Rahu chasing the Moon... literal or allegorical? Irrelevant!

[theist]

 

Why dont you grow up? Why should one HAVE TO understand or even accept the view of others if it goes agaisn tthe teachings of their own faith anyway?

 

I would personally not agree to anything that does such. Now if you dont liek the Bedas nor the Purans nor agree with any such scriptures then go elsewhere. If it dont fit with your basic understanding then fine. Whatever tickels your fancy.

 

Each tatva is described in such text. Now if modern science cannot even fathom it then its not the scriptures problems nor its followers. You wont to come on here talking ill of the Vedas.

 

FOOLS.

 

I am repeating Prabhupada's version as explained in the letter below. You go elsewhere if you don't like it la di da daas.

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> But because you have asked me, I am your spiritual master, I must try to answer to your satisfaction. Yes, sometimes in Vedas such things like the asura's decapitated head chasing after Candraloka, sometimes it is explained allegorically. Just like now we are explaining in 4th Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam the story of King Puranjana. Just like the living entity is living within this body, and the body is described there as city with nine gates, the intelligence as the Queen. So there are sometimes allegorical explanations. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krishna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavat, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam. But this is a fact that in each and every planet there is a predominant deity, as we have got experience in this planet there is a president, so it is not wonderful when the predominating deity fights with another predominating deity of another planet. The modern science takes everything as dead stone. We take it for granted that everything is being manipulated by a person in each and every affair of the cosmology. The modern scientists however could not make any progress in the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore we do not accept modern science as very perfect. We take Krishna's version:

gam avisya ca bhutani

dharayamy aham ojasa

pusnami causadhih sarvah

somo bhutvah rasatmakah

[bg. 15.13]

"I become the moon,'' and "yac chandramasi yac cagnau,'' (ibid, 12) "I am the splendor of the moon,'' and "jyotisam api taj jyotis,'' [bg. 13.18] "I am the source of light in all luminous objects,'' so no one is able to give us the correct information than Krishna, that you should know. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[Guruvani]

 

 

Just take Krsna and leave the rest.

That is your own home-brew.

 

You can't write off the 5th canto and pick and choose what part you accept.

 

That is for minds the size of a molecule.

 

You have to embrace the whole Bhagavatam, not just the parts that fit into your little frame of acceptance.

[Guest guest]

I haven't read all four pages but I am happy to find that Srila Prabhupada said some things in the Bhagavatam are allegories, like Rahu! It is amazing because I always felt it would be hard to explain that to people. Thank you whoever started this thread for enlightening us all.

[Guruvani]

 

I haven't read all four pages but I am happy to find that Srila Prabhupada said some things in the Bhagavatam are allegories, like Rahu! It is amazing because I always felt it would be hard to explain that to people. Thank you whoever started this thread for enlightening us all.

 

the Bhagavatam is real.

we, are the allegories.

 

Theist thinks he is real and the Bhagavatam is false.

 

Actually, the Bhagavatam is real and we are false.

[Guruvani]

We are trying to make the Bhagavatam fit into our own universe.

But, devotional life means that we try to fit into the Bhagavat universe.

 

Some people try to bring the Bhagavat down to their sickly plane of mundane thought.

 

The real mission is to rise up to the plane of the spiritual thought of the Bhagavat instead of dragging it down to the scrutiny of hamburger head scientists who make a living cheating the population with false scientific information.

[Guest guest]

 

Sukadeva never said it was "astronomical".

 

He taught Maharaja Pariksit a way of thinking about the universe transcendentally.

 

It was never "astronomical" which is a system based upon empiric observations.

 

The Vedic sages related the universe in terms of consciousness, not in terms of empiric concepts of distance and relative position.

 

Obviously, those Vedic sages point is not to teach E=m*(c^2) which i believe they could easily write and prove a science book and always be right as long as they stay in their knowledge domains. And "astronomical" does not have to be based on empirical methods or empiric observations. We know there are multitudes of different knowledge sources which people can use.

 

What is sickly is people saying that Vedic sages and implied Vyasadeva (known as an avatar) are just wrong and also important people do not know if what we are reading today is what was originally composed circa 5000 yrs. ago.

