snapshot

Buddha said we can't attain anything through meditation alone as well. He said we have to have compassion for others, and act on those feelings, not just sit around and think about them. We may reach unbounded states of conciousness but when we come back nothing about us has changed. We are essentially the same person. We need to give more to receive more loving-kindness.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

Waves

No problem, im glad we can have a discussion and actually not have it develop into some of the crap ive gone through in the past
Ah, thanks for clarifying

I see what you mean and i agree. Just different terminology
Excellent!

I think like you said, we have the same overall viewpoint with differences in terminology. Good discussion

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

Waves

i thought it was a rather good thread personally. you should go check out some threads in A&P if you think this is bad

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

reverie

I think I understand what you mean, the basis of it anyways. I believe a lot of this has to do with creative and constructive consciousness. Experiencing the experience. Being aware of ones unlimited potential and possibilities and acting on them.

The question is; how do we attain something? We may partake in a wide variety of experiences and gain nothing. At the same time we may partake in one simple experience and gain the world from it. This is also relative to what you believe gaining something is.

I wouldn't go as far to say that if we reach unbounded states of consciousness we come back nothing has changed.To my understanding on a biological level, every single instance experienced changes and effects who you are. All of it contributes to the synapsis of the brain, the way nuerological pathways cross eachother and where. We all know the effects of this through things such as; our personal associations, attachments to things(songs,picture s), semantics etc etc. How does nothing change? Perhaps this "nothing" actually is something in your eyes (On this topic compassion maybe? ) only because to have something remain the same, implies that something must be present for it to be constant. How do you measure change?

"Buddha said we can't attain anything through meditation alone as well."When I think about this, it is very understandable and logical- in that every focus (no matter what it be -meditation, activity etc) is very select when it is isolated. It is simply one focus of many, and to have full perspective you must expand your focuses. This will all influence your experience...
As an example take the physical senses, and how our experience is dependant on what we learn from them. What if you went to a university lecture with ear plugs? Or went to a play blindfolded? We would be limited in what we attained from those experiences, and therefore limited in what we learned.

This does not mean that one focus is greater than the other. And certainly does not mean that any certain one is useless to engage in. Imo it simply means we must engage in all our abilities and possibilities to further growth.

__________________

dissolve popular detachment

JcPizwink

"no one can know anything" is hyperbole. Sorry I assumed that was a given. Even saying you know nothing implies that you know something: you know you know nothing.

reverie

Haha it probably is better than a lot..

Disappointment is a product of expectance right? I guess I was just expecting a more constructive type of conversation by reading Rev's initial post.. Im very interested in hearing others experiences. It seems like you have many as well.. You should share sometime .

__________________

dissolve popular detachment

Geeno

I was forced to deal with all this in a dark bathroom in south carolina.

__________________

The Rev

Well, it wasn't the sky opening up and a golden light speaking to me or anything. It was like, imagine that for the last 10 years, you'd been discussing and contemplating what chocolate tastes like, but you'd never actually tasted it. You'd probably have a pretty good idea of the taste, but then when you tasted it, you'd be like, "Oh! Now I get it! Now I see what everyone meant..." etc.

That's what I meant by "seeing."

It's like all the ideas that I have heard about how all things are one suddenly made sense, because I got a "taste" of it. And it's really quite simple and obvious, when you look at it experientially. You just roll back what you think you see, because your mind is trained in abstractions and ideas, and just LOOK at what's left, of yourself and of things, and you will find they are one and the same.

I guess that's the best I can describe it so far.



The Rev

__________________

verklingen

reverie: I'm sorry that this thread dissapoints you. If you look at my original post I understood the beauty of Rev's experience and just tried to give a little advice. Of course, I am always at odds with several people on these boards (especially in this Transcendental THC section ), and that lends in no small way to my hijacking threads by and by.

The only reason I do not leave a challenge unanswered is because I love thinking about Krishna so much! This (Yahooka) is one of my favorite places, even though I no longer smoke cannabis. There is such a wealth of intelligent persons (yourself included) who are always asking honest, critical questions, and I cannot help but give equally honest answers. I'm not here to convince anyone to follow any particular path, it just seems that my particular path is often placed under the limelight: and I welcome such scrutiny! It allows me to think of my beliefs from different perspectives and, to me, reaffirms my way of thinking. Thank you all so much for letting me write about Krishna everyday!

