Because religion is the greatest force for division and evil in society.

The latest atrocity being the Iraq war.

Is it really religion? Or fundamentalist approach to the matter that goes under name of religion?

If anyone deeply looks into the fundamental principles of religion, you end up with love, peace, unity, giving, equality etc. Not with evil and division.

How about considering consumerism as greatest evil?



???

Religion? Iraq? How?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3kN6NBAjyQ

I second that, wholeheartedly!

It can't be done. As long as we can't find fundamental proofs for either of the competing world explanations, we are ending up brainwashing our kids with myths and assumptions. Some of these call themselves religions, and some do not, but at the end they are all faith-based.

And I'm not sure that it is beneficial if we try not to do so. We need something to keep the folks in line with; to serve as some internal barriers; and present governments are way too weak to serve as such.

Its just like throwing the baby with dirty water.

Is it religion as such a problem or the fundamentalist approach?

If we are to ban religion from the schools on the basis of its being faith, we will have to burn quite a few science textbooks as well.

Indoctrination in either is problematic, where there is no room for students to make their own minds about it.

That's what I say. That we can't and shouldn't do throw out the whole thing, faith-based or not. We have nothing else at hand.

It is an entirely different matter that I wouldn't be glad if either of the presently existing religions and churches would have a possibility to infiltrate the curriculum. And if they already did so, it is a good thing to restrict their leeway.

The major problem is that each world religion at some point makes the claim that it is the sole respositiory of the revealed truth and all others are less than animals, unbelievers, uncleman etc etc as they are not of the one true faith. So no matter what else they teach - like love they neighbour (provided he isnt a muslim/hindu/jew - you choose any)- they inherently promote strife and discord.

imaginary rabbits have been talking to people all over the world and hence we have so many different religions. in india for instance, they call these rabbits, hares and they have invoked their sacred personage in their most blessed mantras such as hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare...

its really quite idiotic to argue over which imaginary rabbit has the true teaching or to go to wars and fight over rabbit speak.

Religion as such. Fundamentalists end up in the spotlight because of their violent actions that the mainstream condemns -- at least officially, when talking to the press. But the fundamentalists' aims are the same aims shared by the mainstream, moderate religious people. Fundamentalists are simply more extreme in their choice of means to fulfill these ends.

But mainstream religious people are the ground on which fundamentalism grows. Their scriptures and culture contain calls to religious extremism -- only that most mainstream folks do not take these calls very seriously or literally. But sooner or later, someone will. The same religion, same scripture.

Plus one can find abusive value judgments and abusive religious traditions among mainstream people as well. Like subordination of woman to man. Or baptism of little children. Or condemnation of homosexuality (or of sexuality in general). Racism. Elevation of afterlife and devaluing of this life. Unquestioning subordination to authority. And so on and so forth.

Scriptures are so full of abusive stuff it's a wonder that so many religious people manage to steer clear of criminal actions.


Can you explain a little more how you are reasoning here?

Good point.
Even the very notion of revelation as the origin of truth is a powerful deterrent to dialog. Disagreements, instead of leading to examination of facts and search for the truth of the matter, deteriorate into "whose rabbit is more bona fide."

Avoiding becoming embroiled in the 'Religion teaches hatred' argument - which I think is, perhaps, a wee bit too sweeping.

I was educated in an all-boys Catholic School, by Jesuits, and it never made me hateful or suspicious of people from other communities, as this was not promoted by them. Also, one should not 'misunderestimate' the attitudes one imbibes in the home environment - for better, or for ill.

The rabbit problem is easily solved: Just get a strong, sound dog - and he'll sure take care of them all!

and the silliness of this is that rabbits don't fight over bones. dogs on the other hand are bone-a-fight. some dogs are more bone-a-fight than others while some will not fight over a bone and therefore not at all bone-a-fight. a non-bone-a-fight dog is desirable, imo and therefore i would never call such a dog bogus

maybe in someone's dreams there are rabbits that fight over bones but we must be clear headed and know that imaginary rabbits are not real. yes, imaginary rabbits are more real than real rabbits but more real does not equal real. this is really quite simple algebra. for instance, if x is greater than 6, then x cannot equal 6 and so "more real" does not equal "real". only real rabbits are real. nothing too, is also real. and so is what. what is real.

