|
Post by malati on Jun 17, 2009 18:29:58 GMT -6
ZVS said: Does this contradict or enhance rasika theology? I.E., true bhava depends on forgetting the Godhood of Krishna, so in that sense, pure love is atheistic.
That does not follow. Forgetting the godhood of Krishna does not make the personality of Krishna non-existent. Krishna as the omnipotent, omnipresent, etc personality still exists.
Firstly, according to Dawkins worldview this physical world is the ONLY world – which is made of matter. Even our consciousness the “I”, thoughts, feelings and love are products of chemical procesess, evolution, neurons firings. As I explained many times in my previous posts if Dawkins should be consistent, being a materialist, he must tell us the nature and location of that meme in the context of physical. If he can’t or among you here can’t explain in the context of the physical the or those here who argue for the meme should concede defeat.
Regarding samskara, why don’t we go back to what we learned from the Srimad Bhagavatam that there are layers of reality. Physicist Paul Davies like Plato believe there are 2 worlds of reality but we GVs based on S. Bhagavatam know there are more. Love, like mathematics (all mathematicians, physicists claim that maths are not invented they are discovered, like they are out there waiting to be discovered ) belong to respective worlds of their own. Being a devotee love for me is our intrinsic nature as a jiva (spirit-soul) being parts and parcel of the supreme.
Ok, granting for a moment that meme is real, explain how it can carry information from monkey to chimpanzee to neanthertal to human, not to mention from this body to the next body to some other higher realm of reality for those who reap good sukriti.
Don’t you think following Ockham’s razor, the simple answer is that there are other layers and realms of reality (not just THIS one) for which law of karma, samskara , dreams, the mind, the intrinsic nature of human (what it means to be human), the “I”, spirit-soul reside?
If you want to dismantle my points at the same time claim to still be following Gaudiya Vaishnavism you have to cite points in the shastra that counter what I said.
Vaishnava Seminaraga: I don't know about science requiring objectivity, as you say. That's one of the first things you learn when you study science is that nothing can be truly objective. Even the observer falls within the catergory of the observed and whatever instrument is used to observe something, the data obtained from that instrument can only reflect what the technology of the instrument allows for.
Yes, you are talking of quantum physics here. Yes, everything in this physical world are a set of probabilities.
V S: Therefore even the earliest scientists realized their limitations.
That’s the whole point. You lost the debate.
V S: Science as far as I know is not claiming any "absolutes" or even total objectivity. Scientists just say that, "this is the current data we've obtained using such and such instruments". Nothing more. Nothing less. Not exactly right. The goal of science is to find patterns or regularity in the physical world.
V S: I'm still going to use the word "meme" in place of "samskara" for English speakers. Language is fluid, like liquid prem.
Good on you Subal for saying this. Replace meme with idea and you'll see what I mean. This is semantic aphasia. Meme theory must stay within it's Ultra Darwinist box where it truly belongs and remain a non sense!
Buddy said: don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth scientists are quite fond of making absolutist statements about what they believe to be objective truth gleaned from "science" and than denigrating anyone who dares to disagree.
Buddy you are on the mark here! Good on you!!
But: Try to argue with most scientists about the validity of the Big Bang theory or evolution and you will be treated like vermin while they make such non-absolute statements like "evolution is a fact, not a theory: that life on Earth during the past 3 billion years has evolved from single-celled organisms to complex and diverse creatures, including humans, is a fact." That is what is taught as science on the webpage of a highly respected university, from their chemistry department, in a section called Answers in Science
Buddy. in fairness to science, scientists came from a whole range of different worldviews so also sometimes they say the theory is the best at this stage. They do refine and change they theory when they come up with better ones. But what I hate is when science thinks they have the answer to questions such as: what is the meaning of life?
V Seminaraga: (The white women, they be mighty fine in my book.)
I’ll take note of that!
