Inductive or Deductive - A Logical Approach to God and Truth

[harsi]

Not that I would burden Krishna or Hari (or anyone else) with the consequences of my own decisions, but can I say only my own sense of responsibility counts!? Who am I to (even think to) ignore the superiors' sense of responsibility about me!? Krishna confirms that: "atmanam kevalam tu yah, pashyaty akrita bhydhitvan, na sa pashyati durmati," Not only my own will and effort but also time-place (circumstances) and above all The Supreme, all of them (including me, not to forget that either, of course) share the responsibility about what takes place with (and around) me (or anyone else). Owing to the circumstances (destiny or whatever, but certainly not my conscious effort) in those times can I be on Harimedia these times (not so often as I would like, I admit), if I had missed those times, I would never have a chance for it now.

I see you are one with whom it is possible to have constructive discussions and exchange views without prejudice. I like that. Your analyses remembers me of the following instructive story I read ones.

Once there was a guru who wanted to train his two disciples by giving them a practical task, "Take 100 Rupees each of you" he said "and use it to fill up your rooms with whatever you are able to purchase. In five days’ time I will return to inspect your work." When he returned and visited the room of the first disciple, he saw it had been filled up with rags. That disciple had thought that by hook or by crook he had to, somehow or other, fill up the room, and since rags were the cheapest items to purchase, he had chosen them. The guru was duly shocked.

When the guru came to inspect the second room, he saw that it had been filled up - not only once, but twice and his disciple returned 80 Rupees back to him and said, "Guru Maharaja, I only needed 20 Rps to fill the room twice." He had lit a ghee lamp in the middle of the room, along with an incense stick. Light and fragrance were spreading everywhere, from top to bottom, from left to right, from the front to the rear. The delighted guru said, "You have truly understood. Life is very much like an empty room. It should be filled with the light of knowledge and the fragrance of a serving attitude, and not with the discarded filthy things one might find here and there."
___

As one can see in this story it is not so beneficial to hand over (surrender) allso all ones common sense on the doorstep of an ashram or temple rather use and exploit these potential which everyone has properly, whenever and wherever it is required.

[harsi]

.
I realized in the meantime, that the last sentence I wrote more as a food for thought for myself. 25 years ago, and also many years later, I also believed in the ... dream, and I am certainly not alone in this view. Someone who many of us had also the opportunity to know, revealed to me just the same, during a personal conversation ones. It would seem that one grows, we all grow of course, through experience. If that is, among other things, the real meaning of our existence, we have all faced similar good and difficult times we can gain plenty of experience from. How else are you going to learn will wander, maybe, some-one Supreme (if there really is one).

[harsi]

Journal of Technology Education: The Role of Experience in Learning: Giving Meaning and Authenticity to the Learning Process in Schools.

"Interestingly, scholars from outside of youth education often have a more sanguine contribution to make in defining how people learn. Adult education scholars (Chickering, 1977; Jarvis, 1987; Keeton, 1976; Kolb, 1993; Merriam & Clark, 1993; Rogers,1951), for example, have found it constructive to document the learning process for adults as experiential.

Jarvis for example, put it this way: "…there is no meaning in a given situation until we relate our own experiences to it". Experience plays a key role in the process. Rogers has been quite outspoken about the learning process, especially the role of a teacher in that process. He believes no one learns anything of significance from someone else. Instead, learning takes place when a learner is intrinsically motivated to learn and undertakes to learn something on his/her own.

This sentiment is echoed by Albert Einstein who was quoted as saying: "I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn" [cited in Walter & Marks, 1981, p. 1]. Recent attention in the literature on critical thinking, constructivist learning, disembodied knowledge, and situated cognition seem to favor the view that real learning begins with and hinges upon the experiences of the learner. " (more)


.An iluminating revelation. (Pdf)..(...)

[harsi]

Not only my own will and effort but also time-place (circumstances) and above all The Supreme, all of them (including me, not to forget that either, of course) share the responsibility about what takes place with (and around) me (or anyone else).

