|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 16, 2022 13:20:48 GMT -6
I guess I have shown my hand, in case there were any doubts before. I don't love Krsna. What is worse is that it may be that I cannot love him, if by loving him I have to accept the idea that he will throw people into a hell without any hope of redemption. I just can't love such a Krsna any more than I can love a Yahweh, who condoned the mass slaughter of whole peoples, or a Jesus for whom denial of the holy spirit is the one unforgivable sin. Am I taking Prabodhananda too seriously here? Shouldn't I realize that he did not really mean what he said? Shouldn't I realize that he really didn't want anyone to go to hell permanently? He was just issuing a warning. But, how does one know that? Maybe I should just suck it up and let Krsna be what he is. If he wants to send people off for eternal damnation that is his business. I can't change him. But, how can I hang out with people who are not horrified at the idea of the suffering of other people? To love Krsna does one have to become heartless towards everyone else? Anyway, fair warning. This is a site run by someone who does not love Krsna. Those of you who love Krsna or who want to love Krsna might want to find your sanga somewhere else. Well I’m responding to a post that Nitai das made 12 years ago lol. I don’t believe in eternal hell or really hell at all. Maybe hell is a tormented consciousness or something, but as an actual place I’m not so sure. However, I thought of these verses when you talked about not loving Krishna if He sends ppl to hell. (Btw I have no love for Krishna either) Let Kṛṣṇa tightly embrace this maidservant who has fallen at His lotus feet, or let Him trample Me or break My heart by never being visible to Me. He is a debauchee, after all, and can do whatever He likes, but still He alone, and no one else, is the worshipable Lord of My heart.’ Text 48: “I am a maidservant at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. He is the embodiment of transcendental happiness and mellows. If He likes He can tightly embrace Me and make Me feel oneness with Him, or by not giving Me His audience, He may corrode My mind and body. Nevertheless, it is He who is the Lord of My life. Text 49: “My dear friend, just hear the decision of My mind. Kṛṣṇa is the Lord of My life in all conditions, whether He shows Me affection or kills Me by giving Me unhappiness. Text 50: “Sometimes Kṛṣṇa gives up the company of other gopīs and becomes controlled, mind and body, by Me. Thus He manifests My good fortune and gives others distress by performing His loving affairs with Me. Text 51: “Or, since after all He is a very cunning, obstinate debauchee with a propensity to cheat, He takes to the company of other women. He then indulges in loving affairs with them in front of Me to give distress to My mind. Nevertheless, He is still the Lord of My life
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 17, 2022 11:59:28 GMT -6
I guess I have shown my hand, in case there were any doubts before. I don't love Krsna. What is worse is that it may be that I cannot love him, if by loving him I have to accept the idea that he will throw people into a hell without any hope of redemption. I just can't love such a Krsna any more than I can love a Yahweh, who condoned the mass slaughter of whole peoples, or a Jesus for whom denial of the holy spirit is the one unforgivable sin. Am I taking Prabodhananda too seriously here? Shouldn't I realize that he did not really mean what he said? Shouldn't I realize that he really didn't want anyone to go to hell permanently? He was just issuing a warning. But, how does one know that? Maybe I should just suck it up and let Krsna be what he is. If he wants to send people off for eternal damnation that is his business. I can't change him. But, how can I hang out with people who are not horrified at the idea of the suffering of other people? To love Krsna does one have to become heartless towards everyone else? Anyway, fair warning. This is a site run by someone who does not love Krsna. Those of you who love Krsna or who want to love Krsna might want to find your sanga somewhere else. Well I’m responding to a post that Nitai das made 12 years ago lol. I don’t believe in eternal hell or really hell at all. Maybe hell is a tormented consciousness or something, but as an actual place I’m not so sure. However, I thought of these verses when you talked about not loving Krishna if He sends ppl to hell. (Btw I have no love for Krishna either) Let Kṛṣṇa tightly embrace this maidservant who has fallen at His lotus feet, or let Him trample Me or break My heart by never being visible to Me. He is a debauchee, after all, and can do whatever He likes, but still He alone, and no one else, is the worshipable Lord of My heart.’ Text 48: “I am a maidservant at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. He is the embodiment of transcendental happiness and mellows. If He likes He can tightly embrace Me and make Me feel oneness with Him, or by not giving Me His audience, He may corrode My mind and body. Nevertheless, it is He who is the Lord of My life. Text 49: “My dear friend, just hear the decision of My mind. Kṛṣṇa is the Lord of My life in all conditions, whether He shows Me affection or kills Me by giving Me unhappiness. Text 50: “Sometimes Kṛṣṇa gives up the company of other gopīs and becomes controlled, mind and body, by Me. Thus He manifests My good fortune and gives others distress by performing His loving affairs with Me. Text 51: “Or, since after all He is a very cunning, obstinate debauchee with a propensity to cheat, He takes to the company of other women. He then indulges in loving affairs with them in front of Me to give distress to My mind. Nevertheless, He is still the Lord of My life Thanks, Avadhutadasji, for bringing to light a passage I wrote a good while back in which I am busy virtue signaling, only we or at least I didn't have a name for it then. I am more virtuous than Krsna! It is incredible how subtly arrogance can creep into one's thinking. It must have provided a warm, fuzzy feeling to me then, to think I was so good to be thinking about the sufferings of other people. Anyway, I still don't love Krsna and I know that given the choice of embracing me or trampling me under his feet, he will choose the latter. Still, I chant his name and offer him food. As Nietzsche put it so well, If you gaze long into an abyss (eternal separation from Krsna), the abyss will also gaze into thee (it will come to be).
