|
|
Post by VS on Jun 14, 2009 19:12:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 14, 2009 20:43:46 GMT -6
Come on Nitai you know Dawkins is not talking about the same thing Mahaprabhu talked about, not by a gazillion miles. He is just another distraction.
So what if infinites cannot be conceived of? Its not supposed to be conceived of, thats precisely the point. Typical, this kind of objection is redundant.
Atheism and love?
I am afraid you have to choose one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 14, 2009 21:18:49 GMT -6
Come on Nitai you know Dawkins is not talking about the same thing Mahaprabhu talked about, not by a gazillion miles. He is just another distraction. So what if infinites cannot be conceived of? Its not supposed to be conceived of, thats precisely the point. Typical, this kind of objection is redundant. Atheism and love? I am afraid you have to choose one. You really don't understand bhakti after all these years. That is what is typical. |
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 15, 2009 6:46:28 GMT -6
And you do?  There is nothing wrong with having an enthusiasm for Dawkins as you do, so long you don't mash it up to be the same message as Mahaprabhu's. My display of impatience with the imcompleteness of this new atheist movement is right up there with your frustration with the absurdities generated by Iskcon. We both have a right to each, respectively. And, hopefully, respecfully. |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 8:39:58 GMT -6
Nitai is onto something really interesting here. I had the same thought relative to rasika-bhakti a few days ago, and am very happy to see it here today: That it's more compatible with atheism than religion.
Since IGM has been discussed in this thread, and since I spent some years under their auspices, I feel it's appropriate to invoke them here for the sake of comparison. Any of us who were in ISKCON know that "atheism" was a big chip on the shoulders of its teachers. They were constantly maligned and spit upon in lectures, books and general mentalities. Meanwhile, ACBS was busy promoting a pious religiosity. Krishna was the "Supreme Personality of Godhead." The controller, the original source of everything, the ultimate enjoyer, the possessor of all opulences, etc. He spoke to heads of other religions about "God consciousness." I won't deny that I did learn from Prabhupad that one is ultimately to forget God's blinding amazingness and even his Godhood and enter into the infinitely more fulfilling vraja-lila; however, it is obvious that we all heard that in theory, but were advised to forget about it in the meantime and get busy teaching others to bow down to someone or something.
This religiosity - where people feel good and pious about believing in God, or following a doctrine - is something I associate with churches and youth groups; something that is wholly absent from my personality and wishes. And I'm painfully aware that, while I was being told not to even consider the topics of rasa, plenty of Vaishnavas elsewhere were busy experiencing something that was not an act of worship, but was a deep, internal fulfillment of what may just be the purpose of life.
I believe ACBS wanted people to become good, god-fearing individuals, who believed in something beyond hedonism. I don't think he wanted to teach anyone about the real message of GV/CV. He wanted a religious society, based on fundamentalist moralism and a union of church and state (or rather, subordinance of state to church). He was, ultimately, an evangelist. But not a teacher of true bhakti.
To quote the good John Lydon, "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 15, 2009 8:50:17 GMT -6
And you do? There is nothing wrong with having an enthusiasm for Dawkins as you do, so long you don't mash it up to be the same message as Mahaprabhu's. My display of impatience with the imcompleteness of this new atheist movement is right up there with your frustration with the absurdities generated by Iskcon. We both have a right to each, respectively. And, hopefully, respecfully. Yes, I guess I have learned something about it in the forty years I have been doing this. It is not a perfect understanding by any means, but it is an understanding that allows me sometimes to see the teachings of the guru even in the most unlikely sources, Dawkins, for instance. I am not saying that Dawkins and Mahaprabhu are saying the same thing. That would be crass and silly. Anyone can see that on the surface at least they appear to be saying exactly the opposite things. But I see an inner harmony that you and others apparently don't, a harmony that leads me to trust him (Dawkins, and Harris and Dennett) more readily than all these god-talkers who obviously have no idea what they are talking about and who share the same larcenous intent as IGM . So you want to disagree respectfully? I didn't get that from you yesterday. I must reassert however, though you don't see it this way, that true love cannot occur without atheism. It is however possible to have atheism without true love. This latter is what Dawkins has, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 15, 2009 8:57:24 GMT -6
We got cheated, so everyone gets their due... How about getting though, deal with reality?
About atheism, its good but only up to abedha. So its only half a hen there. Because when the personal kicks in, one must deal with inconceivability. And not just as an option either.
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 9:04:59 GMT -6
We got cheated, so everyone gets their due... How about getting though, deal with reality? About atheism, its good but only up to abedha. So its only half a hen there. Because when the personal kicks in, one must deal with inconceivability. And not just as an option either. I understand. But what I mean is that, since there is no theistic conception of Krishna in the actual vraja-lila, the notion of religiosity and theism as presented in the West may actually be a hindrance to devotion. There has been some talk, and Rupa Gosvami has discussed as well, as to how samskaras provide necessary "launch-pads" for understanding future devotional emotions/experiences/etc. If we create a "pious religion" samskara, we may be actually setting the rasika process back, whereas "atheism" may actually serve to expedite progress. I of course don't mean atheism in the traditional sense, wherein it would be pointless to pursue rasa because it would be a waste of time in a reality that lacks a god or higher purpose whatsoever. But the samskara of athestic sentiment may be more helpful than the impression of religiosity. |
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 15, 2009 9:11:08 GMT -6
If this is about whining about Iskcon and GM forever, then I must say, just take it, have it, I am not intersted in this perpetual whining at all. I probably care even less for IGM than all whiners here combined. Who cares about ACBS? Haven't we processed already everything there was to be processed about that one?
