Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.

[aviruddha]

When you still have your passport/citizenship, you are a memeber of the (capitalistic) criminal-state-mafia, which is not responsible, stealing land ect.
No Krishna awakening can change that reality, unless people change it.
And until then, all believes are more opium than real awakening, if it not leads to stop giving steering wheels in irresponsible criminal-hands...

The whole material world is polluted. Who will live here? A little, say, twenty years before, dying. After all, you have to die, twenty years after ( as victors ) or twenty years before. So it is already polluted. That is humbugism. you will die at the end, but still you are trying to live.

This is the difference between man of knowledge and without knowledge. A man of knowledge will think, "After all, I have to die. So what is the difficulty, dying a few days more or before?" That is knowledge. And those who are not in knowledge, they are afraid of death. Best business is before the death comes let us finish our Kṛṣṇa consciousness perfectly. That is wanted. Death will come. You cannot avoid it.

[Jannick Schenker]

I think it's important to live for higher values, for example 'not giving steering wheels in irreaponsible/criminal hands'. Is 'Krishna consciousness' doing that, too?

[aviruddha]

I think it's important to live for higher values, for example 'not giving steering wheels in irreaponsible/criminal hands'. Is 'Krishna consciousness' doing that, too?

first of all explain what is the standard of those higher values ? why are you not telling me what are your fundamentals ? due to which you will take someone out of foolish background ? huh? explain it, and than you push your bogus slogans here.

otherwise i cannot take you seriously anymore, and first of all you explain about your fundamentals, otherwise dont bother about Krishna Consciousness, after all its just an opium or distraction otherwise you are very intelligent being ( like any other headstrong european ) so you go on with your whimsical ways. and i go on with my authority His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. that is it.

[Jannick Schenker]

I already told you about our fundamentals
Here again (more detailed):


In one sentence our fundamental is:
"Searching for a responsible life together, in free arguments Culture."

And then, a conclusion is:
- forming "responsibility communes" where the steering wheels are no longer given into irresponsible hands (but are only shared between responsible hands)...


And in more/different words, copied from our webpage (www.global-love.eu):

a) a DEFINITION of "Givers-(or Gift-)Movement (GiM)" [[other possible names: "Movement for Holistic Sustainability" or: "for Global Responsibility, Global Love or Holistic Love" and so on...; for us "making gifts"(= giving without return-condition) simply means the practical ability of following the "flow of the whole"/"the good of the whole"/"the complete calculation" without being deviated by other ('smaller' or 'isolated') (return-)calculations...]]:
GiM wants to offer a "minimum-consensus for global responsibility", with radical openness for "argumentation-culture": Enough reason and love, so that people are able for "common-good-consensus" - and then all other questions should be given into the consensus-decisions of such "global-consensus-brothers and -sisters"... So: As "global consensus-brothers and sisters" let us plan the necessary, in free argumentation-culture, without other dogmas...
((Our consensus-searching has led us to some radical conclusions, for example concerning 'maturity-methods' for inner life and social behaviour (http://www.forum.global-love.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=98), but also, that (normal) state-domination and money are not responsible etc. ( https://dieschenker.wordpress.com/2018/ ... em-wandel/ ), and in part we connected such results rather firmly with GiM as protection against the big danger of manipulation -- but we don't see a conflict between such rather 'firm results' and our big "argumentation-culture-openness", as long as there are no real argumentative contradictions... If you could see such contradictions, please tell us, and you will find us open enough...))


And then our three questions of trust (I used deepl.com for translating. I hope it's understandable? If not, please tell me, and then I can try to make it better):

To check whether something is trustworthy, i.e. whether you should investigate it, you can ask three test questions. So you can use three test questions to check all voices (your own thoughts, or what someone tells you, or what you read on the internet, etc.)
for trustworthiness:

1. is it at all transparent?
2. is it based on values that are good for me?
3. does it also reflect values that are good for the world?

Explanation:
It has to be transparent so that you know where something is leading you. After all, you don't want to end up in a fog.
But transparency is not enough, because if someone wants to shoot you, it might be transparent, but what's the point?
Hence the question of whether it's about values that are good for you.
And then, if you don't want to be an 'egoist', but a holistic and responsible person, the question of whether it is also about values that are good for the world.
And with these trust check questions, you can then sort out a lot of annoying pointless stuff from your head and concentrate on the really important things in life.
Because why should you follow a voice that doesn't meet these trust criteria?

[aviruddha]

I already told you about our fundamentals
Here again (more detailed):


In one sentence our fundamental is:
"Searching for a responsible life together, in free arguments Culture."

And then, a conclusion is:
- forming "responsibility communes" where the steering wheels are no longer given into irresponsible hands (but are only shared between responsible hands)...