|
|
|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 17, 2022 18:32:38 GMT -6
Oh I think he might embrace you to be honest. I think one of the IGM memes (and maybe even earlier) is to make Krishna seem like a autocratic judge. My understanding is that Krishna is just looking for love and for people to have fun with. He’d probably get a kick out of your irreverent mood. Just think about how Radhas sakhis talk to him.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 18, 2022 11:21:38 GMT -6
Oh I think he might embrace you to be honest. I think one of the IGM memes (and maybe even earlier) is to make Krishna seem like a autocratic judge. My understanding is that Krishna is just looking for love and for people to have fun with. He’d probably get a kick out of your irreverent mood. Just think about how Radhas sakhis talk to him. Thanks for your vote of confidence, Avadhutadasji. The way I see it it is a win/win situation. The way I read those verses you quoted is this, whether he tramples me under his feet or embraces me, I am good because I still (or will, hopefully) have Krsna-prema (he will always be my lord (lover), this last is Krsna prema speaking). Krsna prema is such a powerful thing (it is a small piece of Radha's own heart) that it makes Krsna himself irrelevant. It does not matter whether he is present or not. In fact, his actual presence is a let down. One is wrapped in the warm lep (লেপ) of Krsna prema no matter where Krsna is.
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Feb 18, 2022 11:57:01 GMT -6
If I may interject, it seems to me that such statements as 'spurn me with thy feet' are made under the extreme stress of passion. There is a funny passage in Midsummer Nights' Dream where the jilted Helena remarks.
Demetrius; Or, rather, do I not in plainest truth Tell you, I do not nor cannot love you?
Helena; And even for that do I love you the more. I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius, The more you beat me, I will fawn on you: Use me but as your spaniel, spurn me, strike me, Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave, Unworthy as I am, to follow you. What worser place can I beg in your love, - And yet a place of high respect with me,- Than to be used as you use your dog?
hehehehe
|
|
|
Post by meeno8 on Feb 19, 2022 15:21:28 GMT -6
Love when persons quote the Bard!
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Feb 19, 2022 22:03:15 GMT -6
Since Yahweh is mentioned above it makes me think of our deepest fears. We often want Krsna to be better than he actually is. Yahweh can be like an epitome of what we don't want in Krsna, and this is how he is great. Insipid, boring, depressing, ridiculous, jealous... Oh wait… Jealousy perhaps is in Krsna too and we may like it... There is a scene where three strangers on a mission visit Abraham. I am inclined to think that Yahweh himself is talking to Abraham, asking about Sarah. And then he reproaches Sarah for not immediately believing in his blessing to have a child in her old age. The way he does this creates the image of a misanthropic, paranoid, picky old man. “No Sara, you didn’t believe in God’s power, no, I heard you giggling!” It is as if Yahweh, or his representative, gained power last week, is not yet used to it, and is still on the platform of utsaha-mayi embracing a sudden luck. Then follows negotiation with Abraham regarding Sodom operation of sinners destruction. And this part highlights how all of this looks like some sadist suppression. In the end of the day Yahweh just torture you in his own way but similar to that of Prabodhananda. Thus we can understand how torture from Krsna is inevitable, even if he doesn’t want it. Such is the quality of distinguished and special expectations - be it with attractive, disgusting or even neutral - to bring about incompleteness.
There are many, many beautiful decorations for the dying - the external meaning of many religions that care about the deep peace of people. The external value appears as the Cargo effect though. Always there are keepers of tradition who do not understand the inner essence, who imitate its external expression, accessible to perception. The external essence is easier to show, easier to repeat. But this is no reason to believe that the inner essence was not and is not there. Such traditions as Christianity, Judaism, Kabbalah, Freemasonry carry the deepest insight.
How it works? It may be revealed that Yahweh is something deeper than we think at first. He may not be just God, and his God feature may be a functional detail in the light of many patterns connected. Similarly, killing of innocent people by Krsna and Balarama (washerman in Mathura, Romaharsana in Naimisaranya) may be not just relationship of God and people but some other kind of relationship, absolutely different in meaning. In Vraja-lila there are some gods involved - Siva, Surya, Katyayani, Brahma, Indra - and they show how God is just a participant of a drama. Not even a participant - a decoration, detail. A detail can have various functions depending on context. Those are just little parts of the complex drama. The puzzles, dramas may have some levels of meaning (see pattern of four rabbis in the garden). The religion feature of the dramatic mythological archetypes could be well just their external package.
Through the ability to catch many deep allegories, through study of different cultures, mythology, we can strengthen our perception of rasa. Gradually, in various representations, we see repeating patterns, archetypes that connect different cultural layers. Ultimately, one simple principle (nature) has no even slightest difference for individual specific manifestations, no matter how complex they may be. We can come closer to understanding of this principle through the universal theatre. A person can play any role, imitating it only externally or understanding it deeply.
