See the world through the eyes of the soul?

[Guest guest]

> I have myself been long times and many times as a child at hospital as a

> patient and suffered terrible pains--so that surely has *decreased* my

> identification as a body, but surely not lifted me above the bodily

> platform. I have not been living a safe life in a temple. I stand behind

> what I have written and if you read carefully what I have written then you

> maybe can understand me and my situation better.

 

None of us have English as our first language, and I suppose that is one

reason for what seems to be a misunderstanding.

 

> Have you in practice noticed that I would be a proud, buffed-up predenter?

 

No. When I have met you, you seem like a humble and nice person, so I would

have been surprised if you would have turned out to be anything similar to a

proud, puffed-up pretender.

 

Another point which I would like to make, is that I agree with many of the

things you have been writing in your texts. I think your perspective is

proper, and it seems like you are a person who can relate to the situation

in Kali yuga very nicely.

 

> > If you really are on that level, you are far from a fallen servant any

> > more, and you are far from being one of the lowest beings in the

> > material world.

> To learn and realize ONE little thing is not to learn everything and

> realize the WHOLE Vedic knowledge. I didn't say I was on the platform of

> soul, I wished to clarify that if I *at my work* wouldn't HANDLE and DEAL

> with the other living (and often suffering creatures) AS SOULS (of course

> understanding their special needs depending on their bodily form) then I

> would become crazy or kicked out--or then I should think that they are

> just material machines as the others do.

 

Now I start to understand what you mean. I believe that I have a similar

relationship to other living entities myself, that I don't just identify

with their bodies, but that I deal with them as persons. And that does not

have to mean that I manage to do that always, and also not that I am very

advanced.

 

> > (Most of the devotees in ISKCON are probably more advanced than me, but

> > that does not mean that very many are above the platform of identifying

> > themselves with the body. A Prabhupada disciple who was seriously

> When I said "to see the world through the eyes of the soul" I didn't mean

> that Bhakta M. should immedeately lift himself to the highest platform. I

> wished he would give up these distinctions and sweeping definitions of

> real macho men and real feminine women and their duties as innate

> definitive principles in this awful age of Kali-yuga.

 

That makes sense to me also. It is very easy to simplify things and believe

that man - woman relationship is excactly like THIS or like THAT, when there

are so many different "options".

 

So as a conclusion, I would like to say that I appreciate your points, and

that I am sorry if I disturbed you with my style of questioning what you

mean. But I did, and you got the chance to explain yourself, so that the

devotee who quoted the text which I first commented on did not get the final

word in this case, without an explanation from you.

 

Please don't let me stop you from voicing your opinions and realizations

again; I find them valuable.

 

Ys

Jkd