I think this statement by Aradhya can be related to all people who are in leadership positions such as military, police, or otherwise positions of command. At the same time it can show how the responsability for a certain action is shared. In order to make his point, Aradhya refers to a verse from Bhagavad-gita 18.16, where Krishna tells Arjuna: “Therefore one who thinks himself the only doer, not considering the five factors, is certainly not very intelligent and cannot see things as they are.”

In other words Krishna wants to convince the confused and unhappy Arjuna, who put his bow and arrows aside and told Krishna that he will not fight the battle, what the consequences of his or of a certain action might be.

In the next verse from the Gita we find Krishna saying to Arjuna: 18.17 yasya nahankrto bhavo buddhir yasya na lipyate hatvapi sa imaû lokan na hanti na nibadhyate
“One who is not motivated by false ego, whose intelligence is not entangled, though he kills men in this world, does not kill. Nor is he bound by his actions.”

Thus one can conclude that what Krishna said to Arjuna, as found written in the Bhagavad-gita, is applicable among other things also to people who serve in the armed forces, the police and other forces of order, judiciary, or other similar bodies of authority, where the involved staff (officials and other employees) are or were in the process of caring out activities and actions organised on the basis of a public legal power of the state or governed by public law. The responsability they share for their actions cannot be seen or regarded as the same of that of one who may commit any legal infringements or be in the proces of violating some basic rights of the citizens, such as ordinary criminals, wrongdoers or murderer who may kill out of personal and complitelly devious motives.

In our life we are all in a learning process and by reading or listening to that what others might do or have done in certain or similar situations can help us come to terms with our own situation and can be for us a spur to action. What we should and cannot always do according to my opinion is to transfer (copy & paste so called) informations given in a certain situation to someone as a spur to action or piece of advice (councel) to someone, transfer cent per cent to the situation and time we may happen to live in today.

And here err (are in error and are deepely mistaken), I think, all those who teach and quote all kind of verses, in order to make their point be heard, transparent and understood (or give some assumed "scriptural or otherwise authority" to it). I or anyone else may not be in the same kind of situation Arjuna was about 5000 years ago on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, consequently what Krishna may have told Arjuna, and which might have made perfect sense for Arjuna in the situation he was in at that time and place, might not be fully aplicable for the situation, place and circumstance I or anyone else of our readers on this forum may be in today.

I may not have to, or maybe forced by circumstances or arrangements that aren't on my command, what to speak of not being maybe in the rightful legal position as Arjuna was during his period as head of the armed forces of the Pandavas, to kill his or her own kinsman, relatives and friends in action on a battlefield in order to bring satisfaction to citizens whose rights have been infringed (see Draupadi and the Pandavas), and promote and strengthen the respect for and the sovereignty of the rule of law in society ("dharma" or divine law as understood at that Vedic time in history.)

However what I can do in my opinion, if I like to, is to take the content of a given paragraph found in the Gita for example and draw my own conclusions and logical consequences from the information I may have found. View it as orientation knowledge for my own situation, understanding, experiences, world view and reached conclusions of the present. But that may also mean that an information from the past may not fit or be as relevant today as it was than, at the time it was revealed to someone in his day. It can also mean that the interpretation and application of its values may and can vary according to the time, place and circumstances in which one may find oneself today.

[aradhya]

Another quote (it's Churchill's statement, not to misuse any religious authority for my own sake this time): ,,If you want some job not to be done, assign it to a commission!,, Maybe I hadn't right (at least I wasn't authorized) to accuse scientific method for its indecisiveness about conclusions, that's why I showed the same weakness (,,what goes around comes around,,) trying to avoid a decisive taking of my own responsibility by distributing it amongst the Gita-quoted five factors, so distributed (shared) responsibility admits lack of precise allocation of the guilt (or the merit) making the responsibility-issue seemingly vague or irrelevant. So, instead of chasing the weaknesses of scientific (or any other) method (exclusive approach) one may look for (and find) many good (applicable) things everywhere (inclusive approach). Like a bee, not like a fly!

