|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 21, 2010 22:05:55 GMT -6
Hi Nitaidasji I didnt read your reply because I can't be bothered with it. You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I dont agree on most of what Dawkins says but he least does not need a story to support his atheism. I honestly wish you all the best. I am sorry you are so dismissive of me and my views. You clearly think you are so superior to me and no doubt to everyone else, you initiated by a dead man. I certainly don't need you to tell that I am entitled to my opinion. Who do you think you are? I clearly misjudged you. I thought I was talking to an open, honest, and lively mind. There is nothing honest or open or lively about you. Kindly spare us your mendacity.
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jul 21, 2010 22:57:00 GMT -6
Hi Nitaidasji I didnt read your reply because I can't be bothered with it. You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I dont agree on most of what Dawkins says but he least does not need a story to support his atheism. I honestly wish you all the best. I am sorry you are so dismissive of me and my views. You clearly think you are so superior to me and no doubt to everyone else, you initiated by a dead man. I certainly don't need you to tell that I am entitled to my opinion. Who do you think you are? I clearly misjudged you. I thought I was talking to an open, honest, and lively mind. There is nothing honest or open or lively about you. Kindly spare us your mendacity. Hi Nitaidas I feel very bad about your reply. I tried to be civil in this discussion but what do I get from you. Ad hominem attack, attacking my person. Also that you are accusing me that I think I am superior to you and anyone is plainly wrong. Does giving my thoughts on a topic means I'm claiming I'm superior? You are clearly weak on your logic there. The reason why I decided I do not want to engage anymore with you is that you were relativizing and seemed impervious to the logic I am putting forward. That people who carefully studied CVism have the consensus that it is a theistic belief system. Even in science consensus is important, that is why there is this thing called peer-review. I also gave my thoughts on the "forgetfulness of the gopis of Krishna's other attributes". You are putting forward your take, speaking in the first person. How can argue with that? Or take the discussion any further? I read a bit of your reply but I decided at some point that it would pointless on my part. Btw, I didnt dismiss your ideas outright, did I? I replied and gave my thoughts. In some ways it is to be expected. In your other posts elsewhere in the forum you call believers dishonest. (Now I can't find it. I think it's in one of your post that you have edited. I'm very sure you wrote that in one of your posts). So maybe I should have expected that. I'm sad that I must hit a button in you because I can sense that you are taking this personally. Still I wish you luck on your search.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 22, 2010 10:43:15 GMT -6
I am sorry you are so dismissive of me and my views. You clearly think you are so superior to me and no doubt to everyone else, you initiated by a dead man. I certainly don't need you to tell that I am entitled to my opinion. Who do you think you are? I clearly misjudged you. I thought I was talking to an open, honest, and lively mind. There is nothing honest or open or lively about you. Kindly spare us your mendacity. Hi Nitaidas I feel very bad about your reply. I tried to be civil in this discussion but what do I get from you. Ad hominem attack, attacking my person. Also that you are accusing me that I think I am superior to you and anyone is plainly wrong. Does giving my thoughts on a topic means I'm claiming I'm superior? You are clearly weak on your logic there. The reason why I decided I do not want to engage anymore with you is that you were relativizing and seemed impervious to the logic I am putting forward. That people who carefully studied CVism have the consensus that it is a theistic belief system. Even in science consensus is important, that is why there is this thing called peer-review. I also gave my thoughts on the "forgetfulness of the gopis of Krishna's other attributes". You are putting forward your take, speaking in the first person. How can argue with that? Or take the discussion any further? I read a bit of your reply but I decided at some point that it would pointless on my part. Btw, I didnt dismiss your ideas outright, did I? I replied and gave my thoughts. In some ways it is to be expected. In your other posts elsewhere in the forum you call believers dishonest. (Now I can't find it. I think it's in one of your post that you have edited. I'm very sure you wrote that in one of your posts). So maybe I should have expected that. I'm sad that I must hit a button in you because I can sense that you are taking this personally. Still I wish you luck on your search. Malati, I know you want to feel as if you are an innocent party here who has been savagely attacked by vicious Nitai das, but I won't allow you that pretense. When someone says that he or she cannot be "bothered" with what another person thinks or says it sends the message that this other person is not worth wasting one's time on. That is a thorough dismissal and reduces the other to worthlessness and insignificance. That is how I took your statement. Maybe you did not mean it in that way. Maybe you just did not want to continue the discussion. A better way of saying that would have been "Nitai, I do not feel comfortable with this discussion. We disagree. Let's talk about something else." To say that you don't want to be bothered with another person is to essentially negate that person, to relegate that person to the realm of non-existence. I thought about tossing you into that dust-bin and telling you I was no longer going to "bother" with you and whatever it is you think you believe, but I find that just too cold and heartless. I would like to think that I am not the sort of person who would do that to another person. I don't know whether you are that sort of person or whether you just don't understand the English language sufficiently. Truth be told: I don't think that you are open-minded. I don't think that you are really honest, especially not with yourself. And, well, a living mind is one that grows and struggles to stay alive in the face of serious challenges. I don't know whether that applies to you or not. Only time will tell. I don't regard those as ad-hominem attacks on you. Still, I am not going to throw you in the dust-bin as this long response demonstrates. I may not spend much time discussing ideas with you after this. But I will read what you say. The question we were discussing is essential for those of us who live in the 21st century. I feel the need to come back to it later in this thread, but not with you. It is something that needs resolving or at least discussion and should not be tossed off too flippantly as you are prone to do. So I will continue to reflect on it publicly and as honestly as I can. I really don't care what anyone thinks at this point and I am not going to put on a show of piety like some others are wont to. I am not trying to be anyone's guide or guru. I am simply going to ask the questions and see where that leads me.