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 18, 2009 9:57:57 GMT -6
I said the other day that I don't think Mahaprabhu taught much. Here is an instruction that I think he did give from the Caitanya-bhagavata (again from Sri Hrdayananda Das Babaji Maharaja's little book): To all of you the Master gives this instruction. Listen in particular to the Mahamantra of Krsna's names: Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare The Master says "I have spoken this Mahamantra. With this, all of you do japa with perseverance." Now Sri Hrdayananda Das Babaji insists that this "with perseverance" really means with counting of the mantras. I tend to disagree with him on this point, but it is the firm belief and teaching of his sub-community of CV and I respect him for it. Thus, he adds: "In other words, counting while doing japa of the Mahamantra is the rule, because without counting, the japa of a mantra is fruitless." I leave it up to you to decide for yourselves. I can only say that the claim is not without merit. In general, it is the rule that a mantra, any authentic mantra, is to be counted when recited. Since the Mahamantra is a mantra, that rule should apply to it as well. Anyway, this is an instruction from Mahaprabhu. Interesting to note that he does not tell us how the world was created or what the first principles are and so forth and so on. He give us this mantra and tells us to chant with perseverance. The implication is that it is through the mantra that we come to know all that other stuff (if we want). In other words he gives us the key to understanding things as they are. Would you give some of your reasoning on why you think Mahaprabhu's followers weren't being honest when they portrayed him as a sometimes teacher of theology and philosophy? I don't think that Mahaprabhu's followers were not being honest (except maybe Krsnadasa Kaviraja). I think they were struggling to understand who he was. If you read the biographies of Mahaprabhu in order of their composition you notice that Mahaprabhu goes from someone who is believed to be divine, an incarnation of some sort, who has powerful religious and mystical experiences but he does not say very much about them (Murari Gupta's Kadaca, Kavikarnapura's first hagiography, and even the Caitanya Bhagavata) to someone who is always teaching someone about bhakti or rasa (Kavikarnapura's second hagiography and Krnsadas Kaviraja). I trust the earlier biographies more than the later. In the later (CC) Mahaprabhu is represented as teaching the Goswamis (Rupa and Sanatana) their own books. So it is made to look like the books of the Goswamis were dictated to them by Mahaprabhu. This is certainly false. Now, one can see a good motive in KdK for creating that fiction. He wanted the rest of the CV tradition to accept the books of the Goswamis as authoritative. It worked. Their works became the central core of the tradition, pushing the "schools" of Narahari Sarkara and of Srinatha Cakravartin and perhaps of others we no longer know of to the side. I don't think that one can argue rationally that Mahaprabhu never taught anything or that he did not have strong opinions on things. Those opinions are represented quite nicely in the Srinatha Cakravartin's famous verse: aaraadhyo bhagavaan vraje"satanayastaddhaama v.rndaavana.m ramyaa kaacidupaasanaa vrajavadhuuvarge.na yaa kalpitaa| "saastra.m bhaagavata.m pramaa.namamala.m premaa pumartho mahaan ittha.m gauramahaaprabhormatamatastatraadaro na.h para.h To be pleased (propitiated) is Bhagavan the Son of the Lord of Vraja, whose sacred home is Vrndavana. Charming is the method of adoration devised by the wives of Vraja. The scripture is the Bhagavata, a flawless authority, and preman is the greatest objective of humankind. Such are the views of Gaura Mahaprabhu. Therefore, our high respect is owed to them.
Still, he mostly "taught" by revealing the divine madness of Radhika and letting his followers work out the correct or best formulations. A fine example of this is that verse by Rupa which captured the very heart of what Mahaprabhu was feeling at the time. There are indications of this kind of relationship between Mahaprabhu and his followers throughout the biographies. Who wrote the Siksastaka is anyone's guess. Rupa believed that Maharpabhu did and that is good enough for most, maybe even a skeptic like me. Still, it also has the look of something composed by Svarupa Damodara as part of his missing kadaca or by Raghunatha Das, perhaps. At this late date it is hard to tell anything. And whether they are in fact by Mahaprabhu or not, they have become, for all intents and purposes, his verses.
