8,000,400 different species in the universe?

[theist]

Seems a rather low figure. Is there some differene in the what is meant by the word species?

[muralidhar_das]

There are 400,000 species of "humans" included in this list. So you have brahmins, kshatriya, devas, apsaras, etc.

 

Thinking about this ....

Say you were at the very bottom of creation, because you had committed a huge amount of sin....

Say if you get born once in each species and you are evolving towards human birth....

 

the cycle of satya, dvapara, treta, kali lasts 4 million years...

14 manvantaras (14 Manus reign) in one day of Brahma...

with each manu presiding over 71 cyles of Satya/kali ...

thus.. 400 million years in each day of brahma...

 

If each birth as a plant or animal lasts on average 10 years....

(surely they wouldn't since a germ may live only a few days)...

and you evolve through 8 million forms to get to a human form....

it takes about 80 million years to evolve from a bacteria to a human body...

 

So in each day of brahma I will become a man about 5 times or more.

[theist]

Well what I was meaning is that offical "bug counters" say there are approxmatly 800,000 insects on this planet alone. Now considering that this is a very big universe I don't see how this number of 8,000,400 can be correct without some big difference in what is called species.

 

Does the Hare Krsna movement need to stand behind this figure to spread the chanting of the holy name?

[muralidhar_das]

 

Well what I was meaning is that offical "bug counters" say there are approxmatly 800,000 insects on this planet alone. Now considering that this is a very big universe I don't see how this number of 8,000,400 can be correct without some big difference in what is called species.

 

Does the Hare Krsna movement need to stand behind this figure to spread the chanting of the holy name?

My personal opinion?

 

Yes it is essential.

 

I mean, if they cannot accept that there are exactly 8 million species of life then how can we expect them to understand really essential points of the philosophy? For example, we know that formerly, on the seventh day of the bright half of Vaisakha month, the river Ganga was all drunk up in a mood of anger of the sage Jahnu, and that later on Jahnu let it come out from the cavity of his right ear. Scientists are so dumb they have problems understanding simple things such as this pastime of sage Jahnu.

[gHari]

8,400,000. Modern science is still only part way there in counting them (seems i remember that they're at a few million now on planet earth).

[theist]

 

My personal opinion?

 

Yes it is essential.

 

I mean, if they cannot accept that there are exactly 8 million species of life then how can we expect them to understand really essential points of the philosophy? For example, we know that formerly, on the seventh day of the bright half of Vaisakha month, the river Ganga was all drunk up in a mood of anger of the sage Jahnu, and that later on Jahnu let it come out from the cavity of his right ear. Scientists are so dumb they have problems understanding simple things such as this pastime of sage Jahnu.

 

Muralidhar,

 

I see it differently. I don't think the amount of species in the universe is of any importance at all to the development of transcendental knowledge. Can I not believe, disbelieve or just ignore the vedic version of 8,000,400 species in the universe and still become a self realized loving servant of Krsna?

 

IMO speaking such controversial things to a scientifically minded society actually creates a stumbling block to their being able to accept the essential points sambandha-jnana, who I am who God is what is this universe and what is my relationship to God and the universe.

 

We should be trying to eliminate all stumbling blocks to the acceptance of transcendental knowledge. I know many consider such statements in the SB to be transcendentla knowledge simply because it is in the SB but I think this is a mistake. I am hoping for a discoupling of all such statements from the Absolute Truth in the SB so that the Absolute Truth can be more readily seen without obstruction.

 

Some will consider this approach as heretical and I ask those that do to please tell me why they think so. It could be a fruitful discussion.

[gHari]

SrIla PrabhupAda: Whether on this planet or on another planet, that is not the point. The point is that all species exist and keep on existing by the arrangement of nature. We learn from the Vedic texts that there are <B>8,400,000</b> species established. They may be in your neighborhood or they may be in my neighborhood--the number and types are fixed. But if you simply study your neighborhood, it is not perfect knowledge. Evolution we admit. But your evolutionary theory is not perfect. Our theory of evolution is perfect. From the Vedas we know that there are <B>8,400,000</b> forms of bodies provided by nature, but the soul is the same in all, in spite of the different types of body. There is no change in the soul, and therefore the Bhagavad-gItA [5.18] says that one who is wise, a paNDita, does not see the species or the class; he sees oneness, equality. PaNDitAH sama-darzinaH [bg. 5.18]. One who sees to the bottom sees the soul, and he does not find there any difference between all these species.