Is there any measure of reality beyond this monotone cry of "cheated, I was cheated..."?
Even if there never was an IGM, still atheism is half-a-hen stuff and therefore just another distraction. But you will never admit it because you guys have, guess what, IGM to prove you right!
|
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 15, 2009 9:17:35 GMT -6
Well you are not talking about traditional atheism but Dawkins and company are. So why mix the two? They are two very distinct things and the mixing up does not help much either side. In fact, it does a disservice to poor devils such as Dawkins. what does he actually know about the other half of reality? He has not a clue. Not a trace, obviously. If he did, he would be making quesitons, not challenging.
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 9:44:31 GMT -6
Well you are not talking about traditional atheism but Dawkins and company are. So why mix the two? They are two very distinct things and the mixing up does not help much either side. In fact, it does a disservice to poor devils such as Dawkins. what does he actually know about the other half of reality? He has not a clue. Not a trace, obviously. If he did, he would be making quesitons, not challenging. I'm not talking about Dawkins et al. at all. I'm just running with the interesting aside Nitai came up with. I don't mean to tie what I'm saying into any discussion of the merits or lack thereof of books by those guys. As for ISKCON I don't feel I was whining; I qualified it by noting that I was bringing it up for purposes of making an example in regard to my "atheism-samskara vs. religiosity-samskara" point. Besides, even if I were whining, maybe some of us have not entirely "processed" the experience yet. Maybe "whining" in your subjective view is actually an exorcism of sorts? I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so caustic! And as far as what I said is concerned, let's forget about Dawkins and them. Jeez, my first post on the forum gets me into an argument; the internet never ceases to amaze! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 15, 2009 9:52:00 GMT -6
Radhe I am not here to debate, ok , just my 2 cents worth. I enjoy reading about science especially about the cosmos and physics and I try to see where they fit in with my God worldview. I just want to share what I read and how I relate it to my GVism understanding. Nitai das said: Memes like genes are realThat is NOT correct. As Oxford molecular biologist turned theologian , Alistair McGrath says: There is no direct observational evidence for the existence of `memes' themselves. Dawkins is aware that his thesis is seriously underdetermined by the evidence. Another objection is that we don't know what memes are made of, or where they reside. Memes have not yet found their Watson and Crick; they even lack their Mendel. Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosomes. Nitai das to Subala: So how do you jump from memes, i.e. units of imitation, to illusions?Granting that memes are real, Subala’s jump from meme as cultural/intellectual replicator to illusion (mayavada) is not such a quantum leap. “Why is there something rather than nothing?” asked the 19-20th century German philosopher Martin Heiddeger. Being Christian, his question was influenced by the Christian faith whose concept of cosmic creation came from the Bible. When big bang theory as a point of singularity came the 5th century Christian philosopher St. Augustine was asked: “ Before the big bang is there time?” And I ask the same questions in a different form: Before the big bang is there something? If our thinking, feeling, sense of consciousness, sense of “I” comes from atomic/biological evolution and if meme’s existence is dependent on such atomic processes, what and where was “I” before the big bang? The answer is “I” am nothing. When “I” and everything in the physical world (which is made of matter) cease to exist therefore, because meme is dependent on the atomic evolution/processes, meme ceases to exist also. When meme dies “I” die. “I” and everything in the physical world turn into nothingness. Thus the essence of “I” and everything is nothing and what we see or feel, etc is not real. Because the truth is that there is nothing. Therefore just an illusion. Abour karma and samskara. As a GV I ask: If meme is a by-product of biological evolution then where does meme go in the juncture between this “I”s body to the next and in the infinite loop of succession of the jiva’s body changes in different worlds. Not much scope for the meme in the other infinite worlds. I don’t know why theists like us would want to believe in the meme concept. Dawkins is a militant atheist and out to convert. He clearly tell us his goal in The god Delusion: “If this book work as I intend, then readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down”. Dawkins says that meme is like a virus. And that our belief in God comes from memes. And that the “God meme” is like a virus transmitted from culture to culture like an infection that invade a healthy mind. Surely we, theist, don’t like to be labelled irrational, sick in the mind or insane. We, GVs believe that the “I” or the jiva has an inherent nature that transcends this physical time. And that the feeling of and the longing for transcendence is an intrinsic nature of the jivas. The cream of our siddhanta is embodied in the madhurya lila narrative of that sweet longing of the manjaris for Krishna. Surely we don’t see our longing for Krishna because of our separation from Him as just a bunch of memes. Anyway, nice forum you have here Nitaidasji. Advaitadas will not like it that Im talking about these things. He’s right. But somehow I guess, we can see God’s nature in nature. Jaya Sri Radhe-Krishna * Correction: "why there is something rather than nothing" was actually asked by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz an 18th century German philosopher and mathematician You raise a lot of interesting questions, Malati, and I am not altogether sure I understand some of them (like your reference to St Augustine and the Big Bang theory; surely this