And in more/different words, copied from our webpage (www.global-love.eu):

a) a DEFINITION of "Givers-(or Gift-)Movement (GiM)" [[other possible names: "Movement for Holistic Sustainability" or: "for Global Responsibility, Global Love or Holistic Love" and so on...; for us "making gifts"(= giving without return-condition) simply means the practical ability of following the "flow of the whole"/"the good of the whole"/"the complete calculation" without being deviated by other ('smaller' or 'isolated') (return-)calculations...]]:
GiM wants to offer a "minimum-consensus for global responsibility", with radical openness for "argumentation-culture": Enough reason and love, so that people are able for "common-good-consensus" - and then all other questions should be given into the consensus-decisions of such "global-consensus-brothers and -sisters"... So: As "global consensus-brothers and sisters" let us plan the necessary, in free argumentation-culture, without other dogmas...
((Our consensus-searching has led us to some radical conclusions, for example concerning 'maturity-methods' for inner life and social behaviour (http://www.forum.global-love.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=98), but also, that (normal) state-domination and money are not responsible etc. ( https://dieschenker.wordpress.com/2018/ ... em-wandel/ ), and in part we connected such results rather firmly with GiM as protection against the big danger of manipulation -- but we don't see a conflict between such rather 'firm results' and our big "argumentation-culture-openness", as long as there are no real argumentative contradictions... If you could see such contradictions, please tell us, and you will find us open enough...))


And then our three questions of trust (I used deepl.com for translating. I hope it's understandable? If not, please tell me, and then I can try to make it better):

To check whether something is trustworthy, i.e. whether you should investigate it, you can ask three test questions. So you can use three test questions to check all voices (your own thoughts, or what someone tells you, or what you read on the internet, etc.)
for trustworthiness:

1. is it at all transparent?
2. is it based on values that are good for me?
3. does it also reflect values that are good for the world?

Explanation:
It has to be transparent so that you know where something is leading you. After all, you don't want to end up in a fog.
But transparency is not enough, because if someone wants to shoot you, it might be transparent, but what's the point?
Hence the question of whether it's about values that are good for you.
And then, if you don't want to be an 'egoist', but a holistic and responsible person, the question of whether it is also about values that are good for the world.
And with these trust check questions, you can then sort out a lot of annoying pointless stuff from your head and concentrate on the really important things in life.
Because why should you follow a voice that doesn't meet these trust criteria?

So the karma-vāda( responsible life ), that you follow morality you'll get good results... But where is your morality?

Because you are disobedient to God. In the beginning of your life, you are immoral. You are disobeying the greatest authority.

There is another example, a story, that a gang of thieves, they stolen some property from different houses, then out of the village they are dividing amongst themselves the booties. So one thief is saying, "Please divide it morally so that one may not be cheated." Now just imagine, the property is stolen. Where is the morality there? But when dividing, they are thinking of morality. The basic principle is immoral. Where you can have morality? Similarly, according to Vedic injunction, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam [Īśo mantra 1] = everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is His property. So the whole planet is God's property, whole universe is God's property. But when we are claiming that "This is my property," then where is morality? If you claim others' property as your property, then where is the morality?

So in this material world, such kind of morality, honesty, is going on. But our morality is if Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, then it is honesty, morality, everything. There are many example. Just like Prahlāda Mahārāja. Prahlāda Mahārāja is standing, and his father is being killed by Nṛsiṁha-deva in his presence. So do you think it is morality that one's father is being killed in the presence of his son, and the son, without protest, is seeing, with a garland, that "As soon as my father is killed, I shall offer this garland to Nṛsiṁha-deva"? Is it morality? From material point of view? We are worshiping... Prahlāda Mahārāja has become mahājana, the greatest authority in devotional service, but if we study his morality, that he did not protest the killing of his father, rather he was waiting with a garland, that "As soon as the killing business is finished I'll reward this." You see? Where is material morality? There is no morality.

The gopīs, they were young girls, wife of somebody, sister of somebody, daughter of somebody, but when Kṛṣṇa was playing on His flute at dead of night, they gave up all their engagement and began to run, "Where Kṛṣṇa is present?" So from Vedic standard of view, this is immorality. They are going to another young boy and leaving family. Even somebody, some of the gopīs, they left their sons also and went to Kṛṣṇa. From material point of view this is immoral.