[Gaurasundara]

 

We should be trying to eliminate all stumbling blocks to the acceptance of transcendental knowledge. I know many consider such statements in the SB to be transcendentla knowledge simply because it is in the SB but I think this is a mistake. I am hoping for a discoupling of all such statements from the Absolute Truth in the SB so that the Absolute Truth can be more readily seen without obstruction.

 

Some will consider this approach as heretical and I ask those that do to please tell me why they think so. It could be a fruitful discussion.

I wouldn't think it is necessarily heretical. If you're referring to the descriptions of the universe in the fifth canto (which is obviously at odds with modern science findings), I think that this can be properly reconciled because one of the SB verses shows how Sukadeva is explaining the universe to Pariksit in a way so that he can comprehend it as the "body of God". So if Pariksit is being urged to see the universe in a divine way that resembles God, it's natural why the Bhagavatam descriptions would be simultaneously true and conflicting with modern science.

[theist]

 

SrIla PrabhupAda: Whether on this planet or on another planet, that is not the point. The point is that all species exist and keep on existing by the arrangement of nature. We learn from the Vedic texts that there are 8,400,000 species established. They may be in your neighborhood or they may be in my neighborhood--the number and types are fixed. But if you simply study your neighborhood, it is not perfect knowledge. Evolution we admit. But your evolutionary theory is not perfect. Our theory of evolution is perfect. From the Vedas we know that there are 8,400,000 forms of bodies provided by nature, but the soul is the same in all, in spite of the different types of body. There is no change in the soul, and therefore the Bhagavad-gItA [5.18] says that one who is wise, a paNDita, does not see the species or the class; he sees oneness, equality. PaNDitAH sama-darzinaH [bg. 5.18]. One who sees to the bottom sees the soul, and he does not find there any difference between all these species.

 

Yeah gHari I know. This is an uncomfortable thing for me because Srila Prabhupada often made emphatic statements emphasizing the vedic version but I find somethings impossible to accept and I refuse to pretend to accept something that in my heart I really don't.

 

Yet I accept the incredible revelations on the nature of transcendence found in the SB and Prabhupada's purports.

 

Is it possible to accept eternal truths from Krsna's devotee whlie rejecting some of these less (or non) important questions? I think so but time will tell.

[theist]

 

I wouldn't think it is necessarily heretical. If you're referring to the descriptions of the universe in the fifth canto (which is obviously at odds with modern science findings), I think that this can be properly reconciled because one of the SB verses shows how Sukadeva is explaining the universe to Pariksit in a way so that he can comprehend it as the "body of God". So if Pariksit is being urged to see the universe in a divine way that resembles God, it's natural why the Bhagavatam descriptions would be simultaneously true and conflicting with modern science.

 

Hmmm... missed that. Not quite sure what that means as the whole universal form idea is said to be imaginary and I can't really get a handle on it.

 

But what does that mean for devotees that preach it is a scientific presentation? Would we not be better of just ignoring such teachings like the moon being farther from earth than the sun, as well as being a heavenly plane and self effulgent?

[Guest guest]

 

Seems a rather low figure. Is there some differene in the what is meant by the word species?

 

Yes. That is precisely the case. Scientists will often differentiate very similar organisms as separate species (mostly based on their ability to interbreed), yet lump all humans into one. The Vedic definition is based on a particular level of consciousnes manifested as a particular type of bodily form. Thus the 350,000 or so beetle species (half of which are weevils) may in fact be only a few thousand Vedic forms of life.

[Guest guest]

I know these folks, they cheat just so they can get more grants.

 

If a bee is a killer in south america (Im so sorry, bees, Im praying for your health daily), that same bee is gentle in washington. But the bug counters will addf to their list about 50 species of bees when there is just one bee.

 

Im haole, meaning Im a white dude. But when I lived as kona boy, I had orange dreadlocks and purple skin, just as if I was from nukualofa of the kingdom of Tonga. Bug counters would count me twice, maybe three times. Cheaters.

 

There may be only one human species on this whole planet, not divided by race as some insist. There may be another in a beginning stage, the indigos (aka children of the blue moon), where the consciousness is eveloved much higher, yet these children are treated as having ADHD. They do math but they hate numbers.

 

Bugs, theres about 300 species on this planet. Big ones, little ones, stinging ones, crawley ones, noisy ones who like to hang by our ears, and the kind who like to hide in false teeth only to give bitter taste to the human who accidentally puts his teeth back in before he grabs his glasses.

