Lot’s of folks find peace and exploration in drugs… Evan Dando of the Lemonheads tells a good story of addiction.  In truth, drugs might wake some folks up to things greater than themselves, but for many that comes in the form of a trap where desperation forces one to his knees and to beg for God’s mercy.  God listens and will answer, but addiction is a trap that for most won’t let go until you totally surrender.   This is why AA is faith based.

“Thou Shalt Not Kill” or “Thou Shalt Not Murder”?

Below is another conversation between his Divine Grace, Śrīla Prabhupāda and a Catholic Church authority, Cardinal Danielou.  A video of the conversation is inserted at the text where the video picks up.  (Recorded in 1975, I believe).

Reprinted from http://causelessmercy.com/SSR4.htm

At a monastic retreat near Paris, in July of 1973, Śrīla Prabhupāda talked with Cardinal Jean Danielou: “… the Bible does not simply say, ‘Do not kill the human being.’ It says broadly, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’… why do you interpret this to suit your own convenience?”

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Jesus Christ said, “Thou shalt not kill.” So why is it that the Christian people are engaged in animal killing?

Cardinal Danielou: Certainly in Christianity it is forbidden to kill, but we believe that there is a difference between the life of a human being and the life of the beasts. The life of a human being is sacred because man is made in the image of God; therefore, to kill a human being is forbidden.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But the Bible does not simply say, “Do not kill the human being.” It says broadly, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Cardinal Danielou: We believe that only human life is sacred.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is your interpretation. The commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.”

Cardinal Danielou: It is necessary for man to kill animals in order to have food to eat.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No. Man can eat grains, vegetables, fruits, and milk.

Cardinal Danielou: No flesh?

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No. Human beings are meant to eat vegetarian food. The tiger does not come to eat your fruits. His prescribed food is animal flesh. But man’s food is vegetables, fruits, grains, and milk products. So how can you say that animal killing is not a sin?

Cardinal Danielou: We believe it is a question of motivation. If the killing of an animal is for giving food to the hungry, then it is justified.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But consider the cow: we drink her milk; therefore, she is our mother. Do you agree?

Cardinal Danielou: Yes, surely.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: So if the cow is your mother, how can you support killing her? You take the milk from her, and when she’s old and cannot give you milk, you cut her throat. Is that a very humane proposal? In India those who are meat-eaters are advised to kill some lower animals like goats, pigs, or even buffalo. But cow killing is the greatest sin. In preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness we ask people not to eat any kind of meat, and my disciples strictly follow this principle. But if, under certain circumstances, others are obliged to eat meat, then they should eat the flesh of some lower animal. Don’t kill cows. It is the greatest sin. And as long as a man is sinful, he cannot understand God. The human being’s main business is to understand God and to love Him. But if you remain sinful, you will never be able to understand God—what to speak of loving Him.

Cardinal Danielou: I think that perhaps this is not an essential point. The important thing is to love God. The practical commandments can vary from one religion to the next.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: So, in the Bible God’s practical commandment is that you cannot kill; therefore killing cows is a sin for you.

Cardinal Danielou: God says to the Indians that killing is not good, and he says to the Jews that…

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, no. Jesus Christ taught, “Thou shalt not kill.” Why do you interpret this to suit your own convenience?

Cardinal Danielou: But Jesus allowed the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But he never maintained a slaughterhouse.

Cardinal Danielou: [Laughs.] No, but he did eat meat.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: When there is no other food, someone may eat meat in order to keep from starving. That is another thing. But it is most sinful to regularly maintain slaughterhouses just to satisfy your tongue. Actually, you will not even have a human society until this cruel practice of maintaining slaughterhouses is stopped. And although animal killing may sometimes be necessary for survival, at least the mother animal, the cow, should not be killed. That is simply human decency. In the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement our practice is that we don’t allow the killing of any animals. Kṛṣṇa says, patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati: “Vegetables, fruits, milk, and grains should be offered to Me in devotion.” (Bhagavad-gītā 9.26) We take only the remnants of Kṛṣṇa’s food (prasādam). The trees offer us many varieties of fruits, but the trees are not killed. Of course, one living entity is food for another living entity, but that does not mean you can kill your mother for food. Cows are innocent; they give us milk. You take their milk—and then kill them in the slaughterhouse. This is sinful.

Student: Śrīla Prabhupāda, Christianity’s sanction of meat-eating is based on the view that lower species of life do not have a soul like the human being’s.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is foolishness. First of all, we have to understand the evidence of the soul’s presence within the body. Then we can see whether the human being has a soul and the cow does not. What are the different characteristics of the cow and the man? If we find a difference in characteristics, then we can say that in the animal there is no soul. But if we see that the animal and the human being have the same characteristics, then how can you say that the animal has no soul? The general symptoms are that the animal eats, you eat; the animal sleeps, you sleep; the animal mates, you mate; the animal defends, and you defend. Where is the difference?

