Nityananda Chandra Das' Blog, ISKCON Dallas

TEXAS FAITH 69: Same-sex marriages and changing attitudes

2012-05-21T12:16:00.000-05:00

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

How do religious institutions or organizations know when to change?

That's the question I would like you to think about this week, in light of the announcement by President Obama that he now favors the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The president isn't the only person who has changed his views over time. Last week, the New York Timestraced how attitudes on same-sex marriage have changed significantly since just the 1990s.

In 1996, the Times reported, 27 percent of Americans favored same-sex marriages. Now, 47 percent favor them.

Views on other issues, such as interracial marriage, also have shifted. In 1972, the Times noted, 59 percent of Americans favored it. By 2002, the number had risen to 90 percent.

But on other topics, nothing has really changed. In 1975, 75 percent of Americans thought abortion should be legal under either certain conditions or in all circumstances. The Times reported that number is virtually the same today. In 2011, 77 percent favor the right to abortion in either limited or unlimited circumstances.

Of course, most of us will claim that we make our decisions by principles, not polls. And that is undoubtedly true. What's more, many principles don't change over time. For example, stealing remains an offense today much like it was when the Ten Commandments were handed down.

But clearly societal attitudes change in some key areas. And religious organizations, like many other institutions, are forced to respond.

So, how do they do that, especially when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage, where attitudes are clearly changing?

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas

We never compromise on our principles but the details of practice will change according to time, place, and circumstance. Such a change must be carefully done by a spiritually advanced person of proper discrimination under the guidance of sādhu, śāstra, and saṅga (the saints of the past, the scripture, the saints of the present).

One example is this is Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura (1874-1937), who had taken a vow of sannyasa, a renounced monk, for the purpose of serving God as a preacher. Such sannyasis were forbidden to ride in vehicles as it was seen contrary to the act of simplicity. Such an act is to support the principle of not coveting objects for our enjoyment.

But Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī did not see the vehicle as material item but rather as God's property and usable for His service. However, he did stipulate to himself and his students that if their spiritual progress and outreach functions is at all decreased by use of vehicles they should then not use it at all.

Therefore, the overall result can be judged by those who are sufficiently spiritually intelligent and can know what is of true benefit.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

CW News Video–Hare Krishna temple damaged by fire.

2012-05-20T17:03:00.000-05:00

Fire In Kitchen Ruled An Accident, No One Injured

Daniel Novick CW 33 News DALLAS—

The members of the Hare Krishna Temple in Dallas tried Saturday to move past a fire that started in their kitchen and caused damage to some of their building Friday night.
A large amount of damage was done to the kitchen and great hall where members hold feasts on a regular basis.
Children took to upbeat drumming Saturday while standing just feet from their charred and heavily damaged Hare Krishna temple. It was the children who set the tone for everyone at the temple just one day after fire ripped through their building.
On Friday night, 500 people had gathered in a nearby park for the marriage of the son of temple president Nityananda Dasa.
“During the marriage ceremony, we saw smoke going out of the building. So we all ran over here and we realized it was the kitchen here,” said Dasa.
Everyone was worried about the same thing.
“I was really concerned that there might have been somebody in there. My only concern was, because we have children and all of our children are very free willing,” Dasa told CW 33 News.
The fire was put under control quickly, and most importantly, no one was injured or killed.
“They went inside and said there was nobody in there, so we felt great relief,” said Dasa.
On Saturday, temple members gathered for chanting. The main room where they prayed was unaffected by the fire, and their spirits were not doused by the damage.
“Yes, of course we lost our kitchen and that is causing some disruption, but you know, life has disruptions in it, it happens to us all the time. People go through much worse than this,” said Dasa.
The minister at the Hare Krishna temple, Nityananda Granger, said the fire was a reminder to not invest happiness in temporary and material things.
“Buildings may come and go, but you’re relationship with God, that is what is most important,” said Granger.
The popular vegetarian restaurant the temple owns, Kalachandji's Restaurant, was not damaged by the fire. However, due to gas lines being cutoff, the restaurant will not reopen until Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

TEXAS FAITH 68: How far should religious institutions go in defining the common good?

2012-05-13T10:48:00.000-05:00

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

Here's a follow-up to our ongoing dialogue about defining the common good. This
question comes out of the discussion we had at our first Texas Faith public forum last
month.

And the question is this:

How far should churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions go in helping define the common good?

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly acted upon his religious convictions
and led many other people of faith in protesting the nation's civil rights laws. He believed
his faith was drawing him into the public arena, and his work changed America's course
for the better.

