Harimedia Forum

There is a discussion going on in Good Old Days about my "opinion" or presentation of Radha and Krsna. A question was raised because it seems I do not discuss the "lila" or "philosophy" surrounding the "worship" or Radha and Krsna. The quoted words in the previous sentence highlight the problems that exist in the perceivable differences between what I do and what is done by others. The question seems to revolve around the idea that I simply ask people to feel the deities and do not supply the required standard philosophical information of their position and identity. This is a large subject that relates to the way I see things and how I present methods of realization. I shall first address my presentation of Radha and Krsna.

First of all, I do not limit my presentation to "The Supreme." I am concerned with facilitating people's connection to the divine energies, wherever they are found. Simply put, I give people the means to connect to, or tune to, any deity they wish. This technique works equally well in any religion or any spiritual place of worship. I avoid creating a gap between the divine and the individual being. I avoid creating a mood of awe and reverence and do not encourage someone to see the unlimited greatness of the divine in relation to their unlimited smallness. I avoid these concepts and create the mood of personal relationship in an attainable manner, not encumbered by issues of power or worth.

I mainly teach the advanced techniques of tuning to the divine in the St. Petersburg temple. If you look in Hari's Corner, you will see a text where I speak about the deities in that temple. This appears on the website of the temple and it includes a good introduction to who the deities are. While I speak to people about the deities and tuning, I am standing in front of the deities, gesturing backwards and turning towards them, including them in the discussion. In short, the deities are the main focus, so it would be very hard for an audience member to miss my point or to confuse who I am speaking about. As I discuss the process of tuning, it always focuses on connecting to the deities who are in the room with us. I do not speak of them as representations of anything, I do not infer that they represent energies, and I do not use them to accomplish something not related to them. All I am doing is facilitating the people in the room to increase their awareness of the deities, feel their energy as it pours from them, absorb that energy into their consciousness, and accept it totally. I ask them to send their energy to the deities and ultimately to create an Us'ness where we feel a deep and intimate connection to these wonderful personalities. I imply and suggest that the deities are people, are living energy, and are thus perceivable to our aware senses.

Since this experience is real and there is no doubt in anyone's mind what is going on, they are all deeply impressed. They feel a deep and tangible connection to God. In many cases, it is the first such realization, in some cases, it is the experience they have longed for their entire spiritual life. Many former devotees have later thanked me from the bottom of their hearts. Some have said that I have supplied the missing ingredient in their spiritual life.

I do not need to burden the audience with philosophy or lila as they do not need it. What they need is this experience of connection and entering into the energy of relationship. This brings us to the next point.

Stories about Radha and Krsna are nice. They are fun, make us sometimes feel good, and grant us hope that one day we will realize more. So long as these stories are experienced as stories, in other words, we hear them and feel happy to hear them yet we are not experiencing these lilas directly, they remain as stories (although they are spiritual and special). Those who are engaged in the lilas directly, in other words, the "characters" in the stories, do not think of them as stories, neither as lilas, neither as part of a scripture. They experience life in full. The feel it as they experience it. They live within that atmosphere.

More advanced pastime participants on this plane "enter" into these lilas through the process of visualization. They have gone through a focused process to visualize themselves in the lilas, gradually feel their form that is compatible with this environment, and learn to perceive through that form what is happening there, and through long practice of meditating they gradually glimpse their goals. As they become more and more aware, sensitive and experienced, they expand their energy to embrace the spiritual atmosphere.

I am creating that atmosphere directly. I share it with the audience. Those who are practiced in the art of spiritual life through their years in ISKCON, know the lilas and know the identity of the personalities on the altar and their "position" within the hierarchy of existence. And yet, they are sharing, side by side with "non-devotees", the same experience of the deities' spiritual loving energy. Indeed, sometimes the "non-devotees" enter into this atmosphere more easily than the former devotees since they do not have a mountain of misconceptions to climb over. Some so-called experienced devotees are bound tightly by their conceptions of not being good enough, of being fallen, sinful and so on. This restricts their experience. Those who are not so restricted are much easier able to feel and enter into the atmosphere.

The atmosphere of the spiritual realm is not a mental conception, not a philosophical conception, and not simply related to doing the right service while following the right rules to induce mercy. It is an experience. I start from the "end-point" of the experience and create the structure within which the living being can fill in the details.

