Fact or fiction?

January 11, 1998

Dear bhagavathas:

One of the issues that captured the attention of the participants in the

Denver conference was the importance of implicit belief in our Ithihaasas

and PuraaNaas. One of the key questions was, to what extent is it

important that we believe Lord Krishna actually stood on the chariot, with

the two armies patiently looking on, and went about preaching to Arjuna.

Or, should we simply look at Sri Bhagavath Geethai as an important

philosophical work and ignore the story surrounding its origin? If you are

in the "implicit belief" camp, what about the conversation between Dharama

Raja and Nagusha the snake, and the other fantastic stories? Would our

spiritual appreciation suffer if we are unable to simply accept stories

where snakes speak to humans and the dead are brought back to life as

actual recording of real events? Or, is it alright to simply accept the

morals and ignore the stories?

As ones brought up in India and to a great extent willing in our

Sampradaya, many of us are prepared to accept simple answers such as, "our

Acharayas say so, and therefore we must simply accept it." But the future

of Sri Vaishnavam is not about us, it is about the youngsters. For them,

such answers do not resonate.

Somewhat related to the above is, what is the extent of Mahavisvasam for

prapatti to be complete? Of course we must have unshakable faith that the

Lord will grant us mOkshan at the end of this life. But are we required to

believe implicitly in every details of the Ithihasa puraaNaas for the

prapatti to be fruitful.

Azhgiyasingar thiruvadigaLE saraNam...

-- adiyEn

-----------------

P. Dileepan

423-755-4675 (Work)

423-877-9860 (Home)

dileepan

January 11, 1998

Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

> Somewhat related to the above is, what is the extent of Mahavisvasam for

> prapatti to be complete? Of course we must have unshakable faith that the

> Lord will grant us mOkshan at the end of this life. But are we required to

> believe implicitly in every details of the Ithihasa puraaNaas for the

> prapatti to be fruitful.

>

> Azhgiyasingar thiruvadigaLE saraNam...

I can add some thing to the second part of your email. I was going over a

particular work by Sri Pillai Lokacharya called 'arthapanchakam'. In the section

on Upayaswaroopa, the acharya adds prapati and AchAryAbhimana in addition

to karma, jnAna and bhakti.

Sri Lokacharya further explains that attaining the Lord through prapatti is

much

easier than through karma, jnAna and bhakti yoga. He further classifies prapatti

into two types:

Artaprapatti: the aspirant approaches the Lord with the help of his AcArya's

teaching and by HIS grace attains salvation. Sri Pillai Lokacharya outlines

five steps to be adopted for this purpose.

Draptaprapatti: This form of prapatti is for a person who fears hell. With the

knowledge obtained from the AcArya, the aspirant transfers his burden to the

Lord and takes refuge under HIM.

Sir Lokacarya goes on to explain that parapatti is distinct from karma, jnana

and

bhakti path.

AcAryAbhimAna, Sir Lokacarya says, is for a person who cannot do any of the

above but takes shelter under the AcArya. It is then the responsibility of the

AcArya to deliver him to the Lord. AcAryAbhimAna is not a upaya by itself, but

helps

the other 4 upayas.

Based on his work, it seems that prapatti cannot be performed without the help

of the

AcArya. Also, for prapatti, it is not required to know the details of ithihas

and puranas

since prapatti is a parallel path to attain salvation. All that seem to be

required is

AcArya's blessings and guidance.

On the issue with youngsters, our responsibility should be to educate them the

importance of AcArya and their teaching, rather than just making some blanket

statement on what they said. NAMA and the Conf. that you attended are right

steps to that end.

Sri Pillai Lokacaryar thiruvadigalE Saranam.

Venkatesh.

January 12, 1998

At 08:56 PM 1/11/98 -0800, Venkatesh Elayavalli wrote:

>

>Based on his work, it seems that prapatti cannot be performed without the

help of the

>AcArya. Also, for prapatti, it is not required to know the details of

ithihas and puranas

>since prapatti is a parallel path to attain salvation. All that seem to be

required is

>AcArya's blessings and guidance.

Thanks to Sri. Venkatesh Elayavalli for the prompt

reply with suitable quotations. I would like to invite

further comments on the central issue, i.e. faith about

the authenticity of Ithihasa puraaNaas.

Mahavisvasam, the most important prerequisite for

Prapatti, is predicated upon our Lord's promises

made during Vibhava avatharaas such as Rama and

Krishna. If we lack faith upon the accounts about

these avatharas given by Srimad Ramayana and

Mahabharatha, we will face the task of building

Mahavisvasam upon a foundation made up of fiction.