But about your question:
The seemingly unattainable goal of physical existence is to become free of material existence. We are eternal spirit-souls, part and parcel of God and extensions of his divine energy. God's nature (and indeed the nature of the entire spiritual platform) is to be eternal, full of knowledge, and full of bliss. As such we are subconsciously mindful of this spiritual condition of our eternal spirit-soul, and this can be seen through our activities and desires.

Medical science is always trying to cure diseases and to extend life because people in general have a sense of dread over their mortality, and the medical institutions have worked many miracles. But the fact remains that people become sick, they grow old, and they die. This is the nature of the material condition: nothing is eternal and everything is constantly changing. Just as our physical bodies are non-eternal, so are the knowledge and happiness we are, by our nature, always seeking.

But we are always seeking after these things -- eternal life, eternal knowledge, and eternal happiness -- through the material modes, and thus it is impossible to ever achieve. All our aspirations and posessions are stripped away when we leave this body, and we are always born with nothing. It is a strange quandary to be ever-desireous of these things, and not be able to attain them! This is what I mean when I say "illusion." We want these things because it is our true nature to have these things, but due to our identification with the material world as absolute (the Golden Mean, pi, our identification with the body as our self) we come under illusion and the true method of achieving these things is lost to us. No science can bring us to the point of being eternal, having eternal knowledge and being eternally blissful because it is already our nature. Science is a form of delusion. (sorry Waves!)

So allow me to explain a little more closely:

We cannot have eternal life because we are not the body we inhabit: our body is a mere machine being piloted by the spirit-soul, and it eventually breaks down. Science may have grand aspirations of extending life and ending disease for good. It is my belief that this is an unattainable goal, but even if it is someday achieved science will be helpless to stop the end of the universe. So even if science discovers a way to have us live "eternally," it will be false because the material world proceeds in cycles.

We cannot have eternal knowledge because no matter how much we learn we will not remember even a bit it after we die. Even if all the knowledge all humans had ever discovered (even knowledge which is now lost, i.e. the Library of Alexandria) were compiled in digital format and kept for thousands and thousands of years, it could not be saved against the procession of the ages which will eventually bring this current manifestation of our universe to a close and wipe the slate clean. Even the Vedas are subject to this, though the knowledge contained within them is eternal. How is this possible? Because the knowledge contained within the Vedas comes directly from Krishna, and Krishna and his abode, being eternal, are not subject to material cycles.

We cannot have eternal bliss due in part to our being an extension of Krishna. Krishna is a sanskrit word meaning "all-attractive," and it is an apt name. Krishna is described as having six opulences, each to an absolute degree: He is the wealthiest, the strongest, the most famous, the most beautiful, the most knowledgable, and the most renounced. Being extensions of His energy, we are also fain to have these characteristics. But we are only part and parcel of God, this does not make us God. We are qualitatively the same as Him, but quantitatively we are vastly inferior. We can be wealthy, strong, famous, beautiful, knowledgable, and renounced, but to whatever degree we posess the characteristics, we can never apporach God's absolute posession of them. This is the reason Krishna is called the Supreme Personality: of personalities, He posesses every quality and opulence in a supreme sense.

So as far as eternality and eternal knowledge go, we have the sense that these qualities are desirable but, due to the illusory nature of the material platform, they are quite unattainable. Likewise, our original understanding is that God is absolute in His qualities and opulences, but the material condition gives us the illusion that we can become master and we can become supreme through our own endeavors. The cause of all our misery and discomfort is the fact that an eternal position and eternal knowledge are not possible in the material world, and the mode which keeps us entrapped here is our false conception of superiority. The goal is to become free from these misconceptions which cause us so much woe.

As for what results can be achieved outside the material condition, that depends upon your love of God and the service you render unto Him.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

The Rev

This IS constructive at YaHooka. You could have the Rapture happen, and the same guys would be debating the minutae right here in SS and HT. It is the Tao of YaHooka.

Seriously, tho, you guys should start a thread where the only thing you can do is compliment each other on how much each of you knows, cares, etc.



The Rev

__________________

verklingen

This is a good example, but the fact is that all our material experiences are very, very limited, no matter whether we are using all our faculties or hindering some of them. Our material senses are by nature imperfect, so anything we learn through them must be suspect. For example, a rainstorm can come and pour rain upon a city, and to that city's citizens it can seem as though the sun is completely covered. But the rainstorm is only a few miles wide, and beyond it the sun is shining brightly. This is how we are always being deluded by our senses and being brought to false conceptions of truth. We will always be limited because we are quantitatively inferior to God, but under the material condition our limitations are made all the more apparent.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Waves

But nobody knows anything, remember?