There are already enough descriptions in the Indian literatures and I am fine with them. If someone wishes to research it is easy to uncover these materials. If they ask me, I can also tell them, but there are many who have dedicated themselves to sharing lila who I am not eager to recommend as these individuals also share other ideals that I feel hinder spiritual progress. They might also ascribe to notions of spiritual elitism, sexism, social ignorance, and fundamentalistic thought, none of which are acceptable to me. Despite the problems surrounding many of these spiritual leaders, I remain naturally connected to these literatures as they are part of me after the 28+ years of study and practice and those parts that increase my awareness and inspire my life remain the basis of all that I do. Yet, I reach for more. Of all the writings, I consider those of Rupa Gosvami and Raghunath das Gosvami to be most relevant to my personal connections.

As far as teachings, I am most close to Ramanujacarya.

In short, I have learned much in my life and now I am sharing the ripened fruit of my personal experience and realization. I do not share it completely as very few, if any, could understand the depth of what I am. Yet each of us can say the same thing about ourselves. We share what we feel is best for others when we wish to do so. I like more than anything in the world to share my capacity to connect to the deities at will, to communicate with them, and to allow them to modify my awareness when they see fit.

Hari wrote:As far as teachings, I am most close to Ramanujacarya.

I very much appreciate your comment, Hari. It was high time to also explain more in regard to your presentation and aplication of spiritual knowledge. Although I dont yet understand everything yet fully I try hard. An interesting point to reflect on I was reading recently online also in regard to Ramanujacarya's Visishtadvaita Philosophy.

"According to Ramanuja, Moksha means the soul’s passing from the troubles of mundane life into Vaikuntha where it will remain forever in undisturbed personal bliss in the presence of God. The liberated soul attains to the nature of God. It never becomes identical with Him. It lives in fellowship with the Lord, either serving Him or meditating on Him. It never loses its individuality. There is no such thing as Jivanmukti, according to Ramanuja. Salvation comes when the soul leaves the body. "

What I dont understand fully is the explanation that all souls form the body of God, the Supreme Self. "God alone exists. All else that is seen are His manifestations or attributes. God or Lord Narayana of Sri Ramanuja is a complex organic whole – Visishta – though it is one."

In regard to Ramanuja I like and can very much relate to one of his often told life stories: "The Guru refused to initiate the learned disciple six times, but the disciple was not discouraged and came back for the seventh time! The gracious Guru, seeing the sincerity and earnest of Ramanuja, now gave him the Mantra, warning -

"Do not disclose the Mantra to anyone, else you shall suffer the agonies of Hell."
"And what will happen to those who hear the Mantra, Sir," asked Ramanuja innocently.
"Why, my son, the power of the Mantra would lead all those to salvation!"
"What is more desirable than thousands of people attaining to heaven even if I alone be damned," thus thought the kind hearted Ramanuja, and climbing up the platform in a temple shouted -
"Come, O my brothers, come! Listen to this Mantra that will open floodgates of liberation for you."

And in front of all, he repeated the Mantra aloud."

One can also read on the Internet that: "Initially, Ramanuja studied the Scriptures and the Vedanta under the guidance of a great scholar Yadava Prakasha. However, soon they parted their ways, as differences cropped up in their interpretation of the Scriptures. Ramanuja, though young and still a student, showed unusual insight and grasp of the subtleties and nuances of Vedanta, and as if scored over Yadava Prakasha. It is said that the matter took such a turn that the teacher began to hate his pupil and in fact even attempted to assassinate him! Many years later, however, Yadava recognized Ramanuja's greatness, repented, and became his loyal follower." (...)

I just wonder why there is no mentioning of Parabrahman in Ramanujas explanation of the divine reality. That which supposed to be also beyond Brahman according to Sri Caitanya's teachings?

First of all, simply searching for someone's description of what Ramanuja said or believed is not very useful. Most people do not understand it in depth. It is a highly sophisticated understanding that cannot be summarized in one paragraph, unless of course, someone is really good at it, which your quoted source is not.

Secondly, you are mainly interested in placing me within a context familiar to you that fits nicely into previously stated schools of thought. This will not work and it will not expand your understanding of me. Therefore, for these two reasons, there is absolutely no reason for me to reply to your question.

There are two ways to understand a person or a situation. The inferior way is to start with a preconceived notion and seek out evidence that supports this notion. The superior way is to research with an open mind to seek the truth of what a person or a situation is. When one seeks to first understand, the questions one asks and the conclusions one reaches will have greater value.

