Rezultate de la 1 la 9 din 9

Subiect: muzica

  1. #1
    valcor este offline Utilizator Samanta
    Data inscrierii
    septembrie 2009
    Posturi
    1

    Implicit muzica

    superentuziasm gospel: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqPKGODUnW4[/media]

  2. #2
    Aanca este offline Utilizator Samanta
    Data inscrierii
    septembrie 2009
    Locatie
    Bucuresti
    Posturi
    8

    Implicit Re: muzica

    Am tot cautat un loc pe forum unde sa pot pune ceva ce mie mi-a bucurat sufletul foarte mult, si poate doriti sa ascultati si dvs. Asa ca daca am gasit acest loc, sper sa il gasiti si voi si sa va mangaie sufletele, interpretarea (ca sa zic asa) ii apartine unui calugar de la Putna (acompaniat de un cor de ingeri )

    acoperamantul maicii domnului mp4
    Ultima editare de Aanca : 01 oct 2009 la 08:52

  3. #3
    savanah Avatar
    savanah este offline Utilizator Bobocel
    Data inscrierii
    mai 2008
    Locatie
    Iasi
    Posturi
    338

    Implicit Re: muzica

    Aanca, este binevenita postarea ta tocmai azi, cind serbam Acoperamintul Maicii Domnului.

    Singura corectura pe care o fac: inregistrarea ii apartine psaltului Marian Moise, un tinar teolog (casatorit, dupa cite stiu eu, deci sigur nu e monah) care cinta la Biserica de lemn Sf. Antonie din Titan, Bucuresti (asta daca intre timp nu a plecat de la acea parohie; acolo a fost ascultat asta vara, prin iunie-iulie...). Interpretarile lui sunt frumoase, chiar daca sunt contestate de unii cintareti de muzica psaltica. Sa asculti interpretarea lui la Acatistul de multumire-Slava lui Dumnezeu pentru Toate (am mai vorbit, pe undeva pe forum, despre acest acatist; numai ca e asaaaa de mare forumul nostru ca nu mai stiu pe unde ).
    Gasesti, pe internet, multe inregistrari ale lui.

  4. #4
    Aanca este offline Utilizator Samanta
    Data inscrierii
    septembrie 2009
    Locatie
    Bucuresti
    Posturi
    8

    Implicit Re: muzica

    Oo!! iti multumesc mult pt informatii, eu nu stiam mai nimic despre el, aveam de la cineva formatul mp4 si respectiva persoana asa mi-a spus ca este un calugar de la Putna, m-am gandit eu sa caut ce si cum ...dar nu aveam nici un punct de plecare si nu stiam de unde sa incep, asa ca informatiile de la tine sunt la fix. Multumesc mult si eu.
    ..de ce ar fi contestate interpretarile lui?!? e adevaarat ca nu am eu mare experienta in domeniu, dar mi s-a parut mirific glasul lui..si parca se simte ca vine din suflet.
    Chiar ma voi interesa daca mai este acolo, daca ai vreo informatie in acest sens ti-as fi recunoscatorare. Biserica este cea din parcul I.O.R?

  5. #5
    savanah Avatar
    savanah este offline Utilizator Bobocel
    Data inscrierii
    mai 2008
    Locatie
    Iasi
    Posturi
    338

    Implicit Re: muzica

    Nu stiu exact unde este pozitionata biserica respectiva.
    La fel ca si acum, am dat aceste informatii cuiva care dorea sa il asculte pe acest om. El a cautat biserica (si-a introdus pur si simplu adresa pe GPS-ul masinii ) si a ajuns unde trebuie, l-a ascultat, i-a placut la fel de mult (ba chiar mai mult) cum i-au placut si inregistrarile de pe net...
    Eu doar am "depozitat" informatia si o dau acum mai departe.
    Dar cred ca printre cei care cinta la strana bisericilor din Bucuresti trebuie sa se stie de el.

  6. #6
    HareKrishna este offline Utilizator Samanta
    Data inscrierii
    februarie 2010
    Posturi
    49

    Implicit Re: muzica

    Dumnezeu este cel care isi poate dori orice dar are puterea ca oricand sa isi schimbe dorinta. Suferinta transcendentala pe care ar putea-o simti Dumnezeu daca ar vrea se deosebeste de suferinta noastra prin simplul fapt ca Dumnezeu poate ORICAND sa-si inceteze suferinta iar noi nu. De-aia el este Adevarul Absolut iar noi suntem numai niste scantei din El.

    N-are rost sa-ti bati capul prea mult cu rationamente le nivelul Absolutului caci Absolutul si proprietatile lui nu vor incapea niciodata in mintea ta materiala, limitata. Ce poti face este sa urmezi un proces prin care la un moment dat vei putea comunica cu el, caci sufletul tau este intr-adevar parte din Absolut si poate cunoaste Absolutul. Dar niciodata prin speculatie mentala ci numai prin auto-realizare.


    Urmatorul articol mi s-a parut foarte revelator si de aceea o sa-l postez si pe forum

    The Logic of the Absolute
    By Hridayananda Das Goswami | Published 11/20/2006
    Unrated
    Article Viewed 142 Times

    Given proof of God, would a materialist know how to read it?

    People often ask us, ?Can you prove the existence of God?? Proof indicates a conclusive demonstration that establishes the validity of an assertion, in this case the assertion that God exists.

    But as soon as we speak of a demonstration, the next question is ?To whom shall we demonstrate?? If we speak of evidence or data, we must know who will see and hear it. In other words, who will judge the results of a particular experiment, test, or trial.

    Consider a hypothetical example. Doctor Waterport, the famous scientist, has just discovered a sophisticated formula that solves a technical mathematical problem. He proudly calls his colleagues together and presents them with thirty pages of ultratechnical symbols. His fellow scientists pore over the pages and conclude, ?Yes, this is the answer we?re looking for.? If Dr. Waterport were to show the proof to an ordinary person on the street, the person wouldn?t even know how to hold the pages right side up. Because he?s not trained in mathematics, the proof would be meaningless to him. Conclusion: Proof demands a qualified audience.

    Certainly, any valid proof must be logical. But how we apply logic depends on our previous experience. For example, suppose an apple tree is growing outside your window. One morning you hear a sound like that of an apple hitting the ground, and when you look outside you see a ripe apple lying beneath the tree. Logically, you conclude, the apple has just fallen from the tree.

    Your logical statement rests on your previous observation that the apple tree produces apples, that the apples fall to the ground, and that they make a certain sound when this occurs. And your statement appears logical to those with similar experience.

    So we apply logic in terms of our experience. Therefore, how can we expect to make God logical to a person who has had no spiritual experience? How can God appear logical to a person to whom the very terminology of the science of God is unintelligible? Thus it is ludicrous when those who are spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb -demand that God be made ?logical? to them and that His existence be ?proved.?

    In general, it is illogical for a person untrained in some field of knowledge to demand that a particular fact pertaining to that field of knowledge be logically demonstrated to him. For example, if someone who has no idea what a number is demands that I logically demonstrate that two plus two equals four, I can?t do it. Similarly, if a spiritual ignoramus demands that God be logically demonstrated to him, his very request is illogical. So how can the illogical demands of atheists be met?

    We can easily provide innumerable proofs of God?provided we are free to stipulate that the judge of the data be a person who is spiritually trained. Devotees of the Lord who are advanced in Krishna consciousness can logically, evidentially, and demonstratively deal with the reality of the soul and God. But materialistic fools demand that God, a nonmaterial being, be reduced to a material formula.

    It is patently absurd to demand material proof for a nonmaterial entity. Mathematical or physical laws describe predictable ways in which material things interact. God and the soul are not material and thus cannot be reduced to material descriptions.

    This does not mean, however, that the soul is outside the jurisdiction of logical discussion. Consciousness itself is spiritual, not material, and thus the study of consciousness, or spirit, is not beyond the scope of human beings.

    In fact, all fields of knowledge depend on tangible perception of the soul, since all sciences depend on a conscious scientist who works with consciousness, which is spiritual, not material. In other words, spiritual awareness is intrinsic to all types of awareness, although materialistic people do not recognize that consciousness is spiritual.

    So there is no lack of data to prove the existence of spirit, since consciousness itself is spiritual. The problem is that foolish intellectuals whimsically designate consciousness a material, not a spiritual, entity. But as soon as we accept the simple truth that consciousness itself is spiritual, we find that in every stage of awareness and in every field of knowledge our perception of all manner of data is resting on a spiritual experience?the experience of being conscious. And when consciousness studies itself, it reaches the stage called spiritual consciousness, or self- realization. Ultimately, when the self-realized person fixes his consciousness on the source of all consciousness, he reaches the realization of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

    For one who has not perceived the superior pleasure of Krishna consciousness, it will seem illogical to restrict his material enjoyment. A Krishna conscious person, however, perceives that spiritual consciousness is far more pleasurable and satisfying than material consciousness. He further perceives that sinful activities?activities against the laws of God?harm that consciousness. Thus it is entirely logical for a Krishna conscious person to obey the laws of God, just as it is logical for an ordinary citizen to obey the laws of the state.

    Ultimately, we must come to the stage of absolute logic, which refers to absolute perception, a perception of things with eternally recognizable properties and eternally established relationships. For example, God is the supreme master and enjoyer and we are His eternal servants. Thus it is absolutely logical for us to serve Him, for we are then situated in our natural, constitutional position. To serve a mundane employer may be logical, but it is not absolutely logical, since after the employer?s death, or upon his bankruptcy, serving him is illogical.

    In conclusion, logic is a secondary process that follows the primary process of consciousness. We are conscious, for example, that numbers have particular values and properties, and based on this perception, we can state that a particular mathematical equation is either logical or illogical. Similarly, by purifying our existence through the practice of Krishna consciousness, we can perceive the values and properties of God, and thus we can discern that a particular statement about God is either logical or illogical. By confirming our analysis with the Vedic literatures, which are standard reference works of spiritual science compiled by realized devotees, we can perfectly understand the science of God in Krishna consciousness.

    CITAT (hoinar6 @ 30th July 2010, 01:50)
    Sunt atras de ceva vreme de filozofiile orientale, de esenta lor si de cea ce vor ele sa transmita. Dar, ca si in cazul Bibliei nu ma pot impaca cu veridicitatea materiala a multor chestiuni, daca intelegeti ce vreau sa zic...

