ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 7, 2012 0:23:44 GMT -6
Now you might ask, why be friends with Krsna instead of you or gerardji. Well, we are friends, I hope, at least not enemies and that is a delight. Your attitude towards me will change and mine towards you will as well. Our friendship will not last. I find your attitude toward me so far anything but conducive to friendship. I find that your projecting mental states and feelings into me that I don't have, is very offensive. So is your jumping to conclusions. I understand that you feel hurt in your experiences with (some) theists and theism. Perhaps you're just "coping ugly" (that's a term in psychology) and so you take your anger and frustration out on others. But the fact is that in that, you hurt others, or at least alienate them. |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on May 7, 2012 4:49:28 GMT -6
But gravity is not a god but a force. No gods are needed, not even invisible ones (sorry gerardji). |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on May 7, 2012 13:20:02 GMT -6
Well, I said "only" viable option and already we have four options. So I lied. There are many options. This one strikes me as particularly silly. Free will? Who has that? And that does not help the problem of theodicy much. In fact it may worsen it. What kind of a God would stand by while a child prepares to put its hand in a fire? Well it was exercising its own free will. Such a being would not be a god but an unkind and unjust monster. Mostly this fourth option is theirs. I don't really find it in India. If some Indian uses it he or she has probably borrowed it. Isn't there a demiurge involved, a flawed creator of the world? If so, isn't this a species of the second option? Or is that just Gnosticism? If Good & Evil is without beginning there can be no creator-god. The Gnostics have a demiurge, Yaldaboath. But anyway, a few thoughts on theodicy. It is sometimes described as “the attempt to justify the ways of God to man”. Is that not a bit condescending ? Indians try to solve it by coming up with the the idea that evil is illusory, maya. Auschwitz is illusory, how very lame. The illusion somehow exists, and belief that the illusion is evil is itself an unexplained evil. I’m trying to see this from the other side. Is God all that good and friendly in the first place? Next to karma, we the people also have to deal with daiva, fate sent by the gods. There is a bigger picture than the well-being of human beings. As in Manicheism, in Hinduism there is also a fight between good and evil, Indra vs Vrtra, the 18-day war in the Ramayana, the 18-day war in the Mahabharata etc. Gods trying to defeat the demons. And that, as said in my post above, in the Soul of Man used as a battlefield. Two examples to illustrate. When Ghatotkacha was killed, everybody was sad because Bhima’s son was killed, but Krishna was singing and dancing. A higher purpose was served. Karna had to use his spear he was going to use to kill Arjuna and that was going to determine the outcome of the war. Krishna didn’t give a hoot about the sorrow of Bhima. Same thing in the Gita. Arjuna doesn’t want to kill his teachers and kinfolk. Krishna goes straight to the point and says their souls are eternal. Again he doesn’t give a hoot about the feelings of a person. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 7, 2012 17:10:00 GMT -6
Now you might ask, why be friends with Krsna instead of you or gerardji. Well, we are friends, I hope, at least not enemies and that is a delight. Your attitude towards me will change and mine towards you will as well. Our friendship will not last. I find your attitude toward me so far anything but conducive to friendship. I find that your projecting mental states and feelings into me that I don't have, is very offensive. So is your jumping to conclusions. I understand that you feel hurt in your experiences with (some) theists and theism. Perhaps you're just "coping ugly" (that's a term in psychology) and so you take your anger and frustration out on others. But the fact is that in that, you hurt others, or at least alienate them. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to project anything on you. I don't really even know you. It was just a hypothetical comment, a contrast between friendship with Krsna and friendship with any other person. There is something special about Krsna that makes his friendship more desirable than friendship with others. It is not because he is a god. I have already tried to eliminate that possibility. But he occupies a special place in our imagination. I have hit on the idea of trying to write a kind of intellectual history of Krsna, something like Friedhelm Hardy has done for bhakti. I would call it The Invention of Krsna and try to follow the history of Krsna's unfolding in the literary history of India beginning with his first mention in the Chandogya Upanisad (3.17.6) and going through his Mahabharata days, his Harivamsa manifestation, his Visnu Purana guise, his Bhagavata guise, his Gita-govinda self, his Sri Krsna-kirtana and Krsna-karnamrta images, and finally up to the Caitanya imagination of him. Of course there is also the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Padma Purana, and Garga-samhita to account for. These are not all the same Krsna. No. It is not that I have had bad experiences with theists per se, but with frauds who also happen to have been theists. It is theism that I don't like much, not theists. The theists I have known who weren't frauds were generally fine people, as I am sure you are. I just think there is something harmful about the "ism" not the "ist." It has not generally been healthy for those who have opposed theism, true. But I think there is something psychologically harmful about it for those who have it. I fear. I may be wrong, but it makes me worry. Yes, it is true. People become alienated from me pretty quickly. I have always assumed that it is because I don't tell them what they want to hear. They want to hear me say that Krsna is the greatest of the Gods and that all one has to do is chant Hare Krsna and all will be well. You can hear that from any number of people who haven't a clue as to whether that is true or not. I am not sure it is true, so I don't tell people that. When I tell people how I really feel they become hurt and angry as you did. And they go away. I can say wholeheartedly that Krsna is one of the greatest inventions of the human imagination. But that does not seem to help. People don't want an imaginary Krsna. They want a real Krsna and that is probably the biggest reason we have invented him. Anyway, I am sorry I offended you. I meant nothing personal. As I said before there are plenty of good folks around who will tell you how brilliant theism is. I will not be offended if you go and hang out with them. I will understand. If you feel like you still have something to gain here and something to contribute, you are most welcome to stay. I never delete anybody unless they stop participating and I only do that after it has been years since their last posting. There are lots of translations around and I will keep posting more. The translations are good. I try my best to keep my personal beliefs and inclinations separate from the meaning of a text. A good translation should present as closely as possible the intended meaning of the author as best as a translator can, even if it seems absurd to the translator. It does nobody any good to try to hide the intended sense or to try to make it seem worse than it is. |
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 8, 2012 0:25:38 GMT -6
Same thing in the Gita. Arjuna doesn’t want to kill his teachers and kinfolk. Krishna goes straight to the point and says their souls are eternal. Again he doesn’t give a hoot about the feelings of a person. Not that their souls are eternal - but that they are eternal souls. The idea that we have souls, as opposed to being souls, is very common. In the BG, the idea is put forward that we are souls, and that the things we usually consider to be "who we are" are actually not our real self. That our real self is not subject to death, nor does it age or grow ill, nor can it be harmed or broken. I see no problem with this doctrine, which is also related to the Buddhist idea that our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, body, possessions are not our self, even though we commonly identify with them. There can be a problem though with how this doctrine is taught to people ... |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on May 8, 2012 16:28:22 GMT -6
Yes but then who is observing the thoughts, feeling etc.
