a self-centered, universal happiness. . .Television tempts viewers with the opulent life enjoyed by the American oligarchy, one percent of who control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. Characters on television live in sprawling and artfully decorated lofts and multi-million dollar homes. They flit from high priced luncheons to lavish galas, where they can parade their sculpted bodies in extravagant designer suits and gowns. this is the life we are supposed to admire and emulate. This is the life, we are told, we can all have. Our national obsession with wealth, celebrity and power has become a soul crushing disease. . .in the middle ages people were manipulated and informed by stained glass images and graphic paintings of religious suffering and redemption. We, too, are hostage to images. We are inundated with pictures of excess wealth and consumption. The in the Middle Ages genuflected before the awful authority and majesty of the church. They feared the wrath of God. We genuflect before celebrity, prizes, money and status, held out like bait. Profligate consumption is not only desirable, but also the only life that offers worth an meaning. These images, however, implicity mock the lives of nearly all Americans. They foster impossible aspiration, ones that nearly all of us will never achieve. The mass of citizens who do not become wealthy and powerful, who buy Tom Ford's products but never become him, harbor feelings of failure and worthlessness. The incessant chasing after status and wealth has plunged much of the country into unmanageable debt. Families live in oversized houses with palladium windows, financed with mortgages they cannot repay. They seek identity through their Nike shoes or Coach handbags. They occupy their leisure time in malls buying things they do not need. They spend their weekdays in little cubicles, if they have stable jobs, under the heel of corporations who have disempowered the American worker, taken control of the state, and can lay them off on a whim. It is a desperate scramble. No one wants to be left behind. The epistemology of television has left of ignorant, without the vocabulary to express this awful transformation. . .The contemporary atheists, while many are noted scientists, are deluded products of this image-based and culturally illiterate world. They speak about religion, human progress and meaning in the impoverished language of television slogans. They play to our fears, especially of what we do not understand. Their words are sensational, fragmented and devoid of content. They appeal to our subliminal and irrational desires. They select a few facts and use them to dismiss historical, political an cultural realities. They tell us what we want to believe about ourselves. They assure us that we are good. They proclaim the violence employed in our name a virtue. They champion our ignorance as knowledge. They assure us that there is no reason to investigate other ways of being. Our way of life is the best. They indulge us in our delusional dream of human perfectability. They tell us we will be saved by science and rationality. They tell us that humanity is moving inexorable forward. None of this is true. It defies human nature and human history. But it is what we want to believe. . .Religious thought is a guide to morality. It points humans toward inquiry. It seeks to unfettered the mind form prejudices that blunt reflection and self criticism. We are all flawed. Human ambitions and pursuits are vanity. the ancient Greeks held in high esteem the command they believed came from Apollo: 'Know thyself.' To know ourselves is to accept our limitations and imperfections. it is to reject absolutism. Ideas are not coded in DNA. They are fragile and need to be nurtured and protected. We are bound to this Earth by our common urges and our instincts, our capacity to be moral and immoral. It is when we face the intractable nature of our being that we begin to build a viable system of ethics. Utopian dreamers, lifting up impossible ideals, plunge us into depravity and violence. It is those who are broken, those who see the shifting sands of our inner lives and the fictive narratives we hide behind, who can save us. They speak to our common humanity. They appeal to our humility. They talk not of power but of transcendent. They talk of reverence. And in their words we see the limits of reason and the possibilities of religion."
Categories: Personal Blogs

Athiesm Psychoanalyzed

Tue, 05/19/2009 - 00:30
This a response to the first part of Harsh's comment, "First of all its wrong to point out that the idea of atheism is to stop worrying and to enjoy life. you say you believe in the existence of god because you want to and atheists dont believe cuz they dont want to. Fine, nothing wrong with that. however, it doesn't necessarily mean atheists do so for "enjoying" life and to go have sex or to go around committing crimes. I'm an atheist and i believe in the well being of others(whether humans or animals) in this world as much as anyone else. yes, there is no fear of god in me, but still there is a fear of my very own morals, my own beliefs, and my own personality."


Atheism is not a rational doctrine. This is because the question of God or a transcendent source or creation is not a rational question.

