Theocracy: All-good Government

This text calls upon all monotheists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc.) who understand that there’s one almighty, personal Supreme God and that this God has an opinion about politics that needs to be honored. Peace, happiness and tolerance will never come about by giving in to any form of atheistic philosophy. It will only come about by 1) recognizing that logically there can only be one Supreme God and by 2) submitting to His will. Monotheists should, even if they do not agree on exactly who that Supreme God is, precisely what His nature is and what exactly His desires and wants regarding politics are, find common ground and treat each other respectfully and work cooperatively to fight the greatest enemies of civilized humanity–irreligiosity, materialism, relativism and secularism. These demonic forces will love to see our attention diverted toward fighting amongst ourselves while they take over the world by establishing their godless governments. The only remedy against this is to work together to establish Gods all-good political agenda. Or, in other words, to establish a society based on theocratic principles. God is all-loving and thus His political agenda and His desires for government for us humans must, contrary to fallible human made political ideologies, be perfect and bring about the greatest good for all. Per definition, to submit to the political agenda given by an all-loving God–to establish a theocratic society–cannot have negative consequences, but will necessarily have only good consequences if followed correctly.

Unfortunately some monotheists, influenced by materialistic propaganda, have fallen into the trap of thinking that separating religion and politics is a good idea. These monotheist needs to awaken to the fact that…

1. Since God is all-loving He always desires the absence of all evil and suffering in all areas of our human lives.
2. Some political ideas brings evil and suffering into our human lives.
3. Therefore God desires the absence of such political ideas.

and…

1. Since God is all-loving He only desires what is good for us in all areas of our human lives.
2. Politics is an unavoidable area of our human lives.
3. Therefore God desires only what is good for us in the political area of our human lives.

God naturally dislikes any form of government which brings humanity misery. God does, therefore, not want any government which hinders the development of the inborn spiritual nature of all human beings. On the contrary, God wants politics and government surcharged with goodness in the form a absolute moral values and virtues like justice, charity, self-mastery, truthfulness, mercy etc. He also wants the physical, mental and spiritual protection of the citizens against the demonic forces that promotes illusion in the form of atheism, materialism, relativism and secularism and immorality in the form os selfishness, hate, anger, greed, lust etc.

Theocracy is therefore, obviously, the best possible form of government and to argue against theocracy is to go against God’s will.

Video on “The Moral Argument”

This is a good introductory video to “The Moral Argument of the Existence of God”. It’s made by a Christian, has many good points and delivers some nice blows to moral relativism. Enjoy!

Part One

Part Two

Democracy is Inherently Atheistic

Democracy defined:

“Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία [dimokratia], “popular government” which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), “people” and κράτος (kratos), “rule, strength”…” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy]

“[G]overnment by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy]

What we learn from this is that democracy is nothing but an expression of a thieverish mentality exhibited as the impossible attempt to steal “the supreme power” from God and give it to “the people“. It has therefore been said that…

“democracy…is best explained in religious terms: as a doctrine founded on the theology of man.”[..] ”…democracy is literally a form of anthropotheism because it invests man with virtues that are conventionally attributed to God.” [...] “…democracy promotes the idea of the absolute autonomy of humanity, and hence identifies the condition of man as one of total freedom and total sovereignity…” [Anthropotheism, Sergio Knipe, The Initiate, Journal of Traditional Studies, Issue 1, 2008]

Democracy is a result of the asuric (demoniac) mentality of “I am this body” and “I am the Lord of all I survey” that the living entity acquires when he rebels against God. Srila Prabhupada would often explain how this contaminated consciousness must be given up if we want to be happy:

“In contaminated consciousness “I am” means “I am the lord of all I survey. I am the enjoyer.” The world revolves because every living being thinks that he is the lord and creator of the material world. Material consciousness has two psychic divisions. One is that I am the creator, and the other is that I am the enjoyer. But actually the Supreme Lord is both the creator and the enjoyer, and the living entity, being part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is neither the creator nor the enjoyer, but a cooperator. He is the created and the enjoyed. For instance, a part of a machine cooperates with the whole machine; a part of the body cooperates with the whole body. The hands, feet, eyes, legs and so on are all parts of the body, but they are not actually the enjoyers. The stomach is the enjoyer. The legs move, the hands supply food, the teeth chew and all parts of the body are engaged in satisfying the stomach because the stomach is the principal factor that nourishes the body’s organization. Therefore everything is given to the stomach. One nourishes the tree by watering its root, and one nourishes the body by feeding the stomach, for if the body is to be kept in a healthy state, then the parts of the body must cooperate to feed the stomach. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the enjoyer and the creator, and we, as subordinate living beings, are meant to cooperate to satisfy Him. This cooperation will actually help us, just as food taken by the stomach will help all other parts of the body. If the fingers of the hand think that they should take the food themselves instead of giving it to the stomach, then they will be frustrated. The central figure of creation and of enjoyment is the Supreme Lord, and the living entities are cooperators. By cooperation they enjoy. The relation is also like that of the master and the servant. If the master is fully satisfied, then the servant is satisfied. Similarly, the Supreme Lord should be satisfied, although the tendency to become the creator and the tendency to enjoy the material world are there also in the living entities because these tendencies are there in the Supreme Lord who has created the manifested cosmic world.” [Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita, As It is, Introduction, Pre 1973]

Conclusion

Because ”[t]he false ego -”I am,” and ”It is mine,” [...] constitute the basic principle of material existence…” [Prabhupada] some humans are attempting to steal “the supreme power” from God and invest it humanity. This demoniac mentality ought to be exchanged with a service attitude towards God, recognizing Him as the Supreme Lawmaker. The living being is by constitution a servant of God and must therefore obey His order. God is by constitution the Supreme Power and creates the moral laws by which the living entities must abide (dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam). God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and therefore He is the most qualified ruler. He has the supreme overview and He has the power to establish a perfect system of government which will makes us happy. We humans on the other hand are selfishly motivated, doesn’t have the complete overview and doesn’t have the power to create and maintain a perfect system of government. Hence it is an illusion to think there is anything good in trying to steal “the supreme power” from God and invest in humanity, the state, a dictator or whatever. If we do this we are committing sin and creating misery for ourselves and others by disturbing the natural way in which the universe should be operating.

How the Nazi’s Based their Ideas on Darwinism

Whatever you see in this movie is simply Darwinism with a more hateful touch.

What follows from the link between Darwin and Hitler?

Sitapati Prabhu wrote:

“Science Daily.com has an interesting article entitled: “How to spot a hidden religious agenda“, which contains the following:

The ID crowd, for instance, loves to draw a line from Darwin to the Holocaust, as they did in the “documentary” film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Even if such an absurd link were justified, it would have zero relevance to the question of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.

That’s correct.

My answer:

Dear Prabhu!

Richard Weikart, author of “From Darwin to Hitler“, argued that a link between Darwin and Hitler can be either historical or logical. He argues for a historical link and not so much, if at all, for a logical link. The historical link in indisputable. As I argue in my post “Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 2)” there is also some what of a logical link – at least between some of Darwin’s ideas to some of Hitlers ideas. However, I would never say that Darwinism by logical necessity leads to Hitler even though it definitely leads to some horrible things. But looking at human psychology I think it obvious that if the wrong people get Darwin’s ideas in their hands (which they did) then Nazi Germany or something similar follows. Darwin’s ideas were insane on many points – and sick people acted on them and sometimes made their own little extra spin on them.

It would, of course, be a logical fallacy to claim that Darwin’s ideas are wrong because they lead to negative consequences, but in the light of Krishna Consciousness we know that the truth doesn’t contain evil doctrines. This might not be helpful for a non-Krishna Conscious audience. Therefore you can view my presentation of the moral consequences as going hand in hand with a scientific response to Darwinism. People, including some devotees, might argue that “Darwin is wrong, but so what? Why spend so much time on his ideas?” So I think it is important to give them a package where you can see that not only is Darwinism wrong, but also harmful – and thus must be addressed and defeated.

Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 2)

What follows is the continuation of my debate with Rasasthali Devi Dasi at www.dandavats.com. The below is a new and revised version.

