Discussion:
Why is technology the new opiate of the masses?
(for gammel til at besvare)
Jahnu
2020-08-15 03:34:47 UTC
Permalink
A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It’s called
Scientism. Even though modern science has absolutely nothing sensible
to say about the reality we live in, the general population is
convinced that science has explained away the need for God and
religion.

Scientific theories like abiogenesis and evolution, even though they
are pure and unalloyed myths, are being taught in all educational
institutions of the world as scientific facts. Actually, the only use
of modern science is to produce technology. Technology has replaced
religion as the opiate of the masses.

In modern society, technological expertise has been established as the
best way to measure our ability to understand the reality we live in.
Those who are influential in defining peoples' realities - the
producers, scientists, the media, politicians, etc. -- have made
technological advancement the barometer of human progress. They claim
that the advancement of technology is the most noble pursuit of the
human race, that it has made the world a better place to live in.

As proof, they list all the consumer gadgets we use and are dependent
upon - computers, cell-phones, televisions, Ipads, cars, and so on -
and say that the intelligence to build these things shows that we have
advanced our understanding of nature and how she works far beyond our
ability in the middle ages.

But is this assertion correct? To build a computer, one certainly
requires advanced knowledge of physics and chemistry, but these
disciplines describe only a tiny part of the reality we perceive.
Actually, reality consists of our conscious experience of it --
something most people don’t even think about.

Few people ponder the fact that their understanding of the world is
conditioned by the culture they grew up in. They automatically take it
for granted that the way they perceive the world is the correct one,
and that nature is best described in physical and chemical terms.

Modern science is very useful for making technology, in fact, it’s the
only thing it is good for, and when we live in a world where the
masses are kept in awe and reverence of technological wonders, science
is, of course, a most important undertaking.

But the jubilation of modern people over the newest technology is no
different from the gaping wonder with which people in the middle ages
looked upon sorcerers and magicians firing off sulfur and gun powder.
The magicians did this to dupe their audiences and secure their
comfortable hold on society.

In the middle ages, in the West at least, the regents of society kept
people in ignorance, so they were easy to control and manipulate, and
today the exact same means are used to enslave people in ignorance. In
the global culture the slaves have just been upgraded to a
middle-class with their own house and car.

People still slave their lives away in boring jobs and are marred by
the same endless worries and miseries, people have always suffered
from. They are still being ground down by taxation, victims of greedy
politicians, exactly like they’ve always been.

There is no basis for saying that advanced knowledge of mathematics
and physics enables a person to better understand the world any more
than the cave dweller of some 2000 years ago, who worshiped nature and
various gods.

If the modern culture is based on a better understanding of the world,
why is it ruining nature and her inhabitants at an alarming rate? If
modern man is more advanced in his understanding of nature, why is he
ruining nature at an alarming rate?

Despite the so-called advancement of modern society, people are till
not able to transcend their mental conditioning. The proof is that
modern society does not produce people with evolved consciousness.
Rather, we see the exact opposite taking place - in direct proportion
to the advancement of technology, people have become more and more
base and idiotic in the way they treat and relate to each-other. Look
at the present generation of young people, who grow up looking at
screens, they are basically turning out to be brain-dead.

Some years ago, WHO published a report saying that the biggest health
crisis facing the world in the new millennium is that more and more
people will be born with mental defects. Is that the symptom of an
evolved society?

Society, as it is, is not equipped to facilitate self-realized human
beings. What need does a self realized person have for the plethora of
useless products being produced by the few conglomerates that control
world consumerism? Such enlightenment would indeed negate the
necessity for the technological advancement upon which the world's
finances now rely.

That is why, in the current global culture, a deliberate campaign
exists to transform people into atheists. In such a culture, religion
is being ridiculed and has been replaced with politics. Instead of
voting for a particular religion, the public now votes for
politicians, who are mostly hired by those multinationals with the
biggest checkbooks -- all in the name of serving the people, of
course.

The modern, global culture has already made the whole world into one
big marketplace - a worldwide altar where technology is worshiped like
a deity.

Being fed endless propaganda from Hollywood where technology saves the
day, we quickly forget that technology, despite assurances to the
contrary, cannot save us from the onslaughts of nature. Time and time
again, technology comes up short in the fight against nature.

The new high-priests of society, now clad in white frocks instead of
black, fail to comprehend how the mechanisms of nature work. And how
could they? They also suffer from the misunderstanding that everything
is dead matter, and are restricted by the assumption that their
knowledge of physical laws can explain the world.

Yet more important than understanding how physical matter works is the
understanding how consciousness, false ego, intelligence and mind
work. These make up a greater part of the reality we perceive. As long
as we fail to understand the difference between matter and
consciousness, we cannot even be said to have evolved beyond animal
consciousness.

That's why atheism is dangerous - it keeps the consciousness trapped
in matter. It keeps the self from its rare mission in the human life
form - to understand consciousness. It cultivates a perception of life
where the consciousness cannot see itself - a deception where the
self, being absorbed in matter, forgets itself.

Every individual is duty-bound to alter their consciousness and
connect it with the whole - Sri Krishna. While Srila Prabhupada was a
nitya-siddha, he was also a social revolutionary, as was the Lord he
served - Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The political correctness that
predominates in the world and passes as social etiquette should not
stop us from assisting him in his mission - to silence the atheistic
class of men, and to inundate the world with Krishna Consciousness.

Krishna says:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very
hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

The living entity in the material world carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries
aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take
another.

The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain
type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped
about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,
nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of
the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can
see all this.

The endeavoring transcendentalists who are situated in
self-realization can see all this clearly. But those whose minds are
not developed and who are not situated in self-realization cannot see
what is taking place, though they may try.

--Bhagavad-gita 15.7-11
EXLEX
2020-08-15 09:17:49 UTC
Permalink
A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It’s called
Scientism. Even though modern science has absolutely nothing sensible
to say about the reality we live in...
Dream on...

I wonder what "god" it was, that brought you the computer you use.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-17 01:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Dream on...
I wonder what "god" it was, that brought you the computer you use.
Ikke desto mindre, har videnskaben intet fornutigt at sige om, om
vores bevidste oplevelse af verden.