And he hardly is the only person of faith who has acted upon his beliefs about the public
good. You can find examples from peace movements to the religious right.

Yet it also is true that there is a greater weariness today about the mixing of religion and
politics. Polling data from the Pew Center for Religion & Public Life has shown that. In
fact, a recent Pew poll that showed Americans are growing tired of so much religion in
politics formed the basis of one of our questions back in March.

But I'm not talking here simply about religion and politics. Instead, I'm interested in
hearing your thoughts about the role institutional religion should play in helping shape
the common good, which is not always about politics. The civil rights debate, after all,
was as much about changing the culture and the way Americans live as it was about
politics.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas

I do not know of any other institution that can do the work of defining and promoting the common good other than a spiritual institution. To understand what is the common good one must know the distinction between the body and the soul. Those who act for the body alone are never satisfied. Their hunger for enjoyment comes at other's expense.

"A person who is not disturbed by the incessant ﬂow of desires - that enter like rivers into the ocean, which is ever being ﬁlled but is always still - can alone achieve peace, and not the man who strives to satisfy such desires." - Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 2.70

Those who are not yet at peace within themselves, whose sense of pleasure is invested in the temporary, cannot do good for themselves or others. (even though they may try)

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

Are we all just One? Discussions about non-dualism on Dallasnews.com

2012-05-08T12:16:00.001-05:00

Dear Amy Martin,
Thank you for all your great work and great unity that you provide to the Dallas communities. I especially love all the great events that people get access to due to your dedicated seva.

I have a question about the Advaita principle, the principle of "we are one"
The definition is given "the non-dualism of the spiritual-not-religious which holds that we are not separate from God, or from each other, or from the Earth, but are one."

Hinduism is a variety of completely different religions stemming from India. The tradition that has largest number of adherents are the Vaishnava's which are over 580 million in the world. Vaishnava's being monotheistic do not accept absolute monism, or the idea that everything is just one. Rather they claim that Dvaita, duality is also present in the divine.

By analyzing the info of a subject and recognizing the individuality, or its duality, one fails to see its unity.
By synthesizing the info of a subject and recognizing the unity, or oneness, one fails to see its individuality.

Simple example is given in the Vedas:
A drop of ocean water is salty like the ocean
Qualitatively the drop is one with the ocean, both share qualities
But is the drop one in all respects?
Quantitatively the drop is practically infinitesimal in relation to the ocean.
Qualitative oneness exist but there is also a quantitative difference.
Both oneness and duality exist.

Just as you could analyse a painting and say, it is not art, it is just molecules.
or you could synthesize a painting and say, it is not molecules, it is just art.

One party sees the part and does not see the unison of the whole. Whereas the other sees the whole and does not see the individual parts. The Vedas claim, that the divine is not limited to being forced into only one of those different categories.
So one group (Dvaita) will think, "God is up there" and as you say fail to recognize that "we are not separate from God, or from each other, or from the Earth, but are one." Such a vision does not lead to the idea of the sanctity of the planet because, God is not here, He is just up there.

However, another group (Advaita) will think, "There is no God up there, I am God, you are God, everything is God, I am you and you are me" Such a vision does not reveal the individual nature of our or God's spiritual existence, God's own individuality. In fact the Bhagavad Gita's first instruction is that we and God are both eternally individuals. As René Descartes states " I think, therefore I am" my individual existence is what is most self evident. Therefore absolute oneness is counter intuitive.

The Vedas also state that everything comes from God. Philosophically for absolute oneness to exist personality, individuality, and form must be an illusion, a falsity. This includes the description of God's forms, avatars, and other forms of God, they are all then seen as a fabric of imagination. However, would it be wise to consider the sun cold after feeling the warmth of sunlight? So similarly is it wise to consider that God is simply one, non-personal, not a being, experiencing our own personal individuality?

Therefore it is said that this world is not false, it is a reflection. So as I have a personality, a form, relationships, and activities so as well does the All Attractive divine. Therefore it is the inconceivable nature of God to be simultaneously one and different from us and everything, achitya beda abeda tattva.

So my basic contention is how can it all just be one? are we then missing a big part of the picture?

In response to another discussion.