So you'll find in such a way that what is from material point of view immoral, it is the most magnificent morality in relationship with Kṛṣṇa. And similarly, from material point of view, what is moral, that is most, I mean to say, abominable from the point of... Just like Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja. Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja became very moral. Kṛṣṇa advised him, "Just go and tell Droṇācārya that 'Your son is dead,' " although his son was not dead. Because Droṇācārya will not die. Unless he hears the news of the death of his son, he'll not die. So he would not believe anyone, but Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja is famous, very moral. So Kṛṣṇa asked him that "You go, otherwise he'll not believe anyone." So Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja hesitated, "How can I say lies?" So for this he had to see hell. He became immoral. Man-nimitte kṛtaṁ pāpaṁ puṇyāya eva kalpate.

So our standard of morality and immorality is to see whether Kṛṣṇa is satisfied. If Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, then it is morality. If Kṛṣṇa is dissatisfied, then it is immoral. And Kṛṣṇa's representative also. Therefore it is said, yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi. Our morality is to satisfy Kṛṣṇa or His representative, guru. Yasya prasāda. If he's satisfied, then it is moral. If he's not satisfied, then it is immoral. Na gatiḥ kuto 'pi.

When Kṛṣṇa says it is not right, then it is not right. This is our decision. We Kṛṣṇa conscious men, we simply accept.
And that is a fact. That is a fact in this way = because Kṛṣṇa is the greatest authority, Supreme Being. Supreme means the greatest authority. So the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Mahad-guṇāḥ. We can find it easily, just like we say that no illicit sex, no meat-eating, we consider this is sinful. But there are others, big, big leaders, politicians, philosophers, even religious priest, they do not think that this is immoral or this is sinful. Meat-eating is sinful. "Why? What is the sin there?" Illicit sex, "What is the wrong there?" Intoxication, "What is wrong there?" They do not find any immorality. So this standard of morality there cannot be fixed up if one is not God conscious. There cannot be. Standard of morality, standard of goodness cannot be. That is the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Lack of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They think that animal has no soul. They do not accept this morality that animal cannot be killed, it is sinful, it is immoral. They have created their own theory.
So without being standardized by Kṛṣṇa consciousness, or God consciousness, you cannot find the standard platform of morality, honesty. These things you cannot find. This is not possible. Therefore, the verdict of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Just like if you do not follow a standard law, how you can fix up, "This is morality" or "This is honesty" or "dishonesty"? There must be standard law. And who can give you the law unless he is the greatest authority? So law changes according to different countries, climate, situation. So man-made law cannot give you standard morality, honesty or... It is not possible. Because one will think, "This is morality," another will think, "No, this is not morality." Same thing = "Keep to the left," "Keep to the right." Somebody says, " 'Keep to the left' is right," somebody says " 'Keep to the left,' it is wrong." Manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ [SB 5.18.12]. Because those who are not Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are hovering on the mental plane. They cannot be..., there cannot be any fixed-up morality, honesty, dishonesty. No. And rascals will also say, yato mata tato patha. Means, whatever you think is all right, that is all right. According to you, your conception this is right, and according to my conception, both of them are right. How both of them can be right?
So this contradiction, opposing elements, will continue unless there is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So this is not a fact, that the karma-vādīs, simply by discharging your duties nicely... This is... On principle, it is all right. But we must know what is actual morality. Just like state says, "Now it is wartime. If you kill a number of enemies then you will be awarded with gold medal." The same process of killing. But at another time, when there is no war, if you kill one person you'll be hanged. The killing process is the same, but the judgment is given by the greatest authority, the government = "This is all right," "This is not right." Therefore, standard of morality means to abide by the orders of the greatest authority. That is standard of morality. This is the conclusion. You cannot make your own morality. No. If Kṛṣṇa says, "This is all right," then it is all right. Otherwise, it is not.

Therefore the point should be that we should not accept this karma-vāda or the bauddha-vāda or Māyāvāda---there are so many vādas. We shall simply take kṛṣṇa-vāda. Simply, simply accept Kṛṣṇa. And whatever He orders, whatever He likes, for His satisfaction, we shall do anything and everything. That is our morality.

[Jannick Schenker]

Maybe we have a similar understanding of morality? :

Without morality, you cannot make progress. Morality without responsibility for the good of everybody is useless. If anyone takes action in harming the good of everybody, it's not morality.
That's why every morality, doesn't matter if it's coming from goverments or religions, is not real morality if it's not globally responsible. How can something, some behaviour be moral, if it's not responsible for the good of everybody?



And my answer to your text about 'property':

"There is another example, a story, that a gang of thieves, they stolen some property from different houses, then out of the village they are dividing amongst themselves the booties. So one thief is saying, "Please divide it morally so that one may not be cheated." Now just imagine, the property is stolen. Where is the morality there? But when dividing, they are thinking of morality. The basic principle is immoral. Where you can have morality? Similarly, according to Vedic injunction, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam [Īśo mantra 1] = everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is His property. So the whole planet is God's property, whole universe is God's property. But when we are claiming that "This is my property," then where is morality? If you claim others' property as your property, then where is the morality?"