While Abhinavagupta claimed that any generic drama is capable of evoking rasa, for Rupa, only one drama could produce true rasa: the divine drama — the Lila — of Krsna. (Shital Sharma 2006) I can reconcile both the ideas.
On the one hand, the whole existence is twisted on a multitude of personal dramas and manifests itself only in it. Dramas for the self are only possible meanings that can be found. There are no other values. And so we can appreciate the nuance in Abhinavagupta's theory of rasa that rasa can only be experienced by the audience and not by the actor.
In Rupa’s system, however, the devotee becomes an active participant in Krsna’s drama, and the intensity of the experience of rasa depends on how engaged and involved that participation becomes. (ibid.) This is a very important point, because once we get carried away with something, it becomes quite real. Dreams, movie plot, books or games, characters, roles - it's all as real as it is fascinating. But in order to notice this, we need to learn to consider the infatuation itself. Therefore, deep infatuation is very important. In this - the meaning of the exclusivity of one drama. Deep infatuation is not important in itself, infatuation should be noticed in its dynamics. This attention to direction of attention is like the flower buds on the lata. Thus we can see that any person with whom we deal in the mind can be no less real than ourselves. We can see ultimately there is no difference between the audience and the actor.
The world of the mind is extremely vast, but of no interest to those who are passionately attached to the bodily senses. Here “senses” and “meanings” are practically the same. But even beings passionately attached to bodily senses can from time to time dwell in the world of pure mind, completely forgetting about the body, losing all connection with it. In this way cintana of spiritual body becomes meaningful. Even an inveterate rationalist can understand that, despite the unknownness, unusualness, mental patterns are still quite noticeable, repeatable and amenable to research, even if in an obscure, unknown, unreliable way.
|
|
|
Post by meeno8 on Feb 27, 2022 15:22:27 GMT -6
"Dreams, movie plot, books or games, characters, roles - it's all as real as it is fascinating."
I think you need to define 'real' in this context. A book is real in terms of the paper and the binding and the ink, but that does not make the fictional content of it real. If it is non-fiction, that is a different matter, having a dimension in the 'real world' of appearances. I published a work of non-fiction with Bloomberg Financial in 2008, so I think I know the difference, being a published author of non-fiction in the sub-genre of financial markets/investments. On an absolute level, however, even non-fiction books are about things that are in essence figments of the imagination in human brains. What does it mean that there is a company called Amazon that has shares that can be bought and sold on the stock exchange? That is just some concept, like there is a nation called the United States of America. The lines drawn on a map for borders between the lower 48 states mean nothing in terms of the actual geography. Before the Europeans arrived, those 'states' were non-existent, and land ownership was a foreign concept to the indigenous tribes that were already here.
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Mar 1, 2022 0:43:48 GMT -6
"Dreams, movie plot, books or games, characters, roles - it's all as real as it is fascinating." I think you need to define 'real' in this context. A book is real in terms of the paper and the binding and the ink, but that does not make the fictional content of it real. If it is non-fiction, that is a different matter, having a dimension in the 'real world' of appearances. I published a work of non-fiction with Bloomberg Financial in 2008, so I think I know the difference, being a published author of non-fiction in the sub-genre of financial markets/investments. On an absolute level, however, even non-fiction books are about things that are in essence figments of the imagination in human brains. What does it mean that there is a company called Amazon that has shares that can be bought and sold on the stock exchange? That is just some concept, like there is a nation called the United States of America. The lines drawn on a map for borders between the lower 48 states mean nothing in terms of the actual geography. Before the Europeans arrived, those 'states' were non-existent, and land ownership was a foreign concept to the indigenous tribes that were already here. The real is the significance, subject to intention. This or that matters - with the intention of it to be real and with clinging to that. That is, significance occurs with the condition of clinging and ceases with the cessation of clinging. It is a subtle process of becoming real, and it is never about the real independent. Of course, if someone wants to live in a house, he must build it. It is not enough to be captivated by the image of the house in the mind. However, gross sensory reality matters because of the intention and clinging of the senses to the supports of sensory perception. And thus the support of the mind seems unreliable. But there are moments of freedom from the senses, in which one can notice that the five senses are only a very rough condensation of meanings, that they are like an island in the ocean. Whereas the support of the mind is like the universe, where this ocean and this planet are lost like a small spark in the infinite space (or like cow footprint in the field). If we communicate with Krsna but doubt his reality - this is when the contact of the senses with their supports matters, drags. Those who are fascinated by his form and flavor can observe the taken for granted, optional, arbitrary character of gross forms, tastes, aromas. Intention, craving, tanha is the basis of perception, contact feeds this craving. Feelings arise under the condition of contact and feed this craving. What is a contact? Contact is differences, distinguishables (namarupa, names of forms) and support. Because support is naturally desired, captured, one should learn to give up such clinging, in order to have an insight. This is not some kind of special endeavor. Just paying attention to natural fascination of the mind from the very root.
|
|