soybean2k@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hare Krsna Danijel,
>
>You argue quite well. It is a pleasure to read what you write. 

Thanks. :)

>I still
>disagree strenuously with you, though even this early in
>the discussion I despair of our seeing eye-to-eye on this
>one -- though I am no less willing to bat ideas back and
>forth for all that; as I say, it's very much a pleasure to
>talk about if/how mantra works, under what conditions it
>might or mightn't work, and so forth.

It's nice to exchange arguments with someone who can use the proper
logical machinery in reasoning; however, I think that some of your
basic premises are flawed, although the logic based on them is
correct, and that makes your point weak. Let's just play with
arguments and see where it leads, we might find out something of
interest. :)

>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I don't think you're going to like my answer, because it's rather
>fundamentalist -- you may have noted that the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition
>is essentially one of fundamentalism, 

Yes, that is obvious, because it is based on the foundation of
scriptures and authorities and comments which are rather inflexible,
and that is the weak point of the system. If the system isn't relaxed
enough to allow flexibility, it means that it isn't very secure in its
roots. The best system, IMHO, would be the one that can rely on the
observation of the reality alone, like mathematics, or physics. In
those systems you don't have to accept any authorities or scriptures,
you don't even have to read the books: if your mind is powerful
enough, you can remake the entire system from scratch just by mere
observation and analysis. That's what I'm trying to make, a system
that will be so simple that it would be a mere extension of the nature
itself, something you could even forget completely, and re-invent just
by observing the reality. No dogma, no sastra, nothing. Such system
would really reflect God's intent, because every system that hopes to
explain God must be simple, clear and in agreement with nature.
Without vedic astronomy and similar BS. :)

>albeit one free from the
>hateful, self-serving tendencies with which one usually associates
>the word "fundamentalist." 

Seeing the mentality in this NG, this is a highly disputable
assumption. :)

>In any case, we have it on solid evidence
>that yes, a parrot's prayers have beneficial effect for the parrot --
>said evidence being scriptural, not empirical, in the form of Srila
>Krsnadasa Kaviraja's "Sri Suka-sari-stava," or "The Parrot's Prayers."

I would be inclined to put that in the poetry department, not the
science department; and beside that, we still have a basic problem
that we didn't even touch, and that is the lack of the objectively
measurable results. If there are no actual results of the method, then
the entire thing falls in the same group with the emperor's new
clothes for this winter; if vaisnavas can tell that their method
works, although they don't feel anything special, and although there
is no visible progress, then they have a problem when they face a
"born again Christian" who is "saved by the mercy of Christ", who also
has no symptoms of being saved, but quotes the Bible saying that he'll
be saved after death. What can you do with that statement? Nothing,
you can either believe it or reject it, but you can't prove it. I am
inclined to drop all such statements altogether, in spite of the risk
of making a mistake somewhere. I think it is safer to rely on the
firm, visible symptoms and results, and go from there to the
intangible field of experience. In order for me to believe that a
system produces intangible results, it must also produce tangible
results, in form of people who display above average human qualities.
If they are kinder, nicer, wiser and more loving and intuitive in
their normal daily functioning, I'll be more inclined to accept their
claims about the intangible reality. Without that criterion, we can
get into a situation where a piece of human garbage can make all sorts
of religious claims, and we can only take his word for it, nothing
more, because some scripture says something. This doesn't seem to be a
healthy approach to the matter of spirituality. Transcending the lower
realms of existence can never mean that you become worse than
ordinary, you're supposed to become better. If improvement can't be
measured anywhere, then it is highly unlikely to be an effective
method.

>It is the contention of Caitanya's movement that, in Kali-Yuga at least,
>the human condition is so degraded that to ask a human being to experience
>the subtle mellows of bhakti is like asking a door to sing "Mountain
>Greenery." It's just not going to happen. 

But it must. That is the goal, and it must be attained. There must be
no compromise. What is Kali-yuga to a yogi? Just more external
problems, and such problems can be a powerful motive for
transcendence. One must be determined to achieve the highest goal and
not find all sorts of excuses, yuga this or that. Ideal circumstances
will never happen, and the determined person will find God even in
deepest hell. God's mercy is greater than all the obstacles, and all
obstacles can be overcome, if there is will for liberation, if there
is a true desire for God. 
A saint's student once asked impatiently: "guruji, when will I finally
see God?". The saint said nothing. The next day, when they were
bathing in the river, the saint firmly grabbed the student and
submerged his head under water, and held him there until he was almost
dead. Then he took him out. "How much did you desire air while you
were down there, my child?", he asked. "Enormously!", the student
answered, caughing. "There you have it", said the saint, "when you
will desire God as much, then you will surely attain him".

That is the key to enlightenment. Everything else is just lame excuse.