 

And ants. I got two cats last wintrer, and this may, not big ants. good cats, now if they could do mosquitos, theres a new species.

 

hare krsana, mahaksadasa

[Gaurasundara]

 

But what does that mean for devotees that preach it is a scientific presentation?

With all respects to those devotees, they should know better.

 

 

Would we not be better of just ignoring such teachings like the moon being farther from earth than the sun, as well as being a heavenly plane and self effulgent?

I suppose it all comes down to what is written and what is not written in shastra. Since Sukadeva is explaining these things to Pariksit so that he can visualise the Lord in creation, then it is obviously metaphorical and yet "absolutely true" for the devotee. I'm not immediately familiar with whether Bhagavata actually says the moon is further from the sun (I'd appreciate a shloka) so I can't say anything at this point.

Just a couple of days ago I saw a TV programme about how scientists are closer to finding out the origin of the "Big Bang" than ever before. And while they say that and if they achieve it, they will have nothing to show for it.

 

Just as an aside, the Tattvavadis (Dvaitins) have it in their theology to "update" it when new scientific findings prove something beyond doubt. So theoretically if the shastra says that stars are hotter than the sun, and scientific findings prove that the sun is the hottest star of all, then the theology is updated. Theoretically anyway. I was present on the Dvaita List a couple of years ago when one member was urging everyone to give up the "fanciful notions" of Rahu and Ketu since their existence cannot be verified by modern astronomical science. While many of the other members were discussing it in a very reluctant manner ("I'm sure they'll find Rahu/Ketu eventually...") this guy kept banging on and on until he got banned. So in theory the Dvaitins update their theology when scientific findings prove something but it is something to chew on if or when they do it in practice.

[muralidhar_das]

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura emphasised the rational approach to spirituality.

 

I live by the principles he taught. Hell is an idea not a physical location; the monkeys in the Ramayana were men who the Aryans described as monkeys; the story of Putana represents how God destroys false guardians (gurus); the das-avatara are forms of God that different kinds of men worship in that Nrsimha appeals to semi-civilized people and Rama appeals to people who believe in Dharma; etc. etc. etc.

 

Blind adherance to notions mentioned in the scriptures that are impossible to believe from a common sense perspective, such as the notion that only 8,400,000 species exist (this is the number given in the Manu Samhita by the way, and orthodox listings always repeat this number), those "blind faith" views are what Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura said are necessary for some sorts of people. Your average jihadi or Creationist, for instance, likes to think in terms of a "literal" understanding of scripture.

 

Many "devotees" also like to adhere to the literal reading of shastra. But if we are seekers of Truth we will appreciate the perspective Theist and Gaurasundara are indicating.

 

Science and Reason are not evil. In my opinion "Blind Faith" is evil. The proponents of Blind Faith invariably promote fascist views and despise freedom of thought.

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura emphasised the rational approach to spirituality.

 

I live by the principles he taught. Hell is an idea not a physical location; the monkeys in the Ramayana were men who the Aryans described as monkeys; the story of Putana represents how God destroys false guardians (gurus); the das-avatara are forms of God that different kinds of men worship in that Nrsimha appeals to semi-civilized people and Rama appeals to people who believe in Dharma; etc. etc. etc.

 

I believe this should be an option for Vaishnavas, yet some of the concepts Bhaktivinoda presented in his introduction to Sri Krsna Samhita as "rational" and "scientific" seem very naive to me, yet I make a living as a scientist.

 

If shastra is so unreliable in it's description of material reality, why should we trust it's description of spirituality? Maybe the supreme light of Brahman is all there is out there on the other side?

 

There is a price to pay for taking these kinds of liberties with the shastra, even for guruvadi Gaudiyas. Why would you trust a guru who's feeding you fairytale stories?

[theist]

 

If shastra is so unreliable in it's description of material reality, why should we trust it's description of spirituality? Maybe the supreme light of Brahman is all there is out there on the other side?

 

I see it like this and this is what works for me. In guru I see a realative side and an Absolute side. In my view the Absolute side is the actual guru and that is the actual voice of Supersoul as He appears as guru. But the relative side of guru may be illiterate as to the material goings on. He may not know of the latest findings on the health benefits of L-carnitine or any of a number of other things. He may say L-carnitine is useless and I take that as his opinion coming from the relative side and I feel perfectly free to reject that statement in favor of newer information. But at the exact same time I worship that acarya because through and as him Paramatma is revealing Himself.