What nothing is real?

My dogs never fight over bones. Nor do they fight under them, or even close... They, each, have a big pile of bones - which they tend to lovingly.

I never call them bogus.
I call them by names.
Or nick names.
Or I swear to them, sometimes.
Calling them ill names.
But I never call them bogus.

The real nothingness.
Not the fake one.
(Watch out for the fake nothingness!)

the strong dogs are discovering that imaginary rabbits aren't the problem. they are

The acharger never mentioned any rabbits. But, yes, oh so yes, truly, he spake powerfully and potently against hogs, dogs, camels and asses. He said those who are such vote for such. And therefore he wanted monarchy, worn ash rum, or simply a groovy dictator dude. And those who have good brains in ISKCON (on account of developing finer brain tissues by dint of milk drinking in the evening while listening to Krishna Book) shall inherit the earth.

yup, what nothing is real.

Do they? Are they?

I think strong dogs are good - for many things, like...

pulling sledges

running

hunting

herding

wrestling

digging

dancing

etc

- but not very thoughtful,
and not very self-introspective.

If they see a rabbit - imaginary or not - they'll kill it.
Without too much thinking.
They'll act.
And they'll act strong.

And they love to show off!
And you just love them for it.

I'd sure rather vote for a dog - than inherit the earth!

I may not have enough time right now to address all the points in your text, k_k, but one has to start somewhere...

(k_k)

(dhyana)

(k_k)

As the regular run-of-the-mill religion: a social system (systems) grouping people who believe in, and seek approval of, a supernatural being or beings. I am less interested in scriptural quotes, more interested in the beliefs and actions of people who believe in that scripture.

The notion of sanatana-dharma, a universal religion, appealed to me as well when I joined ISKCON. Now, twenty years later, I think that even a non-sectarian system of worship of a non-sectarian God is problematic (assuming it is possible). Why I see it as problematic is a different discussion I will leave aside for now. Secondly, I am suspicious of how "universal" that path turns out to be in practice.



If they did, that would be weird indeed, for "Hinduism" did not exist when the Gita was composed, neither did "Christianity" at the time of Jesus. One would have to see what Krishna and Jesus had to say about the religions or systems of worship current at their time. They do have things to say. It's a mixed bag, often with conditional approval ("Our product is best, but if you are not intelligent enough to choose it, then these other ones can do some limited good"), but also with calls to keep distance from those other folks (""whited sepulchres" etc.)

But even if we, for the sake of argument, assume the Gita has a truly universal message, then by what feat of devil does ACBS choose to close his introduction to it by quoting the Gita-mahatmya, "Let there be one scripture only, the Gita. Let there be one God only, the son of Devaki." And so on. Universal??

I think that the religion should be taught at school, the question for me is not *if*, but *how*. The school should offer a balanced presentation on the world's religions, not aimed at indoctrination, just as it is done in Sweden. Religion has played a crucial role in history and it is essential to know what it is about.

Even you don't find it relevant, it is always good to make an informed choice when you discard something, and it is even more important to know your roots. Our mentality and worldview is also shaped by the religion traditional for our birthplace, and you can't erase a thousand of years of believing with a few decades of secular education. The connection is still there under the surface and it may turn out to be stronger than we think.

(k_k)



Dhyana



What I'm trying to come to is that I 100% agree that there are negative aspects that every organized system of religion has, which is truly regrettable. I see that what I see as pure message can get covered by interpretations of incompetent followers, who many of times don't do that out of bad intentions. That doesn't make the results any less damaging though.

At the same time, since humans are social beings and always seek the association of like minded people, we can't avoid the creation of social systems that will need to organise themselves by creating some rules and regs. And that will never be faultless.

But I try to always separate the essence from the 'pot' that holds it. Its much harder to try to see good in it then to see its faults, as is also easier to just judge and criticise people without trying to understand their motivations or the circumstances that led them to the criticised actions. And I would go even further to say that it is nearly impossible to do that for those who have been psychologically or emotionally traumatised and abused.

