Little Tiffany

In the headlines a little girl was shot accidentally by a classmate. It's the horror no mother wants to even think about, but it happens. So where was God? Why does God allow such things to happen?

Of course, it would not be wise to say, "It's their karma" to someone who is grieving, and when we see a cute little child or anyone for that matter, in a state of suffering, it is difficult to believe they could have deserved it. But from a distance or when such suffering is not actually going on, we may be able to reflect that perhaps it is possible that they did do something. It's only the material nature's strong power of identifying with the here and now, these present bodies as the all in all, that makes us think otherwise.

I read a story in the Srimad Bhagavatam about a King who had no son to take his throne although he had many wives. Disheartened he revealed his mind to the sage Angira. Angira gave the King's favorite wife a special preparation to eat to conceive a son, and soon afterward a son was born.

Unfortunately, the woman's co-wives became extremely jealous because the king thereafter made the mistake of doting on the boy and his mother alone. Feeling neglected, his other wives did the unthinkable- they murdered the little boy by feeding him poison.

Inconsolably heartbroken, the king and queen's piteous cries reached heaven. Angira returned alongside his famous friend Narada Muni, who then proceeded to raise the dead boy back to life. What followed was a transcendental discourse from the mouth of the child that pacified his previous life's parents, and led to the understanding that "Citraketu's son could have been his enemy in a past life and had now appeared as his son just to give him severe pain. Indeed, the untimely death of the son caused immense lamentation for the father."

Next, let's consider the science fiction movie "Men In Black".  In the shooting range scene, set up to test whom to choose for an alien fighting team, character James Edwards, confronted with numerous menacing-looking alien targets (that presumably can take any shape or form at will), James Edwards finally shoots a cardboard little girl because he perceived she was not as innocent as she appeared. Here's his explanation:

Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.
Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?
James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me...while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing. Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some..., Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.

He passed the test.

In the movie Frailty, a widower suddenly announces to his two sons that he is deputed by God to deliver justice. Although we discover over time that he truly had the mystic power to see a person's previous crimes, his eldest son naturally thinks Dad has gone crazy because the person externally appeared to be innocent or upright. And it turns out the eldest son is actually a demon.

Please excuse the mundane examples, but they got me thinking how appearances aren't always the way they seem.

During the past several months I had wondered how I came to be apart from my oldest children even though I had previously planned to be located near them always (like a good Indian mom). It dawned on me that I really don't know my children or my own past. Who are we really? Who were we in previous lifetimes, and what sort of karma do they have and that I have which now separates us and for how long?

In Krsna book chapter 5, Vasudeva said to Nanda Maharaja, "My dear friend, it is very difficult for us to live together. Although we have our family and relatives, sons and daughters, by nature’s way we are generally separated from one another. The reason for this is that every living entity appears on this earth under different pressures of fruitive activities; although they assemble together, there is no certainty of their remaining together for a long time. According to one’s fruitive activities, one has to act differently and thereby be separated. For example, many plants and creepers are floating on the waves of the ocean. Sometimes they come together, and sometimes they separate forever: one plant goes one way, and another plant goes another. Similarly, our family assembly may be very nice while we are living together, but after some time, in the course of the waves of time, we are separated."

It's when we get the bigger picture, via Krsna consciousness, the separation is bearable when we know we all have a chance, as individuals, to go back to our actual positions in the spiritual world to live eternally. Supersoul is always just a prayer away.

fear of hell?

A question was raised whether a devotee fears going to hell.

We need to get out of this thinking about reward and punishment. If true love is there, a devotee doesn't care if he is in heaven or hell. We get glimpses of heavenly or hellish life even on this planet. Whatever is the Lord's desire. A devotee's only fear is to forget the Lord. His only sadness is to see the suffering of others.

Here's a little story. Once upon a time, Krishna manifested a "headache", so He told sage Narada that the only thing that will relieve His headache would be the dust from the feet of his devotee.

So Narada approached some brahmanas (priests) performing all ritualistic sacrifices, chanting mantras and prayers and reciting so many slokas and doing so many sacrifices and penances, "Quick", Narada alerted them, "Krishna has a headache. He says to take the dust from the feet of His devotees upon His head is the only remedy."

