What smart people do?
→ Servant of the Servant

What smart people do?

  1. They make smart decisions – they do not engage in self-destructive behavior
  2. They learn from their mistakes – they do not continue to enjoy in this world despite experiencing and seeing misery all around
  3. They don’t have all the answers – they do not pretend to be self-righteous. They are humble and constantly seek the truth.
  4. They surround themselves with smart people – they seek the truth by surrounding themselves with elevated souls such as pure devotees of the Lord and revealed scriptures and make decisions accordingly
  5. They are resourceful. – they always chant the Hare Krishna Mahamantra
  6. They can reason – they always introspect from life incidences through reason, logic and guidance from a higher authority
  7. They don’t follow fads – they do not engage in modern day fashionable vices like eating meat, consuming alcohol, gambling and illicit sex
  8. They don’t live beyond their means – they follow simple living and high thinking i.e. material minimalist
Hare Krishna

Facebook or Facelessbook?
→ Servant of the Servant

I am not a big fan of social networking. It is something like empty calories except these are empty likes and friends. Empty calories give us a head rush and hence we feel good for a short time but because it is empty it does not really nourish us physically and hence we crave for more. Similarly empty likes and friends on facebook, twitter etc give us a rush of being liked and important for a short while but because it is virtual inside a computer screen, there is really no bond or connection with the person.

It is simply another form of consumerism where we advertise our self (self-image) in the best possible manner and hope to impress others. We are consuming our own flaring ego. The bottom line is social media cannot satisfy us as it is impersonal and artificial.

Real likes and friends have to be made in the real world with real people as there will be no rehearsals in what you will say, no photoshopping of the self, no grammar corrections, and editing…it will be with the real me with all my bells and whistles. When we bond with an individual in this real manner, we will feel satisfied. I guess I am old fashioned! Real friendship is with real people not virtual avatars!

I consider Krishna as my best friend! Krishna in chapter five of Bhagavad Gita says that among the friends we have in a real way (not virtual) Krishna says I am the best of all friends. The common adage “friend in need is a friend in deed” is so true to Krishna. We may have our best friend, wife or companion. But these relationships are unreliable in the sense they cannot always be with you at the time of need. But Krishna who is seated within our heart says “I am always with you and you just have to turn your face towards me and call out my name in time of need. I will be the swift deliverer from all your problems”. Who can be a better friend than that?

The video although does not talk about Krishna does describe how the social aspects of human beings have evolved and transformed, showing how we have regressed from a social standpoint and how the more we “connect” online, the less actual human interactions we have, making us actually fairly unsocial, In other words, impersonal and artificial!

Hare Krishna

Symptoms of Kali Yuga
→ Servant of the Servant

We can see all these symptoms today. It was predicted 5000 years ago but these things are considered fashionable.

In Kali-yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man’s good birth, proper behavior and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one’s power. Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one’s expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brāhmaṇa just by his wearing a thread. – Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.2-3

Reverse climate change and solve global poverty
→ Servant of the Servant

Dr. Arvind Panagariya is a professor of economics at Columbia and an alumnus from Princeton. He is also an editor for India Policy Forum and Brookings Institution. He is currently the Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog of India. Talking about climate change in developing countries like India and China, his solution is that developed countries such as the US should invest heavily in research in developing countries so there is enough technology using non-fossil fuels to alleviate climatic change. This may sound like a solution but so far, we have not found any convincing alternate fuel source that can be implemented at a global level. Besides, climate change, poverty and world economy are interlinked to the point that one can adversely impact the other. New technology still requires exploitation of natural resources which again may put us back to square one.

There is another solution – shutting down or at the least reduce half of the global slaughter houses that promote factory farming. This can have a significant impact on climate change and global poverty. Slaughtering animals on a mass scale (factory farming), repeated research has shown, creates massive amounts of greenhouse gases that it is the leading cause of climate change. Al Gore is on record saying “the growing meat intensity of diets around the world is bad for the planet…and the factory farming way so much of our livestock is raised now is very bad for the planet, no question about it”. While Al Gore won Nobel peace prize for elevating the climate issue, he admits he likes his meat and has no plans of giving it up. Obviously, there is an inherent hypocrisy involved in his book and movie.