That is not what Ditchkins or their predecessors like Freud would have us believe. We've been told that religion is fantasy, a fantasy motivated by wish fulfillment and childish ways of thinking. The foolish fantasy of humanity in its infancy. And yes much of what is contained in the cultural traditions of religion is based on naive ideas about the world. And yes science does offer us a better way explanation of the natural phenomenon of the world, but it is a total non-sequitur, it does not follow, that science has disproved the existence of God.

That issue is by definition beyond the realm of science.

Now, if we admit, and we must, that the issue of God is not a scientific or purely rational issue then we must admit that there are other components to belief or non-belief in God.

Turning the powerful tool of Freudian analysis on atheism will help to illuminate the issue.

Freud's basic insight was that all behavior has some causes and that these causes lie deep within the unconsciousness. The unconscious constitutes most of our consciousness, but it is hidden from view, like the ninety percent of a glacier submerged underwater with only the peak visible above. To the untrained eye, an action or belief might look random, but the Freudian psychologist is trained to understand the deep underlying factors in any situation.

My contention is the arguments given for rejecting atheism are only the tip of the iceberg, but the real cause is hidden below, submerged in the frigid waters of the depths of the mind.

Of course that is fairly standard stuff these days and we can say that about most everything. Any idea that is to be taken seriously has to be analyzed in this way.

On the surface atheism is all rational, all science but what lies below?

Well why not let a few atheists speak for themselves?

Here is a quote from Thomas Nagel admitting that he not only doesn't believe in God but he doesn't God to exist;

"In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." (The Last Word Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 130-131.

It is clear from this quote that the atheist not only doesn't believe in God, but doesn't want to believe in God. Of course this is pretty obvious when you hear most atheists talk, Ditchkins are perfect examples of this.

Here more directly to the point Aldus Huxley speaks about why he chose to disbelieve in God:

“For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosphy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning-the christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” (Confessions of a Professed Atheist)

For Ditchkins, the issue of God and religion is obviously very emotionally charged, they are not like scientist in a lab who have discovered some fact about the universe, their zeal and emotional intensity is much more like that of a religious preacher, it is is full of emotion.

And in Dawkin's ad campaign we finally come to the essence of his whole book,


Atheism is not an intellectual rebellion but a moral rebellion. This does not mean that all atheist are rapists and serial killers. What it means is that an atheist is someone who doesn't like the idea of God, the idea of being subordinate to someone else, the idea of being ultimately accountable for everything they think, say and do, the idea of being a servant, the idea that they have to grow old, suffer and die, the idea that everything is ultimately meant for God's pleasure and service, not for their own.

Harsh, in summary this is my response,

I didn't say that atheism is about enjoying life Richard Dawkins did. His ad campaign is a big Freudian slip, and as with all Freudian slips they reveal much more than what is explicitly said.
Categories: Personal Blogs

Comment From Harsh

Mon, 05/18/2009 - 23:37
Dear Sir,

First of all its wrong to point out that the idea of atheism is to stop worrying and to enjoy life. you say you believe in the existence of god because you want to and atheists dont believe cuz they dont want to. Fine, nothing wrong with that. however, it doesn't necessarily mean atheists do so for "enjoying" life and to go have sex or to go around committing crimes. I'm an atheist and i believe in the well being of others(whether humans or animals) in this world as much as anyone else. yes, there is no fear of god in me, but still there is a fear of my very own morals, my own beliefs, and my own personality. For you to say atheists have no purpose in life is also wrong, the purpose might not be about going to heaven or hell (whatever god-believing people believe in), but still the purpose could be of making this world a better place as a human being without the fear of God. i dont want to believe in God cuz there isnt any reason for me to do so. i would never believe in it cuz God is what i've been told by people, not something i've experienced myself. i can go on to say i've four invisible beings, who cant be felt or experienced by anyone, always following me, could science proove or deny it? no, so does that mean there are really four invisible beings follwing me?? according to your description (abt science failing to deny existence of God), then it must be true that those four beings indeed exist, but do they? Notice i've not said i dont believe in religion, instead i've said i dont believe in the existence of God. i think this is the best things about hinduism, i can still follow the traditions, the values of hinduism to make myself and this world better, without having to really believe in God or go to temple.

just someone weird,
harsh

Thank you Harsh for your comment, over the next few days I'll try to respond to some of the issues raised.

(Comment was originally posted on The Heart of Atheism)
Categories: Personal Blogs