In my post “Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 1)” I defended my first contention which was that Rasasthali Devi Dasi contradicts Prabhupada when she claims that Darwinism hasn’t been, to a large extent, the cause of the many social evils we see today.

In the following I’ll defend my second contention which is that Rasasthali Devi Dasi is wrong when she claims that Darwinism hasn’t been, to a large extent, the cause of the many social evils we observe today.  

There’s a lot to be said about this subject matter. My intention is to write a longer article presenting more detailed explanations and giving more evidence for the six points I will discuss here. So stay tuned at Vaisnava Apologetics! :-)

The Social Impact of Darwinism

I will argue that social evils follows logically and inescapably from Darwin’s ideas. Specifically I’ll mention six things about his theory of evolution which makes it an evil theory:

1. Leaving God out of the picture

Darwin’s ideas made it possible, like never before, to explain the world without the need for God or any sort of supernatural phenomenon. Darwin was himself heavily influenced by materialistic philosophy from his very childhood and from earlier and contemporary materialistic philosophers like Hume and Comte whom he liked. Even before he published his books he would lean towards the rejection of God. Evidence for this can be found in his earlier notebooks and manuscripts. At the end of his life Darwin would totally reject Christianity. His theory became a “scientific” justification for leaving God out of the picture – and Darwin knew this very well. 

The social impact of leaving God out of the picture is that from that it follows that there can be no absolute standard for right and wrong. We are left with no spiritual guidance. This is common sense which I show in my version of “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Prabhupada agrees fully with this view which I document in my “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Making people think that we don’t have any need of God in order to explain the origin of and development of life leads naturally to disastrous moral consequences. It more then anything else confines people within the physical world by making them identify with the body.

2. Moral relativism

If we can explain everything without God it becomes irrational to believe in God. Darwin argued that all human traits including moral traits can be explained by his theory. This leaves us with moral relativism. The consequences of moral relativism can be seen in my article “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. The consequences are that all actions are morally equal. There can be no true normative moral statements. Thus it becomes impossible to condemn things like rape, murder, oppression, child abuse, slavery etc. And we also can’t praise things we normally consider morally good like helping people in need, caring for our children, spreading spiritual knowledge etc. Everything become equal. Darwin himself arrived at the conclusion that morality was simply relative. If we want to do good, he said, we can do nothing more than listen to what we feel is good. This moral relativism was condemned by Prabhupada (see “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God“).

3. There is no progress in our evolution as a species without war, disease, famine and other sorts of pressures which eliminates the weak specimens and forces the strong to adapt and develop superior traits.

Darwin often praised war as a good thing and later thinkers and political leaders like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler used this to justify their wars. Some, like Lenin, even created artificial famine in their countries to eliminate the weak.

To say that there’s no progress without wars and that wars are therefore a good, and even a necessary thing, is in itself an evil doctrine. How accountable Darwin is for this is ultimately between him and Krishna. 

4. The use of eugenics.

Darwin favored, at least to some degree, the use of eugenics. Just like we can make better and stronger animals by not letting the weak specimens procreate and by letting the strong specimens procreate so we can make better and stronger men by hindering the weak in body and mind to procreate and by helping to strong in body and mind to do so. There are quotes were Darwin says that the poor should not be allowed to procreate and were he says only humans, among other animals, are so stupid as to take care of their weak specimens.

5. Racism

While some argue that Darwin was against slavery it’s still true that he was a racist. You’re not necessarily against racism because you are against slavery. Darwin’s books are filled with racism. He consistently wrote that the European white race was the most superior race and that blacks were almost like apes. This view follows logically from his evolution theory; some must be more evolved than others. The weak dies and the strong survives. Thus Darwin predicted that soon the “savage races” would die in the struggle for survival, being eliminated by the stronger races (the white caucasians).

6. Sexism

Darwin used his theory of evolution to explain why he thought that men were more intelligent than women. He argued that it must be because men were the ones who were out of the home struggling to get food. Thus they encountered more pressure and thus acquired superior traits, like a higher intelligence. In some places Darwin would say that women, like dogs, was good to keep men company. 