Thank you Mike Ghouse,
Now in an email you have written. I hope it is ok to share.
"Dear Mr. Das
We see God as one, none and many. Each belief gives comfort to the believer, does any one need to be wrong? Or right? As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, God is in the heart of the believer.
Mike"
To this I would state that I encourage everyone to have an intelligent understanding of faith.
and to this I would ask if ANY belief, regardless of lack of rightness or lack of logic, or lack of truth is valid and beneficial if it holds to the standard of giving comfort to the believer?
So many atrocities have been performed by people who believed in religious ideas that gave them comfort. Terrorism, crusades, cleansing and so on. So is being logical, or as you say being right important? Yes, because being wrong, illogical, can be very harmful.

MikeGhouse

Dear Mr. Das,
One cannot claim that his belief is the right one - contrasting with other's belief to be wrong. Your belief is absolutely right to you, just as other's belief is right to the other. Belief is not mathematics to conclusively say 1+2 = 3. There is nothing right or wrong about a belief, it is a belief that works for the believer.

Nityananda Chandra Das

Dear Mike, I humbly disagree. I do not think intelligence should be thrown out the door. That leads to fanaticism. Which I hope we can agree is harmful.
To quote the wise, "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation. " A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Philosophy means it is not based just on sentiment but rather sound reasoning.

Elsewhere

MikeGhouse

Nityananda,
I wrote the same example, but dropped it due to the length "The Hindu wisdom gives examples of how each drop of an ocean is like the humans, which possess the same characteristics as the ocean, yet they are two different entities of the same whole but not separate from the other"
Instead I substituted with the Namaste in my write up

Nityananda Chandra Das

Thank you Mike Ghouse.
Yes,
Another example the Vedas give is that of a green bird entering into a green tree. Both remain individuals and separate but share oneness in their green qualities. For relationship means a party of two rather than one.
The word 'yoga' illustrates this although most of those who are very familiar with the subject do not understand its meaning. Yoga is where we get the English word union. Uniting two parties.
As religion come from the root meaning meaning re-linking with God
Yoga means reuniting with our long lost soul mate Krishna, or as others say, God, Jehovah, Allah, or Christ.

TEXAS FAITH 67: Are Oprah, Deepak and the "God Within" school good or bad for religion?

2012-05-08T07:14:00.001-05:00

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

In his new book, Bad Religion, author and columnist Ross Douthat argues that since the 1960s, institutional Christianity has sunk to a low place - chock-a-block with heresies. Among them, the "God-within" theology that he ascribes to modern-day practitioners like Oprah Winfrey , Deepak Chopra and Elizabeth Gilbert.

Douthat suggests that bad religion is any religious expression that doesn't go through formalized, orthodox channels. Or as writer Charlie Pierce boils down Douthat's thesis: "Christianity would have been infinitely better off is somebody had stopped the banjo Mass in its tracks." But doesn't Douthat fundamentally have a point? Aren't the formal channels of church, synagogue or mosque, of Buddhist temples or the Hindu Vedas -- aren't they all supposed to rein in makeshift, even self-indulgent, flights into "bad religion"? Put another way, can you find spiritual enlightenment outside a formalized religious structure and, having found it, still be a good Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Jew?

The question this week is this:

Have Oprah and Deepak and the proponents of the "God Within" school caused more harm than good? Have they contributed to the deinstitutionalization of religion? And if so, is that okay?

Agree? Disagree? Read on after the jump.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas

In the Vedas it is described that there are three levels of spiritual realization. Brahman, Paramātmā, & Bhagavān. This can be compared to:

1. Seeing a train from a distance and concluding that it is a bright light
2. Seeing the train up close in the station and therefore understanding its intricacies
3. Riding the train with the train conductor and understanding the person and the further intricacies behind the train.
Brahman realization, realization of the existence of the soul being separate from the body, can be made possible without the help of external information, for it becomes self evident for the introspective philosopher.

However, deeper levels of realization requires the help of a teacher. Krishna explains in the Bhagavad Gita 4.2 that if spiritual knowledge is not passed down, teacher to teacher, then whatever information is being taught is simply theoretical rather than practical. Just as no one becomes a medical doctor simply from medical books alone, medical school is also required. Society holds this standard for any field of sophistication whether it is medicine, law, or psychology. But for some reason we exclude holding the sophisticated subject of spiritual life to this high standard. Thus we faultily conclude that a book alone, or our self alone can reveal the highest spiritual truth.
Therefore we find errors on both sides, the side of tradition and that of individual revelation. Tradition will say "Stick to tradition" but such tradition may not be traditional. One may ask "Where is the lineage of teachers who have, in an unbroken manner, passed down this knowledge from its original source?" Or are we in a situation where we have a possibly unadulterated medical book but no real doctors or medical school to practically show the way of the complexities of medicinal practice.
Therefore there are those who will seek God outside of tradition, and may be blessed with genuine spiritual experiences of a certain level. Nevertheless if they desire to know that which is beyond this world, the information must come from beyond this world, & beyond our own minds. Thus, guru is necessary. Guru is he/she who teaches by example what he or she has been taught. The guru must be a student of another guru and similarly that guru as well. Such a linage must go back to the original teacher whether it is Jesus, Krishna or Mohammad. Otherwise the information may look nice on paper but not be able to produce any valid results.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