How can real and lasting Mahavisvasam be built

upon something that is simply someone's vivid

imagination?

Further, it said that we are not required to know the

details of the Ithihasas. If we are willing to accept

the guidance of our Acharyas, then we have indirectly

shown faith in Ithihasas since our Acharyas have

unflinching faith in them. I am not referring to such

individuals. I am referring to those who are unable

to implicitly accept Acharya's words and have

difficulty accepting the Ithihasas as recording of

actual events. In other words, to what extent are

we required to believe in the Ithihasas to be faithful

to the requirement of Mahavisvasam?

-- adiyEn

January 13, 1998

>...to what extent are

> we required to believe in the Ithihasas to be faithful

> to the requirement of Mahavisvasam?

I think the issue of extent is really the critical one in this discussion.

For if we were to take every word of the itihAsas literally, would we not

in one sense be contradicting the views of our own tradition? Take for

example, Sri Ramayanam. If we were to take this work literally, then we

would have to believe that Lord Rama is only "half Vishnu" (as is suggested

by Sri C. Rajagopalachary in his famous interpretation), that He did not

know that He was Perumal until Brahma reminded Him, that He suffered when

His Consort was kidnapped, that He saved His Consort for the purpose of

adhering to Dharma, and that he rejected Her solely on the basis of public

opinion.

The traditional SriVaishnava view, at least from my understanding, seems to

be contradistinctive to this: the incidents surrounding the whole epic

adventure were merely a vyAjam, an excuse for Perumal to come to earth out

of His saulabhyam to interact with His devotees and provide Vibhishanar,

kAkasuran, and others, as well as all of us, the opportunity to realize

prapatti. ThayAr as Sita, allowed Herself to be brought to Lanka so that

she could serve as the purushakAram, and that Her rejection merely served

as a means for the Lord to return to paramam.

I think this idea of Perumal's saulabhyam as revealed in the itihAsas and

purAnas is what SriVaishnavas should certainly all believe. The fantastic

tales of monkey armies, floating bridges, ten-headed demons, and talking

mountains, while having their value on mythic levels, should really be left

to personal choice and interpretation.

adiyEn,

Mohan

January 15, 1998

Sri :

Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Para Brahmane Namaha

Srimate Sri Lakshmi - Nrusimha Divya PAdukA Sevaka -

Srivan Shatagopa Sri NArAyana Yateendra MahAdesikAya Namaha

Srimate NigamAntha MahAdesikAya Namaha

Srimate Bhagavad RAmAnujAya Namaha

Sriyai Namaha ; SridharAya Namaha

Dear Sri Dileepan SwAmi and others bhAgavathAs ,

Namo NArAyanA . kindly accept adiyens pranAmams.

>

> One of the issues that captured the attention of the participants in the

> Denver conference was the importance of implicit belief in our Ithihaasas

> and PuraaNaas. One of the key questions was, to what extent is it

> important that we believe Lord Krishna actually stood on the chariot, with

> the two armies patiently looking on, and went about preaching to Arjuna.

> Or, should we simply look at Sri Bhagavath Geethai as an important

> philosophical work and ignore the story surrounding its origin?

The vibhava avatArams of Sriman NArAyanA as NrusimhA , RAmA ,

KrishnA are all true. It is a fact that NArAyanA out of His Sowlabyam and

Sowseelyam has taken all these vibhava avatArams. Whether someone believes

it or not depends upon the individual . If one has the real devotion

towards AzhvArs and AchAryAs , he can understand all these things with

great ease . But for big time speculators who rely on their own puny

brains to understand sAstrA , thinking that AzhvArs ,Rishis like ParAsarA

,VyAsA , SukA etc , AchAryAs like RAmAnujA , Desikan etc are all fools ,

understanding of IthihAsAs and purAnAs ( vibhava avatAra leelAs, archa

avatAram etc ) are certainly difficult.

If one understands the philosophy of Bhagavad GItA properly ( under a

sadAchAryA) , it is highly appreciated. Actually it is not highly

necessary to know all the episodes in MahAbhArathA since much of the part

deals with arthA, kAmA and dharmA. Neverthless , all are facts only. Various

events were recorded by vyAsA .

Similarly , RAmAyanA is a collection of the events happened during

RAmAs avatAram ( trethA yugam) . It is perfect in toto . There is no need

to speculate . If by chance a 20th century man goes back in time to 11 th

century , and talks about Computers & Robots, everyone will heavily

laugh at him . This is because of their limited knowledge and experience.