Raising animals for slaughter is a highly inefficient way to use our land and its resources. The prestigious Worldwatch Institute states, “Meat consumption is an inefficient use of grain—the grain is used more efficiently when consumed directly by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat-eaters and the world’s poor.” According to the United Nations, raising animals for food (including land used for grazing and land used to grow feed crops) uses a staggering 30 percent of the earth’s land mass. More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals, and according to scientists’ at the Smithsonian Institution, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed worldwide every minute to create more room for farmed animals. It takes more than 11 times as much fossil fuel to make one calorie from animal protein as it does to make one calorie from plant protein.

Raising animals for food gobbles up precious energy. Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food. In 2008, John Anthony Allan, a professor at King’s College London and the winner of the prestigious Stockholm Water Prize, urged people worldwide to go vegetarian because of the tremendous waste of water involved with eating animals. It takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons. You save more water by not eating a pound of meat than you do by not showering for six months! According to Greenpeace, all the wild animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of the Amazon rain forest in Brazil were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed chickens and other animals in factory farms. Finally, According to Oregon State University agriculture professor Peter Cheeke, “factory farming constitutes a frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems”

The evidence is overwhelming – animal slaughter is not only causing global climate issues, it also is promoting and sustaining food poverty. By living a vegetarian lifestyle, one can save large amounts of land and water resources. Using the saved land and water, more people across the world can be fed thus fully eliminating food poverty. When people do not experience food shortage (or food insecurity) there will not be a need to work in substandard working conditions at low-wages. This will also bridge the gap between the rich and poor thus creating a more equitable social, economic and political society.

If the leaders of society can simply take one strategy of stopping or reducing factory farming of animals, one can solve global poverty and reverse climate change. Since the desire to eat meat will always remain, a policy should be mandated to cull animals’ in small scale in local farms. As such a practice will be expensive; the frequency of meat consumption will reduce.

Hare Krishna

Real meaning of diksha
→ Servant of the Servant

The process of attaining transcendental knowledge is called initiation.  We should know that the Supreme Lord is the transcendental Absolute Truth, we are His eternal servants, and we have no duty other than to serve Him.  Knowing this is actual initiation.   The absence of understanding is ignorance.  At present, there is a controversy about the word “Initiation.”  People proudly claim that they have taken initiation from a bona fide spiritual master, but how can they maintain material attachment even after taking initiation ?  How can they desire to make advancement in material life ?  If they don’t learn about their relationship with the Lord, independent and proud people uselessly brag about their initiations.  Rather than treating their spiritual master as if he were as good as God, they treat him as their disciple, fit  to be their order-supplier. Considering the guru an ordinary mortal being, these persons become offenders at his lotus feet.
– Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur – Page No.262 and 263 of the book ‘Amritha Vani’

The tale of the lucky liver fluke
→ Servant of the Servant

The question of evolution always come into play as i think it is more fiction than facts. Scientists, in my opinion, make enormous leaps of faith to make conclusions based on evidences. Below is an opening real-world scenario that begins to expose the inadequacy of this theory in regards to accounting for the facts of life.

Like many parasites, liver flukes require more than one distinct host-species to carry them through the various stages of their life-cycles. In their specific case: cows, snails and ants fulfil such roles. As adults, they live in the livers of cows, where they mate, with their eggs being excreted via the host’s fecal matter. Terrestrial snails that dine on such literal left-overs become infected by the fluke’s larvae, which then settle in the snails’ digestive tracts. To protect themselves, the snails form cysts around the little parasites, before excreting them in their own waste. Finally ants, looking to snail slime as a source of moisture, simultaneously ingest these cysts, each of which is filled with hundreds of juvenile flukes.

