UG is History

[shvu]

UG died a couple of weeks ago. The body was cremated without fanfare and without any form of funeral rites. Those of us who hit a chord with his negations are indebted to him.

 

An obituary has been posted at http://www.well.com/~jct/Final_Remembering.htm

 

You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers - UG

 

Cheers

[bija]

Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, where as culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform. It is grotesque. quote by UG

[bija]

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

[Guest guest]

 

UG died a couple of weeks ago. The body was cremated without fanfare and without any form of funeral rites. Those of us who hit a chord with his negations are indebted to him.

 

 

You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers - UG

 

Cheers

 

From his website, doesnt sound like Vaishnava at all:

 

TELLING IT LIKE IT IS:

 

 

 

A messiah is the one who leaves a mess behind him in this world.

 

 

 

Religions have promised roses but you end up with only thorns.

 

 

 

Going to the pub or the temple is exactly the same; it is quick fix.

 

 

 

The body has no independent existence. You are a squatter there.

 

 

 

God and sex go together. If God goes sex goes, too.

 

 

 

All experiences however extraordinary they may be are in the area of sensuality.

 

 

 

Man cannot be anything other than what he is. Whatever he is, he will create a society that mirrors him.

 

 

 

Love and hate are not opposite ends of the same spectrum; they are one and the same thing. They are much closer than kissing cousins.

 

 

 

Gurus play a social role, so do prostitutes.

 

 

 

By using the models of Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna we have destroyed the possibility of nature throwing up unique individuals.

 

 

 

It would be more interesting to learn from children, than try to teach them how to behave, how to live and how to function.

 

 

 

All I can guarantee you is that as long as you are searching for happiness, you will remain unhappy.

 

 

 

You eat not food but ideas. What you wear are not clothes, but labels and names.

 

The plain fact is that if you don’t have a problem, you create one. If you don’t have a problem you don’t feel that you are living.

 

That messy thing called ‘mind’ has created many destructive things. By far the most destructive of them all is God.

 

Atmospheric pollution is most harmless when compared to the spiritual and religious pollution that have plagued the world.

 

Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, where as culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform. It is grotesque.

[Guest guest]

He didn't sound like a Vaisnava because he wasn't one. He seemed to be in gross ignorance. However, he has passed on and we can only hope he found a good destination.

 

 

From his website, doesnt sound like Vaishnava at all:

 

TELLING IT LIKE IT IS:

A messiah is the one who leaves a mess behind him in this world.

 

Religions have promised roses but you end up with only thorns.

 

Going to the pub or the temple is exactly the same; it is quick fix.

 

The body has no independent existence. You are a squatter there.

 

God and sex go together. If God goes sex goes, too.

 

All experiences however extraordinary they may be are in the area of sensuality.

 

Man cannot be anything other than what he is. Whatever he is, he will create a society that mirrors him.

 

Love and hate are not opposite ends of the same spectrum; they are one and the same thing. They are much closer than kissing cousins.

 

Gurus play a social role, so do prostitutes.

 

By using the models of Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna we have destroyed the possibility of nature throwing up unique individuals.

 

It would be more interesting to learn from children, than try to teach them how to behave, how to live and how to function.

 

All I can guarantee you is that as long as you are searching for happiness, you will remain unhappy.

 

You eat not food but ideas. What you wear are not clothes, but labels and names.

 

The plain fact is that if you don’t have a problem, you create one. If you don’t have a problem you don’t feel that you are living.

 

That messy thing called ‘mind’ has created many destructive things. By far the most destructive of them all is God.

 

Atmospheric pollution is most harmless when compared to the spiritual and religious pollution that have plagued the world.

 

Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, where as culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform. It is grotesque.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

He didn't sound like a Vaisnava because he wasn't one. He seemed to be in gross ignorance. However, he has passed on and we can only hope he found a good destination.

I disagree. I see nothing here that cannot be harmonized with Vaishnava philosophy. While not applicable to the "plane of dedication" all of his comments seem perfectly valid on the "plane of exploitation".