TEXAS FAITH 66: The Mormon Moment

2012-04-27T17:45:00.001-05:00

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

In March, we talked some about Mitt Romney and his Mormonism. But since then Romney has become the presumptive GOP nominee.

This has led to a number of pieces about the so-called "Mormon moment, including one I wrote in today'sMorning News. Mormon leaders, understandably, may be wearying of that cliché. But it is true that church members have a teachable moment before them.

Specifically, they have a chance to demystify elements of their faith, which polls show is still not very well understood by many of us. In my book, this is best done through in a friend-to-friend, neighbor-to-neighbor, pew-to-pew way. That approach allows for more candid conversations and helps build bridges.

David Campbell, a Notre Dame political scientist and a Mormon, said in an interview I did with him last week that those personal bonds are especially important. They keep in check the tensions that are likely to arise in a society that has so many different faiths.

With that as the set-up, here is this week's question:

What issue would you most like to discuss with a Mormon about their religious faith?

Perhaps you already have done this, so feel free to elaborate upon that in your answer.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas

Ever journey begins not only with the destination in mind but also with the starting point. If you do not have a GPS signal the address you enter into your device will be of little use. So similarly our goal may be God, or happiness, but a proper venture cannot be taken without recognizing your current position. It is for this reason that I feel that a preliminary discussion on the metaphysics of the self, the soul, to be necessary.

We all act according to our conception of our constitutional position. How we view our existence. Do we see the body as the self? The mind? The intelligence? Or are we something completely beyond body?

In my experience if someone thinks himself to be the body and mind, then their plan for happiness will be built with purpose of satisfying the body and mind. And even if they are religious they will seek blessing from God only for their body and mind. Such as, "God please provide me my daily bread, a car, a TV, health, wealth, good family, and so on" What else is their to ask for if you are your body?

However, if you are not the body, as the Vedas claim, if you are simply a passenger in an ever changing vehicle, then satisfying the needs of the vehicle will not satisfy you, the driver of the vehicle. Just as polishing the cage does not take care of the hungry stomach of the bird, our material efforts for happiness will fail if we do not have valid understanding of the self.

As a mansion is build on a strong foundation, so similarly religion must be philosophically and intelligently supported. Starting with the topic that is closest to us, ourselves. The question and answer must put forward, "Who, or more so, what am I?" This is the dialogue that I usually pursue with my Mormon friends and other religious folks.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

TEXAS FAITH 65: Catholic bishops and civil disobedience

2012-04-20T19:19:00.001-05:00

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

How far should people of faith go in resisting laws they consider unjust?

I raise this because last week the nation's Catholic bishops, as the AP reported, "urged resistance to laws that church officials consider unjust."

The story explained how the bishops urged "fellow Catholics and fellow Americans to be on guard, for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad." The report also noted the clash between theObama administration and Catholic leaders earlier this year over the requirement for most employers to cover the birth control costs of their employees. Since then, the White House has offered a compromise, but the issue has not necessarily gone away.

Perhaps you agree that religious liberty is under attack, perhaps you don't. I'm not looking for an assessment of that. Rather, I would like your thoughts about how far people of faith should go in resisting laws they consider immoral.

I'm sure we all would agree that there is room for civil disobedience, but societies also require a certain amount of cohesion to function. For example, just because someone opposes a war does that give them the right to stop paying taxes that would benefit the Pentagon?

This issue matters enormously to people of faith and the larger secular society. Read on for informative answers.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas

How far should people go in resisting laws that they consider unjust?

One should to the fullest extent intelligently resist what they consider to be unjust.

However it should be pointed out that most of problems are due to a lack of spiritual consciousness. Therefore solutions must be put in place with this understanding in mind.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

TEXAS FAITH 64: The Intellect and Religious Faith

2012-04-17T18:04:00.001-05:00

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

What is the role of the intellect in discovering and maintaining a religious faith?