 

I approach the shastra the same way. When I read SB I am after knowledge of the self and Superself and all the other talk of the wars between the gods and demons etc. mean nothing to me except as stories to hold our interest. Amidst all those stories we can see the Divine truth. I see those stories as just set ups for the divine instructions themselves. The divine instructions are the priceless jewels and the stories are the ornamental settings that house the precious stones.

 

This works well for me. I feel no need to reject the SB because of these lesser controversies as some have. The possibility also exists that the stories are literal historical happenings and I am wrong in my outlook. But even then what is loss for me if I accept the divine instructions.

 

I just don't see the importance of preaching those stories as the divine truth itself when clearly they are not.

[Guest guest]

 

In guru I see a realative side and an Absolute side. In my view the Absolute side is the actual guru and that is the actual voice of Supersoul as He appears as guru. But the relative side of guru may be illiterate as to the material goings on. He may not know of the latest findings on the health benefits of L-carnitine or any of a number of other things. He may say L-carnitine is useless and I take that as his opinion coming from the relative side and I feel perfectly free to reject that statement in favor of newer information. But at the exact same time I worship that acarya because through and as him Paramatma is revealing Himself.

 

There is a huge difference for me between a guru who is illiterate and makes no claims to material knowledge, and one who is telling me falsehoods for whatever noble reason or out of his own conditioning. If a guru pretends like he knows the material world in and out when in fact he does not, why should I believe in his explanations of the spiritual truth? He may be a pretender there as well. That is truthfulness for me. Dont make stuff up and tell me it's the truth. Have a little modesty and admit you dont know something for a fact when you dont. That is humility.

[muralidhar_das]

 

There is a price to pay for taking these kinds of liberties with the shastra, even for guruvadi Gaudiyas. Why would you trust a guru who's feeding you fairytale stories?

Bhaktivinode Thakura said karma and reincarnation are real, and from my own personal experience and also from verifiable instances where people I know have had flashes of memory of "other life" experiences, I take it that past lives can be established as real. That we have lived many lifetimes is a fact that can be established as a verifiable fact.

 

Of course atheists and skeptics have their arguments againt karma/reincarnation. But Dr Ian Stevenson has also established a strong scientific case for the existence of past lives

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/

 

So on this basis, I take it as a fact that the person who came into this world 500 years ago as Sri Chaitanya, and who we know through historical evidence is not a "fairy tale person", this person must still be alive since the soul never dies. Sri Gauranga is living on some planet, somewhere, and I am trying to fix my mind on his feet so I can go and meet with him. This, of course, is the standard practice of sadhana bhakti.

 

This person Sri Chaitanya had many wonderful pastimes of love. Sri Chaitanya inspired many exalted souls such as Sanatana Goswami so that those souls gave up all their worldly ambitions and served Krishna. And in doing this Sanatana did not feel he was "missing out" but rather that he was feeling infinite blisss. That bliss was attained by many souls, and by a simple process:

 

Harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam....

 

Bhaktivinode attained this same bliss. So did my Guru Maharaj. And my Guru Maharaj told me I could attain the same bliss myself "even in this lifetime" so I am trying for that. The path of the mahajans is not a path for people who choose to be blind through "blind faith" but a path for awakened people to follow.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Speaking of fairy tales, have you heard the one that says: it's good to give oxygen to someone whose heart has been stopped for 15 minutes after jumpstarting their heart with electricity?

 

Turns out the oxygen is what *kills* the person.

 

So you see, we cannot be certain about *anything* we *think* we know!!! Just because science (with all it's biases and limitations and constant change) doesn't accept what has been revealed in shastra for millennia, we will dismiss shastra as fairy tales?

 

From yesterday's news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek/

 

 

May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?

 

As recently as 1993, when Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote the best seller "How We Die," the conventional answer was that it was his cells that had died. The patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen. This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes. If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is unlikely to recover. That dogma went unquestioned until researchers actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "After one hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later.But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed. It was that "astounding" discovery, Becker says, that led him to his post as the director of Penn's Center for Resuscitation Science, a newly created research institute operating on one of medicine's newest frontiers: treating the dead.

 

[Guruvani]

it's hard to say for sure how the "species" are differentiated.

Maybe birds are a species and bugs are a species as a classification and not by each different kind of bug or bird.

 

The Vedic definition of species is surely different than the scientific definition of species.

 

Maybe flying bugs are a species and non-flying bugs are a species etc. etc.

 

The Vedic knowledge cannot be analyzed through a purely scientific approach, as the Vedic knowledge is based on different principles than the scientific methods of mundane science.