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

The Rev

Then compliment each other on the perfection of each others' ignorance.



The Rev

__________________

reverie

I know this has to do with your personal beliefs and I can respect that, though I find the above statement to be rather bewildering.

If our senses continually bring about false conceptions of truth, how can one be sure that the idea of us being quantitatively inferior to God is truth?

__________________

dissolve popular detachment

Ego Tripping

I think my senses bring continual conceptions of TRUTH. Its to trust only those senses and not where they stem from that entails misdirection.

__________________

verklingen

The answer to this question gets a little bit esoteric, so please bear with me my dear reverie! There are many examples I may use to illustrate this concept (such as the ocean/drop of water allegory I've described elsewhere), but I will focus on two of the more striking.

First, consider a campfire. The campfire has certain qualities: it has a red/orange color, it produces heat, it produces light, and it is capable of causing certain things it comes in contact with to combust. At times, the fire will toss out a spark. This spark has in its posession all the qualities of the fire which bore it, but on a much more limited scale. You can see the color and the light from the spark, but it is small and indistinct. You can feel the heat of the spark, but it must be either touching or very near to the skin to notice. Likewise a spark is less likely to cause combustion; at least when compared to the original fire.

Next, consider the sun. The sun is constantly releasing photons. According to Fred Hoyle's Astronomy, the total energy output of our sun over one second is sufficient to keep a one kilowatt electric fire burning for 10,000 million million years. That is a very long time! Anyway, each photon which reaches our planet (and the many many trillions which do not) is alike the sun in every respect except for quantity. The sun has a yellow color, the photon does also. The sun is very hot, the photon is also hot (the suns rays are what warms our planet). The sun produces light, the photon produces light (photons scatter through the atmosphere to produce what we call "day"). The sun can burn, and the photon burns also.

Whatever analogy we choose to analyze, the fire and the sun are considered to be the original posessors -- proprietors -- of their respective qualities: color, heat, light, and burning. The spark and the photon also posess these qualities, but it is not due to their own potency: they are mere extensions of the fire and the sun and are qualitatively equal to their respective creator but quantitatively inferior. This is no different from the Vedic conception of the soul's relationship with God. In fact, the Vedas directly describe the soul as an emination of Krishna's potency in a manner which directly mirrors the relationship of the photon to the sun.

Now, as for how I can in good conscience refute the acceptability of observation through the senses to divine the meaning behind physical phenomena yet accept these analogies which rely on the verification of observation is where a little bit of humility comes in. Krishna incarnates personally or sends a personal representative of His to impart knowledge to His followers. The Vedas, which have existed longer than any other writings, represent the material compilation of all this knowledge, including the knowledge behind the analogies I just presented. The reasons we accept these texts as truth are as follows:

God is described as adhoksaja, which means "unknowable through direct perception." This is why science will never discover the existence of God. He cannot be known inductively. But scientists are only trained to think this way and learn through their senses, so they can never know the whole truth. The only way to learn about non-material subjects is through a recognized authority, which is to say a representative of God. We are always going to authorities when we need assistance with our worldly problems: plumbers for leaks, electricians for power outages, logistics experts for delivery of packages, et cetera. It is the same with spiritual knowledge: we can only learn about spirituality from a bona fide source. This is the deductive -- or descending -- process of learning. One utilizes this process by reading the Vedas and hearing purports from a bona fide spiritual master.

Only on the authority of God and the knowledge He imparts me by deductive learning am I able to accept the credulous information I receive through my imperfect senses to prove otherwise unprovable things. And this is the point where a layman will find difficulty accepting my beliefs as a science rather than dogma.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

reverie

Learning about anything, from a bonafide source or not- spiritual or not requires the engagement of our senses. How is deductive learning any different from other forms of learning? By the authority of God? How do we sense God's authority? How do we sense a representative of God if truth is disguised by our physical senses? I could claim to be a representative of God.. How could you sense if I was or not? Are there certain requirements that validate your senses, and thus equal truth? How would you perceive these requirements? I'm sure there are many people of a religious faith outside of your own who have claimed to be representatives of God as well. Why would the senses be select in determining which was truth aside from personal prefrances and belief systems?

__________________

dissolve popular detachment

ziplock

Verk... what neccessitates the seperation? The distinction? Where does this material existence reside? From what fabric is it made of? Is it a part of the flame? Is an atom a spark?

