> he hasn't come all by himself to the conviction that smoking is bad and should be given up.
What should he do, how should he think so as to damage neither his health nor his sense of free will?

Smoking and health are mutually exclusive. One can't have a cake and eat it.

> So one ends up unable to decide whether one is doing it in free will, or not, and remains stuck in habits and activities that one oneself is convinced they are wrong/bad/not good enough.

Why not to apply the same logic on continuing the habit? Why it's taken as default?

> What should he do, how should he think so as to damage neither his health nor his sense of free will?

He should decide to stop smoking in the same way he decided to start smoking. Why does this person make it exceedingly more complicated then it needs to be?

This is one of best nonsenses I have heard in a while: "If I give up smoking because someone told me to, then I will be violating the sacred principle of free will!" This mentality represents one the greatest self-induced illusions ever: vice justified as virtue. If I was a gambling man, I would bet that this person cannot actually give up smoking, but in order to appear as a great moralist or philosopher they perform such mental gymnastics so as to conclude that continuing the habit is to uphold a moral or philosophical position. I'd say that smoking is the least of their worries...the mental habit of justifing vice as virtue is infinitely more dangerous.

Another great example of someone justifying weakness as virtue is Sri Arjuna. Arjuna considered his non-violent approach as a magnanimous and righteous virtue, however Krishna considered Arjuna's approach as 'degarding impotence,' and 'weakness of heart.' (Bg 2.3).

deena:

This is one of best nonsenses I have heard in a while: "If I give up smoking because someone told me to, then I will be violating the sacred principle of free will!" This mentality represents one the greatest self-induced illusions ever: vice justified as virtue. If I was a gambling man, I would bet that this person cannot actually give up smoking, but in order to appear as a great moralist or philosopher they perform such mental gymnastics so as to conclude that continuing the habit is to uphold a moral or philosophical position. I'd say that smoking is the least of their worries...the mental habit of justifing vice as virtue is infinitely more dangerous.

I know a married couple in their sixties. The wife smokes, but the husband disapproves of it strongly, and keeps criticizing her for it, telling her to stop smoking, showing her those awful pictures of people with lung cancer and so on. But she doesn't stop, nor does she smoke any less. Also, they have a history of domestic violence when they were younger.[br]
[br]From speaking with her, I am quite sure she wants to stop. But it appears she is afraid that if she would, this would mean her husband once more gets the upper hand in the relationship, defeat her again. So she continues to smoke, and thereby retain some semblance of free will in the relationship.[br]

[br]It seems to me that many people have this sort of psychological entanglement that keeps them stuck when it comes to giving up bad habits and addictions or taking up a positive course of action.

VEDA:

Why not to apply the same logic on continuing the habit? Why it's taken as default?

It appears the current status quo is taken as default.[br]

[br]Perhaps this dilemma between doing something in free will or due to giving in to others is a false one to begin with. But for some reason, it seems to have quite a prominence in Western culture. All those calls to "think for yourself", "don't be a sheep", "be an individual", "don't be just another brick in the wall". And this comes with a lot of stress, so it seems important to look into it.

I second Dina.

> For example, I was in counseling once, and the counselor kept focusing on this - "Do you want to do this because _you_ want to do it, or do you want to do it because _others_ want you to do it?"
I have found this question to be extremely frustrating, I couldn't answer it.

It's a false dilemma. West has no idea about five factors of action.

Abuse and struggle in place of loving service - that's the perversion of material world. Ahankara vimudhatma.

> All those calls to "think for yourself", "don't be a sheep", "be an individual", "don't be just another brick in the wall". And this comes with a lot of stress, so it seems important to look into it.

Atheists often challenge theists: 'Think for yourself! Don't parrot some old book!' But they themselves can't actually produce any original thought. When this is pointed out, they shut up.
This is a manipulation used to create distrust and division among people for easier control by asuras. Something like when Buddha said 'Don't follow Vedas, follow me'. In fact, we don't live in vacuum. Our life is molded by the historical experience of mankind.