That is the question for this week, and it is spurred on in part from two thoughtful columns drawing attention to a lessening of an intellectual emphasis in two major wings of American Christianity: liberal Protestantism and evangelical Protestantism.
The first column is a Wall Street Journal review of author Marilynne Robinson's new book When I was a Child I Read Books . In it, the review says, Robinson argues that mainline Protestantism got sidelined "by retreating from the cultivation and celebration of learning and of beauty...as if people were less than God made them and in need of nothing so much as of condescension. "
The second column is by the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Jr. He chides (gently) Christians in general and evangelicals in particular for diminishing the role of the mind in exploring faith. Writes Dionne:
"Popular Christianity often seems to denigrate rather than celebrate intellectual life and critical inquiry. This not only ignores Christian giants of philosophy and science but also plays into some of the very worst stereotypes inflicted upon religious believers."
Later on, he says:

"Some Christians encourage a view of their faith as profoundly anti-intellectual. Faith is seen as more about experience than reason, more about loyalty than dialogue. The desire to assert The Truth takes priority over exploring productively and honestly what the truth might be."

At the end, after quoting with admiration evangelical scholar Mark Noll, Dionne concludes:

" If Easter is about liberation, this liberation must include intellectual freedom."

Perhaps you agree with these assessments, or perhaps you don't. Either way I would like to hear your thoughts about the role the mind plays in opening one up to a religious faith and then sustaining it over time.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas

Krishna Consciousness is a science, and intelligence is one of the tools of the experimental lab work. But because intelligence is material it cannot create spiritual information, it can only be employed in examining it.

For example I am sitting here in East Dallas and if I want valid information on Japan, the information has to come from Japan. If the agency of information (TV, web, university), had no known connection to some type of study or visit to Japan, then I would doubt its veracity. So similarly information about spiritual subjects must come from a non-material source.

In the beginning intelligence may be able to realize some basic spiritual truths without assistance of an outside informant. But in the higher levels of spiritual learning, intelligence is the examiner rather than the discoverer.

For example, the intelligence can discover or realize that the soul, the self, is different from the body. But what exactly is soul's nature is or what is its eternal form or position must be understood by a source that is not of this world.

Aroha-pantha, the inductive process of receiving information will not yield information that is otherworldly, rather it only takes place through avaroha-pantha, or the deductive process. Meaning basically that knowledge of God must come from God down to us rather than our senses and tools stretching up to God.

This body is compared to a chariot. Our senses are the horses, guiding and attracting us and thus moving us. The mind is the reins that control the senses, saying, "I like this, I don't like this,"

However the mind, the reins, are ultimately controlled by a superior, the intelligence which acts as a driver. Just as the senses may be attracted to a cigarette, the mind as well, but the intelligence can intervene and dictate that it is not good for us. But the driver of this chariot works under the desires of the passenger, the soul. So the soul may choose to go towards God, and employ his driver, the intelligence to the task at hand or the soul may choose simply to serve the senses and mind and wander about in a chariot with a weak or ill intended driver.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

I also added in the comment section.

Nityananda Chandra Das

I also wanted to add that if God is the most intelligent being, He should then have the most intelligent philosophy. That is primarily how one can initially see God, is to see the intelligence of His philosophy. For example when I first began to read, and also to this day, books such as the Bhagavad Gita As It Is I remain continually amazed at its intelligence

TEXAS FAITH 63: Is God good?

2012-04-13T11:53:00.001-05:00

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

If you believe in God, do you believe God is good? If so, why?

If you don't believe God is good, please explain.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas

“The magnanimous nature of the Lord is better understood when we have a framework to understand the apparent irregularities of this world. In this world we see a lot of pain. There is disease, death, old age and even those who too young to be held accountable for karma or sin are subjected to severe suffering.

This situation is certainly a valid cause for doubts. Just as if I were to walk into a grocery store and was attacked by the cashier, I would naturally question the benevolence of the manager. For many this question is difficult, not to be discussed in religious circles. However, there is an intelligent structure by which all apparent anomalies can be subsided.

If we view the living entity, the soul, as a being who has no destruction but does have a creation, the faults of the world which afflict the soul at birth and even while within the womb would be then be the fault of God, the being who put the soul in that situation. On the other hand, if the soul, the person who inhabits the ever changing body, had a life and activities prior to his present birth then that opens the door to many other possibilities. Just as it can be understood that if I had performed criminal activities in the grocery store on previous days it should not a surprise to me if the cashier tackles me down to be arrested.