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jul 22, 2010 23:38:08 GMT -6
Nitaidasji
A godbrother of yours who is a friend of mine said that I seemed to be dismissive of your ideas. Ok, for that I apologize. I didn't forsee that my response could come across as cold and callous. Maybe I should have just said that any type of atheism has no appeal to me and so I do not want to continue with this discussion, but obviously I didn't.
I'm sure many of the members here would be interested to hear your ideas.
I want you to know that although I do not see the lila the way you see it within the lens of atheism, I grant that you have a very creative mind, a very smart mind.
I wish you well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 10:14:52 GMT -6
Jay Nitai,
Thank you Malati Ji for your open and honest confession to keep the discussion on track. The response of yours was really not reflecting what you want to really say and express. But at last thanks to Nitai das jis elaborated email you came to understand what went wrong unintentionally.
Frankly speaking we need to give the respect where creadit is due. Nitai Das ji is oldest of us and a great scholar and capable intellectual thought. Moreover He spent times/years in Braja with some of the great Mahatmas, studied under some of the greatest scholar of Indian Philosophy ( Pandit Govindagopal Kumhopadhaya was an legend of Indian Scripture and disciple of another legend Sri Gopinath Kaviraj). This gives Sri Nitai Das has an edge to open his experience and reflection to some of the newbie like us to more understand true CV nature and core philosophy and then contribute more to the discussion.
I see it consistently that Sri Nitai Das Ji is not getting his due credit over time despite of his selfless service of translation etc. to the CV world.
I do hope this will change for better in near future.
Just to come back to the original discussion of atheism and CV , can we discuss it further with Nitai Das Ji and explore the idea of Atheism in core and how it is getting correlated with CV philosophy.
I must agree with Nitai Das ji that in the current known circle of CVs exposed to western audience there is lack in intellectual thought process. But that is one half of the truth. Since that is related with Socio Economic condition of masses in India specially in Bengal,Orissa which are the fundamental base of CV movement ( do not forget all the saint/sadhus in braja are primarily supplied by those areas) , and the decline in original thought/intellectual smartness in current CV would be subject to another discussion.
But as I said that is not entire picture of CV, we still have Dr. MahanamBrata Brahmachari, Sisir Kr Ghosh , Sri Rasik Bhusan VidyaBhusan, Dr. Radhagovinda Nath Sri Sundaranada Vidya Vinode who contributed massively original thought / and fundamental thinking following Sri Jivas Beautiful mind of reasoning and revealing the truth in various way. Especially Dr. Mahanambrata Brahmachari is the latest product of that original thinking. And I am sure there are many people who want to think differently and enrich Mahaprabhus tradition.
As I learned from my various SiksaGuru the importance of scepticism in ones devotional life. That helps one sadhaka to be honest in his spiritual search, to get the truth revealed, to go the bottom of the layer to do research to find what is correct and what is not and then spread that consciousness to the next generation. That helps Sadhaka to become bullet proof of his understanding of truth, his faith and belief system and to protect his faith like an Uttama Adhikary. Even in Bhakti Sandarbha Sri Jiva Discuss the nature of these two kind of Devotee ( AcharPradhan and Bichar Pradhan ). And mind it the Bicharpradhan devotee are the one at the end of this search who are capable of “LokaSangraha” as Gita states.