is anachronistic) but I think I can make some suggestions on why memetics is more than just an illusion and can be quite useful for understanding things like sadhusanga and sadhana, raganuga bhakti and so forth. While I am not ready perhaps to embrace the whole of evolutionary theory, I still don't see why it cannot be the very method used by Krsna to create the world or to bring higher forms of life into the world. Similar yet distinct evolutionary processes seem to abound in the world and this is even reflected the scriptural world. Krsna and Radha are almost completely absent from the Vedas and Upanisads. They only make their appearance in the Epics and Puranas and even then incompletely. Even the Bhagavata does not mention Radha by name. It is only in the world of poetry that she first appears. By the 15th-16th centuries Radha and Krsna are fully manifest and their union in Sri Gauranga is also manifest. Who knows perhaps an even higher or more confidential form of Mahaprabhu appeared in Prabhu Jagadbandhu Sundara. This all constitutes an evolution in our understanding of the nature of ultimate reality, and it points to the validity of evolution in other realms. One can even see it to some degree represented in the Dasa avatara, which is an idea that is old by now, going back as it does to the 19th century and Thakur Bhaktivinod. And this is almost certainly not the end of the story. Who knows what comes next in the evolutionary process of divine self-disclosure? I think describing religion as a virus is right on. People do catch it from others through some process and I would suggest that memetics is one way of thinking about it. All of the problems you raise with respect to memes can just as easily be raised with respect to the gunas or the samskaras. Where do they reside? How are they constituted in our minds and bodies? They are just explanatory schemes like memes, but a whole lot less useful in my opinion. I see memes as bits of code that make up something like programs on computers. Who knows where a particular piece of code resides in the memory of a computer at any given time? Moreover, those bits of code are always being moved. But, those bits of code are allowing me to converse with you and the rest of the readers of this forum now. They are real and have real effects. Now that Krsna comes into the world at some point and floods the meme pool with memes of a particular sort that lead to the creation of a virus which "infects" us with a certain kind of higher consciousness seems reasonable to me. Actually, I think it is more likely that he did not come at all. He merely sent the memes that were responsible for the creation of texts like the Bhagavata and Gita-govinda and so forth. However it happened, the memes or memeplexes are there for us to imitate and gain liberation with the help of. What gets liberated? Who knows? Maybe nothing. Maybe nothing actually goes to the spiritual realm. Perhaps when we gain liberation there is a pop! somewhere in the spiritual realm and we appear there in our shining new siddha-dehas. Everything that was us is gone or rather dissolves back into fundamental matter and everything that is us then is new. I see memetics only as a tool useful for understanding how we might progress on the path to ultimate reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 15, 2009 10:06:06 GMT -6
Well you are not talking about traditional atheism but Dawkins and company are. So why mix the two? They are two very distinct things and the mixing up does not help much either side. In fact, it does a disservice to poor devils such as Dawkins. what does he actually know about the other half of reality? He has not a clue. Not a trace, obviously. If he did, he would be making quesitons, not challenging. I'm not talking about Dawkins et al. at all. I'm just running with the interesting aside Nitai came up with. I don't mean to tie what I'm saying into any discussion of the merits or lack thereof of books by those guys. As for ISKCON I don't feel I was whining; I qualified it by noting that I was bringing it up for purposes of making an example in regard to my "atheism-samskara vs. religiosity-samskara" point. Besides, even if I were whining, maybe some of us have not entirely "processed" the experience yet. Maybe "whining" in your subjective view is actually an exorcism of sorts? I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so caustic! And as far as what I said is concerned, let's forget about Dawkins and them. Jeez, my first post on the forum gets me into an argument; the internet never ceases to amaze! ;D Great input, zvs. Don't worry about ST. He is a bit contentious at times, but says he is willing to respect you if you respect him. Still, I think he is a bit of a grouch. Well, so am I at times. Hey, I see you are a musician. Any music you might want to share with us? For some reason I thought you were in Finland or Sweden or something (based on our last commincations). |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 15, 2009 10:16:08 GMT -6
We got cheated, so everyone gets their due... How about getting though, deal with reality? About atheism, its good but only up to abedha. So its only half a hen there. Because when the personal kicks in, one must deal with inconceivability. And not just as an option either. No, the atheism does not have to do with the abheda part at all. It has to do with the bheda or personal part. It involves going beyond seeing Krsna as god. Learning to love him as an ordinary person and shrugging off whatever there is about him that might seem extraordinary. That kind of worldview is really best reflected in the worldviews of Dawkins and others. How touching that you pity him. Naturally he would be appalled if he thought we were trying to co-opt him. But, surely we're not religious. I'm not; are you? |
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 15, 2009 10:25:20 GMT -6
I am willing to respect regardless. But do we have to hear again, and again, of all things, "You don't know bhakti". well, tell us something we don't know. ;D
zvs, was that an argument or just strong, hefty confabulation?
|
|
