Dear Hari,
I have to admit, my ability to express myself in a more elevated way is often somehow limited. I myself am often unsatisfyd with me in this regard, neversless when I find a text somewhere on the Internet or elsewhere, written by a more knowledgable person, a person with a better ability to express his understandings in a written form, I can often identify myself with what is being said or written therein, or reject it as somehow irrelevant for me and my understanding of it.
Now I ask myself is that ability not also something we all have in common? The ability of making a certain kind of knowledge, which may become accesible to us through education or by other means, like the Internet or some books, our own or not. Thus in order to understand something better, we may equally need a combination of as well "Outside in" knowledge we may receive through education and other sources and the so called "Inside out" knowledge we may develop within ourself through the experiences we may make in our life? Also in order to understanding a certain topic in the right way one is in need for some guidance by someone who developed or has a certain conscious competence, a certain ability to perform a certain task or give one some guidance one can rely on.
This questions came into my mind by reading the following texts on the Internet, I personally find quite interesting.
"The final key idea in science and critical thinking is skepticism, the constant questioning of your beliefs and conclusions. Good scientists and critical thinkers constantly examine the evidence, arguments, and reasons for their beliefs. Self-deception and deception of yourself by others are two of the most common human failings. Self-deception often goes unrecognized because most people deceive themselves. The only way to escape both deception by others and the far more common trait of self-deception is to repeatedly and rigorously examine your basis for holding your beliefs. You must question the truth and reliability of both the knowledge claims of others and the knowledge you already possess. One way to do this is to test your beliefs against objective reality by predicting the consequences or logical outcomes of your beliefs and the actions that follow from your beliefs. If the logical consequences of your beliefs match objective reality--as measured by empirical evidence--you can conclude that your beliefs are reliable knowledge (that is, your beliefs have a high probability of being true).
Many people believe that skeptics are closed-minded and, once possessing reliable knowledge, resist changing their minds--but just the opposite is true. A skeptic holds beliefs tentatively, and is open to new evidence and rational arguments about those beliefs. Skeptics are undogmatic, i.e., they are willing to change their minds, but only in the face of new reliable evidence or sound reasons that compel one to do so. Skeptics have open minds, but not so open that their brains fall out: they resist believing something in the first place without adequate evidence or reason, and this attribute is worthy of emulation. Science treats new ideas with the same skepticism: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to justify one's credulity. We are faced every day with fantastic, bizarre, and outrageous claims about the natural world; if we don't wish to believe every pseudoscientific allegation or claim of the paranormal, we must have some method of deciding what to believe or not, and that method is the scientific method which uses critical thinking."
Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur wrote in the Harmonist, May 1932, issue number 11. Article originally titled, "Sri Chaitanya in South India".
"The thoughtless must be satisfied with superstition till he wakes and opens his eyes to the God of Love. The reformers, out of their universal love and anxiety for good endeavor by some means or other to make the thoughtless drink the cup of salvation, but the latter drink it with wine and fall into the ground under the influence of intoxication for the imagination has also the power of making a thing what it never was. Thus it is that the evils of nunneries and the corruptions of the akhras proceeded. No, we are not to scandalize the Savior of Jerusalem or the Savior of Nadia for these subsequent evils. Luther's, instead of critics, are what we want for the correction of those evils by the true interpretation of the original precepts."
"The world stands in no need of any reformer. The world has a very competent person for guiding its minutest happenings. The person who determines that there is scope for reform of the world, himself stands in need of reform. The world goes on in its own perfect way. No person can deflect it even the breadth of a hair from the course chalked out for it by Providence. When we perceive any change being actually effected in the course of events of this world by the agency of any particular individual, we must know very well that the agent possesses no real power at any stage. The agent finds himself driven forward by a force belonging to a different category from himself. The course of the world does not require to be changed by the agency of any person. What is necessary is to change our outlook on this world. This was done for the contemporary generation by the mercy of Sri Chaitanya. It can only be known to recipients of His mercy. The scriptures declare that it is only necessary to listen with an open mind to the name of Krishna from the lips of a bona fide devotee. As soon as Krishna enters the listening ear, He clears up the vision of the listener so that he no longer has any ambition of ever acting the part of a reformer of any other person, because he finds that nobody is left without the very highest guidance. It is therefore his own reform, by the grace of God, Whose Supreme Necessity and Nature he is increasingly able to realize, by the Eternally Continuing Mercy of the Supreme Lord."
Interesting is also what Prabhupada wrote ones in his letters to his disciples, "My mission is not turn any one from the affiliation of a particular religion but I want to let them know more knowledge about God and devotion." "Actually, we are not teaching a particular type of faith. We are teaching the post graduate studies of all religions; we are teaching people how to love God and who is the man that will deny this principle?" "It is not academic qualification or financial strength which helps in these matters, but it is sincerity of purpose which helps us always." "When one becomes Krsna conscious, he loves everyone."
The question is just what does it really mean to "become Krsna conscious" or conscious of the Supreme? There was a transmission today I was listening to, by one of my prefered radio station, where a critic of religion was cited with the words: "Religion has much to do with power and lesser with God and the understanding of him."
Something we may all have in common
Re: Something we may all have in common
As usual, your question contains much information and anything I would write is a tag-along.
What does it mean to be conscious of the Supreme?
To be conscious of the Supreme is synonymous with being fully aware. The more you are aware of existence, the more conscious you are of it and its non-difference from the Supreme. As you discover yourself through self-awareness, you become aware of that which surrounds the self. As you become aware of energy, you become aware of the all pervasive energy of the Supreme. Krsna consciousness, God consciousness, spiritual consciousness and so on are other ways of saying "expanded awareness." I was tempted to write, "full awareness," but this is not possible. The more your awareness expands, the more you are conscious. This consciousness leads to connection with the Supreme. When you are aware of the Supreme and connected to the Supreme, your consciousness is of the quality of the Supreme. This is Krsna consciousness.
Religion is not required for this increase in awareness. Other people, teachers, gurus, books, or whatever are not required. All that is required is allowing the self to be naturally spiritual aware by letting go of all that which clouds this.
It is easy to do, but to understand the ease of letting go one requires to be convinced and this often is facilitated in religions, or by teachers, gurus, or through books. It is also facilitated by personal crisis or difficult experiences.
What does it mean to be conscious of the Supreme?
To be conscious of the Supreme is synonymous with being fully aware. The more you are aware of existence, the more conscious you are of it and its non-difference from the Supreme. As you discover yourself through self-awareness, you become aware of that which surrounds the self. As you become aware of energy, you become aware of the all pervasive energy of the Supreme. Krsna consciousness, God consciousness, spiritual consciousness and so on are other ways of saying "expanded awareness." I was tempted to write, "full awareness," but this is not possible. The more your awareness expands, the more you are conscious. This consciousness leads to connection with the Supreme. When you are aware of the Supreme and connected to the Supreme, your consciousness is of the quality of the Supreme. This is Krsna consciousness.
Religion is not required for this increase in awareness. Other people, teachers, gurus, books, or whatever are not required. All that is required is allowing the self to be naturally spiritual aware by letting go of all that which clouds this.
It is easy to do, but to understand the ease of letting go one requires to be convinced and this often is facilitated in religions, or by teachers, gurus, or through books. It is also facilitated by personal crisis or difficult experiences.