The questions you ask demonstrate you have not used the latter method, but are fixed in the former. To this, I object. I do not wish to be examined under the gaze of someone's preconceptions for any response I make, were it to be true to what I am, would have to include wasting enormous amounts of time to dissolve the preconceptions so the person can start to hear the truth. I have spent years speaking about this very point. My numerous lectures and writings are dedicated to removing misconceptions that appear when we simply accept something without awareness of what it is we are accepting and how it relates to us. As Nanda so rightly put it, I have made a systematic presentation of how one removes the less than ideal preconceptions that one is spoon fed and replaces them with personal wisdom and experience. You feel that this process requires a negation of the tradition, but I say now and have always said it does not. It accepts the essence of that tradition and presents the most important and valuable elements in a manner that is more congenial to us as modern humans. By continuously requiring that I reference what I say or do to these traditions is evidence that you do not understand what I say or do, for if you did, you would see how my presentation makes far more sense than you could imagine and that it will inspire you to become a far greater version of what you are, in whatever tradition you choose to be.

I am sure that most of the usual readers of these texts are wondering why you have not gotten this point. But I have seen that it takes courage to listen to what I say and allow oneself to accept it deeply. After all, I am not telling anyone anything. I discuss topics in a way that will expand your capacity to think, to increase your awareness, and to demonstrate how you too can experience all those things you dream of.

I could go on with this text, but in truth, I have said it all.

Dear Hari, you might think that you have said it all and thats your right to think like that which I accept. Although I must say that your continues attempt to put me in a position where I suppose would not know what I say or would like to know from you shows to me that you too doesn't seem to understand what I am at to understand and realize. In some way you are so much just focused to oppose that what you understand to be some preconceived notions people might have from the good old days that you miss the wood for the trees in my case to say it with a German common saying.

Like I said when one speaks or teachis something from a complitely neutral point of view like many are doing this days it is one thing but when one speaks and acts also in relation with something which exists already in a long established spiritual tradition and understanding in society than one should not wander when such questions might arise how that what you might say or do might fit also in the understanding one might already have. After all the way inteligence works is that one dearly accepts something in addition to that one might know already if it makes also more sense to oneself.

Ok you might say that those people you might speak in Russia might understand you better but my personal experience in regard to this is that this is far from being the case. But maybe it evolves over time like my understanding also. I hope so.

Everything everyone says is in relation to their experiences. There is nothing new under the Sun, as it is said. But does that mean one can only understand what someone is saying or sharing in reference to something specific in the past? I do not think so and thus I reply as I do.

Listen, I do not mean to insult you or to make you feel bad. I am not trying to put you down or criticize you. I am endeavoring to create an understanding of what it is I do! Nothing else. When you define me, I have to clarify as I do not accept your definition. Now if your definition of me works for you for some reason, then why bother to have me clarify it? Is it important for you that I see the error of my ways?

FYI, if you can get a hold of Ramanuja's commentary on the Vedanta Sutra and if you check out the incredible first sloka commentary he does, you will understand far more than reading a summary on the internet. I think you will appreciate it very much. I know I did when I first read it in 1982. That was when I said, "Oh, this resonates with me so deeply!"

I am a spiritual mystic and as such, I am concerned with the experience of life. I train people on all levels to prepare them to find their own mystical experiences in whatever way they desire. I do not have a burning need to bring them somewhere or have them practice a certain discipline. This does not mean I am against them doing it, it only means I am not into pushing them towards anything. There are plenty of others ready, willing and eager to do so. I bring people to the deities as this is my personal inclination. They are free to come to the temple or not as they like. I personally do not require to place the deities within a philosophical context more than I normally do as what I do works just fine. I am not trying to avoid my past and have said multiple times that it is the foundation of what I am today. I am happy for my experiences. I am grateful for the opportunities given me.

Yet, at this moment I do not want to reference what I am doing to the past or to a school of philosophy. I have seen that this form of philosophical discussion deviates one from a mystical methodology and discipline. It creates polemics, not unlike the one you seem to want to engage me in now. I do not appreciate polemics. I do not like philosophical conflicts, although intellectually I am more than capable of presenting what I do and think in rational and convincing terms. It is a matter of taste and of my desire to maintain consistency in my presentations. It also works better in my own mind. So when you push me, I react. How you feel about that is something you have to examine and respond appropriately, however, I do not wish to engage in discussions that are not relevant to me.