The brahmanas said, "We can't do that! Don't you know what a terrible offense that would be ( according to Vedic culture)! The reactions would surely be great! We cannot do it!"

Then Narada approached the gopis (village cowherd women) and made the same request. The gopis immediately dropped everything they were doing to gather dust from their feet to offer to Krishna.

Narada was surprised by the contrasting behavior of the brahmanas and the gopis so he just had to ask them. "My dear gopis, O best of the Lord's devotees, are you not afraid of going to hell for placing your foot dust upon His head?"

The gopis, who could never think of Krishna as more than their most beloved replied, "Let us go to hell, we don't care, just as long as Krishna is happy."

Of course afterwards, Krishna was very pleased by their behavior and could only bless them.

the most beautiful

Some time back, I went upstairs to Govinda's restaurant in preparation for a comparative religion class visiting the Denver temple. I went to make sure things were cleaned up for them to  be hosted there.  While there, I noticed some beautiful large photographs of the local mountains gracing the walls on one side of the restaurant. Near each one was a business card stating the photographer's name and so on. I had no idea until then how Bhakta Pat, a long time devotee who almost always makes it to the early morning program, was the photographer and such a good one.

Later that day, I told Pat about my discovery. An interesting conversation ensued, relating his love for nature. He had hiked to various places for several days to get the photos, "looking out for beauty".

I told him that was the first thing that popped in my head when I saw his photos, "This guy has an eye for beauty."

Then he said he had two favorite subjects- the outdoors and- he asked if I could guess the second...

"People" came to mind. I told him how I see much beauty in the personal form.

He said that was it, and when it came to learning about the Supreme Person behind material nature- Krsna-  nature no longer had the same grip it once did in capturing his heart.

I had to agree with everything he said. I described my experiences as a youth going to the top of a mountain and discovering this spectacular meadow of wildflowers, nestled between two peaks.  So many experiences I had that were similar, but when I came to know the Supreme Person, the Supreme Artist behind it all, material nature no longer had the same fascination as before.
 
                                           
Of course,  material energy is still very beautiful, but Krishna is the most beautiful and His gorgeous nature simply serves as a reminder of Him.

 I told Pat I didn't want to say that at first, to bust his bubble, his love for nature, so to speak, so I was happy to discover we both had the same realization.

Which should have been obvious when I remember that besides Krishna’s divine material energy, Pat continues to take some of the most beautiful photos of the ISKCON Denver deities, Radha and Govinda.

beauty and truth

There have been several experiences in my life that made me think about how beautiful the material nature is, but upon closer inspection how deadly.

Once, when I was a teenager, I was in the Rocky mountains having a great time hiking with friends. There was beauty all around us, fresh air to breathe... but a blinding blizzard hit us without warning. That beautiful scene quickly turned to a nightmare; we got lost for quite some time until we made it to a clearing and were spotted by a rescue helicopter. Meanwhile, one of our companions nearly died from hypothermia, stumbling, falling and talking incoherently until she had to be carried along in the freezing cold, nearly unconscious.

Then picture this- a young mother is happily watching her baby laugh as she is swinging back in forth in her automatic baby swing that a neighbor lent to her. It's a Kodak moment, something we get to relish for a few seconds, now and then, in the business of life. Well, I noticed after baby was no longer sitting in the swing, a tag was sticking out from the seat with a big "WARNING: Do not leave baby unattended...." and then proceeded to list all kinds of possiblities of what might happen if not heeded, including death.

Then there have been a few times my kids and I raised butterflies as a fun project. The second time around didn't go so well. The weather was bad, so I didn't want to release the newly emerged butterflies immediately. Meanwhile, I fed them sugar water and became rather attached to them.

So when the time came that I must finally release them into the wild, mother nature suddenly didn't look so beautiful or friendly anymore. The birds in the yard that I always loved to watch and listen to sing, suddenly felt evil when I thought they may gobble up the butterflies.

These kind of experiences have helped awaken me from a sort of illusion. The material nature is now comparable to a brilliant fire in which materialistic persons are like moths being allured to their deaths (Bhagavad gita 11.29).

But why do we have this intense attraction in the first place? It's because of its relation to the most beautiful, Krishna. In Bhagavad gita Krishna says:

"Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution....there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread...Know that all states of being – be they of goodness, passion or ignorance – are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything, but I am independent. I am not under the modes of material nature, for they, on the contrary, are within Me."