[harsi]

Another quote (it's Churchill's statement, not to misuse any religious authority for my own sake this time): ,,If you want some job not to be done, assign it to a commission!,,

That reminds me of the "Governing Body Commission" (GBC) of a known society of Krishna devotees. Churchill's statement is also similar to an anonymous quote I found on the Internet which goes: "If you want something done, assign one person to the task. If you don't care if something gets done, assign two people to the job. If you absolutely do not want something to be done, assign it to a commitee."

It is also said that Winston Churchill said ones:
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Indeed many people think that arguing is simply stating their prejudices in a new form. This is why many people also think that arguments are unpleasant and pointless. One dictionary definition for "argument" is "disputation." In this sense we sometimes say that two people "have an argument": a verbal fistfight. It happens often enough. But it is not what arguments really are.

To give an argument means to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion. Here an argument is not simply a statement of certain views, and it is not simply a dispute. Arguments are efforts to support certain views with reasons. Arguments in this sense are not pointless; in fact, they are essential.

Argument is essential because it is a way of finding out which views are better than others. Not all views are equal. Some conclusions can be supported by good reasons. Others have much weaker support. But often we don't know which are which. We need to give arguments for different conclusions and then assess those arguments to see how strong they really are.

Here argument is a means of inquiry. I agree fully with you on this inclusive approach. Yes "Like a bee, not like a fly!"

[harsi]

According to the Bhagavatam, the original knowledge was a collection of teachings by hundreds of different sages and rishis, each with their own schools, students, and disciplines. This knowledge was compiled by Vyasadeva and organized into the literature that presently exists. This literature was hand copied, sometimes modified and had more or less parts deleted or added.
So if one bases one’s belief in the infallibility of one’s source of knowledge on the assumption that it came from God, one might be mistaken. One might object that nothing important was modified, but one would have to have access to the original to make that judgement.

Throught that kind of insight and analyzis, dear Hari, would or could not the next logical step and consequence also be to deny and cast doubt on the existence of Krishna as Supreme Lord and clasify the stories about him and other divine personalities mentioned in the Bhagavatam and similar literatures, into categories of wishfull thinking by Aboriginal people of a particular area and time in history, especially people in India of their time? I just try to imagine logically what it could be like if such kind of transmited revelations and knowledge about God would not exist in whatever form today. Where or how otherwise, if not (also) from such literatures should one get some informations in this regard? Where do you get your informations that Radha Krishna may indeed exist as the discribed supreme divine beings and supreme unit we may also be a part of? I think the deal with this topic falls in the category of those who try to develop also their capacity for critical thinking, or for others of seeing the authority of scriptures and their revelations questioned. To that one can read among other things in the introduction to "A Course in Miracles": "Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal ultimately exists. Herein lies the peace of God."


.(Full Image)


Could all this just be a mirror image of someone`s imagination, a fantastic dream world far from reality? One could be inclined to think that way. And I don't mean just the creator of this impressive work of art. Regarding this kind of questions and what answers could be consistent and logically comprehensible I like what I listened recently in a video by someone who was asked ones what happens at the time of death. He started his answer the following way: "Well, I haven't gone through physical death yet, as the Zen master who was asked about life after death. He said I don't know. And they said why don't you know, you are the master. And he said yeah but I'm not a dead master..." Sounds logical enough and seems to make sense. Nevertheless such questions come in ones mind. Can one offer answers to them without referring also to scriptures in order to reinforce and validate ones arguments if there is or can there be ones an understandable reason to do so? I still remember, although it has been quite some time since, the often heard and read statements that my senses, and I know not what else, are limited, and my own ability to reach some comprehensive conclusions in this regard is somehow hindered by my very nature. Hence, it would perhaps be good advice to take and accept whatever truths, and obtained spiritual informations, God the Supreme, as not beeing unlike us subject to illusion, would have revealed about himself and his relationship with us. A life lived in compliance and obedience with this revelations would enable us, at some point in the future, to reach our spiritual destiny as displayed in such bright colours in the image above.

