some background: michael vick "found god" and apologized for torturing and killing pit bulls. my response is this
even in your new religious fervor, mr vick, there is something called "dominion". It means god gave men stewardship over his creation... You have most definitely NOT been a good steward. in the parable of the two servants... one stows away his masters gold, one increases it... you did not even stow away those dogs, you tortured, abused and killed them. if the servent was punished for merely hiding the gold, just imagine what god has in store for you for squandering it utterly. think about this song, mr. vick, and think VERY HARD, if you truly have had a religious conversion...
Now is the cool of the day
Now is the cool of the day
This earth is a garden, the garden of my Lord
And he walks in his garden
In the cool of the day

My Lord, he said unto me
Do you like my garden so fair
You may live in this garden if you'll keep the grasses green
And I'll return in the cool of the day

Then my Lord, he said unto me
Do you like my pastures so green
You may live in this garden if you will feed my sheep
And I'll return in the cool of the day

Then my Lord, he said unto me
Do you like my garden so free
You may live in this garden if you'll keep the people free
And I'll return in the cool of the day


which made me think: what kind of servant of god am i? In KC we were servants of the servant (so the preaching went)... but i am really pretty poor as a servant... surly, lazy... and it intrigues me this imagery of the servant from various religions.... thoughts, ideas discussions welcome.

The age of servant is dead and I would rebel against any master.

I would make it my mission to inform the other servants
that it is only through the freedom of choice
that I or anyone can determine their path in life,
be it spiritual, material or anything in between.

Servants are for a darker age, a patriarchal time of
ignorance and intolerance, one where certain men
have the need to control and be powerful over others
for personal gain and control of self-interests.

My spiritual choices are my own and no one can force
their thoughts and ideologies down my throat anymore.
The age of the servant is dead, unless of course one’s
freedom of choice is taken away or relinquished to another
in a system that promises freedom after death, while in this
life you bow to others and their institutions in fear of not
reaching the highest of the mysteries once life is extinguished.

Some choose the life of the Middle-Ages, for there is comfort
in not having to think or take responsibility for themselves.
This is where becoming the servant of the servant allows the
master off the hook, like a crook who owns the one and only
holy book. While only the chosen special can share and follow
in hopes of one day becoming the master of others too.

The age of servant is dead and I would rebel against any master.

well, i am the first to say my relationship with god/dess is my own, i don't need an intermediary. i guess what intrigues me is the monotheists sense of being low... as opposed to a historical pagan/magical thinking of "if i do x, gods will do y" it is more equal than more recent religious thought. but again, this could be result of looking back.

Perhaps Sekhmetsat, it may have to do with the comparison of ourselves to larger things in our existence. Like when standing in front of the ocean or in front of a large mountain, humans began to feel small. When a person looks into the sky at night and sees the moon and all the stars and galaxies above, they feel very small and almost inconsequential. When you see a picture of the earth from satellite shots from above, you realize the whole world looks small and you cannot even see a person below at that distance. So that grandeur and awe of things bigger than ourselves could be applied to the source energy or creator of everything, be it God/Goddess or those who represent that force or being.

The awe and grandeur of someone who is in that position is not a bad thing per say, for there may be many good things to learn from them, but when one starts to submit everything to that person, even their thoughts and will, where one stops thinking for themselves and becomes the ultimate servant —a slave…perhaps that is when problems seem to start and multiply for all involved.

I find myself becoming more monist as time goes on, quite involuntarily, not as the result of 'following' any line of thought or any person

I don't have an automatic bad connotation associated with the word servant. I also don't think it goes hand in hand with subverting free will. I think one can take a voluntary role as seeing oneself the servant of either a higher power, God, society (public servant), or all of creation (as in the sense that it's part of my job to serve the well being of the whole by doing my part). I think that when not enforced artificially from outside as a social norm, thinking of yourself as a servant is a voluntary position of humility that can directly counteract the false pride that comes from too much ego.

One example is that a manager or supervisor can choose to see him or her self as being in charge of or lording it over other employees, or instead as serving other employees by facilitating them in doing their best work. The humble way of seeing it as a service to others produces a more respectful communication style, more consideration of their needs, and a more peaceful and friendly work place overall.

Some might choose to see me as a forum hostess as having great power over everyone here. I choose to see myself as trying to serve the needs of my members as a whole so that we can have a harmonious board (most of the time!) If I truly operated from the paradigm that I have all this great power to use as I see fit for my own needs and wishes, this board would be a very different place! Why, I might delete many topics that I don't personally find interesting even if my members enjoy them. I might have changed the focus of the board according to my own moods. Who knows what might happen when I'm premenstrual!?

I think when the notion of servant and service are exploited they are given a bad name that they don't necessarily deserve. And a good servant should recognize that a bad master should not be followed--that's where free will and responsibility come in.

As for Vick, let's see what actions come out of his newfound realization that what he did was horribly wrong. Let's see him put money towards pit bull rescue organizations and others that benefit animals who have been abandoned and mistreated, such as Karma Rescue. Let's see him work in some way to educate people about exactly why this so-called sport is evil and why they should not be either attending these fights or especially bringing their children to such things. Let's see him talk in schools to children about treating animals with compassion and respect. Let's see some public service announcements while we're at it.

Put your time and your money where your mouth is and then I'll have faith that you are truly a changed man.

Perhaps I was too harsh toward my treatment of the word servant in my earlier posts. This can only be because of my Krsna Conscious experience, where the term was misused and exploited in so many different ways. I do believe in service to others and to a higher source, but not it having to be attached as a religious or dogmatic principle that one must follow. Once the act of service becomes an edict of religious action, its meaning can easily become numb in the face of mindless repetition dislodged from its power and beauty when made as a personal choice.

I have come to view service to God as simply helping others, especially in times of need. Being helpful, volunteering time and just giving to others out as an act of caring and love, with nothing looked for in return, be it recognition, money or good karma.

Once the term Master is removed from its relationship to the term Servant , much more positive possibilities seem to exist and the potential of authentic service and giving to others becomes more tangible…at least to me.

I am somewhat ambivalent as well when I think of this word "servant".