As Mahatma Sisir Kumar Ghosh nicely pointed in his masterpiece "Amiya Nimai Charit" how the sceptism is the blessing of Mahaprabhu to ignite "Athato Bhamajigasa".
Sri Nitai das Ji,
Can we discuss in the line, why we feel we are equal to Krishna and we are no less than him. What makes us getting all attracted in him that leads to sealing the inequalness between us and Krishna to the extent we feel we are the same and his is no God but one of us and leads to idea of Atheism you are referring ( If I am correct in understanding your idea). If we can find that reason I think that will reveal other part of the truth which is Theism/Ved/the cause and would justify the its result which is Atheism/the Aved/the Effect.
Just A thought. Hope to hear from you soon.
Jay Nitai
|
|
|
Post by maasikdharma on Jul 23, 2010 11:06:33 GMT -6
Nitai, I've long thought that raganuga bhakti is "atheist friendly" because atheists have already crossed the obstacle "god" and can just go straight to Radha Krishna as friends, family members, or lover(s).
A question might be raised: What then would inspire an atheist to live in the internal world of Braj if it was not a divine sort of longing - which is the basis of theism and the theistic approach to bhakti?
An answer might be: To create a beautiful world of prem within one's imagination is the end itself. To have one's own inner psychology permeated by such beauty is it's own reward.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 23, 2010 12:54:24 GMT -6
Jay Nitai, Thank you Malati Ji for your open and honest confession to keep the discussion on track. The response of yours was really not reflecting what you want to really say and express. But at last thanks to Nitai das jis elaborated email you came to understand what went wrong unintentionally. Frankly speaking we need to give the respect where creadit is due. Nitai Das ji is oldest of us and a great scholar and capable intellectual thought. Moreover He spent times/years in Braja with some of the great Mahatmas, studied under some of the greatest scholar of Indian Philosophy ( Pandit Govindagopal Kumhopadhaya was an legend of Indian Scripture and disciple of another legend Sri Gopinath Kaviraj). This gives Sri Nitai Das has an edge to open his experience and reflection to some of the newbie like us to more understand true CV nature and core philosophy and then contribute more to the discussion. I see it consistently that Sri Nitai Das Ji is not getting his due credit over time despite of his selfless service of translation etc. to the CV world. I do hope this will change for better in near future. Just to come back to the original discussion of atheism and CV , can we discuss it further with Nitai Das Ji and explore the idea of Atheism in core and how it is getting correlated with CV philosophy. I must agree with Nitai Das ji that in the current known circle of CVs exposed to western audience there is lack in intellectual thought process. But that is one half of the truth. Since that is related with Socio Economic condition of masses in India specially in Bengal,Orissa which are the fundamental base of CV movement ( do not forget all the saint/sadhus in braja are primarily supplied by those areas) , and the decline in original thought/intellectual smartness in current CV would be subject to another discussion. But as I said that is not entire picture of CV, we still have Dr. MahanamBrata Brahmachari, Sisir Kr Ghosh , Sri Rasik Bhusan VidyaBhusan, Dr. Radhagovinda Nath Sri Sundaranada Vidya Vinode who contributed massively original thought / and fundamental thinking following Sri Jivas Beautiful mind of reasoning and revealing the truth in various way. Especially Dr. Mahanambrata Brahmachari is the latest product of that original thinking. And I am sure there are many people who want to think differently and enrich Mahaprabhus tradition. As I learned from my various SiksaGuru the importance of scepticism in ones devotional life. That helps one sadhaka to be honest in his spiritual search, to get the truth revealed, to go the bottom of the layer to do research to find what is correct and what is not and then spread that consciousness to the next generation. That helps Sadhaka to become bullet proof of his understanding of truth, his faith and belief system and to protect his faith like an Uttama Adhikary. Even in Bhakti Sandarbha Sri Jiva Discuss the nature of these two kind of Devotee ( AcharPradhan and Bichar Pradhan ). And mind it the Bicharpradhan devotee are the one at the end of this search who are capable of “LokaSangraha” as Gita states. As Mahatma Sisir Kumar Ghosh nicely pointed in his masterpiece "Amiya Nimai Charit" how the sceptism is the blessing of Mahaprabhu to ignite "Athato Bhamajigasa". Sri Nitai das Ji, Can we discuss in the line, why we feel we are equal to Krishna and we are no less than him. What makes us getting all attracted in him that leads to sealing the inequalness between us and Krishna to the extent we feel we are the same and his is no God but one of us and leads to idea of Atheism you are referring ( If I am correct in understanding your idea). If we can find that reason I think that will reveal other