I agree with your interest in beliefs and actions rather that scriptural quotes. That was exactly my point. Phalena pariciyate. Judge the tree by its fruit. Unless the process doesn't result in good character, its pointless. Im sure that after some discussion we could come to a mutual agreement on what is good. At the same time, before blaming the process we need to see if it was practised properly.

And that is why I like that SB verse. It gets down to the essence - values over externals.

Dhyana


I would be interested to hear more about your suspicions.

kk


Dhyana


Lets leave religions aside for a second.

I don't think that we can come to 'everything is right' attitude in any aspects of our daily lives. For example, if I want to get from London to Cambridge, it would be NOT PROPER to follow signs for Brighton and go on M23. The most direct and fastest way would be to go on M25 and take M11 northbound. There are roads that could eventually get me there, but not as fast and convenient as M11.

Is M11 northbound right would also depend on where I am. If I'm coming from Birmingham, it would not be right.

So right and wrong would depend on where you are and where you want to get to.

And that is what I read in BG.

To just discard discrimination is not very practical thing to do. But that discrimination must be done with respect and consideration, and compassionate understanding of the position of those we criticise.

Dhyana


Nowadays I drive a lot, due to nature of my business. And GPS is a vital tool in my daily life. If I found that TomTom is much more accurate and better in bringing me from A to B, and had excelled all the other systems in all regards, what would be wrong in me saying "Let there be one sat-nav only, the TomTom navigator. Let there be one GPS only, the Holand born navigation system." ?

But then, I would still consider if TomTom is right for every country. In Croatia its quite useless, and I use I-GO.

I don't think that non-sectarianism excludes discrimination and judgement.

Thank you Milla, you summarised all I wanted to say in your fist line. 'How' over 'If'.

The facts should be presented neutrally, both good and bad, and it should be left with students to decide. Indoctrination in one or other ways is wrong IMO.

And scientific beliefs should be presented in the same manner, rather than so arrogantly claiming the right to the truth, though full of well masked flaws.

Just for fun, a devotee who accompanied Drutakarma pr to one programme in Europe told me a funny story. He was invited to do a presentation at the prestigious archaeological university somewhere in Europe, from what I remember. The reason that professors invited him was to ridicule him in the front of the students. Unfortunately for them, they did too little research on him and were in for surprise. Half way through the presentation he created total upheaval among the students, with professors not being able to discredit him or his findings. Students were obviously very frustrated about the fact that so many things were kept away from them because they didn't fit in current popular belief about evolution.

A major problem in the UK is the inexorable rise in teenage pregnancies and in sexually transmitted infections, especially chlamidiya, HIV and syphilis among young people.

The level of ignorance is appalling. Like they do not know what a condom is for, they do not know who to go to if they have an STI, and here it is NOT your regular general practitioner, it is the special clinic where treatment is free, anonymous and confidential.

The main reason is that sex education and relationship lessons have been eliminated from the school curriculum because of religious pressure, and the present goverment led by religious fundamentalists like Blair and Brown and a catholic education minister has encouraged this and the development of faith schools that ban all sex education. Most schools have opted out. Belatedly it has been realised that this is crass stupidity and moves are mnow under way to make such lessons compulsory in all schools and attendance by all students mandatory. Of course the religious are up in arms.

This is what I mean by the present day evils of religion. It has nothing to do with science versus religion. It has to do with religion promoting the spread of ignorance and ruining young lives. How do you explain to a 15 or 16 year old that because they have left chlamidiya (which often has no symptoms) untreated they are never going to be able to have a child because the disease has rendered them sterile?

How do you explain to them they now have HIV and they are going to have to take medication for the rest of their lives at a set time once or twice a day and they can never miss a dose or they risk the virus becoming resistant. Oh and by the way they are unlikely to have a life partner and if they do then there has to be significant medical interventions to get any baby born without HIV (including cesearean section) Oh and you will not be able to breast feed the baby and maybe you passed HIV to your partner?