My dear bhaktine baker ....you are unable to appreciate ''absolute knowledge'' in a devotional surrounding and environment.Your example is consistent with your material conditioning and vision.However krishna only allows you minimal choices.Which are ''demonstrated in his context'',according to his sweet will and his time and unique circumstances.In other words....yes you have free will,but there are severe limitations to this free will.Practically everything is conditioned by sri krishna chaitanya's desire and purpose once one takes the initial steps towards krishna.You seem ''fuzzy and unclear'' about your individual choices and there consequences.Be trained in the material environment to always be an individual and unique is thoroughly unrealistic,apart from being totally conditioned in the same way as millions of others......and the trillions of other followers of the 3 material modes .

http://connect.krishna.com/node/6344 great article on free will

VEDA:

Atheists often challenge theists: 'Think for yourself! Don't parrot some old book!' But they themselves can't actually produce any original thought. When this is pointed out, they shut up.[br]
This is a manipulation used to create distrust and division among people for easier control by asuras. Something like when Buddha said 'Don't follow Vedas, follow me'. In fact, we don't live in vacuum. Our life is molded by the historical experience of mankind.

I think a lot depends on whether one thinks that neutrality/objectivity/complete independence are possible for humans. Also, whether one thinks that the emic vs. etic distinction is meaningful.[br]

[br]There is a strong demand among Westerners, perhaps elsewhere as well, that one should choose one's religion on the basis of a neutral, objective knowledge about the world, God, ourselves, everything. Something like becoming enlightened first, and then picking a religion, but not before. There is the notion that free will can only truly be applied once one has the position of neutrality, objectivity and complete independence, but that any other choice is simply due to deterministic or random bias, and as such invalid.[br]

[br]What confuses me is that some devotees explain their decision to take up the path of Krishna consciousness in those Western terms, and they give instruction to that effect as well. As if one should be neutral, objective and completely independent first, and only then make decisions about taking up a particular spiritual path.[br]


[br]IOW, what I am looking for is what I call "a valid entry point" into the path of Krishna consciousness - and there doesn't seem to be any such point. Perhaps looking for such an entry point is an artificial imposition to begin with. From the perspective of GV it probably doesn't even exist or isn't a problem (since everything is considered to happen according to God's will anyway, and as per BG 7.16, distress, poverty, curiosity, and desiring to know the Absolute Truth are considered sufficient entry points). But it surely exists from the perspective I am coming from (where the distinctions insider vs. outsider, emic vs. etic are considered valid).[br]

[br]To me, it seems that the devotees have something that I do not have, and that even if I chant, go to meetings, keep the regulative principles etc., I am still an outsider. That there is some decision they have made before taking up the path of KC at all, or some special something that they have that makes them insiders. Some decision or something that is external to BG 7.16 and 4.11. And this worries me very much.

VEDA:

> Also, whether one thinks that the emic vs. etic distinction is meaningful.[br]

Depends on a particular case.

Could you please give some examples of when do you think this distinction is meaningful, and when it is not?[br]


[br]I so far wasn't able to find much literature on how to begin to develop a religious belief - in the pre-religious, meta-religious sense where one it as the stage of choosing a particular religion to aspire to to begin with.
[br]There are Pascal's Wager and William James' doctrine on the will to believe, building on Pascal's Wager. Both assume that one is starting from a relatively neutral, irreligious position, and then strategically decides to place one's hopes into this or that particular religious path. But both of these seem to set one up for a life of silent doubt and despair, since the religious path started on in such a manner seems to forever stay merely tentative, a self-fulfilling prophecy at most, as everything hinges on that one intial decision to take it up.[br]

[br]Where would you say Pascal's Wager lacks the most?[br]


[br]

What makes one insider is only a positive attitude to Krsna and a desire to serve Him.

