Religious experiences of others.

[Guest guest]

>>what about the experiences of other religious leaders for example -

Jesus Christ, Mohammed ..

Is one to reject the notion that these are true experiences /

true religions. If these are true, what explains the dramatic

difference in the religious rules on diet, rituals etc ?

 

If one rejects these as false / allegorical, then how can we claim

that those "extra sensory" perceptions by the indian sages are historical

facts but those in other religions are myth?<<<<

 

Religious experience is no particular group or people's property.

That's what our Sanatana Dharma says.

It is the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) which

consider every other religion and religious experience as FALSE. Not only

that, two of those three religions have a mandate to anihilate other

religions! That's one of the causes for sad state affairs in the past

centuries. It is not over yet either- that's even more sad.

 

I think myth or not myth, fact or story is also upto us. I always refer to our

books as scriptures and not mythology as some others (Learned Hindus as well )

do.

I beleived every episode in our scriptures as fact when I was a child. I had

no problem with it. Now, I have learn't that the episodes have a higher

message- it is immaterial if it happened word by word as stated. Remember,

most of our scriptures are poetic. Poetry has nmore freedom than prose at word

play.

IT IS THEMESSAGE OF THE EPISODES THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT.

I benefitted a lot by viewing POWER of MYTH by Joseph Campbell. I believe

others who are ready for it will too.

 

Sincerely,

 

Tatachar

[Guest guest]

Tatachar <Tatachar

 

>no problem with it. Now, I have learn't that the episodes have a higher

>message- it is immaterial if it happened word by word as stated. Remember,

>most of our scriptures are poetic. Poetry has nmore freedom than prose at

word

>play.

>IT IS THEMESSAGE OF THE EPISODES THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT.

>I benefitted a lot by viewing POWER of MYTH by Joseph Campbell. I believe

>others who are ready for it will too.

 

 

Hare Krishna!

 

I disagree with the above. Why do you distinguish between the message of the

puraaNic stories and the historicity of the stories?

 

First of all, if the stories were mythological, then they would not be

scriptures since scriptures cannot tell falsehoods. The whole point of

turning to the Vedas and PuraaNas for our spiritual upliftment is that we

expect them to be free of defects, thus removing any doubt about the

validity of their message.

 

Secondly, not all stories are told simply for the purpose of illustrating

the necessity of performing some dharmic duty. The highest dharma and the

whole point of all scriptures is to establish loving service to Lord

Krishna. Thus it is stated in the Bhaagavatam:

 

vaasudevaparaa vedaa vaasudevaparaa makhaaH |

 

vaasudevaparaa yogaa vaasudevaparaaH kriyaaH || Bhaa P 1.2.28 ||

 

vaasudevapara.m j~naana.m vaasudevapara.m tapaH |

 

vaasudevaparo dharmo vaasudevaparaa gatiH || Bhaa P 1.2.29 ||

 

This contradicts the idea that merely developing good and pious conduct is

the point of various religious paths, a misconception which is frequently

the basis of the "mythology" speculation so widespread in Hindu society

today.

 

Furthermore, pure devotees of the Lord interact with each other by

discussing Krishna-katha. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna confirms this

fact:

 

machchittaa madgatapraaNaa bodhayantaH parasparam |

kathayantash cha maa.m nitya.m tuShyanti cha ramanti cha || BG 10.9 ||

 

mat-chittaaH-their minds fully engaged in Me; mat-gata-praaNaaH-their lives

devoted to Me; bodhayantaH-preaching; parasparam-among themselves;

kathayantaH-talking; cha-also; maam-about Me; nityam-perpetually;

tuShyanti-become pleased; cha-also; ramanti-enjoy transcendental bliss;

cha-also.

 

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted

to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always

enlightening one another and conversing about Me (bhagavad-giitaa 10.9).