|
|
|
Post by Sakhicharan Das on Jun 18, 2009 13:11:11 GMT -6
I don't think that Mahaprabhu's followers were not being honest (except maybe Krsnadasa Kaviraja). I think they were struggling to understand who he was. If you read the biographies of Mahaprabhu in order of their composition you notice that Mahaprabhu goes from someone who is believed to be divine, an incarnation of some sort, who has powerful religious and mystical experiences but he does not say very much about them (Murari Gupta's Kadaca, Kavikarnapura's first hagiography, and even the Caitanya Bhagavata) to someone who is always teaching someone about bhakti or rasa (Kavikarnapura's second hagiography and Krnsadas Kaviraja). I trust the earlier biographies more than the later. In the later (CC) Mahaprabhu is represented as teaching the Goswamis (Rupa and Sanatana) their own books. So it is made to look like the books of the Goswamis were dictated to them by Mahaprabhu. This is certainly false. Now, one can see a good motive in KdK for creating that fiction. He wanted the rest of the CV tradition to accept the books of the Goswamis as authoritative. It worked. Their works became the central core of the tradition, pushing the "schools" of Narahari Sarkara and of Srinatha Cakravartin and perhaps of others we no longer know of to the side. You made some very interesting statements here Nitai Ji. Especially the part about the schools of Narahari and Srinatha Cakravarti being pushed aside. I was preparing some material for a post on my blog about Narahari and Baradanga and came across this paragraph written by Dr. Kapoor. "The Gaura-nagari-vada of Narahari spread far and wide in Bengal. Srinivas and Narottam Thakur were also influenced by it. In recent times Siddha Sri Caitanya Das Babaji and Sri Vamsi Das Babaji were the prominent saints, whose upasana was of Gaura-nagari-vada." Imagine what CV would look like now if Narahari's school wasn't pushed aside like that. The focus would be much more on Gaura-rasa. I feel that Mahaprabhu and Nitaichand are being somewhat overlooked by the Vaisnavas. Often they don't recognize that Mahaprabhu is the supreme object of worship in Kali yuga. It was really refreshing for me to read what you said yesterday: Prema's true object is Radha and Krsna together, in flagrante delicto, if you will, or in other words, Gaura. I absolutely love residing in Sri Radhakund, but I miss the Gaura katha. It's been more than 2 weeks since I returned from Bengal and I am still in the habit of saying, "Jai Nitai!" to everyone instead of "Radhey! Radhey!"
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 18, 2009 15:52:20 GMT -6
Z VS said: Does this contradict or enhance rasika theology? I.E., true bhava depends on forgetting the Godhood of Krishna, so in that sense, pure love is atheistic.
That does not follow. Forgetting the godhood of Krishna does not make the personality of Krishna non-existent. Krishna as the omnipotent, omnipresent, etc personality still exists. Firstly, according to Dawkins worldview this physical world is the ONLY world – which is made of matter. Even our consciousness the “I”, thoughts, feelings and love are products of chemical procesess, evolution, neurons firings. As I explained many times in my previous posts if Dawkins should be consistent, being a materialist, he must tell us the nature and location of that meme in the context of physical. If he can’t or among you here can’t explain in the context of the physical the or those here who argue for the meme should concede defeat. Regarding samskara, why don’t we go back to what we learned from the Srimad Bhagavatam that there are layers of reality. Physicist Paul Davies like Plato believe there are 2 worlds of reality but we GVs based on S. Bhagavatam know there are more. Love, like mathematics (all mathematicians, physicists claim that maths are not invented they are discovered, like they are out there waiting to be discovered ) belong to respective worlds of their own. Being a devotee love for me is our intrinsic nature as a jiva (spirit-soul) being parts and parcel of the supreme. Ok, granting for a moment that meme is real, explain how it can carry information from monkey to chimpanzee to neanthertal to human, not to mention from this body to the next body to some other higher realm of reality for those who reap good sukriti. Don’t you think following Ockham’s razor, the simple answer is that there are other layers and realms of reality (not just THIS one) for which law of karma, samskara , dreams, the mind, the intrinsic nature of human (what it means to be human), the “I”, spirit-soul reside? If you want to dismantle my points at the same time claim to still be following Gaudiya Vaishnavism you have to cite points in the shastra that counter what I said.
Dear Malati, I apologize for any anger and/or confusion I seem to have caused in you. Perhaps I should clarify the purpose of my presence here. I am trying to process something in my past. When I first became a devotee, it was in ISKCON, by default. I read Prabhupada's books ceaselessly, but I lived in a town that was far away from any temples. As such, I did not have any "sanga," just me and the books. Therefore, the politicism and restrictions of ISKCON society did not touch me at that time. I gleaned, rather quickly, that Caitanya revealed something special, and that the goal of all the sAdhana I was practicing was to realize a confidential, intimate relationship with Radha-Krishna. This knowledge and desire was quickly stifled by my peers and instructions from "authority" figures. When I left Krishnaism altogether in a cloud of agnostic doubt a couple years later, I still had not fulfilled my most cherished desire from that time in my life: To practice nirjana-bhAjan among the sAdhus in Braj. This remains an unfulfilled desire, though philosophically, I am no longer a Gaudiya Vaishnava or even a theist. So, I am trying to understand my remaining desire in the context of who I currently am. I need the association of devotees who have gotten closer to my unfulfilled desire in order to understand why I can't forget about it, and if it is still relevant to me. So when I ask a rhetorical question like the one you open your reply to me with, it is not to advance a view, make an argument, etc. It is to instigate or participate in discussion that opens up the intricacies of gauDIya-vedAnta to me and gets me to see them in lights I was never allowed to turn on before. As this site belongs to a very open-minded, self-challenging individual (i.e., "Sane Vaishnavism," etc.), I feel comfortable doing that here. So please don't think I am challenging the siddhAnta while claiming to be an adherent, or some other unwholesome, subversive thing like that. I am simply a confused human being who enjoys your conversations and wants to make such discussion a part of his life and consciousness. I hope that any further interactions with me will be understood in this context, if that's okay with everyone. ZVS
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 18, 2009 16:11:43 GMT -6
Now, one can see a good motive in KdK for creating that fiction. He wanted the rest of the CV tradition to accept the books of the Goswamis as authoritative. It worked. Their works became the central core of the tradition, pushing the "schools" of Narahari Sarkara and of Srinatha Cakravartin and perhaps of others we no longer know of to the side. Do you believe, then, that Rupa and Sanatan were genuinely nominated by Mahaprabhu to write and teach the tradition? Or perhaps they just rose to prominence above the other teachers of the tradition at that time, as in the ones you cited? What then is the importance of being "rUpAnuga" - Was he the only/original source of manjari-bhav? What were the other pushed-aside schools teaching?
