Is this all true?

[kimfelix]

Hello to you all. I am new to this forum but I have read a number of Swami Prabhupada's books and other Sanskrit scriptures. The problem I have is that I don't really believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is true and this seems to be a prerequisite. Without this first principle no other point of the philosophy seems to fall into place. Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam is an absolute authority? Sorry if this is a ridiculous request but I can't seem to get myself past this point.

[Beggar]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: navbar_link -->?<!-- END TEMPLATE: navbar_link --> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: navbar_link -->

[theist]

 

Hello to you all. I am new to this forum but I have read a number of Swami Prabhupada's books and other Sanskrit scriptures. The problem I have is that I don't really believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is true and this seems to be a prerequisite. Without this first principle no other point of the philosophy seems to fall into place. Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam is an absolute authority? Sorry if this is a ridiculous request but I can't seem to get myself past this point.

Not a ridulous request at all IMO. I don't accept every story in the Srimad Bhagavatam as literally true. One of Srila Prabhupada's disciples who was having a problem accepting that an eclipse was a demons head (Rahu) who was attacking the sun and moon and wrote a letter to Srila Prabhupada expressing his doubt.

 

Srila Prabhupada wrote back and told him that indeed it was an allegory and not to worry about such things and just "take the essence" of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Other devotees will tell you that you must accept all these stories literally and it never helps to argue with them. Just try to capture the essence of what is in the pages of SB praying always to the Lord in your heart to guide you.

 

Surely you have found knowledge in the SB that is astounding and beyond anything the world has to offer. That can't be rejected because you also find some things too much to accept. So take the essence and leave the rest.

 

I speak only for myself here. I in no way represent any Hare Krsna group or anything but it's a fact we must pilot our own plane at the time of death. Find what works for you.

[Vedesu]

Hello Kim,

 

It might be helpful if you explain why you have singled out the Srimad Bhagavatam as opposed to the others. You said you have read other Vedic scriptures as well as books by Swami Prabhupada. Or maybe you have doubts about all the books, not just the Srimad Bhagavatam?? You haven't made this clear. And what is the nature of your doubts. Perhaps you can first explain why you don't accept the Srimad Bhagavatam. It seems you have some interest, otherwise you wouldn't be reading the Vedic scriptures, so I'm sure that if you could provide a bit more detail, the devotees may be able to assist you.

[kimfelix]

Thank you for those replies. Firstly, I think I would find it difficult to separate out what is the essence. For example, a lot of the SB talks about Krishna as being God; but I can't make myself believe that God is that person because the fact that is says so in that book isn't quite enough.

 

And, secondly, it's not just the Srimad Bhagavatam. That was just an example. When Jehovah's Witnesses or people like that come to my house and show me bits of the Bible that prove what they are saying is true, it just seems pointless because they haven't explained to me first why I should take that book so seriously. And it would be the same with Muslims and the Qu'ran. I just don't get why we can or should believe in these books.

 

In any case they all say different things and you have to make your own decisions, which is like depending on your own mental and intellectual powers in the end.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Hello to you all. I am new to this forum but I have read a number of Swami Prabhupada's books and other Sanskrit scriptures. The problem I have is that I don't really believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is true and this seems to be a prerequisite. Without this first principle no other point of the philosophy seems to fall into place. Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam is an absolute authority? Sorry if this is a ridiculous request but I can't seem to get myself past this point.

 

Other religions lack one thing or the other. Bhagavatam and Vedic Scriptures house just about every conceivable philosophy known to man. This should be proof enough.

 

Let me give you a small example of the profoundity of the Bhagavatam.

 

In one story, Lord Vishnu rescues an elephant from a crocodile. This sounds like an immature fiction, but upon closer analysis, the following details are revealed:

 

The human is Gajendra.

The world is the lake, where human plays with his kith and kin.

The crocodile symbolizes the Death and Difficulties that attack man.

 

Furthermore, the Bhagavatam mentions that Lord Vishnu, in His haste to save the elephant, actually carried His mount Garuda to the spot. This again has the following meaning:

 

Gajendra had shouted out loud, "May the One Being who supports the Vedas and all scripture come to rescue me." Now, Garuda is the personification of the 4 Vedas. Usually He is the mount of Vishnu. But since Gajendra had asked for the supporter of the Vedas, in this case, Lord Vishnu Himself carried Garuda to the spot, showing that He is the supporter of the Vedas!!

 

Now, another question arises. Why did the Lord wait so long to rescue Gajendra? Because until then, Gajendra was trying to save himself with his own muscle power. It was only when the elephant gave up and said, 'I surrender to the Supreme Lord', that Narayana rushed to his aid.

 

A similar situation occurs in the Mahabharata. During the scene of the disrobing of Draupadi, she holds her clothes with both hands to save her dignity. Lord Krishna does not help her. She then clasps her clothes with one hand. Lord Krishna doesn't come to her aid still. She then lets go of her clothes completely and shouts in helplessness, "Govinda". Then Lord Krishna comes to her aid immediately.