 

Out of curiosity, what are your qualifications, Ms. Pitts, for determining who is and who is not a Vaishnava? Even if he didn't see himself as a Vaishnava, a Vaishnava (not I) might see him as one.

 

While aspiring Vaishnavas wish to focus on their eternally joyful destination--the realm of spirit, there is certainly a place for pointing out the inherent misery of living on the material plane (so, "My Sweet Lord" is the focus, but there's certainly a place for "Taxman").

 

Who is/was UG, anyways. I'm guessing he/she was a contributor to these forums? Oh, right, a link. I'm now looking at his picture and will read the obit.

[Guest guest]

Dear Murali prabhu,

 

 

I disagree. I see nothing here that cannot be harmonized with Vaishnava philosophy. While not applicable to the "plane of dedication" all of his comments seem perfectly valid on the "plane of exploitation".

 

Then let's just agree to disagree. Acaryas preach according to time, place & circumstances. However, they do not compromise on the fundamental principles. From what I've read about UGK on the website that someone provided a link to, it seems he didn't believe in so much as the presence of the soul.

 

 

Out of curiosity, what are your qualifications, Ms. Pitts, for determining who is and who is not a Vaishnava?

 

I possess no spiritual qualification. The source of my knowledge & ability to discern different things are the advanced Vaisnavas whose association I've been extremely lucky to have on a regular basis. Sri Krishna describes the qualities of one who is dear to Him in great detail in Chapter 12 of Bhagavad Gita. That's how I know they're advanced.

 

 

 

Who is/was UG, anyways. I'm guessing he/she was a contributor to these forums?

 

You may want to read about him in the link provided above. I don't know much about him save for what's in the link and don't mean any disrespect but it doesn't seem like he has much to offer that can take me closer to the Lotus feet of Sri Krishna, the goal of life.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

I disagree. I see nothing here that cannot be harmonized with Vaishnava philosophy. While not applicable to the "plane of dedication" all of his comments seem perfectly valid on the "plane of exploitation".

 

Out of curiosity, what are your qualifications, Ms. Pitts, for determining who is and who is not a Vaishnava? Even if he didn't see himself as a Vaishnava, a Vaishnava (not I) might see him as one.

 

While aspiring Vaishnavas wish to focus on their eternally joyful destination--the realm of spirit, there is certainly a place for pointing out the inherent misery of living on the material plane (so, "My Sweet Lord" is the focus, but there's certainly a place for "Taxman").

 

Who is/was UG, anyways. I'm guessing he/she was a contributor to these forums? Oh, right, a link. I'm now looking at his picture and will read the obit.

OK, I guess I let my "broad vision" (as a kind soul on this forum has called it--I call it a "wandering eye" ) carry me away a bit.

 

From the obituary, it certainly seems like UG was not operating in the traditional Vaishnava paradigm, but I can see no grounds for criticizing, debasing, or minimizing his life.

 

While he seemed to embody some paradoxes (as do us all), he sounds like a straightforward and unpretentious person.

 

While it's been said many times: Without Guru, one can't get God, and without God, one can't get Guru, I still cannot accept that it is impossible for someone to attain God-consciousness without a formal connection with an Acharya. If someone is sincere and pure, no doubt they will be guided by Chaitya Guru, Guru within the heart.

 

I like the analogy of crossing the Sahara. Sure, one could cross the Sahara alone without any guide or map, but, if there is a guide and map, why not employ them?

 

One can discover Calculus for one's self, or one can learn from a qualified teacher.

 

Any reasonable person, it is safe to assume, would accept that Guru is here due to the mercy of God, and eagerly accept guidance, but, I will not criticize somebody for stubbornly insisting to go it alone. Rather, I find in that a sort of tragic beauty.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Then let's just agree to disagree. Acaryas preach according to time, place & circumstances. However, they do not compromise on the fundamental principles. From what I've read about UGK on the website that someone provided a link to, it seems he didn't believe in so much as the presence of the soul.

Looks like you were replying to me as I was replying to myself. My reply to myself addresses some of what is here, but, kindly allow me to add a few words.