I think that conscious attempts to bear power over others - and thereby establish hierarchical, or "master-servant" relationships - is a characteristic feature of the material world; that is, where the sources of enjoyment are scarce and temporary, and the living beings' consciousness is that of enmity towards each other, they fight for these possibilities. We must fight even for the constituents of our bodies. If someone obtains more or better resources, he/she can utilize them to get even more from others. One of these resources, and among them one of the most fine, is power - attaining power is one part of this "fight for resources" dynamic.

In these master-servant relationships, the master is one who gained power from someone else, and the servant is those whom the power was taken away - no one exists without the other, and if a master appears, then there must be some servants as well. Amongst intelligent species, the power is among the most important resource, and therefore the desire for it permeates human thinking. It often infiltrates interpersonal relationships.

I think the religions who rely on the master-servant imagery are the ones that are more embedded in this material conditioning. An early medieval Pope took the title "Servant of God's Servants", but really, he wasn't a servant, but a powerful lord, and he set the population of Western Europe to become his servants. Religious institutions exists as a tools of power-gaining for the institutional elite; by claims of giving the power of being in relation to the divine, they take the power over the everyday issues, thinking and economics from their followers. But this doesn't come from the Divine - it comes from the material. (And it, for sure, can be used to divine service, but more often than not, it gets side-racked to serve as a tool for the powerful.)

Now there is Radha and Krishna. They are more powerful than me, they have power over me. They didn't take this power away from me, but they are naturally have it. But as they are naturally mature personalities, They don't feel the need to "lord it" over me, They don't feel it nbeccessary to make me feel that I do not have as much power as Them. I know it so, but it is my free choice to recognize this. Radha and Krishna have more power on me than I have on Radha and Krishna, therefore I am dependent on Them, while They are not dependent on me. I am Their servant, naturally, without any coercion on Their part.

And then, there is the love between Them and Their devotees. It also means giving power to the other: the lover gives power over him/herself to the beloved, so he/she becomes aservant too. The devotee does this - he/she gives power over him/herself to Radha and Krishna, so he/she becomes the servant of Radha-Krishna. But this is not an one-sided process, it is mutual; They also give Their love, and it means that They give power over Themselves to the bhakta. As much as the bhakta becomes the servant of Rdaha and Krishna, in the same way They become the servant of that bhakta. Mutual servitude out of free choice - if it is something that the word "service" and "servant" can be applied to.

I sometimes find myself asking the people I work with when asked if I "have a minute?", "How can I serve you?" I do this reflexively and am usually surprised when they step back at my response, and then remember that it's not such a usual concept.

Interesting observation Sita and the response that you received for using the word Serve is not surprising. In today’s society, the term servant or asking someone “How may I serve you?” is something that is seldom heard anymore unless watching an old movie or you happen to hear a description of somebody into S & M. The more common usage and meaning of the word that we learned as devotee’s does not seem to translate well into modern conversation or narrative of the everyday work world.

I liked the idea of being a servant when I was in ISKCON, its very alienness felt enticing. There is a dignity to being a servant of God. There is a self-abnegation to being a servant in general -- a counterbalance for my youthful narcissism perhaps. In any case, something in it seemed good, healthy.

But I didn't take the idea to its conclusion: as a servant, my existence has no value in and of itself, and my development is bent to the needs of my master; it is no longer "organic," i.e. guided by its own internal principles. There came a time in ISKCON when I had a choice to become a good servant by ignoring my own self, or to follow that own inner voice and cease to be a servant. The worthiness of the cause I served is another issue, I don't think it was a good cause. But even if it were, I would have still been unable to be its servant.

Your question, Sekhmetsat, made me reflect on my job where I constantly have to put my own planning and comfort aside and adjust myself to what my young patients need, to keep helping them out of the messes they get themselves into, even when their actions make me very frustrated. I am bound to what is good for them and have to ignore myself to a degree. But I would never identify myself as their servant. That would remove my own independent basis from which I do these things. I know more, understand more than they do, and I assist them through their crises so that they will no longer need me.

Interesting points Dhyana, and in many ways, we all serve somebody. Be it family or friends, workmates, bosses, clients, patients and customers. When somebody goes into a store or restaurant and complains about bad service, it means somebody did not serve them correctly.

I like the idea of being of service to others, especially when it is done out of a choice to give and lend support to someone else or a cause or issue I believe in. Though one may be acting like a servant, it does not mean that one is a servant, especially when thought of as giving up ones choice and free will to serve an individual, institution or cause, especially to someone in a higher titled position, such as a manager, boss or (gulp!) spiritual master. Choice and Free Will do play an important role in the meaning of service or being a servant…without it, one can be pretty much just a slave.

I have often noticed a problem using the very word servant that is the translation of sanskrit sevak, coming from seva. However, seva as devotional service has quite different meaning than what comes to our mind when we hear word servant.

IMO, word servant does not imply any love for the master, its the reward that is the motivator for the action. For sevak, love is the motivator. That is huge difference at the very basis of that terminology.

I often do public talks to audience that have no idea about my HK background, and I mainly talk about astrology and vastu. And whenever I mentioned words 'service' and 'servant', I got into the trouble. Now is use word 'supporter' or 'carer', and that works very well.

As we discussed in the thread about gratitude, the example of mother is a good one to consider since it comes closest to bhakti on the worldly level. She is effectively a menial humble servant of her kids, and does it most of the time even if there is no reciprocation, for love being her sole motivator. And her happiness is fully based on happiness of their children.

Reflecting on what you wrote, I believe that problems come in the transitional period where we are trying to re-awake that innate 'service attitude' of love acting and serving out of duty, our motivator being the intellectual understanding of the principle. We tend (or we were told to) to fully forget about ourselves and completely embrace the identity we didn't fully realize yet, which inevitably brings problems.

The person teaching the student to develop that 'service attitude' or love must have that quality him self, and also it must inspire the student to see the benefits of it himself, so that he/she is inspired to practice out of their own will. Naturally, the best inspiration will be the very 'service attitude' of the teacher.