 

Another question arises. Having decided to help Gajendra, why did the Lord personally rush to the scene to do it? Could He not have done it sitting at His abode Himself and by merely willing the crocodile dead, thereby liberating the elephant?

 

Equally, He could have sent His Chakra to attend to the chore. What was the need for Him to indulge in overkill, as it were, by coming down all the way from His abode to destroy a mere crocodile? Reason: while the crocodile could have very well been destroyed by proxy, Gajendra's happiness at the Lord's appearance on the scene and his joy in feasting his eyes on the divine form, could not have been achieved without Sriman Narayana's personal presence.

 

But remember, these stories are not merely allegory. This is history because all leelas of the Lord are conducted in such a way that it imparts a deep spiritual message. Every walk, step and action of the Lord has a lot of meanings. Both the elephant and the crocodile were devas, and Lord Vishnu indeed came to save them. But by His sankalpa, this incident also illustrates deeper meanings.

 

Thus, one simple story has so many hidden meanings. Credit goes to my great acharya, Sri Periyavacchan Pillai (rightly called 'King of Commentators'), who was born on Janmashtami itself, to reveal the truths of our scriptures.

 

 

I don't accept ever story in the Srimad Bhagavatam as literally true...Other devotees will tell you that you must accept all these stories literally and it never helps to argue with them.

 

Those 'other devotees' are right.

 

Respectfully, I am afraid you are missing many things. The Srimad Bhagavatam is pure amrita, as are most of the sattvik Puranas. They are age old histories of the world. They show us the nature of Sriman Narayana, His greatness, His beauty and His accessiblity. No text can compare to it.

 

There are some stories that are allegory. But they are few and have been identified by our acharyas. But almost all of it is history. The alvars had the divine vision and witnessed all the leelas of the Lord firsthand.

 

I will tell you why Vaidika (Vedic culture) can be believed:

 

1) The Vedas and Upanishads have no author and no date (despite mundane scholars' erroneous attempts).

 

2) The Vedas and Upanishads provide complete knowledge about God, the Soul, the different ways to achieve God, the obstacles faced in the process and the means to overcome it.

 

3) All religions are influenced by the Vedic Culture. From Buddhism and Jainism to Mithraism and Christianity.

 

4) No other religion knows what God looks like, or what His form is, or what His avatars are. When you think of Sriman Narayana's lotus eyes, His mischievous smile, His soft lotus feet and His beautiful complexion, you cannot find a similar experience in any religion.

 

5) Supernatural information that could never have been understood by humans occur in the Vedas. Such as the explanation of the significance of OM, the archiradi marga, different forms of meditation, the process of creation etc.

 

Thus, we can easily accept the Bhagavata Purana. Some scholars claim it to be a mordern work because:

 

1) It appears to be a transliteration of the Divya Prabandham, so it must have been written by a south indian based on the prabandham.

 

2) Sankaracharya and Ramanujacharya never quoted it.

 

Point 1 is useless argument. It shows that both alvars and Sukar had the same realisation, so both works appear similar.

 

Sri Sankaracharya and Sri Ramanujacharya were engaged in philosophical debates. The Bhagavatam is named 'bhagavata' because of the fact that it is only for Bhagavatas. For debates, the Vishnu Purana and other Puranas are more suited.

 

Sri Sankarar was not concerned about Bhagavata Purana because he never cared about an obviously devotional text. Sri Ramanujar had to defeat advaitins using the same texts that they used in debates, so he never referred to the Bhagavatam either.

 

Veda Vyasa has literally raised His hands and swore, 'Satyam Satyam Punassatyam...' There is no scripture greater than Veda and there is no God greater than Kesava. I think we should take a hint from this. Our history is so old that it has been forgotten and termed as 'mythology'.

[Rishi_L]

 

Our history is so old that it has been forgotten and termed as 'mythology'.

 

How old do you think our history is?

[Dark Warrior]

 

How old do you think our history is?

 

Do I detect sarcasm?

 

As mentioned by the scripture. Vedas and Upanishads are eternal. Mahabharata and Ramayana took place in the Dwapara and Treta Yuga. Just because every action of Lord Vishnu imparts a deep message does not mean that it is an allegory. It is a historical event that was deliberately fashioned by the Lord to impart a truth.

 

Mordern scholars assign ludicrous dates based on their own biases. For instance, the Aryan Invasion Theory, Bhagavad Gita being dated as Post-Buddhist because Buddha does not mention it, etc.

 

Books such as the Bible and Koran are paurusheya and flawed. They do not claim to be older than the dates they have been assigned. Nor do they possess the ultimate knowledge. But the dates of the Bhagavad Gita and Smriti have been mentioned by the authors themselves. And they are flawless.

 

The Vedas and Upanishads call themselves as the breath of Brahman. In fact, there is a verse in the Purusha Sukta (I think) where the Veda talks of itself as a person - 'I surrender to that Purusha'. Thus, the Veda is not just a text, it is actually a personified Deva.

 

Vedas have no flaws. Thus, they are apaurusheya, not even authored by Sriman Narayana.