 

I did see that bit about his rejection of the notion of the soul. What follows that is the important point, though, "our search for permanence [is] the cause of our suffering". While I find the concept (I say concept because my faith is very weak) of an eternal soul to be comforting, but, I can also see how belief in an eternal soul can be debilitating. As a natural-born procrastinator, I could easily say--well, I've got all these lifetimes to get things right, I'll just spend this one trying to enjoy my senses.

 

Without getting into a point-by-point philosophical debate, who are we to say that UG was not an avadhut? For the avadhut, none of the conventions apply.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnava conception embraces that the teachings of the Buddha, while at odds (at least on the surface) with Vaishnava theology has it's place (as you point out) given time, place and circumstances. That is somewhat contrary to your assertion that the fundamental principles remain the same.

 

 

I possess no spiritual qualification. The source of my knowledge & ability to discern different things are the advanced Vaisnavas whose association I've been extremely lucky to have on a regular basis. Sri Krishna describes the qualities of one who is dear to Him in great detail in Chapter 12 of Bhagavad Gita. That's how I know they're advanced.

Sounds like you're very well situated, then. I pray to be so situated!

 

 

 

You may want to read about him in the link provided above. I don't know much about him save for what's in the link and don't mean any disrespect but it doesn't seem like he has much to offer that can take me closer to the Lotus feet of Sri Krishna, the goal of life.

I did, thanks. On the surface, what you say is true. I'm hoping (perhaps in futility) to capture the mood of my Param-Gurudev that "every wave is favorable".

 

Still, as we progress in the initial stages of Bhakti, some discrimination is advised.

 

Gauranga!

[Guest guest]

"natural-born procrastinator" ... LOL prabhu, that fits my description perfectly well!

 

 

I'm hoping (perhaps in futility) to capture the mood of my Param-Gurudev that "every wave is favorable".

 

I've read that quote in this forum before but can't remember very well who said that. Is this a quote of Srila B.R Sridhar Maharaja? If so, how fortunate you are ... disciple of a most exalted personality!

 

 

Without getting into a point-by-point philosophical debate, who are we to say that UG was not an avadhut? For the avadhut, none of the conventions apply.

 

Debate it may be for not all debates are mindless, but I'd like to just say I'm not attempting a point-by-point 'rebuttal'. I'm happy to be discussing this with a Vaisnava of your calibre. My point is, when Vaisnava association and access to the highest philosophy is so freely & readily available, just why would someone want to even consider pursuing a possible avaduta with so much uncertainty and risk his spiritual life? If I've understood a little bit of Krishna Conscious philophy correctly, you get what you desire. You desire cheap religion, then Krishna will grant you that.

 

 

Sounds like you're very well situated, then. I pray to be so situated!

 

I'm sure you already are prabhu. You have the mercy of your Spiritual Master.

 

 

Still, as we progress in the initial stages of Bhakti, some discrimination is advised. Gauranga!

 

Exactly prabhu! You captured my sentiment perfectly. I don't just believe, I <B>know</B> Krishna Consciousness works. I therefore refuse to be drawn to any philosophy that contradicts the basic principles of any religion. Of course, Maya devi is extremely powerful and it won't take much for me to be bewildered but I hope & pray that day never comes when I may give up the association of Vaisnavas.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Here's what I'm really trying to get across here:

 

It's easy to be dismissive. It was easy for UG to dismiss all spiritual teachers (for whatever reason--I can see a didactic purpose for this approach). It's easy for us to dismiss him as being in gross illusion.

 

In another discussion on the forum, Y.K. presented his impression of "HK" Gaudiya Vaishnavas as being arrogant and offensive to other spiritual beliefs. While I argued that, in the advanced Vaishnava we don't see this mood, I can certainly realate to his experience from my own.

 

Srila Prabhupad introduced the mercy of Mahaprabhu to the West. How many seekers will we attract to the mercy if we are rude and arrogant? How many will wish to become rude and arrogant like ourselves?

 

If, in our distribution, we find ourselves running out of ways to praise Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga, and have to resort to attacking the faith of others, then, perhaps, isn't it time for us to go get more nourishment from the processes of devotion?