I am sorry I sound so angry - but I am and with cause. I was on saturday at the hospital where I get treated and was visiting the HIV ward because I volunteer to visit. They had in a young british catholic girl (about 16 I would guess), seriously ill with AIDS defining illnesses, a CD4 count of zero and unlikely to survive. Her parents and the priest were there, and I am afraid the priest upset the consultant by saying at least she didn't use a condom!!! The consultant rounded on the priest and said the symptoms might be of PCP pnuemonia and Karposis sarcoma, but the real cause of death is the ignorance peddled by you and your kind...

I dont wish to be misunderstood here, Rapsodieff.

I can very well understand your reasoning and emotions and I whole heartedly agree with you in this context.

I think that present Vatican take on condoms (just an example) is totally insane, while I agree with the original principle that they use to support their stand.

Though I do believe that celibacy (inclusive of sex for procreation) is conducive for spiritual development, I also believe that is a very high principle that can be beneficially followed only by people who are very mature both emotionally and spiritually. Superficially imposing it upon others is counter-productive and ultimately spiritually damaging. Not to even mention the social disasters caused by it that you mention.

So to go and impose sexual abstinence upon most of people today without basis for it (certain level of spiritual maturity and realisation, combined with a good logical understanding of why) is insane, I agree with you. The extreme of that blindness being Africa! How stupid you need to be to try imposing it upon such undeveloped and sexually hyped population.

Yes, I'm all for banning such 'religious' education. But I dont blame religion as such, I blame totally incompetent and irrational teachers and priests who are interpreting it in that way. Here I again second Milla, it is not the question of 'If' but 'How', and I would add 'By whom' and 'Whom'. Since in this case I see no hope of most of mainstream institutionalised religions ever coming to that understanding, it could be perhaps a good idea to ban it.

But at the same time I strongly object to blaming religion as such for it and calling it a root of all evil.

By the way, I still dont get your point about Iraq.

If this statement was true, then why is the history of ISKCON so convoluted and filled with problems concerning marriage and child abuse? Celibacy in theory is very workable for renunciates who live in monasteries, but to impose it as a vow to married couples is a prescription for failure and a lot of broken vows. It also debases the intimate love that can grow between life partners, insinuating that close physical intimacy and the expression of sexual union takes one away from spirit or God. If anything, this creates a lot of unhappy marriages full of repressed emotions and the notion that couples who love each other are not able to practice real spirituality, adding unnecessary negative psychological baggage that one is inferior to others for being a mature individual who also is not afraid to express their love to another human being. This is not to say celibacy is not a healthy and happy option for some couples or single individuals, but they are seemingly exceptions to rule to the population in general.




This belief in the superiority of celibacy over mature active sexuality is very debatable when looking at the results of communities that make the vow a rule that must be followed. It is also comes across as very patronizing to make it a superior lifestyle choice, claiming it higher for spiritual life while heaping a condescending attitude toward those who do not follow this rule. It also reminds me of the superior smugness devotees have when comparing their faith to others, especially society in general, when in fact their own house is in complete dysfunctional disarray!

Varnashram anyone?





Are you implying that people of African origin are more underdeveloped intellectually while being more sexually inclined?

Amen to that, K-surfer!

Kalisurfer

Before addressing your comments, I would just like to say that they seem to be based on lots of assumptions, the main one being that I'm speaking in the name of ISKCON or from the view point of ISKCON, thus defending or promoting ISKCON's policies and views.

I believed that we cleared that in the past.

But once again, for the record, I dont think that ISKCON is a perfect spiritual organisation (or anywhere near it), and I'm quite critical of it. However, I didn't feel the need to discuss these in this forum because I don't see what good would come out of it. Other members do, and I respect that.

So in that light, when I comment on issues like this, what I write is based on my own experience, observation and reasoning, and there is no need to be forever linking it with ISKCON.






ISKCON is a good example of how wrong things can go when the principle of celibacy is imposed on those who are not ready for it.

Lets leave ISKCON behind, shall we?

I'm not sure I want to write theses here on the relationship of celibacy and spirituality.