    Ca sa-ti raspund la neclaritati am incercat sa fiu mai sistematic. uite ce-a iesit:

    "om purnam adah purnam idam
    purnat purnam udacyate
    purnasya purnam adaya
    purnam evavasisyate" (ISO, Invocatie)

    The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

    Numai acest text, singur, raspunde la toate problemele filozofice amintite de tine, deoarece aici sunt descriese conceptele fundamentale filozofiei vaishnava (la sfarsitul mesajului am raspuns punctual).conceptele sunt, deci:

    1. Personalitatea Suprema a Divinitatii
    2. Emanatiile Sale
    3. Relatia dintre PSD si emanatiile sale

    Dumnezeu, ca si concept filozofic este fiinta perfecta si completa. Dumnezeu este sat-cit-ananda-vigraha (etern, plin de cunoastere, plin de fericire). Aceasta forma a Divinitatii se realizeaza in 3 aspecte:
    - Realizarea aspectului Brahman inseamna realizarea aspectului sat, de eternitate a divinitatii. Acesta este aspectul impersonal al Divinitatii.
    - Paramatman reprezinta aspectul sat-cit, adica etern si plin de cunoastere. Acesta este Suprasufletul care se afla in inimile tuturor entitatilor vii alaturi de suflet si supervizeaza activitatea acestuia.
    - Bhagavan este al treilea aspect si cel complet, sat-cit-ananda. Etern, plin de cunoaltere si plin de fericire. Aceasta este Personalitatea Suprema a Divinitatii. Spun personalitate, deoarece aceasta forma presupune ananda, fericirea, care poate fi experimentata decat de o constiinta.

    Cand vorbim de Dumnezeu vorbim de aceste aspecte, sat, cit, ananda. Daca noi il vedem pe Dumenzeu ca fiind impersonal, atunci vedem doar aspctul de sat. Daca il vedem doar ca si Persoana Suprema care este constienta de tot ceea ce exist si se afla in inimile entitatilor vii vorbim de aspectele sat-cit. Dar daca vorbim de Dumnezeu ca si Persoana completa , atot fericita, vorbim de Bhagavan. Krishna este Bhagavan in forma cea mai intima.

    Legat de conceptele de finit sau infinit, parerea mea este ca nu sunt tocmai potrivite pentru a descrie Divinitatea. Pot fi folosite pentru a indica anumite trasaturi, dar aceste concepte nu pot descrie complet natura Sa. Dumnezeu este mai mult decat infinit. Dumnezeu poate sa fie si finit si infinit in acelasi timp. El poate sa fie si unul si mai multi in acelasi timp. El emana, se manfesta intr-o multitudine de forme pentru placerea Sa. Dumnezeu inseamna Dumnezeu + potenta de a fi Dumnezeu ( sau energia Sa). Adica El este shaktiman +shakti. Shakti inseamna energie. El este cel care se bucura de energia Sa, shaktiman. Energia Sa, shakti, este potenta Sa de a fi Dumnezeu, potenta placerii Sale. Spus pe scurt, Dumnezeu este Dumnezeu pentru ca are potenta de a fi Dumnezeu. Aceste doua lucruri nu sunt doua entitati distincte, fara nici o relatie. Filozofic vorbind, nu poate exista nimic in afara Divinitatii. Shaktiman si shakti sunt natura sa de Dumnezeu.

    Aceste concepte de shaktiman si shakti pot fi intelese mai bine facand o analogie. O centrala electrica care produce energie electrica este shaktiman, iar energia care ilumineaza un bec este shakti. Nu putem vorbi separat de centrala si de energie care face un bec sa lumineze. Sunt o singura entitate, dar si doua in acelasi timp: energeticul si energia. Alt exemplu este soarele si lumina. Nu putem vorbi de lumina fara Soare sau de Soare fara lumina, dar in acelasi timp putem face o distinctie intre ele. Acesta este fundamentul filozofiei vaishnava, sustinuta de scrierile vedice. Unitate si diversitate.

    Asa cum am descris mai sus vazut, Dumnezeu este ananda adica plin de fericire. Ca si shaktiman El expandeaza intr-o infinitate de forme care sa experimenteze in mod diferit fericirea. De partea cealalta shakti expandeaza intr-o infinitate de forme care sa-i produca placere lui shaktiman.

    Noi, sufletele individuale, suntem de aceeasi natura ca si divinitatea fiind emanatiile Sale. Defapt suntem emanatiile energiei sale, shakti, si natura noastra constitutiva este de a avea o relatie de iubire cu shaktiman, Dumnezeu, Bhagavan. Fiind de aceeasi natura, sprituala(asa cum energia e de aceeasi natura cu energeticul), suntem sat-cit-ananda. Aceasta este starea noastra naturala, dar suntem infinit de mici. La fel cum o picatura din ocean area aceeasi natura ca si oceanul la fel si noi avem aceeasi natura cu Dumnezeu. Dar aceasta iubire, aceasta relatie pe care o avem cu Divinitatea nu ar avea nici o valoare daca nu ar fi liber consimtita. aici intervine livertatea sufletului individual de a-L iubi pe Dumnezeu sau nu, de a avea interese comune ce acesta sau nu. Cand sufletul individual are interese independente, atunci El le poate satisface pe acestea in asociere cu natura materiala, care este tot o energie a Divinitatii. Dar in aceasta menifestare a sa, Dumnezeu nu-si manifesta potenta. El nu are nici un interes acolo. Lumea materiala exista pentru ca noi dorim sa fim independenti iar Dumnezeu ne da posibilitatea aceasta. In esenta, noi nu suntem si nu vom putea fi niciodata independenti, fiind parte din Dumnezeu, dar aceasta lume ne creeaza perfect aceasta iluzie. Aceasta lume materiala nu este finita. Exista o infinitate de universuri materiale, dar ca si suma, reprezinta doar o mica parte din toata natura spirituala care este intr-o continua diversificare. Iluzia independentei este creata de corpul si mintea materiale care invelesc sufletul in aceasta lume. Noi ne identificam cu acestea si suferim sau ne bucuram in functie de ceea ce simturile furnizeaza si in raport cu dorintele noastre egoiste. Dar noi nu suntem acest corp si aceasta minte. Noi suntem un suflet spiritual, dar uitam(si Dumnezeu ne face sa uitam ) acest lucru deoarece dorim independenta de Persoana Suprema.

    Legate de aceasta natura materiala dau in continuare niste citate:

    At that time Arjuna could see in the universal form of the Lord the unlimited expansions of the universe situated in one place although divided into many, many thousands. BG. 11.13.

    Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature. B.G. 13.20

    The living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. This is due to his association with that material nature. Thus he meets with good and evil among various species. BG. 13.22

    As putea da aici zeci de citate din B.G. in special in capitolul 11 si 13, 14. Exista o versiune online pt B.G. as it is(cred ca ti-am mai dat linku), unde se pot citi toate astea direct cu comentariile lui Prabhupada.

    Legat de a doua intrebare Krishna nu are nevoie de noi pentru a-i produce placere. El este complet multumit tn Sine. Noi, ca parti din acest sine, desi traim in iluzia independentei tn aceast lume materiala defapt tot cu Persoana Suprema avem o relatie. Tot ceea ce ne inconjoara, acest corp, aceasta lume este energia Sa. Deci, filozofic vorbind, noi tot cu Dumnezeu avem relatii si aici. Noi putem sa actionam conform cu planul Sau sau putem actiona tn independenta. Dar Persoana Suprema este capabila sa se manifeste in nenumarate forme care sa-i produca placere. Exista o povestire in Srimad Bhagavatam care scoate in evidenta exact aceasta natura a Divinitatii. Mai exact, S.B. Canto 10, cap 13 "The Stealing of the Boys and Calves by Brahma" si apoi cap 14."Brahma's Prayers to Lord Krishna" in care se arata cum Brahma ii fura pe prietenii lui krishna din Vrindavan, iar El creaza niste manifestari absolut identice cu acestea.

    Recunosc ca o discutie foarta lunga ar fi necesara pentru ca tu sa inteleagi toate aceste concepte si legaturile dintre ele. probabil ca ceea ce am scris mai sus aduce mai multe intrebari decat raspunsuri, dar daca vrei cu adevarat sa cunoasca toate acestea ca sa-ti faci o imagine corecta spura vaishnavismului, iti poti face timp sa studieze direct de la sursa, din scrierile vaishnavilor devotati recunoscuti in India de linia disciplica( ca Srila Prabhupada, Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaj etc)

    Online, toate cartile de baza sunt disponibile la http://vedabase.net/

    Ex:
    http://vedabase.net/iso/invocation/en
    http://vedabase.net/bg/en
    http://vedabase.net/sb/10/13/en
    http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/en

    Si-acum ca am introdus mai pe larg si mai sistematic decat ieri subiectul, incerc un raspuns punct cu punct

    "De exemplu un crestin poate reprosa Vainasmului ca Dumnezeu(Vishnu) are si parti finite(lumea,omul animalele etc) avand in vedere ca universul este facut din esenta lui Vishnu iar nu din nimic dupa cum e cazul in crestinism.Pe cand un Dumnezeu perfect ar avea numai parti ininfinite."

    Aceste parti finite exista si in conceptia crestina, doar le putem vedea in jurul nostru. Iau un creion de pe masa si e finit. Si daca exista lucruri finite ce legatura are asta cu infinitatea lui Dumnezeu? Acestea sunt facute din energia lui Vishnu, dar asta nu inseamna ca Vishnu este finit. De aceea Isopanisad foloseste termenul de complet si perfect in sensul ca natura materia de exemplu este perfecta si completa prin faptul ca ea functioneaza exact asa cum a fost proiectata si cu scopul pentru care a fost proiectata.

    "Al 2 lea punct-In Vaisnava Dumnezeu are nevoie de oameni pt al distra,ceea ce inseamna ca Vishnu e dependent de oameni deci imperfect ,pe cand in crestinism Dumnezeu nu are nevoie de oameni(ii creeaza din prea-plinul dragostei) ci este in sinea lui self-suficient deci perfect."

    Cine spune ca Vishnu are nevoie de noi pt a se distra? Nu are. Cand Dumnezeu doreste ceva acest lucru este automat indeplinit de potenta Sa. Daca noi vrem sa fim partasi la asta atunci cu atat mai bine, daca nu, El este Satisfacut oricum. Citeste poveste cu Brahma si Krishna de care ti-am zis mai sus pentru lamuriri. Oricum si filozofia crestina afirma defapt acelasi lucru. Noi suntem creati dupa chipul si asemanarea lui Dumnezeu si pentru placerea Sa.

