Harimedia Forum

Dear Hari,

A few days ago I went out and when passing along the road in front of a shop I saw a magazine lying on the street. It was a Christian magazine of a group of people who interpret the content of the Christian scripture in their own way, and it attracted my attention because of the title of the printed article on the opend page of the paper while lying there on the ground. "Will we live on after death?", was the title, "Lebt man nach dem Tod weiter?" in German. The author developes in the article the idea that after death everything is finished and underpins his personal conclusion with a quote from the Bible where God himself allegedly would have said: "For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return..."

The writer goes on by writing that God created angels to live in heaven and the human beings and animals to live here on earth. Adding again a quote from the Bible to give support to his statements. He develops further the idea that the human beings were meant by God to live on eternally here on earth but because the original human beings did not surrendered to the will of God by tasting a certain fruit they were forbidden by God to taste they brought about the death upon themselves and into this world. He writes further by quoting from the Bible that only those who surrender to the will of God will have the privilege to live on after death, as he puts it "in the mind and memory of God" and sometime in the future again eternally in their physical presence here on earth. "All those who will live than may hope to unite again with their loved ones" the author writes.

Now what I find interesting here is that one can find support for ones ideas and ones various spiritual concepts in everything, if you want it to, if in the Bible or like other people in the Bhagavad-gita or some other scriptures, but I ask myself if one can somehow really differentiate what can be a credible information in this regard and what not and how? Of course some may say that you can have faith in what is written there in this or that religious scripture because its content was directly revealed by the Supreme, by God personaly or through those he empowered to listen to his will and voice. But I often ask myself if we really need at all a scriptural support for our ideas and for understanding something spiritual about our existence and if and what will live on after our physical death and where? Is it beneficial for someone to live ones life with a particular expectation which may or may not become fulfilled in the future or is it better to keep in this regard also a natural curiosity by knowing well that who knows or what scripture can tell us for hundred percent what is there to be expected after death and what not? Of course than the question may arrise what is there to be known and to be realized or become aware of spiritually anyway and what a religious belief or spiritual concept and understanding is really there to give an answer for? In the past some of us developed the concept that just by chanting so and so long and by doing this and that devotional service the answer and realization to our various questions will somehow automatically become revealed to us if we just go on with our spiritual practice.

It seems that a perfect and timeless answer regarding ones various questions about life and death science as it is understood and practiced today can also not provide us with. As I was reading recently in an article written by a professor. "Science is a socio-discursive method and has nothing to do with timeless truths." Thus science can also only tell us what the knowledge on a particular issue is at present which may well change also in the future. It seems that however perfect or whatever perfect knowledge we would like to posess somehow we will have to live with the fact that in this regard we will always lack something however perfect or full of knowledge one may want to be, if at all.

Its also interesting what Prabhupada said in this regard: "Our Krsna consciousness movement is very scientific, factual, authorized. Simply intelligent persons can understand it." If what he meant really meets the science preconditions of being "logical irrefutable, contradictionary free and empirically adequate" is I think doubtful.

Perhaps the real question is, "What do we believe to be true and can we ever really be sure it is so?" Philosophers have dealt with this question often and I think it is important that each of us understand why we think and feel as we do.

The key to all understanding is awareness. The more we are aware of the circumstances we are in, the emotional and psychological factors that influence us, how our thoughts and behavior are modified by external influences, and how our own conscious and subconscious desires rule our vision, the more we are capable of understanding who we are, why we accept what we do, and where we plan on going.

The Japanese have a unique vision regarding predicting the future. Unlike other cultures that periodically check the accuracy of their previous predictions to better their predictive capacity, the Japanese do not care if their predictions are realized. According to them, the act of predicting the future is an exercise to expand awareness of the present. They see their vision of the future as simply an extension of their vision of the present and accordingly they modify their present to accommodate where they think it is heading. Quite smart! After all, it has been verified again and again that no one can accurately predict the future as it is always something other than we thought.

Religion gives us a vision of the future and a method to attain it. It is a standard characteristic of all theologies. They define their version of the final goal, their heaven, and how this goal is attained. It is not so important that their ideas of heaven are different; what is more important is that the goal includes full peace, bliss, happiness, freedom from pain, old age, disease, death and similar problems found in this realm. In short, a very nice place without problems in association with God and other Godly personalities who do not fight or cause each other difficulty.

This is attractive since it includes all the things we do not like about our present situation. The methods to attain this state include acting good in one's own life and towards others, doing service, worship, discipline, self-control, abstinence, and many other good qualities that are beneficial to the self and society.

So we are given a complete package: here is the final reality and the way to get there. No one disagrees that ending up in a nice place is good and no one disagrees that the way to get there is to be good.

Is it true? We cannot say for sure until we experience it. Yet, if one dies and does not experience it, one could carry the mind set after death that lack of attainment is linked to personal failings. Even if one attains it, one cannot come back and "testify" that everything is true. This means that the goal cannot be verified and therefore the method to attain the goal is also not verifiable.

Set aside for this discussion the rare situation where someone has visualized themselves into the spiritual realm they desire while still in this world. This unique and very personal attainment is also impossible to verify as one can only accept the statements of the one who claims to have the attainment. Yet, we can share to some extent the energy of another's attainment to the extent they project it and we can receive it. But again, this is subjective.

Subjective reality is the norm in this world, not the exception. Science is not absolute -- simply look at the profound difficulty arising when photons were measured to travel faster than the speed of light, thus breaking a seemingly irrefutable axiom proposed by Einstein. Sure, this is a headlining contradiction of the laws of nature, but there are thousands of accepted facts that were overturned when new information was gained. I am comfortable with the idea that science is a combination of facts that can be verified and reproduced, and supposition, presumption, and theory. The scientific method includes the creation of working theoretical models that help guide further research and development and that are continuously updated and modified to fit data and practicality. There are axiomatic facts and there are theories meant to assist the increase of knowledge and capacity.