[harsi]

It would be indeed a very long way to go (fly) till one may reach at some point in the future Radha Krishna`s spiritual abode. We may well ask whether this actually exists in that particular world of spiritual form and colour or should one rather try to find in oneself this dimension of consciousness some divine revelations are hinting at. Related to where we are at present one can read on a website. "The astronomer Carl Sagan convinced NASA (in 1990) that Voyager 1 should turn back toward the sun to snap one last photo of us. It came out as a single 0.12 pixel in a grainy image at a distance of 4 billion miles as it passed Pluto soaring into the unknowns of the ort cloud and beyond. He would describe the power of that symbol in his book and in a commencement address he gave in 1996."





Here’s the text:
“From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.

The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every ‘superstar,’ every ‘supreme leader,’ every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”




- The photo A Pale Blue Dot was taken by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990. The image is a portion of a wide-angle image containing the sun and the region of space where the Earth and Venus were at the time with two narrow-angle pictures centered on each planet.

[harsi]

I was following the last few days the lectures which were streamed online of a well known spiritual writer at a retreat he was holding in New York and what I found especially enlightened among many other things he was saying is the following answer he gave to a question by one of his listeners who was present there in the audience at that event.


Question:
I have the feeling although its just thought that we are in the process of destroying the planet. Sometimes I like to think what is the solution to this problem, so many have said that the best form of government is an enlightened monarch. What we should do to try to save, to try to lead us in the right direction?

His answer was: So what would I do, thats the question. I could not really do anything other than what I'm doing now which is: transmit consciousness; help becoming an opening for consciousness and that is to those people who are close to me, and you are close to me here, the consciousness is ... not transmited, but of course the same consciousness is in you, it causes forcing the awakening. So the awakened stage is to spread in those close to you. So the first thing I would have some people close to me and make sure they are relativelly, if not hundred per cent awakened; free of identification with mind, and from there they go on and have others. So, I would not try to do everything because you cannot impose enlightened government on a not enlightened population. It won't work, you would imediatelly have a revolution.

We all know what happened during the time of prohibition (in America). So you cannot empose from above, one would have to use force in many cases which would be counterproductive and it would lead to the opposite of what you wanted to create. One can only spread conscioussness to other humans who are than going to take action. The very basis for the transformation of the world is a shift in the individual consciousness. If there are enough individuals who go through that shift then they no longer create the insanity that has been to a large extent in human history until now. Than they don't create the violence and the warfare and so on anymore.

But it starts with us here. So, I would not suggest that we look to another solution that is quicker than what's happening here. You might say Ok, but do we have enough time to save the planet? I believe there is an accelaration of awakening now and although there may be short term very serious problems coming to us, challenges, which will be part of a more massive awakening, that`s how I see it. You already saw it on a smaller scale in the Sixties, there was quite an awakening as far as spirituality is concerned; it kind of probably started in California and than came to many other contries. There was quite an awakening that was coincided with teachers from the East coming, meditations happening, enormous things that weren't happening before. But it all accelerated because of some huge so called bad thing that was the Vietnam war that was happening at the same time. And so many youngsters withdrew there identification with the collective in the States here more strongly. Here, my country, identifying with my country, being proud of my country, feeling all one with my country, and they found that it was very difficut to do that. Because they could see that their country would do very insane things.

So they withdrew. And in the Fifties in America everybody was still childlike, almost everybody was confident and optimistic: "We can do no wrong" and of course they had the Second World War where the difference between right and wrong was more clear there than in perhaps in any other war. And the suffering generated by the Vietnam War and the insanity accelerated the awakening, partial awakenning in many humans. And I believe if it hadn't been for that awakening in the Sixties we wouldn't even be here now. And probably "The Power of Now" would not have been written.

Because its all connected, its a stream of awakening which sometimes becomes obscured again and then opens up again. There are times when you think: haven't they not learned anything? During the Iraq War, when Iraq happened: haven't they read history? And even recent history? So, the only thing to save the planet is consciousness; its not so much what to do because there are countless humans which will be responsible for what to do. There cannot ever be one human who tells everybody what to do because the world is extremely complex, there are so many areas where action is taken. So, the decision making process cannot flow from one individual. It would flow out there and meet innumerable obstacles and then what does the enlightened monarch do? He says: this and this and this needs to be done and they refuse to do it. Because they don't realize that this is necessary. So they refuse to do it, what does the enlightened monarch do than? You have to do it, I force you to do it. And the enlightened monarch becomes a dictator.

