- Prev: Re: Thought Question
- Next: Re: Let's Be Krishnas
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
In aus.religion, madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa dasa ) wrote:
>Dear Marian,
>mcummins@netspace.net.au (Marian Cummins) wrote:
>>In article <3pjk7p$t9@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, madhudvisa@krishna.org says much to
>>answer my last post, and has done so for all the people who have responded to
>>his original.
>>Madhudvisa, (or am I supposed to address you as Swami?)
>>I thank you for the considered and detailed attention which you have given to
>>each.
> You can call me either. Whatever you like. Madhudvisha is nice because
> it is Krishna's name. It means Krishna, the killer of the Madhu demon.
> So I am Madhudvisa dasa, dasa meand servant, so "servant of Krishna
> who killed the Madhu demon". Swami means one who has controlled his
> senses and it refers to someone in the renounced order of life.
>>There are points of contention but it seems to me that what we should be
>>concentrating on is our similarities, not our differences. (So I admit my own
>>culpablility in my first response !) (yes that's supposed to be a wink ;) so's
>>that:)
> Yes I agree. We are all looking at the same thing from different angles
> [even the scientists!]. It's always difficult to get started talking
> with new people from different backgrounds and traditions but there is
> lots of common ground among all "seekers of the truth".
>>If people can agree on the underlying truth of all their 'faiths' then it
>>is easier to tolerate, to accept as differences built in to the wonderful
>>complexity of the manifestastions of creation - albeit based - yes, I
>>agree - on what are likely to be very simple principles.
> Yes. The differences are superficial. But there is a class of people
> who want to create different groups for their own purposes... that is
> why we have so many religious groups. But really everyone is trying to
> reestablish their relationship with God. Some may say Brahman, some say
> Jesus, some Krishna, some Allah, but there is a common thread running
> through them all. They all accept the existence of the soul, a
> spiritual particle within the body who is eternal, who will continue to
> exist after the body is long gone. They all recommend living this life
> not just for the pleasure of the moment but to advance spiritually so
> after this body is finished we can reestablish our relationship with
> God.
>>( The current world I live in - including the material _and_ the
>>spiritual - is indeed gloriously wonderful - I do feel sorry that you do
>>not find it so!)
> I see beauty and wonder in this world too. Krishna says in the
> Bhagavad-gita: (10.41)
> yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va
> tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-'msa-sambhavam
>"Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but
>a spark of My splendor."
> So when I see beauty I see it as a small manifestation of Krishna's
> opulences, of Krishna's beauty. He's unlimited of course, but the
> manifestations of beauty in this world can give us some idea...
> If you read the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, it is called
> "Vibhuti Yoga" or "The Oppulence of the Absolute" you will find Krishna
> explains His beauty and opulence in terms of things in this world (I am
> the taste of water, the light of ths Sun and the Moon, the sylible
> OM...) The whole chapter is very interesting reading.
> (But I don't accept this world as permanent. I am not miserable [I
> chant Hare Krishna!] but there is a lot of misery here. It would be
> hard to ignore the famines, the disease, the old age...)
>>Really for example I think when you talk of Krishna you mean the same as
>>I when I talk of God, or That, or Truth, or Reality (ha, I hear you
>>preparing to dipute, no? - hold for a bit!) or others of Allah, etc. Bit
>>hazy still, but I think Brahman is also That?
> Yes, like I said before we're all looking at the same person but from
> different angles of vision:
> vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam
> brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate
>"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this
>non-dual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan." (Srimad Bhagavatam
>1.2.11)
> So there are three ways of seeing the supreme. Brahman means perceiving
> an all-pervading spiritual energy and liberation for such
> transcendentalists is becoming one with or merging with the "supreme
> oneness".
> The next level of realization is the one possible through yoga and
> meditation. The perfect yogis come to the stage of Paramatma
> realization. We, the soul, the living entity are called the "atma" but
> there are two entities within our heart. We, the atma, are there but
> Krishna in His four-armed Visnu form is also there. He is called the
> "Param-atma" or the supreme atma. The yogis can come to the point of
> seeing the Paramatma within their hearts.
> The final realization is of Bhagavan. Bhagavan literally means "the
> possessor af all opulences". Bhagavan refers to a person, the supreme
> person, and the other two energies [Brahman and Paramatma] are
> emanating from His body.
> The analogy of the sun and the sunshine is often given. Seeing the
> sunshine is like Brahman realization, seeing the sun is like Paramatma
> realization and actually entering the sun planet and meeting the sun
> god is like Bhagavan realization. As the light of the sun disc and the
> sunshine are coming from the body of the sun-god so the Brahman and
> Paramatma emanate from the body of Bhagavan [Vishnu or Krishna]
>>So I for one would like to continue this thread in a spirit of loving enquiry
>>rather than refutation (as much as possible ;)
>>So my question is now - could you please discriminate in detail for me between
>>mind
>>intelligence
>>spirit
>>and I think there was a fourth, but can't recall it...
> This is a very nice question. The third chapter of Bhagavad-gita is the
> place to look for the answer...(Bhagavad-gita 3.42)
> indriyani parany ahur indriyebhyah param manah
> manasas tu para buddhir yo buddheh paratas tu sah
>"The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the
>senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind and he [the soul] is
>even higher than the intelligence."
> So there are five things: matter, the senses, the mind, the
> intelligence and the soul. For a materialist his motivation starts at
> the bottom, he looks to matter to satisfy his senses, he's controlled
> by the demands of his senses. The tongue says to the mind, "get food",
> the mind says to the intelligence, "get food" and the poor spirit soul
> is more or less just sitting there watching the whole thing going on.
