What book are you currently reading?

[Sakhicharan Das]

Here's a book that I haven't read, but am thinking about reading. I have been interested in reading this book for quite some time and I just noticed that it is for sale in Loi Bazaar at Ras Bihari Lal $ Sons. It is called Pilgrims of the Stars - autobiography of two yogis, by Dilip Kumar Roy and Indira Devi. Many of you might be familiar with Dilip Kumar Roy from his exchanges with Krishnaprem in Yogi Sri Krishnaprem. Anyone read it or has something to say about it?

[Nitaidas]

Jun 25, 2009 6:18:48 GMT -6 @Sanjay said:

The point is this: one does not have to read Dawkins meticulously to know where he is coming from. Like, one does not have to go into a McDonald's to know what goes on in there. I never been in one myself but I know its about cheap, unfit for humans 'food', certain type of consumers, etc. Especially for us devotees, we certainly have some accumulated sukriti to know intuitively (from the guidance inside) that someone who does not feel the mystery of love is someone who misses the point of existence. Of course we have read pieces and bits of Dawkins ideas - how else would we be commenting? But the moment we hear that he is an atheist, that there is not meaning to life, we as devotees, from our own speck of an awkening to the Beloved inside, know that what Dawkins is saying is an unfortunate blunder. And its no surprise at all to us that Dawkins talks about meaninglessness to life - its completely predictable and so what is there to read any further from this guy? I mean, if it is one's job as an academic to study this type of people, then its fit. But a devotee of God does not need to be told whether there is God or not, and moreover, whether there is meaning to existing. He knows in his heart what the truth is.

This is why as far as civilized societies go, individuals are secured the right to express their very personal religious feelings.

Dawkins may have approved of Hinduism alongside with Budhism because he may have concluded (very rustically, I must say: that pantheism is a rustic form of atheism. In other words, so long as the conclusion is voidism, Dawkins approves of it.

Why of course one has to read Dawkins meticulously if one wants to understand him and certainly if one wants to comment on him in any meaningful way. Sure, you may have read little bits an pieces taken out of context, probably not even directly from him but from someone who has an axe to grind. I think his book is really a profoundly religious book. He really approaches the world with an awe and respect. We should be ashamed that we don't feel that way about the world considering that we consider it to be Krsna's work. Well, actually it is Radha's work through her expansion as Maya-sakti (even better!). Here is something typical of the way Dawkins regards the world. This just happens to be a quote from Albert Einstein:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.


This is how Dawkins also feels about it. Einstein puts it even better a little later (again from Dawkins' The God Delusion):

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.


If you guys would get beyond your own biases and preconceptions you might have discovered this for yourselves. This could very well be the way Krsna is now manifesting himself. Remember ye yathA mAM prapadyante ... ? I am finding Dawkins an extraordinarily uplifting and religious book. He does not say that life is meaningless at all. The very discovery of the wonders of the universe and the amazement at what one finds all around us is the meaning he and others see in things. I think Dawkins really does feel the mystery. Perhaps it is you who don't.

Any movement in the world that attempts to destroy primitive religions (like Christiantiy, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and to a lesser degree Buddhism) is in my book a good thing. We need to rid ourselves of these primitive and childish religions and of these primitive and childish ideas of God. We really need a new idea of God, maybe that is a better way of putting it than calling it a new atheism, and I think the madhurya aspect of Krsna joined with Radhika or Gaura or Nityananda may well fit that bill.

As for your imaginations about being guided from within, it is precisely those kinds of dangerous justifications for not doing your homework or for thinking of yourself as somehow special or more plugged in or better than others, that I refer to as insanities and that I hope will be overcome and rejected in any kind of new sane Vaisnavism.

[Tapas]

Ok Nitai, you like Dawkins and thats fine. To each his own. I maintain my position that I don't believe I need to read him meticulously. There are so many things one hears throughout life. Dawkins is not saying anything new. And life is too short for me to pay attention to Dawkins meticulously. I think its ok for me to dismiss him after hearing the opinion of individuals whom I respect and trust and who have read Dawkins meticulously themselves.