    "In vaisnava Dumnezeu e rau sau contine erori,deoarece oamenii sunt facuti din esenta lui Dumnezeu si daca oamenii sunt rai sau in eroare atunci si Dumnezeu este in eroare deci imperfect.In crestinism ,faptul ca Dumnezeu are o esenta diferita de cea a omului sau a universului "il fereste" de a contine erori sau rautati ,deci e perfect."

    Dumnezeu in crestinism nu are o natura diferita. E aceeasi natura. Dupa chipul si asemanarea...

    Legat de problema binelui si raului mai bine sa-i lasam pe Crestini sa raspunda logic si filozofic la problema Teodiceii daca pot . Vaishnavii raspund in felul urmator:

    DO BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE?

    BY RAVINDRA SVARUPA DASA

    About five years ago, when we were having an altar installed in our new temple,
    the overseer from the marble company would regularly bring his seven-year-old
    son along to watch. The boy was very handsome, with jet-black hair and pale
    skin and long, dark eyelashes. He was well behaved and always seemed in good
    humor even though he could hardly walk at all. I never saw him take more than
    a few steps, leaning on a wall and straining his torso with an awkward twisting
    motion and then swinging forward a leg clamped into a large, clumsy brace.

    The boy had been born crippled. While he was cheerful despite that, his father
    was not. His father was an angry man. "When that boy was born I stopped going
    to church," he told me once, as he knelt on our altar putting grout between the
    marble slabs. "I never did anything bad enough to deserve this. Sure, I'm not
    a saint, but I don't deserve this. And even if I did, what could HE have done?"

    The aggrieved father, an unsophisticated marble contractor, was raising
    a problem that has long preoccupied Western religious thinkers, so much so that
    it has created a special discipline called THEODICY, a branch of theology
    concerned with justifying the ways of God to man. Theodicy deals with what is
    usually called "the problem of evil." St. Augustine cast it into the form of
    a dilemma: "Either God cannot or God will not eliminate evil from the world. If
    He cannot, He is not all-powerful; if He will not, He is not all-good." This
    formulation makes the logic of the problem clear: to show that the existence of
    a world with evil in it is compatible with the existence of a God who is BOTH
    all-powerful AND all-good. To deny either one of these attributes would easily
    explain evil, but orthodox theologians have always considered that
    unacceptable.

    Those who find the problem of evil intractable usually deny the existence of
    God outright rather than settle for a God limited either in power or goodness.
    Would such a finite being really qualify to be called "God"? Would he be worthy
    of our worship?

    Although philosophers and theologians have left us a huge body of technical
    literature on the problem of evil, it is far from a theoretical concern. It is
    everybody's problem, sooner or later. Suffering is universal. But oddly enough,
    practically as widespread is the sufferer's feeling that he has been unfairly
    singled out. From millions comes the outraged cry: "Why ME! What did I do to
    deserve this?"

    It is for such people that Harold S. Kushner, a Massachusetts rabbi, has
    written his book WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE. It is a painfully
    honest treatment of what the author claims is the one theological issue that
    reaches folks "where they really care."

    Kushner's book grew out of his personal pain; his testimony commands respect.
    He tells how his son was afflicted from infancy with progeria, a disease that
    brings on rapid aging, so that Kushner saw the boy grow bald and wrinkled,
    stooped and frail, until he died of old age in his fourteenth year. Kushner
    presents the victim's point of view, and he lets us hear the real voices of
    people in pain. In that stark light, the standard religious justifications for
    our misfortunes, which Kushner lays out one by one, do indeed seem like facile
    verbal shuffles that don't take people's suffering seriously but simply try,
    however lamely, to get God off the hook.

    Kushner effectively criticizes the standard answers handed out by priests,
    ministers, rabbis, and he offers instead his own radically unorthodox solution.
    His book has been a bestseller for months, and he has attracted a large and
    grateful following among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Indeed, the
    popularity of his view among members of America's mainstream churches and
    synagogues suggests something of a grassroots theological rebellion.

    The most reprehensible device of theodicy, in Kushner's view, is to remove the
    blame from God by putting it onto the sufferer, to explain suffering "by
    assuming that we deserve what we get, that somehow our misfortunes come as
    punishment for our sins." To accept that bad things happen to us as God's
    punishment, Kushner says, may help us make sense of the world, give us
    a compelling reason to be good, and sustain our belief in an all-powerful and
    just Deity - yet it is not "religiously adequate."

    By "religiously adequate" Kushner means "comforting." Seeing suffering as
    a punishment for sin is not comforting, because it teaches people to blame
    themselves for their misfortunes, and so creates guilt, and it also "makes
    people hate God, even as it makes them hate themselves."

    Kushner tells us of a couple who blamed their teenage daughter's sudden death
    on their own failure to observe the prescribed fast on a Jewish holy day: "They
    sat there feeling that their daughter's death had been their fault; had they
    been less selfish and less lazy about the Yom Kippur fast some six months
    earlier, she might still be alive. They sat there angry at God for having
    exacted His pound of flesh so strictly, but afraid to admit their anger for
    fear that He would punish them again. Life had hurt them and religion could not
    comfort them. Religion was making them feel worse."

    It is a virtue of Kushner's work to bring up anger at God up front, to talk at
    length about what few believers have had the courage to admit, even to
    themselves. Many people must be grateful that someone has recognized their real
    feelings and has dealt with them openly.

    But the worst thing about the belief that our misdeeds cause our misfortunes,
    says Kushner, is that it doesn't even fit the facts. People do suffer ills they
    don't deserve; bad things happen to good people all the time. Kushner adamantly
    maintains this. To the thousands who resent life's unfair treatment, who
    proclaim in outrage and indignation, "I didn't do anything to deserve this!"
    Kushner answers, comfortingly, "That's right, you didn't."

    And Kushner is not talking about saints, about people who never do wrong.
    Rather, he wants to know "why ordinary people, nice friendly neighbors, neither
    extraordinarily good nor extraordinarily bad, should suddenly have to face the
    agony of pain and tragedy... They are neither much better nor very much worse
    than most people we know; why should their lives be so much harder?"

    Here, tapping into a great psychic underground of resentment, Kushner has found
    his following. He has been willing to openly acknowledge a vast repressed sense
    of betrayal, a great silenced accusation that leaks unwillingly from the hearts
    of the believers and wends its way up to the divine ear as the universal
    unvoiced antiprayer: "You didn't hold up Your end of the bargain!"

    Kushner insists that the innocent suffer, and as conclusive proof he advances
    that grievance which has been the bane of Judeo-Christian theodicy and which
    occasioned his own harrowing foray into the problem of evil: the suffering and
    death of children.

    This is what drove the marble contractor to take up atheism, the usual response
    of those who feel God has failed them. But atheism is the response Kushner
    wants to prevent with his book. To restore the faith of those who have been
    spiritually devastated by misfortune, Kushner offers his own story of how he
    and his wife "managed to go on believing in God and in the world after we had
    been hurt."

    Kushner is indeed convinced that the existence of a God both all-good and
    all-powerful is incompatible with the evils of our world; yet he wants us to go
    on believing in God - but not in a God who is all-powerful. God is good, but
    there are limits to what He can do. God does not want us to suffer; He is as
    angry and upset at our misfortunes as we are. But He is also helpless.

    This is Kushner's credo: "I believe in God," he says, but - "I recognize His
    limitations." As a result, Kushner tells us in relief, "I no longer hold God
    responsible for illness, accidents, and natural disasters, because I realize
    that I gain little and I lose much when I blame God for these things. I can
    worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it more easily than I
    can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die, for whatever
    exalted reason."

    It is not hard for me to put myself in the place of Kushner or the marble
    contractor: I have children of my own. I can even understand why, given the
    kind of religion they know, Kushner can worship only a finite deity, and the
    marble contractor can't bear to enter a church. Nevertheless, I don't have the
    problem with God that they do. When bad things happen, I don't find myself
    calling into question either His power or His goodness.

    Of course, I am a devotee of Krsna; my religious convictions are founded upon
    the Vedic theism revealed in the BHAGAVAD-GITA and the SRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM. To
    espouse those convictions has been viewed by most normal Americans as a radical
    thing to do. But now we find that many normal Americans are willing to do
    something that, in its way, is more radical than what I've done. They are
    abandoning one of the most basic and universal theistic tenets: they are
    becoming worshipers of God-the-not-almighty.

    I want to tell you how we handle the problem of evil. If you, like so many
    others, are unsatisfied with the standard Judeo-Christian theodicy, perhaps you
    will consider our Krsna conscious view before following Rabbi Kushner.

    In the BHAGAVAD-GITA Krsna explains that you and I, like all living beings, are
    spiritual entities, souls. We now animate bodies made of matter, but we are not
    these bodies. Our involvement with matter is unfortunate, for it is the cause
    of all our suffering. We rightly belong in the spiritual kingdom, where life is
    eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. There everyone is joyously surrendered to
    the control of God as they directly serve Him in love. Every action is
    motivated exclusively by the desire to satisfy God.

    But some of us perversely wished God's position for ourselves. We wanted
    independence so that we could try to enjoy and control others like God does.
    Yet we cannot, of course, take God's place; He alone has no master. But to
    grant our desires, God sends us to the material world, where He now controls us
    indirectly, through His material nature and its laws. Here we can forget God,
    strive to fulfill OUR desires, and have the illusion of independence.

    Yet we are controlled by the laws of nature, and these force us to perpetually
    inhabit a succession of temporary material bodies. In ignorance, we identify
    ourselves with each body we enter, and we suffer again and again the pains of
    birth, old age, disease, and death. Life after life we transmigrate through
    plant, animal, and human bodies, sometimes on this planet, sometimes on far
    better ones, sometimes on far worse.

    Once we take a human birth, our destiny is shaped by KARMA. In the BHAGAVAD-
    GITA (8.3) Krsna succintly defines KARMA as "actions pertaining to the
    development of material bodies." This means that there are actions we do now
    that determine our future material bodies. What kind of actions? Those
    motivated by material desire. We may do them directly for ourselves or
    indirectly for our extended self - our family, friends, community, nation, and
    the like. All such acts sentence us to future births in the material world,
    there to reap what we have sown.