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more with this post of yours prabhu. In light of this post, I'd like to state that I didn't mean to demean UGK or his teachings in the slightest in post number 10 (your reply coincided with mine, so I don't know if you read it yet).

 

All I'm saying is that my position is very fragile, therefore I must do what I can to protect it and not be distracted by deviant philosophies. My claim that he may have been in ignorance is simply my opinion (and perhaps I shouldn't have said that but it's been done and I can't change it now).

 

Are you clear about my position now prabhu?

 

 

Here's what I'm really trying to get across here:

 

It's easy to be dismissive. It was easy for UG to dismiss all spiritual teachers (for whatever reason--I can see a didactic purpose for this approach). It's easy for us to dismiss him as being in gross illusion.

 

In another discussion on the forum, Y.K. presented his impression of "HK" Gaudiya Vaishnavas as being arrogant and offensive to other spiritual beliefs. While I argued that, in the advanced Vaishnava we don't see this mood, I can certainly realate to his experience from my own.

 

Srila Prabhupad introduced the mercy of Mahaprabhu to the West. How many seekers will we attract to the mercy if we are rude and arrogant? How many will wish to become rude and arrogant like ourselves?

 

If, in our distribution, we find ourselves running out of ways to praise Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga, and have to resort to attacking the faith of others, then, perhaps, isn't it time for us to go get more nourishment from the processes of devotion?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

I've read that quote in this forum before but can't remember very well who said that. Is this a quote of Srila B.R Sridhar Maharaja? If so, how fortunate you are ... disciple of a most exalted personality!

 

Grand-Disciple. Thanks for reminding me of just how fortunate I am!!

 

 

My point is, when Vaisnava association and access to the highest philosophy is so freely & readily available, just why would someone want to even consider pursuing a possible avaduta with so much uncertainty and risk his spiritual life? If I've understood a little bit of Krishna Conscious philophy correctly, you get what you desire. You desire cheap religion, then Krishna will grant you that.

 

As I like to say: we all get the Guru we deserve

 

You're absolutely right here. Despite my own natural curiosity, I have been advised to be cautious in regards to with which *Vaishnavas* I associate, let alone non-Vaishnavas. However, in this forum, as in the "real world" (and, especially here in Santa Cruz), the community is not homogenous. There are seekers of various faiths. I humbly beg my Godbrothers and Godsisters to be sensitive to that fact.

 

 

Exactly prabhu! You captured my sentiment perfectly. I don't just believe, I know Krishna Consciousness works. I therefore refuse to be drawn to any philosophy that contradicts the basic principles of any religion. Of course, Maya devi is extremely powerful and it won't take much for me to be bewildered but I hope & pray that day never comes when I may give up the association of Vaisnavas.

 

I share your prayer!!

 

While we must be cautious while our devotional creeper is young and fragile, it is also said that, for the realized soul, all is seen to be the will of the Lord. We may not have that vision, but let us hang on to the faith that, by the Lord's inconceivable mercy, so many seeming contradictions can be harmonized.

[bija]

 

I'm hoping (perhaps in futility) to capture the mood of my Param-Gurudev that "every wave is favorable". quote by murali

When I think of (UG) Krishnamurti I think of another old dear friend of mine who is a committed atheist. My friend is in his mid sixties. A deep philosophical man, full of humor, kindness and love.

 

I have found encounters with my friend similar to encounters with UG's writings in that they have pointed out all the subtle defects in my religious mindset. Everything ugly that possibly could be that should not be.

 

I have read very little of UG's writing (infact initially my response to his writing was repugnance). As also, I found initial conversations with my old atheist philosopher friend challenging to a high degree.

 

But the more I have entered into dialogue with my old friend I have realized that in a conditioned state the religious bent can be very ugly.

 

So yes sure...every wave is beneficial, and in a higher sense the environment is very nurturing. I do not know how exactly...but with all of UG's and my friends denouncements of the ugly truth, I have found some small guidance of what not to be.