In that light, if we see God as a loving servant of everyone else, I have trouble seeing that 'my existence has no value in and of itself, and my development is bent to the needs of my master'. That master actually has no needs for service Himself, that service rather becomes a loving exchange fully inspired by the feelings of gratitude and affection rather than duty.

And I believe that such a relationship between a 'master' and 'servant' is organic, rather than imposed and thus damaging.

I agree with your point: 'I assist them through their crises so that they will no longer need me.' Expert teacher helps the students learn how to see the path for themselves, rather than holding their hand and taking them around blindly. 'I offer obeisances to my sp master who OPENED MY EYES with the torchlight of knowledge'. Opening the eyes meaning coming to the point of actual realization of the subject taught, rather than just blindly believing in what was told.

Unfortunately, we very much lack such kind of teachers today, who can exemplify what they teach and thus can inspire the students to organicly follow the process till they actually develop that genuine service attitude in their hearts.

Interesting distinction.


And this is interesting as well! Sweden has one political issue that has been getting constantly derailed by this knee-jerk response to the notion of being a servant. It started several years ago, when one of the more conservative political parties proposed tax cuts on income people make by helping other people with housekeeping. In Sweden, the variation between salaries people have is less than in many other countries. Additionally, the burden of taxes and employer costs for employing a person is very high. Therefore even for families with two breadwinners with long working hours and good income, it is too costly to employ someone part-time for helping with the cleaning, child care and the like. The result being that when they do employ someone, it is frequently "black" with no taxes paid. Or they do all the work themselves, which increases stress and not infrequently is to the disadvantage of the woman.

One of the conservative parties proposed to lower taxes on these kind of services: to change some of them from black to white, to facilitate careers for people with demanding jobs, and to help unqualified workforce getting a foot in the work market.

What an outcry this caused! And not just from the "left" parties but from the grassroots. The proposed tax cut was promptly termed pigavdraget, avdrag meaning cut. Piga is an old word for maid, it brings associations to times when these women often worked under unenviable conditions, exploited, pretty much like slaves, with no rights.

"There shall be no maids even again!" The people kept on about how demeaning this kind of job was. (As if it was all that different from the work done in health care, child care or care for old people, or cleaning in schools and offices -?) And how the only morally right thing is that everyone cleans their own messes. There was no way to keep the debate focused on the reality at hand. Mind over matter -- symbols over facts.

(I will comment on the rest of your text, k_k, later.)

This is a slightly idealized portrayal of motherly love. I react to words like "fully" and "sole" in this context. The mother gets lots of reciprocation, at least as long as her children are young. Think of babies, what a magnet they are for most of us. Just their holding your glance, their smiles, sweet cooing and stretching out their hands for a hug are enough reciprocation to awaken parental love. By the time the child grows old enough to become "ungrateful" (3 years of age, and later the teenage years), the relationship is solid enough for the parent to continue loving.

If children came to this world in the midst of their "terrible twos/threes" or teenage rebellion, how many mothers would love them from the start?


The famous leap of faith.


Yes, the key words here being if we see God... etc.


If this is how it feels to the bhakta, then there is of course no problem.

A mother is more of an unconditional loving teacher and provider for her children than a servant. She does provides much service to the child, but to call her a menial servant of the child is a stretch, and seems to be more of an attempt to incorporate the Prabhupada/Krsna Conscious preaching usage of the term Mother, transforming it into a more non-sectarian concept that can be applied to everyone in a subtle agenda format, as proof that the Vaisnava term Bhakti is universal and explains everything.

The child when young, is very dependent upon the mother, and even when the child gets older and starts testing their independence, they are under the watchful eye of the parent, who is more master than servant really.

This natural expression that emanates from a parent to their children is something that is inherent and does not have to be taught or turned into a concept. No one needs to be taught or told whom they love, they just love, it is just there and cannot be forced. When this type of love is turned into a concept, (as when you say -"if we see God as a loving servant of everyone else") it becomes a philosophical tool that loses its inherent depth and natural spontaneity, while trying to explain away the mysteries of life through a conceptual frame that insists in being right while containing some ultimate truth.

That's a valid point. The mother example is an analogy used to point out to a phenomena that comes very close to 'pure love'. And is by no means perfect analogy, as pointed by you.



Not entirely sure what do you mean by leap of faith in this connection.

According to wikipedia:

A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety.

What do we accept as empirical evidence here? I guess we would need to look at the character transformation that is somewhat observable in one's actions.

I'm sure we can say that we have seen many 'advanced' devotees behaving contrary to the expected outcome, which no one can dispute. But can we say that no others have changed?

We can also examine ourselves and our motivations. That's a personal test I guess, that cannot be fully judged by others, but it can encourage us that we are making progress and that the process is working. SP on several places mentions development of 26 qualities as a 'measuring tool' of our progress.



Yep, you are right, these are the key words.

For example, I read 'God delusion' with great joy and found it very educational.

Why?

One of things I learned was that God's representatives are painting the picture of God in the minds of others. They understand God in a particular way and portray that upon those that they preach to. In the case of Dawkins, or anyone observing what he observed its no wonder that he found religion to be 'a root of all evil' and God to be a 'blood-thirsty autocrat'.

All of us have been exposed to different types of representatives of Krishna and Srila Prabhupada (SP). And based on their conduct and preaching we have perceived Krishna and SP in a particular way.

I remember the times when you were demonized all over the net. There was an outcry for lynch on VNN, lead by Pragosh (ACBSP). What I really appreciated was a response by Ravindra Svarup. He wrote that its not that you and Madhu who should be accused, it's the disciples of SP who are guilty for misinterpreting SP's teachings and abusing women and children in his name. From what I remember, he shifted all the responsibilities to them and GBC.

So I guess all of us got conditioned in a particular way of thinking and perceiving God and religion, which doesn't always have to be right.

Anyway, I'm sure that you as psychologist know all about conditionings much better than me.



Well that's how I understand GV siddhanta in that regard.

Krishna is known as 'bhava grahi janardana', or the one who accepts the essence of the offering, our attitude or in essence our love. Devotee being forced to serve in a particular way has little to offer - he is not doing it out of his own will.