That said, in the vein of "to each his own", I like to extend here my sentiments to Shiva over the demise of Michael Jackson today. I have never cared for Shiva's belief that MJ was an incarnation of Krishna. But I imagine that he must be sad on this occasion. So I respect his feelings and wish him all the best.

[TJ]

Nitai: As for your imaginations about being guided from within, it is precisely those kinds of dangerous justifications for not doing your homework or for thinking of yourself as somehow special or more plugged in or better than others, that I refer to as insanities and that I hope will be overcome and rejected in any kind of new sane Vaisnavism.

There was a time when this type of talk would intimidate me. Not anymore. I am no longer afraid of bullies. Yes, you are right, I think there is a tremendous amount of improvement I need to undergo. Perhaps it will take lifetimes. But I also think that astonishingly I have received a gift which makes me sure in a very sweet yet detached way. Their way.

[TW]

I am reading I DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS by Chris Hedges

Here's a passage:

The battle between these new atheists and the religious fundamentalists engages two bizarre subsets of American culture. One distorts the scientific theory of evolution, applying it to complex social, economic and political systems it was never designed to explain. The other insists that hte six-day story of creation in Genesis is fact and Jesus will descend from the sky to establish the kingdom of God on earth. Neither God nor science, however, will protect us from the destructive forces within human history and human nature. We are not progressing morally as a species. We are not headed towards uplands of sunlight and harmony, toward collective salvation. The technological advances made by human societies have empowered, in equal measure, those dedicated to preserving and protecting life, and those dedicated to violence and industrial sauther. The battle underway in the United States is not between religion and science. It is a battle between two utopian forms fo faith. These antagonists trade absurdity for absurdity. They show that the danger is not religion or science. The danger is the fundamentalist midnset itself

[Nitaidas]

Jun 25, 2009 19:00:24 GMT -6 @TW said:

I am reading I DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS by Chris Hedges

Here's a passage:

The battle between these new atheists and the religious fundamentalists engages two bizarre subsets of American culture. One distorts the scientific theory of evolution, applying it to complex social, economic and political systems it was never designed to explain. The other insists that hte six-day story of creation in Genesis is fact and Jesus will descend from the sky to establish the kingdom of God on earth. Neither God nor science, however, will protect us from the destructive forces within human history and human nature. We are not progressing morally as a species. We are not headed towards uplands of sunlight and harmony, toward collective salvation. The technological advances made by human societies have empowered, in equal measure, those dedicated to preserving and protecting life, and those dedicated to violence and industrial sauther. The battle underway in the United States is not between religion and science. It is a battle between two utopian forms fo faith. These antagonists trade absurdity for absurdity. They show that the danger is not religion or science. The danger is the fundamentalist midnset itself

I'm afraid I don't believe in Chris Hedges. He apparently got his butt kicked by Christopher Hitchens a while back.

See the link here.

[TW]

more from I DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS:

"The question is not whether God exists. It is whether we contemplate or are utterly indifferent to the transcendent, that which cannot be measured or quantified, that which lies beyond the reach of rational deduction. We all encounter this aspect of existence, in love, beauty, alienation, leneliness, suffering, good, evil and the reality of death. These powerful, non rational, super-real forces in human life are the domain or religion. All cutures have struggled to give words to these mysteries and moments of transcendence. God - and different culture have given God many names and many attributes - is that which works upon us and through us to find meaning and relevance in a morally neutral universe. Religion is our finite, flawed and imperfect expression of the infinite. The experience of transcendence - the struggle to acknowledge the infinite - need not be attributed to an external being called God. As Karen Armstrong and others have pointed out, the belief in a personal God can, in fact, be antireligious. But the religious impluse addresses something just as concrete as the pursuit of sicientific or historical knowledge: it addresses the human need for the sacred. God is, as Thomas Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. God is a search, a way to frame the questions. God is a call to reverence.
Human beings come ingrained with this impulse. Buddhists speak of nirvana in words that are nearly identical to those employed by many monotheists to describe God. This impulse asks: What are we? Why are we here? What, if anything, are we supposed to do? What does it all mean?
Science and reason, while they can illuminate these questions, can definitely answer none of them.

