Krishna Metal, Is it a good thing? Options

[kalki]

Conspiracy is just plain wrong and it should be stopped. The Buddha taught that we must refrain from telling lies.

You can't change your mother but you can change your god and his teachings.

Not only are we stardust we are golden stardust. That is, if your synopsis of the history of everything is accurate.

I hope accurate. You can read more about our slaveowners, the Aunnunaki, and their home Planet X, Nibiru, over here: http://nibiruplanetx.org/

But there is one problem...one linguist that can read Summerian script says Zechariah Stitchin's account of Planet X is bogus because he mistranslated the discovered tablets.

But just what is that gentleman's agenda and related conspiracy is the real question...?

[0Sophia0]

When a temple authority rubs me the wrong way, then I just remember the immortal lyrics of Escape by Metallica

But this seems to mean that you have a personal philosophy that is above the religion you follow. How does that work?

And why would you say that?

It is something that seems to almost suggest itself, and it is very common with many people, inside and outside of religious institutions.

One can see this personal philosophy at work when asking a member of a religion "How did you come to this religion?" and they answer something like "I read many books and then I decided on my own".
The crux is that this very religion has doctrines on how it is that people come to said religion - and the answers that people give about how they came to this religion are not the same as the religion's doctrine about how people come to it.

So it is as if those religious people have a meta-system which they deem neutral, independent from the religion they profess. Like acting on plan A, but always being ready and making allowances for plan B.
(Once one learns what the pattern is, one can easily observe it in other people, even without knowing much about them personally.)

But assuming I am a devout follower of Lord Shri Krishna, if that is what you meant (but if it wasn't then please tell me what you meant)

then I would say that the temple authorities don't know everything in life.

Then you would be a devotee with reservations. If a follower of a religion has reservations, and doesn't see those in position of authority in this religion as being the highest authorities - then is he really a follower?

And more importantly, if he is not really a follower, than what is he doing there?

Even Prabhupada, according to my readings of his letters, from time to time thought that management should not restrict another devotee's devotion, if the devotion could be seen clearly as a benefit to the living entities. He showed this many times in his defiance of the GBC. One devotee who was doing service was getting restriction and mandates from the GBC to stop his service, but Prabhupada intervened and told the GBC to leave him alone. (that was when a big book distributor was being told not to do his stuff).

This is interesting. My impression has always been that unquestioning submission to the authorities is necessary, or one is an apostate (and should repent or leave). Because in some instances, SP did make the point that the GBC and the 11 were as good as him as far as instructing people is concerned.

So authoritarian control is something I was against, and I believe Krishna was against it also. He was an anarchist as far as I can see, but some of the acharyas for some reason were conformists. So Metallica tells me to break a way from the so-called standards (vaidhi bhakti rules and regs), and see through people's blurry site (maya), and live my own way (personal bhajan), thus breaking away from the endless cycle (of repeated birth and death).

This is a rather individualistic way to see things!

My impression has always been that thinking, feeling, speaking and doing in any way differently than ordered by those above me, is a mistake, that I have to understand such thinking, feeling, speaking and doing that is in any way different than ordered by those above me as a rebellion against the authorities and thus a rebellion against God; and that I will forfeit my chances for making spiritual progress should I ever not think it a mistake and rebellion.

[Homer]

My impression has always been that thinking, feeling, speaking and doing in any way differently than ordered by those above me, is a mistake, that I have to understand such thinking, feeling, speaking and doing that is in any way different than ordered by those above me as a rebellion against the authorities and thus a rebellion against God; and that I will forfeit my chances for making spiritual progress should I ever not think it a mistake and rebellion.

Different authorities will give you different orders. Which ones will you accept as being in the name of the divine?

If you think that thinking is endangering your spiritual life then you must decide...........but, deciding requires thinking...........but, thinking is sinful unless I am thinking about how to carry out the orders of my superiors...........but, how do I know who are my superiors?.............maybe it is just easier to use your very own blessed brain?

[0Sophia0]

Different authorities will give you different orders. Which ones will you accept as being in the name of the divine?

If you think that thinking is endangering your spiritual life then you must decide...........but, deciding requires thinking...........but, thinking is sinful unless I am thinking about how to carry out the orders of my superiors...........but, how do I know who are my superiors?.............maybe it is just easier to use your very own blessed brain?

Which means what, in practice? Discarding all KC books? Dismissing every premise which I can identify as having learned it in GV?

[Homer]

Which means what, in practice? Discarding all KC books? Dismissing every premise which I can identify as having learned it in GV?

I can't tell you that. Can't means won't.

I follow my own personal radar. This life is not a rehearsal. Trusting that another person has the ability to successfully steer your life for you is a very big trust. Too much, in my opinion.

Have a good look at the long succession of disciples and at the many intrigues, corruption, murders and deception - not only ISKCON - where ever masters have power over slaves.

I always figured that Krsna couldn't be that much of a jerk and expect me to let someone else live my life for me.