Conclusively

There is definitely a logical and historical link between Darwin’s ideas and evil. The six points mentioned above are in themselves evil and combined together gave a “scientific” justification for all sorts of social evils. Darwin was warned about the consequences, even by his own mentor and friends. But he didn’t do anything to prevent them. Nor did he protest when his cousin Francis Galton instituted a eugenics society. He also didn’t object to the sick way in which many contemporary thinkers took his ideas.

Besides the indisputable historical links between Darwin and all the socials evil performed in his name by later dictators, like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini and others are there also logical links between them? I think in some areas there certainly are. But in other areas it might be their adding something to Darwin’s ideas or seeing some consequences of the ideas that Darwin didn’t see or spoke about. Sometimes Darwin was inconsistent. This was the case in regard to his morality. He had his personal moral opinions which is inconsistent with the view that morality is relative. On the one hand the claimed that morality was relative, but on the other hand he claimed that slavery was wrong. So some thinkers simply took the logical consequences of Darwin’s moral relativism and rejected his inconsistent moral opinions. Darwin’s contemporary admirer Ernst Haeckel, who was a very outspoken racist and eugenicist, did this and claimed that moral relativism follows logically Darwin’s theory. He was right. Without Darwin’s theory it’s hard to see how these thinkers and dictators could have argued for their ideas and gotten away with their actions.

Darwin’s theory has been used as the building block for many social evils. It has fueled, inspired and “scientifically” justified things like euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, racism, satanism, forced sterilization, sexism, liberalizing sex and criminal justice, experimentation with humans and animals, wars, artificial famine, elimination of the inferior, eugenics and many other evils.

Darwinism permeates everywhere and makes people identify with their bodies and think that God is unnecessary. Therefore it is the number one evil theory on the face of the planet and therefore Prabhupada wanted it defeated almost more than any other thing. We can let Krishna decide precisely how much Darwin will be held accountable for propagating his ideas. But it doesn’t look good. Let’s pray that he will become Krishna Conscious and be protected from the bad karma.

The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity

Reading Prabhupada like the Devil Reads the Bible

How to undermine Prabhupada’s teachings:

1. Claim that Prabhupada was conditioned by the time and milieu he grew up and lived in.

In this way devotees can relativize a lot of Prabhupada’s statements, and we see some devotees try this, especially those statements which have social implications which runs contrary to modern secular atheistic thoughts. I’ve seen, to name a few examples, devotees advance this claim to justify a rejection of some of Prabhupada’s views on the role of women, homosexuality and the definition of science.

2. Claim that Prabhupada was not an expert on material matters.

While there might be some truth to this (Prabhupada would sometimes say that he was not an expert on certain material affairs), problems arise if we extrapolate from this that therefore whatever Prabhupada said about any material affairs can’t be taken as absolute truth. Like the first claim this has also been advanced in order to reject many of Prabhupada’s views on the role of women, homosexuality and the definition of science.

3. Claim that Prabhupada wanted us to adapt his teachings to our present time, place and circumstances.

Sometimes we should, of course, but this has probably become the most misused quote from Prabhupada. Even if Prabhupada said we shouldn’t do a specific thing with this quote in our hands we can now claim that “times have changed and we have to adapt.” Some devotees, for example, wants ISKCON to accept homosexual marriage, contrary to Prabhupada’s views, because times have now changed. 

4. Claim that Prabhupada didn’t want us to follow his words blindly.

Of course the ideal is not to follow Prabhupada blindly, but it’s better to follow him blindly than to contradict him. I’ve seen this argument used in connection with some of the above arguments in a way that undermined his teachings. With this quote one can even contradict Prabhupada and claim that “we now know better and since Prabhupada didn’t want us to follow blindly we are now following our own intelligence and new “scientific” data and Prabhupada would be very happy about that.” I’ve seen devotees reject Prabhupada’s critical remarks on Darwinism which he consistently made throughout his teachings, because “we shouldn’t follow him blindly!” 

With the above four claims we can basically take anything Prabhupada said and twist it to fit your own speculative philosophy – and in this way read Prabhupada as the Devil reads the Bible. 