My point is quite simple - yes, celibacy is conducive, but when artificially imposed it backfires.

When is it conducive? When those practising it want to do it them selves with full understanding of why they are doing it, and when the amount and the degree of that renunciation is balanced with the 'higher taste'.

The issue of celibacy in marriage that it 'debases the intimate love that can grow between life partners, insinuating that close physical intimacy and the expression of sexual union takes one away from spirit or God' is debatable, IMO.

Even before meeting devotees I had serious doubts about sexual intimacy and love between the couple.

But I'm not sure I want to get into that debate here. I hope you can respect that.



Yes, it is certainly debatable, just as the benefits of religion are debatable, looking at the painful history and the evils that came out of it, as rightly pointed out by Rapsodieff.

The superiority issue is always a very sensitive one, and I understand that as soon as you say that something is more conducive, it creates possibility of being perceived as condescending. But on the other hand, that is the reality of this world, and I don't think that it can be avoided. There are just things that are more conducive and things that are less conducive. What can be avoided is the presentation of the 'more conducive' practice that is fuelled by pride and arrogance that will certainly came across as very condescending, thus discouraging the rest.

Looking back at the examples that you highlight, I agree with you. It is embarrassing to turn back and see what has been done in the name in superiority, to look back at all arrogant renounciates that shamelessly fell down in ways that even 'fallen householders' could never dream of.

Varnashrama anyone? I guess we need to define it first. If you mean the mess that went under its name in ISKCON, no thanks. But if you explore the essence of it, you find phenomenal social system based on care, love and service attitude.

Knife in the hands of a surgeon can save lives, and in the wrong hands take the same. Is the knife to blame?



Did I ever mention people of African origin?

Have you ever been to Africa?

I'm by no means racist, but I can recognise that different areas of the world and people that live there have certain common conditionings. Americans have their, Brits have theirs, French have theirs, 'Yugo-slaves" have theirs, Indians have theirs, and so Africans (those living in Africa) have theirs. Of course, there is never a room for generalisation, but certain behaviour traits and mentalities will be very distinguishable.

And very strong sexual urge is certainly one of African conditionings. Anyone who's been there and did some hands-on work cant deny it. When that is combined with the lack of education, tribal culture etc, you do have a very difficult situation to deal with. My wife is goes there regularly volunteering and helping, and I'm quite familiar with the situation.

On the other hand, one remarkable thing about Africa is that there is virtually no one who doesn't believe in God, in one way or other.

Just to give it some balance, because I can already see it coming, India is not in much better shape, despite its being 'vedic'. I do a fair bit of hands-on work there, and have a chance to see behind the 'superior vedic curtain'. It is so embarrassing that as a result I stopped advocating 'Indian' or 'Vedic' culture above 'degraded west' long ago. But that is a whole another story in its self.

Amen.

OK turkey client state of usa, israel client state of usa, egypt effectively a client state of the usa, the gaps are to the east iraq proposed as a client state leaving jordan and syria hemmed and israel protected. Iran is a danger because of the threat it imposes to this enciclement. Why the encirclement... well once enough Jew of a religious nature rebuild the temple then we will be in the end of days and the second coming will be guaranteed... Go look at the neocon and weirdo christian websites and it is there in black and white... and bush knows his end of days stories alright...

I can respect that the above mentioned could lead one to give it all a religious flavour, and also considering the fact that Bush DID take weekly private consultations with no one else but Ted Hagart, then the top of US evangelists, who is total pshyco. His apperenace in 'The root of all evil' was incredible. Dawkins didn't need the rest of the movie to prove his point. Back to your theory, and I'm not being racist here, nor I've ever been to US, but from what I see and hear about it, it could be well possible that they are really that mad. If president has such gurus...

But on the other hand, to me personally it just sounds more like all of these illuminati stuff, the 9/11 where there was no single Jew in the building and Bush is a lizzard etc.

IMO, its all economy so that Americns can go shopping, boiling down to consumerism. That link I posted earlier on on documentary about consumerism gives a briliant illustration about it.