[kalki]

When a temple authority rubs me the wrong way, then I just remember the immortal lyrics of Escape by Metallica

But this seems to mean that you have a personal philosophy that is above the religion you follow. How does that work?

And why would you say that?

It is something that seems to almost suggest itself, and it is very common with many people, inside and outside of religious institutions.

One can see this personal philosophy at work when asking a member of a religion "How did you come to this religion?" and they answer something like "I read many books and then I decided on my own".
The crux is that this very religion has doctrines on how it is that people come to said religion - and the answers that people give about how they came to this religion are not the same as the religion's doctrine about how people come to it.

So it is as if those religious people have a meta-system which they deem neutral, independent from the religion they profess. Like acting on plan A, but always being ready and making allowances for plan B.
(Once one learns what the pattern is, one can easily observe it in other people, even without knowing much about them personally.)

But assuming I am a devout follower of Lord Shri Krishna, if that is what you meant (but if it wasn't then please tell me what you meant)

then I would say that the temple authorities don't know everything in life.

Then you would be a devotee with reservations. If a follower of a religion has reservations, and doesn't see those in position of authority in this religion as being the highest authorities - then is he really a follower?

And more importantly, if he is not really a follower, than what is he doing there?

Even Prabhupada, according to my readings of his letters, from time to time thought that management should not restrict another devotee's devotion, if the devotion could be seen clearly as a benefit to the living entities. He showed this many times in his defiance of the GBC. One devotee who was doing service was getting restriction and mandates from the GBC to stop his service, but Prabhupada intervened and told the GBC to leave him alone. (that was when a big book distributor was being told not to do his stuff).

This is interesting. My impression has always been that unquestioning submission to the authorities is necessary, or one is an apostate (and should repent or leave). Because in some instances, SP did make the point that the GBC and the 11 were as good as him as far as instructing people is concerned.

So authoritarian control is something I was against, and I believe Krishna was against it also. He was an anarchist as far as I can see, but some of the acharyas for some reason were conformists. So Metallica tells me to break a way from the so-called standards (vaidhi bhakti rules and regs), and see through people's blurry site (maya), and live my own way (personal bhajan), thus breaking away from the endless cycle (of repeated birth and death).

This is a rather individualistic way to see things!

My impression has always been that thinking, feeling, speaking and doing in any way differently than ordered by those above me, is a mistake, that I have to understand such thinking, feeling, speaking and doing that is in any way different than ordered by those above me as a rebellion against the authorities and thus a rebellion against God; and that I will forfeit my chances for making spiritual progress should I ever not think it a mistake and rebellion.

There is a lot of things here, and I didn't understand the first quote/response...so let me make a swooping statement and maybe put forth some new questions if I am not being clear.

Swooping statement: Religion is not meant to establish authoritarian control. God gives us freedom and liberation from bondage. Rules and regulations and even institutions are for the purpose of facilitating the spiritual growth of an individual, not restricting it. Further their are many paths to God and many paths to management. So some paths are more restrictive and some paths are less restrictive in either category.

Personally I find for instance the Buddha's teaching to be the most free in terms of a spiritual path, but some Buddhist management systems such as centers and so forth can have just as many trappings as any other corporation or small business (religous or secular) in the world.

[0Sophia0]

Swooping statement: Religion is not meant to establish authoritarian control. God gives us freedom and liberation from bondage. Rules and regulations and even institutions are for the purpose of facilitating the spiritual growth of an individual, not restricting it. Further their are many paths to God and many paths to management. So some paths are more restrictive and some paths are less restrictive in either category.

Hm. I have not actually thought about it like that. This bigger picture eluded my attention.

[kalki]

Swooping statement: Religion is not meant to establish authoritarian control. God gives us freedom and liberation from bondage. Rules and regulations and even institutions are for the purpose of facilitating the spiritual growth of an individual, not restricting it. Further their are many paths to God and many paths to management. So some paths are more restrictive and some paths are less restrictive in either category.

Hm. I have not actually thought about it like that. This bigger picture eluded my attention.

Believe it or not, I first started considering this concept while being in Iskcon. Iskcon seems real bad, but not everyone there is so bad. There are plenty of free thinkers who are ready to tilt the boat when needed.

Prabhupada himself was a revolutionary within his own framework and context, if you consider his life and background and so on. Initiating women and offering them an equal opportunity for ashram life was unheard of and many of his godbrothers were opposed to this. However, compared to other spiritual movements within India, I think he was totally backward, so I don't want to go too far to give him a lot of credit.

But anyway, to stay within the confines of an ashram that was led at one time by a revolutionary, is pretty revolutionary in it of itself, so some good ideas come forth. When the best of the ideas come forward and nobody wants to listen, then you leave and follow your heart, follow Krishna or whatever you want to call it. You follow your true beliefs.

Most esoteric principles of spirituality are totally anarchistic in my opinion. Prabhupada said also that brahmins are more disposed to anarchy.