Harimedia Forum

Dear Hari,

Philosophical beliefs were the springboard for contemporary methodology with Plato supporting the experiential and abstract and Aristotle embracing the concrete and systematic. Woven from two differently cultured cloths, these defining elements served to establish the grand variances for drawing conclusions with deductive and inductive methods.

The deductive approach - beginning with a concept and its consequences which is then illustrated by means of applications - must give way to the inductive approach based on first awakening natural curiosity. Applying this deductive approach those involved very easily and effectively accumulate a lot of knowledge through "learning by doing", at least that was and is the opinion in certain circles of society. Prabhupada was also teaching the Vedic approach to Krishna or Vishnu and the Supreme Absolute Truth, which is a deductive one. Thus for him and those alike who base their knowledge on the revealed scriptures it is much more easy to demonstrate and execute a deductive argument with the required certainty, but is it therefore also more appropriate or true?!

The empirical nature of science has allowed for its success in solving great human problems and in understanding the world around us. It is based on observed scientific truth. Real life data and observations lead to such findings, which only then can be translated into theory. A scientific theory without such data is merely a hypothesis waiting to be shown true through human observation. If you start with a theory like for example the essence of life is that of servitude (servant of god) and then try to prove it, you are taking a biased position and setting out to complete an impossible task. Nothing can be proven in science only accepted until shown otherwise.

Thus if one tries to establish a theory based on his understanding of humanness, even if it is taken of some revealed scriptures or trusted advisor (guru) and from this sets to prove his moral theory struggles to fit human morals into an idealistic model that he perceives. Of course assuming you believe in a divinity to begin with you may be inclined to believe that your life purpose is that of servitude to that God and Supreme Being. But than you are living a religious life and not one based on observable evidence and data collected during an assessment.

Of course one may say whether a major premise is true depends completely on whether this person's authority, who is setting up a certain assumption is infallible. If it is, then everything follows as a natural sequence, as when the major premise is rooted in the revealed scripture (sastra) and its goal is Vishnu the source of everything. If instead ones approach is based on the premise (assumption) of an ordinary man's fallible speculation or contemplation and conclusion reached by observation and evidence gotten through his fallible senses, deduction becomes a caricature. Whereas Vedic deduction relies upon knowledge that is authoritative and indubitable. Brahma, the first Vedic sage of the universe, received that knowledge from the Supreme Godhead at the down of creation. And after that, whenever the Vedic teachings were misinterpreted or lost, the Lord appeared again and again to objectively re-establish the correct understanding.

Thus the questions arise, whether and to what extend one can get close and come to know God and the truth about ones own 'spiritual' existence with a purely inductive approach (experiential learning)?

.
As for me I can fully identify myself with this statement I found recently online that says: "Not ancient gods, but principles and backgrounds discovered and questioned by one's own efforts are to determine the rules of the world, of being, of politics and of communication." On the other hand there are people who say that conclusions reached just by virtue of ones own intellect and endevour can never be sufficient to rise above the ordinary to the level of transcendence. Which might also be a valid argument.

According to the Bhagavatam, the original knowledge was a collection of teachings by hundreds of different sages and rishis, each with their own schools, students, and disciplines. This knowledge was compiled by Vyasadeva and organized into the literature that presently exists. This literature was hand copied, sometimes modified and had more or less parts deleted or added.

So if one bases one’s belief in the infallibility of one’s source of knowledge on the assumption that it came from God, one might be mistaken. One might object that nothing important was modified, but one would have to have access to the original to make that judgement. Not only does one have to accept that this infallible knowledge came from God, one has to also assume that all the iterations of that literature were perfectly transmitted without any change through thousands or, even worse, millions of years. One also has to account for the mysterious blackout of history between the recent descendants of Janamejaya and the appearance of Buddha. One has to have faith that during this 2000 year unknown period that the same infallible transmission was faithfully reproduced and that the literatures were not lost in some cataclysm and reproduced by some brave souls by memory.