Normally, I would respond to people according to what they need or want. After all, I like being of service. But your discussion is about me and how I think about the fundamental concepts that drive my presentations and perhaps my experiences. Being so, I decline to participate in this discussion on your terms alone as your questions or your considerations of what I am do not relate to me. I am not trying to shut you out. I do not mind that you do not write in a way that expresses what I am. I have been dealing with this for a long time and I am familiar with it. What I do and what I am are not philosophically obvious. Due to this, I give a lot of ammunition to critics to find fault with what I say or do. As I do not follow within a particular system familiar to them, they find many things to object to and to "reveal" to others as faults. This is not very interesting to me neither is it original. It follows the pattern long established amongst "brahmanas" who are only so good as their capacity to prove themselves intellectually superior to other brahmanas. I am not interested in this.

This does not mean that I have no "school of thought." I do and it is easily apparent in my books, writings and presentations. How you receive it is entirely up to you and there is no right or wrong way for you to think. And yes, that last statement was definitely my opinion and not absolute.

I am primarily concerned with stating (when I have to or want to) the truth as I see it and as I feel it can benefit others. There are thousands of discussions and presentations available on the internet or in books where such discussions occur. They do not interest me. Must they interest me? Is there some fault in my having no interest in them or is it my allowable inclination? When I follow my inclination, my energy flows towards that which inspires me and brings me to where I want to go. When I am aware of this flow, I am not inclined towards leaving it just because someone says I should. I do not feel I have to do anything, that I have to follow anything or anyone. If and when I do that, it is according to my own choice at that moment. Am I therefore whimsical? Again, it depends on your definition. Is following one's heart whimsical, and if so, why would it be? Or is it the basis of one's existence? At this point I do not see any other choice. How you see it depends on you.

I appreciate a lot of the philosophy of the ancients and respect certain personalities enormously. There are things I disagree with. I do not feel such awe or reverence for anyone that I am unable to look at their words from my own point of view and accept or reject or not be interested or find it interesting sometimes or any combination of any ingredient as I like! When someone attempts to restrict me, bind me, limit me, place expectations and demands on me, or somehow box me into some conception that does not reflect what I am, I object and decline that attempt.

Dear Hari, you might think that you have said it all and thats your right to think like that which I accept.

Not sure what you mean by "said it all." I have stated so much in my lectures I cannot imagine needing to state more. I am kind of tired of saying things. I am not sure it means much at this point.

Although I must say that your continued attempt to put me in a position where you suppose I would not know what I say or would like to know from you shows to me that you too don't seem to understand where I am at, or what I understand and realize.

I firmly believe that you know very, very well what you say. I am totally convinced that you have a very clear conception of who and what you are and what you think. My conviction of this is what drives my urge to continue responding.

When it comes to Ramanuja, I feel (and again, this is my opinion based on reading his books, not accepting someone's summary on the internet) that you have presented a part of him that does not properly represent him. If you wish to have an answer to your question, read his vedanta sutra commentary, or at least the 32 (+/-) page commentary on the first sutra.

If you want me to understand what you are and what you realize, then state it. But this thread was not about you. Despite that, I will reply if you do.

In some way you are so much just focused to oppose that what you understand to be some preconceived notions people might have from the good old days that you miss the wood for the trees in my case to say it with a German common saying.

I am opposed to your definition of me. I realize that your posts are concerned with what I do not understand. I appreciate your courage to express it but I simply do not agree. I have no preconceived notion of you from any old days as I did not know you then as I know you now. My responses to you are directly in the present moment.

Please list my preconceived notions that I am opposing that are unique to this conversation.

Like I said when one speaks or teaches something from a completely neutral point of view like many are doing this days it is one thing

So are you defining me as like all the others in the New Age market? Define New Age. And no, I will not engage in this thread in a discussion about New Age. I think the term is as meaningless as "Hindu."

I have never, ever stated that I present from a neutral point of view. I present from a very specific point of view. I am entirely within the mystical realm of presentation and this is in no way neutral. However, someone might misunderstand this because I do not demand any individual to think, believe, feel or act in any way other than their own individual experience that this is neutral. I am not neutral, I am totally on the side of the individual! I have very definite ideas and when someone presents something opposed to these ideas, as you seem to do often, I object and state once again that I am not neutral, I have a very specific idea of what I am doing. I see things that are beneficial for someone and things that can harm them. I try to avoid condemning them when they do harm to themselves and endeavor to assist them to change their choices by modifying the rationale that drives their acts. Therefore I do not say, this is good, this is bad, in the sense of some absolute. I say, this works for you, this does not. This is not neutral, this is considerate and extremely personal. Indeed, I am an extreme personalist.

Considering that I disagree entirely with your statement, I see no reason to engage in the discussion you are initiating afterwards. You say, if A then B. I say, not A: B therefore not relevant.

but when one speaks and acts also in relation with something which exists already in a long established spiritual tradition and understanding in society than one should not wonder when such questions might arise how that what you might say or do might fit also in the understanding one might already have. After all the way inteligence works is that one dearly accepts something in addition to that one might know already if it makes also more sense to oneself.