How does one get this positive attitude to Krsna and the desire to serve Him?[br]

[br]And again - for me, there is this enormous difference in how I feel and think about Krishna and GV, depending on whom I am with or think of. There are some people, devotees and non-devotees, around whom I seriously start to think that being a hardcore atheist is a good thing. Around some other people, devotees and non-devotees, I feel very positively about Krishna and feel willing to invest a lot of effort into my spiritual practice. This difference is very confusing for me. Should I not have the same desires and inclinations regardless of whom I am with or thinking of?[br]

[br]I know - you will probably tell me to seek out those who encourage me in Krishna consciousness and avoid those who don't. Somehow, I am not comfortable with being selective like that.[br]


[br]

This creates ajnata sukriti so one can start conscious devotional service. I've mentioned it before.

Yes, you have. I am keeping it in mind, trying to work my reasoning so as to come to see how it fits in in my mind. Pascal's Wager, for example, does not presume there is any real benefit from executing religious service, other than the benefit of the mere fact that one has executed it as opposed to omitting it ("it's only a ritual that has to be done").

maah! - simplicity is vaisnavism

Yes, very true. Simplicity is nice. No complication.

Very nice sadhu -sanga prabhu....you are like a banyan tree for all of us to take shelter from kali's miserable degrading influence....Well done .Veda prabhu

maah!:

Everything takes place according to the will of Krishna. If He doesn’t will, a blade of grass will not shake. So it is a question of faith. But why do we lack faith? Dhruva immediately put strong faith. He was not afraid of any situation. “Where is that Narayan? Where is Narayan!” The example is also there in the story about the young boy and Gopal. But we can’t put faith. What is the reason? Why are these small children able to have faith, but adults cannot? It is because you are crooked and they are simple. A child is very simple, but as soon as he grows up and associates with adults, those who are very crooked, he develops crookedness. Otherwise, in the beginning a child is very simple. Simplicity is vaisnavism. All our acaryas have said this. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami stresses on this; saralata hi vaisnavata—simplicity is vaisnavism. Real vaisnavas are as simple as a child.

There is no question of crookedness, duplicity or pretentiousness in them. But our heart is full of these things. We are not al all simple-hearted persons. We are very crooked. Duplicity, crookedness, and pretentiousness are in you. But Krishna is in your heart. He knows what is in you; you cannot cheat Him. Therefore we say that sadhu-guru-mahajan are patita pavana, not kapati-pavana - they are the saviors of the fallen, not saviors of the crooked.

Questions:
Devotee: How can someone develop simplicity?

Gour Govinda Swami: Associate with a simple sadhu. As I described by guru-maharja, how he came and inculcated faith. And why are you lacking faith now? Because you are not associating with sadhus! You say, “We cannot see sadhu. There are no sadhus present now.” That’s the whole trouble with you.

But if we are duplicitous in the heart, then we will be blind and won’t be able to see who is a sadhu. So how can we associate with sadhus if we don’t know who is a sadhu?

Therefore I say, even if sadhu comes, because you are blind you have no faith in him. You want to be the seer, so you cannot get any benefit. You cannot associate. If a sadhu comes and chants here, speaks krsna-katha, it will never enter your ear. You cannot get any benefit. You don’t do sadhu-sanga at all. Although you come and sit here, you are just posing, you are just pretending. You are such a pretender! Because you have no faith, the sadhu’s katha will never enter your ear. Thus, you cannot get any benefit. Just pretending. Sitting for ten or fifteen minutes, then getting up and going out. Why is this? Because you have no faith. You are not simple. You want to be the seer. But you are not the seer. That’s the whole trouble.

So I should just give it up?

Gour Govinda Swami: Yes! Give up everything! Just throw it out! Throw it out! Make your heart clean and open. Jesus Christ said, “Empty thyself. I will fill thee.” But you are not emptying. Your heart is full to the brim with crookedness, duplicity and enviousness - all nasty things. How can he fill you? There is no space. Empty yourself. Throw it out! Then you will get.