    KARMA is of two kinds: good and bad. Every civilized society recognizes a set
    of commandments that have divine authority and that regulate material enjoyment.
    Such commandments, for example, restrict the enjoyment of sex to marital
    relations and oblige the wealthy to be philantropic. They also encourage
    religious and charitable acts, which earn the performer merit. And they
    prescribe atonements for transgressors. Thus people are allowed to pursue
    material enjoyment, but they must observe moral and religious codes. And those
    who follow these codes, who live pious lives of restricted sensual pleasure,
    are assured of even greater enjoyment in the life to come.

    If we act according to scriptural regulations, the VEDAS tell us, we will
    produce good KARMA and in future births enjoy the benefits of our piety. For
    example, if a person is born in an aristocratic family, is beautiful, well
    educated, or very wealthy, he is reaping the benefits of good KARMA. The VEDAS
    also tell us that if a person is extraordinarily pious he may be reborn on one
    of the higher planets in this universe, where the standard of sensual pleasure
    is far greater than anything we have on earth.

    Conversely, there is bad KARMA. We create bad KARMA when we disregard
    scriptural injunctions and restrictions in our pursuit of sensual pleasure -
    that is, when we act sinfully. Bad KARMA brings us suffering and misfortune,
    such as birth in a degraded family, poverty, chronic disease, legal problems,
    or physical ugliness. Exceptionally bad KARMA will take us into animal bodies
    or down to lower planets of hellish torment.

    The law of KARMA is as strict, relentless, and impartial as the grosser natural
    laws of motion and gravity. And, like them, it applies to us whether we know
    about it or not. For example, if I eat the flesh of animals even though I can
    live as well without it, my bad KARMA will force me to be born as an animal and
    to be slaughtered myself. Or if I arrange to have a child killed in the womb, I
    simultaneously arrange for myself to be killed in the same way, again and
    again, without ever seeing the light of day.

    So when you and I were born we inherited, along with our blue eyes or our black
    hair, the consequences of our past good and bad deeds. We have a long history,
    and the happiness and distress our lives will bring is set. We are indeed
    children of destiny, hostages to fortune, but it is a destiny we created for
    ourselves, a fortune self-made. And in this life we are continuing to create
    our future.

    But of all this Kushner is unaware, and he can make no sense of his suffering.
    He has the unshakable conviction that God owes him an agreable and happy life,
    that God is obliged to arrange matters for his satisfaction. But God fails,
    bringing on Kushner's crisis of faith. It can only be that God is either bad or
    weak, Kushner reasons, and then settles for weakness.

    Yet in spite of Kushner, God is both all-good and all-powerful. But He does not
    engineer our suffering - we do. We are the authors of our KARMA. And it is our
    decision, not His, that brings us down into the material world, into the realm
    of suffering.

    So the answer to the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is
    "They don't." All of us here in the material world are - how shall I put it? -
    NOT OF THE BEST SORT. Reprobates and scapegraces - each of us persona non grata
    in the kingdom of God. We are sent here because we seek a life independent of
    God, and He grants our desire as far as possible. But since His position is
    already taken, we can only play at being God while deceiving ourselves that we
    are independent of Him.

    At the same time, the material world reform us, teaches us through reward and
    punishment to acknowledge God's supreme position. For by natural law we are
    rationed out the pleasures we desire according to our observance of the divine
    regulations, following the ways of good KARMA. The practice of good KARMA,
    then, amounts to a materially motivated religion, an observance of God's orders
    on the inducement of material reward. By this practice, spanning many
    lifetimes, I may, it is hoped, become habituated to following God's commands
    and reconciled to His supremacy. Thereupon I become eligible at last to take up
    the pure and eternal religion, in which, completely free from all material
    desires, I serve God in loving devotion, asking nothing in return. This
    religion, called BHAKTI in the VEDAS, causes my return to the kingdom of God.
    The acts of BHAKTI are KARMA-less: they produce no future material births, good
    or bad.

    From the VEDAS, then, we learn of two clearly distinct religions, one pure and
    the other impure. Practicing good KARMA can elevate us in the material world,
    secure for us a vast life span on heavenly planets, and so on. In other words,
    it can make us first-class inmates of the material world. But BHAKTI alone can
    release us from the prison altogether. Even the best KARMA cannot free us from
    suffering, as Krsna warns in the BHAGAVAD-GITA (8.16): "From the highest planet
    in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery where
    repeated birth and death take place." But BHAKTI destroys all karmic reaction,
    extirpates all material desires, revives our pure love for God, and delivers us
    beyond birth and death to His abode. There we never taste temporary, material
    pleasure but rather relish eternal, spiritual bliss by serving Krsna and thus
    joining in HIS bliss.

    It is a signal of virtue of the Vedic tradition that it distinguishes so
    clearly between the religion of good KARMA and the religion of BHAKTI and
    offers BHAKTI purely, without compromise. Most of us, whether Catholic,
    Protestant, or Jew, have been taught a kind of common karmic religion: God has
    put us on this earth to enjoy ourselves, and if we do so within the ordained
    limits, not forgetting to show God gratitude and proper respect, He will see to
    our success. We should ask God to meet our needs and fulfill our lawful
    desires, for He is the greatest order supplier. If we are observant and good,
    He will reward us well in this life and even better in the next.

    This is the religion Kushner professed: "Like most people, my wife and I had
    grown up with an image of God as an all-wise, all-powerful parent figure who
    would treat us as our earthly parents did, or even better. If we were obedient
    and deserving, He would reward us. If we got out of line, He would discipline
    us, reluctantly but firmly. He would protect us from being hurt or from hurting
    ourselves, and would see to it that we got what we deserved in life."

    Of course, Kushner begins to reconsider his religion when he discovers that it
    doesn't work. At this point, most people (like the marble contractor) become
    atheists. The idea of God as order supplier is thus responsible for a great
    deal of unbelief. But Kushner wants to preserve his faith in God, or at least
    in God's goodness, by denying His power.

    Kushner's chief defense of his position is that it is "religiously adequate,"
    that is, comforting. You will recall that he accused conventional theodicy of
    making people feel worse - causing them to feel guilty and to hate God. The
    explanation of suffering I have presented shouldn't make anyone feel worse.
    True, it says that we cause our own suffering, yet the point is not to make us
    feel guilty. The point is to let us know we've made some mistakes and should
    correct them. And why should we resent God for our suffering? Suffering comes
    by the law of KARMA. But KARMA is the impartial working of causal law.
    Hostility toward God is what has put us under that law; it certainly won't help
    us get out. For His part, God is making every effort to get us out: He comes to
    this world from time to time to teach the path of BHAKTI, which will destroy
    all our KARMA, He sends His representatives throughout the world on the same
    mission, and He even stays with us as the indwelling Supersoul during our
    sojourn in the material world, ready to give us the intelligence to approach
    Him when we put aside our ancient enmity.

    Kushner has the right instincts: he too would like people to cease their enmity
    toward God, and he even recognizes the ignobility of worshiping Him on the
    condition that He satisfy our demands. But if only we recognize God's
    limitations, he says, we won't be angry at Him when things go wrong in our
    life, nor will we worship Him for the satisfaction of our desires. Kushner thus
    urges the religious adequacy of his own theodicy.

    But it is far from adequate. Kushner's problem is that he cannot overcome the
    conditioning of karmic religion. He needs something more spiritually powerful
    than good instincts to free him from the implicit hostility toward God, the
    unconscious, deep-seated unwillingness to serve Him unconditionally, that binds
    the conditioned soul to KARMA.

    Kushner is still hostile. Because God did not satisfy his demands, Kushner must
    think of Him as ineffectual and weak. Kushner once thought of God as a parent
    who always gratifies our desires. But now Kushner's views Him as needing our
    forgiveness - for having failed as a parent: "Are you capable of forgiving and
    loving God even when you have found out that He is not perfect, even when He
    has let you down and disappointed you by permitting bad luck and sickness and
    cruelty in His world, and permitting some of those things to happen to you? Can
    you learn to love and forgive Him despite His limitations... as you once
    learned to forgive and love your parents even though they were not as wise, as
    strong, or as perfect as you needed them to be?"

    Kushner asserts that his hostility toward God is no more, but what he has
    really done is simply change the form in which it is expressed - from rage to
    condescension. And this idea of God will only support our unwillingness to
    acknowledge His supremacy, and thus it will help keep us in the material world,
    where we will continue to suffer. Thus Kushner's theodicy will not make us feel
    better; it will only make us feel worse.

    Furthermore, if we think God weak and ineffectual, it is certain that we will
    not be able to surrender to Him fully and serve Him without any personal
    consideration. The condition that makes such service and surrender possible is
    His promise of complete protection. "Declare it boldly," Krsna tells His
    disciple Arjuna, "My devotee never perishes." (Bg. 9.31) Because we can depend
    upon God completely, we can surrender to Him completely: "Abandon all varieties
    of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful
    reactions. Therefore you have nothing to fear." (Bg. 18.66)

    If we accept Kushner, we will always have to look out for ourselves; we will
    have to act for our own sake, and so we will remain involved with KARMA. Our
    service to God will never be total and unconditional. Indeed, as long as we
    insist on taking care of ourselves, God will leave us to our own devices.

    But if we accept Krsna, if we give up independent action and depend completely
    on God, devoting all our effort to His service, He will take complete care of
    us. We shouldn't expect God to remove all inconvenience, but if difficulty
    comes we should simply tolerate it, recognizing that our residual bad KARMA is
    playing itself out, and continue to expect God's mercy.

    God will minimize the karmic reaction due us, but the ultimate way He protects
    us is by bestowing spiritual consciousness upon us and destroying the ignorance
    by which we identify ourselves with matter. Krsna describes that consciousness
    in the BHAGAVAD-GITA (6.22-23): "In that joyous state, one is situated in
    boundless transcendental happiness and enjoys himself through transcendental
    senses... Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken even in the
    midst of the greatest difficulty. This, indeed, is actual freedom from all
    miseries arising from material contact." God frees us not so that we can goof
    off, not so we can get some "reward," but so that we can serve Him
    wholeheartedly, without any other concern.

    So if we accept Krsna, we can solve the problem of evil. That solution doesn't
    lie in rejecting either the goodness or the power of God, but rather in taking
    advantage of that goodness and power to perform pure devotional service - and
    in that way end all our suffering forever.