When we become Krishna conscious, material nature's attraction loses its grip. As will be thought upon further in the next post entitled "The Most Beautiful".

an unfortunate mistake

Food offered to Krishna transforms, it becomes non different than Krishna. Eating prasada is said to be eating Krishna in that form.  It is similar to holy communion. It is also similar to having rules like the Jews and Muslims must have to make food kosher before taking ( although Krishna does not accept any meat offerings).

This brings to mind an interfaith event in which some attendant Jewish rabbis refused to eat prasadam at its conclusion because it was offered to "idols". This was an unfortunate mistake on their part. Reverend Hart, on the other hand, an Episcopalian who gladly ate the tasty prasada, intelligently noted that the Bible contains no prohibition against worshiping the transcendental form of God Supreme. Here's the verse from Exodus that gives so many people trouble:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..."

This mistake made by the rabbis most likely comes from difficulty with the word "heaven" used in this verse because their idea of heaven is confused with the kingdom of God which is eternal and fully spiritual. Heaven generally means to monotheists where the pious go after death, but that doesn't necessarily mean God's personal abode. The Vedas explain more carefully how heaven is also material or temporary because those who go there- although they have earned fantastic lifespans which relatively appear immortal, although everyone in heaven is a believer and worshiper of God almighty, and although they have earned immense opulence due to pious actions in their former lives- they must fall back down again to the earthly plane after the results of their pious deeds are used up. 

The true kingdom of God, on the other hand, is fully spiritual and understood to be beyond heaven, beyond the seven layers of earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego covering the material universe.  The rare soul who goes there never returns to this place of miseries. The Bible writers had to have known better.

With that understanding, it is the worship of the various deities or demigods in charge of the material elements listed in the above verse that are prohibited, not God Supreme. For example, Indra is the god of heaven, Varuna is the god of the waters, Yama the god below the earth, Bhumi and Durga the goddesses of the earth,etc. This would make sense since both Bible and Bhagavad gita advise against the worship of demigods contrary to worship of the Supreme Lord.

This is further supported when God in the Bible recognizes these demigods by saying, "For I am a jealous God." Jealous of whom? There'd have to be someone else to be jealous of.  

Krishna wants that we worship Him directly instead of through His servants the demigods. He calls demigod worshipers less intelligent, because the boons they obtain are always temporary and thus unfit for the eternal soul, and because all gifts are coming from Him, although in the case of demigod worship indirectly. For intelligent persons, their worship is discouraged by Krishna because it is much better to water the root of a tree rather than all the leaves and branches separately. The demigods are more easily satisfied by the worship of their master, although the Lord occasionally performs pastimes where He punishes one of His demigod servants in order to set them straight in this kind of thinking, and to further expound this point for our welfare.

Then there's the problem with the golden calf. It's fabricated., created by the Israelites who "considered this to be an image of the eternal". According to the Vedic view, one can only create an image in accordance to the descriptions given by revealed scripture, not whimsically. The example is given that if you want to mail a letter you cannot put it in any box lying on the street. You need a bona fide box recognized by the Post Office. Similarly, the genuine deity is carved according to the descriptions of the Lord found in scripture. The Lord is invited to appear in that form for the sake of the worshiper and then becomes an "installed deity", ready to accept our worship which is also dictated by scripture. 

Such deity worship is a hands-on form of God worship very suitable for the present condition of people in general. To be able to see, touch, and serve the Supreme in this way causes the devotee to remember and meditate on the Lord 24/7, thus giving simultaneously the benefits of yogic meditation in trance that are no longer possible in this age for most people. Krishna explains in His Gita:

"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied. But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Prthä—for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death."

The Lord kindly appears in this form because our vision is material, but over time the transcendental form of the Lord, which was seen as material by the neophyte is revealed according to the spiritual vision of the worshiper. There are countless cases and records of the deity reciprocating with His devotee even to the present day.

Furthermore, conditioned souls have trouble accepting that God has a human-like form. This is because they have no clear understanding of what is actually God, and secondly, their experience of a "person" has generally been not very palatable within the material sphere. Some are so fed up with the human experience they wish to eradicate it in their spiritual existence as well. For them, anything is better than being a person, what to speak of dealing with a "Supreme Person" (!).