[From an evening program in Lansing, Michigan on 28 October 1991]

It is because of instructions like these that I took to Buddhism.[br]

[br]I find such instructions to be extremely abstract, impossible to intentionally act upon. Christianity is full of such instructions. Frustrated with it, I concluded that one would have to be nothing short but enlightened to act upon them - that one would have to be beyond anger, greed, illusion, lust, hatred, beyond any effects of birth, aging, illness and death in their various forms. Buddhism promises such an attainment, and I took to Buddhism with the plan to "become enlightened first", so that then I could act on those instructions given by theists - because I have felt throughout that I should learn the truth about God and make the correct decision in my actions related to God. After a couple of years of Buddhist practice, I gave up because it was just too hard ...

I think you are too concerned with Western pathology and philology. There is no *free will*, you have pay for everything as you know.

"What ifs" don't help. Contact someone who inspires you and see what kind of relationship develops.

Enduring is needed in every effort: Nanakorobi Yaoki, Jinsei Wa Kore Kara Da. "To fall seven times, to rise eight times - life starts from now."

No demands: Don't try to see Krsna but act in a way He wants to see you. (BSST)

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

One example of simple and non-simple.

There was a transcendental discourse being held in a nearby town. One old lady and her daughter-in-law walked to hear it. To get there, they had to cross over a river. On the way, the tide was low. During the lecture, the sadhu explained that chanting the holy name of Hari would save one from all dangers. The old lady was not simple but the daughter in law was, so she began chanting Lord Hari's names. One the way home, the river had risen and to cross it, they had to wade in water up to the neck. The young lady was going faster, while the old lady was going slower. Suddenly the old lady realized she was being swept away. She called for the daughter in law to come help her. Turning behind and seeing the sudden trouble the daughter in law was only able to advise the old lady to chant Hari! To this, the old lady said, "Who are YOU to instruct me?" She refused to chant and was carried away.

Yes this is one that reminds me of the three different classes of intelligence.

1st Class) Hears from others that fire burns and never sticks his hand in it or hears that smoking is bad and never takes up the bad habit or
hears the absolute truth from someone who has walked the path, a true self realized soul in full knowledge and follows without ever looking back.

2nd Class) Hears from others that fire burns, sticks his hand in just to make sure and hell yes it burns and decides not to do that again or
ditto for smoking...ditto for following the instructions from a real Vaisnava Saint.

3rd Class) A no brainer hears from others that fire burns, sticks his hand in, repeatedly forgets the pain of the last experience and sticks his hand in again and again,
ditto for smoking...ditto for following the instructions from a real Vaisnava Saint.

As most of us were never born into a pure vaisnava family most of us are less than 3rd class...this fact is held up by realizing how many devotees
took initiation/association from Srila Prabhupada and how many are still around.

As far as hearing from someone that fire burns but deciding to stick your hand in the fire and burn your hand anyway simply because it was someone elses idea
and not yours is borderline madness...but I guess we are all mad in this hell house, mad after sense gratification, the modes, mind & false ego has so much
control over ones life yet most people would swear black and blue that's its their own decision to take certain actions. It's not until you make it into the mode of goodness (and get some instructions from a real Vaisnava Sadhu) can you start to see the subtle energies (modes) and the working of the false ego and the mind.

So from a Vaisnava point of view while the jiva remains covered by the modes of material nature, he has no free will. Srila Prabhpuda often quoted the scenario of the sick people in a hospital, the sick cannot administer care to themselves they need a physician who is aware of their condition to administer some medicine.
That's what the saints and sadhus are trying to do (the real ones) unfortunately because we are less than 3rd class we prefer to watch tv or waste our lives with some other materialistic pastime.

So by following the sadhana program of rising early, chanting sixteen rounds, avoiding meat and intoxicants and bad association (other people who are covered by the modes) it elevates you into the mode of goodness and beyond. Its at that point when you study the scriptures with the guidance of a true Vaisnava Sadhu you will make real spiritual progress. Its a science just like Srila Prabhupada used to say.

manasi_seva:

Yes this is one that reminds me of the three different classes of intelligence.