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 18, 2009 16:17:01 GMT -6
Now, the substantial reply... That does not follow. Forgetting the godhood of Krishna does not make the personality of Krishna non-existent. Krishna as the omnipotent, omnipresent, etc personality still exists. Right. I am talking about the subjective experience of the siddha. The objective reality of Krishna's Godhood would remain, regardless. I'm sure he would side with the neurologists on the location of memories/impressions/conditionings in the physical brain. I must say that I don't find Occam's Razor to be the best working principle by which to determine truth. Especially in the context of the complexities of vedAntic philosophies. I mean, "spontaneous generation" was once scientific, and that was certainly the simplest answer.
|
|
|
Post by Your Servant on Jun 18, 2009 17:01:30 GMT -6
I am missing mojo, aren't you missing mojo?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 17:30:51 GMT -6
Would you give some of your reasoning on why you think Mahaprabhu's followers weren't being honest when they portrayed him as a sometimes teacher of theology and philosophy? I don't think that Mahaprabhu's followers were not being honest (except maybe Krsnadasa Kaviraja). I think they were struggling to understand who he was. If you read the biographies of Mahaprabhu in order of their composition you notice that Mahaprabhu goes from someone who is believed to be divine, an incarnation of some sort, who has powerful religious and mystical experiences but he does not say very much about them (Murari Gupta's Kadaca, Kavikarnapura's first hagiography, and even the Caitanya Bhagavata) to someone who is always teaching someone about bhakti or rasa (Kavikarnapura's second hagiography and Krnsadas Kaviraja). I trust the earlier biographies more than the later. In the later (CC) Mahaprabhu is represented as teaching the Goswamis (Rupa and Sanatana) their own books. So it is made to look like the books of the Goswamis were dictated to them by Mahaprabhu. This is certainly false. Now, one can see a good motive in KdK for creating that fiction. He wanted the rest of the CV tradition to accept the books of the Goswamis as authoritative. It worked. Their works became the central core of the tradition, pushing the "schools" of Narahari Sarkara and of Srinatha Cakravartin and perhaps of others we no longer know of to the side. I don't think that one can argue rationally that Mahaprabhu never taught anything or that he did not have strong opinions on things. Those opinions are represented quite nicely in the Srinatha Cakravartin's famous verse: aaraadhyo bhagavaan vraje"satanayastaddhaama v.rndaavana.m ramyaa kaacidupaasanaa vrajavadhuuvarge.na yaa kalpitaa| "saastra.m bhaagavata.m pramaa.namamala.m premaa pumartho mahaan ittha.m gauramahaaprabhormatamatastatraadaro na.h para.h To be pleased (propitiated) is Bhagavan the Son of the Lord of Vraja, whose sacred home is Vrndavana. Charming is the method of adoration devised by the wives of Vraja. The scripture is the Bhagavata, a flawless authority, and preman is the greatest objective of humankind. Such are the views of Gaura Mahaprabhu. Therefore, our high respect is owed to them.