A person has likes, dislikes, demands and so on. Thus we see so many paths of impersonalism and voidism becoming popular. They say, "God can't have a personal form, God can't have relationships, can't have feelings.... God can't, can't, can't.... because that would put limits on God." 

Yet this kind of talk begs the question, just who is putting limits on God?

are vegetarians also liable?

The question was raised whether people who kill plants for food are just as guilty as those who kill animals. And also whether the reason for being a vegetarian is simply an ego trip.

First of all, there are so many good reasons for being a vegetarian. Consider the fact that a plant can often bear fruits and other edibles without needing to be killed. Or that meat eaters and vegetarian alike must eat some kind of vegetable matter, making meat generally unnecessary. Or the fact that slaughterhouses and factory farms are filthy, wasteful, cruel and just plain Satanic, thus making the vegetarian diet a prerequisite to awakening spiritual vision, the ability to see God within the heart of every living being.

Yet, being a vegetarian without offering our food first as a sacrifice to God does hold one liable. Although obviously not as much as the killing of an animal, it does produce karma. So the Gita says to offer the food first as a sacrifice before taking.

In other words, after you cook your meal (keeping in mind that Krishna doesn't eat meat, fish or eggs), lovingly put a quantity of each preparation in small bowls on a platter that are used only for Krishna, place them on an altar at home. Next, beg with prayers to guru and Gauranga and Govinda, to please come and eat.. This is similar to the simplified western version of “saying grace”, thanking and asking God to bless us and our food before eating.

There are various rules and regulations to guide one who wants to make this more or less elaborate, but the essence of the matter is to give to Krishna first, then eat. In that way we are protected from the sins involved and their reactions. .

We are always killing. When we breath we kill or when we step we kill so many microbes or bugs and so on. We can't avoid it. We cannot avoid taking from material nature either so many material necessities such as food, fiber, water, air, utilizing fire and so on. Thus the scriptures give us ways to get what we need and at the same time purify our existence.

"In the beginning of creation, the Lord of all creatures sent forth generations of men and demigods, along with sacrifices for Visnu, and blessed them by saying, 'Be thou happy by this yajna [sacrifice] because its performance will bestow upon you all desirable things.' The demigods, being pleased by sacrifices, will also please you; thus nourishing one another, there will reign general prosperity for all. In charge of the various necessities of life, the demigods, being satisfied by the performance of yajna [sacrifice], supply all necessities to man. But he who enjoys these gifts, without offering them to the demigods (via Krishna) in return, is certainly a thief. The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin." -Bg 3.10-13

There are various sacrifices mentioned to perform for every age. "The best sacrifice recommended in this age is called sankirtana-yajna. This sankirtana-yajna, the chanting of Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Räma, Hare Räma, Räma Räma, Hare Hare, is the best and most inexpensive sacrifice; everyone can adopt it and derive benefit."

How do you know?

Conversation on FaceBook:

ATHEIST 1 So let's go back to my questions. “How do you discern truth in that sense from falsehood? What criteria do you use?” If you have no way of discerning truth from falsehood, then one could argue that nothing can be determinately true or false. If you somehow can discern truth from falsehood, but you have no criteria for distinguishing what is true from what is false, then it's possible that you hold false beliefs.

DEVI "The Nectar of Devotion"...The process you are asking about by which one can scientifically measure their spiritual progress is given there.

 That way nothing is left to speculation. All the pitfalls are pointed out, too.

ATHEIST 1 But that's where the misunderstanding lies. I'm not asking how one can "scientifically measure one's spiritual progress." All I'm asking is how do you personally distinguish between what it true and what is false? When you personally hear something concerning spirituality, do you immediately accept it? do you question it? How do you personally determine whether it's true or not true?

DEVI If one's subjective experience is stated in there, then it is no longer only subjective right?

ATHEIST 1 This is not a philosophical question. This is a practical question. How do you distinguish between what is true and what is false? In your life, personally, when someone tells you something concerning spirituality, how do you know if it's true or not? Don't tell me what great thinkers or spiritual leaders say, or strip away subjectivity. How, in practice, do you distinguish between what is true and what is false?