Spirituality uses the same method in its own way. I do not think there is value in trying to justify spirituality as a purely verifiable fact while denying its theoretical component as this does not demonstrate its scientific quality. Such attempts seem to me to be based in the idea that "we are as good as you and better," and have little value to the spiritualists themselves who generally dismiss the scientific method as either useless or disrespectful of God. I do not see any loss to spiritualists who admit there are elements of both experience and theory in what they do and believe.

No one remains on some spiritual path without personal experience. Without having experience of the spiritual energy, one would not engage in the oftentimes intense disciplines expected. One engages in spirituality because it gives something tangible that can be felt and has value. This is the "factual" aspect of spirituality and it also includes the idea that were we to engage in certain sinful activities it would cause us harm -- a concept that can be verified through experience. We consciously and subconsciously experiment by deviating from the expected norm and observing the subsequent results. This is a scientific method in as much as it uses experiment to test hypothesis to reach conclusions that are built upon to uncover previously hidden truths.

And yet, there is the element of theory that is also shared with science. A spiritualist believes their literature and theology to be true. After some time, they develop faith in it and may even feel this faith to be unshakable. Some feel that what the previous authorities have stated is irrefutable and undeniable. They accept authority and follow it, sometimes even when it counters their personal experience. This mentality of following is born of the theory they have accepted as a working paradigm. The theory is something like this:

"I do not know what is true or false as I am small and imperfect. The scripture comes from God or people who are as good as God. The scripture is true and beyond the failings of humans. If I simply believe in it and follow it, I too shall attain the promised land after death. All I want is to attain that state, so I shall deny myself thoughts or acts that are forbidden and thus qualify myself for heaven."

Why does one believe this? Does one have any evidence that this is so outside of what one has read or heard? Yes, there is some experience involved, such as the honeymoon period when one first enters a spiritual group and feels great love and connection to the divine energy or when one later has moments that are simply wonderful! There is inspiration, a feeling of unity with others, the conviction that one is doing something great for the world, and one is the representative of God. Yet, despite this experience of our modified actions bringing tangible results, the complete package of the belief system remains a theory to be later proved or disproved. The idea that the scripture is correct is also a theory for any individual. We accept it is correct and have faith in it. This is our working theory. So long as there are no blatantly contradictory events or occurrences to deviate us from this conviction, we remain convinced. We state, "I will continue to believe this to be true and this belief will get me to heaven." In short, we accept and continue in a spiritual process because we want to, we like it, and it gives us something we think we could not have without it.

Although Sheldon disagrees, an important aspect of science is psychology. The process of the mind is analyzed and attempts are made to modify it for the sake of the individual. Modifying how people think is a very developed science utilized by the media, politicians, businesses and anyone who wants to earn money or gain power. The theories we accept as fact after being influenced by a public relations or sales campaign may not at all be true, but this is of little importance to those who are concerned with the goal of modifying your behavior for their benefit. Science plays a major role in creating fantasy, as can be seen in the movie Avatar, the presentation of the prophetic quality of a presidential candidate, or the insane need of people to buy little devices that do all kinds of things that one had no idea needed to be done till someone told them to do them! This is all science, carefully researched, developed, implemented and experientially monitored to produce verifiable results. Yet, it is mainly fantasy in one form or another. Because of this, I do not think science can justify criticizing religion when science is used to create other forms of religion with the same ideals of giving people the goal of heaven (on earth) and a means to get there.

What is true to you and has value to you is based on your own belief system. My desire is to assist you to become super-aware so that you can expand your capacity to see the energy of any person or event and thus understand its value to you. Decisions made in awareness are superior to those made without it.

Will any of us, even those who are super-aware, make perfect choices and decisions and always live within the highest forms of energy? I doubt it. Does it matter? That depends on your demands and expectations.

Some questions we should all examine regularly:

* Why do we believe what we believe? What caused us to come to the conclusions we did?
* What do we expect out of life and what are we expecting to attain in the future?
* How do we feel about our-self and thus others in this world? What has caused us to feel this way?
* How much of our life's experience is a product of external energy that integrates within our own without our awareness and how much of what we experience comes from within?
* Do these ideas of the future have value only in the future or are they really indicators of what we are now?

Continue to ask questions, observe, increase awareness, and see how fact and theory are always related. See how we are manipulated by our beliefs and observe who benefits from it. As they say, "Follow the money," as it will always lead to underlying causes. You can substitute "fame," "profit" or "distinction" or any other form of enjoyment for the word "money" to expand your awareness of this world.

One thing I'm still not able to understand, although I`m trying hard at times. Are you really suggesting that one is not able to "realize" or become aware of the self (the spirit soul) as something being apart from the body since one cannot become aware of something one already - is. At least one could have that impression when reading what you wrote. It would indeed also be funny to suggest to realize something one may already - be (which just waits to be recognized by oneself one day). As that would mean that there is something you - are - and something distant from you, you would - posses or would be something separate from you, the conscious person, and I am not speaking here about the body. I think there is no doubt that in this world one is - also - the body, at least for some time and all other groups of people who would suggest a different view are doing that also with the body and mind, something they try hard to deny although that is not possible. Since when you are not the body you seem to be nothing at all in this world by which one can express oneself and ones views, or maybe a ghost expressing oneself by clattering with tables and chairs. Can one realize at all something one already - is?