 

Think about the logic in this - The Lord cannot properly describe His own glory. So the Vedas also are unable to do so, except in cryptic ways. Then, the Lord takes an avatar as Krishna to explain who He is. He shows His form. This is recorded by a Rishi, Vyasa, who is the avatar of Vishnu Himself.

 

No other religion in the world has such a tale. Considering the befuddling nature of the Vedas, it is quite logical to believe that the Lord Himself would incarnate to explain His position. Ours is the only religion in which the author of our scriptures (Vyasa) Himself is declared as a myth.

 

Idiotic scholars who speak of aryans and dravidians have no role to play here. For instance, the say the Brahma Sutras postdate Buddha because they mention Buddhism. But this is countered as follows:

 

1) Buddha mentioned that his religion is eternal and that there were many Buddhas before Him. Thus, Buddhism could very well have existed before Buddha.

 

2) The Brahma Sutras can be interpreted in such a way that they don't refer to Buddhism at all!!

 

Thus, do not fall into the trap of believing that Sri Hari is a myth. Based on the profound nature of Vedic Literature, and the thorough assessment of the Lord's auspicious attributes, there is enough evidence to show that He exists. The truths hidden in the Srimad Ramayana, for instance, is staggering.

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, thank you for your long explanation, which I have read through carefully a couple of times. However, most of what you say seems to be merely assertion based on your personal faith. I can't find anything in there that is conclusive for a person who doesn't have that faith. I can accept that the Gajendra-moksha story does have higher teachings embedded within it, but these only matter to a person who has prior faith. It seems that you need to have the faith in order to get the meaning, but why should anyone have that faith?

 

I think it would be better not to use words like ludicrous or idiotic in relation to people who have different opinions. It's a bit rude and rather lessens the dignity of your own points.

 

My real point is that so much religious discourse seems to be based on a priori assumptions of the truth of this or that text. But how do you get to that base point?

[Rishi_L]

 

Do I detect sarcasm?

 

No, none at all. That was an honest question asked very sincerely.

[Mantrabliss]

 

Hello to you all. I am new to this forum but I have read a number of Swami Prabhupada's books and other Sanskrit scriptures. The problem I have is that I don't really believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is true and this seems to be a prerequisite. Without this first principle no other point of the philosophy seems to fall into place. Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam is an absolute authority? Sorry if this is a ridiculous request but I can't seem to get myself past this point.

Hare Krishna.

 

Prabhupāda:When God comes Himself and shows Himself, His activities, we think it is mythology. Then how we can be convinced? Direct perception and authority. And the direct perception, when He comes you take it that it is mythology. When the direct perception history is written about Kṛṣṇa in Mahābhārata, and then you take it as mythology. Then how he will believe it? And the authority accepts, “Yes, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme. He has done it.” You say, “I don’t accept it.” Then how you will be convinced?

So we have to understand that, how Bhagavān ( God), Bhagavān means All powerful. He can appear anywhere, without any restriction.

We have to understand through the śāstra( Scriptures). And that understanding is possible only through bhakti ( devotion). Not by any other means. Not by jñāna ( intelligence) or yoga. That is not possible. It is simply through… Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ .( One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.) The jñānīs, yogis… Karmīs, they are third-class, they cannot. The yogis, jñānīs, yogis, they have got spiritual advancement, but still, until they come to the platform of bhakti, it is not possible to understand. don’t think it is mythology. No. This is fact. Vyāsadeva or big big saintly persons, they have no business to present before you something mythology. Why they should waste time in that way? It is simply rascaldom to think all the statement as mythology.

 

Our process is deductive, not inductive. We take knowledge, just like this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam written by Vyāsadeva under the instruction of his guru, spiritual master, Nārada. So Nārada advised him that “You have written so many books: Purāṇas, Vedas, Vedānta.” Vyāsadeva said, “Still I am not feeling very satisfied.” So Nārada Muni advised him that “You are not feeling satisfied because you have not described about the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is the defect. So now you have got mature experience. You describe simply about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa.” So therefore he wrote the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, eighteen thousand verses.

 

Prabhupāda:As if Vyāsadeva wrote this Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam to put before these rascals some mythology, some imaginary things. Just see how they want to be cheated. Such an exalted personality like Vyāsadeva, who has given us the Vedic literature, he presented something which is imaginary. What business He has got? Therefore sometimes these cheated people, they deny to accept that Bhāgavata is written by Śrī Vyāsadeva. But those who are actually ācāryas, those who can guide us, like Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, big, big…, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they do not say like this, that “It is mythology. It is imaginary.” They accept as it is. So we have to follow these mahājana. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ dharmasya tattvaṁ nihito guhāyām. We have to follow great personalities, ācāryas. ācāryavān puruṣo veda. One who has taken shelter of ācārya, bona fide spiritual master, he knows.. It is not mythology, it is fact. But it is mythology or imagination for the non-devotees. For the devotees, it is practical.