DEVI I thought my experience was practical enough. What more do you want?  Let's say you've never been to Antarctica. How do you know it exists?

ATHEIST 1  It's a misleading question. "Antarctica exists" is determinately true or false. I can determine that Antarctica exists by flying there. When people tell me Antarctica exists, it’s not that I necessarily hold it or accept it as a belief. If it’s true...

DEVI I meant you could experience it for yourself by meeting someone who has been there and finding out by their directions how to get there also... With a bona fide map you would see signs along the way knowing you are on the right track. If something proved false, the intelligent person would then rate the "experienced" person as giving wrong info. Similar to a false prophet, etc.

ATHEIST 1 But that's why my analogy works and yours doesn't. If spirituality refers to a thing, it's an immaterial thing. How do you know the people leading you there are telling you the truth? If I didn't know where Antarctica is on the planet, and someone said "Go East, you'll find Antarctica," then I may very well heed their advice and travel east.

DEVI Similarly, "The Nectar of Devotion" gives the bona fide map....it helps if statistically there are many many people of that experience. Having reached the actual destination. Yes?

And the directions and results must be the same for everyone. Maybe tailored individually, but no major changes allowed so not to disrupt the process. What is it that is called scientifically? Controls?

ATHEIST 1 That's fallacious--it's an appeal to numbers. But even if numbers mattered, even if they could serve as evidence of legitimate "experience," you have to assume that some people are lying or deceiving or mistaken...

DEVI  The requirements are very rigid. That way pretenders are caught.

ATHEIST 1 I seriously want to know: what are the requirements? How are pretenders caught? How do you discern truth in that sense from falsehood? What criteria do you use? I think these are honest, reasonable questions.

DEVI   The requirements are: No illicit sex, no meat eating, no gambling and no intoxication.

This is real yoga, not the watered down stuff for sale. BTW, it costs nothing.

ATHEIST 2: Devi, Similar to Buddist monks, if we all pray all day then who provides and makes food. The same thing with yoga and meditation, we have children to look after, tummies to put food in if everyone could pray, do yoga and meditate, who takes care of t...

DEVI That is what is so nice about bhakti yoga. Using modern terms it is "hands on" yoga. You can practice any time, anywhere the principles. In the astanga eight fold system, bhakti is the topmost goal. So it is like an immersion process. Just like when you teach kids how to write by letting them write, and later when they have developed a taste for writing, they will want to learn the rules of grammar on for their own, naturally.

It is so practical, but it has been obscured a long time.

ATHEIST 2: Curiouser and curiouser, please if you know of a good web site I could go to with more info. I know I could just look it up but if you have a site that you would recommend I would appreciate it.....Guess what I'll be doing after I've had my meal, reading up.

DEVI The Perfection of Yoga


LATER NOTE: Atheist 1 also asked for more information, but in a private message.

I know why

Analyzing the poem "Sympathy" by Paul Lawrence Dunbar I wondered, "How did the main character follow his heart?" And "Was he successful in doing so?"

Generally speaking, most main characters appear successful in achieving their heart's desire. Only in this poem, from a material point of view, did the attempt appear futile, thus worthy of "sympathy" . The bird is beating its wings against the cage seemingly in vain. But a closer study reveals what I think is a greater kind of success. In its adversity and suffering, the bird lifts its voice in prayer to God, calling upon the Lord from the core of its heart.

This is in line with the most confidential sections of the Vedas. If the inevitable troubles of life can turn one towards God, gaining His ecstatic audience through fervent prayer (SB 1.8.26), then one's mission of human life is considered successful.
  

  

I know what the caged bird feels, alas!

    When the sun is bright on the upland slopes;   

When the wind stirs soft through the springing grass,   

And the river flows like a stream of glass;

    When the first bird sings and the first bud opes,   

And the faint perfume from its chalice steals—

I know what the caged bird feels!

I know why the caged bird beats his wing

    Till its blood is red on the cruel bars;   

For he must fly back to his perch and cling   

When he fain would be on the bough a-swing;

    And a pain still throbs in the old, old scars   

And they pulse again with a keener sting—

I know why he beats his wing!