At first glance, that may all seem to be pretty random. Except that there’s nothing random about the fact that the very distinct stages the flukes pass through in their life- cycle are precisely aligned with their existence within these several and very distinct hosts. The flukes manifest multifarious and specific adaptations to the distinct circumstances posed by each host; while the hosts themselves also provide specific circumstances and responses so as to perfectly serve the flukes’ needs, including their transportation to their next destination. There is some seriously outrageous synchronicity going on here, such a complex and interconnected chain of events as to seemingly defy any rational explanation for how or why it came to be. Nor have we yet come to the most mind-blowing part of their story.

Meanwhile we’ve been educated to believe that explanations of such phenomena are indeed what science is able to provide. In fact Leon Lederman, previous director of the Fermi Particle Accelerator, predicted that the ultimate goal of all their research would manifest in the form of a single equation that would explain absolutely everything, and that would be elegant enough to be written on a T-shirt. Yet never mind a single equation that could sum up everything; how can we account for but an infinitesimal speck of all that absolute ‘everything-ness,’ in the form of the amazing life-journey of the tiny liver fluke?

We just left off this journey with the juvenile flukes about to emerge from their ‘space-capsule’-like cysts within the body of their new unsuspecting host, the ant. These juveniles are then free to wander throughout the ant’s body, but one in particular moves to a critical cluster of nerve-cells lying just underneath the ant’s esophagus, and this is indeed where the most extraordinary element of the story of the Lancet liver fluke takes place.

Somehow or other this fluke is now able to manipulate the nerves there so as to cause its ant-host to act in a most peculiar but obliging fashion. As evening draws near, such an infested ant begins to act in an entirely un-antlike manner, abandoning its natural behaviors in favor of a new set of behaviors that are tailor-made to suit the interests of the flukes. It breaks away from the rest of its nest-mates, who are all back at the nest, snug as only a bug can be; while this uncharacteristically individualistic member of the herd goes off to spend the night firmly ensconced at the tip of a blade of grass.

Now as if that isn’t bizarre enough, in defiance of basic (ant-) logic, it in fact locks itself into place with its mandibles for the apparent purpose of making sure that it will be included in the diet of any cow that happens to graze upon the particular patch of grass it’s perched in. Should no cow happen to thus include that particular grass-blade in its meal, the ant then climbs back down at dawn to rejoin the rest of the colony, acting just like any other ant, and thus escaping the heat of the day which would otherwise kill both it along with its parasitic controllers. What we can say then, is that this particular ant has now been re-programmed by one of the flukes so as to follow a suicide-mission specifically designed for the benefit of the flukes.

So the question is, programmed by what? The ant surely didn’t come up with such a program itself, acting under some self-sacrificing largesse aimed at helping the liver flukes in their own desperate struggle for survival. Yet is it any more reasonable to think that the flukes figured all this out for themselves, according to the panicked genius of the first generation of flukes that suddenly found themselves stuck in the digestive system of an ant, wondering what on earth they should do next to get out of there?

OK – so what is a reasonable answer? According to the theory of evolution, ‘it just happened.’ Science has adopted this answer – and science is, after all, the very paragon of rational and objective thinking. So if it’s science, and therefore presumably true and proven fact, who are we to question it?
Yet once we do begin to think about it, using the current example of the liver fluke as a case in point, all kinds of questions must surely arise. For instance: how did the very first fluke that was swallowed by an ant and then made its way to said ant’s sub-esophageal ganglion before seizing control of the entire ant … well, how did it do that? How did it come to figure out how to pilot such an alien craft, and how did it even recognize what and where the controls were? After which, how did it determine its next life-supporting destination, namely the strange alien landscape of a cow’s liver; and without the use of anything like a Mars Rover, for instance? Plus, how did it come by the actual chain of events by which it could arrive at said next destination via its new ‘space- ship’… including programming said ship for such activities as are entirely foreign to the fluke itself, such as climbing up grass-blades for the night, locking mandibles (whatever they might be, from a liver fluke’s perspective) in place, and patiently and one-pointedly awaiting the approaching ‘jaws of death’?

