> But of course either he doesn't understand the point, or else >understands it perfectly, and is being dishonest or in-humane. For the >next thing he tries to do is show that there is as much suffering now as >there was in the middle ages. There is still suffering... Some are not suffering so much. In America you may not be suffering so much, but there are other countries too you know.. And even in America everything is not all "peaches and cream..." And not EVERYONE had such a bad time in the middle ages. Life was different certainly... But there was happiness still, there was misery still... >This is essential for the Krishna/Hindu >philosophy, influenced long ago by the Bhuddists, Buddha appeared long after Krishna.... > which holds itself up >as the only way out of a world of suffering which never gets any better, >no matter what we do to make it better (one wonders why anyone works at >all). We have to work to get some food to eat. It's a good motivation. But our allotted suffering and enjoyment comes and goes... You haven't stopped it. So many doctors and hospitals haven't stopped disease. Scientific advancement can't stop old age and death... > All that is required is that you deny the reality of the fact >that a world where you're not starving and your children are probably >all going to survive into healthy adults, is not "better" than a world >in which the opposite is true. There are still MANY people in this world who don't have such a guarantee. You also can't speak for the future. It would only take a really good storm or a few earth-quakes to radically change the situation... We are not in control of these things. > It's a values thing. The Krishnas would >never admit, out and out, that this is actually what they believe. They >will, rather, simply dismiss the argument as though they didn't believe >such things. We are happy to tell anyone what we believe. The soul is eternal. Death is not the end, but a change of body. The type of body we get next is determined by our thoughts at the time of death... As scientists are aware on a gross platform every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so the same law also applies to more subtle things. Activities we perform generate reactions in the future. It's called "karma". Good actions generate good karma and bad actions generate bad karma... >The reason is that clear admission of what they believe >would result in instant termination of the arguement most of the time, >as people realized that they were debating with the values of madmen. The science of Krishna conscious is completely logical and perfectly reasonable. It is not something new. It has been accepted by so many thoughtful people throughout history: "In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita, in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial." (Henry David Thoreau) "I owe a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us." (Ralph Waldo Emerson) < nonsense deleated > 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