I know why the caged bird sings, ah me,

    When his wing is bruised and his bosom sore,—

When he beats his bars and he would be free;

It is not a carol of joy or glee,

    But a prayer that he sends from his heart’s deep core,   

But a plea, that upward to Heaven he flings—

I know why the caged bird sings!

everyone thinks his way is best

Once a guest said to Prabhupada:  "So everybody thinks that his way or his way of thinking, his theory, his religion is the most superior one."

Prabhupäda answered: "That's all right. That is all right. If you accept progress... Just like you are seeing the sun, I am also seeing the sun, the boy is also seeing the sun, but the understanding of the sun may be different. Everyone is seeing the sun. The objective is the same. But a child's understanding of sun and an elderly man's understanding of sun, a scientist's understanding of sun, or one man who has actually gone to the sun planet, there are different categories. Do you accept or not? The sun is there. God is accepted in every scripture. That is a fact. But in the same way, how far He is understood, that is different. That is different. The same example, that everyone is seeing sun: "Here is sun," there is no doubt. But a child's understanding of sun, his father's understanding of sun, or a scientist's understanding of sun, or a person who has gone to the sun planet, his understanding of sun is different. The objective is the same. And everyone is right. Either you understand fully sun or not, as soon as you come before the sun you get the light. The child is getting the light, the scientist is getting the light, and the ordinary person getting the light. Everyone is getting light, heat and light. But their understanding different, of degrees."

God the Father?

It makes no sense, something that was created has to suffer eternally? But this is the Judeo Christian and Islamic belief that the soul (if that is what they call a person that survives the bodily death) was created by God, but after death lives eternally either in heaven or hell.

So how does something that never existed before, suddenly exist forever afterward? And if that existence must continue perpetually in hell, wouldn't it be more merciful to just undo the dust-sculpting business done in the first place? 

This they cannot answer.

Krishna, on the other hand, says in His Bhagavad gita:
"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you,...nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." 

That is what eternal means. There is no creation, there is no death. The soul may have been in some sort of dormant state, but individuality is always existent. It is only the body that is created from the eight material elements. 

In Gita the Lord describes them in comparison to the living entity: "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies. Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature." So there is a distinct difference. One is superior due to consciousness. The other is unconscious matter which by nature is temporary.

Thus how can something that had a beginning have no end? If we were not eternal to begin with, how can we exist eternally hereafter?

In Vaisnavism we understand the living beings are of the same superior spiritual nature of God, but being only a minute particle, one can become forgetful of this by misdentifying with the Lord's inferior nature, matter. That's where troubles begin.

No amount of suffering is permanent, however. Like a truly loving father, that is God's mercy; the nature of the material energy we try to enjoy separately from Him is flickering.  There is always some happiness or relief from the suffering. From a logical point of view, therefore it still makes no sense that some religions suggest that God is so cruel that after death a sinful person will suffer punishment forever, something even the most ordinary father would never do.

 

 In the Vedic scriptures are elaborate descriptions of both the material heavenly planets above the earthly plane and the hellish worlds below along with the punishments inflicted according to the sins committed. It is a subject matter too lengthy to print here. Just know that, there is not just one hell, but many many hells. The good thing is that you are not sent there eternally, it only feels that way since it's so awful. Trust me, you don't want to go there.

know that you have wings

Caught this critter on camera. He was very cooperative and seemed to be posing for his photo shoot.

Several robins have been hopping around along with other signs of the coming season- white buds on the apple trees, daffodils and other bulbs popping out of the soil along the walkways, new leaves on the trees, warmer days...

So I was thinking that just as we can understand the appearance of spring,  how we can understand also by symptoms the approach of death or impending destruction.

A couple verses from Srimad Bhagavatam come to mind. Saintly Vidura is speaking to his brother, the blind king Dhrtarastra, who had lost everything in the fratricidal battle detailed in the Mahabharata:

"Your father, brother, well-wishers and sons are all dead and passed away. You yourself have expended the major portion of your life, your body is now overtaken by invalidity, and you are living in the home of another. You have been blind from your very birth, and recently you have become hard of hearing. Your memory is shortened, and your intelligence is disturbed. Your teeth are loose, your liver is defective, and you are coughing up mucus. Alas, how powerful are the hopes of a living being to continue his life."
SB 1.13.21-33

Yes, how powerful is the urge to continue on. Vaisnava sastra explains that's because it's our original nature; the nature of the living entity is to live forever. It is the eternal nature of the soul (called sat) which makes death or a change of bodily situation disagreeable.