Have you realized and appeciated "your" self or "your" spirit soul on your long and unique spiritual journey in life? Have you thus reached full control of all your bodily senses and mind, of course I am joking here... I just wonder why Prabhupada was stressing this point so much in his teachings as something indispensable for reaching ones "goal", again another one of this irresolute and dogmatic concepts, in ones spiritual life. It must have had also something to do with the time of the hippy generation, the youth of the late 60ies and beginning of the 70ies was commited and following, with their motto of free love and free drug use like LSD, marijuana, hashish and other hallucinogenic drugs in order to "get high" and "experience" oneself in ways never done before, he was also recruiting young man and woman from, mostly in America. Of course to say there is material life and spiritual life is also strange since life is life, it is ones conscious state of being, it cannot be really categorised in one way or the other distinct from the state of being.

In all other issues your wrote I can fully agree. I just wonder what is there really to be realized or become fully conscious of, if it is even necessary, in addition to that what one may be and feel at present anyway?
Thank you for your precious time and energy!

Life is characterized by acts, events, struggle, stress and a variety of demands and impositions placed upon us, that divert our attention away from self. We become entangled in life, so much so that we lose connection with who we are as our minds and bodies are overwhelmed.

Spiritual practices counteract this influence. When we make the conscious choice to place ourselves in a spiritual environment -- a place of worship, a meeting of spiritual people, a discussion on spiritual topics, a peaceful meditation -- we focus our awareness on spiritual energy. This grants us relief from external impositions and stabilizes our energy.

The topics I have spoken about do not question the importance of spiritual life; I simply question the method. I propose that instead of spiritual life being mainly a group endeavor with now and then concentration on the self, it should mainly focus on establishing the self that may then engage in group endeavors as it sees fit.

As the most fundamental characteristic of self is awareness, I endeavor to focus awareness on the essence we are, on the energy we are and that we manifest. I point out that the we are mainly concerned with dealing with the energy of others in our daily life and that we need to learn to distinguish between that energy and our own. I recommend to be fixed in the self, strong as the self, and take responsibility for the direction of our own life through the choices we make.

I do not like to give too much prominence to a concept like "realization." If one is aware of one's energy and how one expresses it, one gains insight into the energy of others. This creates a new level of interaction and this increases ones awareness. I do not think one can be "fully conscious," as a final state as awareness always grows. Awareness is not limited to a few dimensions and it can enter as it likes and as one develops the capacity. As one feels more and more comfortable with oneself and secure in oneself, one allows his or her awareness to expand far beyond the limitations imposed by external forces. As one's awareness expands, one sees more, experiences more, and develops greater capacity. I suppose you could call this realization, but as it is a continuous, on-going process, the word "realization" no longer describes anything significant. Realization is a moment in time, whereas awareness is the energy within which we understand or realize. This continual increase of awareness is what powers conscious energetic expansion. It is the essence of spiritual life and evolutionary growth.

Since I am already aware, as awareness is the nature of life itself, I should allow that awareness of self, of being, and of essence to deepen more and more. There is no end to this expansion of awareness. Considering this, one can simply go from where one is now to a state of increased awareness. All the tools are within.

This is a discipline, but not the kind that is meant to get you some goal or some "attainment." It is meant to make life, wherever it is lived, a deeply meaningful process. When seen like this, life is no longer a series of events leading to some ultimate goal; rather, it is an ever-existing process.

I found today on the Web a very interesting quote I would like to let you know. There it is said: "Indeed, although it is true to say that in recent years there has been an increased interest and a greater sensitivity on the part of public opinion, international organizations and governments with regard to schooling and education, there has also been a noticeable tendency to reduce education to its purely technical and practical aspects. Pedagogy and the sciences of education themselves have appeared to devote greater attention to the study of phenomenology and didactics than to the essence of education as such, centred on deeply meaningful values and vision."

With the above description of your new "philosophy" in regard to spiritual awareness and ones ever-existing identity you opened a new chapter or a new way of spiritual understanding I would like to further expand or deepen if you dont mind. What I found especially a meaningful message in the quote above is that "the essence of education as such is centred on deeply meaningful values and vision." Something which in my opinion appeares to be highly appropriate to the way you explain spiritual topics.

Now what I would like to know is what is or should be the usefulness, benefit or gain (I am not sure what term I should use here in English) of ones expanded spiritual understanding and awareness? Is there a "goal" one should try to reach with ones expanded understanding and awareness or rather should that be a starting point for a more meaningful way of living ones life wherever that may be in the present and the future? You know what our understanding was in the past. In the past one was also joining or tried to come in contact with spiritual minded people or a spiritual community with a certain goal in mind, at least I had one, to find out who I am, spiritually, who or what is the Supreme Godhead, what is my connection and relationship with that superior divine being? Than I tried out all the various disciplines offered by that society by which, at least I had that promise, I could come closer to my spiritual goal in life.

Which "spiritual" disciplines, if any, would you propose to be meaningful and helpfull in this regard? When I was in St. Petersburg last year I was surprised to see people chanting japa in the temple. I am also doing it every now and than but not anymore in the way I did it until a few years ago where I was thinking that I would have to do so and so much rounds of japa on my beats in order to become purified of my bad ego or control the flow of my thoughts in my mind or whatever. Now I am chanting Hare Krishna every now and than when I feel like because I like the sound vibration and am feeling well when chanting the "holly name of Krishna" My focus has changed somehow as also in other things related to spritual understanding and practice. Somehow I can very much relate and understand very well that what you wrote above: "As one feels more and more comfortable with oneself and secure in oneself, one allows his or her awareness to expand far beyond the limitations imposed by external forces."