I den moderne naturvidenskab har man kun stof som undersøgelsesobjekt.
Man observerer og studerer materien i dens utallige vekselvirkninger.
I den åndelige videnskab har man bevidsthed som forsøgsobjekt, og man
undersøger materiens indflydelse på bevidstheden og sindet. I den
åndelige videnskab undersøger man bevidsthed. Man har sin egen
bevidsthed som forsøgsobjekt. Man begrænser ikke sine studier til
noget uden for sig selv.

Derfor er den åndelige videnskab den materielle videnskab overlegen.
Den materielle videnskab rækker ikke til at forstå den virkelighed, vi
lever i. Og hvorfor gør den ikke det? Fordi naturvidenskaben intet
fornuftigt har at sige om vores bevidste oplevelse af verden. Den
taler kun om materiens vekselvirkninger men siger intet om vores
oplevelse af disse. Og det er vores oplevelse af verden, som er det
mest grundliggende ved den virkelighed, vi befinder os i.

Kun den åndelige videnskab kan hjælpe os til at forstå selvet og dets
relation til verden og Gud.
Derfor siger Krishna:

Af al skabelse er Jeg begyndelsen og enden tillige med midten, O
Arjuna. Af alle videnskaber er Jeg videnskaben om selvet, og blandt
logikere er Jeg den afgørende sandhed. (Bg 10.32)

Nogle mennesker hævder, at de ikke behøver Gud til at fortælle dem,
hvad der er rigtigt og forkert. Men i stedet for at have Gud eller
religion til at fortælle os, hvad der er rigtigt eller forkert, har vi
så samfundet, loven, familie og forældre, tradition, kultur osv. til
at fortælle os dette. Eller vi har vores eget sind til at fortælle os,
hvad vi må og ikke må, men det er igen baseret på noget vi har lært
fra andre.

Den eneste forskel er således hvem, vi udpeger som vores autoritet -
hvem vi vælger at lytte til. Alle er blevet oplært i, hvad der rigtigt
og forkert af den kultur, de er vokset op i. Hvordan ved vi ellers,
hvad der er rigtigt og forkert?

Nogle hævder, at det kan man selv afgøre, det er noget man kan føle.
Men hvis man er sin egen autoritet, så er det det samme som ingen
autoritet. Hvis det blot er op til ens eget sind at fortælle én, hvad
der er rigtigt eller forkert, kan hvad som helst være rigtigt eller
forkert. Så spiller det ingen rolle, hvad vi gør, for vores eget sind
kan bare retfærdiggøre det. Og hvordan kan man være sikker på, at det
éns sind fortæller en, er rigtigt? Hvordan kan man vide, at det man
føler, er rigtigt? Jeg mener, hvis nu en eller anden psykopat føler
sig foranlediget til at angribe folk på gågaden med et baseball bat,
er det så ok? Hvis vi alle er vor egen autoritet, burde der jo ikke
være noget galt i det, vel?

Faktum er, at vi ikke engang ville vide, at 2 og 2 er lig med 4, hvis
ikke vi havde lært det fra nogen, der vidste det i forvejen. Og de
ville ikke vide det, hvis DE ikke havde lært det af nogen, der vidste
det osv. Regning og matematik er ikke noget man kan spekulere sig frem
til. Det er noget man lærer i sin opvækst. Hvis vi var vokset op helt
uden menneskelig stimuli, ville vi ikke vide, at 2 og 2 er 4. Dyr ved
fx. ikke, at 2 og 2 er 4, og de er også ligeglade.

På samme måde, som man kan vide 2 og 2 er 4, nemlig ved at lære det
fra nogen, der ved det, kan man vide at hvem Gud er, og hvad meningen
er med alting. Man kan vide det ved at lære det fra dem, der ved det.
Og hvem ved hvem og hvad Gud er og hvad meningen med alting er? Det
gør vismændene i den vediske kultur, og de har videreleveret den viden
ned gennem historien via rækken af disciple.

Krishna siger:

Forsøg blot at lære sandheden at kende ved at nærme dig en åndelig
mester. Udspørg ham i ydmyghed og tilbyd ham din tjeneste. De
selv-realiserede sjæle kan videregive viden til dig, for de har set
sandheden. (Bg. 4.34)

Ved at modtage virkelig viden fra en selv-realiseret sjæl vil du
aldrig mere blive vildledt af illusion, for gennem denne viden vil du
forstå, at alle levende væsener ikke er andet end dele af den Højeste,
eller at de med andre ord er Mine. (Bg. 4.35)

Selvom du anses for den mest syndefulde af syndere, vil du, når du
befinder dig i denne båd af transcendental viden, blive i stand til at
krydse over elendighedernes ocean. (Bg. 4.36)

Ligesom den flammende ild forvandler brænde til aske, oh Arjuna,
brænder kundskabens ild alle karmiske reaktioner til aske. (Bg. 4.37)

I denne verden er der intet så ophøjet og rent som åndelige viden.
Sådan viden er den modne frugt af al mystisisme, og den, der er blevet
velbevandret i udførelsen af hengiven tjeneste, vil med tiden nyde
denne viden indeni sig selv. (Bg. 4.38)

En trofast person hengiven til åndelig viden, og som overvinder sine
sanser, er egnet til at modtage sådan viden, og når han har modtaget
den, opnår han hurtigt den højeste åndelige fred. (Bg. 4.39)

Men de uvidende og troløse, der tvivler på de åbenbarede skrifter, kan
ikke opnå Gudsbevidsthed; de falder ned. For den tvivlende sjæl findes
der hverken lykke i denne verden eller den næste. (Bg. 4.40)
EXLEX
2020-08-17 03:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Dream on...
I wonder what "god" it was, that brought you the computer you use.
Ikke desto mindre, har videnskaben intet fornutigt at sige om, om
vores bevidste oplevelse af verden.
Nej, ikke når man nægter at forstå den.
For os andre virker den nu ellers ret troværdig.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-18 14:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Nej, ikke når man nægter at forstå den.
For os andre virker den nu ellers ret troværdig.
Hvis noget er troværdigt for dig, bóndedreng, så ved vi med det samme,
det er det rene gylle. Du er et godt barometer for råddenskab. Kan du
ikke tage og luke kødkæften, bondedreng, alle i dine omgivelser er ved
at besvime. Intet under du ikke kan score.


HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER

The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989


The Hunger Argument

Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
million.

Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million

Human beings in America: 243 million

Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80

Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95

Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99

How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds

Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 20.OOO

Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 165

Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16


The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect

Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
diet: 50 times more

Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75

Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
85

Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
meat-centered diet: 260 million

Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds

Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
housecat.

Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
sq.ft.

Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year


The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
vs. less than once a week: 4 times

For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times


The Natural Resources Argument

Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
livestock portion.

Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
float a destroyer.

Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25

Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500

Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound

Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
longer subsidized: 89 dollars

Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
meat-centered diet: 13

Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260

Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million

Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
factory farming of meat: 34.5

Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8

Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
meat-centered diet: 33


The Cholesterol Argument

Number of U.S. medical schools: 125

Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30

Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
years in medical school: 25 hours

Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack

How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds

Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.

Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.

Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
cholesterol if it is: normal

Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.


The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55

Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in
1960: 13

Percentage resistant in 1988: 91

Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of
antibiotics to livestock: ban

Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding
of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support


The Pesticide Argument

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains:
1

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits:
4

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy
products: 23

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55

Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs.
non meat-eating: 35 times higher

What USDA tells us: meat is inspected

Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin
chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004


The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000

Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker

Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in
U.S:slaughterhouse worker

Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before
slaughter.: 1 cent

Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive


The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time
winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian

Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C.


Famous vegetarians:
-------------------------------
Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet
Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting

'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.'
--William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3
EXLEX
2020-08-18 21:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Nej, ikke når man nægter at forstå den.
For os andre virker den nu ellers ret troværdig.
Hvis noget er troværdigt for dig, bóndedreng, så ved vi med det samme,
det er det rene gylle. Du er et godt barometer for råddenskab. Kan du
ikke tage og luke kødkæften, bondedreng, alle i dine omgivelser er ved
at besvime. Intet under du ikke kan score.
Wauw !
'Udfordret' af 2 kommentarer, og du slå over i personfnidder.

Det er ikke ligefrem de saglige argumenter, som presser sig på i din
dimension.

Men vi må vel være tålmodige... blinde høns og alt det der...
...måske finder du et en dag...




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-21 01:29:18 UTC
Permalink
hyle klynke hvine
Here is the new and revised chart, comparing flesh-eaters to plant
eaters, as it appeared in Peter Cox's book, Why You Don't Need Meat,
from 1994. It is highly recommendable reading for those who care about
what they eat, and who care about the planet and its other
inhabitants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEGETARIAN FLESH-EATER HUMAN


Hands / hoofs Claws as append- Hands as
as appendages ages appendages


Teeth flat Teeth sharp Teeth flat

Alkaline saliva; Acid saliva; no Alkaline saliva;
much ptyalin ptyalin enzyme much ptyalin
enzyme enzyme

Stomach acid 10 Much strong hydro- Stomach acid 10
times weaker chloride acid in times weaker than
than meat-eaters stomach meat-eaters

Long intestines Short intestines; Long intestines;
to digest nutrients rapidly excrete digest nutrients in
in plant foods fully putrefying flesh plant foods fully


Sweats to cool Pants to cool Sweats to cool
body body body


Sips water Laps water Sips water


Vitamin C obtained Vitamin C manu- Vitamin C obtained
solely from diet factured internally solely from diet


Exists largely on Consumes flesh Diet depends
fruit and nut diet; exclusively on environment


Grasping hands No manual dexte- Grasping hands
capable of using terity capable of using
tools and weapons tools and weapons


Inoffensive Putrid Offensiveness of
excrement excrement excrement depends on diet


Snack feeder Large meals infre- Combines worst of
frequently taken both worlds


Predominantly Preference for salty Likes both sweet and
sweet toothed / fatty food salty / fatty food


Likes to savor Bolts down Likes to savor food,
food, experiment food experiment with variety,
with variety, com- combine flavors
bine flavors


Large brains, able Small brains, less Large brains, able
to rationalize capable of adaptive to rationalize
behavior
EXLEX
2020-08-22 04:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Den 21-08-2020 kl. 03:29 skrev Jahnu:


Because they since the words of Marx, "Religion is the opiate of the
masses", have started to realise that "gods" such as Krishna was a waste
of time that only generated hollow dissatisfaction.
Hence they moved on to a new wonder which at leat was a bit more tangible.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-23 01:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Because they since the words of Marx, "Religion is the opiate of the
masses", have started to realise that "gods" such as Krishna was a waste
of time that only generated hollow dissatisfaction.
Hence they moved on to a new wonder which at leat was a bit more tangible.
A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It's called
Scientism. Even though modern science has absolutely nothing sensible
to say about the reality we live in, the general population is
convinced that science has explained away the need for God and
religion.

Scientific theories like abiogenesis and evolution, even though they
are pure and unalloyed myths, are being taught in all educational
institutions of the world as scientific facts.

Who has decided that technological expertise is the best way to
measure our ability to understand the reality we live in? Those who
are influential in defining peoples' realities - the producers,
scientists, the media, politicians, etc. -- have made technological
advancement the barometer of human progress. They claim that the
advancement of technology is the most noble pursuit of the human race,
that it has made the world a better place to live in.

As proof, they list all the consumer gadgets we use and are dependent
upon - computers, cell-phones, televisions, DVDs, cars, and so on -
and say that the intelligence to build these things shows that we have
advanced our understanding of nature and how she works far beyond our
ability in the middle ages.

But is this assertion correct? To build a computer, one certainly
requires advanced knowledge of physics and chemistry, but these
disciplines describe only a tiny part of the reality we perceive. A
far greater part of reality is our conscious experience of it --
something most people don't even think about.