And transcendental knowledge of the resilence of the soul and one's relationship with the Supreme Loving Soul, Lord Krishna, contrasted with the fragility of our mortal frame makes all the difference between fearing the signs of old age and inevitable death or allowing them to appear without anxiety.  Something the poet Victor Hugo suggests we can learn from a bird. 

Be like the bird that,
Passing on her flight
Awhile on boughs too slight,
Feels them give way beneath her,
And yet sings,
Knowing that she has wings!

contentment or consumerism

Does one's belief encourage contentment or consumerism? 

Any genuine religious process that values contentment with whatever nature arranges for one's maintenance, over consumerism, is much easier to implement if there is a belief in another life. Because  then there is not the fear of "missing out" if one does not finish his business in this life, or if one decides to take seriously a life of sacrifice and austerity for the sake of spiritual enlightenment instead of material advancement. It takes the edge off the competitive spirit and gives rise to the spirit of cooperation.

Other philosophies on the other hand, seem to encourage or excite earthly existence and exploitation. Take for example, the typical theistic view. There was a movie about a man who died and went to heaven, but he kept looking down wistfully at his wife on earth, wishing that he could rejoin her. Most obviously because "heaven" was a bunch of clouds to stand upon while his wife had plenty of interesting things to do down below. In other words, ambiguous scripture makes human life look much more appealing and dampens the motive to go beyond. 

Then there is the monist philosophy that after death one merges into oneness, one homogenous spiritual existence with no room for individuality. These are the people who tell you, "I am God. You are God"... They make no distinction between the minute living entity and the unlimited Supreme Lord. Their philosophy culminates in what's known as "spiritual suicide" in the attempt to permanently disable one's individuality by merging into the brahmajyoti or white light. How that kind of goal also contributes to materialism is pointed on in this Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 purport:

"The whole material creation is moving under the principle of sex life. In modern civilization, sex life is the focal point for all activities. Wherever one turns his face, he sees sex life predominant. Therefore, sex life is not unreal. Its reality is experienced in the spiritual world. The material sex life is but a perverted reflection of the original fact. The original fact is in the Absolute Truth, and thus the Absolute Truth cannot be impersonal. It is not possible to be impersonal and contain pure sex life. Consequently, the impersonalist philosophers have given indirect impetus to the abominable mundane sex life because they have overstressed the impersonality of the ultimate truth. Consequently, man without information of the actual spiritual form of sex has accepted perverted material sex life as the all in all. There is a distinction between sex life in the diseased material condition and spiritual sex life."

And then of course there is basic atheism which appears in various forms and coverings. Unless they are interested in doing good for the sake of goodness or for their kids, then why not eat, drink, and be merry since after death there'll be nothing to do at all, not even hanging out in the brahman effulgence like the above impersonalist aspires for, nor the clouds like the guy in the incomplete description of heaven? Srimad Bhagavatam 3.20.19 continues to explain:

"Andha-tämisra involves considering death to be the ultimate end. The atheists generally think that the body is the self and that everything is therefore ended with the end of the body. Thus they want to enjoy material life as far as possible during the existence of the body. Their theory is: 'As long as you live, you should live prosperously. Never mind whether you commit all kinds of so-called sins. You must eat sumptuously. Beg, borrow and steal, and if you think that by stealing and borrowing you are being entangled in sinful activities for which you will have to pay, then just forget that misconception because after death everything is finished. No one is responsible for anything he does during his life.' This atheistic conception of life is killing human civilization, for it is without knowledge of the continuation of eternal life.

"This andha-tämisra ignorance is due to tamas. The condition of not knowing anything about the spirit soul is called tamas. This material world is also generally called tamas because ninety-nine percent of its living entities are ignorant of their identity as soul. Almost everyone is thinking that he is this body; he has no information of the spirit soul. Guided by this misconception, one always thinks, 'This is my body, and anything in relationship with this body is mine.' For such misguided living entities, sex life is the background of material existence. Actually, the conditioned souls, in ignorance in this material world, are simply guided by sex life, and as soon as they get the opportunity for sex life, they become attached to so-called home, motherland, children, wealth and opulence. As these attachments increase, moha, or the illusion of the bodily concept of life, also increases. Thus the idea that 'I am this body, and everything belonging to this body is mine' also increases, and as the whole world is put into moha, sectarian societies, families and nationalities are created, and they fight with one another. Mahä-moha means to be mad after material enjoyment. Especially in this age of Kali, everyone is overwhelmed by the madness to accumulate paraphernalia for material enjoyment."