    PS: Sper ca eforturile mele de a clarifica punctul de vedere vaishnava au avut macar un efect de lamurire si clarificare a premizelor de la care pornesc. E clar ca premizele mele includ reincarnare si distinctie clara dintre corp (o energie inconstienta a Lui Dumnezeu) si suflet (o parte din energia Sa constienta). Si in dialogul nostru ne vom lovi intotdeauna de aceste premize pe care crestinii nu cred ca le vor accepta vreodata,

    Acest mesaj a fost modificat de soka norman: 5th August 2010, 17:05

  7. #7
    terminator1 este offline Utilizator Mugurel
    Data inscrierii
    iulie 2009
    Posturi
    127

    Implicit Re: muzica

    Citat Citat din Aanca Vezi post
    Am tot cautat un loc pe forum unde sa pot pune ceva ce mie mi-a bucurat sufletul foarte mult, si poate doriti sa ascultati si dvs. Asa ca daca am gasit acest loc, sper sa il gasiti si voi si sa va mangaie sufletele, interpretarea (ca sa zic asa) ii apartine unui calugar de la Putna (acompaniat de un cor de ingeri )

    acoperamantul maicii domnului mp4

    Eu cred ca Bach,Brans,Beethoven au compus muzica mai"ingereasca" decat odele de slava muzificate intr-o manastire oarecare.Si nu neaparat ma opresc la acesti compozitori......

  8. #8
    terminator1 este offline Utilizator Mugurel
    Data inscrierii
    iulie 2009
    Posturi
    127

    Implicit Re: muzica

    Citat Citat din HareKrishna Vezi post
    Dumnezeu este cel care isi poate dori orice dar are puterea ca oricand sa isi schimbe dorinta. Suferinta transcendentala pe care ar putea-o simti Dumnezeu daca ar vrea se deosebeste de suferinta noastra prin simplul fapt ca Dumnezeu poate ORICAND sa-si inceteze suferinta iar noi nu. De-aia el este Adevarul Absolut iar noi suntem numai niste scantei din El.

    N-are rost sa-ti bati capul prea mult cu rationamente le nivelul Absolutului caci Absolutul si proprietatile lui nu vor incapea niciodata in mintea ta materiala, limitata. Ce poti face este sa urmezi un proces prin care la un moment dat vei putea comunica cu el, caci sufletul tau este intr-adevar parte din Absolut si poate cunoaste Absolutul. Dar niciodata prin speculatie mentala ci numai prin auto-realizare.


    Urmatorul articol mi s-a parut foarte revelator si de aceea o sa-l postez si pe forum

    The Logic of the Absolute
    By Hridayananda Das Goswami | Published 11/20/2006
    Unrated
    Article Viewed 142 Times

    Given proof of God, would a materialist know how to read it?

    People often ask us, ?Can you prove the existence of God?? Proof indicates a conclusive demonstration that establishes the validity of an assertion, in this case the assertion that God exists.

    But as soon as we speak of a demonstration, the next question is ?To whom shall we demonstrate?? If we speak of evidence or data, we must know who will see and hear it. In other words, who will judge the results of a particular experiment, test, or trial.

    Consider a hypothetical example. Doctor Waterport, the famous scientist, has just discovered a sophisticated formula that solves a technical mathematical problem. He proudly calls his colleagues together and presents them with thirty pages of ultratechnical symbols. His fellow scientists pore over the pages and conclude, ?Yes, this is the answer we?re looking for.? If Dr. Waterport were to show the proof to an ordinary person on the street, the person wouldn?t even know how to hold the pages right side up. Because he?s not trained in mathematics, the proof would be meaningless to him. Conclusion: Proof demands a qualified audience.

    Certainly, any valid proof must be logical. But how we apply logic depends on our previous experience. For example, suppose an apple tree is growing outside your window. One morning you hear a sound like that of an apple hitting the ground, and when you look outside you see a ripe apple lying beneath the tree. Logically, you conclude, the apple has just fallen from the tree.

    Your logical statement rests on your previous observation that the apple tree produces apples, that the apples fall to the ground, and that they make a certain sound when this occurs. And your statement appears logical to those with similar experience.

    So we apply logic in terms of our experience. Therefore, how can we expect to make God logical to a person who has had no spiritual experience? How can God appear logical to a person to whom the very terminology of the science of God is unintelligible? Thus it is ludicrous when those who are spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb -demand that God be made ?logical? to them and that His existence be ?proved.?

    In general, it is illogical for a person untrained in some field of knowledge to demand that a particular fact pertaining to that field of knowledge be logically demonstrated to him. For example, if someone who has no idea what a number is demands that I logically demonstrate that two plus two equals four, I can?t do it. Similarly, if a spiritual ignoramus demands that God be logically demonstrated to him, his very request is illogical. So how can the illogical demands of atheists be met?

    We can easily provide innumerable proofs of God?provided we are free to stipulate that the judge of the data be a person who is spiritually trained. Devotees of the Lord who are advanced in Krishna consciousness can logically, evidentially, and demonstratively deal with the reality of the soul and God. But materialistic fools demand that God, a nonmaterial being, be reduced to a material formula.

    It is patently absurd to demand material proof for a nonmaterial entity. Mathematical or physical laws describe predictable ways in which material things interact. God and the soul are not material and thus cannot be reduced to material descriptions.

    This does not mean, however, that the soul is outside the jurisdiction of logical discussion. Consciousness itself is spiritual, not material, and thus the study of consciousness, or spirit, is not beyond the scope of human beings.

    In fact, all fields of knowledge depend on tangible perception of the soul, since all sciences depend on a conscious scientist who works with consciousness, which is spiritual, not material. In other words, spiritual awareness is intrinsic to all types of awareness, although materialistic people do not recognize that consciousness is spiritual.

    So there is no lack of data to prove the existence of spirit, since consciousness itself is spiritual. The problem is that foolish intellectuals whimsically designate consciousness a material, not a spiritual, entity. But as soon as we accept the simple truth that consciousness itself is spiritual, we find that in every stage of awareness and in every field of knowledge our perception of all manner of data is resting on a spiritual experience?the experience of being conscious. And when consciousness studies itself, it reaches the stage called spiritual consciousness, or self- realization. Ultimately, when the self-realized person fixes his consciousness on the source of all consciousness, he reaches the realization of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

    For one who has not perceived the superior pleasure of Krishna consciousness, it will seem illogical to restrict his material enjoyment. A Krishna conscious person, however, perceives that spiritual consciousness is far more pleasurable and satisfying than material consciousness. He further perceives that sinful activities?activities against the laws of God?harm that consciousness. Thus it is entirely logical for a Krishna conscious person to obey the laws of God, just as it is logical for an ordinary citizen to obey the laws of the state.

    Ultimately, we must come to the stage of absolute logic, which refers to absolute perception, a perception of things with eternally recognizable properties and eternally established relationships. For example, God is the supreme master and enjoyer and we are His eternal servants. Thus it is absolutely logical for us to serve Him, for we are then situated in our natural, constitutional position. To serve a mundane employer may be logical, but it is not absolutely logical, since after the employer?s death, or upon his bankruptcy, serving him is illogical.

    In conclusion, logic is a secondary process that follows the primary process of consciousness. We are conscious, for example, that numbers have particular values and properties, and based on this perception, we can state that a particular mathematical equation is either logical or illogical. Similarly, by purifying our existence through the practice of Krishna consciousness, we can perceive the values and properties of God, and thus we can discern that a particular statement about God is either logical or illogical. By confirming our analysis with the Vedic literatures, which are standard reference works of spiritual science compiled by realized devotees, we can perfectly understand the science of God in Krishna consciousness.

    CITAT (hoinar6 @ 30th July 2010, 01:50)
    Sunt atras de ceva vreme de filozofiile orientale, de esenta lor si de cea ce vor ele sa transmita. Dar, ca si in cazul Bibliei nu ma pot impaca cu veridicitatea materiala a multor chestiuni, daca intelegeti ce vreau sa zic...

    Ca sa-ti raspund la neclaritati am incercat sa fiu mai sistematic. uite ce-a iesit:

    "om purnam adah purnam idam
    purnat purnam udacyate
    purnasya purnam adaya
    purnam evavasisyate" (ISO, Invocatie)

    The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

    Numai acest text, singur, raspunde la toate problemele filozofice amintite de tine, deoarece aici sunt descriese conceptele fundamentale filozofiei vaishnava (la sfarsitul mesajului am raspuns punctual).conceptele sunt, deci:

    1. Personalitatea Suprema a Divinitatii
    2. Emanatiile Sale
    3. Relatia dintre PSD si emanatiile sale

    Dumnezeu, ca si concept filozofic este fiinta perfecta si completa. Dumnezeu este sat-cit-ananda-vigraha (etern, plin de cunoastere, plin de fericire). Aceasta forma a Divinitatii se realizeaza in 3 aspecte:
    - Realizarea aspectului Brahman inseamna realizarea aspectului sat, de eternitate a divinitatii. Acesta este aspectul impersonal al Divinitatii.
    - Paramatman reprezinta aspectul sat-cit, adica etern si plin de cunoastere. Acesta este Suprasufletul care se afla in inimile tuturor entitatilor vii alaturi de suflet si supervizeaza activitatea acestuia.
    - Bhagavan este al treilea aspect si cel complet, sat-cit-ananda. Etern, plin de cunoaltere si plin de fericire. Aceasta este Personalitatea Suprema a Divinitatii. Spun personalitate, deoarece aceasta forma presupune ananda, fericirea, care poate fi experimentata decat de o constiinta.

    Cand vorbim de Dumnezeu vorbim de aceste aspecte, sat, cit, ananda. Daca noi il vedem pe Dumenzeu ca fiind impersonal, atunci vedem doar aspctul de sat. Daca il vedem doar ca si Persoana Suprema care este constienta de tot ceea ce exist si se afla in inimile entitatilor vii vorbim de aspectele sat-cit. Dar daca vorbim de Dumnezeu ca si Persoana completa , atot fericita, vorbim de Bhagavan. Krishna este Bhagavan in forma cea mai intima.