 

I know in a sense the Theist is taught to be at odds with the Atheist. And also taught to avoid the Atheist. But in a higher sense is it not that the Absolute contains all things (all apparent contradictions in harmony). I am starting to think that this western conditioning of dark and light, Satan and God, right and wrong is not-desired understanding any more. And that the Absolute is something very different from this moralistic religious bent. And saying this I feel very grateful that we have an oppurtunity to seek the Sweet Centre, the Original...Vraj. Where 'Simplicity' can be found at the core of an apparent 'Unsimplistic modern world'.

 

When I think of (UG) Krishnamurti and my dear atheist friend and myself (the theist), I think of the saying....

 

"Never the twain shall meet"

 

And I wonder whether this be an eternal truth? As I expressed to my friend recently....one day I feel this saying will also become a saying of the past (and will fade into history).

 

In my small cosmology I definately can find a place for UG and my old atheist friend. Even if only as devils advocates (but ofcourse this is the minimum of appreciation)...to keep me safe from the worst kind of ignorance (the religious bigotry of a conditioned soul - who is ruled by an unruly mind). Maybe what I am trying to say is that I am grateful for their exposing the conditioned mind for what it really is. And the dangers of this mind when it becomes attached to religious dogma.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

In my small cosmology I definately can find a place for UG and my old atheist friend. Even if only as devils advocates (but ofcourse this is the minimum of appreciation)...to keep me safe from the worst kind of ignorance (the religious bigotry of a conditioned soul - who is ruled by an unruly mind). Maybe what I am trying to say is that I am grateful for their exposing the conditioned mind for what it really is. And the dangers of this mind when it becomes attached to religious dogma.

 

Bija-ji!! Your entire post is beautiful music (though I quote just the last paragraph). You have clarified and expanded my (meager) understanding in such a graceful manner.

 

When I was out running at lunch-time, I was thinking about this topic.

 

The incident of the Mohini incarnation of the Lord came to mind. If the Supreme Lord is playing tricks on Lord Shiva (Lord Brahma as well), causing him to become bewildered and maddened, what tricks is that Blue Rascal playing on us?

 

Could not the Lord be using U.G. as His puppet, to further demolish stubborn pockets of false ego?

 

Your point about religious dogma is well-taken. After all, what is the heart of Bhagavad-Gita but "Sarva-Dharman..."--renounce all religion and surrender to the Lord?

 

Govinda!!

[theist]

 

 

You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers - UG

 

Cheers

And so UG by telling us that has placed himself as the savior to save us from the saviors. Interesting self contradictory statement. Right up there with Lao Tzu's saying, "He that knows does not speak." LOL

[bija]

 

Right up there with Lao Tzu's saying, "He that knows does not speak. LOL theist

That is really funny Theist. Maybe oneday we may enter a land 'without words' where everything will be 'a knowing'.

 

Where words may be just a passing small convenience, plaything, or contrivance. A place where the only use for words will be for a sense of humor and good old laughter:). Aahh...bliss!

 

 

 

 

That mystery, that enigma, is no more. Once, a couple of years back, when Mahesh Bhatt had asked him, ‘UG, how would you like to be remembered?’ UG had said, ‘After I am dead and gone, nothing of me must remain inside of you or outside of you. I can certainly do a lot to see that no establishment or institution of any kind mushrooms around me whilst I am alive. But how do I stop all you guys from enshrining me in your brains?’ quote by UG

Maybe this is what Shvu is getting at when he says..."UG is history". Maybe this statement is close to the heart of the man. And would be pleasing to him.

[theist]

The way I see it bija it is not just words it's interpersonal communication with Krsna in the center. The whole Spiritual Sky is nothing but interpersonal communications. All these impersonalists have the same schtick. They play the role of the instructing spiritual master while saying no one needs a spiritual master. Just frauds.

 

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me. - Bg 10.9

[Sridas]

 

When I think of (UG) Krishnamurti I think of another old dear friend of mine who is a committed atheist. My friend is in his mid sixties. A deep philosophical man, full of humor, kindness and love.