It would seem you want to escape this reality, this cycle of rebirth, this cycle of change. If that is the case, then I hope that what you have found does indeed achieve that and is the correct method. I hope it is the direct knowledge of Krishna and how to rejoin eternal bliss. I take it you are unaware of any sort of seperation in this bliss. Unaware of your identity? Unaware of any individual perspective outside of this eternal one? Makes sense, as you say we lose all our memories, etc, when we die.

To me this sounds akin to dying and simply not being conscious anymore, going down with the ship (brain), that science points to. Only you keep coming back to this existence through a cycle of reincarnation until you can finally become unconscious, liberated of all chains, burdens, etc. It's not bad, definitely was appealing to me a lot as well. I mean you can put another spin on it and say you rejoin this collective unified consciousness where it's all an eternal infinite moment of oneness, and I believe that that is indeed out there. Has many different names too.

I see what you wrote like what I'm writing. It's the same way I look at what the Vedas authors wrote. It is an interpretation of a phenomenon. A concept, a theory. Different concepts invoke different emotions in people, responses. Typically these responses are demonstrated throughout a culture thus seeming to be somewhat socially conditioned. Now I can dedicate myself fully to any one concept, have it provide a somewhat constant response, feel great about myself, and accept it's full validity, full truth. Typically though, this requires making a great deal of assumptions, which is something I'm not really good at.

Also, it would seem that when one dedicates themselves to a concept, they seek out things that reaffirm this concept, and dismiss or disregard things that could prove to contradict it. If you're a person that enjoys interacting with others, you run into the problem of having to defend your conclusions all the time. Assumptions are typically not the best way to go about this, and as A. E. Housman (had to google that one) once said in reference to statistics, "are like a lamppost to a drunk—they're used more for support than illumination." Therefore, it would seem my inability to make assumptions would arise from interaction with others, and their demands to defend my conclusions. Cross referencing.

Your concept then is much like an organism, like your body, verk. It's very easy for people to adopt many behaviors, patterns of thought, habits, etc that reinforce their attachment to a concept. Fueling the sensation of the absolute, of affirmation and validity. In this light, if we're to say delusion is caused by an attachment to a body, it's no different in regards to a concept. I would agree with this reasoning, both in terms of the body as submitted by you, and of concepts.

Now considering a concept can be compared to an organism, we can take it further and see how a concept reacts to various environments. Environments would then be conscious material of a certain construction. Just like our bodies are made of the same matter that composes our environment, so to are our concepts. We have scientific environments, religious environments, political environments, etc. An organism reacts to each environment different. Some aspects of a concept may hinder it's survival in a certain environment, while giving it an advantage in others. Our concepts adapt to the conscious environment, as seen very easily in the progression of science's theories. Adaption then is the key, the ability to evolve beyond all environments, to encompass all environments. This is not possible if one restricts their evolution, stops and impedes it by submitting fully to just one form. Especially one that was created within a vastly different conscious environment.

On it's own, detatched from any sort of environment, the most absurd concept can be held as truthful. It all depends on what measure you quantify truth. This is why many will tend to shelter themselves from certain information, etc. Exclusive beliefs for instance. However, the moment you bring another concept into the picture, when you make it relative, the isolated truth no longer stands. It's a completely different frame of reference now. A totally different game. You now have to apply both concepts to an environment, what they're in reference to. You have to then see which adapts and accomodates best. Which one survives. And through this scenario one progresses towards the truth, as each confrontation allows for the opportunity to fine tune ones conceptions.

It's the same design, the same pattern everywhere, conscious and physical. They apply to one another, compliment one another. (Cue Ego Tripping's spiral) My beliefs are that existence would seem to reside in eternity, not be apart from it. The physical is as spiritual as anything else, if transcending it is your goal more power to you, however I enjoy it, and will most likely come back many times given the choice. Even if I could carry on I'd enjoy coming back simply to interact, to experience it again and again. I got an eternity after all. Once I'm done here I don't think I'll go to eternal bliss, but seek out other existences, other experiences. Ones far different then the physical. If they're not there, why not create them? Paint, be artistic. Change would seem to be eternal, as the flame would be creating the sparks eternally. There is purpose and reason behind every spark. It's a unique, individual existence. One that imo, holds the entirety of existence internally, while being submerged in it externally. A frame of reference, relative to the whole. Each action, each moment holds this potential, the key to unlocking it is within the conscious mind, as they create it in turn. I don't hold this existence to blame for my discomforts and misfortunes, my pains and woes. I hold my mind accountable. I find this existence to be extremely beautiful and satisfying, if one can but take the time to see it. It indulges my creative, expressive side. While eternal bliss is great, it only satisfies the experiencing portion of me. I would still wish to express. And thus the cycle would continue ad infinitum.