Still one may ask maybe what is expanded spiritual awareness or awareness of self really? Is there a prescribed or a feasible method in practice by which to expand or further ones understanding and awareness some say realization of the Supreme or Krishna? Or is it something which each individual person must or should decide.

Now what I would like to know is what is or should be the usefulness, benefit or gain (I am not sure what term I should use here in English) of ones expanded spiritual understanding and awareness? Is there a "goal" one should try to reach with ones expanded understanding and awareness or rather should that be a starting point for a more meaningful way of living ones life wherever that may be in the present and the future?

This is a very good question. I personally do not have any goals and expanded awareness is not a starting point. Awareness (without adjectives) is the natural consciousness of life. If you think back on the various topics we have discussed, you will see a recurrent theme; namely, “Our natural state is energetic essence and conscious awareness. All the external impositions we have accepted and embraced as our own, dull, distort, and transform that awareness. To restore the natural condition, one has to remove the grip of these external forces. Once that is done, or at least significantly so, awareness is restored to its natural state and life is lived as it was meant to be.” I do not recall insisting that the life that is lived has to be in some form as opposed to some other form. I do not give goals or directions. I avoid interfering with an individual’s will or right to make their own choices. I advise how to attain clarity and how to make connections to the divine and other beings. I sometimes share with others how I do it or how they can do it.

I like the statement that, “the purpose of life is to live.” If you add more conditions to the purpose of life, you start interfering with life itself. One naturally requires social, political, and economic directions, laws and structure, but these things are meant to regulate how life is lived within a social context. None of them are a purpose. There are various things we want to do and like to do or need to do, but none of them are the fundamental purpose of life. For example, it is not the purpose of life to be of service, it is rather the characteristic of essence to see that there is only one of us; service is an expression of this vision.

In short, life is to be lived. Being alive is simply another way of saying that the living, conscious and aware energy is expressing itself. One can also be alive and express oneself by doing nothing, as in a deep meditative, relaxed state.

We sometimes become confused by instructions that we should do this or we should be that. These instructions in and of themselves may or may not be correct and valuable, but it is important to understand that these ideas are only as important to us as we make them. When we embrace or reject something, we choose to do so. Why we make the choices we make is the real issue. A goal in life could be to insure that all the choices we make follow our conscious awareness of what is best. If we are making choices based merely on what we are told or what we have accepted without complete awareness, we are not really living our own lives but are living the lives of others. To truly embrace one’s own life and live it requires that one is very aware of why one does what one does. The more aware one is, the more able one is to adjust, modify, or transform one’s choices when there is a reason to do so.

Sometimes this is seen by someone as simplistic. Those who are addicted to being told what is right and wrong and what they should or must do, as well as the demand that they embrace some mission or goal as the ticket to their salvation, find my statements to be without much substance, boring, or a waste of time. I understand their reasoning, but I think they are not yet at the level where they can comprehend the spiritual depth of the discipline I suggest. Indeed, the very fact that they have surrendered their awareness and intelligence to some other force means they are not aware enough to understand me.

What is most interesting to me is that someone who embraces a spiritual culture or tradition, or at least some parts of it, after having removed those forces that cloud one’s conscious self-awareness are far more powerful in all respects than those who accept something because they believe it to be so! Again, this is a simple reflection of the often spoken idea that realization is superior to theoretical knowledge. However, the realization I speak of as prerequisite to living one’s own life as an expression of the essence they are, is truly deep and wide and will manifest in all aspects of life.

When life is seen as an expression of essence, one approaches it differently. However, there are many things one must do simply to manage day to day affairs in this world. Although one’s activity is at times restricted or directed, one still has the freedom to perform that activity with awareness (called “mindfulness” by some teachers) or not. As all action is more or less ruled by consciousness, one always the opportunity to manifest one’s aware choice.

Difficulty arises when a person does not see the depth of what I have been presenting and thinks there is “more” to it. They might think they need to have some spiritual activity to expand their awareness or develop their spiritual power and strength. As long as they think they need this, they do. After all, we are what we decide we are and if we decide we need to do more to be more, then we shall endeavor to do more. Being is, and it is fine as it is. I do not believe that removing external influences is done by simply following some process, as each influence has hooked itself to our consciousness in different ways, at different times, and for different reasons. Regardless of whether one follows a spiritual discipline or not, one still has to do the same exact spiritual work of developing true awareness of how and why we have embraced a certain idea and then endeavor to dissolve that imposition.

Now, you might ask, does this mean I am suggesting that one does not need to do anything? Well, yes, I am. However, I may choose to do something because I want to. I like to chant, sometimes, and I sometimes like kirtan, depending on who is doing it and what kind of effect is created. I like the deities and relating with them. I like speaking about spiritual themes. I like associating with spiritual people, but my definition of who is a spiritual person might not be yours. In short, I do what I want to do because I want to do it. I also do things I may not like, and there are plenty of them, because I am doing them for others who I do like. I do not like being everyone’s tech support (which is the burden tech savvy people all over the world carry) but if it is for my parents or my wife, or I can assist someone who really needs it, I like it. In other words, I may not like the act, but I might like who the act will benefit. Therefore, I come out ahead and do not lament about it.

Still one may ask maybe what is expanded spiritual awareness or awareness of self really? Is there a prescribed or a feasible method in practice by which to expand or further ones understanding and awareness some say realization of the Supreme or Krishna? Or is it something which each individual person must or should decide?

Prescribed method? Not from me, although you can find others who will gladly share their prescriptions with you. Feasible method of practice? Well, living life as a discipline wherein one always maintains one’s conscious awareness and chooses to act as if there was only one of us is definitely feasible and favorable for spiritual evolution. And yes, that is something each individual has to decide on their own if they are true to themselves.