I’ve heard a devotee claim that Prabhupada didn’t want us to repeat things we hadn’t sufficiently realized. But that’s not true. Even if our realization of Prabhupada’s word are not fully mature it’s our duty to simply repeat them:

Hari-śauri: When we go out and preach and we just repeat or try to repeat whatever we’ve heard from the spiritual master, but we may not have fully realized what we’re speaking about, does that somehow or another reduce the potency of the Gītā or the Bhāgavatam or…

Prabhupāda: Yes, realization takes time. Therefore there is no question of realization. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says you simply repeat as Kṛṣṇa says. That will save you.

The right and safe thing to do is to repeat what Prabhupada said. The wrong and risky thing to do is to speculate and try to be more clever than the guru.

Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler

“In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.” Series: “Voices” [11/2004] [Humanities] [Show ID: 8987]

Can we use Darwin to argue for vegetarianism?

Written to a devotee who tries to create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwins teachings:

—

Dear Prabhu! Pamho, agtSP!

I don’t think you can use Darwinism to argue in favor of any morality. It’s the naturalistic fallacy to try to derive an “ought” from an “is”. On Darwin we might as well argue that just as animals commit no moral wrong in killing, so we humans, who on Darwinism are also just animals, do no wrong in killing. In fact, many atheists will say that an alien race superior to us would do no wrong in killing us, so they would have no problem with your argument.

This reminds me of the movie “Predator” where some aliens come down to hunt humans for fun. They are far superior to humans. So just like we can hunt animals, they can hunt us. Of course the movie challenges us humans – hunters and meat-eaters – to admit they are inconsistent if they claim these aliens are doing something wrong. But it can do not more than that; you can’t change it into a Darwinistic moral argument for vegetarianism.

—

Further thoughts:

Some might argue that it’s good if we also can establish vegetarianism on a Darwinian view, but it is crucial to understand that from a naturalistic world view no normative morality can be derived. If God does not exist then everything is permitted. The whole problem with saying that we can derive a normative morality from Darwinism is that it contradicts our scriptures and will allow the atheists to tell us that we don’t need God as the ontological foundation of morality. Thus we will hamper our own preaching.

Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 1)

The following is a comment I wrote to a devotee at dandavats.com. View her comment to ISKCON Hungary here.

Pamho, agtSP!

Our process is to repeat the words of our spiritual master and therefore not contradict his words.

My first contention is that you are contradicting Prabhupada’s words when you claim that Darwin’s theory is not “to a large extent” “responsible for the moral decline of human society.”

My second contention is that you’re wrong when you claim that it is “unproven” that Darwins theory is “to a large extent” “responsible for the cause of the moral decline in our society.”

The first contention

Prabhupāda: “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick on your face. That’s all. That is our philosophy. The more we kick on Darwin’s face, the more advanced in spiritual consciousness. He has killed the whole civilization, rascal.”

Prabhupāda: “That is nonsense. Darwin was a number-one nonsense. Yes. Rascal. He has confused the whole world.” Prabhupāda: “Full nonsense, this rascal. How much havoc he has done to the human society. A grand rascal, this Darwin. And he is taken as the basic principle of anthropology. The whole world has become…”

Prabhupada: “The Darwin’s theory, this theory, that theory, simply they are bewildered, thinking this body is the self.” Prabhupada: “So the modern civilization, according to Darwin’s theory, they are advancing to become animal. That’s it. Therefore they are claiming their forefathers are coming from monkeys.”

Prabhupada: “Because they are standing on a wrong theory, all their calculations are wrong, and people are suffering. The rascal Darwin’s theory. So many, based on this foolish theory, wrong conception of life. So we have to challenge, protest. defeat. This will be our work. Our worshiping of Kṛṣṇa, that is our internal affair. The external affair—we need to establish this theory. Otherwise they’ll be leading this society. Misleading. They are misleading, not leading, misleading. So we have to stop this misleading.”

To sum up: According to Prabhupada Darwins theory has killed the whole civilization, that is has confused the whole world, that is has caused a lot of havoc in human society, that is bewilders people be making them identify the body as the self, that it makes people become animals, that it misleads people and makes them suffer. Darwins theory has created so much trouble that Prabhupada want us to stop it.

Thus I think it is proven that my first contention is correct: You are contradicting Prabhupada.

Arguments for my second contention is coming soon.