I get the questions, I get the concepts, and I get why you ask them! This is not the issue. The issue seems to be, and correct me as you like, that your texts come in the context of defining me and I do not accept these definitions. I do not accept them because I am allergic to being defined. I do not accept them because the definitions are incorrect. I therefore reply with correct definitions. Again, you can define me as you like. But if you are interested in how I define me, you might find it more advantageous to accept my stated definitions.

I never really liked comparative religious studies. I find it boring. Just because I say something that is similar to what someone else said does not mean I have to discuss the other person. Seems like a waste of time. After all, everything we say has already been said or shared with thousands of others, perhaps millions, throughout historical time.

There are many fundamental and important points within the concepts of the past that I entirely and categorically reject as irrelevant, damaging, incorrect and sometimes downright dangerous. There are some extremely essential things that I consider to be the foundation of my entire existence. For me to engage in a discussion of each and every one of these points in the format that you sometimes use, would be very confusing. I have lectured extensively on points I feel are not advantageous for spiritual development. Considering that most spiritual organizations following a culturally based spiritual tradition demand compliance with concepts they consider axiomatic and allegiance to their authorities in their school or organization, they feel I am "not qualified" to engage in such discussions. Indeed, they are correct! I do not accept what they accept. I do not accept the infallibility of sadhu, sastra or guru. Sometimes I think they are as wrong as one can get. I maintain the freedom to feel what I feel, to choose as I do, and to decide what is acceptable and what not. Now why would you want someone who believes this to expand your awareness of those traditions? When you do it, either you have somehow missed what I presented (I understand that too as there are tons of lectures and after all, who has time or desire to listen to them all?) or you are trying to adjust my presentation to conform with what you feel is right. Neither of these reasons work for me and therefore I reply as I do. It is not because I think you do not know what you are speaking about, it is because you most certainly do know what you are speaking about and I most certainly do not agree with it!

So no need to be insulted. Honestly! And maybe you are not insulted. Perhaps this is a sport? Or maybe you are intensely interested in being understood for what and who you are and you refuse to allow me to define you in a manner that is not acceptable? Bravo!

Ok you might say that those people you might speak in Russia might understand you better but my personal experience in regard to this is that this is far from being the case. But maybe it evolves over time like my understanding also. I hope so.

When I broadcast, the audience is from around the world. Naturally, when I go to St Petersburg they have more experience with me and the deities and their own direct and deeply spiritual experiences that have impacted them enormously. This is something unique and I am very happy for them. When I go to Moscow, I cannot reproduce that experience for people who have not had it before because there are no deities. So I am not sure who you mean when you write this.

I am not placing you at odds with others. But I am saying that when one has the mystical experiences I endeavor to facilitate, one is much more equipped to enter into other mystical experiences than those who have not (unless they already did it in some other way.) Now, when you question as you do, I consistently state that I am not a philosopher, not a New Age Guru, not a guru at all in any traditional sense of the term, not a grand discusser of sadhu, sastra and all that jazz, not a believer neither a follower of any tradition and so on. I am a mystic and I share that with all my capacity.

It is interesting that you quote Russians. During my last trip to Russia I had an existential crisis as I saw that I could no longer handle dealing with the minds of others. I could only relate to the mystical side of individuals or group energies (see lecture, What Is Mysticism?) and minds got in the way. I felt that those who were mystically aware could deal with it and those who were familiar with me yet were not mystically aware never would be (unless they were new at it and not ruined by traditional burdens.) residence on the mental platform and the mystical platform at the same time is impossible. So even in Russia we have dichotomy. Alas, it exists everywhere. What to do?

Dear Hari, I was reading a few days ago your first response and allowed myself to reflect on it, for some time before responding. Today I see that you added another comment where you elaborate more on what I wrote. What I wanted to write first after reflecting today for some time about your first comment is, that I was until now somehow not aware that while giving the lectures your main intentions where not to introduce someone or make someone better aware of the Supreme, Krishna but something else what I would try to place also in some kind psychological category, helping to increase ones self-confidence and so on. Since the time the deities where placed in the temple in St. Petersburg I was always wandering why you were speaking so less in your lectures about this divine personalities. Now I understand that as you say: "I bring people to the deities as this is my personal inclination", you make a distinction while speaking to the public about your personal preferences and that what you want to present on Harimedia as a kind of spiritual healing or something like that.