[Ekantin]

Sakhicharan, I think I have heard of this Indra Devi. But it is possible that I may be thinking of the wrong Indra Devi. Could you tell a little more about her, please?

Jun 25, 2009 21:52:51 GMT -6 @TW said:

This impulse asks: What are we? Why are we here? What, if anything, are we supposed to do? What does it all mean? Science and reason, while they can illuminate these questions, can definitely answer none of them.

This Chris Hedges person should try reading some Julian Baggini. Perhaps then he may find out how reason can answer his questions.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 25, 2009 18:47:39 GMT -6 @TJ said:

Nitai: As for your imaginations about being guided from within, it is precisely those kinds of dangerous justifications for not doing your homework or for thinking of yourself as somehow special or more plugged in or better than others, that I refer to as insanities and that I hope will be overcome and rejected in any kind of new sane Vaisnavism.

There was a time when this type of talk would intimidate me. Not anymore. I am no longer afraid of bullies. Yes, you are right, I think there is a tremendous amount of improvement I need to undergo. Perhaps it will take lifetimes. But I also think that astonishingly I have received a gift which makes me sure in a very sweet yet detached way. Their way.

I don't mean to intimidate you. I just want you to stop being so stupid, for your own good, you see. Knowledge does not get into your head unless you put it there. What you are talking about is not cultivating Krsna (KrsnAnuzIlana), it is cultivating laziness (AlasAnuzIlana). Expecting Krsna to do all the work is wrong.

[TW]

Thats not what the New York Times says. The NYT likes Hedges very much. Wasn't The New York Times your choice source of unbiased information/opinion?

Well never mind, I don't believe in Dawkins and you rebute my Hedges right back. So, should I just stop quoting my source and hear only yours or...?

[TJ]

Ok Nitai now resort to insulting, very typical, very Nitai-like. "When I fail, due to my own stupidity, let me just call the other person stupid, that way I am sure to remain in knowledge." What a master of an eye-opener. What a taste of knowledge. Can't wait for more of that mercy.

[TW]

What you are talking about, Nitai, is not KrsnAnuzIlana, its arrogance and disrespect for the experience of another.

[Indra]

So what happened Ekantin? Gaudiya Repercussions got a bit too unscientific for you?

[Nitaidas]

Jun 25, 2009 22:07:47 GMT -6 @TJ said:

Ok Nitai now resort to insulting, very typical, very Nitai-like. "When I fail, due to my own stupidity, let me just call the other person stupid, that way I am sure to remain in knowledge." What a master of an eye-opener. What a taste of knowledge. Can't wait for more of that mercy.

Sorry. I refuse to be shamed by idiots like you. I'm not the stupid one here claiming to have some special source of knowledge that no one else does or that no one else can test or falsify. Knowledge that cannot be falsified is no knowledge at all. The world is full of fakes like you. But I"m not buying what you're selling.

[Sakhicharan Das]

Jun 25, 2009 21:56:49 GMT -6 Ekantin said:

Sakhicharan, I think I have heard of this Indra Devi. But it is possible that I may be thinking of the wrong Indra Devi. Could you tell a little more about her, please?

Her name is actually, Indira Devi. She became the disciple of Dilip Kumar Roy. She was quite spiritually gifted in that she would sometimes unexpectedly enter into samadhi. She would also have visions of demigods/goddesses. She had a special gift that she would hear lovely, inspiring songs. She would dictate them daily. It is believed that these songs were sung to her by Mirabai in person. You can read more about Dilip Kumar Roy and Indira Devi here -> www.harikrishnamandirindiraniloy.com/index.htm