 

In the Vedic knowledge species are more than likely divided by levels of consciousness and modes of nature than by a strictly physiological observation.

 

One thing we know for sure is that the Vedic rishis did not present the Vedic knowledge on the basis of secular scientific principles.

 

Anytime we go to approach the Vedic knowledge we have to be ready to accept a different process of knowledge than empiric scientific thinking.

[Guest guest]

 

So you see, we cannot be certain about *anything* we *think* we know!!! Just because science (with all it's biases and limitations and constant change) doesn't accept what has been revealed in shastra for millennia, we will dismiss shastra as fairy tales?

 

 

That is precisely the problem with certain Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements on the shastra, such as that Hanuman was simply a non-aryan south indian man. He does not know that for a fact - that was just his opinion based on the current scientific views.

 

As long as he is not pretending he knows it for a fact, I can appreciate his perspective. But why cant we also rationally and scientifically proclaim that Hanuman was simply an exceptionally strong Neanderthal man? It is an old story, perhaps from the time when modern men lived side by side with Neanderthals or other hominids. And who knows what will be the "current scientific view" of that story in 200 years? Seems like it is precisely Bhaktivinoda who reduced shastra to fairy tales with a moral.

 

At the time Bhaktivinoda wrote the very controversial introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita he was not initiated into ANY Vaishnava sampradaya, still ate fish, and made no claim to represent any Gaudiya line. It was simply his attempt to put shastras into a perspective that would appeal to the rational and scientifically minded segment of the Indian population. Yet, later on, myth-making process was started to somehow present his writings as "equal to if not better than shastra" and devotees like you have an absolute faith in his statements while you only have relative faith in the stories from the scripture.

 

The writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda contain a tremendous wealth of knowledge and inspiration, yet the principle of rationality applies to them just as he applies the principle of rationality to shastra. A less generous person would say however, that while the Vedas are considered the breath of Lord Vishnu, Sri Krsna Samhita is only a breath of Bhaktivinoda.

[Guruvani]

 

That is precisely the problem with certain Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements on the shastra, such as that Hanuman was simply a non-aryan south indian man.

 

Please present the actual reference you are refering to.

If you can't present the actual Bengali or Sanskrit text, verse and book to support such a claim, then really many devotees will be offended that you are making such claims against Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

I have never heard any such claim.

When it comes to making such radical claims, the only way to do it properly is to put up (the reference) or shut-up.

That is my humble opinion.

[Guest guest]

 

I have never heard any such claim.

When it comes to making such radical claims, the only way to do it properly is to put up (the reference) or shut-up.

 

 

My post was addressed to Murali prabhu, who knows exactly what I'm talking about. You should read the introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita for an exact reference. I dont have the book now but the matter is no secret among the Gaudiyas. Why do you think that book caused such an uproar when it first came out?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

My post was addressed to Murali prabhu, who knows exactly what I'm talking about. You should read the introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita for an exact reference. I dont have the book now but the matter is no secret among the Gaudiyas. Why do you think that book caused such an uproar when it first came out?

You're too kind, Lowborn Prabhu, to assume I know what you're talking about. I think I follow what you're saying, though much of the history you've presented (very briefly) is new to me, I must say, but is not surprising.

 

While, as Guruvani Prabhu says, it's nice to have citations to which we can refer, I'm willing to accept what you say for the sake of discussion.

 

 

That is precisely the problem with certain Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements on the shastra, such as that Hanuman was simply a non-aryan south indian man.

Well, if there's a "problem" with Srila Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements, I see that the problem is solely mine and not his. Beyond the complete faith that my merciful Gurudeva has placed in him, even with my own myopic vision, Bhaktivinoda's brilliance is blinding.

 

Since his writings are, in complexity and erudition, comparable with any post-graduate thesis, most of us know Srila Bhaktivinoda through his songs, in which the Vaishnava mood is presented in manner of unprecedented beauty.

 

 

He does not know that for a fact - that was just his opinion based on the current scientific views.

To the degree that none of us know *anything* for a fact, I agree with you, and while his intelligence allowed him to easily grasp much of the contemporary science of his day, the Vaishnava sees Bhaktivonoda's pronouncements as being divinely inspired. So, whether or not Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements are "facts" (as defined by??? The vedas??? science??)), the Vaishnavas see them as Divine Truths.