I believe that was the point of your and Bhaktavatsala's seminar on spiritual abuse, if I can remember correctly. Spiritual abuse happens when one is coerced into doing something by force, in the name of spirituality.

However, true spiritual teacher is the one who can give that 'bhava' or feeling of love that inspires disciple to serve Krishna. I would say that 'inspiration' is the key word here.

Now there is the period of sadhana-bhakti where one's 'bhava' is not developed, where one is practising the process on kinda 'leap of faith'. I said kind of because I wouldn't agree its fully based on blind faith. There are some devotional experiences that are like 'flashbacks' that create that initial faith in the process. There are examples of other devotees around us. But at the same time, one should be able to assess the progress being made against some given criteria. Rupa Goswami measures it against the desire to serve (inspired by love). How much that desire is developed, that much we have moved forward.

For example, how did I become devotee? What kept me going through all the ups and downs on the way? One of main inspirations was one of my first Japa experiences. I practically fell in trance chanting, I could feel the Holy Name, taste it, 'see it'... it was truly amazing. I remember love just flooding my heart, and tears just flowing. Didn't last for very long, but it had lifelong impact on me. And no, it wasn't an acid flashback. So after that experience I don't need blind leap of faith to continue the process.

In summary, to me it seems like we have perceived the same philosophy in different ways based on our association.

From what I understand, what you interpretate as servant is not what 'sevak' means.

Sevak has that desire to help others (serve) out of his love and affection. He can do that through teaching or 'menial service', depending upon whom his love is directed.

In my understanding of 'sevak' that we translate as servant there is no difference between as you mentioned 'unconditional loving teacher and provider' and a menial servant. The goal is the same - to care and support, and to provide some true benefit to the person.

Regarding your perception of my agenda, yes, I'm trying to respectfully and reasonably demonstrate how bhakti philosophy or sanatan dharma is truly non-sectarian universal principle and that it can explain everything.

Do you find that to be disturbing to the members of this forum?

I don't think it was a very subtle agenda though, I guess I have been quite explicit about it through my posts on different threads.

Example of mother is just a first thing that came to my mind, and yes it happened to be the very example that SP used. I guess I was too lazy to think of anything else to illustrate it. After all, no examples are prefect and they have their limits.



Not sure about that.

When a mother attempts to become a master, ie starts exploiting child for her own benefit, the loving connection is broken and the child can feel that. The relationship immediately changes.

As long as the only motivation of a mother is love, she remains a 'sevak', which we would translate as servant.

How do you distinguish between the master and the sevak?

In my understanding (as I also see it in GV), master exploits and sevak supports.

So with this perspective, I'm not able to see how mother 'is more master than servant really'.

In essence it really comes down how do we interprate the terminology we use.

I believe that we tend to interprate master and servant based on what their external activity looks like, while GV focuses more on the actual substance - the motivation behind the action.



If I understand correctly, the problem here is taking the example of mother's love too far. It's by no means prefect example to illustrate the concept of bhakti. It's limited, as all examples and analogies are to some degree.

I'm not sure if I would agree that "if we see God as a loving servant of everyone else" is a concept, nor I think its abstract in any way. It's a one way in which we can perceive God. If we can recognise that He indeed is a loving servant of everyone, then we are more likely to become grateful and the rest of the story to bhakti. The our service will be inspired by love, rather than duty or fear.

If we percieve God as a master (one who exploits), then duty and fear become the main motivators, as is the case in most of world's religions.

Again, it all depends on how we interprate the terminology 'master' and 'servant'.

Why would perceiving someone as a servant of everybody else increase the probability of gratitude? Apart from the difficulty in measuring gratitude levels, even a decrease of it could conceivably be triggered by the apprehension of the hypothetical servant of everybody.

i am devoted unalloyedly so to the supreme personality of godhead, lord sri krishna and to the almost supreme personality of godhead, lord sri balarama

I meant that one is trying to respond (with loving behavior) to a stimulus (direct experience of the loving behavior of God) that is not quite there yet. In order to be able to do it, one has to convince oneself that the stimulus will come soon, that in a way it is already there. That takes a leap of faith.


Yes. And there is a limit to what good representation can accomplish. I used to be sorry for Colin Powell when he was G.W. Bush's minister of foreign affairs. I have come to think that there is a problem with the basic idea of God, the almighty creator, omniscient, all-loving being in charge of our destinies after death. That problem may be more or less apparent depending on whether you look at the Bible or some other religious scripture -- a matter of representation.


To be crass, I'd say he had to do this. Anything but placing even the tiniest fraction of the responsibility at the feet of his guru.


That's a special experience and I can see how it had a lasting impact on you.

It does seem that we have gotten hung up on definition and meaning of the word Service, Servant and now Sevak. I don’t dispute your personal understanding of the words or how they play in the practice of your spiritual life. I was just making a point that I thought the example of unconditional love that a mother has for their child is more than just the position of being a menial servant…that at times it takes on the role of teacher and guide too. It seems you are saying the same thing too, and perhaps we depart in common understanding when the term master, spiritual teacher and God comes into play with the term Service or Sevak, using those positions in trying to explain and relate to the unconditional love of a mother.



As far as my perception of your agenda, I have no problem with you explaining your understanding of ideas and terms according to your belief and worldview, adding that to the constant ever changing nature to the narrative of the forum. It would only become problematic if you were using it as a platform to preach while trying to convert or bring back ex-devotees to your understanding or particular lineage of Krsna Consciousness, which would go against forum rules, but I have not seen your posts as doing that. I don’t see what you are writing as disturbing, and I can’t speak for other members, but nobody has inferred that from what I have read.

I am curious though about your stated need to “respectfully and reasonably demonstrate how bhakti philosophy or sanatan dharma is truly non-sectarian universal principle and that it can explain everything.” Do you feel that there is a special need here at GR to have this expressed? For most regular members here have already come from a Krsna Conscious background, where the philosophy of Sanatan Dharma was once lived and as a philosophy, really invested in. Many, as myself, now question it or have moved on to other philosophical understanding, though there are members who still practice it and would support your beliefs.