That God appears periodically to restore the pure knowledge is an inspiring idea. But then one has to question how Krsna restored the entirety of this pure knowledge during His appearance. Was it through the Gita? The Gita is great, but is it the restoration of all “lost” knowledge or was it the restoration of dharma as it applied to the time and some time afterwards? Lord Caitanya and His followers did not restore the entirely of knowledge, but they did give a wonderful look into intimate relationship with Radha and Krsna.

Considering this, one might be safer to assume that the ideal of spirituality as it is given in the modern understanding of ancient Indian wisdom is quite nice and accepting its basic concepts is quite useful. There are also teachers of various aspects of the tradition that can assist us to advance in our spiritual awareness and capability. We accept this and benefit from it to the degree that it resonates with us. Some find it useful to resonate with certain teachings.

Beyond this, it seems to be a matter of opinion. I have found that my evolution is a combination of accepting teaching from others and experientially attaining practical realization. I started off learning from my parents, then my friends and teachers in school, and then I later on uncovered my own truth. I gratefully accepted Indian wisdom and teachers for many years and learned as much as I could. During that time I also engaged in testing this knowledge in my everyday life and learned to adapt it as required. And later on, I engaged in deeply absorbing myself in direct experience by embracing the mystical energy of the divine.

It seems obvious that both aspects of the “educative” experience are required. Sometimes we accept established wisdom and knowledge that is gleaned from analytical research or from the anecdotal experiences of others, and sometimes we seek our own truth by acting and adjusting.

I know no one who is purely inductive or purely deductive. The idea that either of these states exists in a pure and unique form in any individual seems to be illusory. The idea that one has to choose one or the other seems irrational.

It is my personal experience and it seems logical and reasonable, that coming in contact with God is an ongoing and continuous process that includes learning from others and personal experience.

Thank you, Hari, your reply was of utmost importance for me in order to understand this issue more deeply. It has given me also the inspiration to search the web a little bid in this regard. Here is what information I have also found. Although one cannot guarantee its authenticity its nevertheless interesting to read.


..Wikipedia: Buddhism

Buddhism spread in time of emperor Ashoka (260–218 BCE).


In actual fact one can read on The Full Wiki that "during Buddha's time, Ratthapala, son of the Kuru ruler had embraced Buddhism." It is not clear from the article there if Ratthapala was the son of Janamejaya, the son of king Parikshit to whom Sukadeva Goswami narrated the Bhagavata Purana.


.Wikipedia: Vedic period


There one can also read: "The Kurus of the Buddhist period did not occupy the same position as they did in the Vedic period but they continued to enjoy their ancient reputation for deep wisdom and sound health." "The Kurus were followers of Brahmanical way of life, and the early kingdom in all probability is the location of the codification of the Vedas and the establishment of major schools of Vedic priesthood. They insisted on the purity of family life and cultivation of proper domestic relations and virtues, a way of life and philosophy that are reflected in the basic doctrine of Bhagvadgita expounded at Kurukshetra."

"Though a well known monarchical people in earlier period, the Kurus are known to have switched to republic form of government during sixth/fifth century BCE. Fourth century BCE Kautiliya's Arthashastra also attests the Kurus as following the Rajashabdopajivin (king consul) constitution (11/1/1-4)." (Newworldencyclopedia.org)

"The democratic constitution of the Kambojas is also testified by Mahabharata which refers to several brave Ganas or Republics of the Kambojas (Kambojana cha ye Ganah....sangrame shura sammatah) fighting on Kurus' side.
Thirteenth Rock Edict of king Ashoka also affirms that the Kambojas, Yavanas etc. were republican or kingless nations (araja.visyavasi yonakambojesu..) within the Mauryan empire." Main article: Kambojas in Kautiliya's Arthashastra


.Kuru kingdom

- A coin of Kuru mahajanapada > Ancient Coins of India


It can be very interesting, no doubt, to envision the kingdom of the Kurus ruled in those days on an absolutist concept of sovereignty as a contemporary republic where the free citizens are considered the sovereign. "Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. In a direct democracy the public plays an active role in shaping and deciding policy. Representative democracy permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to a legislative body or an executive (or to some combination of legislature, executive and Judiciary). Many representative democracies provide limited direct democracy through referendum, initiative, and recall." (Wikipedia)

On Wikipedia one can also read:

"The Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition juxtaposed to the internal freedom of the soul (sui juris). Seneca the Younger wrote:

“It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined." (...)

