Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Friday, February 1, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    PAUL AND KRISHNAN PAUL: (Krishna) says that people who try to describe Him are like the Blind men who described the elephant and fought with each other. I
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 3, 2002

      PAUL: (Krishna) says that people who try to describe Him
      are like the Blind men who described the elephant and
      fought with each other. I assume you know that story,

      Would you say an elephant has no legs, trunk, ears, etc.?
      No one can describe Krishna completely, but they can
      describe Him to some extent. This is better than giving no
      information about Him or saying He is formless.


      KRISHNAN: Sorry Paul. I was busy with the arrangements for
      my Superbowl party. That is reason for the delay in
      replying. I'll ask Krishna to give a detailed reply to this
      when He comes to my house on Sunday. BTW, My friend in
      India will bring Somarasa from India tommorow. Krishna
      likes it. Anyway, let me present my view regarding this:
      Blind men cannot see or visualize an elephant. They can
      only touch the elephant, or hear its sound. They cannot
      grasp the truth of the elephant fully, and they will fight
      about the parts. One man will say that elephant is like a
      Pillar. Another will say elephant is like a Rope. Another
      will say that elephant is like a hose. Another will say
      that Elephant is like the sound of a trumpet. None of them
      can give any useful information about elephant, and they
      cannot have a consensus too. Now look at the different
      sects in the world proclaiming exclusivity to their Gods.
      How are they different from these Blind men ? A
      fundementalist Christian would say that Christ is the True
      God. A Jehadi would say that Allah is the Only One God.
      Different fundamentalist sects in India would root for 330
      million different Gods (including Krishna, Shiva, Kali Maa,
      Ganesha, Subrahmanya.....etc.) . Different African and
      Native American tribes will have their own concepts of the
      True God. How is your Sect different from any of these?

      My neice in India has the concept of Batman as the True
      God. My nephew opposes, saying that Superman is the Real
      One. How are they different from your concept of Krishna as
      the Real One?

      BTW, Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva will be attending my
      Superbowl party. So I have to go and prepare for my party.
      Let me open another Budweiser. Cheers, Raj Kumar "Krishnan"


      BOBBY G.

      The difference in empirical knowledge and revelation Is the
      crucial issue here. Concepts accumulated form a body of
      knowledge. Revelation is required for self realization.
      Something new must be revealed.

      Consciousness can illuminate the same memory over and over
      and a person remains in stasis. That can be called
      restricted consciousness.

      One-pointed consciousness is the occurance of ideas in
      coordination with one's needs in eliminating the seeds of
      karma. It is revelatory by nature. It will be constantly
      new and unthought of. It can be simply appreciation and
      awe. Or it can be memories repressed, fears covered by
      anger, embarassment and guilt never faced or misconceptions
      adopted out of conceit. These are some of the categories of
      karmic seeds eliminated by revelation. Empirical knowledge
      has no ability in this arena and mostly serves to block it.
      The willingness to undergo revelation should become habit.

      The point I have been trying to make is that the people I
      have talked with on this forum are more interested in
      revelation than empirical knowledge. Most of us have come
      out of the arena you are discussing through revelation of
      its nature.

      Good Luck and God Bless,
      Bobby G.




      I've been encountering ISKCON folks for over thirty
      years, Paul. I must say that how they miss or manage to
      evade the obvious fact that to "serve Krsna" *is* sense
      gratification (albeit enrobed in saffron and accompanied by
      finger cymbals) remains a mystery. Don't get me wrong, the
      temple music is just wonderful and the fashion sense is
      enjoyably quaint, but it is all clearly and intensely of
      the sensorium and of the ego that aspires to superiority
      via association with the ultimate "superior": the fanciful
      notion of "godhead" and it's colorful "supreme
      personality." Hare Krisha!


      Oh yes, sense gratification, one of my very favorite
      hobbies! This, not surprisingly, reminds me of a story.

      A long time ago, in a land far away, referred to as the
      Czech Republic at that juncture in time, I found myself
      starving and in terrible, demanding need of repast.
      Willing, in that state, to take our chances ordering food
      in a language I was able to mimic but not understand, we
      found ourselves in a local 'downhome' place, downhome being
      somewhere tucked behind the Prag Castle.

      The restaurant had one large window at the front that lit
      the place well enough from the entering side in, but from
      the entered side out, walls, furnishings and occupants
      silhouetted darkly against bright daylight. It was from my
      perch on the interior balcony, contemplating the striking
      difference between the light qualities in-to-out, and the
      fish upon my plate that had been baked whole, including the
      eyes, presented in a sea of well-cooked, unrecognizable
      greens and mashed things, that I first heard the faint
      sounds of...


      And singing, quietly at first, dopplering forward into my
      aural view at the speed of skipping humans. Dopplering
      forward, too, into my present visual field, framed as it
      was by the dark restaurant innards, such that my view was
      akin to watching a movie, a bright and brilliant movie,
      particularly when the orange and saffron robes jimmied into
      view, right to left, fabrics and drumfaces catching the
      light, projecting it inward, altering the tonal qualities
      of the space of the restaurant. The robed crew's voices
      projected inward as well, filling the space, Hare Krishna!,
      moving across the space in reflectance of their movement
      out of the space of the movie. We, the restaurant
      occupants, were delighted with the spectacle, our raised
      eyebrows(and wide open fish eyes), laughter and broad grins
      the proof.

      But the story doesn't end there, though we figured it did
      and returned to our eating of fish and mash. My companion
      and I finished our meal, paid up, and were standing in
      front of the restaurant, our discussion of what to do next
      laboring under the requirements of digestion.

      Two somewhat hesitant, out of breath small voices, two
      oddly unrhythmic small drummings surfaced on the wind.
      Moments later, two bedazzling orange and saffron cladded
      bodies bounded into view, Hare Krishna! We stood by, eyes
      laughing, watching as the pair gesticulated wildly with the
      restaurant host, who, simply, wordlessly, pointed to the
      left and glanced at the watch on his right wrist.

      The forgotten stragglers put down their voices and drums
      and took off! Robes flying, feet pounding the cobblestones,
      drums banging against their bodies, bare feet and naked
      legs revealed by the windcaught fabrics! Quickly gone from
      sight, the echoes of their shouted Hare Krishna!s resounded
      through the city streets, buffeted along by masonry, for a
      nice long time.

      Thanks, Bruce, for the memory. ;)


      Perhaps someone in Cambridge would like to contact this person. It's a
      good idea, if you're interested, to contact someone like this, ask about
      them, ask whether they have anything like a website or journal online
      you could read.

      andrew etter
      cambridge, MA
      i am



      One of the things about teachers who may not have had
      formal teachers, is that they were never given tools to
      teach with. The Sufis speak of having a toolbox to use when
      teaching. First you have to have a toolbox, then you have
      to know what tools to use, and then you have to know how to
      use them. And they're all secondary to the teacher anyway!

      Real teaching isn't an easy game. Judi has the chops, the
      guts, the knowing in order to teach, but there's nothing in
      her toolbox. She needs tools. I really think most of us
      need tools if we're gonna do more than snag a few seekers
      as they pass down the mainway and close enough to our game
      booth to get them to throw a few dimes. We need to learn
      how to throw a few m&m's into the barn. We need to show
      people it's possible to win the huge stuffed bear, but
      getting them to win smaller ones. But we don't really do
      anything with tools of any kind. I think they would need to
      be used in private anyway or in a very focused list.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.