On the other hand as I can experience here on Harimedia from the writings of others it is also so that some people seem to think that you moved away complitelly from the philosophical level into a kind of mystical energetic one. But as I can see in your comment related to Ramanujacarya that you still value philosophical discussions and interpretations. And I am happy about that because I say to you frankly that all this speaking and writing about this energetic stuff or even the so called "mystical experiences" are not my world, it wasn't for me. I want, like Socrates, to understand things mainly from a so called philosophical or intelectual point of view. Althoough I would say I am not really against mystical experiences it is just so that I have no clue yet what those experiences really are, and where they should lead, or guide one in a spiritual sense, if you understand what I want to say.

I thought I was discussing philosophically! I might not discuss scriptural philosophy, if that is what you meant, but I certainly do speak philosophically.

What I say is in the context of preparing the ground for an individual's entrance into spiritual mysticism. It is what I do. One cannot come to the point of willfully creating mystical experiences unless one is fully prepared to do so. Most of the themes I discuss, are meant to assist someone to develop the capacity to focus their energetic awareness consciously and thus enter at will into spiritual dimensions. It is not psychology alone, although the psychological factor is significant within the context of communion between psyche and feeling. This communion balances the left and right, male and female, aspects of the brain and human energy and increases power. When we are fully aware of our energy, we awaken to spiritual dimensions.

I think we do not share this ideal. Your idea of philosophy must have as its goal realization of the self and divine. My goal is the same. I do not like to simply speak about this goal, I open the doors for people to enter it. Your comment that you have not had a mystical experience has made me sad. I cannot satisfy your intellectual thirst as I am not that kind of person. I think you would be more fulfilled by associating with others who share your requirement. I will not engage in intellectual discussions as such talks do not resonate with me.

.
I am glad to hear that your goal is the same, namely the realization of the self and divine. It seems that you just put the focus more on that what you call mystical experiences, which according to my understanding seem to be a kind of autonomous spiritual awarenes or realization of the individual, a kind of aha effect for which people following traditional ways of selfrealization think that they might become aware only after a long struggle and great deprivations of different kinds, also called tapasya. It is interesting how Wikipedia describes this one: "The Aha! Effect refers to the common human experience of suddenly understanding a previously incomprehensible problem or concept."

So all is fine I am on your site. It is also so that the reason I am always so eager to listen to your lectures or read what you have written is that it also satisfies very much mine, that what you call "intellectual thirst," it also opens new ways of insight into things or philosophical aspects cloudet often by the old ways of understanding, dictated by the former association and the understanding in the society one may have being envolved before. I am not a traditionalist, or fundamentalist although it may seem so at times from that what I am writing. It is rather so that somehow by my nature I am born with the iresistable urge and insatiable desire to question things, in order to get at the root of things. In this way I am more a progressive. But I would say in conclusion, a true progressive needs a vision of a better "philosophy", spiritual insight and society as a precondition for personal action or envolvement. And for me there is no doubt that you have that vision and ability to properly deliver that vision also to others.

I am kind of tired of saying things. I am not sure it means much at this point.

Discussion, no matter if it happens by writing or by talking of this, that and the other point can become very tedious. Life and direct experience of it very seldom does. Writing and talking about direct experiences of life is not that tedious either. Life is like playing improvised music, jamming. Notes can be good, but what the heck, who needs them if you have good jamming partners?

So I, for one, do appreciate your nonsectarian approach.

I remember that in the days of yore while doing my time in camp Iskcon what really bore me out was the endless discussions of various philosophical points type "how inconceivable is actually, in a sense, conceivable, if you just wrap your mind around it the following way blah blah and the other theoretical approaches and intellectual gymnastics we were supposed to sport with. Being intellectual. In the meanwhile, in another part of the universe, there was a whole lotta life to live and interesting experiences to experience, plenty of time to keep an open mind and make it even more open. Instead our time and energy was being boxed into a corner.

Just a reflexion here, not really meant for anybody. Not for Harsi either. Just a bit rambling. Gotta go, races to race, pies to eat.

For my liking in what you have written here Pamu I see a kind of contradiction or rather a way to over simplify things related to our spiritual experiences. I for one long for the time when we would no longer compare all our spiritual understandings with those practiced by this or the other society of people. Rather from the point of view of what would be more advantageous for each of everyone of us individual persons. As I see it there is or it could be not really advantagious spiritually for the individual to neither over complicate or mystify things, like perhaps experienced in traditionaly lead societies like ISKCON or overly simplify them like you may try to propose in what you have written.