K_k, there were further points in your earlier text that I wanted to get back to and address, but I cannot find it. It may have disappeared in the recent database glitch. If you still have it somewhere, can you repost?

Below, my earlier comment on the first part of your text, with some quotes from it -- reposted to clarify which text of yours I mean.

Bizzare, it seems its gone.

What a loss, the only hope for the next 10 000 years and now lost...

I agree. This is the danger with any ideology. Still I see this danger as particularly great when the ideology in question, and the rules and systems created on its basis, are such that there is no way of legitimately holding them accountable and challenging them where necessary.
Both dictatorship and democracy are social systems that have their respective advantages and disadvantages. But democracy is easier for the people in it to keep on track, to prevent from being abused or subverted, than dictatorship. That's because democratic ideology explicitly places a value on every citizen's concerns, while dictatorship doesn't.

In the same way, both rationalism (science) and religion can be subverted and used as an instrument of abuse. (I am putting aside the question of whether they have been abusive already in their original shape.) But science is easier to keep on track, because it is based on several premises that empower such "keeping on track." For example: high standard of reporting how one arrives at the results. Everything you research has to be operationalized, terms have to be clearly defined. Blind and double-blind experimental designs. Randomization. Experiments have to be possible to repeat by other researchers. Falsifiability. Statistical tests to determine which correlations are relevant and which ones are not. And so on. As someone said, The history of science is the history of learning how to avoid fooling ourselves. All these rules invite and encourage scrutiny and learning from one's mistakes.

Religion has few corresponding checks and balances. I won't say none, but few. Religion rests on revelation and arbitrarily empowered authority, as well as the notion that those defined as less advanced have no right to subject religious teaching and practice to scrutiny. The odds of such a system evolving into something quite abusive are higher than in the case of science.

I can see your point and I agree to great extent.

I see religion as a science too, in the way that the practice must be yielding visible results. The inner results such as the content, happiness, love etc are something that can be visible to the practitioner, though of course someone could say that this is all just auto-suggestion, which we have debated before.

To me personally, the more important test is to be able to see the change in the students and the teachers (who are meant to have certain level of mastery of the subject). And this is where the religion today failed miserably. Rather than producing individuals of higher character than 'non-belivers' (Kalisurfer, pls don't hammer me here for saying higher ), it produced millions of people who's character was ultimately lower than that of most of 'non-believers'.

That is what made any kind of outreach very difficult today, and its very reasonable that those observers who got enough brains to think for themselves will consider that religion is the root of (almost) all evil.

So what will give faith to someone to take up a religious process and see the results when he sees whole bunch of madman destroying the world in the name of it?

The most bizzare of all is that the religious leaders can't see their own doing, they can't see that they have made Dawkins and those like him, they are responsible. They are responsible that no one intelligent takes them seriously. They rather blame poor Satan, or Kali, or reptiles, or Illuninati, or Jews, or Bin Laden, or ritviks etc.

Interesting thing about science is that though many of its findings can be replicated and observed (though some major and fundamental one's regrettably can't be), general public takes it on the basis of their faith, they don't go and test it themselves. They have gained faith based on the authority and reputation of the institution they learn from. And that reputation and authority is what religious institutions don't have.

Honestly, how many students actually test things they learn? Most of people live on pure faith. Till a year ago I used to give weekly talks and hold debates at London universities, and that was interesting experience indeed.

What I find to be a weakest point for science is our total ignorance of the very tool that we use to perceive the reality and handle the information - our mind.



I personally wouldn't agree that this is based on spiritual/religious principles. To me that is the reflection of the incompetence of a non-accomplished teacher who cannot answer the questions of a student with reason. Even if you cannot reason something, you must be able to demonstrate its validity.

I don't believe that blind following is a spiritual principle at all.

for the purpose of having some clarity in this dialogue, we need a clear definition of what religion is and this is what i propose:

religion is the instruction of an imaginary rabbit on how to know or love or serve an imaginary god. the imaginary god is more real than the real god (our brain which creates everything we see and touch and experience) but even though the imaginary god is more real than the real god, the imaginary god is not real. only our brains are real.