    Legat de conceptele de finit sau infinit, parerea mea este ca nu sunt tocmai potrivite pentru a descrie Divinitatea. Pot fi folosite pentru a indica anumite trasaturi, dar aceste concepte nu pot descrie complet natura Sa. Dumnezeu este mai mult decat infinit. Dumnezeu poate sa fie si finit si infinit in acelasi timp. El poate sa fie si unul si mai multi in acelasi timp. El emana, se manfesta intr-o multitudine de forme pentru placerea Sa. Dumnezeu inseamna Dumnezeu + potenta de a fi Dumnezeu ( sau energia Sa). Adica El este shaktiman +shakti. Shakti inseamna energie. El este cel care se bucura de energia Sa, shaktiman. Energia Sa, shakti, este potenta Sa de a fi Dumnezeu, potenta placerii Sale. Spus pe scurt, Dumnezeu este Dumnezeu pentru ca are potenta de a fi Dumnezeu. Aceste doua lucruri nu sunt doua entitati distincte, fara nici o relatie. Filozofic vorbind, nu poate exista nimic in afara Divinitatii. Shaktiman si shakti sunt natura sa de Dumnezeu.

    Aceste concepte de shaktiman si shakti pot fi intelese mai bine facand o analogie. O centrala electrica care produce energie electrica este shaktiman, iar energia care ilumineaza un bec este shakti. Nu putem vorbi separat de centrala si de energie care face un bec sa lumineze. Sunt o singura entitate, dar si doua in acelasi timp: energeticul si energia. Alt exemplu este soarele si lumina. Nu putem vorbi de lumina fara Soare sau de Soare fara lumina, dar in acelasi timp putem face o distinctie intre ele. Acesta este fundamentul filozofiei vaishnava, sustinuta de scrierile vedice. Unitate si diversitate.

    Asa cum am descris mai sus vazut, Dumnezeu este ananda adica plin de fericire. Ca si shaktiman El expandeaza intr-o infinitate de forme care sa experimenteze in mod diferit fericirea. De partea cealalta shakti expandeaza intr-o infinitate de forme care sa-i produca placere lui shaktiman.

    Noi, sufletele individuale, suntem de aceeasi natura ca si divinitatea fiind emanatiile Sale. Defapt suntem emanatiile energiei sale, shakti, si natura noastra constitutiva este de a avea o relatie de iubire cu shaktiman, Dumnezeu, Bhagavan. Fiind de aceeasi natura, sprituala(asa cum energia e de aceeasi natura cu energeticul), suntem sat-cit-ananda. Aceasta este starea noastra naturala, dar suntem infinit de mici. La fel cum o picatura din ocean area aceeasi natura ca si oceanul la fel si noi avem aceeasi natura cu Dumnezeu. Dar aceasta iubire, aceasta relatie pe care o avem cu Divinitatea nu ar avea nici o valoare daca nu ar fi liber consimtita. aici intervine livertatea sufletului individual de a-L iubi pe Dumnezeu sau nu, de a avea interese comune ce acesta sau nu. Cand sufletul individual are interese independente, atunci El le poate satisface pe acestea in asociere cu natura materiala, care este tot o energie a Divinitatii. Dar in aceasta menifestare a sa, Dumnezeu nu-si manifesta potenta. El nu are nici un interes acolo. Lumea materiala exista pentru ca noi dorim sa fim independenti iar Dumnezeu ne da posibilitatea aceasta. In esenta, noi nu suntem si nu vom putea fi niciodata independenti, fiind parte din Dumnezeu, dar aceasta lume ne creeaza perfect aceasta iluzie. Aceasta lume materiala nu este finita. Exista o infinitate de universuri materiale, dar ca si suma, reprezinta doar o mica parte din toata natura spirituala care este intr-o continua diversificare. Iluzia independentei este creata de corpul si mintea materiale care invelesc sufletul in aceasta lume. Noi ne identificam cu acestea si suferim sau ne bucuram in functie de ceea ce simturile furnizeaza si in raport cu dorintele noastre egoiste. Dar noi nu suntem acest corp si aceasta minte. Noi suntem un suflet spiritual, dar uitam(si Dumnezeu ne face sa uitam ) acest lucru deoarece dorim independenta de Persoana Suprema.

    Legate de aceasta natura materiala dau in continuare niste citate:

    At that time Arjuna could see in the universal form of the Lord the unlimited expansions of the universe situated in one place although divided into many, many thousands. BG. 11.13.

    Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature. B.G. 13.20

    The living entity in material nature thus follows the ways of life, enjoying the three modes of nature. This is due to his association with that material nature. Thus he meets with good and evil among various species. BG. 13.22

    As putea da aici zeci de citate din B.G. in special in capitolul 11 si 13, 14. Exista o versiune online pt B.G. as it is(cred ca ti-am mai dat linku), unde se pot citi toate astea direct cu comentariile lui Prabhupada.

    Legat de a doua intrebare Krishna nu are nevoie de noi pentru a-i produce placere. El este complet multumit tn Sine. Noi, ca parti din acest sine, desi traim in iluzia independentei tn aceast lume materiala defapt tot cu Persoana Suprema avem o relatie. Tot ceea ce ne inconjoara, acest corp, aceasta lume este energia Sa. Deci, filozofic vorbind, noi tot cu Dumnezeu avem relatii si aici. Noi putem sa actionam conform cu planul Sau sau putem actiona tn independenta. Dar Persoana Suprema este capabila sa se manifeste in nenumarate forme care sa-i produca placere. Exista o povestire in Srimad Bhagavatam care scoate in evidenta exact aceasta natura a Divinitatii. Mai exact, S.B. Canto 10, cap 13 "The Stealing of the Boys and Calves by Brahma" si apoi cap 14."Brahma's Prayers to Lord Krishna" in care se arata cum Brahma ii fura pe prietenii lui krishna din Vrindavan, iar El creaza niste manifestari absolut identice cu acestea.

    Recunosc ca o discutie foarta lunga ar fi necesara pentru ca tu sa inteleagi toate aceste concepte si legaturile dintre ele. probabil ca ceea ce am scris mai sus aduce mai multe intrebari decat raspunsuri, dar daca vrei cu adevarat sa cunoasca toate acestea ca sa-ti faci o imagine corecta spura vaishnavismului, iti poti face timp sa studieze direct de la sursa, din scrierile vaishnavilor devotati recunoscuti in India de linia disciplica( ca Srila Prabhupada, Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaj etc)

    Online, toate cartile de baza sunt disponibile la http://vedabase.net/

    Ex:
    http://vedabase.net/iso/invocation/en
    http://vedabase.net/bg/en
    http://vedabase.net/sb/10/13/en
    http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/en

    Si-acum ca am introdus mai pe larg si mai sistematic decat ieri subiectul, incerc un raspuns punct cu punct

    "De exemplu un crestin poate reprosa Vainasmului ca Dumnezeu(Vishnu) are si parti finite(lumea,omul animalele etc) avand in vedere ca universul este facut din esenta lui Vishnu iar nu din nimic dupa cum e cazul in crestinism.Pe cand un Dumnezeu perfect ar avea numai parti ininfinite."

    Aceste parti finite exista si in conceptia crestina, doar le putem vedea in jurul nostru. Iau un creion de pe masa si e finit. Si daca exista lucruri finite ce legatura are asta cu infinitatea lui Dumnezeu? Acestea sunt facute din energia lui Vishnu, dar asta nu inseamna ca Vishnu este finit. De aceea Isopanisad foloseste termenul de complet si perfect in sensul ca natura materia de exemplu este perfecta si completa prin faptul ca ea functioneaza exact asa cum a fost proiectata si cu scopul pentru care a fost proiectata.

    "Al 2 lea punct-In Vaisnava Dumnezeu are nevoie de oameni pt al distra,ceea ce inseamna ca Vishnu e dependent de oameni deci imperfect ,pe cand in crestinism Dumnezeu nu are nevoie de oameni(ii creeaza din prea-plinul dragostei) ci este in sinea lui self-suficient deci perfect."

    Cine spune ca Vishnu are nevoie de noi pt a se distra? Nu are. Cand Dumnezeu doreste ceva acest lucru este automat indeplinit de potenta Sa. Daca noi vrem sa fim partasi la asta atunci cu atat mai bine, daca nu, El este Satisfacut oricum. Citeste poveste cu Brahma si Krishna de care ti-am zis mai sus pentru lamuriri. Oricum si filozofia crestina afirma defapt acelasi lucru. Noi suntem creati dupa chipul si asemanarea lui Dumnezeu si pentru placerea Sa.

    "In vaisnava Dumnezeu e rau sau contine erori,deoarece oamenii sunt facuti din esenta lui Dumnezeu si daca oamenii sunt rai sau in eroare atunci si Dumnezeu este in eroare deci imperfect.In crestinism ,faptul ca Dumnezeu are o esenta diferita de cea a omului sau a universului "il fereste" de a contine erori sau rautati ,deci e perfect."

    Dumnezeu in crestinism nu are o natura diferita. E aceeasi natura. Dupa chipul si asemanarea...

    Legat de problema binelui si raului mai bine sa-i lasam pe Crestini sa raspunda logic si filozofic la problema Teodiceii daca pot . Vaishnavii raspund in felul urmator:

    DO BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE?

    BY RAVINDRA SVARUPA DASA

    About five years ago, when we were having an altar installed in our new temple,
    the overseer from the marble company would regularly bring his seven-year-old
    son along to watch. The boy was very handsome, with jet-black hair and pale
    skin and long, dark eyelashes. He was well behaved and always seemed in good
    humor even though he could hardly walk at all. I never saw him take more than
    a few steps, leaning on a wall and straining his torso with an awkward twisting
    motion and then swinging forward a leg clamped into a large, clumsy brace.

    The boy had been born crippled. While he was cheerful despite that, his father
    was not. His father was an angry man. "When that boy was born I stopped going
    to church," he told me once, as he knelt on our altar putting grout between the
    marble slabs. "I never did anything bad enough to deserve this. Sure, I'm not
    a saint, but I don't deserve this. And even if I did, what could HE have done?"

    The aggrieved father, an unsophisticated marble contractor, was raising
    a problem that has long preoccupied Western religious thinkers, so much so that
    it has created a special discipline called THEODICY, a branch of theology
    concerned with justifying the ways of God to man. Theodicy deals with what is
    usually called "the problem of evil." St. Augustine cast it into the form of
    a dilemma: "Either God cannot or God will not eliminate evil from the world. If
    He cannot, He is not all-powerful; if He will not, He is not all-good." This
    formulation makes the logic of the problem clear: to show that the existence of
    a world with evil in it is compatible with the existence of a God who is BOTH
    all-powerful AND all-good. To deny either one of these attributes would easily
    explain evil, but orthodox theologians have always considered that
    unacceptable.