Few people ponder the fact that their understanding of the world is
conditioned by the culture they grew up in. They automatically take it
for granted that the way they perceive the world is the correct one,
and that nature is best described in physical and chemical terms.
Modern science is very useful for making technology, in fact, it's the
only thing it is good for, and when we live in a world where the
masses are kept in awe and reverence of technological wonders, science
is, of course, a most important undertaking.

But the jubilation of modern people over the newest technology is no
different from the gaping wonder with which people in the middle ages
looked upon sorcerers and magicians firing off sulphur and gun powder.
The magicians did this to dupe their audiences and secure their
comfortable hold on society.

In the middle ages, in the West at least, the regents of society kept
people in ignorance so they were easy to control and manipulate, and
today the exact same means are used to enslave people in ignorance. In
the global culture the slaves have just been upgraded to a
middle-class with their own house and car.

People still slave their lives away in boring jobs and are marred by
the same endless worries and miseries, people have always suffered
from. They are still being ground down by taxation, victims of greedy
politicians, exactly like they've always been.

There is no basis for saying that advanced knowledge of mathematics
and physics enables a person to better understand the world any more
than the cave dweller of some 2000 years ago who worshipped nature and
various gods.

If the modern culture is based on a better understanding of the world,
why is it ruining nature and her inhabitants at an alarming rate? If
modern man is more advanced in his understanding of nature, why is he
sawing the branch he is sitting on?

Despite the so-called advancement of modern society, people are till
not able to transcend their mental conditioning. The proof is that
modern society does not produce people with evolved consciousness.
Rather, we see the exact opposite taking place - in direct proportion
to the advancement of technology, people have become more and more
base and idiotic in the way they treat and relate to each-other.

Some years ago, WHO published a report saying that the biggest health
crisis facing the world in the new millennium is that more and more
people will be born with mental defects. Is that the symptom of an
evolved society?

Society, as it is, is not equipped to facilitate self-realized human
beings. What need does a self realized person have for the plethora of
useless products being produced by the few conglomerates that control
world consumerism? Such enlightenment would indeed negate the
necessity for the technological advancement upon which the world's
finances now rely.

That is why, in the current global culture, a deliberate campaign
exists to transform people into atheists. In such a culture, religion
is being ridiculed and has been replaced with politics. Instead of
voting for a particular religion, the public now votes for
politicians, who are mostly hired by those multinationals with the
biggest checkbooks -- all in the name of serving the people, of
course.

The modern, global culture has already made the whole world into one
big marketplace - a worldwide altar where technology is worshipped as
the new opium of the masses.

Being fed endless propaganda from Hollywood where technology saves the
day, we quickly forget that technology, despite assurances to the
contrary, cannot save us from the onslaughts of nature. Time and time
again, technology comes up short in the fight against nature.

The new high-priests of society, now clad in white frocks instead of
black, fail to comprehend how the mechanisms of nature work. And how
could they? They also suffer from the misunderstanding that everything
is dead matter, and are restricted by the assumption that their
knowledge of physical laws can explain the world.

Yet more important than understanding how physical matter works is the
understanding how consciousness, false ego, intelligence and mind
work. These make up a much greater part of the reality we perceive. As
long as we fail to understand the difference between matter and
consciousness, we cannot even be said to have evolved beyond animal
consciousness.

That's why atheism is dangerous - it keeps the consciousness trapped
in a 3-dimensional world of matter. It keeps the self from its rare
mission in the human life form - to understand consciousness. It
cultivates a perception of life where the consciousness cannot see
itself - a deception where the self being absorbed in matter forgets
itself.

Every individual is duty-bound to alter their consciousness and
connect it with the whole - Sri Krishna. While Srila Prabhupada was a
nitya-siddha, he was also a social revolutionary, as was the Lord he
served - Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The political correctness that
predominates in the world and passes as social etiquette should not
stop us from assisting him in his mission - to silence the atheistic
class of men, and to inundate the world with Krishna Consciousness.

Krishna says:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very
hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

The living entity in the material world carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries
aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take
another.

The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain
type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped
about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,
nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of
the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can
see all this.

The endeavoring transcendentalists who are situated in
self-realization can see all this clearly. But those whose minds are
not developed and who are not situated in self-realization cannot see
what is taking place, though they may try.

- Bhagavad-gita 15.7-11
EXLEX
2020-08-23 14:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Because they since the words of Marx, "Religion is the opiate of the
masses", have started to realise that "gods" such as Krishna was a waste
of time that only generated hollow dissatisfaction.
Hence they moved on to a new wonder which at leat was a bit more tangible.
A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It's called
Scientism.
I wouldn't call it a religion.
It's more a common sense thing.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-24 08:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
I wouldn't call it a religion.
It's more a common sense thing.
Obviously, nobody is an atheist due to lack of evidence of God. In
fact, the last thing an atheist wants, is proof of God. The whole
world is proof of an intelligent designer. One becomes an atheist when
one does not want God in his life, not because there is no proof of
God. It’s as simple as that.

I mean, I can understand why someone would be against certain
religions. The theology of the Abrahamic religions, for instance, is
largely sectarian nonsense.

But to deny the obvious intelligent design observable in nature, to
actually suggest the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals,
that’s just plain dumb.

Of course, only God can prove who He is, but there is empiric proof of
His existence. The irreducible complexity of living organisms is the
logical proof of the Intelligent Design of nature.

So ID is a direct, observable fact of nature.

Thus, ID comprises the empirical proof of God.
Irreducible complexity is like a car engine, where all the parts of
the engine are interdependent in their functions. The cylinders
function only in combination with the pistons, the pistons function
only in connection with the spark plugs, the spark plugs depend on the
electric system for their function, and son on. All the components of
the engine work only in combination with each-other.

In other words, a car engine is only functional as a complete unit. If
one component fails, the whole engine fails. Hence the term
irreducible complexity.


IOW, the idea that abiogenesis and evolution, with no guiding
intelligence behind it, produced all the living species, is basically
an affront to a working intellect.
To say, like atheists do, that the universe created itself out of a
bunch of chemicals, is like saying that a Mercedes Benz created itself
without any creative intelligence behind it.