You put the theory that u are not the thoughts, feeling etc in your "thoughts" and try to observe your thoughts through that feeling.
It is like observing the five aggregates in Buddhism? Who is the observing the give aggregates? One part of the aggregate is witnessing other part of the aggregate.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 8, 2012 21:52:07 GMT -6
Yes but then who is observing the thoughts, feeling etc. You put the theory that u are not the thoughts, feeling etc in your "thoughts" and try to observe your thoughts through that feeling. It is like observing the five aggregates in Buddhism? Who is the observing the give aggregates? One part of the aggregate is witnessing other part of the aggregate. There are several approaches to answering this, AFAIK. One way is to point out that "There is observation" and that it should be done in a skillful manner. And that the issue of "who is doing the observing" is not relevant to the goal, which is the end of suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on May 8, 2012 23:13:40 GMT -6
End of suffering entails that u believe in some kind of mental aggregate surviving after death. Who knows if that aggregate even survives? If it does not survive, then suffering will be extinguished at death, anyway.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 9, 2012 0:25:33 GMT -6
End of suffering entails that u believe in some kind of mental aggregate surviving after death. That is the inference that many people make, yes. It is not necessary to make that inference, though. Nor is it necessary to make its opposite: namely, that all there is to a person, are the aggregates. Some Buddhists argue that the only thing one has to take on faith (in Buddhism) is that one's actions matter. What is relevant then is how one transfers this into one's life, on a moment-to-moment, action-to-action basis. Basically, the Buddhists would probably agree that one doesn't need to have a highly sophisticated, highly elaborate personal philosophy before one can go about one's daily business. Some Buddhists argue that holding the view "There is a self (beyond and apart from the aggregates)" as well as the view "There is no self (beyond and apart from the aggregates)" do not help in making an end to suffering. |
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on May 13, 2012 16:24:43 GMT -6
It is like observing the five aggregates in Buddhism? Who is the observing the give aggregates? One part of the aggregate is witnessing other part of the aggregate. I think the merely imputed self would be observing the aggregates. The self is imputed upon the aggregates by the mind and the self then continues to observe. Beyond the self, there is also a more subtle sense of self which has some link to the mental continuim. This continuim continues and the self is repeatedly imputed upon the body by the mind every moment, to every moment. |
|
jiva
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by jiva on Oct 4, 2019 0:54:36 GMT -6
Greetings everyone and my humble obeisances to all.
I used to be known on ex-Gaudiya Discussions-forum as “jiva”. Nice to see some other old posters here.
I have been lurker because I do not have much to offer, but I decided to register anyway and learn more on Chaitanya Tradition from you. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 4, 2019 9:52:05 GMT -6
Greetings everyone and my humble obeisances to all. I used to be known on ex-Gaudiya Discussions-forum as “jiva”. Nice to see some other old posters here. I have been lurker because I do not have much to offer, but I decided to register anyway and learn more on Chaitanya Tradition from you. Greetings Jiva. Welcome back. Good to see you here again. Hope you have been well. Please feel free to add comments and info wherever you can. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 12:30:22 GMT -6
Welcome Jiva, yes I can remember you from old GD days. You may remember me in GD as dasanudas.
Subrata
|
|
jiva
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by jiva on Oct 4, 2019 13:26:18 GMT -6
Welcome Jiva, yes I can remember you from old GD days. You may remember me in GD as dasanudas. Subrata Thanks, Subrata ji; It's been years, but yes, I remember you. |
|
jiva
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by jiva on Oct 4, 2019 13:30:43 GMT -6
Greetings everyone and my humble obeisances to all. I used to be known on ex-Gaudiya Discussions-forum as “jiva”. Nice to see some other old posters here. I have been lurker because I do not have much to offer, but I decided to register anyway and learn more on Chaitanya Tradition from you. Greetings Jiva. Welcome back. Good to see you here again. Hope you have been well. Please feel free to add comments and info wherever you can. Thanks for the welcome, Nitai ji.
Hope there will be opportunities.
|
|