 

What does "conversing about Me" mean? It means speaking Hari-katha,

specifically those stories about the Lord and His liilas as they are

described in the shaastras. If these were mythological stories, then the

pure devotees would not derive so much pleasure in discussing them. Even the

devotees who are not on the liberated platform still enjoy discussing the

Lord's pastimes, understanding them to have been actual events and not

merely childish stories. This talking about Lord Krishna is actually a form

of kiirtana, and it is a vital part of one's saadhana because such kiirtana

helps one to develop the taste for devotional service.

 

We can see this illustrated in the life of Shrii Naarada Muni, whose story

is discussed in the Bhaagavatam. In his previous life, Shrii Naarada was the

son of a servant woman who was engaged in serving some sages in an ashrama.

Naarada describes to Shrii Vyaasadeva how by taking the remnants of their

food and hearing them speak about Krishna, his own taste for hearing

Krishna-katha was increased:

 

tatraanvaha.m kR^iShNakathaaH pragaayataamanugraheNaashR^iNava.m manoharaaH

|

taaH shraddhayaa me.nupada.m vishR^iNvataH priyashravasya.nga

mamaabhavadruchiH || bhaa 1.5.26 ||

 

tatra - thereupon; anu - every day; aham - I; kR^iShNa-kathaaH - narration

of Lord Krishna's activities; pragaayataam - describing; anugraheNa - by

causeless mercy; ashR^iNavam - giving aural reception; manaH-haraaH -

attractive; taaH - those; shraddhayaa - respectively; me - unto me;

anupadam - every step; vishR^iNvataH - hearing attentively; priyashravasi -

of the Personality of Godhead; a.nga - O Vyaasadeva; mama - mine; abhavat -

it so became; ruchiH - taste.

 

O Vyaasadeva, in that association and by the mercy of those great

Vedaantists; I could hear them describe the attractive activities of Lord

Krishna. And thus listening attentively, my taste for hearing of the

Personality of Godhead increased at every step (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.5.26).

 

Thus, he came to the mature conclusion regarding stories about Lord Krishna:

 

ida.m hi pu.msas tapasaH shrutasya vaa sviShTasya suuktasya cha

buddhidattayoH |

avichyuto'rthaH kavibhirniruupito yaduttamashlokaguNaanuvarNanam || bhaa

1.5.22 ||

 

idam - this; hi - certainly; pu.msaH - of everyone; tapasaH - by dint of

austerities; shrutasya - by dint of study of the Vedas; vaa - or;

sviShTasya - sacrifice; suuktasya - spiritual education; cha - and; buddhi -

culture of knowledge; dattayoH - charity; avichyutaH - infallible; arthaH -

interest; kavibhiH - by the recognized learned person; niruupitaH -

concluded; yat -what; uttamashloka - the Lord, who is described by choice

poetry; guNa-anuvarNanam - description of the transcendental qualities of.

 

Learned circles have positively concluded that the infallible purpose of the

advancement of knowledge, namely austerities, study of the Vedas, sacrifice,

chanting of hymns and charity, culminates in the transcendental descriptions

of the Lord, who is defined in choice poetry (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.5.22).

 

Thus, Krishna-katha is not merely a means to an end (such as illustration of

some dharma, etc.). Being able to appreciate Krishna-katha is the very

*point* of studying the Vedas. In fact, simply by hearing Krishna-katha, one

can become elevated to the status of a pure Vaishnava as Naarada was.

 

So it is really not proper to emphasize the *message* of the puraaNic

stories above the stories themselves. The real *message* of the puraaNa-s is

that we should cultivate pure devotional service to Lord Naaraayana.

Discussing stories about Him, which is one form of devotional service

(shravaNa.m kiirtana.m viShNoH smaraNam...) is our constitutional position

as jiiva-s. They are not mythologies. They are nectar for the pure

Vaishnavas who can enjoy them again and again without ever getting tired. In

this regard, we are fortunate that many of these stories are preserved in

the itihaasa-s and puraaNa-s for our benefit. So proclaim it boldy that

these stories are the very point of our existence! Without them, religion

would be bland and pointless.