Prabhupada using his inborn intelligence said in this regard ones: "The mind is the cause of our material existence, mano-dharma. Why we are in this material world? On account of this change of mind. Our position is jivera svarupa haya nitya krsna dasa. We are eternal servant of Krsna, but sometimes the servant thinks, “Why shall I remain a servant? Let me become master.” That is natural. A master is always in comfortable situation. Sometimes the servant becomes envious: “Oh, why this man should always remain in comfortable position and we shall serve? Why not we become also in comfortable position?
Let me eat as he eats,” or “Let me sleep now.” These are so-called comforts. So they want to imitate. When the living being imitates the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then he falls down. Krsna bhuliya jiva bhoga vancha kare, pasate maya tare japatiya dhare. As soon as he forgets his position—he wants to imitate—that is the beginning of maya, falldown. You should be very careful" (...)

On the other hand during my time in ISKCON I always acted out of my own free will and conviction. And I had also always the freedom to do so, maybe because I had also the opportunity to have as my temple president a person, Ashoka Kumara, a disciple of Prabhupada, who was capable of self-control and of guiding others with a sense of authority without pressurizing one in any particular way. I could always preserve my inside freedom to do things as I wanted and not because I had to do something you don't want to do. With this logic used by Prabhupada that you have to necessarily consider yourself an "eternal servant" of Krishna I could not always do much. If someone does something out of his own convictions, affection and free will can he really be considered or characterized as servant?

In my opinion this cannot always be reconciled with the self-esteem, self-confidence and the dignity of the individual. It can hardly be destined to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity. I would rather prefer to be characterized as someone who "acted on his convictions," than necessarily out of a feeling of servitude. I can also hardly imagine that the Supreme would always want to tutor/patronize one in such a way. I think paternalism is the right word to use in this regard when someone would be inclined to view one always only as ones servant or dependant person." Of course there are also the state civil servants but they can hardly be considered "servants" in the original sense of the word.

Dear Harsi, I suppose you don't mind my interfferring into your conversation with Hari, since your main question is already answered and you are leading the thought in a different direction anyway. About mood of servitude, there's interesting book (I forgot it's title and author) explaining the slavery (not only the servitude) as a way of avoiding the responsibilities that the superiors are obliged to undertake in order to properly take care about their subordinates. So, it seems a servant doesn't abandon (as Prabhupada mentions) his natural inclination to comfort, on the contrary, (maybe unconsciously, but) he/she cleverly exchanges some external comfort for the internal one, namely not having to take up social duties of a master?!

No problem, Aradhya, I appreciate your intervention into our conversation. As far as I am concerned I live by the following motto, "As a spiritual being man is independent and free; he ought not, with regard to his future, to pledge his allegiance to another person, but always to keep his conscience free and pure."

By chance I found today a translation and commentary of the “Sri Brahma-Samhita” by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura in which he translates the verse 21 as follows: " The same jiva is eternal and is for eternity and without a beginning joined to the Supreme Lord by the tie of an eternal kinship."