part of the truth which is Theism/Ved/the cause and would justify the its result which is Atheism/the Aved/the Effect. Just A thought. Hope to hear from you soon. Jay Nitai Thanks Subrataji for your thoughtful comments on this question and the state of CV in the modern world. And thanks also for your kind words about me. It is true that I have been uncommonly lucky in having the association of some of the great Mahatmas of CV in the last century and of having had the good fortune of being able to learn the primary languages in which CV has been communicated for the last 500 years. It is no doubt the grace of these mahatmas and siddha-purusas and pandits that has kept alive in me the flame of attachment to CV and desire to somehow make it more accessible and understandable to people less fortunate than me. Still, though I am perhaps the oldest (cough, cough) and in some ways (but certainly not all) the most experienced of those still attempting to practice and think about CV, I don't feel that necessarily entitles me to any special respect. Respect should be earned and not demanded or expected. Anyway, I don't do any of this for respect really. I do it out of love for this tradition, out of a desire to try to understand it and appreciate it myself, and if someone else comes away with a better understanding of and appreciation for CV because of something I have written or translated I am happy. Back to this question. By the way, Visakha wrote something nice on this question in a private communication and I wish she would join our conversation and share her insights with us. Here is my dilemma. I am an atheist which means that I accept the scientific description of the world which leaves no room for any supernatural hanky-panky. That is, I don't think that the universe was created by any higher intelligence nor does it need any interference by one. Yet, I love Krsna and want to be close to him. Is it necessary to see him as god to love him? Presumably, one can love him without being aware of his godhood. That seems to be what all of his companions do in the Bhagavata account of his Vraja lila. On the other hand his godhood seems to be important for singling him out as especially lovable. Witness the episode of Brahma's stealing of the cows and cowherd boys. So what exactly is the relationship between his godhood (aisvarya) and his lovability (madhurya). And if he is god why is he so completely absent from the world? It is in a sense his complete absence that makes science possible. If he kept butting in whenever he felt like it, coming up with the laws of physics and the other sciences would have been impossible. These are some of the questions that have been haunting me. That and the fact that everything about CV seems to be directed at learning to relate to Krsna and Radha not as gods but as ordinary persons. None of the mantras we meditate on refer to him as a god. And the puja we do is directed at relating to him as a person, even as a member of the family. We dress him, feed him, offer him water and flowers and incense and generally treat him like a dearly beloved one of us. Whoever he is he wants to be loved and accepted as one of us. That is what sadhana is training us to do.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 23, 2010 13:11:39 GMT -6
Nitai, I've long thought that raganuga bhakti is "atheist friendly" because atheists have already crossed the obstacle "god" and can just go straight to Radha Krishna as friends, family members, or lover(s). A question might be raised: What then would inspire an atheist to live in the internal world of Braj if it was not a divine sort of longing - which is the basis of theism and the theistic approach to bhakti? An answer might be: To create a beautiful world of prem within one's imagination is the end itself. To have one's own inner psychology permeated by such beauty is it's own reward. Yes. These are precisely the sorts of questions I am struggling with. The end goal of raga bhakti is to relate to Krsna as an ordinary person, to get beyond the stigma of godhood or theism. Perhaps that is also the hook for atheists. Atheists are persons too who want to love and be loved, who are capable of relationships, and emotions, etc. . They can relate to Krsna on a personal level. It is the god part that is problematic. So perhaps the problem lies with what we mean by god. A creator god? Or, a compelling entity of consciousness? Perhaps consciousness itself? I am reading a book by Susan Blackmore called Consciousness. Are you familiar with it? Have you read it by chance? I am trying to get up to speed on the latest research on consciousness and consciousness studies.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Jul 23, 2010 15:44:46 GMT -6
oops
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Jul 23, 2010 17:38:37 GMT -6