 

yours,

 

- Hari Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Dear BhAgawatAs,

 

(Adiyen is glad to join in the bhakti discussions, after having been cut

off from the group for a while because of technical problems in adiyen's

mailing system).

 

The questions on purANas and ithihaasas remain very interesting even

though they have been asked and discussed several times on the net.

These are some of adiyen's naive viewpoints.

 

Regarding the issue of comparing and contrasting the psychic experiences

of mystics with testimony found in various scriptural references like

the purANas, ithihAsas, the bible, and the kuran, we have to start by

identifying the means of valid knowledge - viz pramANas.

 

Ramanuja admits that there are three pramANas: pratyaksha (valid

perceptual knowledge), anumAna (inferential knowledge), and sabda

(verbal testimony). We as humans are well aware of the first two means

of knowledge, since it is within our own day-to-day experiential realm.

However, Sabda pramANa (or sruthi) is the ONLY means of knowledge with

which we come to know of the existence of the Brahman, who cannot be

known through our senses or through inference. The Brahman, according

to the sruthis, is the Only Supreme Principle (parama tattva) worth

knowing, and one who knows this knows all else.

 

The critic might say: "Why should I accept what the sruthis say? After

all, the sruthis talk about something that cannot be perceptually seen

or inferred anyway, and the only way I know of the existence of this

so-called Brahman is through the sruthis. And even if I am willing to

accept that there is something super-sensual, why should I not accept

what some other scriptural texts say?"

 

Adiyen's answer to this is four-fold. Firstly, adiyen believes that

this line of thought is all the more a reason to atleast investigate

into this pramANa, because just as there is no second testimony to prove

the existence of the Brahman, there is no other testimony that

explicitly disproves it. And after all, if according to what the

sruthis say, we as humans can actually be enjoying inexplicable bliss,

why not atleast consider an investigation. At this point let us just

have an open investigative mind that is willing to accept (if need be)

that there could be something beyond our senses that can be known to

exist at first only testimonially through the sruthis.

 

The second reason is this. If anything is to be called a pramANa (or

means of valid knowledge), it must serve a practical purpose. According

to the sruthi, the purpose it serves is that it testimonially reveals

the parama tattva (The Supreme Principle) knowing which we (humans) know

all else. The words "parama tattva" implies that there is no other

principle worth knowing.

 

The third reason is that sruthis are apaurusheya - they not have a

maker. An apaurusheya sastra is a very good candidate for being a

pramANa. Because, since it does not have a maker, it does not have the

defects associated with that maker; it is not uttered by the

non-trustworthy ( anApta anukta ). Where do we get this information?

>From the sruthi itself, which claims that it was taught by the Lord

Himself to Brahma at the beginning of creation. Nowhere is there any

indication of the origin or the originator of the sruthi. Hence if what

the sruthis say is true, they must be eternal and impersonal

(apaurusheya).

 

Fourthly, and most importantly, great rshis, azhwars, and acharyas like

Vyasa, VAmadeva, BodhAyana, and NammazhwAr have verified the veracity of

the verbal testimony of the sruthis through upAsana. This can be

considered the experimental verification of the vedic claim. If we too

personally need the same kind of proof of the psychological (about the

self) and ontological (about Brahman) claim, we have to tread the path

of sAdhana described eloquently in the sruthis and other ancillary

scriptural texts.

 

Having briefly given reasons for accepting the authenticity of the

sruthis as a valid pramANa, let us talk briefly about paurusheya

sastras, those that are original personal compositions. Do we accept

these as valid means of knowledge? Sure, but only those that do not

contradict the sruthis. Bhagawad Gita is paurusheya in the sense that

it is the product of that parama purusha, Sri Krishna. But since it

augments and confirms what is said in the sruthis, we accept it in toto.

What about purAnas? We have several of them. We have saattvika

purANas, raajasa purANas, and taamasa purANas. Who made these

distinctions? These classifications have been made in the padma

puraaNa, which has been classified (by itself) as a saattvika purANa.