In the purport to this verse he wrote: "Krsna is the all-pervading,
all-extending Supreme Lord; while jivas have a different nature from His,
being His atomic particles. That eternal relationship consists in this that
the Supreme Lord is the eternal master and jivas are His eternal servants." (Sri_Brahma_Samhita.pdf)

In the foreword to this work Bhaktisiddhanta wrote on 1. August, 1932

"The materialistic demeanor cannot possibly stretch to the transcendental
autocrat who is ever inviting the fallen conditioned souls to associate with Him
through devotion or eternal serving mood" (BBT books Online)

Now how and why could or should it be concluded that the "Supreme Lord's tie of "eternal kinship" with us is, or should always be, that of a master to his inferiors, a relationship between superiors and underlings. I just ask myself can one never also reach "adulthood" in ones "tie" or relation with the Supreme where one can also treat each other as equals, kindred spirits, and like-minded individuals? Isn't that also the mood in a true bond or "tie of kinship" if "eternal" or otherwise?

The logic of this is simple. "As the master, so the pupil" as the phrase goes. Prabhupada uses in this regard the same language or wording as his spiritual master Bhaktisiddhanta. A wording which seems to be leaned more on Christianity than the Vedic model. As one can read for example online: "By virtue of beatification a "servant of God" will rank among the "blessed in heaven", upon which public adoration is permitted" (...)

In my opinion an eternal relationship of master and servant or dealing with one another forever from the top down do not meet the necessary requirements of an "eternal kinship". I would rather prefer a more open, confidential and friendly interaction with each other. A win-win relationship. It is the space which we all share with each other and which "ties" us together. On the other hand I tend to agree to the following sentence I read recently which says: "The first thing that we forget and therefore fail to act on is that we are an eternal blissful part of God, and that from the perspective of eternity, nothing in this world, good or bad, is worth becoming a slave to." (...)

In my opinion to avoid any excessive strain being put on the relations between us and the Supreme one would need a term or concept like "making oneself available for the Lord". Which presupposes also a personal willingness. Ready to be of service out of one's own free will. Looking forward to being of service to You. This sounds so much more revealing as to say: The "Supreme Lord is the eternal master and jivas "are" His eternal servants."

I like in this connection a prayer by Saint Vincent I read recently online where he prays to God:

"God and our Father, grant us the grace to remain steadfast in the framework
of our vocation. Grant us the grace of leading day after day an inner life of
faith. We beseech you as well to give us wisdom to conceive great and holy
ideals in the service of God, so that we do all the good that our strength and
Your grace allow."

Considering our experience of parental relationships (it's a kind of kinship, isn't it?), we see parents more inclined to be available (as you say, rightfully trying to avoid the word ,,serve,, as it's misusing in Kali-yuga gives a suspicious connotation to it) for their children than vice-versa (usually the youngsters' affection for the elders doesn't continue after the latter ones aren't ,,available for,, the former ones anymore) so, only the parents' love is unconditional all the time! Now, (as well, spiritual-) youngsters who are treated as equal by their elders (as our Hari treats us, out of affection, not expecting anything in return), may become puffed up and forget Lord Energy's (also) autonomous arrangements (not considering Jaya-Vijaya's or KutilaJatila's independence compromising the independence of our kinship with The Supreme). In other words, better not pretend to be ,,greater catholic than the Pope,,! I don't say we should have an inferiority-complex, but all this waving the flag of freedom-ism isn't so worth of doing, come on, no boss or politician will appreciate us, they aren't on this site! Oh, I forgot Hari's presence here, I hope I won't get any chastisement for these remarks, but even if I get, then no loss, at least there would be an impression that I'm advanced more than I really am, namely, to take some ,,thunders,, not only ,,roses,,!

The aim of parental authority and care is to provide children who grow up with their parents with a long-term home, the warmth of a family and a childhood with a feeling of belonging, security and love, to enable them to get a good education and thus ensure positive perspectives for a promising future.

Thus certain psychoanalysts like Freud observed, during their practical work with people, a phenomenon they call transference, which means the patient falling in love with the analyst and thereby transferring to him or her the conception of love the patient has developed since childhood.