So. it only works if the population, there needs to be a certain percentage at least in the population of humans who embody, if not fully an awakened state - the awakening. Who are sane, just sane its enough. There are sometimes politicians where you say well compared to most others they look, were quite sane. There was Gorbachew years ago in the Soviet Union, and I heard even some people said Oh, is he enlightened? But he looked like the Buddha because compared to him all the predecessors; compare him to his predecessors and he was like the Buddha. Because his predecessors were totally immersed in their collective mental conditioning.
___

All videos one can watch at: http://www.eckharttolletv.com/event/login
Just enter: Email: harsi.hm@hotmail.de
Password: qkhhvmzk

[harsi]

Dear Hari

What I would like to ask you may sound a little provocative at first but for me it is neverthless essential to understand more deeply. Scientists at CERN unveiled a few days ago the descovery of the Higgs boson, the long searched for missing link in the Standard Model of particle physics, which could tell us a lot about the nature of the universe. The discovery proves the theory but forward by British physicist Peter Higgs he published some 50 years ago. I think the question I would like to understand is how it is posible that a so called particle of matter, the Higgs boson, should be able to hold the universe together at its innermost folds, I always thought that that would be ... anyway I drop the name of that divine being here?


What next ?

"Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." (Bg 7.7)

[harsi]

Dear Hari,

I am quite happy that you did not deigned to write an answer to my various questions here in this thread of (my) Logical approach to God and Truth. As I have realized or have become aware (who knows what the right English expression might be here) off in the meantime, for me the inner essence, or living force, inside this body such answers don't have or would not really have much significance. It is only the mind and ego, my two constant companions, who like to analyze this things in much detail and which try to play a game with me every now and than, in order to enhance somehow their imagined superiority.

I am very pleased, Hari, that I have found in you, as your attitude in this regard shows, a person to whom I can relate and have a relation (even online on this forum) on the level of the soul, the spiritual essence, a relationship from soul to soul so to speak or one from the inner spaciousness of my being that I really am. I am not always on that platform but lately I can somehow or other have more often a small glimpse of what that really means. And for that I am also very thankful to you who has being on my side for so many years of this my spiritual journey in life of growing slowly into the understanding and exploring my true nature of who I really am and what relation I might have with the Supreme, whose emanation I might be.

Thank you,
Harsi

[harsi]

I would like to add here also some texts from a conversation I had recently on the Facebook forum of Krishnas friends and devotees in Denmark, someone added me as a member. It has according to my understanding also something to do with a somehow logical approach to God and truth, at least according to the logic and understanding of the particular author of the text.

There someone wrote in the thread:

"When we are materially contaminated, we are called conditioned. False consciousness is exhibited under the impression that I am a product of material nature. This is called false ego. One who is absorbed in the thought of bodily conceptions cannot understand his situation. Bhagavad-gītā was spoken to liberate one from the bodily conception of life, and Arjuna put himself in this position in order to receive this information from the Lord. One must become free from the bodily conception of life; that is the preliminary activity for the transcendentalist. One who wants to become free, who wants to become liberated, must first of all learn that he is not this material body. Mukti or liberation means freedom from material consciousness.

In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also the definition of liberation is given: Mukti means liberation from the contaminated consciousness of this material world and situation in pure consciousness. All the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā are intended to awaken this pure consciousness, and therefore we find at the last stage of the Gītā's instructions that Kṛṣṇa is asking Arjuna whether he is now in purified consciousness. Purified consciousness means acting in accordance with the instructions of the Lord. This is the whole sum and substance of purified consciousness.

