suchandra Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 The Hare Krishna Cultural Journal suggests that democracy is bad for spiritual life and reinforces a materialistic consciousness. Any suggestions? Democracy Bad for Krishna Consciousness Democracy Bad for Krishna Consciousness Submitted by krishna-kirti on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 15:51. Francis Fukuyama, one of today's foremost political scientists, suggests that democracy as a political system reinforces a materialistic consciousness: Democratic societies, dedicated to the opposite proposition, tend to promote a belief in the equality of all lifestyles and values. They do not tell their citizens how they should live, or what will make them happy, virtuous, or great. Instead, they cultivate the virtue of toleration, which becomes the chief virtue in democratic societies. And if men are unable to affirm that any particular way of life is superior to another, then they will fall back on the affirmation of life itself, that is, they body, its needs, and fears. While not all souls may be equally virtuous or talented, all bodies can suffer; hence democratic societies will tend to be compassionate and raise to the first order of concern the question of preventing the body from suffering. It is not an accident that people in democratic societies are preoccupied with material gain and live in an economic world devoted to the satisfaction of the myriad small needs of the body. The End of History and the Last Man , 1992 (New York: Perennial Edition, 2002) 305. This is why as a society, we should not only resist the tendency for democratization, but we should actively oppose it in theory and in practice. We should not be indifferent to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandrajenkins Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 But didn't ancient India have democracy? How can it be against krishna consciouness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indulekhadasi Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Ancient India had a monarchy. Things worked well that way, as long as a pious king was ruling. When a pious king would rule, there would be no shortage of anything nor was there any argumentation amongst citizens. But alas! It is Kali yuga and things won't work that way any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandrajenkins Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Ancient India had a monarchy.Things worked well that way, as long as a pious king was ruling. When a pious king would rule, there would be no shortage of anything nor was there any argumentation amongst citizens. But alas! It is Kali yuga and things won't work that way any longer. Which means, considering circumstances, democracy is the best we've got in the kali yuga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indulekhadasi Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Which means, considering circumstances, democracy is the best we've got in the kali yuga. I also have to go along with that. Monarchs in Kali yuga would be way too power hungry. Presidents are so power hungry, so what to speak of monarchs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shivaduta Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 by... This is why as a society, we should not only resist the tendency for democratization, but we should actively oppose it in theory and in practice. Wow... a "vaishnav HITLER"... Kamsa mama would most certainly have loved this guy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jschwartz Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 Democracy bad. Monarchy good. So who is to decide who the monarch should be? The Islamic Caliphate? The Pope? Bob Enyart? George W. Bush? Who? And who decides who the Decider should be? No simplistic answers, please. Think before you speak. Think before you write. It took a WAR to decide that Yudhisthira would be the King. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted April 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2008 Democracy bad. Monarchy good. So who is to decide who the monarch should be? The Islamic Caliphate? The Pope? Bob Enyart? George W. Bush? Who? And who decides who the Decider should be? No simplistic answers, please. Think before you speak. Think before you write. It took a WAR to decide that Yudhisthira would be the King. Thanks for asking this question and adding, "Think before you speak. Think before you write". Well it makes me think before I write how the Vaishnavas created so much chaos. In fact we have to even consider that if all this confusion about proper leadership within the Vaishnava institutions did not also influence the whole planet's ongoing development towards the final destiny of hellish kali-yuga? The Vaishnava institutions to be complicit of globally getting out of hand kali-yuga? This is it what concerned people are asking. Just like where did they arrive today - installing a questionable system of absolutism by expecting of the followers to worship a direct representative of God, but adding small print, since 35 of these kind already fell down, the responsibility if your guru is trustworthy lies on you. No guarantee. In sum, Vaishnavas should first of all master their own inside run-down homework of properly uniting all these splinter camps - camps which are in itself far too small and too weak to implement Lord Caitanya's order of successfully spreading the Holy Name on all the continents and are basically presently struggling with internal maintenance, what to speak of imparting real knowledge on vedic wisdom in human society large scale. And then come back and believably discuss, "So who is to decide who the monarch should be?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indulekhadasi Posted April 27, 2008 Report Share Posted April 27, 2008 The basic point is that in Kali yuga no one is fit to be monarch. So in Kali yuga democracy is the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheyRadhey108 Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 The Hare Krishna Cultural Journal suggests that democracy is bad for spiritual life and reinforces a materialistic consciousness. Any suggestions? Democracy Bad for Krishna Consciousness Democracy Bad for Krishna Consciousness Submitted by krishna-kirti on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 15:51. Francis Fukuyama, one of today's foremost political scientists, suggests that democracy as a political system reinforces a materialistic consciousness: Democratic societies, dedicated to the opposite proposition, tend to promote a belief in the equality of all lifestyles and values. They do not tell their citizens how they should live, or what will make them happy, virtuous, or great. Instead, they cultivate the virtue of toleration, which becomes the chief virtue in democratic societies. And if men are unable to affirm that any particular way of life is superior to another, then they will fall back on the affirmation of life itself, that is, they body, its needs, and fears. While not all souls may be equally virtuous or talented, all bodies can suffer; hence democratic societies will tend to be compassionate and raise to the first order of concern the question of preventing the body from suffering. It is not an accident that people in democratic societies are preoccupied with material gain and live in an economic world devoted to the satisfaction of the myriad small needs of the body. The End of History and the Last Man , 1992 (New York: Perennial Edition, 2002) 305. This is why as a society, we should not only resist the tendency for democratization, but we should actively oppose it in theory and in practice. We should not be indifferent to it. Oh yes, a monarchy controlled by people who might be opposed to Krishna Consciousness and make a law against it would be so much better than a society where the people are given a say as to what they want to do with their lives. That said, I'm more of a communist idealist myself. I think people should have to share what they get. Unfortunately, people are very greedy and the leaders who try to enforce it are often times hypocritical and power-hungry. Not to mention so many of them are anti-religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amlesh Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 If Krishna wants to clean the dust on the mirror of your mind even if you are staying in the House of Hitler; I don't know who can stop Him. There is a famous saying at my place, if a student wants to learn seriously, he can acquire knowledge even if his classroom is in a sugarcane field. The only criteria to dissipate darkness is Sincerity in your search for spiritual realisation. After knowing the unknown, you'll even find Hell and Heaven alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheyRadhey108 Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 If Krishna wants to clean the dust on the mirror of your mind even if you are staying in the House of Hitler; I don't know who can stop Him. Makes me think of Savitri Devi (blech!). Her disgusting blend of Nazism and Vaishnavism (she said that Hitler was Lord Kalki) makes me want to throw up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indulekhadasi Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 Makes me think of Savitri Devi (blech!). Her disgusting blend of Nazism and Vaishnavism (she said that Hitler was Lord Kalki) makes me want to throw up. Lord Kalki's action is this?: I don't think so! Kalki doesn't come to Kali yuga to kill innocent people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheyRadhey108 Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 Lord Kalki's action is this?: I don't think so! Kalki doesn't come to Kali yuga to kill innocent people. She was totally insane. She was married to an Indian man, yet she supported the massacre of the Roma people (the closest relatives to South Asians in Europe). You can read about her here: tp://www.savitridevi.org/ It includes some of her psychotic literature (I can't even believe there are still people who follow her ludicrous ideas). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amlesh Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 Paradoxically, I've heard that Hitler was a serious student of the Gita... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indulekhadasi Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 Well it is obvious he learned nothing from the Gita. Absolutely nothing. And since he suicided he attained a ghost's body. Suits him right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheyRadhey108 Posted April 30, 2008 Report Share Posted April 30, 2008 I'm guessing he went to the hellish realms. He was a horrible man, and whatever punishment he gets in his future lives, he definitely deserves. He may have studied the Gita, but he obviously got nothing out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.