KK, I was not really assuming that you are representing or speaking in the name of ISKCON, for I know from previous posts that you disagree with much of their failed history and would even like to see it restructured, keeping the spiritual essence while ridding aspects that did not work. I was thinking more of what you said as representing Gaudiya Vaisnavism philosophy mixed with Indian culture and filtered from a western viewpoint, which does include the ISKCON experience but not totally dependent on it.




Can you give a contemporary example that exists outside ISKCON where celibacy as a spiritual principle has been a successful practice with individuals and married couples, who are not renunciates living in a monastic environment?





I can understand your use of the word conducive when talking about positive use of celibacy in spiritual practice, but when the term “Higher Taste” is used, it is heavily laced with ISKCON history, and I realize how much you would like to leave ISKCON behind in this discussion, but that term is almost a brand of ISKCON. Outside that term, I understand that you mean a higher spiritual feeling or realization that becomes palatable. I have not had a higher taste spiritually based on celibacy, and I know the common response from practicing devotees is, “well…you did not practice correctly or had some misinterpretation of the pure philosophy.” From personal experience and from the experience of many others, a higher spiritual taste is not dependent on whether one is celibate or in a loving relationship with someone that includes sexual intimacy, it exists when it exists, and many like to create a prescription based on their belief in order to propagate that particular faith as the best way to get to that higher taste.





I can respect you not wanting to get into a personal debate about our sexual or non-sexual practices, but it is an important point as to why some people may want celibacy as a lifestyle. Now I am not implying that this includes you in any way but many individuals who may have had a frustrated or unsuccessful sexual life filled with negative experiences maybe more attracted to living a life without it. It’s easy to give something up if it is unpalatable or a reminder of negative experiences. Being celibate while knowing that sex is a real attraction and very desirable would have more meaning in terms of being a sacrifice, something important in the life of many approaching the spiritual mystical life if that is their choice.






Is saying a particular religion or spiritual practice is more conducive to a higher spiritual realization—really a reality of the world? It seems to have been historically a reality for any true believer in any particular faith, but due to fast moving wired world we live in now, it is much more easier to compare, learn and practice many different faiths or even not accept any as true. The ability to get information on so many things instantaneously, and with our ability as individuals to have different experiences with even the same practice, the ability to say with certainty that one faith is more purer, more higher, more conducive for most people is pretty much history in my opinion. This does not mean religion or faith is dead, it just means it is becoming more personal and individual, bypassing the need for institutions and authority figures to tell us how to live and act as a mass population or society, which I think is progress.





Defining Varnashram would take a book, but everything I have read and heard of it implies the need to have a religious monarchy at the head with an archaic division of society that would be run by authorities representing the religious monarchy in the different varnas. Can you give a modern example of this system where it actually works? It seems to me like another utopian dream based on Vedic philosophy that can look wonderful to the true believer on paper but could never work in the real world. You mention that it is a system filled with care, love and a service attitude, but I have heard this before and saw very little of each attribute in action. Care, love and service exists everywhere if you look closely, every society, every culture in all corners of the world have people practicing this in their lives. Doctors volunteering in Sudan and Iraq, people volunteering in hospitals and animal shelters…love, care and service exists in the heart of people everywhere and is not something that is unique or propriety to any one religion or political system, much less in the Vedic system of Varnashram.




I do not subscribe to the thought that any race has particular psychological traits that are inherent to the genetic makeup of a person born in that race. I find traits that exist in people of any race to be dependent on culture, environment, health and economic factors.

I have heard the arguments about where dark skinned or yellow people with slanty eyes come from in terms of Vedic literature and reject it as quickly as anyone telling me about the Nazi propaganda concerning the Aryan race. I am not saying you subscribe to such racist theories, but you seem to walking the borderline somewhat, something I remember that was very common among devotees living in the ashram, by saying that people of certain races have distinct traits without discussing factors that exist outside genetics due to the divisions of races a long time ago in Vedic history.