My other question is, why do you have a need to have everything explained? Why can’t the great mysteries of life be just that—mysteries, perhaps to have reverence and awe over while we pursue and try to find personal answers. But why oh why must there be a universal answer to all questions and mysteries that fits everyone?






It would all depend on the definition of Master? Now-a-days, it seems to mean being a person who has mastered a subject or skill and not an owner or keeper of another human being. The word Spiritual Master can have all kinds of meanings anymore, from the ideal humble enlightened teacher to a fake opportunist parading and making a living pretending to have spiritual techniques and knowledge. I myself see the Spiritual Master as spirit that manifests in all types of situations and people, teaching us through everyday interactions and experiences…teachers everywhere, inside and out…though it can manifest as in the being of one particular person for many, and I can respect that as long as it is not an exploitive or co-dependent situation.




I think its OK to agree to disagree about things, for I’m not trying to convince you of anything or change your beliefs, I’m most likely only trying to express that there are many ways to understand the body, the self, higher self, spirit and God. The statement "if we see God as a loving servant of everyone else"is conceptual to me, for not everyone believes in God and if they do, the manifestation of the concept can be as different and personal as there are religions, philosophies, cultures, families, class, environments and experiences that we are exposed to.

When it comes to belief and God, it seems we are faced with these possibilities;

God exists and we don’t know it.
God exists and we know it.

God doesn’t exist and we don’t know it.
God doesn’t exist and we know it.

I’d personally like to think that there may be an insight that is beyond belief, perhaps even suspending the question itself:

If God exists, then God knows it, and I have better things to do than argue about it, fight wars over it, attempt to convert people to my belief system, build an identity over the belief and then live my life according to the particular belief system. I tried that for 20 years and experienced a distant out of body experience of living someone else’s conception and version (GV) of how to live life, everyones conception except for my own. I would rather organize my life around something other than belief, something more sturdy, like aspiration, goodness, compassion, integrity, creative imagination and dedicating ones life to the help of others. It is not to say that one cannot still believe in God or even belong to a spiritual faith, for that personal or communal experience can still be there, but why the need by so many religionist to confine it to one system of belief and then extend that system to all under the guise of being Non-Sectarian?

No harm in expressing your version of belief in God and just what a servant is, even if it is heavily based on Vaisnava principles, for they are valid and legit to you and many others, but to find it a universal principle that answers all questions seems more like an adoption of a belief system that answers all your mysteries, and in that state of comfort of having all the deep mysteries explained, there often comes the missionary need to spread it to others, even those who may have practiced it and left it behind. This is a quest for certainty that I and many others are very familiar with. When in this state, anything that seems to confirm the belief is welcomed and sought, while anything that does not confirm is intellectually dispensed with. This happens in most all religions and spiritual institutions, it is not confined to the practice of GV, though it is most pronounced in movement’s deemed missionary.

The need to define ones belief system as non-sectarian, is in many ways a need for confirmation that the belief is true in the marketplace of differing ideas and philosophy’s, and any true belief system seems to exist on the shaky ground of always needing proof for its existence. The need for proof takes time away from living life and actually doing good in the world, for this quest for certainty consumes, divides and fractures, much as can be seen in history and the world today.

Can we be sure of this?

(Not that I think a war would convince Him...)

proof:

god is everything, even that which is not god is god

and that which is god, the not god, does not know that god exists

Perhaps saying "If God exists, then God does not know it" makes sense and is a possibility for you? One could even start a new faith in it, a religion of Non-Knowing with churches and temples full of followers walking around and bumping into each other while chanting, " I exist, but I don't know it!"

The whole argument of faith and the existence of God becomes futile in many ways. Has anything good ever come from it, outside of someone walking away from an argument with their fellow band of believers, feeling vindicated, superior and better for defeating someone else?

I think I read somewhere that 2ms (two milliseconds) is the shortest interval at which human apprehension can occur. It is not continuous. In other words a pulse train with self-awareness bursts at 2ms intervals. During the gaps we might just as well not exist. In practical life, I think, self-awareness occurs at a much lower rate. I for one often catch myself (like waking up from a dream) being surprised that the awareness that occurs here (like when I type this), should actually be mine!

I do hope these 2 ms intervals aren't remaining strictly constant. That would mean that when you are aware of me, I am not aware of you, and vice versa ad infinitum.

Then we may just as well have never met!

Fear not!
Biological clock circuits have sufficient frequency and phase drift to allow our awarenesses to coincide. Did I meet you before?

All glories to these "imperfections"!

Wow, I am not writing this...........Wait...........A ha..........I am now.........wait.........not now..........damn...........oh yeah.........I am........but.......sh#t........not now..................

To be or not to be that is the question...

As well as, to know or not to know - perhaps?

To me, existence is one thing.
Awareness of one´s existence another.
And knowledge of one´s position or situation yet another.

So... to me, the assumption that "if God exists, God knows it" - that He exists, and/ or that He is God? in either case - is not necessarily true. Although it may seem obvious, for some, that it ought to be so... After all He is God - He ought to know, isn´t it?

But... It may be differently, I think.

Although it may seem "unlogical" to us, perhaps. Why would God - if He exists - have to follow our logic? Why should we, at all, make assumptions like this? Imposing our knowledge of how things ought to be. Orderly. Of course. Maybe they are not orderly, at all?

Maybe He exists - but is unaware of it, Himself. Maybe somebody else is in charge of this awareness for Him. Maybe you! Or somebody else. Or nobody. Or what ever!

Maybe He exists and knows that - but is totally unaware of His position?

Or, maybe He does not exists - and knows that. Or does not know of it... But you do!

Who knows? I don´t.

Today I may be existing. And yesterday I was quite aware of it too. I remember. Today I am not very aware - of that. Today I am aware, almost exclusively, that most probably my cell phone will ring. Or it won´t. But it WILL. I know - that. Almost know that. And I have the feeling that, when it does, there will be a voice that I never heard before. - But I will like like that voice! It will be very sweet, soft, and filled with a mixture of laughter and shyness. It will be a woman´s voice. And it will be like that of a dancer - a sweet, humourous and strong, dancer.

After she calls. Which I am somehow convinced she will do this very day. Exactly because today I am not so darn self-conscious. She will call. And then - She will come. And laugh even more!