Cardinal Danielou: We admit that in the animal there may be the same type of biological existence as in men, but there is no soul. We believe that the soul is a human soul.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Our Bhagavad-gītā says sarva-yoniṣu, “In all species of life the soul exists.” The body is like a suit of clothes. You have black clothes; I am dressed in saffron clothes. But within the dress you are a human being, and I am also a human being. Similarly, the bodies of the different species are just like different types of dress. There are soul, a part and parcel of God. Suppose a man has two sons, not equally meritorious. One may be a Supreme Court judge and the other may be a common laborer, but the father claims both as his sons. He does not make the distinction that the son who is a judge is very important and the worker-son is not important. And if the judge-son says, “My dear father, your other son is useless; let me cut him up and eat him,” will the father allow this?

Cardinal Danielou: Certainly not, but the idea that all life is part of the life of God is difficult for us to admit. There is a great difference between human life and animal life.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That difference is due to the development of consciousness. In the human body there is developed consciousness. Even a tree has a soul, but a tree’s consciousness is not very developed. If you cut a tree it does not resist. Actually, it does resist, but only to a very small degree. There is a scientist named Jagadish Chandra Bose who has made a machine which shows that trees and plants are able to feel pain when they are cut. And we can see directly that when someone comes to kill an animal, it resists, it cries, it makes a horrible sound. So it is a matter of the development of consciousness. But the soul is there within all living beings.

Cardinal Danielou: But metaphysically, the life of man is sacred. Human beings think on a higher platform than the animals do.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: What is that higher platform? The animal eats to maintain his body, and you also eat in order to maintain your body. The cow eats grass in the field, and the human being eats meat from a huge slaughterhouse full of modern machines. But just because you have big machines and a ghastly scene, while the animal simply eats grass, this does not mean that you are so advanced that only within your body is there a soul and that there is not a soul within the body of the animal. That is illogical. We can see that the basic characteristics are the same in the animal and the human being.

Cardinal Danielou: But only in human beings do we find a metaphysical search for the meaning of life.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. So metaphysically search out why you believe that there is no soul within the animal—that is metaphysics. If you are thinking metaphysically, that’s all right. But if you are thinking like an animal, then what is the use of your metaphysical study? Metaphysical means “above the physical” or, in other words, “spiritual.” In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya: [Bg. 14.4] “In every living being there is a spirit soul.” That is metaphysical understanding. Now either you accept Kṛṣṇa’s teachings as metaphysical, or you’ll have to take a third-class fool’s opinion as metaphysical. Which do you accept?

Cardinal Danielou: But why does God create some animals who eat other animals? There is a fault in the creation, it seems.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: It is not a fault. God is very kind. If you want to eat animals, then He’ll give you full facility. God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life so that you can eat flesh very freely. “Why are you maintaining slaughterhouses? I’ll give you fangs and claws. Now eat.” So the meat-eaters are awaiting such punishment. The animal-eaters become tigers, wolves, cats, and dogs in their next life—to get more facility.

From the movie “What the Bleep Do We Know?”  Questioning if Science really disproves God? Here are some of the World’s best scientists offering a pretty clear answer: God is.   But God ain’t no simple concept to understand, and this video makes the infinite nature of the divine and our relationship to it pretty clear.

Rent the movie!

The most basic elements of quantum physics provide a very simple illustration of most people’s limited perceptions of their own, inherent divinity and the reality of God in their lives.   Words like “transcendental” convey alternative dimensions to our own material, earthly reality.  Yet transcendental concepts are at the core of the questions investigated by Einstein, Planck, Bohr, etc., and followed by so many since.

This video above I find to make the point well.  Think of yourself as the little “circle girl” stuck in a three dimensional reality, with a 4th (5th? 6th? etc.) not readily visable to our immediate perception.

Also understand the leap of faith required — the surrender of circle girl — to finally see outside the conventional limitations of her society.  In our own world, we are conditioned by pop-cultlure and pop-science to deny our transcendental selves. But anyone with a little experience in meditation finds there is a door that, when pushed, opens up to another reality.

The question of “what is that reality” is the subject of this site.

Here are a few videos of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda discussing the concept of God and what it implies with Professors, Chairman of the Religion Dept. of U.S.C., and Dr. Stillson Judah, and others, June 24, 1975, Los Angeles

Part I

Part II

Jesus Christ Was a Guru

As someone raised Christian, I found the following comments helpful in my own spiritual path.

