mikeh@zeta.org.au (Michael Hore) wrote:
>Madhudvisa dasa writes:
>> There is actually very little we can do to reduce suffering in the
>> world by material methods. I know this is an unpopular view but what
>> can I say?
>Well it's an unpopular view with me anyway! I disagree completely at
>this point. "Suffering in the world" is a bit of an abstract concept
>- when you get right down to it, it's experienced by particular
>individuals at particular times. If I help one person at a time, I've
>achieved something. That's all I can do, but that's enough. It was
>enough for the good Samaritan in the parable.
Yes, I'm not arguing that helping people is not good. It is good and it
is also recommended in the Vedic scriptures. There are so many
injunctions, one is a householder should not sit down to take his meal
without going out onto the street and loudly calling "If there is any
hungry person let him come here and eat." The giving of charity and
provision of facilities for the poor, the sick, for educational
facilities... All these activities are performed by pious Hindus with
great enthusiasm. They know that apart from helping the people they are
generating good karma for themselves, they know whatever money they
give in charity will be returned to them in the future multiplied many
times...
But having said all this we are responsible for our own activities and
if we do something sinful we will get a reaction. We can't avoid that
reaction. I've said this before but it's like you are carrying a load,
you can move it from the right shoulder to the left but you are still
carrying the same weight.
We assume that as a result of technology our "quality of life" has
improved. But has it? Certainly we have many things now that our
parents and grandparents didn't have, but are we happier than they
were? Medical science has controlled and can cure many diseases but
there are so many new diseases now: cancer, AIDS, RSI, so many
stress-related complaints, drug and alcohol addiction... These new
diseases have more than made up for any reduction of the suffering
as a result of advances made by medical science. They haven't been able
to reduce the amount of disease, they have just transferred it from one
variety to another.
Motorcars have provided us with so much independance... We can go where
we are when we want to. But the cost.. So much pollution, so many road
accidents, so much money to buy the cars, maintain them and put petrol
in them. And after all that it has made a society possible where so
many people are leaving home and spending two hours in heavy traffic to
get to work, working 8 (or 10 or 12..) hours [often at something the
don't like anyhow] then spending another two hours travelling home...
This is not a very good life. We were promised technology would reduce
working hours...
And the children... No one has time for the children.. Mother is
working, father is working and the children are in childcare for 7 in
the morning till 7 at night...
Things have _NOT_ got better.
>> I's not that we don't feel compassion for others, but compassion should
>> be spiritual, because suffering of all types is a result of sinful
>> activity. If you give someone spiritual knowledge then both the
>> immediate suffering and the suffering in the future is mitigated.
>> However if you just feed them and don't give any spiritual guidance the
>> root cause of the problem remains... You haven't really solved to
>> problem.
>I don't really disagree with this, but to me it's not an either/or
>situation. The spiritual need is there, but also the physical, and
>if we're concerned for the whole person we should be concerned with
>both.
Yes I agree. If someone is starving all he can think about is food. If
you want to tell him about God you have to feed him first!
>[snip]
>> You seem to have missed the point of my article though.
>No - I wasn't trying to comment on the whole thing - just make one point.
>Time is short. Maybe you have a lot of time to write posts (you seem
>to :-) - but I don't.
OK..
>> I was
>> commenting on the difficulties Christian's have in explaining how a
>> "loving God" could inflict such suffering. It is not God doing it.
>I think I agree that far...
>> It is coming as a result of our sins in the past. "What you sow so shall
>> you reap..." That is the main point.
>but that's a point with which I disagree.
But I quoted from the Bible! [I think that' where it comes from?]
>I'm a Christian, and so I
>take notice of the question the disciples asked Jesus about the tower
>that fell on a number of people.
The difficulty is we tend to "take note" of whatever supports our
arguments at a given time. You can argue almost anything by quoting
selectively from the Bible [or the Vedic scriptures for that matter].
The scriptures are there but we tend to interpret them to suit our
needs. I just replied to someone who said he was a Christian and he had
a whole philosophy, based on quotes from the Bible, justifying
abortion. So you can justify almost anything in this way.
To understand the scriptures you need a spiritual master as well. He is
a self-realized soul who can explain them properly...
>They asked him whether it was the
>victims' sins or the sins of their parents which caused it. Jesus said
>it was neither - but then went on to warn them that if they didn't repent
>something worse would happen to them. So he directly disagreed with
>what you asserted, although he didn't actually give an alternative reason.
This is alright but it leaves everything up in the air.. On one hand it
appears he said the people crushed by the tower weren't crushed because
of their sins but on the other hand he agreed with me by saying the
people would suffer if they didn't stop sinning. So in this quote I
would take Jesus's second statement and use it to back up my argument and
you have taken his first statement to back up yours. See the problem?
>I understand Hare Krishna devotees believe Jesus was "divine" - even
>an incarnation of Krishna. Well, do you think he was mistaken or
>misreported here?
We accept Jesus as the son of God. Krishna says:
yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjamy aham
"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O
descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that
time I descend Myself." (Bhagavad-gita 4.7)
So when necessary Krishna comes to this world Himself, or sends His
devotee [or son] like Jesus Christ to reestablish the religious
principles. He establishes principles that can be followed by the
particular people he is preaching to so there may be some differences
because you have to present things according to the ability of the
audience to understand them... But the basic idea is the same. This
life is meant for coming closer to God so at the end of this life we
can go back home, Back to Godhead...
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna!
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) /sudarsana
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org