1st Class) Hears from others that fire burns and never sticks his hand in it or hears that smoking is bad and never takes up the bad habit or
hears the absolute truth from someone who has walked the path, a true self realized soul in full knowledge and follows without ever looking back.

2nd Class) Hears from others that fire burns, sticks his hand in just to make sure and hell yes it burns and decides not to do that again or
ditto for smoking...ditto for following the instructions from a real Vaisnava Saint.

3rd Class) A no brainer hears from others that fire burns, sticks his hand in, repeatedly forgets the pain of the last experience and sticks his hand in again and again,
ditto for smoking...ditto for following the instructions from a real Vaisnava Saint.

As most of us were never born into a pure vaisnava family most of us are less than 3rd class...this fact is held up by realizing how many devotees
took initiation/association from Srila Prabhupada and how many are still around.

As far as hearing from someone that fire burns but deciding to stick your hand in the fire and burn your hand anyway simply because it was someone elses idea
and not yours is borderline madness...but I guess we are all mad in this hell house, mad after sense gratification, the modes, mind & false ego has so much
control over ones life yet most people would swear black and blue that's its their own decision to take certain actions. It's not until you make it into the mode of goodness (and get some instructions from a real Vaisnava Sadhu) can you start to see the subtle energies (modes) and the working of the false ego and the mind.

So from a Vaisnava point of view while the jiva remains covered by the modes of material nature, he has no free will. Srila Prabhpuda often quoted the scenario of the sick people in a hospital, the sick cannot administer care to themselves they need a physician who is aware of their condition to administer some medicine.
That's what the saints and sadhus are trying to do (the real ones) unfortunately because we are less than 3rd class we prefer to watch tv or waste our lives with some other materialistic pastime.

Could you provide any reference that the same principles that apply to the acquisition of material knowledge, apply also to the acquisition of proper spiritual knowledge?[br]

[br]There is such a variety of advice on offer as to what one should do in terms of spirituality, that I fail to see how a principle like "Don't stick your hand into the fire!" would apply. It's not like it is self-evident to everyone where true happiness is, or what our true self is and so on. In fact, there is a vast range of teachings on these topics, many of them are mutually exclusive. How is a lay, run-of-the-mill person supposed to choose among them? Especially since most of them are delivered in the tone of "And if you don't do as I tell you, you are a bad person and should suffer terribly."

VEDA:

"What ifs" don't help. Contact someone who inspires you and see what kind of relationship develops.

I don't feel particularly inspired by anyone, though.[br]



[br]

Enduring is needed in every effort: Nanakorobi Yaoki, Jinsei Wa Kore Kara Da. "To fall seven times, to rise eight times - life starts from now."

Endure - but for what?[br]



[br]

No demands: Don't try to see Krsna but act in a way He wants to see you. (BSST)

I do not know how Krishna wants to see me. I do not have His direct associacion to know these things, nor am I omniscient. I don't know if the Vedic scriptures and the disciplic succession are correctly delivering His instructions. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. It seems to me I would have to be very advanced, if not omniscient, to actually know what Krishna wants.

>It seems to me I would have to be very advanced, if not omniscient, to actually know what Krishna wants.

You got it wrong, one need not to be advanced, one needs to be a simple person, a very simple hearted one to know what krsna wants. "I need to be very advanced, and I will understand what krsna wants", this statement is another declaration of false ego. And till the time it remains there it is hard to understand what krsna wants.

Baker,

You actually make a very interesting point, as you can see most of the knowledge on offer here is a regurgitation of what Srila Prabhupada said, I guess that is because some of us have met Srila Prabhupada or atleast have read his books and have found nothing else that has affected our lives so deeply. But its a dam good question. How do we know what we know?

You say "Could you provide any reference that the same principles that apply to the acquisition of material knowledge, apply also to the acquisition of proper spiritual knowledge?"