Professor Werner Gitt, who works in the field of information science
writes:


"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to
information, neither is there any physical process or material
phenomenon known that can do this. All languages, alphabets, and codes
that we know of, as well as the information spoken or written in them,
originated in minds. The blind faith of the atheist that the first
life was an exception to this fact is contrary to all known evidence."
(Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79)

In my mind, however, apart from the fact that the ID observable in
nature is proof of God, and, say, if one’s brain is not equipped to
handle logic and reason, the best proof of God is that you become
totally happy by adding Krishna to your life.

Someone may object - you also become happy by smoking some dope or
winning the lottery, or having sex, what’s the difference? How is that
proof of God?

The thing about bodily or mental pleasures, though, is that they don’t
make the soul happy. Connecting to Krishna makes the soul happy, and
contrary to sense-gratification, which always ends in misery and
leaves you frustrated, the happiness of the soul is a constant fact.
Not only does the happiness of the soul not end, it only increases
more and more. It’s a deep and lasting bliss that is never interrupted
by suffering.

Sure, you may break a leg, your wife may leave you, your children may
think you’re a complete loser, or you may be depressed due to lack of
money, but the deep satisfaction of Krishna consciousness, once
established, never leaves the heart. And that’s the proof that Krishna
is God.

So, as the saying goes - the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Krishna says:

O learned Uddhava, those who fix their consciousness on Me, giving up
all material desires, share with Me a happiness that cannot possibly
be experienced by those engaged in sense gratification. --Srimad
Bhagavatam 11.14.12
EXLEX
2020-08-25 14:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
I wouldn't call it a religion.
It's more a common sense thing.
The theology of the Abrahamic religions, for instance, is
largely sectarian nonsense.
Aha?
So christians, jews and muslims are all simply misguided by nonsense?




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-27 00:25:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:51:45 +0200, EXLEX klynkede
Post by EXLEX
Aha?
So christians, jews and muslims are all simply misguided by nonsense?
Få dig en uddannelse, Jydeklovn.

"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder and
ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and
subtlety of Vedic culture." - Henry David Thoreau
EXLEX
2020-08-29 15:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:51:45 +0200, EXLEX klynkede
Post by EXLEX
Aha?
So christians, jews and muslims are all simply misguided by nonsense?
Få dig en uddannelse, Jydeklovn.
"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder and
ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and
subtlety of Vedic culture." - Henry David Thoreau
...of course.... everything is wilder and ruder than vedic culture....



Jeg ser, hvordan denne mindre vilde og grove kultur du besidder, giver
sig udtryk i dine langt mere kultiverede og raffinerede svar, end dem
som jøderne giver.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-08-31 01:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Jeg ser, hvordan denne mindre vilde og grove kultur du besidder, giver
sig udtryk i dine langt mere kultiverede og raffinerede svar, end dem
som jøderne giver.
Ov, ser du det?

Alle har deres egen personlige opfattelse af tilværelsen, hvadenten
den er teistisk, socialdemokratisk, videnskabelig eller ateistisk, Det
spiller ingen rolle, hvad man kalder sin livstil og sine værdinormer,
det er ens religion, der er tale om. Således defineres religion i
Vedaerne - dharma - livsstil, essens, normer, det vi idenficerer os
selv med - det er vores religion. Velkommen til Scientisme, folkets ny
religion.

Så kommer der nogen og siger - nej, nej, sådan er det ikke. Alting er
tilfældigt. Normer er intet andet end det, vi gør dem til. Vi
bestemmer selv vores værdier. Vi behøver ingen Gud eller religion til
at trække værdier ned over hovedet på os. Vi kan godt selv finde ud af
det.

Men hvad er det, der tyder på, vi godt kan finde ud af det? Går det
virkeligt godt i verden lige nu?

Og hvad er det for fænomener i naturen, der tyder på, at en enkel
celle skulle være opstået af sig selv (uden intelligent styring) over
meget lang tid? Hvilke fakta er det indenfor naturvidenskaben, der
peger på, at alle de forskellige levende væsener skulle være opstået
fra en enkel amøbe, af sig selv, over meget lang tid?... Ikke det
mindste. De biologiske og arkæologiske realiteter viser netop, at alle
de forskellige livsarter altid har levet side om side. Der er intet
bevis for, at de forskellige arter skulle være opstået fra en amøbe,
der så voksede ben ud på og lærte at tale. Det er bare noget fup, som
folk bliver fodret med gennem almen uddannelse og en endeløs strøm af
natur programmer, og de æder det råt.

Hvis man afkræver naturvidenskabsmanden bevis på hans teori om, at
alting er opstået af sig selv helt tilfældigt, taler han bare uden om
og leverer et par komplicerede matematiske ligninger for at obfuskere
masserne. Videnskabsmændene er den moderne forbruger-kulturs
ypperstepræster. De må adlydes uden at stille spørgsmål. De kræver
viljeløs overgivelse til at paradigme, der absolut ingen mening, logik
eller sund fornuft indeholder.

Heldigvis ved vi bedre. Det er det, der er så vildt ved Hare Krishna -
vi ved hvem Gud er :)

Krishna siger:

De levende væsener i den materielle verden er Mine evige
fragmentariske dele. Som følge af deres betingede liv, kæmper de en
hård kamp med de seks sanser, sindet indbefattet. (Bg. 15.7)

Det levende væsen i den materielle verden bærer sine forskellige
livsopfattelser med sig fra krop til krop, ligesom vinden bærer en
duft. Således påtager han sig den ene krop efter den anden. (Bg. 15.8)

Det levende væsen, der således får tildelt en ny grov krop, erhverver
sig en særlig slags ører, øjne, tunge, næse og følesans, hvilke
grupperer sig omkring sindet. På den måde nyder han en særlig samling
sanseobjekter. . (Bg. 15.9)

Tåber fatter ikke, hvordan et levende væsen forlader sin krop, og de
fatter heller ikke, hvilken slags krop han nyder under fortryllelse
fra naturens kvaliteter. Men med kundskabens øjne kan man se alt
dette. (Bg. 15.10)