Ys, Ajit Krishna Dasa

Prabhupada and “The Moral Argument”

When I  first wrote “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God” I experienced that some devotees were very critical of the argument. Some argued against its validity, others against its premises. Since many devotees are not so experiences in the use of logic and reasoning I realized how important it is to show them that and how Prabhupada used this argument. I made some research and now I’ve written a text on called “Prabhupada and “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. It’s too long to post here, so I’ll provide a link to it and a short excerpt:

Excerpt:

“Prabhupada would often use logic and sense perception when arguing for God’s existence. He used many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God such as the Design Argument (Teleological Argument), the First Mover Argument (Cosmological Argument) and the Moral Argument (Axiological Argument). The article at hand deals only with how Prabhupada used the “Moral Argument”.”

“I will attempt to go one step at the time first showing 1) how he defined “absolute moral laws”, then 2) how he argues in favor of the truth of premise 1, then 3) how he argues in favor of premise 2 and at last 4) how he infers the conclusion that God exist from the premises according to the standard rules of logic.”

Link

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d83tkq3_18gxzdzkc8

Please note that the text is part of a larger text and not completely finished. But it is definitely readable.

How to Deal with Philosophical Deviations in ISKCON?

Lately I’ve witnessed what I can only consider to be philosophical deviations being preaching by ISKCON devotees on the internet. This is, obviously, not the first or the last time that has been seen. But it disturbs me. Some might say that it’s not proper etiquette to mention names, but I think it’s more fair for all parts if readers of this blog can get access the texts written by these devotees in order to evaluate the situation themselves. If these authors really think they are correct they’ll be likely to want people read their texts rather than to just hear my opinions on them. Therefore I will provide links and names in the following.

On dandavats.com Rasasthali Devi Dasi is claiming, contrary to Prabhupada’s words, that Darwinism has not to a large extent caused the moral decline of our world. On his blog Janakirama Prabhu (who is the husband of Rasasthali Devi Dasi) argues that you can create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwinism. On atmayogi.com Sitapati Prabhu argues that Krishna Consciousness and Bhagavatam is not a science and that we as devotees shouldn’t present them as such. He also seems to be a gay rights activist in a way that runs contrary to Prabhupada views on the matter and he accept quite a lot of the evolution theory as being true – even though it contradicts sastra and Prabhupada. He has written a lot about these thing, so you have to investigate his blog for yourself. On news.iskcon.com Janakirama Prabhu and someone who calls himself Kapil (I don’t know if he’s a devotee) argues that Intelligent Design is not science and criticises Expelled the Movie.

The above mentioned philosophical deviations are only a few among many being preached on the internet and other places by ISKCON devotees. It is our duty to ask ourselves where such misunderstandings and philosophical deviations – smaller or greater as they might be – comes from? 

One answer would be that people in Kali-Yuga are very prone to accept the atheistic conclusions they’ve heard for their whole lives in our soul killing educational institutions. A philosophically weak kanistha-adhikari is by definition easily confused when confronted with opposing arguments and has a tendency to compromise or even be converted. When such a kanistha-adhikari feels social pressure he or she might want to find some sort of compromise to remove that pressure. Thus it’s tempting to create a fantasy that mixes devotional and atheistic arguments.

I think ISKCON has a lot of work to do in order to make sure that new devotees are properly educated in Krishna Consciousness.

Another answer would be that there’s a lot of  bad, but well-meaning, preaching going on in ISKCON (among all the good preaching). Often we are so eager to get new devotees that we use all sorts of speculative preaching styles which gives people the impression that ISKCON is a much more compromising religion than it actually is. In this way we attract a lot of dangerous pseudo-spiritualists who sooner or later hampers our preaching due to their non-devotional attitudes. I think ISKCON devotees should be less speculative in their preaching efforts and that we should focus on “boiling down the milk”. 