There must be found a right balance between this two extremes, the goldem middle so called. In music both things are needed and also helpfull to become a good musicion. The ability to play by notes as well as to play by ear if it is needed and also requested from you. In a symphony orchestra without the ability to play by notes may get you in trouble. The same is true for a dance band, here your improvisation and creativity are what counts.

In a society of people there are also different approaches to what you may want to get or achieve by your endeavors. A simple man may be more satisfied with his services to god and his prayers whereus people who may not be so simple-minded by nature may want more. To understand god and his position or his relation to the supreme and the universe, may want to have more background information before doing some service to god or meditate or pray to the supreme. This are just some reflections by me regarding this interesting issue you opened up here in this discussion.

Perhaps it would assist if I stated my realization of late?

I have shared my experiences with people as far as they could be shared in words and concepts. I know that experiences only have value when they are experienced; hearing about someone else's experiences is not as valuable as having your own. I thought that if I could set the stage for others to share what I have gone through in this life, they would share my experiences and thus my methodology. This is not what has happened and for some time I have had an existential crisis about it. My crisis revolves around seeing a future in all of this.

A good friend of mine explained to me what has actually occurred and with this help I understood more and no longer am in crisis. Let me share this with you.

I have given the means by which people can find themselves on their own, in their own manner and in their own time. They have been given all the tools to do this. I have not given them goals or a mission, neither have I required any quantity of advancement. I have simply facilitated their process to find themselves. I have made it acceptable to find oneself. I think I have been successful at this.

One of the problems that follows this is that everyone becomes quite strong as an individual and more capable to live their own life on their own terms. This is a problem because while it is great for the individual, it is not so great for a group. A group requires something that binds it together that all share and contribute to for its growth. I have tried to place what I do in a group context but it does not work. Whatever "we" do is mainly for our individual selves and does not transfer over to the group context. This forum is a great example of this. Each person speaks from their own realization as there is no "group think" or expected philosophy or required methodology. We express ourselves as individuals and are respected as such. However, when we try to do something together this strength turns into a weakness. Too much individuality creates distance and separation between people. We also sometimes think we do not really need each other. I do not think this illusion will continue long considering the rapidly deteriorating situation in the world (most of which is not reported in the news). Therefore, we need to learn about "unity in diversity." It is easier said than done.

We have no group, and I find that interesting. Sometimes I have heard the phrase, "Harimedia People," as if this was a cohesive group that had similar ideas and followed some line of thought. As we all know, this is most certainly not true.

The question is, "Is this good or bad?" One might say that it is neither, it just is. Another might say that why bother putting a value on it? My thought is that I am 100% convinced that the only future in this world is to be found in localized, self-sufficient, energy independent, people aware and family friendly communities. Community is, by definition, a group thing and it requires that we grant our energy to the group as an offering of sharing and support. So far, even discussing this issue is troublesome as we all have our ideas of what we want and who we want it with. I am designing community in such a manner that we are all protected in our living even though we cooperate. But that, as you know, is another issue.

One of the problems that follows this is that everyone becomes quite strong as an individual and more capable to live their own life on their own terms. This is a problem because while it is great for the individual, it is not so great for a group. A group requires something that binds it together that all share and contribute to for its growth. I have tried to place what I do in a group context but it does not work. Whatever "we" do is mainly for our individual selves and does not transfer over to the group context. This forum is a great example of this. Each person speaks from their own realization as there is no "group think" or expected philosophy or required methodology. We express ourselves as individuals and are respected as such. However, when we try to do something together this strength turns into a weakness. Too much individuality creates distance and separation between people. We also sometimes think we do not really need each other. I do not think this illusion will continue long considering the rapidly deteriorating situation in the world (most of which is not reported in the news). Therefore, we need to learn about "unity in diversity."

My thought is that I am 100% convinced that the only future in this world is to be found in localized, self-sufficient, energy independent, people aware and family friendly communities. Community is, by definition, a group thing and it requires that we grant our energy to the group as an offering of sharing and support. So far, even discussing this issue is troublesome as we all have our ideas of what we want and who we want it with. I am designing community in such a manner that we are all protected in our living even though we cooperate.