En stræbende transcendentalist, der er selvrealiseret, kan se det hele
klart. Men de, hvis sind ikke er udviklede, som ikke er forankrede i
selvrealisation, fatter ikke, hvad der foregår, end ikke selvom de
forsøger. (Bg. 15. 11)
EXLEX
2020-08-31 08:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Alle har deres egen personlige opfattelse af tilværelsen, hvadenten
den er teistisk, socialdemokratisk, videnskabelig eller ateistisk, Det
spiller ingen rolle, hvad man kalder sin livstil og sine værdinormer,
det er ens religion, der er tale om. Således defineres religion i
Vedaerne - dharma - livsstil, essens, normer, det vi idenficerer os
selv med - det er vores religion. Velkommen til Scientisme, folkets ny
religion.
Jamen dog da...
...har du set lyset?
--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-09-02 01:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Jamen dog da...
...har du set lyset?
Her er det indiskutable bevis på, at man bliver dum af at være ateist.
Ateisme er troen på, at der ingen guder er. Det er med andre ord en
tro, der ikke kan bekræftes. Det kan ikke lade sig gøre at bevise, at
der ingen Gud er, for man kan per definition ikke bevise en negativ.
Så ateisme er en blind tro, der ikke kan bevises. Hvem andre end
mindre intelligente tåber ville tro på noget, der ikke kan bevises?

I modsætning til dette har vi teisme. En teist har i den mindste en
teoretisk mulighed for at få sin tro på Gud bekræftiget. Gud kan, hvis
Han eksisterer, selvfølgelig bevise sin egen eksistens hinsides tvivl.
Det vil siger, at teister står intellektuelt stærkere en ateister. Det
gør de, fordi de tror på noget, der har mulighed for at blive bevist.

Det kan være, at en eller anden ateist vil indvende, jamen, hvis Gud
kan bekræfte sig selv, hvorfor har Han så ikke gjort det overfor mig?
Svaret på dette gives i Bhagavad Gita, hvor Krishna siger:

Jeg manifesterer Mig aldrig for de tåbelige og uintelligente. For dem
er Jeg dækket af Min indre energi, og derfor ved de ikke, Jeg er ufødt
og ufejbarlig. (Bg. 7.25)

Så kommer indvendingen - men, men det viser, at Gud er ubarmhjertig og
skånelsesløs. Men hvis vi tænker os lidt om, kan vi forstå, at lige
det modsatte er tilfældet. Ateisme drejer sig faktisk ikke om bevis
for det ene eller det andet. Det er en total fejlagtig ide, som mange
ateister dækker sig ind under. Hvis man har øjnene til at se det, er
hele verden bevis på en intelligent designer. Det er indlysende, at
ingen er ateist, fordi de mangler bevis på Gud.

At være ateist er simpelthen en valgsag. Ateisme vælger man, fordi man
ikke ønsker Gud i sit liv. De fleste religioner har ingen god
forklaring på, hvordan det kan være, at der findes mennesker, der ikke
ønsker Gud i deres liv, men i den vediske version forklares dette i
detaljer. Ifølge den vediske filosofi er Gud den Højeste Nyder, og
sjælen (dvs. du og jeg) er beregnet til Hans nydelse. Men hvis sjælen
nærer ønske om at efterligne Gud og blive uafhængige nydere af verden,
giver Krishna dem den materielle verden som deres handlingsfelt.

På den måde er vi alle faldne sjæle, hvadenten vi kalder os
buddhister, kristne, hinduer, ateister eller hvad som helst. Vi er
faldet ned til den materielle verden for at spille nydere og herskere.
Hvis vi rent faktisk kendte sandheden - at Krishna er den eneste nyder
og hersker - så ville vi ikke kunne udleve illusionen om at være
uafhængige nydere og herskere. Så Krishna holder barmhjertigt de
faldne sjæle hen i uvidenhed. Det er ud af respekt for den vildledte
sjæls ønsker, at Krishna holder sig væk fra ham. Når en nidkær ateist
har en stærk overbevisning om, at der ingen Gud er, så er det Krishna
der sidder som Oversjælen i hans hjerte og gør ateistens overbevisning
stærk.

Krishna siger:

Jeg befinder Mig i alles hjerter som Oversjælen. Så snart nogen ønsker
at tilbede en eller anden halvgud (eller at være ateist), er det Mig,
der gør hans tro stærk,så han hengive sig til den særlige deitet. (Bg.
7.21)

Så den eneste måde, en falden sjæl nogensinde igen kan gøre sig håb om
at se Gud, er ved at bede Ham om det. Så længe det grundliggende ønske
er der om ikke, at ville have noget at gøre med Gud, så vil Krishna
holde sig langt væk fra denne sjæl, og Han vil give sjælen et hav af
undskyldninger for ikke at tro på Ham. Så når ateister efterlyser
beviser på Gud, er det således intet andet end løgn og plat. Der er
intet en nidkær ateist ønsker sig mindre end bevis på Gud. Bevis på
Gud er det sidste en ateist vil have.

Enhver, der ønsker at kende Gud hinsides tvivl, vil selvfølgelig gøre
hvad det end skal være for at afstedkomme dette. Det første, der
kræves for at se Gud, er, at man opgiver sin ateistiske mentalitet og
udvikler et ægte ønske om at se Gud. Hvis man ønsker at se Gud, vil
man gøre det, der skal til, det er klart.