Just because some of the events in IthihAsAs and PurAnAs are beyond

our limited experience doesn't make them as impossible events. It is a

fact that IthihAsAs and purAnAs( I & P) were compiled for the general

public to relish & also to understand the Upanishads in the light of

I & P.Never it is to be understood that I&P were the products of VyAsAs /

vAlmIkIs speculation to make one understand Upanishads.

If you are

> in the "implicit belief" camp, what about the conversation between Dharama

> Raja and Nagusha the snake, and the other fantastic stories? Would our

> spiritual appreciation suffer if we are unable to simply accept stories

> where snakes speak to humans and the dead are brought back to life as

> actual recording of real events? Or, is it alright to simply accept the

> morals and ignore the stories?

>

Any true vaishnavA is in the "implicit belief" camp.

IthihAsAs and purAnAs are not a collection of life histories of mundane

people. There is no need to specially record about mundane people. Any

incident recorded in them has their own value because of the spiritual

importance ( but may pertain to dharmA , arthA and kAmA also apart from

mokshA).

Jada Bharath ( jIvAtmA ) was having a Deers body. But continued his

Bhakti Yogam . So , a fool may say this to be impossible. sAstrAs will

never be understood by fools and idiots who indulge heavily in

materialistic activities (ofcourse , mercy of a sadAchAryA can turn

anyones life anytime). Even amongst those who have renounced all

materialistic pleasures only those who have the grace of Sriman NArAyanA

can resort to a sadAchAryA and understand the actual facts .

The very reason that snakes spoke to humans (which is quite extra

ordinary) makes it qualified to be recorded. There is no need to record

about millions of snakes which lived as mere snakes and died. Moreover ,

the jIvAtmA inside the snakes body ( Nagusha episode ) was only under the

curse. So , it is a very special case. It can have the power of speech

also.Since it is reported to have the power of speech , it has the power

of speach.There ends the matter . Our speculation is of no use.

We are not reading Amarchitra kathA to take only the morals ( the

story is fictitious). Everything has to be accepted in toto .

VyAsA is incarnation ( anupravesa avatAram) of NArAyanA. He has

recorded the events => All are true only. But one should be careful in the

interpretation. The exact implication of the author can only be understood

from the GuruparamparA .

For instance Siria Thiruvadi (Hanuman) is worshipped in pancha mukam ( 5

headed) form. AgamA prescribes this. The five heads are

1. HanumAn's own head 2. HayagrIvA 3. Peria Thiruvadi (

GarudA) 4.Nrusimhan 5. VarAha

One should not speculate that "since Hanuman cannot have five heads

like this , hanuman never existed ".

The actual implication is that each head corresponds to a particular

attribute of Hanuman. He has extensive knowledge (J~nAnam ) as that of

HayagrIvA , Great Speed as that of Garudan .He is AbadhpAndavA ( one who

rescues the devotees from danger/evil) like NrusimhA and has great

Strength as that of VarAhA.

Similarly , RAvanA literally didn't had 10 heads. It simply means

that RAvanA was 10 times intelligent/capable than any ordinary man.

Our dear YatirAjar ( Bhagavad RAmAnujA) heard 18 ( or 21? ) different

inner meanings on the 'SaranAgati Vedam' ( RAmAyanam) . If he himself has

given so much importance to RAmAyanA ( I & P in general) , there is no

further question on it.

> As ones brought up in India and to a great extent willing in our

> Sampradaya, many of us are prepared to accept simple answers such as, "our

> Acharayas say so, and therefore we must simply accept it." But the future

> of Sri Vaishnavam is not about us, it is about the youngsters. For them,

> such answers do not resonate.

>

The answer "our achAryAs says so and therefore we must simply accept

it" is not only simple , but also FINAL. The mind obtained in this janmA

for a particular jIvAtmA is according to its past karmA. It will give him

a hard time to understand about NArAyanA properly. Mind's nature is to

speculate freely ( boost ones ego etc) , instead of perfectly following

the sampradAyam. As long as one is highly impure in his heart , filled

with all materialistic dirts , he has no way of knowning the Realities (

IswarA , chetanA,achetanA) and their relationships , except to accept the

sAstrAs .Millions of years of speculation is also of no use. Only way is

to follow the paramparA since the Supreme Lord NArAyanA is the first

AchAryA .