    Those who find the problem of evil intractable usually deny the existence of
    God outright rather than settle for a God limited either in power or goodness.
    Would such a finite being really qualify to be called "God"? Would he be worthy
    of our worship?

    Although philosophers and theologians have left us a huge body of technical
    literature on the problem of evil, it is far from a theoretical concern. It is
    everybody's problem, sooner or later. Suffering is universal. But oddly enough,
    practically as widespread is the sufferer's feeling that he has been unfairly
    singled out. From millions comes the outraged cry: "Why ME! What did I do to
    deserve this?"

    It is for such people that Harold S. Kushner, a Massachusetts rabbi, has
    written his book WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE. It is a painfully
    honest treatment of what the author claims is the one theological issue that
    reaches folks "where they really care."

    Kushner's book grew out of his personal pain; his testimony commands respect.
    He tells how his son was afflicted from infancy with progeria, a disease that
    brings on rapid aging, so that Kushner saw the boy grow bald and wrinkled,
    stooped and frail, until he died of old age in his fourteenth year. Kushner
    presents the victim's point of view, and he lets us hear the real voices of
    people in pain. In that stark light, the standard religious justifications for
    our misfortunes, which Kushner lays out one by one, do indeed seem like facile
    verbal shuffles that don't take people's suffering seriously but simply try,
    however lamely, to get God off the hook.

    Kushner effectively criticizes the standard answers handed out by priests,
    ministers, rabbis, and he offers instead his own radically unorthodox solution.
    His book has been a bestseller for months, and he has attracted a large and
    grateful following among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Indeed, the
    popularity of his view among members of America's mainstream churches and
    synagogues suggests something of a grassroots theological rebellion.

    The most reprehensible device of theodicy, in Kushner's view, is to remove the
    blame from God by putting it onto the sufferer, to explain suffering "by
    assuming that we deserve what we get, that somehow our misfortunes come as
    punishment for our sins." To accept that bad things happen to us as God's
    punishment, Kushner says, may help us make sense of the world, give us
    a compelling reason to be good, and sustain our belief in an all-powerful and
    just Deity - yet it is not "religiously adequate."

    By "religiously adequate" Kushner means "comforting." Seeing suffering as
    a punishment for sin is not comforting, because it teaches people to blame
    themselves for their misfortunes, and so creates guilt, and it also "makes
    people hate God, even as it makes them hate themselves."

    Kushner tells us of a couple who blamed their teenage daughter's sudden death
    on their own failure to observe the prescribed fast on a Jewish holy day: "They
    sat there feeling that their daughter's death had been their fault; had they
    been less selfish and less lazy about the Yom Kippur fast some six months
    earlier, she might still be alive. They sat there angry at God for having
    exacted His pound of flesh so strictly, but afraid to admit their anger for
    fear that He would punish them again. Life had hurt them and religion could not
    comfort them. Religion was making them feel worse."

    It is a virtue of Kushner's work to bring up anger at God up front, to talk at
    length about what few believers have had the courage to admit, even to
    themselves. Many people must be grateful that someone has recognized their real
    feelings and has dealt with them openly.

    But the worst thing about the belief that our misdeeds cause our misfortunes,
    says Kushner, is that it doesn't even fit the facts. People do suffer ills they
    don't deserve; bad things happen to good people all the time. Kushner adamantly
    maintains this. To the thousands who resent life's unfair treatment, who
    proclaim in outrage and indignation, "I didn't do anything to deserve this!"
    Kushner answers, comfortingly, "That's right, you didn't."

    And Kushner is not talking about saints, about people who never do wrong.
    Rather, he wants to know "why ordinary people, nice friendly neighbors, neither
    extraordinarily good nor extraordinarily bad, should suddenly have to face the
    agony of pain and tragedy... They are neither much better nor very much worse
    than most people we know; why should their lives be so much harder?"

    Here, tapping into a great psychic underground of resentment, Kushner has found
    his following. He has been willing to openly acknowledge a vast repressed sense
    of betrayal, a great silenced accusation that leaks unwillingly from the hearts
    of the believers and wends its way up to the divine ear as the universal
    unvoiced antiprayer: "You didn't hold up Your end of the bargain!"

    Kushner insists that the innocent suffer, and as conclusive proof he advances
    that grievance which has been the bane of Judeo-Christian theodicy and which
    occasioned his own harrowing foray into the problem of evil: the suffering and
    death of children.

    This is what drove the marble contractor to take up atheism, the usual response
    of those who feel God has failed them. But atheism is the response Kushner
    wants to prevent with his book. To restore the faith of those who have been
    spiritually devastated by misfortune, Kushner offers his own story of how he
    and his wife "managed to go on believing in God and in the world after we had
    been hurt."

    Kushner is indeed convinced that the existence of a God both all-good and
    all-powerful is incompatible with the evils of our world; yet he wants us to go
    on believing in God - but not in a God who is all-powerful. God is good, but
    there are limits to what He can do. God does not want us to suffer; He is as
    angry and upset at our misfortunes as we are. But He is also helpless.

    This is Kushner's credo: "I believe in God," he says, but - "I recognize His
    limitations." As a result, Kushner tells us in relief, "I no longer hold God
    responsible for illness, accidents, and natural disasters, because I realize
    that I gain little and I lose much when I blame God for these things. I can
    worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it more easily than I
    can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die, for whatever
    exalted reason."

    It is not hard for me to put myself in the place of Kushner or the marble
    contractor: I have children of my own. I can even understand why, given the
    kind of religion they know, Kushner can worship only a finite deity, and the
    marble contractor can't bear to enter a church. Nevertheless, I don't have the
    problem with God that they do. When bad things happen, I don't find myself
    calling into question either His power or His goodness.

    Of course, I am a devotee of Krsna; my religious convictions are founded upon
    the Vedic theism revealed in the BHAGAVAD-GITA and the SRIMAD-BHAGAVATAM. To
    espouse those convictions has been viewed by most normal Americans as a radical
    thing to do. But now we find that many normal Americans are willing to do
    something that, in its way, is more radical than what I've done. They are
    abandoning one of the most basic and universal theistic tenets: they are
    becoming worshipers of God-the-not-almighty.

    I want to tell you how we handle the problem of evil. If you, like so many
    others, are unsatisfied with the standard Judeo-Christian theodicy, perhaps you
    will consider our Krsna conscious view before following Rabbi Kushner.

    In the BHAGAVAD-GITA Krsna explains that you and I, like all living beings, are
    spiritual entities, souls. We now animate bodies made of matter, but we are not
    these bodies. Our involvement with matter is unfortunate, for it is the cause
    of all our suffering. We rightly belong in the spiritual kingdom, where life is
    eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. There everyone is joyously surrendered to
    the control of God as they directly serve Him in love. Every action is
    motivated exclusively by the desire to satisfy God.

    But some of us perversely wished God's position for ourselves. We wanted
    independence so that we could try to enjoy and control others like God does.
    Yet we cannot, of course, take God's place; He alone has no master. But to
    grant our desires, God sends us to the material world, where He now controls us
    indirectly, through His material nature and its laws. Here we can forget God,
    strive to fulfill OUR desires, and have the illusion of independence.

    Yet we are controlled by the laws of nature, and these force us to perpetually
    inhabit a succession of temporary material bodies. In ignorance, we identify
    ourselves with each body we enter, and we suffer again and again the pains of
    birth, old age, disease, and death. Life after life we transmigrate through
    plant, animal, and human bodies, sometimes on this planet, sometimes on far
    better ones, sometimes on far worse.

    Once we take a human birth, our destiny is shaped by KARMA. In the BHAGAVAD-
    GITA (8.3) Krsna succintly defines KARMA as "actions pertaining to the
    development of material bodies." This means that there are actions we do now
    that determine our future material bodies. What kind of actions? Those
    motivated by material desire. We may do them directly for ourselves or
    indirectly for our extended self - our family, friends, community, nation, and
    the like. All such acts sentence us to future births in the material world,
    there to reap what we have sown.

    KARMA is of two kinds: good and bad. Every civilized society recognizes a set
    of commandments that have divine authority and that regulate material enjoyment.
    Such commandments, for example, restrict the enjoyment of sex to marital
    relations and oblige the wealthy to be philantropic. They also encourage
    religious and charitable acts, which earn the performer merit. And they
    prescribe atonements for transgressors. Thus people are allowed to pursue
    material enjoyment, but they must observe moral and religious codes. And those
    who follow these codes, who live pious lives of restricted sensual pleasure,
    are assured of even greater enjoyment in the life to come.

    If we act according to scriptural regulations, the VEDAS tell us, we will
    produce good KARMA and in future births enjoy the benefits of our piety. For
    example, if a person is born in an aristocratic family, is beautiful, well
    educated, or very wealthy, he is reaping the benefits of good KARMA. The VEDAS
    also tell us that if a person is extraordinarily pious he may be reborn on one
    of the higher planets in this universe, where the standard of sensual pleasure
    is far greater than anything we have on earth.

    Conversely, there is bad KARMA. We create bad KARMA when we disregard
    scriptural injunctions and restrictions in our pursuit of sensual pleasure -
    that is, when we act sinfully. Bad KARMA brings us suffering and misfortune,
    such as birth in a degraded family, poverty, chronic disease, legal problems,
    or physical ugliness. Exceptionally bad KARMA will take us into animal bodies
    or down to lower planets of hellish torment.

    The law of KARMA is as strict, relentless, and impartial as the grosser natural
    laws of motion and gravity. And, like them, it applies to us whether we know
    about it or not. For example, if I eat the flesh of animals even though I can
    live as well without it, my bad KARMA will force me to be born as an animal and
    to be slaughtered myself. Or if I arrange to have a child killed in the womb, I
    simultaneously arrange for myself to be killed in the same way, again and
    again, without ever seeing the light of day.

    So when you and I were born we inherited, along with our blue eyes or our black
    hair, the consequences of our past good and bad deeds. We have a long history,
    and the happiness and distress our lives will bring is set. We are indeed
    children of destiny, hostages to fortune, but it is a destiny we created for
    ourselves, a fortune self-made. And in this life we are continuing to create
    our future.