It may be true that when "little Joe" reaches a certain age characterized as puberty or adolescence this "youngsters affection for the elders doesn't continue" in the same way as before but that's all part of the fun, isnt it?! On the verge of adulthood the "youngsters' affection" may become transiently focused unduly on the oh-so-nice and charming "Mary". Now does that mean that his affection and love for his parents has faded away, I don't think so. From my personal experience I know that my love and affection for my elderly parents continued. Not in the same way as during my childhood now as compared with what was previously considered normal for me that it has become clear that the situations previously obtaining have changed, that new situations have arisen where the elderly parents might ask one "Who is going to take care of us when the time comes - not just financially but also with the love and attention that the elderly need at that stage in their lives."

That is also part of the 'contract of love.' Such a process can help to create a lasting, loving bond between parent and child - a mutual valuing of the other for qualities which are shared. When children don't grow up with that parental love and care, when they are treated existentially or spiritually just as some "development objects" for fulfilling a certain mission in life, and are send thousands of kilometers away from home to some 'holy land' and school in order to be molded into a character and personality which was destined and predetermined for them, this children might develop into antisocial individuals as the loss of a loving bond with people who are important in one's life is the worst evil imaginable.

This is what I call paternalism a behavior where parents, elders or other people in positions of authority might treat one always in the manner of usurping ones individual responsibility and freedom of decision.
___

But as one can read in the following article by Aruddha Devi the attitude toward school kids and children might have became noticeably better in society in the meantime, or at least it seems so.

"Depending on their ability to understand philosophical issues I would try to go as deep as possible to discuss the subject matter, all the while establishing the supremacy of the Vedic scriptures ... In five years not only were they reading at college level, but their understanding of finer points was amazing. They had learned good reasoning, logical thinking, debate, and communication skills. When they went to college they had little problem doing American history, geography, science, English literature such as Shakespeare, humanities, anthropology and sociology for the first time. I was surprised how this happened!"

"Another question that may be raised is: Will education through the scriptures prepare them only for a life of preaching and other devotional activities? Will the children have enough skills and knowledge to be able to live in the world, take a job, get married and carry the social and financial obligations that go with the ashram?

In our case we found that the scriptures equip us to do both things because they teach us not only the purpose of human life but also the nature of the material world and how to live in it while preparing to go back to Godhead after death. The knowledge in them is complete--there is nothing lacking, either materially or spiritually. For example, Srila Prabhupada states that by reading Shrimad Bhagavatam, “one can understand every psychological situation in the world.”

"Thus, not only do the children get academic qualifications and good character by reading Shrimad Bhagavatam, but they also become pure devotees." > Iskconeducation.org: The Scriptures are the Basis of Home Schooling

A likely story!


. www.bhakti-sastri.com - mayapuracademy.org

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

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy one can read: "Philosophically, logic is the study of correct reasoning." And your line of reasoning in this regard is correct. I recognize the validity of the argument. On the other hand, there are people who argue that anyone who remains on the mental platform - and reasoning, if logical or either way, starts in the mind - even if he is greatly accomplished in works of intellectual efforts is sure to be overcome by illusion. To get beyond that mental platform, we would have to surrender to Krishna`s lotus feet, who is Ishvara (Ishvara Parama Krishna) the cause of all causes (ishavasyam idam sarvam), for the happiness we seek would be there, not in egoistic speculation (to indulge in experimental adventures). The mind bereft of ananda (spiritual bliss) would be dragged by Maya down to the most abominable state of consciousness - all in the name of so-called knowledge.

There are also those who argue that speech itself is logic and that according to the Vedic understanding speech and logic are to be brought in line with Śábda, the knowledge gained by means of Śruti or revealed scriptures. (Sastra-caksusa, seeing through the eyes of the scriptures, as opposed to the knowledge gained by empirical and inductive reasoning (viewed by some as mental speculation that guesses the nature of a cause from the conceptions which were formed by our limited five physical senses). The original Vedas would be eternally present in the ethereal space as Śábda. "The Vedas are shabda-brahma, or the absolute truth in sound. According to the time, place and circumstances, a Rishi may realize a certain portion of the eternal sound, and pass it down to his disciples. Even today one may experience the recitation of the Vedic texts in the ethereal space through meditation and sadhana." See: Where are the original Vedas being kept?