Eventhough all the events recorded are true , actual import of the text

can only be understood through the paramparA.

For the future generation , somehow make them chant 'Namo NArAyanA'

constantly. The Holy Name will make all other arrangements. We can't talk

about NArAyanA directly to anyone. Qualification is essential. Only after

removal of some dirt will one start understanding the things.

Right from young age if proper training is given , they will receive

the grace of Sriman NArAyanA . It will certainly then resonate to them.

Anyway 'proper training' demands that the parents be pure in the first

hand.

> Somewhat related to the above is, what is the extent of Mahavisvasam for

> prapatti to be complete? Of course we must have unshakable faith that the

> Lord will grant us mOkshan at the end of this life. But are we required to

> believe implicitly in every details of the Ithihasa puraaNaas for the

> prapatti to be fruitful.

>

Adiyen doesn't know the answer for this . Speculation is never good.

This is a question to be submitted to AchAryAs.

> Azhgiyasingar thiruvadigaLE saraNam...

>

> -- adiyEn

>

> -----------------

> P. Dileepan

> 423-755-4675 (Work)

> 423-877-9860 (Home)

> dileepan

>

Namo NArAyanA

Adiyen

Anantha PadmanAbha dAsan

Sarvam Sri KrishnArpanamastu

January 18, 1998

I think there is a large middle ground between

being an "idiot who engages in materialistic

activity", to quote a correspondent, and believing

that every aspect of our shastras are literal,

physically accurate truths, that every good

Vaishnava must believe.

I for one squarely feel that I fall in this

large middle ground, and with reasonable

justification. Let me explain my position.

It is naturally difficult for people not attuned

to the Indian cultural background to relate to,

let alone accept, our stories of a woman having

60,000 sons (Sagara's wife), a ten-headed demon

flying around torturing people (Ravana), or God

descending upon this earth with four arms

(Sri Krishna). I don't think they should be

condemned for this -- it is obviously hard to

accept without reservation.

It is also hard to accept the opinions of ancient

Puranas and Itihasas which contradict our basic

experience and undisputable scientific knowledge.

Rama is said to have been born in Treta yuga, which

according to traditional calculations occurred more

than a million years ago. No archeological evidence

can back such a date up. There is enough

evidence that a great king named Rama once ruled

from Ayodhya to make that an acceptable fact, but

pushing it back more than 3000 years ago is very

difficult scientifically and historically.

I think Mohan Sagar has partially addressed this

issue by saying that one's beliefs regarding these

things are personal, and that our own tradition

does not require an absolute literal belief in

all these amazing stories.

However, I wish to go even further. My opinion is

that while all the stories in our shastras are TRUE,

they are not all FACT. This is an important distinction

that prevents us from falling into the camp of

irrational fundamentalism, such as what plagues

Christianity today. I think it is important for us

as Vaishnavas to accept the Truth of the Lord's

descents as Rama, Krishna, Vamana, etc.; but insisting

on the literal factuality of the details of the

avatAra is unwarranted, and in fact, our sampradAya

does not demand it.

When I say that these events are "True", I believe

that they contain deep philosophical and emotional

Truths that are very important for us to understand

and enjoy, and that they _may_ be historically true.

There is always a certain amount of figurative description

in the writing of our rishis; Ramanuja time and time

again talks about this when he comments on the Vedanta.

This, however, in no way detracts from our ability

to appreciate and _enjoy_ Rama, Krishna, and even

Vamana as much as we can.

To explain further -- of what use are the avatAras

to us? What use are Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, or

Trivikrama to us today? If we worry all the time

about the details of their historicity but don't

insatiably enjoy their greatness, boy have we missed

the boat.

Our authority for accepting the Truth of the avatAras

are that our Alvars and Acharyas were able to enjoy Rama

and Krishna even as they lived, through their own and

others poetry, or just by meditating on their wondrous

nature. We have evidence that Rama and Krishna can be

enjoyed; the Alvars have proven that, and the Alvars

were living, breathing creatures. Need we worry about

anything more?

When I read and contemplate upon Valimiki Maharishi's

description of Rama's interlude with Guha just before

he goes to the forest, I am not at all focussed on whether

this is even historically true. I have, in my surreal

world, accepted Rama as having incarnated to grace all

his bhaktas, and all I care about is trying to appreciate

Rama's relationship to Guha, and how more kalyANa-guNas

(supremely perfect attributes) he so vividly shows.