“Now I want that we shall concentrate on making our devotees Krishna conscious and ourselves becoming Krishna conscious, and not be so much concerned with expanding ourselves widely but without any spiritual content. Just like boiling the milk, it becomes thicker and sweeter. Now do like that, boil the milk.” [Letter to Rupanuga, 72-05-09]

Can ISKCON afford to not address the views of devotees who are preaching philosophical deviations? I think ISKCON needs to be better at protecting itself from such deviations. After all Prabhupada said that ISKCON can only be destroyed from within. If we keep our doors too open bad elements will creep in. Unfortunately it has now become increasingly difficult to check the spreading of deviating views since every new bhakta and bhaktin can now voice his or her opinion on his own blog and on internet forums. 

What to do? Let’s work together in a true spirit of wanting to protect ISKCON and helping devotees get back to Prabhupada. I’ll address the texts of the devotees in forthcoming posts.

Theism, Atheism and Child Abuse

Theism, Atheism and Child Abuse

- Authored by Ajita Krishna Dasa 

Atheists often argue that atheism is the default position, because everyone is born as an atheist (e.g. without knowledge of God). They argue that religion is something artificial which is imposed on us from family, society etc. as we grow up. Richard Dawkins uses this argument in his book “The God Delusion”, and he goes so far as to call it child abuse if children are called Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. 

But are atheists justified in postulating that we are all born atheists and that atheism is therefore the default position and that religion is something artificial which is imposed on us from family, society etc? In order to provide evidence for this belief atheists would have to demonstrate that humans do not have an inborn religious or spiritual nature or that there’s no reason to believe that they have. Can they do that? I have never seen any scientific or logical evidence to support their claim. In fact I’ve seen a lot of evidence that supports the opposite e.g. the idea that humans can not be reduced to matter alone, but that they appear to have a religious or spiritual nature. There is, for example, strong evidence for such things as reincarnation and out of body experiences. And last year a new book came out which argues from a neuroscientific perspective that human beings must have a soul. The book is called “The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist Case for Existence of the Soul”. It’s written by Ph.d. Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary. I invite you to investigate the scientific aspect of this discussion for yourself. 

If we take a closer look at the human nature it’s quite clear that humans in general have a strong urge towards something divine. This becomes evident when we look at human behavior throughout history. We will thus observe the urge towards something divine in every culture and society. Also considering the above mentioned science it seems to me that this urge towards the divine is best explained as evidence that religiosity is an intrinsic part of our human nature. 

Now, consider the fact that many of our inborn abilities has to trained and nourished systematically in order to develop properly. Take for example our ability to learn language, mathematics or musical skills. These abilities have to be trained and nourished carefully. Otherwise they will not develop properly. Parents who denies their children the opportunity to develop these inborn abilities are actually abusing their children and they will, obviously, be considered evil by most people. 

Now, as we have seen, there seems to be absolute no reason why we should think that humans do not have an inborn religious nature and there seems to many reasons why we should think they have. If humans actually have a religious nature the atheistic argument that religion is something artificial imposed on us becomes useless. 

In fact, in such a scenario atheism would be something artificial imposed on us from outside, and religiosity would be the default position and therefore something that has to be systematically and carefully trained and nourished so that it will develop properly. In fact, in such a scenario, it would be at least as much child abuse to stigmatize a child as irreligious and not to let it develop it’s inborn religious nature as it is now considered child abuse to deny a child the opportunity to develop it’s inborn abilities to learn things like language, mathematics and musical skills. 

As theists we know from Gods revelation, personal experience, science and philosophy that we in fact do all have an inborn religious and spiritual nature and that this is indeed the most important part of our human nature. Therefore we also know that it is in fact an extreme form of child abuse not to train and nourish that inborn religious nature in our children. A person who hasn’t developed his or her inborn religious nature has no possibility to see the world as it is – namely as the product of divine design and given to us as a gift from God. Such a person will be left to suffer with no objective value, purpose or meaning in life and thus with no hope of becoming really happy. But not only that. Such a person will also be morally crippled because without knowledge of God one can’t know universal moral rules but only cling to moral relativism and subjectivism. Therefore atheism is dangerous both for the individual and society in general and as believers in God we should therefore not just sit idly and look on while the atheists dictates what is good and bad for our children and how they should or should not be educated. 