 

Prabhupada: Vyāsadeva compiled the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam by collecting the most important news from history. Purāṇa means old history. It is not mythology. The foolish people, they say like that, “Mythology means something created.” No. Don’t take it that way. It is the essence of important historical incidences, record. Mahābhārata is also history. Mahā means great, and bhārata means this land. Actually it is a history. But foolish people, without understanding through the guru-paramparā system, they manufacture their own way of understanding; therefore they are misled. They cannot take full advantage of this Vedic literature because they are misled. We should not be misled. We should know always that we are lame, paṅgoḥ. Just like a lame man cannot go very fast. But by the grace of Kṛṣṇa, even a lame man can go fast— not only go fast, but cross over the mountain.

 

Prabhupada: Why you should say mythology? You have not seen the whole universe, how it is situated. You are simply imagining from this place. So your imagination, imaginology,. So we have got some evidence, but you have no evidence. At least we have got some support of the books. But what you have got? You are simply imagining, “I think,” “I believe.” What is this nonsense? What is your proof? Everyone is saying “I believe.” Hundreds and thousands… And what is correct? Everyone… At least, we have got something correct. We don’t say “I believe.” This is not our process of knowledge. We, Kṛṣṇa conscious person, we never say “I believe.” No, we immediately quote from the śāstra .

 

Prabhupāda: Everything is possible by Kṛṣṇa’s inconceivable energy. Everything is possible. That is inconceivable. It is called therefore “inconceivable.” You, we cannot conceive how it is done. Our intelligence is very little. We cannot conceive. Therefore we say, “Oh, this is all mythology.” Because we cannot conceive of it. Whatever we cannot conceive we take it as mythology. Nothing is mythology. Everything is possible. That is inconceivable. But they cannot understand what is inconceivable. Unless it is conceivable by them, they do not accept. That is their foolishness. We can see at night worms or flies so small Just like if you divide one grain of rice into one hundred divisions one division—such a small fly. They are independently walking, flying. Freedom. Now just imagine how their anatomic physiology is manufactured within that small (indistinct) of life.

 

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Then they are suffering from what we call “Doctor Frog’s philosophy.” There was once a frog who had lived all his life in a well. One day a friend visited him and informed him of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.

“Oh, what is this Atlantic Ocean?” asked the frog in the well.

“It is a vast body of water,” his friend replied.

“How vast? ls it double the size of this well?”

“Oh, no, much larger,” his friend replied.

“How much larger? Ten times the size?”

In this way the frog went on calculating. But what was the possibility of his ever understanding the depths and fur reaches of the great ocean? Our faculties, experience, and powers of speculation are always limited. The frog was always thinking in terms relative to his well. He had no power to think otherwise. Similarly, the scientists are estimating the Absolute Truth, the cause of all causes, with their imperfect senses and minds, and thus they are bound to be bewildered. The essential fault of the so-called scientists is that they have adopted the inductive process to arrive at their conclusions. For example, if a scientist wants to determine whether or not man is mortal by the inductive process, he must study every man to try to discover if some or one of them may be immortal. The scientist says, “I cannot accept the proposition that all men are mortal. There may be some men who are immortal. I have not yet seen every man. Therefore how can I accept that man is mortal?” This is called the inductive process. And the deductive process means that your father, your teacher, or your guru says that man is mortal, and you accept it.The ascending process will never be successful, because it relies on information gathered through the senses, and the senses are imperfect. So we accept the descending process.

 

Jaya Prabhupada!

[kimfelix]

I have read through all those quotations from Prabhupada carefully. The gist of it seems to be 'You don't have the capacity to understand the truth, therefore you must rely on authoritative sources.' That seems completely reasonable, but, how can I determine which authority I should follow? There are so many books, teachers, gurus etc out there and in deciding that I will follow this text or this guru I have to rely on my own intellectual powers--but these are not adequate. I can't know what is the truth and so I can't possibly know which source is genuine.

[theist]

 

Thank you for those replies. Firstly, I think I would find it difficult to separate out what is the essence. For example, a lot of the SB talks about Krishna as being God; but I can't make myself believe that God is that person because the fact that is says so in that book isn't quite enough.

 

Yes it is difficult for conditioned souls like ourselves to recognize the essence of spiritual knowledge. For that we need the illuminating mercy of the Lord in the heart. Trying to grasp divine knowledge without such mercy is like trying to read a book in the dark. Scriptures should be read prayerfully asking for such illumination, not just relying on our intellects.

 

I ask Krishna in the literal sense even though I am highly doubtfull about His pastimes being played out in what we perceive in our 3d reality and history. You find it hard believing in Krsna. That's alright. We are all starting from a point of non-belief and ignorance. That is the material condition. In such a position the first thuing is to recognize that God is a person, rather Krsna or not can be taken up later. Learn about God from the Bhagavatam. Just keep an open mind concerning His form as Krsna. File it in the 'To be discovered later' file. It is up to Krsna to reveal Himself and He will if we are sincere and open.

 

Belief in itself is not worth very much. Personal revelation is the real thing.