Does it matter in the end if someone proved to

me that Rama did not live in Ayodhya, but in

Madras? Absolutely not. Because my enjoyment

of Rama is based on what Valmiki Maharishi

experienced, what Kulasekhara Alvar experienced,

what Andal experienced -- not the absolute

factual details of the avatAra.

I think our faith (maha-viSvAsa) should be in

the Truth of these avatAras. When Rama extends

his assurance of protection to everyone ("sakRd

eva prapannAya"), our Acharyas are amazed and

overcome with emotion that such a God could

actually exist, and experienced the utmost bliss

meditating on this. Does it matter when and where

Rama actually said this?

Does it matter whether _factually speaking_ the Lord

as Vamana actually became a huge giant and measured

the three worlds? To me, no, because in my own

surreal imagination, it is completely TRUE, and

enjoyable -- and this Truth is further confirmed by

knowing that the Alvars derived great satisfaction

and blissful peace meditating on Vamana's measuring the

worlds. Their amazement is my amazement; their love

is my love (though to a far lesser degree, due to my

own shortcomings!)

Our sampradAya focusses time and time again on this

_experience_ of Divinity, and not mere words. In other

words, the Ramayana and other shastras do not just

import philosophical truths; they allow us to enjoy

God in so many more ways than if we did not have them.

So my point is, let's not worry, nor insist on the

actual _historicity_ of our fantastic stories that

originated in a period shrouded in the recesses of

time. Let us enjoy God as the rishis asked us to

through the Truth of these stories.

adiyEn Mani

P.S. Vedanta, particularly as interpreted by Ramanuja,

is explicit that when the sastras contradict our direct

experience (i.e., our senses and scientific data), the

sastras have to be reinterpreted to agree with our

experience (pratyaksha). In fact, it is Sankaracharya's

advaita philosophy that believes the opposite! We can

discuss this further if anyone wishes.

January 18, 1998

Sri Mani Wrote:

>

>P.S. Vedanta, particularly as interpreted by Ramanuja,

>is explicit that when the sastras contradict our direct

>experience (i.e., our senses and scientific data), the

>sastras have to be reinterpreted to agree with our

>experience (pratyaksha). In fact, it is Sankaracharya's

>advaita philosophy that believes the opposite! We can

>discuss this further if anyone wishes

This article is well written. The last statement regarding pratyaksha and

shastras is to be noted by us modern folks. In fact, this aspect of our

philosophy gives a sort of an eternal validity of our shastras (without

getting into trouble with science). Science can find what it thinks is true

in the course of eternal search for the truth. Our system does not come in

science's way and infact can benefit and get enriched by scientic findings.

Thus our system basically leaves the pratyaksha pramana to science or

actual empirical studies and only concentrates on supra-sensory (ie.

spiritual) issues which do not come under the realm of the senses.

I was reading an article of astronomical distances etc. of bhumandala as

explained in one of the Hare Krishna articles. This article tries to

explain the apparent differences between the scientific and Bhagawatam's

views. It does a good job to reconcile the differences thus proving that

Srimadbhagawatam is not contradictory to reality as understood scientifically.

adiyen krishna

January 19, 1998

While not disagreeing with many good points brought out

by Mani I would like to probe a little further on one

specific matter which I think is vital to developing faith.

At 05:17 PM 1/18/98 -0800, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>

>I think our faith (maha-viSvAsa) should be in

>the Truth of these avatAras. When Rama extends

>his assurance of protection to everyone ("sakRd

>eva prapannAya"), our Acharyas are amazed and

>overcome with emotion that such a God could

>actually exist, and experienced the utmost bliss

>meditating on this. Does it matter when and where

>Rama actually said this?

If we had the time and place wrong, surely that

should not be a big deal. But, does it matter

whether Lord Rama actually made this promise

or not? In other words, did Lord Rama really

exist in this earth, or was He really a fictional

hero elevated to divine status by later day saints

who felt ennobled by the story.

In a private correspondence one of the respected

members of this group pointed out that Lord Krishna

Himself may be a composite of several noble people.

There may never have been a Sri Krishna on this earth.

Further, scientifically speaking, Srimad Bhagavath

Geetha was a later insertion into Mahabharatham and

was not written by Vyasa at all.

If these are so, the very foundation of Sri Vaishnavam,

i.e. the Lord's promise to free us from our Karmas and

grant us His thiruvadi mOksham, is nothing more than

someone's creative imagination. Thus developing

Mahavisvasam is that much harder in this scientific

times. Ignorance, perhaps, is bliss.