Others say the right method of acquiring transcendental knowledge is to take the help of those who know the way ... This method would bring us to the goal, or rather, this method would satisfy Krishna, the Supreme, and (svayam eva sphurady adah) by his kindness only, he would reveal himself to his devotee. A way of acquiring transcendental knowledge (sabda-pramana) by means of revelation.

Caitanya Mahāprabhu said allegedly also as confirmed in the CC: "Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence." "Conchshells and cow dung are nothing but the bones and the stool of some living entities, but according to the Vedic version they are both considered very pure." "The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost." Another translation says: "their self-evident nature is lost."

In the CC one can also read: "One should taste the meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam in the association of pure devotees and one should associate with the devotees who are more advanced than oneself and who are endowed with a similar type of affection for the Lord."

Now one might ask what are the logical defects in this line of reasoning or formal logic?! (Branch of logic related to deductive reasoning - Dict.) Of course another central concern would also be to understand why someone would put forward in a discussion some quotations from someone or somewhere - is it meant as a non-biased and reliable information, a humble presentation of some concrete contents of the studies on sacred scriptures meant to inform and encourage the thinking man to evaluate the content in an unbiased manner thereby preparing the ground for a deeper understanding of a discussed topic - Just as in this quotation I found on the web: "I am, unfortunately, in the sad position of having to read out to you a message from Reuters news agency which proves the importance of what we are talking about here," or are the quotations rather meant as an attempt to proselytize others and persuade them to believe in the same truth which does conform with ones own pre-established beliefs.

In this case it would reflect just ones own subjective reality and as I read ones: "Subjective Reality - Reality is a movable feast, and life is a state in which the real and unreal exist in a constant state of flux, which is which being determined only by those who observe."

Is there any use in examining the findings of such an inquiry or is it rather counterproductive for developing and allow your own understanding to grow on the basis of your own experiences? One could also say that to subject oneself just to the knowledge contained in scriptures dating back thousands of years, and accept its contents without comment always bears the risk of being overrun by time.

"When taking a journey, one needs good directions," that I find to be applicable also in regard to philosophical ramblings on the internet or with conversations with people. I hope that I did express myself well.
___

"Know yourself and you realize God"
"Every man is a perfect image of God. A part of God and God has created all its parts, completely perfect." ~ Stephan Dalley, spiritual healer

Dear Hari,

I have another question for you, which is related in some way to the same line of reasoning addressed in this thread. And I must admit that I got inspired to start thinking about this by listening to the answer given by Eckhart Tolle in response to a question asked by Neale Donald Walsch: as one can watch in this video on Youtube.

Walsch asks therein Tolle in a public conversation: "How do I take what I think that I am; how do I take what I experience myself to be and wash the canvass of my life with it, especially when it matters to me the most, (Walsch refers to the relationship between him and his wife) why can I sum (not bear this in mind, I suppose - added by me) in this - then?

Its quite interesting how Tolle answers the question by referring to real imageries, Jesus would have used parables I guess, or one can say to use a new expression - 'Presence' or 'Awareness' in or of the 'Now'. "In a certain situation the 'Presence' moves through you and it is sometimes there, I would assume and sometimes not..." "In certain situations I have lost the "Present Moment", I'm not present in the "Now", So, in other words, you are trapped in the mind," replies Tolle to Walsch among other things.

Is there also a way to answer this question in a more clear and comprehensible way, a clearly understandable manner? if you allow me I would like to reformulate this important question as follows: How to overcome your "weaker self" (or how to vanquish the inner temptation) and making thus a radical change in perspective in your life? Of course the whole topic could be extended also to the psychological level or has implicitly also some psychological connotations when/in asking how to overcome something like this or 'your inner fears. It is well known that many people have a blind spot, "one's weaker self". Supposing that the required understanding is there of who I really am, if one can even formulate it in this way, and not purport to be something one is not...