 

 

As long as he is not pretending he knows it for a fact, I can appreciate his perspective. But why cant we also rationally and scientifically proclaim that Hanuman was simply an exceptionally strong Neanderthal man? It is an old story, perhaps from the time when modern men lived side by side with Neanderthals or other hominids. And who knows what will be the "current scientific view" of that story in 200 years? Seems like it is precisely Bhaktivinoda who reduced shastra to fairy tales with a moral.

I don't see Bhaktivinoda pretending at anything. His sincerity is utmost.

 

We can rationally and scientifically proclaim so many things, but those proclamations will be fraught with all of the attending baggage of reason and science. Your speculations are reasonable enough, and the rational side of me accepts them. While these are interesting mental exercises, in which way do they help us progress on the path of Bhakti? Perhaps by engaging our mind in thinking of Divine Personalities.

 

But, as aspiring Vaishnavas, do we worship reason? No! In Mahaprabhu, we worship a "madman", who rejected reason (having been the preeminent scholar of His day) to chant and dance in the streets in a state of Divine Intoxication. The Lord is the Divine Autocrat. He is not bound by any "facts".

 

Ultimately, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a religion of the heart. The mind must be engaged (trained--man-tra: train the mind) or it will get into so much trouble, but we are warned not to be guided by our minds but, rather, by our hearts (which is not to say we are guided by sentimentalism, but by our hearts *true* hankering).

 

 

At the time Bhaktivinoda wrote the very controversial introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita he was not initiated into ANY Vaishnava sampradaya, still ate fish, and made no claim to represent any Gaudiya line.

Funny you should mention this. When Guruvani-ji recently made some disparaging comments about "iconoclasts", the first persons that came to my mind were Thakur Bhaktivinoda and his most illustrious son.

 

I did not know that Bhaktivinoda was not a born Vaishnava (I'm making that assumption based on what you have presented), or that he had ever taken fish. If this is true, it is so enlivening!!! Through his sincerity, he received limitless mercy!

 

 

It was simply his attempt to put shastras into a perspective that would appeal to the rational and scientifically minded segment of the Indian population. Yet, later on, myth-making process was started to somehow present his writings as "equal to if not better than shastra" and devotees like you have an absolute faith in his statements while you only have relative faith in the stories from the scripture.

Well, there is only a problem with "equal to if not better than" if we see the writings of Bhaktivinoda as being *apart* from shastra. To the Gaudiya Vaishnavas following in his line, it *is* shastra. What he is presenting is not any different than what has come before (in essence; no doubt we can point out so many superficial differences).

 

The example given is that of a telescope. While, to the observer, the thought might occur: how can putting all these things between you and your object of vision help you to see it more clearly? you should just look at it directly. Of course, to the person looking through the telescope, this is ridiculous thinking. It is only with the aid of the telescope that so many features are visible.

 

Similarly, the writings of the Vaishnava Acharyas are clarifying and amplifying the essence of all shastra.

 

As for "devotees like me", I have no faith whatsoever...not in shastra, not in Guru. What little intelligence I have tells me to cling on to the feet of my Master for dear life.

 

 

The writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda contain a tremendous wealth of knowledge and inspiration, yet the principle of rationality applies to them just as he applies the principle of rationality to shastra. A less generous person would say however, that while the Vedas are considered the breath of Lord Vishnu, Sri Krsna Samhita is only a breath of Bhaktivinoda.

Yes, as scholars and spiritual seekers, we must apply the principle of rationality. As aspiring Vaishnavas we must apply the principle of direct heart-to-heart transmission.

 

"Sri Krsna Samhita is only a breath of Bhaktivinoda"

 

What air do we need besides the breath of Bhakitivinoda??!?!?! It is fully-nourishing and scented with the sweetness of Goloka!

[Guest guest]

 

I did not know that Bhaktivinoda was not a born Vaishnava (I'm making that assumption based on what you have presented), or that he had ever taken fish. If this is true, it is so enlivening!!! Through his sincerity, he received limitless mercy!

 

 

His first direct contact with Vaishnavism was through a karta-bhaja master who introduced him to the mantra and made a stunning prediction about impending devastation of his home village by a disease. That clearly impressed Bhaktivinoda.

 

Perhaps Bhaktivinoda was born in a lower caste shakta family so that he might grow up without pre-conceived notions of what Vaishnavism should be. It is often hard to be a reformer if you absorb a particular flavor of a tradition in your childhood.

 

You should read his autobiography. It is very enlivening. His honesty and sincerity are very vivid in that account.