[Guruvani]

The Bhagavatam also says that the Moon was produced out of an ocean of milk on the planet of Ksirodakashayi Vishnu, by the churning of the Mandara mountain by the Demigods and the Asuras.

 

I doubt that the scientists would ever agree to that theory of the Moon's creation either, so I am not concerned with what the scientists say about the creation of the universe.

 

Picking and choosing which part of the Bhagavatam we accept is for infantile thinkers who are double-jointed and have managed to get their head stuck up in their organ of defacation.

[Guest guest]

 

The Bhagavatam also says that the Moon was produced out of an ocean of milk on the planet of Ksirodakashayi Vishnu, by the churning of the Mandara mountain by the Demigods and the Asuras.

 

I doubt that the scientists would ever agree to that theory of the Moon's creation either, so I am not concerned with what the scientists say about the creation of the universe.

 

Picking and choosing which part of the Bhagavatam we accept is for infantile thinkers who are double-jointed and have managed to get their head stuck up in their organ of defacation.

 

"Picking and choosing which part of the Bhagavatam we accept is for infantile thinkers who are double-jointed and have managed to get their head stuck up in their organ of defacation."

 

Then the burden is upon those who say these wacky verses are real scripture to just prove it. No provoked pressure is intended. This is not like proving God's existence which is like Philosophy 201. Personally, I accept most of Krishna-lila in scripture as real pastimes. Personally again, when I read what is known now as Srimad Bhagavatam or many Vedic books it looks like a bundle of mixed hodge-podge of different books and offensive wacky tampered remarks. And there are books out that describe the interpolated history of the Vedas so yes there are scholars who know what I am saying.

[Guruvani]

 

"Picking and choosing which part of the Bhagavatam we accept is for infantile thinkers who are double-jointed and have managed to get their head stuck up in their organ of defacation."

 

Then the burden is upon those who say these wacky verses are real scripture to just prove it. No provoked pressure is intended. This is not like proving God's existence which is like Philosophy 201. Personally, I accept most of Krishna-lila in scripture as real pastimes. Personally again, when I read what is known now as Srimad Bhagavatam or many Vedic books it looks like a bundle of mixed hodge-podge of different books and offensive wacky tampered remarks. And there are books out that describe the interpolated history of the Vedas so yes there are scholars who know what I am saying.

my spiritual master accepted it, believed it and preached it.

That is all the proof I need.

 

I don't need to prove anything to you personally.

That is your own challenge.

 

All spritual beliefs are matters of faith, not just certain chapters of the Bhagavatam.

 

Nobody can prove anything about any religion of religious faith.

 

It is all a matter of faith.

 

If you don't have the faith, there is not much I can do about that.

 

The Bhagavatam is a spiritual science not a book of astronomy.

 

The universal form of the Bhagavatam is part of the spiritual science, not a treatise on astronomy.

 

There is more than one way to view the universe apart from the telescopes of the scientists.

 

The Bhagavatan sees through the lense of knowledge, not the lense of the telescope.

[Guest guest]

Calling us sickly devotees and hamburger heads? Who do you think you are, one of the original zonal acharyas? If you are, I would like to know who's footsteps you think you are following in, with all this enviousness and hatred spewing forth from your mouth?

[Guest guest]

When Krishna speaks to His pure devotees and follows behind them in His Deity form isn't that PROOF?

[Guruvani]

 

When Krishna speaks to His pure devotees and follows behind them in His Deity form isn't that PROOF?

 

did you see it yourself?

 

no.

 

so, why use that example?

 

has the deity ever followed you around?

 

no.

 

so, we are left with nothing but faith.

[Guest guest]

 

Calling us sickly devotees and hamburger heads? Who do you think you are, one of the original zonal acharyas? If you are, I would like to know who's footsteps you think you are following in, with all this enviousness and hatred spewing forth from your mouth?

It's unbelievable really!

[theist]

 

I haven't read all four pages but I am happy to find that Srila Prabhupada said some things in the Bhagavatam are allegories, like Rahu! It is amazing because I always felt it would be hard to explain that to people. Thank you whoever started this thread for enlightening us all.