And it will be very pleasing. Exactly because I am not aware of me, my existens or my situation, position - but of her and hers. Her existence (although she is still not at all revealed to me). And her position. And sweetness. And humour.

She will come. Today.
I am - almost exclusively - aware of that. Today.

Ayyapan, for clarification, I was not using the term “If God exists, God knows it” as a philosophical statement of truth toward what God’s awareness is of His/Her own existence. I agree with you that going in such directions is nothing but more human speculation into trying to solve one of the great mysteries of life. The term was made as an alternative to the age-old questions and arguments about answering the mystery of whether or not God exists and our awareness of each arguments conclusion that becomes a belief, while bringing up the possibility that we should not be afraid to keep the great mysteries a mystery.

The statement was used in a way to say, if indeed God exist, then that is Gods business and we as humans would be better served by not fighting and arguing over finding answers to the great mystery, debating/creating various philosophies/religions while trying to defeat those who think differently, and instead, could be cultivating and expressing all the traits and expressions we attribute to God, such as having a creative, compassionate, loving and giving life.

If we can express and live the verbs of God instead of trying to fight over who has the one true belief in God as a subject, we could really accomplish a lot in our own life and in the fabric of the world. We can then still have our personal beliefs, belong to groups that agree and believe/worship in the same way, but not be at odds or at war with others who think differently.

So if God does or does not exist, and whether or not God knows it —is not the point of my what I originally posted. All that statement does, when taken by itself, is take the “God Existing” argument even further into the outer realms of philosophical mental space travel whith no real proof outside one's belief, religion or philosophical thinking. Clarifying that, it is interesting to hear your thoughts on the various philosophical possibilities of the statement that exists from your point of view and life experiences.

I see, Kalisurfer. Or at least I think so... The "if God exists, God knows it" was more of an "If God exists, God knows it. I suppose... But, in either case, let´s don't bother too much about that, anyway". And I agree. Totally. It is simply foolish to get too much hung up on things beyond one´s reach anyway. To "know" things one actually don´t, and can´t as a matter of fact!, is kind of foolish, isn´t it? Better to live. Simply. And enjoy the journey! And the mysteries... I certainly agree on that one.


As for the woman, she did not call. I really expected her to. But one never knows. Do one?

Suddenly she was just here. Outside my door. In front of my house. Which is really unexpected - as there is nothing outside my house, normally, except my dogs - and a lot of forest. Miles of forest! And perhaps, sometimes, some wild animals. Not women. Not here. Never.

But today there was suddenly. And I had felt it coming. I was expecting it, somehow. But differently.

Now there was this woman. In front of my house. Afraid of the dogs. Kind of nervous, in all kind of ways. Kind of lost. With a cell phone out of order.

If I helped her I do not know. Dis she expect some help? Did she need it, really?

The day simply passed - with her, and in a haze of beaty, laughter and sweet fragrance. Strong winds. Flowing long dark hair. Eyes almost green. And a very playful smile.

Her voice was just as I expected - dancer´s like. Full of sweetness, rythm and soul. And her smile was similar! Her whole body was, indeed, like that of a dancer! Full of rythm, sweetness and soul. But she was not a dancer, but a musician (piano and bassoon). And she was English. And she was surprising, in many ways. Yet also as I expected, somehow. As a matter of fact, that was what I expected. Today. I expected to get very surprised today. And I did.

I expected her to come today, somehow. And surprise me - in many ways. And she did. She really did!

Based on this story, one can only surmise that this statement is true, "Ayyapan Exists and Today…Really…Really Knows It!!!"

Perhaps... Indeed! But the reason I know it, is basically because I am hardly aware of it at all. To me, that is a sound indication of both existence and knowledge.

Existence - Knowledge - Pleasure; interfused they are, indeed, satisfying.

I have gotten quite a few chuckles out of this topic, in between the philosophical pondering.

You are right, not everyone does so. Some people are just quite selfish by nature, and they are not grateful to anyone for anything. That's a reality of life. However, rather than it being all black and white, there are different degrees of that selfishness.

If a good hearted person sees someone selflessly serving others with love, how can he not become grateful?

Not sure how you see that 'a decrease of it could conceivably be triggered by the apprehension of the hypothetical servant of everybody'.

I guess that you say 'hypothetical servant' in relation to God from a view point of an atheist. I'm trying to explain the concept first of all on the 'human level' and show how it psychologically works, and then one can use it to understand the dynamics of the same process in one's relationship with God. However, this is a step ahead for an atheist who still has to come to terms with the very existence of God, before trying to understand His nature.

Yes, that was my original point, rather than a hangup.

We often use same words attributing different meanings to them.



Thank you.



I have assumed that this is a discussion forum, besides being a social hangout place. That assumption is based on reading the whole variety of posts in different forums.

In the spirit of discussion, I don't see it wrong to respectfully offer the alternative views to some ideas or statements posted by the members.

The purpose behind writing this post about servants was in particularly to offer an alternative view to Dhyana, from the perspective of KC as I perceive it. Her comment seemed to me to be based on the misunderstanding of KC philosophy and terminology.

From what I have seen, this is what a lot of discussions in this forums are about - challenging the views of others (people, institutions etc.)

In fact, I have seen a lot being said in a very disrespectful and ungentlemanly way, sometimes quite irrational too, and no one complains, rather only cheers are heard echoing through the cyber space.

Then, when I respectfully try to 'challenge' some of that, then I get this 'dont preach to us' response. I'm not trying to preach to anyone Kalisurfer. I'm trying to openly discuss the issues raised by other members. If someone feels uneasy about it, it would suggest to me a certain level of double standard practice. For us is fine to challenge, but thou shalt not challenge us.

However, I can understand that attitude when considering that many members writing these posts have been severely hurt by ISKCON or its members, being left totally traumatised. Their good hearts and faith have been abused, and they went through a lot of agony in the name of spirituality. That has certainly left deep psychological scars on their personalities.