Material Knowledge as acquired in the top universities of the planet like Cambridge and Harvard are based on Epistemology.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief or in other words What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? What do people know? How do we know what we know? or another view of Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this question translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories?

Ontology is the theory of being and epistemology is the theory of knowledge. Plato is generally said to be doing ontology because he argues that what really exists are eternal, unchanging forms. The everyday world are imitations, or reflections of these forms. This is quite a different ontology than one that says the universe is only made up of quarks.

Now spritual life takes a few different twists and turns in the Brahma Madhva Gaudia Sampridiya (which is the family tree stemming from Krishna down to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and includes Iskcon) and also many Bharat (India) spiritual based systems of knowledge are opposite to Epistemology, they accept the word of the scripture as written by Vasudeva in Faith, this is not different from the old ways or religions prior to and including Christianity all of these are passing knowledge down via a guru or teacher system along with written (Shastric) reference.

But at the end of days these are all words...its like asking someone what does a foodstuff taste like that you have never tasted, say for example a mango, you will
get all sorts of descriptions and some will say its the king of fruits while others will say its over rated. Ultimately you will have to get your feet wet and jump in..and try it for yourself. Yes there many philosophies and many paths and these days everyone is their own self styled philosopher, even the taxi driver has his own view on the universe ... OMG! LMAO!

What I find that helps is to take a a deep breath. hold it for about 20 seconds..then breath out slowly repeat this several times until your mind shifts from the outside world to your breathing...then laugh...laugh like you have never laughed before...tears will come from your eyes..just becareful u don't piss your pants...Just kidding...the only thing I have found that helps is to take the first step...chant Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare...my life truly did change after only a few chants...and no matter what I do my old life will never be the same...thank Krishna for that! Oh and also hang on to your sense of humour you will need it! and of course I would highly recommend that you read Srila Prabhupada's books..all of them! I trust him only him and no one else! Buckle up buddy because if your chant the holy name...Kansas city is going bye bye! and it will never be the same!

VEDA:

> I don't feel particularly inspired by anyone, though.

[br]Then keep on listening.

This is novel! A senior devotee once told me, upon hearing that I don't feel inspired by anyone, that perhaps KC isn't for me and that I should look elsewhere. That really angried me.[br]


[br]

> Endure - but for what?

[br]To get to the desired destination, to get a desired thing, you name it.

I suppose I am not convinced that the goal of Krishna consciousness is worthy or possible.[br]


[br]

> I don't know if the Vedic scriptures and the disciplic succession are correctly delivering His instructions. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not.

[br]No. They're svayam vyakta, self evident.

They don't seem self-evident to me. But you said that "The result of the divya jnana is perceivable in sadhus even by materialists". So why don't they seem self-evident to me?[br]


[br]

The result of the divya jnana is perceivable in sadhus even by materialists. It's called metanoia in Greek.

"Metanoia" is new to me. I read the Wikipedia article on it - [br]
"The Greek term for repentance, metanoia, denotes a change of mind, a reorientation, a fundamental transformation of outlook, of an individual's vision of the world and of her/himself, and a new way of loving others and the Universe. In the words of a second-century text, The Shepherd of Hermas, it implies "great understanding," discernment. It involves, that is, not mere regret of past evil but a recognition by a person of a darkened vision of her/his own condition, in which sin, by separating her/him from Deity, has reduced her/him to a divided, autonomous existence, depriving her/him of both her/his natural glory and freedom. "Repentance," says Basil the Great, "is salvation, but lack of understanding is the death of repentance." Repentance thereby acquires a different dimension to mere dwelling on human sinfulness, and becomes the realization of human insufficiency and limitation. Repentance then should not be accompanied by a paroxysm of guilt but by an awareness of one's estrangement from Deity and one's neighbor."[br]

[br]This seems to be similar to the Buddhist notion of samvega, which I am familiar with - "three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/affirming.html)[br]


[br]

So we're back to the humble acceptance of siksa, pariprasna and seva. There's no way around them, regardless of a spiritual or material tradition (crafts, arts).