 

You are welcome. Happy to serve. I have been posting that same letter for 8 or 9 years and it is remarkable that so few ever get it. My thought is people get so invested in all the years they have believed the fables that they can't face the fact that there is more to it then a childrens story so they stick like glue to the children's story. It's like a child that when hearing there is no Santa Claus flying around in the sky riding on a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer and climbing down chimney's with toys just refuse to believe it the fable is not true.

 

We see they even lash out at anyone else who has a grown up view on the matter calling them foul names like this embarassment to Vaisnavism Guruvani. He calls Prabhupada his guru yet refuses to accept his statement on allegories. He abuses others who acknowledge the allegorical presence in the Bhagvatam apparently not caring that he is abusing Srila Prabhupada also with his name calling. One thing I have a low tolerance for is those people who claim to a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, strut around in their devotee suit and beads and feel they have some speacial right to verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with their whimiscal thought at the moment.

 

Prabhupada advises that we not bother with which is correct the statements of the Bhagavatam or modern science and instead he instructs that we "Take the essence of the Bhagavatam."

[theist]

Here is a link to a thread recently started by Guruvani about fables and allegories in the Bhagvatam and compare it to his rapid ravings on the same issue on this thread.

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/443274-fables-fairytales-bhagavatam-paroksha-method-2.html

 

Obviously he is a greatly confused person, either suffering from mutiple personality disorder or just plan crazy.

[Guest guest]

 

Here is a link to a thread recently started by Guruvani about fables and allegories in the Bhagvatam and compare it to his rapid ravings on the same issue on this thread.

 

Obviously he is a greatly confused person, either suffering from mutiple personality disorder or just plan crazy.

 

HA HA HA!

 

Cheers!

[Guruvani]

 

Here is a link to a thread recently started by Guruvani about fables and allegories in the Bhagvatam and compare it to his rapid ravings on the same issue on this thread.

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/443274-fables-fairytales-bhagavatam-paroksha-method-2.html

 

Obviously he is a greatly confused person, either suffering from mutiple personality disorder or just plan crazy.

 

duh...........

in your typical dull fashion you are misrepresenting everything.

 

I made it clear in that topic that only the things that the Bhagavatam says are allegorical are allegorical - not everything.

 

But, like a little rascal you are trying to abuse that topic to misrepresent my position to win an artificial victory in a debate you lost a long time ago.

[theist]

Hey don't blame me if you don't like what your other head said. Just cut it off if you need to but leave me out of it.

[Guruvani]

 

Hey don't blame me if you don't like what your other head said. Just cut it off if you need to but leave me out of it.

 

all you have succeeded in doing is making hollow claims.

You haven't shown anything where I contradicted myself.

 

You are just pretending to do that without actually being able to and patting yourself on the back for doing nothing except fooling yourself.

 

"leave you out of it?"

 

You start an argument and then tell me to leave you out of it?

 

Leave yourself out of it.

 

Don't blame me when you start an argument that you can't win.

[Guest guest]

Seems your here to 'WIN' arguments and defeat people Gurunavi, I see this as a theme running through you posts a lot, where you say to people, "You can't defeat me" etc.

 

How childish, you use vedabase to try and perch yourself above others to gratify your own ego, it's not about defendinf Svami Prabupadas truth at all, your not doing him a service and I am positive you don't follow his practical instruction of chanting and sadhana in your daily life (what a hypocrite) (you obviously have some serious self-esteem issues) and just use his words to hammer on people to make yourself look important on a forum.

[theist]

[Guruvani]

 

Seems your here to 'WIN' arguments and defeat people Gurunavi, I see this as a theme running through you posts a lot, where you say to people, "You can't defeat me" etc.

 

How childish, you use vedabase to try and perch yourself above others to gratify your own ego, it's not about defendinf Svami Prabupadas truth at all, your not doing him a service and I am positive you don't follow his practical instruction of chanting and sadhana in your daily life (what a hypocrite) (you obviously have some serious self-esteem issues) and just use his words to hammer on people to make yourself look important on a forum.