Reprinted from http://causelessmercy.com/SSR4.htm

The spiritual leader of the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement (Śrīla Prabhupāda) in these comments recognizes Lord Jesus Christ as “the son of God, the representative of God… our guru… our spiritual master,” yet he has some sharp words for those who currently claim to be Christ’s followers…

The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam states that any bona fide preacher of God consciousness must have the qualities of titikṣā (tolerance) and karuṇā (compassion). In the character of Lord Jesus Christ we find both these qualities. He was so tolerant that even while he was being crucified, he didn’t condemn anyone. And he was so compassionate that he prayed to God to forgive the very persons who were trying to kill him. (Of course, they could not actually kill him. But they were thinking that he could be killed, so they were committing a great offense.) As Christ was being crucified he prayed, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they are doing.”

A preacher of God consciousness is a friend to all living beings. Lord Jesus Christ exemplified this by teaching, “Thou shalt not kill.” But the Christians like to misinterpret this instruction. They think the animals have no soul, and therefore they think they can freely kill billions of innocent animals in the slaughterhouses. So although there are many persons who profess to be Christians, it would be very difficult to find one who strictly follows the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ.

A Vaiṣṇava is unhappy to see the suffering of others. Therefore, Lord Jesus Christ agreed to be crucified—to free others from their suffering. But his followers are so unfaithful that they have decided, “Let Christ suffer for us, and we’ll go on committing sin.” They love Christ so much that they think, “My dear Christ, we are very weak. We cannot give up our sinful activities. So you please suffer for us.”

Jesus Christ taught, “Thou shalt not kill.” But his followers have now decided, “Let us kill anyway,” and they open big, modern, scientific slaughterhouses. “If there is any sin, Christ will suffer for us.” This is a most abominable conclusion.

Christ can take the sufferings for the previous sins of his devotees. But first they have to be sane: “Why should I put Jesus Christ into suffering for my sins? Let me stop my sinful activities.”

Suppose a man—the favorite son of his father—commits a murder. And suppose he thinks, “If there is any punishment coming, my father can suffer for me.” Will the law allow it? When the murderer is arrested and says, “No, no. You can release me and arrest my father; I am his pet son,” will the police officials comply with that fool’s request? He committed the murder, but he thinks his father should suffer the punishment! Is that a sane proposal? “No. You have committed the murder; you must be hanged.” Similarly, when you commit sinful activities, you must suffer—not Jesus Christ. This is God’s law.

Jesus Christ was such a great personality—the son of God, the representative of God. He had no fault. Still, he was crucified. He wanted to deliver God consciousness, but in return they crucified him—they were so thankless. They could not appreciate his preaching. But we appreciate him and give him all honor as the representative of God.

Of course, the message that Christ preached was just according to his particular time, place, and country, and just suited for a particular group of people. But certainly he is the representative of God. Therefore we adore Lord Jesus Christ and offer our obeisances to him.

Once, in Melbourne, a group of Christian ministers came to visit me. They asked, “What is your idea of Jesus Christ?” I told them, “He is our guru. He is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master.” The ministers very much appreciated that.

Actually, anyone who is preaching God’s glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ is one such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality. If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness.

Iz’s version of this song always inspired me to think about the great beyond.  Iz left this world 11 years ago June 26, 1997.  Great musician in his own way, but with a mind to develop such a body, I also wonder how spiritually satisfied and prepared.

On the same vein, below is another rendition from another wonderful artist.

A little Eva Cassidy from 1986. Life is short.

Kṛṣṇa, Christos, Christ

Is there one unified God?  Many who are very religious are also very possessive about their religion. Only their God, they believe, is the One God.  Other religions are simply wrong.  Here are several conversations about God that seeks commonality and unity, but also clarity.  What do you think?

---

Reprinted from http://causelessmercy.com/SSR4.htm

In 1974, near ISKCON’s center in Frankfurt am Main, West Germany, Śrīla Prabhupāda and several of his disciples took a morning walk with father Emmanuel Jungclaussen, a Benedictine monk from Niederalteich Monastery. Noticing that Śrīla Prabhupāda was carrying meditation beads similar to the rosary, Father Emmanuel explained that he also chanted a constant prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, be merciful unto us.” The following conversation ensued.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: What is the meaning of the word Christ?

Father Emmanuel: Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, meaning “the anointed one.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Christos is the Greek version of the word Kṛṣṇa.

Father Emmanuel: This is very interesting.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: When an Indian person calls on Kṛṣṇa, he often says, “Kṛṣṭa.” Kṛṣṭa is a Sanskrit word meaning “attraction.” So when we address God as “Christ,” “Kṛṣṭa,” or “Kṛṣṇa,” we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Jesus said, “Our Father, who an in heaven, sanctified be Thy name,” that name of God was “Kṛṣṭa” or “Kṛṣṇa.” Do you agree?