I find it very painful to see that, and I feel it emotionally very disturbing. It is very difficult to read how much ISKCON leaders did to hurt the devotees, and how little did they do to protect them and help them. I was in practically in tears reading Tapati's account, among others. And the worst thing is that it is still going on today. 'Senior devotees' are still beating their wife's and children, and the Society does hardly anything to stop it.

So yes, there were and there still are many wrongs. But lets place blame where it goes, rather than placing it on innocent people. That's the very reason I actually joined GR, because I couldn't stand reading blatant lies about the events I witnessed.

To summarise, I support the truth, and I will try my best to uphold it. And I believe that most of the members of GV would like to do the same, therefore the forum where they can openly discuss the truth as they see it without being condemned for it.



???

Why not?

I guess the problem would come if that 'universal answer' is inappropriately imposed upon others. If it's offered in a sensitive way respecting people's right to freedom of choice, and not condemning them if they disagreed, than what is the problem?

There will always be missionaries with genuine intentions, as there will always be atheists. So why oh why I was imposed certain values and ideas in the school, while they are also mere theories and hypothesis?



Agreed, and that is my original point anyway.



Why we cant see it in a way where we can understand universal principles of religion that are common in all religions?

The mentality you are objecting to is a typical kanistha mentality, mentality of a person who is very immature in his spiritual practice, and by his own actions actually defeats the very principles he is meant to represent. That mentality is present everywhere, from ISKCON to Islam etc.

When one matures in his spiritual practice, one will naturally act in the way you suggested, he will go out and actually do good things, live good life and by his own example inspire others in their faith or belief. He will see beyond all the illusory identifications.

So is it wrong for that person to also introduce the belief and understanding that brought him to that level?

Again, some feel more missionary while some don't, and that is a simple fact of life. As long as they are respectful of others free will to choose, I can't see the problem. Its an open market.

I'm really sorry that you have perceived my post in such a way. I believed I was doing what everyone else is doing here, engaging in a philosophical discussion, trying to clarify what I have seen as misconceptions of GV philosophy.

Shall I see it as a symptom of the same feeling of insecurity that you are talking about?

I guess you see me in that light due to 20 years of being exposed to kind of indoctrination you didn't like and you felt abusive to some degree.

I guess that's unfortunately the price I have to pay for being loosely connected with ISKCON.




The true belief system exists on the realisation of its principles after the consequent practice. And that practice actually involves living life and doing good in the world, besides other things. That is the test of any product at any kind of market place, whether it delivers its brand promise. Simple.

Its amazing to see how so many of us had such a different experiences in ISKCON.

I would define myself as an atheist who still has to come to terms with the nonexistence of God. It's a work in progress.

Even a good hearted person can experience circumstances where he or she would wish that a certain person should not be served. A teacher or parent might endeavor to have situations where a person who enjoys being in the center and being served 24 hours a day, is NOT being served. In other words withdrawal of service with a calculated benevolent purpose.

It has sometimes been argued that God also deliberately serves exactly by withdrawing service and obvious love. One problem with this argument is that this kind of loving service cannot be observed as such. In other words one does not perceive the absence of service as loving service. One might end up having to propose that everything is the way it is, because this IS precisely the loving service God constantly performs for everyone. In that case, however, only totally enlightened beings would presumably be the ones who have the eyes to see cruelty and abuse as loving service. I think this can easily lead to dangerous situations where crime is legitimized in the name of religion.

The hypothetical loving servant-of-all is not necessarily a universal, gratitude generating concept.

Today a fruit truck driver told me that the root of the word respect from latin means: "to observe without interfering." That if people respected eachother in that sense it would be a lot better and a true generosity. That is what god does too.

Agreed. Thats was my starting point, how do you define servant and service.

And your point is fully valid, that is not service.

In my understanding, to serve means to act for that persons ultimate benefit, in order to please.

Of course, how do we percieve what is ultimate benefit, what is good and what is bad will depend very much on our conception of life.



That is a fact.

Leaving the God concept aside for a moment, I would like to go back to my relationship with my dad. When I was 16, he was not really my favourite person. He was imposing so many restrictions on my freedom, and as most teenagers I thought he was totaly backwards and didn't understand what life was about.

When I was 25, I could see things in a different light. I realised that he was actually protecting me, or otherwords serving me out of love. I went back and profusely apologised for all the trouble I gave him.

I realised with 25, some realise with 50, and some probably never.

In the same way, sometimes God acts in a similar way, as you have suggested.

However, I would like to make distinction between cruelty and abuse you mentioned and service. There is always a reason for things that happen in our lifes, and I wouldn't neccessarily blame God for that, but would rather examine our own role in that. Of course, that whole concept falls in water if one doesn't accept reincarnation.

The hypothetical loving servant-of-all is not necessarily a universal, gratitude generating concept.


Really dont want to run in a circle here, but I cannot see you point. Could you pls elaborate? I did mention that some people are simply selfish, and will NOT become grateful. But those who are in a kinda mode of goodness state, certainly will.

What are you reffering too? I'm lost.

It does sound nice, though one could still argue whether its respectful to watch your child hurt its self with some object without your interference. I wonder what would social services say to that.

I quite like Wikipedia definition:

Respect is an assumption of good faith and competence in another person or in the whole of oneself. Depth of integrity, trust, complementary moral values, and skill are necessary components.

Respect adds general reliability to social interactions. It enables people to work together in a complimentary fashion, instead of each person having to understand or even agree with every detail of another's method.

Not sure how bullet proof is it, but sounds reasonable.

Respect is another of those English words which has a multiplicity of meanings. It usually involves some sense of boundaries...

KK, you have nicely written a lot here in your response to me and I will not be able to address all your points at once, for it will take time, but I will start with thoughts you expressed below and continue later with other points and ideas you have expressed.

There are a variety of viewpoints here on Gaudiya Repercussions KK, so when you say you are offering a respective alternative view, you seem to infer that there is one predominant idea or philosophy here that needs to be corrected or challenged, which I have a hard time understanding. I see no one philosophy or word-view being propagated here, outside allowing members the freedom to make up their own mind and personal choices, even if it disagrees with Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I totally agree that you should offer and have the freedom to express your personal opinions and viewpoints, but you seem to be assuming that there is a some type of centralized philosophy that exist here. This forum is a place for many (current and former devotees from different GV schools, though most come from ISKCON) to raise questions and concern in an open honest way, in an safe environment without fear and judgment, especially from practioners of the orthodoxy they are writing about, something that not allowed on other sites linked to Vaisnavisim that I am aware of.