I respect the observation of any groupings of people that you and your wife may have by visiting and living in foreign cultures, but I would attribute these observations of difference to culture, economics and the environment and not to the genetic makeup of the peoples race, and perhaps that is what you meant in your original post.

Was the original imaginary rabbit actually a Hare?

No hammers in the toolbox KK....but if you look back, Timothy Leary was often described as being a rather higher character, and with it was pretty factual, not to mention our dear often unheard of mod Angrezi, who has been rumored to exhibit a rather high character too sometimes, especially on summer weekends!!!!

yes, a hare

hare even came before krishna

a wise man once told me that we should all nourish, clean and never cut our hare!

is that when the wind blew really hard in dwarka, for i know that krishna had very long luxurious dark hare that could get in his eyes?

"There is only one God who creates the universe. This God is my Brain. As the driver of this Brain I have created a universe in which there are innumerable other Gods of equal post-hive autonomy with whom I seek to interest. And my universe was, itself, created by a Higher Level of Divinity—DNA, whose mysteries and wonders I seek to understand and harmonize with." From The Intelligence Agents by Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D.

yes, krishna had a rabbit in his hat

thanks kali! the universal form of timothy leary, most exquisite

I believe I was speaking from an objective point of view of spirituality, void of GV and Indian culture packaging.



That's a good question, as politicians would say, lets move on...

Not really, since I'm not familiar enough with the members of other groups that might have similar ideals in this regard.



I actually never implied that higher taste will come out being celibate. That would be quite a statement.

Higher taste is in my theistic belief a gift from God when one sincerely endeavours with love to serve, and is trying his best according to his capacity.

I hope that this prescription is not somehow or other again propagating GV, to me it seems fairly universal.



I was waiting for someone to came up with the 'sour grapes' story.

I'm not negating that what you saying is fact at the times, but to me it seems that you are also not being objective here, and are judging others from your point of view, thus excluding those who have renounced sex pleasure for having more pleasing loving exchange with God, including married couples.

My sort of orthodox view is that unrestricted sense gratification is not conducive for spiritual development, full stop. How much of restriction is beneficial for whom is another story.

Why is it not conducive? In my understanding, sense grat is ultimately based on selfishness and taking, while spirituality is based on love and giving. I know that someone can say that sex is an expression of love, which I can respect but still reserve my right to disagree.

I think that one of key aspects is that what ever is done is done voluntarily and based on personal understanding and conviction.



Yes, I think its progress too. How practical or successful is it, the time will show.

At the same time I wonder if institutions can be completely avoided, since people with same interests and outlooks will always want to be together and will need some kind of structure to organise themselves.

There is an interesting phenomena in that regard, which it seems is taking some middle path. That is nicely portrayed in the The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations book.



In my understanding varnashrama is a social system that recognises natural tendencies and capacities of people and is engaging them according to these capacities. It recognises the differences rather than promoting the utopian concept of everyone being equal in all regards. Actually, it does recognise that equality on metaphysical level, but not on the 'material' level.

The point is, what is the alternative that works? From what I observe, the frame of varnashrama manifests its self in any social structure I have seen till now.

Working with students for years give me an interesting insight into the fact that vast majority of students are at their universities not because they are interested in the subject, it is mainly because they see economic benefits or due to social pressure. You wont find too many Asians doing human sciences or art.



I still fail to see where I have implied that. I always talked geographically, rather than racially. Though someone born and raised in certain culture will retain that mentality to great degree even when moving to different environment.

London is a very cosmopolitan city, and I tend to work with people from all different ethnic backgrounds. And now I know very well how many of them are most likely to react when you do business with them. Even among Indians, there are different ways I would deal with Gujaratis than with Punjabis.



Walking borderline has always been a great thrill.

I'm not talking genetics here, and never was. I can't see how my writings suggested that.



Again, yes, that is what I meant in original post.

the shakers in my neck of the woods were such a group whose furniture is highly sought after. not completely contemporary but just a hundred years ago

all the tables and chairs i have are made by folks who shoot their load but i would much prefer to have furniture made by people who tie their penis in a knot

kali, i hope for you that this is proof enough that celibacy can be successful