Father Emmanuel: I think Jesus, as the son of God, has revealed to us the actual name of God: Christ. We can call God “Father,” but if we want to address Him by His actual name, we have to say “Christ.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. “Christ” is another way of saying Kṛṣṭa, and “Kṛṣṭa” is another way of pronouncing Kṛṣṇa, the name of God. Jesus said that one should glorify the name of God, but yesterday I heard one theologian say that God has no name—that we can call Him only “Father.” A son may call his father “Father,” but the father also has a specific name. Similarly, “God” is the general name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose specific name is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore whether you call God “Christ,” “Kṛṣṭa,” or “Kṛṣṇa,” ultimately you are addressing the same Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Father Emmanuel: Yes, if we speak of God’s actual name, then we must say, “Christos.” In our religion, we have the Trinity: the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe we can know the name of God only by revelation from the Son of God. Jesus Christ revealed the name of the father, and therefore we take the name Christ as the revealed name of God.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Actually, it doesn’t matter—Kṛṣṇa or Christ—the name is the same. The main point is to follow the injunctions of the Vedic scriptures that recommend chanting the name of God in this age. The easiest way is to chant the mahā-mantra: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Rāma and Kṛṣṇa are names of God, and Hare is the energy of God. So when we chant the mahā-mantra, we address God together with His energy. This energy is of two kinds, the spiritual and the material. At present we are in the clutches of the material energy. Therefore we pray to Kṛṣṇa that He may kindly deliver us from the service of the material energy and accept us into the service of the spiritual energy. That is our whole philosophy. Hare Kṛṣṇa means, “O energy of God, O God [Kṛṣṇa], please engage me in Your service.” It is our nature to render service. Somehow or other we have come to the service of material things, but when this service is transformed into the service of the spiritual energy, then our life is perfect. To practice bhakti-yoga [loving service to God] means to become free from designations like “Hindu,” “Muslim,” “Christian,” this or that, and simply to serve God. We have created Christian, Hindu, and Muhammadan religions, but when we come to a religion without designations, in which we don’t think we are Hindus or Christians or Muhammadans, then we can speak of pure religion, or bhakti.

Father Emmanuel: Mukti?

This intro video to a broader series raises some interesting questions about living in our modern world, where even religions seems to leave many empty. The series itself is exploration of the spiritual implications of 2012.  (Incidentally, this series is not an “end of the world” series, which some claim 2012 represents. It is a “coming spiritual shift” series.)

2012 represents a confluence of several spiritual — well, I guess you can call them “events.”  It is the end of the Mayan calender, and the end of an important cycle in the ancient Vedic Calendar and the Tibetan spiritual calendar. The sun will align with the center of the galaxy exactly on the Winter Solstice in 2012, an event that only occurs once every 27,000 years.

Now, to those in the West, most folks dismiss all things astrological as irrelevant.   Other cultures, however, believe in the wholeness of the Universe, a concept that is implied if God actually exists in any absolute sense (meaning God is everything and in control).  This includes the Mayan culture, whose technology in understanding the universe was dramatically more advanced than anything in the West at the time (we are still trying to comprehend what they knew!) Meanwhile, the Vedic culture is ancient and very spiritual. It substantially predates biblical history, with much of it recorded in the massive Vedante Sutra, which itself is largely inaccessible to the West.   It is their calendar and understanding of Astrology and the universe that served as the basis for Western astrology, which itself is only the most superficial expression of a far deeper, ancient and spiritual science.

What of the idea of Astrology? I can’t say I know a ton about it or have experience in working with it in any meaningful way. But for most Westerners, a clarification is in order: In the West, Astrology is on par with palm reading and parlor tricks. Yet in its more ancient, Vedic form, Astrology is more of a “biorhythm of the universe and God, and how we connect to it” concept (and that is a very elementary explanation!). One sees nothing of the future through astrology. One can, it is asserted, feel the essence of the energy God pulsing through the universe and determine our own relation to it at that given moment.

Could that really be? How would any of us really know given most of us know astrology only through the section in the newspaper adjacent to the comics? The rest of us have simply taken the word of others as is, and without an direct investigation or real experience.

Therefore, I’m taking the approach that I recommend: Anyone with a truly inquiring mind must seek the answers with an open mind and be open to other possibilities without reflexively rejecting what we first encounter simply because what we find clashes with our popularized Western way of thinking, which itself is dramatically confined and cauterized.

All that aside, the intro video plays loosely off the Matrix movie theme — roll with it and, by all means, think with an open mind.  The rest of the series is a lecture format.

Note: In continuing with the them of this site, we ask everyone to view with an open mind and reserve immediate judgment.  Watch the series and then keep the information stored for later reference. See if future spiritual experiences / resources affirm or contradict this information. That is the only intelligent way to address information not previously encountered.

Click for the rest of the series: