Fantastic.

your arguments are full of preconceived notion that the hare krsna s are wrong.this is not the mood which a person should approach a new philosophy novice to him.u may tell it should be convincing enough that it should turn u away from ur understanding and convince u of what u are presenting,this is not correct because if u are fixed and adamant not to accept correction and not even broad minded to think what is correct and what is wrong then it is ur foolishness.u are not even broadminded to think in a unbiased manner .
u speak half revealed truths in the public and pass urself as a great man but it actually u who is crack pot fool of this centuary oh,of this millenium .

u say u are no greater authority than krishna then with what authority u commented them to be mental,u are a lunatic .iam no adherent to this faith but i can see as an outsider that this what u are speaking is foolishness.

u answer me how a person who asks to walk back can be wise man,this shows ur taste .if this is wise m,an then it shows how intellegent u are.

potato and meat:

eating potato is also sinful but less sinful as compared to eating meat because potato plant is less in conciousness as compared to that of animals .potato plants don’t scream ,fret and writhe but the potato plant donot scream and fret okay so by commenesense and don’t be ridicoulous and use ur commensense okay.in order to mitigate that sin u offer it to supreme lord krishna.okay

and mind u there is also faith in science .everywhere there is faith .even to accept the science there should be faith. even to suckle breasts of the mother there is faith.in science also there is faith .what practical model can u shoew me of darwinian’s evolution and his natural selection .have u seen electron? then why do u have faith in its existence? u may say it’s effect is felt.similarly the effect of krishna is also felt at everypoint which is completely organised.by the way what is conclusive truth o modern science.comment on it.modern science improves ur standard how to eat mate sleep and defend which even animals and birds have superior standards of doing.then what for we have got this superior intellegence than animals.if ur modern science is dependent on faith then why can’t this philosophy be science,.if this modern science which only improves the standard of eating,mating ,sleeping and defending is science ,then why can’t this science where we are proposing to mitigate the problems of life permenently (not temporarily) can’t be science.

u are speaking of bread problem :
have u ever seen aniamls starving ,if so that is only due to our stupid human intervention .thousands and thousands of elephants and other animals of this world are eating sumpoutuosly .they are not starving .so food will automatically be provided if u are dependent on supreme.he has given u strength to walk and collect food for urself but he cannot give u food isn’t it ridicoulous.so think before u talk,foolishman,think,think….

“There is a cave. Inside prisoners are tied so that they can percieve only shadows on the back of the cave. The shadows are cast by artificial objects and light is thrown by a fire. The only reality for these prisoners would be the shadow of these artificial objects. Imagine a prisoner escapes.First he sees the artificial objects, then the fire, then the real world and last of all the sun. Each stage would be difficult and unfamiliar and at the end the enlightened subject would be unable to communicate his knowledge to the prisoners remaining below.

So it is with you and Krishna.”

in ur story u donot tell anything about how the prisoner has got the idea to go out of the cave if the “dark cave ” is that all he knew.how is that he knew.so the explanation is that a person who has seen the sun by the mercy of the sun (say)can come from outside the cave and this enlightened disciple can communicate with prisoners in the cave….. this is logic. a person can never realise anything by himself,this is the truth.this how it is.it should be taught.this is the principle .now recite the whole story for ur self and then it makes sense.

although the solution for the starvation is food .this is nice.but can u provide him food for ever.so u are concerned about food provision for a person temporarily then hpow much intrest u should take to mitigate his problems of life eternally…????what do u say.

another thing if u thing knowledge can be brought by money then it is foolishness .do u think u can purchase whole “knowledge” with ur stupid “donation” indeed how foolish u are.another amn in this blog commented why such areligion exists,when fool like u who is degraded himself to such an extent that u cannot understand that u are degraded ,and indeed u are thinking u are happy ,my dear sir however happy u think u may u cannot avoid birth death oldage ,disease which is suffering.”AS LONG AS FOOLS LIKE U EXIST THERE WILL BE A MOVEMENT LIKE THIS TO DISCIPLINE AND AWAKEN U WHETHER AWAKE URSELF OR ACT LIKE SLEEPING THAT IS UPTO U”

the solution of food giving to starving is nice but it is temporary and is not eternal then why dont u accept that which mitigates problems of life eternally ??????

flipping pages and reading philosophy is foolishness ,sure u must have failed ur schooling if have read ur subjects like that what to speak of “newtonian quantum mechanics”.flipping pages and then u are concluding what is the sum of a philosophy is as if u are supreme and at the same time claiming that iam not an authority like krishna “how touchingly u contradict urself withur hypocrisy”

Look at the world everyday people are starving to death, disease and deprevation stalk the planet, Does this make you happy? point is the solution to these problems will not come from the material world as it is not real.

Yes, they will.

The solution to starvation is food, you blithering lunatic. It comes exactly from the material world. If I give material money to a material charity in the material world, then they can provide material food and actually save these people. Whereas if you sit at home and pray or send them copies of Facts For Life or whatever then that might make you feel better, but it won’t help them one bit.

All I am saying is someone offers their knowledge freely and you barely consider it at all

Freely? Who the hell mentioned “freely”? I seem to recall the book was a “gift” in exchange for a “donation”, which is really the same thing as “a sale”. But the donation was small and the book hilarious so I think I did the right thing.

How can you be so sure that they are wrong?

Because I read their book. They’re mental.

Look at the world everyday people are starving to death, disease and deprevation stalk the planet, Does this make you happy? point is the solution to these problems will not come from the material world as it is not real. You speak w about womens liberation, but i speak of the liberation of the entire of humanity. The truth is that the only way we can free ourselves is by freeing our minds, free your mind and the world will change also. Religion is also part of the illusion, just another shadow on the cave wall. I am not talking of religion but truth. I am no authority on Krishna but as far as i am aware this is their central message- release yourself from the illusion, and i am sure if you speak to a member of the krishna consciousness movement(iskon)they will speak with you in a way that I cannot.

All I am saying is someone offers their knowledge freely and you barely consider it at all, indeed you mock that which you do not understand. How can you be so sure that they are wrong? it seems that you got distracted by the material world and transient knowledge and in so doing to a certain extent proved them right after all.

‘Follow me’ the wise man said, but he walked behind.

There is a cave. Inside prisoners are sat so that they perceive only shadows on the back of the cave. The shadows are cast by artificial objects and light is thrown by a fire. As the prisoners are shown nothing but these shadows, they assume that nothing else exists and therefore it doesn’t occur to them to escape. They could leave the cave at any time, but choose not to because they think they’re as happy as you can be and are ignorant of the wonders outside the cave.

So it is with you and Krishna.

There is a cave. Inside prisoners are tied so that they can percieve only shadows on the back of the cave. The shadows are cast by artificial objects and light is thrown by a fire. The only reality for these prisoners would be the shadow of these artificial objects. Imagine a prisoner escapes.First he sees the artificial objects, then the fire, then the real world and last of all the sun. Each stage would be difficult and unfamiliar and at the end the enlightened subject would be unable to communicate his knowledge to the prisoners remaining below.

So it is with you and Krishna.

Does the book actually say that women should be subordinate to men?

Yes. On pages 42-43, in the chapter headed “Women’s Liberation”, Prabhupada says,

Every year, the government has to pay out millions of dollars in aid to dependant children. … That has happened because the woman does not agree to be subordinate. She wants “equal freedom”. … The woman should be subordinate to the man, so that the man can take charge of the woman.

I’m intrigued to know how else you can read that. I don’t know much about Godhead, though I did like their version of Eleanor Rigby.

That’s internally consistent. Please show me how it is not

Prabhupada says that since “thou shalt not kill” doesn’t specify what thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not kill animals, but doesn’t accept that the same argument can be applied to plants. That’s a double standard and is inconsistent.

I can argue science is speculative on the basis that it operates within a set paradigm up until that paradigm is overthrown and replaced (the move from the newtonian to quantum physics for example).

You can argue that, and indeed Prabhupada argues that on page 67. He’s being stupid and so would you be. The fact that scientists are willing to change their minds is the whole point of science: if that were not true it would be a religion — a distinction you have already demonstrated you do not understand.

This is nonsense that I don’t have time for! But, for interests sake, I would like to know what you think Women have been liberated from?

This is not my area. The women’s liberation movement in this country was largely over by the time I found out it had ever been necessary. But until alarmingly recently women were not allowed to vote for who governed them. As a child, my mother wasn’t allowed to do woodwork because she was a girl and everyone knew girls did cooking. But still today in Islamic countries women are clad in burkhas and not allowed outside on their own or with any man other than a family member. Just yesterday The Times ran an article on the problem of Asian families taking their daughters out of the country to force them to marry their first cousins! And that’s off the top of my admittedly ignorant head and not counting the various injustices which are meted out to both sexes equally.

What have women been liberated from? “Not nearly enough” is my answer.

The point is that with Swami Prabhupada, is that his teachings are not speculative but perfect, because he accepts the source as perfect. He makes no assumptions.

You don’t consider “everything in the Bhagavad-gita is true” (his words) to be an assumption?

Oh, no, because you say

This realisation is founded upon questioning Krishnas perfection until eventually you must accept it as truth as he has passed every test.

Well, if Prabhupada’s reading of it is correct, then Krishna is a backward twerp who should be ignored for the good of mankind.

Does the book actually say that women should be subordinate to men? That is not the way I read it. The book stresses that we celebrate the differences between the sexes. This does not mean that it calls into question equality. In fact it does the direct opposite, in that true equality can only be found in diversity not homogeneity.Also, to be perfect, the teachings of Krishna is to be devoid of any relationship anyway, so it quickens the return to Godhead.

In the same way that Descartes begins with a statement that is utterly certain upon which to build the rest of his knowledge (the Cogito) the Vedic teachings do the same. To Krishnas, Krishna is perfect. They begin with this statement and continue as they have done over centuries to build the rest of their knowledge to realising this ‘truth.’ Krishnas word is their truth, as Krishna is perfect so are his words. This realisation is founded upon questioning Krishnas perfection until eventually you must accept it as truth as he has passed every test.

That’s internally consistent. Please show me how it is not . I can argue science is speculative on the basis that it operates within a set paradigm up until that paradigm is overthrown and replaced (the move from the newtonian to quantum physics for example). Also, you will find certain aspects of quantum physics are now referring to the ancient vedic scriptures. But to be honest, that is a collosal waste of my time. This is nonsense that I don’t have time for! But, for interests sake, I would like to know what you think Women have been liberated from?

I believe your resistance to tell us what your position is for ‘coherence’(a good word!)is a lack of courage in your convictions, unless of course you have no convictions.

You assume that your standards are a few notches higher, which is a futile exercise.It’s not a game! The point is that with Swami Prabhupada, is that his teachings are not speculative but perfect, because he accepts the source as perfect. He makes no assumptions. He is not self important but a devotee to the transmission of a universal truth and he is certainly not a ridiculous man

You think that memorising trivial details about people I met exactly once for less than five minutes months earlier when I wasn’t told I’d ever have cause to reference them again is a valid test of my observational — and even more bizarrely, analytical — skills. You think that a book that says that women should be subordinate to men is “enlightening”. And you think that a system of logic where the word of Krishna is taken as unquestionable fact is “logical” — and, indeed, “an observational science” — purely on the basis that it’s internally consistent (which it isn’t).

Can we just assume that my standards for coherence and knowledge (whatever that might mean) are a few notches higher than yours?