I agree with that.
The 'gangs of thieves' nowadays are the (capitalistic) states, where most people are members in.
There is no property but the property of God. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to burn everything, sacrifice everything to God in burning, burn your shoes ect.
It means, that you have to use the things in that way, like God what do it. And that means, to share the things for the good of everybody, and not beeing selfish, clinging and making money with it. It means also sharing with the poorest of the poor...

[aviruddha]

Maybe we have a similar understanding of morality? :

Without morality, you cannot make progress. Morality without responsibility for the good of everybody is useless. If anyone takes action in harming the good of everybody, it's not morality.
That's why every morality, doesn't matter if it's coming from goverments or religions, is not real morality if it's not globally responsible. How can something, some behaviour be moral, if it's not responsible for the good of everybody?



And my answer to your text about 'property':

"There is another example, a story, that a gang of thieves, they stolen some property from different houses, then out of the village they are dividing amongst themselves the booties. So one thief is saying, "Please divide it morally so that one may not be cheated." Now just imagine, the property is stolen. Where is the morality there? But when dividing, they are thinking of morality. The basic principle is immoral. Where you can have morality? Similarly, according to Vedic injunction, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam [Īśo mantra 1] = everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is His property. So the whole planet is God's property, whole universe is God's property. But when we are claiming that "This is my property," then where is morality? If you claim others' property as your property, then where is the morality?"


I agree with that.
The 'gangs of thieves' nowadays are the (capitalistic) states, where most people are members in.
There is no property but the property of God. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to burn everything, sacrifice everything to God in burning, burn your shoes ect.
It means, that you have to use the things in that way, like God what do it. And that means, to share the things for the good of everybody, and not beeing selfish, clinging and making money with it. It means also sharing with the poorest of the poor...

similar ? you are bogus pseudo theif who is saying religion is opium and distraction So this standard of morality there cannot be fixed up if one is not God conscious.

But where is your morality?

Because you are disobedient to God. In the beginning of your life, you are immoral. You are disobeying the greatest authority.
_____________________
Best thing is that you mold your life and go back to home, back to Godhead. "Oil in your own machine." Instead of thinking what will happen... they will happen. Because people will go on with their rascal civilization, natural consequences will be there. You better take advantage of whatever time you have got and become fully Kṛṣṇa conscious and go back to home.

and if you are still stubborn headstrong like any other europeans as it is their natural characteristics, than you are on your own. and your pseudo responsiblity is just an useless farce just for material gains. and nature will make these all nonsense plans futile. because it was never your creation. ( nor i do say it is mine either ) so no need to be mad for something into which we are put by nature's pricks.

[Jannick Schenker]

Don't you think, that global responsibility is the base of morality?
Because how can people be moral, or find enlightenment or redemption by treating the world criminally?
How can somebody be God-conscious by treating the world criminally?

[aviruddha]

Don't you think, that global responsibility is the base of morality?
Because how can people be moral, or find enlightenment or redemption by treating the world criminally?
How can somebody be God-conscious by treating the world criminally?

what global responsiblity ? Because you are disobedient to God. In the beginning of your life, you are immoral.

Similarly, according to Vedic injunction, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam [Īśo mantra 1] = everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is His property. So the whole planet is God's property, whole universe is God's property. But when we are claiming that "This is my property," then where is morality? If you claim others' property as your property, then where is the morality?

so now first of all do tell me what kind of morality you are talking about ? where is morality ? you are an theif and you will tell me that religion is an distraction ? but for me you are the distraction from last 13 days.
______________
and so far i go than i do follow real mother aka His Divine Grace A.C Bhativedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. ( finished ) i do follow simply whatever Krishna and his representative my authority Srila Prabhupada And whatever He orders, whatever He likes, for His satisfaction, we shall do anything and everything. That is our morality.

[aviruddha]

Don't you think, that global responsibility is the base of morality?
Because how can people be moral, or find enlightenment or redemption by treating the world criminally?
How can somebody be God-conscious by treating the world criminally?

now in my eyes, you are no longer moral, because you are disobident and repeating same nonsense from 13 days which is pointless, and than speaking from ass as well sometimes, yes, we are soul, There is no property but the property of God, but you are an headache for me from last 13 days.

and whatever nonsense you are doing it is all going to be futile. so kindly spare me now. go away. im done with your pseudo nonsense.
___________
im very much satisfied at the same time by the philosophy of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.

but whatever nonsense you speak does not makes sense nor it is complete yet either.

so now kindly go away. daily making one post and spoiling my life and time both with your nonsense garbage. im done with you.