It all boils down to each individual. We are the controllers of our acts. We are the one’s who make choices. We are responsible for the choices we make. So embrace this reality and do not try to pass the responsibility to someone else. This in itself is a great spiritual achievement.

Some guru in Russia has complained that I took credit for what I did in the past. He thought that was wrong since all the glory and credit goes to one’s guru and not to oneself. I find it amusing. If we do something wrong, it is all our fault, and if we do something right it is all the guru. Hmmm, how do we win here? If you believe that everything comes to us from mercy, then sure, you are investing in the guru bank account and you will withdraw mercy from that account in due course. I give to you and you give to me. Is it so that when you do something that is bad that your bank account gets less? In other words, are we fined or penalized for improper actions? What kind of bank is that? Is there no way it is safe and secure? Kind of sounds like the modern banking system to me. But joking aside, if I am responsible for my acts when they are not right (and what is right and wrong is such a complex issue that religionists argue all the time amongst themselves, so much so that they often take each other to courts or mediation to resolve their disputes) then it will naturally follow, I suppose this is simple spiritual physics, that I am also responsible when my acts are good. I mean, either we are responsible or we are not. If one says we are responsible sometimes and not at other times, we open the door to a chaos of having to investigate and judge the factors, laws, regulations and interpretations of action to determine what is in the good side (when one is not responsible) and what is on the bad side (when one is responsible).

Therefore I stick to my idea that we are responsible for our acts and the choices we make. I have no problem with saying I did this or I did that. I would have a problem were I to use that statement to gain glory or admiration as this would be unnatural for me. However, I do like being appreciated for what I am by those who understand me. Ah yes, that is for another discussion!

Dear Hari I appreciate your voluntary intellectual attitude of openness and transparency. Indeed You demonstrate openness to us by giving an insight into your specific point of view in regard to spiritual and human topics. What I found most remarkable in your comment is the folowing passage: You write: "Regardless of whether one follows a spiritual discipline or not, one still has to do the same exact spiritual work of developing true awareness of how and why we have embraced a certain idea and then endeavor to dissolve that imposition."

I must say frankly I do not really understand what you mean by writing this. I will explain. I started my spiritual journey by reading from the books translated and commented by Prabhupada. He translates for example in the Bhagavad-gita the verse told by Krishna to Arjuna:

janma karma ca me divyam
evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna

"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."

Or: "A person who is fully absorbed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature."

Now if I understood you corectly the certain "idea" I may have embraced to try to "attain" the eternal abode of Krishna I would have to give up or at least try to understand what led me to embrace that certain idea. Perhaps trying to escape the dificulties in life. But than one may ask oneself perhaps why should one engage oneself at all with spiritual topics and disciplines, Why should one not just "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die" as the expression coined by Imhotep goes seeking more the things of the world through the effect of rampant materialism and not those of spirituality or heaven? In other words what do you mean to say by writing that one would have to do an "exact spiritual work of developing true awareness"? I had already before some dificulty to understand what it means to "become fully Krishna conscious."

I think what I would like to know why should one give up ones goal oriented ("How activities in Kṛṣṇa consciousness can lead one ultimately to the spiritual goal is described here, writes Prabhupad in the Bg) interest and engagement in spirituality for something which seems to be less aimless, or at least it seems to be so? It could also be so that my ability to understand you fully is hindered by the fact that I am not an English speaking reader.

You write also: "When life is seen as an expression of essence, one approaches it differently." In my opinion when I think back a few years ago it was indeed so that the way we lived our life "in Krishna consciousness" was more or less an external imposition of "vedic" laws and behaviour which had in fact not much to do with the reality of life within this world. And all that experience we accepted as our own was intensified by the society of people we lived together in order to be acccepted and appreciated therein. Therefore to live ones own life it is in my opinion much better to live independantly of any "ashram" or society in order to live ones life as an "an expression of essence", whatever that may mean, which is not yet fully clear to me.

Either my presentation was ambiguous or you have understood it differently than it was intended. I shall attempt to clarify.

[Hari writes]: "Regardless of whether one follows a spiritual discipline or not, one still has to do the same exact spiritual work of developing true awareness of how and why we have embraced a certain idea and then endeavor to dissolve that imposition."

I must say frankly I do not really understand what you mean by writing this.

When I said, “Regardless of whether…” I was saying that it does not matter if one performs or does not perform any particular kind of spiritual discipline as spiritual discipline itself is not the issue. The discipline followed, whatever it may be, is not the key to awareness.

The “ideas” I speak of are those all of us have embraced that relate to who we think or feel we are in the here and now. Some examples of these ideas:

* Traumas at birth
* Being abused as a child
* Being neglected or not seen for who you were as a child
* Growing up in a prejudiced environment
* Being ridiculed for not being good enough
* Being weaker than other kids
* Absorbing the values of your country
* the list could go on forever

These ideas impact us very deeply at the core of our consciousness. Traumas, feelings of insufficiency, yearning for recognition, desire to be acknowledged, wanting to be loved for who one is, needing to fit into the group, seeking respect, and other factors can influence the choices and decisions we make. This influence is apparent not only in our longer term decision making process, but at every moment in time. Why is interpersonal relationship so hard in this modern age and why is it getting worse, day by day?

