soybean2k@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hi Danijel,
>
>Let me say before I go any further that I tend to get a
>little heated in debate but that I mean no disrespect --
>please don't take any snideness on my part as anything
>other than argumentative technique.

I already decided to leave this newsgroup and the VNN forums, because
of the atmosphere that I encountered, which is so abusive and
negative, that I can hardly remember such mentality from anywhere at
all, and I've visited a few dark pits in my time. Nothing to do with
you, but Premananda (what an irony that name represents...) will
decorate my killfile - maybe if I just skip the abusive kind, it'll be
possible for me to keep writing, I don't know.

>That said, you wrote:
>> with a standard Pascal compiler (it shouldn't be difficult to adapt it
>> to other languages, and it works on any platform whatsoever), and
>> enlighten your computer. Just keep it running, and eventually,
>> depending on the CPU and graphics speed (more mantra, more
>> enlightement), it will become conscious of God.
>>
>> If you don't become bored in the meantime.
>>
>> Please, tell me that you were kidding.
>
>No, of course I'm not. A computer doesn't have a soul, wherefore the
>whole question is irrelevant to its operation -- everything it ever
>does is value-neutral as far as its own future is concerned -- it's a
>purely temporal, non-spiritual entity (though its services, like
>those of the typewriter, can be dovetailed in the service of Krsna).

OK, with the example of a computer, I have to agree with that, but
what if we use some living being capable of speech without
understanding, for instance a parrot or a mina-bird? A parrot can
memorize and repeat mahamantra. Since you said that participation of
the subject in the process of chanting is irrelevant, it is logical to
assume that a parrot would benefit from chanting, because, as you
said, chanting alone counts.

>But again, of course I'm not kidding, and given your obvious
>intelligence and education, I'm frankly shocked that you'd think so.
>So you honestly think that the subject's personal
>feeling in response to a treatment is the sole criteria to determine
>whether the treatment is or isn't effective? 

But of course it is! It is very strange to even hear a suggestion that
a method that is meant to improve subject's realization can work
without the active participation of the subject, meaning: that you can
be enlightened without feeling it. It is absurd, as much as would be a
statement that would claim that gravity can influence an object and
result in no force to the object. If you drop an apple within a
gravitational field, it will drop, and if you apply a spiritual
technique to an individual, the individual will change. If the
individual doesn't change, there is no active force; if the apple
doesn't fall, there is no gravity. The object of mantra's influence is
supposed to be human spirit, not some inferior association of lower
elements that is so remote from the spirit, so the spirit can remain
without influence. The mantra is supposed to intensify the spiritual
ties - all bhakti methods are pointed to that goal: remembering God,
making spiritual forces stronger and making inferior forces subside.
The subject of the practitioner is the object of the method, and if
there is no change in experience of the practitioner, it simply didn't
work, and inventing a theory that basically says that nothing is
supposed to happen anyway doesn't help much if one wants to become
closer to God and have a direct experience of the Absolute - which is,
basically, what every method of yoga is about.

>Tell me, if I kill
>someone but feel good about it, is it not sinful? 

That's a nice paradox. You can defend your family in a war and kill an
enemy. You can feel very good about killing someone in such situation,
because killing actually saved lives. Therefore it isn't sinful,
because it is necessary and inevitable.
But that is not the point.
Is tiger guilty for killing animals? Such actions resonate with the
nature of a tiger. "Karma" for killing animals in an insensitive way
resonates with the state of consciousness specific to the intelligent
carnivore animals such as the big cats. Therefore, the tiger feels
good about killing, and commits no sin. Actually, if a tiger starts
feeling compassion for his victims, it's probably time for him to move
up a ladder in evolution.
Action does not associate karma; actually the condition of the subject
associates karma. It is not what you do, but why, what is the
motivation. If a machine kills ten people, there is no guilty on the
part of the machine, because there is no awareness of the action. The
"karma" in such case is on the purely physical aspect of the 3rd
Newton's law of action and the equal and opposite reaction - a
"Terminator" fires a bullet, and his hand jerks a bit, and that's all
the karma he'll get for firing. If he kills a man, other men might
pursue him and attempt to destroy him - that's also the karma of such
action. But karma in some esoteric meaning doesn't exist in such case
- it can apply only to the person who consciously programmed and armed
the machine, and rendered it capable of killing.
If a child accidentally presses a button that launches a nuclear
warhead, the child will sustain no karma whatsoever, because there was
no sinful intention - and sinful intentions create sinful deeds; it's
not even necessary for the intention to be sinful, but only if there
is an application of free will in any form, there can be talk of
karma, in form of the retribution based on the laws of cause and
effect.
Karma is not "eye for an eye"; the goal of the creation is not to have
everyone's eyes removed, but to make people see more and learn. The
creation reflects the creator, and therefore the nature of God can be
seen in the world, in form of great love and justice that is the
foundation of all that is created. Karma is meant to assist, to help
beings evolve, not to punish blindly. There are no blind forces
whatsoever in this or any other universe, everything is set in motion
and maintained by higher intelligence.