 

 

And, secondly, it's not just the Srimad Bhagavatam. That was just an example. When Jehovah's Witnesses or people like that come to my house and show me bits of the Bible that prove what they are saying is true, it just seems pointless because they haven't explained to me first why I should take that book so seriously. And it would be the same with Muslims and the Qu'ran. I just don't get why we can or should believe in these books.

 

Forget looking for the perfect book then. Look instead for the Perfect Person. Now in looking for that person examine all this different books and see which one contains the most knowledge about God and focus there. All these books will have some truth but which one is the highest. For me the SB towers over the rest of the field so I concentrate there.

 

 

In any case they all say different things and you have to make your own decisions, which is like depending on your own mental and intellectual powers in the end.

 

This is the same mistake talked about above. Don't depend on your mind depend on Krsna. Krsna is self-revealing like the sun.

 

I advocate strongly accepting first the Lord in your heart as guru (Caitya-guru). Without the grace of His illuminating light nothing will ever make sense.

[theist]

 

Dark Warrior, thank you for your long explanation, which I have read through carefully a couple of times. However, most of what you say seems to be merely assertion based on your personal faith. I can't find anything in there that is conclusive for a person who doesn't have that faith. I can accept that the Gajendra-moksha story does have higher teachings embedded within it, but these only matter to a person who has prior faith. It seems that you need to have the faith in order to get the meaning, but why should anyone have that faith?

 

The Gajendra story is a perfect example. For some it is an historical account. For others an instructive story. Personally I don't care if it is history or not. I don't think it is history but never would argue the point because it is irrelevant.

 

What is relevant are the prayers offered by Gajendra to the Lord and the Lord's response to them. Can we not see our own predicament in the Gajendra story? Are we not also hopelessly caught in the death grip of the crocodile jaws of time?

This is what I was meaning by the essence in a previous post.

 

One does not need to have previously accepted the SB in total as divine. One need only grasp essence of what is taught in that story. No prior faith faith required only the attitude of humility before the Lord as exemplified by Gajendra.

[indulekhadasi]

But theist prabhuji, one must have some faith. Perhaps not in the story but in Gajendra's prayers.

 

Adau sraddha...we must have faith- it is the first thing.

[theist]

 

But theist prabhuji, one must have some faith. Perhaps not in the story but in Gajendra's prayers.

 

Adau sraddha...we must have faith- it is the first thing.

 

Yes that faith comes with experiencing the knowledge. No need for prior faith. No need to make a declaration of faith in the SB before one can approach the Lord within it. This is what I meant.

 

Prior faith being blind faith.

[bhaktajan]

 

Hello Kim,

 

It might be helpful if you explain why you have singled out the Srimad Bhagavatam as opposed to the others. You said you have read other Vedic scriptures as well as books by Swami Prabhupada. Or maybe you have doubts about all the books, not just the Srimad Bhagavatam?? You haven't made this clear. And what is the nature of your doubts. Perhaps you can first explain why you don't accept the Srimad Bhagavatam. It seems you have some interest, otherwise you wouldn't be reading the Vedic scriptures, so I'm sure that if you could provide a bit more detail, the devotees may be able to assist you.

 

Dear kimfelix,

You do not state the philosophical bedrock of your faith.

What maxims of metaphysics and what philosophical maxims do you hold as absolute?

Realized knowledge = practical knowledge based on authorities. This allows for peace of mind and allows one to be detached from the anxiety of petty cares.

What do you recognize as the activities of the souls reason to exist?

What have you learned about:

1 the Soul; and it’s nature and constitution (Jiva);

2 God’s personage and his relation to our body vs. our soul (bhagavan);

3 Actions/Reactions and Duties’ influence upon the body/soul (Karma & Karma-phalam)

4 Material energy’s influence upon the body/soul (prakriti);

5 Time’s influence(Kala); as explained and delineated in the Bhagavad-gita? . . . well, . . .

Here is my attempt to offer some satisfactory responses to your question:

Below is an illustration of the process we (spirit souls in material bodies go through since time immemorial).

Krishna Consciousness is the path that many of my colleagues have take to after having studied world scriptures that culminated with the study of the Vedas of India---so after much real life lessons and real life questions as to the meaning and purpose of existence---after the truths available via the Judeo-Christian Bible, the Buddhist sutras, the Muslim Quran and the impersonal schools of Hindu metaphysics---everyone is destined to come to the Vedas with all the best cultivated "Questions" seeking the best "Answers".

Krishna is has always been available to the spiritual seeker ---but we all had to wait until we’ve developed a free-will to seek out the purpose of life as ‘job #1’—whilst society undergoes many minor & world wars [ergo: Our participation through-out many past births] and many historical eras to pass . . .

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………

What is Krishna Consciousness?

Nothingness and Something-ness both existed together and sustained each other since time-immemorial, together this is called the material manifestation or the Cosmos.

Something-ness may be found either conscious or in-animated.

The Self: Each conscious Individual, within the cosmos, has as its own address a "Vector Point" [X-Y-Z Axis Intersection]—which is indivisible, individual, eternal, and conscious.

An animated conscious individual may occupy a body [encasement].