(p.s. It is also stated that almost certainly Bhagavatham

was written by someone from Tamilnadu in a period later

than the Azhvaars, a contemporary of Sriman Nathamuni

perhaps.)

>

>P.S. Vedanta, particularly as interpreted by Ramanuja,

>is explicit that when the sastras contradict our direct

>experience (i.e., our senses and scientific data), the

>sastras have to be reinterpreted to agree with our

>experience (pratyaksha).

"Reconciled" seems to fit better than "reinterpreted".

Otherwise, sampradaya would amount to nothing.

-- adiyEn

January 19, 1998

Dear Bhagawatas,

Regarding the topic of whether our ithihasas and purANas are fact or

fiction, these are my $0.02 worth.

I will get to the point shortly, but just a prelude ... I do not think

that I as a human who is capable of thinking, acting, and making

judgments, need to accept anything at face value, just because it is

"told by the acharyas." Now, before I am summoned to the firing

squad, please read on to make a judgment. If you still find it

objectionable, I apologize in advance.

I am a firm believer that our acharya-, and rshi- paramparas have done

yeoman service to mankind by interpreting the esoteric in the sruthis,

the fantastic in the puraNas, and the cryptic in the VedAnta SUtras.

However, I as a mortal human can understand but only a few of these

"truths." So, it is my duty (I consider) to go ahead and explore

(with the help of an acharya) the inner hidden meanings in all of our

scriptures. I DO NOT think that merely disagreeing with an acharya

and NOT accepting His words per say, can be construed as an act of

disobedience committed by a heretic. I think, all this indicates is

that I am eager to learn the TRUTH. Disagreeing with the acharya (in

a humble manner) only helps strengthen our conviction in a particular

aspect of the sastras, because the acharya will find a different way

of explaining the same thing. No doubt, acharyas do their best of

explaining things. But there are some issues that we cannot

comprehend in a day or a month or even years of association with the

acharya. I think patience, introspection, and more importantly,

truthful seeking is the only way we can understand the sastras. Have

we not heard of how Ramanuja himself begged to disagree with his guru

Yadava Prakasa, and later how Kuresa differed from Ramanuja's view

while the former was writing the thesis of the Sri Bhashya as

propounded by the latter? Acharya-bhakti should flow naturally rather

than be forced.

Anyway, let me get to my point on what steps we might take to address

the issue of the validity and role of our ithihasas and puraNas. This

might effect our own perception of the truth, which we would like to

pass on to our younger generation.

* For kids from the ages approximately from 3 to 10, stories from the

ithihasas and the puraNas are fantastic, and since kids are dreamers

(sorry for the blanket statement, there may be exceptions), these

stories are appealing. So, I think, a kid can be told these stories

to bring out the morals and also in identifying some role models

within our scriptures that kids can grow up to revere (and may be

emulate). Importantly, I think a "life perspective" has to be set in

the child's mind in subtle ways indicating that a personal godhead is

what has to be attained. This may be a little difficult to do without

pouraNic stories. Kids do not receive philosophical truths as well as

short snippets of stories that involve life-like characters that they

can fantasize about.

* However, things are different for a kid (now an adolescent) from the

ages of 11 to 19. Kids at this age want to think rationally. Gone

are those days when dad or mom told fantastic stories and they

absorbed and accepted every word of it without a question. Also,

there may be some kids who have not gone through this "fantasy" phase

at all. Life has changed ... peer forces are stronger than parental

forces, and kids need a more rational rendering of the truth. I

think, this is where the "life perspective" has to be told to kids is

less subtler terms. I think elders at this stage need to explain

philosophical truths like the concept of the atma, prakrti, etc, etc.

in acceptable doses. Do not expect the kids to digest that right

away. However, I strongly believe that you as an elder cannot get

anywhere with your or other kids without setting this "life

perspective. " It is the nucleus around which other things in our

life should revolve. Just to re-iterate, the "life perspective" is

the translation of some fundamental ideas of tattva, hita, and

purushartha into a language that the kid can understand. Also, for

kids living in the US, a meeting with a knowledgeable older person in

India will go a long way. However, such meetings should be monitored

by the parent closely, because impedences may not match. Also, I

think elders should just show the kid some useful pointers of where

and how to obtain information and lead the kid (now an adolescent) to

explore and understand the subtle. Once the "life perspective" is

set, pourANic stories, I think, will fall into place in the context of

the philosophical truths.

(I am ready for the firing squad :-) )

Adiyen, Murali Kadambi

----------