jainism is totally badass.
Krishna - Question(s) for lightgigantic and all
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
If you have ever met a jain monk you would probably think jainism is simply total ass.
(try google imaging a few)
Another question for LG: By the way, I love the Hindi religion, its closer to being normal than most. But it does have its dark side.
LG: What about dowry deaths, in particular bride burning? How can a religion that writes such beautiful stuff resort to this nuttiness. I can understand a low divorce rate if the bride is scared shitless or dies but how in the name of Vishnu is this permitted?
LG: What about dowry deaths, in particular bride burning? How can a religion that writes such beautiful stuff resort to this nuttiness. I can understand a low divorce rate if the bride is scared shitless or dies but how in the name of Vishnu is this permitted?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
What I'm trying to get at is what is the source of the not so cool actions.
You said that god is the source of all goodness, is he the source of all badness too? If not, who is? If god is the ultimate ballroom dancer is he also the ultimate murderer?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
It is not about making humans greater or more whole, we know what humans are capable of, look at the news(good and bad). What I'm interested in is what your god is capable of.
actually my general observation of answers to many spiritual questions is "yes and no"
qualitatively all conscious entities are composed of the same "substance" as god (sat - eternity, cit - knowledge, ananda - bliss ... IOW we are conscious seekers of happiness) but quantitatively we are distinct.
... so yes in one sense we are miniature krishna's ... however ...
Eternally we are constitutionally engaged in the service of god (ie we are prakriti/subservient engaged in the service of purusa/god) but under the constraints of illusion (ie in the material world) we falsely assume the position of being a purusa (IOW the root cause of suffering in the material world is due to immitating god)
... on the other hand we are not miniature krishna's
So why are we in the constraints of an illusion? Are we playing a part in some big movie directed by god?
Psychoticepisode
As for dowry, traditionally that was strictly the wife's property (even while she was married) - it was kind of a gift offered by her father to insure her future safety (which again was out of attachment) in the case of unforseen difficulties.
Now of course, women are (or rather, at least for the most part, were) thrown forcably into funeral pyres (or even any old fire in some cases) ... all for the sake of securing her dowry (or freeing up the household for remarriage so a second dowry can be secured).
Needless to say, offering a dowry for one's daughter or burning one's self upon the event of one's husband's death are not formal requirements for the worship of visnu.
Out of a strong sense of attachment, traditionally brides would rather die than live without their husband.
As for dowry, traditionally that was strictly the wife's property (even while she was married) - it was kind of a gift offered by her father to insure her future safety (which again was out of attachment) in the case of unforseen difficulties.
Now of course, women are (or rather, at least for the most part, were) thrown forcably into funeral pyres (or even any old fire in some cases) ... all for the sake of securing her dowry (or freeing up the household for remarriage so a second dowry can be secured).
Needless to say, offering a dowry for one's daughter or burning one's self upon the event of one's husband's death are not formal requirements for the worship of visnu.
basically "badness" arises from a sense of separate identity from god - IOW when we have a sense of identity separate from god and then set out to pursue what we "feel" happiness is, we inevitably get caught up in expressing something "bad".
As a side note there is also a moral distinction between god and ourselves - for instance if we set out to murder in a whimsical or unnecessary way, that becomes immoral because we have no business directing the bodily annhilation (or even creation for that matter) of other individuals ... and we also have no ability to direct them after they leave their body either. God on the other hand doesnt' have that limitation. In fact god is easily the most ultimate of murders since this material world has had a 100% mortality rate since time immemorial.
Hence
BG 11.29: I see all people rushing full speed into Your mouths, as moths dash to destruction in a blazing fire.
BG 11.30: O Viṣṇu, I see You devouring all people from all sides with Your flaming mouths. Covering all the universe with Your effulgence, You are manifest with terrible, scorching rays.
BG 11.31: O Lord of lords, so fierce of form, please tell me who You are. I offer my obeisances unto You; please be gracious to me. You are the primal Lord. I want to know about You, for I do not know what Your mission is.
BG 11.32: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pāṇḍavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.
There are instances where Krishna has killed others, if thats what you mean - in fact its part of his job description
BG 4.8: To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.
There is even a special incarnation of vishnu who specifically deals with obstinate miscreants.
Here's a good link that goes over issues of incarnations and multiplicity personalities and vishnu
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/avatars.htm
as an interesting side point, those personalities that are personally killed by the lord get a type of liberation (and usually have a unique history to wind up being killed by the lord) - IOW such persons who get killed are not ordinary mundane atheists ... and neither do they have a destination that a soon to be decesed mundane atheist can expect
we are fulfilling desires that cannot be fulfilled in a more godly atmosphere. When we begin to realize there is no value fulfilling such desires , we become prime candidates for spiritual advancement.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
So as human beings what is our natural inclination? To have a sense of identity with god?
