From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 04:59:09 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:

> kalki33 writes:
> 
> >A few days ago we posted a simple questionnaire covering two fundamental
> >truths. Our purpose was to see if there was anyone reading this
> >newsgroup who was really serious about spiritual knowledge. Of the
> >half-dozen responses, there was only one which made an attempt to answer
> >the questions seriously. The remaining responses were sarcastic and
> >impudent.
> 
> Perhaps this was because you asked the questions point-blank; unmoderated
> newsgroups such as this regularly see "hit-and-run" questions which
> can seem to be a setup. 

Well, we were not trying to set anyone up for humiliation if that is
what you mean. We do not have such motives. We are very serious about
spiritual knowledge. Sobriety is absolutely necessary if one is to
advance in God consciousness.

> >We download several hundred messages a day from this group, including
> >many voluminous diatribes. However, although much is said in
> >talk.religion.misc, apparently little is known, otherwise our two simple
> >questions, the answers to which which form the basis of all spiritual
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >truth,
>  ^^^^^
> Here is where (perhaps) your difficulty in getting others to
> take you seriously begins. You preface your questions with
> an assumption not all would share and indeed might find
> presumptuous and obnoxious.
> 

What "preface" do you mean? The statement you underlined? This statement
is true. The answers to the two questions do form the basis for all
spiritual truth. What can possibly be known about spirit if one does not
know what the soul is? If one does not know the purpose of human life,
what can he possibly know about what lies beyond the human life?

> As to your questions:
> 
> >1) What is the soul?
> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
> 
> Your tactics seem a bit disingenuous, consider:
> 
> >...Anyone who is sober enough to answer these
> >questions, or humble enough to admit ignorance, will find us more than
> >willing to share our knowledge.
> 
> This attitude is a bit patronizing at best: the emperor's new clothes
> and all that. . .

Patronizing? You mean we are trying to flatter people into taking the
test? Listen, we really meant what we said. Yes, we actually meant it.
Why is that difficult to understand?

No one would tell the emperor that he was naked because they were
afraid he would kill them. The emperor was in illusion concerning his
nonexistent clothes, and he would become angry if that illusion was
shattered. Are you saying that the emperor symbolizes us, and that no one
would answer the test truthfully because they were afraid of us? Do you
mean to say that we were looking for untruthful answers in order to
maintain an illusion about the real identity of the soul and the purpose
of human life? What is that illusion? We say that the soul is a
nonmaterial living entity whose main attribute is consciousness and who
is part and parcel of the supreme soul, God. We say that the purpose of
human life is to reestablish our forgotten relationship with God. Do you
think this is illusion?

> You clearly already have an implicit philosophy that you broadcast:
> 
> >      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
> 
> So one cannot take your
> 
> >Sincerely,

Yes, of course. Do you not have an implicit philosophy? Do you not
broadcast that philosophy? If not, why not? Surely if your philosophy is
good, it should be broadcast. What is the problem?

If you are simply noting that the test was biased, yes it was. There is
no teacher alive who can deliver knowledge that is not biased. Since we
gave this test, we are the teacher, however angry that may make you. We
can only teach what we know, and what we know is what our own spiritual
master taught us. What he taught us comes from the Vedas, which are the
most comprehensive scriptures in existence. We find these teachings to
be superior, so we naturally want everyone to hear them. They are good,
why shouldn't they be broadcast?

You may not think we are sincere, but what is that to us? We will
continue to deliver knowledge of God, the soul and the purpose of human
life as we were taught by our spiritual master. It is our spiritual
master and the Lord that we aim to please.

> too seriously. Some of us DO take "spiritual knowledge" seriously,
> yet have little sufferance for dilletantes.
> 

If you do take spiritual knowledge seriously, and if you are sure that
you are an expert whereas we are amateurs, then please tell us, what is
the soul? What is the purpose of human life? And most importantly, since
you are now our teacher, what is the source of your information?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------