 

I also have one of these frens(?) (the environment is friendly) in his sixties who was initially initiated by a Prabhupad disciple, but then he became innimical to KC. altho at one time we spent many very long sessions in deep Hari Katha.

Certain events changed his evolution to exclude chanting the Holy Names. he was also subtly influenced by J Krsnamurti and doubts in his own guru continued to surface, perhaps thru sincerity or maybe it was illusion.

It is interesting that these atheists make a living out of directing the blind to not follow them ,or any other guru.

And here lies the difference a real acharya isn't asking us to follow them for their prestige, but rather our good fortune to share in their world of affectionate dealings and service. Where every one in that plane is our guru.

Krsnamurti is not history he is eternal and will continue to exist in one form or another, his memory may float in the minds of others for some time, but it is a lonely world that denies the land of gurus that all love us.

This old friend of mine tried for so long to draw me back to the past, before chanting, to a time he believed was free. Eventually I disassociated with him because of his aparadhe. Like Srila Sridhara Maharaj would say, "yes Lord save from my enemies, but at the same time save me from my friends"

 

 

So yes sure...every wave is beneficial, and in a higher sense the environment is very nurturing. I do not know how exactly...but with all of UG's and my friends denouncements of the ugly truth, I have found some small guidance of what not to be.

I know in a sense the Theist is taught to be at odds with the Atheist. And also taught to avoid the Atheist. But in a higher sense is it not that the Absolute contains all things (all apparent contradictions in harmony). I am starting to think that this western conditioning of dark and light, Satan and God, right and wrong is not-desired understanding any more. And that the Absolute is something very different from this moralistic religious bent. And saying this I feel very grateful that we have an oppurtunity to seek the Sweet Centre, the Original...Vraj. Where 'Simplicity' can be found at the core of an apparent 'Unsimplistic modern world'.

 

'"The sweet Absolute has room for the accommodation of anything and everything, if something is outside it, then it isn't Absolute" Is it?

 

 

When I think of (UG) Krishnamurti and my dear atheist friend and myself (the theist), I think of the saying....

 

In my small cosmology I definately can find a place for UG and my old atheist friend. Even if only as devils advocates (but ofcourse this is the minimum of appreciation)...to keep me safe from the worst kind of ignorance (the religious bigotry of a conditioned soul - who is ruled by an unruly mind). Maybe what I am trying to say is that I am grateful for their exposing the conditioned mind for what it really is. And the dangers of this mind when it becomes attached to religious dogma.

 

Acintya abedha bhed simultaneousy we must try accomodate but at the same time discern our highest prospect and company and gravitate in that direction towards the centre, and the centre will reaval it's design according to our saranagati.

It's all a matter of taste and the anandam derived from our choice of existence.

[bija]

I am glad you dropped into the conversation Sridas. Thank you for your balance of perspective.

 

From my last post someone with insight may be able to perceive my wrestlings if they know me well enough. There is a constant quest for harmony in this land of duality going on within me. Maybe that is the shortcoming! If you know what I mean.

 

Actually friends like my old atheist are beneficial in some small way (because they point out the defects in my conditioned religious mind), but definately there is a dividing line between us. By nature atheists like him wish to destroy the seed of faith (because they believe it is delusion). And this is where I draw the line. I have a roaring lion guarding this internal treasure.

 

But rest assured this atheist has never heard of Lord GaurangaKrsna before, except from me. And he hears Gauranga Naam quite often now. So there is no loss. Possibly in his lifetimes he has committed unlimited offences to Bhakti-devi. So maybe hearing the name of Gauranga for the first time (this life) will cool down these offences. There is no loss. But great hope. Gauranga Naam is kali yuga's hidden treasure!

 

I guess it is the old philosophy of making the best out of a bad bargain. It would be so easy to shut everything out that does not come into line. But this shutting out does not seem conducive and beneficial in each and every circumstance. (down this way in southern rural oz, islolation is prominent already as the solitary aspiring Gaudiya). But ofcourse thus far many old acquaintances have been let go of. A lot (many many) infact.

 

So to put what I am trying to say in a nutshell - the freedom I am finding in God's grace and mercy, may not always set the best example for others.