Edit: Damn spelling mistakes.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

Ego Tripping

We're meant to be forever confused. It will never make sense until one "day." And after we finally figure it all out and live in all knowing bliss and peace, the only next logical step will be just to forget it all and do it again.

Hence, Life.

Mystery solved (but not).

So why not practice for that now? Goodnight.

__________________

verklingen

For a very detailed study of what constitutes a real guru or spiritual master, I beg that you visit the following link: http://guru.krishna.org/Articles/2000/06/00001.html

I don't usually simply place a link to answer a question; I generally like to put things into my own words to make my post more honest. But this link will answer all your questions regarding the authority of the guru in a much more satisfying way that I can.

I will say, though, that the only bona fide guru is one who comes from the ancient line of disciplic succession, beginning with Lord Krishna Himself. Here's the full list if you're curious:

1) Krsna, 2) Brahma, 3) Narada, 4) Vyasa, 5) Madhva, 6) Padmanabha, 7) Nrhari, 8) Madhava, 9) Aksobhya, 10) Jaya Tirtha, 11) Jnanasindhu, 12) Dayanidhi, 13) Vidyanidhi, 14) Rajendra, 15) Jayadharma, 16) Purusottama, 17) Brahmanya Tirtha, 18) Vyasa Tirtha, 19) Laksmipati, 20) Madhavendra Puri, 21) Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita), 22) Lord Caitanya, 23) Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana), 24) Raghunatha, Jiva, 25) Krsnadasa, 26) Narottama, 27) Visvanatha, 28) (Baladeva) Jagannatha, 29) Bhaktivinoda, 30) Gaurakisora, 31) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, 32) His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

This disciplic succession has, for the time being, ended. There is no true successor to Srila Prabhupada (all glories to him!), only many false "gurus" who were formerly initiated by him when he still resided on this earth. These "gurus" are cheaters and liars who force their devotees to drink the water they bathe his feet in: not at all devotees of Krishna. Luckily for us, Prabhupada left prolific writings and a profuse collection of recorded speeches and lectures, so the knowledge he brought to the west of Krishna consciousness is still very accessible. But the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (the organization Prabhupada founded after coming to the west to spread Krishna consciousness) is now a corrupt organization, and the "gurus" who run it are rewriting the words of Prabhupada so they reflect their own sentiments. Only through the knowledge contained in Prabhupada's original writings and recordings along with the writings of other spiritual masters of the disclipic succession (the Vedas) can one attain any learning of the Supreme.

But how is deductive (or descending) learning any different from inductive (or ascending) learning? It is actually effective, unlike inductive learning.

Imagine a scientist trying to prove the mortality the living being by the ascending process. By observation, he will be able to see that people die very often, but how can he prove that everyone dies invariably? To do this he must personally observe every single living person and be present for each one of their deaths. He must even defy the laws of physics and observe the demise of every creature which has lived before him. Even if this daunting process were rigidly followed for all eternity, the scientist would still have no answer because the amount of living beings is innumerable. He would never be 100% sure because he would have to see the death of the very last being, and there is no end to living beings.

Thus the ascending process of seeking knowledge always leaves one uncertain and questions unanswered. So to save time, effort, and energy, the prudent scientist will accept descending knowledge from one who already knows: his father will tell him that the living being is mortal, and he will accept it on the authority of his father's experience. This is the same way we accept the knowledge of the guru, or spiritual master. Krishna, His name, His form, His passtimes, His knowledge, et cetera are no different from Krishna Himself: this is the meaning of His being absolute. A true guru knows the Vedas, the Vedas come from God, and thus the guru knows the true nature of God and spirituality. There is a line in the Bhagavad-Gita:


It is translated as "All purposes that are served by the small pond can at once be served by the great reservoirs of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them." This means that a knower of the Vedas (a true guru) can delineate their knowledge to his followers, and that the learning attained therefrom is as potent and meaningful as the Vedas themselves. This is, of course, all dependant upon the authority of the guru, which is itself dependant upon the criteria contained within the link I mentioned earlier. I hope this makes sense of something.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”