This encasement allows the pursuit of its own gratification by way of:

1 Eating,

2 Sleeping,

3 Mating,

4 Defense (Physical, mental, ego).

After the temporal stages of birth, growth, old age and death the vector point retains only the spirit of 'direction toward a **goal'.

Thus by dint of prior cultivated interests, inherits a new body/encasement which accommodates another lifetime for the pursuit of gratification(s) along the same lines of interests that where cultivated during its last life. When this is repeated since time immemorial the sages call this 'samsara' [the cycle of birth and death].

[**the goal is often without guidance thus the 4 pursuits become the ultimate means and end of life's journey to nowhere except repeated gratification. Proper guidance allows us to reconcile, "What in the hell are we doing here?" during a lifetime].

The setting of the above pastimes [of every animated or inanimated individual point] is a large empty space of Nothingness [the sages call this empty space: 'brahman'].

The in-animated elements within the cosmos are of two kinds:

1 gross matter [earth, water, fire, air, either], and,

2 subtle [mind, intelligence, ego].

The mystery of life is the attainment of transcendence.

Some say the attainment of nirvana, or merging with the primordial 'Nothingness' is the goal.

The chain of succession of knowledge that comes to us from Vyasadeva shows us [through dissatisfaction with our own pursuits —life time after life times of gratification in countless species of life— in varying births of different status] that the goal of life is to seek the 'Absolute Truth' not relative truths.

The conclusion of the Vedas and thus the conclusion of Vedanta is the 'Absolute Truth' known as the personage known as <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comKrishna</st1:place>. We know this 'Absolute Truth' in the same way we know who are real father is: from our mother [except for those who cultivated future disadvatages]. The Vedas are like our mother telling us who are father is etc, etc.

Krishna Consciousness is the top most mystic yoga discipline:

Remembering the transcendental name, fame, form, personality, paraphernalia, entourage, and, pastimes of none other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead Bhagavan Sri Krishna, son of Vasudeva, brother of Balarama, cousin of Arjuna, source of Mahavisnu and Narayana, the original-original eternal, all-cognizant, all-blissful form of God in his Transcendent Heaven where every soul pursues reciprocal pastimes with God face to face.

Yoga is to re-link with this 'Absolute Truth', thus remembering <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>'s form assists the minute living entity [conscious Individual Vector Point] at death so as to acquire a next birth that further cultivates Krsna Conscousness till successful completion. Remembering <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> in the material world is prescribed thus [it is also the easiest]: Chant Krishna's names. Chant the Hare Krishna Maha-Mantra. Read the Bhagavad-gita's Chapter 10 "The Opulence of the Absolute” to learn where to see God's opulence spread through-out the cosmos

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....

The history of the Vedas, from the Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

About five thousand years ago Vyasadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali-yuga.

He divided the Vedas into four: Rig, Sama, Atharva and Yajur. Then he gave the charge of these Vedas to his different disciples.

Then Vyasadeva summarized all Vedic knowledge for scholars and philosophers in what is called the Vedanta-sutra. This is the last word of the Vedas.

Vyasadeva was not very satisfied even after compiling many Puranas and Upanisads, and even after writing the Vedanta-sutra.

Then his spiritual master, Narada, instructed him, “Explain the Vedanta-sutra.” Vedanta means “ultimate knowledge,” and the ultimate knowledge is Krsna. Krsna says that throughout all the Vedas one has to understand Him: vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham. Krsna says, “I am the compiler of the Vedanta-sutra, and I am the knower of the Vedas.”

Therefore the ultimate objective is Krsna. The Vedanta-sutra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth: “The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates.”

This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Srimad-Bhagavatam. If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam.

The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (svarat). We develop our consciousness and knowledge by receiving knowledge from others, but for Him it is said that He is self-effulgent.

The whole summary of Vedic knowledge is the Vedanta-sutra, and the Vedanta-sutra is explained by the writer himself in Srimad-Bhagavatam.

We finally request those who are actually after Vedic knowledge to try to understand the explanation of all Vedic knowledge from Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad-gita.]

yours in <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>'s service,

Bhaktajan

[kimfelix]

Theist, thank you for your careful and thoughtful answers. What you say makes a lot of sense. I am not sure about the chaitya guru; perhaps he is speaking to me too quietly, perhaps I don't have the capacity to hear or perhaps he is toying with me. To be honest, in my heart of hearts I am not a believer in God and haven't been for a number of years. When I am absolutely honest, this is the message I seem to hear. But I have been raised by a specific culture, which has imposed certain thought processes upon me and I suspect that this is what I am hearing. It's just the cultural brainwashing to which all individuals are subjected. Of all the Vedic texts, it is the Kena Upanishad that I find most inspiring because it gives no real answers!

 

And to Bhaktajan, I find it hard to have any philosophical certainties. What do I know? I have read the Gita, Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras and Puranas very carefully as well as other scriptures from other cultures but in the end it comes down to me to reach a decision as to the truth or otherwise of what I have read, and like I said, 'What do I know'. Any decision I make on that will doubtless be based on my cultural conditioning rather than any insight into the truth.