The other saattvika puraaNas are bhaagawata, visnu, nAradeeya, garuda

and varAha puraaNas. Again, we have to remember that the yard-stick is

always the sruthi. We have to weigh and see which puraaNa confirms the

truths enunciated in the sruthis, and which contradicts or distorts

them. We are fortunate to have been blessed with acharyas who are some

of the keenest and yet most open minds, who do not accept anything that

comes their way without checking it out for its validity. Similarly, we

also consider the VaikhAnasa and PAncharAtra Samhitas to be valid

pramANas. Again, the same reasoning. And so about dharma sastras like

Manu dharma sastra. In the same vein, the AzhwAr aruLichaiyalgaL (divya

prabhandam) are valid pramANas, since they lucidly present exactly what

is told in the upanishads.

 

Now we come to ithihaasas. For this purpose, consider an incantation in

the naaraayaNopanishad, which is a part of the sruthis:

 

|| brahmaNyo devaki putro, brahmaNyo madhusoodanom ||

"The all-encompassing brahman of the upanishads is nothing other than

the one born to Devaki, and the slayer of Madhu."

 

Here we have specific time-related references of god-heads equated to

the generic eternal brahman. From this we can infer that Narayana takes

the avatara of Sri Krishna in EVERY dvApara yuga as devaki's son and as

Madhusoodana. Hence Krishna's avatara is a reality, and so are all the

events that revolve around that like the Geetopadesha to Arjuna. In the

same vein, the Mahabharatha is a real and eternal happening in the sense

that it takes place as a drama in every dvapara yuga. So is the

RamayaNa, since the reference of Sri Rama occurs in the Vishnu Sahasra

NAma, which is a part of the Mahabharatha. So, there is no doubt (if we

accept the sruthis as pramANas) that the ithihaasas are facts, NOT

fictional stories.

 

Finally, let's come to the intuitive and mystic experiences of Jesus,

Moses, and Muhammad (referred to in a previous posting). In adiyen's

opinion, these are as much truthful as anything we might ourselves

experience in our daily life. Was it NarayaNa whom these prophets

intuited? Since there is nothing to prove it is not, we can as well

say, yes. Yet, we have to conclude that these sastras are paurusheya.

Because, although Moses or Jesus or Muhammad did not write the

Commandments, the Bible, or the Kuran, they intuited some super-natural

entity which communicated those "truths" to them. Again, this does NOT

assume there are defects in these sastras. What we have to do is

measure it with the universal yard-stick, the only apaurusheya sAstra

known to humanity that talks about the parama tattva, namely sruthi.

After all, did our poorvAcharyas not measure everything else like the

Bhagawad Geeta and the PAncharAtra Agama with the sruthi-yard-stick,

although both these scriptures are the words of that parama purusha

himself. If there are portions of the Bible (et al) that conform to the

sruthis, what prevents us from saying that those portions are valid?

However, if we find portions of it not agreeing with the sruthis, we

have to impassionately reject those, or at least interpret them to

conform to the sruthis.

 

These are adiyen's humble view points. Adiyen cannot be certain that

what has been written is error-free, and hence requests the readership

to excuse the inadvertent errors that might have creeped in, and also

step in and correct the erroneous portions.

 

|| Sarvam Sree KrishnArpaNamastu ||

|| Namo Narayanaya ||

 

Daasan Murali Kadambi

 

>

[Guest guest]

Sri :

 

Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Para Brahmane Namaha

 

Dear Sri Murali & other bhaktAs of Sriman NArAyanA,

 

Namo NArAyanA . kindly accept adiyen's pranAmams.

 

Sri Murali's posting regarding the PramAnAs/Validity of

experiences etc is excellent . Adiyen enjoyed it.

 

 

Namo NArAyanA

 

Adiyen

 

Anantha PadmanAbha dAsan

 

 

Sarvam Sri KrishnArpanamastu