Even if you believe, as you do, that Krsna is God and our duty is to serve and follow everything we have learned in the scriptures, when we are faced with a situation that agitates hidden cracks in our psyche, how we react and how we express ourselves are to a large extent a product of our past, even if attempt to control our reactions rationally. Even if we manage to not say what we really think, which is after all not that hard as most of us never say what we really think about something even if we knew what it was that we really think as most of the time we hide from ourselves, our energy expresses itself in truth. To be able to control that expression of energy is a skill and part of the discipline I have discussed. Recognizing that energy for what it is when it manifests is part of the detective work, the inner research, that reveals to us the rumbling undercurrents in our psyche that causes us to react as we do. The more we recognize and deal with these things, the more clear we become. As we cleanse away these forces, we come closer to the pure essence of self.

You can chant, read, serve and so on, and that is fine if this is what you really want to do. But unless and until you deal with your own energy in truth, in practice, in experiential environments where you are tested and pushed to the limits of your conscious awareness, you will not be able to cleanse the coverings that are glued to the self. Spiritual disciplines might make one more sensitive to the coloration of our consciousness, but without developing the (meditative) capacity of heightened awareness, one cannot take full advantage of these disciplines.

This is not some theory I cooked up. I have seen it practically, not only amongst modern day members of various religions, but amongst the leaders of those religions. No one, and I repeat, no one becomes free from their own baggage till they address it directly. You cannot hide behind a discipline and hope, wish, pray, and believe that everything will work out so long as you continue doing what you are doing. Real connection to the Supreme does not come from doing, it comes from being who you are and tuning to the divine energy. To be what you already are is not a question of doing, it is a process of letting go of everything you are not. To let go of what you are not requires that you know what you are not, to see all things for what they are and decide how to relate to them. To go through the process of accepting what you are and rejecting impositions on what you are, regardless if you have voluntarily accepted that idea (because it seemed at the time to correct) or you were programmed to think you should, is the prerequisite to enlightenment.

And if you deeply research the same sastra you like to quote you will see that this is the more advanced methodology expressed in the Bhagavatam. I find it amusing that devotees simply skim over the parts of the sastra they “accept and follow without question” that describe the meditative methods of detachment from this world. They assume that since Lord Caitanya said chanting is the only way, this is all they have to do. They assume their 16 rounds and their periodic following of their principles and programs are all they need to do and they are guaranteed entrance in the spiritual sky. However, this is not so. Whether one believes that or not depends on one’s own choice. However, I do not wish to leave my life in the hands of a statement that is not in tune with the entire tradition. But that is just my way of seeing it. I have explained this over and over again in my lectures.

If one were to examine what I have been saying in the context of the most profound elements of the religious tradition, one would find not only similarity, but often a continuation of these concepts. I do not wish to do that point by point comparison for various reasons. I leave it up to you, if you so desire, to make the comparison. If you feel the need to make comparisons, it is better to uncover the deeper resonance rather than seek out the differences. Once the deeper resonance is found, one can ride on this and embrace the deity one desires. The differences then become inconsequential.

Thank you for this very interesting discussion.
I assume that people who follow certain religious traditions do it but their own choice. We can only see a particle of time, and cannot see beyond the boundaries of birth and death, but there must be a good reason for that too.
What I "realized" and learned from you over the last years, and what resonates well with me (so it must be good for me: a simple rule) is that:
- we are co-designers of our own life; so we decided to meet Hare Krishna people in this life; we thought it would be important for us to see the world from that perspective; when we were done with this our awareness expanded and we could move forward;
- there is no ultimate resort for souls; we cannot buy heaven with our "spiritual" or "religious" deeds but it helps us in de-conditioning (I mean Hari's list of this life's conditioning) from traumas and in directing our attention to the inner life;
- whether one likes it or not, there is only one of us (although we are different), and all religions (Bhagavad-gita or Bible included) are continuation of the same concept;
So, inclusiveness is always a move in the right direction; "you are not one of us" means always problem in the process; it seems to be a simple rule but can be devastating if applied for "religions" and "spiritual movements". Very, very rarely you will meet people who accept, not reject. Unfortunately, it happens also among those who admire this fantastic dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna.

I really enjoyed this discussion.

Dear Akhila, I appreciated and was excited about the opportunities which you yourself ascribe to this new insight. I can tell you that your experience and insight that "we are co-designers of our own life" and that actually of one's own free will one decided to meet Hare Krishna people in this life in order to see the world from that perspective. Thus ones awareness expanded and one could move forward, certainly rings true with me.

Therefore it is also hard for me to understand why someone would critizize and speak badly about the society of devotees they where ones a member of by calling it a dangerous sect or cult or whatever. Certainly there were and are like in many societies of this kind all kinds of insufficiencies or shortcommings but like in every situation among people one must learn the art to rebuke and critizize without hurting or offending someone and someones feelings. Therefore I always tried to avoid the word sect or cult in this regard although there are and were certainly, like in many such societies with exclusivist policies, some sectarian tendencies of all hues involved, that I know from my own experiences.

How do you understand from a practical standpoint this statement that "there is only one of us (although we are different), and all religions (Bhagavad-gita or Bible included) are continuation of the same concept." With this position or point of view I read also by Hari and others which leaves me somewhat perplexed I had always some difficulties to understand. How could one be "one" and at the same time feel internally to be an individual person?

I read in this regard online in the article: "Where God Lives - Brain Research and Religion" that also Newberg, a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and a pioneer of the scientific search for the divine, is particularly interested in a state of awareness experienced by followers of almost all religions: the feeling of being at one with the universe. I like in this regard also this statement I read about Zen Physics "The universe is one and to see it is as such is the goal of mysticism". Highly iluminating I find to be also what someone wrote in this regard on Wikipedia: Mysticism ( from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, meaning 'an initiate') is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, i.e. levels of being, beyond normal human perception, including experience and even communion with a supreme being."