Is there a need on your behalf to be correct philosophically when comparing your beliefs to others who lived in the same temple but moved on to a different belief system? When someone as intelligent, sensitive and caring as Dhyana and ePiTau are challenged, I do have to wonder what is the agenda behind it? Does their understanding and experience of Krsna Consciousness create a threat to your own belief, and if not, why question their current philosophy in life?

It seems to be the general conviction of people who still practice a spiritual practice or religion to accuse those who leave it with not properly understanding the philosophy or practicing the techniques correctly, but even worse is thinking that those who left were not pure enough or pious and intelligent enough to stay! That is an argument that truly runs across many faiths and spiritual practices and is not unique to GV devotees.



I don’t know if you are referring to GR here, but the term Repercussions that comes after Gaudiya in the forums name was put there for a reason. If you are referring to GR, then there is an allowance for members to air out negative experiences, doubts and grievances while practicing Gaudiya Vaisnavism. A civil atmosphere is asked for, but sometimes people need a place to express extremely painful experiences, and if this is disturbing to people who are full time practicing devotees, they simply have the choice not to read it or come to this forum. I have seen this forum condemned in Devotee forums for some of its content, so this is the price one pays for the freedom of expression allowed here.




I did not say you were preaching, but I do wonder if that is not a subtle motive for you becoming a member here. You seem to infer in your posts of knowing the correct way to practice and understand Krsna Consciousness, with a need to counter anyone whose understanding and practices it differently? You have the freedom to do that nicely if you wish, but you will be challenged, for you have come into the house where former devotees have the freedom to reside and they are quite familiar with what you have to say. We try to be fair and equal to all, but there have been practicing devotees who have come into this forum to preach and worst condemn, so many older members are sensitive to the possibility of this happening again. For the true believer who is in the missionary spirit, (And I don’t mean you as of this moment) is there not a better place to go and debate while trying to tell others that their understanding is all wrong?



I feel the sincere sorrow in your expressive words, and yes, it was a movement that promised spiritual revolution and a true alternative to really having a personal relationship with God, which makes all the criminal negative things that happened all the more repulsive. It is not to say that there was nothing good to remember, for if you read the threads here, you will also see where former practitioners also had good experiences and memories, though at the time of healing and reconciliation, those thoughts often are not at the forefront of what is written.




I thought you said that you came here to offer an alternative view to Dhyana, who in your opinion has a misunderstanding of the KC philosophy and terminaology, now you say it is because you wanted to counter blatant lies (by someone else I presume) toward events you witnessed. That is confusing, but I guess both can be true for you.





You support and uphold the truth, Hmmmm….do you mean the truth according to your own personal belief and experiences that you would like to share with others who also have their own realized truth, or a one universal truth that you have and all others should have too?

Sorry to be so critical of your posts, for you do say many nice all encompassing things that can be shared in an interfaith dialogue, but you also say things that infer that you have the one true knowledge that should apply to all and you are trying to set certain members and discussion straight according to it, and I do find that troubling because it does contain shadows of a faith many here have chosen to leave or change. I apologize if indeed I am interpreting why you are here, but it is only in response to certain things you have said, and I am careful as a moderator to make sure that other members who have left KC are not being judged and having their current faith challenged in terms of being wrong, misguided or misunderstood. I am not judging your beliefs or understandings of KC, only your stated intent to clarify the understanding of others by challenging them by stating truths.

Why Not? Because it is almost fruitless to have a true meaningful conversation with someone who believes that they have one truth for all, and therefore also has all the answers to all the problems that exist in the history of humankind. There is no dialog, they talk to defeat other beliefs and rarely really listen. When was the last time you spoke to a missionary fundamentalist Christian and actually felt like you were heard, it is very rare? Wanting things explained is a natural function being a human being and we should inquire to satisfy our inherent need to explore, create and grow intellectually, but the quest for ultimate certainty toward having everything explained has lead to factionalism, fundamentalism, conflict and war, causing more harm from the standpoint of defending an ultimate all encompassing belief system or trying to impose it upon others.

You seem to be saying that being a missionary and an atheist are two polar opposite ways of being and thinking, but I don’t see that as being two different systems of belief on opposite sides of the philosophical spectrum. For there are missionary atheists out there as well as religious ones, and that topic of discussion has played out here earlier this summer on this forum, where one member was rather intense in trying to combat all beliefs in God.

True believers in no God as opposed to true believers in one particular true manifestation of God are extremely close intellectually and philosophically in closing their minds and hearts to anything that differs from their personal and communal worldview. An historical analogy could be the huge political and philosophical difference between the Russian Communist and German Nazi’s in the 1930’s, they were on the polar opposites of the political spectrum, though making pacts between themselves when the overtaking of certain countries was in the self-interest of both parties, but each one was totalitarian and ruthless in spreading their agenda’s upon not only their own people, but the world at large and in the end, especially at each other.

I need to ask, why cannot a person of strong belief and faith also be tolerant and accepting to the understandings and thoughts that differ, especially from friends and associates who once believed in the same thing, but now do not and have chosen to move on to something different?

I did not express myself very well, sorry. My point was that the hypothetical loving servant-of-all is not only not necessarily a universal, gratitude generating concept, but that the observation of such an agent can also lead to a drop of gratitude levels in human observers.

I now see that you have addressed the first part by qualifying that in order for the observers to have their gratitude levels raised, the observers and the observed should be non-selfish humans "who are in a kinda mode of goodness state."

I propose that decreased gratitude levels should be possible in some observers who are not "in a kinda mode of goodness state."

Yep, fully agree on that one.

The reaction will depend on the mode/energy/conditioning they are under.

I remember once going on Food for Life in Camden, London and a person came, very angry, saying something like: Why are you feeding us here, why are you helping, I don't like this. No one asked you to come, go home. I hate when people are trying to help me.

He was a homeless drunk.