 

If I do have any absolute beliefs I think it would be in kindness and gentility. We can each hold different visions of God but kindness always brings me warmth and violence and unkindness brings grief. I am sorry this is such a low level of realisation; I am afraid it is all I have.

[bhaktajan]

Kimflex,

I predict an abundance of responses forthcoming for your posting.

 

Wild Thought:

 

Your "absolute belief in kindness and gentility" = your past birth sensibilities

[where you were used to a much more sublime quality-of-life]

which are now being super-imposed upon this terrestrial stratum of civic life.

 

The Tama-guna's effects are heavier on our lower lokas than they are on upper spheres.

 

Here "irony" is as thick as steel in density.

 

Well, but, here we are on Bhumi-loka with duties to be observed and luckily with extra time to kill.

[Kulapavana]

 

The problem I have is that I don't really believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is true and this seems to be a prerequisite. Without this first principle no other point of the philosophy seems to fall into place. Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam is an absolute authority?

 

What is a true prerequisite to reading Srimad Bhagavatam is a geniune interest in getting to know God. You do not have to believe in the factuality of the stories Srimad Bhagavatam tells. But if you study the CONCEPTS Bhagavatam presents, you will find them to be extraordinarily interesting and moving.

 

Read with an open mind and study the deep message of Srimad Bhagavatam. One day you may see your faith in Bhagavatam fully blossom.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The Gajendra story is a perfect example. For some it is an historical account. For others an instructive story. Personally I don't care if it is history or not. I don't think it is history but never would argue the point because it is irrelevant. [/quote]

 

It is not irrelevant. This is where people make the mistakes.

 

Now get this. So we are just supposed to accept that the story illustrates God's grace? that would mean we shouldn't accept that God really has 4 arms, has a chakra, sangha, etc. Which means, you shouldn't accept that Vishnu is indeed God.

 

The whole purpose of Vaishnavism is in knowing God. When you don't accept its description of God, you are not a Vaishnava.

 

Now, the main question you are raising is this - Why should you accept Bhagavatam literally when other religions claim the same thing?

 

Other religions say God is beyond human knowledge. Vaishnavism says that the Lord reveals Himself to His devotees. That is the difference.

 

Analyse the Bible. Jesus exhibited virtually no attributes that make him God, so you have full license to demythify it and call him a human. But when you analyse the Mahabharata and Ramayana, it is the so called 'fantastic' parts that illustrate the qualities of God.

 

Some people claim that Krishna and Rama were humans who were deified. If that was so, we shouldn't find anything relevant in the story then. But since the story actually shows HOW godly they are, ie, with all their attributes exposed, it illustrates that it indeed happened. Usually, exaggerations of tales will have inconsistencies. But in this case, there are no inconsistencies.

 

For instance, the mordern trend nowadays is to call Lord Rama as a human, and blaspheme the Ramayana. But only through Bhakti one can see that Sri Rama was god. Sri Kurattazhwan, a Sri Vaishnava Acharya showed how Sri Rama accidentally revealed His divinity in places:

 

Yaa gati: yagjnaseelaanaam aahitaagnEs cha yaa gati: /

aparaOvartinaam yaa cha yaa cha bhoomi pradaayinaam//

mayaa tvam samanujnaatO gachcha lOkaan anuttamaan //

“I permit you to go to the highest worlds to which those who habitually perform

yagjnas, those who perform “agnihOtra” with “aahitaagni”, those by total

dedication to Emperumaan leave this Prakriti maNDalam never to return and those

who gift away “bhoomi” are ordained to reach – to that world (Paramapadam), I

hereby dispatch you.”

 

This is Sri Rama, giving Moksha to Jatayu. The acharya studied this and asked Sri Rama:

 

Oh! Lord! I am asking you one question. When you appeared as Sri Rama you

called yourself a mere human being and as a man ran after the mysterious deer at

the behest of your dear wife. When you got separated from her, you became so

shaken and shattered that you did not know where she had gone.

This being so, how did you know how to send JaTaayu, the bird to

Paramapadam? Don’t you see the contradiction in your actions in the two cases?”

 

You went about asking every sentient being and insentient thing like cow, bird,

hill, river, cloud etc whether anyone of them had seen Sri Sita. And, that you

would destroy the whole world, if you cannot find Sri Sita. Did you not have even the commonsense of ordinary folk when you swore to destroy he world, being after all a mere human being for whom this is beyond his Capacity?

 

“Oh! Lord! You broke the seven Saala trees that grew up like a huge mountain and

threw the pieces down to the nether worlds, all with the minimal force of a

single arrow. It is worth noting that the strong monkey, Vaali could not even

shake a single branch of a single tree out of the seven. And, you went in search

of friendship with Sugreeva who was physically driven from pillar to post by the

same Vaali. How do you reconcile this contradiction?”

 

From here, two things are clear:

 

1) If Ramayana is not to be taken literally, why would the author choose to hide the divinity of his hero rather than dramiticise it? Usually, any story teller loves to highlight the virtues of the hero. But here, Sri Rama's divinity is unknown to mundane readers.