 

you guys are always blowing hot air, but you never have anything philosophical to say.

you just come in, post a few rants and then go back to your mundane pre-occupation.

 

obviously, your main interest in the forum is to snipe people who don't agree with you and accuse them of being arrogant.

 

I enjoy exposing these fraud philosophers.

Its a hobby of mine.

 

Sorry, I don't stroke your ego.

That is not my interest in forum discussions.

[Guest guest]

Your exposing yourself and your own motives here, any one who calls people names constantly and gets their jollies by 'winning' or 'defeating' others has some serious issues, like I said it's not about truth at all.

 

You don't have a life and cannot follow yourself, but still think your in a position to beat others over the head, just because you can quote from the vedabase.

 

Your actually 'abusing' Prabupadas words to gain ego stimulation, I'm sure he would not approve of your exploitation of his words at all.

[Guruvani]

 

Your exposing yourself and your own motives here, any one who calls people names constantly and gets their jollies by 'winning' or 'defeating' others has some serious issues, like I said it's not about truth at all.

 

You don't have a life and cannot follow yourself, but still think your in a position to beat others over the head, just because you can quote from the vedabase.

 

Your actually 'abusing' Prabupadas words to gain ego stimulation, I'm sure he would not approve of your exploitation of his words at all.

 

then please defeat my views in a philosophical debate and I will be quite happy.

I am always eager to learn something higher, something deeper.

 

So, show me the way O Master and I will be glad to hear something besides mental midgets in here saying the Bhagavatam is full of bad information.

 

That I object to people degrading the Bhagavatam up against modern science is not a major ego problem as far as I am concerned.

 

I think the big egos are the ones that like to discredit the Bhagavatam because it doesn't fit into their empiric system of thinking.

 

I guess now a person is an ego maniac if he chooses not to insult the shastra because it doesn't correspond to modern science?

[Danielle Field]

Prabhupada said that women's brains were half the size of a men's and yet this is scientifically incorrect. We know this. Prabhupada made a mistake because he had been falsely informed by erroneous persons that this was why women were less intelligent than men. Is that a reason to reject the validity of his work? No it isn't. I despise sexism and sexists but I genuinely don't care that Prabhupada made this mistake.

 

Many of the chauvanisms of his time were evident in Prabhupada's initial work but he himself was transcendent to them. They were incidental and didn't interfere with the importance of the spiritual message they contained. When corrected on this issue he didn't demand that the whole of scientific enquiry needed to be reorientated to compensate this mistake. This is because he had humility and was focused on the goal of spreading Krishna Consciousness.

 

I believe that the issue of the moon's distance from the Earth is utterly inconsequential to the value of the Bhagavatam. I believe that the information that was available at the time of its writing determined that that was the way things were and so it did not matter at the time if it was right or wrong.

 

The purport of the Bhagavatam is spotless. Even if some miscreant covered the Bhagavatam in excrement it would still be spotless. Why freak out about whether or not this particular aspect is true or not? I don't care because the Bhagavatam has fundamentally impacted upon my life in a positive manner. I don't care that Prabhupada thinks that men are superior to women even though in my daily life I experience that the least accountable and selfish group of people in the world, and indeed the most destructive are men. If your faith was so unshakeable that you could speak with such vindication on matters of this nature then, paradoxically, matters of this nature really wouldn't bother you so deeply.

 

Are there any discussions on this forum that don't contain insufferable and dull quantities of Vaishnava Aparadha? I'm sure Prabhupada would not be impressed or enlivened by any of the discussions on this forum that I have seen so far because they all end in offences. I wish I wasn't such a fool as to want to keep visiting it. Its proper car crash entertainment.

 

I've realised from experience that anyone who comes on this website, myself included, thinking that they are going to advance their consciousness and the consciousness of others is sadly delusional. Guruvani, your chastisements are not justified because you can see they are not making a difference. Whatever it is you are trying to say, its not being heard, is it? Be honest with yourself about why you are doing it. I'm only saying this because I'm being honest with myself about it. Who cares what we think, really? Who would take the bickering back biting rubbish on this website seriously, other than people like ourselves who obviously take ourselves a bit too seriously?