This words like 'Presence', Awareness' or 'Now' used by Tolle seem to denote a Being, a spiritual or out of this world Something, or a State of Being which is, or seems to be, above, or transcendental, to that which we may experience, or perceive in some way, in our observable, visible, world we live in. As I read somewhere: "He wants to fully appreciate the ineffability of the Absolute, but still wants there to be some sort of transcendental something that can act as a referent or Ultimate." At the same time this "Something" seems to be also somehow intertwined with this world and can be made visible through us in some way, here in the 'Now", the present moment. Its also interesting how Eckhart Tolle is referring to the mind ("It comes sometimes that you realize that your mind has taken over and at that moment you can relinguish that and invite "Presence" back into your life ...") and the 'false' (limited) ego as being sometimes something obstructive for "being in the Now". It sounds good but what should we understand by it? What would you envisage under this?

Now of course there are also those who say that the whole thing is also a matter of purification of the heart and that the most sublime and powerful means of purification is to always think of Krishna and always do the will of Krishna. Jesus also said: "Only those can see God who are pure in heart". Interestingly Muslims have a similar understanding as one can read online under the title: "Means of purification"

I watched the video. Tolle says it all and the way he says it is quite fine. There is no need for me to try to make it better.

Perhaps you are having trouble due to his usage of words. He is speaking of presence as that divine presence, that divine energy of spirit, that pervades all things and is the fundamental energy of all existence. Sometimes we are aware of it and thus live and act within it consciously, and sometimes not. When we are not aware of it, we act or get entangled in things that are unpleasant or agitate us. Other people might give us feedback that shakes us. At this point we should consider that we have lost connection to the divine and we need to reestablish it. When things go wrong, this is an alarm bell that sounds to remind us of what we are. We should use negative events in that manner.

When Tolle speaks of being trapped by the mind, he indicates a state of mental disconnection wherein the full conscious awareness is inhibited by thought that revolves around our protecting what we think is our identity but which is actually a product of aspects of our lives that are not divine. When our conscious awareness is focused in thought, we have minimized our greatness. This is not a true expression of self. To truly express self, one must allow the full depth of our conscious awareness to be active. Therefore, the false conception of self derived from thoughts that are bound in the network of defense of the illusions we hold dear are the main obstacle to living a life of conscious spirituality.

Hari wrote:Therefore, the false conception of self derived from thoughts that are bound in the network of defense of the illusions we hold dear are the main obstacle to living a life of conscious spirituality.

The way you explain it sounds very plausible, seems very reasonable to me. Would you say that when Tolle writes about the necessity of living in the now, the present moment, one should associate with this "now" also a life lived of conscious spirituality? What should such a life contain? Of course conversely one could also ask what does it not represent? Should one lay particular emphasis in life on the differences, that what may divide or more on the unifying component or fields?

As I read ones somewhere on an entirely different matter: "For if lawyers are not capable of ensuring that the general takes precedence over the particular, of emphasizing that which unites over that which divides, can we realistically expect this attitude from those who are not specialists in the law which is the art of integration par excellence?"

Another text I like to imagine is "These points must not, however, overshadow that which binds us together or that which is profound and resistant to strain: the shared community of values and the work on the world issues that are important to us."

And one of my favorites: "The Finca Ananda is a meeting point for people interested in spititual growth, for those who have the desire to rediscover their real nature, to wake up, to remember that which unites us all and which supports our life: Love." (...)