> A transcendentalist, on the other hand uses his [or her - but really
> we are not the body; the soul is not male or female... It depends on the
> body it is in] intelligence for spiritual pursuits and he controls his
> mind with his intelligence. So he, the spirit-soul is actually in
> control.
> You can see from this that a materialist is not actually free. His
> senses are demanding satisfaction and the mind and intelligence are
> working to provide that sense gratification. The example is given of
> the driver of a carriage with the horses out of control... not very
> comfortable!
>
> There is much more detail available but I'm interested in what you
> think so far. Perhaps we can build on it in future postings?
>>And if you'd care to clarifiy on the various names, that would be helpful too -
>>lets forget the lesser deities for the present as they can certainly be
>>red-herrings....:)
> Yes. Very simply there is God, the Supreme Person. His name is Krishna
> and also Vishnu [and many other names as well]. He is one person but He
> appears in different forms for different purposes.
>
> There are three modes of nature goodness, passion and ignorence and
> each mode has a person in charge of it. Goodness means maintenance and
> Visnu is in charge of this. Then there is Shiva. Shiva is in charge of
> the mode of ignorence [destruction]. Shiva is in a special position.
> Although he is not equal with Vishnu, he is not an ordinary living
> entity like us. He is between us and Vishnu. Then there is Lord Brahma
> looking after the mode of passion [creation]. Lord Brahma is generally
> a very qualified ordinary living entity. You or I could become a Lord
> Brahma... It's something like the prime minister. Any qualified person
> could take the position.
> There is only one supreme God [Vishnu or Krishna] but there are
> 33,000,000 demigods! The demigods, with the exception of Lord Shiva,
> are all ordinary living entities like yourself or myself. They are
> devotees but they still desire to enjoy in the material world so they
> are promoted to a higher planet [heaven] where things are better than
> here [longer life, not so much disease, better weather...] and given
> some responsible position within the universal management.
> The Vedic understanding is everything is working under the direction of
> a person... Things don't just happen by themselves. Even the blinking
> of our eyelids, somebody is looking after it, making sure it is going
> alright. [I'm not doing it...]
> Krishna [in Bhagavad-gita] doesn't recommend worshiping the demigods
> separately. He gives the example of supplying water to the roots of a
> tree. If you water the roots the whole tree is satisfied, all the
> leaves, all the fruit, the flowers, the branches... So if you just
> serve Vishnu or Krishna everyone else is automatically satisfied.
> But some people in India do worship the demigods separately...
>>And as for Mandelbrot - I think the thing I was suggesting is that you were
>>talking about fractals in general rather than Mandelbrot. Certainly fractals,
>>and chaos theory seem to me to be very relevant, and I do not wish to dispute
>>the underlying truths of what you proposed. Again, I urge you to read Rudy
>>Rucker's Mind Tools (Penguin, c. 1987, I think).
>>Of course, I don't know your scientific or math background so my apologies if I
>>am telling my grandfather to suck eggs!
> I'm not so interested in his ideas. I went to a lecture he gave at the
> ANU and heard what he had to say and read one of his books and his
> ideas were just convenient for my example so I used them..
>>Do ISKCON followers also acknowledge the Upanishads as accurate?
> Yes. There are 108 Upanishads and they are authorized Vedic scriptures.
> We like Isopanisad very much because it describes the personal aspects
> of God. Most of them concentrate mainly on Brahman, but Brahman is the
> energy of Krishna, another way of looking at Krishna.
>>How literally do you take the Gita? To me it seems to be allegory/metaphor and
>>then indeed very powerful.
> No. We take it literally. It is the transcript of an actual
> conversation that took place 5,000 years ago on the battlefield of
> Kuruksetra between Krishna and Arjuna. Krishna was driving the chariot
> for Arjuna and He parked the chariot between the two armies just before
> the battle so Arjuna could see the strength of both armies. But when
> Arjuna saw so many friends and relatives on both sides he became
> bewildered and said to Krishna, "Krishna I can no fight." Then Krishna
> spoke the Bhagavad-gita.
>>Could you possibly add dates of source-written/'publication' to your quotes - I
>>am not familiar enough with the texts you quote (and certainly have no
>>Sanskrit!) to know who the various sages were/are.
> Mainly I am quoting from "Bhagavad-gita As It Is" and "Srimad
> Bhagavatam" both translated by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta
> Swami Prabhupada published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust 1972-1977.
> Bhagavad-gita is very well known even in the West. It is small [711
> verses] and contains the essence of all spiritual knowledge. Everything
> is there. You can become completely self realized by reading
> Bhagavad-gita As It Is [there are lots of nonsense commentaries which
> will not help much though... Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita is
> accepted by almost all authorities in India and the West as the best
> English translation]
> Srimad Bhagavatam is much bigger [18,000 verses] and contains lots of
> details. It is described as the "Ripened fruit of the desire tree of
> Vedic knowledge". It was written by Srila Vyasadeva [who also wrote
> down all the other Vedic scriptures] but it was his final work. It
> contains the highest spiritual knowledge.
>Thank you for the questions. Looking forward to your reply. Hare Krishna.
> ___________________________________________
>Madhudvisa dasa | |
>(madhudvisa@krishna.org) | S H E L T E R I N T E R N A T I O N A L |
> +61 02 248 967 |___________________________________________|
> CHANT HARE KRISHNA AND BE HAPPY!
>
>Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (c) BBT
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