Then there is the favorite old conundrum of course, suitably reworded for this particular example: which came first (as far as the fluke is concerned, that is): the cow, the snail or the ant? Or isn’t the simple fact that all three are required simultaneously? What series of prior evolutionary steps could be imagined that could have led up to this spectacularly complex and precise set of arrangements? How is it consistent or rational to imagine that the explanation for such unparalleled complexity is mere arbitrary randomness? Would anyone take seriously, for example, a billionaire’s explaining as to how he became so fabulously wealthy if his only answer was, “Well, I started with nothing actually; and then I didn’t really do anything at all – and, umm, here we are then”?

The development and survival of these parasites requires an incredible degree of precise coordination of many highly complex and specific factors. Nor does such occur only within the body of the fluke itself, but it takes place over several distinct environments, which are in perfect dynamic alignment with the various needs and developmental stages of the fluke.

A myriad specific adaptations are required for the little flukes to thrive within the various host species, which thriving includes being superbly able to take advantage of unique responsive processes within the hosts themselves, such as the snails’ cyst-manufacturing system. Plus a myriad specific adaptations more to facilitate their successful transportation from one species to the next, whereby the species involved are themselves both favorable environments for the flukes to survive in, as well as suitable providers of carriage to the next such favorable environment. In other words, the level of specificity and complexity of the system as a whole is virtually incalculable.

Is it truly and rationally thinkable that all of this could have spontaneously and randomly developed, unplanned and unguided? In other words, out of the incalculable number of possible random mutations or developments that could ever happen, somehow or other, a single precise chain of random events happened to take place as to facilitate the mind-bogglingly complex series of interlocking eco-systems we refer to as the life-story of the liver fluke. Because that is precisely what evolutionary theory tells us, as a matter of supposedly obvious and rational deduction, entirely consistent with experience and evidence. In which case, each and every species might best be referred to as a fluke!

Hare Krishna

The scientific creed
→ Servant of the Servant

Science prides itself of objectivity and empiricism. When I was in school I always questioned how science made some base assumptions. However, at that time I could not quite articulate my doubts in words. I knew something did not sit very well with me whenever some ideas were taught in the name of science.

For example, when I was introduced to the concept of evolution in middle school, it stated that species evolved to complex organisms over time due to natural selection and only the fittest survive the onslaughts of nature. I thought that if we all evolved in that way, then how come our ancestors still exist in their primitive forms? Because if they survived the struggles of nature, then there is no need to evolve and i wont be sitting here typing on a computer? So did only few our ancestors struggle to evolve through natural selection while others remained without evolution? Perhaps there is an answer, i do not know?

Another glaring thought that bothered me in physics class in high school was the understanding of outer space? I wondered how light, sound etc behaved the same way across the entire cosmos? Scientists assumed that the red and violet frequencies in the light spectrum behaved the same way in outer space millions of light years away as it did on the earth paradigm. Something I could not easily accept from science!

Anyways, i am not a scientist but reading these ten dogmas written by a thoroughbred scientist helped me articulate my own doubts and also shed light onto other assumptions science makes.

Below are the ten core beliefs (or dogmas) that most scientists take for granted. Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of scientific materialism.

  1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
  2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
  3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
  4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.
  5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
  6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
  7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
  8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
  9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
  10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
– By Rupert Sheldrake – Phd Cambridge and Harvard

The argument I have heard for these dogmas is that science “will” in the long run prove these assumptions. In the words of Karl Popper (a scientist philosohper) such future promises are akin to “promissory materialism” meaning making promises for a future discovery or invention that has yet to take place. Srila Prabhupada called it “post-dated” check. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the scientists, even if they do solve these assumptions in the future, it still does not account for the present theories? 
Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead
– John Keynes an  Economist
You be the judge!
Hare Krishna

Q & A
→ Servant of the Servant

Below are questions posed by a devotee friend and my following answers.