>This is why Srila Prabhupada
>looked askance at devotees who liked to shout and roll around on the
>floor during kirtana -- sure, for one who has truly gotten the connection,
>such a response would be quite natural, but how likely are we in the
>present age to slough off our numberless connections to the material?
>Not very. The best we can do is imitate those who have done so and
>linked-up: who have actually practiced yoga. And so that's what we do --
>we imitate. We are told by scripture and by the most recent authority
>that doing so will get us where we want to go. Whether we feel like
>we're getting there or not is not pertinent to the question.

The problem with that assumption is this: did God create us so that we
could imitate, or did he create us to be original, brilliant and
wonderful? Why is everybody so different? The nature is not about
imitation, it is about evolution, invention and improvement. Imitation
is an escape from one's own dharma, and that is a dangerous choice to
make. One has to be original, one has to grow from God and display
beauty and magnificence in the world. That is the thing to do.

>We are actually making the same point here. What I'm saying is that
>by chanting the mahamantra one makes progress. 

In spite of different attempts, I have yet not been assured of that. I
have seen the practitioners of different yogic paths, and the truth is
that really enlightened people are very rare, there doesn't seem to be
a system in the world which could mass-produce saints, although most
systems claim to be capable of that. And within those circles, ISKCON
has probably the worst success ratio, it seems to have no technique at
all, no active compound, nothing, actually forced celibacy seems to
destroy some parts of the energetic systems so there is actually a
deterioration of the condition in most cases. A combination of wicca
and reiki gives far better results and produces very nice people, for
instance. Even those who are expecting the aliens to land look better
than the hare krishna folks. That is a serious problem if one claims
to have the only method that works, and everybody else is a fake.
Practically everybody else has better results - the only group that
has results similar to HK are the "born again" Christians and Jehova's
witnesses.
There is a yogic group here in Croatia (Komaja), older than mine, that
bases its practice partially on sex. I have seen its practitioners in
person, they didn't impress me on some high spiritual standards, but
those people are radiant, sparkling, self-confident, their aura is all
over the place, they are full of energy and loving joy, their actions
are free and spontaneous and they look generally beautiful and OK.
Compared to the hare krishna, who look like dried figs, who are often
angry, spiteful, vindictive, negative and generally unpleasant, well,
there is no comparison, sexual practice obviously works better than
chanting. That turns the vaisnava world upside down, doesn't it?

>One need not feel as
>though one is making progress to be making progress. 

That is true. But there it's the question if there _is_ any progress?
One thing is to be unaware of it, the other is its objective
existence.

>So you're right: every action has an equal and opposite reaction,
>just as Newton says. Whether the subject need be aware of it -- at all --
>is the question at hand. Take, for example, a criminal, who has spent
>his entire life stealing food from the poor, not because he was hungry
>but because he is a sociopath, and enjoys harming others. OK. Let's
>say that out of curiosity this individual contracts with himself to
>stop his evil deeds and just chant Hare Krsna for six months. At the
>end of six months, let's imagine (it is difficult to imagine, but let's
>imagine) that he doesn't feel any better -- he itches to get back to
>his old habits. He misses the rush, maybe. I say that his six months
>of abstinence and penitence has an effect on his soul whether he feels
>it at all or not. 

The question that will solve our dilemma is simple: _is_ there an
effect, in reality, or is it all a verbal game? The proof of the
pudding is in the eating. Is there any pudding to be eaten?

>This teaching is in accord with what Srila Prabhupada
>has to say about the mahamantra, and about keeping deities of Sri
>Sri Gaura-Nitai or Lord Jagganatha in the household -- that the potency
>of the mantra or of association is so great that the subject's complicity
>or even awareness is by no means required. 

If this proves to be true, it deserves further study. But it is
necessary to prove that this effect exists in the first place, or
there is as much sense in believing in is as there is in believing in
the existence of Rahu. :)

>> 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.
>
>This simply isn't true. I live in the midwest -- I can tell someone
>passionately that his eating of pork is noxious to God, but (I have
>it on experience) he'll be at best bemused and at worst angry. He will
>reject the information in favor of satisfying the desires of his tongue.
>And that rejection, that refusal to accept the truth when presented to
>him, means that his behavior is sinful. 

I'm much calmer with this, I guess. I would tell someone that he can
survive without meat just fine, and that God loves him enough to let
him kill other beings so that he could survive, and that it will all
be forgiven to him if it is necessary. A nice person will be touched
and stop eating meat because it isn't necessary and it causes
suffering to the other beings that God loves; others are on the level
where it makes very little difference whether one is a carnivore or a
vegetarian. I know some carnivores who are generally very nice people,
nicer than some vegetarians that I know. I don't give it that much
importance. A man is stained by what comes out of him, not by what
comes in. It's not what you eat that determines your value, it's how
you act, what you do, how you treat others. It is good to be a
vegetarian, but it's even better to be a good person. It's best to be
both.

>Hope you're well; 

I am, thankyou. :)

>sorry not to have responded to everything you wrote,
>as is the Usenet tradition, but I thought it better just to address
>the essential points. 

No problem; I, too, didn't stick to the point rigidly, I preferred to
open some other issues of importance. Seeya! :)

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