I am not against this principle. But I do see many problems pertaining to the choice of whom to ask advice from, how to justify that choice, and what to do if the advice doesn't seem to work for me.

> I suppose considering omniscience or at least substantial advancement to be prerequisite for knowledge of God and His will

This is contradictory. Omniscience means having all knowledge which includes knowledge of God and His will.

> is connected to the fearful conviction that God is a monster or that doing what God wants will be harmful for one's wellbeing - thus one must be most careful and most knowledgeable when dealing with God, similarly like one has to be careful and knowledgeable when handling a dangerous substance or a rabid dog. Which fits in with the fire and brimstone image of Christianity as I was raised with.

Yes, God appears in wrathful forms like Narasimha, identical with YHVH as far as my research goes. Pastimes of the Lord: http://narasimhalila.com/

> I haven't had any of the usual "Christian panic attacks" in weeks, though, which is a bit strange.

Fear of hell? From sastra and NDEs it's obvious that hell is real but one can't get there undeservingly. And since we have a free will, we choose our future destinations.

> I am still finding the Vedic descriptions of God to be somehow too fairy-tale like, too playful, too colorful to be true.

What about Song of Songs?

> I am still afraid that eventually, it will turn out that the fire and brimstone Jehovah who will torture people in hell for all eternity with no chance redemption if they don't accept Jesus, is the real God, and Krishna is just a product of wishful thinking and imagination.

Didn't I suggest that you should apply the same criteria to all accounts? From a theoretical neutral stance, why to take Jehovah for granted and Krishna as imagination? In fact, there's no clash but that's a matter of a realized knowledge, as I said earlier.

> This is novel! A senior devotee once told me, upon hearing that I don't feel inspired by anyone, that perhaps KC isn't for me and that I should look elsewhere. That really angried me.

How it can be novel if it's found all over sastra? Sravanam kirtanam visnoh...

> I suppose I am not convinced that the goal of Krishna consciousness is worthy or possible.

We discussed that earlier. Compare KC and other goals and evaluate them by various criteria.

> They don't seem self-evident to me. But you said that "The result of the divya jnana is perceivable in sadhus even by materialists". So why don't they seem self-evident to me?

I don't know about your experience much. You only mentioned your contact with one namahatta group. This sounds like a quite limited experience. I said there are probably neophyte devotees. But even in their case one should see some differences between them and materialists. The more one knows a devotee the more one can see those differences. By "perceivable even by materialists" I primarily meant the devotee's family (if they're materialists, that is). They know him best and thus can see that he lost his interest in things he did previously. His former friends also tend to leave him. This is the general experience of Vaisnavas, Christians and other theists.

> "Metanoia" is new to me. I read the Wikipedia article on it -

Really? This is one of the main terms in Christian theology.

Samvega sounds like the realization of Gautama Buddha when he met those three persons representing three types of sufferings. This is preliminary to metanoia. Samvega is "no to the material" while metanoia is "yes to the spiritual".

> But I do see many problems pertaining to the choice of whom to ask advice from, how to justify that choice, and what to do if the advice doesn't seem to work for me.

The end of the verse says - upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva darsinah. Tattva darsinah, knowers of tattva. Who are they, how do they behave, etc. is explained in the BG.

A spiritual master is recognized as an actual guru when it is seen that he has changed the character of his disciples. (CC 3.3.143 p.)

> "Metanoia" is new to me.

[br]Really? This is one of the main terms in Christian theology.

I don't recall hearing the Greek word. "Repentance" - yes, but I never really understood what the word means. From observing other people who "repented", it seemed to me that "repentance" means one is supposed to feel profoundly bad about oneself, to the point of physical self-flagellation. Catholics sometimes say their prayers at night like this - they kneel, and beat themselves on the chest where the heart is, and repeat "Mea culpa!" It always seemed to me that thei height of repentance would be to take a knife and stab oneself, and that unless one does so, one is not really repenting.[br]


[br]

Samvega sounds like the realization of Gautama Buddha when he met those three persons representing three types of sufferings. This is preliminary to metanoia. Samvega is "no to the material" while metanoia is "yes to the spiritual".