I think you might indeed have a small problem there, Nitaidasji. You’re right in saying that Krishna “goes out of his way” of trying to enter into a personal relationship with His devotee and that that is essential in the CV tradition but at the same time He is rather clear in the Gita for instance that He is the Lord of All - nAsty anto vistarasya me, etc, etc. So it would seem clear what scripture means with “God”. Perhaps you have to accept that Krishna can’t help being God. Or to put it in slightly different words, I think what you want is perhaps impossible. To enter into personal relationships with potentially every human being - and some animals and plants - you have to be God. So what you seem to strive for is a sort of demi-atheism.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 23, 2010 18:12:10 GMT -6
I think you might indeed have a small problem there, Nitaidasji. You’re right in saying that Krishna “goes out of his way” of trying to enter into a personal relationship with His devotee and that that is essential in the CV tradition but at the same time He is rather clear in the Gita for instance that He is the Lord of All - nAsty anto vistarasya me, etc, etc. So it would seem clear what scripture means with “God”. Perhaps you have to accept that Krishna can’t help being God. Or to put it in slightly different words, I think what you want is perhaps impossible. To enter into personal relationships with potentially every human being - and some animals and plants - you have to be God. So what you seem to strive for is a sort of demi-atheism. Hi Gerardji. How have you been? What have you been up to? Small problem? I think it is a big problem. You think that is a clear description of what is meant by God? I think is it quite unclear. That little portion you quoted, for instance, is more consistent with pantheism rather than theism. Krsna is everything. "There is no end to my expansion." In other places he describes the world as his nature (prakrti) and his higher nature is the living beings. This is not your ordinary conception of god. It may seem clear to you, but I don't find it clear at all. What is clear is that it is not the Christian or Islamic conception of God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 22:08:45 GMT -6
Jai Nitai,
First of all I want to thank Nitai Das Ji for "stirring the pot," and not being afraid to ask tough questions to provoke our thorough inquiry into the matter. Here is the message I sent to him the day before yesterday, with a few added thoughts.
If by God, you mean the Ultimate Truth, it seems to me that - YES - it is indeed important that Sri Krishna is God, else devotion to him would be just another bond of maya; an uneternal, mundane relationship doomed to be crushed by the wheel of Time.
But, if by God you mean the Abrahamic vision of a horrible old man with a big long beard sitting on a throne, throwing thunderbolts down on the hapless creation... a populace he created imperfect and prone to sin, which he then sadistically punishes for sinning... I certainly have no desire to meditate on or propitiate such a being. Neither do I think Sri Krishna, in any of His majestic or "sweet" forms, resembles that character.
Wouldn't it be more apropos to say CV lends itself to anti-theism, rather than atheism? We don't want to relate to Krishna as God and neither does He prefer such worship. We are opposed to cognition of his God-ness, for it comes in the way of his and his bhaktas' blissful experience. I believe Vrindavan is all about subverting Krishna's divine majesty. If he is not God, there is nothing to undermine - and I think that without that rebel spirit of undermining God's God-ness, a dimension of Vraja's astonishing sweetness would be missed.
In addition:
My vision of CV is that ultimately we are not striving to surrender to Sri Krishna as a God or even as a beloved. Instead, we are surrendering to the Queen of that realm where Krishna's majesty is supremely undermined, Sri Vrindavan Dham. Sri Krishna is also constantly begging to be counted amongst Her servants. Like us, Krishna is begging Radharani, "Please forgive my offenses, my sins, and accept me!" He has made Radha's Love his Guru. Since He is begging so sincerely, let us let the past stay in the past. We won't count His Godhead against Him, just as Sri Gurudeva does not count our past offenses when he accepts us. In Radharani's Empire of Love, Krishna has a clean slate. In Her world, all the ugly problems of Godness no longer have to concern Him or us.
Is it necessary that Krishna be God? I find it is indeed necessary for Him to be the Ultimate truth, the supreme "That", saccidananda vigraha, ecstasy personified etc. and not just a plain old human being. But aishwarya or divine majesty is ultimately none of our concern when we surrender to Radharani's Love. It's also been helpful for me to keep in mind that Radha and Krishna are People - People who exist but who are not human beings of flesh and bone. The rasa of such plain human relationships is finite and thus unable to satisfy us ultimately, while Radha and Krishna's ecstatic attraction is eternally self-effulgent. This is very, very different from normal human relationships. Have you ever experienced another human being as eternally seeming "newer and newer" at every moment?
Just my 2 centavos. Again, thank you for bringing this up.
ys, Visakha
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 22:33:41 GMT -6
This reminds me of something Gurudev has written; I paraphrase.