From what I understand, Krishna is a person, meaning he is personal. What are the impersonal aspects he is referring to?
You are correct Krishna is a person with likes and dislikes except He is the Supreme Person. The impersonal aspect of Krishna is His bodily effulgence or nirguna nirakar Brahman and then His energy upon which this material creation rests. This material world in which we are currently occupying is an expansion of Krishna but without Krishna directly in it so in that sense it is impersonal. The Brahman effulgence (the universal light) which yogis meditate upon is also a manifestation of Krishna (which is impersonal as it has no character or guna).

Does the personal triumph over the impersonal?
I am not exactly sure what you mean by triumph but from a spiritual perspective, impersonal and personal are same but the difference is in complete versus incomplete. Brahman manifestation is an incomplete realization of God. Realizing Bhagavan is a complete realization of God so one can say in that sense personal is superior to impersonal due to the degree of completeness. If you want to give a crude example, we can establish a relationship with a person by email and or also by person. Both are valid but talking to a person directly reveals more about the individual than just email. Similarly meditating on Brahman reveals certain aspects of God but meditating directly on God reveals Him completely.

I absolutely believe that one has to treat God like a family member to establish that relationship of Love with him. Unless one can think of him that way, it will be difficult as you said to continuously think of him. Correct me if I am wrong, the best way to develop this Love would be to read and hear about his stories, his past times.
Yes you are correct. Just one additional point, you have to hear not just from anyone but from His pure devotee only and not anyone else because Krishna as we discussed earlier reveals His confidential secrets only to His pure bhaktas (not gnanis or yogis). Why…you may ask that is because love is personal and confidential as we discussed earlier and gnanis want knowledge and yogis want siddhis, only bhaktas want to love God…so therefore if we also want to develop love for Krishna, then we must hear from a lover of God – His pure devotee or suddha bhakta.

When we say he is a person, are we not limiting his existence to a body and form? What of the space outside of his body and form? How should we understand it?
This is good question. To understand this fully requires deeper realization. For my part I can share the theory. Our mundane experience so far has taught us to see body as limited…why…because our body is made of flesh and blood bound by space and time. According to great saints like Sukadev Goswami, Mahamuni Vyas etc and according to Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, we understand that Krishna’s body is not made of flesh and blood. You can get an indication of this in verse BG 4.6. Please read that for clarification. In other words, even when Krishna appeared 5000 years ago, His body was not material but fully spiritual. His atma and His body are the same unlike in our case, the atma is inside the physical body. Therefore the entire body of Krishna is spiritual and in our case our atma or spirit is a tiny size (1/10,000 tip of a hair strand) located in the heart region of our body. The rest of our body is made of flesh and blood. So Krishna is not bound by laws of nature like we are bound. Believe it or not…all the 33 crore demigods (except Lord Siva) also have a physical body like us and an atma residing within. However, the physical bodies of demigods are very powerful. Krishna’s body however is completely spiritual and hence He is categorically superior from all living beings and demigods including Sivaji and Brahmaji. This is why Krishna is Swayam Bhagavan.

The space outside of Krishna’s body is both outside and inside of His body. This is not possible for us to understand as we live in a three dimensional world. For example, mother Yasoda asked to see Krishna’s mouth, she saw the entire creation plus herself in it which means Krishna was inside and outside His creation simultaneously. Because Krishna is the Supreme creator, His entire creation is inside and outside of Him. So in one sense all space is contained within Him and outside Him simultaneously. So Krishna is everywhere and in one place simultaneously. Because we live a three dimensional world, it appears to us that Krishna came to earth 5000 year ago, did some lila, lived in Vrindavan, Mathura and left the planet. People with material understanding like scholars and material sadhus narrate Krishna’s stories in this way. But actually, Krishna never leaves Vrindavan and at the same time all pervading. We cannot perceive this reality till our heart is cleansed of our attachment to our bodily identity and completely immersed in service to Krishna. This will take time but for now in theory, we can understand that because Krishna’s body is not made of material elements, is all pervading (i.e all space is within Him) and at the same time localized (i.e. space is outside of Him) simultaneously. There are two narrations to illustrate this conundrum, one story of Markendeya muni and the other of Dhurvasa muni. Both experience Krishna inside and out.

Hare Krishna