Krishna siger:

Hør nu fra Mig, O Prithas søn, hvorledes du ved at udføre yoga i fuld
bevidsthed om Mig, med sindet fæstnet på Mig, kan kende Mig helt og
fuldt uden nogen tvivl. (Bg. 7.1)
EXLEX
2020-09-02 03:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Her er det indiskutable bevis på, at man bliver dum af at være ateist.
Ateisme er troen på, at der ingen guder er.
Det må du så tage op med ateisterne.
--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-09-04 00:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Det må du så tage op med ateisterne.
Herren Rishabhadeva (en inkarnation af Gud) siger:

Når en person betragter sanse-tilfredsstillelse som målet med livet,
bliver han sandelig helt gal efter en materiel livsførelse og udfører
alle mulige syndefulde handlinger. Han er ikke klar over, at pga. sine
tidligere misgerninger har han allerede modtaget en krop, der, selvom
den er midlertidig, er årsag til hans elendighed. I virkeligheden
burde det levende væsen ikke have antaget en materiel krop, men han er
blevet iført kroppen for sansenydelse. Jeg synes derfor ikke, at det
passer sig for en intelligent person igen at beskæftige sig med
sanse-tilfredsstillelse gennem hvilken, han bestandigt får en ny krop
den ene efter den anden.
--Srimad Bhagavatam 5.5.4
EXLEX
2020-09-05 10:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Når en person betragter sanse-tilfredsstillelse som målet med livet,
bliver han sandelig helt gal efter en materiel livsførelse og udfører
alle mulige syndefulde handlinger. Han er ikke klar over, at pga. sine
tidligere misgerninger har han allerede modtaget en krop, der, selvom
den er midlertidig, er årsag til hans elendighed. I virkeligheden
burde det levende væsen ikke have antaget en materiel krop, men han er
blevet iført kroppen for sansenydelse. Jeg synes derfor ikke, at det
passer sig for en intelligent person igen at beskæftige sig med
sanse-tilfredsstillelse gennem hvilken, han bestandigt får en ny krop
den ene efter den anden.
--Srimad Bhagavatam 5.5.4
Nej det er aldrig et kønt syn for en "gud", at se sine planer omgået og
udnyttet af individer, som tilsyneladende er snedigere.




--
EXLEX
EXLEX
2020-09-18 00:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Nej det er aldrig et kønt syn for en "gud", at se sine planer omgået og
udnyttet af individer, som tilsyneladende er snedigere.
"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect
intelligence.
So perfectly intelligent people have good eyesight?




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-09-19 00:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
So perfectly intelligent people have good eyesight?
Der er ikke mange hjemme, hva? Fatter du nu, hvor dum man bliver af at
være ateist?

When the soul attains the human life-form, after evolving its
consciousness through the 8,400,000 species, it arrives at a chance to
finally understand the Absolute Truth. If a soul neglects this unique
opportunity to connect with God, it’s a signal to nature that this
soul doesn’t need to be human.

Eating, sleeping, mating, and defending the soul can do in any
life-form, the human life is meant exclusively for one thing -
self-realization. If a human neglects that opportunity, the soul will
be thrown back into yet another cycle in the lower species.

So there are three species that act as gateways back down into the
lower species - dog, crow and turtle. This means that whenever we see
a dog, a crow, or a turtle, they were humans in their last life.

Similarly, there are also three species that act as gateways back into
the human life-forms - tiger, cow, and monkey. So every time we see a
tiger, a monkey or a cow, we should know that they will become humans
in their next birth.

“One attains the human form of life after transmigrating through
8,400,000 species by the process of gradual evolution. That human life
is spoiled for those conceited fools who do not take shelter of the
lotus feet of Govinda.”

--Brahma-vaivarta Purana
EXLEX
2020-09-19 02:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
So perfectly intelligent people have good eyesight?
Der er ikke mange hjemme, hva? Fatter du nu, hvor dum man bliver af at
være ateist?
Det må du tage op med ateisterne.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-09-20 01:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Det må du tage op med ateisterne.
Men du virker snotdum som en ateist.

Hare Krishna missionen har to formål. Det ene formål går ud på at
bekæmpe materialismen, scientismen, humanismen og ateismen i alle dens
afskygninger. Det er klart, at når man fører en ideologisk krig mod
verdens herskende livssyn, så bliver man ikke populær. Men hvis man
har lidt historisk bevidtshed ved man, at sandsigerne i et samfund
altid har været en hadet minoritet.

Den anden del af Hare Krishna missionen går ud på at tilbyde en metode
gennem hvilken Gud kan kendes som Han er. Det er et sammenhængende,
videnskabeligt og omfangsrigt kundskabssystem, der begynder med at
recitere Herrens navn. Dette er metoden, der forbinder os med Krishna.

Bemærk, at det er en total usekterisk proces. Jehova, Allah eller
Buddha er ikke forkert. Man skal blot recitere deres navne. I Hare
Krishna reciterer vi Hare Krishna mantraet, men det er ikke forkert at
recitere andre traditioners navne på Gud. Det er en universel
anerkendt proces. I kirkens standardbøn siges det, ære være Dit navn.
I Bibelen står der, at man skal forherlige Herrens navn fra solen står
op til den går ned. Rosenkransen i katolicismen er den samme
bedekrans, man anvender i Hare Krishna. Der er det samme antal perler
på - 108. Og muslimer går også og fingerer en bedekæde. Så det at
chante Herrens navn er en usekterisk, universel yoga-proces eller
religion, der er beregnet til at komme i kontakt med Herren. Det er
sjovt at bemærke, at ordene religion og yoga betyder nøjagtigt det
samme. Re-legio, fra latin, betyder at gen-forene, og yoga, fra
sanskrit, betyder at forene. Vi kender også ordet fra Lego - lego
betyder, jeg forbinder.

I Upanishaderne siges det, at Hare Krishna mantraet er den eneste
virksomme bøn eller meditation i denne tidalder.

hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare
hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare

"Det ovenstående mantra bestående af 16 ord og 32 stavelser er det
eneste, der kan give beskyttelse mod Kali-yugas onde indflydelse.
Efter at have gennemsøgt alle Vedaerne finder vi ikke nogen mere
ophøjet religion i denne tidsalder end at recitere Hare Krishna
mantraet."

(Kali-santarana Upanishad)
EXLEX
2020-09-20 15:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Post by EXLEX
Det må du tage op med ateisterne.
Men du virker snotdum som en ateist.
Nåda?
Hvis vi skal dømme på denne vis, så fremstår du mere som et jehova's
vidne end hindu.




--
EXLEX
Jahnu
2020-09-21 10:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by EXLEX
Nåda?
Hvis vi skal dømme på denne vis, så fremstår du mere som et jehova's
vidne end hindu.
Ov, er det nu jeg bryder hulkende sammen og beder om forladelse?

Den åndelige videnskab om selvet beskæftiger sig med menneskelig
bevidsthed.

