the moon thing and a question

[Guest guest]

> >> My question: Does this mean that Srila Prabhupada first thought that

> >> they went to Rahu but later on changed his opinion?

> >

> >If even the materialistic society have been saying the so-called moon

> >landing was a hoax, and had produced lots of documentary to prove it, it

> >is sheer foolishness of any devotee who doubt the conclusion of our

> >acaryas regarding the subject. It also amounts to faithlessness.

>

> Sheer foolishness well slammed, Isvara prabhu. But how does your answer

> address the initial question by Mahat-tattva prabhu? Could you please

> elucidate?

>

 

There has been lots of so-called devotee scholars like Ananda, Jagadananda

etc., who have all written their nonsensical assertions that the acarya

might be wrong about the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the composition

of the cosmos. I am sorry, I have to use strong language, as that is the

proper use of humility. A devotee should not tolerate those who try to

berate the teachings of the acaryas.

 

Mahat-tattva Prabhu's question also hinged on those who think that what

Srila Prabhupada said about the moon theory was wrong. Srila Prabhupada

briefly hinted that the closest place that the scientist could have gone was

Rahu planet, due to it being closer to the Earth planet, as opposed to the

Moon and the Sun planet, that are way far away. But he then firmly said that

they never go to the moon or even Rahu planet. If they had been to the moon,

how come the trip has not been repeated since more than thirty years the

first trip was made.

 

Basically a true and faithfull disciple would not doubt the words of the

acaryas. That is what is meant surrendering to a perfect person. An acarya

is perfect, thus his words are also perfect. That is why the scriptures

scrictly enjoined that all one's doubt must be cleared before surrendering

to the perfect spiritual master.

[Guest guest]

On Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 05:30 pm, Isvara (das) GGS (Vrindavana -

IN) wrote:

 

> I am sorry, I have to use strong language, as that is the

> proper use of humility. A devotee should not tolerate those who try to

> berate the teachings of the acaryas.

 

Is it really humble? Not always. Sometimes instead it is rude. I was

trying to say something about this in my previous text. Some devotees

think they are above social niceties.

 

A humble person, who is polite and says things without hurt can still

express disagreement, even displeasure. Being humble doesn't imply

tolerating what others say, or not having an opinion; rather it means

expressing oneself nicely.

 

> If they had been to the moon, how come the trip has not been repeated

> since

> more than thirty years the first trip was made.

 

Because the cold war is over; they don't need to show off like that

now. They have Afghanistan and Iraq instead.

 

And the trip was repeated plenty times at the time, apparently.

 

Ys., Rama Kesava