The situation is different or the same as with life itself I guess. If consciousness, the living energy, is indeed eternal and immortal one could perhaps also say that besides the fact that one lives ones life, one is in some way, also being used and lived by the body's life-force which is not subject to the passing of time, itself - one is alive. Thought-worthy what Tolle writes in his new book, A New Earth: "There are three words that convey the secret of the art of living, the secret of all success and happiness: One With Life. Being one with life is being one with Now. You then realise that you don't live your life, but life lives you. Life is the dancer, and you are the dance"

Some say that you have to prepare yourself, in this life (as if you would have another one besides that essence you already are) to go back to Godhead in order to live unhindered by the incompatible outside factors of this world, your inherent nature in full in another world, the realm of god. What if I am already in the bosom of that Godhead, a fact I am just unaware of now? Where do I originate or came from anyway, is there any logical or reasonable answer to this existential question? So many questions bother me this days... is there an answer one can find or is it rather so that I myself am my own answer as I exist already? Of course there is still the death question. But does death really pertain to me or can affect me, the soul and energy of life, in some way, if I am in any case, eternal in my spiritual essence, or if it should be that way? Or conversely do I really have to move within Gods creation somewhere in order to live life as it is or is meant to be according to my inherent nature which is at the basis of life?

Anyhow, who or what is God? Things are again different when sprituality is to know and ask oneself: who is God for me? Is or can there be a difference to this two positions? An authoritative or definite one and an open ended one? Who is or can there be a mediator or judge who can determine such a thing? And if not can it be as in this case? "While we leave the question about God open to be decided by everyone individually, we profess the concept that man should strive to elevate himself and that it is possible for him to overcome his barriers and compulsions and thus achieve a greater contentedness." That would live it to us to address and wonder about this issue. We reserve the right, so to speak, to realize who or what God is, should we really be able to do that and how?

Now a friend of mine on Facebook would say that by bouncing ideas back and forth you will end up nowhere, you must accept and consult whatever is said or is written somewhere... Maybe he is right, maybe not. Who can say it the end of the day only I, I guess, by my own experience whatever it takes to attain it. Either because everything's already been said or nothing has to be said at all because you have to experience it for yourself in order to do it justice. Similarly I attained also the practical experience and know how in order to perform an action in my profession. Of course I still have the manuals I learned from in the professional school somewhere in the cellar but I guess that if I would tell my boss that I would have to check them up first in order to fulfill my professional duties he would not be very pleased ...

Nevertheless, "at the end of the day, it is neither the (intelligent) designer nor the manufacturer, but the market that makes a classic". I like this quote for its manifold symbolic significance. As in the case of freedom, where the EU parliament writes on its website: "It is important for Europe's citizens that the objectives of justice and home affairs policies - freedom, security and justice - are interlinked and balanced, as freedom loses much of its meaning if it cannot be enjoyed in a secure environment and if it is not backed up by a fair and smoothly functioning legal system."
___

"Tolle is offering a very contemporary synthesis of Eastern spiritual teaching, which is normally so clothed in arcane language that it is incomprehensible," says Bloom. "Some people might find him confusing but when he asserts that Descartes' major insight ("I think therefore I am") – one of the foundations of Western thinking – is ostensibly wrong, it's a conceptual challenge to how we think about ourselves. And that has always been the major assertion of Eastern religion: that thinking is not the core of who you are. The core of who you really are is that part of you that can watch yourself thinking – that's very Buddhist, very Eastern, very attuned to the whole field of transpersonal psychology." from The Independent

Dear Hari,

Behind everything there is a logic, a reasonable understanding consistent with a set of rules or whatever one personally finds to be in accordance with ones own definition and understanding of things or that of a particular school, institution or understanding in society. Medical practitioners follow the "logic of healing", in politics we find sometimes the rule or logic of the divide and rule strategy, in Iskcon we had the logic of renunciation, becoming completely free from the karmic bondage, free from samsara, the cycle of birth and death and so on in order to reach one day the supreme abode of godhead. There are a wide range of physical experiences, ranging from mystic experiences of leaving the body and near-death experiences to yoga, which people in society describe as "spiritual".

What would you say is the logic a spiritual mystic aspires to follow?

In this connection I read recently an interesting statement:
"Our community is not trying to manifest some kind of utopian ideal - rather we work genuinely with who and what we are."

Sounds logical enough, but implementing that which brings a spiritual dimension to it is often quite difficult. Normally you associate with spiritual something which improves or purifies one.