There is a pair to samvega - namely pasada, a sense of confidence and serene clarity. Pasada is what keeps samvega from turning into despair. It seems metanoia is a combination of samvega and pasada.[br]


[br]

The end of the verse says - upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva darsinah. Tattva darsinah, knowers of tattva. Who are they, how do they behave, etc. is explained in the BG.

There seems to be a double bind: One the one hand, there is the notion that one cannot understand the BG without the proper guidance. On the other hand, there is the notion that in order to choose the proper guidance, one has to understand the BG. How is this bind to be resolved?[br]


[br]I apologize for the long post.

> humans can or should be on par with God, or even higher.

Understanding of God can be done only in godly consciousness. Godly doesn't mean equal to God in all respects.
From tattva pov it's not possible, only from rasa pov.

> I feel warmly about Narasimha, but not about Jehovah.

Why? I guess you only know about peaceful side of Narasimha (with Prahlada M. and Laksmi).

> No, the panic attacks were to the effect of intensely fearing eternal damnation if I don't accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and don't become baptized in the right Christian church, and instead take some other religious path.

That's what I meant. You didn't research this issue from interreligious pov. You only accepted what your church/es told you.

> Is one of those texts we were not supposed to read, just like we were discouraged to read the story of Job. I have read them, but with the thought that I was actually not supposed to.

Why not to read them with a proper commentary? If someone can't give such a commentary, he tends to forbid reading the text. It means both the teacher and the disciples are kanisthas.
Otoh, Srila Prabhupada presented SB 10 with his commentary (KB), not forbidding or discounting any of its parts.

> And Christians, and even Western atheists, accept Jehovah as the one and only true God. (In my experience, Western atheists have found associacion with Christianity far more acceptable/normal than with some other theism.)

Western atheists hardly know about any other theisms. Their arguments fail in front of Visnu/Krsna and theistic Vedanta.

> For two, I see no way to move from that theoretical neutral stance.

I did that by my interreligious and intercultural study.

> Weren't they right?

I wouldn't say so. Some people need more time for thinking than others. Also, the ajnata sukriti differs in each person who makes a change into a devotee.

> My doing so won't make those goals true or right.

Then choose objective criteria. Quality and quantity of knowledge, levels of attainment (karma, jnana, bhakti), gunas, etc.

> Perhaps I just haven't accepted yet that with everything I do, I may be risking eternal damnation - and that this is just how life on earth is.

Imho, you've accepted it to some extent since you're afraid of it.

> When you took up the path of Krishna consciousness, were you never afraid that you were doing the wrong thing, and that perhaps you are risking eternal damnation? Have you always had the confidence that you understand scriptures and preachers well enough to discern what to fear and what not to fear?

I had the advantage of not undergoing a kanistha-type religious persuasion.
When I started reading SP's books, they were in sync with my previous experiences from other traditions. Everything started to make more and more sense, like a finishing a puzzle. And that's not only mine experience.
Any remaining doubts were clarified by my study under the guidance of Bhaktiananda M. and with his blessings.

Real repentance is metanoia. "Don't sin anymore!"

> It seems metanoia is a combination of samvega and pasada.

In Southern Buddhism there's no developed spiritual dimension so that's not a full-fledged theistic metanoia.

> One the one hand, there is the notion that one cannot understand the BG without the proper guidance. On the other hand, there is the notion that in order to choose the proper guidance, one has to understand the BG. How is this bind to be resolved?

Easily, by gradual progress.
First guru is called vartma pradarsaka, "the path shower". He recommend BG as a book of knowledge worthy to check out. Then we study it on our own.
Second guru is siksa, "instructor". He explains the BG as far as he can, from gss pov. He brings us to diksa guru, "initiator", the third one. We graduate in our BG study under his guidance. Siksa and diksa may be the same person.