 

2) Sri Rama chose to hide His divinity. This cannot be an allegory.

 

 

 

 

 

I was an agnostic. It has NOTHING to do with my personal faith.

 

It is only Gaudiya Vaishnavism that insists on faith. The Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya takes a different approach:

 

- We create our own views and make our observations first.

- We study Shruti and Smriti.

- We then reinterpret Shruti in such a way that it is consonant with our observations.

 

This is a scientific method. Let me show you how I arrived at this:

 

See, the Vedas and Upanishads contain information that is not found ANYWHERE in the Bible, Koran or other religious texts.

 

Then, I researched every major world religion. It is clear to me that everyone is worshipping the Vedic Brahman, ie, Vishnu, in some form.

 

Mithraism, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, you name it. They are all flawed, but they are also products of Vedic Thought as well.

 

Furthermore, ONLY our texts provide full information on what God looks like, what He is like, etc.

 

ONLY the Vedic texts remain consonant with science.

 

Having obtained so much data, it is quite legitimate to accept that these scriptures are not myths. For instance, how is Brahma having 4 heads unbelievable? It is quite plausible that the genetical makeup of Brahma's body is different from ours. Think that way.

[shvu]

One either has faith in a form of religion or not. If that faith is missing, it cannot be consciously cultivated. It has to happen on its own, which also means it may never happen.

 

Why should we believe the Bhagavatam or any religious text in its entirety?

 

The people who make this claim usually also provide an argument to make their case. If that argument is not compelling enough to you, then it just won't work for you.

 

Trying to separate real and unreal in a religious text is not easy. Three different people trying this on a text will come up with three different sets of results. So it is purely subjective.

 

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

Trying to separate real and unreal in a religious text is not easy. Three different people trying this on a text will come up with three different sets of results. So it is purely subjective.

 

Cheers

 

When there is no contradiction and a lot of meaning in both the so-called unreal and real portions, it is to be taken as a cohesive truth, a continuation of the great philosophy. Too many souls are caught in maya to understand this simple thing.

 

Like I mentioned before, if any dramiticisation or mythifying had taken place, either contradictions or lack of spirituality is a consequence. Take the Greek Myths. They are myths because they have no spiritual value. Take Jesus. The influences of other cultures, plus the fact that he exhibited no godly traits proves the claim of him being divine as a myth.

 

In Rama's case, and in Krishna's case, you get the 5 essential things needed for Moksha. Pillai Lokacharya outlined it:

 

1) Nature of the Supreme - You NEED to know what God looks like, and atleast a fraction of His auspicious attributes. Like Krishna said in Gita,

 

" He who knows my divine birth attains moksha." Which means,

 

- If we think of His birth, we are freed from further births.

 

- If we think of how Yashoda tied Him up, we shall not be tied by Samsara.

 

- If we think of His beautiful Body, we shall be freed from clothing our atmas with bodies in Samsara.

 

And so on.

 

2) Nature of the Self - As in the Upanishads.

 

3) Nature of the Goal - You NEED to know where you are going, what you will do there and how you will stay there. Outlined in the Archiradi Marga portion of Chandogya Upanishad, Bhagavad Gita, Divya Prabandham.

 

4) The means to attain the Goal - Three slokas have been given by the Lord explaining this - Sri Varaha Charama Sloka, Sri Rama Charama Sloka, Sri Krishna Charama Sloka.

 

5) The obstacles to the goal - This is the only thing that is common to all religions. Because they all know that lust, greed, temptation, etc. is the obstacle.

 

Read Bhagavad Ramanujacharya's divine works. I am not sure of other Sampradayas, but Sri Vaishnavas NEVER accept anything on blind faith. We have to be sure of what we know. It was Ramanujacharya, the brilliant analyst, who suggested that one should analyse scripture to find out the truth. And it was His great devotion that made Him climb Tirumala by literally crawling on all fours, as He deemed Himself to be a servant of the Great Lord of the Seven Hills. It is a feat that still brings tears to any Sri Vaishnava when they hear about it.

[kimfelix]

Do not Vedantists accept three pramanas or sources of truth, pratyaksha, anumana and shabda--perception, inference and revelation. It is usually accepted that spiritual truth is beyond the reach of the mind and senses--this certainly seems to be the view of the Upanishads--and so one has to accept the shabda-pramana, the truth revealed by the Veda. This would seem to be a demand for faith in a revelation of truth that lies beyond reason. The insistence on the limitations of our intellect appears quite reasonable, but there doesn't seem to be much difference between the idea of a shabda pramana and faith in a scripture.

[Kulapavana]

 

...there doesn't seem to be much difference between the idea of a shabda pramana and faith in a scripture.

 

Initially you may accept these things on faith, but eventually the revelation happens to you as well, and it is no longer a matter of faith, but certainty of direct perception and consciousness.

 

just like you may initially believe in ghosts, and then later have a direct experience of their existence.

 

shabda pramana is Vedas telling you that God exists beyond this material world. Once you experience Him, it becomes your consciousness. That is called Krsna consciousness.