.
Indeed the English language is full of nuances and when it is not your native language one may experience some difficulties, as in my case, in understanding some words and statements the way they are meant by the author. I found recently on the Internet the expression "of being at one with" with which I am feeling I can sympathise with the idea much better than with the expression Hari and you are using that " "there is only one of us". Of course maybe Hari did not yet explain it so well that also a more simple minded person like me can understand it fully in the way it should be or is meant by him and you.

This image of oneness was all too often tarnished by the way Prabhupada explaind it to his followers, you know what he often said and has written in his books. I found an interesting use of this term of being "at one with" in the text on a website where it is written "A path filled with experiences, discoveries, ecological understandings and insights gives us hope for the future. Experiences with our senses enhance our 'feeling of being at one' with nature.

I think it is also or more important to emphasize in this regard that this "being one with", "there is only one of us", or "being at one with" is more or less, also or, just a feeling one may experience every now and than, than a real fact in the cosmic sense and whole. Thus it is more a feeling of communion with others, the cosmic whole and the supreme being, on the basis of a pure personal agreement of being at one with something higher than oneself. An experience and belief in a power higher than oneself which may unite and connect us, giving thus to our life and everything in this world and beyond a higher meaning. I hope at the very least for it to be like that. I may be wrong.

Appealing and very informative I find to be also the description in the presentation of the book "Feelings of being" at Amazon where one can read:

"There is a great deal of current philosophical and scientific interest in emotional feelings. However, many of the feelings that people struggle to express in their everyday lives do not appear on standard lists of emotions. For example, there are feelings of unreality, heightened existence, surreality, familiarity, unfamiliarity, estrangement, strangeness, isolation, emptiness, belonging, being at home in the world, being at one with things, significance, insignificance, and the list goes on. Such feelings might be referred to as 'existential' because they comprise a changeable sense of being part of a world. Existential feelings have not been systematically explored until now, despite the important role that they play in our lives and the devastating effects that disturbances of existential feeling can have in psychiatric illness.

Feelings of Being is the first ever philosophical account of the nature, role and variety of existential feelings in psychiatric illness and in everyday life. In this book, Matthew Ratcliffe proposes that existential feelings form a distinctive group by virtue of three characteristics: they are bodily feelings, they constitute ways of relating to the world as a whole, and they are responsible for our sense of reality. The book explains how something can be a bodily feeling and, at the same time, a sense of reality and belonging. It then explores the role of changed feeling in psychiatric illness, showing how an account of existential feeling can help us to understand experiential changes that occur in a range of conditions, including depression, circumscribed delusions, depersonalisation and schizophrenia. The book also addresses the contribution made by existential feelings to religious experience and to philosophical thought. Written in a clear, non-technical style throughout, it will be valuable for philosophers, clinicians, students, and researchers working in a wide range of disciplines."

Thanks for your comments.
Regarding why people criticize Hare Krishna when they leave, it is probably the same as with hatred and love. These feelings are so close to each other. Frustration, disappointment, insufficiency. I do not think these people feel comfortable with themselves.

>How do you understand from a practical standpoint this statement that "there is only one of us (although we are different), and all religions (Bhagavad-gita or Bible included) are continuation of the same concept." With this position or point of view I read also by Hari and others which leaves me somewhat perplexed I had always some difficulties to understand. How could one be "one" and at the same time feel internally to be an individual person?

I can give you only my perspective on that. Actually, it has been taught by Lord Chaitanya Himself: acintya bhedabheda tatthva. It is amazing that when one reads such books as Almine's or Walsh's ones there is an underlying and repeated message on almost every page: there is only one of us. But we are not a homogenous piece of spirit.
Practically, we are one with the person we love the most, and this love makes us become different in order to taste/experience the love. I, probably like you, want to be with Him/Her all the time but not to be Him/Her. So I want to be one with Him/Her (as the closest family or friends do) but not one with Him/Her (to enter their position). So I created/designed different life scenarios to make it evolve and happen. But we are different and others may have different feelings and preferences (although we are one from the very beginning). So they may want to become one completely or enter His/Her position. We can practically see that all of this is possible and creative forces of universe (somewhat pathetically expressed) respond to us.
But on top of this we have to deal with all real life conditions as so interestingly presented by Hari above.
This is how I see it today. But we expand all the time.

Hari wrote:Either my presentation was ambiguous or you have understood it differently than it was intended. I shall attempt to clarify.

Everything is now perfectly clear to me in this regard. Thank you. One more thing I would like to ask you. What do you mean when you invite one to "get yourself back to the spiritual sky. Dont delay in delusion" as I was hearing you singing recently in an old song by you on Harimedia Radio? I know of course what our understanding was in regard to ilusion, delusion or maya before but in the meantime my understanding of it evolved somehow in a slightly other direction. I no longer see everything so black and white.

I found an interesting article which describes so nicelly what bothers me also at present:

Here the citation: "There are so many problems in this world. Where can we find a refuge? We can find refuge only in ultimate truth. That’s the only really firm ground. Nothing relative can ever be a true refuge. In the Buddhist tradition, we regard as a refuge the Buddha, his Teachings and the Community of those who have realized those teachings. Why? The Buddha was a prince 2500 years ago in Northern India, who had everything he wanted. He had three palaces for the three seasons of the year, he had doting parents, a beautiful wife, and he even had a son. He had everything. But during outings when he left the palace, he beheld the spectacle of a sick man, and a very old man and finally, a corpse. This was a great revelation for him, because these things had been hidden from him during his life of indulgence. Maybe they were not physically hidden from him, but he had not really thought about these things.