I want to share one story that has a direct relation to this. Also as this story has started just a week ago - I am still under the impression of the change that has happened in me and it is very inspiring.
I am living in a cottege in a forest zone and most of the time I am at home alone with my son ( sometimes father and his wife come but they have their own home here and we don't spend much time together) I usually do videos, play music and meditate, sometimes work in the garden and much time I am spending (as all of us ) just in maintaining life (cooking cleaning, shops and s.o). I consiously have moved from Moscow to the country because I wanted to live in a peacefull place and meditate and relax more and not to be so social and to see people less as I thought that people distract me from my spiritual efforts. When I came to Moscow to play music it was good for me because I can be of service by this BUT when guests came to me, although I love to recive guests I was always thinking that Although I love this or that person - the day is lost because I have to talk and assosiate with them and it means its "not so spiritual" as doing music meditation and videos.So when the guests came some part of me was always suffering and wanting them to leave.
Last week a couple of my friends came to meet me and they saw a big pile of wood that needed to be choped for the wood burning stove. I told them that I have a plan to call workers and pay them so that they chop all this wood and put nicely to dry up. And they said "why would you do this - lets better call our friends and spend money for the food and nice tea and we do it all ourselves" So 5 people came to my house that evening. They were very different and very independent people - few buddhists and few yoga practitioners and followers of some other spiritual sistems ... All this people know each other from the "Empty Hills" festival. They have worked together there, cleaning the forest after the festival was over. They all love nature and earth and are very expert in ecology and gardening and s.o
So they came and we have stayed together for about a week (some left earlier). This week transformed me in a great way. First I had cryses - after 2 days I ve got tired and felt that I need to be alone... but what to do? they are in my house and there are a lot of work still left and they are all nice people whom I like very much. Then I have honestly explained to them my problem ( as they are all very sensitive people they could also see it) and we have shared responsibility in such a way that I ve got a lot of space for me and everyone was doing what he can and we all were happy. We all could wake up and go to sleep when we wanted and do whatever exercises we needed and when anyone felt ready to do some work - he just went to chop wood or cook or cleaned the kitchen and the house. We eat together and in the evening we had concerts (there was one more musician there). In the evening neighbors came to drink tea with us and to listen to the music. People came and brought milk and vegetables and fruits... They were atracted by this energy of love and support that was here. And there was no division between us - they were accepted in a friendly way without any judgment or fear that they could break our "spiritual atmosphеre".
During our talks while drinking tea we discussed the situations that had happened during the day and things that were very closely connected to our evolution and to the things we want to do together. And this situation was very enlightening for all of us as we all could see each other's weekness or problems and could openly talk and discuss it all with love and acceptence to each other and desire to be of service. This was a real familly of people who shared the same values and ideas in life. And when I have changed and started to learn how to live and work together with them - It had opened so much potencial in me, in my capacity to express love and to be of service, that now, when I am finally alone, I don't feel that its better for me. When you are quite strong yourself and you can declare your own space and live as you want to live and do what you consider right - then the society of spiritualists, who share the same spirit can be VERY helpfull to your evolution. This type of communication helps to see your motivations, fears and desires, faults and misunderstandings and work with it with the help of loving people who don't blame or condemn you but kindly hold you and support you. And there is so much co-creation and jokes and warmth and love... So the wood choping is mostly done, but now we have many more ideas what we want to do together and we are going to meet again soon and to live together for some more days.
There is definately a question of money there. I can tell you frankly - its not cheeper then calling workers to chop the wood, and it is not much more expencive. Perhaps also little longer, because our intention was to work without stress. But when you are doing things like this - you change the energy of it all. Instead of buisiness type of relations, when you just pay people for their work, you get a loving exchange where you offer what you can and people offer what they can. And this is a great opportunity to express your trust and your generosity and freedom from expectation or fear and allowence and acceptance and desire to be of service without trying to exploit others. I can't say I am completely sucsessfull in all this tasks:))) More or less in some, and have a long way to evolve:)))
So - living in such a familly friendly community can be great for the spiritual growth and very plesent at the same time. BUT it can be harmonious only if most of the members are quite strong themselves and do not want to prove that they are good by making others feel bad and are completely honest and opened towards each other. I am very happy to have such people near me and I am extremely greatefull for that.
Just wanted to share it... It is already happening, we started to live together (sometimes) and we all are planning to build the big community ... and I belive we can do it soon:))) And we invite all others, who want and can cooperate together on the basis of love, acceptance and being of service.
Much Love

Dear Harsi
I am wandering with whom you spoke in Russia that got such a negative opinion?
I know many of them who was present on Haris lectures they are quite intelegant people.
Much more intelegent that many Iscon people there in Germany i saw when i was there.

More then that frankly saying i got my feeling that most of the people understood much better wath Hari was saing then you.
And i know many of them there are far more intelectual then you can imagine.
Your elitism that coming that you are living in the west is complitly over