Still, he mostly "taught" by revealing the divine madness of Radhika and letting his followers work out the correct or best formulations. A fine example of this is that verse by Rupa which captured the very heart of what Mahaprabhu was feeling at the time. There are indications of this kind of relationship between Mahaprabhu and his followers throughout the biographies. Who wrote the Siksastaka is anyone's guess. Rupa believed that Maharpabhu did and that is good enough for most, maybe even a skeptic like me. Still, it also has the look of something composed by Svarupa Damodara as part of his missing kadaca or by Raghunatha Das, perhaps. At this late date it is hard to tell anything. And whether they are in fact by Mahaprabhu or not, they have become, for all intents and purposes, his verses. O.K But since Nimai Pandit was known as an erudite and imposing speaker, it's very possible that Mahaprabhu was a teacher just like Krishnadas portrays him. Is just exhibiting ecstatic symptoms with rarely speaking on philosophy enough to gain the following he had, e.g. scholars? That type of behavior may inspire common people to accept him as special, but in order to gain the following he had I think probably Krishnadas's version of his life is not unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Nomojo on Jun 18, 2009 18:00:36 GMT -6
Mojo he be a mofo. He is lurking around in the shadows. No need to miss him. He'll pop in when the mood strikes him. That could be at any time. It might not happen at all. Who knows. He is like the howling wind that rustles the leaves of the ficus trees on the plain.
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jun 18, 2009 18:55:45 GMT -6
Jai Sri Krishna
ZVS, no worries. I dont get angry at anyone, at least not for long a time. I have no ill-feelings for anyone, to be honest. Although I can be very honest about my opinions. I like reading debates.
Stay put here and learn things from very sincere and learned devotees like NItaidas and others here. I'm learning a lot from a diverse of ideas here.
When i say I go for simple reason, Ockham's, what I mean is that since I always think I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, my approach is to see what GVism says and work from there. Like trying to see how ideas fit into my GVism worldview. Holistically could be a word to describe it.
All the best in your search for the meaning of life.
|
|
|
Post by YoBro on Jun 18, 2009 21:44:33 GMT -6
we needs us some howling wind to shake the trailler park rund here man
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jun 25, 2009 19:02:39 GMT -6
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. Firstly, according to Dawkins worldview this physical world is the ONLY world – which is made of matter. Even our consciousness the “I”, thoughts, feelings and love are products of chemical procesess, evolution, neurons firings. As I explained many times in my previous posts if Dawkins should be consistent, being a materialist, he must tell us the nature and location of that meme in the context of physical. If he can’t or among you here can’t explain in the context of the physical the or those here who argue for the meme should concede defeat. It is wondrous to me how anyone can think that the above points make any sense at all. Leaving aside the fact that Alistair McGrath desperately wants fame by attaching himself to Dawkins' coat-tails by writing two books denigrating his ideas, yet being unable to come up with any interesting answers himself, the meme theory is actually a good theory in explaining how ideas spread. Recently, a video was posted on the TED website of an ex-cult member who attributed her brainwashing experiences to memetics. Like viruses, they invade and attack a weak immune system. Anyway, apart from all of that, the expectation and demand for memes to be explainable in physical terms is a bit on the ludicrous side. While it is true that memes have not yet found their Crick, Watson or Mendel (and throwing in these big names isn't impressive, because it was a completely irrelevant point to make) it remains to be seen whether there is any solid evidence for the memetic theory. But I'll explain why any evidence won't be found in the physical realm: because the very idea of memes is that they are ideas. How solid is a thought? Can a thought be explained in physical terms? We can talk about neurons, synaptic vesicles, and so on, but what is a thought? By the way, this doesn't mean that a thought that takes place in a mind is mental, "spiritual", or "subtle" belonging to some "subtle" or "spiritual" realm as theists would have it. I don't believe in that. But what I do say is that the concept of demanding physical evidence for a meme, an idea, a thought - is ridiculous. There is no question of anybody "conceding defeat" because the premises are misguided.
|
|
|
Post by Hemala on Jun 25, 2009 19:17:38 GMT -6
"By the way, this doesn't mean that a thought that takes place in a mind is mental, "spiritual", or "subtle" belonging to some "subtle" or "spiritual" realm as theists would have it. I don't believe in that."
Believe whatever you wish, Brainiac. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jun 29, 2009 19:39:06 GMT -6
Believe whatever you wish, Brainiac. ;D Hello to you too, Jijaji. Your smile hasn't changed in ten years.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jun 30, 2009 11:48:19 GMT -6
Hmmm. Despite our last exchange (page 3) over a year ago, it is plainly evident that buddysattva still hasn't taken my advice to go back to school and get an education. On second thoughts, perhaps I am being too hard on Buddy-boy. Maybe he does have some interesting questions that are thought by many. The problem is that he does not phrase his questions as such, but phrases them as certainties. As if he possesses a level of knowledge and understanding that is irrefutable. After observing Buddyboy and his internet antics for, hmm, about 8 years now (?), this is all I can expect from him. The level of ignorance in his post is stratospheric (possibly more, but I'm being nice here) and I wouldn't know where to begin.
|
|