Den åndelige videnskab bliver selvfølgelig ikke rigtig af, at det står
i nogle skrifter, eller fordi nogen tror på det. Derimod bliver noget
rigtigt af, at det er evig, overleveret viden - viden, der kan
undersøges og verificeres gennem den rette videnskabelige metode.

I den vediske videnskab har man 3 referencepunkter for at sikre sig,
at teologien er rigtig - guru, sadhu og sastra - dvs. den åndelige
mester, vismændene og skrifterne. For at noget kan være rigtigt må de
alle tre være i overensstemmelse med hinanden. Desuden bliver man også
tilbudt en videnskabelig proces igennem hvilken man kan undersøge og
verificere filosofien.

I den moderne naturvidenskab har man kun stof som undersøgelsesobjekt.
Man observerer og studerer materien i dens utallige vekselvirkninger.
I den åndelige videnskab har man bevidsthed som forsøgsobjekt, og man
undersøger materiens indflydelse på bevidstheden og sindet. I den
åndelige videnskab undersøger man bevidsthed. Man har sin egen
bevidsthed som forsøgsobjekt. Man begrænser ikke sine studier til
noget uden for sig selv.

Derfor er den åndelige videnskab den materielle videnskab overlegen.
Den materielle videnskab rækker ikke til at forstå den virkelighed, vi
lever i. Og hvorfor gør den ikke det? Fordi naturvidenskaben intet
fornuftigt har at sige om vores bevidste oplevelse af verden. Den
taler kun om materiens vekselvirkninger men siger intet om vores
oplevelse af disse. Og det er vores oplevelse af verden, som er det
mest grundliggende ved den virkelighed, vi befinder os i.

Kun den åndelige videnskab kan hjælpe os til at forstå selvet og dets
relation til verden og Gud.

Derfor siger Krishna:

Af al skabelse er Jeg begyndelsen og enden tillige med midten, O
Arjuna. Af alle videnskaber er Jeg videnskaben om selvet, og blandt
logikere er Jeg den afgørende sandhed. (Bg 10.32)

Nogle mennesker hævder, at de ikke behøver Gud til at fortælle dem,
hvad der er rigtigt og forkert. Men i stedet for at har de så
samfundet, loven, familie, kultur osv. til at fortælle dem dette.
Eller vi har vores eget sind til at fortælle os, hvad vi må og ikke
må, men det er igen baseret på noget vi har lært fra andre.

Den eneste forskel er således hvem, vi vælger som vores autoritet -
hvem vi vælger at lytte til. Alle er blevet oplært i moral of etik af
den kultur, de er vokset op i.

Nogle hævder, at man selv kan afgøre sin moral og etik, det er noget
man kan føle. Men hvis man er sin egen autoritet, så er det det samme
som ingen autoritet. Hvis det blot er op til ens eget sind at fortælle
én, hvad der er rigtigt eller forkert, kan hvad som helst være rigtigt
eller forkert. Så spiller det ingen rolle, hvad vi gør, for vores eget
sind kan bare retfærdiggøre det. Og hvordan kan man være sikker på, at
det éns sind fortæller en, er rigtigt?

Hvordan kan man vide, at det man føler, er rigtigt? Jeg mener, hvis nu
en eller anden psykopat føler sig foranlediget til at angribe folk på
gågaden med et baseball bat, er det så ok? Hvis vi alle er vor egen
autoritet, burde der jo ikke være noget galt i det, vel?

Faktum er, at vi ikke engang ville vide, at to og to er fire, hvis
ikke vi havde lært det fra nogen. Og de ville ikke vide det, hvis DE
ikke havde lært det af nogen, der vidste det osv.

Regning og matematik er ikke noget man kan spekulere sig frem til. Det
er noget man lærer i sin opvækst. Hvis vi var vokset op helt uden
menneskelig stimuli, ville vi ikke vide, at to og to er fire. Dyr ved
fx. ikke, at to og to er fire, og de er også ligeglade.

På samme måde, som man kan vide, at to og to er fire, nemlig ved at
lære det fra nogen, der ved det, kan man vide at hvem Gud er, og hvad
meningen er med alting. Man kan vide det ved at lære det fra dem, der
ved det. Og hvem ved hvem og hvad Gud er, og hvad meningen med alting
er? Det gør vismændene i den vediske kultur, og de har videreleveret
den viden ned gennem historien via discipelrækken.

Krishna siger:

Forsøg blot at lære sandheden at kende ved at nærme dig en åndelig
mester. Udspørg ham i ydmyghed og tilbyd ham din tjeneste. De
selv-realiserede sjæle kan videregive viden til dig, for de har set
sandheden. (Bg. 4.34)

Ved at modtage virkelig viden fra en selv-realiseret sjæl vil du
aldrig mere blive vildledt af illusion, for gennem denne viden vil du
forstå, at alle levende væsener ikke er andet end dele af den Højeste,
eller at de med andre ord er Mine. (Bg. 4.35)

Selvom du anses for den mest syndefulde af syndere, vil du, når du
befinder dig i denne båd af transcendental viden, blive i stand til at
krydse over elendighedernes ocean. (Bg. 4.36)

Ligesom den flammende ild forvandler brænde til aske, oh Arjuna,
brænder kundskabens ild alle karmiske reaktioner til aske. (Bg. 4.37)

I denne verden er der intet så ophøjet og rent som åndelige viden.
Sådan viden er den modne frugt af al mystisisme, og den, der er blevet
velbevandret i udførelsen af hengiven tjeneste, vil med tiden nyde
denne viden indeni sig selv. (Bg. 4.38)

En trofast person hengiven til åndelig viden, og som overvinder sine
sanser, er egnet til at modtage sådan viden, og når han har modtaget
den, opnår han hurtigt den højeste åndelige fred. (Bg. 4.39)

Men de uvidende og troløse, der tvivler på de åbenbarede skrifter, kan
ikke opnå Gudsbevidsthed; de falder ned. For den tvivlende sjæl findes
der hverken lykke i denne verden eller den næste. (Bg. 4.40)

Loading...