 

This is where I make a distinction between myself and true saints (vaisnava's). All their actions and examples are based on the rule of 'compassion' for fallen souls. Therefore they set the perfect example for us.

 

If I had more compassion maybe I would set a better example for others to follow also, and not be so radical in the freedom I am finding in God. So listeners....please be cautious.

 

In regards to my atheist acquaintance I try to keep the concept of radical mercy in the forefront. Gauranga consciousness. That is all that I have gleaned from the philosophy thus far. This is how I see God. Radical mercy!

 

To be sure on this point though (and to ease my conscience in regards to online listeners)...to the one with'fragile faith' the atheists words are like 'poison'!

 

 

ps. I would like to share a little something with you all. Some years ago in my search for truth I investigated the Mormon church. I stayed with them for several months. A short time really in the span of life. The not so funny thing is they have not left me alone since. They have tracked me down through electoral roles and all sorts of ways to find my new residences and locals. This has been going on for almost a decade!

A month ago an elderly american mormon couple presented themselves at my door. We started conversation and they have popped by every week since. The absurd thing is that they attempt to take away my empowerment.....

....the church itself considers me what they call 'an inactive member', even though I rejected their chuch years ago. This really gets on my goat, how an organization claims proprietary rights over a soul.

The point I am trying to bring about by discussing this is that....the subtle influence and power which these people project is more insidious than my upfront atheist friend.

They approach with such intentions as inter-religious dialogue and other subtle means. When their hearts are far from such friendship - with aims of conversion and destruction of chosen faith (Hare Krsna).

I find this subtle area and realm much more influential and insidious than the upfront atheist.

Ofcourse it may all boil down to just a matter of perspective.

Just some personal thoughts.

Insidious

1. Lying in wait; watching an opportunity to insnare or

entrap; deceitful; sly; treacherous; -- said of persons;

as, the insidious foe. ``The insidious witch.'' --Cowper.

[bija]

151 "Radical" web1913 "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"

Radical \Rad"i*cal\, a. [F., fr. L. radicalis having roots, fr.

radix, -icis, a root. See {Radix}.]

1. Of or pertaining to the root; proceeding directly from the

root.

 

2. Hence: Of or pertaining to the root or origin; reaching to

the center, to the foundation to the ultimate sources to

the principles, or the like: original; fundamental;

thorough-going; unsparing; extreme; as, radical evils;

radical reform; a radical party.

 

 

3. (Bot.)

(a) Belonging to, or proceeding from, the root of a plant;

as, radical tubers or hairs.

(b) Proceeding from a rootlike stem, or one which does not

rise above the ground; as, the radical leaves of the

dandelion and the sidesaddle flower.

 

4. (Philol.) Relating, or belonging, to the root, or ultimate

source of derivation; as, a radical verbal form.

 

 

 

Syn: Primitive; original; natural; underived; fundamental;

entire.

 

Usage: {Radical}, {Entire}. These words are frequently

employed as interchangeable in describing some marked

alternation in the condition of things. There is,

however, an obvious difference between them. A radical

cure, reform, etc., is one which goes to the root of

the thing in question; and it is entire, in the sense

that, by affecting the root, it affects in a

appropriate degree the entire body nourished by the

root; but it may not be entire in the sense of making

a change complete in its nature, as well as in its

extent. Hence, we speak of a radical change; a radical

improvement; radical differences of opinion; while an

entire change, an entire improvement, an entire

difference of opinion, might indicate more than was

actually intended. A certain change may be both

radical and entire, in every sense.

 

151 "Radical" web1913 "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"

Radical \Rad"i*cal\, n.

1. (Philol.)

(a) A primitive word; a radix, root, or simple, underived,

uncompounded word; an etymon.

(b) A primitive letter; a letter that belongs to the

radix.

 

The words we at present make use of, and

understand only by common agreement, assume a

new air and life in the understanding, when you

trace them to their radicals, where you find

every word strongly stamped with nature; full of

energy, meaning, character, painting, and

poetry. --Cleland.