Sri Krishna says, "How can I be absolved of my sins? The sins of the household are borne by the father. The sins of the country are on the king. Likewise, the sins of the whole creation are on Me." The only way to cleanse such a huge burden of sin is to attain the footdust of one who has absolutely perfect, unselfish Love. But it would be difficult to find such a loving person. In fact, there is only One person with such powerful Love - and that is Radharani. So Krishna takes refuge at Her feet, and rubs the dust of Her feet all over His body to purify Himself. In doing this, Radharani's Love and Her Golden color cover Him completely. Thus He becomes Gaurasundar, the golden one.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 24, 2010 10:29:02 GMT -6
Thanks, everyone, for your thoughtful comments and ideas. The suggestion has come from several quarters that we are not really dealing with atheism but demi-atheism or anti-theism. Gerard steered us back to scripture and I think that is a good direction to move in. Visakha suggested that maybe the problem is with what we mean by god. And Masikadharma has given us an image of how a true atheist might relate to the Krsna story without believing him to be god. Subrataji has pointed out a proud history of modern members of the CV tradition who have studied texts critically and sceptically and who have advanced our knowledge of the tradition because of it. he also suggested we explore the way in which the bhakta comes to believe that he or she is equal to Krsna or even superior to him. All good ideas and suggestions.
I think it might forward our discussion if we really had a better idea of what is meant by God in the CV tradition. I thought we might focus first on the Gita since we are working on that at present and since it is a fundamental text for CV. Let's try to figure out exactly what is meant by God or Isvara in the Gita, assuming that it is a consistent understanding. I have to admit it has been years since I read the book closely and that makes this work that madanmohanji and I are doing now a special blessing. I am enjoying revisiting the text. Still, I need your help. Let's gather together all the texts in the Gita that present an idea of god and look at them to see what they really add up to. Let's put aside the commentary of the acaryas for the moment and just look at what the text itself says. Once we have a good grasp of that we can move on to other texts like the Bhagavata or the CC or the Satsandarbha. We cannot assume that they have the same idea of God. My sense is that it has changed over time, but how and to what effect I don't know. One thing is certain. Without carefully examining the texts and thinking about them unencumbered by preconceptions, we will never know. Perhaps we will discover that the conception of God in CV is really quite different from the one we always thought it had, maybe one that might not be too far from the modern atheists understanding of an absolute cause or ground of being. Who knows what we might discover?
For instance, I was fascinated by the pantheistic nature of the verse cited by gerard yesterday. Is the conception of God in the Gita pantheistic? In other words, is Krsna as represented in the Gita a personification of the whole? If so, then we are related to him because we are parts of that whole. If we as parts of this mysterious whole can be conscious then why cannot the whole be as well. This sparks a whole set of questions and ideas like what is consciousness, etc., etc. But let's first of all see if this is true of the Gita's conception of God. Let's gather together all the relevant verses and look at them. There are probably only a handful that are relevant. We have the whole Gita here in Caleb's translation thanks to madanmohanji, so it should not be too hard to find them. Let's see what we turn up and what we can conclude from that.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Jul 24, 2010 16:35:13 GMT -6
For instance, I was fascinated by the pantheistic nature of the verse cited by gerard yesterday. Is the conception of God in the Gita pantheistic? In other words, is Krsna as represented in the Gita a personification of the whole? If so, then we are related to him because we are parts of that whole. If we as parts of this mysterious whole can be conscious then why cannot the whole be as well. This sparks a whole set of questions and ideas like what is consciousness, etc., etc. But let's first of all see if this is true of the Gita's conception of God. Let's gather together all the relevant verses and look at them. There are probably only a handful that are relevant. We have the whole Gita here in Caleb's translation thanks to madanmohanji, so it should not be too hard to find them. Let's see what we turn up and what we can conclude from that. I just took that one line I like and put "etc.,etc." to that. I like your question though of looking further at what the Gita says. But this question comes just a little too early for me as I was coincidentally just about to do a little study into the possibility that the view of God as presented in the Gita is a panentheistic and not a pantheistic view, perhaps along the lines of Ramanuja but that will take quite some time. (I also just ordered Philip Clayton's book, In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World (with a chapter by Keith Ward on Ramanuja). It hasn't arrived yet.) Panentheism is rapidly becoming hip and maybe we can prove that Sri Gita is the first postmodern classic! (I'm just dreaming out loud.) But I hope some other people might come up with something a bit sooner... And in the meantime: Wittgenstein: "If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him." PS, Maybe the word we're looking for is "trans-theism", a going beyond regular theism.
|
|