The ancient Vaisnava tradition, on the other hand, encourages environmental and psychological health. For one thing, the Vedic literatures such as the Bhagavad gita As It Is, Srimad Bhagavatam and Chaitanya Caritamrta give detailed descriptions of God, His name, address or personal abode, form, personality, pastimes and activities, associates, our relationship with Him and the process to reach Him. Thus one's consciousness can be transferred from hankering for material things to hankering for what is spiritual. Material detachment becomes very easy by becoming attached to the spiritual, namely Krishna.

the soul survivor

Often on the web is the word "survivor" used, or "I'm a survivor."

Broken bones or a broken heart, fights, losses, sickness, or many other troubles beyond description...all these things can be survived by any person as long as there is a will to live. One can get through it all, no matter what the situation, no matter what it is one may have to deal with.

So from a logical viewpoint, if there is absolutely nothing one cannot endure throughout life, then certainly one must continue to go on after death.

Krishna confirms this in His Bhagavad- Gita, "As the embodied soul continuously passes in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change." (Bg 7.14)

It is a matter of proper identity as spirit soul rather than the temporary body. One survives even death.

"The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life, or part of it, is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments. Life is meant for the maximum duration of existence for eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, making merry and enjoying life. The modern man wants to live forever by the advancement of material science, and there are many foolish theories for prolonging life to the maximum duration. But the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam affirms that life is not meant for so-called economic development or advancement of materialistic science for the hedonistic philosophy of eating, mating, drinking and merrymaking. Life is solely meant for tapasya, for purifying existence so that one may enter into eternal life just after the end of the human form of life." - SB 2.3.18p

divine nature

Most theists believe in an afterlife of some sort. But is it possible to live forever? We have no experience of that in this world. Everything comes to an end, including every body.

Yet, mundane science textbooks surprisingly declare a truth about matter. According to the law of conservation, it is neither created nor destroyed. This coincides with Krishna's description in Bhagavad gita of material nature as "My divine energy".

So in the sense that everything is ultimately Krishna, everything emanates from He who is fully spiritual, His material creation can be correctly understood as also divine. It appears to have been created, but it has always existed as does Krishna, as one of His multifarious energies.

Divine means eternal. It is not a linear creation with a beginning and end as in the the Judeo Christian conception because if God is actually eternal and spiritual, as most theists say they believe, and which is the proper understanding of God, then how can anything related to the Lord exist only once? Matter goes on perpetually in cycles either in a manifest or unmanifest state. A huge skyscraper worn away by time eventually returns to the earth. It can be broken down to its very atoms, but those atoms continue to exist and are shaped once again in another form. Thus everything is ultimately spiritual, the external material nature just behaves differently, by repeated appearance and disappearance.

 From a logical viewpoint, therefore, if matter ultimately has no beginning nor end, it's easier to comprehend the individual self or the spiritual nature, as clearly described by Lord Krishna in the second chapter of Bhagavad gita to be eternal. We must also continue to exist in some shape or form after the demise of the material body. And if we wish to get free from the cycle of birth and death due to identification of the temporary body, we must take shelter of the transcendental Lord, who is forever unaffected by the waves of time.

science?

It's been said that material science can never be fully objective. This is because every human being conditioned to identify with their material bodily nature has four frailties identified by the Vedic scriptures as 1. a tendency to cheat 2. a tendency to make mistakes 3. a tendency to become illusioned and 4. imperfect senses.

These tendencies include being biased in one way or another. Everyone knows that Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, vegetarians, meat eaters, feminists, pacifists, etc., all have their biases.

Everyone knows atheists have a natural bias against the existence of God, so even if they took courses on the subject, they still cannot understand. That's because they don't want to.

So when a textbook tries to pass off a theory like evolution as if it were already accepted as an extablished fact, that is not science. That is ignorance or even cheating. And material science is forever  changing its theories. Thus it will remain imperfect.