>Are the billions
>of meateaters on the planet blameless because they see nothing wrong
>with their behavior? 

Basically, yes. If they knew that there is a problem, and they ignored
it and displayed indifference to the suffering of other beings, then a
karmic lesson is needed to teach them about the nature of suffering.
But if they are unaware of the problem, because they haven't yet
evolved to a level where there is a problem, there can be no
punishment. The tiger doesn't see a problem in eating meat, because
there is no developed compassion. But if there _is_ compassion, and it
is repressed by actions that are done against one's better judgment,
then there is a brick from the sky coming up. :) The more developed a
being, the quicker and clearer the lesson - sometimes the lesson comes
_before_ the action, triggered by a mere decision.

Let me make an example of the effects of karma. There are people on
this newsgroup that wrote insults, lies and other forms of verbal junk
in my direction. They don't know who I am, because their souls are not
yet pure enough for such realization, and therefore they will not be
held karmically responsible for insults pointed in my direction.
However, they will be held responsible for the lack of basic human
decency in behavior with a fellow human being - they will face a
lesson that will eventually make them understand that it is better to
treat others with kindness, than it is to attack and insult the
person. That lesson will be in form that will be just enough to
produce the desired result, nothing more. There is no senseless
punishing, they won't be sent to hell, or given lower birth, nothing.
They'll probably find themselves in a situation where someone violates
their basic human integrity and it will hurt them, they will feel that
this is not right, that this should not be done, and they will change
their wicked ways accordingly. That's how karma really works. It's a
subtle, gentle method of education, not an inert force that blindly
associates causes and effects without any consideration for the actual
subject.

>Is the way a subject feels about his/her actions
>the ultimate criterion with respect to the value of those actions?

No, it is not, not in the shallow meaning of "feeling", but the
essential criteria is the subject's consciousness in its association
with the action. It is the basic factor of karmic association.
Therefore it is said that deeds that come from detachment (dedication
to God) are naiskarman, fruitless, they bring no retributive
association.

>If "yes," especially to the last question -- well, *you* can't be
>serious, can you? 

Depending on the question - the program thing was of course a joke
because there is no subject, but if there is a subject without
realization of the meaning of the action, which performs the action,
the results are supposed to happen anyway, you say? Then the parrot is
the real subject for testing your conclusions, because it adheres to
every condition of your logic. :)
Yes, if a subject performs an action, and the action and its result
are remote from the sphere of the subject (meaning: they are in the
sphere of objects), the reaction will follow the action. A child can
press the red button and start the WW3, without any knowledge of the
process. But this same child can not _learn_ without understanding.
Learning, or any other form of personal development isn't remote from
the subject himself, and it is necessary for the subject to
_understand_, and therefore actively participate in the process. Now
you only have to decide if the mantra is some force that is given only
in the exterior sphere of objects, or it is meant to influence the
interior sphere of the subject? To say it bluntly, are you supposed to
know God, or are you just supposed to chant and observe some lower
forces in action, that are remote from your direct experience? If
you're supposed to know God, you're supposed to bloody feel it, or
it's of no use whatsoever. It is the subject that experiences.

>Not unless you're utterly convinced that Wordsworth,
>Keats, and the rest of the nineteenth-century romantics are the greatest
>prophets the world has ever seen. Do yourself a favor: read Aristotle.
>Then read some Hegel. Action has meaning quite apart from anything
>anybody thinks or, God help us, "feels" about it.

I'm afraid you've been reading too many books and they've confused
your basic reasoning skills. :) No hard feelings pal. ;)

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net