Consciousness is already there because we are part and parcel of the Lord, but for us there is the affinity of being affected by the inferior modes. But the Lord, being the Supreme, is never affected. That is the difference between the Supreme Lord and the conditioned souls. What is this consciousness? This consciousness is "I am." Then what am I? In contaminated consciousness "I am" means "I am the lord of all I survey. I am the enjoyer." The world revolves because every living being thinks that he is the lord and creator of the material world. Material consciousness has two psychic divisions. One is that I am the creator, and the other is that I am the enjoyer.

But actually the Supreme Lord is both the creator and the enjoyer, and the living entity, being part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is neither the creator nor the enjoyer, but a cooperator. He is the created and the enjoyed. For instance, a part of a machine cooperates with the whole machine; a part of the body cooperates with the whole body. The hands, feet, eyes, legs and so on are all parts of the body, but they are not actually the enjoyers. The stomach is the enjoyer. The legs move, the hands supply food, the teeth chew and all parts of the body are engaged in satisfying the stomach because the stomach is the principal factor that nourishes the body's organization. Therefore everything is given to the stomach.

One nourishes the tree by watering its root, and one nourishes the body by feeding the stomach, for if the body is to be kept in a healthy state, then the parts of the body must cooperate to feed the stomach. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the enjoyer and the creator, and we, as subordinate living beings, are meant to cooperate to satisfy Him. This cooperation will actually help us, just as food taken by the stomach will help all other parts of the body. If the fingers of the hand think that they should take the food themselves instead of giving it to the stomach, then they will be frustrated.

The central figure of creation and of enjoyment is the Supreme Lord, and the living entities are cooperators. By cooperation they enjoy. The relation is also like that of the master and the servant. If the master is fully satisfied, then the servant is satisfied. Similarly, the Supreme Lord should be satisfied, although the tendency to become the creator and the tendency to enjoy the material world are there also in the living entities because these tendencies are there in the Supreme Lord who has created the manifested cosmic world."


I analyzed the text written of that particular forum member and commented on it according to my own understanding and the inspiration I received from my inner consciousness.

I wrote:
"One nourishes the tree by watering its root", but actually what you are trying to say is that the tree or you, the living life force, would have not much value in yourself and for yourself, since it would be the Supreme Godhead whose source of emanation you would be, and thus the good will of "your owner" who would define that by analyzing your actions, behaviour and attitude towards him.

The concept being that even while pouring “water to the root of the tree” in order to norish its roots and keep him alive and healthy, one would do it with the covert goal to enforce or make visible to the ‘tree` (or us as living entities which may have emanated from the divine source), his supremacy and ownership, a status one would enjoy since it would be ones (the Supreme's) attribute as the enjoy-er and owner of all created.

But isn't that somehow a completely impersonal way to deal with the tree, or with any other living entity, which may have also an own personality, character attributes and a value of his or her own. By doing so you may deprive the spiritual living entity of the fact to exist on his or her own right, and not only as a contributor to a somehow higher enjoyer or owner.

What you are trying to explain is that in the spiritual life force of the living entity there would be build in a kind of servitude property which the Supreme would just have to uncover and "liberate" somehow from the covering of the material consciousness, in order to enjoy it by himself. But such an attitude sounds more like ruthless exploitation of someones (in this case God`s) resources (we as his emanated living entities) than a relationship among equals in true love for each other.

You may have forgotten that love of any kind, if among two soulmates here on Earth, or among the "conditioned" (if such a thing ever exists) soul and the Supreme Godhead is a two-way street, based on mutual trust and recognition of ones individuality, character, self-sufficiency and self-esteem. From what I have gathered there exists indeed a unity among the self aware spirit soul and the Supreme Soul from which one may have emanated, but that unity is one of love and purpose and not one of a whatever imagined philosophical logical construct of a somewhat kind of servitude."

Than Max .... (the so called author of the above text) revealed to me much to my surprise that, how he writes: "I am NOT trying to explain anything (rather I) am trying to tell you how it is ;)
this text I posted is not spoken original from my mouth but (are) texts in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is - Macmillan 1972 Edition : Bg: introduction: this version of the bhagavagita is the unedited (one)."