While we are young, we usually don’t think of sickness, old age and death. These happen to those old fogies elsewhere. We don’t think that these things are inevitably going to happen to us. There is sickness. Not just old people get terrible diseases; many young people also become very ill. And even if we avoid dying young, and avoid being sick, or if we are ill but we still keep on living, then we are going to get old and decrepit.

The Buddha said that the one thing certain about life is death. That is true - it doesn’t matter how old or how young we are. I’m sure all of us have friends who were very young and who were in a car accident or in some other kind of accident or suddenly had some fatal disease, and died very young. Who would have expected them to die? But we don’t know. Today we are here and tomorrow we’re gone. We can’t think “I’m going to live for three score years and ten and then I’ll die.” Who knows when we are going to die? Nobody knows. Just because we are young and healthy today doesn’t mean we are not going to be dead tomorrow. We don’t know; none of us knows.

The Buddha saw all this, and he saw how much suffering there was in the world because people want things but don’t get what they want; instead, they often get what they don’t want. And so, they are miserable. And he thought “what is the cause of this?” So he went away - he left his palace, he left his family, he left everything - and wandered out as a beggar, as a holy man in India. He went to look for the truth of the causes of suffering and how to overcome them." (more)

Of course one could replace the name of Buddha with someone known by us who may explain to us the same truth. The reason I use it here is because it decribes a truth which bothers me also and am not completely clear what could help me clarify this existential problems when I here you speaking or read what you are writing. I can familiarize myself so well with the story. "He went to look for the truth of the causes of suffering and how to overcome them". It seems this intention to overcome this problems is so old as mankind itself. I ask myself if there is really a solution or an answer to them as Prabhupada or other wise man so often are proposing in their teachings or are they more meant to gather more folllowers around them? Who knows?!

Akhila L wrote:Practically, we are one with the person we love the most, and this love makes us become different in order to taste/experience the love. I, probably like you, want to be with Him/Her all the time but not to be Him/Her. So I want to be one with Him/Her (as the closest family or friends do) but not one with Him/Her (to enter their position). So I created/designed different life scenarios to make it evolve and happen. But we are different and others may have different feelings and preferences (although we are one from the very beginning).

You said and explaind what you meant with "there is only one of us" so nicely, that I could identify myself fully with everything you have written. Thank you very much. As I see it also is, that each one of us is somehow unique in its own way and the most unique of all, is the one - of us - who embodies and connects all of us as in a complete whole or a communion of oneness. If this one is Krishna or Radha Krishna or someone or something else I have no practical experience of yet. Or maybe I have but am not yet so sure of it to be so. I just feel most comfortable when thinking and feeling for that to be true.

Akhila L wrote:But on top of this we have to deal with all real life conditions as so interestingly presented by Hari above.

I understand, although I must say that I was never thinking that things as listed by Hari below would have something to do or would influence so much our spiritual life. My understanding was always that this things would disolve or would be resolved by each one of us or would become cleansed away from our consciousness in due course of time if one would just remain determined and move on with ones spiritual practice. Why would otherwise people and devotees chant or would have chanted so much on their beads, or worship the deities and worship their gurus on guru puja, tulasi puja and what else one was or is doing in this ashrams just to get rid of all this unwanted things (or anartas as it was called) in the heart and become purified? Just a list I found online regarding this concept we were or some of us are still believing in:

"In Krishna consciousness the spiritual knowledge was the destroyer of many anartas."
"Bhaktivinode Thakur says its the duty of the real followers of a disciplic succession to root out the anartas in it."
"It is like this, the devotional path is a process of scrubbing our hearts and making it clean, like when we take a shower and are scrubbing all the dirt off of ourselves after working outside."
"Let my mind become clean so that I may peacefully worship the Lord and bring peace ... gradually become more serious and helped me overcome a few of my more obvious anartas." The list could go on forever...
On the other hand I have not yet fully understood what Hari proposes as a cure for all this. Not everyone of us is so experienced in practising psychotherapy and has the ability to turn the patients inside-out.


* Why do we believe what we believe? What caused us to come to the conclusions we did?
* What do we expect out of life and what are we expecting to attain in the future?

* Traumas at birth
* Being abused as a child
* Being neglected or not seen for who you were as a child etc.

Hari wrote:To go through the process of accepting what you are and rejecting impositions on what you are ..., is the prerequisite to enlightenment. And if you deeply research the same sastra you like to quote you will see that this is the more advanced methodology expressed in the Bhagavatam. I find it amusing that devotees simply skim over the parts of the sastra they “accept and follow without question” that describe the meditative methods of detachment from this world.

Its intereesting in this regard what Maria Ekstrant Ph.D. (Madhusudani Radha) wrote in her book "The Hare Krishna movement: the postcharismatic fate of a religious transplant" published a few years ago at the Columbia University. She writes: "Several years before his journey (Prabhuapada) he had written in his English translation and commentary on Shrimad Bhagavatam that the work was "a cultural presentation for the re-spiritualization of the entire human society ... meant for bringing about a revolution in the impious life of a misdirected civilization of the world." At that time he envisioned such a cultural revolution as coming from above. ... As it turned out, the American establishment proved quite imune to the atractions of Krishna consciousness, but Srila Prabhupada unexpectetly found a sympathetic reception among the hippies - "the spoiled children of society" as he ones called them." (Google books online)

It seems that he also envisioned thus all his various rules and regulations, within the Iskcon society he founded, in order to educate and purify this "spoiled children of society" into "pure devotees of the Lord". What has become of them we know in the meantime. And I mean it entirely positive and balanced. By far the best example of this is you, although I do not know if you ever was a hippy. I had also long hair in the 1970ies as that was modern for us youngsters at that time, although I never embraced all the personal qualities and radical views we heard from the hippies living in America.