We all carry the baggage of our previous lives, our karmas, and are thus subjected to them. Just as a honey bee takes nectar from various plants which results in a certain flavor of honey, so similar activities and desires of our previous lives results in the situations that we are faced in our this life.

Why are we here in the first place? According to the Vedas, to be born in this world means that we have some desire to be independent of God. God has created this world to facilitate our wayward desires. Because in order for a loving relationship to be true there must be the element of choice. Love can never be forced, like a gun to the head.

So we see the general mentality here to be served rather than serve. Therefore, this material existence is a place for the soul to assert its independence to try to play God. In this play we step on others' toes and receive the karmic reaction.

However Sri Krishna, God, is very kind that He and His representatives regularly descend to this world to impart knowledge to us, to teach us how we can be free from suffering. To act in our natural function as part of a whole. If the hand nourishes the stomach, it also is for the hand's own benefit. Encouraging us to act in this yoga is one of the ways the Lord shows His love. He does not force us. Rather just encourages from a distance. But if we take one step He takes a 100 steps towards us.

He not only provides spiritual instructions but also everything we need to live is provided by the Lord. Food, light, warmth, air, water, everything is provided even for the insignificant ant.”

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

A discussion ensued with another panelist and I. He stated that “(God) It is not a being, not a thing, and not an entity but simply the energy that caused a "balanced universe" and functions on the principle of balance, where every component of it is programmed to seek its own balance; both physical and metaphysical. For lack of linguistic expression, we normally address God as "him" instead of "her." God only knows what it is. Indeed, we have created God in our own image. ”

Nityananda Chandra Das

Dear Ghouse, I am not sure if you will see this as this is an old thread. My contention is that basically every theology admits God as the source. As sun is the source of sunlight.

Would you think that the sun is actually cold, unlike its sunlight?

Sat karyavad. In the cause the effect is also found. So if I am a being how can my source only be relegated to a energy?

The Vedas define God as shaktiman, the source of all energies, rather than just an impersonal energy.

Śrī Īśopanisad 16
pūsann ekarse yama sūrya prājāpatya
vyūha raśmīn samūha
tejo yat te rūpaḿ kalyāna-tamaḿ
tat te paśyāmi yo 'sāv asau purusah so 'ham asmi
O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss. You are the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, like unto the sun, as am I.

MikeGhouse

Dear Chandra Das,
When I referred to God as energy, I did not relegate it to passive energy; I did not perceive it in various grades either. God is active energy, for lack of more descriptive word. It is not static, it is dynamic and maintaining a continual equilibrium. It is all within the realm of that energy. Life is all about seeking balance and the freeing oneself from the factors that throw us off the balance.
I have difficulty conjuring up a form for that energy, although I understand, it is human to have an imaginative God and we perceive it in our own image – we have not been able to free ourselves from that imagination – even the alien movies we make; they still have a similar structure like ours.

Nityananda Chandra Das

Dear Ghouse, Many perceive that by accepting that God has a form we limit God, a man made proposition. Imposing humanity upon God. However the same can be said of the idea that God is formless. That is also a limitation, "God is only this way, without form" However you have a form but your source cannot. This is illogical, but as was pointed out in this upcoming article logic is a tool of examination rather than tool of discovery. We examine must the info that is given to see if it is logical. But it is not that logic alone can discover the nature of God. That knowledge must come from the source itself.
The Vedas proclaim that God is the Energetic, the possessor and employer of the energy, and at the same time He is also in the energy as well. One and yet different. Monism and Dualism. Just as the drop of ocean water shares the salty quality of the ocean but differs in it quantity. Therefore God is also in this world but at the same time God has His own existence, His own form. The gurus have examined the logic of this, as well as myself and I find, as did they, that it stands solid.

Power and the powerhouse, energy and the energetic

MikeGhouse

Dear Chandra Das,
Indeed, a formless and formful God are possibilities for our imagination. And I do agree with you, "Therefore God is also in this world but at the same time God has His own existence, His own form." There is a couplet in my language Urdu -
Banday ko khuda mat kaho, banda khuda nahin,
lekin phir bhi juda, banday say khuda nahin
Don't call man "the God", man is not God,
yet, these two are inseparable, man is not distinct from his creator
Mike Ghouse.

Kirtan Dance class at Irma Rangel Leadership School For Girls

2012-04-08T11:39:00.001-05:00

After our Kirtan and Drum show in the auditorium we invited kids for face painting and kirtan dance class in the cafeteria.

Full story on ISKCON New - ISKCON Dallas Visits Young Women’s Leadership School