    But of all this Kushner is unaware, and he can make no sense of his suffering.
    He has the unshakable conviction that God owes him an agreable and happy life,
    that God is obliged to arrange matters for his satisfaction. But God fails,
    bringing on Kushner's crisis of faith. It can only be that God is either bad or
    weak, Kushner reasons, and then settles for weakness.

    Yet in spite of Kushner, God is both all-good and all-powerful. But He does not
    engineer our suffering - we do. We are the authors of our KARMA. And it is our
    decision, not His, that brings us down into the material world, into the realm
    of suffering.

    So the answer to the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is
    "They don't." All of us here in the material world are - how shall I put it? -
    NOT OF THE BEST SORT. Reprobates and scapegraces - each of us persona non grata
    in the kingdom of God. We are sent here because we seek a life independent of
    God, and He grants our desire as far as possible. But since His position is
    already taken, we can only play at being God while deceiving ourselves that we
    are independent of Him.

    At the same time, the material world reform us, teaches us through reward and
    punishment to acknowledge God's supreme position. For by natural law we are
    rationed out the pleasures we desire according to our observance of the divine
    regulations, following the ways of good KARMA. The practice of good KARMA,
    then, amounts to a materially motivated religion, an observance of God's orders
    on the inducement of material reward. By this practice, spanning many
    lifetimes, I may, it is hoped, become habituated to following God's commands
    and reconciled to His supremacy. Thereupon I become eligible at last to take up
    the pure and eternal religion, in which, completely free from all material
    desires, I serve God in loving devotion, asking nothing in return. This
    religion, called BHAKTI in the VEDAS, causes my return to the kingdom of God.
    The acts of BHAKTI are KARMA-less: they produce no future material births, good
    or bad.

    From the VEDAS, then, we learn of two clearly distinct religions, one pure and
    the other impure. Practicing good KARMA can elevate us in the material world,
    secure for us a vast life span on heavenly planets, and so on. In other words,
    it can make us first-class inmates of the material world. But BHAKTI alone can
    release us from the prison altogether. Even the best KARMA cannot free us from
    suffering, as Krsna warns in the BHAGAVAD-GITA (8.16): "From the highest planet
    in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery where
    repeated birth and death take place." But BHAKTI destroys all karmic reaction,
    extirpates all material desires, revives our pure love for God, and delivers us
    beyond birth and death to His abode. There we never taste temporary, material
    pleasure but rather relish eternal, spiritual bliss by serving Krsna and thus
    joining in HIS bliss.

    It is a signal of virtue of the Vedic tradition that it distinguishes so
    clearly between the religion of good KARMA and the religion of BHAKTI and
    offers BHAKTI purely, without compromise. Most of us, whether Catholic,
    Protestant, or Jew, have been taught a kind of common karmic religion: God has
    put us on this earth to enjoy ourselves, and if we do so within the ordained
    limits, not forgetting to show God gratitude and proper respect, He will see to
    our success. We should ask God to meet our needs and fulfill our lawful
    desires, for He is the greatest order supplier. If we are observant and good,
    He will reward us well in this life and even better in the next.

    This is the religion Kushner professed: "Like most people, my wife and I had
    grown up with an image of God as an all-wise, all-powerful parent figure who
    would treat us as our earthly parents did, or even better. If we were obedient
    and deserving, He would reward us. If we got out of line, He would discipline
    us, reluctantly but firmly. He would protect us from being hurt or from hurting
    ourselves, and would see to it that we got what we deserved in life."

    Of course, Kushner begins to reconsider his religion when he discovers that it
    doesn't work. At this point, most people (like the marble contractor) become
    atheists. The idea of God as order supplier is thus responsible for a great
    deal of unbelief. But Kushner wants to preserve his faith in God, or at least
    in God's goodness, by denying His power.

    Kushner's chief defense of his position is that it is "religiously adequate,"
    that is, comforting. You will recall that he accused conventional theodicy of
    making people feel worse - causing them to feel guilty and to hate God. The
    explanation of suffering I have presented shouldn't make anyone feel worse.
    True, it says that we cause our own suffering, yet the point is not to make us
    feel guilty. The point is to let us know we've made some mistakes and should
    correct them. And why should we resent God for our suffering? Suffering comes
    by the law of KARMA. But KARMA is the impartial working of causal law.
    Hostility toward God is what has put us under that law; it certainly won't help
    us get out. For His part, God is making every effort to get us out: He comes to
    this world from time to time to teach the path of BHAKTI, which will destroy
    all our KARMA, He sends His representatives throughout the world on the same
    mission, and He even stays with us as the indwelling Supersoul during our
    sojourn in the material world, ready to give us the intelligence to approach
    Him when we put aside our ancient enmity.

    Kushner has the right instincts: he too would like people to cease their enmity
    toward God, and he even recognizes the ignobility of worshiping Him on the
    condition that He satisfy our demands. But if only we recognize God's
    limitations, he says, we won't be angry at Him when things go wrong in our
    life, nor will we worship Him for the satisfaction of our desires. Kushner thus
    urges the religious adequacy of his own theodicy.

    But it is far from adequate. Kushner's problem is that he cannot overcome the
    conditioning of karmic religion. He needs something more spiritually powerful
    than good instincts to free him from the implicit hostility toward God, the
    unconscious, deep-seated unwillingness to serve Him unconditionally, that binds
    the conditioned soul to KARMA.

    Kushner is still hostile. Because God did not satisfy his demands, Kushner must
    think of Him as ineffectual and weak. Kushner once thought of God as a parent
    who always gratifies our desires. But now Kushner's views Him as needing our
    forgiveness - for having failed as a parent: "Are you capable of forgiving and
    loving God even when you have found out that He is not perfect, even when He
    has let you down and disappointed you by permitting bad luck and sickness and
    cruelty in His world, and permitting some of those things to happen to you? Can
    you learn to love and forgive Him despite His limitations... as you once
    learned to forgive and love your parents even though they were not as wise, as
    strong, or as perfect as you needed them to be?"

    Kushner asserts that his hostility toward God is no more, but what he has
    really done is simply change the form in which it is expressed - from rage to
    condescension. And this idea of God will only support our unwillingness to
    acknowledge His supremacy, and thus it will help keep us in the material world,
    where we will continue to suffer. Thus Kushner's theodicy will not make us feel
    better; it will only make us feel worse.

    Furthermore, if we think God weak and ineffectual, it is certain that we will
    not be able to surrender to Him fully and serve Him without any personal
    consideration. The condition that makes such service and surrender possible is
    His promise of complete protection. "Declare it boldly," Krsna tells His
    disciple Arjuna, "My devotee never perishes." (Bg. 9.31) Because we can depend
    upon God completely, we can surrender to Him completely: "Abandon all varieties
    of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful
    reactions. Therefore you have nothing to fear." (Bg. 18.66)

    If we accept Kushner, we will always have to look out for ourselves; we will
    have to act for our own sake, and so we will remain involved with KARMA. Our
    service to God will never be total and unconditional. Indeed, as long as we
    insist on taking care of ourselves, God will leave us to our own devices.

    But if we accept Krsna, if we give up independent action and depend completely
    on God, devoting all our effort to His service, He will take complete care of
    us. We shouldn't expect God to remove all inconvenience, but if difficulty
    comes we should simply tolerate it, recognizing that our residual bad KARMA is
    playing itself out, and continue to expect God's mercy.

    God will minimize the karmic reaction due us, but the ultimate way He protects
    us is by bestowing spiritual consciousness upon us and destroying the ignorance
    by which we identify ourselves with matter. Krsna describes that consciousness
    in the BHAGAVAD-GITA (6.22-23): "In that joyous state, one is situated in
    boundless transcendental happiness and enjoys himself through transcendental
    senses... Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken even in the
    midst of the greatest difficulty. This, indeed, is actual freedom from all
    miseries arising from material contact." God frees us not so that we can goof
    off, not so we can get some "reward," but so that we can serve Him
    wholeheartedly, without any other concern.

    So if we accept Krsna, we can solve the problem of evil. That solution doesn't
    lie in rejecting either the goodness or the power of God, but rather in taking
    advantage of that goodness and power to perform pure devotional service - and
    in that way end all our suffering forever.

    PS: Sper ca eforturile mele de a clarifica punctul de vedere vaishnava au avut macar un efect de lamurire si clarificare a premizelor de la care pornesc. E clar ca premizele mele includ reincarnare si distinctie clara dintre corp (o energie inconstienta a Lui Dumnezeu) si suflet (o parte din energia Sa constienta). Si in dialogul nostru ne vom lovi intotdeauna de aceste premize pe care crestinii nu cred ca le vor accepta vreodata,

    Acest mesaj a fost modificat de soka norman: 5th August 2010, 17:05

    Este extrem de lunga aceasta postare.As dori mai mult sa-l descrii cu cuvintele tale pe D-zeu.Din p.d.v. strict crestinesc cele relatate mai sus este o blasfemie vis-a-vis de singura carte sfanta scrisa pentru omenire,si anume Voulgata.In primul rand citeste mai intai ce ti-a oferit D-zeu sa citesti apoi banalele interpretari fanteziste de unii care pretind lucruri de neinchipuit......

  9. #9
    mihai40 este offline Utilizator Samanta
    Data inscrierii
    ianuarie 2012
    Posturi
    17

    Implicit Raspuns muzica

    Si eu inteleg prezentarea pantheonului hindus (tronuri, instante si puteri) insa nu vad nimic imperfect -conteaza si interpretarea simbolurilor.

    Legat de muzica , gusturile sint diferite -nici ele nu se discuta -chiar daca si ele pot fi educate.

    Legat de muzica in domeniul religios observam mai multe genuri ;

    1-genurile mai ritmate si uneori pline de energie , mai in forta -destinate sa ne scoata din letargie si sa ne intareasca vointa si stapinirea de sine.
    2-genurile devotionale asemanatoare cu melodiile populare locale
    3- genuri devotionale -ode, coruri.-
    4 genuri destinate dansului devotional
    5-genuri destinate crearii anumitor stari interioare si meditatiei -uneori insotite de partea vocala- specifice partii orientale a lumii.

    dau citeva exemple orientale

    1



    2



    3 imn Vande_Mataram

    oda Aarti

    4



    5




Reguli postare

  • Nu puteti crea subiecte noi
  • Nu puteti posta replici
  • Nu puteti posta atasamente
  • Nu puteti sa va editati postarile
  •