What do you mean by this?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
To my knowledge the worlds most obstinate miscreants have been killed by other men without exception. Have you got an example that suggests otherwise?
Can you give me some examples of these desires please?
yes
to have a spontaneous service attitude towards god
we don't engineer a living entity's corporeal existence and we don't direct their next corporeal existence (what tos peak of granting liberation) so therefore you find that civilized human society is guided by strict guidelines for extinguishing the bodily existence of others (and even animals)
thought you might have been vaguely familiar with the exploits Krishna and his dealings with persons like Kamsa, Jarasandha and quite a few others.
The guys you are thinking of are just mundane obstinate persons
quite broadly, this body is me (false sense of I) and things related to this body are mine (false sense of posessiveness) - so these things generally find their expression in the pursuit of fame, name, adoration, wealth, the opposite (or even perhaps the same in some cases) gender, etc etc and these become the standards for happiness
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
This is pure fantasy.
Historically, ie the world we live in records great human villains were defeated by great human beings.
I don't know where you base your reality but you talk of wars in high places which is similar to Greek mythology(which has no evidence, it was just a poem, wasn't it?).
what makes you say that?
and god can't be the greatest defeater of villains?
What specific aspect of godhood would god be violating if he performed such an act?
not sure what your base of evidence is.
I mean historical (so-called) evidence of the archeological era (in regards to sociology, culture etc that finds its voice in anthropology, etc) is certainly distinct from ,say , the evidence of hard science .... mainly because it is based perhaps 99.9% on inferred ideas as opposed to physical findings.
Anyway I could go on more about it ... but if you want to argue that this is fantasy because it goes against the established norms of anthropology its not a very strong argument since even the established norms of anthropology will go against the established norms of anthropology if you give it about 15 - 30 years.
As for greek mythology, since it only made the grade to something approaching monotheistic (the greek pantheon were supposed to have arisen from something called the "chos" or void and by sepculating on the nature of that plato was able to introduce a wider philosophy of the logical conclusions of an absolute world) by speculation. Even plato agreed that he was trying to explain an idea of something that he did not understand completely. IOW he wasn't laying claim to direct perception.
Anyway I am just trying to guess on what basis you are trying to draw a parralel between the nature of claims in ancient Greece and the claims of greater India.
Maybe we shoould clear up whether I am barking up the right tree.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I try to follow Jesus' teachings as best I can, so by definition I guess I'm a Christian.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
In real life there has been terrible people who have killed millions, these have been overcome by other human beings, so for you to suggest that these horrific people were just mediocre horrible people compared to the gods or demigods that Krishna for example overcame, on some plane of existence really makes the good humans that overcome horrific situations, maybe mediocre at best or worse pointless.
He can be, and He is, in this existence as well as others.
Archeological evidence suggests that bibical characters for example existed, it also suggests that two world wars were fought. No data is found for the battles you speak of.
I don't think Plato came up with the idea.
They are similar, gods fighting over trivial things.
Dave
What existence of god does he have that is not his own?
(Why the use of the word "others"?)
In vedic literature - at least in regard to krishna - this issue does not require to be reconciled since issues of the absolute world and how they relate to the supreme person, krishna (or vishnu, in a more general sense) is a topic of thorough investigation.
I was suggesting that the mediocrity of contemporary miscreants lies in their past or future being greatly unnoteworthy. In this age miscreants are so weak that they require medical treatment if they get hit over the head with a curtain rod - they have absolutely no potency to interfere in universal affairs. If they want to evoke some sort of effect on even human affairs they require the support of many like minded persons,
I'm not sure I follow ...
What existence of god does he have that is not his own?
(Why the use of the word "others"?)
given that the events are espoused to have occurred about 5000 years ago and that the names and locations and even geographic formations referenced are still existing today, what sort of evidence are you alluding to?
plato is however one of the big guns that lands greek culture a comfortable position in classical education .... If it wasn't for persons like him, greece would probably be just as relevant as persons in mozambique 300bc
what makes the greek pantheon trivial is that they don't operate out of any supportive philosophical treatise - IOW they act like teenagers with unressolved anger issues. This is precisely the problem plato saw ... and hence he produced works like the republic to ellucidate on how an absolute world can be conceived (of which the greek pantheon were not clear representatives).
In vedic literature - at least in regard to krishna - this issue does not require to be reconciled since issues of the absolute world and how they relate to the supreme person, krishna (or vishnu, in a more general sense) is a topic of thorough investigation.