Atheists are envious theives

Atheists are envious theives

- Authored by Ajita Krishna Dasa

Krishna is the owner of everything

Because Krishna (the sanskrit word for God) is an ulimited being, then it follows that everything that exist is a part of Him, everything is created from His energies. In other words – Krishna is the owner of everything. In the Vedic scripture Srimad Bhagavatam it is said that the Lord is the owner of everything that exist (dravya-mayam) and that he’s the owner of the entire universe (akhila-adhyaksa). In Bhagavad-gita Krishna Himself is declaring:

aham sarvasya prabhavo
mattah sarvam pravartate

“I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” [Bg. 10.8]

In the Vedic scripture Sri Ishopanishad it is also confirmed that the Lord is the owner of everything:

ishavasyam idam sarvam yat kincha jagatyam jagat
tena tyaktena bhunjitha ma grdhah kasya svid dhanam

“Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.”

Srila Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna Movement (ISKCON), writes in his purport to this verse:

“This Isopanisad is part of the Yajur Veda, and consequently it contains information concerning the proprietorship of all things existing within the universe. The Lord’s proprietorship over everything within the universe is confirmed in the Seventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita (7.4-5), where para and apara prakrti are discussed. The elements of nature-earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and ego-all belong to the Lord’s inferior, material energy (apara prakrti), whereas the living being, the organic energy, is His superior energy (para prakrti). Both of these prakrtis, or energies, are emanations from the Lord, and ultimately He is the controller of everything that exists. There is nothing in the universe that does not belong to either the para or the apara prakrti; therefore everything is the property of the Supreme Being.”

“One should therefore be intelligent enough to know that except for the Lord no one is a proprietor of anything. One should accept only those things that are set aside by the Lord as his quota. (…) Such is the arrangement of the Lord. Thus we should be satisfied with those things He has kindly set aside for us, and we should always consider to whom those things we possess actually belong.”

Theists are servants of God

Theists who knows that Krishna’s existence is a fact recognizes Krishna’s ownership of everything, and therefore they never take anything from Krishna without first making sure that He’s giving them his permission. And they use these things in a way that pleases Krishna. When a person knows that everything emanates from Krishna, and that Krishna owns everything, then it becomes natural to serve Him. I this regard Krishna Himself declares:

iti matva bhajante mam
budha bhava-samanvitah

“The wise who know this [I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me] perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.” [bg 10.8]

Atheists are envious theives

Theists recognizes Krishna’s supreme ownership of everthing that exist, and they try to serve Him in a loving, reciprocal relationship. Atheists, on the contrary, are envious (abhyasuyakah) of Krishna’s might and ownership. Consequently they deny His existence. Therefore they take Krishna property with the aim of using it for their own selfish interests. To take things from others without asking their persmission and without good reasons is called theft. Atheist are therefore choosing to be theives by denying Krishna, and they become criminals by becoming disobedient to His laws. Therefore Krishna explains about atheists in the Bhagavad-gita:

pravrttim ca nivrittim ca
jana na vidur asurah

“Those who are demoniac [atheists] do not know what is proper behavior and what is improper behavior.”

The punishment for this selfish, unloving behavior is hard. Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita:

an aham dvisatah kruran
samsaresu naradhaman
ksipamy ajasram asubhan
asurisv eva yonisu

“Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, are cast by Me into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.”

Srila Prabhupada explains:

“The demoniac person may not agree to accept the supremacy of the Lord, and it is a fact that he may act according to his own whims, but his next birth will depend upon the decision of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not on himself (…) As for the demoniac, it is clearly said here that they are perpetually put into the wombs of demons, and thus they continue to be envious, the lowest of mankind. Such demoniac species of life are held to be always full of lust, always violent and hateful and always unclean. They are just like so many beasts in a jungle.”

The only way to be saved for the atheists is therefore to give up their foolish opposition against Krishna and surrender unto Him. Only by accepting that He’s the owner of everything, and only by using everything in a way that pleases Krishna, is it possible to to become free from the punishment awaiting a theif.

Sri Ishopanishad explains about such a surrendered attitude:

kurvann eveha karmani jijivishec chatam samah
evam tvayi nanyatheto ‘sti na karma lipyate nare

“One may aspire to live for hundreds of years if he continuously goes on working in that way, for that sort of work will not bind him to the law of karma. There is no alternative to this way for man.”